These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Returning from a long break,,,,, question about griefers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#341 - 2014-01-07 17:12:55 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nope, I'm not. I think ganking is considerably easier to do now. It's very cheap to do, and it has no downsides whatsoever. You can even change your mind now and go back to being >-5 for only a few hundred mil. They may as well drop the rerolling rule with it being that easy. Plus, it's not just ganking. A cheap fit can keep a target perma-bumped, especially if you choose to bump a freighter, which have been known to be bumped for several hours.

And that right there that your doing, is committing a logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

If we were to follow that method of thinking, then no change would ever be made to the game as it will always fall into further changes inevitably resulting in the end of the game.

The **** are you doing in the CFC?
Same as everyone else. I was under the impression my personal opinions were in fact allowed however, as are yours.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#342 - 2014-01-07 17:12:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Kimmi Chan
Lucas Kell wrote:
The situation as it currently stands is clearly not perfect on either side.


Why not and who is judging its perfection or lack thereof?

Lucas Kell wrote:
I think more need to be done to rope in the ganking and bumping


Like reducing CONCORD response time by 50%? And how, exactly, are you defining "rope in"?

Lucas Kell wrote:
especially when it's prolonged for hours


I don't disagree with this.

Lucas Kell wrote:
but then at the same time things like the ice anom locations and sizes being static is an issue too.


Why is that an issue?

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#343 - 2014-01-07 17:14:54 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
The real question is WHY should we shut up?
Because you can't provide any coherent or well-founded reason why things should go your way.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#344 - 2014-01-07 17:15:43 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Same as everyone else. I was under the impression my personal opinions were in fact allowed however, as are yours.

There's a difference between having personal opinions by themselves, and being part of an organization where these opinions don't make sense.

If you denounce ganking and bumping, why choose to remain in an organization that does a fair amount of both?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Angelica Dreamstar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#345 - 2014-01-07 17:16:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Angelica Dreamstar
Does anybody notice the futility of this?

Those who ask for more security always ignore the human factor. They support the idea that helping the weakest somhow helps society as a whole, completely ignoring how nature handled this for millions of years. Instead of accepting that humans make stupid mistakes or willfully ignore dangers, they believe (willingly or by ignorance) that everything should be changed to support them, dragging down future generations to their level.

I suggest getting rid of the weakest links in the game to make society healthier as a whole.

In before Godwin.

Edit: There is something else. IF PEOPLE WOULD FINALLY REALISE THAT WEAK LINKS IN STARTER CORPS CREATE MORE WEAK LINKS AND IF STRONG LINKS WOULD FINALLY START BALANCING THIS OUT BY HAVING THEIR OWN ALTS THERE, FUTURE GENERATIONS WOULD INCLUDE LESS AND LESS WEAK LINKS!

bingo, his pig not being a goat doesn't make the pig wrong, just him an idiot for shouting at his pig "WHY ARENT YOU A GOAT!" (Source)

-- Ralph King-Griffin, about deranged people playing EVE ONLINE
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#346 - 2014-01-07 17:17:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Mallak Azaria
Lucas Kell wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nope, I'm not. I think ganking is considerably easier to do now. It's very cheap to do, and it has no downsides whatsoever. You can even change your mind now and go back to being >-5 for only a few hundred mil. They may as well drop the rerolling rule with it being that easy. Plus, it's not just ganking. A cheap fit can keep a target perma-bumped, especially if you choose to bump a freighter, which have been known to be bumped for several hours.

And that right there that your doing, is committing a logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

If we were to follow that method of thinking, then no change would ever be made to the game as it will always fall into further changes inevitably resulting in the end of the game.

The **** are you doing in the CFC?
Same as everyone else. I was under the impression my personal opinions were in fact allowed however, as are yours.


Slaves aren't allowed to have opinions. Now get out there & fight some war to keep our ratting space safe, slave.

EDIT: Ok, that was a bit harsh, but you do realise that half of the wars we wage in nullsec are also fought in highsec through suicide ganking right? You're basically saying that the CFC needs to be nerfed with some of these horrible ideas.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#347 - 2014-01-07 17:17:32 UTC
*cloaks up as the cyno fades*

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#348 - 2014-01-07 17:17:33 UTC
Social Darwinism is very much alive in EVE.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Angelica Dreamstar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#349 - 2014-01-07 17:19:45 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Social Darwinism is very much alive in EVE.
And then there's "modern" society ruining future generations completely, which leads to threads like this.

bingo, his pig not being a goat doesn't make the pig wrong, just him an idiot for shouting at his pig "WHY ARENT YOU A GOAT!" (Source)

-- Ralph King-Griffin, about deranged people playing EVE ONLINE
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#350 - 2014-01-07 17:22:00 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Why not and who is judging its perfection or lack thereof?
Well if you read the forums, you'll often see complaints from both sides. This indicates that it is in fact not in a situation that would be described as perfect.

Kimmi Chan wrote:
Like reducing CONCORD response time by 50%? And how, exactly, are you defining "rope in"?
No, not quite. From my personal point of view and just off the top of my head, a small reduction in the effect of bumping, perhaps an adjustment of freighters to allow custom resists like all other ships (though a freight bay to avoid cargo expanders). Reduced yield but an extra mid on the mack/retri, reduced yield on proc/skiff.

Lucas Kell wrote:
especially when it's prolonged for hours{/quote]

[quote=Kimmi Chan]Why is that an issue?
Currently it makes farming of ice way too easy. There's ~2400 block of ice in each ice belt, each belt spawning exactly 4 hours after the last one died and one after downtime if there isn't one present, in the same system.

Mining fleets (including bots) move between nearby systems farming the hell out of these. They arrive the minute it spawns, and clear it out in a single session. It's dull and it's predictable. Moving them around and varying their capacity by sec status would encourage more movement of mining fleets and more cooperation between miners, as well as giving a small chance-based market variation.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#351 - 2014-01-07 17:24:35 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
lol, I've literally watched you guys shoot solo players then ignore a group miner. When questioned you've made up nonsense excuses (a common new order tactic). Realistically it's because there's only a handful of you, and none of you really wanting to put anythign on the line.


None of which means we don't pull off multi-ship ganks, sometimes with multiple squads. It's hilariously entertaining, especially given how avoidable it is if our victims were to do something as outrageous as pay attention.

What would you like us to put on the line? Are you suggesting that we gank using more expensive ships just so our losses are higher than they need to be? We're using the correct tools for the job. You're starting to sound remarkably like the people who were crying when we used siege fleets to take a region or two when I was in the CFC. Boo hoo! They're stealing our regions without using capital ships! It's so unfair! Roll

Lucas Kell wrote:
Come on, be serious. Do you honestly believe in what you are doing, or is it just though boredom?


Anyone who is bored in Eve is doing something wrong. Yes, I believe that we need to educate more players to the dangers that exist in highsec. The best way to do that is to directly violence their space pixels and anyone who resorts to vicious insults and RL threats of RL violence as a result of that needs professional help. It's also worth noting that even some miners enjoy the way local comes alive when we roll into town. We're creating some positive interaction between players, too.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#352 - 2014-01-07 17:24:57 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Same as everyone else. I was under the impression my personal opinions were in fact allowed however, as are yours.

There's a difference between having personal opinions by themselves, and being part of an organization where these opinions don't make sense.

If you denounce ganking and bumping, why choose to remain in an organization that does a fair amount of both?
I don't denounce it. I denounce it when there's no real reason and it's purely being done for tear generation from noobs, but not the general principle. I take part in the ice interdictions and such.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#353 - 2014-01-07 17:25:29 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Then how safe Lucas?

Huh?

How safe does it need to ******* be for you and Zynn and Nerf Burger II to shut the hell up?

At what point is it safe enough?
Who knows, opinions vary.

The real question is WHY should we shut up? What right do you have to tell us to shut up? Who exactly are you? Why is it you can't have a reasonable discussion about pros and cons of particular ideas and instead choose to tell people they are wanting 100% safety and they should "shut the hell up"?


You misunderstand sir.

I don't want you to shut up about this. I want you to tell me at what point, to what extent, high sec will be safe enough to not require daily deluges of this nature on this forum?

This crusade for a safer high sec has but one victory condition - 100% safe. They do not want to get blown up unless it's on their terms. To be fair, I DON'T WANT TO GET BLOWN UP EITHER, but I have at least enough intellect to recognize how my choices affect that potential outcome. Others here do not feel that they should have to choose between efficiency and defense. Perish the thought!

You will also NEVER see me lobbying to change anything that would make me less likely to get blown up. I recognize this game for what it is and adapt accordingly. Unlike way too many people that have made themselves the vocal champions of not having to make choices.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#354 - 2014-01-07 17:30:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Ramona McCandless
Lucas Kell wrote:
Well if you read the forums, you'll often see complaints from both sides. This indicates that it is in fact not in a situation that would be described as perfect..


No, but it could be described as balanced. Perfection is impossible to attain. Utopia is not an option for a species which thrives on conflict.

Lucas Kell wrote:
I denounce it when there's no real reason.


Maybe you should consider denouncing things when there's no good result instead.

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#355 - 2014-01-07 17:32:38 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
You misunderstand sir.

I don't want you to shut up about this. I want you to tell me at what point, to what extent, high sec will be safe enough to not require daily deluges of this nature on this forum?

This crusade for a safer high sec has but one victory condition - 100% safe. They do not want to get blown up unless it's on their terms. To be fair, I DON'T WANT TO GET BLOWN UP EITHER, but I have at least enough intellect to recognize how my choices affect that potential outcome. Others here do not feel that they should have to choose between efficiency and defense. Perish the thought!

You will also NEVER see me lobbying to change anything that would make me less likely to get blown up. I recognize this game for what it is and adapt accordingly. Unlike way too many people that have made themselves the vocal champions of not having to make choices.
I really don't see this. I see a few people looking for 100% safety, sure, but I don't think I've seen that in this thread yet (though it's growing too fast to read it all). You seem to be making the assumption that the only goal is 100% safety.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
ZynnLee Akkori
Perkone
Caldari State
#356 - 2014-01-07 17:32:45 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Frumpylumps Faplord wrote:
high sec should be more safe. We need more players, not to keep grief monkeys content.
What makes you think that one would lead to the other?

What makes you think it wouldn't?

Tippia wrote:
Frumpylumps Faplord wrote:
There are large sections of EVE that are designed to be harsh and dangerous
Indeed. They're called highsec, lowsec, nullsec and w-space. There are very very tiny sections of EVE that are designed not to be harsh and dangerous — they're called the newbie systems.
And yet there is a numerical ranking of system security.... hmmm.... maybe the meaning of this could be used in some fashion.....[quote]

Would it really be such a hardship to have to adjust your formula for who get's to be your 'victim'?
Don't you see that people on this side of the issue like the game, and want to see it get better? No one yet has suggested that the 'cold, hard reality(sic)' of Eve would be destroyed with a small adjustment to security rules in highsec.
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#357 - 2014-01-07 17:34:30 UTC
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:

Would it really be such a hardship to have to adjust your formula for who get's to be your 'victim'?



Would it really be such a hardship to tank your ship properly so your problems simply cease to be an issue for you?

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#358 - 2014-01-07 17:35:25 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Well if you read the forums, you'll often see complaints from both sides. This indicates that it is in fact not in a situation that would be described as perfect..


No, but it could be described as balanced. Perfection is impossible to attain. Utopia is not an option for a species which thrives on conflict.


Balanced you say? I concur.

Ramona McCandless wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
I denounce it when there's no real reason.


Maybe you should consider denouncing things when there's no good result instead.


Your genius makes me quiver McCandless.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#359 - 2014-01-07 17:38:01 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:


Your genius makes me quiver McCandless.



Now you are making me blush

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
ZynnLee Akkori
Perkone
Caldari State
#360 - 2014-01-07 17:38:19 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:
So while the gank-supporters are all for the system as-is, people like me are looking for modest changes to highsec. You gank-supporters see the only 2 options as being either the way it is, or 'hello kitty online', but that's just dumb. I don't see why the educated vet's on these forums are so earnest in their support for the bullies in game who like to play the Eve version of the 'knock-out game'.


Modest changes to highsec? That is NOT what you want. You want it to be safe. It's not. Get over it.
I may have missed something here, but when exactly did he state he wants complete safety?


Hi sec is already safe enough. I would venture that is 99.999% safe for a person that pays attention to what is going on, fits their ship properly, and does not AFK.

What Zynn is saying is THAT IS NOT ENOUGH and wants to cut the CONCORD response time in half across all of high sec.

On the surface it would seem a reasonable request, until the gankers start bring more guns at which point it needs to be made safer.

And safer.

And safer.

And are your starting to see the issue yet.

And safer.

Yes, I see the issue. You prefer to change nothing. No compromise, no adjustment, nothing. Despite telling you over and over, you are convinced that I am lying on my intentions. There's nothing I can do about that. Your opinion is that highsec is safe enough. I don't agree. YOu assume it's safe enough if we play in a way that you think is 'reasonable'. I disagree with the pre-conditions and wonder how you would feel if there were pre-conditions to you flying a combat ship that you didn't agree with.

But worse, you presume to dictate that I am just lying. That's not very nice. I won't hold that against you though, because I can see that you are a very emotional person.