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) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1212
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:15:00 -
[121] - Quote
Dalloway Jones wrote:The only way they could make ganking much easier than it is right now is to have every Thrasher group or Brutix have a big red button on their dashboard that says "press this to asplode a hulk". Considering how rare ganks are, there is obviously quite a bit that can be done to make them easier.
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:How so? Because griefing is a bannable offence. The other two GÇ£how soGÇ¥s are answered by the assertions they follow. You need a different question for those.
Hamster Too wrote:There is absolutely nothing to stop you from killing anybody, anytime in high-sec. GǪand yet, that doesn't happen. It doesn't happen because highsec is defined by having costs tied to all kinds of aggression. The problem is that when these costs get too high, the aggression drastically decreases and thus makes highsec too safe.
We have long since had that situation: ganks are ridiculously rare because the costs have been increased time and time again over the years. Highsec is now far too safe. This change makes it even safer.
Quote:You don't like people feeling safe? Only if it's a false safety. Otherwise, it starts to negatively affect the economy.
Quote:Your unwillingness to pay the price in ISK or effort is not the reason to change the high-sec. You do realise that this is an argument against the removal of insurance, don't you? 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 |
Takashi X2
Eleventh Hour Guardians
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:19:00 -
[122] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Selinate wrote:If you find someone floating around in space with a ton of expensive stuff in their cargo hold and want to suicide gank them, fine, but you really shouldn't get the majority of the isk loss from your lost ship back also... It's rather one-sided in favor of the suicide gankers in that case. It's only one-sided if the victim chooses to make it one-sided by not equipping his ship properly, by not flying it properly, and by not enforcing the consequences on the aggressor.
Outta curiosity if the enemey brings 50 BS's to gank a Freighter full of really expensive cargo flying through high sec gate to gate instead of autopiloting how is that anywhere near fair to the frieghter pilot? You cant fit it better and gate to gate is the quickest way to do it. You cant fly with support against that many enemies and theres no real way to know if they are coming for you some times even if you have scouts 3 systems out. |
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
33
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:19:00 -
[123] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Tippia wrote:Yes. There's a difference. Griefers get banned. How so? Tippia wrote:People who punish other players for not fitting their ships properly or for being drunk at the wheel should be rewarded. How so? Tippia wrote:It's only one-sided if the victim chooses to make it one-sided by not equipping his ship properly, by not flying it properly, and by not enforcing the consequences on the aggressor. How so? How so? How so?
This padawan, "gets it."
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1212
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:22:00 -
[124] - Quote
Takashi X2 wrote:Outta curiosity if the enemey brings 50 BS's to gank a Freighter full of really expensive cargo flying through high sec gate to gate instead of autopiloting how is that anywhere near fair to the frieghter pilot? You cant fit it better and gate to gate is the quickest way to do it. You cant fly with support against that many enemies and theres no real way to know if they are coming for you some times even if you have scouts 3 systems out. If you can't spot a 50 BS gank, you need to fire your scouts. It's fair to the freighter pilot because it's so easy to spot and evade.
MeestaPenni wrote:This padawan, "gets it." Not quite yet. He still needs to match the question to the claim.
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 |
Montevius Williams
Eclipse Industrial Inc
66
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:24:00 -
[125] - Quote
Takashi X2 wrote:Tippia wrote:Selinate wrote:If you find someone floating around in space with a ton of expensive stuff in their cargo hold and want to suicide gank them, fine, but you really shouldn't get the majority of the isk loss from your lost ship back also... It's rather one-sided in favor of the suicide gankers in that case. It's only one-sided if the victim chooses to make it one-sided by not equipping his ship properly, by not flying it properly, and by not enforcing the consequences on the aggressor. Outta curiosity if the enemey brings 50 BS's to gank a Freighter full of really expensive cargo flying through high sec gate to gate instead of autopiloting how is that anywhere near fair to the frieghter pilot? You cant fit it better and gate to gate is the quickest way to do it. You cant fly with support against that many enemies and theres no real way to know if they are coming for you some times even if you have scouts 3 systems out.
I would like to know the answer to this as well. |
Soporo
Perkone Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:25:00 -
[126] - Quote
Hamster Too wrote:Anyone claiming that high-sec is safe is talking out of his (or hers) a**...
There is absolutely nothing to stop you from killing anybody, anytime in high-sec. You just have to be prepared to either
[a] accept the consequences of engaging in non-consensual combat or
[b] spending your time and effort in tricking the target to give you the right to fire without Concord showing up and rudely interrupting you the fun you are having with him.
You don't like people feeling safe? You are free to dispel that feeling at any time. Your unwillingness to pay the price in ISK or effort is not the reason to change the high-sec.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. - H.L. Mencken |
Takashi X2
Eleventh Hour Guardians
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:25:00 -
[127] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Takashi X2 wrote:Outta curiosity if the enemey brings 50 BS's to gank a Freighter full of really expensive cargo flying through high sec gate to gate instead of autopiloting how is that anywhere near fair to the frieghter pilot? You cant fit it better and gate to gate is the quickest way to do it. You cant fly with support against that many enemies and theres no real way to know if they are coming for you some times even if you have scouts 3 systems out. If you can't spot a 50 BS gank, you need to fire your scouts. It's fair to the freighter pilot because it's so easy to spot and evade. MeestaPenni wrote:This padawan, "gets it." Not quite yet. He still needs to match the question to the claim.
High sec isnt like 0.0 there are many ways and routes around and to your sides. Just cuz your flying in a straight line doesnt mean they are which means even if you many scouts its still almost impossible to know. Especially if they are all docked up in a station waiting for you to pass through before undocking in which case there is no way to know. |
Selinate
86
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:31:00 -
[128] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Takashi X2 wrote:Outta curiosity if the enemey brings 50 BS's to gank a Freighter full of really expensive cargo flying through high sec gate to gate instead of autopiloting how is that anywhere near fair to the frieghter pilot? You cant fit it better and gate to gate is the quickest way to do it. You cant fly with support against that many enemies and theres no real way to know if they are coming for you some times even if you have scouts 3 systems out. If you can't spot a 50 BS gank, you need to fire your scouts. It's fair to the freighter pilot because it's so easy to spot and evade.
Right, because it's unheard of for a BS fleet aligning on a gate while a small frig sits on a gate looking for big prey, and then the BS fleet warps in and suicide ganks the freighter.
Or a fleet using log off mechanics for the same thing.
No, they should definitely lose their BS's either way, it's not fair. |
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:32:00 -
[129] - Quote
Tippia wrote: We have long since had that situation: ganks are ridiculously rare because the costs have been increased time and time again over the years. Highsec is now far too safe. This change makes it even safer.
7/10
|
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
416
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:33:00 -
[130] - Quote
I have to say I feel vindicated in my years long campaign to remove insurance.
While I'd like to see it removed completely less one month for new players, it's a step in the right direction.
It's not about the ganking for me. Ganking is a part of the game and I dare say a fun part of the game. It won't affect that much. Just lessen the random griefers doing it for the lulz.
No, for me it's about what EVE is supposed to be. To paraphrase Pierre Eliot Trudeau: The powers that be have no place in the bedrooms of EVE. In other words, CCP's role should not be that of a nanny. This is a sandbox. A player run economy. Insurance is not in the spirit of that philosophy.
If someone wants insurance then make a corporation that specializes in it.
I see this as a positive move and can only be good for EVE in the long run.
Mr Epeen If you can read this, you haven't blocked me yet. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1214
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:38:00 -
[131] - Quote
Takashi X2 wrote:High sec isnt like 0.0 there are many ways and routes around and to your sides. GǪand that is why ganks are so easy to avoid.
Selinate wrote:Right, because it's unheard of for a BS fleet aligning on a gate while a small frig sits on a gate looking for big prey GǪin which case it can be spotted.
Quote:And you're any different how? For one, I don't troll. People prefer to think so when I push them into a corner and they can't get out, but that doesn't actually make it a troll. I repeat questions when the respondent fails to answer them or tries to evade them, but that was not what he was doing. So the difference is quite significant. Which part do you disagree with, and why?
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 |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:39:00 -
[132] - Quote
Damn it, now I won't be able to use a 1400 Tempest to blap mackinaws just for ~kicks~ |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1214
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:40:00 -
[133] - Quote
Andski wrote:Damn it, now I won't be able to use a 1400 Tempest to blap mackinaws just for ~kicks~ Nah. You have to use Catalysts insteadGǪ poor you.
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 |
Takashi X2
Eleventh Hour Guardians
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:41:00 -
[134] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Takashi X2 wrote:High sec isnt like 0.0 there are many ways and routes around and to your sides. GǪand that is why ganks are so easy to avoid. Selinate wrote:Right, because it's unheard of for a BS fleet aligning on a gate while a small frig sits on a gate looking for big prey GǪin which case it can be spotted. Quote:And you're any different how? For one, I don't troll. People prefer to think so when I push them into a corner and they can't get out, but that doesn't actually make it a troll. I repeat questions when the respondent fails to answer them or tries to evade them, but that was not what he was doing. So the difference is quite significant. Which part do you disagree with, and why? Why did you skip the quote about the log on trap and stations? |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:41:00 -
[135] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Andski wrote:Damn it, now I won't be able to use a 1400 Tempest to blap mackinaws just for ~kicks~ Nah. You have to use Catalysts insteadGǪ poor you.
Losing a Brutix entirely is cheaper than losing a fully insured Tempest in any case, but it was hilarious. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1214
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:45:00 -
[136] - Quote
Takashi X2 wrote:Why did you skip the quote about the log on trap and stations? Because I missed in the mass of quotes.
Log-on trap is beaten by warping in spurts and changing direction in the middle of nowhere. The trap hinges on the enemy scout being able to see where you're warping so people can log in and get ready on the other side. If you don't go to the gate you warp out towards, the trap fails.
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 |
Selinate
87
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:46:00 -
[137] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Selinate wrote:Right, because it's unheard of for a BS fleet aligning on a gate while a small frig sits on a gate looking for big prey GǪin which case it can be spotted.
Yes, because a scout is going to blink at 50 people sitting in a high sec in BS's on D-scan.
Tippia wrote:Selinate wrote:And you're any different how? For one, I don't troll. People prefer to think so when I push them into a corner and they can't get out, but that doesn't actually make it a troll. I repeat questions when the respondent fails to answer them or tries to evade
This is laughable. You are a troll who trolls people that don't agree with you by bombarding them with questions that have obvious answers. |
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
35
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:47:00 -
[138] - Quote
Tippia wrote: Log-on trap is beaten by warping in spurts and changing direction in the middle of nowhere.
This is hilarious stuff.
|
Selinate
87
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:48:00 -
[139] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Takashi X2 wrote:Why did you skip the quote about the log on trap and stations? Because I missed in the mass of quotes. Log-on trap is beaten by warping in spurts and changing direction in the middle of nowhere. The trap hinges on the enemy scout being able to see where you're warping so people can log in and get ready on the other side. If you don't go to the gate you warp out towards, the trap fails.
Trolling again. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1214
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:57:00 -
[140] - Quote
Selinate wrote:Yes, because a scout is going to blink at 50 people sitting in a high sec in BS's on D-scan. If you've scouted the route, yes.
Quote:You are a troll who trolls people that don't agree with you by bombarding them with questions that have obvious answers. No, I am simply trying to get them to volunteer the underlying assumptions and intentions behind the claims they make, and offer some kind of reasoning behind their assertions and wishes. Yes, in some cases, they answers may seem obvious, but I still prefer that hey actually give those answers than to presume to know their reasoning, because I don't.
For some reason, a huge number of people seem to be highly offended by the mere thought of having to explain themselves and to argue for what they believe. This makes them want to label me as trolls, when in fact, it is an excellent opportunity to show why their perspective is preferable to others.
The reason I want that information is because it is usually far more fruitful to argue those underlying assumptions and normative statements than the road from those to some end result. If I were to presume why people don't want to go there, it is because they are aware that those statements are at odds with some fundamental design philosophy of the game.
MeestaPenni wrote:This is hilarious stuff. Yes. Laughingly easy.
Selinate wrote:Trolling again. How so?
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 |
|
Avon
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
114
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:58:00 -
[141] - Quote
The same insurance mechanic should apply no matter how a ship is lost. That isn't a complaint; I for one look forward to the removal of insurance all together. |
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
36
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 03:00:00 -
[142] - Quote
Tippia wrote:No, I am simply trying to get them to volunteer the underlying assumptions and intentions behind the claims they make, and offer some kind of reasoning behind their assertions and wishes.
Obtuse.....that's the word I'm thinking of.
Today's "troll keyword": simply.
|
Selinate
87
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 03:03:00 -
[143] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:Tippia wrote:No, I am simply trying to get them to volunteer the underlying assumptions and intentions behind the claims they make, and offer some kind of reasoning behind their assertions and wishes.
Obtuse.....that's the word I'm thinking of. Today's "troll keyword": simply.
I will refer to this individual from now on when discussing all cases of T i T. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1214
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 03:04:00 -
[144] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:Obtuse.....that's the word I'm thinking of. Why?
Quote:Today's "troll keyword": simply. Yeah, seeGǪ this is why I don't troll. Far too much effort for no appreciable reward (well, not appreciated by me at least). It's much simpler and much more rewarding to just try to get straight answers, because at least then you can have some kind of discussion.
As to why some people so abhor straight answerGǪ you'll have to ask them.
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 |
Jack All'Trade
Republic University Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 03:11:00 -
[145] - Quote
How so?
Tippia wrote:Today's "troll keyword": simply. How so?
Tippia wrote:Yeah, seeGǪ Is it really? How so?
Tippia wrote:this is why I don't troll. Who's crying? I'm not crying? I'm peeling an onion. That's all.
Tippia wrote:Far too much effort If by effort you mean no effort, then you are correct in your assertion. |
Hamster Too
No Name Corporation
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 03:14:00 -
[146] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Hamster Too wrote:There is absolutely nothing to stop you from killing anybody, anytime in high-sec. GǪand yet, that doesn't happen. It doesn't happen because highsec is defined by having costs tied to all kinds of aggression. The problem is that when these costs get too high, the aggression drastically decreases and thus makes highsec too safe. We have long since had that situation: ganks are ridiculously rare because the costs have been increased time and time again over the years. Highsec is now far too safe. This change makes it even safer. Everything has a cost. A low-sec pirate wants a kill? He has to spend ISK/time to hunt down someone. Null sec dwellers want sov in a system? Again, they have to spend time and ISK to obtain and defend it. Why should high-sec agression not have an associated cost? All these actions affect other players, why should high-sec agression be cheap?
If you care you can disrupt high-sec easily enough. Null-sec is supposed to be well organized. Descend on all of the carebears in high enough numbers and you'll make life very difficult here. Build one less supercap and spend the money instead to fund the anti high-sec campaign. Just look at Goons, it can be done.
But don't stop at that: while making life difficult in high-sec invite those same people to null. Spend time teaching and nurturing them and I am quite sure that quite a few will stick around.
As to gank rarity: they are only rare when you are not affected by one. I know, I lost a few ships when I was younger. They did not seem particularly rare to me at that time.
Tippia wrote:Quote:You don't like people feeling safe? Only if it's a false safety. Otherwise, it starts to negatively affect the economy. Quote:Your unwillingness to pay the price in ISK or effort is not the reason to change the high-sec. You do realise that this is an argument against the removal of insurance, don't you? It is a false sense of security You don't like how other people play and you need the crutch to change it? What's next? Demanding that everyone and his dog flies an officer fit pinata everyone they undock while in high-sec so you can actually make money on each gank? |
Jack All'Trade
Republic University Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 03:15:00 -
[147] - Quote
Tippia wrote:MeestaPenni wrote:This padawan, "gets it." Not quite yet. He still needs to match the question to the claim. Also, he needs to not troll with pointless repetition. How so? |
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
36
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 03:17:00 -
[148] - Quote
Seriously? You need me to go Google up a definition of 'obtuse' for you?
Protip: the underlying concept behind your "why?", actually defines the term.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1214
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 03:34:00 -
[149] - Quote
Hamster Too wrote:Everything has a cost. Fair enough. What I'm referring to is the one thing that defines highsec: that aggression costs. You can either pay it by losing your ship (suicide) or by handing over ISK to CONCORD (wardec). This is in addition to the various opportunity costs you mention. Thus, high-sec aggression does have an associated costs and it isGǪ well, let's just call it Gǣless cheapGǥ than elsewhere.
Quote:As to gank rarity: they are only rare when you are not affected by one. I know, I lost a few ships when I was younger. They did not seem particularly rare to me at that time. I have been targeted by ganks four times GÇö two of those in my first year, one in my second, one in my third, and none since (ok, I landed in a disco trap recently, but it wasn't particularly aimed at me, and it was all suicide and no gank). I've also lived for quite a while in a very obvious ganking area and travelled constantly across an equally obvious ganking pipeline. The sum of those experiences is that ganks have become increasingly rare over the years.
Quote:It is a false sense of security Good. WellGǪ no, it's bad, really. They shouldn't trick themselves that way. Preferably, they should be fully aware of the risks so they take the precautions needed to mitigate them and thus earn a sense of measured security GÇö one that they have created for themselves.
Quote:You don't like how other people play and you need the crutch to change it? I don't need to change anything, but at the same time, I don't see the need for it to change either. I don't mean that people shouldn't be allowed to feel safe GÇö I mean that the safety they feel should be of their own making, not one created by the game restricting gameplay in such a way that safety is the only feeling you can have.
Quote:What's next? Demanding that everyone and his dog flies an officer fit pinata everyone they undock while in high-sec so you can actually make money on each gank? Quite the opposite, actually. Remove that false sense of safety that lets them make such horrible mistakes and replace it with a sense of calculated and gauged safety that lets them judge what they can safely get away with without becoming that loot pi+¦ata.
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 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1214
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 03:34:00 -
[150] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:Seriously? You need me to go Google up a definition of 'obtuse' for you? No, but you can stop illustrating it by pretending to not understand what the GÇ£whyGÇ¥ in question was in relation to. 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 |
|
|
|
|
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 |