These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Nerfs, and the coming of the second shard

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#301 - 2015-02-12 17:43:38 UTC
UberFly wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
I love it when people selfishly deny the truth of a situation because that truth threatens there comfort. If you can't even tell the truth in a video game forum, where can you?

You mean like you've been doing with your hundreds of posts bitching about how everything is terrible and eve is dying? yeah, thought not.


Post the link showing where I said eve was dying. That is if you not a liar lol.
Josef Djugashvilis
#302 - 2015-02-12 17:46:09 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Man, I just love it when folk claim that their pet nerf - favoured buff is 'for the good of the game'


I love it when people selfishly deny the truth of a situation because that truth threatens there comfort. If you can't even tell the truth in a video game forum, where can you?


Dearest Jenn a Whine, I would rather leave it to CCP to determine game balance than you.

I have said this before, but for you in particular, it bears repeating.

Apart from suggesting on one occasion that null be made more enjoyable for the folk that live there, I have never asked, demanded or suggested that CCP alter the game balance in any way shape or form.



This is not a signature.
UberFly
Metallurgy Incorporated
#303 - 2015-02-12 17:49:24 UTC  |  Edited by: UberFly
Jenn aSide wrote:
And this is simply a lie.

I don't understand how someone can be in a game with one part that has insta spawning NPC police and antoher part that does not and somehow magically claim that the part where anyone can shoot you with no consequence is somehow 'safer'. The truth is that it's just a self serving lie high sec people tell themselves to reinforce their self image.

Saying high sec is less safe than null is like saying Martha's Vineyard is less safe than Somalia because in Martha's Vineyard a rich dude might choke on some cocktail shrimp and die but Somalis can't afford cocktail shrimp so their chance of shrimp-death is lower.

No high sec poster proclaiming that 'null is safer than high sec' has ever offered any proof. I offer you the chance to do so now....
....Ok, , now....
How about NOW.....
,,,,Still waiting....

See, here is your own delusion again. No one has said "null is safer than hi-sec", what they've said is "hi sec is not safe enough", it needs changes to help balance out the growth of rampant asshats and whine-mongers who think they should be able to shoot everything without consequences.

Would you quit trying to pretend that Concord, or anything else in hi-sec makes it safe? It isn't safe, and never has been, though with a name like "high security space" you'd think it would have a high level of security!!! (words have meanings?? what??) If Concord were that effective, or the rewards that low, then ganks wouldn't happen and there wouldn't be corps with 70 freaking active wars.

As per my own null-bear experience, like high sec, null has some pretty safe places (Cobalt Edge) and some dangerous places (Catch). They balance each other out - want safer null? your logistics suck - want easier logistics? you get more "action"...
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#304 - 2015-02-12 17:51:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:


Dearest Jenn a Whine, I would rather leave it to CCP to determine game balance than you.


Of course, CCP is infallible. when it comes to balance right?

RIGHT?

Quote:

I have said this before, but for you in particular, it bears repeating.

Apart from suggesting on one occasion that null be made more enjoyable for the folk that live there, I have never asked, demanded or suggested that CCP alter the game balance in any way shape or form.





No, you have simply denied the actual truth of the matter (that high sec isk making/farming opportunities are out of whack with the rest of the game, creating adverse incentives that are overall harmful to the gameplay situation). You defend a provably unblanced status quo simply because you benefit from it. It's the exact same thing as saying "screw everyone else, as long as I'm happy, that's all that matters", which, btw, is central to high sec residents way of thinking.
UberFly
Metallurgy Incorporated
#305 - 2015-02-12 18:00:12 UTC  |  Edited by: UberFly
Jenn aSide wrote:

Of course, CCP is infallible. when it comes to balance right?

RIGHT?

Just because you didn't like them doesn't mean they were wrong....

Jenn aSide wrote:

No, you have simply denied the actual truth of the matter (that high sec isk making/farming opportunities are out of whack with the rest of the game, creating adverse incentives that are overall harmful to the gameplay situation). You defend a provably unblanced status quo simply because you benefit from it. It's the exact same thing as saying "screw everyone else, as long as I'm happy, that's all that matters", which, btw, is central to high sec residents way of thinking.

You keep complaining about the isk other people can make in high-sec, if you want the isk, get off your digital ass and go run incursions or farm burners, or any of those other things that you think are sooo damn easy. Stop bitching about what other people can do to make isk and just play the freaking game.
Given the isk I earn in null, and the isk I've earned doing incursion logi, they seem about the same to me. The incursions were boring though, so I went back to scanning sites.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#306 - 2015-02-12 18:01:01 UTC
UberFly wrote:

See, here is your own delusion again. No one has said "null is safer than hi-sec",.


This is a lie.


Quote:

what they've said is "hi sec is not safe enough", it needs changes to help balance out the growth of rampant asshats and whine-mongers who think they should be able to shoot everything without consequences.


This is the prejudice creating the incorrect perception.
Quote:

Would you quit trying to pretend that Concord, or anything else in hi-sec makes it safe? It isn't safe, and never has been, though with a name like "high security space" you'd think it would have a high level of security!!! (words have meanings?? what??) If Concord were that effective, or the rewards that low, then ganks wouldn't happen and there wouldn't be corps with 70 freaking active wars.


There it is. Poke a poster enough and he'll reveal the fruity Bs at the center of their thinking.

HIGH security space is a RELATVIVE term. It means "of the spaces we have, this place has the Highest level of security". It has never meant what you incorrectly thought it means. For it to mean what you think it should, it would have to be ABSOLUTE security space or TOTAL security space.

Words have meaning that you can look up online in a dictionary? Who would have thought that?

Quote:

As per my own null-bear experience, like high sec, null has some pretty safe places (Cobalt Edge) and some dangerous places (Catch). They balance each other out - want safer null? your logistics suck - want easier logistics? you get more "action"...


All of null is equally dangerous. Traffic has no bearing on the fact that there is zero consequence to shooting someone in null were as in high if someone shoots you without a wardec or you going criminal, you lose a ship.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#307 - 2015-02-12 18:03:08 UTC
UberFly wrote:
No one has said "null is safer than hi-sec"


It's a line frequently trotted out by people who willfully ignore *why* parts of nullsec are safer.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Josef Djugashvilis
#308 - 2015-02-12 18:04:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
Poor Jenn a Whine, I shall try once again to make it easy for you to understand.

I leave it to CCP to determine game balance.

Therefore I have nothing to be in denial about.

If this is still too difficult for you to understand, please mail me or convo me in game and I shall try to take you through it.

Kind regards,

J D

This is not a signature.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#309 - 2015-02-12 18:08:47 UTC
UberFly wrote:

You keep complaining about the isk other people can make in high-sec, if you want the isk, get off your digital ass and go run incursions or farm burners, or any of those other things that you think or sooo damn easy. Stop bitching about what other people can do to make isk and just play the freaking game.
Given the isk I earn in null, and the isk I've earned doing incursion logi, they seem about the same to me. The incursions were boring though, so I went back to scanning sites.


ROFL. Gawd Dayum is their a high sec factory that produces these posters who make the same arguments year after year?

"Other people". You do know that this character is in high sec (go ahead use your locator) and i use her to do sisters of EVE missions in Osmon and run incursions right?

You are aware that saying "if something is unbalanced, you can go do that unbalanced thing yourself" is not only wrong, but it proves an unbalanced situation exists right? You're not even denying it anymore, you actually acknowledging that high sec pve risk vs rewards is out of whack, but that's ok because I can just go there and get some of that unbalance isk myself. LMAO

That's been my whole point in this part of the discussion. High sec posters are too busy defending the unbalanced status quo of high sec to be truthful about the situation. Notice that i'm not asking for any buffs to my income (I live off blitzing burners with 2 characters), i'm actually advocating a nerf to my own income. Because it would be foolish too not exploit the situation while it lasts which is why I also have faction warfare bomber toons, but the situation is still wrong for this game.

Apparently, honesty is hard for some people.
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#310 - 2015-02-12 18:08:58 UTC
UberFly wrote:

You mean, no sensible reason beyond
- avoiding the 11% tax
- having corp hangers
- having offices

those "sensible reasons?


