These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#501 - 2012-05-29 07:15:56 UTC
Pretty much everything you've said thus far in this thread has confirmed my hypothesis that you are a risk-averse wardec ganker who wants easy-mode kills.

It has also confirmed my secondary hypothesis that you are a delusional idiot.
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#502 - 2012-05-29 07:19:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Milton Middleson
steejans nix wrote:

Also how do you manage now to pvp and go to jita several times an hour now to alter market orders ?


When your pvp consists of ganking wartargets in/near trade hubs, it can be pretty easy.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#503 - 2012-05-29 07:52:44 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
I have zero interest rehearsing the same non arguments with quite frankly, daft people.

Definition of "daft people": anyone who's talking back to him, instead of blindly agreeing.

Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Because I market trade in Jita and having to leave the wormhole multiple times per hour would be unbearable.

"I don't want to change the way I play, because it would be :effort:, but the entire rest of the game should!"

Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Consider the valid argument presented.

Come back to us when you have an argument which is an actual argument, and not "this should happen because I'm lazy".

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

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#504 - 2012-05-29 08:07:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Lord Zim wrote:

Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Consider the valid argument presented.

Come back to us when you have an argument which is an actual argument, and not "this should happen because I'm lazy".

As opposed to your position of not having any suggestions and just telling people how bad there ideas are.
oh and one liners like"fix Sov so the systems are easier to take" doesn't count, I'm not saying it's wrong but It is hardly fleshed out.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#505 - 2012-05-29 08:16:57 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:

Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Consider the valid argument presented.

Come back to us when you have an argument which is an actual argument, and not "this should happen because I'm lazy".

As opposed to your position of not having any suggestions and just telling people how bad there ideas are.
oh and one liners like"fix Sov so the systems are easier to take" doesn't count, I'm not saying it's wrong but It is hardly fleshed out.

Uh, there's been multiple ideas for modifying how local works which I've been tentatively in favor of. What I'm fully against is "just remove local" "ideas" which I will continue to call bad ideas because they are bad ideas.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#506 - 2012-05-29 08:21:39 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:

Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Consider the valid argument presented.

Come back to us when you have an argument which is an actual argument, and not "this should happen because I'm lazy".

As opposed to your position of not having any suggestions and just telling people how bad there ideas are.
oh and one liners like"fix Sov so the systems are easier to take" doesn't count, I'm not saying it's wrong but It is hardly fleshed out.

Uh, there's been multiple ideas for modifying how local works which I've been tentatively in favor of. What I'm fully against is "just remove local" "ideas" which I will continue to call bad ideas because they are bad ideas.

Well instead of tentatively being in favour of how about you pick one, post it up and defend it or if you think it has flaws explain what you believe needs changing and too what.

Stop just fence sitting and criticizing.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#507 - 2012-05-29 08:26:50 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Well instead of tentatively being in favour of how about you pick one, post it up and defend it or if you think it has flaws explain what you believe needs changing and too what.

Stop just fence sitting and criticizing.

You're assuming I think something needs changing about local; I don't. What I'm "tentatively in favour of" are ideas I could possibly live with (subject to change pending actual testing) if CCP decides that local will change.

Until they say they are definitely making a change to how local works, I'll continue to give advice/point out weaknesses in suggestions other people put up. In you and Caliph's case, however, it's all geared towards the gankers, and there's absolutely nothing in it for the gankee.

But then you know this.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#508 - 2012-05-29 08:40:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Well instead of tentatively being in favour of how about you pick one, post it up and defend it or if you think it has flaws explain what you believe needs changing and too what.

Stop just fence sitting and criticizing.

You're assuming I think something needs changing about local; I don't. What I'm "tentatively in favour of" are ideas I could possibly live with (subject to change pending actual testing) if CCP decides that local will change.

Until they say they are definitely making a change to how local works, I'll continue to give advice/point out weaknesses in suggestions other people put up. In you and Caliph's case, however, it's all geared towards the gankers, and there's absolutely nothing in it for the gankee.

But then you know this.

Actually no. not instantly showing your presence in local is an advantage to the prey as well. You will d-scan detect probes before they have your position locked in or in some cases even detected if you are paying attention.

Oh the other point if you cant stand behind any idea for anything at all, you must really have no complaints about EVE. You would be the first person I have ever heard that from, or a spineless fence sitter, capable of complaining about everyone elses ideas while never standing up for any your self.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#509 - 2012-05-29 08:45:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Frying Doom wrote:
Actually no. not instantly showing your presence in local is an advantage to the prey as well. You will d-scan detect probes before they have your position locked in or in some cases even detected if you are paying attention.

You need probes to find people?

Frying Doom wrote:
Oh the other point if you cant stand behind any idea for anything at all, you must really have no complaints about EVE. You would be the first person I have ever heard that from, or a spineless fence sitter, capable of complaining about everyone elses ideas while never standing up for any your self.

Nice strawman, especially as I have been behind multiple ideas in this very thread.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Mirime Nolwe
Mantra of Pain
#510 - 2012-05-29 08:46:20 UTC
Just remove local and lets hell be unleashed.
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#511 - 2012-05-29 08:52:15 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

Actually no. not instantly showing your presence in local is an advantage to the prey as well. You will d-scan detect probes before they have your position locked in or in some cases even detected if you are paying attention.

Oh the other point if you cant stand behind any idea for anything at all, you must really have no complaints about EVE. You would be the first person I have ever heard that from, or a spineless fence sitter, capable of complaining about everyone elses ideas while never standing up for any your self.


So instead of watching for local to update, they'll be watching d-scan to update. Yah, big improvement.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#512 - 2012-05-29 08:59:38 UTC
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
So instead of watching for local to update, they'll be watching d-scan to update. Yah, big improvement.

Do you know what the big catch here is? dscan is currently severely limited in the range of space it can cover. Guess who that would favour, then ponder why the same people are against modifying how dscan works.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#513 - 2012-05-29 09:21:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Lord Zim wrote:
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
So instead of watching for local to update, they'll be watching d-scan to update. Yah, big improvement.

Do you know what the big catch here is? dscan is currently severely limited in the range of space it can cover. Guess who that would favour, then ponder why the same people are against modifying how dscan works.

Umm it would favor the observant and hard working while penalizing the lazy.

Oh and what ideas where you behind in this thread sorry I missed you backing and arguing the points for these.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Elena Melkan
Magellanic Itg
Goonswarm Federation
#514 - 2012-05-29 09:30:25 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
So instead of watching for local to update, they'll be watching d-scan to update. Yah, big improvement.

Do you know what the big catch here is? dscan is currently severely limited in the range of space it can cover. Guess who that would favour, then ponder why the same people are against modifying how dscan works.

Umm it would favor the observant and hard working while penalizing the lazy.

Oh and what ideas where you behind in this thread sorry I missed you backing and arguing the points for these.

It wouldn't favor anyone really. It would make things harder for a predator to find a target, and for prey to avoid getting caught. Spamming a d-scan would make playing in low and nullsec really boring and pointless, and I don't understand what a word 'boring' has to do with 'hard working' or 'observant'.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#515 - 2012-05-29 09:48:23 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Oh and what ideas where you behind in this thread sorry I missed you backing and arguing the points for these.

It's all in the threads, go back and read.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#516 - 2012-05-29 09:50:16 UTC
Elena Melkan wrote:

It wouldn't favor anyone really. It would make things harder for a predator to find a target, and for prey to avoid getting caught. Spamming a d-scan would make playing in low and nullsec really boring and pointless, and I don't understand what a word 'boring' has to do with 'hard working' or 'observant'.

If you read further up I propose the change only in Null sec and with the alteration of the D-scan so it auto updates as spamming the stupid thing stinks. Essentially I propose that people have to check the dscan instead of the free intel from local, giving covert ships the ability to be covert.

Thanks for the honesty about it still being a neutral playing field because it would be.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#517 - 2012-05-29 09:51:32 UTC
Elena Melkan wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
So instead of watching for local to update, they'll be watching d-scan to update. Yah, big improvement.

Do you know what the big catch here is? dscan is currently severely limited in the range of space it can cover. Guess who that would favour, then ponder why the same people are against modifying how dscan works.

Umm it would favor the observant and hard working while penalizing the lazy.

Oh and what ideas where you behind in this thread sorry I missed you backing and arguing the points for these.

It wouldn't favor anyone really. It would make things harder for a predator to find a target, and for prey to avoid getting caught. Spamming a d-scan would make playing in low and nullsec really boring and pointless, and I don't understand what a word 'boring' has to do with 'hard working' or 'observant'.


Not to mention that spamming d-scan only helps the prey if they are in a place that needs to be scanned down. If they are in an anom or any place that can be warped to from the overview, the prey get no warning.

So I guess if these guys want to be e-honourable, and not just camp the gates, they'll run circuits around all the belts, anoms and customs offices till they find a soft target.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#518 - 2012-05-29 09:54:48 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
If you read further up I propose the change only in Null sec and with the alteration of the D-scan so it auto updates as spamming the stupid thing stinks. Essentially I propose that people have to check the dscan instead of the free intel from local, giving covert ships the ability to be covert.


Lord Zim wrote:
Do you know what the big catch here is? dscan is currently severely limited in the range of space it can cover. Guess who that would favour, then ponder why the same people are against modifying how dscan works.

Oh, I actually forgot to mention that of course dscan doesn't see cloaked ships, so you have no idea if there's a bomber, recon, t3 or similar about to lock you down in a sanctum or similar.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#519 - 2012-05-29 09:57:07 UTC
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
If they are in an anom or any place that can be warped to from the overview, the prey get no warning.

Without any form of probing the system? sure you could do that but without local how many empty anoms would you warp to before you decided you might need to see if anyone is in the system first. And although the prey would receive limited warning, it would not be no warning as you show up on D-scan warping in.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#520 - 2012-05-29 10:01:30 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
If you read further up I propose the change only in Null sec and with the alteration of the D-scan so it auto updates as spamming the stupid thing stinks. Essentially I propose that people have to check the dscan instead of the free intel from local, giving covert ships the ability to be covert.


Lord Zim wrote:
Do you know what the big catch here is? dscan is currently severely limited in the range of space it can cover. Guess who that would favour, then ponder why the same people are against modifying how dscan works.

Oh, I actually forgot to mention that of course dscan doesn't see cloaked ships, so you have no idea if there's a bomber, recon, t3 or similar about to lock you down in a sanctum or similar.

So they would be able to function like their name implies or for that matter like they do in populated systems in Hi-sec or lo-sec systems where there is more than just blue contacts in a system.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!