These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

And those who cheered yesterday will cry today...

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Zet Soirn
Soirn Enterprises
#101 - 2016-04-27 12:46:13 UTC
Ni Neith wrote:
Next step is to prevent Gankers with -5 or lower status to be able to dock at NPC stations and have them as home stations.


That would actually make sense due to the nature of Hi-sec and would elevate the playing field.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#102 - 2016-04-27 12:48:00 UTC
Ni Neith wrote:
Next step is to prevent Gankers with -5 or lower status to be able to dock at NPC stations and have them as home stations.

Will you attack us with the whole Amarr empire if we put up a citadel for staging? I am sure you would do nothing and just cry for the next nerf

Evil RatKid
Zet Soirn
Soirn Enterprises
#103 - 2016-04-27 12:50:11 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Ni Neith wrote:
Next step is to prevent Gankers with -5 or lower status to be able to dock at NPC stations and have them as home stations.

Will you attack us with the whole Amarr empire if we put up a citadel for staging? I am sure you would do nothing and just cry for the next nerf


We can hardly do anything, since CONCORD won´t let us.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#104 - 2016-04-27 12:51:45 UTC
Zet Soirn wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Ni Neith wrote:
Next step is to prevent Gankers with -5 or lower status to be able to dock at NPC stations and have them as home stations.

Will you attack us with the whole Amarr empire if we put up a citadel for staging? I am sure you would do nothing and just cry for the next nerf


We can hardly do anything, since CONCORD won´t let us.

Hei Bob, looks like that never stops us from doing things. Maybe you are just bad at the game?

Evil RatKid
Ni Neith
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#105 - 2016-04-27 12:56:40 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Ni Neith wrote:
Next step is to prevent Gankers with -5 or lower status to be able to dock at NPC stations and have them as home stations.

Will you attack us with the whole Amarr empire if we put up a citadel for staging? I am sure you would do nothing and just cry for the next nerf


I would declare war on any corp who allows you to dock and wreck them. Yes.
Zet Soirn
Soirn Enterprises
#106 - 2016-04-27 12:57:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Zet Soirn
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Zet Soirn wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Ni Neith wrote:
Next step is to prevent Gankers with -5 or lower status to be able to dock at NPC stations and have them as home stations.

Will you attack us with the whole Amarr empire if we put up a citadel for staging? I am sure you would do nothing and just cry for the next nerf


We can hardly do anything, since CONCORD won´t let us.

Hei Bob, looks like that never stops us from doing things. Maybe you are just bad at the game?


How about you post a reply in regard to my reply on your monopoly fairy tale?
What? No arguments? Aha.

Hey, scrub. There is a difference between suicide ganking and actual PvP combat with a single goal of removing you from Hi-sec, which the "flawed" mechanics of Hi-sec actually prevent us from achieving.
Sasha Nemtsov
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#107 - 2016-04-27 12:57:29 UTC
Zet Soirn wrote:

(Something something something invective something personal attack blah blah....)


Whoa there youngfella!

Salt descending to areas of the body we just don't mention in polite society; cranial density as a measure of intelligence? Mr Soirn, there are depths to which even we in C&P will not stoop in order to make our point. If we wish to be allowed to continue to post, that is.

I suggest you calm down™ and gather your strength for that 1v1 in Uedama, to which you were so gallantly invited by my associate, Mr Arkaral.

Unless, that is, you aren't a Gallant but a Goofus.


minerbumping

New Order Audio Archive

NEW! MinerBumping Video Vault
Black Pedro
Mine.
#108 - 2016-04-27 12:58:23 UTC
Zet Soirn wrote:
Stop comparing rather simple game of Monopoly to complex mechanics of EvE. It is just desperate attempt to generate any credibility.
It's exactly same. CCP has created a full-time, PvP sandbox they called Eve. It has a set of rules by which we all play by, cooperating and competing for resources and power.

There are many ways to play, but all of them involve being at risk to other players. If you cannot accept these rules, you probably should be spending your time on another hobby.

Zet Soirn wrote:
But understand this.. For sandbox to be enjoyable for everyone, you have to give everyone the same tools to play with and this is not the case. CODE/Suicide gankers in the Hi-sec have the upper hand. You claim carebears have it easy in Hi-sec, but it is you, who benefits from Hi-sec the most.
Thanks to Hi-sec, there are minimal consequences for your behaviour. There are no tools for us to fight back, to drive you out. We are left with fitting extra tank on our ships and wait until you get tired of bumping us or get killed by CONCORD for attacking you.
If we actually fight back, you just hide, you don´t face us. Truth is, you like creating content only for yourselves. And even, if we face you, we cannot drive you out of Hi-sec, THE SANDBOX WON´t LET US. You want your sandbox only for the fun stuff, while not giving us any options.
And if you think, it is fun for PvP players to sit in belts and wait for gankers to show up, it is not. Also, the mechanics won´t even let these players pre-emptively strike against you. Once again, sandbox favouring you.
I am genuinely curious: if you think highsec is so bad and unfair for carebears, why don't you leave? Highsec makes up only a fraction of the space in Eve, and suicide ganking isn't even a thing everywhere else.

But more to your point, you do understand that you are intended to have to defend your things? You are not entitled to "have fun" (or build your houses and hotels) by generating resources into the economy that devalue my resources, or do industry that takes away the profit from my industrial activities without having to account for your defence. If you are benefiting from your economy-altering activities, you are intentionally always put at risk by this game. Complaining that you cannot make yourself 100% safe while still affecting the economy makes no sense given the game design.

Expecting CCP to make the sandbox "enjoyable for everyone" is inane. How can CCP make the sandbox "enjoyable for everyone" if some people hate flying spaceships? Or more relevantly, hate losing spaceships which is a central pillar of the war economy design of the game? They designed the game how they wanted and all you get to choose is whether a single-universe, competitive PvP sandbox game is for you.

Zet Soirn wrote:
This is about correcting the flawed game mechanics and elevating the game field for everyone, while you still having more tools than us.
No, this is the age-old pattern of getting "mommy" to change the game because one side is losing. Self-interested game suggestions to sway CCP to change the game in their favour have been present since the beginning. And since this practice was formalized by the creation of the CSM, lobbying for buffs is a full-fledged metagame in itself.

Honestly, I think some some accommodation for perma-bumping was probably warranted. But the blatantly self-interested suggestions carebears routinely throw out to isolate them from the sandbox and break the whole point of a single-universe competitive game does get tiresome.

If you don't like playing Monopoly, you should just stop playing Monopoly instead of whining how "unfair" your sub-optimal strategy is when you keep losing, non-stop, and daily.

Zet Soirn wrote:
Imagine you doing this in Null-sec. It would be very easy to kick you out. Sadly, in Hi-sec, it is not.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you want to be able to kick someone out of your space, head on down to null. I hear there is lots of free real-estate coming up on the market there. But certainly, I'd love the ability to kick certain undesirables completely out of New Order space.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Zet Soirn
Soirn Enterprises
#109 - 2016-04-27 12:59:24 UTC
Sasha Nemtsov wrote:
Zet Soirn wrote:

(Something something something invective something personal attack blah blah....)


Whoa there youngfella!

Salt descending to areas of the body we just don't mention in polite society; cranial density as a measure of intelligence? Mr Soirn, there are depths to which even we in C&P will not stoop in order to make our point. If we wish to be allowed to continue to post, that is.

I suggest you calm down™ and gather your strength for that 1v1 in Uedama, to which you were so gallantly invited by my associate, Mr Arkaral.

Unless, that is, you aren't a Gallant but a Goofus.



Cheap.Troll.No Arguments.
CODE confirmed.
Dom Arkaral
Bannheim
Cuttlefish Collective
#110 - 2016-04-27 13:01:20 UTC
Ni Neith wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Ni Neith wrote:
Next step is to prevent Gankers with -5 or lower status to be able to dock at NPC stations and have them as home stations.

Will you attack us with the whole Amarr empire if we put up a citadel for staging? I am sure you would do nothing and just cry for the next nerf


I would declare war on any corp who allows you to dock and wreck them. Yes.

I would.love to inform you that you cannot wardec from npc corp Lol

Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester.

Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER

Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome

CCL Loyalist
Ni Neith
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#111 - 2016-04-27 13:03:32 UTC
Dom Arkaral wrote:

I would.love to inform you that you cannot wardec from npc corp Lol


Don't worry, little code, it is just my incognito alt.
Zet Soirn
Soirn Enterprises
#112 - 2016-04-27 13:08:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Zet Soirn
Black Pedro wrote:
Zet Soirn wrote:
Stop comparing rather simple game of Monopoly to complex mechanics of EvE. It is just desperate attempt to generate any credibility.
It's exactly same. CCP has created a full-time, PvP sandbox they called Eve. It has a set of rules by which we all play by, cooperating and competing for resources and power.

There are many ways to play, but all of them involve being at risk to other players. If you cannot accept these rules, you probably should be spending your time on another hobby.

Zet Soirn wrote:
But understand this.. For sandbox to be enjoyable for everyone, you have to give everyone the same tools to play with and this is not the case. CODE/Suicide gankers in the Hi-sec have the upper hand. You claim carebears have it easy in Hi-sec, but it is you, who benefits from Hi-sec the most.
Thanks to Hi-sec, there are minimal consequences for your behaviour. There are no tools for us to fight back, to drive you out. We are left with fitting extra tank on our ships and wait until you get tired of bumping us or get killed by CONCORD for attacking you.
If we actually fight back, you just hide, you don´t face us. Truth is, you like creating content only for yourselves. And even, if we face you, we cannot drive you out of Hi-sec, THE SANDBOX WON´t LET US. You want your sandbox only for the fun stuff, while not giving us any options.
And if you think, it is fun for PvP players to sit in belts and wait for gankers to show up, it is not. Also, the mechanics won´t even let these players pre-emptively strike against you. Once again, sandbox favouring you.
I am genuinely curious: if you think highsec is so bad and unfair for carebears, why don't you leave? Highsec makes up only a fraction of the space in Eve, and suicide ganking isn't even a thing everywhere else.

But more to your point, you do understand that you are intended to have to defend your things? You are not entitled to "have fun" (or build your houses and hotels) by generating resources into the economy that devalue my resources, or do industry that takes away the profit from my industrial activities without having to account for your defence. If you are benefiting from your economy-altering activities, you are intentionally always put at risk by this game. Complaining that you cannot make yourself 100% safe while still affecting the economy makes no sense given the game design.

Expecting CCP to make the sandbox "enjoyable for everyone" is inane. How can CCP make the sandbox "enjoyable for everyone" if some people hate flying spaceships? Or more relevantly, hate losing spaceships which is a central pillar of the war economy design of the game? They designed the game how they wanted and all you get to choose is whether a single-universe, competitive PvP sandbox game is for you.

Zet Soirn wrote:
This is about correcting the flawed game mechanics and elevating the game field for everyone, while you still having more tools than us.
No, this is the age-old pattern of getting "mommy" to change the game because one side is losing. Self-interested game suggestions to sway CCP to change the game in their favour have been present since the beginning. And since this practice was formalized by the creation of the CSM, lobbying for buffs is a full-fledged metagame in itself.

Honestly, I think some some accommodation for perma-bumping was probably warranted. But the blatantly self-interested suggestions carebears routinely throw out to isolate them from the sandbox and break the whole point of a single-universe competitive game does get tiresome.

If you don't like playing Monopoly, you should just stop playing Monopoly instead of whining how "unfair" your sub-optimal strategy is when you keep losing, non-stop, and daily.

Zet Soirn wrote:
Imagine you doing this in Null-sec. It would be very easy to kick you out. Sadly, in Hi-sec, it is not.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you want to be able to kick someone out of your space, head on down to null. I hear there is lots of free real-estate coming up on the market there. But certainly, I'd love the ability to kick certain undesirables completely out of New Order space.



Monopoly and EvE are exactly.. the same.. ?
Wow. You sure? Or just performing the good old strawman?
EvE and Monopoly are two entirely different games with different mechanics.

WILL YOU FINALLY ACCEPT, THAT I ACCEPT PVP? I am not saying I should or want to be invincible, intouchable within the game.

Yea, I have to defend my stuff. I don´t wanna go Null, to be a lockey of some corp and low-sec is outta question.
In Hi-sec, CONCORD helps with protection, the problem is, that CONCORD also protects you, criminals. If I could hire mercs to wipe you from Hi-sec, I would, but it cannot be done. People with criminal status can still dock and chill, no consenquences.
I accept PvP, but as Indy player I myself want to avoid it, that´s sandbox. It doesn´t mean I wanna erase ganking mechanics, it means I want to have tools to drive you from Hi-sec, which I don´t have.

You are the ones trying to isolate yourselves from the sandbox, BECAUSE YOU WANNA BE ABLE TO GANK WITH NO CONSEQUENCES.

Same for you, if you want CODE space, go get it in Null. Doesn´t work like that in Hi-sec.
Sasha Nemtsov
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#113 - 2016-04-27 13:16:15 UTC
Zet Soirn wrote:


Stop comparing rather simple game of Monopoly to complex mechanics of EvE. It is just desperate attempt to generate any credibility.


This is becoming tiresome.

In essence, EVE Online really is as simple as Monopoly. Player versus Player, last time I checked.

The 'mechanics' by which victory is achieved matter very little in this context - unless one player or group of players whiling away an evening of boardgames decide/s, when they find themselves unable to gain an advantage by using the rules, to get in touch with the publishers and demand changes in their favour.

Does that happen in Monopoly? No, I thought not. You do it because it has worked for you in the past, not because it has any merit.

Now, Zet. If I have to come into the classroom again to drag your wretched ideas into some sort of shape in order to expose their banality, there'll be no jam for tea. Understood boy?!

minerbumping

New Order Audio Archive

NEW! MinerBumping Video Vault
Dom Arkaral
Bannheim
Cuttlefish Collective
#114 - 2016-04-27 13:29:54 UTC
Ni Neith wrote:
Dom Arkaral wrote:

I would.love to inform you that you cannot wardec from npc corp Lol


Don't worry, little code, it is just my incognito alt.

Sure, if you say so Cool

Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester.

Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER

Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome

CCL Loyalist
Zet Soirn
Soirn Enterprises
#115 - 2016-04-27 13:37:36 UTC
Sasha Nemtsov wrote:
Zet Soirn wrote:


Stop comparing rather simple game of Monopoly to complex mechanics of EvE. It is just desperate attempt to generate any credibility.


This is becoming tiresome.

In essence, EVE Online really is as simple as Monopoly. Player versus Player, last time I checked.

The 'mechanics' by which victory is achieved matter very little in this context - unless one player or group of players whiling away an evening of boardgames decide/s, when they find themselves unable to gain an advantage by using the rules, to get in touch with the publishers and demand changes in their favour.

Does that happen in Monopoly? No, I thought not. You do it because it has worked for you in the past, not because it has any merit.

Now, Zet. If I have to come into the classroom again to drag your wretched ideas into some sort of shape in order to expose their banality, there'll be no jam for tea. Understood boy?!


Okay, kid.

In Monopoly, fields are elevated. I can threaten you the same way, you can threaten me.

In EvE, in Hi-sec, I see a suicide ganker and I can´t pre-emptively strike you. It is just you having the upper hand.

So, you can achieve your "victory", but I am not allowed to achieve mine, which comes to down to CONCORD mechanics, that are there to protect players with good security status, but due to the mechanic being "flawed", it protect criminals with low sec status aswell, which it shouldn´t since it defies the very basic idea of CONCORD.

You can do all your "fun" stuff in Hi-sec without any shred of consequence, whereas in Monopoly I have tools to force consequences on you.

So, stop your dumb strawman comparings.
Dom Arkaral
Bannheim
Cuttlefish Collective
#116 - 2016-04-27 13:42:08 UTC
Zet Soirn wrote:
Sasha Nemtsov wrote:
Zet Soirn wrote:


Stop comparing rather simple game of Monopoly to complex mechanics of EvE. It is just desperate attempt to generate any credibility.


This is becoming tiresome.

In essence, EVE Online really is as simple as Monopoly. Player versus Player, last time I checked.

The 'mechanics' by which victory is achieved matter very little in this context - unless one player or group of players whiling away an evening of boardgames decide/s, when they find themselves unable to gain an advantage by using the rules, to get in touch with the publishers and demand changes in their favour.

Does that happen in Monopoly? No, I thought not. You do it because it has worked for you in the past, not because it has any merit.

Now, Zet. If I have to come into the classroom again to drag your wretched ideas into some sort of shape in order to expose their banality, there'll be no jam for tea. Understood boy?!


Okay, kid.

In Monopoly, fields are elevated. I can threaten you the same way, you can threaten me.

In EvE, in Hi-sec, I see a suicide ganker and I can´t pre-emptively strike you. It is just you having the upper hand.

So, you can achieve your "victory", but I am not allowed to achieve mine, which comes to down to CONCORD mechanics, that are there to protect players with good security status, but due to the mechanic being "flawed", it protect criminals with low sec status aswell, which it shouldn´t since it defies the very basic idea of CONCORD.

You can do all your "fun" stuff in Hi-sec without any shred of consequence, whereas in Monopoly I have tools to force consequences on you.

So, stop your dumb strawman comparings.

You can shoot people with killrights and people with sec status below -5.0 freely btw...
But you knew that right? Lol

Oh and also I only fly Amarr, because Amarr Master Race Cool

Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester.

Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER

Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome

CCL Loyalist
Zet Soirn
Soirn Enterprises
#117 - 2016-04-27 13:45:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Zet Soirn
Dom Arkaral wrote:
Zet Soirn wrote:
Sasha Nemtsov wrote:
Zet Soirn wrote:


Stop comparing rather simple game of Monopoly to complex mechanics of EvE. It is just desperate attempt to generate any credibility.


This is becoming tiresome.

In essence, EVE Online really is as simple as Monopoly. Player versus Player, last time I checked.

The 'mechanics' by which victory is achieved matter very little in this context - unless one player or group of players whiling away an evening of boardgames decide/s, when they find themselves unable to gain an advantage by using the rules, to get in touch with the publishers and demand changes in their favour.

Does that happen in Monopoly? No, I thought not. You do it because it has worked for you in the past, not because it has any merit.

Now, Zet. If I have to come into the classroom again to drag your wretched ideas into some sort of shape in order to expose their banality, there'll be no jam for tea. Understood boy?!


Okay, kid.

In Monopoly, fields are elevated. I can threaten you the same way, you can threaten me.

In EvE, in Hi-sec, I see a suicide ganker and I can´t pre-emptively strike you. It is just you having the upper hand.

So, you can achieve your "victory", but I am not allowed to achieve mine, which comes to down to CONCORD mechanics, that are there to protect players with good security status, but due to the mechanic being "flawed", it protect criminals with low sec status aswell, which it shouldn´t since it defies the very basic idea of CONCORD.

You can do all your "fun" stuff in Hi-sec without any shred of consequence, whereas in Monopoly I have tools to force consequences on you.

So, stop your dumb strawman comparings.

You can shoot people with killrights and people with sec status below -5.0 freely btw...
But you knew that right? Lol

Oh and also I only fly Amarr, because Amarr Master Race Cool


All you have to do is kill some rats and sec status go up, so u get back below -5.0 quickly.
To have killright, you have to be attacked or killed first, so here goes the pre-emptive strike.
Mike Adoulin
Happys Happy Hamster Hunting Club
#118 - 2016-04-27 13:49:32 UTC
Zet Soirn wrote:
We can hardly do anything, since CONCORD won´t let us.



Actually, there is this thing called 'war declaration'.

Then CONCORD goes bye-bye.

Be seeing you.

Everything in EVE is a trap.

And if it isn't, it's your job to make it a trap...:)

You want to know what immorality in EVE Online looks like? Look no further than Ripard "Jester" Teg.

Chribba is the Chuck Norris of EVE.
Ni Neith
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#119 - 2016-04-27 13:53:45 UTC
Dom Arkaral wrote:

You can shoot people with killrights and people with sec status below -5.0 freely btw...
But you knew that right?


This would only metter if bubbles were actually allowed in high sec.
Dom Arkaral
Bannheim
Cuttlefish Collective
#120 - 2016-04-27 13:55:17 UTC
Zet Soirn wrote:
Dom Arkaral wrote:
Zet Soirn wrote:
Sasha Nemtsov wrote:
Zet Soirn wrote:


Stop comparing rather simple game of Monopoly to complex mechanics of EvE. It is just desperate attempt to generate any credibility.


This is becoming tiresome.

In essence, EVE Online really is as simple as Monopoly. Player versus Player, last time I checked.

The 'mechanics' by which victory is achieved matter very little in this context - unless one player or group of players whiling away an evening of boardgames decide/s, when they find themselves unable to gain an advantage by using the rules, to get in touch with the publishers and demand changes in their favour.

Does that happen in Monopoly? No, I thought not. You do it because it has worked for you in the past, not because it has any merit.

Now, Zet. If I have to come into the classroom again to drag your wretched ideas into some sort of shape in order to expose their banality, there'll be no jam for tea. Understood boy?!


Okay, kid.

In Monopoly, fields are elevated. I can threaten you the same way, you can threaten me.

In EvE, in Hi-sec, I see a suicide ganker and I can´t pre-emptively strike you. It is just you having the upper hand.

So, you can achieve your "victory", but I am not allowed to achieve mine, which comes to down to CONCORD mechanics, that are there to protect players with good security status, but due to the mechanic being "flawed", it protect criminals with low sec status aswell, which it shouldn´t since it defies the very basic idea of CONCORD.

You can do all your "fun" stuff in Hi-sec without any shred of consequence, whereas in Monopoly I have tools to force consequences on you.

So, stop your dumb strawman comparings.

You can shoot people with killrights and people with sec status below -5.0 freely btw...
But you knew that right? Lol

Oh and also I only fly Amarr, because Amarr Master Race Cool


All you have to do is kill some rats and sec status go up, so u get back below -5.0 quickly.
To have killright, you have to be attacked or killed first, so here goes the pre-emptive strike.

Lol...... CODE. doesn't rat... they don't even care about the pve aspect of the game..

And all gankers have many many many killrights on them...

Do you even undock?

Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester.

Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER

Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome

CCL Loyalist