These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Case for Removing Learning Implants

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aranial
Empyrean Warriors
#21 - 2012-08-30 11:14:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Aranial
Link to article just so people actually read before they make a judgement:

http://themittani.com/features/case-removing-learning-implants

Edit: Damn ninja'd Lol
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2012-08-30 11:15:31 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:

That's horseshit from start to finish.

I agree completely the article was horseshit from start to finish.

The Null bears really should stop calling hi-sec dwellers risk adverse when they are more risk adverse than the Null sec dwellers.

I don't use +3, +4 or +5 implants for one simple reason: I can't be ******* arsed to replace them all the time. I see absolutely no problem with them going away.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#23 - 2012-08-30 11:16:42 UTC
it's funny how you post a thread discussing the article without a link to the article

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Arec Bardwin
#24 - 2012-08-30 11:16:45 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:

Will the terribad null players ever stop crying? Wah wah there's a cloaked neutral in my system, change game mechanics. Wah wah I want my pod to be as safe as hisec player pods. Wah wah whatever.

Man up, nullbears.


Please don't put all null sec players in the same box than EveNews whatever dudes. They're a shame for null sec players.
To be fair, the article was posted on the Goon news site, named after a piece of hand garment.
Frying Doom
#25 - 2012-08-30 11:17:09 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:

That's horseshit from start to finish.

I agree completely the article was horseshit from start to finish.

The Null bears really should stop calling hi-sec dwellers risk adverse when they are more risk adverse than the Null sec dwellers.

I don't use +3, +4 or +5 implants for one simple reason: I can't be ******* arsed to replace them all the time. I see absolutely no problem with them going away.

So because you choose Null sec PvP everyone should have to be on par with what you choose to do?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#26 - 2012-08-30 11:18:16 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:

That's horseshit from start to finish.

I agree completely the article was horseshit from start to finish.

The Null bears really should stop calling hi-sec dwellers risk adverse when they are more risk adverse than the Null sec dwellers.


the "nullbears" risk expensive ships far more often than anybody else

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2012-08-30 11:18:27 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
So because you choose Null sec PvP everyone should have to be on par with what you choose to do?

Frying Doom, meet strawman. Strawman, meet Frying Doom.

Shake hands, now.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2012-08-30 11:18:28 UTC
Andski wrote:
it's funny how you post a thread discussing the article without a link to the article

But he can only refute one paragraph
Frying Doom
#29 - 2012-08-30 11:18:34 UTC
Andski wrote:
it's funny how you post a thread discussing the article without a link to the article

I deliberately chose not to reference that site.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#30 - 2012-08-30 11:18:34 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:


Will the terribad null players ever stop crying? Wah wah there's a cloaked neutral in my system, change game mechanics.


Eh? More like change systems. Problem solved. Of course if you're a stupid renter with only one system then yeah, you're pretty much forked.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#31 - 2012-08-30 11:19:59 UTC
the best part is that literally every argument for keeping learning implants in the game starts out by misrepresenting the argument for removal as a removal of all implants from the game

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#32 - 2012-08-30 11:21:04 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Andski wrote:
it's funny how you post a thread discussing the article without a link to the article

I deliberately chose not to reference that site.


then you should have deliberately chosen not to make a thread about it

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Frying Doom
#33 - 2012-08-30 11:22:30 UTC
Andski wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:

That's horseshit from start to finish.

I agree completely the article was horseshit from start to finish.

The Null bears really should stop calling hi-sec dwellers risk adverse when they are more risk adverse than the Null sec dwellers.


the "nullbears" risk expensive ships far more often than anybody else

And Large Null sec alliances have a ship replacement program.
So does this not make the members of those Alliances more risk adverse than those in alliances without this type of program?

After all it is only a risk to the player if he had to actually afford the "expensive ships" he was getting destroyed.
Were as I don't see Alliances having an implant replacement program.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#34 - 2012-08-30 11:23:54 UTC
Andski wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Andski wrote:
it's funny how you post a thread discussing the article without a link to the article

I deliberately chose not to reference that site.


then you should have deliberately chosen not to make a thread about it

nah, just because I choose not to post a link to a specific alliances mouth piece hardly makes it a reason not to post the subject.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2012-08-30 11:25:27 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
nah, just because I choose not to post a link to a specific alliances mouth piece hardly makes it a reason not to post the subject.

I guess you haven't read many of the articles there, then, if you think it's "a specific alilance's mouth piece".

Par for the course, I guess.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Arec Bardwin
#36 - 2012-08-30 11:26:57 UTC
Andski wrote:

the "nullbears" risk expensive ships far more often than anybody else
It's a choice you have to make, much like when you decide if you should risk a full +5 set or a cheap pair of +3 for your primary attributes.
No More Heroes
Boomer Humor
Snuffed Out
#37 - 2012-08-30 11:27:18 UTC
I would imagine Mr. Frying Doom spends a great deal of time there.

.
Frying Doom
#38 - 2012-08-30 11:28:15 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
nah, just because I choose not to post a link to a specific alliances mouth piece hardly makes it a reason not to post the subject.

I guess you haven't read many of the articles there, then, if you think it's "a specific alilance's mouth piece".

Par for the course, I guess.

No actually I have read them all and some of them are quiet good, others are very just propaganda. Frankly its not worth the read some of the time.

Generally I find less slant and better info on EvE News 24

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#39 - 2012-08-30 11:28:16 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
And Large Null sec alliances have a ship replacement program.
So does this not make the members of those Alliances more risk adverse than those in alliances without this type of program?


and large nullsec alliances also can't guarantee that they'll readily reimburse a huge supercapital welp

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Aranial
Empyrean Warriors
#40 - 2012-08-30 11:28:30 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Andski wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Andski wrote:
it's funny how you post a thread discussing the article without a link to the article

I deliberately chose not to reference that site.


then you should have deliberately chosen not to make a thread about it

nah, just because I choose not to post a link to a specific alliances mouth piece hardly makes it a reason not to post the subject.


Take your hate somewhere else. I'm no fan of most Nullsec alliances but http://themittani.com/ actually has balanced articles and when they are propaganda its cleary pointed out. You'll find on that website many sides post that articles are well written (DOTBROS for example). Either way its a massive improvement over EVENEWS24.