These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Malcanis for CSM 8 Vote till you drop

First post
Author
Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#701 - 2013-03-29 20:28:01 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Afk Moon Goo wrote:
when there is no way you can punish gatecampers

Get some frien...

Right.

Nevermind.

Eve pvp shouldn't be about who can have more dudes. I'd rather be soloing or doing really small gangs than fleeting to gatecamp the gatecampers.
But you said nevermind so you already know you're wrong and your post is just a joke.
Nice joke dude 8/10 joke I laughed in real life.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#702 - 2013-03-29 20:30:26 UTC
Afk Moon Goo wrote:
because noone is fighting in nullsec because lol politics

Wrong.

Afk Moon Goo wrote:
and why fight when you can make easy money

Wrong.

Afk Moon Goo wrote:
I seemed to have touched a chord, moongoo seems to be really important for you and I can understand why.

Considering I've been advocating moving away from moongoo as an alliance's primary source of income and onto bottom-up financing for a long time, no, you haven't touched squat. In fact, you couldn't be further from the truth.

Afk Moon Goo wrote:
Yes gatecamp and instalocks are a bad designs when there is no way you can punish gatecampers

Gatecamps and instalocks aren't "bad design", they're not even "a problem". I mean, next you'll try to claim that every lowsec system is camped.

Oh and PS: instalocking ships are usually pretty fragile. HTH.

Afk Moon Goo wrote:
feel free to explain yourself tho, you seems confused maybe you should take some time to breath and think about your post I feel kinda bad for you when I'm reading your posts...

Here's an interesting question for you, since you seem to be all about "making lowsec better": why should anyone go to lowsec?

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

RIP Vile Rat

Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#703 - 2013-03-29 20:32:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Karl Hobb
Afk Moon Goo wrote:
I'd rather be soloing or doing really small gangs than fleeting to gatecamp the gatecampers.

I don't seem to have a problem getting by low-sec gate-campers while solo roaming. You must just suck.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.

Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#704 - 2013-03-29 20:41:15 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:

Wrong.

No you're wrong.

Lord Zim wrote:

Wrong.

No you're wrong.

Lord Zim wrote:

Considering I've been advocating moving away from moongoo as an alliance's primary source of income and onto bottom-up financing for a long time, no, you haven't touched squat. In fact, you couldn't be further from the truth.

Good so you agree with me that's nice.

Lord Zim wrote:

Gatecamps and instalocks aren't "bad design", they're not even "a problem". I mean, next you'll try to claim that every lowsec system is camped.

Oh and PS: instalocking ships are usually pretty fragile. HTH.

It's a bad design, even if only person is getting instalocked per year it's still a bad design, keyword is "bad design".

Oh and PS: they are not alone, they are not taking any risk. HTH.

Lord Zim wrote:

Here's an interesting question for you, since you seem to be all about "making lowsec better": why should anyone go to lowsec?

Lowsec should be smallgang pvp land, should give nice income for indy but we should still be able to chase them, should punish people for making big fleets, that's why anyone should go to lowsec.
Do you even solo pvp or only know how to blob/hotdrop a.k.a elite pvp?

I'm telling you : Afk Moon Goo for CMS9, it's happening.Bear
Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#705 - 2013-03-29 20:47:16 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Afk Moon Goo wrote:
I'd rather be soloing or doing really small gangs than fleeting to gatecamp the gatecampers.

I don't seem to have a problem getting by low-sec gate-campers while solo roaming. You must just suck.

I don't, most of the time I'm ok thanks for asking (ps : after reviewing you're killboard you don't seems to be relevant to this discussion but thanks for you're opinion mang) but it's still a bad design nonetheless.
And again your just calling me names because you can't prove me wrong. *sigh* step it up..
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#706 - 2013-03-29 20:49:38 UTC
Afk Moon Goo wrote:
It's a bad design, even if only person is getting instalocked per year it's still a bad design, keyword is "bad design".

So what would you do to fix it, then, and what would the ramifications be on other parts of EVE?

Afk Moon Goo wrote:
Oh and PS: they are not alone, they are not taking any risk. HTH.

EVE is all about counters, not just numbers. Think up something, or oh I dunno avoid that gate maybe? vOv

Afk Moon Goo wrote:
Lowsec should be smallgang pvp land, should give nice income for indy but we should still be able to chase them, should punish people for making big fleets, that's why anyone should go to lowsec.

Last I checked, it was a nice place for smallgang pvp, sucked for industry, and doesn't reward big fleets any more than it does anywhere else in the game. So, what exactly is wrong, and what do you propose to fix it? What will the ramifications be on the rest of the eve universe?

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

RIP Vile Rat

Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#707 - 2013-03-29 21:00:18 UTC
Afk Moon Goo wrote:
after reviewing you're killboard you don't seems to be relevant to this discussion but thanks for you're opinion mang

After reviewing your killboard I find that you definitely have no idea what you're talking about, so thanks for your completely irrelevant opinion mang.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.

Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#708 - 2013-03-29 21:04:13 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:

So what would you do to fix it, then, and what would the ramifications be on other parts of EVE?

Pretty easy, add a scaling % for locktime depending on the numbers of ships at any lowsec gate, people can still camp and warp after but I'll give you more time to do ****.

Lord Zim wrote:

EVE is all about counters, not just numbers. Think up something, or oh I dunno avoid that gate maybe? vOv

It's plain dumb, in lowsec you should die because you got outplayed not because people are camping a gate, up the skill-ceiling remove low risk high reward pvp.


Lord Zim wrote:

Last I checked, it was a nice place for smallgang pvp, sucked for industry, and doesn't reward big fleets any more than it does anywhere else in the game. So, what exactly is wrong, and what do you propose to fix it? What will the ramifications be on the rest of the eve universe?

It's a nice place for smallgang pvp if you are a pirate because you have tons of targets thanks to fw. You can't really counter pirates, they will disengage if you bring more dudes and just come back after, allow bombs in low sec so dedicated small bombers gangs could annoy/deal with pirates camping gates.
Make pi more profitable in ls, maybe remove p4 prod in hs it's not that difficult anyway to do pi in ls with mwd cloak trick or with a blockade, more people will go to lowsec, they'll be able to scale harder than highsec indys gg.
Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#709 - 2013-03-29 21:05:19 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Afk Moon Goo wrote:
after reviewing you're killboard you don't seems to be relevant to this discussion but thanks for you're opinion mang

After reviewing your killboard I find that you definitely have no idea what you're talking about, so thanks for your completely irrelevant opinion mang.

I have no killboard on this character, you must be drunk or this is another joke lol nice joke 7/10 joke I giggled in front of my computer screen.
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#710 - 2013-03-29 21:08:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Karl Hobb
Afk Moon Goo wrote:
I have no killboard on this character, you must be drunk or this is another joke lol nice joke 7/10 joke I giggled in front of my computer screen.

I can only conclude you have no killboard at all and no experience with any of the topics you take issue with, and must be drunk posting. 1/10 for the gimmicky alt, I guess.

E: This is rich:
Afk Moon Goo wrote:
in lowsec you should die because you got outplayed not because people are camping a gate

You got outplayed homie, they brought more friends.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.

Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#711 - 2013-03-29 21:15:22 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:

I can only conclude you have no killboard at all and no experience with any of the topics you take issue with, and must be drunk posting. 1/10 for for the gimmicky alt, I guess.

keyword is "on this alt" I have 3 alts on my account, is that a problem good sir? You can only guess, maybe I'm the elitest pvper with relevant sov, you'll never know mang. Bear

Karl Hobb wrote:

You got outplayed homie, they brought more friends.

But that's for nullsec elite pvp, we are talking about low sec are you confused?
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#712 - 2013-03-29 21:22:58 UTC
Afk Moon Goo wrote:
Pretty easy, add a scaling % for locktime depending on the numbers of ships at any lowsec gate, people can still camp and warp after but I'll give you more time to do ****.

So your idea of "fixing gatecamps" (which isn't a problem) is to make any fights on lowsec gates suck more, and for the servers to spend even more CPU time on non-essential bull.

Interesting.

Afk Moon Goo wrote:
It's plain dumb, in lowsec you should die because you got outplayed not because people are camping a gate, up the skill-ceiling remove low risk high reward pvp.

Fly ships designed to move around unsupported, or bring a scout. vOv

Afk Moon Goo wrote:
It's a nice place for smallgang pvp if you are a pirate because you have tons of targets thanks to fw. You can't really counter pirates, they will disengage if you bring more dudes and just come back after, allow bombs in low sec so dedicated small bombers gangs could annoy/deal with pirates camping gates.

There are alternatives which work just as well as bombs. I suggest you use them.

Afk Moon Goo wrote:
Make pi more profitable in ls, maybe remove p4 prod in hs it's not that difficult anyway to do pi in ls with mwd cloak trick or with a blockade, more people will go to lowsec, they'll be able to scale harder than highsec indys gg.

PI is an insignificant minority of the term "industry" in EVE, and their exposure to danger is insignificantly small.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#713 - 2013-03-29 21:24:55 UTC
Afk Moon Goo wrote:
You can only guess, maybe I'm the elitest pvper with relevant sov, you'll never know mang. Bear

All I know is that you're a few-hours-old character I can only conclude is talking about topics they obviously have no experience with since I have no other verifiable facts to work from.

Karl Hobb wrote:
You got outplayed homie, they brought more friends.
Afk Moon Goo wrote:
But that's for nullsec elite pvp, we are talking about low sec are you confused?

Not at all. There isn't any logical reason to artificially limit the size of a fleet based on system sec status. In fact, I'd say that's a very un-EVE-like concept.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.

Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#714 - 2013-03-29 21:34:25 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:

So your idea of "fixing gatecamps" (which isn't a problem) is to make any fights on lowsec gates suck more, and for the servers to spend even more CPU time on non-essential bull.

Interesting.

Why would they "suck" more ? It'll make 1vsx more fair, make smallgang vs smallgang more strategic and you probably have no idea how fast it is to make a server side division. Bad design = need to go, even if it's not a problem for you.

Lord Zim wrote:

Fly ships designed to move around unsupported, or bring a scout. vOv

Doesn't change the fact that it's still a bad design, low skill requirement low risk high reward pvp. vOv

Lord Zim wrote:

There are alternatives which work just as well as bombs. I suggest you use them.

Bombs could punish big fleets in low sec too, do you even read my posts? Sec status change might be a problem tho

Lord Zim wrote:

PI is an insignificant minority of the term "industry" in EVE, and their exposure to danger is insignificantly small.

Pos change is coming, PI isn't changed, p3-p4 stuff should be ls only, it's a start.
I'm not sure how to help lowsec miners, maybe remove belts and put roids in grav sites, that won't keep pirates from probing them tho.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#715 - 2013-03-29 21:36:33 UTC
Afk Moon Goo wrote:
Why would they "suck" more ? It'll make 1vsx more fair, make smallgang vs smallgang more strategic and you probably have no idea how fast it is to make a server side division. Bad design = need to go, even if it's not a problem for you.


"engaging 20 dudes on my own should be undeniably in my favor"

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#716 - 2013-03-29 21:38:06 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:

All I know is that you're a few-hours-old character I can only conclude is talking about topics they obviously have no experience with since I have no other verifiable facts to work from.

I'm a few-hours old character and I know more than you about accounts (yes you can have 3 alts per account, check the faq if you don't trust me) so I guess you just bought your account from craigslist.

Karl Hobb wrote:
Not at all. There isn't any logical reason to artificially limit the size of a fleet based on system sec status. In fact, I'd say that's a very un-EVE-like concept.

There is no artificial limitation, just less reward.
Low risk, high reward pvp that's very un-EVE-like, but then again since you bought your account you must be new to this.


BearAfk Moon Goo for CSM9Bear
Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#717 - 2013-03-29 21:40:37 UTC
Andski wrote:
Afk Moon Goo wrote:
Why would they "suck" more ? It'll make 1vsx more fair, make smallgang vs smallgang more strategic and you probably have no idea how fast it is to make a server side division. Bad design = need to go, even if it's not a problem for you.


"engaging 20 dudes on my own should be undeniably in my favor"

"people jumping in my 20 dudes fleet should always die because we are camping"
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#718 - 2013-03-29 21:50:25 UTC
Afk Moon Goo wrote:
Why would they "suck" more ? It'll make 1vsx more fair, make smallgang vs smallgang more strategic

Because to make any inroads at all against your "instalock" problem, you would have to make every lock excruciatingly long, which'll have its impact on everything, even "small gang vs small gang".

And again, gatecamps isn't a problem. I've yet to die to a single gatecamp, and I flew to/from the hisec island in solitude multiple times a day for a long, long time. I just flew a ship designed to get around the "problem" of gatecamps. Only bads whine about gatecamps.

Afk Moon Goo wrote:
and you probably have no idea how fast it is to make a server side division.

Actually, yes, I do. It'll be more than you think.

Afk Moon Goo wrote:
Doesn't change the fact that it's still a bad design, low skill requirement low risk high reward pvp. vOv

No, what it doesn't change is the fact that you're complaining about not being able to get away from a gate which is camped, when everyone that's even remotely sensible would take precautions in the form of either using a ship designed to break through those gatecamps (and, incidentally, there's a lot of ships designed for that express purpose) or using a scout.

Afk Moon Goo wrote:
Bombs could punish big fleets in low sec too, do you even read my posts? Sec status change might be a problem tho

I'm going to just continue to point out the fact that there are alternatives which work just fine in lowsec, today, to bust up larger gatecamps, and it doesn't involve bombs or "moar numbers". Use them, instead of bitching about gatecamps (and showing us you don't want to adapt).

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

RIP Vile Rat

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#719 - 2013-03-29 21:51:31 UTC
Afk Moon Goo wrote:
Andski wrote:
"engaging 20 dudes on my own should be undeniably in my favor"

"people jumping in my 20 dudes fleet should always die because we are camping"

"People who suck at eve and jump blind into a gatecamp in a ship which isn't designed for busting through gatecamps should be able to get away scot free. Even freighters."

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

RIP Vile Rat

Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#720 - 2013-03-29 21:58:26 UTC
Afk Moon Goo wrote:
yes you can have 3 alts per account

I have no proof of you using more than one of those character slots.

Afk Moon Goo wrote:
There is no artificial limitation, just less reward.

I don't see how any of your propositions to deal with gate camping result in less reward for anyone.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.