These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Carebear Entitlement: The Decadence of the Modern Era

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#181 - 2012-11-01 15:10:55 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
KrakizBad wrote:
Does an iota include multiple pages of you ranting for everyone else's game to be altered to satisfy your own playstyle?


Did you miss the part where I said I don't care one way or the other? I'm sorry, let me pick up where you jumped to conclusions from.

All I tried to make a case for was that bumping should come with either a kill right or collision damage, and that's all I've ever said. If you don't like the game being altered for better balance, then I might suggest that it is you who is upset that the game doesn't suit your playstyle.

But it doesn't affect my playstyle one iota Blink


Bumping hasnt been a problem for the past decade. Same as how exhumers tanked just fine for the past 7 years. This new generation of bear are just useless and are trying to destroy the EVE we all love to play and turn it into yet another risk free, hold your hand MMO.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#182 - 2012-11-01 15:14:41 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
KrakizBad wrote:
Does an iota include multiple pages of you ranting for everyone else's game to be altered to satisfy your own playstyle?


Did you miss the part where I said I don't care one way or the other? I'm sorry, let me pick up where you jumped to conclusions from.

All I tried to make a case for was that bumping should come with either a kill right or collision damage, and that's all I've ever said. If you don't like the game being altered for better balance, then I might suggest that it is you who is upset that the game doesn't suit your playstyle.

But it doesn't affect my playstyle one iota Blink


Do you even read what you write? How do you know it's "better balance" for one thing? And how does a dumb change mean Krakiz is upset that it doesn't fit his "play style"?

People like Krakiz and myself most likely believe the game is fine as is (though we understand there is always room for positive improvement), it's folks like you who dislike what, if you really think about it, is the core, the spirit of the game.

"collision damage" for the purpose of preventing miner bumping is anti-competition (because it makes it harder to disrupt the activities of people producing/harvesting in-game things like minerals. IMO EVE doesn't need more things to dampen any form of competition or interaction, it's MORE way to do these things, like a laser people can shoot at asteroids to make them harder to mine or something (never gonna happen, just saying).
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#183 - 2012-11-01 15:18:31 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
KrakizBad wrote:
Does an iota include multiple pages of you ranting for everyone else's game to be altered to satisfy your own playstyle?


Did you miss the part where I said I don't care one way or the other? I'm sorry, let me pick up where you jumped to conclusions from.

All I tried to make a case for was that bumping should come with either a kill right or collision damage, and that's all I've ever said. If you don't like the game being altered for better balance, then I might suggest that it is you who is upset that the game doesn't suit your playstyle.

But it doesn't affect my playstyle one iota Blink


Bumping hasnt been a problem for the past decade. Same as how exhumers tanked just fine for the past 7 years. This new generation of bear are just useless and are trying to destroy the EVE we all love to play and turn it into yet another risk free, hold your hand MMO.


I can't personally speak for the past decade, only what I've seen in the forums, so I can't say I understand your frustration, but I can understand where it comes from. There are a lot of miners complaining in the forums and I don't agree with a lot of what they complain about either, but I don't generally agree with whining at all. I also have no real problem with bumping, personally, and i can say it doesn't affect me in the slightest at this stage, but for a game such as this, any changes that are made are going to affect everyone, and I honestly can't think of one reason why one ship running into another shouldn't realistically incur some penalty, at least in the form of some damage. Perhaps this may then trigger a kill right or an agro, depending on the circumstances. Stations can be set up in such a way that warping to one and accidentally bumping it doesn't incur such a penalty. That's the beauty of programming a sandbox - there are virtually limitless ways in which things can be setup to accomplish certain tasks.

That being said, I am on my 8th beer at the moment, it's just after 1am, and I need to actually bow out this time, not just say I will and then not :p

I have no real objections to any side of the debate, and both sides present valid points - what needs to be developed is some measure of compromise, which can only be accomplished when both sides stop hating on the other and actually start *discussing* the problems they have instead of *accusing* the other side of creating them.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Anslo
Scope Works
#184 - 2012-11-01 15:20:05 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
"collision damage" for the purpose of preventing miner bumping is anti-competition (because it makes it harder to disrupt the activities of people producing/harvesting in-game things like minerals. IMO EVE doesn't need more things to dampen any form of competition or interaction, it's MORE way to do these things, like a laser people can shoot at asteroids to make them harder to mine or something (never gonna happen, just saying).


While I did say arguing is a waste of energy here I will comment on the above. Collision damage=bad. That is really against what Eve is. But the previously discussed idea that an anchoring module for miners is much more balanced than simply "nerfing bumpers."

For instance, the anchor keeps you from being bumped...but you can't move for 3-5 minutes, much like a cyno. You can mine your heart out, but just can't move. Tank and yield subtraction or something could be discussed but still...

Should mining be risk free?...no.
Should miners have a defense that suits their play style while being balanced and non-game breaking? Absolutely.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#185 - 2012-11-01 15:20:16 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
KrakizBad wrote:
Does an iota include multiple pages of you ranting for everyone else's game to be altered to satisfy your own playstyle?


Did you miss the part where I said I don't care one way or the other? I'm sorry, let me pick up where you jumped to conclusions from.

All I tried to make a case for was that bumping should come with either a kill right or collision damage, and that's all I've ever said. If you don't like the game being altered for better balance, then I might suggest that it is you who is upset that the game doesn't suit your playstyle.

But it doesn't affect my playstyle one iota Blink


Bumping hasnt been a problem for the past decade. Same as how exhumers tanked just fine for the past 7 years. This new generation of bear are just useless and are trying to destroy the EVE we all love to play and turn it into yet another risk free, hold your hand MMO.


I tend to disagree with such statements, as I tend to believe that there is "nothing new under the sun" as the old saying goes. I tend to think that the entitled risk-averse, have-it-my-way types have always been a part of EVE and every other game I've ever played.

But this time I honestly think you might be right, it does seem to be an uptick in people asking for more protections and more ways to NOT have to interact or suffer negative consequences. It's a shame that some people hate conflict so much they even avoid it in video games centered on conflict....
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#186 - 2012-11-01 15:22:07 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
KrakizBad wrote:
Does an iota include multiple pages of you ranting for everyone else's game to be altered to satisfy your own playstyle?


Did you miss the part where I said I don't care one way or the other? I'm sorry, let me pick up where you jumped to conclusions from.

All I tried to make a case for was that bumping should come with either a kill right or collision damage, and that's all I've ever said. If you don't like the game being altered for better balance, then I might suggest that it is you who is upset that the game doesn't suit your playstyle.

But it doesn't affect my playstyle one iota Blink


Do you even read what you write? How do you know it's "better balance" for one thing? And how does a dumb change mean Krakiz is upset that it doesn't fit his "play style"?

People like Krakiz and myself most likely believe the game is fine as is (though we understand there is always room for positive improvement), it's folks like you who dislike what, if you really think about it, is the core, the spirit of the game.

"collision damage" for the purpose of preventing miner bumping is anti-competition (because it makes it harder to disrupt the activities of people producing/harvesting in-game things like minerals. IMO EVE doesn't need more things to dampen any form of competition or interaction, it's MORE way to do these things, like a laser people can shoot at asteroids to make them harder to mine or something (never gonna happen, just saying).


"Folks like me" don't care one way or the other, as I've stated numerous times. Seriously, can you pinpoint the part of that quote where I stated "I don't care one way or the other". I also don't care for your snide little diversions from the point I'm making - all it shows is that you miss the point I'm making. You aren't here for discussion, you're here to make your opinion heard and completely devalue anything that opposes it as if it's worthless. Well I'm terribly sorry, but your failure at civil discourse is why your opinion means nothing to ME.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Anslo
Scope Works
#187 - 2012-11-01 15:26:11 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
You aren't here for discussion, you're here to make your opinion heard and completely devalue anything that opposes it as if it's worthless. Well I'm terribly sorry, but your failure at civil discourse is why your opinion means nothing to ME.


Well in Jenna's defense...that is what a forum is for. Lol

Either way, don't get so upset Comrade Remiel. If you are really against it, you can do something about it! Many are! Take that anger and frustration and turn it into constructive energy!

o7

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#188 - 2012-11-01 15:26:21 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
and I honestly can't think of one reason why one ship running into another shouldn't realistically incur some penalty, at least in the form of some damage. Perhaps this may then trigger a kill right or an agro, depending on the circumstances. Stations can be set up in such a way that warping to one and accidentally bumping it doesn't incur such a penalty. That's the beauty of programming a sandbox - there are virtually limitless ways in which things can be setup to accomplish certain tasks.


And no need to set up any such thing.

EVE ships do not damage each other from bumping (or exploding). Anyone who wants collision or splash damage should not be playing EVE, as those things are against the establish way of the game. Honestly, it's like listening to the nimrods who want Newtonian physics in EVE, it's preposterous.

Quote:

I have no real objections to any side of the debate, and both sides present valid points - what needs to be developed is some measure of compromise, which can only be accomplished when both sides stop hating on the other and actually start *discussing* the problems they have instead of *accusing* the other side of creating them.


Just like you don't negotiate with terrorists, you don't "compromise" with anti-conflict, anti-nonconsensual pvp, pro-safet-in-a-sandbox types in a game about conflict,pvp and danger. THEY should adapt to fit the game, the game should not shift to fit them.
KrakizBad
Section 8.
#189 - 2012-11-01 15:26:49 UTC
Yes, you clearly don't care.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#190 - 2012-11-01 15:27:53 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:


I can't personally speak for the past decade, only what I've seen in the forums, so I can't say I understand your frustration, but I can understand where it comes from. There are a lot of miners complaining in the forums and I don't agree with a lot of what they complain about either, but I don't generally agree with whining at all. I also have no real problem with bumping, personally, and i can say it doesn't affect me in the slightest at this stage, but for a game such as this, any changes that are made are going to affect everyone, and I honestly can't think of one reason why one ship running into another shouldn't realistically incur some penalty, at least in the form of some damage. Perhaps this may then trigger a kill right or an agro, depending on the circumstances. Stations can be set up in such a way that warping to one and accidentally bumping it doesn't incur such a penalty. That's the beauty of programming a sandbox - there are virtually limitless ways in which things can be setup to accomplish certain tasks.

That being said, I am on my 8th beer at the moment, it's just after 1am, and I need to actually bow out this time, not just say I will and then not :p

I have no real objections to any side of the debate, and both sides present valid points - what needs to be developed is some measure of compromise, which can only be accomplished when both sides stop hating on the other and actually start *discussing* the problems they have instead of *accusing* the other side of creating them.


While sitting there drunk think about your idea for damage when bumping. Now picture the jita undock, with Bat Country sitting in a wall of brick tank abaddons on the undock. Picture the pileup as freighters crash into us, building a bigger wall. Frigates getting crushed in the chaos, the screams of rage as a badger gets pancaked by two colliding navy ravens...

You giggled a bit.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#191 - 2012-11-01 15:28:57 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
KrakizBad wrote:
Does an iota include multiple pages of you ranting for everyone else's game to be altered to satisfy your own playstyle?


Did you miss the part where I said I don't care one way or the other? I'm sorry, let me pick up where you jumped to conclusions from.

All I tried to make a case for was that bumping should come with either a kill right or collision damage, and that's all I've ever said. If you don't like the game being altered for better balance, then I might suggest that it is you who is upset that the game doesn't suit your playstyle.

But it doesn't affect my playstyle one iota Blink


Do you even read what you write? How do you know it's "better balance" for one thing? And how does a dumb change mean Krakiz is upset that it doesn't fit his "play style"?

People like Krakiz and myself most likely believe the game is fine as is (though we understand there is always room for positive improvement), it's folks like you who dislike what, if you really think about it, is the core, the spirit of the game.

"collision damage" for the purpose of preventing miner bumping is anti-competition (because it makes it harder to disrupt the activities of people producing/harvesting in-game things like minerals. IMO EVE doesn't need more things to dampen any form of competition or interaction, it's MORE way to do these things, like a laser people can shoot at asteroids to make them harder to mine or something (never gonna happen, just saying).


"Folks like me" don't care one way or the other, as I've stated numerous times. Seriously, can you pinpoint the part of that quote where I stated "I don't care one way or the other". I also don't care for your snide little diversions from the point I'm making - all it shows is that you miss the point I'm making. You aren't here for discussion, you're here to make your opinion heard and completely devalue anything that opposes it as if it's worthless. Well I'm terribly sorry, but your failure at civil discourse is why your opinion means nothing to ME.


rofl you don't care but you keep posting after the 3rd or 4th time you said you were done. Typical of your type, no amount of explaining why your wrong is sufficient.

Good thing i'm not trying to convince you, my posts are for the rest of our fellow players, most of whom understand the game we are playing and like it like it is.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#192 - 2012-11-01 15:30:54 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
You aren't here for discussion, you're here to make your opinion heard and completely devalue anything that opposes it as if it's worthless.


And i'm succeeding :). CCP where is my forum pvp certificate?

Quote:
Well I'm terribly sorry, but your failure at civil discourse is why your opinion means nothing to ME.


Good thing YOU don't matter lol.
Reticle
Sight Picture
#193 - 2012-11-01 15:32:33 UTC
While you're busy bitching about carebears mining **** rocks for **** money, null sec residents are botting the **** out of the game. Take your bullshit trolling and go destroy some of the assholes RMT'ing trillions of ISK.

http://lowseclifestyle.blogspot.com/2012/10/eve-vegas-ccp-stillman-discusses-bots.html
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#194 - 2012-11-01 15:32:51 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:


I can't personally speak for the past decade, only what I've seen in the forums, so I can't say I understand your frustration, but I can understand where it comes from. There are a lot of miners complaining in the forums and I don't agree with a lot of what they complain about either, but I don't generally agree with whining at all. I also have no real problem with bumping, personally, and i can say it doesn't affect me in the slightest at this stage, but for a game such as this, any changes that are made are going to affect everyone, and I honestly can't think of one reason why one ship running into another shouldn't realistically incur some penalty, at least in the form of some damage. Perhaps this may then trigger a kill right or an agro, depending on the circumstances. Stations can be set up in such a way that warping to one and accidentally bumping it doesn't incur such a penalty. That's the beauty of programming a sandbox - there are virtually limitless ways in which things can be setup to accomplish certain tasks.

That being said, I am on my 8th beer at the moment, it's just after 1am, and I need to actually bow out this time, not just say I will and then not :p

I have no real objections to any side of the debate, and both sides present valid points - what needs to be developed is some measure of compromise, which can only be accomplished when both sides stop hating on the other and actually start *discussing* the problems they have instead of *accusing* the other side of creating them.


While sitting there drunk think about your idea for damage when bumping. Now picture the jita undock, with Bat Country sitting in a wall of brick tank abaddons on the undock. Picture the pileup as freighters crash into us, building a bigger wall. Frigates getting crushed in the chaos, the screams of rage as a badger gets pancaked by two colliding navy ravens...

You giggled a bit.


Yep.... you got me P

See, this makes sense. This is the kind of discussion that SHOULD be had, and these are the kind of points that need to be made. Legitimate arguments with merit - if the miners complaining about bumping don't understand this, then that's their problem.

Still......

I would giggle a lot more if collision damage was on and someone made a movie of what you just described for YouTube P

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#195 - 2012-11-01 15:34:36 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
You aren't here for discussion, you're here to make your opinion heard and completely devalue anything that opposes it as if it's worthless.


And i'm succeeding :). CCP where is my forum pvp certificate?

Quote:
Well I'm terribly sorry, but your failure at civil discourse is why your opinion means nothing to ME.


Good thing YOU don't matter lol.


Troll away, silly kid, the feeling is mutual Blink

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#196 - 2012-11-01 15:35:01 UTC
Reticle wrote:
While you're busy bitching about carebears mining **** rocks for **** money, null sec residents are botting the **** out of the game. Take your bullshit trolling and go destroy some of the assholes RMT'ing trillions of ISK.

http://lowseclifestyle.blogspot.com/2012/10/eve-vegas-ccp-stillman-discusses-bots.html


I kill bots all the time and while warping though systems I used to d-scan of faction/officer wrecks, but i guess the bots got so good they scoop those now.

Talk about a Fallacy, what proof do you have that we AREN"T hunting bots in null sec?
Anslo
Scope Works
#197 - 2012-11-01 15:38:20 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Reticle wrote:
While you're busy bitching about carebears mining **** rocks for **** money, null sec residents are botting the **** out of the game. Take your bullshit trolling and go destroy some of the assholes RMT'ing trillions of ISK.

http://lowseclifestyle.blogspot.com/2012/10/eve-vegas-ccp-stillman-discusses-bots.html


I kill bots all the time and while warping though systems I used to d-scan of faction/officer wrecks, but i guess the bots got so good they scoop those now.

Talk about a Fallacy, what proof do you have that we AREN"T hunting bots in null sec?


Well can you blame him? If one looks at the forums as the voice of major opinion in Eve, most people are talking/ranting about high sec, miners, and how individuals unwinding in the real world are a threat to everything they hold dear Shocked

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#198 - 2012-11-01 15:38:32 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:

Yep.... you got me P

See, this makes sense. This is the kind of discussion that SHOULD be had, and these are the kind of points that need to be made. Legitimate arguments with merit - if the miners complaining about bumping don't understand this, then that's their problem.
P


If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. You choose to post in General Deiscussion yet you don't like how people post in General discussion. I'm sensing a theme about you lol.

It's funny, your almost the poster child for the personality type we don't like, rather than admit you're wrong, you criticize the way people are telling you you're wrong, which is simply a dodge, a bald-faced attempt to protect a fragile ego from the big bad mean forum posters.

And it's pathetic.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#199 - 2012-11-01 15:43:03 UTC
Reticle wrote:
While you're busy bitching about carebears mining **** rocks for **** money, null sec residents are botting the **** out of the game. Take your bullshit trolling and go destroy some of the assholes RMT'ing trillions of ISK.

http://lowseclifestyle.blogspot.com/2012/10/eve-vegas-ccp-stillman-discusses-bots.html


By far the largest cluster of bots live in high sec, mostly in the forge and lonetrek areas. Thanks to the bears, we can no longer deal with these scum in the belts.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#200 - 2012-11-01 15:43:16 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:

Yep.... you got me P

See, this makes sense. This is the kind of discussion that SHOULD be had, and these are the kind of points that need to be made. Legitimate arguments with merit - if the miners complaining about bumping don't understand this, then that's their problem.
P


If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. You choose to post in General Deiscussion yet you don't like how people post in General discussion. I'm sensing a theme about you lol.

It's funny, your almost the poster child for the personality type we don't like, rather than admit you're wrong, you criticize the way people are telling you you're wrong, which is simply a dodge, a bald-faced attempt to protect a fragile ego from the big bad mean forum posters.

And it's pathetic.


Oh, I'm sensing a theme about you, too.

"Play eve this way, or else."

"Post in GD this way, or else."

I don't care how you post, frankly, but someone that delivers a legitimate argument with merit is going to carry far more weight with me than someone who's just childishly expatiating diatribe about my personal character. The fact that I CAN admit I'm wrong, and have demonstrated an ability to shift my opinion based on new evidence argued with merit and intelligence should demonstrate to anyone WITH some intelligence and maturity that my ego has nothing to do with it. However, you post like you speak for the masses, throwing around the word "we" as if you have multiple personalities. You also don't seem to get that my post, which you quoted, was conceding a point, in direct contradiction to your claim that I'm somehow worried about my ego.

the epeen is strong in this one.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104