Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Cur
Militaris Industries Cascade Imminent
15
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 23:03:00 -
[511] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:It will slightly alter what targets people select when they suicide for profit. The affect it will have on suiciding done for LOLs or for strategic reasons is propably even more negligible.
That means a hulk isnt worth suiciding on unless you have something personal against the pilot. 99% of eve's highsec miner's sing and dance with glee.
Scum that stroke e-peen over killing said hulks and others purely because they can go "lololol i kiled dis nub im teh bestest" will cry like mistreated newborn babies and will probably quit eve as the concept of killign something that can shoot back and a chance of killing them would have the same effect as them realising their current girlfriend (if any) is actualy a transvestite. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
44
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 23:16:00 -
[512] - Quote
Tippia wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Sure you're not: [GǪ] The very least you could do is keep it honest, Tippia. And where in those quotes do I tell people how to play the game? You're so predictible. I was just about to add "In before your How so?", but you beat me to it.
Let me explain it, because you tend to think that using "how so" is some form of a get-out-of-jail-free card that some how automatically gives you the upper hand, even though I think you very well know the answer to your own question . But here it is, I'll spell it out slowly.
Implementing your ideas is restricting the plays of other people, specifically those that play in hi sec. I think you've made it redundently clear you want hi sec to be highly intrusive and disruptive, as in PVP should come effortlessly from lazy/lulz PVPers to those darn "carebears", regardless on how they would like to play the game. You see, you've made it clear that you don't care that hi sec should be safer and that many players are there because of this higher security benefit. Your concern is to make hi sec easily destructible and disruptible by a few.
My hunch is that your game play hugely benefits financially from suicide ganks and destruction in hi sec. Hell, I own a few moons myself and I don't complain when there are wars going on :). But I also understand that this game needs to remain enjoyable for the majority of players (not just the grief players). You either seem to lack this understanding or simply don't give two ***** about it. My bet is on the latter.
You have no real advice for miners other than "don't fly drunk and fit your hulks properly" () and your answers usually just consist of a generic "how so?" because you think that lets you off the hook some how. Well, it doesn't. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
135
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 23:18:00 -
[513] - Quote
Tippia wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Sure you're not: [GǪ] The very least you could do is keep it honest, Tippia. And where in those quotes do I tell people how to play the game?
Someone is testing Cleverbot on these forums, aren't they? CSM do you think? No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you. |
Vertisce Soritenshi
SHADOW WARD
164
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 23:19:00 -
[514] - Quote
Cur wrote:Destination SkillQueue wrote:It will slightly alter what targets people select when they suicide for profit. The affect it will have on suiciding done for LOLs or for strategic reasons is propably even more negligible. That means a hulk isnt worth suiciding on unless you have something personal against the pilot. 99% of eve's highsec miner's sing and dance with glee. Scum that stroke e-peen over killing said hulks and others purely because they can go "lololol i kiled dis nub im teh bestest" will cry like mistreated newborn babies and will probably quit eve as the concept of killign something that can shoot back and a chance of killing them would have the same effect as them realising their current girlfriend (if any) is actualy a transvestite.
Here I am at work...I "LOL'd"...and of course my boss wants to know why...
She "LOL'd" too... Support our boobies!-áLINKY! |
Sarah Ichijou
Regional Park Services Tactical Narcotics Team
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 23:31:00 -
[515] - Quote
So my 1.5 mil thrasher loss (after insurance) is now 2 mil?
I can accept that. |
Jita Alt666
476
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 23:37:00 -
[516] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:We took the insurance out because having it was silly. It's like a double reward when you gank someone, you get their cargo and insurance. It won't stop suicide ganking, it just fixes something we haven't really felt made sense for a long time. What about when people self destruct and time it for an alpha or two before CONCORD arrives? Is there a way to prevent payout for that?
From memory, it takes 2 minutes to self destruct. I can not remember whether you can warp and keep self destruction ticker counting - if so then good on the self destruct pilot. The timing to do so shows competent game play. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1289
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 23:39:00 -
[517] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Implementing your ideas is restricting the plays of other people, specifically those that play in hi sec. How does it restrict them when they can do the exact same things they're doing now? They just have to be a bit smart about it, and my ideas are there to make the value of smarts more clear.
