EVE Search - Conflict. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement.... Sabriz for CSM10

All Channels

CSM Campaigns

Conflict. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement.... Sabriz for CSM10

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10858	Posted - 2014.12.20 14:36:53 - [1] - Quote First of all, big +1 from me just based on your initial few posts. Secondly, what in your opinion is the largest issue facing the playerbase today, and how could it be addressed? Thirdly, I have reported Lucas for his excessive off topic posting. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11383	Posted - 2015.01.23 08:38:50 - [2] - Quote Tim Timpson wrote: This is arguable. It's only interesting to you because of conflict. Some players are quite happy without it. If I buy Call of Duty, and then go on their forums and complain that other people are allowed to shoot me, I would probably be banned for trolling, and rightfully so. EVE Online is no less a PvP game. Whether you partake of that or not, you should still recognize and accept it. Quote: There are all types in this game and everyone should get a say, not just your guys. If your say consists of "what other people like about the game should be deleted!", then no you really shouldn't. See the Call of Duty example above. You don't get to have a say when it comprises complete opposition to the spirit of the game. If you hate it that much, why are you playing it in the first place? Quote: If you can't understand that there should be a balance between the two, there's no talking to you. Read the FAQ. It says, in no uncertain terms "EVE Online is a PvP game". If you can't understand that, then you can't be redeemed as a player. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11386	Posted - 2015.01.23 10:51:05 - [3] - Quote Tim Timpson wrote: EVE Online is a sandbox virtual world. The appeal is that you can do what you want. Sure, all actions affect other players and in that sense it's PvP, but that doesn't mean that every change must generate conflict. EVE's biggest strength is the depth of player interaction. That is undeniable. Changes don't have to generate conflict. But changes that take away from conflict by definition take away player interaction. That is not a good thing. Quote: What's funny is that your quote of "what other people like about the game should be deleted!" is exactly the same from the other side. There are plenty of people that want more conflict in high sec by removing opportunities to play PvE safely, or want changes like 0.5s to be concord-free or level 4 missions to only appear in lowsec. Except that I am not advocating that missions be deleted. I don't want their playstyle to go away entirely. They do want the elimination of mine, that has been made clear many, many times over the years. There's a good indicator of that going on right now in fact, with awoxing being deleted. Don't try to pretend like there is any moral equivalency between the two sides, because there is not. Quote: Call of Duty's primary gameplay is based around guns and shooting. And if I go there, and hatefully demand that my "playstyle" involves walking around in that game being immune to bullets, people will laugh at me. That's exactly what we have here. When you have someone demanding something entirely contrary to the reality of the game. Why that is even being entertained, I cannot imagine. And if you haven't figured it out yet, I am not talking about "PvE", which although I truly despise it, has a place in this game. I am talking about the kind of people who insist that they should be immune to the actions of other people. The people who want to pretend like an MMO is a single player game. The last thing this game needs is more safety. It has too much already, that's why everything is so inflated compared to a few years ago. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11386	Posted - 2015.01.23 11:40:57 - [4] - Quote Tim Timpson wrote: My statement was incredibly simple: Any idea, regardless of whether it increase or decreased conflict should be looked at for it's own merits. Any CSM candidate who will automatically disregard ideas because they reduce conflict without giving them a second look is not a good candidate. That's the whole point. There is no merit to ideas that reduce player interaction. None. They should be dismissed out of hand. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11386	Posted - 2015.01.23 13:00:38 - [5] - Quote Thea Yulivee wrote: Well - Kaarous in what category would the jump fatigue changes fall? more interaction because of less risk involved to get hotdropped, thereby promoting more small/medscale fights? less interaction because of slower movement there reducing the number of players at battles? you can't put every change into a category like increases or decreases interaction - it doesn't work that way If you read what I mentioned above, it is possible for a change to be a net neutral. I firmly believe that the jump range changes were such, but promoted a greater increase in small scale conflicts, particularly subcapital fights, than it did to discourage capital fights. So I'd say it ended up as a net positive for wider spread conflict. But that was just one of those "we'll have to wait and see" kinds of things. A change that on it's outset clearly detracts from potential player interaction is a different matter entirely. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11386	Posted - 2015.01.23 13:03:49 - [6] - Quote Tim Timpson wrote: There is more to EVE than the specific way you play it, and to improve some styles of play requires some changes which reduce interaction in one way or another. Then they shouldn't be improved in that way. There are plenty of ways to improve this game's PvE without crippling player interaction. Personally, I think they were on the right track with Burner rats, and that more missions should involve elite enemies instead of blowing away wave after wave of zerging rats. You're trying to claim that the only way PvE can be improved is at my expense, and that just exposes it for what it really is. It's not about improving your gameplay, and it never was. It's about hurting mine. And that's why people like Sabriz need to be elected. Because CCP needs to hear my voice, and the voice of people who care about PvP and the sandbox all over EVE. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11413	Posted - 2015.01.23 23:19:17 - [7] - Quote Tim Timpson wrote: but then again players from your camp never have been very good at reasoning, just exploding into "ZOMG You want total safety! I'm paying it forward! Waah, waah why u nerf me ccp" every time a minor change is suggested. Deletion of an entire playstyle is not a minor change, so knock off the lies and obfuscation. If CCP proposed tomorrow that missions be deleted, I would be right up there with the mission runners demanding it be overturned. Because whether I like something or not (and I despise EVE's PvE "content" with all my heart), does not merit it's deletion. Your side on the other hand is not capable of being impartial or fair. You just want PvP deleted as often and as thoroughly as possible. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11422	Posted - 2015.01.24 13:06:25 - [8] - Quote Tim Timpson wrote: An once again, I'm not stating your playstyle should be deleted. Very few people are. Then you need to stop acting like people are upset about "a minor change". It's dismissive and dishonest. Quote: And yet you expect CCP to take your protests seriously? I expect CCP to take my statements equally as seriously as those on the opposing side. The problem is that they're only listening to one side of the argument, and it damn sure isn't my side. Which is precisely why people like Sabriz must be elected to the CSM. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11535	Posted - 2015.01.28 23:16:45 - [9] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Serious question: You often make the claim that highsec is not supposed to be the early game, when compared to low, null and wormhole space and isn't something you grow out of, it's a section of space in it's own right. At the same time however you state that high level PVE should be nerfed in highsec and put into lowsec more - like moving L4 missions into lowsec for example. So why is it you think that for PVE, highsec should just be a starter area, while for PvP it should be the full game? Surely if highsec is a whole game area, it should cater to all levels of play for both PvE and PvP, thus things such as level 5 missions should occur fully in highsec too. Or if PvE players are supposed to move on to higher levels of PvE outside of highsec, that PvP players should have to move on too. You're assuming that highsec's current level of individual PvE income generation is balanced in the first place. It's not. Highsec breaks risk vs reward on a fundamental basis, with it's PvE "content" being both safer and more lucrative than almost anything else. One of those things need to be dealt with. Personally I'd like to see both of them adjust downward slightly, rather than simply slashing mission and incursion income drastically to match how safe it is to do those things. PvP belongs everywhere in EVE Online. PvE does as well, but since there is a distinct mechanical benefit to PvE activity, (whereas PvP depends on the loot fairy in equal measure regardless of what sec status you are in), it must be balanced accordingly. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11701	Posted - 2015.02.08 13:13:54 - [10] - Quote La Rynx wrote: The whole point of CSM is NOT to make EvE a "better place", the point is to make EvE interesting for a great variety of playstiles. Therefore constructive thoughts for all playstyles are required. I love hearing this from the inveterate carebear. Hypocrisy tastes good in the morning. The likes of you, who have been trying to smother PvP playstyles in this game for literally years, do not get to lecture anyone about self interest. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11750	Posted - 2015.02.11 22:58:40 - [11] - Quote La Rynx wrote: Easy because there are many many more qualified than him. I don't see any. In fact I see a pretty poor crop of candidates overall, to the point where I expect at least 4 incumbents to be retained, probably more like 5 or 6 or even higher. Sabriz stands out rather well. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11809	Posted - 2015.02.17 13:38:14 - [12] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: I'm all for conflict Not according to your post history. Quote: but it has to be meaningful conflict between groups who are on an even footing So basically, you hate any and all non consensual PvP. Which is one of the cornerstones of sandbox gameplay in general, and EVE in particular. Why do you even post anymore? Quote: I'm not for forcing players into gameplay they don't like just so that another group has more targets to shoot at. This game is for multiple playstyles whether you like that or not. And shooting at people whether they like it or not, is it's own playstyle, whether you like it or not. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11810	Posted - 2015.02.17 14:40:45 - [13] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Nope, I'm for non-consensual combat You just said that you're not, unless it's forced through some contrivance about "even footing". Quote: Forcing players to have to engage in fighting in order to get out of a hostile situation placed on them by another player isn't respecting other people's playstyles. And this statement also means "I am against all non consensual PvP". Because "a hostile situation placed on them by another player" is damn near a perfect synonym for non consensual PvP. That's the whole thing about "non consensual". It doesn't give a flying rat's ass about respecting their playstyle. If their playstyle involves not bothering to defend themselves, so much the better. Quote: Once again though you either are unable to or actively refuse to make that distinction, and you continue to assume that anyone with a view that isn't exactly yours is automatically asking for the removal of all non-consensual PvP. Except for the part where you are, I just saw through your doubletalk. I doubt I'm alone either, you've gotten worse at hiding it lately. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11811	Posted - 2015.02.17 15:20:56 - [14] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Where exactly did I say I'm not for non-consensual combat? Here. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11811	Posted - 2015.02.17 15:29:32 - [15] - Quote Lady Rift wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Where exactly did I say I'm not for non-consensual combat? Here. I'm for non-consensual combat is the quote that I get out of your link. Selective reading at it's best, I suppose. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11811	Posted - 2015.02.17 15:38:10 - [16] - Quote Lady Rift wrote: seams like kell is saying that he's for non-consensual combat No, that's just lip service. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11819	Posted - 2015.02.17 23:20:34 - [17] - Quote admiral root wrote: Kaarous, it sounds like some of the trolls are blocking you. Does this make you despair? Nope, that's working as intended. But I can't say the same for wardecs, which is why we need to vote for Sabriz, to get our voices heard. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 11896	Posted - 2015.02.23 13:45:12 - [18] - Quote I know I already endorsed Sabriz, but I think given my new situation that it's appropriate that I reaffirm that. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 11969	Posted - 2015.03.04 13:26:37 - [19] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Sabriz Adoudel wrote: I do not expect the circumstances involved to repeat, but a family member having serious health issues can happen to anyone. Indeed they can and I'm not disputing that, but surely you can understand why someone would take it as a bad sign when we're not even past the campaigning stage, right? I can't. In fact, I am wondering if you sprained your arm reaching so far. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 11988	Posted - 2015.03.05 04:28:51 - [20] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Of course you can't, but then from a CODE member who quite publicly has some kind of personal problem with me trying to push for a CODE candidate, I hardly expect you to be objective. Didn't you block me already? I thought you were a dishonest, anklebiting sack of reprocessed carbon well before I was a Code member. And I did block you, my life has been better for it. But I wasn't logged in this account when I looked at the thread. Quote: At the end of the day, people can take it how they want. Exactly. So quite harping on this nonsense, quit trying to ramrod your bullshit narrative just because you have a personal opposition to ganking actually having a voice in the CSM. Quit crying about how we're allowed to have an opinion different from yours. Take your sour grapes and peddle them elsewhere. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.