EVE Search - Why are ECM jammers considered offensive?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Why are ECM jammers considered offensive?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Atticus Fynch	Posted - 2009.10.09 04:40:00 - [1] OK, so Im in 0.5 space and some clown scans my cargo hoping to suicide me. I can not stop him from scanning me. I have to wait until he fires upon me before I can turn on my ECM jammers. Currently, ECM jammers are considered the same as guns...if you turn it one, concord will kick your ass. This does not seem balanced to me.
Valeronx Celestial Horizon Corp. United Corporate Ventures	Posted - 2009.10.09 04:43:00 - [2] Originally by: Atticus Fynch This does not seem balanced to me. Why not ?
Dario Wall Caldari	Posted - 2009.10.09 04:43:00 - [3] Edited by: Dario Wall on 09/10/2009 04:43:51 Does allowing people to probe out someone in a mission and run dedicated ECM ships on them nonstop so they can't shoot the NPCs seem balanced? How about neutral pilots in ECM ships jamming war targets so they can't fight back? Does that seem balanced?
Atticus Fynch	Posted - 2009.10.09 04:46:00 - [4] If someone targets you, you should be able to use any anti-target measures without having to contend with Concord. You shouldn't have to wait until you are fired upon.
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2009.10.09 04:47:00 - [5] I agree with the OP <goes ninjasalvaging in a Falcon>
Dario Wall Caldari	Posted - 2009.10.09 04:50:00 - [6] Originally by: Atticus Fynch If someone targets you, you should be able to use any anti-target measures without having to contend with Concord. You shouldn't have to wait until you are fired upon. I wonder how many people are going to use agents to find you just so they can follow you around and target you.
Atticus Fynch	Posted - 2009.10.09 04:52:00 - [7] Originally by: Dario Wall Originally by: Atticus Fynch If someone targets you, you should be able to use any anti-target measures without having to contend with Concord. You shouldn't have to wait until you are fired upon. I wonder how many people are going to use agents to find you just so they can follow you around and target you. Industrial/Transports are often randomly targeted when approaching gates. Obviously with the intent of scanning your cargo and determining if you are work a suicide gank.
Khemul Zula Amarr Keisen Trade League	Posted - 2009.10.09 04:58:00 - [8] Originally by: Atticus Fynch Originally by: Dario Wall Originally by: Atticus Fynch If someone targets you, you should be able to use any anti-target measures without having to contend with Concord. You shouldn't have to wait until you are fired upon. I wonder how many people are going to use agents to find you just so they can follow you around and target you. Industrial/Transports are often randomly targeted when approaching gates. Obviously with the intent of scanning your cargo and determining if you are work a suicide gank. Technically they arn't being randomly targeted. The idea would cause trouble with the autotarget feature.
Jin Nib Resplendent Knives	Posted - 2009.10.09 05:00:00 - [9] Yes preventing another ships equipment from working is not offensive at all. They are looking at you, big deal. I'm sure that if you were on a bus and some guy started eyeballing you you wouldn't jump on him and pluck out his eyes. -Jin Nib Trading on behalf of Opera Noir since: 2009.03.02 03:53:00
Atticus Fynch	Posted - 2009.10.09 05:04:00 - [10] Originally by: Jin Nib Yes preventing another ships equipment from working is not offensive at all. They are looking at you, big deal. I'm sure that if you were on a bus and some guy started eyeballing you you wouldn't jump on him and pluck out his eyes. If I were in a battlefield and some sniper was eyeballing me...YES, I would pluck his eyes out. EVE is a battlefield...not a bus ride.

Khemul Zula Amarr Keisen Trade League	Posted - 2009.10.09 05:09:00 - [11] Originally by: Atticus Fynch Originally by: Jin Nib Yes preventing another ships equipment from working is not offensive at all. They are looking at you, big deal. I'm sure that if you were on a bus and some guy started eyeballing you you wouldn't jump on him and pluck out his eyes. If I were in a battlefield and some sniper was eyeballing me...YES, I would pluck his eyes out. EVE is a battlefield...not a bus ride. That's not very nice. The sniper is obviously on your side if you are close enough to pluck his eyes out.
Celeritas 5k Caldari Destry's Lounge Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2009.10.09 05:31:00 - [12] Originally by: Atticus Fynch If I were in a battlefield and some sniper was eyeballing me...YES, I would pluck his eyes out. EVE is a battlefield...not a bus ride. What's all this talk about a sni - NEVER PVP SOBER.
Jin Nib Resplendent Knives	Posted - 2009.10.09 05:39:00 - [13] Originally by: Atticus Fynch Originally by: Jin Nib Yes preventing another ships equipment from working is not offensive at all. They are looking at you, big deal. I'm sure that if you were on a bus and some guy started eyeballing you you wouldn't jump on him and pluck out his eyes. If I were in a battlefield and some sniper was eyeballing me...YES, I would pluck his eyes out. EVE is a battlefield...not a bus ride. I too agree that we should remove nonsense security measures from the game. But high sec empire is not a battle field, it's a stretch to even call it a dangerous neighborhood. -Jin Nib Trading on behalf of Opera Noir since: 2009.03.02 03:53:00
Atticus Fynch	Posted - 2009.10.09 05:44:00 - [14] Originally by: Jin Nib Originally by: Atticus Fynch Originally by: Jin Nib Yes preventing another ships equipment from working is not offensive at all. They are looking at you, big deal. I'm sure that if you were on a bus and some guy started eyeballing you you wouldn't jump on him and pluck out his eyes. If I were in a battlefield and some sniper was eyeballing me...YES, I would pluck his eyes out. EVE is a battlefield...not a bus ride. I too agree that we should remove nonsense security measures from the game. But high sec empire is not a battle field, it's a stretch to even call it a dangerous neighborhood. I found out the hard way that 0.5 is not really "high-sec." Takes Concord 20 secs to show up and in the process I was ganked. Lost 175 mill in cargo and collateral. Tell me again why ECM jammers are bad unless fired upon?
Lance Fighter Amarr	Posted - 2009.10.09 05:46:00 - [15] Originally by: Atticus Fynch Originally by: Jin Nib Originally by: Atticus Fynch Originally by: Jin Nib Yes preventing another ships equipment from working is not offensive at all. They are looking at you, big deal. I'm sure that if you were on a bus and some guy started eyeballing you you wouldn't jump on him and pluck out his eyes. If I were in a battlefield and some sniper was eyeballing me...YES, I would pluck his eyes out. EVE is a battlefield...not a bus ride. I too agree that we should remove nonsense security measures from the game. But high sec empire is not a battle field, it's a stretch to even call it a dangerous neighborhood. I found out the hard way that 0.5 is not really "high-sec." Takes Concord 20 secs to show up and in the process I was ganked. Lost 175 mill in cargo and collateral. Tell me again why ECM jammers are bad unless fired upon? Pro tip. As soon as them brackets turn red.. TURN THEM JAMMERS ON. If you miss... sucks to be you. Blane Xero > Lance is at -0.9 sec status with a 1 million bounty. LAnce is also amarrian. Thats 3 evil points
Dario Wall Caldari	Posted - 2009.10.09 05:47:00 - [16] Originally by: Atticus Fynch Tell me again why ECM jammers are bad unless fired upon? Read my first reply to this topic again. There's your answer. ECM is electronic warfare. Does it make sense to you that it should be allowed free use on any target in any security system with no penalty?
OwlManAtt Gallente Yasashii Heavy Industries	Posted - 2009.10.09 05:53:00 - [17] Quote: Tell me again why ECM jammers are bad unless fired upon? Sure. If you read your own thread, you'll find some really good reasons: Quote: Does allowing people to probe out someone in a mission and run dedicated ECM ships on them nonstop so they can't shoot the NPCs seem balanced? How about neutral pilots in ECM ships jamming war targets so they can't fight back? Does that seem balanced? What you want to be asking for is cargo scanners changed so they cause the user to be flagged. --- Owl
Atticus Fynch	Posted - 2009.10.09 05:59:00 - [18] Originally by: Lance Fighter Pro tip. As soon as them brackets turn red.. TURN THEM JAMMERS ON. If you miss... sucks to be you. Thanks. First time I cam across this. Yes, it sucked.
Varesk Gallente Maelstrom Crew	Posted - 2009.10.09 06:20:00 - [19] make sure you use ecm bursts, they work great. ----- removed due to size.
Ishquar Teh'Sainte Evoke. Ev0ke	Posted - 2009.10.09 06:26:00 - [20] if you have valuable cargo, then don't ... -) fly afk -) use an untanked t1 hauler ___________________ ---[SAY NO TO CYNO-LOGISTICS]---

Cyberman Mastermind	Posted - 2009.10.09 06:31:00 - [21] Originally by: OwlManAtt What you want to be asking for is cargo scanners changed so they cause the user to be flagged. THIS. ECM is offensive, as it should be. Scanning someone should be as well. You have no business poking around in my fitting or cargo. If you do, at least take the chance that someone may value his privacy enough to shoot you. Why should there be no risk in scanning, if there is risk in hauling?
Aurora Nyx Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2009.10.09 06:57:00 - [22] Put a tinfoil hat on your ship and move along. There's no troll to see here.
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.10.09 07:34:00 - [23] Originally by: Cyberman Mastermind Originally by: OwlManAtt What you want to be asking for is cargo scanners changed so they cause the user to be flagged. THIS. ECM is offensive, as it should be. Scanning someone should be as well. You have no business poking around in my fitting or cargo. If you do, at least take the chance that someone may value his privacy enough to shoot you. Why should there be no risk in scanning, if there is risk in hauling? CONCORD provides consequences, not risk. If you really want to go down the risk/reward thing for high security space then get ready for some heavy, heavy, heavy nerfs to high sec money making. Originally by: CCP Whisper So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup. Cry some more.
Synex Gallente BIG	Posted - 2009.10.09 07:38:00 - [24] Originally by: Atticus Fynch Originally by: Jin Nib Yes preventing another ships equipment from working is not offensive at all. They are looking at you, big deal. I'm sure that if you were on a bus and some guy started eyeballing you you wouldn't jump on him and pluck out his eyes. If I were in a battlefield and some sniper was eyeballing me...YES, I would pluck his eyes out. EVE is a battlefield...not a bus ride. If you can see a sniper before he kills you, he's a rubbish sniper and deserves to have his eyes plucked anyways. Snipers are second only to ninjas in their sexeh-stealth abilities. Synex Oursulaert Industries
Gigelcelrau Gallente Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2009.10.09 07:38:00 - [25] Quick question, what happens when people start using ECM alts for empire wars because turning on ECM does not provoke a hostile response?
Tippia Raddick Explorations Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2009.10.09 07:44:00 - [26] An ECM modules negatively affects the targeted ship, a scanner does not. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Amaron Ghant Caldari Matsuko Industries	Posted - 2009.10.09 08:31:00 - [27] Edited by: Amaron Ghant on 09/10/2009 08:31:24 Targetting and ship scanning should be considered offensive, I know I find them so. I would sup with the devil and forget to use a long spoon if it led to me spitting on the grave of nationalism.
Dorian Wylde	Posted - 2009.10.09 09:24:00 - [28] Originally by: Tippia An ECM modules negatively affects the targeted ship, a scanner does not. When a scanner leads to a suicide gank, it does. The question is, at what point do we draw the line?
Catrina Denaries Caldari	Posted - 2009.10.09 09:34:00 - [29] Edited by: Catrina Denaries on 09/10/2009 09:35:35 What you are asking for is just wierd. For obvious reasons mentioned above, ECM, Damps, Tracking Disruptors and whatever EWAR there is cannot be used without getting an agression flag. If you can't understand that you seriously need to go home and rethink your life. As for making cargo/ship scanning an agression, why should it? It's a harmless scan. Besides, if you DO get scanned, you know a suicide gank is in the making. Get safe, tank up and laugh when they get blown to bits by CONCORD. Or simply choose another route. It's EASY to avoid being suicided. Stop whining. Adapt. Originally by: Dorian Wylde When a scanner leads to a suicide gank, it does. The question is, at what point do we draw the line? We draw the line when the activated module directly affects your ship in a negative way. A ship scanner does not, nor a cargo scanner. ----- The yarr is strong with this one.
Mashie Saldana BFG Tech	Posted - 2009.10.09 09:44:00 - [30] Don't fly AFK using the autopilot and they won't have time to scan you.

Wild Rho Amarr Sniggerdly	Posted - 2009.10.09 10:33:00 - [31] ECMs are considered offensive systems like weapons because they have a negative effect on the target ship (in this case preventing it from locking anything). Simply targeting and scanning a ship is not an offensive action because it has no negative effect on the target ship (you not liking it is not a negative effect on your ship). It's also pretty obvious that classing an ECM as non offensive in a game mechanic sense creates a significant loophole that would be exploited in Empire wars (i.e. neutrals target jamming you when fighting a war target). The game mechanics already exist in Eve for moving high value goods around safely, it's up to you (the player) to decide between a balance between convenience and safety and take the appropriate steps. Besides if the person scanning you does decide to aggress you're now free to use your ECM on them.