Quote:I think you've made it redundently clear you want hi sec to be highly intrusive and disruptive, as in PVP should come effortlessly from lazy/lulz PVPers to those darn "carebears" No. PvP should come effortlessly from those who need to disrupt the activities of their opponents to those who try to hide those activities in highsec. In particular, I want it to be worth-while to have null/low-sec entities to actually base their industrial backbone in null/lowsec, rather than keeping it protected in highsec. This means making it easier to counter all the tactics that are used to put these support efforts at arms-length to the point where those entities are better off moving all of that to their home turf where it can be properly protected.
Yes, that might make it harder to go it alone as a highsec dweller, but on the other hand, you're such a small fish at that point that it should be rather easy to stay unnoticed. Of course, this opens up a new route to try to hide your alliance's support activities, and it is a difficult balance to strike between the two, but just making it increasingly safe in highsec and giving less and less incentive to do stuff locall outside of those areas, seems like the wrong way to go. It just ends up leaving those other areas largely pointless.
Quote:you've made it clear that you don't care that hi sec should be safer and that many players are there because of this higher security benefit. Should it? According to whom? As for the higher security, it will still be there, most notably because people will be made aware of the risks and thus stop having that false sense of security that makes it much less safe than it isGǪ
Quote:My hunch is that your game play hugely benefits financially from suicide ganks and destruction in hi sec. Your hunch is wrong. Or, wellGǪ I benefit financially from them just as much as everyone else, but no, it is not something that is particularly needed for my finances to work out.
Quote:You have no real advice for miners other than "don't fly drunk and fit your hulks properly" ( ) and your answers usually just consist of a generic " how so?" because you think that lets you off the hook some how. Well, it doesn't. It's sound advice, if people would just heed it, and no, I'm notr trying to get GÇ£off the hookGÇ¥ GÇö I'm trying to get answers. That's why I'm asking. GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Jenshae Chiroptera
136
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 23:45:00 -
[518] - Quote
500 replies and Tipsy is still frothing at the mouth. How much longer can they go without sleep? Join us later for an update. CSM do you think? No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you. |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
143
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 23:52:00 -
[519] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Large Collidable Object wrote:from a gameplay perspective it makes sense - which insurance would pay if you go on an amok-drive and the police wrecks your car? From a gameplay perspective, it would also make sense to remove CONCORD and leave that stuff to the faction police forces. Which police force teleports to the scene of the crime, automatically knows who did it, and then instantly kills almost everyone involved?
Has you often say, don't bring reality in to an MMO.
And it's a nice way to burn some isk for those who have too much like big alliances, also those who gank for profit need to learn some accounting skills if this is implemented. Those who don't? -go pvp in low sec or null
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1289
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 23:55:00 -
[520] - Quote
Fille Balle wrote:Where's the problem with players being safe from pew pew in a pvp centric game where pvp =/= pew pew? The problem is that it would create asymmetry in the available PvP tactics.
The GǣsafeGǥ character sucks at pew pew-PvP, but owns at market-PvP, so he engages the enemy that way. The enemy, on the other hand, sucks at market-PvP, but owns at pew pew-PvPGǪ but he can't engage the enemy that way because the enemy is, as it were, safe.
If the former is allowed to be safe from pew pew, then the latter needs to be allowed to be safe from the market, and at that point, the whole game collapses because of how central both market and pew pew are.
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:500 replies and Tipsy is still frothing at the mouth. How much longer can they go without sleep? Join us later for an update. Where do you get GǣfrothingGǥ from? I think you're imagining thingsGǪ And why am I in plural? (Yes, I'm aware of the singular they, but that particular uncertainty shouldn't exist here). Oh, and I have slept plenty over the last few days, thank you very much, so you're imagining that too.
Are you sleeping well? They say you get a bit delirious if you stay up for too longGǪ GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
97
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 23:56:00 -
[521] - Quote
Minor effect really. When you play long enough you get to a point where you stop insuring ships, especially when the modules plugged into it are at such a greater loss being able to absorb said loss leaves the loss of the hull price seemingly trivial.
But the griefer tears in here sustain me and I relish in them.
Oh oh. That makes me a griefer!!!1!!! Oh nooooes!
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
44
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:13:00 -
[522] - Quote
Tippia wrote:How does it restrict them when they can do the exact same things they're doing now? They just have to be a bit smart about it, and my ideas are there to make the value of smarts more clear. You don't know how removing CONCORD from hi sec restricts the game play of others? Tippia, you honestly expect me to believe you're not trolling here? You really don't know how converting hi sec into 0.0 will affect hi sec players? I just don't know how to explain it any clearer to you. I'm sorry.
Quote:No. PvP should come effortlessly from those who need to disrupt the activities of their opponents to those who try to hide those activities in highsec. In particular, I want it to be worth-while to have null/low-sec entities to actually base their industrial backbone in null/lowsec, rather than keeping it protected in highsec. This means making it easier to counter all the tactics that are used to put these support efforts at arms-length to the point where those entities are better off moving all of that to their home turf where it can be properly protected. All this at the cost of hi sec players. Like I said, you don't care that there are many many players living in hi sec because it accommodates their play style. Some people just aren't interested in having to buy a second account to get an scout alt or joing a mega alliance just move in hi sec because Tippia wants CONCORD removed from hi sec (and fails to see how this change affects hi sec players).
Quote:Should it? According to whom? According to CCP. It's been made crystal clear that hi sec is meant to be safer than lo and null. That you disagree with this, well, that's just fine by me.
|
Jita Alt666
476
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:27:00 -
[523] - Quote
Tippia: Your posts in this thread make sense and are reasonable (although off topic). You are being trolled (repeatedly) by a few forum dwellers who are not interested in expanding their understanding, but merely in arguing. Please don't feed them.
Matrix: The hub of the matter is that Eve Online is one continuous universe that embraces different player styles/types. Some feel changes that are occurring in Empire are the thin end of the wedge in creating different player zones with Empire looking increasingly like completely safe space. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1289
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:32:00 -
[524] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:You don't know how removing CONCORD from hi sec restricts the game play of others? Tippia, you honestly expect me to believe you're not trolling here? Ah, I understand what's confusing you now. No, I'm not advocating the removal of CONCORD GÇö I'm using it as a counter-example or reductio ad absurdum of the idea that insurance for ganks is not realistic. I'm advocating making highsec less safe for the various reasons I've enumerated earlier.
Quote:All this at the cost of hi sec players. Not necessarily. That all depends on how well they can learn to deal with the risks and to mitigate them.
Quote:Like I said, you don't care that there are many many players living in hi sec because it accommodates their play style. And I'm asking, why can't it accommodate their play style and still be dangerous? Why are their play styles so utterly incompatible with taking precautions and planning for safety? I'm sure someone will try to twist what I said above into some kind of Gǣaha! so you are trying to force people to play a certain wayGǥ, but that hinges on an assumption that what they're doing now is utterly impossible to do safelyGǪ and I reject that assumption as absurdly false.
Quote:According to CCP. It's been made crystal clear that hi sec is meant to be safer than lo and null. And it is, nor am I suggesting that it shouldn't be. I read your GÇ£should be saferGÇ¥ as GÇ£should be safer than it isGÇ¥ not as GÇ£should be safer than low/nullGÇ¥. If you think that I'm arguing for a removal of highsec, you haven't read what I'm writing. I'm simply arguing that it should only be GÇ£highGÇ¥ sec GÇö no the complete-sec that it's edging towards and that some people want to see. I'm arguing that it has already moved too far in that direction and that it can be dialled back quite a bit and still offer the relative safety that some players like GÇö in fact, doing so will actually make those players safer because it makes them understand the need and usefulness of various safety behaviours.
Nullsec shows us this already: safety for the player is something rather different than the safety of system and its mechanics. GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Vordel
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:38:00 -
[525] - Quote
Scan though thread quikly. Not sure if someone mentioned this.
The suicide ganking standard of isk to ehp ratio I have heard is 6000 isk per ehp. This is based on a Insured Tempest BS gank ship.
With the insurance removed, new ratio should be 7500 isk per ehp. Based on uninsured Naga.
If they keep insurance in, it will be 2400 isk per ehp. Based on Insured Naga.
Using a Fenrir with 174,000 ehp
6000 isk/ehp = 1 billion isk cargo 7500 isk/ehp = 1.3 billion isk cargo 2400 isk/ehp = 418 million isk cargo
With these numbers, I think leaving insurance in would break game more than removing it. |
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics BRABODEN
412
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:38:00 -
[526] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:We took the insurance out because having it was silly. It's like a double reward when you gank someone, you get their cargo and insurance. It won't stop suicide ganking, it just fixes something we haven't really felt made sense for a long time.
Awww, suicide gankers are gonna hafta grow up and pull away from the Pend Insurance teet? POOR BABIES! |
Jita Alt666
478
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:41:00 -
[527] - Quote
Vordel wrote:Scan though thread quikly. Not sure if someone mentioned this.
The suicide ganking standard of isk to ehp ratio I have heard is 6000 isk per ehp. This is based on a Insured Tempest BS gank ship.
With the insurance removed, new ratio should be 7500 isk per ehp. Based on uninsured Naga.
If they keep insurance in, it will be 2400 isk per ehp. Based on Insured Naga.
Using a Fenrir with 174,000 ehp
6000 isk/ehp = 1 billion isk cargo 7500 isk/ehp = 1.3 billion isk cargo 2400 isk/ehp = 418 million isk cargo
With these numbers, I think leaving insurance in would break game more than removing it.
That is an interesting point. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:43:00 -
[528] - Quote
[quote=Tippia]blab[quote] How did you get to be such an expert in the game? You are a 5.0 sec status player in a 4 man corp running at 100% tax. It's obvious you don't "multiplay" and it's also obvious that you live in highsec farming missions all day. Yet your opinions seems to cover every facet of the game with quite incredible detail.
Amazing stuff Tippia. Simply amazing.
|
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor
207
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:45:00 -
[529] - Quote
Tippia wrote:It's not about the impact GÇö it's about being able to interdict and disrupt the activities that go on in highsec. Being able to do so is a necessity for the economy to work properly.
This is the biggest load of bollocks I've read this month. All real-world economies work perfectly fine without people bombing tractor trailers.
Andreus Anthony LeHane Ixiris CEO, Mixed Metaphor
Animated Corporate Logos |
Denidil
The Graduates Morsus Mihi
130
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:45:00 -
[530] - Quote
ITT: gankers whine like bitches about broken mechanic being fixed.
I'm enjoying the tears. MM Bombers, Best Bombers |
|
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor
207
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:50:00 -
[531] - Quote
Denidil wrote:ITT: gankers whine like bitches about broken mechanic being fixed.
I'm enjoying the tears.
It's such a refreshing reversal of fortunes, isn't it? Andreus Anthony LeHane Ixiris CEO, Mixed Metaphor
Animated Corporate Logos |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
307
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:50:00 -
[532] - Quote
Vordel wrote:Scan though thread quikly. Not sure if someone mentioned this.
The suicide ganking standard of isk to ehp ratio I have heard is 6000 isk per ehp. This is based on a Insured Tempest BS gank ship.
With the insurance removed, new ratio should be 7500 isk per ehp. Based on uninsured Naga.
If they keep insurance in, it will be 2400 isk per ehp. Based on Insured Naga.
Using a Fenrir with 174,000 ehp
6000 isk/ehp = 1 billion isk cargo 7500 isk/ehp = 1.3 billion isk cargo 2400 isk/ehp = 418 million isk cargo
With these numbers, I think leaving insurance in would break game more than removing it.
The old guideline was 5000 ISK/EHP (freighters basically have 200k EHP) - which is why Red Frog sets a 1B ISK as the max collateral. Except that with the advent of the tier3 BCs, damage per million ISK spent was going to go up drastically. Removal of insurance will probably even that out a bit.
So, basically a wash - and the 1B ISK number will probably still stay as the tipping point for freighter ganks. |
Jita Alt666
478
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:51:00 -
[533] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Tippia wrote:It's not about the impact GÇö it's about being able to interdict and disrupt the activities that go on in highsec. Being able to do so is a necessity for the economy to work properly. This is the biggest load of bollocks I've read this month. All real-world economies work perfectly fine without people bombing tractor trailers.
