These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Bears must destroy ISK

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dave Stark
#41 - 2013-01-19 17:35:18 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Nevermind, thought you meant you used ingame isk to purchase your plex. My mistake. Carry on.


i did.



Then you don't have any money to take elsewhere, so go to wow if you want.


confirming ccp have a constant income regardless of the number of subscribed accounts.
you're also assuming i plex each and every one of my accounts.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#42 - 2013-01-19 17:37:47 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Nevermind, thought you meant you used ingame isk to purchase your plex. My mistake. Carry on.


i did.



Then you don't have any money to take elsewhere, so go to wow if you want.


confirming ccp have a constant income regardless of the number of subscribed accounts.
you're also assuming i plex each and every one of my accounts.



Only by what you tell us I guess. Feel free to correct any assumptions you present.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
#43 - 2013-01-19 17:38:43 UTC
Do you not enjoy the game you are playing? Or are you so bitter that you get your enjoyment from ruining the game others play?

It is a big sanbox. Find a corner and focus on your own enjoyment.
Dave Stark
#44 - 2013-01-19 17:39:33 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Nevermind, thought you meant you used ingame isk to purchase your plex. My mistake. Carry on.


i did.



Then you don't have any money to take elsewhere, so go to wow if you want.


confirming ccp have a constant income regardless of the number of subscribed accounts.
you're also assuming i plex each and every one of my accounts.



Only by what you tell us I guess. Feel free to correct any assumptions you present.


i'd rather you just stopped posting.
your ability to understand things is poor at best.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#45 - 2013-01-19 17:40:58 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

I'm not a troll. It was an honest and serious question. James piped in and spoke like I was talking to him originally. I wasn't. He was trolling me.

It's a public board you idiot.



You know what, I'm editing my original post.

James, please refrain from expelling your asshattery to me, I find it idiotic and lame, and as such I do realize this is a public forum, and you can't help leeching, but you are an insipid troll and contribute nothing other than acting like a 12 yr old "just because".

In short, grow the **** up.

How cute, you think it's me that needs to grow up.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#46 - 2013-01-19 17:45:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Dave Stark wrote:
i'd rather you just stopped posting.
your ability to understand things is poor at best.



Awww how cute, you are making people sounds! You either want to pay to play, or you don't and would rather pay blizzard/activision. But otherwise you're just griping.

Otherwise, from what I've understood based on what you said, is that you plex your accounts, and will leave if you can't conitnue to do so, isn't that would you said?

By all means, make me understand! You're the one presenting the idea, not me. It's not my failure if you can't convey what you mean.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#47 - 2013-01-19 17:46:11 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

I'm not a troll. It was an honest and serious question. James piped in and spoke like I was talking to him originally. I wasn't. He was trolling me.

It's a public board you idiot.



You know what, I'm editing my original post.

James, please refrain from expelling your asshattery to me, I find it idiotic and lame, and as such I do realize this is a public forum, and you can't help leeching, but you are an insipid troll and contribute nothing other than acting like a 12 yr old "just because".

In short, grow the **** up.

How cute, you think it's me that needs to grow up.



Yes I do. You are a terrible troll who rides the coattails of anyone you think will get you anywhere in life.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Fanatic Row
Neo T.E.C.H.
#48 - 2013-01-19 17:46:14 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Fanatic Row wrote:
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
PvPers make ISK and then spend it on new ships which they destroy in combat. They interact with one another and create content.

Care bears accumulate massive fortunes with their AFK mining and industrial play. They have few options to destroy ISK with their playstyle.
Confirming that industrialists create ISK, not re-distribute it - and PvPer blowing up ships destroy it, not inject it via insurance.

This man knows his ****.
Right. That carebear made ISK I earned and bought a Nightmare with the other day was not redistributed at all. sheesh. Roll
I apologize. Sometimes I forget the ability to understand sarcasm isn't a given Straight
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#49 - 2013-01-19 17:46:40 UTC
Jesus, are you completely incapable of quoting without messing up the tags?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Piugattuk
Litla Sundlaugin
#50 - 2013-01-19 17:46:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Piugattuk
If bears start pvp'ing for the sake of destroying isk then the same goes the other way if there not keeping production up their inventory falls (which bears like to have) which means less on the market since bears WILL then keep for themselves in turn prices go through the roof for everyone.

But here's food for thought, As a bear I buy zyridine, mag, morf, moon materials, sleeper salvage, officer mods, faction ships bpc's only obtainable in 0.0.
Things I as a hi sec carebear cannot obtain but can buy which guess what puts isk in the pockets of those who can obtain those things.

IN TURN ADDING TO THE GREAT TRADE AND BUY CIRCLE OF EVE.

You know who really controls things more then bears...traders, not industrialist, miners, or missioners.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#51 - 2013-01-19 17:46:55 UTC
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
Doc Fury wrote:
What exactly are these "artificial barriers" of which you speak?

OP sounds jealous to me.



The sandbox is not currently a system with unlimited options. Many possibilities for play and interaction are just not supported. These unsupported options are in effect artificial barriers.



And those unsupported possibilities are what exactly?



☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#52 - 2013-01-19 17:47:21 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Yes I do. You are a terrible troll who rides the coattails of anyone you think will get you anywhere in life.

That's a hell of an inference from a forum about a video game from someone who's consistently wrong about game mechanics.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Dave Stark
#53 - 2013-01-19 17:47:24 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
i'd rather you just stopped posting.
your ability to understand things is poor at best.



Awww how cute, you are making people sounds! You either want to pay to play, or you don't and would rather pay blizzard/activision. But otherwise you're just griping.


i have no issue paying to play. however the suggestion implied in the op would result in me playing for nothing. hence, why i'd go else where.

if you'd actually understand this thread is dedicated to discussing the terrible idea in the op, rather than you just posting for the sake of posting, we might get somewhere.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#54 - 2013-01-19 17:48:12 UTC
Fanatic Row wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Fanatic Row wrote:
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
PvPers make ISK and then spend it on new ships which they destroy in combat. They interact with one another and create content.

Care bears accumulate massive fortunes with their AFK mining and industrial play. They have few options to destroy ISK with their playstyle.
Confirming that industrialists create ISK, not re-distribute it - and PvPer blowing up ships destroy it, not inject it via insurance.

This man knows his ****.
Right. That carebear made ISK I earned and bought a Nightmare with the other day was not redistributed at all. sheesh. Roll
I apologize. Sometimes I forget the ability to understand sarcasm isn't a given Straight



Oops then. It's not a matter of not understanding sarcasm.

Sarcasm is tricky and handled more readily by the voice, not type.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#55 - 2013-01-19 17:49:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Yes I do. You are a terrible troll who rides the coattails of anyone you think will get you anywhere in life.

That's a hell of an inference from a forum about a video game from someone who's consistently wrong about game mechanics.


I'm not inferring it. I'm flat out saying it. You have proven it in this thread alone. Take your bullshit trolls elsewhere.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Ginger Barbarella
#56 - 2013-01-19 17:50:06 UTC
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
PvPers make ISK and then spend it on new ships which they destroy in combat. They interact with one another and create content.

Care bears accumulate massive fortunes with their AFK mining and industrial play. They have few options to destroy ISK with their playstyle.

Events like Hulkegeddon and Burn Jita will not equalize this disparity.

The bears should be given options for the direct destruction of ISK. For whatever reason they cannot participate in PvP combat. But in a sandbox there can be other devices that will hurt your enemies. Gameplay that the empire builders will enjoy that directly destroys the ISK of their enemies.

Only by removing the artificial barriers to destruction will the ISK disparity be equalized.


The ignorance is strong with this one...

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#57 - 2013-01-19 17:55:29 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
i'd rather you just stopped posting.
your ability to understand things is poor at best.



Awww how cute, you are making people sounds! You either want to pay to play, or you don't and would rather pay blizzard/activision. But otherwise you're just griping.


i have no issue paying to play. however the suggestion implied in the op would result in me playing for nothing. hence, why i'd go else where.

if you'd actually understand this thread is dedicated to discussing the terrible idea in the op, rather than you just posting for the sake of posting, we might get somewhere.



I think we are suffering from the same disease. Otherwise we would just go around in circles.

Tell you what, you spend your isk how you'd like, and as long as you won't post anything that would attract my attention, I won't respond to you on this public forum.

That way we wouldn't be posting for the sake of.. posting? in a social media I guess.

Fair enough?

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Dave Stark
#58 - 2013-01-19 17:56:59 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
i'd rather you just stopped posting.
your ability to understand things is poor at best.



Awww how cute, you are making people sounds! You either want to pay to play, or you don't and would rather pay blizzard/activision. But otherwise you're just griping.


i have no issue paying to play. however the suggestion implied in the op would result in me playing for nothing. hence, why i'd go else where.

if you'd actually understand this thread is dedicated to discussing the terrible idea in the op, rather than you just posting for the sake of posting, we might get somewhere.



I think we are suffering from the same disease. Otherwise we would just go around in circles.

Tell you what, you spend your isk how you'd like, and as long as you won't post anything that would attract my attention, I won't respond to you on this public forum.

That way we wouldn't be posting for the sake of.. posting? in a social media I guess.

Fair enough?



you still seem to have failed to create a reply relevant to the thread's content.
please, don't try again.
Ginger Barbarella
#59 - 2013-01-19 17:59:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Ginger Barbarella
Doc Fury wrote:
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
Doc Fury wrote:
What exactly are these "artificial barriers" of which you speak?

OP sounds jealous to me.



The sandbox is not currently a system with unlimited options. Many possibilities for play and interaction are just not supported. These unsupported options are in effect artificial barriers.


And those unsupported possibilities are what exactly?


Not sure if this is what he was suggesting, but there is no mechanism to CREATE anything (Invention, for example). Anybody can make reactions, build components, mine some rocks, mash it all together, and have a ship. Invention is the same thing: mash together some stuff that already exists to create something else that already exists. There is no CREATION of something new (with a set of software parameters and given adequate training, chance, materials, etc). In-game alchemy, if you will. :) What if I wanted to CREATE a Ferox-type hull with build-in core scanning equipment (not fitted), with built-in capability to scan for (let's say) gas clouds across a single constellation or region? Or what if I wanted to CREATE a ship with the capability to transport pilots via pod bays (for example) to another location? Screw standing at a virtual bar in a fancy chat, I'm talking about take transport contracts, these people meet you at a station, "board" your space taxi, and you transport them? Clearly not viable for high sec, but it would have it's uses. But that's not the point.

No creation exists in current rules and mechanisms. RE-creation of existing stuffs, sure. But no CREATION.

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#60 - 2013-01-19 18:00:40 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
i'd rather you just stopped posting.
your ability to understand things is poor at best.



Awww how cute, you are making people sounds! You either want to pay to play, or you don't and would rather pay blizzard/activision. But otherwise you're just griping.


i have no issue paying to play. however the suggestion implied in the op would result in me playing for nothing. hence, why i'd go else where.

if you'd actually understand this thread is dedicated to discussing the terrible idea in the op, rather than you just posting for the sake of posting, we might get somewhere.



I think we are suffering from the same disease. Otherwise we would just go around in circles.

Tell you what, you spend your isk how you'd like, and as long as you won't post anything that would attract my attention, I won't respond to you on this public forum.

That way we wouldn't be posting for the sake of.. posting? in a social media I guess.

Fair enough?



you still seem to have failed to create a reply relevant to the thread's content.
please, don't try again.


I'm not replying to the OP, but to you.

Please stop quoting me to engage me in a conversation if you do not wish me to speak.

Otherwise deal with the content. You either can agree or not, your choice.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.