|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 38 post(s) |

EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
313
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 20:59:00 -
[1] - Quote
Tikitina wrote: I was in several 3-5 freighter supply convoys 20-40 jump into null sec before Jump Freighters and it was some of the most nail biting pvp I've ever been in.
lets just mosey on over to the corp history
Quote:CURRENT CORPORATION Imperial Academy [IAC] from 2013.08.18 16:17 to this day
oh the person extolling the virtues of freighter ops has never been in anything but a npc corp, you say
what a shock Technetium Lord |

EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
315
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 15:00:17 -
[2] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
There is a reason Eve Online is known as Alts Online.
One of my other accounts has been playing since October 2004 for example.
Then they should post on their main. Why? Lordy Baltec, you do whinge just for the sake of whinging! I use this character far, far more than my older one, so which one is my main? extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof
that anyone, anywhere, at any time enjoyed a freighter op is a more extraordinary claim than the existence of the lizard people |

EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
315
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 15:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
Dwissi wrote: No No and another No to that. That is what created the entire mess in the first place - CCP giving in to changing ships bonuses and adjusting them to whatever the players used them for instead of keeping their intended roles. That is completely against the sandbox idea and continuously leads to the whining of one or another group about being nerfed to hell.
more and more i find that if a post contains the word "sandbox" and does not have a ccp tag it nearly exclusively contains incredibly bad ideas about gameplay justified solely through a handwave at the word sandbox
it's remarkable, really |

EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
315
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 20:25:56 -
[4] - Quote
Dwissi wrote: Well - come up with proper argument against an idea and why its better. My kids tend to say something is bad - and they dont get away with just that. I assume you are an adult - so you can defnitly do better than that.
P.S: Snipping half of the context is a bad attitude by the way
your post and idea is self-evidently nonsense and no one needs any additional information to dismiss it
i am more interested in how reliable that verbal tick is at indicating an idea will be worthless |

EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
315
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 21:16:58 -
[5] - Quote
Dwissi wrote:Stacking people from your alliance against any kind of different idea wont help. We all understand by now that you follow the same ideas and trends inside your group. And there are other groups who simply look at things differently and will continuously oppose any suggestions you make. Because you dont try to ruin my game - but THE game ;) yes, your ideas are so powerful and well-made that a posting call to arms was officially announced to oppose them
that sounds right
|

EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
345
|
Posted - 2014.11.17 22:26:33 -
[6] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:Rowells wrote:You mean to say jump bridges arent used strategically? Sorry I didn't specify that clearly enough for you- Casual jump bridge use. Maybe I didn't say it clearly enough either, there is no Casual use of jump anything. A jump is a jump regardless of the destination or intention. The only exception to this use is with industrials. It was only allowed because nullsec is not in a position to handle its own production yet. Once that is solved it is likely to go away too. When you are saying things that are about as correct as saying that fire is wet, the issue is very rarely that you didn't say it clearly enough. |

EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
345
|
Posted - 2014.11.17 22:38:24 -
[7] - Quote
Rowells wrote: How does a pilots intentions change the effects of a jump? Is there a menu that asks whether you are here for business or pleasure? And now that the pilot has successfully convinced customs that he is here to enjoy the sites, what's to stop him from shooting anything he wants?
You may think it's a casual use, but there is no difference in what you can do. Unless you consider hot dropping regions away as casual use then I guess that's part of the issue.
There are too many dumb questions in here to really give a coherent response while addressing all of them so I'll be brief.
How a pilots intentions change the effect of a jump is so obvious even a small child should be able to understand it: it changes what they will do after they complete the jump.
Now, it is so obvious that it is beyond all reasonable dispute that many jump bridge uses are for casual, not strategic, reasons. That's just an obvious fact that anyone who has been in nullsec and used jump bridges knows. Your (dumb) argument is that the jump bridge itself cannot know those intentions, and from there you leap to those intentions don't exist. That's dumb, and we will ignore those arguments going forward because your babbling does not grasp what the actual conversation is about.
What the casual jump bridge use argument says is that certain uses of jump bridges merely improve quality of life without conferring a strategic benefit. As those make the game better without causing balance issues, they should be preserved if possible. So what people propose are mechanics that permit casual use and penalize strategic use through in-game heuristics that are obviously effective. For example, casual use will have very small groups going through it at once, vs strategic will have a small gang at a minimum, so you can make mechanic changes that depend on people going through in a short time. Or, as has been done, you can look at the ship itself that's going through. |

EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
345
|
Posted - 2014.11.17 22:45:15 -
[8] - Quote
Rowells wrote:It doesn't matter what you intend to do at the other end. I could decide to refit my ratting carrier for combat after shooting a rat or two. How do you plan on differentiating the two? How do you plan to ensure a ship on the other side of a jump is not allowed to do combat? And it's not the jump itself that's the problem, it's the pilots movement. That's why phoebe came with death clone changes as well. basically all of your arguments come down to that you don't understand that you can answer the above questions trivially, it's just a question of which mechanics are good ones
you're essentially arguing from your own ignorance, that you do not know how to do it ergo not only can it not be done but the concept of it being done cannot exist |

EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
345
|
Posted - 2014.11.17 22:57:27 -
[9] - Quote
Rowells wrote: And I'm going to ask again, how do you plan to stop abuse of this? If you can shoot rats at your destination what's to stop from shooting players or structures?
I keep asking these questions because you won't answer them. Just snide remarks about "duh they're different. Everybody knows that". Yes jump bridges provide better QoL, but how do you plan to prevent that change from being abused for unintended purposes? Apparently it's so obvious that nobody brought it up in the last 400+ pages of discussion that preceded phoebe.
So please, educate my ignorant self.
you appear to believe your ignorance islimited to that you do not know the proper mechanics proposals
it's not
what the best solutions are is a thing we (omni, other people, apparently not you) can discuss and weigh the pros and cons of various proposals
you, on the other hand, blank on a proposal and then use that to deny not only that such a proposal can exist, but also to deny even basic concepts any normal human can understand (such as intent) exist
that's just moronic and means there's not anything to be gained by discussing mechanics issues with you because you've defined away the whole problem to escape having to think |

EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
345
|
Posted - 2014.11.17 23:44:48 -
[10] - Quote
Rowells wrote: What is the difference in mechanics between when a jump drive is used for strategic purposes and when it is used for anythin non-combat? I don't care what actually happens after or before the jump, since that is completely up to the pilots ever changing objectives. How does the jump bridge/drive itself change its behavior between the two scenarios?
Here's why we are disregarding you and determining that none of your input is useful: no answer to these questions (even the answer you think is true, that there are none) does not affect in any way that causal jump bridge use exists. It merely challenges the idea that it is possible to design mechanics that differentiate between the two.
That you have such difficulty comprehending the difference between reality as we percieve it, and our ability to program the game to recognize reality, suggests that a discussion with you will not be fruitful. That said, we have already answered your question: the number of people going through the jump bridge in a short amount of time is a very useful heuristic for determining if the purpose and effect is strategic or casual.
Now, I expect you're going to respond to this with something inane again but such is life. |
|

EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
345
|
Posted - 2014.11.18 03:49:42 -
[11] - Quote
Rowells wrote:I explained a few pages back that there is no difference between casual and any other descriptive use of a jump anything. Casually using something does not make it casual as you would like it to be defined. Before phoebe people were dropping carriers everywhere and jumping around all the time. Simply saying you are trying to protect casual use does not make it better in any way. Especially when there is a claim to keep it relatively possible compared someone using it explicitly for strategic purposes. Thats why I kept asking the difference. you did not "explain" this, you "foolishly said this incorrect thing and have been corrected on it"
you keep saying this stupid thing where you try to assert that your inability to think of mechanics that separate things means those things do not exist
let me be exceedingly clear on this: anytime you try to argue that "casual" something does not exist you are being paint-eatingly stupid. this is a meaningful distinction normals are able to understand. stop saying paint-eatingly stupid things like that and we can avoid teaching you what basic human language means, and instead get back to the useful discussion: the extent to which various mechanics would succeed or fail to succeed in restricting "strategic" use of jump bridges while not penalizing "casual" use of jump bridges, language that is clear and well-understood to everyone else here |
|
|
|