EVE General Discussion

It's as if you have advanced knowledge on this subject.

I'd vote for you.

yeah uh i just ran three freighters loaded with trit on my hisec alt

let me tell you about the "double wrap everything" philosophy

yeah so many ganking gangs would kill for an all-or-nothing chance at a <600M ISK drop that has to be hauled with freighter

Warp titans into a subcap fleet at 0, nothing could possibly go wrong.

No, you are putting words in my mouth that I have not said. The above is not my position.



"the Jita-undock counter". Is there a canonical form of this counter you are referencing? If there is, then I've already said that presented properly, referencing Jita undock is not a strawman, and theoretically, the canonical form you are referring to is done properly, so everything you're saying seems to be completely irrelevant to anything I've said. If there isn't such a canonical form, then you are speaking so nonspecifically that I have no reply other than to say I have no specific reply to your vague statements. Or did you want me to fill in the exact arguments for the anti and pro-collision crowds, so that I can fill them to make everything come out correctly? Or did you want me to search through the forums for specific examples? The simple fact that you've referred to the 'pro-collision crowd' makes me realize that there's no way this debate will end productively. You want to talk about mob argumentation, whereas I'm trying to talk about arguments one person,and one argument, at a time. You can't reason with a mob.




yes, both of those statements are naive, making the second naive statement proper in that it copies the same reference model as the statement it replies to. Are you implying that the explicit position of "make collisions do damage" is the best argument in favor of collision damage? That would be a strawman if you were :)

"A strawman is an attack on an argument that looks close to the opposing position but which the opposition have never actually said. "

That is a problematically vague definition, as on the eve-o forums (or pretty much anywhere humans are found), it's always possible to define 'the opposition" as including a bunch of horrible arguments, and replying to those horrible arguments as if they were substantive while in a reasonable discussion would constitute a strawman, even though someone belonging to 'the opposition' said it.

But then you aren't autopiloting in peace. That's lame.

I'd pay to watch that tbh.

Yes, since naval ships in the real world never crash into other ships, certainly not just a few months ago. http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/12/world/us-japan-navy-ship-collision/index.html

Would implementing collisions be difficult? Yes. Do I have a good model to suggest? No. If CCP did comprehensively revamp the mechanics so that collisions were possible, would that create a more aesthetically pleasing experience than the current bugswarms of ships locked on an anchor? Yes. Would that create more skill, fight against the blob that so many disparage, give individual pilots more to do than simply hit F1? Yes. Would it create a more realistic AoE model than the current one? Yes.

Hells yes crashing ships mechanics will be awesome. I don't think EVE will ever implement it, but I think another game, perhaps one in which large fleet movements have some kind of AI to model individual ship movement in formations, will indeed have it, and people will look back at EVE and say "wow, that was a great game 20 years ago, but so unrealistic without collision damage".

"I, too, want to fleetwarp with 256 other people and throw the dice whether or not I survive the collisions. "

You would deserve to die, if you did something that you knew would kill you.

" I, too, want to warp at 0 on an enemy fleet and see which of the two sides get hit the hardest. "

kamikazi warfare did actually happen IRL, you know. It would obviously have to be balanced properly, just like every other feature of the game.

"I, too, want to bump and grind up against other dreads, carriers, supercarriers and titans every time we travel from system to system."

That's weird. Why would you want that?

"I, too, want to see who gets closest to death just from colliding with other ships every time we undock from a station or safe up in a POS or maneuver in fleet etc etc etc."

It's too bad people on Earth, with only 2 dimensions of freedom instead of 3 in EVE, can't dock in seaports or maneuver in fleets. With the extra dimension of freedom to move in EVE, there's more potential for things to go right, and also more complexity allowing for things to go wrong. Luckily, with the advances in technology over the next centuries, they'll be able to do these complex tasks that are currently beyond the human race.

tl;dr: I love to make fun of carebears for afk'ing and doing simple activities, but any change that would no longer allow the FC to both move and warp the entire fleet in nullsec combat would be horrible, because then I couldn't afk and fleet combat wouldn't be simple for the average combantant anymore.

Fleetwarp and anchoring is so similar to autopilot, if you could only see it :)

Worse, they're targeting anyone carrying ~too much stuff~