EVE Search - The Hypocrisy of High Sec

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The Hypocrisy of High Sec

» 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 .. 16 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Natsett Amuinn GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 424	Posted - 2012.10.31 20:53:00 - [271] - Quote Jorma Morkkis wrote: Natsett Amuinn wrote: I applaud those that do, there's even a few in this thread. Probably alts of nullseccers. The main problem is "CCP, pay me to gank these miners" mentality. And BAM. Point proven. Notice he only quoted that one line I wrote, and left out the part about devolving into rediculous arguements that have no baring on how the game plays... While he makes a rediculous arguement that has nothing to do with how the game is played.
Jorma Morkkis State War Academy Caldari State 216	Posted - 2012.10.31 20:54:00 - [272] - Quote Lord Zim wrote: Jorma Morkkis wrote: The main problem is "CCP, pay me to gank these miners" mentality. Who said that? Gankers. "Now I have to use two destroyers to destroy 1 Mackinaw. Unfair."
Lord Zim 1896	Posted - 2012.10.31 20:55:00 - [273] - Quote Jorma Morkkis wrote: Lord Zim wrote: Jorma Morkkis wrote: The main problem is "CCP, pay me to gank these miners" mentality. Who said that? Gankers. "Now I have to use two destroyers to destroy 1 Mackinaw. Unfair." Bullshit. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.
Natsett Amuinn GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 424	Posted - 2012.10.31 20:56:00 - [274] - Quote Jorma Morkkis wrote: Lord Zim wrote: Jorma Morkkis wrote: The main problem is "CCP, pay me to gank these miners" mentality. Who said that? Gankers. "Now I have to use two destroyers to destroy 1 Mackinaw. Unfair." Please direct us to all the theads dedictated to that.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 10200	Posted - 2012.10.31 20:56:00 - [275] - Quote Jorma Morkkis wrote: Gankers. "Now I have to use two destroyers to destroy 1 Mackinaw. Unfair." [citation needed] GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
Jorma Morkkis State War Academy Caldari State 216	Posted - 2012.10.31 20:57:00 - [276] - Quote Natsett Amuinn wrote: While he makes a rediculous arguement that has nothing to do with how the game is played. How this game is played?
Natsett Amuinn GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 424	Posted - 2012.10.31 20:58:00 - [277] - Quote Touval Lysander wrote: Natsett Amuinn wrote: "because a fat kid likes cake" ...but most people in null don't want to nerf the hell out of high sec ...we just don't want to be disadvantaged because we choose to play in the part of the game that is entirely player driven. It was icecream. Only the CFC guys want it changed because Mittens said so. Given you only have 49.5% of null, that's not most. Correct. Reread that last line and tell me how that might relate to a highsec carebear. Go on. Put the carebear hat on and reread it. See anything? I suspect that the obnoxiousness of your posts is intended. But I thank you for being another individual contributing to my point. "because mittens told us to" Obvously not because we play in null and therefore KNOW.
Natsett Amuinn GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 424	Posted - 2012.10.31 21:00:00 - [278] - Quote Jorma Morkkis wrote: Natsett Amuinn wrote: While he makes a rediculous arguement that has nothing to do with how the game is played. How this game is played? You know, those silly things called mechanics. Like the one that lets you get blown up if someone else choses to blow you up. We're still waiting for those threads started to complain about needing 2 destroyers to blow up a mach.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 10200	Posted - 2012.10.31 21:01:00 - [279] - Quote Jorma Morkkis wrote: How this game is played? See the post you quoted. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
Jorma Morkkis State War Academy Caldari State 216	Posted - 2012.10.31 21:03:00 - [280] - Quote Natsett Amuinn wrote: Like the one that lets you get blown up if someone else choses to blow you up. We're still waiting for those threads started to complain about needing 2 destroyers to blow up a mach. What stops you from destroying my Skiff then? It's possible, you know. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=137125 http://eve-search.com/thread/137125-1 There's a few more. Learn to use Google.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 10200	Posted - 2012.10.31 21:06:00 - [281] - Quote Jorma Morkkis wrote: There's a few more. Learn to use Google. So where's that thread where people complain about having to use two destroyers? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
Jorma Morkkis State War Academy Caldari State 216	Posted - 2012.10.31 21:07:00 - [282] - Quote Tippia wrote: Jorma Morkkis wrote: There's a few more. Learn to use Google. So where's that thread where people complain about having to use two destroyers? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=137125 http://eve-search.com/thread/137125-1
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 10200	Posted - 2012.10.31 21:08:00 - [283] - Quote Jorma Morkkis wrote: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=137125 http://eve-search.com/thread/137125-1 GÇªdoesn't contain any such complaint. So where's the thread in question? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
Natsett Amuinn GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 425	Posted - 2012.10.31 21:08:00 - [284] - Quote Jorma Morkkis wrote: Natsett Amuinn wrote: Like the one that lets you get blown up if someone else choses to blow you up. We're still waiting for those threads started to complain about needing 2 destroyers to blow up a mach. What stops you from destroying my Skiff then? It's possible, you know. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=137125 http://eve-search.com/thread/137125-1 There's a few more. Learn to use Google. I would laugh and ask if you're kidding, but i"m sure you're not. You didn't get that it was a thread about CCP passively tanking miners becaue they couldn't be bothered to do it themselves and not about needing 2 destroyers to blow up a single mach? Looked pretty obvious by it's body of content to me. Not to mention valid.
Jorma Morkkis State War Academy Caldari State 216	Posted - 2012.10.31 21:10:00 - [285] - Quote Natsett Amuinn wrote: I would laugh and ask if you're kidding, but i"m sure you're not. So are you saying that game mechanic prevents you from destroying my Skiff?
Lord Zim 1896	Posted - 2012.10.31 21:11:00 - [286] - Quote Jorma Morkkis wrote: Tippia wrote: Jorma Morkkis wrote: There's a few more. Learn to use Google. So where's that thread where people complain about having to use two destroyers? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=137125 http://eve-search.com/thread/137125-1 "hurr CCP buffed the mining ships when the miners could easily tank >1 destroyer by fitting a few mods, but because they can't possibly bear to reduce their yield, daddy CCP is there to soothe their worries" != "oh god I can't gank a mining ship with a single destroyer anymore my life is worthless :( :( :(" Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.
Natsett Amuinn GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 425	Posted - 2012.10.31 21:13:00 - [287] - Quote Jorma Morkkis wrote: Natsett Amuinn wrote: I would laugh and ask if you're kidding, but i"m sure you're not. So are you saying that game mechanic prevents you from destroying my Skiff? No, they do not. Where in the hell would you even get, even remotely get, the idea that I was implying that, let alone saying it?
Baroness Vulna Solenus Directive Rieos Coalition 31	Posted - 2012.10.31 21:13:00 - [288] - Quote OP is just another control freak who wants to force his 'play style' on everyone else. He thinks his way of playing is how everyone should play and those who dont are hypocrites. I think CCP is doing a great job and hi sec /nulsec is great!! Play the game, have fun
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 10200	Posted - 2012.10.31 21:14:00 - [289] - Quote Natsett Amuinn wrote: No, they do not. Where in the hell would you even get, even remotely get, the idea that I was implying that, let alone saying it? The same place Jorma always gets his GÇ£factsGÇ¥: the Bottomless Pool of Jorma LiesGäó. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
Jorma Morkkis State War Academy Caldari State 216	Posted - 2012.10.31 21:16:00 - [290] - Quote Natsett Amuinn wrote: No, they do not. Where in the hell would you even get, even remotely get, the idea that I was implying that, let alone saying it? You guys waste 1+ bil to gank a freighter, but you don't waste 1+ bil to gank a exhumer.
KrakizBad Eve Defence Force Fatal Ascension 987	Posted - 2012.10.31 21:17:00 - [291] - Quote Jorma Morkkis wrote: Natsett Amuinn wrote: No, they do not. Where in the hell would you even get, even remotely get, the idea that I was implying that, let alone saying it? You guys waste 1+ bil to gank a freighter, but you don't waste 1+ bil to gank a exhumer. Huh? This is even more senseless than usual. www.minerbumping.com - because your tears are delicious
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 10200	Posted - 2012.10.31 21:18:00 - [292] - Quote Jorma Morkkis wrote: You guys waste 1+ bil to gank a freighter, but you don't waste 1+ bil to gank a exhumer. GÇªwhich has nothing to do with being mechanically prevented from ganking a skiff. So the question remains: where did even remotely get the idea that he was implying that, let alone saying it? Oh, and are you going to provide that thread where people complain about having to use two destroyers? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
Touval Lysander Zero Wine 558	Posted - 2012.10.31 21:19:00 - [293] - Quote Natsett Amuinn wrote: "because mittens told us to" Obvously not because we play in null and therefore KNOW. Indeed. I owned a cat, a horse, 3 budgies and a dog once. I am therefore a vet. (<< pun intended) OK. Let's cut the crap and keep this simple. Hypothetical: CCP, tomorrow morning, in their infinite wisdom, cascade to your forum whines like they so obviously did for carebears and give you 10,000 x 0.0 station slots with no escalating penalty for use. The cost to use is set by alliance. Will that make you happy? Y/N Would that stop you calling for highsec "fixes"? Y/N "I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Lord Zim 1896	Posted - 2012.10.31 21:19:00 - [294] - Quote Jorma Morkkis wrote: You guys waste 1+ bil to gank a freighter, but you don't waste 1+ bil to gank a exhumer. I'm asking my 8-ball for if there's any point to your post. It's telling me to ask again later. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.
Natsett Amuinn GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 425	Posted - 2012.10.31 21:19:00 - [295] - Quote Baroness Vulna wrote: OP is just another control freak who wants to force his 'play style' on everyone else. He thinks his way of playing is how everyone should play and those who dont are hypocrites. I think CCP is doing a great job and hi sec /nulsec is great!! Play the game, have fun Technically, "making more isk" isn't a "play styel". Neither is "playing in high sec" Nor should the safest part of the game have the most advantages; wich it does. Funny thing that missions, rats, anoms, basically everything but industry, one for one, pays more isk than high sec. Amost like CCP wants null sec to be more profitable due to the level of risk playing there. "forcing his play style" is much easier then forming valid arguements though.
Hecate Shaw United Freemerchants Society 11	Posted - 2012.10.31 21:20:00 - [296] - Quote Natsett Amuinn wrote: Hecate Shaw wrote: snip I'm not saying high sec isn't civilized, I'm saying that you can't just say that high sec is civilized therefore you should have an advantage, and that null is a wasteland and therefore shouldn't. Null is "a wasteland" it's just were players can build empires because it isn't claimed by any faction. It's as civilized as the players make it, and where I live it's as civilized as any part of high sec. That's like saying all town in the west during the gold rush were uncivilized, as if people didn't have law an order based on the amoutn of law and order they were willing to enforce. Factory efficiency has nothing to do with where they're built, I'm tired of this excuse. YOU'RE USING SOMEONE ELSES FACTORIES TO BUILD. I don't care were it is or how civilized the space it, you're using another companies factory to build ssomething and you pay less than I do, that doesn't make sense. Okay, obviously we're not going to agree, but let me make one last attempt to at least clarify my position. I don't think high sec should have all the advantages. Far from it. As you've said, there are distinct advantages to unsettled areas (most having to do with untapped resources). There are also advantages to long-settled areas. One of the advantages that historically and logically goes hand in hand with settled areas is industry. In the industrial revolution, city people didn't go out to the wilderness looking for factory jobs, but rather the other way around, because that's where the factories were. Gold Rush era western towns didn't tend to have large manufacturing districts. In null sec, you are effectively building your own factory, and yes, there are greater costs associated with it, and with building it so far from established support infrastructure. Perhaps one of the things CCP should do is make building infrastructure to add many more factories possible, but I just don't see the logic in making null better than high in industry. It seems like you want all the advantages of high sec for null sec. No one should have everything. Did anyone ever think that perhaps, just perhaps, CCP wants both areas populated, each with it's own advantages that make at least some sense in context of the setting?
Nicolo da'Vicenza Air The Unthinkables 2088	Posted - 2012.10.31 21:22:00 - [297] - Quote I think what's happening is that Jorma vaguely remembers a previous argument that involved a point about a skiff somehow, so he's going to shoehorn 'my skiff' into this thread no matter how unrelated it is to the topic or the people he's quoting.
Jorma Morkkis State War Academy Caldari State 216	Posted - 2012.10.31 21:24:00 - [298] - Quote Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: I think what's happening is that Jorma vaguely remembers a previous argument that involved a point about a skiff somehow, so he's going to shoehorn 'my skiff' into this thread no matter how unrelated it is to the topic or the people he's quoting. Why it's so difficult? You could do it for "high quality entertainment for carebears". At least I would laugh.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 10200	Posted - 2012.10.31 21:25:00 - [299] - Quote Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: I think what's happening is that Jorma vaguely remembers a previous argument that involved a point about a skiff somehow, so he's going to shoehorn 'my skiff' into this thread no matter how unrelated it is to the topic or the people he's quoting. Nah. What's happening is that Jorma does the only thing he ever can do: he lies. When cornered by his lies, he invents more lies, be they in the form of made-up arguments and quotes in a desperate attempt to make people fall for a red herring so he can introduce a yet more lies and maybe not be called on those too. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
Natsett Amuinn GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 425	Posted - 2012.10.31 21:28:00 - [300] - Quote Touval Lysander wrote: Natsett Amuinn wrote: "because mittens told us to" Obvously not because we play in null and therefore KNOW. Indeed. I owned a cat, a horse, 3 budgies and a dog once. I am therefore a vet. (<< pun intended) OK. Let's cut the crap and keep this simple. Hypothetical: CCP, tomorrow morning, in their infinite wisdom, cascade to your forum whines like they so obviously did for carebears and give you 10,000 x 0.0 station slots with no escalating penalty for use. The cost to use is set by alliance. Will that make you happy? Y/N Would that stop you calling for highsec "fixes"? Y/N No it wouldn't. Because MANUFACTURING COSTS ARE NEGLIGIBLE, and more slots doesn't inherently help either. Inject 100k people into null, and that with more slots would help. You guys don't seem to get that there's a numbers issue that makes it impossible for null to be on par with high sec without high sec paying more to build. Numbers. You don't sell in bulk at near production levels in null, you sell lower volume with higher margins. Those higher margins make it better to import. The gap in margins needs to be closed some. The only way that will happen is if it costs more to produce in high sec. YOU DON'T CHARGE ENOUGH. To many people are doing industry in high sec so everyone's forced to charge near production costs for items, the number of people buying in high offsets that, but it's having a negative impact on null industrialists that don't want to live in high sec. I NEED 200+ market orders in null to make the ISK I make, and I HAVE to import to the point of importing things I could be building but can't if i want to compete. I can do the same isk amount in high with a fraction of the market orders, and building the **** I want.

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