For a line grunt, what Corp hanger and Offices? Offices mean nothing to a grunt (seriously, they do nothing for a line member now clone-jumping got the axe), and if you aren't a director, and if the corp isn't specifically a newbie-training corp, they don't have access to any Corp hangers anyway. As for the 11%, what line-member of a corp (that isn't a solo-member tax-dodge corp) sees the whole 11%? Even an ultra-altruistic CEO is going to run at least a 2-4% tax (admin fee), and I suspect many run in the 7-8% range, and more than a few drop a full 11% tax hoping the newbie expects no different.

So no, no appreciable benefits for a line member.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#311 - 2015-02-12 18:10:35 UTC
Roll
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Poor Jenn a Whine, I shall try once again to make it easy for you to understand.

I leave it to CCP to determine game balance.

Therefore I have nothing to be in denial about.

If this is still too difficult for you to understand, please mail me or convoe me in game and I shall try to take you through it.

Kind regards,

J D


This is simply a cop out and you know it. However I won't harp on it to much, I accept your surrender and promise not to invade Poland.
Josef Djugashvilis
#312 - 2015-02-12 18:14:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
Dear, dear Jenn, if I had the skills and the knowledge to 'balance' the game, I would be working for CCP and not laughing at you in the forums.

On the bright side, you are fast reaching the point where you may well replace Kaarous as my favourite crazy poster :)

Anyway, I'm outta here, take care.

This is not a signature.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#313 - 2015-02-12 18:17:02 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Dear, dear Jenn, if I had the skills and the knowledge to 'balance' the game, I would be working for CCP and not laughing at you in the forums.

On the bright side, you are fast reaching the point where you may well replace Kaarous ans my favourite crazy poster :)


I'm not balancing anything. I'm simply a player who recognizes (and exploits) and imbalance. You recognize (and exploit) it too. The difference here is that you simply aren't honest enough to admit it. I find this to be terribly sad, because as I see it, there is nothing about a video game so important as to warrant a lie (of omission or otherwise) in the 1st place.
UberFly
Metallurgy Incorporated
#314 - 2015-02-12 18:35:03 UTC  |  Edited by: UberFly
Jenn aSide wrote:

This is a lie.


The fact that you had to Google that, and that the first several articles are years old should tell you how much of an ass you are being. I was referring to the thread, not to "everyone ever". More proof that you just can't get it right.
BTW - This is a really good article, with a link to a really good opposing article.

Jenn aSide wrote:
This is the prejudice creating the incorrect perception.

In your opinion, which is slanted to your view of the way things "should" be done.

Jenn aSide wrote:
There it is. Poke a poster enough and he'll reveal the fruity Bs at the center of their thinking.

HIGH security space is a RELATVIVE term. It means "of the spaces we have, this place has the Highest level of security". It has never meant what you incorrectly thought it means. For it to mean what you think it should, it would have to be ABSOLUTE security space or TOTAL security space.

You can't put words in my mouth, I never said it was "highly secure", I simply laid out the title. I actually try to see the whole picture, instead of being a narrow-minded nitwit.
You could obviously use a lesson in advanced "dictionary" as well. Because "security" isn't just based on the presence of "law enforcement" and those empty systems in CE are much more "secure" than trade routes.

Jenn aSide wrote:
All of null is equally dangerous. Traffic has no bearing on the fact that there is zero consequence to shooting someone in null were as in high if someone shoots you without a wardec or you going criminal, you lose a ship.

Yet another moment of hyperbolic-horse-urine from you Jenn. If they were "equally dangerous", they would all have camps on gates and be bubble-******, but they aren't. While they are all "dangerous" (as is high-sec), they are not equally so.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#315 - 2015-02-12 18:37:52 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Lady Rift wrote:
I just watched an incursion go from 0% to poped in less than a day in dek.


They got the pontif involved, huh? If an incursion is steamrolled in sov nullsec it's because they're a pain in the ass. If it's in a less-used constellation it's more likely to fester for a week while everyone avoids it.


We nuke them if they mess with our logistics.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#316 - 2015-02-12 18:46:51 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:


High sec is vulnerable to ganks. I just watched an incursion go from 0% to poped in less than a day in dek. could of farmed that a little more with the vindi's and expensive ships that where used to run it.

They do exist. Just because its not in the area you are living in doesn't mean they don't. its like saying SOE agents don't exist in the vast bulk of high sec. while ignoring that they do.

can be blitzed, low doesn't have bubbles they are only an issue in null.

get friendly with your locals or pay more attention to local. At worse mjd ravens can run them quickly enough.





Been running missions in highsec for 8 years and never once have I been or seen someones mission boat ganked. So long as you dont pimp your ride to extream levels you will never be attacked.

Missions are simply not there for the vast bulk of null and the few that are out here are not available to the vast bulk of people while high sec SOE missions can be run by everyone in highsec.

Null however does have bubbles so no they cant be blitzed (ignoring the fact that burners cannot be blized in the first place.)

The exact argument can be used about looking out for PL before the changes. We also have the added issue that the ratting carrieritself was nerfed with jump fatigue.
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#317 - 2015-02-12 18:50:46 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
UberFly wrote:

See, here is your own delusion again. No one has said "null is safer than hi-sec",.


This is a lie.


Quote:

what they've said is "hi sec is not safe enough", it needs changes to help balance out the growth of rampant asshats and whine-mongers who think they should be able to shoot everything without consequences.


This is the prejudice creating the incorrect perception.
Quote:

Would you quit trying to pretend that Concord, or anything else in hi-sec makes it safe? It isn't safe, and never has been, though with a name like "high security space" you'd think it would have a high level of security!!! (words have meanings?? what??) If Concord were that effective, or the rewards that low, then ganks wouldn't happen and there wouldn't be corps with 70 freaking active wars.


There it is. Poke a poster enough and he'll reveal the fruity Bs at the center of their thinking.

HIGH security space is a RELATVIVE term. It means "of the spaces we have, this place has the Highest level of security". It has never meant what you incorrectly thought it means. For it to mean what you think it should, it would have to be ABSOLUTE security space or TOTAL security space.

Words have meaning that you can look up online in a dictionary? Who would have thought that?

Quote:

As per my own null-bear experience, like high sec, null has some pretty safe places (Cobalt Edge) and some dangerous places (Catch). They balance each other out - want safer null? your logistics suck - want easier logistics? you get more "action"...


All of null is equally dangerous. Traffic has no bearing on the fact that there is zero consequence to shooting someone in null were as in high if someone shoots you without a wardec or you going criminal, you lose a ship.


Okay that is pretty dishonest to pretend that "mechanical" safety is all that matters. Ratting in alliance null has a better reward to risk ratio than trying to PvE while wardecced in highsec. Or farming in a backwater null system and docking or cloaking when an unknown enters local. Especially considering the affinity for turning trade hubs into a free fire zone with wardec spam.

The only place I'd say you might have a point is with incursion running on NPC alts but since I've not yet put together a 2 billion ISK incursion boat and tried one I can't speak to those beyond the fact that people are always complaining about them.

Bottom line people play this game to shoot other spaceships for the most part and ISK grinding is just a means to that end. If you make it prohibitively difficult for people who don't have 50M SP or are part of a major bloc to make ISK to finance their PvP activities, they will quit.

People making too much ISK is not the problem. The problem is people who have massive resources and lots of friends and are still afraid to undock for a fight. They'll only undock for a gank. Seems to me all the folk complaining about nerfs to highsec combat just want to provide themselves with more easy targets by forcing people into low and null. But if you do that, they're going to learn or quit. You do not have a right to an endless supply of easy targets and I think you need to come to terms with that.
Reiisha
#318 - 2015-02-12 18:51:27 UTC
Griefing is a problem. Playing a game purely to cause other people to stop playing it is a big problem.

Think about it. If you let people grief without limits, *everyone* will leave the game untill only griefers are left. How is that a) fun and b) profitable for CCP?

So, they 'nerfed' griefing.

I don't really know what people are complaining about. Most that are complaining that 'PvP is being nerfed' but when you suggest they go to lowsec or nullsec to find actual PvP they suddenly resort to personal insults or 'how it is impossible to PvP there' without realizing their hypocricy - Though that last bit is a bit is somewhat amusing.


Now, those nerfs could actually be completely ignored by one change, but it's one that neither CCP nor most 'pvp'ers' would ever want: Abolish alts. One character per player. No redos, no character buying, no character selling. You build a reputation and you stick with it. You live with the consequences of your actions.

But, that last bit is something 'pvp'ers' usually want to do without as well. As soon as consequences to their actions are introduced they whine and complain about it not being fair...

The old forum is still there as well. Just go through the posts there, and older posts on the new forum, just for a laugh. I especially like those who have proclaimed the death of EVE over and over again, even 12 years ago, about CCP introducing consequences to their actions, but here we still are...


The crux of the matter is, consequences should go both ways and i agree on that. People shouldn't be 100% safe anywhere in EVE. However, people find ways to reach that 100% and then exploit the **** out of the situation...

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#319 - 2015-02-12 18:52:11 UTC
UberFly wrote:

In your opinion, which is slanted to your view of the way things "should" be done.


"how things should be done". So, how is that exactly?

This is you projecting (as is usually the case with your type). I don't hold an opinion on how things should be done or what others are doing. I'm pointing out that you do, and your prejudice (evidenced by the words you choose to use to describe people you don't like) is at the heart of why everything you post is wrong.


Quote:
You can't put words in my mouth, I never said it was "highly secure", I simply laid out the title. I actually try to see the whole picture, instead of being a narrow-minded nitwit.
You could obviously use a lesson in advanced "dictionary" as well. Because "security" isn't just based on the presence of "law enforcement" and those empty systems in CE are much more "secure" than trade routes.


When caught, backslide, it's the high sec way.

You suggested that the term "high sec" is incorrect. I've informed you that, instead, it's your definition that is incorrect. High Sec is accurate because it provides higher 'security' that 'low' sec and 'null' sec.

What's also typical of high sec posters (and like minded posters who live in other parts of EVE space, such as the people who whine about afk cloakers) is that the time you wasted misunderstanding the truths I'm telling you, you could have been examining WHY your opinions were wrong in the 1st place.

Quote:

Yet another moment of hyperbolic-horse-urine from you Jenn. If they were "equally dangerous", they would all have camps on gates and be bubble-******, but they aren't. While they are all "dangerous" (as is high-sec), they are not equally so.


You're misues and misunderstanding of the English language is the problem here. In all of null, the consequences for shooting at someone is the same (nothing). In all of high, the consequences are about the same (minus CONCORD arrival time). A high sec system with on one in it is still safer than a null system with on one in it, because if people did enter, EVE Online's sec status rules would still apply.

The phrase "null is safer than high sec" is a lie no matter what context it's put in.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#320 - 2015-02-12 18:53:52 UTC
Reiisha wrote:
Griefing is a problem. Playing a game purely to cause other people to stop playing it is a big problem.

Think about it. If you let people grief without limits, *everyone* will leave the game untill only griefers are left. How is that a) fun and b) profitable for CCP?

So, they 'nerfed' griefing.

I don't really know what people are complaining about. Most that are complaining that 'PvP is being nerfed' but when you suggest they go to lowsec or nullsec to find actual PvP they suddenly resort to personal insults or 'how it is impossible to PvP there' without realizing their hypocricy - Though that last bit is a bit is somewhat amusing.


Now, those nerfs could actually be completely ignored by one change, but it's one that neither CCP nor most 'pvp'ers' would ever want: Abolish alts. One character per player. No redos, no character buying, no character selling. You build a reputation and you stick with it. You live with the consequences of your actions.

But, that last bit is something 'pvp'ers' usually want to do without as well. As soon as consequences to their actions are introduced they whine and complain about it not being fair...

The old forum is still there as well. Just go through the posts there, and older posts on the new forum, just for a laugh. I especially like those who have proclaimed the death of EVE over and over again, even 12 years ago, about CCP introducing consequences to their actions, but here we still are...


The crux of the matter is, consequences should go both ways and i agree on that. People shouldn't be 100% safe anywhere in EVE. However, people find ways to reach that 100% and then exploit the **** out of the situation...


CCP do not allow greifing and it is a bannable offence.