Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5026
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:09:00 -
[121] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:You question what problem a favourable standing from CCP towards a limited group poses? Yes. What is the problem? What GÇ£favourable standingGÇ¥ do they get? How does it in any way affect anything? How does it in any way differ from the GÇ£favourable standingsGÇ¥ other limited groups get?
Quote:I 'worry' about CCPs Bias. What bias? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:10:00 -
[122] - Quote
Doc Fury wrote:Schmacos tryne wrote: For you: Meaningless in this context. But nevertheless Meaningless/favourable is still there, hence it's a problem in my book.
That noone agrees doesen't invalidate my concerns the slightest. You will see that most progressions throughout our RL history is made by those few who chose to stand outside mainstream and speak their mind.
Your position impossible to sell when no one else agrees with you, including the people who make and enforce the rules. And yes, history is full "my view is the only view" zealots. "they didn't listen"
They executed the first docktors who had their medical students wash their hands after performing autopsies aswell untill someone spoke up.
Bet you're glad they did now even though you would be the executioner back then. |
Solstice Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
1378
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:14:00 -
[123] - Quote
*LMFAO*
Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:15:00 -
[124] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Schmacos tryne wrote:You question what problem a favourable standing from CCP towards a limited group poses? Yes. What is the problem? What GÇ£favourable standingGÇ¥ do they get? How does it in any way affect anything? How does it in any way differ from the GÇ£favourable standingsGÇ¥ other limited groups get?
Ingame: Quite a lot. I think deep, deep really deeep inside your little tipria heart you agree asell. but now you just have to drag it out based on you principle of never loosing an arguement and always having the last word (regardless how meager it is). OOG: Not my concern as I am master of my own life.
Quote:I 'worry' about CCPs Bias. What bias?[/quote]
The one you just commented on... feeble.. |
Doc Fury
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
396
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:18:00 -
[125] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:Doc Fury wrote:Schmacos tryne wrote: For you: Meaningless in this context. But nevertheless Meaningless/favourable is still there, hence it's a problem in my book.
That noone agrees doesen't invalidate my concerns the slightest. You will see that most progressions throughout our RL history is made by those few who chose to stand outside mainstream and speak their mind.
Your position impossible to sell when no one else agrees with you, including the people who make and enforce the rules. And yes, history is full "my view is the only view" zealots. "they didn't listen" They executed the first docktors who had their medical students wash their hands after performing autopsies aswell untill someone spoke up. Bet you're glad they did now even though you would be the executioner back then.
So, you are now equating your inability to have a highsec carrier, to RL executions of medical students?
the hell man?
The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper 'no.' |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5026
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:20:00 -
[126] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:Ingame: Quite a lot. I think deep, deep really deeep inside your little tipria heart you agree asell. but now you just have to drag it out based on you principle of never loosing an arguement and always having the last word (regardless how meager it is). OOG: Not my concern as I am master of my own life. I can't help noticing you didn't answer any of the questions. GÇ£Quite a lotGÇ¥ contains quite little in the way of actual information.
So: what is the problem? What GÇ£favourable standingGÇ¥ do they get? How does it in any way affect anything? How does it in any way differ from the GÇ£favourable standingsGÇ¥ other limited groups get?
Quote:The one you just commented on... feeble.. SoGǪ what bias, exactly?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Solstice Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
1378
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:20:00 -
[127] - Quote
*LOL* 10/10 Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |
baltec1
654
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:20:00 -
[128] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:Tippia wrote:Schmacos tryne wrote:You question what problem a favourable standing from CCP towards a limited group poses? Yes. What is the problem? What GÇ£favourable standingGÇ¥ do they get? How does it in any way affect anything? How does it in any way differ from the GÇ£favourable standingsGÇ¥ other limited groups get? Ingame: Quite a lot. I think deep, deep really deeep inside your little tipria heart you agree asell. but now you just have to drag it out based on you principle of never loosing an arguement and always having the last word (regardless how meager it is). OOG: Not my concern as I am master of my own life.
That did not answer the question asked. |
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:29:00 -
[129] - Quote
Favourable standings from CCP towards certain groups of players is an isse which concerns me. In this particular case it is easy to prove because the items in question basically are e-peen toys.
CCP admits they should not be there:
GM Quote regarding 6M logofski trick: This is pretty much the cause for almost all cases where a capital ship ends up in high sec space. This is a very old mechanic, predating capital ships, that had some unintended consequences. This hole will be closed at some point in time.
"Up until then, please file a petition if your capital ship (or someone else's) ends up in high sec that way and a GM will correct the issue."
Sure looks like something is not right here to me.
So why don't they just remove them? Because it's unpopular and they "cause no harm".
Problem is, next time CCP screws up can I be sure that they actually pull through and rectify previous misstakes?
A start to reassure me this is the case is for them to rectify previous misstakes (like carriers in high f.ex.)
The question is why the hell should they be there at all?
Somone mentioned tourism.... then put up a NPC with a carrier or somthing and let it take it out for a spin once a day or so. this way you keep your tourism atraction but keep the god dam players out of it. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5026
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:33:00 -
[130] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:Favourable standings from CCP towards certain groups of players is an isse which concerns me. What GÇ£favourable standingGÇ¥ do they get? How does it in any way affect anything? How does it in any way differ from the GÇ£favourable standingsGÇ¥ other limited groups get? In short, what is the problem?
Quote:CCP admits they should not be there:
GM Quote regarding 6M logofski trick: Source?
Quote:So why don't they just remove them? Because it's unpopular and they "cause no harm". Problem is, next time CCP screws up can I be sure that they actually pull through and rectify previous misstakes? Since they have screwed up since and have indeed rectified it, yes. More to the point, though, where is the aGÇ£screw upGÇ¥? Highsec caps have already been rectified. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
|
Doc Fury
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
398
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:35:00 -
[131] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote: CCP admits they should not be there:
GM Quote regarding 6M logofski trick: This is pretty much the cause for almost all cases where a capital ship ends up in high sec space. This is a very old mechanic, predating capital ships, that had some unintended consequences. This hole will be closed at some point in time.
"Up until then, please file a petition if your capital ship (or someone else's) ends up in high sec that way and a GM will correct the issue."
Sure looks like something is not right here to me.
So why don't they just remove them? Because it's unpopular and they "cause no harm".
Quoting out of context, tsk, tsk.
The GM quote above refers to capital ships that were erroneously moved to high sec, not cap ships that were built there before players could no longer do that.
CCP will move cap ships that meet that criteria, not because of any perceived popularity issues, but because those cap ships should not have been moved to high-sec in the first place.
The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper 'no.' |
Aldous Sancros
Carbon-16
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:36:00 -
[132] - Quote
I'm not sure I follow the problem, here, exactly.
There's no special consideration to any one person over another. If you manage to get a capital in high sec yuo are just as welcome to slowboat around in it waving to all the miners, too. You could buy one, if you really wanted.
Eve mechanics restricting awesomely cool things to only those who can afford the very best? That's a fundamental trait of the game.
Nobody's going to stop you from buying one. Well...you might have less prospective sellers after your baffling tantrums in here. |
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:40:00 -
[133] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Schmacos tryne wrote:Favourable standings from CCP towards certain groups of players is an isse which concerns me. What GÇ£favourable standingGÇ¥ do they get? How does it in any way affect anything? How does it in any way differ from the GÇ£favourable standingsGÇ¥ other limited groups get? In short, what is the problem? Quote:CCP admits they should not be there:
GM Quote regarding 6M logofski trick: Source? Quote:So why don't they just remove them? Because it's unpopular and they "cause no harm". Problem is, next time CCP screws up can I be sure that they actually pull through and rectify previous misstakes? Since they have screwed up since and have indeed rectified it, yes. More to the point, though, where is the GÇ£screw upGÇ¥? Highsec caps have already been rectified.
CCP should be neutral and no special treatment whatsoever. This matter is just insainly visible so it has become the spearhead of this (one man) operation.
The source of this is in another thread called "jita carrier" in general forum. Read it there. |
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:42:00 -
[134] - Quote
Aldous Sancros wrote:I'm not sure I follow the problem, here, exactly.
There's no special consideration to any one person over another. If you manage to get a capital in high sec yuo are just as welcome to slowboat around in it waving to all the miners, too. You could buy one, if you really wanted.
Eve mechanics restricting awesomely cool things to only those who can afford the very best? That's a fundamental trait of the game.
Nobody's going to stop you from buying one. Well...you might have less prospective sellers after your baffling tantrums in here.
You seriously haven't figgured out that I don't want one yet... scary.
And no you can't buy one as the special rules sais it's not allowed. |
Zag'mar Jurkar
QC Steel Industries
11
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:43:00 -
[135] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:Favourable standings from CCP towards certain groups of players is an isse which concerns me. In this particular case it is easy to prove because the items in question basically are e-peen toys.
CCP admits they should not be there:
GM Quote regarding 6M logofski trick: This is pretty much the cause for almost all cases where a capital ship ends up in high sec space. This is a very old mechanic, predating capital ships, that had some unintended consequences. This hole will be closed at some point in time.
"Up until then, please file a petition if your capital ship (or someone else's) ends up in high sec that way and a GM will correct the issue."
Sure looks like something is not right here to me.
So why don't they just remove them? Because it's unpopular and they "cause no harm".
Problem is, next time CCP screws up can I be sure that they actually pull through and rectify previous misstakes?
A start to reassure me this is the case is for them to rectify previous misstakes (like carriers in high f.ex.)
The question is why the hell should they be there at all?
Somone mentioned tourism.... then put up a NPC with a carrier or somthing and let it take it out for a spin once a day or so. this way you keep your tourism atraction but keep the god dam players out of it.
He addressed the bug of logging out in a safe spot and coming back 6 months later at your home station, nothing about your "concerns".
|
baltec1
654
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:44:00 -
[136] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:
The source of this is in another thread called "jita carrier" in general forum. Read it there.
What does a quote about said log off trick have to do with ships that were built in empire over half a decade ago? |
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:44:00 -
[137] - Quote
Doc Fury wrote:Schmacos tryne wrote: CCP admits they should not be there:
GM Quote regarding 6M logofski trick: This is pretty much the cause for almost all cases where a capital ship ends up in high sec space. This is a very old mechanic, predating capital ships, that had some unintended consequences. This hole will be closed at some point in time.
"Up until then, please file a petition if your capital ship (or someone else's) ends up in high sec that way and a GM will correct the issue."
Sure looks like something is not right here to me.
So why don't they just remove them? Because it's unpopular and they "cause no harm".
Quoting out of context, tsk, tsk. The GM quote above refers to capital ships that were erroneously moved to high sec, not cap ships that were built there before players could no longer do that. CCP will move cap ships that meet that criteria, not because of any perceived popularity issues, but because those cap ships should not have been moved to high-sec in the first place.
If you read it clearly state this is for the 6 month ships. and if you also bothered reading, this is the way "MOST" of them ended up there. |
Jita Alt666
930
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:44:00 -
[138] - Quote
Florestan Bronstein wrote:Mokokan wrote:You keep arguing a point you haven't made. Why is this a problem for you or anybody else, and why does it need to be fixed? I mean other than tidying things up? there are thing in EVE that he will never have, no matter how hard he tries!!!!! (sales of high-sec capitals are forbidden)
In station trade =/= sale?
C? D? |
baltec1
654
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:45:00 -
[139] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:
You seriously haven't figgured out that I don't want one yet... scary.
And no you can't buy one as the special rules sais it's not allowed.
Doesn't mean you cant get hold of one. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5026
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:46:00 -
[140] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:CCP should be neutral and no special treatment whatsoever. This matter is just insainly visible so it has become the spearhead of this (one man) operation. What GÇ£special treatmentGÇ¥ and GÇ£favourable standingGÇ¥ do they get? How does it in any way affect anything? How does it in any way differ from the GÇ£favourable standingsGÇ¥ other limited groups get? In short, what is the problem?
Quote:The source of this is in another thread called "jita carrier" in general forum. Read it there. GǪso entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Since, if we actually quote the post in question in full, it says:
GM Homonoia wrote:Mashie Saldana wrote:You want a cap ship in highsec? All it takes is a bit of patience.
Step 1, set medical clone to high sec station of interest. Step 2, undock in the ship you want moving and log out at a safe. Step 3, unsub for 6 months. Step 4, resub and enjoy your ship now docked in your clone station.
There are a LOT of super carriers docked in highsec due to this "feature". This is pretty much the cause for almost all cases where a capital ship ends up in high sec space. This is a very old mechanic, predating capital ships, that had some unintended consequences. This hole will be closed at some point in time. Up until then, please file a petition if your capital ship (or someone else's) ends up in high sec that way and a GM will correct the issue. So no, it doesn't actually say that the highsec caps shouldn't be there. By the way, just mentioning a random thread is not a good way to provide a source GÇö this is the internet; link it. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
|
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:46:00 -
[141] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Schmacos tryne wrote:
You seriously haven't figgured out that I don't want one yet... scary.
And no you can't buy one as the special rules sais it's not allowed.
Doesn't mean you cant get hold of one.
Still don't want one, just wan them gone. |
baltec1
654
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:48:00 -
[142] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:
Still don't want one, just wan them gone.
Never said you did, just that you can. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5026
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:50:00 -
[143] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:Still don't want one, just wan them gone. In other words, you admit that your supposed principle isn't actually important.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:50:00 -
[144] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Schmacos tryne wrote:CCP should be neutral and no special treatment whatsoever. This matter is just insainly visible so it has become the spearhead of this (one man) operation. What Gǣspecial treatmentGǥ and Gǣfavourable standingGǥ do they get? How does it in any way affect anything? How does it in any way differ from the Gǣfavourable standingsGǥ other limited groups get? In short, what is the problem? Quote:The source of this is in another thread called "jita carrier" in general forum. Read it there. GǪso entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Since, if we actually quote the post in question in full, it says: GM Homonoia wrote:Mashie Saldana wrote:You want a cap ship in highsec? All it takes is a bit of patience.
Step 1, set medical clone to high sec station of interest. Step 2, undock in the ship you want moving and log out at a safe. Step 3, unsub for 6 months. Step 4, resub and enjoy your ship now docked in your clone station.
There are a LOT of super carriers docked in highsec due to this "feature". This is pretty much the cause for almost all cases where a capital ship ends up in high sec space. This is a very old mechanic, predating capital ships, that had some unintended consequences. This hole will be closed at some point in time. Up until then, please file a petition if your capital ship (or someone else's) ends up in high sec that way and a GM will correct the issue. So no, it doesn't actually say that the highsec caps shouldn't be there.
What other limited groups get favourable standings Tipsia? Tell me and then I can include these cases aswell.
Read the bold text. then tell me how do we deal with those unintended ships? |
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:51:00 -
[145] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Schmacos tryne wrote:Still don't want one, just wan them gone. In other words, you admit that your supposed principle isn't actually important.
means to an end. |
Doc Fury
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
398
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:51:00 -
[146] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:Doc Fury wrote:Schmacos tryne wrote: CCP admits they should not be there:
GM Quote regarding 6M logofski trick: This is pretty much the cause for almost all cases where a capital ship ends up in high sec space. This is a very old mechanic, predating capital ships, that had some unintended consequences. This hole will be closed at some point in time.
"Up until then, please file a petition if your capital ship (or someone else's) ends up in high sec that way and a GM will correct the issue."
Sure looks like something is not right here to me.
So why don't they just remove them? Because it's unpopular and they "cause no harm".
Quoting out of context, tsk, tsk. The GM quote above refers to capital ships that were erroneously moved to high sec, not cap ships that were built there before players could no longer do that. CCP will move cap ships that meet that criteria, not because of any perceived popularity issues, but because those cap ships should not have been moved to high-sec in the first place. If you read it clearly state this is for the 6 month ships. and if you also bothered reading, this is the way "MOST" of them ended up there.
I am well aware what conditions caused those ships to be in high-sec. Some of them were even moved there because of petitions and brain-dead GMs. However, your argument is that all cap ships be removed from high-sec because of some "favoritism" fallacy you perceive, even the few ships that CCP grandfathered because they were built and never left high-sec.
The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper 'no.' |
Zag'mar Jurkar
QC Steel Industries
11
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:53:00 -
[147] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:
What other limited groups get favourable standings Tipsia? Tell me and then I can include these cases aswell.
Read the bold text. then tell me how do we deal with those unintended ships?
They deal with it by applying rules to them in hi-sec, because there are/never was a rule denying them from being there.
|
Aldous Sancros
Carbon-16
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:54:00 -
[148] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:What other limited groups get favourable standings Tipsia? Tell me and then I can include these cases aswell.
Read the bold text. then tell me how do we deal with those unintended ships?
Why Do You Care?
Seriously.
It doesn't affect you, you don't want one, you seem to have no actual interest in this topic beyond a somewhat obtuse means of attention-whoring.
So...what gives?
|
Mokokan
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:55:00 -
[149] - Quote
The classic paradox(?). You want CCP to give special consideration to your request that CCP stop giving players special consideration. And for your example you choose someone who is not getting special consideration.
The inequalities, the mistakes and flaws, the crazy, the unfair, the honor and the spite, the intentional lack of symmetry in the entire fabric of the game........it's what makes it worth playing. The insane depth of the complexity of the EVE universe is the nutty lure of the whole thing. Embrace the chaos. Or bend it to your will. Get out of the forum and play the game. I will, as soon as I get off work. |
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:55:00 -
[150] - Quote
Doc Fury wrote:I am well aware what conditions caused those ships to be in high-sec. Some of them were even moved there because of petitions and brain-dead GMs. However, your argument is that all cap ships be removed from high-sec because of some "favoritism" fallacy you perceive, even the few ships that CCP grandfathered because they were built and never left high-sec.
Well then we more then half agree then.
How do you suggest this should be dealt with? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |