These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

CCP HTFU

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
#21 - 2012-02-22 18:48:59 UTC
Tippia wrote:
I wish that sometimes, people who took the bull by the horns explained what problems they were trying to solve…


Maybee you are not looking at it from the right angle. It is not my responsibility to change your view, so you can disregard this as "I don't get it" and leave it with that.


Tippia wrote:
…and that's a big if because the question remains: why would they do that? It's not like it actually was a mistake or unintentional.


Simple, Otherwise they woudn't bother moving the production to low sec and stopping these types of ships enter high sec. But they messed it up as usual. They lach the strength to rectify this misstake


Tippia wrote:
They can do that by simply not listening to you… vOv


They should listen to themselves. not me, definately not you and for hell not to any elected puebevoice "representing the community". I Want to see CCP take action and show they are not pushovers.

Tippia wrote:
Whether you want one or not is irrelevant. It's about applying your invented principle. Are you now saying that you don't want to do that either?


What are you talking about? Maybee you should try to calm the hell down and write coherently.

Ill write slowly so you might get it:

#1: I D O N ' T W A N T A C A R R I E R I N H I G H - S E C
#2: But I disagree that they are present as they constitute a fovourable standing towards a small group of players from CCP's side.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#22 - 2012-02-22 18:56:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Doc Fury
Schmacos tryne wrote:

#1: I D O N ' T W A N T O T H E R S T O H A V E A C A R R I E R I N H I G H - S E C B E C A U S E I C A N ' T H A V E O N E
#2: But I disagree that they are present as they constitute a fovourable meaningless standing towards a small group of players from CCP's side.


FYP

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
#23 - 2012-02-22 18:57:49 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
Ranger 1 wrote:
Why would that address the "problem" (that no one see's but you) when the tools to deal with the issue are already available in game?

Gather your imaginary support and gank those carriers (it is certainly doable... if you have enough people drinking your kool Aid).

Better yet, scam them and self destruct or move them to low sec yourself.

It's hard to impress people with 'grabbing the bull by the horns" when the bull in question is actually a stuffed animal with horns made of felt.




Simply bacuse it's CCP's job not mine.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#24 - 2012-02-22 18:59:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Schmacos tryne wrote:
Maybee you are not looking at it from the right angle. It is not my responsibility to change your view, so you can disregard this as "I don't get it" and leave it with that.
Actually, it is your responsibility: you're the one arguing for the change.

Quote:
Simple, Otherwise they woudn't bother moving the production to low sec and stopping these types of ships enter high sec.
…which doesn't mean that leaving some behind is a mistake or unintentional. You're drawing awfully big conclusions based on a few changes, completely disregarding the fact that the intended effects are in place and fulfilled. So no, it's not like it was a mistake or unintentional.

Quote:
What are you talking about?
I'm talking about the fact that rescinding the “no selling” rule so you can buy one would be the simplest application of your invented principle that everyone should be able to get their hands on one. I'm asking you why you are against rescinding the one rule that makes this happen, contrary to your principled stance.

Quote:
#1: I D O N ' T W A N T A C A R R I E R I N H I G H - S E C
Irrelevant. Do you want to apply your principle or not?

Quote:
#2: But I disagree that they are present as they constitute a fovourable standing towards a small group of players from CCP's side.
…and the question remains: why is that a problem? It provides exactly zero benefit, and isn't particularly tied to any specific person.
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
#25 - 2012-02-22 19:00:32 UTC
Doc Fury wrote:
Schmacos tryne wrote:

#1: I D O N ' T W A N T O T H E R S T O H A V E A C A R R I E R I N H I G H - S E C B E C A U S E I C A N ' T H A V E O N E
#2: But I disagree that they are present as they constitute a fovourable meaningless standing towards a small group of players from CCP's side.


FYP


For you: Meaningless in this context. But nevertheless Meaningless/favourable is still there, hence it's a problem in my book.

That noone agrees doesen't invalidate my concerns the slightest. You will see that most progressions throughout our RL history is made by those few who chose to stand outside mainstream and speak their mind.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#26 - 2012-02-22 19:04:04 UTC
Schmacos tryne wrote:
That noone agrees doesen't invalidate my concerns the slightest.
Actually it does, since your concern hinges on the notion that everyone should be treated equally. The problem here is that everyone says “nah…”.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#27 - 2012-02-22 19:04:18 UTC
Schmacos tryne wrote:


For you: Meaningless in this context. But nevertheless Meaningless/favourable is still there, hence it's a problem in my book.

That noone agrees doesen't invalidate my concerns the slightest. You will see that most progressions throughout our RL history is made by those few who chose to stand outside mainstream and speak their mind.



It kinda does.
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
#28 - 2012-02-22 19:05:18 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Quote:
#2: But I disagree that they are present as they constitute a fovourable standing towards a small group of players from CCP's side.
…and the question remains: why is that a problem? It provides exactly zero benefit, and isn't particularly tied to any specific person.


You question what problem a favourable standing from CCP towards a limited group poses?

Are you for real?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#29 - 2012-02-22 19:09:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Schmacos tryne wrote:
You question what problem a favourable standing from CCP towards a limited group poses?
Yes. What is the problem? What “favourable standing” do they get? How does it in any way affect anything? How does it in any way differ from the “favourable standings” other limited groups get?

Quote:
I 'worry' about CCPs Bias.
What bias?
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
#30 - 2012-02-22 19:15:56 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Schmacos tryne wrote:
You question what problem a favourable standing from CCP towards a limited group poses?
Yes. What is the problem? What “favourable standing” do they get? How does it in any way affect anything? How does it in any way differ from the “favourable standings” other limited groups get?


Ingame: Quite a lot. I think deep, deep really deeep inside your little tipria heart you agree asell. but now you just have to drag it out based on you principle of never loosing an arguement and always having the last word (regardless how meager it is).
OOG: Not my concern as I am master of my own life.

Quote:
I 'worry' about CCPs Bias.
What bias?[/quote]

The one you just commented on... feeble..
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#31 - 2012-02-22 19:20:49 UTC
Schmacos tryne wrote:
Ingame: Quite a lot. I think deep, deep really deeep inside your little tipria heart you agree asell. but now you just have to drag it out based on you principle of never loosing an arguement and always having the last word (regardless how meager it is).
OOG: Not my concern as I am master of my own life.
I can't help noticing you didn't answer any of the questions. “Quite a lot” contains quite little in the way of actual information.

So: what is the problem? What “favourable standing” do they get? How does it in any way affect anything? How does it in any way differ from the “favourable standings” other limited groups get?
Quote:
The one you just commented on... feeble..
So… what bias, exactly?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#32 - 2012-02-22 19:20:54 UTC
Schmacos tryne wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Schmacos tryne wrote:
You question what problem a favourable standing from CCP towards a limited group poses?
Yes. What is the problem? What “favourable standing” do they get? How does it in any way affect anything? How does it in any way differ from the “favourable standings” other limited groups get?


Ingame: Quite a lot. I think deep, deep really deeep inside your little tipria heart you agree asell. but now you just have to drag it out based on you principle of never loosing an arguement and always having the last word (regardless how meager it is).
OOG: Not my concern as I am master of my own life.



That did not answer the question asked.
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
#33 - 2012-02-22 19:29:21 UTC
Favourable standings from CCP towards certain groups of players is an isse which concerns me. In this particular case it is easy to prove because the items in question basically are e-peen toys.

CCP admits they should not be there:

GM Quote regarding 6M logofski trick:
This is pretty much the cause for almost all cases where a capital ship ends up in high sec space. This is a very old mechanic, predating capital ships, that had some unintended consequences. This hole will be closed at some point in time.

"Up until then, please file a petition if your capital ship (or someone else's) ends up in high sec that way and a GM will correct the issue."

Sure looks like something is not right here to me.

So why don't they just remove them? Because it's unpopular and they "cause no harm".


Problem is, next time CCP screws up can I be sure that they actually pull through and rectify previous misstakes?

A start to reassure me this is the case is for them to rectify previous misstakes (like carriers in high f.ex.)

The question is why the hell should they be there at all?

Somone mentioned tourism.... then put up a NPC with a carrier or somthing and let it take it out for a spin once a day or so. this way you keep your tourism atraction but keep the god dam players out of it.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#34 - 2012-02-22 19:33:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Schmacos tryne wrote:
Favourable standings from CCP towards certain groups of players is an isse which concerns me.
What “favourable standing” do they get? How does it in any way affect anything? How does it in any way differ from the “favourable standings” other limited groups get? In short, what is the problem?

Quote:
CCP admits they should not be there:

GM Quote regarding 6M logofski trick:
Source?

Quote:
So why don't they just remove them? Because it's unpopular and they "cause no harm".
Problem is, next time CCP screws up can I be sure that they actually pull through and rectify previous misstakes?
Since they have screwed up since and have indeed rectified it, yes. More to the point, though, where is the “screw up”? Highsec caps have already been rectified.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#35 - 2012-02-22 19:35:12 UTC
Schmacos tryne wrote:

CCP admits they should not be there:

GM Quote regarding 6M logofski trick:
This is pretty much the cause for almost all cases where a capital ship ends up in high sec space. This is a very old mechanic, predating capital ships, that had some unintended consequences. This hole will be closed at some point in time.

"Up until then, please file a petition if your capital ship (or someone else's) ends up in high sec that way and a GM will correct the issue."

Sure looks like something is not right here to me.

So why don't they just remove them? Because it's unpopular and they "cause no harm".




Quoting out of context, tsk, tsk.

The GM quote above refers to capital ships that were erroneously moved to high sec, not cap ships that were built there before players could no longer do that.

CCP will move cap ships that meet that criteria, not because of any perceived popularity issues, but because those cap ships should not have been moved to high-sec in the first place.






☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
#36 - 2012-02-22 19:40:51 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Schmacos tryne wrote:
Favourable standings from CCP towards certain groups of players is an isse which concerns me.
What “favourable standing” do they get? How does it in any way affect anything? How does it in any way differ from the “favourable standings” other limited groups get? In short, what is the problem?

Quote:
CCP admits they should not be there:

GM Quote regarding 6M logofski trick:
Source?

Quote:
So why don't they just remove them? Because it's unpopular and they "cause no harm".
Problem is, next time CCP screws up can I be sure that they actually pull through and rectify previous misstakes?
Since they have screwed up since and have indeed rectified it, yes. More to the point, though, where is the “screw up”? Highsec caps have already been rectified.



CCP should be neutral and no special treatment whatsoever. This matter is just insainly visible so it has become the spearhead of this (one man) operation.

The source of this is in another thread called "jita carrier" in general forum. Read it there.
Zag'mar Jurkar
Legion Du Lys
#37 - 2012-02-22 19:43:45 UTC
Schmacos tryne wrote:
Favourable standings from CCP towards certain groups of players is an isse which concerns me. In this particular case it is easy to prove because the items in question basically are e-peen toys.

CCP admits they should not be there:

GM Quote regarding 6M logofski trick:
This is pretty much the cause for almost all cases where a capital ship ends up in high sec space. This is a very old mechanic, predating capital ships, that had some unintended consequences. This hole will be closed at some point in time.

"Up until then, please file a petition if your capital ship (or someone else's) ends up in high sec that way and a GM will correct the issue."

Sure looks like something is not right here to me.

So why don't they just remove them? Because it's unpopular and they "cause no harm".


Problem is, next time CCP screws up can I be sure that they actually pull through and rectify previous misstakes?

A start to reassure me this is the case is for them to rectify previous misstakes (like carriers in high f.ex.)

The question is why the hell should they be there at all?

Somone mentioned tourism.... then put up a NPC with a carrier or somthing and let it take it out for a spin once a day or so. this way you keep your tourism atraction but keep the god dam players out of it.


He addressed the bug of logging out in a safe spot and coming back 6 months later at your home station, nothing about your "concerns".
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#38 - 2012-02-22 19:46:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Schmacos tryne wrote:
CCP should be neutral and no special treatment whatsoever. This matter is just insainly visible so it has become the spearhead of this (one man) operation.
What “special treatment” and “favourable standing” do they get? How does it in any way affect anything? How does it in any way differ from the “favourable standings” other limited groups get? In short, what is the problem?

Quote:
The source of this is in another thread called "jita carrier" in general forum. Read it there.
…so entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Since, if we actually quote the post in question in full, it says:
GM Homonoia wrote:
Mashie Saldana wrote:
You want a cap ship in highsec? All it takes is a bit of patience.

Step 1, set medical clone to high sec station of interest.
Step 2, undock in the ship you want moving and log out at a safe.
Step 3, unsub for 6 months.
Step 4, resub and enjoy your ship now docked in your clone station.

There are a LOT of super carriers docked in highsec due to this "feature".


This is pretty much the cause for almost all cases where a capital ship ends up in high sec space. This is a very old mechanic, predating capital ships, that had some unintended consequences. This hole will be closed at some point in time. Up until then, please file a petition if your capital ship (or someone else's) ends up in high sec that way and a GM will correct the issue.
So no, it doesn't actually say that the highsec caps shouldn't be there. By the way, just mentioning a random thread is not a good way to provide a source — this is the internet; link it. Roll
Mokokan
Transtar Services
#39 - 2012-02-22 19:55:11 UTC
The classic paradox(?). You want CCP to give special consideration to your request that CCP stop giving players special consideration. And for your example you choose someone who is not getting special consideration.

The inequalities, the mistakes and flaws, the crazy, the unfair, the honor and the spite, the intentional lack of symmetry in the entire fabric of the game........it's what makes it worth playing. The insane depth of the complexity of the EVE universe is the nutty lure of the whole thing. Embrace the chaos. Or bend it to your will. Get out of the forum and play the game. I will, as soon as I get off work. Twisted
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
#40 - 2012-02-22 20:00:09 UTC
Mokokan wrote:
The classic paradox(?). You want CCP to give special consideration to your request that CCP stop giving players special consideration. And for your example you choose someone who is not getting special consideration.


Interesting and a well put blow. But not full score as I only seek equality and not privileges.


Mokokan wrote:
The inequalities, the mistakes and flaws, the crazy, the unfair, the honor and the spite, the intentional lack of symmetry in the entire fabric of the game........it's what makes it worth playing. The insane depth of the complexity of the EVE universe is the nutty lure of the whole thing. Embrace the chaos. Or bend it to your will. Get out of the forum and play the game. I will, as soon as I get off work. Twisted


Big smile Well put.
Previous page123Next page