|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
   |
Posted - 2008.08.11 11:44:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Maximillian Bayonette on 11/08/2008 11:44:18
 Originally by: Furb Killer
Carebear crap
WTF happened to -V-. You guys used to be cool.
|
Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 11:49:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Furb Killer
But you just said you were with 4 players. Then you can both web and scram the target without problems...
1. I dont represent -V-, it is just my own opinion, not theirs.
2. how is it carebear crap?
Thesedays carebear is just another word for someone you disagree with 
It's carebear crap because you're arguing from the standpoint of a member of "the blob", and try to use those experiences to lecture solo pvpers. You get hung up on parts of sentences and fail to read the entire thing. You argue from the standpoint that your opponent is a griefer.
All these are trademarks of carebear arguing techniques.
|
Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 13:55:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
killing evrything that jumps through a gate is not piracy. Piracy by definition has economic(sp?) motives behind. that includes making sure the target is worth the ammo you are wasting.
every carebear would be ok if lowsec only had proper wars and proper piracy. it's the senseless PKing that's the problem.
Didn't realise you where the judge on what constitutes piracy and not. Sorry 'bout that.
|
Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 14:01:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
don't be an idiot and try to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy
Nice link. I especially like the actual defenition.
Originally by: your link
Maritime piracy, according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982, consists of any criminal acts of violence, detention, or depredation committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or aircraft that is directed on the high seas against another ship, aircraft, or against persons or property on board a ship or aircraft.
Doesn't say anything about economic reasons. Just "private ends" which can be just about anything. Way to shoot your argument in the foot, m8 
|
Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 14:33:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
way to ignore the historical background ...
Didn't you say that piracy by defenition is about economy? I'm pretty sure you did. The link you provided proved you wrong.
About the historical background, are you telling me that RL pirates never killed anyone if it wasn't for profit?
|
Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 15:13:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
2. lowsec being less profitable than highsec is not the issue.
No no, this is the issue. This is the issue we are discussing here.
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
if you nerf highsec profits, I will go directly 0.0.
If it's so easy for you to go to 0.0, why aren't you there already? Could it be that hisec is profitable enough for you so there's no reason for you to move? Yeah, thought so. See the last quote.
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
There is no reason now or in the future to make me live in lowsec.
Exactly, and that's why a boost of low sec is required. In order to keep low sec in line with 0.0, the boost can't be too big, so a nerf of hisec is required.
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
all you will accomplish is to drive off some players and limit the game for other.
Well, that's what's happening now, and you don't seem overly worried about it. Should your playstyle be immune to nerfs?
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
also the lowsec indistrialista are there only for the factory/lab slots and POSes. or are you seriously claiming somebody is fool enough to mine there ? they are importing all the materials and components.
What he's saying is that not everyone is as risk adverse as you. People would go to low sec if there was more there. People would leave hisec for low sec if hisec was less valuable.
|
Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 19:09:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Princess Jodi
The OP lost me right there. Cruising High-Sec looking for haulers is NOT PVP.
Originally by: Wikipedia
Player vs player, or PvP, is competitive interaction within a game between two or more live participants.
Well, look at that. I guess you where wrong there, Jodi.
|
Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 19:43:00 -
[8]
Originally by: FlameGlow
Ah, definitions, who cares about them? If you strictly follow definitions you could say for example that being a pirate is impossible in 0.0 (piracy is defined as illegal activity and there are no laws in 0.0 so nothing is illegal)
That's true, but what does that have to do with Jodi being wrong?
|
Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 22:51:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Lucy'Lastic
Suicide gank nerf was done to prevent 'ganking for lulz' because people abused the insurance system. It was NOT done to protect afk haulers, billion isk CNRs, freighters piloted by out of corp alts in NPC corps and BPO hauling shuttles.
That's pretty funny, because that's exactly what it does.
|
Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 22:56:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Jaabaa Prime
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
I'm not going to state my opinion about where I think it's headed however.
Stopped reading right there.
If you don't have an opinion that you are going to post on then why even start a thread ?
If you had continued reading you probably would have understood the post. Just saying.
|
|
|
Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 11:31:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Maximillian Bayonette on 12/08/2008 11:33:41
Originally by: Astria Tiphareth
Explain to me how combat PvP requires a brain (as opposed to some twitch skills when manually flying), not just using someone else's cookie cutter fit and following the FC like a drone, and I'll begin to believe your argument.
He's not talking about blob warfare where you just obey the FC, lock and press F1-F8. He's talking about small gang and solo pvp where every decision you make will make or break you. A PvP encounter doesn't begin when one ship points another. It begins when contact is first made, be it via scout, scanner, local or some other means. PvP takes skill in ship setup (most successful PvPers don't rely on forums setups, because they mostly suck), finding the fight, catching the prey (prey in this case does not mean 'unarmed') and disposing of the prey while keeping your ship. Skill is the difference between success and failure in any one of those segments.
Originally by: Astria Tiphareth
By comparison, playing the trade market requires vastly more personal thought and capability.
Playing the market takes a lot of skill too. Mission running and mining, however, does not.
Originally by: Astria Tiphareth
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Everyone has the exact same opportunity to kill everyone else.
Rubbish - we don't all fly the same ship, we don't all fly in the same groups, we don't all have the same skills, heck almost a quarter of the ships in the game can't mount weapons. This isn't Unreal Tournament. Heck maybe it should be given the thinking ability some demonstrate.
You still have the same potential chance of killing anyone as they have killing you. It's your choice not to train the skills required to do the job. From the get go, we all get a noobship and 15k isk. We all have the same potential.
Originally by: Astria Tiphareth
I want PvP to be fun, I want EVE not to be totally safe, I'd like the carebear vs PvP to merge closer together instead of being diametrically opposite, but I have zero respect for those that refuse to acknowledge that everyone here plays for fun and plays to win. If you're out mining, getting blown up isn't fun, and therefore the player is going to do something to avoid that. It might be get friends, it might be stay in high-sec, it might be many things that reward the thinking person and none of them are exploits simply because they deny the attacker some idiotic killmail and a bigger e-peen.
All but the "stay in high sec" part are viable options. Stay in high sec should NOT be an option for anyone wanting to make good cash. The reasons for that has been explained again and again in this and other threads. High sec could be completely safe for all I care, but then it should give NO rewards. If it is to have a little risk - like it does now - then it should have little reward. It's the basic concept the game is built on.
|
Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 13:37:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Lucy'Lastic
Imagine you are in charge of CCP and you want to allow suicide ganking but cut down on 'ganking for lulz'. What would be your idea? Bear in mind it's not what you would do based on your opinion it's based on CCPs. You can't just say 'leave it as it is/was'.
Can you come up with a ruling or planned change that is 100% workable and not exploitable?
That's a pretty strange question to ask someone who's against changing the way it worked. You might as well ask a cow how he wants to be slaughtered if electrocuting the brain isn't good enough for him. Still, I'll attempt to answer:
1. Tradeable killrights. This should have been the first step. This would allow the one who got ganked the opportunity to sell his killrights to someone who would actually use them. This way you bring more consequences to suicide ganking, and you give the merc profession a needed boost.
2a. Make high sec less safe. This way you increase the amount of combat in Eve, thus increasing demand, while at the same time lessening the supply. This brings the market prices up, meaning suicide gankers would take a larger hit each time they gank someone. The market is completely out of hand right now, partly because of massive amounts of minerals coming in from the drone regions, and partly because people in high sec are free to generate resources practically risk free. Their only risk is suicide ganking.
2b. Reduce wealth in high sec. This way you bring people out into unsafe space, removing the need for suicide ganking completely.
3. Boost low sec combined with a high sec nerf. Pirates migrate back into low sec, following their prey who seek greener pastures on the frontier. Eve becomes what it used to be, and everyone (except the WoW kiddies) are happy.
|
Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 11:25:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Lucy'Lastic
Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette
2a. Make high sec less safe. This way you increase the amount of combat in Eve.
Making hisec less safe will not increase 'combat'. The only way you get 'combat' in hisec is with War decs. Suicide ganking someone is not 'combat'. Throwing a football at someone does not mean they are 'playing soccer.'
It is combat. If you fire on someone, it is a form of combat. Also, you may have noted that making high sec less safe would entail an actual change in the current system, shich means suicide ganking and war decs would either not be the only ways of combat, or that they would be rather different than today.
Originally by: Lucy'Lastic
Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette
thus increasing demand, while at the same time lessening the supply. This brings the market prices up, meaning suicide gankers would take a larger hit each time they gank someone.
I thought you were AGAINST any nerf to suicide ganking. That affects ALL suicide gankers not just the 'ganking for lulz' brigade.
It affects everyone equally, which is sort of the point. It brings down "ganking for lulz" as it automatically raises the bar for a gank. Sort of like the removal of insurance, but fair.
Originally by: Lucy'Lastic
I can see why you being in a corp called 'White Lion Manufacture and Salvage' would be concerned about the market.
I can see why you seemingly being in a noob corp would be concerned about remaining immune to people who want to shoot you.
Originally by: Lucy'Lastic
Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette
2b. Reduce wealth in high sec. This way you bring people out into unsafe space, removing the need for suicide ganking completely.
I just asked you how you would stop 'suicide ganking for lulz in hisec' and the abuse of the insurance system and your idea is to move everyone into losec. You just won the most ridiculous statement of the year award.
Not at all. This change would have the effect of balancing the rediculous rewards of high sec and making low sec more viable. Those are two of the reasons there are suicide ganking in the first place, and they would definately counter "ganking for lulz".
Originally by: Lucy'Lastic
Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette
3. Boost low sec combined with a high sec nerf. Pirates migrate back into low sec, following their prey who seek greener pastures on the frontier. Eve becomes what it used to be, and everyone (except the WoW kiddies) are happy.
That does absolutely nothing to stop 'ganking for lulz' in hisec and abusing the insurance system.
As explained above, it would absolutely reduce "ganking for lulz" in high sec. The insurance system is being abused by so many people that the only way to stop the abuse is to remove insurance. Insurance for self destruct anyone?
Originally by: Lucy'Lastic
In fact, the only decent thing you could come up with was tradeable kill rights which CCP are already looking into.
Aren't you glad you asked me a stupid question so you could have a stupid answer to nit pick about?
Idiot... 
|
Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 13:08:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Maximillian Bayonette on 13/08/2008 13:09:09
Originally by: Astria Tiphareth
It ceases then to be high-sec, and in which case we might as well go the whole way and make it low-sec or just make everything 0.0. I have proposed this before now, mainly to see what result it would get. Oddly enough it didn't go down well, and those that complained were not empire dwellers.
Yeah right, I'm sure Michael Mission Farmer and Terry AFK Trader would be more than happy to make high sec 0.0. I would love to see everywhere being low sec or 0.0. It would make the game less attractive to the 'casual' players, but it would make it a truly unique and exciting experience.
Originally by: Astria Tiphareth
Unworkable unless you fix low-sec to not be an all-or-nothing venture. For the hauler or miner, low-sec isn't risky, it's lethal. How is the wealth going to be generated if everyone is getting ganked at gatecamps?
No, it's unworkable as long as people have the misconceptions about low sec that you just demonstrated. Low sec is NOT an all-or-nothing venture. There are so many completely empty low sec system it's almost saddening. Gate camps are rare nowadays, because everyone is afraid of hotdrops. If you move around in low sec and know what you are doing, you will never get killed unless you where looking for a fight.
Originally by: Astria Tiphareth
You clearly missed all the 'boost low-sec' threads over the last year and more - the problem isn't that low-sec offers poor rewards, the problem is that low-sec is a total shift in the way to do business in EVE and one that completely favours the pirate unless you are yourself in a large corporation or alliance.
You are aware of the fact that the only mechanic that differentiates low sec from high sec is CONCORD, right? Well, carriers and POSes too, but that's not what we're discussing here.
Originally by: Astria Tiphareth
There were just fewer people about and less toys to play with. Even those that were there 'back in the day' can't agree, as I've seen people saying yes it's all changed, and others saying it hasn't. That you have the temerity to allege that everyone who even disagrees with you is a WoW kiddie does not help your point, it makes you look childish and immature. Don't give me a hard time about ad hominem attacks and then do one yourself.
WoW-kiddies are the people coming to EvE and trying to play it like WoW. They are the ones CCP have been catering to these last patches, and they are the ones you call 'casual' players. It has nothing to do with them agreeing with me or not. It's a play style and a state of mind.
|
Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 13:19:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Lucy'Lastic
You need to use your brain a bit. I'm not immune and I never will to be.
I came up with 4 solutions that would have been better for the game than what CCP came up with. I did so despite the fact that I don't feel anything needs to be changed. That's using your brain. Using your own brain you would also have seen that what you quoted was a "back atcha" retort to your stupid quip about my corp name.
Originally by: Lucy'Lastic
What are you smoking? Let me explain it to you-CCP want suicide ganking for profit. We can still do it. You seem to be under the misconception that CCP want ALL suicide ganking removed. Suicide ganking for lulz in hisec and abusing the insurance system is NOT the same thing as suicide ganking for profit is it?
What are you responding to? I was explaining why my idea would reduce "ganking for lulz". You reply by saying "NO CCP WANTS GANKING FOR LULZ REMOVED"!!!!ONE1". Do you see why your reply is a bit silly? Stupid even?
Originally by: Lucy'Lastic
I'm glad that you failed to come up with a single workable, non exploitable idea and had to reduce to calling me names instead.
I came up with four, and then called you an idiot because you tried to nit pick at the ideas and failed.
Originally by: Lucy'Lastic
What's your idea for reducing 0.0 blobs? Change the sec rating from 0.0 to 0.1?
CCP are going to have to start paying me if they want me to solve all their problems.
|
Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 13:41:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Lucy'Lastic
I've seen lots of your biased, twisted, self serving and intolerant ideas to fix Eves problems and I don't think there's any danger of you being paid for your ideas. Ever.
The reason you see my ideas as biased, twisted, self serving and intolerant is because you are a little biased, twisted and self serving carebear who can't tolerate or accept that he's playing the wrong game. My ideas are in line with stated CCP vision from the years past, and would work to make the game better for everyone except risk adverse cowards such as yourself.
|
Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 13:53:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Lucy'Lastic
Thanks for assuming I'm a carebear because I don't agree with you. Try using Eve search and reading some of my previous posts.
I'm assuming you're a carebear because you act like one. Stop acting like a carebear and I'll stop assuming.
Originally by: Lucy'Lastic
If I'd known that you were KI ANS ALT I would never have bothered trying to have a discussion with you.
Nice going Sherlock. Took you long enough concidering I've made it quite clear.
Originally by: Lucy'Lastic
Your ideas and views are most definitely NOT in line with CCPs vision of what this game should be.
They are in line with stated vision from before. You know, before the current "placate the carebear" climate. Probably before you started playing, so I don't blame you.
Originally by: Lucy'Lastic
Here remember this:
Originally by: Ki An
About the part where you claim the devs are looking to reign in the 'griefers', where have they stated as much? I can't find it anywhere, but you must have a nice link for me, right? The Devs are much smarter than me.
No, but that was written before the new climate was made apparent.
Originally by: Lucy'Lastic
There ya go.
I know you feel this is a major victory for you carebears. Gloat while you can.
|
Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 17:58:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Lucy'Lastic
Anybody who wants more PvP and combat in Eve should check out this discussion/proposal in the Assembly Halls:
Bounty Hunters
Considering this is a PvP game I'm surprised it hasn't gathered more support.
Its been talked about for ages, but nothing happens.
It's also not a terribly thought through suggestion. What it proposes to do is force more rigid rules and mechanics on the game. That's not a good thing. A suggestion to rework the bounty system is needed, but this is not it.
|
|
|
| |
|