I remember oil prices jumping 5% when a suicide bomber hit the residential compound of a Saudi Oil Company. |
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics BRABODEN
413
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:51:00 -
[534] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Tippia wrote:It's not about the impact GÇö it's about being able to interdict and disrupt the activities that go on in highsec. Being able to do so is a necessity for the economy to work properly. This is the biggest load of bollocks I've read this month. All real-world economies work perfectly fine without people bombing tractor trailers.
Queue Tippia's usual "Eve is not the real world" spiel followed by 20 uses of the word "Why?" as an arguing tactic. |
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor
207
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:53:00 -
[535] - Quote
Jita Alt666 wrote:I remember oil prices jumping 5% when a suicide bomber hit the residential compound of a Saudi Oil Company.
That is an example of terrorism harming the economy. Rising oil prices are bad for everyone. In fact, the single-commodity dependency inherent in the oil industry is directly comparable to the current crisis with blue ice and oxygen isotopes. Andreus Anthony LeHane Ixiris CEO, Mixed Metaphor
Animated Corporate Logos |
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
27
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:57:00 -
[536] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Fille Balle wrote:Where's the problem with players being safe from pew pew in a pvp centric game where pvp =/= pew pew? The problem is that it would create asymmetry in the available PvP tactics. The GǣsafeGǥ character sucks at pew pew-PvP, but owns at market-PvP, so he engages the enemy that way. The enemy, on the other hand, sucks at market-PvP, but owns at pew pew-PvPGǪ but he can't engage the enemy that way because the enemy is, as it were, safe.
So... nobody is allowed to stay docked and use alts for transporting stuff etc.? And it's ok to force people to pew pew but it's not ok to force people to pvp in other manners?
No, I don't see a problem here. Move along, nothing to see here. Have you noticed how some ships are actually blue? Weird isn't it? |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
36
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:06:00 -
[537] - Quote
Warning! Long post ahead; ignore if illiterate!
As always, the problem with this forum's posters isn't a lack of decent arguments, but a lack of foresight. The removal of insurance for CONCORD-caused losses isn't the problem here, and never was. It's not going to stop the majority of gankers from carrying on with their craft. The "carebears," while loathe to admit this, already feel it in their bones. Hence why they're slowly moving towards other arguments, such as:
"But the concept of high-sec is that it's meant to be inherently safe. There's a reason why 75% of EVE players live there: it's because they want to avoid pvp, and focus on industry-oriented activities instead. If "pvpers" want to pvp, they should go to low/null and do that there, and leave us alone."
Sure, I'll buy that. But tell me, how exactly are we supposed to go and pvp in low/null, if the majority of players never touch those areas with a proverbial ten-foot pole? I went on a solo null roam recently, and didn't encounter anyone in about 80 jumps, save for a bunch of botters, and two Dramiels on the final exit gate. Meanwhile, in high-sec, I have tens to hundreds of targets from my wars, as well as plentiful opportunities from baiting and ganks. Why should we go away, when it's so good here?
"Because you need us; we make your ships, your ammo, and your modules. Without us, you're nothing."
Do we? We can manufacture stuff just fine. In fact, because we know how to defend ourselves, we can engage in higher forms of industry that's less accessible to you, such a T2/T3/drug manufacturing. Besides, what are you without us? How will you engage in your current play style if the people you sell your crap to suddenly disappear, because the game changes too drastically in your favor, and no longer keeps us interested?
And it's not like the carebears are willing to compromise. They want to play risk-free, while at the same time demanding that the pvpers both create a demand for carebear goods by obliterating each other in low/null, and also make enough money to buy those goods. When was the last time a carebear said "well, I need you guys to buy my stuff, so how about I give you a free ship here and there, or maybe join your activities for a bit, since I have the cash to spare?"
If you're not willing to compromise, then we aren't either, and we'll continue to gank you. We'll keep ganking you right up to the point when ganking is no longer a sanctioned mechanic, at which point we will leave, and EVE's economy will collapse. Of course, you're not obligated to compromise; we're not going to tell you how to play the game, but you're not going to tell us how to play it either. We won't leave you alone, because it's not in our best interest to do so.
"Whatever. The point of this thread is that insurance to CONCORD-caused losses has been removed, and that's a good thing, because it got rid of an ISK faucet. ISK faucets are inherently bad, so this is beneficial for the player base as a whole."
It's nice to see the armchair economists come out of the woodwork. I suppose there's no such thing as a "mineral faucet." Also, supply/demand curves and equilibrium are just words that act as oppression tools used by the rich corporate fatcats who got us into this whole real-life economic crisis thing. Let's get rid of all the ISK faucets, because they're really evil. Then the game's economy will be really healthy, right guys?
"None of that matters because as good as this change is, it still won't get rid of suicide-ganking altogether, unfortunately. Just look at the destroyer buffs and the new tier 3 battlecruisers that are coming soon."
And this is perhaps the grandest foresight-related oversight in this entire debate. To think that CCP won't "re-balance" the new ships after they become the de facto suicide-gank boats is the greatest folly of all. The removal of insurance for CONCORD-caused losses, even though entirely rational from a gameplay perspective, is still a nerf to suicide-ganking. If they're willing to nerf suicide-ganking now, why wouldn't they be willing to nerf it even further at some point in the future?
tldr: It has never been about the insurance, you know. Lack of insurance won't stop people from dropping a few million on a suicide-gank boat. The real danger stemming from this change comes from the precedent it sets. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1289
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:10:00 -
[538] - Quote
K Suri wrote:How did you get to be such an expert in the game? By trying out a vast array of different play styles.
Quote:It's obvious you don't "multiplay" and it's also obvious that you live in highsec farming missions all day. Funny how GǣobviousGǥ and GǣfalseGǥ have become synonymsGǪ
Quote:Yet your opinions seems to cover every facet of the game with quite incredible detail. Yes? That's not particularly strange, now is it?
Andreus Ixiris wrote:This is the biggest load of bollocks I've read this month. All real-world economies work perfectly fine without people bombing tractor trailers. That's because the real-world economies are not 100% war economies and because, in the real world, the Broken Window Fallacy is just that: a fallacy. Not so in EVE. It also comes inherent with the mechanical limitation of not being able to build better products, so the only way to beat the industry of the opponent and take his business is to smash it.
Fille Balle wrote:So... nobody is allowed to stay docked and use alts for transporting stuff etc.? And it's ok to force people to pew pew but it's not ok to force people to pvp in other manners? Of course they're allowed to GÇö in fact, that's the whole point: they should do those things because that means they're risk-aware and are taking precautions. It's when they don't need to do those things because the system itself is keeping them safe, rather than their own tactics and planning, that we have a problem.
As for the bit about forcing people, I think you missed the point. If it is not ok to force people to pew-pew, then it is also not ok to force them to PvP in any other way. Yes, in the best of worlds, it would all be consensual (and some will argue that, in a way, it already is: you consent when you log in), but that's not going to happen. So the only balance is to have both be ok and not let either party be arbitrarily safe beyond what safety they can create for themselves.
Also, Jada, it's GÇ£cueGÇ¥. GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
46
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:13:00 -
[539] - Quote
Tippia wrote:No, I'm not advocating the removal of CONCORD GÇö I'm using it as a counter-example or reductio ad absurdum of the idea that insurance for ganks is not realistic. I'm advocating making highsec less safe for the various reasons I've enumerated earlier. Tippia, these are your comments from a different thread:
Tippia wrote:You do understand that nerfing CONCORD would making the universe very cold and harsh for the gankers, right?
Tippia wrote:Yes, and you do understand that with a nerfed CONCORD, you could do unto the gankers what the gankers do unto youGǪ even more so than what you can now (and you can already do quite a lot, if you choose to GÇö the problem is that people instead choose to be victims, and then want to blame others for that choice).
Are you now saying that all this time you haven't really meant what you've been so vehemently claiming wasn't a troll?
So, basically, you're finally admitting you've been trolling this entire time. |
Jita Alt666
479
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:19:00 -
[540] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Jita Alt666 wrote:I remember oil prices jumping 5% when a suicide bomber hit the residential compound of a Saudi Oil Company. That is an example of terrorism harming the economy. Rising oil prices are bad for everyone. In fact, the single-commodity dependency inherent in the oil industry is directly comparable to the current crisis with blue ice and oxygen isotopes.
Precisely.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |