These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Highsec "Carebear" representation from the CSM?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Frying Doom
#181 - 2012-12-11 08:13:25 UTC
Imports Plus wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Imports Plus wrote:
Still waiting for someone to articulate the issues currently facing highsec today.... lets hear it boys

You mean besides the


  • Current problems faced by mission runners
  • The destruction on the Hi-sec markets the CSMs current plan to fix Null sec would achieve
  • The possibility that CCP is looking to nerf hi-sec by 10% to make the rest of the game seem more appealing
  • The very fact that in the current CSM structure a Hi-sec member is required to tow the line or be mocked. Giving Hi-sec no voice.
  • The lack of ease to expand markets into Null sec without being a member of those Alliances
  • Poor Market interface for traders
  • The ease of access of -10 pirates into a supposedly policed area.


Those are just off the top of my head and I am not primarily a Hi-sec player, so am sure that dedicated hi-sec players could give you a lot better reasons.


So go back to the neanderthal NPC AI in missions to the delight of drones everywhere, dont do anything about manufacturing or mining in null because Jita might burp, vague murmurings about nerfing highsec, CSM structure in itself is anti-highsec, let highsec dudes sell in 0.0 risk-free because all goods in 0.0 arent bought in highsec to begin with, do something with the market UI and dont let -10 dudes in highsec even in a pod?

Why havent Kelduum and Issler been all over this, these issues are pretty reasonable What?

Or rather than over reacting, they might instead alter the current mission format so as to prevent full room agro with the new AI, balance the mining and manufacturing to reduce the dependance on hi-sec without removing Hi-secs largest customer, make Null sec bottom up funded, put in a couple of low, hi-sec islands into sov space, as to -10 actions have consequences at the moment it is not much of one.

See done without sounding like a 2 year old that is screaming for its mummy.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#182 - 2012-12-11 08:22:21 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
IMHO a 'high sec' CSM would be one whom advocates a better balance of actual content over cheap ass 'emergent' gameplay which has brought server populations down since the introduction of Incursions http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility
while this 'emergent' focus may be cheaper in the short run business wise we've seen a decline in active numbers... I can't see this as a viable business modelmuch longer

I also hope that more content is bottom up so we see more stakeholders in Eve
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
AndromacheDarkstar
Integrated Insterstellar Holdings
#183 - 2012-12-11 08:23:16 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Imports Plus wrote:
Still waiting for someone to articulate the issues currently facing highsec today.... lets hear it boys

You mean besides the


  • Current problems faced by mission runners
  • The destruction on he the Hi-sec markets the CSMs current plan to fix Null sec would achieve
  • The possibility that CCP is looking to nerf hi-sec by 10% to make the rest of the game seem more appealing
  • The very fact that in the current CSM structure a Hi-sec member is required to tow the line or be mocked. Giving Hi-sec no voice.
  • The lack of ease to expand markets into Null sec without being a member of those Alliances
  • Poor Market interface for traders
  • The ease of access of -10 pirates into a supposedly policed area.


Those are just off the top of my head and I am not primarily a Hi-sec player, so am sure that dedicated hi-sec players could give you a lot better reasons.


Wow that feels allot like you really struggled to come up with a list that long, lets take a close look shall we.

"Current problems faced by mission runners" - they make too much isk with no risk, i struggle to see the issue. Missions are pretty boring but then this is a multiplayer game. maybe you can be a tad more specific

"The destruction on he the Hi-sec markets the CSMs current plan to fix Null sec would achieve" - Where did this one come from, i have no idea how they plan on destroying the market and i struggle to see why they would aim for this. 90% if not more of the player base have regular interactions with the market hubs. Again can you be more specific.

"The possibility that CCP is looking to nerf hi-sec by 10% to make the rest of the game seem more appealing" - ten precent is not enough, but i would argue ten percent is also a completly bullshit figure you plucked from no where. As it stands hi sec is to safe and to rich. People need to be forced into low and null to cause player interaction.

"The very fact that in the current CSM structure a Hi-sec member is required to tow the line or be mocked. Giving Hi-sec no voice." - Every member of the CSM should be working as hard as people like Selene and Hans, they should all be voicing their opinions or they deserve to be mocked, publicly shamed by CCP and banned from running again. If you dont want to do the job dont run. I think the CSM strcture should change to have candidates from all the major play styles but until then if a high sec candidate dosent do the job properly then thats their problem.

"The lack of ease to expand markets into Null sec without being a member of those Alliances" - maybe just maybe you could form a corp and try and make some connections with people, start selling to them and go from there instead if feeling self entitled and waiting around wondering why its no coming to you. The problem is not the mechanics its your attitude.

"Poor Market interface for traders" - Its not poor, it works for a whole bunch of people but ill agree it could be improved allot much like the rest of the UI

"The ease of access of -10 pirates into a supposedly policed area. " - we can get in but we cant do bugger all, anyone can shoot us, concord will chase us and our actvities are limited. Show me on the doll where the pirate touched you.
Frying Doom
#184 - 2012-12-11 08:28:58 UTC
AndromacheDarkstar wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Imports Plus wrote:
Still waiting for someone to articulate the issues currently facing highsec today.... lets hear it boys

You mean besides the


  • Current problems faced by mission runners
  • The destruction on he the Hi-sec markets the CSMs current plan to fix Null sec would achieve
  • The possibility that CCP is looking to nerf hi-sec by 10% to make the rest of the game seem more appealing
  • The very fact that in the current CSM structure a Hi-sec member is required to tow the line or be mocked. Giving Hi-sec no voice.
  • The lack of ease to expand markets into Null sec without being a member of those Alliances
  • Poor Market interface for traders
  • The ease of access of -10 pirates into a supposedly policed area.


Those are just off the top of my head and I am not primarily a Hi-sec player, so am sure that dedicated hi-sec players could give you a lot better reasons.


Wow that feels allot like you really struggled to come up with a list that long, lets take a close look shall we.

"Current problems faced by mission runners" - they make too much isk with no risk, i struggle to see the issue. Missions are pretty boring but then this is a multiplayer game. maybe you can be a tad more specific

"The destruction on he the Hi-sec markets the CSMs current plan to fix Null sec would achieve" - Where did this one come from, i have no idea how they plan on destroying the market and i struggle to see why they would aim for this. 90% if not more of the player base have regular interactions with the market hubs. Again can you be more specific.

"The possibility that CCP is looking to nerf hi-sec by 10% to make the rest of the game seem more appealing" - ten precent is not enough, but i would argue ten percent is also a completly bullshit figure you plucked from no where. As it stands hi sec is to safe and to rich. People need to be forced into low and null to cause player interaction.

"The very fact that in the current CSM structure a Hi-sec member is required to tow the line or be mocked. Giving Hi-sec no voice." - Every member of the CSM should be working as hard as people like Selene and Hans, they should all be voicing their opinions or they deserve to be mocked, publicly shamed by CCP and banned from running again. If you dont want to do the job dont run. I think the CSM strcture should change to have candidates from all the major play styles but until then if a high sec candidate dosent do the job properly then thats their problem.

"The lack of ease to expand markets into Null sec without being a member of those Alliances" - maybe just maybe you could form a corp and try and make some connections with people, start selling to them and go from there instead if feeling self entitled and waiting around wondering why its no coming to you. The problem is not the mechanics its your attitude.

"Poor Market interface for traders" - Its not poor, it works for a whole bunch of people but ill agree it could be improved allot much like the rest of the UI

"The ease of access of -10 pirates into a supposedly policed area. " - we can get in but we cant do bugger all, anyone can shoot us, concord will chase us and our actvities are limited. Show me on the doll where the pirate touched you.

Once again you can tell your focus is no way near Hi-sec and frankly neither is most of mine directly.

But rather than going through all that answer one simple question like the relationship between Hi-sec and Null. What do you think would happen to China if its largest market, the United States suddenly stopped buying their goods as they suddenly started making everything them selves except only a few things, at a price cheaper than China?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#185 - 2012-12-11 08:35:04 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
AndromacheDarkstar wrote:

"The possibility that CCP is looking to nerf hi-sec by 10% to make the rest of the game seem more appealing" - ten precent is not enough, but i would argue ten percent is also a completly bullshit figure you plucked from no where.


The 10% number he came up with was from CCP Soundwave's Ten Ton interview after last fanfest concerning a question about inflation.... But where he is VERY mistaken in that CCP Soundwave proposed ALL bounties ( not just HI SEC but lo/NULL also ) would get a 10% across the board reduction ( technically though WH's would escape this since they don't have bounties but 'blue loots' )
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Frying Doom
#186 - 2012-12-11 08:37:13 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
AndromacheDarkstar wrote:

"The possibility that CCP is looking to nerf hi-sec by 10% to make the rest of the game seem more appealing" - ten precent is not enough, but i would argue ten percent is also a completly bullshit figure you plucked from no where.


The 10% number he came up with was from CCP Soundwave's Ten Ton interview after last fanfest concerning a question about inflation.... But where he is VERY mistaken in that CCP Soundwave proposed ALL bounties ( not just HI SEC but lo/NULL also ) would get a 10% across the board reduction ( technically though WH's would escape this since they don't have bounties but 'blue loots' )

Ok I stand corrected on that. Being it does not actually effect me I can honestly say I didn't read the whole thing Lol

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
SaKoil
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#187 - 2012-12-11 08:42:23 UTC
Amarra Mandalin wrote:
The bounty system is a joke, in my opinion. It (mostly) lowers the cost to make it profitable to gank a shiney. The joke is on high-sec.

The bounty system is nothing new that hasnt been done manually before, i.e. hulkageddon. If anything, the system helps lazy, non-organized bears to do similiar things without much effort.
AndromacheDarkstar
Integrated Insterstellar Holdings
#188 - 2012-12-11 08:43:58 UTC


Quote:
But rather than going through all that answer one simple question like the relationship between Hi-sec and Null. What do you think would happen to China if its largest market, the United States suddenly stopped buying their goods as they suddenly started making everything them selves except only a few things, at a price cheaper than China?


They would have to adapt, find new markets or new products. Maybe they could engineer a market for their new products or maybe they would have to tighten their belts and reign in their oppulence. If we bring this back to High/Null you soon realise that null sec already has too much isk, If a large part of their isk income was stangled the world would be a better place. Maybe losing super caps would mean something, whelping a drake fleet might over time start to actually cause problems. Or maybe you are over estimating the value of hi sec and its influence on null.
Amarra Mandalin
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#189 - 2012-12-11 08:50:26 UTC
SaKoil wrote:
Amarra Mandalin wrote:
The bounty system is a joke, in my opinion. It (mostly) lowers the cost to make it profitable to gank a shiney. The joke is on high-sec.


The bounty system is nothing new


That was kinda my point. I would have liked to have seen it be a more robust feature in theme with "retribution." But I had to laugh when someone put a huge bounty on an RvBer, so there is that.
Frying Doom
#190 - 2012-12-11 08:51:20 UTC
AndromacheDarkstar wrote:


Quote:
But rather than going through all that answer one simple question like the relationship between Hi-sec and Null. What do you think would happen to China if its largest market, the United States suddenly stopped buying their goods as they suddenly started making everything them selves except only a few things, at a price cheaper than China?


They would have to adapt, find new markets or new products. Maybe they could engineer a market for their new products or maybe they would have to tighten their belts and reign in their oppulence. If we bring this back to High/Null you soon realise that null sec already has too much isk, If a large part of their isk income was stangled the world would be a better place. Maybe losing super caps would mean something, whelping a drake fleet might over time start to actually cause problems. Or maybe you are over estimating the value of hi sec and its influence on null.

Other way around.

The CSM proposed giving Null all of the hi-sec minerals, which besides t3 will allow them to build everything them selves.

Hi-sec would not adapt, it like china would collapse. Not tighten there belts and china like hi-sec has no welfare system. It would be starvation and death. or in this case poverty and unsub.

It is not Hi-secs influence on Null, it is Nulls influence on hi-sec, why do you thing so many things are made for mineral compression so they can be shipped to Null.

CSM is not proposing making their Supers harder to make but massively easier and so any new alliance moving to null will probably be unable to take over a system as the server would probably collapse from all the supers coming into the system.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#191 - 2012-12-11 08:55:11 UTC
SaKoil wrote:
Amarra Mandalin wrote:
The bounty system is a joke, in my opinion. It (mostly) lowers the cost to make it profitable to gank a shiney. The joke is on high-sec.

The bounty system is nothing new that hasnt been done manually before, i.e. hulkageddon. If anything, the system helps lazy, non-organized bears to do similiar things without much effort.


I can honestly agree( & aghast applaud ) the Goons Hulkageddon bounty system over the summer is being copied for the general public ( I think it would've been difficult to narily impossible to copy 'emergently' in HI SEC is because game mechanics in HI SEC discourages large alliances ). So here I do applaude CCP's copying of a NULL SEC alliances emergent gameplay thru new game mechanics BRAVO. Smile

An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#192 - 2012-12-11 09:08:23 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
Frying Doom wrote:

The CSM proposed giving Null all of the hi-sec minerals, which besides t3 will allow them to build everything them selves.


Here I agree & think the NULL centric CSM is unbalanced: w/o NULL being dependent on low end minerals like HI is dependant on Moons goo & HIGH ends we have less of a sandbox.

WH's monopoly on nano ribbons also adds to the sandbox& I withdraw my past propsals to have ribbons ass salvage in a sleeper incursion ( blue loot dropping incursions though sound viable )

The complaints about NULL's industry not matching HI SEC's industry sort of remind me of the USA's oldwest: of course HI SEC should have better industry why would unindustrialized frontier towns match the east's big city's production?!?! But also NULL's refining capabilites do neeed a significant boost just like those technologies bloomed in both europe & USA's refinement silver industries
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
ISD TYPE40
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#193 - 2012-12-11 09:32:58 UTC
Forum Rules wrote:



4. Be respectful of others at all times.

The purpose of the forum is to provide a platform for the exchange of ideas. Occasionally, there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Be courteous when disagreeing with others. It is possible to disagree without being insulting.


5.Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a long-winded, redundant post, often filled with angry, non-constructive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and helpful in the development of the game, but rants are disruptive and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise, clear manner and avoid going off on rambling tangents.


6. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another. Text of this nature is not beneficial to the community spirit and will not be tolerated. Corporation, faction and alliance members and other players are cautioned to avoid allowing “in character” disputes from becoming "out of character" personal attacks. The game is designed for role-playing and/or portraying a role and it is sometimes easy for tempers to flare when the lines between the virtual world and the real world are crossed. Please keep in-game disputes in the game and off the forum unless it is clearly a mutual, in-character exchange.


7. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is the word used to describe a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting the players. Posts of this nature are disruptive and do not contribute to the sense of community we want for our forums.



Posts have been removed from this thread for breaches of the above rules. Please remain civil and on topic, thank you - ISD Type40.

[b]ISD Type40 Lt. Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#194 - 2012-12-11 11:52:25 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Darek Castigatus wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

I too would run, except for a few reasons:

1. It is clear that anyone who stridently opposes the null sec agenda and speaks for high sec play is labelled a loon, disruptive, and tossed off the CSM for "NDA violations".
2. As it has been stated many, many times, high sec players are far too disorganised to put proper high sec representation on the CSM. Kelduum had a 2000 char voting bloc called Eve UNI at his disposal, and Issler has name recognition. Anyone else that tried to run would get lost in the noise.
3. I fully expect to be muzzled soon by the ISD, permanently. People like me who fight against the injustices of the null sec regime disappear from the game, or at least the forums.
4. I really don't know how much longer I can stand this crap. This is supposed to be a game, something for me to enjoy. That enjoyment is fast eroding to nothingness, replaced by total anger, frustration, and despair. There you go null sec zealots, you have almost pushed me from the game. You almost have achieved another victory.

To be perfectly blunt, even one true "high sec zealot" (If I can call the current regime null sec zealots, I think it is only fair I be labelled a high sec zealot) is not enough to do anything. You need a minimum of 2, possibly 3 in the first 7 to avoid being ignored and drummed right out of the CSM. Being an alternate is not good enough.

That would mean basically getting 12,000 high sec chars all co-ordinated enough to strategically vote split 3 ways to ensure representation. And even if by some miracle you could get that organised, you would see such a coming together of the null sec vote like never before. The null sec regime, would be utterly terrified of 3 out of 7 CSM members being high sec, and would ensure a massive voter participation by null sec.

No, the vast vast majority of high sec players vote with their wallet instead.
Mark my words, this latest victory by the null sec zealots is not the last.
They have their sights set on high sec industry next.
Death by a thousand cuts is what we are witnessing.


Ok then, lets address these so called points of yours shall we.

1. Ankh got herself thrown off the CSM purely through her own issues, didnt need a big null based conspiracy when she was constantly causing trouble and blatantly breached the rules.

2. This is probably the only reasonable point you have in this list but guess what, if no one ever bothers to try then nothing will ever change about this. You go on and on about how highsec is under represented and needs people who will actively advocate for its issues yet all you can produce is a list of excuses why it shouldnt be you. If you put in half the effort on campaigning that you do bitching about null sec zealotry then i dont see how you could fail.

3. You have the same avenues of complaint about that issue as anyone else on this forum, drop the damn persecution complex already.

4. Perhaps if you actually tried discussing issues instead of ranting like a street corner doomsayer every time someone you dont like dares to mention highsec perhaps you would enjoy it more

Given the standard null sec patterns for preventing discussions they don't want to have

  • Spamming threads
  • Repeating the same drivel time and time again
  • Refusing to accept hard numbers but considering there own made up numbers as facts
  • pretending not to notice when you answer there questions for a specific reference or statistic
  • Going on for pages over a spelling error such as lose and loose
  • Using multiple people who come on at specific times in an effort to wear down anyone who is bringing up something they do not like
  • Deliberately filling threads with nothing in an effort to have it closed for no content
  • War decing people who disagree with them
  • And now bounties for those who disagree with them


Yes I can understand why people don't want to have a discussion with some Null sec groups. There are a lot of why bother points and yes if you are a single person you will eventually make a mistake that the committee you are arguing with will use against you.

But so what it is a game, If you want to go through that you can make a hell of a noise.Evil


Funny that I've seen many high sec advocates trying to do more or less the same things on issues they opposed, don't blame the tactics for your opponant being better at using them than you are. Simple fact is that null sec in general is better organised and more likely to vote as cohesive blocks, if you want to get anywhere you have to do the same and encourage the same. Simply sitting around polishing your martyr complex isnt going to get you anything more than a kick in the ass on your way out the door.

You are right about one thing though, the fact that both sides do things like this certainly does make having a discussion as opposed to a flame ridden spamfest a lot more difficult, just dont try and tell me its a one way street because frankly thats bullshit.

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome
Kurt Saken
Star Cluster Wanderer
#195 - 2012-12-11 12:19:42 UTC
"Worm Hole's monopoly on nanoribbons"

Is this a joke? Darth, if you want free nanos find a w-hole and rat some Sleepers, like the rest of us do. Come to my home and i will show you the technique.

What's next? Demanding Core Citadel sites in Couster or what.
Frying Doom
#196 - 2012-12-11 12:25:12 UTC
Darek Castigatus wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Darek Castigatus wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

I too would run, except for a few reasons:

1. It is clear that anyone who stridently opposes the null sec agenda and speaks for high sec play is labelled a loon, disruptive, and tossed off the CSM for "NDA violations".
2. As it has been stated many, many times, high sec players are far too disorganised to put proper high sec representation on the CSM. Kelduum had a 2000 char voting bloc called Eve UNI at his disposal, and Issler has name recognition. Anyone else that tried to run would get lost in the noise.
3. I fully expect to be muzzled soon by the ISD, permanently. People like me who fight against the injustices of the null sec regime disappear from the game, or at least the forums.
4. I really don't know how much longer I can stand this crap. This is supposed to be a game, something for me to enjoy. That enjoyment is fast eroding to nothingness, replaced by total anger, frustration, and despair. There you go null sec zealots, you have almost pushed me from the game. You almost have achieved another victory.

To be perfectly blunt, even one true "high sec zealot" (If I can call the current regime null sec zealots, I think it is only fair I be labelled a high sec zealot) is not enough to do anything. You need a minimum of 2, possibly 3 in the first 7 to avoid being ignored and drummed right out of the CSM. Being an alternate is not good enough.

That would mean basically getting 12,000 high sec chars all co-ordinated enough to strategically vote split 3 ways to ensure representation. And even if by some miracle you could get that organised, you would see such a coming together of the null sec vote like never before. The null sec regime, would be utterly terrified of 3 out of 7 CSM members being high sec, and would ensure a massive voter participation by null sec.

No, the vast vast majority of high sec players vote with their wallet instead.
Mark my words, this latest victory by the null sec zealots is not the last.
They have their sights set on high sec industry next.
Death by a thousand cuts is what we are witnessing.


Ok then, lets address these so called points of yours shall we.

1. Ankh got herself thrown off the CSM purely through her own issues, didnt need a big null based conspiracy when she was constantly causing trouble and blatantly breached the rules.

2. This is probably the only reasonable point you have in this list but guess what, if no one ever bothers to try then nothing will ever change about this. You go on and on about how highsec is under represented and needs people who will actively advocate for its issues yet all you can produce is a list of excuses why it shouldnt be you. If you put in half the effort on campaigning that you do bitching about null sec zealotry then i dont see how you could fail.

3. You have the same avenues of complaint about that issue as anyone else on this forum, drop the damn persecution complex already.

4. Perhaps if you actually tried discussing issues instead of ranting like a street corner doomsayer every time someone you dont like dares to mention highsec perhaps you would enjoy it more

Given the standard null sec patterns for preventing discussions they don't want to have

  • Spamming threads
  • Repeating the same drivel time and time again
  • Refusing to accept hard numbers but considering there own made up numbers as facts
  • pretending not to notice when you answer there questions for a specific reference or statistic
  • Going on for pages over a spelling error such as lose and loose
  • Using multiple people who come on at specific times in an effort to wear down anyone who is bringing up something they do not like
  • Deliberately filling threads with nothing in an effort to have it closed for no content
  • War decing people who disagree with them
  • And now bounties for those who disagree with them


Yes I can understand why people don't want to have a discussion with some Null sec groups. There are a lot of why bother points and yes if you are a single person you will eventually make a mistake that the committee you are arguing with will use against you.

But so what it is a game, If you want to go through that you can make a hell of a noise.Evil


Funny that I've seen many high sec advocates trying to do more or less the same things on issues they opposed, don't blame the tactics for your opponant being better at using them than you are. Simple fact is that null sec in general is better organised and more likely to vote as cohesive blocks, if you want to get anywhere you have to do the same and encourage the same. Simply sitting around polishing your martyr complex isnt going to get you anything more than a kick in the ass on your way out the door.

You are right about one thing though, the fact that both sides do things like this certainly does make having a discussion as opposed to a flame ridden spamfest a lot more difficult, just dont try and tell me its a one way street because frankly thats bullshit.

I was going to have a go and say that just because I oppose the dominance of the CSM by one faction, I must be from hi-sec. Then I read the last bit so I wont

But in answer to the last bit, take me for instance were do you think I learned that style from? Originally I tried to argue a point properly like you do in normality and was shocked at all these weird tactics, even now they occasionally get me, like when Someone was telling me how unprofitable moon mining was the other day and quoting the mining from a single moon miner and the sale price of the raw minerals but telling me the cost of a large tower that isn't needed.

EvE-O forums would probably explode if someone rationally discussed anything in this place.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#197 - 2012-12-11 12:28:32 UTC
I can only assume this is a troll topic, claiming the last several patches have been to nerf PVE and asking for level 5s to be in highsec? Come on, too obvious.

Also nice to see DarthWhiner back on form. I thought you quit eve forever after CCP fixed incursions
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#198 - 2012-12-11 12:33:02 UTC
haha just caught his post crying that wormholes have a monopoly on nanoribbons

Poor Darth seems to be under the impression that absolutely everything ever should be readily available to highsec baddies like himself. Sorry mate that's not how it works, you want nanoribbons, moon goo, high end ores, etc? You're going to have to venture out into different areas of the game to get them. Deal with it.
Frying Doom
#199 - 2012-12-11 12:43:58 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
haha just caught his post crying that wormholes have a monopoly on nanoribbons

Poor Darth seems to be under the impression that absolutely everything ever should be readily available to highsec baddies like himself. Sorry mate that's not how it works, you want nanoribbons, moon goo, high end ores, etc? You're going to have to venture out into different areas of the game to get them. Deal with it.

Would that not also imply you are arguing that lo-end ores stay where they are as well?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#200 - 2012-12-11 13:03:46 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Would that not also imply you are arguing that lo-end ores stay where they are as well?


Low-end ores are available in null, just not in enough concentration to do anything with. Not at all the same thing.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["