These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#341 - 2015-02-12 21:40:06 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Your sense of entitlement to risk free content (killmails) is likewise noted.


Not sure if trolling or really that stupid. Attacking someone doesn't guarantee a kill, nor does it guarantee that they won't kill you.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#342 - 2015-02-12 21:40:23 UTC
Faylee Freir wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
And if you get rid of the NPC corp option you'll just turn trade hubs into 0.0. space because certain entities will simply continue to wardec everything on sight like they already do. Maybe you have an alt in a merc corp that would explain the tears.


Your personal bias against the merc playstyle is noted. Maybe you got stomped by a merc corp, hence your own tears.


Your sense of entitlement to risk free content (killmails) is likewise noted.

There is nothing risk free about the war dec system. Nothing is stopping anyone from joining a defender as an ally. One small corp full of carebears is now suddenly bolstered by an experienced group of pvp'ers. You see, this is what we call content. This is the sandbox at work.


Yup, failure on the defenders part to actually defend does not make the attacker risk adverse. Shiny combat ships are much more fun to hunt, but anyone flying anything they shouldn't during a war needs to be taught a lesson.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#343 - 2015-02-12 21:43:19 UTC
Faylee Freir wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
And if you get rid of the NPC corp option you'll just turn trade hubs into 0.0. space because certain entities will simply continue to wardec everything on sight like they already do. Maybe you have an alt in a merc corp that would explain the tears.


Your personal bias against the merc playstyle is noted. Maybe you got stomped by a merc corp, hence your own tears.


Your sense of entitlement to risk free content (killmails) is likewise noted.

There is nothing risk free about the war dec system. Nothing is stopping anyone from joining a defender as an ally. One small corp full of carebears is now suddenly bolstered by an experienced group of pvp'ers. You see, this is what we call content. This is the sandbox at work.


This is not the way it plays out in practice. Don't insult me by pretending otherwise I can get on zkill and see all the shitfit randoms getting blapped in hubs by merc corps. And the mining barges in non-hub systems with vigilants and t3s on the other side of the mail.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#344 - 2015-02-12 21:49:32 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
I can get on zkill and see all the shitfit randoms getting blapped in hubs by merc corps.


What's that got to do with the price of Quafe? Only a muppet goes near a trade hub on a character under wardec flying anything of any value.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#345 - 2015-02-12 21:51:24 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
And if you get rid of the NPC corp option you'll just turn trade hubs into 0.0. space because certain entities will simply continue to wardec everything on sight like they already do. Maybe you have an alt in a merc corp that would explain the tears.


Your personal bias against the merc playstyle is noted. Maybe you got stomped by a merc corp, hence your own tears.


Your sense of entitlement to risk free content (killmails) is likewise noted.


On what grounds is it noted? Your assumption that I want easy kills? You've demonstrated your bias against the merc playstyle by lumping them all into one group of people and made assumptions about their motives. Now let me know when you find a demonstration of your accusation against me. Until then, comments like that are little more than the bitter tantrums of a spoilt child.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#346 - 2015-02-12 21:53:07 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Faylee Freir wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
And if you get rid of the NPC corp option you'll just turn trade hubs into 0.0. space because certain entities will simply continue to wardec everything on sight like they already do. Maybe you have an alt in a merc corp that would explain the tears.


Your personal bias against the merc playstyle is noted. Maybe you got stomped by a merc corp, hence your own tears.


Your sense of entitlement to risk free content (killmails) is likewise noted.

There is nothing risk free about the war dec system. Nothing is stopping anyone from joining a defender as an ally. One small corp full of carebears is now suddenly bolstered by an experienced group of pvp'ers. You see, this is what we call content. This is the sandbox at work.


This is not the way it plays out in practice. Don't insult me by pretending otherwise I can get on zkill and see all the shitfit randoms getting blapped in hubs by merc corps. And the mining barges in non-hub systems with vigilants and t3s on the other side of the mail.


If you feel insulted by being corrected with facts, then I suggest you check your facts first before presuming.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Faylee Freir
Abusing Game Mechanics
#347 - 2015-02-12 22:00:20 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Faylee Freir wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
And if you get rid of the NPC corp option you'll just turn trade hubs into 0.0. space because certain entities will simply continue to wardec everything on sight like they already do. Maybe you have an alt in a merc corp that would explain the tears.


Your personal bias against the merc playstyle is noted. Maybe you got stomped by a merc corp, hence your own tears.


Your sense of entitlement to risk free content (killmails) is likewise noted.

There is nothing risk free about the war dec system. Nothing is stopping anyone from joining a defender as an ally. One small corp full of carebears is now suddenly bolstered by an experienced group of pvp'ers. You see, this is what we call content. This is the sandbox at work.


This is not the way it plays out in practice. Don't insult me by pretending otherwise I can get on zkill and see all the shitfit randoms getting blapped in hubs by merc corps. And the mining barges in non-hub systems with vigilants and t3s on the other side of the mail.

What happens in practice doesn't mean that something is broken, unfair, or unbalanced. The fact is that most carebears are risk adverse. Who is to blame when they refuse to defend themselves either in their own force, their connections, or with their wallet?

In this game there are the predators and there are the prey. There is TONS of documentation all over this forum and other various blogs about how to not make yourself a target and how to protect yourself. The fact is that it is much easier to be lazy and ignorant than it is to protect yourselves.

HTFU
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#348 - 2015-02-12 22:01:51 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Go ahead, show your proof as well, i'll wait on both you posters.


you asked for it; https://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=151081

losses to the Concord Police Captain provide a statistic for unsanctioned attack.

2014 61066
2013 53951
2012 24087

There, proof of more criminal activity, ie high-sec has become less safe. Over to you, Jenn.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#349 - 2015-02-12 22:05:50 UTC
GetSirrus wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Go ahead, show your proof as well, i'll wait on both you posters.


you asked for it; https://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=151081

losses to the Concord Police Captain provide a statistic for unsanctioned attack.

2014 61066
2013 53951
2012 24087

There, proof of more criminal activity, ie high-sec has become less safe. Over to you, Jenn.


That would be absolutely true if every criminal act had a 1:1 ratio between attackers and prey, and if every attack resulted in a kill.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Paranoid Loyd
#350 - 2015-02-12 22:14:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Paranoid Loyd
admiral root wrote:
GetSirrus wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Go ahead, show your proof as well, i'll wait on both you posters.


you asked for it; https://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=151081

losses to the Concord Police Captain provide a statistic for unsanctioned attack.

2014 61066
2013 53951
2012 24087

There, proof of more criminal activity, ie high-sec has become less safe. Over to you, Jenn.


That would be absolutely true if every criminal act had a 1:1 ratio between attackers and prey, and if every attack resulted in a kill.


Also, prior to 2013 Concord only showed up when there was a player on the KM, now they show up regardless as long as they are involved in the kill.

Also, people using noob ships/shuttles to pull concord are mixed in there which inflates the number by a considerable amount, I sometimes find my self pulling multiple sets of concord off a gate when I haven't even engaged anything yet.

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#351 - 2015-02-12 22:16:52 UTC
Grrrr, facts.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Ned Thomas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#352 - 2015-02-12 22:19:28 UTC
admiral root wrote:
GetSirrus wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Go ahead, show your proof as well, i'll wait on both you posters.


you asked for it; https://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=151081

losses to the Concord Police Captain provide a statistic for unsanctioned attack.

2014 61066
2013 53951
2012 24087

There, proof of more criminal activity, ie high-sec has become less safe. Over to you, Jenn.


That would be absolutely true if every criminal act had a 1:1 ratio between attackers and prey, and if every attack resulted in a kill.


You could also make the arguement that the number of Concord kills is inflated by nerfs to other forms of pvp in high sec.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#353 - 2015-02-12 22:37:06 UTC
GetSirrus wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Go ahead, show your proof as well, i'll wait on both you posters.


you asked for it; https://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=151081

losses to the Concord Police Captain provide a statistic for unsanctioned attack.

2014 61066
2013 53951
2012 24087

There, proof of more criminal activity, ie high-sec has become less safe. Over to you, Jenn.


Ok, now post the part where I said There was less criminal activity in High Sewc.

