Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
125
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 17:34:58 -
[601] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:I checked The Games Website and, oddly, I do not see them saying that Eve is a Purely PvP game. Now I will readily admit that it is a game with PvP in it if you will do the same in respect to PvE, because that is also part of the game. Missions, mining, exploration, are things you can do where you compete (maybe) but don't have to shoot some other player. So where do all the people whose main argument against this change find the ground to stand on . . . that by shifting a rule that made little sense (It is OK to go Postal if you are in a post office and work there) we are somehow moving away from what the game IS. It is like they are the apostles of a religion within the game but I cannot seem to find their holy book or church.
Articles with comments from the designers like this New York Times one, or statements from the Eve site that this game a competitive sandbox in which "[my] actions in the Sandbox can lead to the destruction of starships" make it quite clear what type of game this is at least marketed as.
A sandbox is a sandbox is a sandbox. This continual nerfing of risk and buffing of rewards will eventually cause everything to come tumbling down.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
21340
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 17:35:52 -
[602] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: If your corp does not teach you player on player combat can happen inside the corp without concord intervention, there isn't all that much way to find out inside the game. Unfortunately this is the norm, shite corps run by incompetents who take no steps to protect their corp assets, or teach their corp members how to protect themselves.
"Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
KnowUsByTheDead
Sunlight...Through The Blight.
2135
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 17:39:48 -
[603] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: If your corp does not teach you player on player combat can happen inside the corp without concord intervention, there isn't all that much way to find out inside the game. Unfortunately this is the norm, shite corps run by incompetents who take no steps to protect their corp assets, or teach their corp members how to protect themselves.
Ironically, one of the reasons I chose this play style, straight out of the gate. Because while I may end up being the "bad guy," I have taught a valuable lesson, not easily forgotten by incompetent corp leaders, or their line members. Yep, such a horrible, horrible thing to do.
Once you realize what a joke everything is, being the comedian is the only thing that makes sense.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4378
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 17:39:51 -
[604] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Then why are you spewing dinsdale-esque crap? Their method did not do as they intended so it's a failed method that's all it means. It is the most return for the :effort: spent, how much more difficult is it to gank a retriever versus a procurer? So they are using an inefficiently optimized method to remove botters, what a surprise people have been using terribly optimized stuff forever, yet that does not mean they support something. I'm not, I'm simply stating that their actions help support botters. Whether or not that's their goal behind the scenes is their business. As usual though a CODE player jumped in to scream about how I was misrepresenting them and how they are the saviors of highsec. What they post is propaganda regardless since it doesn't reflect what they are actually accomplishing.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4378
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 17:44:17 -
[605] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:You accuse the one group of player with the mission to extinguish bots and bot like behaviour of botting? You must really run out of arguments if you even had some to begin with it seams.
Botting is against the EULA and will therefore be reported to CCP by us if we suspect the player to use a bot. If there is a way how I can harm the bot (ISK wise, ingame) without assembling a fleet of friends (that would just be silly as he will get banned anyway) I will go to great lengths to do so as I regard bots as one of the most game destroying entities around.
What are you doing against botting? Do you even care about this game? No, I didn't accuse anyone of botting. I simply stated that you groups actions, regardless of whether it is through choice or bad organisation, has the effect of helping botters.
If you consider bots to be game breaking, why do you choose to attack targets that are clearly not bots, and who are in fact competition to actual bot players? Why thing out the competition allowing bots more profit? If you were really against bots, you would help solo and small group miners in competing against botters and be as disruptive as possible to the mass mining bot fleets.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Darth Schweinebacke
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 17:45:50 -
[606] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:La Nariz wrote:Then why are you spewing dinsdale-esque crap? Their method did not do as they intended so it's a failed method that's all it means. It is the most return for the :effort: spent, how much more difficult is it to gank a retriever versus a procurer? So they are using an inefficiently optimized method to remove botters, what a surprise people have been using terribly optimized stuff forever, yet that does not mean they support something. I'm not, I'm simply stating that their actions help support botters. Whether or not that's their goal behind the scenes is their business. As usual though a CODE player jumped in to scream about how I was misrepresenting them and how they are the saviors of highsec. What they post is propaganda regardless since it doesn't reflect what they are actually accomplishing.
So... I have a couple of mining chars too and when I actually feel like some relaxed mining I mine with procs / skiffs. By your definition that would make me a botter then. |
Brochan McLeod
Frigateer
70
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 17:46:15 -
[607] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote: We're not fanatics....
Don't make me laugh... that's exactly what most people on these forums are... fanatics and zealots.
I also sense a dash of hysterics every now and then...
X-years ago some dungus found a loophole and it got turned into a feature. Now its going cos its contributing to beginning players leaving and tha's costing real money. What is there to understand?
Plenty of room for both playstyles i should say.
You people need to get over yourselves... seriously
Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2639
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 17:47:40 -
[608] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:I checked The Games Website and, oddly, I do not see them saying that Eve is a Purely PvP game. Now I will readily admit that it is a game with PvP in it if you will do the same in respect to PvE, because that is also part of the game. Missions, mining, exploration, are things you can do where you compete (maybe) but don't have to shoot some other player. So where do all the people whose main argument against this change find the ground to stand on . . . that by shifting a rule that made little sense (It is OK to go Postal if you are in a post office and work there) we are somehow moving away from what the game IS. It is like they are the apostles of a religion within the game but I cannot seem to find their holy book or church. So to some of the points 1) Yes, a well made and good practices corp could slow or catch most awoxers (though not all) and in that respect the game has been made (shudder) easier b) Yes, free for alls will be harder to run since shooting each other will bring the wrath of concord down on you (pity there is no part of space where this is not true. iii) I still haven't seen an argument that convinces me to go back to CCP and demand that they 'tear down this wall' Five) but I do appreciate the level of discourse, here, over some of the other threads I monitor m Now go tackle the topic of highsec reward being too high.
Show 'em your science, La Nariz, show 'em your science which scientifically proves that hi-sec rewards are too high
This is not a signature.
|
Ama Scelesta
78
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 17:48:05 -
[609] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:I checked The Games Website and, oddly, I do not see them saying that Eve is a Purely PvP game. Now I will readily admit that it is a game with PvP in it if you will do the same in respect to PvE, because that is also part of the game. Missions, mining, exploration, are things you can do where you compete (maybe) but don't have to shoot some other player. This is a really irritating line of argument that keeps popping up. How the hell is anyone playing in a sandbox with a player driven market NOT engaged in PvP, all the time, everywhere. You don't need to shoot another player to compete with them for resources, to have an impact on the economy, or to engage in the metagame. Look at Dinsdale and Gevlon. FFS I can't believe I just had to state that to a CSM. Thank gawd I forgot to vote this year, you were on my list. It keeps popping up because people in general don't want to talk about the actual issue and instead want to play games with the defintion of PvP. Generally it is presented as a retort when someone tries to define everything in the game as PvP. Usually just to beat down on a person talking about players interested mainly in PvE activities and not interested in direct PvP activities. Defined so broadly it becomes a meaningless concept and stops being useful. More importantly it isn't used to further the conversation. It's used to belittle the point of the opposition and the want of players who don't share their views on an issue. Doing so is a **** weasel thing to do, since it brushed aside the viewpoint of the other person and tries to paint it as irrelevant by just bloating the definition instead of talking to the other person like a human being. If you don't want to see it, try understanding what the person is talking about and counter his points instead of playing word games. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1351
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 17:54:27 -
[610] - Quote
KnowUsByTheDead wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: If your corp does not teach you player on player combat can happen inside the corp without concord intervention, there isn't all that much way to find out inside the game. Unfortunately this is the norm, shite corps run by incompetents who take no steps to protect their corp assets, or teach their corp members how to protect themselves. Ironically, one of the reasons I chose this play style, straight out of the gate. Because while I may end up being the "bad guy," I have taught a valuable lesson, not easily forgotten by incompetent corp leaders, or their line members. Yep, such a horrible, horrible thing to do.
How many people did you catch in the crossfire while teaching idiot corp CEO how bad they were? CCP probably care about those too. The CEO deserve to be slapped like you do for being worse than useless since he is likely to prevent legit newbie from learning what the game is about and how it really works. The guy who waded in the corp recruitment system had to throw a dart while blindfolded and struck a 1. It'es really close to a 20 but it's still a damn 1. He is literally an inch away from a triple 20 but still a 1. He now has to realize his throw was bad and he should throw again but the player contact eh has is with someone "teaching" him bad stuff and then he got wrecked by a safari runner.
Who's the guy at fault? The safari runner? Of course not. He's playing EVE. The guy at fault is the stupid corp leader beaing as bad as he can be.
Who's got his fun? The safari runner. Good for him.
Who paid for it? The corp CEO and the newbie. Poor newbie already paying for someone else bad behavior. Not the safari runner. He never did something against the rules. The newbie pays for the ****** quality of his CEO which he could not detect because he didn't know about anything in the game. This guy is the one CCP seem to think they lose too often. **** that corp CEO for being that bad but he probably lost less in proportion of what he had in game than the newbie who didn't really do anything wrong except his blind throw... |
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
6331
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 17:54:44 -
[611] - Quote
Brochan McLeod wrote:Marsha Mallow wrote: We're not fanatics.... Don't make me laugh... that's exactly what most people on these forums are... fanatics and zealots. I also sense a dash of hysterics every now and then... X-years ago some dungus found a loophole and it got turned into a feature. Now its going cos its contributing to beginning players leaving and tha's costing real money. What is there to understand? Plenty of room for both playstyles i should say. You people need to get over yourselves... seriously X-years ago the devs called it emergent game-play, this is how we got the mwd-cloak trick.
"I'm also quite confident that you are laughing
and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers."
=]I[=
|
Some Rando
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1227
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 17:55:34 -
[612] - Quote
I can't help but think that this isn't going to have the effect CCP wants it to. There still isn't any incentive (for the die-hard carebear) to leave NPC corps or to join multi-player corps. This change isn't going to engender any real trust and doesn't address the problem of **** corps taking advantage of people. It's going to involve a whole bunch of strange flags and dueling exceptions to allow certain corps to operate as they always have (RvB, haulers, etc...) which could end up with actionable "social exploits" that will leave us in the exact same situation we have right now.
I'd love to see what else they have in mind to address the problem of NPR because, on its own, this isn't going to do anything to get people "out there".
CCP has no sense of humour.
|
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 17:56:13 -
[613] - Quote
I think its funny that the definition of pvp being thrown around is as long as there is one other person in Eve....you are somehow competing with them and its pvp.
Why stop at that...why not call it pvp if there is someone in another game. Hell, there is someone on the planet somewhere...they are breathing...it must be pvp...we are competing for the same air.
This has become so deliciously funny.
Omg....I hit launch button....someone somewhere on the planet is gonna hit launch before me...omg the pvp....they are going to win.
I think its funny that basically they are saying they don't want to lose their ship during pvp...in a pvp game.
|
Some Rando
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1227
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 17:57:56 -
[614] - Quote
Syn Shi wrote:I think its funny that the definition of pvp being thrown around is as long as there is one other person in Eve....you are somehow competing with them and its pvp.
Why stop at that...why not call it pvp if there is someone in another game. Hell, there is someone on the planet somewhere...they are breathing...it must be pvp...we are competing for the same air. Elite poasting~
CCP has no sense of humour.
|
Marsha Mallow
1653
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 18:01:16 -
[615] - Quote
Brochan McLeod wrote:Don't make me laugh... that's exactly what most people on these forums are... fanatics and zealots. It's known as General Drama for a reason There's no need to keep portraying playstyles as PvE vs PvE with no interraction between them. Unless they sell Plexes, most hardcore murderers do dabble in other aspects of the game. They aren't the ones trying to ringfence a particular playstyle from interference by others though, are they?
Ama Scelesta wrote:Outraged peasant gibbering To be fair Ama, if I wanted to insult PVE players I'd just call them scrubs. Or maybe squealers. There's no point subtly insulting someone too dim to detect it, may as well be direct. You can call us filthy scum if you like, I don't mind.
Syn Shi wrote:I think its funny that the definition of pvp being thrown around is as long as there is one other person in Eve....you are somehow competing with them and its pvp. Erm, what exactly do you think the "p" stands for?
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Brochan McLeod
Frigateer
70
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 18:02:55 -
[616] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Brochan McLeod wrote:Marsha Mallow wrote: We're not fanatics.... Don't make me laugh... that's exactly what most people on these forums are... fanatics and zealots. I also sense a dash of hysterics every now and then... X-years ago some dungus found a loophole and it got turned into a feature. Now its going cos its contributing to beginning players leaving and tha's costing real money. What is there to understand? Plenty of room for both playstyles i should say. You people need to get over yourselves... seriously X-years ago the devs called it emergent game-play, this is how we got the mwd-cloak trick.
Yes and now its almost history. Just as everything else in the world gets old and vanishes. Someone will come up with another trick right? And if not... who cares?
All the drama... ffs.
BTW... Hi Ralph!
Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8861
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 18:04:14 -
[617] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Well it seems that according to you I need proof of everything, and am not allowed to use personal experience or have opinions on anything, yet you seem to be able to whine endlessly about changes which you are claiming will not affect you in the slightest yet somehow will destroy the essence of EVE. Quote:Not destroy, "lessen" is a better word. "unnecessarily lessen" is better still. The principle here is that CCP should NEVER implement game mechanics that do for a player what a player should do for himself.. Players can currently safeguard themselves from awoxxing in high sec via inclusion of a single module (ECM, or even easier, ecm drones), or by having some clue about who they are flying with. Truth is you've lost it (and you know it0. YOU are the one who said that I should shut about it since it doesn't concern me. I simply pointed out your hypocrisy as it doesn't concern you either (by your own logic, you are not a new player and you apparently don't even live in high sec). Explain why you get to talk about something that doesn't involve you but you think I shouldn't? Go ahead, this will be fun to hear lol. You are making assertions from opinions that you didn't use (or need) evidence to form (in this case, the idea that the barriers to entry were LOWER when we started, which is an outright lie given that CCP is on the record saying they are lowering the barriers). What you are doing is displaying an irresponsible way of thinking...and then getting mad at me for pointing out your error. Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you really not understand? Types of players who want to join in but are currently refused access to corporations because awoxing is possible, currently join the ranks of the solo highsec bear and for the most part quit. If awoxing were not, those same players would be engaging with others and may go on to play for a long time. Long terms players tend to be more capable and motivated to join in conflicts. So you're saying that people play solo because player corps won't let them in? That is pure nonsense. People who want to group up eventually do, people who are solo tend to be the solo mentality types. You're again blaming an external cause (awoxxing) for behavior when most human social behavior has an internal origin. and that's insane. [quote] In all seriousness, if you aren't going to bring anything reasonable to the table and are going to continue acting like a spoiled little brat who's being told he has to share his sandpit, then I'm done with you.
Good, feel free to stop posting, because the crap you're posting is less than useless, it's useless and incoherent..
|
Ssoraszh Tzarszh
Eschelon Directive Universal Consortium
68
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 18:04:17 -
[618] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:I checked The Games Website and, oddly, I do not see them saying that Eve is a Purely PvP game. Now I will readily admit that it is a game with PvP in it if you will do the same in respect to PvE, because that is also part of the game. Missions, mining, exploration, are things you can do where you compete (maybe) but don't have to shoot some other player. So where do all the people whose main argument against this change find the ground to stand on . . . that by shifting a rule that made little sense (It is OK to go Postal if you are in a post office and work there) we are somehow moving away from what the game IS. It is like they are the apostles of a religion within the game but I cannot seem to find their holy book or church. Articles with comments from the designers like this New York Times one, or statements from the Eve site that this game a competitive sandbox in which "[my] actions in the Sandbox can lead to the destruction of starships" make it quite clear what type of game this is at least marketed as. A sandbox is a sandbox is a sandbox. This continual nerfing of risk and buffing of rewards will eventually cause everything to come tumbling down.
Every sandbox has walls to contain the sand, even the Sahara ends somewhere. And in this case CCP sees a need to contain the 5 year old's hitting each other with a tiny shovel to allow a few more toddlers in the sandbox.
More people, less alts is a good thing and if this helps even a small bit to retain new players and actually _understand_ what this game is fundamantaly about and what it has to offer you just might see that person not hiding in High Sec anymore and joining us in w-space, Lowsec or even Nullbore.
I have seen people who were dropping corp every wardec, and it took some mentoring to get them to hang around the next time it happened, but when you can make that difference that is an impact on the game. Even if only you and the little pack of newbies knows about it.
Throwing sandbox around like everyone needs to play only one way is sadly not what sandbox means, Eve is not only a hard and cold awox scam but it is also the great experience with your buddies achieving something against all odds. This has for me created friendships for the last ten years with people i have never met in real life and would never have met if we did not have some common grounds.
If you are upset you now have one less option to grief people, try and learn the game better. There are plenty mechanics left to grief and gank to your hearts content you only need to dig a little deeper in the sand to see them.
So in stead of just awoxing some newbie or that once in two years purple raven (was also a newbie with plex btw) you can try and mentoring them to broaden their horizons give them some fire in their belly in stead of their face. Who knows, it might just get better results and help CCP to subs and yourself to some more targets(who actually would shoot back this time). Longterm vs short term thinking just killing noobs and laughing at them is not a very good strategy as people have pointed out. |
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 18:05:28 -
[619] - Quote
Oh ya...and then there is the I create more content...yada yada.
If that was true you look at the change and think...lets gain their trust and convince them to take a nice blingy ship out to low for some level 5s.
Not known to the mark, you have your real corp mates sitting ready to attack. They even attack you i the process.
And somehow.....the mark dies and you magically get away and survive.
Does the mark realize that you set him up, and may be able to do it again before someone catches on.
Not only have you created content for you and the mark, now you have included even more people.
But I know this will fall on deaf ears.....you heard it here folks.
Awoxxing is going to disappear because the ones doing it are making a choice to stop. |
KnowUsByTheDead
Sunlight...Through The Blight.
2135
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 18:05:39 -
[620] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:
How many people did you catch in the crossfire while teaching idiot corp CEO how bad they were? CCP probably care about those too. The CEO deserve to be slapped like you do for being worse than useless since he is likely to prevent legit newbie from learning what the game is about and how it really works. The guy who waded in the corp recruitment system had to throw a dart while blindfolded and struck a 1. It'es really close to a 20 but it's still a damn 1. He is literally an inch away from a triple 20 but still a 1. He now has to realize his throw was bad and he should throw again but the player contact eh has is with someone "teaching" him bad stuff and then he got wrecked by a safari runner.
Who's the guy at fault? The safari runner? Of course not. He's playing EVE. The guy at fault is the stupid corp leader beaing as bad as he can be.
Who's got his fun? The safari runner. Good for him.
Who paid for it? The corp CEO and the newbie. Poor newbie already paying for someone else bad behavior. Not the safari runner. He never did something against the rules. The newbie pays for the ****** quality of his CEO which he could not detect because he didn't know about anything in the game. This guy is the one CCP seem to think they lose too often. **** that corp CEO for being that bad but he probably lost less in proportion of what he had in game than the newbie who didn't really do anything wrong except his blind throw...
Sure, I get my fun because I am playing EVE.
But at the same time, do not discount the players I have helped in return for my "fun" and how many players have sought my advice, directly at the expense of my "fun." Or how I tend to keep a shoestring budget, even when I was flush, instead providing isk and advice to newbies in newbie systems.
In fact, on this character's killboard, there is a Navy Slicer I had killed, quite frankly, accidentally......while in a corp I was spending time learning player movements prior to my "safari." He was a young character that asked me to let him "test his fit." I had forgotten to group my launchers, and left a single missile launcher running on my Griffin. And I gave him back that isk, immediately.
