EVE Search - Ninja Salvaging - A simple Idea (lots of those right?)

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Ninja Salvaging - A simple Idea (lots of those right?)

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Lemmy Kravitz	Posted - 2009.10.21 17:14:00 - [121] Eve is a game of Risk people who mine assume risk by getting can flipped, rats, pirates People who play the market assume risk through competition with other marketeers People who make things assume risk through competition on the market People who haul assume risk through pirates and suicide ganks People who Pvp risk through pvp People who PvE risk through Pve People who NS risk nothing
Lemmy Kravitz	Posted - 2009.10.21 17:20:00 - [122] Originally by: Kahega Amielden Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 21/10/2009 17:14:38 Quote: NS is risking their what...less than 5 mil ISK ship to salvage. MR is doing all the work and is putting their much more (up to 100x-200x more) expensive ship at stake to produce these wrecks. Income to loss ratio for salvaging is through the roof considering that fitting a tanked ship will get you out of Recon 3 and allow you to survive that MR who likes to shoot. How's that for 0 risk. I already addressed this. You can run missions in cheap (Fully insurable) ships if you want, with relatively cheap fittings. Many don't due to efficiency. Same thing with salvagers. My looting ship is a Fleet Stabber. My corpmates that only salvage often use interceptors or faction frigates. While still cheaper, you have to basically fall asleep to lose a halfway decently-fit missionboat...Many times you can even fall asleep and still survive (lol permaboost setups). By contrast, it's very easy to die in a frigate-classed ship. Quote: Regarding noobs using NS to finance their Eve progression and being cut off from that supply of ISK...who gives a rats ass. Plenty of people early on did it the hard way. At what point did I say finance? They do it because it's fun, much moreso than grinding low level missions or mining. More smoke and mirrors from. Investment of isk in ships is not the issues here. nor is the chance of suicideragekilling the NS. It's the fact that if a salvagers just sticks to salvaging and doesn't loot. The only recourse a mission runner has is a suicideragekill the NS. TSuddenly Ninja's is definetly one corp who I see getting gutted once the Salvaging rules get changed and it won't be just noobs fleeing it would be the established players too.
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.21 17:20:00 - [123] Originally by: Lemmy Kravitz People who PvE risk through Pve People who NS risk nothing Given that the value of "risk through PvE" is about the same as the value of "risk nothing" then I agree entirely. Oh, and salvagers risk their time. They may well end up with nothing.
Traidor Disloyal Private Nuisance	Posted - 2009.10.21 17:23:00 - [124] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Flagging for salvaging gives even bigger competitive advatange to the mission runner, so the "add risk to salvager" argument sounds kinda hollow when it actually means "reduce risk on salvaging mission runner". You ever try shooting at a little frigate (or even a stabber built for speed) with weapons meant to use in Mission Running (rails, arty, missiles)? That salvager is only running a risk if he/she is stupid enough to get to close to a webber/scambler NPC or a mission runner with good drone skills and/or a webber. The mission runner still has the risk of getting agro for shooting at the little salvager ship no matter if salvaging becomes a flagging offense or not. That is if the salvager takes some loot, otherwise the mission runners gets a date with Concord. And that is always funny to watch. The mission runner has not reduced his risk at all if salvaging a mission runner wreak becomes a flagging offense. It is still the same risk has before. Now the salvager on the other hand has now gone from no risk (NPCs are a joke, kind of like what mission running is now) to a little risk of a Mission Runner, which a majority are not into PvP, taking a shot at him. I have seen a Hurricane take out a mission runner battleship with a couple of guys tossing shield repping bots on him. If this hard-has-nails salvager is really in to salvaging then maybe he needs the skills to be able to salvage the mission runners wreak as well. You think the salvage from NPCs is good? Some of them Mission Runners have some nice faction on their ships. Maybe enough to buy a lot of little salvage ships. ************************************************* I have three characters. One has Cov Ops V along with all the bells and whistles that goes with it.
Lemmy Kravitz	Posted - 2009.10.21 17:29:00 - [125] Edited by: Lemmy Kravitz on 21/10/2009 17:30:59 Originally by: Lear Hepburn Originally by: Lemmy Kravitz People who PvE risk through Pve People who NS risk nothing Given that the value of "risk through PvE" is about the same as the value of "risk nothing" then I agree entirely. Oh, and salvagers risk their time. They may well end up with nothing. ehehe, arguement is weak sauce, come back try again. Got to come up with better counter arguements if you want to make a strong case for keeping things as they are. Traidor, you're right on the button with that post
Trigos Trilobi Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.10.21 17:31:00 - [126] Originally by: Kzintee NS is risking their what...less than 5 mil ISK ship to salvage. MR is doing all the work and is putting their much more (up to 100x-200x more) expensive ship at stake to produce these wrecks. Income to loss ratio for salvaging is through the roof considering that fitting a tanked ship will get you out of Recon 3 and allow you to survive that MR who likes to shoot. How's that for 0 risk. Don't confuse missionrunning risk with salvaging risk. Misson runner is risking his rig for rewards, bounties, loot and lp. He did that same thing before salvage was introduced, and does still. Wrecks are a by-product, you just like the extra income so you want to make it a guaranteed part of your income instead of something you have to compete for. Quote: I tend to detect a common theme not only in your post but in posts made by others. It has to do with "Mission runners are already making a ton of ISK through LP and loot"...do I detect jealousy? Who cares how much MRs make, that does not even enter this conversation. I'm sure that if there were no bounties or loot and missions only paid the guaranteed reward and salvage the NSes would still play the "They have their income, we want ours" card. Yeah I'm so jealous of astronomical ninja salvaging income I have never even seriously considered doing that instead of running L4s. I find it slightly amusing how a good part of the mission runner crowd seem so certain that everybody should share their sentiment on the matter that they constantly embarass themselves by accusing other mission runners of being ninja salvagers just because they have different opinion.
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2009.10.21 17:38:00 - [127] Quote: More smoke and mirrors from. Investment of isk in ships is not the issues here. nor is the chance of suicideragekilling the NS. It's the fact that if a salvagers just sticks to salvaging and doesn't loot. The only recourse a mission runner has is a suicideragekill the NS. TSuddenly Ninja's is definetly one corp who I see getting gutted once the Salvaging rules get changed and it won't be just noobs fleeing it would be the established players too. And the risk that the NPCs will pop the ninjasalvager's ship?
Lemmy Kravitz	Posted - 2009.10.21 17:40:00 - [128] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: Kzintee NS is risking their what...less than 5 mil ISK ship to salvage. MR is doing all the work and is putting their much more (up to 100x-200x more) expensive ship at stake to produce these wrecks. Income to loss ratio for salvaging is through the roof considering that fitting a tanked ship will get you out of Recon 3 and allow you to survive that MR who likes to shoot. How's that for 0 risk. Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Don't confuse missionrunning risk with salvaging risk. Misson runner is risking his rig for rewards, bounties, loot and lp. He did that same thing before salvage was introduced, and does still. Wrecks are a by-product, you just like the extra income so you want to make it a guaranteed part of your income instead of something you have to compete for. Again smoke and mirrors arguement from Trigos. Wrecks are extra income to a mission runner that he cannot actually compete for in the current system. Competition is a combat between individuals, groups, nations, animals, etc. for territory, a niche, or allocation of resources. I see no competition between MR and NS atm. Describe to me how this competition plays out I would like to understand? Where at any point in this NS/MR relationship can either party freely and openly compete with each other? NS taking loot doesn't count cause that's looting a wreck, not salvaging. Quote: I tend to detect a common theme not only in your post but in posts made by others. It has to do with "Mission runners are already making a ton of ISK through LP and loot"...do I detect jealousy? Who cares how much MRs make, that does not even enter this conversation. I'm sure that if there were no bounties or loot and missions only paid the guaranteed reward and salvage the NSes would still play the "They have their income, we want ours" card. Yeah I'm so jealous of astronomical ninja salvaging income I have never even seriously considered doing that instead of running L4s. I find it slightly amusing how a good part of the mission runner crowd seem so certain that everybody should share their sentiment on the matter that they constantly embarass themselves by accusing other mission runners of being ninja salvagers just because they have different opinion. If it smells like a turd, looks like a turd, tastes likea turd.... glad I didn't step in it
Lemmy Kravitz	Posted - 2009.10.21 17:47:00 - [129] Originally by: Kahega Amielden Quote: More smoke and mirrors from. Investment of isk in ships is not the issues here. nor is the chance of suicideragekilling the NS. It's the fact that if a salvagers just sticks to salvaging and doesn't loot. The only recourse a mission runner has is a suicideragekill the NS. TSuddenly Ninja's is definetly one corp who I see getting gutted once the Salvaging rules get changed and it won't be just noobs fleeing it would be the established players too. And the risk that the NPCs will pop the ninjasalvager's ship? None so long as the mission runner has agro first. But then again if you have agro and you stick around killing rats and salvaging, I don't think we can call you a NS anymore. You'd just be a douche that's salvage running another guys mission (And I honestly have no problem with that cause you are assuming the same risk). But a good NS wouldn't stick around if they have agro, they just warp out go back in mission and salvage so long as mission runner has agro or there are no rats. It's kinda weird that I really haven't seen any one posting about how much they hate the Ninja Salvagers doing thier thing in Wormhole spawn thingies. I wonder why that is?
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2009.10.21 17:51:00 - [130] Quote: a good NS wouldn't stick around if they have agro, they just warp out go back in mission and salvage so long as mission runner has agro or there are no rats. Correct. But in many situations full aggro will pop a frigate before they can warp out. Sometimes you'll get stuck on one of the mission structures. Even experienced ninjasalvagers will lose a ship now and then, whereas a competent missionrunner wont lose his ship unless he falls asleep.

Traidor Disloyal Private Nuisance	Posted - 2009.10.21 17:54:00 - [131] Originally by: Kahega Amielden Quote: More smoke and mirrors from. Investment of isk in ships is not the issues here. nor is the chance of suicideragekilling the NS. It's the fact that if a salvagers just sticks to salvaging and doesn't loot. The only recourse a mission runner has is a suicideragekill the NS. TSuddenly Ninja's is definetly one corp who I see getting gutted once the Salvaging rules get changed and it won't be just noobs fleeing it would be the established players too. And the risk that the NPCs will pop the ninjasalvager's ship? If he is half awake, has an inkling how to salvage, put an afterburner on his frig, and is moving while salvaging there is absolutely no risk to him at all. All bets are off is the little guy warps into the green cloud. ************************************************* I have three characters. One has Cov Ops V along with all the bells and whistles that goes with it.
Trigos Trilobi Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.10.21 17:55:00 - [132] Originally by: Traidor Disloyal The mission runner has not reduced his risk at all if salvaging a mission runner wreak becomes a flagging offense. The mission runner has another exclusive tool against the competition, so his risk is reduced. I know quite a few of mission runners habiting these threads, while claiming that they just want risk for the ninjasalvager, are actually counting on the threat of flagging to reduce the numbers of ninjasalvagers noticeably without them ever having to shoot a single volley, and that is a reasonable expectation. It's also about reducing risk on the mission runner, no matter how you want to twist it. Less ninja salvagers means less risk of someone salvaging the wrecks faster than you do. Quote: Has I have wrote before, the only reason I can see for keeping salvaging the way it is now is because the mission runner already makes enough isk and really doesn't need the extra from the salvage. Risk is a joke for both the salvager and the mission runner if they have any clue on what they are doing. Your problem is that you think risk has to cause explosions, when economical risk is just as much a risk, and competition is always an economical risk factor. From a financial point of view, it doesn't matter if I lose a 100m ship once a month, or if someone manages to salvage wrecks faster than me denying me 100m salvage income. Either way, I'm 100m down.
Trigos Trilobi Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.10.21 18:08:00 - [133] Edited by: Trigos Trilobi on 21/10/2009 18:10:33 Edited by: Trigos Trilobi on 21/10/2009 18:08:25 Originally by: Lemmy Kravitz Again smoke and mirrors arguement from Trigos. Wrecks are extra income to a mission runner that he cannot actually compete for in the current system. Mission runners seem to be managing the competition just fine. Personally, I've never lost a single piece of salvage to a ninjasalvager. It's probably cost me some income though in varous countermeasures, but that's the price of competition. In this or some other NS thread a mission runner claimed 40-50% of his income came from salvage, doesn't sound like he had trouble competing either. If mission runner couldn't compete, like you claim, he'd actually not gain any salvage income. Quote: Competition is a combat between individuals, groups, nations, animals, etc. for territory, a niche, or allocation of resources. I see no competition between MR and NS atm. Describe to me how this competition plays out I would like to understand?Where at any point in this NS/MR relationship can either party freely and openly compete with each other? NS taking loot doesn't count cause that's looting a wreck, not salvaging. Everytime a salvage cycle completes and salvage appears in your cargohold, you've won: that particular salvage is now yours since you beat everyone else to it. As long as the wreck's in space, all parties are free to compete for it. Pretty simple concept, huh?
Traidor Disloyal Private Nuisance	Posted - 2009.10.21 18:12:00 - [134] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: Traidor Disloyal The mission runner has not reduced his risk at all if salvaging a mission runner wreak becomes a flagging offense. The mission runner has another exclusive tool against the competition, so his risk is reduced. I know quite a few of mission runners habiting these threads, while claiming that they just want risk for the ninjasalvager, are actually counting on the threat of flagging to reduce the numbers of ninjasalvagers noticeably without them ever having to shoot a single volley, and that is a reasonable expectation. It's also about reducing risk on the mission runner, no matter how you want to twist it. Less ninja salvagers means less risk of someone salvaging the wrecks faster than you do. Quote: Has I have wrote before, the only reason I can see for keeping salvaging the way it is now is because the mission runner already makes enough isk and really doesn't need the extra from the salvage. Risk is a joke for both the salvager and the mission runner if they have any clue on what they are doing. Your problem is that you think risk has to cause explosions, when economical risk is just as much a risk, and competition is always an economical risk factor. From a financial point of view, it doesn't matter if I lose a 100m ship once a month, or if someone manages to salvage wrecks faster than me denying me 100m salvage income. Either way, I'm 100m down. If salvaging becomes a flagging offense and the no-risk ninja salvagers become less in number that is good for my style of play in Eve. Less no-risk ninja salvagers means less missions being busted means more inexperienced Mission Runners getting excited when people like me bust their missions. When excited inexperienced Mission Runners take shots at people like me that means they do stupid things that, in the end, allows me or my corp mates to take the mission runners stuff from his wreak and maybe even salvage his mission ship wreak for the laughs. And I don't have a problem. The way I play this game, risk to me is loosing a ship with some damn good stuff on it and the possibility of getting podded. Your version of risk is just different from mine. And I like explosions. Even if those explosions are my own ships. ************************************************* I have three characters. One has Cov Ops V along with all the bells and whistles that goes with it.
Lemmy Kravitz	Posted - 2009.10.21 18:14:00 - [135] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: Traidor Disloyal The mission runner has not reduced his risk at all if salvaging a mission runner wreak becomes a flagging offense. Originally by: Trigos Trilobi The mission runner has another exclusive tool against the competition, so his risk is reduced. I know quite a few of mission runners habiting these threads, while claiming that they just want risk for the ninjasalvager, are actually counting on the threat of flagging to reduce the numbers of ninjasalvagers noticeably without them ever having to shoot a single volley, and that is a reasonable expectation. It's also about reducing risk on the mission runner, no matter how you want to twist it. Less ninja salvagers means less risk of someone salvaging the wrecks faster than you do. Thank you for coming out and admiting the fact that Ninja Salvagers would not Ninja Salvage if there was a risk of being shot at for salvaging a wreck that doesn't belong to them. In Eve might makes right. Quote: Has I have wrote before, the only reason I can see for keeping salvaging the way it is now is because the mission runner already makes enough isk and really doesn't need the extra from the salvage. Risk is a joke for both the salvager and the mission runner if they have any clue on what they are doing. ] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Your problem is that you think risk has to cause explosions, when economical risk is just as much a risk, and competition is always an economical risk factor. From a financial point of view, it doesn't matter if I lose a 100m ship once a month, or if someone manages to salvage wrecks faster than me denying me 100m salvage income. Either way, I'm 100m down. Another smoke and mirrors point avoiding the issue at hand. I finnally boiled down the wuestion to it's absolute essence!!!!!!! Why should NS be allowed to impinge on a MR's game without the MR being able to impinge on a NS's game? Ha i did it!
Trigos Trilobi Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.10.21 18:32:00 - [136] Originally by: Lemmy Kravitz Thank you for coming out and admiting the fact that Ninja Salvagers would not Ninja Salvage if there was a risk of being shot at for salvaging a wreck that doesn't belong to them. In Eve might makes right. Well done missing the point. I bet it was an accident, too. Quote: Why should NS be allowed to impinge on a MR's game without the MR being able to impinge on a NS's game? Every wreck salvaged by the MR is one less wreck for the NS. Every wreck salvaged by the NS is one wreck less for the MR. Fair game.
Lemmy Kravitz	Posted - 2009.10.21 18:35:00 - [137] okay maybe this is the better question Why should we allow someone to steal from someone else without letting the person who is being stolen from shoot at the thief? Thievery is a perfectly acceptable form of economic/financial competition so long as there are consequences. and as NS stands now, there are none. the question sounds about right.
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2009.10.21 18:50:00 - [138] The salvage does not belong to you, ergo it's not theft.
Lemmy Kravitz	Posted - 2009.10.21 18:59:00 - [139] ehehe, at this point I've got the NS's repeating because CCP said so defense. Lemmy declares himself the winner of this debate. Ninja Salvagers will still be known as spineless carebears who are parasites that leach off of other carebears. That NS don't have balls enough to actually pvp for thier isk. And that the Ninja Salvagers tears will flow copiously when the NS/MR relationship changes. Boss actually came into work so it's time to pretend again. I'll check in again later to see the pathetic arguements that get posted in favor of keeping the way things are.
Kzintee Caldari	Posted - 2009.10.21 19:05:00 - [140] Edited by: Kzintee on 21/10/2009 19:06:01 If indeed salvage belongs to everyone, CCP should fix the ambiguity of loot vs salvage by making the loot and salvage FFA. As it stands right now the implementation is half-assed because it leads exactly to this ambiguity. If CCP still intends to keep loot owned and salvage FFA, they should remove the tags from a wreck and spawn an additional container with loot for each wreck and have the container tagged. Yes it will be laggy but nonetheless better because it removes the ambiguity.

Kahega Amielden Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2009.10.21 19:15:00 - [141] Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 21/10/2009 19:20:24 Quote: Back and round we go. I actually spent ISK turning a ship into a wreck. The wreck is mine. If indeed salvage belongs to everyone, CCP should fix the ambiguity of loot vs salvage by making the loot and salvage FFA. As it stands right now the implementation is half-assed because it leads exactly to this ambiguity. If CCP still intends to keep loot owned and salvage FFA, they should remove the tags from a wreck and spawn an additional container with loot for each wreck and have the container tagged. Yes it will be laggy but nonetheless better because it removes the ambiguity. This isn't a case of you purchasing materials and turning those materials into a final product. This is a case of you using a combat ship to destroy other peoples' ships. The rat ships aren't raw materials that you apply ammo to in order to convert them to a product. The rat ships are other peoples' stuff which you blew up. The ships belong to the rats you destroyed. Since the rats are now dead, and CONCORD doesn't give a flying **** about the welfare of a bunch of Guristas, the floating wrecks in space don't inherently belong to anyone. CONCORD has decreed that the person who kills the pirates can claim ownership of the remaining modules and cargo contents, but can NOT claim ownership to the wreck itself. Ownership of loot and salvage can be arbitrarily defined by CCP for this reason. Thus, it comes down to what makes sense from a gameplay perspective. Does it make sense to remove the only competition in missionrunning, which is already by far the LEAST competitive of all professions? Does it make sense to remove a fun playstyle that many players enjoy? Does it make sense to remove something that is a catalyst for conflict, which is what EVE thrives on? No. It doesn't.
Boomershoot Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2009.10.21 19:36:00 - [142] Salvaging the wreck of a dead NPC ship in a spaceship game is like Salvaging the wreck of a dead NPC ship in a spaceship game. Don't try to apply that in any IRL case, it's impossible. Accidentally, The whole thing.
Lemmy Kravitz	Posted - 2009.10.21 20:00:00 - [143] k back. Yep thier using the because CCP said so defense and using the false logic of competition in salvage will be killed. As it stands now CCP says there is no ownership, we say there should be because it makes more sense that way and would bring it in line with the feel of the rest game, and with RL sensibilities that goverments/people have about theft and ownership. And because as it is now there is no real competition between salvagers aside from who can salvage first. We want to see "Who has balls enough to bleed for the salvage" not "oh.. I got to the wreck and salvaged I'm win" One is actual competition for a resource, the other is some carebeared special olypics style of competition. Mission runners would you be willing to kill someone trying to salvage your wreck? Ninja Salvagers would you be willing to kill someone for thier salvage?
Kzintee Caldari	Posted - 2009.10.21 20:00:00 - [144] Originally by: Boomershoot Salvaging the wreck of a dead NPC ship in a spaceship game is like Salvaging the wreck of a dead NPC ship in a spaceship game. Don't try to apply that in any IRL case, it's impossible. Common frame of reference. What's 2+2 in your universe?
Lemmy Kravitz	Posted - 2009.10.21 20:06:00 - [145] Originally by: Boomershoot Salvaging the wreck of a dead NPC ship in a spaceship game is like Salvaging the wreck of a dead NPC ship in a spaceship game. Don't try to apply that in any IRL case, it's impossible. I've done it successfully many times. Just because this is a space game doesn't mean that we are divorcing ourselfs from reality and the social norms that we live by. Eve is a sandbox game that tries to simulate a real universe with real laws, and real rules. Because it does, RL situations, rules, laws can be easily used for comparison. Salvaging a ship in game is akin to salvaging a maritime wreck, or taking over abandoned property, or theifery, or.. etc. etc. etc.. The invalid defenses against my arguements that amount to just smoke and mirrors are 1.) Because CCP said so 2.) It's just a game so RL doesn't apply. 3.) There is already competition with current system come again thank you very much. Go ahead and post if you can think of something that doesn't fall within those three catagories.
Kzintee Caldari	Posted - 2009.10.21 20:06:00 - [146] Originally by: Kahega Amielden This isn't a case of you purchasing materials and turning those materials into a final product. This is a case of you using a combat ship to destroy other peoples' ships. The rat ships aren't raw materials that you apply ammo to in order to convert them to a product. The rat ships are other peoples' stuff which you blew up. The ships belong to the rats you destroyed. Since the rats are now dead, and CONCORD doesn't give a flying **** about the welfare of a bunch of Guristas, the floating wrecks in space don't inherently belong to anyone. CONCORD has decreed that the person who kills the pirates can claim ownership of the remaining modules and cargo contents, but can NOT claim ownership to the wreck itself. Ownership of loot and salvage can be arbitrarily defined by CCP for this reason. Thus, it comes down to what makes sense from a gameplay perspective. Does it make sense to remove the only competition in missionrunning, which is already by far the LEAST competitive of all professions? Does it make sense to remove a fun playstyle that many players enjoy? Does it make sense to remove something that is a catalyst for conflict, which is what EVE thrives on? No. It doesn't. I used my time and my ammunition (and by extension my ISK) to turn a ship into a wreck. I have used my resources to create that wreck. Making salvage a flagging offense isn't going to remove the fun out of it. I predict the sales of Dominix and Neuts will go up. This will add to the conflict. The only group that will be affected will be the 1 week old noobs who can't fight back yet and who will have to simply warp out. Rest will salvage in tanked ships and will simply laugh at the MR as they get kill rights and come back in a gank boat.
Kzintee Caldari	Posted - 2009.10.21 20:12:00 - [147] The argument of "CCP said so" only works so far. Game was not created perfect and is being balanced constantly. Further examples of how "CCP did it this way and then changed it!" are: -Stacking MWDs -No stacking penalty on damage mods -Nano -NOS -Sov system -Torpedo range Shall I go on?
Lear Hepburn Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent	Posted - 2009.10.21 20:22:00 - [148] Originally by: Lemmy Kravitz Edited by: Lemmy Kravitz on 21/10/2009 17:30:59 Originally by: Lear Hepburn Originally by: Lemmy Kravitz People who PvE risk through Pve People who NS risk nothing Given that the value of "risk through PvE" is about the same as the value of "risk nothing" then I agree entirely. Oh, and salvagers risk their time. They may well end up with nothing. ehehe, arguement is weak sauce, come back try again. Got to come up with better counter arguements if you want to make a strong case for keeping things as they are. Traidor, you're right on the button with that post "Argument is weak sauce" is a non-argument, merely a refutation. If you disagree then explain why rather than merely dismissing it because you don't agree but don't know how to disprove.
Lemmy Kravitz	Posted - 2009.10.21 20:34:00 - [149] Edited by: Lemmy Kravitz on 21/10/2009 20:34:29 because it's been explained before in this thread in earlier posts in different ways over and over again. The pro-NS group has gotten to the point where they are using circular logic to keep thier end of the debate up and I'm getting tired of shooting down the same nonpoints worded differently over and over again. Like a circle baby, right round, round round. "CCP said so" "There is already competition" "There is already risk" "There is no RL comparisons" All of these have been brought up many times in many ways and each disproven soundly, just take the time to read the thread.
Lemmy Kravitz	Posted - 2009.10.21 20:50:00 - [150] Edited by: Lemmy Kravitz on 21/10/2009 20:51:40 oh here is another good comparable RL situation. Goldrush of the west and the gold mines Someone goes to the gov, gets a claim. Goes out to claim and mines for gold. Claim jumper comes in and tries to mine gold/kill miner. Claim owner shoots claim jumper in face or sics the authorities on him. only difference between this and eve right now is the claim owner can't do anything against the claim jumper. By the NS logic the claimowner will just have to mine gold quicker than the claim jumper and that's how they "compete" against each other. Of course you think oh good we can bring eve mining into the arguement. No not really. Mining and it's mechanics are pretty balanced out and the inherently non pvp/pve ness of the class really keeps it from being used in this arguement. Miners have plenty of ways to compete against rival miners and griefers. Use of secure containers, out mining the guy, decing the mining corp, hiring a merc corp to dec em, flipping thier can, market wars, or just straight up blowing them up yourself. Where they do have an issue that needs to be addressed is the afk cloaked enemy ship/pirate/ bad dude. But that's a whole nother can of worms.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.