Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [28]:: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18097
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 16:21:16 -
[811] - Quote
Isaac Armer wrote: So the goal in game is to simply get as much ISK as possible? To what end? Don't people enjoy challenges any more?
They enjoy being a pirate.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18097
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 16:25:30 -
[812] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Gankers frequently get podded, and before the clone changes they had to pay to replace the clone if they had over 900k SP, now they don't, they can happily get podded for free. That is a buff.
I'm not surprised at all that you're a complete hypocrite when it comes to these things though.
Implants are now free are they?
Lucas Kell wrote:It doesn't require a fleet to kill it, it only requires a fleet to kill it in less than 30 seconds
And given that you are currently whining about ganking that means a fleet is required. Which means its not a paper thin tank like you claimed.
Lucas Kell wrote: Caught in nullsec you could rip through it solo in a subcap.
Same goes for anything from an ibis to a titan, given enough time you will eventually kill it. This is an incredibly poor argument from you even by your standards. |
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
7970
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 16:45:34 -
[813] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Implants are now free are they? They never were before which is why most gankers don't use them or use the super cheap ones. It doesn't change the fact though that it was a buff to gankers because the cost of the clone replacement dropped to zero. Again, you're trying to claim a buff for gankers isn't a buff because it applied to everyone, but a buff to freighter was a buff even tough it also applied to everyone.
baltec1 wrote:And given that you are currently whining about ganking that means a fleet is required. Which means its not a paper thin tank like you claimed. For a capital it has a paper thin tank.
baltec1 wrote:Same goes for anything from an ibis to a titan, given enough time you will eventually kill it. This is an incredibly poor argument from you even by your standards. Not true. Every other capital would easily outrep a single subcap. Freighters can't rep. Even though they are built for only cargo capacity and durability, with no active modules and no weapons system, they still clock in at less tank than a carrier. They should have considerably more buffer than they have.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18098
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 17:43:21 -
[814] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:They never were before which is why most gankers don't use them or use the super cheap ones.
They have always been listed as something to have in the big organisations right from the days of hulkageddon and the ice interdictions and most people use them. Hence why you always saw the ganker pods scatter.
Lucas Kell wrote: For a capital it has a paper thin tank.
Again, 700k ehp is not paper thin, this has been buffed to 1.15 million EHP. The only ship in highsec with more tank is the veldnought.
Lucas Kell wrote:Not true. Every other capital would easily outrep a single subcap.
Tell that to the Red Alliance nyx that died to rats. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5263
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 17:49:18 -
[815] - Quote
Elite Harvester wrote:Dracvlad wrote:The cost of getting security status back to 0 is nothing for the amount of ISK they make. They only make as much ISK as someone puts in their cargohold. Case in point: Ganking is only as easy and as profitable as the target makes it.
No, no, no. See... mechanics...or some dumbass bullshit.
I have been making this point for what 20 pages and these 2 dingbats just can't seem to wrap their brains around it.
Dracvlad has all these we'll they'll point you. Okay, if they have figured out how to get around the bumping problem....when CODE. is Uedama...dock up. Hell, plan on docking up in one of the systems along the way or take a more circuitous route, dock up for 15 minutes. Throw them off, give them time to find someone else.
This is a game not just a video game, but a game as in game theory. You move, they counter move, then you counter-counter move. But nope! We need to change the game so that this kind of dynamic is just gone.
Shorter Dracvlad and Lucas Kell: We want a more boring and predictable game.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5263
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 17:59:19 -
[816] - Quote
Isaac Armer wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Yes, most people are risk averse (well, there is the whole issue of are people risk averse or loss averse, but setting that aside....). There is considerable evidence for this. Both in game and out. Do you diversify your stock portfolio? Why? To limit your risk. Do you check references of a contractor you are thinking of hiring? Why? To limit your risk. Do you fit a sensible tank on your ship? Yes. Why? To limit your risk of loss. Do you use scouts? Why? To limit your risk.
Here is a thought experiment.
You have two choices:
1. You get $50 every time we play and you pick this option. 2. You get $100 with probability 0.5 or $0 with probability 0.5 every time we play and you pick this option.
And we will play for a finite number of rounds I decide.
Which bet do you take. A person taking 1 is risk averse or risk neutral. A person picking 2 is risk seeking or risk neutral.
And when people say "**** it" and pull a Leroy Jenkins and have fun that is not an example of risk seeking. I've been in those situations in a fleet and yeah it has been fun but, and this is a big but, in those cases losses are heavily compensated for. And also, I can afford to replace lots of ships in game as well. So it is analogous to going to Vegas and giving your self a budget for gambling and enjoying the excitement of gambling. The point is people who are risk seeking will always say "**** it". Comparing money IRL to ISK is ridiculous. This is a video game, the goal is fun, enjoyment. Assuming people act the same around ISK that they do around money IRL doesn't make sense. You people need to stop trying to turn a video game into a job. But let's pretend we can equate money IRL to isk. If you give me those two options above and one of them is more fun to do in the process, I pick the one I enjoy more. Life (IRL or in EVE) is about more than money or ISK. baltec1 wrote:Same as piracy in all of human history. To take the riches of other and make them your own. So the goal in game is to simply get as much ISK as possible? To what end? Don't people enjoy challenges any more?
No it isn't ridiculous to compare ISK and RL money. CCP has actual created a one-way exchange rate via PLEX. We can literally talk about how much a titan costs in terms of dollas by looking at the ISK price and then converting it to PLEX then dollars. That is if I had a fat enough RL wallet, I could buy a titan with it by first buying PLEX then selling that PLEX for ISK, then buying the titan.
Yeah, fun and enjoyment, but people still engage in risk mitigation tactics and behaviors. If you do this you are risk averse. This is not an insult or a bad thing, but something that makes the game challenging.
And yes, people pick the option that they enjoy (or prefer) that is my point. The risk seeking person prefers the risk because to them it is exciting.
Let me give you an example of risk seeking: I fill up a T1 hauler with 500 million in cargo then fly around NS with nothing fitted to help me do so safely. If I'm doing it for the thrill of it, I am risk seeking. If I switch over to a transport with a covert ops cloak, mods and rigs so I warp off/warp faster then I am being risk averse. In both cases I am taking risks, in the first I am seeking it looking for it. In the latter I am doing my best to avoid it.
In short, there is another name for risk averse play: playing smart.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5263
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 18:02:17 -
[817] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Isaac Armer wrote: So the goal in game is to simply get as much ISK as possible? To what end? Don't people enjoy challenges any more?
They enjoy being a pirate.
Or so they can go on being a pirate? Or they use any excess ISK to do other stuff with an alt/main?
The reasons are multitudinous including the banal one of: I just want to accumulate alot of ISK.
Okay, it's a sandbox game if that's your thing great.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
7971
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 18:02:20 -
[818] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:They have always been listed as something to have in the big organisations right from the days of hulkageddon and the ice interdictions and most people use them. Hence why you always saw the ganker pods scatter. for some that may be the case, for most it is not. Either way still irrelevant because it's still a buff. If you ever wondered why it seems like ganking only gets nerfed, it's because like this, you dismiss every buff as non-existent.
baltec1 wrote:Again, 700k ehp is not paper thin, this has been buffed to 1.15 million EHP. The only ship in highsec with more tank is the veldnought. For a capital it has a paper thin tank.
baltec1 wrote:Tell that to the Red Alliance nyx that died to rats. To a single rat? Or a fleet of rats?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
oiukhp Muvila
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
110
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 18:04:59 -
[819] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:....when CODE. is Uedama...dock up..
I don't know how CODE works but our dps was never in the target system or the pipe until the target has been engaged by a bumper or our NPC Corp Cov Ops alt has the ranged warp in for mission runner or miners.
The only way you could save yourself is by having an alt account with a webber or cyno ready for JFs or eyes never leaving local for more than 30 seconds for mission runners or miners.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5263
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 18:05:19 -
[820] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Elite Harvester wrote:Dracvlad wrote:The cost of getting security status back to 0 is nothing for the amount of ISK they make. They only make as much ISK as someone puts in their cargohold. Case in point: Ganking is only as easy and as profitable as the target makes it. Still it is absolutely zero risk and massive rewards...
Perhaps the most idiotic thing written on the forums I have ever seen.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
|
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
7971
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 18:05:19 -
[821] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:We need to change the game so that this kind of dynamic is just gone. We literally said the opposite. We want realistic counterplay where none exists. Not undocking isn't counterplay, it's non-existent play. For that to happen, ganking, among other things, needs to change.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18100
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 18:07:25 -
[822] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:for some that may be the case, for most it is not. Either way still irrelevant because it's still a buff. If you ever wondered why it seems like ganking only gets nerfed, it's because like this, you dismiss every buff as non-existent.
How can it be a buff if you are using implants and thus don't allow yourself to be podded?
Lucas Kell wrote:For a capital it has a paper thin tank.
Its not a combat ship and it have by far the largest tank in highsec.
Lucas Kell wrote: To a single rat? Or a fleet of rats?
Doesn't matter. The point is you can give a freighter the tank of a dosen titans and it will still die to a single subcap in null. Hence why this argument of yours is entirely ********.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5263
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 18:07:25 -
[823] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:We need to change the game so that this kind of dynamic is just gone. We literally said the opposite. We want realistic counterplay where none exists. Not undocking isn't counterplay, it's non-existent play. For that to happen, ganking, among other things, needs to change.
No you aren't. That is my point. The people getting ganked...they are not availing themselves of the counter play options they already have. Changing the mechanics anymore is not going to change that because the issue is with this specific subgroup of players, not the mechanics.
Clearly this point is just too subtle for you.
If people are refusing to use counter measures now, why do you think they will use counter measures in the future?
That is the question you obstinately refuse to answer.
Probably because the answer is, they won't.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers EVEolution.
505
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 18:07:56 -
[824] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:We need to change the game so that this kind of dynamic is just gone. We literally said the opposite. We want realistic counterplay where none exists. Not undocking isn't counterplay, it's non-existent play. For that to happen, ganking, among other things, needs to change.
change to what ?
you do have an idea ?
spit it out lucas. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2414
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 18:08:57 -
[825] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:We need to change the game so that this kind of dynamic is just gone. We literally said the opposite. We want realistic counterplay where none exists. Not undocking isn't counterplay, it's non-existent play. For that to happen, ganking, among other things, needs to change.
This, so much this!!!!!
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5263
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 18:10:30 -
[826] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:We need to change the game so that this kind of dynamic is just gone. We literally said the opposite. We want realistic counterplay where none exists. Not undocking isn't counterplay, it's non-existent play. For that to happen, ganking, among other things, needs to change. change to what ? you do have an idea ? spit it out lucas.
See, he wants to make ganking harder. Because he knows the people getting ganked are being stupid in game. There things they can do NOW to mitigate the risk of getting ganked, BUT THEY REFUSE TO USE THEM.
So address this short coming on the part of those getting ganked Lucas wants to nerf the gankers.
It is literally a horrible policy. And unfortunately one that CCP has endorsed...oh and look at the graphs fro Tranquility over at Eve Offline. How is that working...like ****.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers EVEolution.
505
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 18:10:41 -
[827] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:We need to change the game so that this kind of dynamic is just gone. We literally said the opposite. We want realistic counterplay where none exists. Not undocking isn't counterplay, it's non-existent play. For that to happen, ganking, among other things, needs to change. This, so much this!!!!!
will you please back up enough so we can tell where you start and lucas ends.
|
ISD Max Trix
isd community communications liaisons
372
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 18:11:32 -
[828] - Quote
Well this discussion has run its course and has gone WAAAAAY off topic. Thanks for your replies.
Thread Closed.
ISD Max Trix
Lieutenant
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
I do not respond to Evemails.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [28]:: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |