These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

War for Attackers

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#181 - 2016-11-29 12:25:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Scipio said "oh god" because what you think you're seeing, and proving, is totally not what's going on, and it's so damned obvious to anyone that's paid attention to the development of this game in general that the only possible reason for this pure pompous 'self-confidence' you seem to have is actual, legitimate delusion-based narcissism. So **** off. You're wrong. It was done intentionally, nothing 'sloppy' about it.


Your anger issues make you a bit blind.

The concept is to have a 24 hour delay for war decs, probably the number is hard coded, but who knows, I hope not, because the ally was designed to have a 24 hour delay there was no need to do a conditional check so the programmer would not have built that in as there was no need. So simple no check was coded.

Due to feed back they realised that they had to reduce the delay for an ally, so the easy option was to reduce the period, but it was a quick and easy fix and the developer and programmer did not think to check that the start time matched because they most probably did not talk to each other or failed to think about the issue. It is however possible that they did come to the conclusion that it would be an issue for the aggressor and therefore not bother do do the additional coding and maybe they admitted that over a few beers at fanfest or pretended that it was deliberate to hide what is poor development.

EDIT removed what could be taken as offensive by a poor little lamb.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#182 - 2016-11-29 12:28:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Drac, I feel like you're taking what is infact conjecture ,and running a little far , a little too quickly with it.


Edit : steady on lads, it's only Monday.
We have the week to go and Tom Gerard is posting again, pace yerselvs.


Like Ima Wreckyou did? Anyway it is conjecture on my part, but I just find it very amusing because any which way you look at it it is funny, and that it gets Remiel hot and bothered makes it even better. Evil

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#183 - 2016-11-29 12:40:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Dracvlad wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Scipio said "oh god" because what you think you're seeing, and proving, is totally not what's going on, and it's so damned obvious to anyone that's paid attention to the development of this game in general that the only possible reason for this pure pompous 'self-confidence' you seem to have is actual, legitimate delusion-based narcissism. So **** off. You're wrong. It was done intentionally, nothing 'sloppy' about it.


You are dumb mate and your anger issues make you a bit blind.

The concept is to have a 24 hour delay for war decs, probably the number is hard coded, but who knows, I hope not, because the ally was designed to have a 24 hour delay there was no need to do a conditional check so the programmer would not have built that in as there was no need. So simple no check was coded.

Due to feed back they realised that they had to reduce the delay for an ally, so the easy option was to reduce the period, but it was a quick and easy fix and the developer and programmer did not think to check that the start time matched because they most probably did not talk to each other or failed to think about the issue. It is however possible that they did come to the conclusion that it would be an issue for the aggressor and therefore not bother do do the additional coding and maybe they admitted that over a few beers at fanfest or pretended that it was deliberate to hide what is poor development.


You wanna sit there making **** up you have no proof for, and asking everyone to provide you with proof, and when they do, call them dumb?

Are you a creationist/climate change denier/anti-vaxxer/anti-GMO/other science denialist by any chance? They're quite well known for projection as well.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#184 - 2016-11-29 12:41:48 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Drac, I feel like you're taking what is infact conjecture ,and running a little far , a little too quickly with it.


Edit : steady on lads, it's only Monday.
We have the week to go and Tom Gerard is posting again, pace yerselvs.


Like Ima Wreckyou did? Anyway it is conjecture on my part, but I just find it very amusing because any which way you look at it it is funny, and that it gets Remiel hot and bothered makes it even better. Evil


See? There's that projection again. I'm sure it gives you one huge boner to imagine me all hot and bothered, but I'm gonna have to ask you to stop hitting on me. I don't swing that way, mate.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#185 - 2016-11-29 12:54:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Scipio said "oh god" because what you think you're seeing, and proving, is totally not what's going on, and it's so damned obvious to anyone that's paid attention to the development of this game in general that the only possible reason for this pure pompous 'self-confidence' you seem to have is actual, legitimate delusion-based narcissism. So **** off. You're wrong. It was done intentionally, nothing 'sloppy' about it.


You are dumb mate and your anger issues make you a bit blind.

The concept is to have a 24 hour delay for war decs, probably the number is hard coded, but who knows, I hope not, because the ally was designed to have a 24 hour delay there was no need to do a conditional check so the programmer would not have built that in as there was no need. So simple no check was coded.

Due to feed back they realised that they had to reduce the delay for an ally, so the easy option was to reduce the period, but it was a quick and easy fix and the developer and programmer did not think to check that the start time matched because they most probably did not talk to each other or failed to think about the issue. It is however possible that they did come to the conclusion that it would be an issue for the aggressor and therefore not bother do do the additional coding and maybe they admitted that over a few beers at fanfest or pretended that it was deliberate to hide what is poor development.


You wanna sit there making **** up you have no proof for, and asking everyone to provide you with proof, and when they do, call them dumb?

Are you a creationist by any chance? They're quite well known for projection as well.


It is purely conjecture on my part, but I have to say I find it really funny. My asking for proof from Ima Wreckyou was because she suggested that it was deliberate to hurt aggressors, which I doubt, perhaps they decided at the end not to adjust for it as that was the case, but it is still hilariously funny in terms of CCP development abilities. You should lighten up and laugh with it mate, because I just find it so funny. At a business level there could be a number of reasons for this, but CCP is not famed for their quality control, though I think over all they do a good job, but I would suggest that if this is poor development practice and they could take this as an example to get better.

And I was not calling CCP dumb, because there can be reasons why they did not get a programmer to deal it which could be because they did not notice it or that it was as Ima Wreckyou said which is hilarious. I was calling you dumb for letting your obvious distatste and anger for me colour your posts.

Creationist, hmmmmm, well I have always wondered what caused the big bang and what existed before that so if that makes me a creationist then I don't know what you mean, but if you suggest that I think the Earth is 5,000 years old or something, no way jose!!!! But if people want to believe that or that the sun sets in a muddy pool of water then that is their choice, does that help?

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#186 - 2016-11-29 12:57:44 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Drac, I feel like you're taking what is infact conjecture ,and running a little far , a little too quickly with it.


Edit : steady on lads, it's only Monday.
We have the week to go and Tom Gerard is posting again, pace yerselvs.


Like Ima Wreckyou did? Anyway it is conjecture on my part, but I just find it very amusing because any which way you look at it it is funny, and that it gets Remiel hot and bothered makes it even better. Evil


See? There's that projection again. I'm sure it gives you one huge boner to imagine me all hot and bothered, but I'm gonna have to ask you to stop hitting on me. I don't swing that way, mate.


Well your posts are quite often tinged with anger, but that post had humour in it, so cool beans.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#187 - 2016-11-29 12:59:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Dracvlad wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Scipio said "oh god" because what you think you're seeing, and proving, is totally not what's going on, and it's so damned obvious to anyone that's paid attention to the development of this game in general that the only possible reason for this pure pompous 'self-confidence' you seem to have is actual, legitimate delusion-based narcissism. So **** off. You're wrong. It was done intentionally, nothing 'sloppy' about it.


You are dumb mate and your anger issues make you a bit blind.

The concept is to have a 24 hour delay for war decs, probably the number is hard coded, but who knows, I hope not, because the ally was designed to have a 24 hour delay there was no need to do a conditional check so the programmer would not have built that in as there was no need. So simple no check was coded.

Due to feed back they realised that they had to reduce the delay for an ally, so the easy option was to reduce the period, but it was a quick and easy fix and the developer and programmer did not think to check that the start time matched because they most probably did not talk to each other or failed to think about the issue. It is however possible that they did come to the conclusion that it would be an issue for the aggressor and therefore not bother do do the additional coding and maybe they admitted that over a few beers at fanfest or pretended that it was deliberate to hide what is poor development.


You wanna sit there making **** up you have no proof for, and asking everyone to provide you with proof, and when they do, call them dumb?

Are you a creationist by any chance? They're quite well known for projection as well.


It is purely conjecture on my part, but I have to say I find it really funny. My asking for proof from Ima Wreckyou was because she suggested that it was deliberate to hurt aggressors, which I doubt, perhaps they decided at the end not to adjust for it as that was the case, but it is still hilariously funny in terms of CCP development abilities. You should lighten up and laugh with it mate, because I just find it so funny. At a business level there could be a number of reasons for this, but CCP is not famed for their quality control, though I think over all they do a good job, but I would suggest that if this is poor development practice and they could take this as an example to get better.

And I was not calling CCP dumb, because there can be reasons why they did not get a programmer to deal it which could be because they did not notice it or that it was as Ima Wreckyou said which is hilarious. I was calling you dumb for letting your obvious distatste and anger for me colour your posts.

Creationist, hmmmmm, well I have always wondered what caused the big bang and what existed before that so if that makes me a creationist then I don't know what you mean, but if you suggest that I think the Earth is 5,000 years old or something, no way jose!!!! But if people want to believe that or that the sun sets in a muddy pool of water then that is their choice, does that help?


I am entirely aware of who you were calling dumb. I was aware of it the moment you said, "you're dumb", and I reported it for the pejorative that it was, along with the post you made indicating how much you enjoy intentionally antagonising me. You are quite literally the very personification of Dunning-Kruger, aren't you? No, don't answer that, it'll be wrong of course, but you won't know it, so we'll just move on and wait for the ISDs to sort you out. kthxbai.

EDIT: you're not very good at reading at all, are you. Go back and read Ima Wreckyou's post again. He never said it was done to penalise the aggressor, but that it was done for the defender's benefit. If you were here for Retribution/Odyssey/Rubicon and actually paid attention to the game's ongoing development during those expansions, you would simply know this off the top of your head. But now you want the evidence. It's on the forums from those expansions. It's there. It's certainly in the patch notes. I found it in pretty short order, too. Not gonna link it though. Why would I? You'll just find some way to dismiss it. The wheels of cognitive dissonance turn too quickly for you to conceive the reality of this.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#188 - 2016-11-29 13:10:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I am entirely aware of who you were calling dumb. I was aware of it the moment you said, "you're dumb", and I reported it for the pejorative that it was, along with the post you made indicating how much you enjoy intentionally antagonising me. You are quite literally the very personification of Dunning-Kruger, aren't you? No, don't answer that, it'll be wrong of course, but you won't know it, so we'll just move on and wait for the ISDs to sort you out. kthxbai.


So you cry for the ISD, your poor tender thing, next thing you will be asking for a safe space...

Well all I have to do is post and you get annoyed which I find amusing, so I am a nasty person for finding you getting so easily wound up amusing, but don't forget that it was you who jumped in on my posts in an aggressive way mate. Roll

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#189 - 2016-11-29 13:15:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Dracvlad wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I am entirely aware of who you were calling dumb. I was aware of it the moment you said, "you're dumb", and I reported it for the pejorative that it was, along with the post you made indicating how much you enjoy intentionally antagonising me. You are quite literally the very personification of Dunning-Kruger, aren't you? No, don't answer that, it'll be wrong of course, but you won't know it, so we'll just move on and wait for the ISDs to sort you out. kthxbai.


So you cry for the ISD, your poor tender thing, next thing you will be asking for a safe space...

Well all I have to do is post and you get annoyed which I find amusing, so I am a nasty person for finding you getting so easily wound up amusing, but don't forget that it was you who jumped in on my posts in an aggressive way mate. Roll


Aggression isn't against the rules. Aggression =/= trolling or insult for its own sake. By the way, I edited my above post with some pertinent information. I've aggressively rooted out a great example of the way you twist arguments to suit your own narrative and cognitive dissonance. Enjoy.

For the record, I called your assumption dumb. Remember? I didn't call you dumb, I said, and I quote, "stop making dumb assumptions", and I said that because it was not just a demonstrably dumb assumption, but a demonstrated dumb assumption.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#190 - 2016-11-29 13:23:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I am entirely aware of who you were calling dumb. I was aware of it the moment you said, "you're dumb", and I reported it for the pejorative that it was, along with the post you made indicating how much you enjoy intentionally antagonising me. You are quite literally the very personification of Dunning-Kruger, aren't you? No, don't answer that, it'll be wrong of course, but you won't know it, so we'll just move on and wait for the ISDs to sort you out. kthxbai.


So you cry for the ISD, your poor tender thing, next thing you will be asking for a safe space...

Well all I have to do is post and you get annoyed which I find amusing, so I am a nasty person for finding you getting so easily wound up amusing, but don't forget that it was you who jumped in on my posts in an aggressive way mate. Roll


Aggression isn't against the rules. Aggression =/= trolling or insult for its own sake. By the way, I edited my above post with some pertinent information. I've aggressively rooted out a great example of the way you twist arguments to suit your own narrative and cognitive dissonance. Enjoy.


I did use the word 'and' you rather missed that, but I sense you will get this thread locked like you normally do.

Quote:
EDIT: you're not very good at reading at all, are you. Go back and read Ima Wreckyou's post again. He never said it was done to penalise the aggressor, but that it was done for the defender's benefit. If you were here for Retribution/Odyssey/Rubicon and actually paid attention to the game's ongoing development during those expansions, you would simply know this off the top of your head. But now you want the evidence. It's on the forums from those expansions. It's there. It's certainly in the patch notes. I found it in pretty short order, too. Not gonna link it though. Why would I? You'll just find some way to dismiss it. The wheels of cognitive dissonance turn too quickly for you to conceive the reality of this.


Of course the reduction to 4 hours was done for the benefit of the defender, but was the failure to link with the original start date and time of the war dec done for that reason?

Ima Wreckyou said

Quote:
Well they did this to benefit the defender, because all carebears cried to no end that the whole system should be balanced against the aggressor. Good idea to turn this around, should try this as well.


You need to read the second part mate, it is around the balance word!!!!

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#191 - 2016-11-29 13:34:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Dracvlad wrote:


Of course the reduction to 4 hours was done for the benefit of the defender, but was the failure to link with the original start date and time of the war dec done for that reason?


There was no failure. The four hours is intentionally linked to the moment the assistance is accepted. Otherwise, a corp could just wait four hours after the dec goes live, offer an assist, be in the same location as the attacker, and boom headshot the moment the assist is accepted. Suddenly, wartargets all around you, and what are you going to do? This was done intentionally. The attacker gets four hours notice of the involvement of a defender alliance. Compared to the 24 hours notice the defender gets, that weights the war in the defender's favour, giving the attacker less time to prepare for the sudden change in dynamic, and the requirement to gather a whole bunch of new intel.

Now, I might be 'aggressive', but dracvlad, I always address the things you say, not what/who you are, and I don't start hurling that **** at you until you've started doing it yourself, and even then very rarely. If you don't like the way I aggressively attack an argument, and you feel personally insulted by it enough to get all defensive and suddenly cease all critical cognition for the sake of prescriptive retaliation, then I highly recommend you never ever attempt any serious academia. You ever wanna pass peer review, you're gonna have to get passed aggression far worse than mine, kiddo.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#192 - 2016-11-29 13:36:41 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


Quote:
Well they did this to benefit the defender, because all carebears cried to no end that the whole system should be balanced against the aggressor. Good idea to turn this around, should try this as well.


You need to read the second part mate, it is around the balance word!!!!


Yep, I'm reading it just fine. He said, CCP changed it to benefit the defender, because the carebears wanted it balanced against the aggressor. He did not say anywhere in any of that, nor did he imply, that CCP changed it to penalise the aggressor. Read the words used, pay attention to the syntax, and all will be clear to you, grasshopper.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#193 - 2016-11-29 13:45:47 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


Of course the reduction to 4 hours was done for the benefit of the defender, but was the failure to link with the original start date and time of the war dec done for that reason?


There was no failure. The four hours is intentionally linked to the moment the assistance is accepted. Otherwise, a corp could just wait four hours after the dec goes live, offer an assist, be in the same location as the attacker, and boom headshot the moment the assist is accepted. Suddenly, wartargets all around you, and what are you going to do? This was done intentionally. The attacker gets four hours notice of the involvement of a defender alliance. Compared to the 24 hours notice the defender gets, that weights the war in the defender's favour, giving the attacker less time to prepare for the sudden change in dynamic, and the requirement to gather a whole bunch of new intel.

Now, I might be 'aggressive', but dracvlad, I always address the things you say, and I don't start hurling **** at you until you've started doing it yourself. If you don't like the way I aggressively attack an argument, and you feel personally insulted by it enough to get all defensive and suddenly cease all critical cognition for the sake of prescriptive retaliation, then I highly recommend you never ever attempt any serious academia. You ever wanna pass peer review, you're gonna have to get passed aggression far worse than mine, kiddo.


That is not the issue and I agree with what you say in the first paragraph, the other side of the coin is that it often meant that the mercs could not get in on the war fast enough to help, which is what the argument was when it came out., I read the thread when this happened The issue is still that the ally should not really have their war start before the actual war started, and I did not see anywhere that it was done to balance against the aggressor which is what Ima Wreckyou suggested.

Yes you do hurl crap at people, and when people start on me I dish it back, simple as that, what I find amusing from this post is that you seem to have totally missed the point I was making Shocked I post in the same way that people post at me, so if you are respectful I am respectful, if you start getting sarky expect it back, get insulting and I blast you back. That is merely being assertive. I have never got personaly insulted at anything you say, I just post back with the same level of aggression I perceive which is often difficult to get right in terms of written exchanges. Big smile

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#194 - 2016-11-29 13:52:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


Quote:
Well they did this to benefit the defender, because all carebears cried to no end that the whole system should be balanced against the aggressor. Good idea to turn this around, should try this as well.


You need to read the second part mate, it is around the balance word!!!!


Yep, I'm reading it just fine. He said, CCP changed it to benefit the defender, because the carebears wanted it balanced against the aggressor. He did not say anywhere in any of that, nor did he imply, that CCP changed it to penalise the aggressor. Read the words used, pay attention to the syntax, and all will be clear to you, grasshopper.


Quote:
Because the carebears wanted it balanced against the aggressor.


I think that speaks for itself, when gankers use the word carebear it is often coined to define unreasonable in terms of mechanics to favour their play style, if the carebear word had not been used I would have likely taken it as you did.

EDIT: But a quite interesting exchange, you qare growing on me by the way, you are like a fine Stilton.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#195 - 2016-11-29 13:54:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Dracvlad wrote:
Drivel


Nope, sorry. When I call your argument dumb, and explain why, that's not disrespect, that's criticism. I'm directly addressing what you're saying. You feeling insulted by that criticism is a personal problem, one that you personally have to deal with it. How maturely you deal with it is up to you. If you choose to then turn around and call me dumb in retaliation, because "muh respect", and then project your personal need for a safe space from that criticism onto me, you're not addressing anything I've said, you're addressing me, and my character as an individual, which is entirely irrelevant. So you know what? I am dumb. I'm a sociopath. I'm everything everyone has called me on this forum. Let's say, for argument's sake, I am all of those things. Where in there have we made an argument against my argument? Well you can just go ahead and **** right off with that ****. We've got nothing left to discuss if that's the degree of your intellectual integrity, except this.

If an ally joins a war before the war goes live, say five hours ahead of it, the ally does not get to shoot at the attacker until the war goes live. The four hour buffer becomes irrelevant, because the time remaining for the war to start is longer than the time remaining before the ally becomes an ally. Here you put your lack of understanding of mechanics on clear display. I suggest you do something about that, so that your next offered opinion on the topic is a relevant, educated one.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#196 - 2016-11-29 14:00:51 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


Quote:
Because the carebears wanted it balanced against the aggressor.


I think that speaks for itself, when gankers use the word carebear it is often coined to define unreasonable in terms of mechanics to favour their play style, if the carebear word had not been used I would have likely taken it as you did.

EDIT: But a quite interesting exchange, you qare growing on me by the way, you are like a fine Stilton.


But it still doesn't say, "CCP changed it to penalise the attackers"

Let's go over it again, shall we?

Carebears (for argument's sake, high sec risk averse players who just want to be left alone to their mining and industry as if they're playing a single player game, you know that's who he's talking about as much as I do) argued for penalising aggressors. CCP caved, but instead of penalising aggressors, gave something that would benefit the defenders, and made it easier for mercs to get involved. Whether or not this penalises the aggressors depends on the aggressors, but it's not a direct penalisation of the aggressors via mechanics changes by CCP. Therefore, nowhere in what he said did he say, or imply, that CCP did this to penalise the aggressors. Syntax, mate. Syntax.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#197 - 2016-11-29 14:02:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Remiel Pollard wrote:


If an ally joins a war before the war goes live, say five hours ahead of it, the ally does not get to shoot at the attacker until the war goes live. The four hour buffer becomes irrelevant, because the time remaining for the war to start is longer than the time remaining before the ally becomes an ally. Here you put your lack of understanding of mechanics on clear display. I suggest you do something about that, so that your next offered opinion on the topic is a relevant, educated one.


LOL, I understand the mechanics, I can shoot the target at 17:56 2016.11.29, two of the allies could shoot me at 00:02 2016.11.29 and the late arrival at 00:59 2016.11.29. It states that their particpation in the war will start at that time, as that is 17 hours and fifty four minutes before I can shoot my target I have to disagree.

So that directly refutes your statement as they can shoot me before the war starts.

I think I will go and find one of the allies and see if they are flashy red, brb on an update, hehe.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#198 - 2016-11-29 14:08:23 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:


If an ally joins a war before the war goes live, say five hours ahead of it, the ally does not get to shoot at the attacker until the war goes live. The four hour buffer becomes irrelevant, because the time remaining for the war to start is longer than the time remaining before the ally becomes an ally. Here you put your lack of understanding of mechanics on clear display. I suggest you do something about that, so that your next offered opinion on the topic is a relevant, educated one.


LOL, I understand the mechanics, I can shoot the target at 17:56 2016.11.29, two of the allies could shoot me at 00:02 2016.11.29 and the late arrival at 00:59 2016.11.29. It states that their particpation in the war will start at that time, as that is 17 hours and fifty foure minutes before I can soot my target I have to disagree.

So that directly refutes your statement as they can shoot me before the war starts.

I think I will go and find one of the allies and see if they are flashy red, brb on an update, hehe.


Yeah, you do that. Get screenshots, and show me. I think you'll find the allies won't be flashing, and the notifications are simply wrong about when an ally can fight. They can't fight until the war itself is live. I've sat on the undock of Amarr with a wartarget's allies that were, according to the notification, allowed to shoot me. They weren't flashing red.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Jennifer Starblaze
Fury Transport
#199 - 2016-11-29 14:11:10 UTC


Mark Marconi wrote:
Jennifer Starblaze wrote:


Thanks for making me laugh with that statement about corp tax though. Gonna keep that one in mind.

"Lower corp taxes are not a benefit, because you don´t have lower taxes as soon as you leave the corp," - ROFL.

Please immediately obtain a lawyer and commence legal proceedings against your countries education system. They failed you very badly.


Mark Marconi wrote:


... 0% tax is a benefit yes but when players abandon the corp they are sacrificing that benefit.....

...There is no automatic benefit to join a corp...



If that is not what you wanted to say then maybe you should try to contradict yourself less in your posts.

Also, good job at avoiding the actual post calling you out on your lie about what is stated on the box and just making a rather amusing attempt to insult me. The only thing you once more show is that any discussion with you is pointless, since you are obviously not willing to have a serious conversation as long as people don´t just agree with what you say.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#200 - 2016-11-29 14:15:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:


If an ally joins a war before the war goes live, say five hours ahead of it, the ally does not get to shoot at the attacker until the war goes live. The four hour buffer becomes irrelevant, because the time remaining for the war to start is longer than the time remaining before the ally becomes an ally. Here you put your lack of understanding of mechanics on clear display. I suggest you do something about that, so that your next offered opinion on the topic is a relevant, educated one.


LOL, I understand the mechanics, I can shoot the target at 17:56 2016.11.29, two of the allies could shoot me at 00:02 2016.11.29 and the late arrival at 00:59 2016.11.29. It states that their particpation in the war will start at that time, as that is 17 hours and fifty foure minutes before I can soot my target I have to disagree.

So that directly refutes your statement as they can shoot me before the war starts.

I think I will go and find one of the allies and see if they are flashy red, brb on an update, hehe.


Yeah, you do that. Get screenshots, and show me. I think you'll find the allies won't be flashing, and the notifications are simply wrong about when an ally can fight. They can't fight until the war itself is live. I've sat on the undock of Amarr with a wartarget's allies that were, according to the notification, allowed to shoot me. They weren't flashing red.


They are not showing as a red asterisk in Amarr local, the damn cowards are staying the in the station, I checked another location where they normally hang out but nothing, but it looks likely that I was wrong to trust their notification and may soon be eating a healthy dose of humble pie. Big smile Well if so I was dumb to trust their notification which is hilarious!!! Confirmed not flashy red, ho hum!!!

Face palm, I am now eating a healthy dose of humble pie, I also went back and checked and found that the first engagement we had was just within the start of the actual war dec and not our ally start point. Roll.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp