These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Renaming "Carebears" to "Hardbears".
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rhys Mabigonon
Industrial Mining and Mayhem
Sigma Grindset
#41 - 2012-04-30 01:12:41 UTC
I think situational awareness is the most important thing anyone in any region of Eve can practice. Don't afk mine/mission, constantly check local and aligning to a station or gate should someone unfriendly warp into your vicinity are things that are so elementary that it's almost like breathing.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#42 - 2012-04-30 01:13:35 UTC
Jacob Staffuer wrote:
1) Blob warfare does not make you "hardcore", especially when your ships are free.

I don't engage in blob warfare.

Jacob Staffuer wrote:
2) Suicide ganking makes you a pansy because your target cannot pre-emptively strike you sans a billion ISK wardec.

"sans a billion ISK wardec"? I'm not even sure what you are trying to say there, but suicide ganking is merely the inevitable eventuality of a broken war dec system.

CCP are now fixing this apparently, and war decs may become worth while. (Decs will follow individuals around, and be applied against their new corps should they try and run).

Jacob Staffuer wrote:
3) Tanking a Hulk just means you lose that much more ISK when you get ganked. I know this, because Goonswarm, in an effort to enhance epeen and be "contrary on the forums", likes to post killmails featuring tanked Hulks every time some miner says "my tank is ungankable".

It doesn't mean your hulk is ungankable, it means it is less likely to get ganked.

Jacob Staffuer wrote:
So again: Hardbears have no way to defend themselves, but they go out everyday and run their missions and mine in their Hulks. And no one is paying for their ships except themselves. That's hard. Hence, hardbears.

Kthx.

No one pays for my ships :( And out in real space we actually lose them every now and then. Miners QQ if they get killed once a month.

Try living in null sec and see how many ships you lose a month.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Jacob Staffuer
Doomheim
#43 - 2012-04-30 01:15:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Jacob Staffuer
Rhys Mabigonon wrote:
I think situational awareness is the most important thing anyone in any region of Eve can practice. Don't afk mine/mission, constantly check local and aligning to a station or gate should someone unfriendly warp into your vicinity are things that are so elementary that it's almost like breathing.


I can imagine that in a hi-sec mining OP now.

"GATEFLASH!"

"+1 Local - it's a Tengu."

"Dock the mining fleet!"

10mins later

"I think it was just a mission runner guys. Everyone undock."

5mins later

"GATEFLASH! +1 neutral local; it's an Orca!"

"OMG, It's probably carrying 15 Gankalysts! EVERYONE DOCK!"

OMG GUYS, NEUTRAL IN LOCAL, EVERYONE DOCK.
Jacob Staffuer
Doomheim
#44 - 2012-04-30 01:20:50 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Jacob Staffuer wrote:
1) Blob warfare does not make you "hardcore", especially when your ships are free.

I don't engage in blob warfare.

Jacob Staffuer wrote:
2) Suicide ganking makes you a pansy because your target cannot pre-emptively strike you sans a billion ISK wardec.

"sans a billion ISK wardec"? I'm not even sure what you are trying to say there, but suicide ganking is merely the inevitable eventuality of a broken war dec system.

CCP are now fixing this apparently, and war decs may become worth while. (Decs will follow individuals around, and be applied against their new corps should they try and run).

Jacob Staffuer wrote:
3) Tanking a Hulk just means you lose that much more ISK when you get ganked. I know this, because Goonswarm, in an effort to enhance epeen and be "contrary on the forums", likes to post killmails featuring tanked Hulks every time some miner says "my tank is ungankable".

It doesn't mean your hulk is ungankable, it means it is less likely to get ganked.

Jacob Staffuer wrote:
So again: Hardbears have no way to defend themselves, but they go out everyday and run their missions and mine in their Hulks. And no one is paying for their ships except themselves. That's hard. Hence, hardbears.

Kthx.

No one pays for my ships :( And out in real space we actually lose them every now and then. Miners QQ if they get killed once a month.

Try living in null sec and see how many ships you lose a month.


I got bored in null-sec so I decided to make a hi-sec mining alt to feel the thrill of mining in dangerous space.
poppeteer
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#45 - 2012-04-30 02:00:07 UTC
You're not hardcore ((No, you're not hardcore))

Unless you live hardcore ((Unless you live hardcore))

But the legend of the rent was way harcore!
Kuehnelt
Devoid Privateering
#46 - 2012-04-30 02:02:20 UTC
Hardbear? More like...
Trinity Six
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#47 - 2012-04-30 03:01:29 UTC
Jacob Staffuer wrote:
There are more ships destroyed in hi-sec on any given day than null-sec and low-sec combined.

For this reason, I am moving to rename "carebears" to "hardbears" and renaming "nullbears" to "carebears".


You are bad and should feel bad. There are many, many MANY more players in hisec than elsewhere. Of course there are more kills.
Come back with some per-capita numbers supporting your claim and I might listen to you.
Also, this is a stupid thread.
RAP ACTION HERO
#48 - 2012-04-30 04:14:07 UTC
what's the point of a name change if yall just continue whining and crying

vitoc erryday
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#49 - 2012-04-30 04:24:10 UTC
Is the pissing contest over yet?

Sugar Von MurdererTits : Jake Warbird gets my vote for most intriguing and attractive male character in Eve.
Kestrix
The Whispering
#50 - 2012-04-30 04:51:19 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Screw suicide ganking, it's a lost cause and only useful for the odd indie/hulk kill. Killing anything decent with suicide ganking is both boring and, usually, unprofitable. Its a stupid mechanic that has only become such a big "issue" because high sec care bears have been successful in eliminating virtually every other form of non-consensual PvP.


And what forms of non-consensual PvP have their been? Apart from war dec's (which are being changed) The only other ways to engage in non-consensual PvP (In Empire) are to simply attack the target and accept the consciences (suicide ganking) or tricking your oppenent into inadvertently breaking the rules themselves thus allowing the other party to lawfully retaliate. Oh and you could always try to join a carebear corp and kill the members from the inside!

Now what other forms of non-consensual PvP have the care bears successfuly eliminated?

Simi Kusoni Is an idiot.
Nephilius
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#51 - 2012-04-30 04:56:30 UTC
Lexmana wrote:
Nice try but why didn't you chose whinebears instead?


Instead of nulbears? Nah...I refuse to state the obvious.
"If."
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#52 - 2012-04-30 05:09:56 UTC
Kestrix wrote:
And what forms of non-consensual PvP have their been? Apart from war dec's (which are being changed) The only other ways to engage in non-consensual PvP (In Empire) are to simply attack the target and accept the consciences (suicide ganking) or tricking your oppenent into inadvertently breaking the rules themselves thus allowing the other party to lawfully retaliate. Oh and you could always try to join a carebear corp and kill the members from the inside!

Now what other forms of non-consensual PvP have the care bears successfuly eliminated?

Simi Kusoni Is an idiot.

Concord was once tankable, response times have been buffed to hell (multiple times), insurance payouts removed for ships with GCC, ships have been introduced designed specifically to avoid combat (t2 transports, jump freighters, t3 cruisers), ships with gcc can no longer boomerang, swapping out ships in an orca was nerfed, sec status loss has been increased, the number of concurrent war decs was limited to three and cost designed to scale to ridiculous amounts and the decision declaring dec shields/dissolving and reforming corps etc. an exploit were reversed.

There are probably more examples, but you get the point. Not to mention the natural proliferation of JFs and the like resulting in the modern day invincible logistics chains, that is going to have to be dealt with at some point.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Aggressive Nutmeg
#53 - 2012-04-30 05:13:06 UTC
You wouldn't catch me dead flying a Hulk. I'm too much of a carebear.

Never make eye contact with someone while eating a banana.
Kestrix
The Whispering
#54 - 2012-04-30 05:34:33 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Kestrix wrote:
And what forms of non-consensual PvP have their been? Apart from war dec's (which are being changed) The only other ways to engage in non-consensual PvP (In Empire) are to simply attack the target and accept the consciences (suicide ganking) or tricking your oppenent into inadvertently breaking the rules themselves thus allowing the other party to lawfully retaliate. Oh and you could always try to join a carebear corp and kill the members from the inside!

Now what other forms of non-consensual PvP have the care bears successfuly eliminated?

Simi Kusoni Is an idiot.

Concord was once tankable, response times have been buffed to hell (multiple times), insurance payouts removed for ships with GCC, ships have been introduced designed specifically to avoid combat (t2 transports, jump freighters, t3 cruisers), ships with gcc can no longer boomerang, swapping out ships in an orca was nerfed, sec status loss has been increased, the number of concurrent war decs was limited to three and cost designed to scale to ridiculous amounts and the decision declaring dec shields/dissolving and reforming corps etc. an exploit were reversed.

There are probably more examples, but you get the point. Not to mention the natural proliferation of JFs and the like resulting in the modern day invincible logistics chains, that is going to have to be dealt with at some point.


All these examples revolve around the current methods of non-consensual PvP. CCP has altered the workings of these after players found ways to obtaine results which CCP had not intended. The fact that 'carbears' as you like to label them brought these 'bugs' to CCP's attention does not mean CCP is trying to wrap them in cotton wool and make Hi-sec a safe and fun place to be, only to bring it into line with what thier (CCP) vision of what hi-sec should be.

As for responce times, insurance payouts ect these have been added/buffed becasue you proved to CCP that thier consequences were not adequate enough.

swapping out ships from an Orca effects the miners as much as it effects the PvP'ers. Now I can't store my Hulk in my Orca if I've been attacked by rats/players.

Ships have been introduced to make travel in low sec and 0.0 a little safer. unfortunately (for you) these ships can opperate in Hi-sec as well.

Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#55 - 2012-04-30 05:54:08 UTC
Kestrix wrote:
All these examples revolve around the current methods of non-consensual PvP. CCP has altered the workings of these after players found ways to obtaine results which CCP had not intended. The fact that 'carbears' as you like to label them brought these 'bugs' to CCP's attention does not mean CCP is trying to wrap them in cotton wool and make Hi-sec a safe and fun place to be, only to bring it into line with what thier (CCP) vision of what hi-sec should be.

As for responce times, insurance payouts ect these have been added/buffed becasue you proved to CCP that thier consequences were not adequate enough.

swapping out ships from an Orca effects the miners as much as it effects the PvP'ers. Now I can't store my Hulk in my Orca if I've been attacked by rats/players.

Ships have been introduced to make travel in low sec and 0.0 a little safer. unfortunately (for you) these ships can opperate in Hi-sec as well.


So you're no longer claiming that no changes have been made, now you're just claiming that CCP changed it because they/care bears wanted high sec/low sec/null sec to be safer?

That was kind of my original point, thank you for making it for me.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Kestrix
The Whispering
#56 - 2012-04-30 06:33:12 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Kestrix wrote:
All these examples revolve around the current methods of non-consensual PvP. CCP has altered the workings of these after players found ways to obtaine results which CCP had not intended. The fact that 'carbears' as you like to label them brought these 'bugs' to CCP's attention does not mean CCP is trying to wrap them in cotton wool and make Hi-sec a safe and fun place to be, only to bring it into line with what thier (CCP) vision of what hi-sec should be.

As for responce times, insurance payouts ect these have been added/buffed becasue you proved to CCP that thier consequences were not adequate enough.

swapping out ships from an Orca effects the miners as much as it effects the PvP'ers. Now I can't store my Hulk in my Orca if I've been attacked by rats/players.

Ships have been introduced to make travel in low sec and 0.0 a little safer. unfortunately (for you) these ships can opperate in Hi-sec as well.


So you're no longer claiming that no changes have been made, now you're just claiming that CCP changed it because they/care bears wanted high sec/low sec/null sec to be safer?

That was kind of my original point, thank you for making it for me.


No what I was talking about was the mechanics. You stated that the carebears were shutting down forms of non-consensual PvP which is not true... they are as I listed and I am still waiting or you to list the forms of non-consensual PvP that are no longer available.
Danfen Fenix
#57 - 2012-04-30 07:07:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Danfen Fenix
You are not 'hard' just because you put yourself in dangers way time after time. Thats either stupidity or masochistic P

They would be 'hard' if they decided to fight back (like the empire corps in burn jita), or at least didn't shout abuse at the ganker most times it happens.

Edit: Notion to rename them masobears? P
Dessau
The Scope
#58 - 2012-04-30 07:19:46 UTC
Hardbears is a place on Folsom... if you're male and walking down the street past 2230, expect to be propositioned forcefully.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#59 - 2012-04-30 07:22:21 UTC
Kestrix wrote:
No what I was talking about was the mechanics. You stated that the carebears were shutting down forms of non-consensual PvP which is not true... they are as I listed and I am still waiting or you to list the forms of non-consensual PvP that are no longer available.

So I give you a list of nerfs, buffs and ship introductions, the negative impact of which spans pretty much every style of PvP in Eve, and you want a list of the different types?

What, you want specific examples of situations effected, or would you like me to open up paint and draw you pictures? Have you literally never done any PvP before or something?

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Amanda Holland
Doomheim
#60 - 2012-04-30 07:39:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Amanda Holland
Lexmana wrote:
Nice try but why didn't you chose whinebears instead?


they cry BUT they still do it.
and gankers are just as whiny
look at what happens when ccp changes something regarding ganking.

the insurance nerf and the CONCORD response time changes are regarded like INSANELY HUGE NERFS
yet gankers gor a whole class of ships for them (tier 3 BCs lol)

Jacob Staffuer wrote:


OMG GUYS, NEUTRAL IN LOCAL, EVERYONE DOCK.


the cockroach factor. Why I dislike 0.0

ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) vroom vroom motorcycle CCP to the sandbox: "This "adapt or die" attitude is nothing new to EVE, but we want to give it a constant rhythm that is a bit more under our control than in the past"