These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Grow some extremely durable genitalia.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#141 - 2012-05-27 00:26:52 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Why would I go to nullsec with 12 people? Nullsec is just the areas you can declare sovereignty in. Its not the "pvp" zone in EVE. I have zero reason to ever go out there and contribute to the success of an alliance that doesn't give a care in the world about its members. Your case as you weaseled your way into one of the very few successful ones is the exception not the standard.

What about the effect on lowsec? NPC nullsec? Hisec? None of these places are where you "declare sovereignty", and all of them are "pvp zones".

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#142 - 2012-05-27 00:28:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Lord Zim wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Why would I go to nullsec with 12 people? Nullsec is just the areas you can declare sovereignty in. Its not the "pvp" zone in EVE. I have zero reason to ever go out there and contribute to the success of an alliance that doesn't give a care in the world about its members. Your case as you weaseled your way into one of the very few successful ones is the exception not the standard.

What about the effect on lowsec? NPC nullsec? Hisec? None of these places are where you "declare sovereignty", and all of them are "pvp zones".


No local would fix all secs. You are so beyond clueless I, are you autistic? I ask because no matter what's said to you, you ignore it and repeat the same misguided questions as if anyone reading what you write doesn't recognize the absurd logic you use.

http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Study. Learn. Your average paragraph covers so many mentioned, listing them individually would be considered spam.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#143 - 2012-05-27 00:33:40 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
No local would fix losec. You are so beyond clueless I, are you autistic?

Who were talking about "fix"? I was asking you about the effect your "no local" change would have on people in lowsec, nullsec (all nullsec, tbh, not just NPC, but you seem to have some weird notion that nullsec is just somewhere you claim sov, and that's it, there's .. no PVP there? I've no idea what gave you that idea) and hisec.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#144 - 2012-05-27 00:39:25 UTC
Fallacy: False Dilemma




Also Known as: Black & White Thinking.

Description of False Dilemma
A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":


Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
Claim Y is false.
Therefore claim X is true.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false. That this is the case is made clear by the following example:


Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12.
It is not the case that 1+1=4.
Therefore 1+1=12.
In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options, this line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example:


Bill is dead or he is alive.
Bill is not dead.
Therefore Bill is alive.
Examples of False Dilemma

Senator Jill: "We'll have to cut education funding this year."
Senator Bill: "Why?"
Senator Jill: "Well, either we cut the social programs or we live with a huge deficit and we can't live with the deficit."

Bill: "Jill and I both support having prayer in public schools."
Jill: "Hey, I never said that!"
Bill: "You're not an atheist are you Jill?"

"Look, you are going to have to make up your mind. Either you decide that you can afford this stereo, or you decide you are going to do without music for a while."
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#145 - 2012-05-27 00:47:57 UTC
Don't want to answer that question, then. I can only think of two reasons:

1) You have absolutely no clue what the effect on the population in hisec, lowsec and nullsec (both NPC and claimable) would be, and don't want to expose this fact, or
2) You know exactly what the effect will be, but as long as it becomes easier to gank you don't care.

For some reason I'm going to go out on a limb and just assume it's 2).

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#146 - 2012-05-27 00:57:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
You have no clue of the effect either. Nothing more than pessimistic projection and yet you demand proof of me that you can't provide.

I can answer any question you want me to Zim but having a conversation with you is tedious.

Its not a matter of being unable to but not wanting to.
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#147 - 2012-05-27 00:59:22 UTC  |  Edited by: DeMichael Crimson
Throwing my 2 ISK worth into this topic.


Empire controls 2 areas of space, high security and low security. Players showing up in Local chat channels is intel provided by Empire Factions. Null security is controlled by Alliances and as such they have to provide their own intel. Null security systems need to be patrolled by the Alliances controlling SOV for intel.

High security local chat channel shows everyone.
Low security local chat channel shows Criminals and War Targets.
Null security local chat channel shows Alliance and Allies controlling SOV.
Wormhole local chat channel shows no one.

All local chat channels show players who speak and as long as that player remains in that system, that player's intel is available in Local chat.



EDIT:

NPC Null security local chat channel would be like Wormhole local chat channel.

'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#148 - 2012-05-27 00:59:41 UTC
Fallacy: Burden of Proof




Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")

Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:


Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Examples of Burden of Proof

Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#149 - 2012-05-27 01:03:56 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Throwing my 2 ISK worth into this topic.


Empire controls 2 areas of space, high security and low security. Players showing up in Local chat channels is intel provided by Empire Factions. Null security is controlled by Alliances and as such they have to provide their own intel. Null security systems need to be patrolled by the Alliances controlling SOV for intel.

High security local chat channel shows everyone.
Low security local chat channel shows Criminals and War Targets.
Null security local chat channel shows Alliance and Allies controlling SOV.
Wormhole local chat channel shows no one.

All local chat channels show players who speak and as long as that player remains in that system, that player's intel is available in Local chat.





Why should hisec be safe? Safer, sure, and it is because the punishment for criminal aggression is guarenteed destruction. Local when utilized prevents any chance whatsoever of conflict, and all the lore in the world doesn't justify it. Its stale and stagnant gameplay.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#150 - 2012-05-27 01:09:55 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
You have no clue of the effect either. Nothing more than pessimistic projection and yet you demand proof of me that you can't provide.

I can answer any question you want me to Zim but having a conversation with you is tedious.

Its not a matter of being unable to but not wanting to.

So when I say that initially, in hisec, of those who does notice that the corp is now at war, even fewer will bother to undock, that's just a "pessimistic projection"?

And when I say that some of the people who are currently making a living in lowsec will probably stop doing so, that's just a "pessimistic projection"?

And when I say that some (or a sizeable portion) of the people who are currently mining and ratting in nullsec will probably go back to hisec to make a similar amount of isk for vastly less effort, that's just a "pessimistic projection"?

Or do you actually assume that everyone'll just go "oh hey I get the wormhole experience without actually going to wormholes" and just trundle along as if nothing happened?

Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Local when utilized prevents any chance whatsoever of conflict

Tons of killmails, in all security levels, would suggest otherwise.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
hank boar
Doomheim
#151 - 2012-05-27 01:12:31 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Get rid of local, all secs. It fixes almost everything. You would have to work to locate a target. You would have to work to avoid a target. There would be risk in high sec. There would be risk in all secs.

Freighters could be caught during a war dec. Freighters could get through during a war dec.

You would still have Concord retaliation in high sec. You could still be camped, though if you break the camp it would be harder to hunt you down. Certainly no worse that what we have now but with compelling gameplay.

It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks of which people complain about.

It would make neutral alts almost irrelevant. Though not 100%. It would certainly make playing with one account a lot less of a disadvantage. Sure you might lose a few alt account subs, but you would gain many more subs by having more compelling gameplay. What good is a scout profession when they're revealed as soon as they enter system?

The changes the expansion are bringing aren't going to revitalize low sec or null sec and its certainly not going to promote or fuel war. Quite the opposite.

The devs and the playerbase talk a lot about EVE being hardcore, but as of yet i'm not really seeing the hardcore aspect to the game.

The game is a boring campfest. Removing local removes that to a large degree.

To my ultra Orthodox carebear players, uncle Caliphy isn't throwing you under the bus. The threats you worry about occuring with this change would actually be resolvable by a merc corporation. If you are decced and you hire a merc the merc cannot sneak up on the enemy with everything displayed for them. They may be able to make your tormentors life a little more difficult but in most cases can't force a fight under those conditions. With no local they could. If you are camped by a griefdec and you hire a reasonably sized merc to help you the griefer will never see them coming. It's win/win.

Even null entry points would be camped far less. Lets see the thirty man bubble camp consistently do it when a 150 man roaming gang warps in on them and they never see it coming.

Local is holding EVE back. Period. Get rid of it and let EVE become great.



Problem solved stay out of high sec and enjoy all of this in 0.0 real simple isn't it that it is already there yet hords of folks fail to see 0.0 as everything they ask for best of all gank all you want and no sec loss :)
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#152 - 2012-05-27 01:22:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Quote:
So when I say that initially, in hisec, of those who does notice that the corp is now at war, even fewer will bother to undock, that's just a "pessimistic projection"?


We have to have a drab game because the least of us are so stupified as to not even know they are in war? This is going to blow your mind Zim, but those idiots deserve to die. Darwin.

Quote:
And when I say that some of the people who are currently making a living in lowsec will probably stop doing so, that's just a "pessimistic projection"?


Yes because you have no proof whatsoever merely, pessimistic projection.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#153 - 2012-05-27 01:22:35 UTC
Quote:
And when I say that some (or a sizeable portion) of the people who are currently mining and ratting in nullsec will probably go back to hisec to make a similar amount of isk for vastly less effort, that's just a "pessimistic projection"?


Risk versus reward. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. But more to the point you have no proof, just pessimistic projection.

Quote:
Or do you actually assume that everyone'll just go "oh hey I get the wormhole experience without actually going to wormholes" and just trundle along as if nothing happened?


I don't really care. Thats like asking if Titans should be removed because those without them don't care for them. It comes down to preference I suppose. I'm not representing your side of the fence though im representing mine.
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Local when utilized prevents any chance whatsoever of conflict


Quote:
Tons of killmails, in all security levels, would suggest otherwise.


Mostly random save for large scale conflicts between mutually accepting parties. Anyone who wishes to avoid conflict in EVE can do so with trivial ease do to local. And this comes with the cost of war being raised and no means whatsoever to enfore the conflict that was paid for.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#154 - 2012-05-27 01:26:15 UTC
Removing local still offers no guarenteed form of conflict, but it does go a long way in allowing it to occur non consentually.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#155 - 2012-05-27 01:27:52 UTC
So in other words, you believe there'll be absolutely no change in active population in either hisec, lowsec or nullsec (NPC or conquerable) if local is removed.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#156 - 2012-05-27 01:31:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Lord Zim wrote:
So in other words, you believe there'll be absolutely no change in active population in either hisec, lowsec or nullsec (NPC or conquerable) if local is removed.


Not much, no. The veterans that make EVE what it is will adapt and have more fun than they ever did before and the fruits that play a pvp game while trying to remain passive will cry and whine as always while still logging in to feel the adrenaline of surviving in the ensuing chaos.

Actually I think you would see a population boom. Id be on everyday making the lives of many forum trashtalkers a living hell and loving every minute of it. And many others would as well.
Katja Faith
Doomheim
#157 - 2012-05-27 01:32:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Katja Faith
1. So remove local. I would just about guarantee the vast majority of the player base couldn't care less. I couldn't care one damn bit. But then, I know what I'm doing outside high.
2. Make any neutral participation in combat a VALID TARGET for all parties. THAT will end neut repping real damn fast. Screw the "flagging" non-sense: make them red for anyone to shoot.

ps: I should run for CSM. But then, I know what a complete farce it is and how much it's laughed at outside the large alliances that stack the deck.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#158 - 2012-05-27 01:46:06 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
So in other words, you believe there'll be absolutely no change in active population in either hisec, lowsec or nullsec (NPC or conquerable) if local is removed.


Not much, no. The veterans that make EVE what it is will adapt and have more fun than they ever did before and the fruits that play a pvp game while trying to remain passive will cry and whine as always while still logging in to feel the adrenaline of surviving in the ensuing chaos.

So the fact that at least nullsec turned more or less into a wasteland within a month after CCP nerfed anoms is, to you, not an indication as to what'd happen if CCP removed local?

The anom nerf was, after all, just a reduction in payouts, so people got less of a reward for their effort than they would get if they just went back to hisec and did L4s or incursions. So take the fact that rewards aren't currently that much above L4s, and add the fact that you'd end up having to have cloaky scouts watching every gate in the system, and wormholes, and you'd still have to hope there are no-one who have been cloaked for hours or logged in in the system, and combine that with the fact that most people are more risk averse than they are against grinding, and you're really thinking it'll be "not so big a change"?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#159 - 2012-05-27 01:50:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Lord Zim wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
So in other words, you believe there'll be absolutely no change in active population in either hisec, lowsec or nullsec (NPC or conquerable) if local is removed.


Not much, no. The veterans that make EVE what it is will adapt and have more fun than they ever did before and the fruits that play a pvp game while trying to remain passive will cry and whine as always while still logging in to feel the adrenaline of surviving in the ensuing chaos.

So the fact that at least nullsec turned more or less into a wasteland within a month after CCP nerfed anoms is, to you, not an indication as to what'd happen if CCP removed local?

The anom nerf was, after all, just a reduction in payouts, so people got less of a reward for their effort than they would get if they just went back to hisec and did L4s or incursions. So take the fact that rewards aren't currently that much above L4s, and add the fact that you'd end up having to have cloaky scouts watching every gate in the system, and wormholes, and you'd still have to hope there are no-one who have been cloaked for hours or logged in in the system, and combine that with the fact that most people are more risk averse than they are against grinding, and you're really thinking it'll be "not so big a change"?



Did Swarm space become a wasteland or did less rewarding alliances become desolate? I'd wager the people who left didnt really want to be there to begin with and were only there because they had a secure spot to exploit an undue reward.

I'm not sure how removing local completely in all secs relates to an anom nerf.
specializt
State War Academy
Caldari State
#160 - 2012-05-27 01:53:21 UTC  |  Edited by: specializt
Blabb3r M0uth B11tch wrote:

Bottom line is this, there are other games, and maybe, just maybe, that's where they belong?

Have this small hint : EvE Online is not and never will be a PvP-game. Maybe it WAS one back in the days - i dunno, i had more important stuff to do back in the old days.
But on every other aspect you're just about right. Removing us will both shrink and harm the universe, not to mention the financial impacts on CCP ;-). We are the freaking backbone of this game - you go ahead and try to walk with broken legs ... could be interesting to watch nublets and gankerkiddies trying their best to take our place without even knowing it :)

Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Look at all the terribaddies squirming when they have their easy mode questioned. The same few posters with sandy vaginas repeating the same vacuous diatribe.

Look it up, cretins.


Caliph Muhammed wrote:

And without the pvpers the economy stagnates and dies


Caliph Muhammed wrote:

contribute to the success of an alliance that doesn't give a care in the world about its members


Yep, someone who either bought his account or missed like 90% of the game during all these years is really upset about nothing here ... thats what we call a "troll", kids - now go ahead and laugh about the guy who actually claims that PvP is the main thing in EvE Online. Thats in so many ways hilarious - i dont even know where to start.

Oh and : please stay in highsec, nublet - its actually a good thing that you dont know shite about EvE. Enjoy flipping burgers at McDonals and cans in EvE while google'ing cool words and being an internet-superhero.
I really hope you have fun while doing so. Dont bother trying to troll or attack me - i wont even read it.