These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A Message Regarding "Hyperdunking"

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#621 - 2015-02-01 06:36:44 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

The problem is that aside from altruism, there's nothing in it for me. This is likely the case for other people similar to myself as well.


I thought ganking cats was profitable? Oh, I get it, you mean that there are more profitable things for you to do, i.e. opportunity costs.

I was talking about teaching players, not counter-ganking gankers. Please read (all) of my posts carefully.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Valterra Craven
#622 - 2015-02-01 06:37:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
baltec1 wrote:


There is consequences.


Sure, never said there were no consequences. I believe what I was saying was that there were no meaningful consequences.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#623 - 2015-02-01 06:39:01 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:

The real problem is that people like you think that you should be able to do the same things over and over and over again without real consequences.


If you really want to go down that road, I'd like to talk about mission running and mining.

Besides, just because we deal with and accept the consequences, doesn't mean they don't exist.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#624 - 2015-02-01 06:40:21 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:


Sure, never said there were no consequences. I believe what I was saying was that there were no meaningful consequences.


In that case Im sure you wont mind having all of the the same consequences happen to every other high sec activity such as mining and mission running. Afterall, they are not meaningful.
Valterra Craven
#625 - 2015-02-01 06:41:50 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

The problem is that aside from altruism, there's nothing in it for me. This is likely the case for other people similar to myself as well.


I thought ganking cats was profitable? Oh, I get it, you mean that there are more profitable things for you to do, i.e. opportunity costs.

I was talking about teaching players, not counter-ganking gankers. Please read (all) of my posts carefully.



Oh? Its kinda hard to gather that from this post. I'm not sure given the context of the other posts around it or what you were replying to that you were ever implying that training players was what you were talking about.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

I agree; players in the law-abiding category should get together in groups and enforce justice against EVE's criminal element.
Valterra Craven
#626 - 2015-02-01 06:43:11 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:


Sure, never said there were no consequences. I believe what I was saying was that there were no meaningful consequences.


In that case Im sure you wont mind having all of the the same consequences happen to every other high sec activity such as mining and mission running. Afterall, they are not meaningful.


Are referring to how most of the PVE mods in this game have penalites, but most of the PVP mods don't?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#627 - 2015-02-01 06:43:39 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:

Sure, never said there were no consequences. I believe what I was saying was that there were no meaningful consequences.


Yes, there are, or gankers would be able to fly around in blinged ships, or anything that isn't disposable for that matter.

The consequences are there, and are visible because of how they effect the actions of the gankers.

You're just butthurt because you think consequences should result in them being unable to gank. Too bad.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Valterra Craven
#628 - 2015-02-01 06:46:26 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Besides, just because we deal with and accept the consequences, doesn't mean they don't exist.


Who said anything about consequences not existing? I surely didn't.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#629 - 2015-02-01 06:48:00 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:


Sure, never said there were no consequences. I believe what I was saying was that there were no meaningful consequences.


In that case Im sure you wont mind having all of the the same consequences happen to every other high sec activity such as mining and mission running. Afterall, they are not meaningful.


Are referring to how most of the PVE mods in this game have penalites, but most of the PVP mods don't?


Now you are just being stupid, you know exactly what I mean. Every time you attack an NPC or mine a rock you will suffer all the mechanics that come into play for gankers. Concord will kill you, sec status loss, GCC, ect.
Valterra Craven
#630 - 2015-02-01 06:51:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


Yes, there are, or gankers would be able to fly around in blinged ships, or anything that isn't disposable for that matter.

The consequences are there, and are visible because of how they effect the actions of the gankers.

You're just butthurt because you think consequences should result in them being unable to gank. Too bad.


See this is why I don't generally like making comments on these boards, because people have a bad tendency to accuse you of saying things that you never said even after you've made disclaimers stating that you weren't saying it.

Also, A. I'm not buthurtt about anything, well I haven't lost anything to a gank. (Well at least not a hi sec one). You are more than welcome to check the billboards. B. I think people should be able to gank. Murders happen all the time. What I am saying however, is that in Eve's context , it makes no logical sense that one should be able to repeatedly attack targets in heavily patrolled areas on a daily basis.
Valterra Craven
#631 - 2015-02-01 06:53:03 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Now you are just being stupid, you know exactly what I mean. Every time you attack an NPC or mine a rock you will suffer all the mechanics that come into play for gankers. Concord will kill you, sec status loss, GCC, ect.



Why would concord attack you for doing their job for them? OHHH. This actually gives me a great idea. We should remove NPCS completely from the game and all missions should be to attack people with bounties and sec status below 0.0!
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#632 - 2015-02-01 06:56:28 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
What I am saying however, is that in Eve's context , it makes no logical sense that one should be able to repeatedly attack targets in heavily patrolled areas on a daily basis.


It also makes no logical sense that the Magic Space Police can find you without fail, scram you without fail, and blow you up without fail. 100% of the time.

Or you know what really makes no sense? That you can ever repeat a mission. That same girl can't possibly be kidnapped that many times from exactly the same place. Or heck, the mere fact that missions don't run out, you can do them over and over and over and over from the same agent.

That makes no logical sense.

Or hey, maybe we're playing a videogame?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Valterra Craven
#633 - 2015-02-01 06:59:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


It also makes no logical sense that the Magic Space Police can find you without fail, scram you without fail, and blow you up without fail. 100% of the time.


You mean because its so hard to find people that are attacking others in broad day light in the middle of busy intersections? Or the fact that scrams are actually chance based, or that ships die under concentrated fire when they can't escape?

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Or hey, maybe we're playing a videogame?


Well some people are.


EDIT: HAHA, If you want to argue that the magic space police shouldn't be able to find you anywhere that you are when aren't attacking others but still have your concord timer. Sure, that's logical. Granted that would also make this entire thread utterly pointless...
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#634 - 2015-02-01 07:03:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Valterra Craven wrote:

You mean because its so hard to find people that are attacking others in broad day light in the middle of busy intersections?


I learned to drive in Las Vegas, that isn't hard to believe at all. Police response time even to a ten man gun battle isn't less than ten minutes.


Quote:

Or the fact that scrams are actually chance based, or that ships die under concentrated fire when they can't escape?


No, that the Magic Space Police don't obey any of the game's rules for ships, and are completely arbitrary. They should be tankable, fallible, and not magically show up like they're omnipotent or something.

If you actually care about what makes logical sense, and you aren't just trying to twist that statement to your own benefit, you will have to agree.


Quote:

Well some people are.


And judging by your statements, you aren't one of them.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Valterra Craven
#635 - 2015-02-01 07:08:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


No, that the Magic Space Police don't obey any of the game's rules for ships, and are completely arbitrary. They should be tankable, fallible, and not magically show up like they're omnipotent or something.


Because the rest of the games NPCs aren't immune to almost all types of EWAR and they obey all the laws and rules that we are bound by...

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

If you actually care about what makes logical sense, and you aren't just trying to twist that statement to your own benefit, you will have to agree.


I would if you statements made any logical sense. I'm pretty agreeable to most points that are logical. For one thing I think the arguement that isk tanking should be a thing is pretty stupid.. in other words 2bil freighter > 600mil in cats.


Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

And judging by your statements, you aren't one of them.


Right back at ya.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#636 - 2015-02-01 07:13:01 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
I'm pretty agreeable to most points that are logical.


And yet, "the single most explicitly non combat ship in the game should not have a chance against 15+ combat ships" is something you take exception to?

Yeah, somehow I don't believe you. You are only talking about "logic" when it serves to advance your heinous agenda.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#637 - 2015-02-01 07:13:37 UTC
The game has two distinct play styles.

One play style's consequences are created by the players themselves.

The other play style's consequences are created by the developers in the form of NPC intervention.

This already implies that one side is operating at a massive handicap. If there was true fairness, all consequences would either be provided by NPCs or players, for all play styles.

And I'm going to have to go ahead and remind you that this is a social, player-driven, sandbox game.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Valterra Craven
#638 - 2015-02-01 07:15:16 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


And yet, "the single most explicitly non combat ship in the game should not have a chance against 15+ combat ships" is something you take exception to?

Yeah, somehow I don't believe you. You are only talking about "logic" when it serves to advance your heinous agenda.


I could see your point, if that is actually what I'm talking about, but since its not, I will let you continue to believe what you want.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#639 - 2015-02-01 07:17:40 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:

I could see your point, if that is actually what I'm talking about, but since its not, I will let you continue to believe what you want.


Spin all you want. When you are actually willing to discuss something, this thread will still be here.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Valterra Craven
#640 - 2015-02-01 07:21:21 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:

I could see your point, if that is actually what I'm talking about, but since its not, I will let you continue to believe what you want.


Spin all you want. When you are actually willing to discuss something, this thread will still be here.


Spin? I wasn't aware that I was discussing tops or yoyos. I'm not sure how I could be spinning anything when I've repeatedly said ad nasuem that the ONLY thing I'm talking about is that it makes no logical sense that the same people would be allowed to attack the same targets in the same locations on a daily basis. Nothing more, nothing less. If you've got an actual counter to that argument, I'd be more than willing to listen.