Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4974
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 10:21:00 -
[241] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:yes thats what eve badly needs much less pvp More like bumpers scared of PvP.
Why are you in hi-sec when you can bravely PvP all you like in the belts in lo-sec, 0.0, W-space? MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
Rollin Forties
School of Applied Street Knowledge
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 10:43:00 -
[242] - Quote
Quote: I'm guessing just the idea would scare enough people not to bump
I think you're wrong, I think more bumping would happen because of this. Think back to when can flipping came into being. Miners were happy they could "fight back" but the only thing that happened was they got ganked more. |
Nanatoa
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
86
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 11:15:00 -
[243] - Quote
Indeed these requests for action usually back-fire. If they don't change themselves, miners will never stop complaining; this is what the New Order of Highsec intends to fix. Helping miners help themselves, by letting them embrace the New Order. It is never too late to turn from the errors of your ways: He who repents of his sins is almost innocent.
MinerBumping.com |
svenska flicka
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 11:18:00 -
[244] - Quote
Clearly this topic tells me one thing, I need to start bumping miners lol |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 11:37:00 -
[245] - Quote
Lordy, this thread delivered. |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc
433
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:11:00 -
[246] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Sentamon wrote:Bumping at the very least should flag you as aggressive and CONCORD should stay out of it. Yes this couldn't possibly have any repurcussions elsewhere in the game.
Highsec carebears typically don't understand any of the mechanics in EVE, it's not really their fault that they suggest truly idiotic ideas, they're simply ignorant of game mechanics on the whole so don't understand why their idea is stupid. |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc
433
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:13:00 -
[247] - Quote
I also find it rather pathetic that miners are still crying and demanding CCP further buff their stupid braindead "profession".
I mean really, you twonks cried and cried and cried about ganking, ccp buffed the crap out of your barges and just a week or two later you've came up with another thing to cry about and demand "fixing" |
Tali Ambraelle
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
93
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:14:00 -
[248] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Malcanis wrote:Sentamon wrote:Bumping at the very least should flag you as aggressive and CONCORD should stay out of it. Yes this couldn't possibly have any repurcussions elsewhere in the game. Highsec carebears typically don't understand any of the mechanics in EVE, it's not really their fault that they suggest truly idiotic ideas, they're simply ignorant of game mechanics on the whole so don't understand why their idea is stupid.
And you're simply an ignorant undesirable belligerent who needs to be removed from this game if the company and its product are to thrive.
biomass. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
1437
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:18:00 -
[249] - Quote
This game operates solely on the fact that broken windows need fixing. Without pvp, the economy would become oversaturated within months, and people would leave in droves. That's not thriving. That's not even a slow death at that point. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
600
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:18:00 -
[250] - Quote
Tali Ambraelle wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:Malcanis wrote:Sentamon wrote:Bumping at the very least should flag you as aggressive and CONCORD should stay out of it. Yes this couldn't possibly have any repurcussions elsewhere in the game. Highsec carebears typically don't understand any of the mechanics in EVE, it's not really their fault that they suggest truly idiotic ideas, they're simply ignorant of game mechanics on the whole so don't understand why their idea is stupid. And you're simply an ignorant undesirable belligerent who needs to be removed from this game if the company and its product are to thrive. biomass.
Undesirable Belligerent.
Brilliant. |
|
svenska flicka
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:19:00 -
[251] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:This game operates solely on the fact that broken windows need fixing. Without pvp, the economy would become oversaturated within months, and people would leave in droves. That's not thriving. That's not even a slow death at that point.
SWG + NGE |
Rollin Forties
School of Applied Street Knowledge
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:22:00 -
[252] - Quote
Who does this guy think he is to decide who is desirable and who is not? |
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
600
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:25:00 -
[253] - Quote
To note: I absolutely support James315 and the emergent gameplay he has perfected, if not pioneered. I say this as someone with a large number of industry and mining skillpoints. |
Ekscalybur
Templar Services Inc.
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:29:00 -
[254] - Quote
Tali Ambraelle wrote:*yawn* Typical undesirable arguments. It's ok, new changes will soon be made my fellow miners, and the undesirables will be forced away :) No More Heroes wrote:Tali Ambraelle wrote:Not in high sec, they're entitled, they're not bothering anyone They are bothering the Guardian and Protector of high sec: James 315 and the New Order with their decadent ways. Hah, he's no guardian. He's nothing but an unwanted individual causing trouble for others, :)
What changes, exactly, do you think are going to happen that will stop bumping?
Seriously, think about this one for a minute before you reply. You're going to slap a bounty on someone? That is pee-my-pants funny. James315 could end up with a bounty of 100 billion+ on him, if the player looking to collect some of that doesn't have killrights, they are getting Concordokkened shortly after they open fire on him.
BTW, bumping something will never, ever grant kill rights to anyone.
nerf Veldspar! |
Tali Ambraelle
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
93
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:30:00 -
[255] - Quote
Rollin Forties wrote:Who does this guy think he is to decide who is desirable and who is not?
It's quite simple really, you vile PVP undesirables simply refuse to listen;
Eve is a sandbox, not just a warzone. Things die, but they also thrive. You have the right to play your way, even when it comes to ganking a bear. Why? Because at that point, bears have teeth and can counter attack. Whether they do or not is up to them.
However, bumping is a different scenarios. Bear's cannot effectively "gank" them in the traditional sense of the word. They do not have a single company or entity. Nay, half of them are sat inside NPC corps, while the rest are spread out. War deccing them would be a financial sink hole and a useless investment with MAYBE 1 or 2 kills to be had.
For now, miners try to orbit, or AB/MWD back, web each other, counter bump the enemy or bump each other back, but this is not as effective as the game disrupting activity of bumping them away in the first place.
This is what makes them undesirables that must be removed or nerfed; there is no effective counter to them. If it was all one corp, or a gank, or even lowsec, I'd tell the bears to remember their teeth and claws, suck it up, and fire back. This is not the case. It is not considered an "exploit" since it is a game mechanic, as so many workingasintended-tards tend to lean on.
Therefore, they interrupt, without consequence, the gameplay of those who choose to sit in a quiet corner to themselves, talk on corp chat, make a meal, or do whatever and mine their little hearts out. They do not pay to be griefed; they pay to play. I don't care if "this is Eve" or "working as intended" or "get over it." If I could kill you in the game to stop you, this wouldn't be an issue, but the current aggression tactics are not conducive to an effective counter attack.
That is why they are undesirable belligerents. That is why they should be removed. That is why I stand with the bears.
What is your reason, besides annoying people and being generally unproductive?
And don't bother with the "why should they interrupt my gameplay?" Your right to game play ends where it infringes on others' rights. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5321
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:33:00 -
[256] - Quote
miners are the undesirable belligerents
they demand the "right" to bot in peace while saturating the economy with cheap minerals that minimize consequences in other areas of the game This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Federation posting cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online posting.
fofofofofo |
Tali Ambraelle
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
93
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:35:00 -
[257] - Quote
Andski wrote:miners are the undesirable belligerents
they demand the "right" to bot in peace while saturating the economy with cheap minerals that minimize consequences in other areas of the game
False. If a miner is botting, that is against the EULA and they should be treated as, indeed, undesirables and be removed.
This is not what I'm against.
I've seen this bump crusade go from something that could be rather useful to bumping players at their station, mining, and going about their business, but not botting.
If they mine without a script or bot, and let the ship sit while they make a sandwich, catch up on news, or whatever, then there's a problem. If they are within the rules and not botting, why care?
And why do you want higher mineral prices? Why do you want more expensive things? Why are you trying to raise the barrier of entry for others? What makes you the good guy in that situation?
Oh right, it doesn't. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5321
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:39:00 -
[258] - Quote
Tali Ambraelle wrote:And why do you want higher mineral prices? Why do you want more expensive things? Why are you trying to raise the barrier of entry for others? What makes you the good guy in that situation?
Oh right, it doesn't.
more expensive things means more meaningful losses
hth This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Federation posting cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online posting.
fofofofofo |
svenska flicka
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:41:00 -
[259] - Quote
Tali Ambraelle wrote:Andski wrote:miners are the undesirable belligerents
they demand the "right" to bot in peace while saturating the economy with cheap minerals that minimize consequences in other areas of the game False. If a miner is botting, that is against the EULA and they should be treated as, indeed, undesirables and be removed. This is not what I'm against. I've seen this bump crusade go from something that could be rather useful to bumping players at their station, mining, and going about their business, but not botting. If they mine without a script or bot, and let the ship sit while they make a sandwich, catch up on news, or whatever, then there's a problem. If they are within the rules and not botting, why care? And why do you want higher mineral prices? Why do you want more expensive things? Why are you trying to raise the barrier of entry for others? What makes you the good guy in that situation? Oh right, it doesn't.
But itz sanboxx meza wants to pew pew.
see wat i did har?
|
Tali Ambraelle
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
93
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:44:00 -
[260] - Quote
Andski wrote:Tali Ambraelle wrote:And why do you want higher mineral prices? Why do you want more expensive things? Why are you trying to raise the barrier of entry for others? What makes you the good guy in that situation?
Oh right, it doesn't. more expensive things means more meaningful losses hth
It doesn't help. Why would more expensive losses equate to more meaningful to everyone? It just means people would be MORE risk averse you twit. You raise the barrier of entry, they dont want to risk loosing the ship, they end up not playing OR paying, subscriptions go down, and gg Eve. GG free expansions, GG more content, expanding company, more gameplay, more fixed, more ANYTHING. |
|
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
600
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:45:00 -
[261] - Quote
Tali Ambraelle wrote:Andski wrote:Tali Ambraelle wrote:And why do you want higher mineral prices? Why do you want more expensive things? Why are you trying to raise the barrier of entry for others? What makes you the good guy in that situation?
Oh right, it doesn't. more expensive things means more meaningful losses hth It doesn't help. Why would more expensive losses equate to more meaningful to everyone? It just means people would be MORE risk averse you twit. You raise the barrier of entry, they dont want to risk loosing the ship, they end up not playing OR paying, subscriptions go down, and gg Eve. GG free expansions, GG more content, expanding company, more gameplay, more fixed, more ANYTHING.
The sort of people who I want to encourage to play EVE are not all that risk adverse. |
HollyShocker 2inthestink
State War Academy Caldari State
42
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:47:00 -
[262] - Quote
Tali Ambraelle wrote:James 315 wrote:But you are attempting to interrupt my game play style, even suggesting that I ought to be banned. I am not annoying people; far more people support what I do than support you. It seems like I win on desirability. False. Clearly more are annoyed at you. You simply have a very vocal minority of fellow undesirables. In your little world of lolRP, you are winning. In reality, you need culling. You should be careful of who you annoy Edit: Please avoid posting personal details. It's against the rules. - ISD Suvetar
I think James LARP's in RL. |
The Slayer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:48:00 -
[263] - Quote
If you want absolute safety I have a referral link to Hello Kitty online I can sell you for 400million. |
Tali Ambraelle
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
93
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:48:00 -
[264] - Quote
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote: The sort of people who I want to encourage to play EVE are not all that risk adverse.
Wonderful, I'm glad you have friends who would be willing to pvp and risk loss. That is not a bad thing and, if it's fun to them, so be it.
Others are not like that. They want to see progress, activities moving them forward in their chosen profession. Most people like a bloody pat on the back for, let's say, mining rocks. They don't want to just loose it to an annoying loop hole in game mechanics.
IF there was a way to effectively counter the bumping, this wouldn't be an issue and the fault would be on the bears. But there isn't.
The Slayer wrote:If you want absolute safety I have a referral link to Hello Kitty online I can sell you for 400million. And I've a referral link to a better hair stylist I can give you for free so should you choose...jeesh. |
HollyShocker 2inthestink
State War Academy Caldari State
42
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:51:00 -
[265] - Quote
Andski wrote:Tali Ambraelle wrote:James is an undesirable deserving of ban for interrupting paying customers' game play. miners are such transparent hypocrites yet they can't see it themselves nothing but botters who don't give a flying **** about the health of the game yet demand that they be able to screw the game up in peace
A wise man one said "I can sit here and keep my mouth shut, and let them think I'am an idiot, or I can open it and remove all doubt"
Thank you sir for removing any doubt. |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc
433
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:52:00 -
[266] - Quote
Tali Ambraelle wrote:And you're simply an ignorant undesirable belligerent who needs to be removed from this game if the company and its product are to thrive. biomass.
The fact that I understand current mechanics and as a result know that introducing concord or aggression over bumping is a horrific idea that would destroy the game makes me an undesirable, someone who is somehow holding back the game and should be removed?
My dear Undesirable friend, I have been part of what makes this game thrive since 2006. You are suggesting or supporting ideas that would destroy core mechanics, this in turn makes you the Undesirable.
Tali Ambraelle wrote:However, bumping is a different scenarios. Bear's cannot effectively "gank" them in the traditional sense of the word. They do not have a single company or entity. Nay, half of them are sat inside NPC corps, while the rest are spread out. War deccing them would be a financial sink hole and a useless investment with MAYBE 1 or 2 kills to be had.
For now, miners try to orbit, or AB/MWD back, web each other, counter bump the enemy or bump each other back, but this is not as effective as the game disrupting activity of bumping them away in the first place.
This is what makes them undesirables that must be removed or nerfed; there is no effective counter to them. If it was all one corp, or a gank, or even lowsec, I'd tell the bears to remember their teeth and claws, suck it up, and fire back. This is not the case. It is not considered an "exploit" since it is a game mechanic, as so many workingasintended-tards tend to lean on.
Therefore, they interrupt, without consequence, the gameplay of those who choose to sit in a quiet corner to themselves, talk on corp chat, make a meal, or do whatever and mine their little hearts out. They do not pay to be griefed; they pay to play. I don't care if "this is Eve" or "working as intended" or "get over it." If I could kill you in the game to stop you, this wouldn't be an issue, but the current aggression tactics are not conducive to an effective counter attack.
That is why they are undesirable belligerents. That is why they should be removed. That is why I stand with the bears.
What is your reason, besides annoying people and being generally unproductive?
And don't bother with the "why should they interrupt my gameplay?" Your right to game play ends where it infringes on others' rights.
I honestly and legitimately wish that a large portion of industrialists and miners would simply cease their activities and unsubscribe for a while. Let's see if the claim that they can be replaced really does hold up the eve economy.
This entire post is flawed. For a start, you claim bumping has no counter, then go on to list many different tactics and counters. War dec the bumpers, orbit the asteroids tightly, webify your friends, suicide gank if necessary, etc. There are many ways to deal with them, that you refuse to employ any of the numerous mechanics at your disposal and instead ask CCP to remove the bumpers is another thing that makes you the Undesirable.
Additionally, you state that the sandbox ends when it infringes on another players rights. This is incorrect. You have no rights, and not simply because you're an Undesirable. No player has any rights in the sandbox. You do not have the right to play "in peace", you are misinformed. The counter to this is, of course, that I do not have the right to play uninterrupted either, so feel free disrupt my playstyle with whatever mechanics are at your disposal - ganking, wars, webbing and orbiting, moving system, etc.
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
711
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:53:00 -
[267] - Quote
Tali Ambraelle wrote:James 315 wrote:In all seriousness though, there are plenty of ways to defend against bumpers. Go mine in low/null and shoot them. In all seriousness though, no. They don't want to because they don't want to be interrupted in THEIR game play style. Whether shooting or bumping. Your logic is wrong.
So is your argument.
"If I go into 0.0 people try to blow me up! They are interrupting MY play style! CCP, do something about it!"
Empire is no different, in being entitled ONLY to what you can enforce. In high-sec the odds are simply more in favor of the carebears, but by no means perfect. THIS IS HOW IT WAS DESIGNED FROM DAY ONE
You are also wrong in your assessment of AFK miners 'just minding their own business'. Their actions (or 'in-action' if you will), have a big impact on the market for ice, making it almost impossible for active miners to compete. Ever thought of that? Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5321
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:55:00 -
[268] - Quote
Tali Ambraelle wrote:It doesn't help. Why would more expensive losses equate to more meaningful to everyone? It just means people would be MORE risk averse you twit. You raise the barrier of entry, they dont want to risk loosing the ship, they end up not playing OR paying, subscriptions go down, and gg Eve. GG free expansions, GG more content, expanding company, more gameplay, more fixed, more ANYTHING.
because an erebus hull, which represents ~40,000 max-yield hulk hours of veldspar mining for the trit requirements alone, being so easily replaced, is somehow good for the game? This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Federation posting cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online posting.
fofofofofo |
Tali Ambraelle
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
93
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:56:00 -
[269] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:Tali Ambraelle wrote:James 315 wrote:In all seriousness though, there are plenty of ways to defend against bumpers. Go mine in low/null and shoot them. In all seriousness though, no. They don't want to because they don't want to be interrupted in THEIR game play style. Whether shooting or bumping. Your logic is wrong. So is your argument. "If I go into 0.0 people try to blow me up! They are interrupting MY play style! CCP, do something about it!" Empire is no different, in being entitled ONLY to what you can enforce. In high-sec the odds are simply more in favor of the carebears, but by no means perfect. THIS IS HOW IT WAS DESIGNED FROM DAY ONE You are also wrong in your assessment of AFK miners 'just minding their own business'. Their actions (or 'in-action' if you will), have a big impact on the market for ice, making it almost impossible for active miners to compete. Ever thought of that?
That would be a good argument if they ONLY bumped afks and botters. I've seen the bump everyone, afk or not. All Miners, active or inactive are subject to their little crusade. |
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
600
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:58:00 -
[270] - Quote
Tali Ambraelle wrote:Tiberious Thessalonia wrote: The sort of people who I want to encourage to play EVE are not all that risk adverse.
Wonderful, I'm glad you have friends who would be willing to pvp and risk loss. That is not a bad thing and, if it's fun to them, so be it. Others are not like that. They want to see progress, activities moving them forward in their chosen profession. Most people like a bloody pat on the back for, let's say, mining rocks. They don't want to just loose it to an annoying loop hole in game mechanics. IF there was a way to effectively counter the bumping, this wouldn't be an issue and the fault would be on the bears. But there isn't.
But miners keep assuring me that the minerals they mine are free, therefore indicating that their time is worth nothing. Since bumping takes nothing from miners but time, they aren't really losing anything, Q.E.D. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |