These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Removing Local is only part of the solution
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#101 - 2012-05-26 13:17:47 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
No. I'm asking a question of an adult who can't defend his ideas/line of thought and resorts to juvenile tit for tat posts because he knows hes out of his league.

So when you're advocating a change to a mechanic which has been in the game in the same state since it was conceived, which is a change tailor made to help people who can't gank properly, that's because you care so much about the game and want to improve it? Is that what you're trying to get at?


Wormholes work just fine without local and so can the rest of EVE.
Frying Doom
#102 - 2012-05-26 13:18:26 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
No. I'm asking a question of an adult who can't defend his ideas/line of thought and resorts to juvenile tit for tat posts because he knows hes out of his league.

So when you're advocating a change to a mechanic which has been in the game in the same state since it was conceived, which is a change tailor made to help people who can't gank properly, that's because you care so much about the game and want to improve it? Is that what you're trying to get at?

Why wasnt this floated as a reason not to introduce the Sov system?
or the Titan nerf?
Or the T2 lottery removal?
They were different to start with but they were changed.
To be honest your whole failure to gank thing just falls flat. Its all about people to scared to loose there shinny ships and want to care bear in safety. Eve needs to be more ALIVE not stagnant like a rotting cesspool. Just because your risk of running some expensive ship around null increases is hardly a reason to argue that a good change shouldn't be implemented.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Jebediah MacAhab Dallocort
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#103 - 2012-05-26 13:23:02 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Jebediah MacAhab Dallocort wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
EVE sucks, period. And it sucks because of the mindset of some of the people in this thread.

Can I have your stuff when you eventually ragequit because CCP won't remove local?

Also, could you whine about something more significant, like the fact that your cloaky vessel needs cap to cloak? I mean, it should be able to run on unicorn farts and kitten giggles, only carebears need to use caps. Oh, and you should have instant lockon time, right? And bumping people while cloaked should make their ship explode. And when they explode, every single fitting must be preserved because cloak.

No, seriously, shut up. You've already got a cloak, and your prey has the attention span of a kid with ADHD. Use that to your advantage and HTFU.


You should try thinking before you type. A cloak nor ADD removes ones name from local. Trying harder doesn't make someone any more stealthy. So thanks for the complete waste of everyones time who bothered reading your rubbish.

You didn't read it at all.

You already have a significant advantage over your prey when you have a cloak, and people have a limited attention span. You will always find someone who is not paying attention to local, so you don't need your name removed.

In addition, just because your name is in local doesn't mean they know what ship you're flying, whether you're just passing through, or whether you're docked.

Instead of whining, try adapting.

How to Improve Quality Assurance at CCP

Professional Programmer, DBA, Game Developer and Systems Analyst
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#104 - 2012-05-26 13:27:59 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Wormholes work just fine without local and so can the rest of EVE.

Wormholes was added as a completely separate entity, you want to change something which hasn't changed for 9+ years. I assume you're going to continue to pretend it's because you think it'll improve the game as a whole, right?

Frying Doom wrote:
Why wasnt this floated as a reason not to introduce the Sov system?
or the Titan nerf?
Or the T2 lottery removal?
They were different to start with but they were changed.

The SOV system was something a large portion of the playerbase was unhappy with. Turns out the new system is worse, oh well.

Titans got nerfed? Last I heard, they got buffed pretty heavily.

T2 lottery was a mechanic based on chance and dev help. Invention, much as alchemy did for moongoo, alleviated that idiocracy.

Frying Doom wrote:
To be honest your whole failure to gank thing just falls flat. Its all about people to scared to loose there shinny ships and want to care bear in safety. Eve needs to be more ALIVE not stagnant like a rotting cesspool. Just because your risk of running some expensive ship around null increases is hardly a reason to argue that a good change shouldn't be implemented.

You're implying it would be a good change for the game as a whole. You're implying it would make EVE more alive. You're wrong on both counts.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#105 - 2012-05-26 13:28:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Jebediah MacAhab Dallocort wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Jebediah MacAhab Dallocort wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
EVE sucks, period. And it sucks because of the mindset of some of the people in this thread.

Can I have your stuff when you eventually ragequit because CCP won't remove local?

Also, could you whine about something more significant, like the fact that your cloaky vessel needs cap to cloak? I mean, it should be able to run on unicorn farts and kitten giggles, only carebears need to use caps. Oh, and you should have instant lockon time, right? And bumping people while cloaked should make their ship explode. And when they explode, every single fitting must be preserved because cloak.

No, seriously, shut up. You've already got a cloak, and your prey has the attention span of a kid with ADHD. Use that to your advantage and HTFU.


You should try thinking before you type. A cloak nor ADD removes ones name from local. Trying harder doesn't make someone any more stealthy. So thanks for the complete waste of everyones time who bothered reading your rubbish.

You didn't read it at all.

You already have a significant advantage over your prey when you have a cloak, and people have a limited attention span. You will always find someone who is not paying attention to local, so you don't need your name removed.

In addition, just because your name is in local doesn't mean they know what ship you're flying, whether you're just passing through, or whether you're docked.

Instead of whining, try adapting.


Again for the slow a cloak isn't an advantage. It can't be used offensively, it doesn't hide your presence, the ships with them are combat neutered and its equivalent to docking up. My name in local is all they need for complete safety. As long as its there they never undock. Need more straws to grasp at? Let me fetch a broom. There is no adapting to your presence being announced at every point of contact and having no way to force an engagement.
Jebediah MacAhab Dallocort
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2012-05-26 13:30:31 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
No. I'm asking a question of an adult who can't defend his ideas/line of thought and resorts to juvenile tit for tat posts because he knows hes out of his league.

So when you're advocating a change to a mechanic which has been in the game in the same state since it was conceived, which is a change tailor made to help people who can't gank properly, that's because you care so much about the game and want to improve it? Is that what you're trying to get at?

Why wasnt this floated as a reason not to introduce the Sov system?
or the Titan nerf?
Or the T2 lottery removal?
They were different to start with but they were changed.
To be honest your whole failure to gank thing just falls flat. Its all about people to scared to loose there shinny ships and want to care bear in safety. Eve needs to be more ALIVE not stagnant like a rotting cesspool. Just because your risk of running some expensive ship around null increases is hardly a reason to argue that a good change shouldn't be implemented.

Because you're talking about completely different **** with enormously smaller consequences. There's canonical and practical reasons that local exists, now stop your ******* whining and learn to deal with it.

Oh no! Your target is about to warp off to a station! So head them off at the station, you goddamn gibbering idiot.

How to Improve Quality Assurance at CCP

Professional Programmer, DBA, Game Developer and Systems Analyst
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#107 - 2012-05-26 13:32:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=1370522&view=losses&m=4&y=2012

^ Thats explains the inane and argumentative fail. No combat experience and what little is there has been failure.
Frying Doom
#108 - 2012-05-26 13:33:31 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Wormholes work just fine without local and so can the rest of EVE.

Wormholes was added as a completely separate entity, you want to change something which hasn't changed for 9+ years. I assume you're going to continue to pretend it's because you think it'll improve the game as a whole, right?

Frying Doom wrote:
Why wasnt this floated as a reason not to introduce the Sov system?

The SOV system was something a large portion of the playerbase was unhappy with. Turns out the new system is worse, oh well.

Titans got nerfed? Last I heard, they got buffed pretty heavily.

T2 lottery was a mechanic based on chance and dev help. Invention, much as alchemy did for moongoo, alleviated that idiocracy.

You failed to get the point again. Your argument was it's been there from the start I was just pointing out if we used that logic nothing would have ever changed.
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
To be honest your whole failure to gank thing just falls flat. Its all about people to scared to loose there shinny ships and want to care bear in safety. Eve needs to be more ALIVE not stagnant like a rotting cesspool. Just because your risk of running some expensive ship around null increases is hardly a reason to argue that a good change shouldn't be implemented.

You're implying it would be a good change for the game as a whole. You're implying it would make EVE more alive. You're wrong on both counts.

Yes we are all very aware that no matter how many people tell you something you all ways believe you are right. Even if your argument never make much sense.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Jebediah MacAhab Dallocort
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#109 - 2012-05-26 13:35:29 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=1370522&view=losses&m=4&y=2012

^ Thats explains the inane and argumentative fail. No combat experience and what little is there has been failure.

And yet I can still describe a practical way to work around local, while your only solution is to whine about it and try to find fault with combat records.

How to Improve Quality Assurance at CCP

Professional Programmer, DBA, Game Developer and Systems Analyst
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#110 - 2012-05-26 13:36:12 UTC
Making sense doesn't matter when you live in constant fear. Can you imagine if they had mod powers?
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#111 - 2012-05-26 13:37:11 UTC
Jebediah MacAhab Dallocort wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=1370522&view=losses&m=4&y=2012

^ Thats explains the inane and argumentative fail. No combat experience and what little is there has been failure.

And yet I can still describe a practical way to work around local, while your only solution is to whine about it and try to find fault with combat records.


No you really can't. You fail at debating and EVE. But in all fairness everyone loses their first few fights.
Jebediah MacAhab Dallocort
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#112 - 2012-05-26 13:37:38 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Making sense doesn't matter when you live in constant fear. Can you imagine if they had mod powers?

Who? What the **** are you talking about? You've moved back to "gibbering idiot".

How to Improve Quality Assurance at CCP

Professional Programmer, DBA, Game Developer and Systems Analyst
Jebediah MacAhab Dallocort
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#113 - 2012-05-26 13:39:42 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Jebediah MacAhab Dallocort wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=1370522&view=losses&m=4&y=2012

^ Thats explains the inane and argumentative fail. No combat experience and what little is there has been failure.

And yet I can still describe a practical way to work around local, while your only solution is to whine about it and try to find fault with combat records.


No you really can't. You fail at debating and EVE. But in all fairness everyone loses their first few fights.

Because I lost 3 cheap ships during station games. Whoop-de-*******-doo.

And it's not a debate when all you can do is scream about combat losses. You don't see me whining about station games.

How to Improve Quality Assurance at CCP

Professional Programmer, DBA, Game Developer and Systems Analyst
Selinate
#114 - 2012-05-26 13:39:57 UTC
Local needs to be removed in order for the purpose of the cov ops cloak to be realized. The whole point of a cov ops cloak is to go about undetected.

Without the ability to go undetected, as you are in WH's, the cov ops cloak is meh.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#115 - 2012-05-26 13:41:17 UTC
Jebediah MacAhab Dallocort wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Making sense doesn't matter when you live in constant fear. Can you imagine if they had mod powers?

Who? What the **** are you talking about? You've moved back to "gibbering idiot".


You sound mad. That's usually the first sign of being defeated. You have no real argument to present, no verifiable kill history, nothing but anger and attitude.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#116 - 2012-05-26 13:41:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=1370522&view=losses&m=4&y=2012

^ Thats explains the inane and argumentative fail. No combat experience and what little is there has been failure.

Says the guy who, if his killboard is to be believed, apparently doesn't even go outside of hisec. vOv

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#117 - 2012-05-26 13:46:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Lord Zim wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Making sense doesn't matter when you live in constant fear. Can you imagine if they had mod powers?

Says the guy who, if his killboard is to be believed, apparently doesn't even go outside of hisec. vOv


And in spite of all the nuances of hisec im still able to come out on top. Zim, i'd be just fine in nullsec. Im not there because when I go i'm leading and 12 people arent declaring sovereignty. You don't build a null sec corp recruiting in null where everyone is already in another alliance or corp. Its much more productive to operate in the realm where the majority and the unaffiliated reside.
Jebediah MacAhab Dallocort
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#118 - 2012-05-26 13:47:13 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Jebediah MacAhab Dallocort wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Making sense doesn't matter when you live in constant fear. Can you imagine if they had mod powers?

Who? What the **** are you talking about? You've moved back to "gibbering idiot".


You sound mad. That's usually the first sign of being defeated. You have no real argument to present, no verifiable kill history, nothing but anger and attitude.

Again, what the **** does kill history have to do with anything? The only mad one is the one who scrambles over to eve-kill desperately to find any and all faults with the guy presenting the argument instead of trying to rebutt his arguments on their own merit. I haven't seen any "real arguments" from you beyond "BUT I NEED IT TO BE STEALTHY", which has been picked apart already, and can be worked around with about two seconds of thought and coordination.

How to Improve Quality Assurance at CCP

Professional Programmer, DBA, Game Developer and Systems Analyst
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#119 - 2012-05-26 13:50:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Jebediah MacAhab Dallocort wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Jebediah MacAhab Dallocort wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Making sense doesn't matter when you live in constant fear. Can you imagine if they had mod powers?

Who? What the **** are you talking about? You've moved back to "gibbering idiot".


You sound mad. That's usually the first sign of being defeated. You have no real argument to present, no verifiable kill history, nothing but anger and attitude.

Again, what the **** does kill history have to do with anything? The only mad one is the one who scrambles over to eve-kill desperately to find any and all faults with the guy presenting the argument instead of trying to rebutt his arguments on their own merit. I haven't seen any "real arguments" from you beyond "BUT I NEED IT TO BE STEALTHY", which has been picked apart already, and can be worked around with about two seconds of thought and coordination.


You haven't picked apart anything. Kill history shows experience and competence of which you currently lack. Though again in all fairness everyone loses their first few fights.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=110995

Theres a whole thread summarizing quite a few valid reasons. Im not retyping every obvious point to a goon charity case and a gnub.
Jebediah MacAhab Dallocort
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#120 - 2012-05-26 13:52:57 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:


You haven't picked apart anything. Kill history shows experience and competence of which you currently lack. Though again in all fairness everyone loses their first few fights.

That's the thing: I didn't say I picked apart those arguments. Maybe it's because I happened to read the thread first and found a few valid arguments first, hmm? Arguments made by someone with a "valid" kill history?

How to Improve Quality Assurance at CCP

Professional Programmer, DBA, Game Developer and Systems Analyst