Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sasha Nyemtsov
Systems Administration and Control
124
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 21:03:50 -
[331] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:Sasha Nyemtsov wrote:Vic Jefferson wrote:Haedonism Bot wrote: Nevertheless, nothing of value was lost. The AT is not "a big part of EVE", it is a sideshow - an event of interest only to a minority of EVE players. My personal opinion is that the AT is exactly the sort of instanced, consensual, consequence-free PvP that has no place in EVE Online. Frankly it is the sort of thing that the New Order is supposed to be opposing on principle.
Sure something of value was lost, something which, unlike mining barges, cannot be simply purchased back. I seem to recall Cannibal Kane actually posting that he was at least miffed that CODE hadn't taken the tournament seriously, as he one day hoped to participate - If you can't take his opinion as an authority on Hi Sec content creation as worthwhile, I think you are a little daft. You lost credibility. You lost face. Good luck trying to get those back. I could just as easily disparage ganking as something that only appeals to, as well as only being relevant to, a minority of EVE players. I won't though, because I'm not so pompous and full of my own self congratulatory drivel that I have to vomit it up all over the place. I would recommend actually participating in the tournament before you make a judgement, but that's sort of impossible now, isn't it? Look Vic, Sabriz has stated quite clearly and (one would have hoped) finally his views on the events surrounding AT. While not wishing to discourage meaningful debate on any issue relevant to his candidature, my feeling is that he has now sought to draw a line under this particular incident. No doubt he'll correct me if I'm wrong. I'm actually happy Sabriz responded to my posts. That post is entirely quoting and responding to Haedonism Bot.
Hi Vic, I get that. Thx!
www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM X
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4601
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 22:34:29 -
[332] - Quote
Orange Something wrote:You have a lot of good points and suggestions for how CCP should go forward with the hisec changes, and out of all the candidates flying under the "we want a better hisec" banner, I feel your proposals stick to the spirit of what Eve is about.
I do have a couple questions, and forgive me if you've been asked them earlier, but I just want to know your opinions on two things hisec related in particular.
So the first thing I'd like to hear was what your stance on ganking is in it's current state. I'm sure you have some form of opinion on this since you're in the most (in)famous ganking alliance. Imo, ganking is a very legitimate play style, but is somewhat risk adverse, as you go in fully aware that you're going to be losing the ship you're flying, and as a result there is little to no risk to the ganker. I was wondering if you have a plan to add risk to ganking or if you disagree and feel ganking is in a good place as is.
Secondly, I feel as though non-FW lowsec is, for the most part, pretty dead compared to hisec. Part of the problem I feel stems from the fact that there is little reason for hisec bears to move into low when the risk outweighs the reward, for example, how miners can make equal amounts of money mining in a 0.8 system as they could mining in a 0.3 system. I was wondering if you have an opinion to the lack of reward vs risk that non-combat oriented playstyles have in lowsec, and if so, how you would change it if you could.
Ganking (both of freighters and of miners) isn't totally risk averse. I've lost an Ishtar and a Hyperion to killrights related to ganking (although I'm somewhat of an exception to the norm as I gank on my main and do not run -10; in fact Sabriz has always been 0.8 legal and almost always 1.0 legal).
Ganks can be disrupted which normally results in a ganker losing a ship for no gain. It's just that while anti-gankers can effectively defend an individual specific freighter (particularly if the freighter pilot trusts the anti-gankers), they can't protect *everyone*. Where anti-gankers can be effective is teaching the pilots of noncombat ships basic opsec - something CODE's most vocal rivals at the moment refuse to do. I post a lot of courier contracts as a trader, and see a few repeat names that accept them often - these people never lose ships despite often carrying highly gankworthy cargoes (such as a recent contract where I had someone move 2.4b worth of T2 ships, or another where someone moved 3.5b worth of tech 2 components).
Currently there's two main factors that disrupt -10 operations in highsec - faction police, and players being allowed to shoot you. I'd endorse changes that keep the sum of these factors about the same, but increase the power of players to disrupt ganks.
But most of all, the mechanics of mining encourage players to spread out and (outside deep null where belt rats are more of a factor) strongly discourage players from bringing any sort of combat escort to mining operations. I would strongly endorse changes to mining mechanics that made bringing combat escorts more worthwhile. Sites with both lucrative ore AND rats would be an interesting starting point, and I'd endorse a 'claim' system on these sites akin to what Steve Ronuken has proposed in the past (where one corporation can claim a site via some method, possibly driving off rats, and mining that site then becomes a suspect level offence for other people). Balance would be key, however - as any change to mining throughput could increase supercapital proliferation.
As for risk versus reward in non-FW lowsec.
First mining - lowsec is arguably the most dangerous place to mine, and has terrible rewards. As for suggestions, one thing I have proposed before is changing the 105%/110% density ores to be higher (perhaps 140%/200%), putting very few of them in highsec, and more in dangerous space. Mining in Tama probably wouldn't ever become worthwhile, but mining in quiet low might be worth considering if you can get a moderate amount of 200% quality ore and a good deal of 140%. Same caveat about supercapital proliferation applies here, of course.
Secondly missions. It's not just that risk/reward calculations favor highsec over lowsec, it's that the reward for efficient highsec mission blitzing (level 4s in semi-blinged Marauders) are higher than the reward for efficient lowsec mission running (level 4s in tech 2 fitted HACs or cloak-capable T3s) even before you consider risk. Level 5s have different issues payout wise as their payout is almost entirely in low to medium demand LPs and the small number of people blitzing them hyperefficiently can crash those markets.
Third and related, incursions. Even the addition of a BPC worth tens of billions to the drops, and 50% higher payout, doesn't make lowsec incursions *close* to as lucrative as highsec ones where you can just use blingfits and do the sites much faster. Constellation control amplifies this - lowsec incursions generally have a higher degree of Sansha control when sites are attempted.
One suggestion I have is rebalancing mission payouts and incursions so that higher level highsec missions pay primarily in LP, but sites in more dangerous space pay both ISK and LP. This way, the more people that run missions or incursions in highsec the lower the payout becomes, and it's a noticeable dropoff.
Another suggestion is expanding on the theme of burner missions, changing them so that a PVP fit is required (i.e. the mission target tries to warp off, this change would require rebalancing of the rat stats), making them involve a few more jumps, and making them more prevalent and more lucrative in lowsec. More people traversing gates in PVP fitted ships would revatilize low somewhat.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
186
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 18:25:34 -
[333] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote: Exactly. So why not elect a CSM member who represents the highsec content creation play-style?
Easy because there are many many more qualified than him.
Black Pedro wrote: Sabriz has ...
Commercial bla snipped. Commercials do not change the fact, that he is not qualified.
Sabriz Adoudel wrote: Ganking (both of freighters and of miners) isn't totally risk averse
Noooo, it is just not risk averse enough!!
At least you admit that it *is* risk-averse. Not complety but --> mostly. So only a complete Numbnut has risks!
(do codies ever realise what stuff they write?)
"Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time."
Forum Main
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
11750
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 22:58:40 -
[334] - Quote
La Rynx wrote: Easy because there are many many more qualified than him.
I don't see any. In fact I see a pretty poor crop of candidates overall, to the point where I expect at least 4 incumbents to be retained, probably more like 5 or 6 or even higher.
Sabriz stands out rather well.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
16095
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 23:04:36 -
[335] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:La Rynx wrote: Easy because there are many many more qualified than him.
I don't see any. In fact I see a pretty poor crop of candidates overall, to the point where I expect at least 4 incumbents to be retained, probably more like 5 or 6 or even higher. Sabriz stands out rather well.
Most or all of the incumbents seeking re-election for CSM X are easily worth voting for.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
909
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 00:28:35 -
[336] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:La Rynx wrote: Easy because there are many many more qualified than him.
I don't see any. In fact I see a pretty poor crop of candidates overall, to the point where I expect at least 4 incumbents to be retained, probably more like 5 or 6 or even higher. Sabriz stands out rather well. Most or all of the incumbents seeking re-election for CSM X are easily worth voting for.
None of them are High Sec content creators though.
Sabriz for CSMX!
Consider voting Tora as well.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5090
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 08:51:37 -
[337] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:Malcanis wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:La Rynx wrote: Easy because there are many many more qualified than him.
I don't see any. In fact I see a pretty poor crop of candidates overall, to the point where I expect at least 4 incumbents to be retained, probably more like 5 or 6 or even higher. Sabriz stands out rather well. Most or all of the incumbents seeking re-election for CSM X are easily worth voting for. None of them are High Sec content creators though. That depends on what your definition of content creator is. Sabriz seems to have a blinkered view, as if any change which doesn't promote CODEs ability to shoot newbies is automatically not content creation, as if shooting a bunch of mining barges piloted by players who generally have no clue what they are doing is actually worthwhile content to support.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Haedonism Bot
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
1698
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 13:43:38 -
[338] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:La Rynx wrote: Easy because there are many many more qualified than him.
I don't see any. In fact I see a pretty poor crop of candidates overall, to the point where I expect at least 4 incumbents to be retained, probably more like 5 or 6 or even higher. Sabriz stands out rather well. Most or all of the incumbents seeking re-election for CSM X are easily worth voting for.
Their track record of advocating for nerfs to our playstyle, and of general uselessness speaks for itself. I realize that CSM is a sort of club and that most current and former members like to stick up for each other. To the rest of us, though, if we are paying attention and being honest, CSM9 looks to have done as poor a job as CSM8 did.
The field doesn't look much better for CSM10 either. Sabriz and Tora both stand out in that they both represent an important and historically underrepresented playstyle.
It is true that there are others out there who are better qualified to represent highsec content creators than Sabriz is. Unfortunately, none of them is running this year. And Sabriz is more qualified than you may think. If you judge him purely on his killboard (which certainly isn't bad) you may scoff and say, "Bah he's no Cannibal Kane, no Arden Elenduil, no Jerry Rin (Jerry Rin for CSM! and unban him too please...), but the fact remains that Sabriz is smarter and more fair minded than all of us put together.
And unlike most highsec content creators, he actually takes the CSM seriously. If you elected me to CSM, I'd show up at the summit just for the free food (is there free food?) and just troll the whole process from start to finish.
www.everevolutionaryfront.blogspot.com
Vote Sabriz Adoudel and Tora Bushido for CSMX. Keep the Evil in EVE!
|
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
909
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 19:37:29 -
[339] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Tengu Grib wrote:Malcanis wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:La Rynx wrote: Easy because there are many many more qualified than him.
I don't see any. In fact I see a pretty poor crop of candidates overall, to the point where I expect at least 4 incumbents to be retained, probably more like 5 or 6 or even higher. Sabriz stands out rather well. Most or all of the incumbents seeking re-election for CSM X are easily worth voting for. None of them are High Sec content creators though. That depends on what your definition of content creator is. Sabriz seems to have a blinkered view, as if any change which doesn't promote CODEs ability to shoot newbies is automatically not content creation, as if shooting a bunch of mining barges piloted by players who generally have no clue what they are doing is actually worthwhile content to support.
Your statement shows that you do not know Sabriz, what he stands for, or what he has been saying. Considering how much you've been posting in this thread I find that surprising.
Sabriz for CSMX!
Consider voting Tora as well.
|
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
909
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 19:48:25 -
[340] - Quote
Haedonism Bot wrote:Sabriz and Tora both stand out in that they both represent an important and historically underrepresented playstyle.
To me this is the key and why Sabriz, Tora, or ideally both should be ellected. They represent a play style that currently has ZERO advocates as CSM candidates. Funky Bacon filled this role on CSM 9 and I was happy with what I saw from him, even though it wasn't his primary field of focus. If neither of these guys get elected, than every CSM member will represent either nullsec, wormhole space, or carebears. Having at least one of these two candidates will give a voice to a play style that currently has NO representation on the CSM. And no, Sabriz is not running as a Code candidate (though he is in Code) he's running as a content creation candidate.
Vote Sabriz!
Sabriz for CSMX!
Consider voting Tora as well.
|
|
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Origin. Black Legion.
1922
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 20:18:29 -
[341] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:Haedonism Bot wrote:Sabriz and Tora both stand out in that they both represent an important and historically underrepresented playstyle.
To me this is the key and why Sabriz, Tora, or ideally both should be ellected. They represent a play style that currently has ZERO advocates as CSM candidates. Funky Bacon filled this role on CSM 9 and I was happy with what I saw from him, even though it wasn't his primary field of focus. If neither of these guys get elected, than every CSM member will represent either nullsec, wormhole space, or carebears. Having at least one of these two candidates will give a voice to a play style that currently has NO representation on the CSM. And no, Sabriz is not running as a Code candidate (though he is in Code) he's running as a content creation candidate. Vote Sabriz! Quoted for truth, these are the men these times call for.
F
Would you like to know more?
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4620
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 05:45:09 -
[342] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:And no, Sabriz is not running as a Code candidate (though he is in Code) he's running as a content creation candidate.
Vote Sabriz!
This is worth reiterating.
I want to see more conflict in highsec. Not all of that will be driven by my alliance, and some of it may well be conflicts we end up defeated in.
One of these proposals is for defender entities in wardecs to be able to collect some or all of the wardec fee by inflicting damage upon the aggressor entity. CODE. often initiates wardecs and seldom is the defender in one, so this would materially assist our rivals. I am still for it because it would increase conflict in highsec.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Bellak Hark
New Eden Media Organization
32
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 16:48:46 -
[343] - Quote
Here you go, CSMX ad completed. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4651
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 09:39:44 -
[344] - Quote
Don't forget to vote.
http://www.superbwallpapers.com/animals/kitten-16219/
This kitten wants you to vote.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5126
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 10:11:40 -
[345] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:I want to see more conflict in highsec. Not all of that will be driven by my alliance, and some of it may well be conflicts we end up defeated in.
One of these proposals is for defender entities in wardecs to be able to collect some or all of the wardec fee by inflicting damage upon the aggressor entity. CODE. often initiates wardecs and seldom is the defender in one, so this would materially assist our rivals. I am still for it because it would increase conflict in highsec. The problem is that this is unrealistic, because you don't want people who PvP to defend, you want players who have no skill or interest in PvPing to do it. Giving a defender a token reward to defend themselve then cutting of their ability to evade isn't going to suddenly make them good at PvP. I'll have to dig out the stats later, but from CCPs crest data, the vast majority of wars are won in the isk war by the aggressor. This is because the aggressor targets groups they will win against. There's nothing to gain by attacking someone they'd lose against.
I'm all for conflict, but it has to be meaningful conflict between groups who are on an even footing (and it also doesn't have to be just shooting each other, there are other forms of conflict). I'm not for forcing players into gameplay they don't like just so that another group has more targets to shoot at. This game is for multiple playstyles whether you like that or not.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4653
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 10:27:42 -
[346] - Quote
You cannot possibly play EVE without PVPing. (Sole exception: Test server play, where there is no economy).
And if you do not believe that groups of low skilled characters in T1 frigates can pose a threat - look at the history of Brave Newbies. Or Goonswarm for that matter, although it's a long time since they were newbie-heavy.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5126
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 10:41:41 -
[347] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:You cannot possibly play EVE without PVPing. (Sole exception: Test server play, where there is no economy).
And if you do not believe that groups of low skilled characters in T1 frigates can pose a threat - look at the history of Brave Newbies. Or Goonswarm for that matter, although it's a long time since they were newbie-heavy. In that instance, by PvP I meant the classic "pew pew" variety, which is what you are trying to encourage. You know this too.
And I believe that low SP characters controlled by players interested in shooting people can excel at it, sure, but you're being rather dishonest if you are suggesting that's who ends up as the defender in a wardec 9 times out of 10. The majority of defenders are players who have no interest at all in shooting people, and if they tried would fail against most of their aggressors who are considerably more skilled (not in SP, but in actual player ability).
I get it, you want more people to shoot at - so go find players who want to play that way. Stop trying to force every other player who wants to play their own way into playing the way you want them to just because you want to be fed easy targets rather than hunt tougher ones down.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
11809
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 13:38:14 -
[348] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: I'm all for conflict
Not according to your post history.
Quote: but it has to be meaningful conflict between groups who are on an even footing
So basically, you hate any and all non consensual PvP. Which is one of the cornerstones of sandbox gameplay in general, and EVE in particular.
Why do you even post anymore?
Quote: I'm not for forcing players into gameplay they don't like just so that another group has more targets to shoot at. This game is for multiple playstyles whether you like that or not.
And shooting at people whether they like it or not, is it's own playstyle, whether you like it or not.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5126
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 14:13:16 -
[349] - Quote
Check it out, my personal troll found me again.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Not according to your post history. Then you have comprehension issues.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:So basically, you hate any and all non consensual PvP. Which is one of the cornerstones of sandbox gameplay in general, and EVE in particular. Nope, I'm for non-consensual combat, it just needs to be within reason. Forcing players to have to engage in fighting in order to get out of a hostile situation placed on them by another player isn't respecting other people's playstyles. Just because people don't play like you, doesn't mean they are playing wrong. I'd like everyone to be able to get whatever it is out of EVE they want. That's not good enough for you, well tough, that's still my view.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Why do you even post anymore? Because like you, I'm allowed to. My opinions are valid even if you don't like them.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:And shooting at people whether they like it or not, is it's own playstyle, whether you like it or not. Which is why I'm not advocating it's removal. I just don't support making it even easier for a player to be disruptive to the PvE playstyle just because you think people should be punished for not wanting to engage in PvP combat. Once again though you either are unable to or actively refuse to make that distinction, and you continue to assume that anyone with a view that isn't exactly yours is automatically asking for the removal of all non-consensual PvP.
At the end of the day, there's room for all types of player in EVE. I really don't care if you think it should be just you guys. That's never going to happen, even if you get terrible CSM candidates elected.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
11810
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 14:40:45 -
[350] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Nope, I'm for non-consensual combat
You just said that you're not, unless it's forced through some contrivance about "even footing".
Quote: Forcing players to have to engage in fighting in order to get out of a hostile situation placed on them by another player isn't respecting other people's playstyles.
And this statement also means "I am against all non consensual PvP". Because "a hostile situation placed on them by another player" is damn near a perfect synonym for non consensual PvP.
That's the whole thing about "non consensual". It doesn't give a flying rat's ass about respecting their playstyle. If their playstyle involves not bothering to defend themselves, so much the better.
Quote:Once again though you either are unable to or actively refuse to make that distinction, and you continue to assume that anyone with a view that isn't exactly yours is automatically asking for the removal of all non-consensual PvP.
Except for the part where you are, I just saw through your doubletalk. I doubt I'm alone either, you've gotten worse at hiding it lately.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5129
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 15:17:17 -
[351] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:You just said that you're not, unless it's forced through some contrivance about "even footing". Where exactly did I say I'm not for non-consensual combat? In your mind unless I'm screaming "EVERYONE SHOULD KILL EVERYONE AT ALL TIMES WITH NO RESTRICTIONS RAAAAH!!" that I'm not for non-consensual combat. That's ludicrous. I'm for a balanced game, which involves considerably more than one playstyle.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:And this statement also means "I am against all non consensual PvP". Because "a hostile situation placed on them by another player" is damn near a perfect synonym for non consensual PvP.
That's the whole thing about "non consensual". It doesn't give a flying rat's ass about respecting their playstyle. If their playstyle involves not bothering to defend themselves, so much the better. No that's not what it means at all. Sabriz's suggestions amount to making wars unavoidable without logging off or staying docked, then giving the defenders some token amount of isk to repeatedly die as a form of content for the aggressors. Being against that isn't removal of non-consunsual PvP, it simply means not making it ridiculously easy and not giving people choices when reacting to it. And sure, defending themselves, but that does not mean they have to FIGHT to defend themselves.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Except for the part where you are, I just saw through your doubletalk. I doubt I'm alone either, you've gotten worse at hiding it lately. You haven't seen though anything. Basically you've read some of what I've written, ignored it and gone on your usual tirade that you dish out to everyone lately. I get it, you hate EVE, you hate where it's going. Well tough luck buddy, this is the game. PvE exists, and CCP are not going to just throw everyone into some sort of pit of death for you to blap endlessly without effort.
You want non-consensual PvP? That's fine, it exists and always will but you have to work for it just like everything else. You already have to pay basically nothing to force an entire corporation into combat, you can gank with a week old character in a ship costing a tenth the cost of a mining barge, and yet you want the game to be even easier? Seriously, HTFU.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
11811
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 15:20:56 -
[352] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Where exactly did I say I'm not for non-consensual combat?
Here.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
180
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 15:26:34 -
[353] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Where exactly did I say I'm not for non-consensual combat?
Here.
I'm for non-consensual combat
is the quote that I get out of your link. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
11811
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 15:29:32 -
[354] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Where exactly did I say I'm not for non-consensual combat?
Here. I'm for non-consensual combat is the quote that I get out of your link.
Selective reading at it's best, I suppose.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
942
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 15:33:49 -
[355] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Check it out, my personal troll found me again.. Lucas, just click his name and hide his posts. He is not on the forums to contribute. Kaaros sees himself as some sort of forum warrior who needs to smite anyone with a different opinion.
As to getting back on track; Sabriz and I would both like to see more conflict in high sec but in different ways. I want to see veterans exposed to more danger and less newbies farmed by suicide gankers and station camping duellers.
I grow so very tired of seeing things along the lines of this, "It is not fair! They changed corporations when I declared war on them! I paid ISK! I am entitled to kill them now!" Meanwhile, the ones expected to defend themselves haven't got a snowballs hope on the surface of the sun. Gankers run around suiciding into newbies and laughing at their horrible fits.
Both groups complain about risk aversion and yet create more risk adverse behaviour.
Sabriz - how do you respond to that?
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
181
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 15:36:11 -
[356] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Lady Rift wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Where exactly did I say I'm not for non-consensual combat?
Here. I'm for non-consensual combat is the quote that I get out of your link. Selective reading at it's best, I suppose.
so i contuined reading your link and wham
"Which is why I'm not advocating it's removal. I just don't support making it even easier for a player to be disruptive to the PvE playstyle just because you think people should be punished for not wanting to engage in PvP combat."
seams like kell is saying that he's for non-consensual combat and like all things in this game it should be within reasonable limits
In my opinion i agree with him. as there there are other places in the game where non-consensual combat doesn't exist because just by fact of being in that space you agree to pvp combat (low and null). So high sec shouldn't be degraded to a free for all just cause |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
11811
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 15:38:10 -
[357] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote: seams like kell is saying that he's for non-consensual combat
No, that's just lip service.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
181
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 15:40:56 -
[358] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Check it out, my personal troll found me again.. Lucas, just click his name and hide his posts. He is not on the forums to contribute. Kaaros sees himself as some sort of forum warrior who needs to smite anyone with a different opinion. As to getting back on track; Sabriz and I would both like to see more conflict in high sec but in different ways. I want to see veterans exposed to more danger and less newbies farmed by suicide gankers and station camping duellers. I grow so very tired of seeing things along the lines of this, "It is not fair! They changed corporations when I declared war on them! I paid ISK! I am entitled to kill them now!" Meanwhile, the ones expected to defend themselves haven't got a snowballs hope on the surface of the sun. Gankers run around suiciding into newbies and laughing at their horrible fits. Both groups complain about risk aversion and yet create more risk adverse behaviour. Sabriz - how do you respond to that? Edit: Please, make it very clear between what you and your friends do and how you see others behaving generally.
wow thanks so much didn't know you could block someone like that on the forums. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5129
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 15:58:03 -
[359] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Selective reading at it's best, I suppose.
Your problem is with this: Quote: Forcing players to have to engage in fighting in order to get out of a hostile situation placed on them by another player isn't respecting other people's playstyles. I'll make it a little clearer for those with issues understanding. I have no problem with you attacking a player who does not want to be attacked, but their ability to respond should not be limited to "shoot back". Players who don't want to fight have the option to run, and that's a perfectly valid option. At no point will I ever suggest that you should not be allowed to attack another player against their will, but at the same time, their options should also not be restricted to what you want.
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Yeah, I'm aware of what he does, I'm just not put off by people like him. He'll get bored or banned eventually, I'm sure.
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Sabriz and I would both like to see more conflict in high sec but in different ways. I want to see veterans exposed to more danger and less newbies farmed by suicide gankers and station camping duellers.
I grow so very tired of seeing things along the lines of this, "It is not fair! They changed corporations when I declared war on them! I paid ISK! I am entitled to kill them now!" Meanwhile, the ones expected to defend themselves haven't got a snowballs hope on the surface of the sun. Gankers run around suiciding into newbies and laughing at their horrible fits.
Both groups complain about risk aversion and yet create more risk adverse behaviour. Yeah, I agree with that in principle. I'd rather make it more challenging to attacker newer and more passive players while more rewarding to engage in fights where the opposing team is willing and able to fight back. At the same time though I'd like to see players less rewarded for "safer" PvE and more rewarded for venturing out. Exploration for example, it sucks. It should be much more consistently rewarding to explore space away from highsec. Mining is the same, there should be more reward for players mining in places like wormholes.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
2364
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 16:30:17 -
[360] - Quote
Kaarous, it sounds like some of the trolls are blocking you. Does this make you despair?
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff | No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that.
Sabriz for CSM
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |