|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pel Xadi
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
1
   |
Posted - 2011.11.11 22:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
Classical scare mongering and crystal ball gazing, all based on speculation and personal assumption (and a rather sad one at that) rather than objective fact.
So a couple of small rulings, of which stated are sensible tweaks to the current system to correct explotations and not "funsics", goes against incursion griefers in the mechanics and all of a sudden the entire philosophy of CCP is to blame?
This smacks more that griefers are too busy crying they can't have a lazy existence than any rational argument about the best way forward for Eve. |
Pel Xadi
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 22:37:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ok if you want to talk about it sensibly:
Actually I'm happy to concede that the process of dec shielding could be detremental to the game as it avoids the need to address hostilities alltogether. I'd be more in favour of increasing costs for longevity in wars, but not the potential abolition of them altogther. However this assumes that two sides are working under valid aggression mechanics than a need for griefing per se. One possible solution here could be that you cannot rejoin an alliance within 1 week of previously joining another and increasing ongoing costs to maintain a war, with a longer cool down period for restarting one against the same party. This allows for ongoing hostilities, but is further preventative for larger fish, bashing the smaller fish for longer periods of time on the cheap.
Suicide ganking needs to be made more difficult, its a low cost alternative of griefing as stands and the advent of the loss of insurance here wont be completley preventative, so doesn't remove the ability, just makes it more of a consideration. As to self detenation, I'd think you'd also lose insurance in any realistic format.
The logi incursion issue was a loophole and again an exploit, not a change against "funsics" and sensible realities, so I wont concede there is a problem with what CCP did here.
So in short, I don't think you should favour your prefered griefing mechanics as being heavily detrimental to the game as you would like to claim them to be. And possibly not a reason to convince everyone to the death of eve about.
Dec shielding however, needs a rethink imho.
|
Pel Xadi
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 23:19:00 -
[3] - Quote
disillusional wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
blah blah blah.
^ Spoken like a boss
^ Spoken like a pawn. ;) |
Pel Xadi
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 23:36:00 -
[4] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Pel Xadi wrote:Actually I'm happy to concede that the process of dec shielding could be detremental to the game as it avoids the need to address hostilities alltogether. I'd be more in favour of increasing costs for longevity in wars, but not the potential abolition of them altogther. However this assumes that two sides are working under valid aggression mechanics than a need for griefing per se. One possible solution here could be that you cannot rejoin an alliance within 1 week of previously joining another and increasing ongoing costs to maintain a war, with a longer cool down period for restarting one against the same party. This allows for ongoing hostilities, but is further preventative for larger fish, bashing the smaller fish for longer periods of time on the cheap. I think the most sweeping, easiest fix to wardecs would be to have a wardec stick to the entity it was declared on. If you wardec a corp, they can join and drop alliances all they want, but the dec follows the CORP and isn't transferred to another entity just because they joined up.
The complication there then is that an alliance can drop corporations into a world of pain as a result if left on their own and unable to rejoin another due to their status in order to attempt to have a more favourable position. In essence this could lead to a whole new area of explotation with rogue alliances or a black market on corp values being used to grief certain corps rather than valid war mechanics.
And whilst in reality the "strong" survive, I'm more for addressing a balance of potential bullying here on the numbers and longevity issue than simply propogating a problem with an "easier" fix.
As such your proposal has the potential to make things worse for some in the griefing stakes, not better. |
Pel Xadi
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 19:44:00 -
[5] - Quote
Jack Carrigan wrote:Pel Xadi wrote:disillusional wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
blah blah blah.
^ Spoken like a boss ^ Spoken like a pawn. ;) ^ Spoken like a ***** who can't post with their main.
Yes, how does it feel to be spouting stars at a ghost?
Seriously beleive I'm going to reveal something about who I am, that seems a bit naive to me.
Mind judging by the lack of cognitive capability in the recent Skunworks propoganda threads it doesn't suprise me that one of their sympathisers might also equally like to shout at walls. lol. |
Pel Xadi
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 07:27:00 -
[6] - Quote
ElCholo wrote:Pel Xadi wrote:disillusional wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
blah blah blah.
^ Spoken like a boss ^ Spoken like a pawn. ;) ^ Spoken like a troll.
^ Spoken like an serious idiot with no sense of humour. |
Pel Xadi
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 09:30:00 -
[7] - Quote
ElCholo wrote:Pel Xadi wrote:
^ Spoken like an serious idiot with no sense of humour.
An serious idiot? 
Thousand apologies for the gramatical error, maybe add grammar police to the list?
Still it compounds to the anal behaviour nicely and helps to support the message I was trying to convey I suppose, sorry if it was so hard for you to translate.
|
Pel Xadi
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 10:16:00 -
[8] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
The point of this thread was always to express a strong distaste for the POSSIBLE direction Eve might take should CCP continue to pander only to one side of this argument.
Problem is that The Skunkowrks interpretation of what they think should be done is heavily skewed to the point of desperation. So much so that it seems you have decided that your opinion needs to be dictated to others as a result rather than people being able to follow a rational process. Or allowing others to live in the same space with a different set of ideals, you simply want it all your own way it seems and act out with little purpose other than protestation like a tempremental child to anyone or anything that doesn't follow your philosophies. Thus acting out against these things from a point of "hater", which I think is quite sad.
High sec is not the care bear eutopic paradise you describe and what you tend to concentrate on talking about is griefing tactics in your arguments rather than relevant PvP that the majority of others are happy to take part in. Likewise I don't agree with any full care bear safety mechanics, but there has to be some level of enjoyment and capitulation for order in high security as the term describes. Its "High Security" for a reason.
Your over active campaigning to increase the agression mechanics and griefing opportunites will only likewise be off putting for any new players or anyone who chooses to play with a more "constructive pacifist" attitude. Why should those players capitulate to your demands when they have an alternative viewpoint of how to enjoy Eve? I could say that if Eve becomes too griefer freindly the likleyhood of "new blood" could diminish, other people could be "put off" and see Eve decay into nothing also as a result, but I guess you don't or can't see this side of the argument. Or by Skunkworks decree, it needs to be an exclusive club to the existing purveyors of violence and we should all "pander" to the needs of a few people exclusively, get real.
So I would simply challenge the extremist views you seem to stand for, there's plenty of kill mails and other "events" in high sec that qualify as PvP, but only you seem to be really bitching about it.
Besides the fact that Eve is a big sandbox, you don't like one part of it, there is a huge area called low sec and null sec that vastly outweigh's the presence of High sec where you can easily satisfy the needs you have for having more freedoms to agress others. Plenty of space there to actually make something how you actually want to be within the confines of how things currently work, but I guess that would actually require some effort and thinking to do right?
Anyhow I wont impose or prescirbe how you want to enjoy the game like you like to do, but neither will I stand by and watch you simply argue for your "perverted" style of griefer game play either. As if this wasn't the case you would have likley have chosen to move to a more preferable environment like low sec to satisfy your needs.
At the end of the day dont get mad that someone "moved your cheese" with the incursion griefing, look to find a new source, else you will starve I guess. |
Pel Xadi
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 10:38:00 -
[9] - Quote
PlayerName wrote:
^ Spoken like something that needs to get pyramided
Hey if you really feel bad about it, I can let you blow off some steam, happy for you to blow my "newbie" ship up in Jita if you like.
I'd hate to consider I didn't have anything but a sense of humour about all this, it made me laugh for sure, hope your really not to "out of shape" about things as a result. But if you can't take as much as you want to dish out? |
Pel Xadi
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 14:55:00 -
[10] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Case in point: Pel Xadi wrote:High sec is not the care bear eutopic paradise you describe No, it's not. And I've said multiple times already, including in the OP, that we need to make sure it doens't become that. Since you can't seem to get past that one obvious strawman and actually discuss what I've been saying from the start of this thread, I'm done playing with you as you've become tedious.
Couple of examples of Skunkworks point of view from elsewhere (incursion griefing thread):
Moustached Slimy Worm wrote:This is what happens 99% of the time when a niche game tries to go mainstream. Eve will die completely because CCP decided to idiot-proof and carebear-proof everything, roughly starting with the contract changes.
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Carebear doesn't know what tears are.
Clearly an interpretable view of yours that carebears have it easy? I think sufficiently valid for me to make that simple claim in the post.
But I guess it would be stupid of me to expect you to debate the points I made with anything but a diversionary tactic and a really poor attempt at a subjective character assasination. Truth hurts I guess.
If you can't debate valid points and holistically without spin, don't claim to be hard done by them, hypocrite. |
|
|
Pel Xadi
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 21:23:00 -
[11] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:First off, don't cite the view of my corpmates as if they are my own. If you think we're all of one mind, you're quite wrong. Pel Xadi wrote:Couple of examples of Skunkworks point of view from elsewhere (incursion griefing thread): FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Carebear doesn't know what tears are. Clearly an interpretable view of yours that carebears have it easy? I think sufficiently valid for me to make that simple claim in the post. If you can't read that in context and comprehend what I was saying, I'm sorry the school system failed you so thoroughly. Pel Xadi wrote:But I guess it would be stupid of me to expect you to debate the points I made with anything but a diversionary tactic and a really poor attempt at a subjective character assasination. Truth hurts I guess.
If you can't debate valid points and holistically without spin, don't claim to be hard done by them, hypocrite. Your argument from the start is that I've been trying to preserve our incursion griefing strategy, when said this early in the thread: FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:It's the logi aggression patch (which I called for at the start of our griefing, but feel it didn't go far enough in that logis don't properly inherit aggression). Let's stop going round in circles, shall we? I'm tired of knocking down straw men.
And I would suggest you then try to read my last post debating the issue in detail as it covers the topic quite generally and does not simply focus on the incursion griefing, as such it actually makes you "argumentum ad hominem" as you like to use amongst your brethren, but obviously dont fully understand.
Continue to avoid the points if you like, but again don't make the content the biggest piece of spin since the recent ship hangar patch.
To be honest I've had my fill of the "Skunkspin", it smells rotten, not going to waste my time trying to debate the issue if you are simply going to avoid it. |
|
|
| |
|