I said "the claim that high sec is LESS SAFE than null sec is false". So please show us the proof that states that a pilot is statistically more likely to be blown up by another player in high sec than in null. Because that's the issue being discussed, not how much criminal activity is happening in high sec.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#354 - 2015-02-12 22:40:02 UTC
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
admiral root wrote:
GetSirrus wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Go ahead, show your proof as well, i'll wait on both you posters.


you asked for it; https://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=151081

losses to the Concord Police Captain provide a statistic for unsanctioned attack.

2014 61066
2013 53951
2012 24087

There, proof of more criminal activity, ie high-sec has become less safe. Over to you, Jenn.


That would be absolutely true if every criminal act had a 1:1 ratio between attackers and prey, and if every attack resulted in a kill.


Also, prior to 2013 Concord only showed up when there was a player on the KM, now they show up regardless as long as they are involved in the kill.

Also, people using noob ships/shuttles to pull concord are mixed in there which inflates the number by a considerable amount, I sometimes find my self pulling multiple sets of concord off a gate when I haven't even engaged anything yet.


Ah, you mean what that guy thought was proof is actually only a change in how killmails work and thus proof of nothing (even if it weren't off the actual topic we were discussing?

Damn, and here I was all ready to say I was wrong and EVE should be a carebear game.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#355 - 2015-02-12 22:44:03 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
And to get even close to that you must be chaining burner missions with multiple alts and a shiny daredevil (which IS easily gankable)

Only easily gankable if someone is autopiloting and AFK.

There's not a single Daredevil gank that I could find on zkillboard in the last 6 month period I checked.

e. I found one. 1 gank in the last 6 months by a Tornado costing 80 million ISK and there are a lot of Daredevil losses in that time.


Damn it, those pesky facts again.

it's easier for them to question me than to examine their own inexperience. But hey, if it makes them feel better about themselves, I'm willing to serve :).
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#356 - 2015-02-12 22:44:39 UTC
GetSirrus wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Go ahead, show your proof as well, i'll wait on both you posters.


you asked for it; https://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=151081

losses to the Concord Police Captain provide a statistic for unsanctioned attack.

2014 61066
2013 53951
2012 24087

There, proof of more criminal activity, ie high-sec has become less safe. Over to you, Jenn.


That covers the time when we moved from using battleships to gank to using a dozen catalysts to do the same job.
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#357 - 2015-02-12 22:45:05 UTC
GetSirrus wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Go ahead, show your proof as well, i'll wait on both you posters.


you asked for it; https://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=151081

losses to the Concord Police Captain provide a statistic for unsanctioned attack.

2014 61066
2013 53951
2012 24087

There, proof of more criminal activity, ie high-sec has become less safe. Over to you, Jenn.



I would spin an alternative hypothesis before accepting one you want to accept a-priori.

It could be that there are less or the same number of attacks, but each attack is involving more pilots. You need like, what, 24+ catalyst to take down a freighter?

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#358 - 2015-02-12 22:47:11 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
GetSirrus wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Go ahead, show your proof as well, i'll wait on both you posters.


you asked for it; https://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=151081

losses to the Concord Police Captain provide a statistic for unsanctioned attack.

2014 61066
2013 53951
2012 24087

There, proof of more criminal activity, ie high-sec has become less safe. Over to you, Jenn.



I would spin an alternative hypothesis before accepting one you want to accept a-priori.

It could be that there are less or the same number of attacks, but each attack is involving more pilots. You need like, what, 24+ catalyst to take down a freighter?


Upwards of 50 depending on the target.
UberFly
Metallurgy Incorporated
#359 - 2015-02-12 22:49:54 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
I would spin an alternative hypothesis before accepting one you want to accept a-priori.

It could be that there are less or the same number of attacks, but each attack is involving more pilots. You need like, what, 24+ catalyst to take down a freighter?



baltec1 wrote:
Upwards of 50 depending on the target.


Soo, you're saying that all these "nerfs", that have been so terrible for gankers, have actually made them start working together to accomplish their goals? That they have had to do as they suggest the miners do, and join together for more fun and profit? yeah, sounds f'ing terrible.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#360 - 2015-02-12 22:52:54 UTC
UberFly wrote:


Soo, you're saying that all these "nerfs", that have been so terrible for gankers, have actually made them start working together to accomplish their goals? That they have had to do as they suggest the miners do, and join together for more fun and profit? yeah, sounds f'ing terrible.


We worked in groups from day one.