Doddy The Executives IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.10.09 10:42:00 - [32] Originally by: Atticus Fynch If someone targets you, you should be able to use any anti-target measures without having to contend with Concord. You shouldn't have to wait until you are fired upon. No, not really, why shouldn't people have the right to target anyone they like? There is most likely a nuke targetted at my flat right now . Scanning and targetting are not the same thing by a long shot.
Persephone Asphodel	Posted - 2009.10.09 11:08:00 - [33] Originally by: Atticus Fynch If someone targets you, you should be able to use any anti-target measures without having to contend with Concord. You shouldn't have to wait until you are fired upon. Why should this be? Theres no should about it mate. I would like to be able to log in without being detected but I don't say it SHOULD BE that way just because I want it.
Some Advisor	Posted - 2009.10.09 11:10:00 - [34] Originally by: Atticus Fynch I found out the hard way that 0.5 is not really "high-sec." Takes Concord 20 secs to show up and in the process I was ganked. Lost 175 mill in cargo and collateral. so i guess that Originally by: Atticus Fynch OK, so Im in 0.5 space and some clown scans my cargo hoping to suicide me. was succesfully suicide ganking you after all. Now eve is unfair :( ^^
Shitz	Posted - 2009.10.09 11:23:00 - [35] if you have something big and valuable you should use a freighter, if you have something small and valuable use a blockade runner. if you are carrying anything more valuable than T1 rubbish or veldspar in a indy then you are bound to die. Although they should take insurance away from people killed by concord. i can't believe the police would destroy your ship for piracy, then a insurance company would compensate you for the loss!
Riesia THE UNKNOWN KNOWN THE-FEDERATION	Posted - 2009.10.09 13:25:00 - [36] To the OP, then you are saying its OK for me to fly in to your next mission and keep my ECM on you permajamming you so that you cannot fire at the NPCs and you also cannot fire back at me since you want jamming to be no an offensive action? When you can reply to that, then you may have a clue why its not a good idea.
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.10.09 13:26:00 - [37] Another **ty thread by a ty OP. _____________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008 Originally by:** CCP Fallout :facepalm:
Bombuhr	Posted - 2009.10.09 13:31:00 - [38] Err?! Are you saying that there's no difference if I look at you and what you are wearing as to running up to a person and tie up his arms and legs? Perhaps it's a poor comparison, but it's effectively the very same.
Rashmika Clavain Gallente Shadows Of The Federation	Posted - 2009.10.09 13:47:00 - [39] Originally by: Mashie Saldana Don't fly AFK using the autopilot and they won't have time to scan you. I think the OP needs a sanity check, however in response to teh above they've got loads of time to scan you on the out gate if you're in a T1 industrial. Removed. Please keep your EVE signature related to your EVE persona and not that of a real life politician. Navigator
Washell Olivaw	Posted - 2009.10.09 13:57:00 - [40] Originally by: Atticus Fynch OK, so Im in 0.5 space and some clown scans my cargo hoping to suicide me. I can not stop him from scanning me. I have to wait until he fires upon me before I can turn on my ECM jammers. Currently, ECM jammers are considered the same as guns...if you turn it one, concord will kick your ass. This does not seem balanced to me. After your (between the lines) proposed change: You'll be targeted and jammed, then cargo scanned. If they decide to attack, you don't even have the option of targeting them back. Still seem unbalanced? Originally by: Signature Everybody has a photographic memory, some people just don't have film.

Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2009.10.09 15:23:00 - [41] Originally by: Blane Xero Another **ty thread by a **ty OP. And another content free ad hominem by you, are we keeping count of these things?
Drenan State War Academy	Posted - 2009.10.09 15:34:00 - [42] Scanning cargo or fit-out should also be regarded as an offensive act.
Max Queso	Posted - 2009.10.09 15:48:00 - [43] Originally by: Drenan Scanning cargo or fit-out should also be regarded as an offensive act. It doesn't even sound offensive!
Hoo Is	Posted - 2009.10.09 16:42:00 - [44] High-Sec = your neighborhood. I look at you funny and can see through your semi-clear wal-mart bag... I just targeted and scanned your cargo. Do you have the right to pull out your gun and shoot me? No, but you can, and you can expect the donut inhalers to eventually get around and do something to you Low-Sec = Wild-West, you can fire at me if you want, but you become a wanted man (Kill Rights) Neull-Sec = Detroit... the rules are set by the locals... anything goes ---- a reply which adds nothing to a thread or results in a thread being bumped with no new discussion worthy content is considered spam and as such warrants a forum ban
Jesslyn Daggererux Private Nuisance	Posted - 2009.10.09 16:59:00 - [45] 6/10 Originally by: CCP Fallout Hola, esta forum es ingles solamente. This forum is English only. Welcome to my lock. Now please, zip your pants. I don't need a show.
Cadde Gallente FireworX	Posted - 2009.10.09 17:22:00 - [46] If it hasn't been mentioned in this thread before then good... Otherwise, I'll just repeat it as i couldn't be bothered to read. I can agree to a passive lockbreaker that breaks the locks to YOUR ship only. But that brings a lot of balancing issues with it. What is the impact in PvP? Also, if someone had time to target your ship, they will most likely have time to scan your stuff before you even notice they had. Further more, good pirates use passive lock systems to scan ships for mods and cargo. You'll never know if they scanned you! The cargo scanner makes a distinct sound. But if you can't see who locked who and scanned what you'll never know for sure. JUST ASSUME, that as soon as you undock with something in cargo worth more than it takes to killing your ship. You are a target of interest! My opinions belong to me, you can't have them!
Daleth Prem	Posted - 2009.10.09 18:40:00 - [47] Originally by: Celeritas 5k Originally by: Atticus Fynch If I were in a battlefield and some sniper was eyeballing me...YES, I would pluck his eyes out. EVE is a battlefield...not a bus ride. What's all this talk about a sni dont you seem him? he is near the
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.10.09 18:46:00 - [48] Originally by: Atticus Fynch OK, so Im in 0.5 space and some clown scans my cargo hoping to suicide me. I can not stop him from scanning me. I have to wait until he fires upon me before I can turn on my ECM jammers. Currently, ECM jammers are considered the same as guns...if you turn it one, concord will kick your ass. This does not seem balanced to me. I find all ECM to be highly offensive. I get offended every time someone jams me. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Amanda Mor	Posted - 2009.10.09 19:36:00 - [49] Originally by: Catherine Frasier Originally by: Blane Xero Another **ty thread by a **ty OP. And another content free ad hominem by you, are we keeping count of these things? I know "ad hominem" is the current trendy word being used to make you sound smart, but you should at least use it in the right context instead of just throwing it about whenever you don't like someone. However, it certainly was a content free post (which makes it just like 75% of internet forum posts)...
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2009.10.09 19:48:00 - [50] Originally by: Amanda Mor I know "ad hominem" is the current trendy word being used to make you sound smart, but you should at least use it in the right context instead of just throwing it about whenever you don't like someone. Ad hominem refers to making your response against and/or about the individual rather than addressing a response to the individual's argument. You know; like saying "it was another **ty post by a *ty poster" without actually saying anything about the content of the post itself or the issue it raised. Another good example would be to suggest that someone used a particular phrase to be "trendy" or in an attempt to "look smart", thereby attacking the individual's (supposed) motives* rather that what they actually said, especially so when the phrase in question is both correct and cogent.

Jin Nib Resplendent Knives	Posted - 2009.10.09 19:50:00 - [51] Originally by: Catherine Frasier Originally by: Amanda Mor I know "ad hominem" is the current trendy word being used to make you sound smart, but you should at least use it in the right context instead of just throwing it about whenever you don't like someone. Ad hominem refers to making your response against and/or about the individual rather than addressing a response to the individual's argument. You know; like saying "it was another **ty post by a *ty poster" without actually saying anything about the content of the post itself or the issue it raised. Another good example would be to suggest that someone used a particular phrase to be "trendy" or in an attempt to "look smart", thereby attacking the individual's (supposed) motives* rather that what they actually said, especially so when the phrase in question is both correct and cogent. I like you. (There that should help balance things out. ) -Jin Nib Trading on behalf of Opera Noir since: 2009.03.02 03:53:00
McFly C0LDFIRE	Posted - 2009.10.09 20:06:00 - [52] can't wait to see rooks sitting in asteroid belts in high sec griefing miners, as if the nano bouncing of macks/hulks wasn't already funtimes enough
Amanda Mor	Posted - 2009.10.09 20:37:00 - [53] Originally by: Catherine Frasier Originally by: Amanda Mor I know "ad hominem" is the current trendy word being used to make you sound smart, but you should at least use it in the right context instead of just throwing it about whenever you don't like someone. Ad hominem refers to making your response against and/or about the individual rather than addressing a response to the individual's argument. You know; like saying "it was another **ty post by a *ty poster" without actually saying anything about the content of the post itself or the issue it raised. Another good example would be to suggest that someone used a particular phrase to be "trendy" or in an attempt to "look smart", thereby attacking the individual's (supposed) motives* rather that what they actually said, especially so when the phrase in question is both correct and cogent. You're really stretching here. An actual ad hominem attack would be something like: "You're idea sucks because you're just a dirty carebear!" ie he's not attacking the idea on it's merits, he's attacking the person who came up with the idea. What Blane said was the OP was a **ty poster who made a *ty post. He didn't* say the idea was stupid because the poster is stupid (which would then qualify it as ad hominem). There's a fine line, and maybe I'm splitting hairs, but meh... Anyway, to add some content (and not be accused of engaging in ad hominem tactics): ECM should remain an aggressive act for the reasons already listed; maybe there should be a counter-module to ship scanning? A cargohold cloak or something? Who cares really, I don't haul expensive **** around...
Manu Hermanus FaDoyToy	Posted - 2009.10.09 20:39:00 - [54] Originally by: Atticus Fynch I found out the hard way that 0.5 is not really "high-sec." Takes Concord 20 secs to show up and in the process I was ganked. Lost 175 mill in cargo and collateral. Tell me again why ECM jammers are bad unless fired upon? concord showed up, therefor it was highsec. ps: you got mugged, something that can happen in big cities where it is also "safe" You're posting again!? Has it really been 5 mins?
Incredulity	Posted - 2009.10.09 20:52:00 - [55] Edited by: Incredulity on 09/10/2009 20:52:40 Originally by: Daleth Prem Originally by: Celeritas 5k What's all this talk about a sni dont you seem him? he is near the He can't get me, I'm wearing a h
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2009.10.09 21:15:00 - [56] Originally by: Amanda Mor I'm splitting hairs Agreed.
Zeredek	Posted - 2009.10.10 18:40:00 - [57] Originally by: Incredulity Edited by: Incredulity on 09/10/2009 20:52:40 Originally by: Daleth Prem Originally by: Celeritas 5k What's all this talk about a sni dont you seem him? he is near the He can't get me, I'm wearing a h Why do people stop talking in the middle of their sente
lollerwaffle Sileo In Pacis	Posted - 2009.10.10 18:46:00 - [58] Edited by: lollerwaffle on 10/10/2009 18:46:54 Originally by: Zeredek Originally by: Incredulity Edited by: Incredulity on 09/10/2009 20:52:40 Originally by: Daleth Prem Originally by: Celeritas 5k What's all this talk about a sni dont you seem him? he is near the He can't get me, I'm wearing a h Why do people stop talking in the middle of their sente I don't kn
Caelum Mortuos Gallente Zero G Research and Development	Posted - 2009.10.10 18:55:00 - [59] Atticus wasn't interested in guns. Atticus said to the pvper, "I'd rather you shot at other pvpers in 0.0, but I know you'll go after carebears. Shoot all the pvpers you want, if you can hit 'em, but remember it's a sin to kill a carebear." That was the only time I ever hear Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked my mate about it about it. "Atticus' right," she said. "Carebears don't do one thing but make modules for us to enjoy. They don't crap in your wheatos, don't live in your systems, they don't do one thing but build modules and ships for us. That's why it's a sin to kill a carebear."
lollerwaffle Sileo In Pacis	Posted - 2009.10.10 18:58:00 - [60] Originally by: Caelum Mortuos Atticus wasn't interested in guns. Atticus said to the pvper, "I'd rather you shot at other pvpers in 0.0, but I know you'll go after carebears. Shoot all the pvpers you want, if you can hit 'em, but remember it's a sin to kill a carebear." That was the only time I ever hear Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked my mate about it about it. "Atticus' right," she said. "Carebears don't do one thing but make modules for us to enjoy. They don't crap in your wheatos, don't live in your systems, they don't do one thing but build modules and ships for us. That's why it's a sin to kill a carebear." Erm, that was a bit random. Made me lol th

Dirk Mortice	Posted - 2009.10.10 19:04:00 - [61] Originally by: lollerwaffle Erm, that was a bit random. Made me lol th In reference to the OP, Atticus Fynch "To Kill a Mockingbird" http://www.novelguide.com/tokillamockingbird/toptenquotes.html 3) When he gave us our air-rifles Atticus wouldn't teach us to shoot. Uncle Jack instructed us in the rudiments thereof; he said Atticus wasn't interested in guns. Atticus said to Jem, "I'd rather you shot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you'll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em, but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird." That was the only time I ever hear Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked Miss Maudie about it. "You're father's right," she said. "Mockingbirds don't do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don't eat up people's gardens, don't nest in corncribs, they don't do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That's why it's a sin to kill a mocking bird." (98)
Ancy Denaries Caldari The Confederate Navy Forever Unbound	Posted - 2009.10.10 19:06:00 - [62] I really didn't get that last post. What the hell was the po Originally by: Cors 1vs1's are as close to PVP as a Boxing ring is to being jumped in an alley by 4 people with knives and baseball bats.
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.10.10 19:19:00 - [63] Originally by: Catherine Frasier Originally by: Amanda Mor I know "ad hominem" is the current trendy word being used to make you sound smart, but you should at least use it in the right context instead of just throwing it about whenever you don't like someone. Ad hominem refers to making your response against and/or about the individual rather than addressing a response to the individual's argument. You know; like saying "it was another **ty post by a *ty poster" without actually saying anything about the content of the post itself or the issue it raised. Another good example would be to suggest that someone used a particular phrase to be "trendy" or in an attempt to "look smart", thereby attacking the individual's (supposed) motives* rather that what they actually said, especially so when the phrase in question is both correct and cogent. Oh trust me, the conclusion that it was a ***ty post didn't come from the fact it was the OP who suggested it. It was just an added bonus that this was the second brain-dead idea that had came from the same person. If i were attacking the OP's idea only* because it was the OP who suggested it, i would have said "HTFU and STFU OP your idea's are terrible" _____________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008 Originally by: CCP Fallout :facepalm:
Celeritas 5k Caldari Destry's Lounge Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2009.10.10 19:20:00 - [64] Originally by: Zeredek Why do people stop talking in the middle of their sente cause of the sniper, see him he's right - NEVER PVP SOBER.
Zeredek	Posted - 2009.10.12 17:31:00 - [65] Originally by: Celeritas 5k Originally by: Zeredek Why do people stop talking in the middle of their sente cause of the sniper, see him he's right Hey i see h
Flop Flip	Posted - 2009.10.12 17:45:00 - [66] Originally by: Zeredek Originally by: Celeritas 5k Originally by: Zeredek Why do people stop talking in the middle of their sente cause of the sniper, see him he's right Hey i see h You people are ******ed and so is this joke. If you were shot by a sniper then how did you hit the post reply bu
Zeredek	Posted - 2009.10.12 17:47:00 - [67] Originally by: Flop Flip Originally by: Zeredek Originally by: Celeritas 5k Originally by: Zeredek Why do people stop talking in the middle of their sente cause of the sniper, see him he's right Hey i see h You people are ******ed and so is this joke. If you were shot by a sniper then how did you hit the post reply bu That's a good que
Thrassoss	Posted - 2009.10.12 19:57:00 - [68] Actually there is some boxes that cargo scanners can't see into. Never tried them out but I've seen them in 'contracts'. But instead of changing something as wide ranging as ECM, might be a simpler tactic to make a low slot mod(to balance cargo size vs. scan-ability) that makes your cargo harder to scan (ie each item has a 30% to 80% chance of not showing up to a cargo scanner) and a mid slot to make your fitting harder to see.
Prospectordesu	Posted - 2009.10.12 20:54:00 - [69] Use a radar jammer on an airport IRL. Lulz will ensue. Right before an investigation and possible civillian death. How is this relevant? It is not.
Saxton Hale	Posted - 2009.10.13 09:12:00 - [70] God I thought that candlejack joke was stupid, but this snip

Ral Ulgur Dusty Death Enterprise	Posted - 2009.10.13 09:58:00 - [71] Its a game not RL. Nonetheless I find the following comparison quite appropriate: You can't just drop buckets of paint one someones car rendering their windows viewless even though the car may be parked in front of your home and someone inside the car might be looking at your home to determine if there is something worth stealing.
Zeredek	Posted - 2009.10.13 19:22:00 - [72] Originally by: Saxton Hale God I thought that candlejack joke was stupid, but this snip You'd think people would get over it alr
Zedrik Cayne Gallente Standards and Practices	Posted - 2009.10.13 19:52:00 - [73] The only 'imbalance' that exists, is that cargo scanners and ship scanners do not generate aggression. Maybe we can get that changed. Fifteen minutes of aggression for the pilot that you just scanned anyone? (Not their corp...just the pilot.) That way you can jam the heck out of the guy trying to scan you. Sound reasonable? Hm..I might have to suggest this in the ideas section. -- Originally by: "RedSplat" You're the internet equivalent of a Deepfried Mars bar filled with stupid.
Jin Nib Resplendent Knives	Posted - 2009.10.13 19:54:00 - [74] Originally by: Ral Ulgur Its a game not RL. Nonetheless I find the following comparison quite appropriate: You can't just drop buckets of paint one someones car rendering their windows viewless even though the car may be parked in front of your home and someone inside the car might be looking at your home to determine if there is something worth stealing. You can, but the police might have something to say about it. Note: I read that anti-LOL thread and now I want to put it at the end of every sentence. Does anyone know if this desire is permanent? -Jin Nib Trading on behalf of Opera Noir since: 2009.03.02 03:53:00
Zeredek	Posted - 2009.10.15 05:45:00 - [75] Edited by: Zeredek on 15/10/2009 05:45:22 Originally by: Jin Nib Originally by: Ral Ulgur Its a game not RL. Nonetheless I find the following comparison quite appropriate: You can't just drop buckets of paint one someones car rendering their windows viewless even though the car may be parked in front of your home and someone inside the car might be looking at your home to determine if there is something worth stealing. You can, but the police might have something to say about it. Note: I read that anti-LOL thread and now I want to put it at the end of every sentence. Does anyone know if this desire is permanent? Yes, it's permanent EDIT: LOL
Lotus Sutra Caldari Sutra Inc	Posted - 2009.10.15 08:30:00 - [76] Originally by: Flop Flip Originally by: Zeredek Originally by: Celeritas 5k Originally by: Zeredek Why do people stop talking in the middle of their sente cause of the sniper, see him he's right Hey i see h You people are ******ed and so is this joke. If you were shot by a sniper then how did you hit the post reply bu It's a new forum mechanic put in place by CCP. After 5 minutes your comment will automatically post if you have no activity. That is how they post after getting head shot by that sni ------------------------------------------------ No you can't have my stuff
Alpha Tyranius	Posted - 2009.10.16 14:22:00 - [77] Originally by: Zedrik Cayne The only 'imbalance' that exists, is that cargo scanners and ship scanners do not generate aggression. Maybe we can get that changed. Fifteen minutes of aggression for the pilot that you just scanned anyone? (Not their corp...just the pilot.) That way you can jam the heck out of the guy trying to scan you. Sound reasonable? Hm..I might have to suggest this in the ideas section. I'm new to EVE and have been enjoying the missioning side of things, for now, so there's probably lots I'm missing from the balance point of view. That said - the aggressions thing seems like a good idea, not sure of the knock on effects about balance :) How about introducing a mechanism for protection or counter? seems to be the case for other things throughout EVE....like a kind of 'warp core stabilizer' for scanners? Then the 'scannee' has the choice to what level to protect themselves and the 'scanner' has the choice on how many gank slots to give up? I'll get my asbestos pants in preparation for the impending n00b flaming :)
TimMc Gallente Brutal Deliverance	Posted - 2009.10.16 14:49:00 - [78] oh lawd. If they made ECM non-aggression it would be hilarious. I would scan down people in missions just to permajam them.
Ral Ulgur Dusty Death Enterprise	Posted - 2009.10.16 15:38:00 - [79] Edited by: Ral Ulgur on 16/10/2009 15:38:34 Originally by: Jin Nib Originally by: Ral Ulgur stuff. You can, but the police might have something to say about it. Note: I read that anti-LOL thread and now I want to put it at the end of every sentence. Does anyone know if this desire is permanent? Put it in your sig along with a link to the anti-LOL thread! Save the LOLs, the LOLSTREAM MUST FLOW!!! Edit: LOL
Kaalen Caldari Shards of Apathy	Posted - 2009.10.16 16:09:00 - [80] Using any module which can be used to negatively effect the functionality of my ship in any way, shape or form is an offensive act. ECM prevents my targeting systems from working so they fall under the above criteria, they aren't "the same as guns" they're considered the same as warp disruptors or webbers and I think it's perfectly reasonable that they be considered offensive.

Ferkimer Burns Perkone	Posted - 2009.10.16 17:00:00 - [81] If you're stupid you should always flash red. CCP needs to fix this.
lollerwaffle Sileo In Pacis THE SPACE P0LICE	Posted - 2009.10.16 20:12:00 - [82] Originally by: Ferkimer Burns If you're stupid you should always flash red. CCP needs to fix this. I agr
Seriah Rezin Minmatar	Posted - 2009.10.16 20:40:00 - [83] Quote: Why are ECM jammers considered offensive? Because I hates them.
Dristra Amarr Idle Haven	Posted - 2009.10.16 22:28:00 - [84] op gotta be a troll


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.