These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Soundwave, a challenge for you
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Polly Oxford
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#61 - 2012-05-05 13:52:34 UTC
Killer Gandry wrote:
Polly Oxford wrote:
Killer Gandry wrote:

Atleast Screegs seems like someone who actually left his Goonpasst in the passt.



Everyone who watched at least some Fanfest video must find this statement funny. DJ is so much 'goonier' than Stoffer.




sarcasm



Pronunciation: /ˈsɑːkaz(ə)m/


noun
[mass noun]
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt

I used the Oxford dictionary. Don't know which one the US uses so hope they understand oxford english too.

(fyi before you miss it again. the oxford dictionary thingy is also sarcasm)


So what part about your previous post was sarcasm exactly?
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#62 - 2012-05-05 13:54:10 UTC
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
But it does not the change the intent of what Soundwave and his other null sec zealot buddies are doing, driving more income from high sec to low / null sec.


Inferno has provided a major buff to empire mining.

Oh, is that why the Goons have decided to declare war? Tears?


incentivizing risk-taking is suddenly a bad thing

inferno provided a buff to mining across the board, not just for empire

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Killer Gandry
The Concilium Enterprises
#63 - 2012-05-05 13:55:30 UTC
Polly Oxford wrote:

So what part about your previous post was sarcasm exactly?


I don't take more time to explain stuff to a Goon.
Your kind just isn't worth it.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#64 - 2012-05-05 13:58:58 UTC
Soundwave doing things to the game that screw up your ****** risk-averse playstyle is not "goon-like" behavior it's doing things that are good for the game as a whole

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Polly Oxford
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#65 - 2012-05-05 13:59:02 UTC
Killer Gandry wrote:
Polly Oxford wrote:

So what part about your previous post was sarcasm exactly?


I don't take more time to explain stuff to a Goon.
Your kind just isn't worth it.




Next time before quoting a dictionary you should actually understand what it says in there. Hopefully you are just deflecting now after you looked at your post and didn't find any sarcasm, otherwise think a bit more before posting your dribble again.
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#66 - 2012-05-05 14:00:34 UTC
Funny thing is, the people who *want* to be in null-sec, are there. Change hi-sec all you want, in whatever direction you want, but it *won't* get more people into null. They will either adapt and change their game, or leave. Because if they *wanted* to be in Null-sec there are ways to get there.


Since they aren't there now . . .

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#67 - 2012-05-05 14:11:46 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Funny thing is, the people who *want* to be in null-sec, are there. Change hi-sec all you want, in whatever direction you want, but it *won't* get more people into null. They will either adapt and change their game, or leave. Because if they *wanted* to be in Null-sec there are ways to get there.


Since they aren't there now . . .


So you want hisec to be ridiculously lucrative to play in while stealth-nerfing nullsec into the ground?

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Darth Tickles
Doomheim
#68 - 2012-05-05 14:13:26 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Funny thing is, the people who *want* to be in null-sec, are there. Change hi-sec all you want, in whatever direction you want, but it *won't* get more people into null. They will either adapt and change their game, or leave. Because if they *wanted* to be in Null-sec there are ways to get there.


Since they aren't there now . . .


That's blatantly untrue. This rebalancing is coming about because you had a situation where people were making money in hisec to go fight in nullsec just for the sake of fighting, instead of actually fighting over the nullsec content (except tech moons). The game was fundamentally broken in terms of risk and reward, and you could see the strain the unbalanced incentives was putting on those leaders who try and create content for their members in nullsec. By rebalancing the risk/reward ratios, you create an actual incentive to fight over nullsec space for something beyond 350 tech moons spread mainly across 7 regions out of 35-40.

Fundamentally this is CCP's fault. I sympathize with casual hisec denizens because you were given something, and then through no fault of your own it was taken away because it should never have been given in the first place. Hopefully CCP improves its record of introducing features that don't upset the delicate balance of incentive that draws players in and retains them. However, the shrill bleating of a few forum sockpuppets that this is all some shadowy conspiracy to drive casual players out of the game is beyond farcical. It is the hysterical reactionism of trolls or substantially mentally unbalanced individuals.
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#69 - 2012-05-05 14:14:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Asuri Kinnes
Andski wrote:
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Funny thing is, the people who *want* to be in null-sec, are there. Change hi-sec all you want, in whatever direction you want, but it *won't* get more people into null. They will either adapt and change their game, or leave. Because if they *wanted* to be in Null-sec there are ways to get there.


Since they aren't there now . . .


So you want hisec to be ridiculously lucrative to play in while stealth-nerfing nullsec into the ground?

Please andski, point out where I said that?
Darth Tickles wrote:
That's blatantly untrue.

What? That people who want to be in Null are there? Or that there are ways to get there? Of course, we all know there are no ways to make money in null sec...

That's why null-sec killboards are dominated by t-1 frigates... Roll

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Killer Gandry
The Concilium Enterprises
#70 - 2012-05-05 14:15:12 UTC
Darth Tickles wrote:
The game was fundamentally broken in terms of risk and reward,.


There is also the work vs reward part.
But that always conveniently get's left out.
Darth Tickles
Doomheim
#71 - 2012-05-05 14:16:48 UTC
Killer Gandry wrote:
Darth Tickles wrote:
The game was fundamentally broken in terms of risk and reward,.


There is also the work vs reward part.
But that always conveniently get's left out.


hmmm...yes, very insightful

tell us more
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#72 - 2012-05-05 14:20:50 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Andski wrote:
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Funny thing is, the people who *want* to be in null-sec, are there. Change hi-sec all you want, in whatever direction you want, but it *won't* get more people into null. They will either adapt and change their game, or leave. Because if they *wanted* to be in Null-sec there are ways to get there.


Since they aren't there now . . .


So you want hisec to be ridiculously lucrative to play in while stealth-nerfing nullsec into the ground?

Please andski, point out where I said that?


You know, where you said that trying to make the option of leaving hisec attractive is futile for whatever reason.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Faith Patrouette
Careless Carebears Inc.
#73 - 2012-05-05 14:46:16 UTC
Andski wrote:
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Funny thing is, the people who *want* to be in null-sec, are there. Change hi-sec all you want, in whatever direction you want, but it *won't* get more people into null. They will either adapt and change their game, or leave. Because if they *wanted* to be in Null-sec there are ways to get there.


Since they aren't there now . . .


So you want hisec to be ridiculously lucrative to play in while stealth-nerfing nullsec into the ground?


nullsec is already rediculously lucrative, for those sitting on tech. This should be nerfed first, instead of catering to the whims of the biggest group of whiny kids screaming highsec risk vs reward is broken.
Nullsecs risk vs reward is so broken big alliences sitting on so much tech it comes out of every hole they have are quickly growing too big to be overthrown. And there is the problem, because they get bored and start whining en masse to ccp about high sec being broken, and see how far they can get ccp to cater their sorry asses. Forum pvp is the new pvp there.

I see how CCP wants people to move to low and null, and i see the changes they make hoping this will make that happen, problem being it wont, unless they make fixes to the broken low and null sec first, instead of making quick decisions that will not only break the sandbox, but make the problem worse.
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#74 - 2012-05-05 14:47:43 UTC
Andski wrote:
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Andski wrote:
So you want hisec to be ridiculously lucrative to play in while stealth-nerfing nullsec into the ground?

Please andski, point out where I said that?

You know, where you said that trying to make the option of leaving hisec attractive is futile for whatever reason.

I never said I *wanted* anything.
I never said I *wanted* a stealth-nerf to anything.
I said, people who want to go to 0.0 get there, people who don't, don't.
Futile is an overstatement, but not by much (if any). In the four years I've been playing, this has been the constant complaint "not enough people in null sec".

As for making "leaving hisec" attractive, CCP has done a very good job with that.

"Worm Holes".

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#75 - 2012-05-05 14:51:24 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Andski wrote:
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Andski wrote:
So you want hisec to be ridiculously lucrative to play in while stealth-nerfing nullsec into the ground?

Please andski, point out where I said that?

You know, where you said that trying to make the option of leaving hisec attractive is futile for whatever reason.

I never said I *wanted* anything.
I never said I *wanted* a stealth-nerf to anything.
I said, people who want to go to 0.0 get there, people who don't, don't.
Futile is an overstatement, but not by much (if any). In the four years I've been playing, this has been the constant complaint "not enough people in null sec".

As for making "leaving hisec" attractive, CCP has done a very good job with that.

"Worm Holes".


okay what makes wormholes a more attractive option to risk-averse hiseccers than nullsec

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Darth Tickles
Doomheim
#76 - 2012-05-05 14:51:57 UTC
Faith Patrouette wrote:
nullsec is already rediculously lucrative, for those sitting on tech. This should be nerfed first, instead of catering to the whims of the biggest group of whiny kids screaming highsec risk vs reward is broken.
Nullsecs risk vs reward is so broken big alliences sitting on so much tech it comes out of every hole they have are quickly growing too big to be overthrown. And there is the problem, because they get bored and start whining en masse to ccp about high sec being broken, and see how far they can get ccp to cater their sorry asses. Forum pvp is the new pvp there.

I see how CCP wants people to move to low and null, and i see the changes they make hoping this will make that happen, problem being it wont, unless they make fixes to the broken low and null sec first, instead of making quick decisions that will not only break the sandbox, but make the problem worse.


nullsec players have been complaining about the tech imbalance and the generally broken nature of moons for over a year
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#77 - 2012-05-05 14:53:35 UTC
Darth Tickles wrote:
nullsec players have been complaining about the tech imbalance and the generally broken nature of moons for over a year


sshhh, don't tell them that

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Faith Patrouette
Careless Carebears Inc.
#78 - 2012-05-05 14:56:18 UTC
Darth Tickles wrote:
Faith Patrouette wrote:
nullsec is already rediculously lucrative, for those sitting on tech. This should be nerfed first, instead of catering to the whims of the biggest group of whiny kids screaming highsec risk vs reward is broken.
Nullsecs risk vs reward is so broken big alliences sitting on so much tech it comes out of every hole they have are quickly growing too big to be overthrown. And there is the problem, because they get bored and start whining en masse to ccp about high sec being broken, and see how far they can get ccp to cater their sorry asses. Forum pvp is the new pvp there.

I see how CCP wants people to move to low and null, and i see the changes they make hoping this will make that happen, problem being it wont, unless they make fixes to the broken low and null sec first, instead of making quick decisions that will not only break the sandbox, but make the problem worse.


nullsec players have been complaining about the tech imbalance and the generally broken nature of moons for over a year


I am not saying they havent, I am just saying that this whiney **** about omg there is no risk in high sec and too much is isk is taken out of context so far it is rediculous.

I get why ccp want people to move to low / fw and move to null and why those should be made attractive to newer players and not just rich vets,
problem being these changes wont make that happen.
Thomas Orca
Broski is ded
#79 - 2012-05-05 14:58:01 UTC
Andski wrote:
Darth Tickles wrote:
nullsec players have been complaining about the tech imbalance and the generally broken nature of moons for over a year


sshhh, don't tell them that


We wouldn't want them to think we want to play a good game.
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#80 - 2012-05-05 15:04:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Asuri Kinnes
Andski wrote:
okay what makes wormholes a more attractive option to risk-averse hiseccers than nullsec

WH's aren't all claimed, no intel networks, everyone works under the same rules (no hot-drops/super caps) [excepting those that occupy class 5/6 space - who are more than willing to take those risks], more "unknown" feel, ability to freely set up and take down shop at will, ability to roam at will, ability to make "enough" isk to cover expected losses, ability to "change" system every day (or several times a day) and non-static routes in and out. Oh, and sleepers...

Biggest "advantage" (which is really not an "advantage" per se - but a function of mechanics) is Worm Holes limit mass and time. Anyone can figure out how to tell how much mass/time (within a small margin) is left on a WH, and can either crash it behind them or go back out.


Also (just thought of this) you can base out of a ship and raid empty null sec/ low sec systems with almost impunity. Most of the time when we've dropped out into claimed 0.0, the locals don't seem interested in chasing us back up the chain... Pirate
Edit to add: Also (not to put *too* fine a point on it) - there are many people who play in hi-sec that don't like the reputation (fairly or unfairly given) that null sec'ers seem to have cultivated over the last few years.

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.