These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#361 - 2014-01-07 17:38:21 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
You seem to be making the assumption that the only goal is 100% safety.


And thus the question sir.

If the only goal is NOT 100% safe then what IS the goal? At what point, and to what extent, does high-sec need to be made safe.

You see I am looking for a goal post here. I want someone to tell me HOW SAFE IS SAFE ENOUGH and then stick to that.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Angelica Dreamstar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#362 - 2014-01-07 17:38:30 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
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.

Her intellect makes her sexy as hell, I'm glad she's mine in my corp! ;)

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
ZynnLee Akkori
Perkone
Caldari State
#363 - 2014-01-07 17:41:35 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"?

Reason is not the friend of hyperbole. Their argument boils down to: That's the way it is.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#364 - 2014-01-07 17:43:04 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
You seem to be making the assumption that the only goal is 100% safety.


And thus the question sir.

If the only goal is NOT 100% safe then what IS the goal? At what point, and to what extent, does high-sec need to be made safe.

You see I am looking for a goal post here. I want someone to tell me HOW SAFE IS SAFE ENOUGH and then stick to that.
I thought we'd covered this. More than there is now, less than 100%. I'm not sitting here with a laid out plan on what needs to be changed, so as much as you keep pushing for me to spew some random number, It really wouldn't help.
If you can tell me where on your numerical scale of safeness we are supposedly at, I'd say probably about 1/10th of the way between that number and 100%.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Angelica Dreamstar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#365 - 2014-01-07 17:44:15 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
You seem to be making the assumption that the only goal is 100% safety.


And thus the question sir.

If the only goal is NOT 100% safe then what IS the goal? At what point, and to what extent, does high-sec need to be made safe.

You see I am looking for a goal post here. I want someone to tell me HOW SAFE IS SAFE ENOUGH and then stick to that.

It makes sense to ask that, but you can go more meta or deeper with that.

The point is that as long as people get killed, people will ask for increased security ... so the question should be more detailed, as in: When do you think people will stop complaining about getting blown up?

Ccovers the ground much more precise and leaves less loopholes.

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
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#366 - 2014-01-07 17:44:28 UTC
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:

Reason is not the friend of hyperbole. Their argument boils down to: That's the way it is.


Still avoiding the question as to why you dont tank your ship.

Incase you forgot, mining enhancement modules dont go in medium power slots.

"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
Angelica Dreamstar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#367 - 2014-01-07 17:46:04 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
You seem to be making the assumption that the only goal is 100% safety.


And thus the question sir.

If the only goal is NOT 100% safe then what IS the goal? At what point, and to what extent, does high-sec need to be made safe.

You see I am looking for a goal post here. I want someone to tell me HOW SAFE IS SAFE ENOUGH and then stick to that.
I thought we'd covered this. More than there is now, less than 100%. I'm not sitting here with a laid out plan on what needs to be changed, so as much as you keep pushing for me to spew some random number, It really wouldn't help.
If you can tell me where on your numerical scale of safeness we are supposedly at, I'd say probably about 1/10th of the way between that number and 100%.

Your response is as inprecise as the question was. Try answering mine instead. It covers the issue completely and leaves no room for vague or inprecise responses.

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
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#368 - 2014-01-07 17:46:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Kimmi Chan
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:
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.


Then I'll ask you the question.

How safe does it need to be?

Does it need to be safe enough for you to maximize efficiency? Safe enough to AFK?

Less than that? More safe than that?

At what point will you look upon the safety of high sec and say, "Okay guys! THAT'S SAFE ENOUGH!"

ZynnLee Akkori wrote:
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.


I dictate nothing. Answer the questions that have been asked.

Why must gankers conform to your new rules (CONCORD response reduced by 50%) rather than YOU adjusting to the EXISTING game mechanics?

You see, at the end of all of this, all of this back and forth, and vitriol and venom. This is the question that I don't have the answer to. This is the knowledge that eludes me and makes me a very emotional person. (And you have my thanks for not holding that fact against me).

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
ZynnLee Akkori
Perkone
Caldari State
#369 - 2014-01-07 17:46:57 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:



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

WOuld it really be such a hardship to apply the same standard to shps not meant for combat as you do to combat ships?
Angelica Dreamstar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#370 - 2014-01-07 17:47:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Angelica Dreamstar
Ramona McCandless wrote:
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:

Reason is not the friend of hyperbole. Their argument boils down to: That's the way it is.


Still avoiding the question as to why you dont tank your ship.

Incase you forgot, mining enhancement modules dont go in medium power slots.
Because her belief leads her to believe that humans shouldn't be made responsible for their wrong choices. Because she believes that those who make stupid choices need protection, instead of education.

Edit: I apologize for inaccuracy. It rather seems that she believes that humans shouldn't have to make decisions to protect themselves at all.

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
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#371 - 2014-01-07 17:49:19 UTC
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:
Ramona McCandless wrote:



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

WOuld it really be such a hardship to apply the same standard to shps not meant for combat as you do to combat ships?


No, its not, thats why I do it. It doesnt affect anything I do (which isnt combat usually) to pop a bit of tank on when Im in anything but a cyno.

Please tell me why you are against putting shield modules in mid slots.

"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.
#372 - 2014-01-07 17:50:12 UTC
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
You seem to be making the assumption that the only goal is 100% safety.


And thus the question sir.

If the only goal is NOT 100% safe then what IS the goal? At what point, and to what extent, does high-sec need to be made safe.

You see I am looking for a goal post here. I want someone to tell me HOW SAFE IS SAFE ENOUGH and then stick to that.

It makes sense to ask that, but you can go more meta or deeper with that.

The point is that as long as people get killed, people will ask for increased security ... so the question should be more detailed, as in: When do you think people will stop complaining about getting blown up?

Ccovers the ground much more precise and leaves less loopholes.
People will never stop complaining. But that doesn't mean there's not a legitimate issue there right now. You're forcing the situation to absolutes, which it is not.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
ZynnLee Akkori
Perkone
Caldari State
#373 - 2014-01-07 17:50:22 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
You seem to be making the assumption that the only goal is 100% safety.


And thus the question sir.

If the only goal is NOT 100% safe then what IS the goal? At what point, and to what extent, does high-sec need to be made safe.

You see I am looking for a goal post here. I want someone to tell me HOW SAFE IS SAFE ENOUGH and then stick to that.

I'd offer a suggestion. What if Concord response time was a multiplier of the security status? 1.0 means arrival nearly immediately. 0.5 means Concord arrives as fast as it does now. Then extrapolate for the other numbers.
Frumpylumps Faplord
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#374 - 2014-01-07 17:50:32 UTC
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:
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?

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.


With this topic you always end up arguing with the most irrational and narrow-minded individuals. They are in every thread, just keep that in mind before you take them seriously, it might save you some effort for debating people who are actually worth debating.

Regardless, it is still amusing listening to all the victim-blaming non-sense coming from the status quo crowd, who somehow, in defiance of all common sense , claims making high sec safer is going to break the game instead of help it. Lol
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#375 - 2014-01-07 17:51:23 UTC
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
You seem to be making the assumption that the only goal is 100% safety.


And thus the question sir.

If the only goal is NOT 100% safe then what IS the goal? At what point, and to what extent, does high-sec need to be made safe.

You see I am looking for a goal post here. I want someone to tell me HOW SAFE IS SAFE ENOUGH and then stick to that.

I'd offer a suggestion. What if Concord response time was a multiplier of the security status? 1.0 means arrival nearly immediately. 0.5 means Concord arrives as fast as it does now. Then extrapolate for the other numbers.


Um... please someone else tell her please?

I dont want to, she'll think Im trolling her.

"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
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#376 - 2014-01-07 17:53:00 UTC
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:
I'd offer a suggestion. What if Concord response time was a multiplier of the security status? 1.0 means arrival nearly immediately. 0.5 means Concord arrives as fast as it does now. Then extrapolate for the other numbers.

Would you be satisfied with that?

Oh god.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#377 - 2014-01-07 17:53:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Ramona McCandless wrote:
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
You seem to be making the assumption that the only goal is 100% safety.


And thus the question sir.

If the only goal is NOT 100% safe then what IS the goal? At what point, and to what extent, does high-sec need to be made safe.

You see I am looking for a goal post here. I want someone to tell me HOW SAFE IS SAFE ENOUGH and then stick to that.

I'd offer a suggestion. What if Concord response time was a multiplier of the security status? 1.0 means arrival nearly immediately. 0.5 means Concord arrives as fast as it does now. Then extrapolate for the other numbers.


Um... please someone else tell her please?

I dont want to, she'll think Im trolling her.
lol, OK I'll do it.
ZynnLee, security status already works that way, 1.0 is about 5 seconds for response and it's nearly impossible to effectively gank there. 0.5 is around 25 seconds in a prepped system, 20 unprepped.

EDIT: Oh and if it was unclear, 0.6-0.9 scales between the two.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#378 - 2014-01-07 17:53:26 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'?


No one should have to do any such thing. EVE provides all kinds of tools people can use to protect themselves. That you choose not to use them is yoru choice.

Quote:

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.


High sec doesn't need to be safer. The reason it needs to be dangerous is the same reason EVE is on one server, not two. People like you think you want to be totally safe, but it's a lie, because if you really thought that way you'd not be playing EVE at all.


For years I have been amazed at the squeemish personality types that can't handle the concepts of loss or personal responsibility (for their choices and their game experience) in a video game. I also find the sense of entitlement amazing, EVE was (at conception) envisioned as a hardcore and unforgiving experience, yet people have been begging for it to be watered down for the sake of "new players" not mentally tough enough to enjoy the game as is.

Why is that? Is the existance of ONE hardcore "kick you in your pants when you stop thinking" game too much for the universe to bear?
Angelica Dreamstar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#379 - 2014-01-07 17:53:47 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
You seem to be making the assumption that the only goal is 100% safety.


And thus the question sir.

If the only goal is NOT 100% safe then what IS the goal? At what point, and to what extent, does high-sec need to be made safe.

You see I am looking for a goal post here. I want someone to tell me HOW SAFE IS SAFE ENOUGH and then stick to that.

It makes sense to ask that, but you can go more meta or deeper with that.

The point is that as long as people get killed, people will ask for increased security ... so the question should be more detailed, as in: When do you think people will stop complaining about getting blown up?

Ccovers the ground much more precise and leaves less loopholes.
People will never stop complaining. But that doesn't mean there's not a legitimate issue there right now. You're forcing the situation to absolutes, which it is not.

Oh it is absolute, but not at this point of time. I am simply jumping right to the end of this whole circle, trying to prevent it from continuing and reaching that point in the first place. If you have followed and understand the issue, then you are able to see why it is indeed absolute. The whole circle of complaints and given increased security leads towards the absolute. Absolute safety.

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
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#380 - 2014-01-07 17:53:52 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
People will never stop complaining.


[/thread]

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!