In fact, some of my peers in the HS piracy community have called me "soft" because I would rather show a newbie.....
Hard Lesson > Advice > Financial Assist......
Rather than.......
Hard Lesson > Laugh > "Too bad, that's EVE."
Please don't pretend to know how I play, unless you have doxxed me, read all of my logs, and actually know how I play.
Thanks.
Once you realize what a joke everything is, being the comedian is the only thing that makes sense.
|
|
Revis Owen
53
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 18:08:55 -
[621] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:impunity: exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss
Not being attacked by CONCORD is a case of impunity.
You are missing a key part of the definition: the word "complete". Impunity is *complete* freedom from sanctions.
"Not being attacked by CONCORD" is a case of that *particular* sanction not applying. But there are a full range of other sanctions against the awoxer that are on the table: 1)Can be freely attacked by the rest of the corp. 2)Can be freely attacked by other corps friendly to the target corp wardeccing the corp but only targeting the awoxer. 3)Can be freely attacked by mercs having a specific contract to wardec the corp but only target the awoxer. 4)Can have bounty placed or added to incentivize 3rd party gankers. 5)Etc.
Use the tools CCP has already provided us. Stop whining for CCP hand-holding and coddling.
Agent of the New Order
http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html
If you do not have a current Highsec Operations Permit, please contact me for issuance.
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2960
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 18:14:42 -
[622] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:La Nariz wrote:Then why are you spewing dinsdale-esque crap? Their method did not do as they intended so it's a failed method that's all it means. It is the most return for the :effort: spent, how much more difficult is it to gank a retriever versus a procurer? So they are using an inefficiently optimized method to remove botters, what a surprise people have been using terribly optimized stuff forever, yet that does not mean they support something. I'm not, I'm simply stating that their actions help support botters. Whether or not that's their goal behind the scenes is their business. As usual though a CODE player jumped in to scream about how I was misrepresenting them and how they are the saviors of highsec. What they post is propaganda regardless since it doesn't reflect what they are actually accomplishing.
Lucas Kell wrote: It basically boils down to their targets being non-botters and the guys they leave alone being botters. Try it. Fly a solo yield fit retriever like a noob in a system with plenty of CODE about, you'll get ganked. Fly 20 procurers fit for tank and don't respond to any form of input, you'll get left alone. Obviously they want to get rid of the competition that keeps botters ore sale prices down.
You are spewing dinsdale-esque crap.
This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
Improve the forums, support this idea:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
|
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
1526
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 18:18:27 -
[623] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:So where do all the people whose main argument against this change find the ground to stand on . . . that by shifting a rule that made little sense (It is OK to go Postal if you are in a post office and work there) we are somehow moving away from what the game IS. It is like they are the apostles of a religion within the game but I cannot seem to find their holy book or church. Let's cut to the chase Mike.
Would removing the ability to awox corp members without CONCORD intervention increase or decrease player conflict and content creation?
Seriously folks, if we can't ensure only CSM's that hold that key litmus test above to heart when elected, then the CSM needs to be blasted from existence, because yahweh knows CCP sure as hell doesn't need any more help from carebear players to rush down its road to nerfdom in pursuit of moar WoW subs.
F
Would you like to know more?
|
Notorious Fellon
348
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 18:21:43 -
[624] - Quote
Syn Shi wrote:...Awoxxing is going to disappear because the ones doing it are making a choice to stop.
The only ones that will stop are those unable to adapt. Players unable to adapt are not people EVE needs to keep around anyway; at least according to some of those same players.
Strange how that works.
The hypocrisy is really getting deep in here.
Crime, it is not a "career", it is a lifestyle.
|
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 18:22:19 -
[625] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:So where do all the people whose main argument against this change find the ground to stand on . . . that by shifting a rule that made little sense (It is OK to go Postal if you are in a post office and work there) we are somehow moving away from what the game IS. It is like they are the apostles of a religion within the game but I cannot seem to find their holy book or church. Let's cut to the chase Mike. Would removing the ability to awox corp members without CONCORD intervention increase or decrease player conflict and content creation?Seriously folks, if we can't ensure only CSM's that hold that key litmus test above to heart when elected, then the CSM needs to be blasted from existence, because yahweh knows CCP sure as hell doesn't need any more help from carebear players to rush down its road to nerfdom in pursuit of moar WoW subs. F
You can still awox.
Now you lose a ship.
Why are you risk averse?
I assure you losing a ship will not be the end of everything.
Don't fly what you aren't prepared to lose.
Or...just don't fly........your choice.
Can we haz your stuffs. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
222
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 18:23:08 -
[626] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:So where do all the people whose main argument against this change find the ground to stand on . . . that by shifting a rule that made little sense (It is OK to go Postal if you are in a post office and work there) we are somehow moving away from what the game IS. It is like they are the apostles of a religion within the game but I cannot seem to find their holy book or church. Let's cut to the chase Mike. Would removing the ability to awox corp members without CONCORD intervention increase or decrease player conflict and content creation?Seriously folks, if we can't ensure only CSM's that hold that key litmus test above to heart when elected, then the CSM needs to be blasted from existence, because yahweh knows CCP sure as hell doesn't need any more help from carebear players to rush down its road to nerfdom in pursuit of moar WoW subs. F
That's a pretty crazy question. Removing CONCORD from the game and forcing everyone into player corps that can't be dropped during wardeccs would increase player interaction and content creation. So would turning Eve into a World of Tanks style combat simulation, or making New Eden only 5 systems large. Since when is that the relevant metric to judge ideas? Whatever leads to more ships blowing up is not necessarily what is best for the game. |
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
829
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 18:23:34 -
[627] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Doc J wrote:...the comfort zone. The appeal of EVE to many of us was that there was supposed to be no comfort zone. Anyone that's looking for a comfort zone is playing the wrong game. Looking for comfort zones in EVE is like getting in a plane but never taking off. Unfortunately, it seems that won't be the case for much longer. It looks like a day is coming where EVE will only be EVE by name, but the game it is/was will no longer exist. EVE was originally created by people who didn't like the PVP restrictions in Ultima Online. Now they're going in a completely opposite direction, and handing it over to the same kinds of people who ruined Ultima. This.
+1 to Remiel.
Remove insurance.
|
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 18:25:06 -
[628] - Quote
Notorious Fellon wrote:Syn Shi wrote:...Awoxxing is going to disappear because the ones doing it are making a choice to stop. The only ones that will stop are those unable to adapt. Players unable to adapt are not people EVE needs to keep around anyway; at least according to some of those same players. Strange how that works. The hypocrisy is really getting deep in here.
Only ones not willing to adapt are the awoxxers who are saying they will stop doing said activity because their ship will get blown up.
Strange how that works.
The hypocrisy is really getting deep in here.
|
Notorious Fellon
348
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 18:26:18 -
[629] - Quote
Syn Shi wrote:Notorious Fellon wrote:Syn Shi wrote:...Awoxxing is going to disappear because the ones doing it are making a choice to stop. The only ones that will stop are those unable to adapt. Players unable to adapt are not people EVE needs to keep around anyway; at least according to some of those same players. Strange how that works. The hypocrisy is really getting deep in here. Only ones not willing to adapt are the awoxxers who are saying they will stop doing said activity because their ship will get blown up. Strange how that works. The hypocrisy is really getting deep in here.
That is who I was referring to clownshoes.
Crime, it is not a "career", it is a lifestyle.
|
Mag's
the united
18115
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 18:28:12 -
[630] - Quote
Notorious Fellon wrote:Syn Shi wrote:Notorious Fellon wrote:Syn Shi wrote:...Awoxxing is going to disappear because the ones doing it are making a choice to stop. The only ones that will stop are those unable to adapt. Players unable to adapt are not people EVE needs to keep around anyway; at least according to some of those same players. Strange how that works. The hypocrisy is really getting deep in here. Only ones not willing to adapt are the awoxxers who are saying they will stop doing said activity because their ship will get blown up. Strange how that works. The hypocrisy is really getting deep in here. That is who I was referring to clownshoes. Quality shiptoasting.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |