These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

In a game world where resources become depleted and reseeded...
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#61 - 2012-06-02 17:34:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Simi Kusoni
AllUrIskRBelongToMeToo wrote:
If you actually READ the post you would, if you had a fully operational brain, realize that no experience is necessary in order to challenge the game mechanic. Unless your moon mining operation shuts off at a random point in time until reseeded, the challenge to the game mechanic stands on it's own.

Your moon mining operation isn't going to shut off at a random point in time.

It's going to shut off when PL drop titans on your POS.

AllUrIskRBelongToMeToo wrote:
You and others are merely attempting to shift the discussion to something that it is not as there is nothing that challenges the proposed ideas for the reasons stated. How many people do you guys think you can fool with your little meaningless shell game? Perhaps you will do better by attacking the validity of the minmitar republic, or the pator tech school's reputation in order to discredit the proposed ideas for the reasons stated.

Not really, I've already pointed out that I agree with you concerning changes to moon mining:

Simi Kusoni wrote:
I think that without technetium we'd find another source of income. In point of fact I don't even disagree with your proposal to nerf technetium, I'm looking forward to ring mining. I honestly believe ISK should enter an alliance through it's player base, not purely through rent agreements and moon goo.

My only quarrel is that you're an idiot for pretending that moon mining tech is easy or passive.

Again, my issue is merely with that fact that you are too ignorant of Eve online to have heard of the upcoming ring mining changes, and that you falsely claim moon mining technetium is an effortless procedure.

Quite simply you're just some AFK mining high sec dweller using an NPC corp alt to pose as someone with experience, and posting a thinly veiled anti-goon, anti-suicide ganking thread of tears.

Not to mention the fact that your thread completely misses the point. Goons didn't fund the original hulkageddons, and the amount required to fund them is so trivial they don't need technetium to do it anyway. I could personally fund quite a few hulkageddons if the cost quoted on the previous page is accurate.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Roisin Saoirse
Doomheim
#62 - 2012-06-02 17:41:30 UTC
Tippia wrote:
AllUrIskRBelongToMeToo wrote:
Yes.
No, for the simple reason that no stats on the number of players in different parts of space has ever been published.

See, this is why people keep asking you to provide sources and data: because you keep making these kinds of unfounded and unsubstantiated claims about things that seem very unlikely for someone in the know to say, or that are simply unknowable to begin with.

I think the closest thing to this was the 2010 QEN, but that was extremely vague and didn't hint at the active population vs the visitors/market alts etc. so is unreliable and quite unusable. Personally, I'd love to see proper statistics on the matter. It might be quite interesting (maybe even a little surprising).
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#63 - 2012-06-02 17:47:34 UTC
Roisin Saoirse wrote:
I think the closest thing to this was the 2010 QEN, but that was extremely vague and didn't hint at the active population vs the visitors/market alts etc. so is unreliable and quite unusable.
Those statistics, like all that have been published before and after it, only count characters — not players (and the fanfest economy presentaiton has the latest snapshot).

Players ≠ characters. As always, a case can easily be made that the ~70% character portion in highsec actually translates into there being less than 40% highsec players.
AllUrIskRBelongToMeToo
NuclearSpaceFishCapitalism
#64 - 2012-06-02 17:52:06 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
AllUrIskRBelongToMeToo wrote:
If you actually READ the post you would, if you had a fully operational brain, realize that no experience is necessary in order to challenge the game mechanic. Unless your moon mining operation shuts off at a random point in time until reseeded, the challenge to the game mechanic stands on it's own.

Your moon mining operation isn't going to shut off at a random point in time.

It's going to shut off when PL drop titans on your POS.

AllUrIskRBelongToMeToo wrote:
You and others are merely attempting to shift the discussion to something that it is not as there is nothing that challenges the proposed ideas for the reasons stated. How many people do you guys think you can fool with your little meaningless shell game? Perhaps you will do better by attacking the validity of the minmitar republic, or the pator tech school's reputation in order to discredit the proposed ideas for the reasons stated.

Not really, I've already pointed out that I agree with you concerning changes to moon mining:

Simi Kusoni wrote:
I think that without technetium we'd find another source of income. In point of fact I don't even disagree with your proposal to nerf technetium, I'm looking forward to ring mining. I honestly believe ISK should enter an alliance through it's player base, not purely through rent agreements and moon goo.

My only quarrel is that you're an idiot for pretending that moon mining tech is easy or passive.

Again, my issue is merely with that fact that you are too ignorant of Eve online to have heard of the upcoming ring mining changes, and that you falsely claim moon mining technetium is an effortless procedure.

Quite simply you're just some AFK mining high sec dweller using an NPC corp alt to pose as someone with experience, and posting a thinly veiled anti-goon, anti-suicide ganking thread of tears.

Not to mention the fact that your thread completely misses the point. Goons didn't fund the original hulkageddons, and the amount required to fund them is so trivial they don't need technetium to do it anyway. I could personally fund quite a few hulkageddons if the cost quoted on the previous page is accurate.



keep talking as though you know who I am and making a weak attack on the original idea by trying to associate a possible alt of an alt of an alt*X to afk mining, as though this thread has anything really to do with hulkageddon other then serving as a trigger. Who attacks what has nothing to do with the game mechanic, unless farming x amount of material = auto titan drop.

The reason i think you are a fool is because you continue on with the shell game that others have started, yet you have no clue what you are actually doing, but continue to make baseless attacks on a non-issue brought up by someone else. You really have no idea what you are even talking about here and you want to try and suggest that someone else is doing just that? That is funny.

Keep trying, I dare you too find something that is going to actually mean something.

If you agree, then agree and stfu about the shell game. Don't keep rambling on about it as though it means anything and then get uppity about it when you are called out for being a fool led by the nose by others that have nothing to attack the original post with.
ashley Eoner
#65 - 2012-06-02 17:53:23 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
RubyPorto wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
The Groundskeeper wrote:
Moons give minerals, not isk. The isk faucet that we drink from is that of hulk miners in highsec who can't be bothered to take care of their expensive toys by fitting a tank or watching local for hostiles.
That's funny because in thread after thread where people are asking how to properly fit a tank to a hulk and suggestions are made the gankers always respond with "IT DOESN"T MATTER WHAT TANK YOU FIT CAUSE YOU"RE DEAD".. So your little talking point is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


I do find it extremely funny that the goons are railing against people being somewhat AFK while they AFK mine their moons and bot mine their asteroids with greater safety then anyone in highsec could dream of.



1) It's actually the miners who say that in response to suggestions that they fit a tank, and they're unhappy (and wrong about it).

2) Holding a Tech moon requires a large fleet. Having a large fleet on hand to defend the POS doesn't sound like something that's particularly AFK to me...
Your reading comprehension skills need some extensive training. Time and again it's the gankers making the statement not the gankees..

All of one moon has been seriously challenged in how long?
AllUrIskRBelongToMeToo
NuclearSpaceFishCapitalism
#66 - 2012-06-02 17:57:21 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Roisin Saoirse wrote:
I think the closest thing to this was the 2010 QEN, but that was extremely vague and didn't hint at the active population vs the visitors/market alts etc. so is unreliable and quite unusable.
Those statistics, like all that have been published before and after it, only count characters — not players (and the fanfest economy presentaiton has the latest snapshot).

Players ≠ characters. As always, a case can easily be made that the ~70% character portion in highsec actually translates into there being less than 40% highsec players.


So what you are saying is that you have numbers that are meaningless because it does not actually track what you are trying to suggest it does, all while saying that you know it does not .......are you serious? You do realize with your logic that we could actually say that the 30% in 0.0, or whatever pecentage it is is really 10% as many people have active scouts, as in accounts that they use to scout out a system before they fly their acting main account into it, and inactive scouts that sit cloaked in a system for whatever reason. But...then again by your estimates and soft numbers we could be looking at 5% of the actual player base is out in 0.0 becaus there are going to be people with 10 accounts/characters out in 0.0.

Kind of like walking around in Paris at the height of tourist season and suggesting it is a ghost town as you bump into people clamoring to see the eifle tower!Roll
AllUrIskRBelongToMeToo
NuclearSpaceFishCapitalism
#67 - 2012-06-02 18:00:00 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
The Groundskeeper wrote:
Moons give minerals, not isk. The isk faucet that we drink from is that of hulk miners in highsec who can't be bothered to take care of their expensive toys by fitting a tank or watching local for hostiles.
That's funny because in thread after thread where people are asking how to properly fit a tank to a hulk and suggestions are made the gankers always respond with "IT DOESN"T MATTER WHAT TANK YOU FIT CAUSE YOU"RE DEAD".. So your little talking point is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


I do find it extremely funny that the goons are railing against people being somewhat AFK while they AFK mine their moons and bot mine their asteroids with greater safety then anyone in highsec could dream of.



1) It's actually the miners who say that in response to suggestions that they fit a tank, and they're unhappy (and wrong about it).

2) Holding a Tech moon requires a large fleet. Having a large fleet on hand to defend the POS doesn't sound like something that's particularly AFK to me...
Your reading comprehension skills need some extensive training. Time and again it's the gankers making the statement not the gankees..

All of one moon has been seriously challenged in how long?



I like how they continue to suggest that needing a fleet means that a game mechanic is not broken.Pirate But they also ignore how having an infinite isk tap helps to build a large fleet and helps get the attention of players looking for a piece of that action to help them defend it.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#68 - 2012-06-02 18:02:49 UTC
AllUrIskRBelongToMeToo wrote:
So what you are saying is that you have numbers that are meaningless because it does not actually track what you are trying to suggest it does, all while saying that you know it does not .......are you serious?
I'm serious.

You are not. If you were, you would have read what I wrote rather than invent your own truth.

What I'm saying is that the numbers we have doesn't count the thing that people who like to quote those numbers claim they count. No, 70% of players do not live in highsec. A completely unknown and unknowable percentage of players live in highsec.

Nice strawman, though. No, wait. It was actually pretty awful.
Roisin Saoirse
Doomheim
#69 - 2012-06-02 18:03:56 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Those statistics, like all that have been published before and after it, only count characters — not players (and the fanfest economy presentaiton has the latest snapshot).

Players ≠ characters. As always, a case can easily be made that the ~70% character portion in highsec actually translates into there being less than 40% highsec players.

Interesting. Thanks, I didn't see the Fanfest presentation mentioning this. Yeah sorry, by 'active population' I was referring to the individual players rather than the characters and alts, but that was badly worded. The issue also applies to nullsec though, as there are a number of people with more than one character residing in nullsec and often in the same corp/alliance. So really all the numbers we're given are meaningless, which is a shame and leads to a lot of confusion/frustration when trying to 'prove' anything one way or the other.

I wonder if CCP can even find out the information regarding the percentage of player action by sec/region rather than by character?
Roisin Saoirse
Doomheim
#70 - 2012-06-02 18:07:35 UTC
AllUrIskRBelongToMeToo wrote:
So what you are saying is that you have numbers that are meaningless because it does not actually track what you are trying to suggest it does, all while saying that you know it does not .......are you serious? You do realize with your logic that we could actually say that the 30% in 0.0, or whatever pecentage it is is really 10% as many people have active scouts, as in accounts that they use to scout out a system before they fly their acting main account into it, and inactive scouts that sit cloaked in a system for whatever reason. But...then again by your estimates and soft numbers we could be looking at 5% of the actual player base is out in 0.0 becaus there are going to be people with 10 accounts/characters out in 0.0.

This is the issue with the numbers that have been presented. For the context we want, the statistics that have been presented are useless. If everyone could only have a single character on an account, and only a single account, then the figures would be accurate. CCP only seems to track characters though, not accounts, so we're left guessing and interpreting the figures almost randomly. What?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#71 - 2012-06-02 18:11:44 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
The Groundskeeper wrote:
Moons give minerals, not isk. The isk faucet that we drink from is that of hulk miners in highsec who can't be bothered to take care of their expensive toys by fitting a tank or watching local for hostiles.
That's funny because in thread after thread where people are asking how to properly fit a tank to a hulk and suggestions are made the gankers always respond with "IT DOESN"T MATTER WHAT TANK YOU FIT CAUSE YOU"RE DEAD".. So your little talking point is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


I do find it extremely funny that the goons are railing against people being somewhat AFK while they AFK mine their moons and bot mine their asteroids with greater safety then anyone in highsec could dream of.



1) It's actually the miners who say that in response to suggestions that they fit a tank, and they're unhappy (and wrong about it).

2) Holding a Tech moon requires a large fleet. Having a large fleet on hand to defend the POS doesn't sound like something that's particularly AFK to me...
Your reading comprehension skills need some extensive training. Time and again it's the gankers making the statement not the gankees..

All of one moon has been seriously challenged in how long?


1) Bull.

2) Couple months. But that's only because of the large fleets the owners have fielded every single time one has been.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#72 - 2012-06-02 18:12:09 UTC
Roisin Saoirse wrote:
I wonder if CCP can even find out the information regarding the percentage of player action by sec/region rather than by character?
They can probably estimate it, but they'd have a hard time figuring out which region a player associates himself with anyway. Yes, he has 14 highsec PI/industry alts, but he considers himself a lowsec pirate (which fills up that final 15th character slot).

…but more than that, the tricky part is that the whole “48,129% lives in highsec, woe is us!” whine relies on the notion that all of those who live there want the same thing on matters such as seclevel balance, security, activities, reward levels, and whatever else is their pet peeve. Even if 70% of the players actually lived in highsec, what is the percentage that feels that highsec is being unfairly treated by CCP? How many of them think that nullsec is a bigger problem that requires more developer attention? How many of them think highsec actually needs to be even more unsafe, low-rewarding, activity-restricted etc.?


We haven't even gotten past that first bit about getting any kind of useful population metric — the actually difficult bit that lays beyond that never even comes up, and that's the bit that really matters…
AllUrIskRBelongToMeToo
NuclearSpaceFishCapitalism
#73 - 2012-06-02 18:19:13 UTC
Tippia wrote:
AllUrIskRBelongToMeToo wrote:
So what you are saying is that you have numbers that are meaningless because it does not actually track what you are trying to suggest it does, all while saying that you know it does not .......are you serious?
I'm serious.

You are not. If you were, you would have read what I wrote rather than invent your own truth.

What I'm saying is that the numbers we have doesn't count the thing that people who like to quote those numbers claim they count. No, 70% of players do not live in highsec. A completely unknown and unknowable percentage of players live in highsec.

Nice strawman, though. No, wait. It was actually pretty awful.


No, you came over here with your baseless numbers attempting to act as though you know what you are talking about. I am serious at how seriously flawed your point was. It does not matter if I laughed at you the entire time clowning your statement because your statement is false at best. How serious you are about what you are suggesting lends no credibility to your point.

I am enjoying these half baked attempts at tossing out names of logical fallicies when the individual doing so blatantly employs exactly what they accuse others of doing.

What the readers of this thread who can follow a train of thought are going to be left asking themselves how does the true number, theorized, or even outright falsified of players in one security level of space or another matters to the discussion of the proposed changes in the original post.

Keep swinging away at those strawmen, maybe you might actually hit one. Maybe then you can try and get to the actual discussion at hand.Twisted
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2012-06-02 18:20:17 UTC
AllUrIskRBelongToMeToo wrote:
hahah, you continue to prove how big of a fool you really are. ...If you were to actually do so your vapid statements would...fall apart. Those with the reading comprehension of an 8 year old will see past your meaningless, and baseless statements.

But again, please try again.

Wow You describe yourself so well.

"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#75 - 2012-06-02 18:25:24 UTC
AllUrIskRBelongToMeToo wrote:
No, you came over here with your baseless numbers
…except that my numbers are not baseless.

You're confusing me with you.

I came over here with CCP's official numbers, based on their collection methods, and then explained that the people quoting them were quoting them wrong. I didn't attempt to act as though I knew what I was talking about; knew what I was talking about and pointed out that those quoting the number incorrectly did not.

Your insistence on using strawmen, ad hominems, appeals to (unproven) authority, red herrings, and whatever fallacy you manage to dredge out next doesn't change this very simple fact: no, 70% of players do not live in highsec — the percentage of players living in highsec is unknown and unknowable.
ashley Eoner
#76 - 2012-06-02 18:25:37 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
The Groundskeeper wrote:
Moons give minerals, not isk. The isk faucet that we drink from is that of hulk miners in highsec who can't be bothered to take care of their expensive toys by fitting a tank or watching local for hostiles.
That's funny because in thread after thread where people are asking how to properly fit a tank to a hulk and suggestions are made the gankers always respond with "IT DOESN"T MATTER WHAT TANK YOU FIT CAUSE YOU"RE DEAD".. So your little talking point is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


I do find it extremely funny that the goons are railing against people being somewhat AFK while they AFK mine their moons and bot mine their asteroids with greater safety then anyone in highsec could dream of.



1) It's actually the miners who say that in response to suggestions that they fit a tank, and they're unhappy (and wrong about it).

2) Holding a Tech moon requires a large fleet. Having a large fleet on hand to defend the POS doesn't sound like something that's particularly AFK to me...
Your reading comprehension skills need some extensive training. Time and again it's the gankers making the statement not the gankees..

All of one moon has been seriously challenged in how long?


1) Bull.

2) Couple months. But that's only because of the large fleets the owners have fielded every single time one has been.

Hell a goon admitted earlier that they are even botting hulkageddon by automating payouts..
AllUrIskRBelongToMeToo
NuclearSpaceFishCapitalism
#77 - 2012-06-02 18:26:09 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Roisin Saoirse wrote:
I wonder if CCP can even find out the information regarding the percentage of player action by sec/region rather than by character?
They can probably estimate it, but they'd have a hard time figuring out which region a player associates himself with anyway. Yes, he has 14 highsec PI/industry alts, but he considers himself a lowsec pirate (which fills up that final 15th character slot).

…but more than that, the tricky part is that the whole “48,129% lives in highsec, woe is us!” whine relies on the notion that all of those who live there want the same thing on matters such as seclevel balance, security, activities, reward levels, and whatever else is their pet peeve. Even if 70% of the players actually lived in highsec, what is the percentage that feels that highsec is being unfairly treated by CCP? How many of them think that nullsec is a bigger problem that requires more developer attention? How many of them think highsec actually needs to be even more unsafe, low-rewarding, activity-restricted etc.?


We haven't even gotten past that first bit about getting any kind of useful population metric — the actually difficult bit that lays beyond that never even comes up, and that's the bit that really matters…



You are still rambling on about this strawman of yours? Lets cut through your stupid crap and say that even if 100% of the player base was in null sec, the point you are trying to make is absolutely meaningless to what I proposed in my original post. 1-100% of the player base living in 0.0 does not rectify the problem with a busted game mechanic that does not fit the image of what CCP is trying to forge. 0% in 0.0 would mean that the problem is effectively neutralized as no one is there to profit off of it. As soon as someone does go out there and set up a means to harvest away does the problem come back into play and is a just target for questioning.

can you make your next strawman a bit more puffy? I would like a pillow as you continue to bore me to sleep with your asinine argument and flimsy numbers and imaginary formulas for finding the true number of players in 0.0 and empire.
AllUrIskRBelongToMeToo
NuclearSpaceFishCapitalism
#78 - 2012-06-02 18:27:46 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:

1) Bull.

2) Couple months. But that's only because of the large fleets the owners have fielded every single time one has been.

Hell a goon admitted earlier that they are even botting hulkageddon by automating payouts..[/quote]


Awesome.Lol The hypocrisy continues. Most amusing.P
Roisin Saoirse
Doomheim
#79 - 2012-06-02 18:30:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Roisin Saoirse
ashley Eoner wrote:
Hell a goon admitted earlier that they are even botting hulkageddon by automating payouts..

As I understood it, the only automation was in collating killmail/API info to help keep track of the bounty payouts. That isn't botting, since the actual payouts are handled by a real person.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#80 - 2012-06-02 18:31:50 UTC
AllUrIskRBelongToMeToo wrote:
You are still rambling on about this strawman of yours?
What strawman?

Quote:
1-100% of the player base living in 0.0 does not rectify the problem with a busted game mechanic that does not fit the image of what CCP is trying to forge.
What's busted about it? Your OP started out with a completely incorrect statement and it didn't become any better-informed after that.