Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 [90] 100 .. 107 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
ashley Eoner
274
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:29:00 -
[2671] - Quote
Onictus wrote:ashley Eoner wrote: EXCEPt the "RISK VS REWARD" chant that has appeared several times in this thread ignores all the rewards except for mission running. So clearly since the only reward that matters is on an individual personal financial level then there's no reason to stay in null.
FFS ar you really that dense? What part of "we don't like mission running, or anom farming" is hard for you. So you want everything handed to you then? Damned the consequences to the economy or the ability for individuals to exploit it?
You realize the reason they nerfed it in the first place right? Faucet hello? |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4592
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:34:00 -
[2672] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:So just leave null then. Since it's so terrible and worthless. That would get CCP's attention.
Why did I read this response and hear my ex-wife's voice in my head?
Null isn't terrible. High Sec is just so good it makes mroe sense to "live" there and have fun in null (or low or wormholes). You can get mad at us for telling you this truth but it doesn't change facts. |
ashley Eoner
274
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:35:00 -
[2673] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:So just leave null then. Since it's so terrible and worthless. That would get CCP's attention.
Why did I read this response and hear my ex-wife's voice in my head? Null isn't terrible. High Sec is just so good it makes mroe sense to "live" there and have fun in null (or low or wormholes). You can get mad at us for telling you this truth but it doesn't change facts. Then why don't you move? If you truly believe what you say then you wouldn't be in null.
I just feel terrible for those poor people who lost their titans in that recent fight. It'll take them a year at least to grind out the isk at 40m an hour to buy a replacement. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
10088
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:35:00 -
[2674] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:SO you're desperately trying to disagree without actually disagreeing. I didn't say tremendously profitable I said profitable. Didn't you guys claim the ice thing made a difference? At least with the ice the people had many systems to chose from for blitzers they have only one agent to choose from. That should make it easier to be profitable about it.
I go by what I see in my area of space during my play time. That's the only facts I've brought to the table when it came to gankers. I'm not linking to kill boards or 24 hour listings. Just personal experience when I have time to run missions.
The ice interdiction was a massive market manipulation event. Ganking missions runners on mass will only result in us losing large amounts of isk for no gain. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1596
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:36:00 -
[2675] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote: EXCEPt the "RISK VS REWARD" chant that has appeared several times in this thread ignores all the rewards except for mission running. So clearly since the only reward that matters is on an individual personal financial level then there's no reason to stay in null.
That is because we are isolating mid-range combat PVE and comparing the two. We are comparing individual incomes and not alliance incomes as well. Which brings a point that this problem will have to be addressed before switching over to a "bottom up/farms and fields" style of alliance income instead of the current "top down" style of alliance income. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Proof Highsec reward needs to be nerfed: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqC-BTui2uSGdDlxa2dWOG5ieHB0QXBVWW82bGN5TFE&usp=sharing |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4594
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:37:00 -
[2676] - Quote
Onictus wrote:
......again with the fingers in your ears.
Per usual completely missing the point.
That's your typiccal high sec poster for you. Just as they live in a part of space that lets them ignore the realites of the game (thanks CONCORD, crime wach and npc corps) so is it on the forums, nothing uncomfortable (like honesty) matters. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
1050
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:37:00 -
[2677] - Quote
Why should one group of burger flippers get payed more than another group of burger flippers? Whether you're running level 4's in a Raven, or running low end anomalies in an Ishtar, you're shooting the same exact red crosses (more or less).
There are high end anomalies in nullsec that are far more difficult than any mission in highsec, the kind of anomaly with a citadel torpedo of death at the end. Those sites are genuinely harder, require more effort and coordination, but also have a much higher payout.
I could get behind a change that made nullsec either have more high end sites, or make current low end sites harder/more rewarding.
But I think it's utterly dumb to nerf/buff one particular group of carebears over another group of carebears when both groups are doing the exact same thing. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
10090
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:38:00 -
[2678] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Then why don't you move?
We have. Most of us make our isk in high sec missions over running null anoms. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
ashley Eoner
274
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:38:00 -
[2679] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:SO you're desperately trying to disagree without actually disagreeing. I didn't say tremendously profitable I said profitable. Didn't you guys claim the ice thing made a difference? At least with the ice the people had many systems to chose from for blitzers they have only one agent to choose from. That should make it easier to be profitable about it.
I go by what I see in my area of space during my play time. That's the only facts I've brought to the table when it came to gankers. I'm not linking to kill boards or 24 hour listings. Just personal experience when I have time to run missions.
The ice interdiction was a massive market manipulation event. Ganking missions runners on mass will only result in us losing large amounts of isk for no gain. You just have to be picky about which ones you pop if you want profit. You could easily lock down SOE mission running and it'd be glorious. I'm actually quite serious about this and if I didn't have more important stuff to do I'd consider doing it myself.
|
ashley Eoner
274
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:39:00 -
[2680] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Then why don't you move? We have. Most of us make our isk in high sec missions over running null anoms. That's funny I still see SOV showing something else. |
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4594
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:39:00 -
[2681] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:ashley Eoner wrote: EXCEPt the "RISK VS REWARD" chant that has appeared several times in this thread ignores all the rewards except for mission running. So clearly since the only reward that matters is on an individual personal financial level then there's no reason to stay in null.
That is because we are isolating mid-range combat PVE and comparing the two. We are comparing individual incomes and not alliance incomes as well. Which brings a point that this problem will have to be addressed before switching over to a "bottom up/farms and fields" style of alliance income instead of the current "top down" style of alliance income.
Watching you interact with that guy is like watching the Federal Reserve Chairman debate fiscal policy with a Wal-mart cashier. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
10090
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:39:00 -
[2682] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:
Which should be covering the fights as mentioned earlier.
It doesn't. For example, all of my mega do not come under the fleet replacement categories. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
19157
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:39:00 -
[2683] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:EXCEPt the "RISK VS REWARD" chant that has appeared several times in this thread ignores all the rewards except for mission running. No, they really don't, and no, that's not an exception to what I just said.
Again, if they could, they'd live 100% in null GÇö earning and wasting money there. As it is currently set up, that's a hugely stupid idea since the effort (short-handed GÇ£riskGÇ¥) required to get to the fun part is massively increased compared to if you just did the obligatory parts in highsec.
You are making the ridiculously idiotic assumption that just because one particular reward GÇö which isn't actually a reward in and of itself by rather an intermediary mechanism for reaching the actual rewards GÇö is better in highsec, everything is better in high so they should GÇ£obviouslyGÇ¥ want to be there. You're ignoring the fact that it's just intermediary; you're ignoring the fact that the actual rewards are not worth both the risks associated with the rewards themselves and the risks associated with the intermediary; and you're ignoring the fact that the intermediary is currently obligatory.
So why on earth would they want to completely move to highsec when it doesn't offer the actual rewards, when the problem is with the intermediary they'd rather avoid altogether and the completely lopsided risk-reward relationship this mandatory part has?
Quote:So clearly since the only reward that matters is on an individual personal financial level then there's no reason to stay in null. GǪexcept that this is just some nonsensical strawman you've invented out of intellectual dishonesty because you're too lazy to figure out what the actual reward structures are that people are talking about.
Quote:That's funny I still see SOV showing something else. Actually, the funny part is that sov doesn't show that in any way, so you're obviously just making things up. 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 2.0. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4594
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:40:00 -
[2684] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:baltec1 wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Then why don't you move? We have. Most of us make our isk in high sec missions over running null anoms. That's funny I still see SOV showing something else.
Are you the typcial solo player who doesn't understand the idea of Alts? |
ashley Eoner
274
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:40:00 -
[2685] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Why should one group of burger flippers get payed more than another group of burger flippers? Whether you're running level 4's in a Raven, or running low end anomalies in an Ishtar, you're shooting the same exact red crosses (more or less).
There are high end anomalies in nullsec that are far more difficult than any mission in highsec, the kind of anomaly with a citadel torpedo of death at the end. Those sites are genuinely harder, require more effort and coordination, but also have a much higher payout.
I could get behind a change that made nullsec either have more high end sites, or make current low end sites harder/more rewarding.
But I think it's utterly dumb to nerf/buff one particular group of carebears over another group of carebears when both groups are doing the exact same thing. The issue is those sights were far too powerful of a faucet so CCP was forced into nerfing the situation to try to get the flow under control. Some sort of increased payout via a LP like scheme would be a better idea in my view. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
10090
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:40:00 -
[2686] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote: That's funny I still see SOV showing something else.
Because we need to drop sov to make use of highsec... Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
ashley Eoner
274
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:41:00 -
[2687] - Quote
Tippia wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:EXCEPt the "RISK VS REWARD" chant that has appeared several times in this thread ignores all the rewards except for mission running. No, they really don't, and no, that's not an exception to what I just said. Again, if they could, they'd live 100% in null GÇö earning and wasting money there. As it is currently set up, that's a hugely stupid idea since the effort (short-handed GÇ£riskGÇ¥) required to get to the fun part is massively increased compared to if you just did the obligatory parts in highsec. You are making the ridiculously idiotic assumption that just because one particular reward GÇö which isn't actually a reward in and of itself by rather an intermediary mechanism for reaching the actual rewards GÇö is better in highsec, everything is better in high so they should GÇ£obviouslyGÇ¥ want to be there. You're ignoring the fact that it's just intermediary; you're ignoring the fact that the actual rewards are not worth both the risks associated with the rewards themselves and the risks associated with the intermediary; and you're ignoring the fact that the intermediary is currently obligatory. So why on earth would they want to completely move to highsec when it doesn't offer the actual rewards, when the problem is with the intermediary they'd rather avoid altogether and the completely lopsided risk-reward relationship this mandatory part has? Quote:So clearly since the only reward that matters is on an individual personal financial level then there's no reason to stay in null. GǪexcept that this is just some nonsensical strawman you've invented out of intellectual dishonesty because you're too lazy to figure out what the actual reward structures are that people are talking about. I'm glad you finally see my point about how the risk versus reward chant is stupid.
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1596
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:42:00 -
[2688] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote: SO you're desperately trying to disagree without actually disagreeing. I didn't say tremendously profitable I said profitable. Didn't you guys claim the ice thing made a difference? At least with the ice the people had many systems to chose from for blitzers they have only one agent to choose from. That should make it easier to be profitable about it.
I go by what I see in my area of space during my play time. That's the only facts I've brought to the table when it came to gankers. I'm not linking to kill boards or 24 hour listings. Just personal experience when I have time to run missions.
I know what it takes, I know how to run the numbers to see if a gank should happen. 9/10 out of the numbers say "don't do it." I've participated in ganks, I've orchestrated ganks and I've lead ganks in the past before my horrible 3.5mm jack headphone set decided to die. Its not the problem you are trying to make it out to be, it is not a significant factor when it comes to mission running. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Proof Highsec reward needs to be nerfed: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqC-BTui2uSGdDlxa2dWOG5ieHB0QXBVWW82bGN5TFE&usp=sharing |
ashley Eoner
274
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:42:00 -
[2689] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:ashley Eoner wrote: That's funny I still see SOV showing something else.
Because we need to drop sov to make use of highsec... I said why don't you leave and you claimed you did which isn't true. If you want CCP's attention nothing would get it like having their major null sec alliances up and leave nullsec out of protest.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4594
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:43:00 -
[2690] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Why should one group of burger flippers get payed more than another group of burger flippers? Whether you're running level 4's in a Raven, or running low end anomalies in an Ishtar, you're shooting the same exact red crosses (more or less).
There are high end anomalies in nullsec that are far more difficult than any mission in highsec, the kind of anomaly with a citadel torpedo of death at the end. Those sites are genuinely harder, require more effort and coordination, but also have a much higher payout.
I could get behind a change that made nullsec either have more high end sites, or make current low end sites harder/more rewarding.
But I think it's utterly dumb to nerf/buff one particular group of carebears over another group of carebears when both groups are doing the exact same thing.
I know you potato, and I know from your posts you're smarter than that.
There is no anomaly in null sec or anywhere else that has a citidel torp. And the null sec "burger flippers" are supposed to make more (relatively speaking) because this video game has a risk reward scheme that says so (that scheme being one of the founding principles of EVE Online).
That "just buff null" thing is nothing more than "leave my high sec alone, even if the power creep involved in buffing null would hurt the game". It's irresponsible thinking. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
10090
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:44:00 -
[2691] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:I said why don't you leave and you claimed you did which isn't true. If you want CCP's attention nothing would get it like having their major null sec alliances up and leave nullsec out of protest.
Or for us to simply make all of our isk in high sec which will give the same result and which is exactly what we are doing. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
797
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:49:00 -
[2692] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:baltec1 wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Then why don't you move? We have. Most of us make our isk in high sec missions over running null anoms. That's funny I still see SOV showing something else.
Yeah because its easier to run missions while doing things like cap fleet sitting and bomber sieges and isk up while goofing off in comms while taking care of business than it is to throw an alt in a ratting system FOR LESS MONEY AND MORE RISK. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
1050
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:51:00 -
[2693] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: I know you potato, and I know from your posts you're smarter than that.
There is no anomaly in null sec or anywhere else that has a citidel torp. And the null sec "burger flippers" are supposed to make more (relatively speaking) because this video game has a risk reward scheme that says so (that scheme being one of the founding principles of EVE Online).
That "just buff null" thing is nothing more than "leave my high sec alone, even if the power creep involved in buffing null would hurt the game". It's irresponsible thinking.
https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/The_Maze
Its also not the only one with a citadel torp if memory serves. Of course this was from years ago when I actually did PvE, and maybe things have changed since then. vOv
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1596
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:51:00 -
[2694] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:La Nariz wrote:ashley Eoner wrote: EXCEPt the "RISK VS REWARD" chant that has appeared several times in this thread ignores all the rewards except for mission running. So clearly since the only reward that matters is on an individual personal financial level then there's no reason to stay in null.
That is because we are isolating mid-range combat PVE and comparing the two. We are comparing individual incomes and not alliance incomes as well. Which brings a point that this problem will have to be addressed before switching over to a "bottom up/farms and fields" style of alliance income instead of the current "top down" style of alliance income. Watching you interact with that guy is like watching the Federal Reserve Chairman debate fiscal policy with a Wal-mart cashier.
If sigs could be longer I'd ego sig this. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Proof Highsec reward needs to be nerfed: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqC-BTui2uSGdDlxa2dWOG5ieHB0QXBVWW82bGN5TFE&usp=sharing |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4597
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:52:00 -
[2695] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:I said why don't you leave and you claimed you did which isn't true. If you want CCP's attention nothing would get it like having their major null sec alliances up and leave nullsec out of protest.
Or for us to simply make all of our isk in high sec which will give the same result and which is exactly what we are doing.
Exactly. Why would we screw ourselves over something like this.
We've adapted to the situation as best we can (with high sec alts), we are commenting on the imblance in hopes that CCP puts fixing it higher up on the priority lists, but if they don't, we'll survive. Unlike high sec people we don't thourgh our keyboard sout of the window and unsub just because something needs fixing. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1596
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:52:00 -
[2696] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:[quote=Jenn aSide] https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/The_MazeIts also not the only one with a citadel torp if memory serves. Of course this was from years ago when I actually did PvE, and maybe things have changed since then. vOv
That is a signature/escalation not an anomaly. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Proof Highsec reward needs to be nerfed: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqC-BTui2uSGdDlxa2dWOG5ieHB0QXBVWW82bGN5TFE&usp=sharing |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4597
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:54:00 -
[2697] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Jenn aSide wrote: I know you potato, and I know from your posts you're smarter than that.
There is no anomaly in null sec or anywhere else that has a citidel torp. And the null sec "burger flippers" are supposed to make more (relatively speaking) because this video game has a risk reward scheme that says so (that scheme being one of the founding principles of EVE Online).
That "just buff null" thing is nothing more than "leave my high sec alone, even if the power creep involved in buffing null would hurt the game". It's irresponsible thinking.
https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/The_MazeIts also not the only one with a citadel torp if memory serves. Of course this was from years ago when I actually did PvE, and maybe things have changed since then. vOv
The Maze is not an Anomaly. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
797
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:55:00 -
[2698] - Quote
Anomalies are hub, havens, sanctums and whatnot.
The Maze is a rated site, and rather a bastard of one at that. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
19160
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:56:00 -
[2699] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:I'm glad you finally see my point So you agree that risk vs. reward is a perfectly reasonable approach to balance and that the current setup is obviously hideously broken since it doesn't adhere to that kind of progression?
Because that's the point I see.
Quote:I said why don't you leave and you claimed you did which isn't true. How do you know? After all, there's no official source of data on the topic. 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 2.0. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
1050
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:59:00 -
[2700] - Quote
I don't think nerfing hisec will solve anything. There exists a segment of the eve population that wants nothing to do with pvp or the large social structures in Eve. I don't pretend to understand their motivations, but they exist all the same.
These people won't move to null to become renters, fleet members, or targets. It won't happen. Nerfing hisec will alienate these people, nothing more. So we know the cost of this hisec nerf, alienating existing subscribers and maybe making some of them leave. Fine.
But what would be gained? I just don't see it. I see the downsides well enough, but I don't see the upsides. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 [90] 100 .. 107 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |