These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#641 - 2015-02-01 07:25:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Valterra Craven wrote:
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.

It's pretty simple, actually: no innocent bystanders are getting hurt, and the violence is both good business for the locals, and keeps the doughnut paychecks coming in for the coppers. Why would anyone want to get rid of that gravy train?

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
#642 - 2015-02-01 07:29:41 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

It's pretty easy, actually: no innocent bystanders are getting hurt, and the violence is both good business for the locals, and keeps the doughnut paychecks coming in for the coppers. Why would anyone want to get rid of that gravy train?


So your counter is to instead invent lore to have it make sense?

Ok, I'm fine with that. How much are you guys paying "the locals" to keep them off your back? Keep in mind that sec for tags only goes to concord, not the people that actually have to live there.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#643 - 2015-02-01 07:30:45 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
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.


And the only reason you say that, when you repeatedly ignore other points of logic, is to try and advance a carebear 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
#644 - 2015-02-01 07:32:13 UTC
Wait, you weren't looking for a RP explanation?

Okay, I'll give you a non-RP explanation: CCP deemed the level of destruction fit for a sandbox game with a player-driven economy.

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
#645 - 2015-02-01 07:32:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

And the only reason you say that, when you repeatedly ignore other points of logic, is to try and advance a carebear agenda.


Carebear agenda? I'm sorry, could you enlighten me as to what that is again? Or what the other points of logic were that I've ignored?
Valterra Craven
#646 - 2015-02-01 07:33:24 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Okay, I'll give you a non-RP explanation: CCP deemed the level of destruction fit for a sandbox game with a player-driven economy.


So you're saying that CCP never changes its mind based on player feedback. (OH MY GOSH SOMETIMES IT FEELS LIKE IT THOUGH, I'm not even talking about this lol)
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#647 - 2015-02-01 07:34:49 UTC
It most definitely does. But it obviously hasn't changed its mind on this particular issue yet. Are you saying it should? Are you saying CCP should remove ganking?

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
#648 - 2015-02-01 07:35:54 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
But it obviously hasn't changed its mind on this particular issue yet.


True enough.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Are you saying CCP should remove ganking?


Nope.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#649 - 2015-02-01 07:37:29 UTC
Then what exactly are you saying?

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
#650 - 2015-02-01 07:39:39 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Then what exactly are you saying?


Valterra Craven wrote:

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.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#651 - 2015-02-01 07:40:21 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Then what exactly are you saying?


Valterra Craven wrote:

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.


So what?

"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
#652 - 2015-02-01 07:41:31 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


So what?


*Shrug* Dunno. You guys were the ones arguing against it. I was just pointing it out.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#653 - 2015-02-01 07:42:45 UTC
It makes plenty of logical sense to us. You're the one who didn't like the explanations presented.

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
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#654 - 2015-02-01 07:42:53 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


So what?


*Shrug* Dunno. You guys were the ones arguing against it. I was just pointing it out.


There are lots of things in the game that don't make sense, why bother posting about just one thing?

"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
#655 - 2015-02-01 07:44:52 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
You're the one who didn't like the explanations presented.


Like has nothing to do with it. Just because I pointed out how your arguments were not effective doesn't mean you've proved your point.
Valterra Craven
#656 - 2015-02-01 07:45:38 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
[

There are lots of things in the game that don't make sense, why bother posting about just one thing?


Cuse talking about everything that doesn't make sense in eve in the context of a ganking thread would be silly?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#657 - 2015-02-01 07:48:27 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:

Cuse talking about everything that doesn't make sense in eve in the context of a ganking thread would be silly?


Spinning again, I see.

You're only going after one thing, because you are opposed to ganking. You're just trying to advance a carebear 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.
Valterra Craven
#658 - 2015-02-01 07:56:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:

Cuse talking about everything that doesn't make sense in eve in the context of a ganking thread would be silly?


Spinning again, I see.

You're only going after one thing, because you are opposed to ganking. You're just trying to advance a carebear agenda.


Wow, you are really bad at debate. I already ceded to you that I think ganking should exist in this game. I'm not particularly after anything (other than Eve making more sense in a lot of areas other than just this). At least when I counter people I don't lie about they are saying.

BUT just because I'm nice. Lets for example, try to make the game make sense in this context.

So let me set up a scenario for you.
Concord has to be stationed inside a station.
Concord has to warp from that station to an area thats distressed.
Concord can be tanked by things that make sense, like bricked battlecruisers or battleships (heck even t3 if you are crazy)
Concord has appropriate locking times for the class of ship they fly
Concord is not immune to offensive ewar.
Concord does not immediately show up and wack you in the middle of nowhere when you aren't attacking anyone.


Now with all these changes (which by the way I'm perfectly happy to cede to you):

Do you still think that it would make sense that they would allow you to repeatedly attack targets in the same system on a daily basis?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#659 - 2015-02-01 07:59:15 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:

Do you still think that it would make sense that they would allow you to repeatedly attack targets in the same system on a daily basis?


Yes. The reason should be obvious.

"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
#660 - 2015-02-01 08:02:26 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Yes. The reason should be obvious.


*Sigh* And this is why I don't generally get involved in these threads. Gankers would rather troll than have a serious conversation.

So I cede to the only thing that is actually obvious. At 2 am its past my bedtime. Good night.