|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
288
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 19:52:21 -
[1] - Quote
Because there is clearly at least one very high profile dev who wants to control the narrative of the game and he doesn't like gankers. In addition he continually lies to the community and makes up BS stories to feed people, but they are just never consistent. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
289
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 20:24:59 -
[2] - Quote
This is not just about bumping mechanics.
It's not that long ago that the community was told, that CCP likes to balance changes in one direction with changes in the other.
Doing that would actually be balanced, but the evidence of changes over the last couple of years demonstatrates that's a lie.
Changes one way are not always balanced by changes the other. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
289
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 20:27:37 -
[3] - Quote
LeGenius Chic Anisha wrote:You wouldn't have any ships either Hackneyed argument made by people with little intelligence. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
291
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 20:47:47 -
[4] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:I think you are rather confused, you are mistaking adjusting bad mechanics and balancing the game for blocking what you define as content. I think it is you that is confused, but that is situation normal.
Beginning from Retribution (Dec 2012) when destroyers were rebalanced, if you go through each change made to the game that either benefits ganking (assigning +1 for easier ganking) or makes it harder (assigning -1 for more difficult), then you can actually see the evidence yourself objectively whether things have been balanced or not,
So starting with a +1 for the destroyer rebalance in Retribution and coming to the latest change, even allowing for some differences in opinion, over the last 3 1/2 years, the balance is around the -4 to -8 mark.
That's not balance. That's nerf. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
291
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 20:57:20 -
[5] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Dracvlad wrote:I think you are rather confused, you are mistaking adjusting bad mechanics and balancing the game for blocking what you define as content. I think it is you that is confused, but that is situation normal. Beginning from Retribution (Dec 2012) when destroyers were rebalanced, if you go through each change made to the game that either benefits ganking (assigning +1 for easier ganking) or makes it harder (assigning -1 for more difficult), then you can actually see the evidence yourself objectively whether things have been balanced or not, So starting with a +1 for the destroyer rebalance in Retribution and coming to the latest change, even allowing for some differences in opinion, over the last 3 1/2 years, the balance is around the -8 mark. That's not balance. That's nerf. That is a simplistic measurement which has no value, the scale is stupid. It's an objective measure that anyone can confirm that removes the personal biases we each have.
You can call it simplistic, but that stems from your own inability to understand it as well as a bias to dismiss anything that doesn't comply with what you believe, which is normal for you, even though you are often wrong. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
293
|
Posted - 2016.04.30 00:57:39 -
[6] - Quote
Tyyler DURden wrote:Bexol Regyri wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
I rather enjoy the content they create, I rather like shooting them, but you came out with your title making a pretty strong statement which you are now backing off on. Where is the castration? Bumping something in a Macherial is the definition of WOW, no consequences and if you think that removing this is castration when its removing a completely stupid mechanic taht got around the whole concept of Eve in having consequences...
I wasn't just talking about the bumping changes but all the changes i have seen since November that hurt mercs, griefers & gankers. You can't have good without bad. Allright OP, besides the recent bumping nerf and the watchlist changes what else has been implemented since November that you deemed "castration" of the ganking and merc playstyles? FYI since you're only 5 months old you might not be aware that actual griefing is not an allowed playstyle. Damage Control rebalance applied to ships that can't even fit a damage control. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
295
|
Posted - 2016.04.30 03:23:49 -
[7] - Quote
Rin Vocaloid2 wrote:Seems like you pissed him off enough to do that to you in every corp you joined. What did you do? Did he join Eve Uni? |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
295
|
Posted - 2016.04.30 03:29:24 -
[8] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:What is objective in adding up 1 + 1 and ignoring effect, its simplistic and wrong headed, what you said was embarrassingly stupid and no amount of bluster can make up for it. You should check the definition of objective sometime. What you typed there is an extremely good example of objectivity.
As to the concept, your simplistic mind is not able to grasp the elegance of that approach, but it's ok, anti-gankers need people too; and who better than the most simplistic minds in the community. After all, anyone with the slightest bit of self respect and intelligence is off doing absolutely anything else. Even mining is a higher pursuit. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
295
|
Posted - 2016.04.30 03:30:25 -
[9] - Quote
Rin Vocaloid2 wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Rin Vocaloid2 wrote:Seems like you pissed him off enough to do that to you in every corp you joined. What did you do? Did he join Eve Uni? Don't think it would make a difference. E-UNI seems to get war decced on a daily basis. Yeah that was kind of the point. Being wardecced isn't about the person being decced (ie. wardecs aren't about pissing people off - well, not as the defender anyway). Nothing is required to be wardecced. It's just a process that happens. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
295
|
Posted - 2016.04.30 03:45:56 -
[10] - Quote
Rin Vocaloid2 wrote:Ah ok. Sorry that your point flew over my head like one of those Amarrian station animations. Nah, it's ok. I'm just being a bit antagonistic.
These forums have no personality. It's not allowed and no wonder most of the community has moved to /r/eve, tweetfleet slack and twitter. You can't discuss anything in here without the heavy hand of a random moderator kicking in. It's strange that in a forum where everyone is already a member of the game that encourages conflict, everything here is kept so sterile and liefless.
So my bad. Was just being an ass. |
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
298
|
Posted - 2016.04.30 11:34:08 -
[11] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:This is not just about bumping mechanics.
It's not that long ago that the community was told, that CCP likes to balance changes in one direction with changes in the other.
Doing that would actually be balanced, but the evidence of changes over the last couple of years demonstatrates that's a lie.
Changes one way are not always balanced by changes the other. There are changes on both sides though, people just choose to pretend they never happened as it suits them. Take for example the bumping changes that have people up in arms. It used to be the case that if you were bumped you could just log off and 15 minutes later you'd be safe.. Sure. Maybe read my subsequent posts.
The removal of the ability to board a ship in space while criminal for example nerfed hyperdunking, but hyperdunking didn't become a thing until the bowhead was introduced, so overall no change in balance through that change. There are other similar examples.
There have been adjustments both ways, but not balanced. If you take the total sum of buffs and nerfs, recent years have favoured nerfs overall.
@Dracvlad: yeah sure. Knock your socks off. You're a light weight when it comes to reasoning, so any point you post can be easily countered with intelligent argument. The difficulty is you are too stupid to understand so there is no point worrying about it, since changing the mind of a fool is s foolish endeavour. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
299
|
Posted - 2016.04.30 18:54:21 -
[12] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:This is not just about bumping mechanics.
It's not that long ago that the community was told, that CCP likes to balance changes in one direction with changes in the other.
Doing that would actually be balanced, but the evidence of changes over the last couple of years demonstatrates that's a lie.
Changes one way are not always balanced by changes the other. There are changes on both sides though, people just choose to pretend they never happened as it suits them. Take for example the bumping changes that have people up in arms. It used to be the case that if you were bumped you could just log off and 15 minutes later you'd be safe.. Sure. Maybe read my subsequent posts. The removal of the ability to board a ship in space while criminal for example nerfed hyperdunking, but hyperdunking didn't become a thing until the bowhead was introduced, so overall no change in balance through that change. There are other similar examples. There have been adjustments both ways, but not balanced. If you take the total sum of buffs and nerfs, recent years have favoured nerfs overall. @Dracvlad: yeah sure. Knock your socks off. You're a light weight when it comes to reasoning, so any point you post can be easily countered with intelligent argument. The difficulty is you are too stupid to understand so there is no point worrying about it, since changing the mind of a fool is s foolish endeavour. Ah but I noticed you tried to explain yourself in replying to Lucas Kell and in fact you are incorrect in that hyperdunking did not become a thing until CCP Falcon decided that it was no longer an exploit. Some people had been using it for some time on the quiet to knock off offline POS modules. Before the Bowhead people used the Orca. There was a massive change in balance from allowing hyperdunking, it enabled one person to gank a freighter and this resulted in a gankfest of epic numbers, which you dismiss as overall no change in balance. Objectively you are talking out of your rear end. To be utterly blunt if a tool like you thinks I am stupid I will take that as a roaring compliment, thank you. Your a dickhead. A low intelligence one it seems.
Reread what I wrote and you'll see that what I said was that removing hyperdunking wasn't overall a nerf to ganking. Just an example of a change that balanced out a situation that became favourable unintentionally.
**** me, get some reading and comprehension skills.
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
308
|
Posted - 2016.05.02 06:47:05 -
[13] - Quote
Shayla Etherodyne wrote:Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Perhaps CCP plans on toning down highsec rewards and replacing a lot of highsec space with lowsec? Like less or equal than .7 would do the trick.
There obviously have to be rookie systems in game and in those areas of space, the mechanics have to be newbie-friendly. Not seeing the "nerf content creators to death" part tho. What content are we talking about? Think of the poor high sec gankers. How would they find their targets in a unsafe environment? Think of the poor highsec miners and haulers.
How will they AFK watch Netflix is an unsafe environment? |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
318
|
Posted - 2016.05.03 09:25:57 -
[14] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Think of the poor highsec miners and haulers.
How will they AFK watch Netflix is an unsafe environment? This is what most of the arguments here come down to, and that's on both sides of this, "these people don't play the way I do therefore they are playing wrong". At the end of the day both ganking and mining will continue to exist and it's up to CCP to balance it which so far they've done pretty well with. I don't particularly like AFK play, but I'd rather see CCP make the gameplay more rewarding for being active than punish the entire playstyle because some people do it AFK. Oh, and for the record, it's a bit rich getting on your high horse about people in their safe environment while you are guarding a playstyle that uses alts in cheap disposable ships to shoot people (more often that not rookie or just terrible players) in the same highsec environment. I have a few ganking chars and I'd consider none of them risk takers. Take your hand off your penis for a minute and just look at the reply above mine.
It was just the same thing in reverse and for no reason other than to demonstrate the futility of any of these sorts of arguments, because what can be said one way can be said the other.
So calm down little boy. No need to get all concerned about a post. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
318
|
Posted - 2016.05.03 09:27:47 -
[15] - Quote
Geronimo McVain wrote: By the way: In another thread someone was complaining that his hulk got blown up in High. One reply was to find some Null-Sec miners. That's safer because you have all the intel in Null that you don't have in High. So much for the safety/unsafety of High and Null.
You should learn the difference between risk and risk management.
If highsec miners used nullsec risk management in highsec, what do you think would happen? |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
323
|
Posted - 2016.05.03 20:19:37 -
[16] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:I love these comparisons with null sec, for example in Null sec I would use a bubble and that Catalyst would not make it to its target. I love the idea that you think people use catalysts much in null.
Your bubble is going to be pretty ineffective against the interceptor that comes as scout/tackle. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
323
|
Posted - 2016.05.03 20:28:04 -
[17] - Quote
Shayla Etherodyne wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Geronimo McVain wrote: By the way: In another thread someone was complaining that his hulk got blown up in High. One reply was to find some Null-Sec miners. That's safer because you have all the intel in Null that you don't have in High. So much for the safety/unsafety of High and Null.
You should learn the difference between risk and risk management. If highsec miners used nullsec risk management in highsec, what do you think would happen? Beside the little fact that they can't because they can't kill someone as a proactive defense measure? If highsec miners used nullsec risk management CODE would lose plenty of ships. But CONCORD avenge CODE too. If you think risk management for miners in null is just simply killing other ships, then you lack understanding of risk management in null. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
323
|
Posted - 2016.05.03 20:31:57 -
[18] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Dracvlad wrote:I love these comparisons with null sec, for example in Null sec I would use a bubble and that Catalyst would not make it to its target. I love the idea that you think people use catalysts much in null. Your bubble is going to be pretty ineffective against the interceptor that comes as scout/tackle. Well you are the one who is suggesting that hisec people follow null sec risk management, I am just pointing out with a simple example why your suggestion is rubbish. An interceptor is no threat in hisec... No I didn't suggest that at all. Go back and re read what was written.
Maybe slower this time so it sinks in. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
323
|
Posted - 2016.05.03 20:41:39 -
[19] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
Well you are the one who is suggesting that hisec people follow null sec risk management, I am just pointing out with a simple example why your suggestion is rubbish. An interceptor is no threat in hisec...
No I didn't suggest that at all. Go back and re read what was written. Maybe slower this time so it sinks in. Alternatively, please quote where at all I suggested that. You can't because it never happened. There you go: Shae Tadaruwa wrote:You should learn the difference between risk and risk management.
If highsec miners used nullsec risk management in highsec, what do you think would happen? Like I said. Maybe read it slower so what was written actually sinks in. Exactly where did I suggest using nullsec risk management in highsec?
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
324
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 05:51:48 -
[20] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Yang Aurilen wrote:Dracvlad wrote:I love these comparisons with null sec, for example in Null sec I would use a bubble and that Catalyst would not make it to its target. So will the freighter. Imagine having multiple bubbles on the gate and the freighter has to slowburn to it. I was responding to a certain person suggesting that miners in hisec use null sec risk management, don't know why you are referring to a freighter in terms of my replies to that. In fact your post just backed me up. Did you still not read it slooowwwwww enough?
Maybe again and you'll understand what was said, though I'm now having my doubts. |
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
325
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 06:35:02 -
[21] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Did you still not read it slooowwwwww enough?
Maybe again and you'll understand what was said, though I'm now having my doubts.
Here we go again: Shae Tadaruwa wrote:You should learn the difference between risk and risk management.
If highsec miners used nullsec risk management in highsec, what do you think would happen? Then you started writtering on in some circle jerk about not killing -10 CODE gankers, well I have, I have gone after what I see as the best ganker in hisec, Liek DarZ on random occasions and he is really difficult to catch, I caught him a few times prevented one gank, but hats off to him he is really good, there an example of doing rather than postulating something that makes no sense especially to those like me who understand risk management. Let me spell it out to you, risk management for an electrician is very difficult to that for a steel works... What crack are you on?
That's actually serious this time. You've lost the plot, especially about the -10 stuff, electricians and steel workers. That's off the scale certifiable crazy talk.
On the other aspect though maybe try reading it slower even again. Then try to quote the exact bit where I suggested using nullsec risk management in highsec.
Spoiler alert: I didn't, so maybe you'll eventually get your mind around the quite clear message, but each time you post I fear even more that you'll just never understand. On the plus side, at least you are content in your ignorance.
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
325
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 06:52:02 -
[22] - Quote
Yes I know what my quote says. It's quite clear.
It just doesn't say what you think it says. So try again perhaps.
Really, slower this time. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
325
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 07:39:14 -
[23] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:EDIT: And a major point to make, the Change to bumping if CCP does it properly is also an end to no consequence PvP, where the gankers can toy with a victim for hours with no consequences. There's always anti-ganking. That's the real no consequence pvp and I don't think bumping changes are going to end that. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
327
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 08:52:54 -
[24] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Gankers can go buy tags or they can go grind some rats and improve their security status, after all what was good for War Akini is good for you.
Enjoy the challenge... Why good for me? My sec status is fine thanks. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
327
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 09:12:30 -
[25] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:He lied to you. It's a loss making operation,.... Come on Baltec, Dracvlad believes totally in the integrity and honesty of gankers.
Everything a ganker has told him in local has always been the truth. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
327
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 10:06:25 -
[26] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Dracvlad wrote:EDIT: And a major point to make, the Change to bumping if CCP does it properly is also an end to no consequence PvP, where the gankers can toy with a victim for hours with no consequences. There's always anti-ganking. That's the real no consequence pvp and I don't think bumping changes are going to end that. First of all ganking will still happen, ... Of course it will. I totally agree.
However, you claimed no consequence pvp would come to an end, which is plainly false.
Anti-ganking is the most no consequence pvp there is in the game and it will continue no matter what bumping changes occur.
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
332
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 23:13:19 -
[27] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:Ganking for profit ... and in safe zones what will they think of next. Must suck to be space poor. What safe zones are these?
Just one more nerf kind? |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
336
|
Posted - 2016.05.05 20:37:59 -
[28] - Quote
Aurelius Ignum wrote:baltec1 wrote:
You say gankers are cowards, well I don't see them fighting to make their untanked ships unprofitable to gank like you are in here.
Poor, spoiled, little child. Who told you that every action or endeavor is, or even should be profitable? Exactly the thought when it comes to mining. Who says it should be profitable?
Doesn't stop all the whine, whinge and moan threads started in the name of "think of the children", "it's unfair" and the ever classic "it shouldn't be possible for a 1 million ISK ship to kill an 200 million/1 billion ISK ship". |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
346
|
Posted - 2016.05.06 07:06:28 -
[29] - Quote
Shayla Etherodyne wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Aurelius Ignum wrote:baltec1 wrote:
You say gankers are cowards, well I don't see them fighting to make their untanked ships unprofitable to gank like you are in here.
Poor, spoiled, little child. Who told you that every action or endeavor is, or even should be profitable? Exactly the thought when it comes to mining. Who says it should be profitable? Doesn't stop all the whine, whinge and moan threads started in the name of "think of the children", "it's unfair" and the ever classic "it shouldn't be possible for a 1 million ISK ship to kill an 200 million/1 billion ISK ship". Because we don't have NPC sell orders for minerals anymore. So mining is profitable by default. If too many mining ships are destroyed production decrease and price increase, until you get a new balance where mining is profitable enough. You want reasonably priced ships? You need profitable mining or module recycling. Whoooshhhh, totally over your head yet again. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
348
|
Posted - 2016.05.06 09:03:11 -
[30] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:However I will continue to bang away on balance on these forums because someone has to. Balance is a very subjective word, especially when all gankers are treated like witches and all miners like gold.
No such thing as balance exists in that environment.
The most balanced system of all would be to remove all restrictions and give all players an equal chance to try to do what they want, but with an equal responsibility to protect their ability to do that.
But then, that's nullsec and not highsec. Highsec by definition is not balanced. It's imbalanced on purpose, towards higher security.
So if you are arguing balance and saying things should be nerfed in favour of more safety, that's not balance, that's tilting things further in the favour of imbalance.
Highsec should be unbalanced. That's the only way it can function as highsec. So drop the balance bullshit, because that's not what you are arguing for. |
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
365
|
Posted - 2016.05.07 00:29:15 -
[31] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Do we tell him or let him figure this one out? Well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
@Sentamon...in addition to having an unusual fetish for Megathron's, Baltec has an who fleet of them named after him. That's not because of highsec shenanigans. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
368
|
Posted - 2016.05.07 04:23:36 -
[32] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Just because a group of players feels it is imperative that non-profitable low-income targets die in the most secure regions of space does not make it so. You're right. it's CCP that makes it so by providing a full-time pvp in a sandbox environment and declaring that the moment you undock, you consent to pvp. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
375
|
Posted - 2016.05.07 15:37:21 -
[33] - Quote
Dani Gallar wrote:I guess this shows that Miners aren-¦t the heard of mindless sheep that some players seems to believe. No, miners are not mindless sheep. Any of them that are actively playing the game and taking care of their things - great for them, they are no different to everyone else and certainly nothing to be looked down on.
The AFK ones. The whingers. The bots. The entitled ones though, they aren't mindless sheep either. That is too good a classification for them. They are something much lower and much worse then that and they deserve to die, constantly. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
386
|
Posted - 2016.05.08 04:57:30 -
[34] - Quote
John Hand wrote:So I ask you, which one is safer? High Sec, where someone might shoot you, or Null Sec, where you KNOW someone WILL shoot you? Highsec.
I've never been shot at in highsec. 10s of thousands of players passed in systems and not 1 single player has shot at me in 4 years.
Nullsec, that's a very different reality. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
389
|
Posted - 2016.05.08 11:40:00 -
[35] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:I like the idea of not letting -10s dock in a station. I don't mind the idea, except for pirate faction NPC stations.
That way -10s can still dock in stations in lowsec and nullsec and some highsec stations, but it would be very limited in highsec.
After all, no docking opportunities at all is really just another 'nerf someone else because they don't play the way I like' approach to requesting game change.
At the same time, it's arguable that non-outlaw characters shouldn't be able to dock at pirate faction stations, but that would be neither here nor there really. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
389
|
Posted - 2016.05.08 12:38:57 -
[36] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Yeah hisec would be better as it should link to security levels which is why I said hisec when I put up that idea, my objective in this is to push them to put up a Citadel or something like that. It is nothing to do with nerf someone else because they don't play the way I like, I want to see real meaningful combat over strategic assets in hisec and if you want to keep saying its because I don't like their gameplay you are missing the point by a wide margin... Missed your pills again?
I responded to Herzog. I didn't even read you're post. I avoid a lot of them because they are just ridiculous. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
532
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 15:42:02 -
[37] - Quote
Strygaldwir Alorkym wrote:Perhaps one of the unintended consequences of ganking is the loss of players. When I initially stumbled upon Eve, I was searching for a strategic simulation, not a Shoot-em up, who has the fastest trigger finger. Being ganked by 5 catalyst to 1 mining barge is not my idea of fun, even on the occasion where Concord gets there before I am podded.
The point being that as a content creation justification. It may be content one does not wish and so many are choosing with their feet. As in walking away!
When I want PVP, I go to Null sec, or lately to Elite Dangerous.
Pity. As usual, no facts to support your claim, just an opinion that ganking hurts player number because that fits your personal view, so therefore must be true.
Well, CCP don't think so and they've tried to validate that view. They failed. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
532
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 22:02:27 -
[38] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Strygaldwir Alorkym wrote:Perhaps one of the unintended consequences of ganking is the loss of players. When I initially stumbled upon Eve, I was searching for a strategic simulation, not a Shoot-em up, who has the fastest trigger finger. Being ganked by 5 catalyst to 1 mining barge is not my idea of fun, even on the occasion where Concord gets there before I am podded.
The point being that as a content creation justification. It may be content one does not wish and so many are choosing with their feet. As in walking away!
When I want PVP, I go to Null sec, or lately to Elite Dangerous.
Pity. As usual, no facts to support your claim, just an opinion that ganking hurts player number because that fits your personal view, so therefore must be true. Well, CCP don't think so and they've tried to validate that view. They failed. As usual someone with no facts telling someone that they have no facts and then uses a survey of 15 day old toons to say that CCP think a certain way, priceless... CCP have posted facts on this for the last couple of years.
Fanfest 2015 and 2015 as well as Eve Vegas 2014. Several posts in the forum too.
Facts exist, so as usual Dracvlad, your stupidity shines through like a light. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
532
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 01:01:02 -
[39] - Quote
Sustrai Aditua wrote:PS If you're trying to justify ganking in high sec as "content creation" maybe you should be cas...(refer to subject line.) I'm not trying to justify ganking in highsec as content creation. Learn to read.
As to the grammar bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY (pretty much sums it up. from 0:43 sec onwards as I don't claim to be doing something free and original in a creative way).
But of course, in a correct form it should have been 'CCP devs have', not 'CCP has', since the Corporation hasn't at all expressed anything. It's only the people inside the company that have expressed their views. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
533
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 06:18:01 -
[40] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:... you base all your assumptions on a study of 15 day old players, and discussions by who based on what data, mere pap and fluff which you accused others of doing, this is not the same as talking about mechanics like crimewatch, this is analysis of numbers where the right questions have been asked when people de-sub. It is like earlier in the thread your simplistic and pathetic +1 nerf suggestion, laughable...
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5504176#post5504221
Stupid is as stupid does I guess Drac. Keep it up. There's plenty more posted and stated by CCP devs in the last couple of years (not just one study), but that post by CCP Rise is the most succinct. Hence my earlier post.
I'll stick with the validated views of CCP over the personal bias that must just be right because reasons approach. At least CCP offer statements based on evidence and not just tears. |
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
533
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 07:14:01 -
[41] - Quote
Mephiztopheleze wrote:i have an easy solution.
every year, the Security Status of every system in EVE reduces by 0.1.
Highsec will cease to be a problem shortly. Except that highsec is just a valid area to play as any, and provides an environment that many players prefer. Highsec should be just as viable an area to play as lowsec or nullsec. None of the 4 types of space are greater than any of the others and they all deserve their unique aspects. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
534
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 08:38:21 -
[42] - Quote
Geronimo McVain wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Except that highsec is just a valid area to play as any, and provides an environment that many players prefer. Highsec should be just as viable an area to play as lowsec or nullsec. None of the 4 types of space are greater than any of the others and they all deserve their unique aspects.
The problem is the griefing. What CODE does isn't nice but okay. But making a living on robbing other players should, IMHO, not be a vial option in High. These guys are especially targeting new and unexperienced player to rob them. And thats not good for the game. Within the first 15 day you don't have a great load carry to Jita but when you carry your collected stuff from last month grinding and it goes "Poof" to make some 10 year player even richer that's another matter. These people are collecting exactly from these people that can't afford to loose their stuff. If I loose 200M ISK cargo + ship it's just an, severe, annoyance for me. 3 Month ago it would have been a much more severe loss. You are effectively loosing gametime because in every other game you may loose items but your SP are save, which you collected through grinding. In Eve you loose everything you earned through grinding cause you would have gotten the SP anyway. So effectively you lost all the game time. Griefing is not allowed in Eve. CCP has a specific policy on it.
If anyone is griefing then report them.
Aside from that, put your evidence forward that this is a problem. If people are losing what they can't afford (in game), more fool them. They should have been more careful.
Losing game time? Rubbish. If a database entry in the UK is changed and some textures disintegrate on screen, no game time was lost. Everything used was still used and all future available time still exists. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
538
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 19:38:18 -
[43] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Dracvlad wrote:... you base all your assumptions on a study of 15 day old players, and discussions by who based on what data, mere pap and fluff which you accused others of doing, this is not the same as talking about mechanics like crimewatch, this is analysis of numbers where the right questions have been asked when people de-sub. It is like earlier in the thread your simplistic and pathetic +1 nerf suggestion, laughable...
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5504176#post5504221 I'll stick with the validated views of CCP over the personal bias that must just be right because reasons approach. At least CCP offer statements based on evidence and not just tears. NEW PLAYERS let me repeat it so you get it NEW PLAYERS and the data was on 15 day old max in their trial period. The only tears I have is from laughing at you trying too hard... Not the only statements, nor only evidence. In your denseness you can assume just one piece of evidence put forward by CCP, but that isn't the case.
Additionally, you can assume stupidly (it would be typical) that people's core views and attitudes somehow do an about turn after they e been playing the game for a while, but then this forum along would show that's not the case.
