These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Consequences (?)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#161 - 2013-09-07 21:54:33 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
i've got better things to do. like reload my torp launchers while watching star trek. i'm sure you can appreciate the gravity of the situation.

alternatively; don't talk about things which you're clearly unfamiliar with.


Sounds legit.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#162 - 2013-09-07 21:55:23 UTC
“My answer is ‘Stop being so poor’!” Lol
♥ Fozzie.
Dave stark
#163 - 2013-09-07 21:56:48 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
i've got better things to do. like reload my torp launchers while watching star trek. i'm sure you can appreciate the gravity of the situation.

alternatively; don't talk about things which you're clearly unfamiliar with.


Sounds legit.


delve isn't going to grind itself.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#164 - 2013-09-07 22:13:42 UTC  |  Edited by: S Byerley
CCP Fozzie> "I've been kind of bouncing around ideas for ways that I would like to help out the skiff and the procurer because right now they're not really doing a good enough job to get people excited about them."

Wait, is this one sentence describing a desire to further buff defensive mining ships what you guys keep rambling about? Jeez Roll
Dave stark
#165 - 2013-09-07 22:16:24 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
CCP Fozzie> "I've been kind of bouncing around ideas for ways that I would like to help out the skiff and the procurer because right now they're not really doing a good enough job to get people excited about them."

Wait, is this one sentence describing a desire to further buff defensive mining ships what you guys keep rambling about? Jeez Roll


i don't think that's the exact quote

but either way even without ccp explicitly saying it; every set of numbers that has been shown in a devblog has indicated the exhumer rebalance was ******* terrible. *shrug*
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#166 - 2013-09-07 22:21:39 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
i don't think that's the exact quote


It's an exact quotation from the video you described chum.

Quote:
but either way even without ccp explicitly saying it; every set of numbers that has been shown in a devblog has indicated the exhumer rebalance was ******* terrible. *shrug*


[citation needed] Roll
Dave stark
#167 - 2013-09-07 22:23:24 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
i don't think that's the exact quote


It's an exact quotation from the video you described chum.

Quote:
but either way even without ccp explicitly saying it; every set of numbers that has been shown in a devblog has indicated the exhumer rebalance was ******* terrible. *shrug*


[citation needed] Roll


i know it's from the video, but it's not the only thing he said in the video. even you aren't that dumb, surely?

citation needed? go read the dev blogs from last year or whenever it was.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#168 - 2013-09-07 22:27:30 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
i know it's from the video, but it's not the only thing he said in the video. even you aren't that dumb, surely?


If you prefer, he also politely brushes aside a dumb suggestion for combat mining barges (twice because the interviewer didn't take the hint the first time)

Quote:
citation needed? go read the dev blogs from last year or whenever it was.


No thanks, I've already done more than my fair share considering the burden of proof is on you. Looking exhaustively for something that doesn't exist can take a while.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#169 - 2013-09-07 22:33:23 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
If you prefer, he also politely brushes aside a dumb suggestion for combat mining barges (twice because the interviewer didn't take the hint the first time)
Interesting version of “brushing aside”…

The quote is “That would be very cool. It's not something that we have direct plans for right now. […] Perhaps that's something that can be thrown [the Skiff's and the Procurer's] way to make them more interesting.”
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#170 - 2013-09-07 22:47:07 UTC  |  Edited by: S Byerley
Tippia wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
If you prefer, he also politely brushes aside a dumb suggestion for combat mining barges (twice because the interviewer didn't take the hint the first time)
Interesting version of “brushing aside”…

The quote is “That would be very cool. It's not something that we have direct plans for right now. […] Perhaps that's something that can be thrown [the Skiff's and the Procurer's] way to make them more interesting.”


Show business hun. When someone asks you a bizarre fan-servicey type of question you have to take care to validate their interests, "That would be very cool", and acknowledge where they were obviously trying to lead you, "Perhaps that's something that can be thrown their way", while still reflecting that it was an ill-posed suggestion and the answer is probably no, "It's not something we have direct plans for".

In any case, wanting to make additional buffs to mining defenses thoroughly invalidates your contention that CCP thinks it was a mistake to buff mining defenses in the first place.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#171 - 2013-09-07 22:56:06 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
In any case, wanting to make additional buffs to mining defenses thoroughly invalidates your contention that CCP thinks it was a mistake to buff mining defenses in the first place.

…but since this would be additional buffs to mining offence, and since he acknowledges that the balance didn't work out as intended, it validates the contention that the barge buffs weren't successful.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#172 - 2013-09-07 23:02:17 UTC
Tippia wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
In any case, wanting to make additional buffs to mining defenses thoroughly invalidates your contention that CCP thinks it was a mistake to buff mining defenses in the first place.

…but since this would be additional buffs to mining offence,


Best defense is a good offense and all that jazz.

Quote:
he acknowledges that the balance didn't work out as intended


Not in that quotation he doesn't. Do you mean that he wants to iterate on what he keeps referring to as an iterative process?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#173 - 2013-09-07 23:04:16 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Best defense is a good offense and all that jazz.
Jazz is not a good categorisation of abilities, especially when dealing with q-ships.

Quote:
Not in that quotation he doesn't. Do you mean that he wants to iterate on what he keeps referring to as an iterative process?
I mean that he wants to revisit barges, specifically, and give them another try.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#174 - 2013-09-07 23:06:20 UTC
Tippia wrote:
I mean that he wants to revisit barges, specifically, and give them another try.


So iterate on the changes rather than reverse/revamp them you mean?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#175 - 2013-09-07 23:27:35 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
So iterate on the changes rather than reverse/revamp them you mean?

No, then I would have said that. And that would not really be an iteration so much as a revamp.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#176 - 2013-09-07 23:40:56 UTC
Tippia wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
So iterate on the changes rather than reverse/revamp them you mean?

No, then I would have said that. And that would not really be an iteration so much as a revamp.


I think perhaps you should stop projecting your own desires.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#177 - 2013-09-07 23:45:02 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
I think perhaps you should stop projecting your own desires.

Describing a revamp of a ship as a revamp is not really a projection of desires, but rather describing things as what they are.
Shalua Rui
Rui Freelance Mining
#178 - 2013-09-07 23:50:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Shalua Rui
S Byerley wrote:
So iterate on the changes rather than reverse/revamp them you mean?


While i don't quite know why this thread developed into another "mining barges balancing" discussion...

...no, I think what Fozzie meant was: They want to revisit the Skiff/Proc because they are still the least useful/used of the 6 barges... that's all. (Certain) people might not like it, but as a whole, the barge changes have been pretty solid, from a balancing point of view... giving them more offensive capabilities would be... complicated, to say the least.

On topic: I think the general idea of the crime and punishment system right now is ok, but it can always be bypassed if one knows how to do it... but that's part of the system too, in a way. Real world criminals have all kinds of methods to avoid getting caught, even when living in countries where they are guilty of crimes, no?

The only thing I could think of that maybe could spice up things alittle would be the introduction of NPC bountyhunters, that hound criminals... and MAYBE pod impounding (not podding) by NPCs... alas, the most important currency in EVE is time, and impouding the pod of a -10 criminal for 24 hours hurts more then loosing some implants.

...and, as a final note: Suicide ganking is not piracy, it's childish harassment, that's even more true today then it was back when mining ships where easy targets.

"ginger forum goddess, space gypsy and stone nibbler extraordinaire!" Shalua Rui - CEO and founder of Rui Freelance Mining (RFLM)
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#179 - 2013-09-08 03:02:54 UTC
Yeah, screw you evil gankers

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Dave stark
#180 - 2013-09-08 06:26:19 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
No thanks, I've already done more than my fair share considering the burden of proof is on you. Looking exhaustively for something that doesn't exist can take a while.


see, this is why nobody takes you seriously. we tell you something and you just go "LALALALALA NOT LISTENING LALALALA"