These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Improve Hi Sec Wars

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#141 - 2014-05-30 20:31:21 UTC
Velenia Ankletickler wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
The OP has demonstrated, repeatedly, that this is about not wanting to put in the same effort that other people are putting in.

I honestly don't know why anyone else is entertaining this incredible display of selfishness and entitlement.


You keep trying making it about me, instead of about the issue. Having to resort to personal attacks instead of arguments usually shows you have nothing intelligent to say about the subject.

There are still 2 questions waiting for answers as well:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4656729#post4656729

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4656788#post4656788



I already answered your question, you just can't read.

And you, nor anyone else in this thread, have yet to actually establish this as being a problem in the first place.

All you've done is cry about it, and act as though your crying is sufficient evidence to change a game mechanic.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Velenia Ankletickler
Silverflames
#142 - 2014-05-30 20:34:26 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I already answered your question, you just can't read.


Oh I can't seem to find the answers, please do link them, obviously I have gone blind.

But we can also skip directly to the subject:

On what basis did you select the one that doesn't belong?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#143 - 2014-05-30 20:35:01 UTC
Oh, and you can knock off the fallacious argument of "If that were true nothing would have ever changed, ever, nyah!".

Because not only is it enormous hyperbole, but you're being deliberately obtuse, and acting like that somehow means you won the argument instead of Matrix-dodging the point I was making.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#144 - 2014-05-30 20:35:50 UTC
Velenia Ankletickler wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I already answered your question, you just can't read.


Oh I can't seem to find the answers, please do link them, obviously I have gone blind.

But we can also skip directly to the subject:

On what basis did you select the one that doesn't belong?


Oh, you meant that one.

I don't answer false dichotomies. So don't offer them.

How about you at least make an attempt to prove this is actually a problem?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#145 - 2014-05-30 20:36:20 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Oh, and you can knock off the fallacious argument of "If that were true nothing would have ever changed, ever, nyah!".

Because not only is it enormous hyperbole, but you're being deliberately obtuse, and acting like that somehow means you won the argument instead of Matrix-dodging the point I was making.


Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If it hasn't changed, CCP is either unwilling or unable to change it.


Yeeeah, unfortunately, it's the thing you actually said. So, you know, that's problematic.

True or False: You just asserted that, if it hasn't been changed, you can conclusively deduce that one of the following are true:

1. The can't change it.
2. They don't want to change it.


Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I don't answer false dichotomies. So don't offer them.


Just quoting because it's pretty funny, given the above. Lol

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Velenia Ankletickler
Silverflames
#146 - 2014-05-30 20:40:47 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


I don't answer false dichotomies. So don't offer them.


So, whenever you sprout out something and are asked for a reason for why it matters, or have to justify that it even hypothetically could be true. You first lie about having already answered, and then you simply refuse to answer.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#147 - 2014-05-30 20:41:16 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Oh, and you can knock off the fallacious argument of "If that were true nothing would have ever changed, ever, nyah!".

Because not only is it enormous hyperbole, but you're being deliberately obtuse, and acting like that somehow means you won the argument instead of Matrix-dodging the point I was making.


Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If it hasn't changed, CCP is either unwilling or unable to change it.


Yeeeah, unfortunately, it's the thing you actually said. So, you know, that's problematic.


That whooshing sound? That was the point going over your head.

A good example of something that was not working as intended was (however much I may personally disagree) the MTU drone aggro trick.

They fixed that in a week.

Neutral reps have been going on for... how long now? Nearly 2 years since Crimewatch 2.0 was put in? Oh, and they specifically did not make neutral repping a criminal act, but a suspect one. Where before it was in fact an act with zero consequences.

Clearly, this is intended or at the very least condoned as emergent gameplay. In a similar manner to Margin Scams and bumping, for that matter.

They have never come out and said that bumping is condoned by them. But they've allowed it for so long there is no other possibility.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#148 - 2014-05-30 20:42:24 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

Just quoting because it's pretty funny, given the above. Lol


Once again I offer the MTU drone aggro trick.

They wanted it changed, they had the means, it was changed in a week.

That's pretty clear unless you have cotton stuffed in your ears.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#149 - 2014-05-30 20:47:37 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Oh, and you can knock off the fallacious argument of "If that were true nothing would have ever changed, ever, nyah!".

Because not only is it enormous hyperbole, but you're being deliberately obtuse, and acting like that somehow means you won the argument instead of Matrix-dodging the point I was making.


Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If it hasn't changed, CCP is either unwilling or unable to change it.


Yeeeah, unfortunately, it's the thing you actually said. So, you know, that's problematic.


That whooshing sound? That was the point going over your head.

A good example of something that was not working as intended was (however much I may personally disagree) the MTU drone aggro trick.

They fixed that in a week.


Okay, and you believe the significance of that is...? Because all it really does is illustrate that there is such a thing as priorities.

Ascendancy omegas have been broken since they were released. They're being corrected in Kronos. Prior to that correction being announced, could we have have conclusively deduced that either they don't want to fix them, or cannot fix them? By your assertion, it had to be one of the two, yet obviously we would have been wrong since they're now being changed.


Quote:
Neutral reps have been going on for... how long now? Nearly 2 years since Crimewatch 2.0 was put in? Oh, and they specifically did not make neutral repping a criminal act, but a suspect one. Where before it was in fact an act with zero consequences.


Again, you imagine the significance of that is...?

They also specifically put remote DD in the game. And two years really isn't that long. How long did POS-based sov last? How long have freighters been module-free ships?

There is abso-*******-lutely ZERO validity to the assertion that, "Hasn't changed = Can't or don't want to change". Again, the ENTIRE landscape shifts pretty regularly.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#150 - 2014-05-30 20:51:43 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

There is abso-*******-lutely ZERO validity to the assertion that, "Hasn't changed = Can't or don't want to change". Again, the ENTIRE landscape shifts pretty regularly.


In this instance? Yes, there is.

They have the means, clearly.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Velenia Ankletickler
Silverflames
#151 - 2014-05-30 20:54:35 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

Just quoting because it's pretty funny, given the above. Lol


Once again I offer the MTU drone aggro trick.

They wanted it changed, they had the means, it was changed in a week.

That's pretty clear unless you have cotton stuffed in your ears.


Since you mention the MTU, which one doesn't belong?

"Looting a can" "shooting a can" "shooting an MTU"
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#152 - 2014-05-30 20:57:46 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

There is abso-*******-lutely ZERO validity to the assertion that, "Hasn't changed = Can't or don't want to change". Again, the ENTIRE landscape shifts pretty regularly.


In this instance? Yes, there is.

They have the means, clearly.


So for the last however many years, have they not had the means, or the desire to balance the pirate ships?

For the last 6 months, have they not had the means, or the desire to fix ascendancy omegas?

I mean, per your position, it HAS to be one of the two, yet here we are and now those things are changing.

How can this be?!? Obviously they were either unable to change them, or unwilling. Since they're mostly just stat modifiers - simple updates to database tables - I'm pretty sure they've had the ability to change them the whole time....


...So, per your amazingly logical argument, we can conclusively deduce that CCP did not want to balance pirate ships, nor fix ascendancy implants. Book it, done.

Except, now they're doing both of those things. Hrm. What? ****. It's almost like things are constantly changing, and your assertion was a false dichotomy!

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#153 - 2014-05-30 21:01:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
"Means" can include time.

And clearly, for a long while they did not want to rebalance pirate ships.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#154 - 2014-05-30 21:02:29 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
"Means" can include time.


They didn't have the time to jigger around some numbers in a database?


Quote:
And clearly, for a long while they did not want to rebalance pirate ships.


Whoa whoa whoa... so you're saying that sometimes they change their mind, then?

But wouldn't this implicitly mean that asserting that, "CCP wants X, fin!" is largely valueless as an argumentative strategy, since you've just admitted that what they want is, in fact, subject to change?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#155 - 2014-05-30 21:36:44 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

There is abso-*******-lutely ZERO validity to the assertion that, "Hasn't changed = Can't or don't want to change". Again, the ENTIRE landscape shifts pretty regularly.


In this instance? Yes, there is.

They have the means, clearly.


There is however much to be said to have recently had the opportunity to change things but deliberately, and with explanation, decided not to.

Mtu's
Duels
Crimewatch

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#156 - 2014-05-30 21:47:00 UTC
Velenia Ankletickler wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Velenia Ankletickler wrote:

Why don't you think up a situation where the NPC corp logi is at higher risk, then the in corp logi then?


Are you unaware of what a suspect flag is?


Not at all.

But instead of just letting out stuff with no meaning at all. Why don't you answer the question?

In what situation does bringing the logi pilot at greater risk, by being in the player corp, provide a larger benefit then the much less risk of an being in an NPC corp?


If the pilot is in the deccing Corp he is at less risk than a neut logi pilot. Did u not know in Corp logi does not go suspect??

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#157 - 2014-05-30 21:49:34 UTC
Velenia Ankletickler wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Wait, what? It's perfectly in keeping with crimewatch, crimewatch is 100% made up, pulled out of thin air in the first place. But it is consistent.

A suspect flag is an illegal activity in highsec that does not trigger CONCORD.

The entire criteria for that is whether it uses an offensive module or not. That is highly unlikely to change.


Still waiting for the answer on the previous question, but I see since you have no basis for anything you say you just let it go and start up something new.

In order for Crimewatch to be consistent, it would need to have similar punishment for similar "crimes".

So ... which one doesnt belong?

"Stealing from a can" "helping in fight by shooting at the enemy of friend" "helping in fight by repping friend".


Clarify
All belong. However the middle is not possible without breaking hi-sec

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#158 - 2014-05-30 21:55:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


Wait, what? It's perfectly in keeping with crimewatch, crimewatch is 100% made up, pulled out of thin air in the first place. But it is consistent.

A suspect flag is an illegal activity in highsec that does not trigger CONCORD.





The inconsistency is in the nature of the actions.

On the "CONCORDOKKEN!" side of the line we have nothing but combat actions: Shooting, disrupting, Ewaring, droning, missiling, etc.

On the "Suspect" side of the line, we have one specific combat action - logi - and theft. Nothing else on the suspect side of the line actually has ANY chance of endangering another player without their taking action.

If I loot a wreck, I go suspect. I do not endanger the victim of the theft, unless he aggresses me.
If I blow up an MTU, I go suspect. I do not endanger the owner of the MTU, unless he aggresses me.

If I remote rep a player, I go suspect, and I'm DEFINITELY endangering the opponent of my target. The nature of the action (and its consequences) has FAR more in common with "red" actions than "yellow" ones.

Quote:
The entire criteria for that is whether it uses an offensive module or not. That is highly unlikely to change.


Er... The suggestion is, "Slightly modify the criteria so that it's Y instead of X." Saying, "But the criteria is X!" isn't actually a response. We know what X is. We started with X, and then suggested it be changed to Y.



If I haul my friends equipment into a warzone I am seriously endangering his opppnents. Assisting allies is a suspect offense. Shooting randoms is a criminal offense. The server cannot reliably distinguish between the two so gives special rules to offensive mods. Logi is actually the norm.


Sorry for terrible quotes and replies here. On phone

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#159 - 2014-05-30 22:06:49 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

There is abso-*******-lutely ZERO validity to the assertion that, "Hasn't changed = Can't or don't want to change". Again, the ENTIRE landscape shifts pretty regularly.


In this instance? Yes, there is.

They have the means, clearly.


There is however much to be said to have recently had the opportunity to change things but deliberately, and with explanation, decided not to.

Mtu's
Duels
Crimewatch


Confirming that they have definitely never chosen to do (or not do) something at a given time and then did it, later, somewhere down the road.



Quote:
If I haul my friends equipment into a warzone I am seriously endangering his opppnents. Assisting allies is a suspect offense.


This is another "stop blowing smoke up my ass" type thing. It's laughably disingenuous of you to try to directly compare explicit combat actions with hauling. If we followed your logic (for want of a better term....) to its obvious conclusion, we could also say that selling weapons to Bob seriously endangers his opponent Alice. In fact, so does manufacturing them! And mining the minerals that goes into them!

The game quite clearly distinguishes between combat and non-combat in most regards.

Quote:
Logi is actually the norm.


This is arbitrary fiction that you've invented and are asserting as fact. The VAST majority of direct combat actions will result in a concord response absent permitted engagement. The sole exceptions are boosting, which is almost universally acknowledged as broken, and logi.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Velenia Ankletickler
Silverflames
#160 - 2014-05-30 22:09:57 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:


If the pilot is in the deccing Corp he is at less risk than a neut logi pilot. Did u not know in Corp logi does not go suspect??


Being able to choose when to turn on your suspect flag and when not to, is far less risk than being a war target.

If it wasn't, there wouldn't be anyone hiding in NPC corps.