Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
944
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 17:48:39 -
[361] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Kaarous, it sounds like some of the trolls are blocking you. Does this make you despair? *Puts on wizard cloak and hat* I am a watery swamp troll that makes me difficult to kill with fire.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4668
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 21:25:47 -
[362] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:You cannot possibly play EVE without PVPing. (Sole exception: Test server play, where there is no economy).
And if you do not believe that groups of low skilled characters in T1 frigates can pose a threat - look at the history of Brave Newbies. Or Goonswarm for that matter, although it's a long time since they were newbie-heavy. In that instance, by PvP I meant the classic "pew pew" variety, which is what you are trying to encourage. You know this too. And I believe that low SP characters controlled by players interested in shooting people can excel at it, sure, but you're being rather dishonest if you are suggesting that's who ends up as the defender in a wardec 9 times out of 10. The majority of defenders are players who have no interest at all in shooting people, and if they tried would fail against most of their aggressors who are considerably more skilled (not in SP, but in actual player ability). I get it, you want more people to shoot at - so go find players who want to play that way. Stop trying to force every other player who wants to play their own way into playing the way you want them to just because you want to be fed easy targets rather than hunt tougher ones down.
EVE is not and has never been about fighting on your enemy's terms.
If I want to dominate the Enyo market, my enemies are the other people building Enyos. I can fight them on their terms (sell my Enyos cheaper). Or, I can fight them on a different choice of front - manipulate the datacore market, gank any ship I see carrying Crystalline Carbonide Armor Plates, hire mercs to kill my rival's POS, or whatever.
Other participants in the Enyo market need to either repel these attacks or leave the market. This is true whether the attacks target their strengths or weaknesses.
If you want your playstyle to be left alone by other players, you need to also leave other players alone - and that means playing on the test server, where you cannot impose your will on the game through the market. If you want the ability to impact other players in the sandbox, you must accept that other players will do the same to you.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4668
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 21:48:44 -
[363] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Check it out, my personal troll found me again.. Lucas, just click his name and hide his posts. He is not on the forums to contribute. Kaaros sees himself as some sort of forum warrior who needs to smite anyone with a different opinion. As to getting back on track; Sabriz and I would both like to see more conflict in high sec but in different ways. I want to see veterans exposed to more danger and less newbies farmed by suicide gankers and station camping duellers. I grow so very tired of seeing things along the lines of this, "It is not fair! They changed corporations when I declared war on them! I paid ISK! I am entitled to kill them now!" Meanwhile, the ones expected to defend themselves haven't got a snowballs hope on the surface of the sun. Gankers run around suiciding into newbies and laughing at their horrible fits. Both groups complain about risk aversion and yet create more risk adverse behaviour. Sabriz - how do you respond to that? Edit: Please, make it very clear between what you and your friends do and how you see others behaving generally.
I simply do not see newbies farmed by suicide gankers.
Freighters, Orcas, exhumers, mining barges and T1 haulers are the main ships targetted by gankers. Of those, only one requires less than a week of dedicated skilling. (You can sit in a battleship in less than half that time).
If you want to complain about non-consensual PVP that hits a lot of newbies, you should be up in arms at two things. Gatecamping high to low gates (especially low systems that have stations that sell skillbooks), and market manipulation in rookie systems.
The people who are overwhelmingly the targets of highsec predators (gankers, wardeccers and the like) are not newbies. Nor are they the extremely experienced player (who usually has a clue they are in danger and so can use the advantages highsec gives the defender in conflicts to escape). They are usually the middling experienced player.
We do get the odd actual newbie, and I tend to give them advice to get back on their feet.
On laughing at failfits - I do this to older characters. Newer characters will instead get advice. If I blow up a Vindicator which mixes active and buffer armor tanks and has no web, I'll check the character age. Two months - they get advice. Two years - they get a Minerbumping blog post mocking them.
As for wardec evasion - this was termed every bit as much of an exploit as CONCORD evasion once. It gives the defender an overwhelming advantage in conflicts. I support some form of unilateral surrender as long as it is a *surrender*, not a broken mechanic.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5130
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 22:56:36 -
[364] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:EVE is not and has never been about fighting on your enemy's terms.
If I want to dominate the Enyo market, my enemies are the other people building Enyos. I can fight them on their terms (sell my Enyos cheaper). Or, I can fight them on a different choice of front - manipulate the datacore market, gank any ship I see carrying Crystalline Carbonide Armor Plates, hire mercs to kill my rival's POS, or whatever.
Other participants in the Enyo market need to either repel these attacks or leave the market. This is true whether the attacks target their strengths or weaknesses.
If you want your playstyle to be left alone by other players, you need to also leave other players alone - and that means playing on the test server, where you cannot impose your will on the game through the market. If you want the ability to impact other players in the sandbox, you must accept that other players will do the same to you. Which is all perfectly fine. The problem is that your ideas don't respect their ability to counter you attempts to fight them on their own terms. you want to force people to have to defend, in combat, when you attack them. They don;t need to, that's not a requirement and it nevre should be. If you choose to attack them with guns and they choose to avoid you, that's also fine. At no point do I want anyone to be "left alone", but what I don't want is people forced into having to respond in a way you choose, simply because you feel they aren't providing you with enough content when you attack them because they choose to avoid you altogether. I don't understand why some people seem to find that such a hard concept to grasp.
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
5130
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 23:05:54 -
[365] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:The people who are overwhelmingly the targets of highsec predators (gankers, wardeccers and the like) are not newbies. Nor are they the extremely experienced player (who usually has a clue they are in danger and so can use the advantages highsec gives the defender in conflicts to escape). They are usually the middling experienced player. In fairness, they may not be a newbie in terms of time played, but they are a newbie in terms of experience with the game. They're targeted specifically because they don't know how to respond.
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:As for wardec evasion - this was termed every bit as much of an exploit as CONCORD evasion once. It gives the defender an overwhelming advantage in conflicts. I support some form of unilateral surrender as long as it is a *surrender*, not a broken mechanic. And now it's not an exploit. Things change, get over it. It used to be possible to use dec shield alliances or shed wars too, now it's not possible to do either.
The problem wit ha surrender mechanic is that it puts full control in the aggressors hands, and they already generally have the vast majority of the control. If that were the case, there would be nothing stopping the main wardeccers deccing a corp and demanding 500m isk for example to surrender, which gives them 2 weeks grace and they are back again. If there were no other way out of the war besides waiting it out or not logging in, it would simply get rid of most highsec corporations or cause people to quit. It wouldn't suddenly make them suicide themselves for all eternity into the waiting blasters of what would definitely be a superior force.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
11819
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 23:20:34 -
[366] - 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.
|
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
932
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 00:36:11 -
[367] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Which is all perfectly fine. The problem is that your ideas don't respect their ability to counter you attempts to fight them on their own terms.
So people should be allowed to counter ganking by being AFK and making poor fitting decisions? Like it or not that's essentially what you're saying.
We would love to see the people who choose to resist us by force be provided with support in their efforts. Avoiding us is also a perfectly valid tactic, one that is already extremely effective. I would gladly support any changes that made active defense against ganking more successful, but I would NOT support any changes that made passive defense against us more successful.
Sabriz for CSMX!
Consider voting Tora as well.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5133
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 07:49:59 -
[368] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:So people should be allowed to counter ganking by being AFK and making poor fitting decisions? Like it or not that's essentially what you're saying. When did I ever say that? I'm certainly not advocating passive defense. In this particular instance we're not even talking ganking, we're talking wardecs. I don't believe a wardec should lock you in and force you to fight with guns to get out.
Tengu Grib wrote:We would love to see the people who choose to resist us by force be provided with support in their efforts. Avoiding us is also a perfectly valid tactic, one that is already extremely effective. I would gladly support any changes that made active defense against ganking more successful, but I would NOT support any changes that made passive defense against us more successful. And I agree. People should use decently fit ships, ECM drones and evasion to not get ganked. That said, I think ganking is too static. I like Black Pedro's idea that concord response times should vary for example, so sometimes you only get 10 secs, sometimes you get 50 for example. I also think the shocking overuse of catalysts highlights a balance issue there. I'd like to see a larger variety of ships and fits able to be used for various reasons. At no point will you ever find me saying that ganking should be removed or passive defense should be the way forward. Hell, I want freighters to be given more active and less passive defense methods specifically because they are too passive.
So yeah, if that's what you've managed to get from what Iv'e said, you very much misunderstand. I just don't think every situation needs to be resolved by fighting it out with guns. Some players don't like that playstyle, and that's OK.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
556
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 19:38:15 -
[369] - Quote
Your suggestions on war decs are stupid, you talk about locking people into conflicts that they have no fun doing, no interest and no reward, so they either stay docked or go play another game for a week, possibly deciding not to bother at all and yet your carrots are a few extra percentages of yield, big deal, what a complete idiot!
If you want people to fight against war dec's then give them the benefit of immunities from war decs based on how many hits they get on enemies and how many kills they get, and then add that up and apply a block to all new war decs and then a block from that to the value of the benefit from fighting, then there is value in fighting against a war dec. Even giving them blocks of time for going out in space and not being cloaked!!!!
Ella's Snack bar
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
2394
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 19:49:33 -
[370] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Your suggestions on war decs are stupid
I'm just sayin'.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff | No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that.
Sabriz for CSM
|
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
557
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 19:55:59 -
[371] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Your suggestions on war decs are stupid I'm just sayin'.
Thank you for agreeing with me
Ella's Snack bar
|
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
933
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 21:50:55 -
[372] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Tengu Grib wrote:So people should be allowed to counter ganking by being AFK and making poor fitting decisions? Like it or not that's essentially what you're saying. When did I ever say that? I'm certainly not advocating passive defense. In this particular instance we're not even talking ganking, we're talking wardecs. I don't believe a wardec should lock you in and force you to fight with guns to get out. Tengu Grib wrote:We would love to see the people who choose to resist us by force be provided with support in their efforts. Avoiding us is also a perfectly valid tactic, one that is already extremely effective. I would gladly support any changes that made active defense against ganking more successful, but I would NOT support any changes that made passive defense against us more successful. And I agree. People should use decently fit ships, ECM drones and evasion to not get ganked. That said, I think ganking is too static. I like Black Pedro's idea that concord response times should vary for example, so sometimes you only get 10 secs, sometimes you get 50 for example. I also think the shocking overuse of catalysts highlights a balance issue there. I'd like to see a larger variety of ships and fits able to be used for various reasons. At no point will you ever find me saying that ganking should be removed or passive defense should be the way forward. Hell, I want freighters to be given more active and less passive defense methods specifically because they are too passive. So yeah, if that's what you've managed to get from what Iv'e said, you very much misunderstand. I just don't think every situation needs to be resolved by fighting it out with guns. Some players don't like that playstyle, and that's OK.
Well then. I withdraw my objections in this particular instance. I apologize for misinterpreting your stance. If you happen to make it to FanFest in 2016 I'd love to sit down over coffee with you and discuss these sorts of topics in person, I'm buying.
As for the freighters I do not disagree with you. They are and should be easily killed when their pilot is incompetent or lazy, they should stand a chance when their pilot takes precautions. I'm of the opinion that they currently are at that point though I'm open to discussion on the topic.
As for wardecs, if there are ideas on how a defender could contribute to a war besides getting into a combat ship and fighting head on or guerrilla style, I'm all ears. That's not sarcasm, I'd actually love to hear any ideas along those lines.
Sabriz for CSMX!
Consider voting Tora as well.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5142
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 22:24:14 -
[373] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:Well then. I withdraw my objections in this particular instance. I apologize for misinterpreting your stance. If you happen to make it to FanFest in 2016 I'd love to sit down over coffee with you and discuss these sorts of topics in person, I'm buying.
As for the freighters I do not disagree with you. They are and should be easily killed when their pilot is incompetent or lazy, they should stand a chance when their pilot takes precautions. I'm of the opinion that they currently are at that point though I'm open to discussion on the topic.
As for wardecs, if there are ideas on how a defender could contribute to a war besides getting into a combat ship and fighting head on or guerrilla style, I'm all ears. That's not sarcasm, I'd actually love to hear any ideas along those lines. Sounds like a plan. I was there last year and am there this year, so all likelihood will be there 2016 too, so you're on.
I think on precautions they are there, but that's all they have. Once they are in the fight they are sitting there waiting for the gankers and their escorts to duke it out. I'd love to take some of the passive defense away, lowering their tank, and give them some form of actively defending themselves, be it some kind of ecm pulse (which doesn't make concord go nuts) or something else. Haven't really considered it enough to go into great detail. But the idea would be that if you are AFK, you are pretty likely to get pasted, but if you are there defending the gankers have to put in considerably more effort. Ideally I'd want it to be than a perfect fit AFK freighter takes about half the gankers it currently does, while a perfect fit active one takes 1.5 - 2x on average.
For wardecs I really don't know what can be done working with the current system. I'd be really tempted to consider going back to the drawing board altogether and looking at a system which causes wardeccers to fight over space and in-space assets on a smaller and more flexible scale than things like sov, with industry players playing a support role on either side. When RvB and the merc groups went all out over POCOs, that was some great content and I'd love to see more of that kind of things, and less of "I crush you because you can't do anything about it".
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
937
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 19:37:24 -
[374] - Quote
My only concern would be making sure that such a war system does not invalidate the "I'm smacking you down because you made me mad" wars. Beyond that, I think the points you mentioned here warrant further discussion. This is probably not the best place to go into greater details of such a discussion though.
I'm adding you to my list of "People to meet at Fanfest." And yes I have an actual list.
Sabriz for CSMX!
Consider voting Tora as well.
|
Hinata' Hyuga
Dropbears Anonymous Brave Collective
51
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 14:33:50 -
[375] - Quote
Read this for entertainment and lolz, yet you made arguments in line with my thinking. You have my vote! You should campaign on Reddit sometime, do an AMA. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4710
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 16:18:28 -
[376] - Quote
Hinata' Hyuga wrote:Read this for entertainment and lolz, yet you made arguments in line with my thinking. You have my vote! You should campaign on Reddit sometime, do an AMA.
I really like it when people read this thread for the lulz but like it.
I intend to set up a Reddit account and do just that.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11896
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 13:45:12 -
[377] - 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.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5173
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 00:10:03 -
[378] - Quote
This year I'm starting to have a look at the running CSM candidates in a bit more depth, and I've written a short review of your campaign, which can be found here.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Sibyyl
Gallente Federation
22955
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 02:37:07 -
[379] - Quote
Good luck in your campaign, Sab.
Friendship is the best ship
Sabriz for CSM go go go
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4716
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 07:12:08 -
[380] - Quote
After some issues, the Vote Match profile is now up.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5173
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 07:58:19 -
[381] - Quote
Sabriz, after a discussion with another player I've been thinking about wardecs and it's made me want to revisit something we discussed earlier. Within this post and in your wardecs recording, you state that wardec evasion (via disbanding and reforming a corp) was deemed an exploit. Do you know where this was stated? At first when I've heard this said, I just accepted it and didn't really think about it, but since then I've been thinking and can't actually remember anything official or even coming from an official that confirmed it was an exploit. I've searched around and can't find it anywhere either, and I know that it wasn't an exploit in 2007, 2009 or 2011, so I'm not sure when or where this was said.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4716
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 10:47:56 -
[382] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Sabriz, after a discussion with another player I've been thinking about wardecs and it's made me want to revisit something we discussed earlier. Within this post and in your wardecs recording, you state that wardec evasion (via disbanding and reforming a corp) was deemed an exploit. Do you know where this was stated? At first when I've heard this said, I just accepted it and didn't really think about it, but since then I've been thinking and can't actually remember anything official or even coming from an official that confirmed it was an exploit. I've searched around and can't find it anywhere either, and I know that it wasn't an exploit in 2007, 2009 or 2011, so I'm not sure when or where this was said.
I didn't play at the time and have only anecdotal evidence for it. But I've heard it from quite a number of people.
Also thanks for your harsh but (from your position) fair comments on your blog.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5173
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 11:32:04 -
[383] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:I didn't play at the time and have only anecdotal evidence for it. But I've heard it from quite a number of people.
Also thanks for your harsh but (from your position) fair comments on your blog. No problem.
Any idea where people you heard it from heard it? It's one of those things I've heard a few times too and just assumed to be true, but now that I'm trying to source it, can't seem to find it anywhere. In fact I've found a couple of GMs stating the exact opposite, and now am beginning to wonder if it's just one of those things someone said once that just took hold.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4717
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 20:42:36 -
[384] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:I didn't play at the time and have only anecdotal evidence for it. But I've heard it from quite a number of people.
Also thanks for your harsh but (from your position) fair comments on your blog. No problem. Any idea where people you heard it from heard it? It's one of those things I've heard a few times too and just assumed to be true, but now that I'm trying to source it, can't seem to find it anywhere. In fact I've found a couple of GMs stating the exact opposite, and now am beginning to wonder if it's just one of those things someone said once that just took hold.
James 315, Psychotic Monk and a few others but those are the two I can name.
Whilst the highsec predator community are often dishonest to outsiders, we aren't dishonest to each other (and Monk in particular took that as an absolute principle).
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
950
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 20:57:47 -
[385] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:I didn't play at the time and have only anecdotal evidence for it. But I've heard it from quite a number of people.
Also thanks for your harsh but (from your position) fair comments on your blog. No problem. Any idea where people you heard it from heard it? It's one of those things I've heard a few times too and just assumed to be true, but now that I'm trying to source it, can't seem to find it anywhere. In fact I've found a couple of GMs stating the exact opposite, and now am beginning to wonder if it's just one of those things someone said once that just took hold. James 315, Psychotic Monk and a few others but those are the two I can name. Whilst the highsec predator community are often dishonest to outsiders, we aren't dishonest to each other (and Monk in particular took that as an absolute principle).
It's true, Monk will stab you in the back if he gets the chance, but he won't lie to you.
Sabriz for CSMX!
Consider voting Tora as well.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5175
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 21:33:23 -
[386] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:I didn't play at the time and have only anecdotal evidence for it. But I've heard it from quite a number of people.
Also thanks for your harsh but (from your position) fair comments on your blog. No problem. Any idea where people you heard it from heard it? It's one of those things I've heard a few times too and just assumed to be true, but now that I'm trying to source it, can't seem to find it anywhere. In fact I've found a couple of GMs stating the exact opposite, and now am beginning to wonder if it's just one of those things someone said once that just took hold. James 315, Psychotic Monk and a few others but those are the two I can name. Whilst the highsec predator community are often dishonest to outsiders, we aren't dishonest to each other (and Monk in particular took that as an absolute principle). It's true, Monk will stab you in the back if he gets the chance, but he won't lie to you. That may be the case, but that doesn't mean someone else didn't come up with it and it spread though them. All evidence I can find points to it having never been an exploit at any point.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
171
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 12:31:24 -
[387] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: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.
Just looking through some previous replies while waiting for the server.
CoD obviously isn't the same as EVE Online and you make yourself look like an idiot to say so. In EVE you can do many activities that are not directly a combat situation although they could arguably in a way be construed as being PvP. Whereas CoD is all about fighting and PvP and there is little else to do there. |
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
171
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 12:36:41 -
[388] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:I don't get where these people claiming that CCP are changing AWOXing to protect newbies.
I do not advocate this, but if you wanted to make a change to PVP to protect newbies, you would prevent lowsec gatecamping. THAT is where newbies lose ships to mistakes all the time, particularly in lowsec systems that sell skillbooks.
Removing AWOXing is nothing but a change to protect career highsec players and to reward recklessness. Competently led corporations were seldom infiltrated, and if a disloyal member got in, they seldom did damage with blue on blue highsec attacks - the disloyal member might land tackle, but other loyal members would arrive on grid before anyone was killed.
Personally I feel the new AWOX settings are potentially hazardous because if we accidentally shoot a corpie then CONCORD will come and kill us. So I will be leaving it as 'unsafe' as before.
And before someone points it out I know I'm the only girl in my corporation. I'm speaking theoretically. |
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
171
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 12:55:34 -
[389] - Quote
'We' were considering giving you are votes for the CSM candidacy as we like some of your ideas such as renovating the wardec system to increase the costs if a large force wishes to attack a small or tiny force. We also liked your idea of giving small percentage increases eg to mining yield for pilots who stay in the same player-run corporations for say three months or more. I think you also gave support to, I think it was Steve Ronukens idea , to bring some kind of sovereignty aspect or control of systems to high sec. That idea interests me but it would have to be tightly controlled and well thought out. Otherwise it would end up like the situation with high sec POCOs which to my mind isn't healthy.
It sounds like you would also like to remove high sec from the game which I don't really agree with. Can you explain your thoughts again on this policy ? |
Tear Jar
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
314
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 15:55:12 -
[390] - Quote
Just want to throw my support behind Sabriz. He is articulate, reasonable and has good ideas, which are all important traits for a CSM member. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |