Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 20:00:00 -
[241] - Quote
Marvin Narville wrote:baltec1 wrote:
While sitting there drunk think about your idea for damage when bumping. Now picture the jita undock, with Bat Country sitting in a wall of brick tank abaddons on the undock. Picture the pileup as freighters crash into us, building a bigger wall. Frigates getting crushed in the chaos, the screams of rage as a badger gets pancaked by two colliding navy ravens...
You giggled a bit.
If implemented, I will immediately purchase a freighter of some sort, fit it out with as many 1600mm plates as possible, stuff the cargo full of as many 1600mm plates as possible, slap a microwarp on it, and tear ass all over jita instablapping people in my death freighter, and zero fucks will be given by me. I'll then lobby to implement a windshield wiper module so i can clean all the frigate hulls off my ride while i'm cruisin.
You will need to lobby for a lot more than a windshield wiper if you want to fit a freighter with plates and a MWD.
Would this sort of thing be considers aggression by a highsec dreads and carriers? Sounds like a better use than mining and photo-ops. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2664
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 20:11:00 -
[242] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Some Rando wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:http://d35dgn2pdc8wsn.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/01.jpg Thanks for posting that. Note that Caldari empire space accounts for 56% of the bots in the game. If that figure includes the spam/market bots, given Chribbas recent research Jita probably accounts for at least 40% of all the bots in Caldari space.
There are hundreds of mining bots in caldari space and at least as many mission bots. Market bots are an issue but not the biggest number. They simply spam the most |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
351
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 20:18:00 -
[243] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: If they have no interest in pvp, why did they pick a pvp-centric game? Why not pick a friendlier, less harsh pve-centric game like Star Trek Online (now that it exists)?
Because the mechanics of the 2 are wholly different and in terms of raw gamplay eve is in some peoples' opinion vastly superior.
Jenn aSide wrote: This is what I can't understand, what kind of twisted people pick a game that goes counter to what they want when alternatives exist that cater exactly to what they want.
This assumes there is a perfect choice, but i'm not aware of a game that is everything eve is mechanically without the constant PvP.
Jenn aSide wrote: Rhetorical question, we know why, because some peopel would rather change a thing than go find a thing that's already what they want. It's why some women will pick a "fixer-upper" type scumbag guy over a guy with a job and no criminal record (lol).
It's not just the "carebears" it's (for example) the people who want to fly their ships with joysticks when EVE is clearly a space ship CAPTAINS game. There are games around that let you fly stuff with joysticks, why not play that. It's mind boggling to me. personally, i wish everyone who doesn't like EVE or only plays EVE because "it could be epic is they change it!" would just "F" straight off and find something they actually like.
It's not rhetorical, the issue is that you are simply equating a large swath of greatly dissimilar games as being just like Eve without the PvP. Or perhaps you consider these things superficial? Others may not, and there lies the issue with finding PvE centric EVE. It doesn't exist. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
351
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 20:22:00 -
[244] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:NARDAC wrote:KrakizBad wrote:"Guys, people who get shot in a PVP game are victims and if you don't see it that way, you have low self esteem" Guys with no interest in PVP, getting shot too much in EVE, will quit playing EVE. CCP does not want carebears quitting EVE. If you understand that CCP wants more players not less, then you simply do not understand what EVE is about. EVE is a game where all players compete against one another in a player-driven economy, whether it's over resources or territory. That is a form of PvP and effects all other players, PvPers and PvErs. If you wish to be exempt from being shot, it follows that you should be exempt from all forms of PvP to prevent people using alts to abuse such a system. In that spirit, I suggest all ore and commodities acquired by non-PvPers can only be used to make items that cannot be used in-game (except for non-PvPer exclusive weapons and ammo) and that they do not generate ISK for ratting but instead some other, completely seperate currency that can't be used to purchase any items useable in game. Anything else and they are PvPing, whether they realize it or not. The game does allow and attempts to promote meaningful conflict, but at the same time give plenty of allowance for conflict of an entirely less meaningful variety. And rightly so, but as such, considering that many of the acts being questioned aren't being done because of their strategic value but because they can be of simply for enjoyment, the statement of the fact that there is meaningful PvP doesn't form an adequate defense for creating a free for all system. |
Besoina
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 20:37:00 -
[245] - Quote
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: I agree completely with the OP, shame I can't formulate any kind of opinion.
*head explodes*
QFT |
Samahiel Sotken
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
105
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 20:43:00 -
[246] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: The game does allow and attempts to promote meaningful conflict, but at the same time give plenty of allowance for conflict of an entirely less meaningful variety. And rightly so, but as such, considering that many of the acts being questioned aren't being done because of their strategic value but because they can be of simply for enjoyment, the statement of the fact that there is meaningful PvP doesn't form an adequate defense for creating a free for all system.
I shall state this as clearly as possible since you seem to be avoiding the point.
I would direct you to the Supreme Court ruling in Wickard v. Filburn http://www.lawnix.com/cases/wickard-filburn.html which clearly establishes that all intrapersonal market activity and production has aggregate effects indistinguishable from interpersonal market transactions.
THEREFORE, Due to Point 1, even passive market or industrial activities is a form of competition. As eloquently pointed out by previous posters.
IT IS ARGUED, because of this interconnected nature to allow certain play styles excessive protection from the forces of competition creates destabilizing natural monopolies of supply that have a deleterious effect upon the economy.
THUS, the safe aggregation of resources, production and transmission of finished goods without fear of loss is a threat of such significance to the EVE economy that we must oppose any de jure or de facto attempts to establish it.
QED, Reset Test. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2116
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 20:44:00 -
[247] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:NARDAC wrote:KrakizBad wrote:"Guys, people who get shot in a PVP game are victims and if you don't see it that way, you have low self esteem" Guys with no interest in PVP, getting shot too much in EVE, will quit playing EVE. CCP does not want carebears quitting EVE. If you understand that CCP wants more players not less, then you simply do not understand what EVE is about. EVE is a game where all players compete against one another in a player-driven economy, whether it's over resources or territory. That is a form of PvP and effects all other players, PvPers and PvErs. If you wish to be exempt from being shot, it follows that you should be exempt from all forms of PvP to prevent people using alts to abuse such a system. In that spirit, I suggest all ore and commodities acquired by non-PvPers can only be used to make items that cannot be used in-game (except for non-PvPer exclusive weapons and ammo) and that they do not generate ISK for ratting but instead some other, completely seperate currency that can't be used to purchase any items useable in game. Anything else and they are PvPing, whether they realize it or not. The game does allow and attempts to promote meaningful conflict, but at the same time give plenty of allowance for conflict of an entirely less meaningful variety. Not really - some guy bumping ships is triggering threadnaughts by ice miners helpless to stop it. That does not suggest a robust system for contesting and resolving conflict over territory and resources.
Quote:And rightly so, but as such, considering that many of the acts being questioned aren't being done because of their strategic value but because they can be of simply for enjoyment, the statement of the fact that there is meaningful PvP doesn't form an adequate defense for creating a free for all system. I was arguing for a two-tier system - one for PvP and one for non-PvPers. Another alternative I had is players who don't want to PvP check a box on the launcher and it logs them into the test server.
|
NARDAC
Newb U
12
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 20:55:00 -
[248] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: If they have no interest in pvp, why did they pick a pvp-centric game? Why not pick a friendlier, less harsh pve-centric game like Star Trek Online (now that it exists)?
Because CCP created high sec to give them a way to play this game the way to play this game in a non-PVP centric way... altering EVE from a PVP-centric game into more of a sandbox where you can play it PVP-centric or not, depending on what EVE is about to you.
Jenn aSide wrote: This is what I can't understand, what kind of twisted people pick a game that goes counter to what they want when alternatives exist that cater exactly to what they want.
Because it doesn't go counter to what they want. It is quite easy to play EVE with little to no "exchange of ordinance in space" type PVP.
Jenn aSide wrote: Rhetorical question, we know why, because some peopel would rather change a thing than go find a thing that's already what they want.
It's not just the "carebears" it's (for example) the people who want to fly their ships with joysticks when EVE is clearly a space ship CAPTAINS game. There are games around that let you fly stuff with joysticks, why not play that. It's mind boggling to me. personally, i wish everyone who doesn't like EVE or only plays EVE because "it could be epic is they change it!" would just "F" straight off and find something they actually like.
But we do not need to change EVE to make it carebear friendly. CCP did that long ago, and are much the richer for it as it drastically increased the player base. It is the people that want to change it back that are asking for the changes. It is the carebears that like things the way they are that are resisting most changes.
As for the change to flying with a joystick? Okay, but then CCP would have to set a max "on grid" ship count to about a dozen. Otherwise, the servers would lag out trying to track the massive "ship course adjustment" message flow.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
351
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 20:58:00 -
[249] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: The game does allow and attempts to promote meaningful conflict, but at the same time give plenty of allowance for conflict of an entirely less meaningful variety.
Not really - some guy bumping ships is triggering threadnaughts by ice miners helpless to stop it. That does not suggest a robust system for contesting and resolving conflict over territory and resources. You are correct, it does not.
Quote:And rightly so, but as such, considering that many of the acts being questioned aren't being done because of their strategic value but because they can be of simply for enjoyment, the statement of the fact that there is meaningful PvP doesn't form an adequate defense for creating a free for all system. I was arguing for a two-tier system - one for PvP and one for non-PvPers. Another alternative I had is players who don't want to PvP check a box on the launcher and it logs them into the test server.[/quote] How does this provide any solution to the issue mentioned above? It still leaves the live server without real solutions to contesting resources in highsec. |
NARDAC
Newb U
12
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 21:03:00 -
[250] - Quote
Buy up a bunch of ice products, then use stabbers to bump ice miners out of ice belts... watch the price of ice products skyrocket. PROFIT.
Seems a legitimate game tactic to me.
The defense to this?
None needed.
Sure, you mine less ice, but the ice you do manage to mine is more valuable. Oh no... You have to warp away, and warp back. Maybe pull some cargo expanders and make your ship a little faster and orbit the ice to dodge the bumps. Get a friend withan even faster bump ship and bump the bumper to make him miss the ice miner.
Ice gets expensive enough, the ice belts will be so full of ice miners that the bumpers won't be able to keep them all bumped off the ice.
Self correcting nature of supply and demand effects on price.
|
|
Den Arius
Forestry Commision The Grizzly Bears
15
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 21:04:00 -
[251] - Quote
Just put in 2 billion ISK towards James. I've had another change of heart, and have decided to align myself with James and the the peoples are against entitled miners. ----- Proud supporter of James 315's New Order of High Sec | Shareholder and Agent -----á http://www.minerbumping.com/ |
NARDAC
Newb U
12
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 21:06:00 -
[252] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:I was arguing for a two-tier system - one for PvP and one for non-PvPers. Another alternative I had is players who don't want to PvP check a box on the launcher and it logs them into the test server.
I think we already have this two-tier system... It is called high sec and low/null sec. |
Samahiel Sotken
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
107
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 21:07:00 -
[253] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:t still leaves the live server without real solutions to contesting resources in highsec.
If only the Systems of Empire, with it's wealth, trade, and industrial capacity was conquerable. What a beautiful chaos of greed, and lust that would be.
Instead of starting coddled and milk fed from the teat of NPC corporations, newbies would begin at the edges of the galaxy scrabbling, clawing, and biting for scraps; all the while their attention and avarice drawing them to the halcyon eliessium of the galactic core. With the promise that nurturing enough cunning, guile, and ruthlessness would enable them to carve their own fortune and empire from it's beating heart.
...
That, or you could give us something meaningful to do with all our space in Nullsec so it's worth the pain, tears, and organization to take and defend it. While at the same time not giving yet more protection to botters and carebears who want to devalue everything we hold by pressing a button and watching Netflix. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
10220
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 21:07:00 -
[254] - Quote
NARDAC wrote:Because CCP created high sec to give them a way to play this game the way to play this game in a non-PVP centric way... altering EVE from a PVP-centric game into more of a sandbox where you can play it PVP-centric or not, depending on what EVE is about to you. Just one problem: the presence of highsec does in no way alter the PvP-centrism of EVE. EVE is a sandbox because it's PvP-centric, not in spite of or in addition to being so.
Highsec offers just as much PvP as other parts of space, possible even more depending on how you choose to interpret those oft-quoted numbers about character distribution.
If highsec was a no-PvP zone, it would have the following restrictions:
-+ You'd obviously no longer be able to lock any player ship. -+ You'd no longer be able to activate any kind of AoE weaponry or module. -+ You'd no longer be able to use the market, contracts or the trading window. -+ You'd no longer be able to access or manage POSes and their services. -+ You'd no longer be able to mine. -+ You'd no longer be able to shoot rats. -+ You'd no longer be able to open any kind of container in space. -+ You'd no longer be able to use the on-board scanner or scan probes. -+ You'd no longer be able to use salvagers. -+ You'd no longer have access the industry interface. -+ You'd no longer be have access to any free-floating permanent sites in space.
GǪand probably a few more that I overlooked. 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¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Dar Manic
Republic University Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 21:08:00 -
[255] - Quote
Quote:Guys with no interest in PVP, getting shot too much in EVE, will quit playing EVE. CCP does not want carebears quitting EVE. If you understand that CCP wants more players not less, then you simply do not understand what EVE is about. EVE is a game where all players compete against one another in a player-driven economy, whether it's over resources or territory. That is a form of PvP and effects all other players, PvPers and PvErs. If you wish to be exempt from being shot, it follows that you should be exempt from all forms of PvP to prevent people using alts to abuse such a system. In that spirit, I suggest all ore and commodities acquired by non-PvPers can only be used to make items that cannot be used in-game (except for non-PvPer exclusive weapons and ammo) and that they do not generate ISK for ratting but instead some other, completely seperate currency that can't be used to purchase any items useable in game. Anything else and they are PvPing, whether they realize it or not.
Fail logic is fail... you might just need to logoff. You have so totally gone off the deep-end you probably don't even know which way is up. Adapt or die... I love it when people using that phrase are loudly advocating great changes in the game!-á It's not adapting if you are crying for change, it's called whining.-á :) |
Samahiel Sotken
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
107
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 21:10:00 -
[256] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:To me it seems this would lead to an overall rather stale environment much like the one people lament in low/null now when looking for targets.
This has not come about in the almost ten years this game has been in existence. Why must we change anything mechanically in order to prevent it? |
Dar Manic
Republic University Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 21:11:00 -
[257] - Quote
Samahiel Sotken wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:To me it seems this would lead to an overall rather stale environment much like the one people lament in low/null now when looking for targets. This has not come about in the almost ten years this game has been in existence. Why must we change anything mechanically in order to prevent it?
There you go... it's not the problem some are very loudly saying it is. Too many people are starting off with an incoherent basic premise and morphing it into complete failure. Adapt or die... I love it when people using that phrase are loudly advocating great changes in the game!-á It's not adapting if you are crying for change, it's called whining.-á :) |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5428
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 21:12:00 -
[258] - Quote
NARDAC wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:I was arguing for a two-tier system - one for PvP and one for non-PvPers. Another alternative I had is players who don't want to PvP check a box on the launcher and it logs them into the test server. I think we already have this two-tier system... It is called high sec and low/null sec.
If they trammelize hisec any further they might as well just go all-out themepark. ~*a-áproud belligerent undesirable*~ |
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
564
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 21:12:00 -
[259] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: If they have no interest in pvp, why did they pick a pvp-centric game? Why not pick a friendlier, less harsh pve-centric game like Star Trek Online (now that it exists)?
This is a good question.
I personally picked Eve because I could watch what OTHER people did. I saw the clips, the antics. I knew for fact that there was no way I could be part of that, not for a long time. It was too big, too glorious.
In the interim, I enjoyed the gfx, the playstyle, the options, the lack of rules, the anarchy, the convos, the people - PvP was a PART of Eve.
And tbph, I wasn't interested in being PART of all that (although I did) - I just wanted to be IN it...
Sorta, I AM there......
"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..." |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
351
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 21:15:00 -
[260] - Quote
This entire thread is just oozing stupid.
Look, for all the whining about high-sec that happens here DAILY, nobody has really bothered to TAKE a system. Do the same thing that's done in null: claim a stake, and take it. In this case, wardec everyone that comes around, kill everyone and everything that moves (even if you have to gank to get it done), protect your miners (since so many of you think high sec mining is soo easy for so much massive reward), and be done with it. You got soldiers to join your troups (all the uber-elite gankers), you have industrialists to join (all the carebear POS guys), and you have the fleas in the mix (like Jimmie what's-his-name).
Do it, or STFU. Problem solved.
But then, this thread isn't about solving the "problem", is it? [/quote] In null they usually respond by blowing people up who violate their claim to an area of space. Doing this in highsec is not recommended as it is more likely to result in massive losses isk wise, loss of ability to even enter the system due to sec status penalties from ganking or costly wars assuming you aren't up against NPC corp characters.
There is simply no beneficial way to stake claim in highsec. In order to be worthwhile it would need to allow more profit than simply doing the same thing without a claim. And without benefit it's not worth considering. |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5429
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 21:16:00 -
[261] - Quote
"please make our cold and harsh universe warm and cuddly for carebears" ~*a-áproud belligerent undesirable*~ |
NARDAC
Newb U
12
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 21:17:00 -
[262] - Quote
Ginger Barbarella wrote:Look, for all the whining about high-sec that happens here DAILY, nobody has really bothered to TAKE a system. Do the same thing that's done in null: claim a stake, and take it. In this case, wardec everyone that comes around, kill everyone and everything that moves (even if you have to gank to get it done),
You can't wardec NPC corps. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
351
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 21:17:00 -
[263] - Quote
NARDAC wrote:I think we already have this two-tier system... It is called high sec and low/null sec.
Samahiel Sotken wrote:This has not come about in the almost ten years this game has been in existence. Why must we change anything mechanically in order to prevent it? That wasn't a statement from me. I just failed on placing the quote tags. See below for proper quote chain.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:And rightly so, but as such, considering that many of the acts being questioned aren't being done because of their strategic value but because they can be of simply for enjoyment, the statement of the fact that there is meaningful PvP doesn't form an adequate defense for creating a free for all system. I was arguing for a two-tier system - one for PvP and one for non-PvPers. Another alternative I had is players who don't want to PvP check a box on the launcher and it logs them into the test server. How does this provide any solution to the issue mentioned above? It still leaves the live server without real solutions to contesting resources in highsec. |
Dar Manic
Republic University Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 21:20:00 -
[264] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Ginger Barbarella wrote:This entire thread is just oozing stupid. Look, for all the whining about high-sec that happens here DAILY, nobody has really bothered to TAKE a system. Do the same thing that's done in null: claim a stake, and take it. In this case, wardec everyone that comes around, kill everyone and everything that moves (even if you have to gank to get it done), protect your miners (since so many of you think high sec mining is soo easy for so much massive reward), and be done with it. You got soldiers to join your troups (all the uber-elite gankers), you have industrialists to join (all the carebear POS guys), and you have the fleas in the mix (like Jimmie what's-his-name). Do it, or STFU. Problem solved. But then, this thread isn't about solving the "problem", is it? In null they usually respond by blowing people up who violate their claim to an area of space. Doing this in highsec is not recommended as it is more likely to result in massive losses isk wise, loss of ability to even enter the system due to sec status penalties from ganking or costly wars assuming you aren't up against NPC corp characters. There is simply no beneficial way to stake claim in highsec. In order to be worthwhile it would need to allow more profit than simply doing the same thing without a claim. And without benefit it's not worth considering.
Why do you HAVE to be able to claim stake? That's the problem with the argument. There's no problem in hi-sec regarding this.
You want to make hi-sec like null-sec. That's the problem. Do you not understand not everyone is about their e-peen? Some people, gasps, just want to play and have fun!! Adapt or die... I love it when people using that phrase are loudly advocating great changes in the game!-á It's not adapting if you are crying for change, it's called whining.-á :) |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
351
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 21:22:00 -
[265] - Quote
Dar Manic wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Ginger Barbarella wrote:This entire thread is just oozing stupid. Look, for all the whining about high-sec that happens here DAILY, nobody has really bothered to TAKE a system. Do the same thing that's done in null: claim a stake, and take it. In this case, wardec everyone that comes around, kill everyone and everything that moves (even if you have to gank to get it done), protect your miners (since so many of you think high sec mining is soo easy for so much massive reward), and be done with it. You got soldiers to join your troups (all the uber-elite gankers), you have industrialists to join (all the carebear POS guys), and you have the fleas in the mix (like Jimmie what's-his-name). Do it, or STFU. Problem solved. But then, this thread isn't about solving the "problem", is it? In null they usually respond by blowing people up who violate their claim to an area of space. Doing this in highsec is not recommended as it is more likely to result in massive losses isk wise, loss of ability to even enter the system due to sec status penalties from ganking or costly wars assuming you aren't up against NPC corp characters. There is simply no beneficial way to stake claim in highsec. In order to be worthwhile it would need to allow more profit than simply doing the same thing without a claim. And without benefit it's not worth considering. Why do you HAVE to be able to claim stake? That's the problem with the argument. There's no problem in hi-sec regarding this. You want to make hi-sec like null-sec. That's the problem. Do you not understand not everyone is about their e-peen? Some people, gasps, just want to play and have fun!! You would have to ask Ginger Barbarella. she is the one who presented it as a valid course of action. I'm just pointing out why it isn't feasible. that said there does appear to be a lack of meaningful and purposeful conflict over highsec resources. |
Ginger Barbarella
State War Academy Caldari State
222
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 21:25:00 -
[266] - Quote
NARDAC wrote:Ginger Barbarella wrote:Look, for all the whining about high-sec that happens here DAILY, nobody has really bothered to TAKE a system. Do the same thing that's done in null: claim a stake, and take it. In this case, wardec everyone that comes around, kill everyone and everything that moves (even if you have to gank to get it done), You can't wardec NPC corps.
Then you kill them or grief them within game rules. I thought I said that??? Everybody is just oozing praise on Jimmy what's-his-name for his "playstyle", so use it. Plenty of miners are in corps; plenty more are in NPC corps. The only difference is one small mechanic.
But I have a feeling this is coming back around to "easy" for the anti-miners/gankers. You guys want it just as easy as the miners supposedly want it.
Who's looking back at whom in the mirror? |
NARDAC
Newb U
13
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 21:25:00 -
[267] - Quote
Andski wrote:"please make our cold and harsh universe warm and cuddly for carebears"
I think that what most people miss is that the universe is both cold and harsh (low/null) and cuddly (high).
Who has the greater sense of entitlement? Those that want to keep this two tier universe, as claimed by the OP who says it is the high sec carebears that are the ones with the sense of entitlement.... or is it the people like the OP that seem to have a sense of entitlement that the two tier universe be eliminated and change it all into low/null sec shoot-em-up, free-for-all
|
Arduemont
Lords 0f Justice Fidelas Constans
578
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 21:25:00 -
[268] - Quote
Is this thread still going on?
I don't understand why anyone listens to the opinion of a group of people who think elite PvP is bumping miners.
Just ignore them, they'll go away eventually. If they don't, I might have to rally the troops myself. Not because I like mining, I don't, but because this is one of the most ret*rded movements in the history of Eve and needs to be stomped out. "In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
351
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 21:26:00 -
[269] - Quote
Samahiel Sotken wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:To me it seems this would lead to an overall rather stale environment much like the one people lament in low/null now when looking for targets. This has not come about in the almost ten years this game has been in existence. Why must we change anything mechanically in order to prevent it? I'd say that due to CCP intervention we haven't seen the worse that can become of any course of action or lack thereof. The proof is that mechanics have changed quite a bit over that same decade. That defense would be more relevant if we still had 2003 eve in 2012. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
351
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 21:28:00 -
[270] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:Is this thread still going on?
I don't understand why anyone listens to the opinion of a group of people who think elite PvP is bumping miners.
Just ignore them, they'll go away eventually. If they don't, I might have to rally the troops myself. Not because I like mining, I don't, but because this is one of the most ret*rded movements in the history of Eve and needs to be stomped out. How is bumping not PvP? Or is resource denial only included in PvP at the convenience of your arguments? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |