These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

How many more players must we lose to bullying

First post
Author
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1101 - 2017-04-06 05:28:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Mr Epeen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:


More players =
More cash flow =
More developers =
a better game



Underlined it in your quote dude. I suppose your "a better game" could be some completely different game than EVE.
Still not seeing where I said all the money gets plowed into this game. I'd simplify it further, but it would hurt to write the whole thing in one syllable words.

Mr Epeen Cool


Tell you what will it help your epeen if I concede victory to you in terms of semantic bullshit? If so, consider yourself the might winner of semantic bullshit.

Roll

Oh, and you also get a participation trophy for insipid shallowness. Well done you.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1102 - 2017-04-06 05:36:45 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:


More players =
More cash flow =
More developers =
a better game



Underlined it in your quote dude. I suppose your "a better game" could be some completely different game than EVE.
Still not seeing where I said all the money gets plowed into this game. I'd simplify it further, but it would hurt to write the whole thing in one syllable words.

Mr Epeen Cool


Tell you what will it help your epeen if I concede victory to you in terms of semantic bullshit?

Then maybe he can post his data showing that increased cashflow is going to stop developers from being "stolen" from CCP.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1103 - 2017-04-06 05:48:14 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:


More players =
More cash flow =
More developers =
a better game



Underlined it in your quote dude. I suppose your "a better game" could be some completely different game than EVE.
Still not seeing where I said all the money gets plowed into this game. I'd simplify it further, but it would hurt to write the whole thing in one syllable words.

Mr Epeen Cool


Tell you what will it help your epeen if I concede victory to you in terms of semantic bullshit?

Then maybe he can post his data showing that increased cashflow is going to stop developers from being "stolen" from CCP.



What is hilarious is I didn't say "all" in my post either, but Mr. Epeen went right to what I call the "idiot's extreme". So when I replied with my own variation he got defensive.

Whatever. Semantics is bullshit and if it makes him happy to get a couple of participation trophies I don't care.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#1104 - 2017-04-06 06:18:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Aaron wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Aaron wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
You.
No. You!
NO! YOU!


Believe it or not, I can actually remember when this family feud started.

It's been years guys. Shake hands and be friends again, already.

Mr Epeen Cool


It's never gonna happen..

Not that I am holding any grudge or anything. Being friends with Drac comes with too many unreasonable conditions. I remember him wanting to fall out with me just because I believed pollution has a serious effect on our planet and weather. Drac was like "Aaron, we can never talk about this again!!" lol...Disagree with Drac at your own peril.

All I'd say is it would be great if Drac could chill out and respect that other people have experiences that form opinions.Jeez, it's not the end of the world if someone disagrees with you.


LOL, you really are back on the weed, I never said that.

You are not a leader, you are incapable of interacting with anyone else who has leadership abilities and you go after them and you alienate everyone else with your pompous arrogance, this is why you have failed and why you will continue to fail. SAS kicked you out of the alliance due to that, where you managed to upset all the leadership team especially the FC team in about two weeks.

You also desire emotional battles where you want the people to come after you in a rage to get you, do you honesty think that making up RL stuff like the pap above or talking rubbish about an event in Eve which you misrepresent and misunderstand to make some irrelevant point on would get me annoyed enough to want to get you in game, seriously you are deluded.

Yesterday I was giggling like mad as we blapped something on the Goon Keepstar in their main staging system, that is how to do it..., not making grandiose announcements in GD and never getting them off the ground.

o7 Aaron, you make me laugh, a lot...

EDIT: Mr Epeen, he just likes to get into emotional fights in Eve, that is what this all about on his side.

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

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1105 - 2017-04-06 06:58:38 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

No it wouldn't "lessen the things you like" about EvE unless you like the counterstrike aspect of EvE.

Eve was never designed or meant to have consequence free log in and quick gank a few random people in highsec.


Well good thing it is not consequence free then. That the consequences are less than the rewards is not CCP's problem, it is the problem of those players/pilots who created those rewards.

Quote:
It does as designed with Safe Space (high sec) - do a EvE Search on dev posts prior to 2006 and search for the term "Safe Space".


Nope. Even that screen shot you clutch to your breast like a protective talisman says "Nope." It references the word "piracy" that is exactly what suicide ganking is in game...the EVE version of piracy.

Quote:
pi·ra·cy
ˈpīrəsē/Submit
noun
the practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea.


There we go, but we replace sea with space. And where do you find ships carrying valuable cargo....why in HS along the...trade routes. So, HS suicide ganking is really nothing more than piracy. Everyone here, but you, can see it. I suspect you see it, but since it goes against your agenda you deny it over and over again.

Quote:
There were ways to kill in high sec sure - War Decs being the primary mechinism, however there was a 24 hour delay for those who wished to leave, there was also cost involved.


You mean like Zombie in the Yulai incident who killed people with smart bombs....for which he was not banned. He was banned for evading CONCORD and ignoring a directive from CCP staff to cease his evasions of CONCORD.


Every argument you muster is weak, hollow and vapid. You lie, distort, misrepresent and mislead...in just about every single post.

:)

This above shows you have no clue what you are talking about. Educate yourself before talking rubbish. Hint: Zombie shouldn't be used in the singular.

The rest of your posts follow the same pattern, ignorant and stupid.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1106 - 2017-04-06 07:05:43 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Hint: Zombie shouldn't be used in the singular.


You did doorknob.

Dumbass.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1107 - 2017-04-06 07:11:35 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Dom Arkaral wrote:
Mr Mieyli wrote:
[
That's your opinion man, I say that at times the gameplay / content I want IS removed by gankers. Whenever someone says "I just want to be left in peace" is an example of their content being removed by someone else. It's all viewpoints.

Have you ever played in a sandbox somewhere irl?
You can have your own personal objective, but so does the others

And if the others want to break your little sandcastle, you simply have to fight back instead of crying lol

Same applies here...
You want to be safe, you have to actively work towards that... Because no one else will do it for youCool



The thing your ilk fails to understand is that when a sandbox becomes a litterbox nobody will play in it.

The community was never so toxic. The sandbox was about sand, not about bonking smaller kids over the head with the pail and shovel and then pointing and laughing. Who wants to voluntarily log into that? (people who lack agency and feel they "need" to I guess - they probably conduct their sorry lives outside the game like that too).



Right Mo0 did not have that effect at all.

Those are some mighty fine rose tinted glasses. Roll

Mo0 left highsec alone. Zombie didn't and got banned. Enough said.



Quoting this before the serial liar can go back and edit it....

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1108 - 2017-04-06 07:22:01 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Hint: Zombie shouldn't be used in the singular.


You did doorknob.

Dumbass.

Not a great edudimication I'm guessing. In that sentence M0o is plural. Zombie is plural. They were both corps. Saying Zombie didn't is correct. Using "He" in regards to the corp Zombie is using singular because you thought Zombie was a player not a corp you noob :). That's wrong.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1109 - 2017-04-06 07:31:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Hint: Zombie shouldn't be used in the singular.


You did doorknob.

Dumbass.

Not a great edudimication I'm guessing. In that sentence M0o is plural. Zombie is plural. They were both corps. Saying Zombie didn't is correct. Using "He" in regards to the corp Zombie is using singular because you thought Zombie was a player not a corp you noob :). That's wrong.


Back pedalling noted. Roll

Edit: The best you got here is a semantic victory, like Mr. Epeen. But the point still stands: nobody was banned for ganking, nobody. They were banned for evading CONCORD.

You have nothing here. Nothing but a cheap minor victory. Maybe you and Mr. Epeen should form a club.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1110 - 2017-04-06 07:55:12 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Hint: Zombie shouldn't be used in the singular.


You did doorknob.

Dumbass.

Not a great edudimication I'm guessing. In that sentence M0o is plural. Zombie is plural. They were both corps. Saying Zombie didn't is correct. Using "He" in regards to the corp Zombie is using singular because you thought Zombie was a player not a corp you noob :). That's wrong.


Back pedalling noted. Roll

Edit: The best you got here is a semantic victory, like Mr. Epeen. But the point still stands: nobody was banned for ganking, nobody. They were banned for evading CONCORD.

You have nothing here. Nothing but a cheap minor victory. Maybe you and Mr. Epeen should form a club.

:)

You note your own back peddling?

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Zoubidah Al-Kouffarde
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1111 - 2017-04-06 08:18:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Zoubidah Al-Kouffarde
Mr Mieyli wrote:


Ganking is a playstyle, and sure I may feel it could do with some changes for player interaction reasons, but plenty in this thread have spoken up in it's defense, so it can't be flat out removed.



It shouldn't be removed, but people who abuse such mechanics should be expelled from the game

Player-to-player interaction should never be limited in a MMO, but the edgy tryhards who identify as griefers by the repeating of actions that seek to make people rage (gankers are Schadenfreude-seekers), should be permabanned.

This is because of this sub-community of gamers that MMOs devs have limited player-to-player interaction, put severe limitations on PvP, and pre-emptively remove interactive mechanics that could be used by griefers to annoy people.



Most gamers want to play pretend, and play a character in a fictional universe.

Griefers want to game the game, and seek to extort rage from others players. They simply should be permabanned from online games, when identified as such.

But then again, we've got CCP that built a business model around griefing Lol alts are a necessity to properly grief, or avoid being ganked

"You would not be the first "ganker aligned" player to be found to having some issues. Here's a dark secret: there are some in AG who, because of battling gankers, have managed to get to know a few of them, found they had issues, and helped them" HW

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1112 - 2017-04-06 08:18:53 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Hint: Zombie shouldn't be used in the singular.


You did doorknob.

Dumbass.

Not a great edudimication I'm guessing. In that sentence M0o is plural. Zombie is plural. They were both corps. Saying Zombie didn't is correct. Using "He" in regards to the corp Zombie is using singular because you thought Zombie was a player not a corp you noob :). That's wrong.


Back pedalling noted. Roll

Edit: The best you got here is a semantic victory, like Mr. Epeen. But the point still stands: nobody was banned for ganking, nobody. They were banned for evading CONCORD.

You have nothing here. Nothing but a cheap minor victory. Maybe you and Mr. Epeen should form a club.

:)

You note your own back peddling?


Yes, you win everything due to a grammar mistake. You have to be the biggest idiot on the forums....wait, I'm stating the obvious. Roll

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1113 - 2017-04-06 08:23:53 UTC
Zoubidah Al-Kouffarde wrote:
Mr Mieyli wrote:


Ganking is a playstyle, and sure I may feel it could do with some changes for player interaction reasons, but plenty in this thread have spoken up in it's defense, so it can't be flat out removed.


Player-to-player interaction should never be limited in a MMO, but the edgy tryhards who identify as such by the repeating of actions that seek to make people rage (gankers are Schadenfreude-seekers), should be permabanned.

This is because of this sub-community of gamers that MMOs devs have limited player-to-player interaction, put severe limitations on PvP, and pre-emptively remove interactive mechanics that could be used by griefers to annoy people.


It shouldn't be removed, but people who abuse such mechanics should be expelled from the game

Most gamers want to play pretend, and play a character in a fictional universe.

Griefers want to game the game, and seek to extort rage from others players. They simply should be permabanned from online games, when identified as such.

But then again, we've got CCP that built a business model around griefing Lol alts are a necessity to properly grief, or avoid being ganked



Looks like I spoke too soon for the biggest idiot.

Suicide gankers merely respond to the incentives that imprudent players provide. Why should they not shoot an anti-tanked freighter with 6.38 billion ISK in the cargo hold with 17 catalysts? Stop giving the "griefers" the incentives to "grief' and you end griefing. You should be really pissed at the numpties that put more than a billion ISK in an anti-tanked freighter.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Zoubidah Al-Kouffarde
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1114 - 2017-04-06 08:30:03 UTC
How about you use all of those 80 points of IQ to try and understand griefing goes way beyong ganking, which is simply one of its facets?

in b4"greffin is forbidan in the UELA" LOL

CCP, over time, built his business model around griefing, because alts are a necessity to properly grief, or avoid being ganked

"You would not be the first "ganker aligned" player to be found to having some issues. Here's a dark secret: there are some in AG who, because of battling gankers, have managed to get to know a few of them, found they had issues, and helped them" HW

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#1115 - 2017-04-06 08:36:04 UTC
It would seem this thread has run its course. As such, I'll be closing it. Thank you.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department