So while you an ignore or diminish the attempts by CCP to better understand the attitudes of players because they inconveniently don't fit your world view, the rest of us will acknowledge that just like CCP indicated at Fanfest 2014, invalidated opinions don't mean much when you actually find the data is opposite. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
540
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 20:50:50 -
[44] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Dracvlad wrote:... you base all your assumptions on a study of 15 day old players, and discussions by who based on what data, mere pap and fluff which you accused others of doing, this is not the same as talking about mechanics like crimewatch, this is analysis of numbers where the right questions have been asked when people de-sub. It is like earlier in the thread your simplistic and pathetic +1 nerf suggestion, laughable...
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5504176#post5504221 I'll stick with the validated views of CCP over the personal bias that must just be right because reasons approach. At least CCP offer statements based on evidence and not just tears. NEW PLAYERS let me repeat it so you get it NEW PLAYERS and the data was on 15 day old max in their trial period. The only tears I have is from laughing at you trying too hard... Not the only statements, nor only evidence. In your denseness you can assume just one piece of evidence put forward by CCP, but that isn't the case. Additionally, you can assume stupidly (it would be typical) that people's core views and attitudes somehow do an about turn after they e been playing the game for a while, but then this forum along would show that's not the case. So while you an ignore or diminish the attempts by CCP to better understand the attitudes of players because they inconveniently don't fit your world view, the rest of us will acknowledge that just like CCP indicated at Fanfest 2014, invalidated opinions don't mean much when you actually find the data is opposite. All they did was an analysis on the affect of ganking on players who were in the 15 day trial period. That is it, period, a small sample that is totally irrelevant in terms of the subbed account base, all you can say is the impact of ganking on players within their 15 day trial period. This is a small data sample on a very specific question and because the right questions are not asked when people de-sub, it can only be extrapolated, which is why CCP Rise said it does not appear to affect them. Oh they were not upset at losing a venture which was given to them well who would have thought that? Roll of drums and all that... This is not the answer you are not looking for Shae, or whatever... That is incorrect.
You have been here long enough to have read all th discussions over the last couple of years. The evidence put by CCP on player retention (not just the one new player study, but also the subscribed player retention, etc.) so it would seem you are just diverting by simply lying.
For all the disagreement I have had with you, I never imagined you would just lie about things. But it seems you do. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
540
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 20:53:25 -
[45] - Quote
Geronimo McVain wrote:IMHO isn't the killing but the profit the real problem. Dotlan declared Jita the most violent System/24h. Within 24h the most violent non-High System would be on 6. Many People are trying to make a living out of robbery and to do this you need extensive knowledge of the mechanics. Killing in Eve should be for the fun of it not to make a profit. Who are any of us to dictate what someone else's play should be about?
If you enjoy the way you choose to play, then you have no greater right to dictate how others should be able to play or why they play.
Their choices are just as valid as yours. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
540
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 21:02:27 -
[46] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:They can bump you without you being bad, they use suicide blackbirds to stop you from warping so the Macherial can get on you. It is not a question of being bad for the mainly solo players in hisec, its really a question that so many 0.0 alliances are bad because they make no effort to protect their logistics. CCP have something in the works for AFK cloaky camping. That being said my issue has always been how can I bait someone when he is AFK and I have no way to tell that he is AFK resulting in so much wasted effort. That factor is ignored by so many people. One issue is that people like Malcanis and others accuse people who are looking for game balance as being the same as those that want a totally safe hisec, that gets a bit wearing. For example you gave no credit to the gankers here in terms of them being good at what they do, you ignored their tactics that means they catch you even if you are being good by using webbers, it is just so easy to say look they are bad. However I suggest you pop along to this post and see a ganker in full on whine mode... https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=479082&find=unread The poor lamb... I fly freighters and jump freighters through highsec every single day (just check the killboard of this character to see the cyno losses in rookie ships as some evidence of that in terms of jumping out of highsec to mid-points and destinations).
Being bumped or ganked is 100% avoidable. It just takes someone to be responsible for themselves and accepting that if something goes wrong, it's your own fault. Taking that attitude puts a whole new light on safe hauling and it's easy to achieve. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
540
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 21:05:06 -
[47] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Dracvlad wrote:All they did was an analysis on the affect of ganking on players who were in the 15 day trial period. That is it, period, a small sample that is totally irrelevant in terms of the subbed account base, all you can say is the impact of ganking on players within their 15 day trial period. This is a small data sample on a very specific question and because the right questions are not asked when people de-sub, it can only be extrapolated, which is why CCP Rise said it does not appear to affect them. Oh they were not upset at losing a venture which was given to them well who would have thought that? Roll of drums and all that... This is not the answer you are not looking for Shae, or whatever...
That is incorrect. You have been here long enough to have read all th discussions over the last couple of years. The evidence put by CCP on player retention (not just the one new player study, but also the subscribed player retention, etc.) so it would seem you are just diverting by simply lying. For all the disagreement I have had with you, I never imagined you would just lie about things. But it seems you do. No, just stating facts on what that study was. No, stating that only one study has been conducted. That is incorrect and it would appear, deliberately so. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
540
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 21:24:27 -
[48] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:So how will you avoid the blackbird pointing you to enable the bumpers to get on you, I know the scout, got me there, well lets say thet they have covered all the pipes and you have a scam courier contract that you could not resist and yes I know you would not have taken that contract, and neither would I.
Now we get to the fun part, as I was in Executive Outcomes at one point, I also know that there is a neutral freighter blue list for the most prolific of the gankers, Goons and CODE. So if you are part of that blue list then your risk is only the odd Russian gankers or maybe some PL. People make statements like oh they are bad look at me I do it no issue, but its not the whole story is it... Not part of any blue list. No.
As to your contrived example, firstly I don't carry scam courier contracts. So that would never happen.
However, even non-scam contracts can be ganked of course, so taking it to something more realistic, just freighting 3-4 packages in a freighter that to gank would be profitable. That happens regularly. Well, I use my own scouts in key systems, standings to help identify gankers/ganker alts easily, Loki links/web with faction webs (55 km overheated range) and through effective use of scouts (which helps immensely to know in advance if there are blackbirds active), time jumps to avoid trouble. If I'm using a jump freighter, then I have an exit cyno ready to go immediately. There is no way they can gank me with just one chaacter. It requires a fleet of them. Just as they can have a fleet to gank me, I can make use of multiple characters too.
In 8 years, I have never been ganked and I shift multiple freight contracts through highsec almost daily. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
540
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 21:28:26 -
[49] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:I would think that it was extrapolated by looking at those that were ganked and comparing to those that were not and a guess made. And there it is. You just think, therefore it must be so.
Well as per my earlier post, just because we think something doesn't make it so. CCP have tried to verify the belief that ganking is detrimental, both to new player retention and longer term. In both cases they have failed and they have said so. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
540
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 21:31:20 -
[50] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Isaac Armer wrote:Dracvlad wrote:I want to blow up his ship and those taht are with him, hard to do when he is not at his keyboard, seems a bit obvious to me... He can't touch you when AFK, so he's not getting content either. Can't shoot anyone or make ISK while cloaked, the last time I checked. That same stupid line yet again, I want to kill the blighter, can't get him to expose himself to risk if he is sleeping or at work and that is all I care about. So you would not be against an AFK flag then. But can't you just warp around and make bookmarks and according to you, the bookmarks will be made is exactly the same place as the cloaker?
Didn't you say that just a couple of weeks ago? |
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
540
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 21:48:38 -
[51] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Dracvlad wrote:I would think that it was extrapolated by looking at those that were ganked and comparing to those that were not and a guess made. And there it is. You just think, therefore it must be so, despite the numbers and evidence that has been put out by CCP over the last 2 years. Multiple pieces of evidence. Well as per my earlier post, just because we think something doesn't make it so. CCP have tried to verify the belief that ganking is detrimental, both to new player retention and longer term. In both cases they have failed and they have said so. What one survey on a very specific sample, get away with you. Nope its not a case of thinking, its a case of having experience in doing this sort of analysis in RL. And CCP do not ask if the players were ganked and if that is why they de-subbed, so they have to look at that data to select a sample that had been ganked and make comparisons, which is why his statement was so vague. Now if you are unable to work that out, that is your issue not mine. Except you well know there has been more than one study.
None of them match your view, so you just dismiss them. That's pretty idiotic. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
540
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 21:52:13 -
[52] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Dracvlad wrote:I would think that it was extrapolated by looking at those that were ganked and comparing to those that were not and a guess made. And there it is. You just think, therefore it must be so, despite the numbers and evidence that has been put out by CCP over the last 2 years. Multiple pieces of evidence. Well as per my earlier post, just because we think something doesn't make it so. CCP have tried to verify the belief that ganking is detrimental, both to new player retention and longer term. In both cases they have failed and they have said so. What one survey on a very specific sample, get away with you. Nope its not a case of thinking, its a case of having experience in doing this sort of analysis in RL. And CCP do not ask if the players were ganked and if that is why they de-subbed, so they have to look at that data to select a sample that had been ganked and make comparisons, which is why his statement was so vague. Now if you are unable to work that out, that is your issue not mine. Except you well know there has been more than one study. None of them match your view, so you just dismiss them. That's pretty idiotic. Which studies, the only one I am aware of is that CCP Rise one. As per my earlier post, go back to Fanfest 2014 and 2015 and Eve Vegas 2014.
There have been several presentations and posts on player retention, as well as on new player experience. There have been multiple posts in the forum, reddit, tweetfleet slack and twitter by several devs. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
541
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 23:38:03 -
[53] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:As per my earlier post, go back to Fanfest 2014 and 2015 and Eve Vegas 2014.
There have been several presentations and posts on player retention, as well as on new player experience. There have been multiple posts in the forum, reddit, tweetfleet slack and twitter by several devs. But player retnetion and new player experience is not the same as a specifc look at the affect of ganking on a small and imo irrelevant group in terms of ganking that is taklen wildly out of context by gankers to say look we benefit the game, so as I said its not relevant. What stupidity are you on about now?
CCP devs have posted and spoken about this multiple times and in many places. Your blindness to the evidence doesn't "poof" it out of existence. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
542
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 18:55:36 -
[54] - Quote
Pandora Carrollon wrote:Coralas wrote:getting ganked is after all a failure by the ganked player, and thats what really burns. Sorry but this comment is bassackwards. Gankers like CODE and such would justify themselves with comments like this, just like a rapist would justify themselves with "Well, she was dressed provocatively!" You can't seriously compare some guy sitting at his computer, playing a video game for fun, with attitudes toward **** victims IRL.
Eve is not RL. Such comparisons of victim blaming in **** (which is a disgusting thing to do) have no place here.
Quote: Ganking, plain and simple, is not PvP. It's PvE. I've said it a dozen times. You are mining players PvE ships instead of asteroids. There is very low risk to gankers. They are set up from the get go to lose the ship. The worst thing that happens to them is a failed gank, the intended victim lives and CONCORD blows their ship to space dust before they got the kill. They aren't going to get podded, CONCORD doesn't pod. So all their implants stay nice and secure. So gankers rely on HiSec mechanics just as much as normal PvE players do. It's a PvE activity, it just so happens the targets are operated by players not NPC's. They are about as dangerous.
If it's just PVE, then the gank targets must be just NPCs, so ganking is no different to running missions or ratting.
Then we should get rid of CONCORD then? After all, why have CONCORD if it's just rats? |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
546
|
Posted - 2016.06.25 12:03:24 -
[55] - Quote
Every mechanic in the game that I can think of is based on the characters being 'real' beings. Everything that is done is an action by a character and in the sense that this is an 'RPG', our characters have no knowledge of us as players.
The AFK flag totally breaks that.
It's like a divine signal based on moving/clicking a mouse outside the game. If the player doesn't move the mouse in the required time (even though the character might do nothing), the flag activates.
It seems like a total change in the core of the game and in that regard, a mechanic that breaks immersion completely.
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
546
|
Posted - 2016.06.26 08:53:01 -
[56] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
No I am suggesting that they can pull the medium structures within 24 hours of a war dec so they have in effect what they have now.
[snip]
Why? Just because it fits with the status quo is pretty weak justification. No, because hisec is already penalised against in terms of manufacturing, another hit is likely to be mortal. Dracvlad, the vast majority of things (85%+) in the game are produced in the largely highsec regions of The Forge, Lonetrek, The Citadel, and Domain: http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/70343/1/4_production.value.by.region.png There is no danger of some sort of "mortal blow" that will kill highsec industry. If anything, CCP needs to ramp up the incentives outside of highsec to encourage a more even distribution of industry across the universe. Don't bring facts into this.
Thinking something makes it true. Evidence is just inconvenient. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
547
|
Posted - 2016.06.29 17:35:34 -
[57] - Quote
Ivon wrote:The only reason CCP hasn't nerfed ganking is because they can't figure out how to make war decs engaging content for most of the participants, including the aggressing party. Where are you getting this stupidity from?
Ganking has always been part of the game and is perfectly acceptable. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
547
|
Posted - 2016.06.30 03:42:51 -
[58] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:My point was that the the intersection of the two sets is the empty set. There are those who are fine with PvP and there are those who are not. When a group that is fine with PvP war decs a group that is not, there is nothing you can do to get the latter group to engage in PvP because they do not like it.
This exactly.
It doesn't matter what system is developed, CCP will never please 100% of players and for every mechanic there will always be people that complain about it.
Even with current mechanics some PvPers complain about the state of pvp, some mission runners complain about the quality of missions. CCP devs change things, people complain. CCP devs don't change things, people complain.
So even if CCP revamp wardecs, they can't force people to use them and there will always be people that shy away from PvPsnd who, through their own emotional limitations, will come and complain about being griefed and how Eve is unfair.
Luckily that's not the games limitation and it's great that we have a team of developers that care for the game and who are willing to put all the limitations of complainers aside to develop mechanics that they believe work within the overall environment. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
547
|
Posted - 2016.06.30 06:29:22 -
[59] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:...I did not personally attack you...
Dracvlad wrote:... people like you are cancer on the forums ... Lol on the first quote based on the second (with many similar sentiment quotes available). |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
547
|
Posted - 2016.06.30 07:08:39 -
[60] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Dracvlad wrote:...I did not personally attack you... Dracvlad wrote:... people like you are cancer on the forums ... Lol on the first quote based on the second. Emphasis on the words "DID NOT" You are rather bad at this Emphasis on 'many similar sentiment quotes available'.
But I'm happy to be bad at insulting/trolling. Nothing wrong with being bad at that.
As a compliment, you seem quite adept at it. |
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
548
|
Posted - 2016.07.02 08:14:25 -
[61] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:...a lot of people want more meaningful conflict which you flat out ignore, they are not just interested in bang bang ... How many?
This seems very much like a " I think therefore it must be true" type statement. It also seems like a rather one dimensional, shallow view of people's opinions.
I'm not even saying it's wrong, just asking how many people have this view, and is it significant compared to people who think something different? |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
549
|
Posted - 2016.07.02 08:58:12 -
[62] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Dracvlad wrote:...a lot of people want more meaningful conflict which you flat out ignore, they are not just interested in bang bang ... How many? This seems very much like a " I think therefore it must be true" type statement. It also seems like a rather one dimensional, shallow view of people's opinions. I'm not even saying it's wrong, just asking how many people have this view, and is it significant compared to people who think something different? A simple read of the various war dec threads would suffice... Yes, 'simple' seems like a very appropriate adjective there.
Wardec threads have just as wide a series of views as ganking threads and make highsec safe threads, etc.
So no numbers then and no analysis to show how significant that opinion based on a simple read is? Of course not. Just, it must be because that's what I think. No real attempt at validation, resulting in not only s simple read, but also a simple view. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
549
|
Posted - 2016.07.02 09:55:20 -
[63] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Dracvlad wrote:...a lot of people want more meaningful conflict which you flat out ignore, they are not just interested in bang bang ... How many? This seems very much like a " I think therefore it must be true" type statement. It also seems like a rather one dimensional, shallow view of people's opinions. I'm not even saying it's wrong, just asking how many people have this view, and is it significant compared to people who think something different? A simple read of the various war dec threads would suffice... Yes, 'simple' seems like a very appropriate adjective there. Wardec threads have just as wide a series of views as ganking threads and make highsec safe threads, etc. So no numbers then and no analysis to show how significant that opinion based on a simple read is? Of course not. Just, it must be because that's what I think. No real attempt at validation, resulting in not only s simple read, but also a simple view. That is because you are at fault in terms of your own simplistic thinking and lack of analysis, which you showed so aptly at the start of this thread with your very simplistic +1 -1 count of buff's and nerfs. As I said, you are bad at this... I tried simple thinking perhaps you could grasp the concept.
But as usual, nope. If it isn't convenient for you, just ignore or dismiss without offering anything else of value. Vacuous rubbish as is normal for you. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
549
|
Posted - 2016.07.02 10:56:00 -
[64] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Dracvlad wrote: A simple read of the various war dec threads would suffice...
Yes, 'simple' seems like a very appropriate adjective there. Wardec threads have just as wide a series of views as ganking threads and make highsec safe threads, etc. So no numbers then and no analysis to show how significant that opinion based on a simple read is? Of course not. Just, it must be because that's what I think. No real attempt at validation, resulting in not only s simple read, but also a simple view. That is because you are at fault in terms of your own simplistic thinking and lack of analysis, which you showed so aptly at the start of this thread with your very simplistic +1 -1 count of buff's and nerfs. As I said, you are bad at this... I tried simple thinking perhaps you could grasp the concept. But as usual, nope. If it isn't convenient for you, just ignore or dismiss without offering anything else of value. Vacuous rubbish as is normal for you. If you go back to the start of the thread you will see a significant amount of likes on my post pointing out your error in thinking, enough said I would think... Lol. You think likes have meaning.
That's priceless. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
599
|
Posted - 2016.07.09 02:35:14 -
[65] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Rather than trying to create a system where everyone feels equally valued by the game culture and the game systems/developers you are continually pushing an antagonistic agenda that is all about the PvP'ers. Sure PvP'ers might do other things too, but it's constantly about demeaning anyone who doesn't.
And that is where the real problem lies. Like PVEers only ever express respect, love and a feeling of inclusion of PVPers.
Sure.
The tension between different professions is part of Eve and will never change because through it's depth and availability of tools for all different types of play, the game attracts both city builder gamers and pvpers. That's just Eve. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
915
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 10:31:31 -
[66] - Quote
Thread necro \o/
Strygaldwir Alorkym wrote:...Castrating high sec content by making it more of a challenge to behave illegally in a highly legal area. Highsec is no more 'legal' than anywhere else. Each type of space has its unique rules.
Highsec just differs in consequence, but there's no such thing as 'highly legal'.
Quote:Oh, Killing is why were all here, didn't you know that? No, apparently by your post it's for whinging.
Quote:But the point being, for us as players, we may find it of benefit to be sensitive to the "carebears" maybe they are that way because they like it. There is an equally valid alternate wording:
'...be sensitive to the pvpers, maybe they are that way because they like it"
No group has more right to be considered than any other group. We are all equal.
However all the best in whatever you play next. Can I have your stuff?
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
927
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:08:03 -
[67] - Quote
Temba Mapindazi wrote:Solecist Project wrote:Temba Mapindazi wrote:Galaxy Mule wrote:Temba Mapindazi wrote:To the OP, how would it even be possible to castrate cowardly wannabe bumping gank groupies whose preferred created content play style proves beyond doubt they already had no balls?
The butthurt is strong in this one! Pretending to be a female in an online game, guess you know a lot about butt hurt! Holy **** now you even proved him right. *facepalm*Is that really what you call a proper comeback? Are you really that useless? Isn't there ANYONE who is actually a skilled smack-talker? Do we really have to deal with all these low class, low education, low ability manchilds?? I must confess smack talking is not something I excel at. The quick juvenile assumption that someone is butt hurt because they dislike cowards who gank unarmed ships is irksome. Especially when I have never been ganked by one of those low iq tag along wannabe warriors. The fact that people actually pretend they have demonstrated some level of skill is perplexing. EVE has an abundance of great pilots who fearlessly traverse all levels of it's security, these high sec back shooters don't deserve to be mentioned in the company of the intrepid pirates who engage in real PVP. The butthurt is shown from the language you use, not what the subject is about.
Your language shows all the signs of being butthurt.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1137
|
Posted - 2016.10.06 21:10:58 -
[68] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:Railyn Quisqueya wrote:baltec1 wrote: The wolfs got heavily culled over the years and now the sheep are leaving because they are bored.
I think it's amazing how you can take anything, flip it, twist it, and serve it to your purpose. I wonder if you really believe this delusion, or you're just trying to sell it for your cause. Lol, funny thing is, we HTFUers wonder the same thing about you carebear lot. Do you really believe all that nonsense about us being the main reason EVE has retention problems? Look at the numbers in 0.0 they look down about 60% on EvEs high times but there is still lots of activity there. Look at these very forums, it is the wolves mostly left after all these years. Just go for a fly around Hi-sec, the great mining fleets have gone. Look at the NPC kills in Hi-sec, most of the mission runners have gone. As I said the wolves have been a victim of there own success. Over the years I have seen lots of miners leave because of Ganking, mostly because there is no-consequences for the majority of these gankers, they just make a new alt. To use the old wild west analogy miners are unarmed victims and that would get you hung. In EvE it got you a slight security penalty until you did it enough that you need to re-roll a new character. The wolves won. The sheep left. You're trying to fill the bingo card here.
Don't let facts get in the way of a good bias.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1137
|
Posted - 2016.10.06 21:40:44 -
[69] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mark Marconi wrote: Look at the numbers in 0.0 they look down about 60% on EvEs high times but there is still lots of activity there.
Look at these very forums, it is the wolves mostly left after all these years.
Just go for a fly around Hi-sec, the great mining fleets have gone. Look at the NPC kills in Hi-sec, most of the mission runners have gone.
As I said the wolves have been a victim of there own success. Over the years I have seen lots of miners leave because of Ganking, mostly because there is no-consequences for the majority of these gankers, they just make a new alt.
To use the old wild west analogy miners are unarmed victims and that would get you hung. In EvE it got you a slight security penalty until you did it enough that you need to re-roll a new character.
The wolves won. The sheep left.
You're trying to fill the bingo card here. Don't let facts get in the way of a good bias. If it was not the PVE players who had left, these forums would be full of miners complaining that the cost of minerals had tanked and that CCP was making it easier to gank them, to try and get the wolves back. The reality of the situation is hard to argue with, the fact is this thread is called " why does it seem like CCP is castrating high sec content creators" and not "why is CCP making it easier to kill miners". CCP have a lot of wolves left, but not very many sheep. They want the sheep to return. It has always been the wolves who scream the loudest, the sheep have just voted with their wallets and finally CCP is hearing the message. Ok. Bingo card full. Well done sir.
That's some A-grade "reality" you have there.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1137
|
Posted - 2016.10.06 21:55:50 -
[70] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mark Marconi wrote: Look at the numbers in 0.0 they look down about 60% on EvEs high times but there is still lots of activity there.
Look at these very forums, it is the wolves mostly left after all these years.
Just go for a fly around Hi-sec, the great mining fleets have gone. Look at the NPC kills in Hi-sec, most of the mission runners have gone.
As I said the wolves have been a victim of there own success. Over the years I have seen lots of miners leave because of Ganking, mostly because there is no-consequences for the majority of these gankers, they just make a new alt.
To use the old wild west analogy miners are unarmed victims and that would get you hung. In EvE it got you a slight security penalty until you did it enough that you need to re-roll a new character.
The wolves won. The sheep left.
You're trying to fill the bingo card here. Don't let facts get in the way of a good bias. If it was not the PVE players who had left, these forums would be full of miners complaining that the cost of minerals had tanked and that CCP was making it easier to gank them, to try and get the wolves back. The reality of the situation is hard to argue with, the fact is this thread is called " why does it seem like CCP is castrating high sec content creators" and not "why is CCP making it easier to kill miners". CCP have a lot of wolves left, but not very many sheep. They want the sheep to return. It has always been the wolves who scream the loudest, the sheep have just voted with their wallets and finally CCP is hearing the message. Ok. Bingo card full. Well done sir. That's some A-grade "reality" you have there. Well that is ok then. CCP are must not be making Hi-sec safer and they are must be trying to get more wolves into the game to counter the huge numbers of miners and mission runners. So no real point to all these ganker complaints in this thread then. It must be a paradise for the small numbers of gankers who remain, CCP can safely ignore the gankers as a bunch of whiners. CCP can safely ignore all whiners, no matter who they are. They generally lack objective facts and go purely on their own unvalidated opinion. You're starting to be a good example of that.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1137
|
Posted - 2016.10.06 22:22:12 -
[71] - Quote
Piugattuk wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Because there is clearly at least one very high profile dev who wants to control the narrative of the game and he doesn't like gankers. In addition he continually lies to the community and makes up BS stories to feed people, but they are just never consistent. I beg to differ, MTU, MDU, scanning made easier, uber scanning ships, T-3 destroyers, and much more to "get" people involved with each other by making it easier to find people, I made the mistake of deploying a MDU in what I thought was a good safe system, one that I know most of the residents and their activities, however, I did not count on my safe spot being found because someone was watching, I got sloppy and almost got found, lucky for me I packed up and cloaked before they got there. Now it is my policy to always fly like I'm in low/null/WH when doing activities that require discretion, if anything CCP devs had made it easier to "interact" involuntarily. No need to beg, but ok.
None of those things you mentioned have much to do with ganking.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1137
|
Posted - 2016.10.06 22:36:04 -
[72] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote: CCP can safely ignore all whiners, no matter who they are. They generally lack objective facts and go purely on their own unvalidated opinion. You're starting to be a good example of that.
They did, for years and let the gankers and pvpers run a muck. Now they are so low in subs that they are having to make the game Free to Play, to try and get people back. And all that will only bring some sheep back until packs of wolves using free accounts drive them off as well. The fact are obvious to those who choose to see them. The "facts" you are claiming, aren't facts at all. They are opinion. Unvalidated ones at that.
As an example, you claim sub numbers dropping has making CCP have to introduce F2P. However, where is your evidence that this is the reason? Isn't it also equally likely that over the last couple of years CCP have been using evidence-based decision making much more frequently. We saw that with CCP Rise back in 2014 showing that only 1% of people that leave the game claim in game griefing as the reason. That stat has been focussed on a lot, but the most interesting aspect of it is that leaves 99% of other reasons that people have provided and we know that the subscription fee also falls in that 99% (just not how much). Isn't it also likely that CCP are just resoonding to what they are seeing from that? Nothing to do with what you claim.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1137
|
Posted - 2016.10.06 23:04:57 -
[73] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote: CCP can safely ignore all whiners, no matter who they are. They generally lack objective facts and go purely on their own unvalidated opinion. You're starting to be a good example of that.
They did, for years and let the gankers and pvpers run a muck. Now they are so low in subs that they are having to make the game Free to Play, to try and get people back. And all that will only bring some sheep back until packs of wolves using free accounts drive them off as well. The fact are obvious to those who choose to see them. The "facts" you are claiming, aren't facts at all. They are opinion. Invalidated ones at that. As an example, you claim sub numbers dropping has making CCP have to introduce F2P. However, where is your evidence that this is the reason? Isn't it also equally likely that over the last couple of years CCP have been using evidence-based decision making much more frequently. We saw that with CCP Rise back in 2014 showing that only 1% of people that leave the game claim in game griefing as the reason. That stat has been focussed on a lot, but the most interesting aspect of it is that leaves 99% of other reasons that people have provided and we know that the subscription fee also falls in that 99% (just not how much). Isn't it also likely that CCP are just resoonding to what they are seeing from that? Nothing to do with what you claim. Did you actually watch that presentation? What they actually said is 1% of New players. Also most people had not been ganked as a NEW player and seriously the imbalance in ganking is not from when you are a new player and lose so little but when you are older and lose a lot more. As New players 99% probably leave because of the learning curve, they always did. Its that a lot of others have left in droves that is the problem. I will admit subs were lost due to CCPs legendary customer service and the fact they have promised so much and delivered so little small a percentage of their promises over the years. Oh and my evidence is CCPs financial accounts they have been falling for years, first due to spending money on stupid projects and the last few have just been a fall in revenue from eve. Yes I've watched that presentation and the 1% wasn't really the part relevant to the point. The point was about CCP using feedback from customers and analysis of other data to make business decisions; and their data analysis being just as likely a reason for their decisions.
So where is your evidence of what you claim as "facts"?
If you are going to claim you know the facts, then show they are facts and not just fantasy in your head.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1146
|
Posted - 2016.10.08 05:58:50 -
[74] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:What do you mean evade consequences? You mean deal with and accept the consequences? Yeah, those aren't the same thing. Please be specific. You seem to be new here. It was discussed many times ago. No reasons to repeat it again. Except the reason of telling the same lie again.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1147
|
Posted - 2016.10.08 12:23:44 -
[75] - Quote
Kaivarian Coste wrote:Mark Marconi wrote: They don't mine in groups or by themselves. Most of them have gone.
Yeah, I remember some years ago, you'd always find a miner or two in nearly EVERY high sec system. If you were mining yourself, it'd become a race to to see who could strip the belts first (and leave the rags behind). These days, you can mine at your leisure. It's kinda sad. The game peaked in 2013, yet if you look at the value of ores mined since then, the same amount of mining is still going on:
http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/70577/1/0_produced.vs.destroyed.png
Of course, perhaps minerals have risen in price, opps not much change at all:
http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/70577/1/9fa_index.decomp.MineralPriceIndex.png
Overall, these show mining has slowed (as many areas of the game have) but not much at all.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1148
|
Posted - 2016.10.08 12:28:36 -
[76] - Quote
Kaivarian Coste wrote:^ Interesting stats. Makes me wonder where all the mining is being done then. In terms of the current situation:
http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/70577/1/3_mining.value.by.region.png
Nullsec and Highsec.
The Forge is typically 1 or 2 consistently and some null areas swap around a bit for places. Lonetrek and Domain are always up there.
So still lots of mining in highsec.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1150
|
Posted - 2016.10.09 17:13:47 -
[77] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:can you show the same chart from like 2012? Just to compare 2012 wouldn't be 'in terms of the current situation' would it?
They aren't my charts you ******* idiot, they are CCP's and you know they only began publishing them regularly this year.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1150
|
Posted - 2016.10.09 23:16:29 -
[78] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:As you can see here Most of the hi-sec minerals excluding pyerite are down on 2013 levels and when you consider the high levels of tritium, pyerite and mexallon and even isogen in null sec ores, it shows that hi-sec mining is not actually doing that well. Especially when you look at some of the high volume regions that are null sec like Malpais, Delve and Providence you start to realise how few high sec miners are left. Look at the places in hisec that miners used to frequent, Sinq Liason, Heimatar, Essence, Tash-Murkon all out done by null-sec regions. Null you know the place that is meant to be more dangerous that Hi-Sec. The whole game is down on numbers. Across the board.
Trying to cry that carebears have been driven from the game because of PvPers is so simple, only a fool would think it.
2013 was Eve's peak year for numbers. Numbers are down 30% odd on then, yet mining volumes aren't down 30%. There's still lots of mining going on in highsec.
But cry more.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1150
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 00:13:14 -
[79] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote: The whole game is down on numbers. Across the board.
Trying to cry that carebears have been driven from the game because of PvPers is so simple, only a fool would think it.
2013 was Eve's peak year for numbers. Numbers are down 30% odd on then, yet mining volumes aren't down 30%. There's still lots of mining going on in highsec.
But cry more.
But as you can see they are not down as far as minerals are concerned. yes there was an alteration to mineral levels but even with that if everywhere was down 30% null would be on par at best, not a 50% increase in Megacyte. The simple fact is that carebears HAVE been driven from the game. Look at the stats you yourself posted, the hi-sec minerals are down, the majority of the highest mining areas are not in hi-sec and why? Because risk vs reward is broken, it costs more to war dec a large alliance than a small corp and gankers are using 2 destroyers to kill exhumers, hardly risk vs rewate, and killing freighters with 10 destroyers. Yeah they are risking so much, 10 million worth of ships to kill a billion. All in so called Hi-Sec space. Maybe we need a bit more realism where the cops shoot down killers on site. I mean permanently not wait till they jump into a new clone and shake their finger at them. So yeah carebears did get sick of them being the ones taking all the risk and they voted with their wallets and left. CCP forgot the golden rule, those that have the gold make the rules, not those that spend most of their time on a video game. The only thing carebears have driven is the constant whinging and whining.
Those figures you are looking at increased right after the mineral rebalance. Go read the devblogs. It's all in black and white.
Drop the self importance. PvEers (not carebears) are no more or less valuable to the game than PvPers. Many players include a lot of different activities in their play from mining to pvp.
Only carebears who don't matter at all think they are key to the game's success.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1151
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 00:23:11 -
[80] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote: The only thing carebears have driven is the constant whinging and whining.
Those figures you are looking at increased right after the mineral rebalance. Go read the devblogs. It's all in black and white.
Drop the self importance. PvEers (not carebears) are no more or less valuable to the game than PvPers. Many players include a lot of different activities in their play from mining to pvp.
Only carebears who don't matter at all think they are key to the game's success.
If you bothered to read I did not the mineral rebalance, which was just over 30% so as I said null should be flat if it has had a 30% decline in players but megacyte has had a 50% increase. You are right you do need PvErs and PvPers to make the game work properly and prosper. Problem is the game was set for so long to favour the PvPers that the PvErs left. Like I said look at risk vs reward, 2 million loss in ships to kill a 200 million ship is not a balanced risk vs reward. Killing a 1.3 billion isk ship for 10 million loss in ships is not balanced. Yes there should be a risk but it needs to be a real loss like having to use at least 50% of the cost of the ship your attacking seems fair. You want to attack a freighter it should cost you 10 battle cruisers not 10 destroyers. you know balance. Then the PvE players might look at the game again. Bullshit. I'm a pve'er and I play together with a lot of other PvEers that are still here.
The simplistic, PVEers left because of PvPers is so stupid an argument.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1151
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 00:24:13 -
[81] - Quote
Marcus Binchiette wrote:Well the problem is that, the way I see it, CODE is simply using the CONCORD mechanics as a shield - and undertaking "war-like actions" without the full repercussions of what a war would actually entail. So we have the ridiculous situation where we know who the real targets are, but, we can't shoot them. CODE happily breaks the rules in hi-sec when it has the interest in doing so, but, then uses that very same protection which CONCORD provides to escape retribution.
- and yes from the new player perspective CODE is most annoying. It wouldn't surprise me if many new players just quit straight after trial. The real heart of this game is in full blown PvP. But, before a player can get to that level they need the resources, the skills accumulated to do this. Hi-sec is a place where new players can safely do these things until they are ready for null-sec...
So when you start greifing new players before they are capable of operating at your level - and in doing so hamper their development. Then yes you are doing this game a dis-servce. If you're part of CODE then you are part of the cancer which is driving newer players from this game. To put it bluntly, you are a bastard.
You can shoot them just fine. Just like they shoot other people.
Your claims in relation to cancer don't match the information CCP has concluded. Just another set of unvalidated opinions that you think must be true but have never actually checked.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1151
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 00:35:02 -
[82] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Bullshit. I'm a pve'er and I play together with a lot of other PvEers that are still here.
The simplistic, PVEers left because of PvPers is so stupid an argument.
If your statement was true, most of the mining would not be occurring in Null, mineral prices like trit would not have doubled over the last 5 years especially after the 32.5% increase in yield. Yes there are still PvE players left but they are as the stats show, as far as hi-sec goes a larger drop than those in PvP as if PvP had fallen the same the mineral prices for all minerals should be down 30% Simple maths. Edit: Plus CCP would not be making things easier for miners and industrialists if they were the majority of those who stayed. What does highsec v nullsec have to do with this?
You're on about carebears being the salt of the earth that holds the game together and woah betide CCP that they have left.
It's complete rubbish. That you can't get past your own bias isn't a fault of the data. That's your own narrow mindedness.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1151
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 00:38:53 -
[83] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote: That you can't get past your own bias isn't a fault of the data. That's your own narrow mindedness.
Just read your own quote to yourself. Ok.
That you can't get past your own bias isn't a fault if the data. That's your own narrow mindedness.
Yep, still seems correct.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1151
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 00:56:35 -
[84] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote: Ok so the data shows that there is a lot less mining in hi-sec and more in Null.
No it doesn't.
Put the actual numbers down, accounting for the mineral rebalance.
I'll do it again when I get home and post it, but since it is something anyone can do and verify for themselves, go ahead and do it.
Quote:Ganking is so unbalanced you can use ships valued at 1/100 the value of the target and wardecs are designed to make it cheap to pick on the little corps. So industrialists and PvE players take all the risks. Again, bullshit.
They take no more risks than anyone. Lowsec PvPers take risks, nullsec PVEers and PvPers take risks. Market traders take risks. Everyone takes risks. There no exclusive market for industrialists, many of whom minimise risk just fine.
As for ISK balancing, it doesn't work. There are ISK differences all across the game in terms of what can kill what. ISK tank isn't a balancing factor and it shouldn't be.
Quote:And CCP is going out of its way to make things better for all miners.
But according to you carebears bring nothing to the game and the data does not support the fact that PvErs left the game especially in hi-sec.
And you think I have a bias? Carebears bring nothing of value to the game. I didn't say they bring nothing at all to the game. They bring whinging and whining and lots of tears over the way others play the game, instead of focussing on how they play themselves. It's always someone else's fault with Carebears.
They could all disappear and everyone else, PVEers and PvPers would continue on merrily as always.
Yeah you do have a bias. You fail to acknowledge the data as a result of it.
I have a prejudice. More than s bias really, but nothing to do with the data. I'm happy to accept the truth of any data used properly and understand correctly.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1151
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 02:06:59 -
[85] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:So to sum it up even though the figures clearly show a drop in hi-sec mining it does not matter to you. No, not at all. Incorrect, wrong and not a reflection of reality.
Consistent with what I've come to expect from your thought process though.
Quote:If CCP did a graph that clearly showed that hi-sec PvE players left, you would ignore it. No, of course not. No such graph exists though and as I've maintained consistently, there is nothing special about highsec, compared to other areas of space. Numbers are down everywhere. Highsec special snowflakes aren't special at all.
Quote:The concepts of actually having to lose real money to take a risk for ganking you dont like and would probably think were unfair to you. What? Unfair to me how?
I haul every single day through highsec. While my activity is down compared to previous years, I make at least 20 trips through Uedama/Niarja/Madirmilire each week in a freighter/Jump Freighter.
But how is any of that relevant. No one loses real money. It's a game, not real life. ISK isn't worth anything at all out of game.
Quote:Subsequently you will deny anything that would mean the carebears you seem to hate, might actually want to get a more balanced risk vs reward, even if it means that the game might actually have a future, rather than a long drawn out death.
And this is exactly what has been killing EvE slowly for years. Not that this is a PvP game but that it might become a fair PvP game and pvp players (read as gankers) don't like that. Carebears don't want balance. They want complete, 100% safety with no possibility of being attacked. So yeah, **** that.
The game is 13 1/2 years old and did well when it was much less safe than it is now. Fallacy away though.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1151
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 02:43:46 -
[86] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:The reason hisec exists is because players were being griefed out of the game. Fallacy away though. Highsec existed even by the Castor release. It's been in the game since 2003. You might need to reframe that claim.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1151
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 02:45:44 -
[87] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Carebears don't want balance. They want complete, 100% safety with no possibility of being attacked. So yeah, **** that.
The game is 13 1/2 years old and did well when it was much less safe than it is now. Fallacy away though.
No gankers dont want balance. Risk vs reward, it means you take a risk and you get a possible reward. Yet if they actually upgraded the ehp on freighters and exhumers to match their price tag and possible reward then the gankers would be whining and rage quitting. It is not the PvErs who want everything. It is the PvPers, fortunately the reality that CCP is a business is actually starting to dawn on CCP and the place is starting to get a bit fairer. Oh as for being more dangerous in the past here is a hi-sec kill mail from a freighter in 2010 https://eve-kill.net/index.php?a=kill_detail&kll_id=7136995 (frigate, 3 battle cruisers and a battleship) vs a freighter now http://www.eve-kill.net/:3?a=kill_detail&kll_id=524627 (10 Catalysts) Difference in 2010 that took naerly 20 minutes, 2016 its over in half the time. Wow. One killmail fr two different periods. Very convincing.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1151
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 02:57:36 -
[88] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Carebears don't want balance. They want complete, 100% safety with no possibility of being attacked. So yeah, **** that.
The game is 13 1/2 years old and did well when it was much less safe than it is now. Fallacy away though.
No gankers dont want balance. Risk vs reward, it means you take a risk and you get a possible reward. Yet if they actually upgraded the ehp on freighters and exhumers to match their price tag and possible reward then the gankers would be whining and rage quitting. It is not the PvErs who want everything. It is the PvPers, fortunately the reality that CCP is a business is actually starting to dawn on CCP and the place is starting to get a bit fairer. Oh as for being more dangerous in the past here is a hi-sec kill mail from a freighter in 2010 https://eve-kill.net/index.php?a=kill_detail&kll_id=7136995 (frigate, 3 battle cruisers and a battleship) vs a freighter now http://www.eve-kill.net/:3?a=kill_detail&kll_id=524627 (10 Catalysts) Difference in 2010 that took naerly 20 minutes, 2016 its over in half the time. Wow. One killmail from two different periods with some unverifiable claims attached. Very convincing. Have a look at any of the kill mails from then and compare them to now, it is a lot easier and subsequently a lot more dangerous for PvE players. but as usual show you evidence and you ignore it. Just because you hate carebears. I hate carebears, but I have nothing against evidence.
One offs, with unverifiable stories about the length of time taken mean nothing. That isn't proof of more danger now. That you can't understand that is astounding. I could post killmails (if the forum rules permitted) showing the opposite and they would also mean absolutely nothing. Hand picked, individual killmails don't prove a thing for either side.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1151
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 03:28:42 -
[89] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote: I hate carebears, but I have nothing against evidence.
One offs, with unverifiable stories about the length of time taken mean nothing. That isn't proof of more danger now. That you can't understand that is astounding. I could post killmails (if the forum rules permitted) showing the opposite and they would also mean absolutely nothing. Hand picked, individual killmails don't prove a thing for either side.
So hand picked google found them. But your hatred is blinding you to the fact is is more dangerous now for PvE players than it was then. Gankers used to have to gamble some what now its just a few destroyers to kill things 100 times more valuable. At least CCP are siding with the fact they need to get subs back, especially now that log ins are at 2006 levels. (Sorry factual, so you can just ignore this like every fact so far) This game needs those Hi-sec PvE players whether you like it or not. Except it isn't more dangerous now by any proof that has been provided.
Provide proof of that and I'll believe it. But claim it without proof and it's nothing but biased opinion. No more true than any other opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that doesn't make them fact.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1155
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 04:12:35 -
[90] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:The reason hisec exists is because players were being griefed out of the game. Fallacy away though. Highsec existed even by the Castor release. It's been in the game since 2003. You might need to reframe that claim. TIL EVE never had a Beta. Sure it did and as far as I know, that even had highsec. You claiming highsec exists because of griefing even before the beta, which was causing people to leave?
Seems strange, but ok then.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1158
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 09:46:55 -
[91] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: Except for you know, the direct quotes CCP have made that have shown that mining is moving to Null.
Link them.
Quote:Also get off the 'carebear' rant. It's just a label pushed by certain groups to degrade, dehumanise and belittle people they don't like. All groups whinge & whine over something at some stage. Some of the biggest whinging I've ever seen in EVE comes from the PvP groups when something doesn't go their way. Carebear, nullbear, gankbear, rapist, ********, etc. etc. etc.
Labels are used by everyone. I'll use those I want.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1183
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 10:51:51 -
[92] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:So Elite, they are to scared to go into a pvp area where people can shoot them for fun. Highsec is just as much a pvp place as anywhere else. Just different consequences, just like lowsec has it's unique consequences and null/wh space have their unique mechanics.
It doesn't seem like CODE. are too afraid. They shoot for fun in highsec, proving that highsec is very much a pvp place where people shoot for fun.
They also seem to do a fair bit of pvp in lowsec. It seems more that AG is afraid to shoot, no matter which space it is. They'd just rather sit by watching and then come crying in the forum.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
|
|
|