These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Hey CCP; Why are you re-releasing "uniques" ? Gold Magnate / Silver
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#101 - 2015-09-27 23:28:55 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
Who cares what the entitled trillionaires of EvE think, they're huge reasons the game sucks.

Rerelease the gold magnate, it'll be a great addition to the game.

Look at how much content in the form of entitlement tears just mentioning it's release has generated.

CCP should make a youtube video of them laughing at all the crybabies squirting tears onto these forums just to highlight how unimportant their selfish opinions really are.


How will it be a great addition?


My maniacal laughter will be so forceful it will reverberate through all fiber optic lines and manifest itself into everyone's eve clients


Aha, so you're jealous.



Noted.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#102 - 2015-09-27 23:36:32 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Nice try, but still just :words:
Well, yes, that's what text posts are, words. But those words mean things. Maybe try actually interpreting and responding to them? Or you can just continue the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting while ironically calling others 5 year olds.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#103 - 2015-09-27 23:44:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregor Parud
Quote:
We've only had one prior instance of this tournament and don't have another NPC driven selection/competition to my knowledge. So effectively they DID use the same prizes for every time this happened.


Backwards logic so stupid it shouldn't need explaining, but hey you asked for it.


Quote:
This event sets that precedent and that decision and the reasoning are CCP's not mine.

Again backwards logic, you're trying to state that it's fine to use this old ship because there's a precedent, while it's... its own precedent.


Quote:
So is the logic now that CCP themselves are collectively a "5 year old that wants his cookie"?


No but nice try for construing it that way.


Quote:
What even is this "cookie"?


You wanting something that you can't have (currently), the ship. That is so obvious that it's hilarious you even have to ask.


Hence me not really replying to your :words: because they add nothing as there is no valid reasoning. Nothing but "lets try a barrage of **** and hope something sticks".
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#104 - 2015-09-28 00:01:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Divine Entervention
Grow up man babies.

You're arguing over someone else being able to dress their barbie doll up in the same dress as yours.

"mommy told me I'm special"
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#105 - 2015-09-28 00:02:37 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Again backwards logic, you're trying to state that it's fine to use this old ship because there's a precedent, while it's... its own precedent.
No, I never said there was a precedent for reuse, I'm saying they decided to set one. They set one because they felt it reasonable for there to be a consistent prize for this event if CCP Falcon is to be believed.

Your statement was that since other tournaments had different prizes this one should to, my reasoning was that this event was clearly being viewed distinctly for others like the alliance tournament, which is clearly true.

Quote:
No but nice try for construing it that way.
Why not? If the logic is indicative of a certain goal, as your collective dismissal strongly insinuates, wouldn't everyone who uses that logic have the same goal? Even if not, why do differing parties get static assignments of intent and what criteria do you use to determine them?

Quote:
You wanting something that you can't have (currently), the ship. That is so obvious that it's hilarious you even have to ask.
Except I still have no chance of having it so this reasoning fails.

So aside from failings in your own understanding compounded by false assumptions, it sounds like you have no real issue to argue.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#106 - 2015-09-28 00:14:19 UTC
Quote:
No, I never said there was a precedent for reuse, I'm saying they decided to set one. They set one because they felt it reasonable for there to be a consistent prize for this event if CCP Falcon is to be believed.

Your statement was that since other tournaments had different prizes this one should to, my reasoning was that this event was clearly being viewed distinctly for others like the alliance tournament, which is clearly true.

where did they state to set one?
Quote:

Why not? If the logic is indicative of a certain goal, as your collective dismissal strongly insinuates, wouldn't everyone who uses that logic have the same goal? Even if not, why do differing parties get static assignments of intent and what criteria do you use to determine them?


Again, nice try with :words: but it's not working. It's terrible this even needs explaining. The whiners in this thread want the ship, CCP doesn't want it, one of them just though it'd be ok to re use it. Difference.

Quote:
Except I still have no chance of having it so this reasoning fails.

So aside from failings in your own understanding compounded by false assumptions, it sounds like you have no real issue to argue.


How does that change the obvious notion that said cookie is the ship?



Just say it, just be honest: "I want something that I currently can't have, and even if I can't really get it I think it'd be hilarious to introduce it anyway if only to fck over EVE's history and the people who had it once because I'm so jelly as hell. And I'll use any kind of :logic:, barrage of :words: and backwards reasoning to try and get it because I'm SO FRICKING JELLY!".
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#107 - 2015-09-28 00:27:41 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
I think it's pretty silly to deny a majority of people what they want so a miserly minority can feel like special entitled snowflakes.



I agree. So when is CCP going to make the tourney ships available to everyone. After all, lets be done with all special snowflakes.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#108 - 2015-09-28 00:32:44 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
where did they state to set one?
By the declaration of the second events prizes, and more explicitly here

Quote:
Again, nice try with :words: but it's not working. It's terrible this even needs explaining. The whiners in this thread want the ship, CCP doesn't want it, one of them just though it'd be ok to re use it. Difference.
So basically there must be some sinister plot on behalf of any poster who thinks reuse is ok because only CCP internally could possibly think reuse is ok without an ulterior motive? Based on what?

Also, do you think it was a single person's decision? I'd lean towards it not being up to one person, but I don't really know.

And yes, again with words in a text post. That's what text posts are; it's not worthy of repeated note.

Quote:
How does that change the obvious notion that said cookie is the ship?

Just say it, just be honest: "I want something that I currently can't have, and even if I can't really get it I think it'd be hilarious to introduce it anyway if only to fck over EVE's history and the people who had it once because I'm so jelly as hell. And I'll use any kind of :logic:, barrage of :words: and backwards reasoning to try and get it because I'm SO FRICKING JELLY!".
It wouldn't be honest for me to say that. But I do get at this point that you very much seem incapable of fathoming that. I don't really care what others have beyond my reach, nor any appreciation or depreciation those items may have. I don't actually care about the tears that may be shed either way. I just stated an opinion, that it's ok as I think it enhances Eve's history rather than detracting.

So, yeah, the ship isn't the cookie because there is no cookie. Only a opinion that there's no issue in having.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#109 - 2015-09-28 00:58:33 UTC
Alright, lets make this really simple for you...


Given that, as you yourself stated, you will never own one why are you so invested in this subject and thread that you keep replying in it with the stance that you have? Why would you prefer the current idea over, say, a new/different ship or prize?

I know of only one reason, you're jelly, but I'm sure you can explain to us WHY you have the stance that you have. Oh and please, keep it to one paragraph because your attempt at misdirection through a waterfall of :words: doesn't really work nor get you anywhere, it's just time consuming.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#110 - 2015-09-28 01:10:30 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Alright, lets make this really simple for you...


Given that, as you yourself stated, you will never own one why are you so invested in this subject and thread that you keep replying in it with the stance that you have? Why would you prefer the current idea over, say, a new/different ship or prize?

I know of only one reason, you're jelly, but I'm sure you can explain to us WHY you have the stance that you have. Oh and please, keep it to one paragraph because your attempt at misdirection through a waterfall of :words: doesn't really work nor get you anywhere, it's just time consuming.
This is the way I write, and I feel Ive been very direct to this point. Feel free to ignore the posts if it taxes or offends you in some way.

What I'm invested in at this point isn't the determination of the prize. That's already done. Even if it's not, a change won't draw any offense or objection as I have no concern as stated above. I simply see no issue with the current determination and stated as such. What I've found of interest and has actually kept me posting was your rather pointed response.

More specifically it was and is figuring out if this line of thinking had any reason to it and whether I actually stated anything deserving of it, or was just some self justifying condemnation attached to anyone of a differing opinion. That and defending my prior statements because that's a thing I do.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#111 - 2015-09-28 01:18:41 UTC
So just a lot of words and misdirection which culminate into "err none really. I'm just jelly".


See, that's just so much easier.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#112 - 2015-09-28 01:26:36 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
So just a lot of words and misdirection which culminate into "err none really. I'm just jelly".


See, that's just so much easier.
Yes, spouting BS is apparently very easy for you.
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#113 - 2015-09-28 01:43:05 UTC
Do we actually know anything yet, or is this all still based on one really interpretable tweet?



Oh yeah. All rumor-mongering crap.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#114 - 2015-09-28 01:45:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Glathull wrote:
Do we actually know anything yet, or is this all still based on one really interpretable tweet?



Oh yeah. All rumor-mongering crap.

There is the blog detailing the prizes.
Tyrrax Thorrk
Guiding Hand Social Club
#115 - 2015-09-28 01:46:24 UTC
There's a podcast with Fozzie and Guard talking about it , not just a tweet.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#116 - 2015-09-28 01:53:19 UTC
EVE online, the game where nothing is ever safe, even "unique" status of items.
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#117 - 2015-09-28 02:05:45 UTC
So it's a totally different ship. Based on that dev blog.

I fail to see the problem.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#118 - 2015-09-28 02:08:44 UTC
Glathull wrote:
So it's a totally different ship. Based on that dev blog.

I fail to see the problem.

I'm curious, where did you get that impression from the blog?
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#119 - 2015-09-28 02:17:27 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Glathull wrote:
So it's a totally different ship. Based on that dev blog.

I fail to see the problem.

I'm curious, where did you get that impression from the blog?



I got it from the part where they said the attributes have been changed.

These have been rebalanced. They are not the same whined-about-Cee-U-Next-Tuesday ships that are causing so much butthurt. They are different ships with different attributes and similar names. Extremely similar names.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#120 - 2015-09-28 02:27:58 UTC
Glathull wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Glathull wrote:
So it's a totally different ship. Based on that dev blog.

I fail to see the problem.

I'm curious, where did you get that impression from the blog?



I got it from the part where they said the attributes have been changed.

These have been rebalanced. They are not the same whined-about-Cee-U-Next-Tuesday ships that are causing so much butthurt. They are different ships with different attributes and similar names. Extremely similar names.
Fascinating. I'm not sure where to begin. Maybe I need to check up on my reading comprehension, but:

They used the same name, not a similar one.
Also how does one "rebalance" a ship that supposedly has never been in game? Or are you saying the old ones will get those stats and the new ones some other stats?

Relevant quote:
Quote:
In anticipation of the Tournament, both the Gold and Silver Magnate have been rebalanced. Their stats are shown below, without taking into account pilot skills: