These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Wardec round table

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
T'Pawhl
Doomheim
#61 - 2012-03-24 17:15:47 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
T'Pawhl wrote:
For instance: Scum argument: "Carebears have options, therefore changes should not be made." Counter argument: If the changes are made, you will have the option not to flip that can when there's 30 people in the belt. You have the option to scout an easier target. Therefore, the changes should be made."

See how that works: it's called mutual mootability.

No, it's called employing a logical fallacy to strawman your opponent's argument.

You claim my argument was:

Premise 1: carebears have options
Conclusion: changes should not be made

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. This is not a complete argument, because the truth of the conclusion has nothing to do with the single premise.

My argument was:

Premise 1: carebears have options
Premise 2: the options consist of game mechanics that allow for sufficient defense against unwanted aggressive behavior
Conclusion: carebears have sufficient tools at their disposal to protect themselves

The conclusion follows from the premises.

Your second argument:

If: changes are made
Then: I have the option to not flip a can when there are 30 people in a belt

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. This is not a complete argument, because the validity of the conclusion has nothing to do with the single premise. I always have the option to not do something entirely (in this case, flip a can), regardless of what changes are made.

Your third argument:

Premise 1: I have the option to scout an easier target
Conclusion: changes should be made

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. This is not a complete argument, because the validity of the conclusion has nothing to do with the single premise. The only way this argument works is if you add a premise that the ability to scout an easier target is objectively bad for the game.

You can send me a hundred million for this logic 101 lesson at your leisure.


You just explained how the "you have options" argument is a crap argument. Thanks for helping me out. I owe you one. :)
T'Pawhl
Doomheim
#62 - 2012-03-24 17:18:02 UTC  |  Edited by: T'Pawhl
Quote:
Premise 1: carebears have options
Premise 2: the options consist of game mechanics that allow for sufficient defense against unwanted aggressive behavior
Conclusion: carebears have sufficient tools at their disposal to protect themselves


Premise 1: Scum (will) have options.
Premise 2: The options will consist of situational awareness and smarter target selection.
Conclusion: Scum (will) have sufficient tools at their disposal to continue being scum. The changes should be made.

See how it works?

Like I said: Hush about the "options" argument. It moots the argument.
T'Pawhl
Doomheim
#63 - 2012-03-24 17:27:06 UTC  |  Edited by: T'Pawhl
BTW, your second premise: "Carebears have sufficient tools" is unproven. Don't think I didn't notice that. Roll
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#64 - 2012-03-24 17:31:43 UTC
I provided a nice writeup that explained my arguments in detail. You gave the generic "thanks for proving I'm right, noob!" line. That's pretty much admitting defeat in my book.

However, in your next post you actually wrote something interesting. I'd like you to follow through on that, because then you might actually have a very good argument in favor of changes on your hands.

I'll give you a clue: you'll have to prove that situational awareness will be possible in a populated high-sec system when you're flagging yourself to the whole EVE universe.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#65 - 2012-03-24 17:34:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
T'Pawhl wrote:
BTW, your second premise: "Carebears have sufficient tools" is unproven. Don't think I didn't notice that. Roll

I proved my second premise in detail here. Right after the first big paragraph.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
T'Pawhl
Doomheim
#66 - 2012-03-24 17:37:18 UTC  |  Edited by: T'Pawhl
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I provided a nice writeup that explained my arguments in detail. You gave the generic "thanks for proving I'm right, noob!" line. That's pretty much admitting defeat in my book.

However, in your next post you actually wrote something interesting. I'd like you to follow through on that, because then you might actually have a very good argument in favor of changes on your hands.

I'll give you a clue: you'll have to prove that situational awareness will be possible in a populated high-sec system when you're flagging yourself to the whole EVE universe.


Aww! It's cute how you posture and try to take control of the argument. But I won't let you. Sorry! :(

First off, you never proved your second premise. Sure, you listed some options - but you didn't prove that these options were "sufficient". All you did was prove that options existed: Hence where the alleged straw man "carebears have options therefore changes should not be made" came from. And obvious the sufficiency of these options is in question (by the people who make the game). Not to mention that "sufficient" is a very ambiguous term which makes me suspect that we're boiling down to a situation where it's just your opinion.

Second, you never proved that these options warranted leaving the game the way it is.

Quote:
I proved my second premise in detail here. Right after the first big paragraph.


Nope. Not proven. :)
Prince Kobol
#67 - 2012-03-24 17:37:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Prince Kobol
T'Pawhl wrote:
BTW, your second premise: "Carebears have sufficient tools" is unsupported. Don't think I didn't notice that. Roll


Erm no, carebear have sufficient tools, the problem is that most of them like you refuse to use those tools and instead just come on the forums and cry.

This goes back to Options, however since the only option that players like you want to take is the "Give me everything or I quit" option then very little can be done other then to tell you to leave.

This has nothing to do with CCP but the mentally of the player, something which is completely out of their control.

This is why you point blank refuse to admit that their are options available to you.

I have said it before in numerous posts, there are many ways for people to make others think twice about ganking them but they simply refuse to take them.

This is Eve, not any other of your generic MMO's. If you refuse to take measures then you will be gang f**ked and rightly so.

Anything which gives the players the ability to fly a ship with zero tank and carry items worth hundreds of millions of isk and pay no penalty is wrong

Anything which allows the players to do any activity afk without risk is wrong

Everything in the game carries a risk, whether you mine, mission, rat, haul, whatever. You as the player can mitigate these risks if you choose to.

Those who choose not to pay the price which is how it should be.

Usually I would not bother responding to such a poor troll as yourself but unfortunately there are people who actually would agree with you and that I find is very sad
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#68 - 2012-03-24 17:42:42 UTC
Sufficiency comes from the fact that every action in EVE has some kind of counter, aside from just one exception: one group of people is able to suicide-gank any individual person, no matter what he flies, if they bring enough ships. However, if you want a counter for that, I regret to inform you that you're investing time into a game that is very, very divergent from your emotional needs.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
T'Pawhl
Doomheim
#69 - 2012-03-24 17:44:10 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:


Erm no, carebear have sufficient tools,



Nope, it's not proven that the tools are "sufficient".

Quote:
the problem is that most of them like you refuse to use those tools and instead just come on the forums and cry.


I love when people make assumptions. :)

Quote:
This goes back to Options, however since the only option that players like you want to take is the "Give me everything or I quit" option then very little can be done other then to tell you to leave.


I said that? Where?

Quote:
This is why you point blank refuse to admit that their are options available to you.


I did? Where?

Quote:
Anything which allows the players to do any activity afk without risk is wrong


THEY'RE TAKING MY RISK AWAY?! OMG, WHERE? SHOW ME!
T'Pawhl
Doomheim
#70 - 2012-03-24 17:46:08 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Sufficiency comes from the fact that every action in EVE has some kind of counter


This does not prove sufficiency. This simply, again, proves the existence of options. The efficacious of said options is unproven. It is also unproven the number of "counters" that is sufficient.

Your whole argument boils down to: "This is my opinion and I said so."
Prince Kobol
#71 - 2012-03-24 17:46:09 UTC
T'Pawhl wrote:


Lots of writing.. no substance



Thanks for proving to everybody that you have zero argument and that you are a poor troll Big smile
T'Pawhl
Doomheim
#72 - 2012-03-24 17:47:10 UTC  |  Edited by: T'Pawhl
Prince Kobol wrote:
Inability to quote any of the statements that he attributed to T'Pawl. Insults her instead.


Concession accepted. :)
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#73 - 2012-03-24 17:48:28 UTC
Yeah, I think I'm done here. I showed this to a friend and he called me an idiot for falling for it.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
T'Pawhl
Doomheim
#74 - 2012-03-24 17:50:03 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Backing out now that she actually has to do some thinking and support her statements.


Aww, okay. It's been fun. Bear
Mysteriax
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#75 - 2012-03-24 18:15:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Mysteriax
Actually he has an argument, the one where you do not want to go into.
Simply there is no risk at all for scum, thats his argument and he is right.
CCP held grievers hands for way to long, Neutral repping, no real concequeses, barely any risk for grieving because you know what you got into your victim doesnt.

You say well carebears can kill us 2.
Wait really a 3 week old player can kill someone who trained for pvp for years?

In what reality do you live?

Right now there is no risk at all for grievers none, with the change there will be.
Good scum will still be able to kill and get away however they need to pick there targets better, scout the area etc.

In real life when I see someone get beat up I will try and help him aswell, this is what now is going to happen to eve aswell its going to be even more like a sandbox.

This will bring tactical gameplay for grieving aswell and lets be honest most people in high sec barely trained for pvp so I doubt they will engage.

Oh wait did I just kill all your arguments, I am sorry. This thread will be dead now.
Callous Jade
Dockturnal Bromance
#76 - 2012-03-24 18:16:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Callous Jade
Replacement 234 wrote:
It is perfectly reasonable to expect these folks to be fair and see both sides of the issue and be excellent advocates for both sides. I'm sure CCP reognizes the honor that exists among them and will receive their messages with all due respect.

AAAAHHHHHH AHAHAHA - GUFFAW HOOOHHAAAAHHHAHAHAHA ahem.... (stands back up and dusts off the suit)

All due respect in this instance means CCP is laughing their asses off, too!! These mental deficients look at the issue as though it was a football field and believe - they are so deluded, that they truly believe they are standing on the 50 yard line - the exact middle of the issue, the top of the bell curve... The reality is they are so far down past the endzone, that they are really in the parking lot. In statistical terms, they are what is known as outliers - points of data on the standard bell curve that are so extreme, they are just a few dots way over on one side, just barely on the sheet of paper. They are as far away from the central view of the issue as it is possible to be.

Listen to the recording? I hope I managed to load the wrong recording. I tried, but the convo is banal, so lurid, so profanity laden, so full of unfounded conjhecture, so full of wolf tickets - it is ridiculous. I'd like to think they are sincere, but I have no evidence of it from past behaviors or current events. I can't imagine they have the collective sense to have entered into a conspiracy to produce this silly recording so they could "scam" the world into thinking they are sincere to just to give themselves another vial of tears. I think they are just all huffed up with their false bravado and inapprppriate sense of importance and think may actually be taken seriously.

I think CCP can count and when they are looking at projected losses on their tally sheet, they will be glad to see these guys go so they can have a better chance of retaining the players they have spent so much money to lure into their first paid monthly sub. I do not know the number, but I can tell you the management at CCP has it figured down to the penny just how much money is spent on advertising, trial account expenses, discounts and specials just to get the average new player to plop down their first monthly sub fee. They can then look at the number of players who leave the game after one, two, maybe six months of paid sub time and know if one player fills out the "I'm quitting because" questionnaire with griefing as the reason, that they can be statistically sure how many others left for the same reason and with enough disgust to not bother filling out the questionnaire. That is all part of basic market analysis. I'll bet Hilmar, CCP's CEO, can even recite the number of lost potential players which can be attributed to each different reason given on the few exit questionnaires that are completed by the friend's of potential players who left unhappy. This is not rocket science, this is just basic market research. No one can can seriously think CCP is relying on the CSM to provide all that data. If they were, CCP would not be asking those who close an account to complete a customer satisfaction questionnaire.

Oh, they are partying at the top of the world right now and all buddy-buddy, but then it will be back to business - the really serious business of internet space ships. The world of profit and loss. The hard look at what brings in and keeps customers happy and what drives them away angry, will be back at the front of everyone's mind. And crappy recordings will be just that - crappy.


Maybe you should look at the CSM election to see where the majorities interest really lies...I think its you who is the remote dot off the edge of the sheet my risk averse little friend.

Edit: @ T'Whaaawl - Seriously, 30 tear filled posts of failed arguments and ad-hom nonsense and youve recieved 2 'likes.' Time for you to realize you are the minority (even other bears are speaking against you) and just get out.
T'Pawhl
Doomheim
#77 - 2012-03-24 18:19:48 UTC
Mysteriax wrote:
Actually he has an argument, the one where you do not want to go into.
Simply there is no risk at all for scum, thats his argument and he is right.
CCP held grievers hands for way to long, Neutral repping, no real concequeses, barely any risk for grieving because you know what you got into your victim doesnt.

You say well carebears can kill us 2.
Wait really a 3 week old player can kill someone who trained for pvp for years?

In what reality do you live?

Right now there is no risk at all for grievers none, with the change there will be.
Good scum will still be able to kill and get away however they need to pick there targets better, scout the area etc.

In real life when I see someone get beat up I will try and help him aswell, this is what now is going to happen to eve aswell its going to be even more like a sandbox.

This will bring tactical gameplay for grieving aswell and lets be honest most people in high sec barely trained for pvp so I doubt they will engage.

Oh wait did I just kill all your arguments, I am sorry. This thread will be dead now.


Thanks for understanding that all the protest against the changes is basically "WAAA GRIEFING WILL REQUIRE BRAIN CELLS NOW WAAAA"
Prince Kobol
#78 - 2012-03-24 19:50:48 UTC
Mysteriax wrote:
Actually he has an argument, the one where you do not want to go into.
Simply there is no risk at all for scum, thats his argument and he is right.
CCP held grievers hands for way to long, Neutral repping, no real concequeses, barely any risk for grieving because you know what you got into your victim doesnt.

You say well carebears can kill us 2.
Wait really a 3 week old player can kill someone who trained for pvp for years?

In what reality do you live?

Right now there is no risk at all for grievers none, with the change there will be.
Good scum will still be able to kill and get away however they need to pick there targets better, scout the area etc.

In real life when I see someone get beat up I will try and help him aswell, this is what now is going to happen to eve aswell its going to be even more like a sandbox.

This will bring tactical gameplay for grieving aswell and lets be honest most people in high sec barely trained for pvp so I doubt they will engage.

Oh wait did I just kill all your arguments, I am sorry. This thread will be dead now.


Nope you didn't Big smile

You use the example of a 3 week old player v one who has been playing for years, please give a couple of examples where this type of 1 v 1 fight would happen within High Sec?

As for the rest of your post.. nothing really to respond to as it was all just filler and no real substance
Mysteriax
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#79 - 2012-03-24 20:17:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Mysteriax
Prince Kobol wrote:

You use the example of a 3 week old player v one who has been playing for years, please give a couple of examples where this type of 1 v 1 fight would happen within High Sec?

As for the rest of your post.. nothing really to respond to as it was all just filler and no real substance


Most high sec miners are new players or bots, since well we all know the payout sucks.
Can flipping is an example you and your scum friends, have used several times.
So I can use it as an example aswell.
Also most of the grieving tactics used are only effective against new players who dont know the game yet or people with a mental disorder. If you would try that on me for example you would pay with your ship, however I am not in high sec and havent been for a long time. You only like to pull those things in high sec because you know that in 0.0 people can actually fight back and have the skillpoints and ships to do so.

Also it was nice how you tried to dodge all the things in my post by calling it filler.
Perhaps you can try that on someone who cant debate but dont try that on me.
Answer what risks you have then. How often you yourself got shot down because of the risks.
What isk did you lose because of the risk??
I highly doubt you can think of anything.

Also please try to prove how you cannot gank and GTFO with a cynabal against some miners and some high sec dwellers in a calm high sec system. with the new rules?

If you cannot please stop posting and unsubscribe.
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#80 - 2012-03-24 20:31:46 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
Just been reading the proposed war dec costs, is it me or does it basically mean the the large alliances will essentially be immune to any war dec because of the massive costs involved?

If this is the case the the smaller corps are just going to get hit even harder before.

For me if 1 person wanted to war dec a medium to large high sec alliance he should be able to, with the proposed costs this is just not going to be feasible any more.

Take a look at my post here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=990616#post990616

It creates a proportionality-based fee system and addresses these issues.

This MASSIVELY incentivizes a defending corp splitting up into many smaller entities, on a square rule. If you split into 4 sub-corps, it's going to cost 16 times as much to declare war; split up into 10, and it will cost 100 times as much. This is a farce that would break up corporations as we know them and reverse the rightful trend towards ganging together for help.

Anything that strongly incentivizes changing the number of players in your corporation, whether by the attacker or the defender, is bad. I can see charging a small amount of isk (500k seems a bit high, maybe 50-200k) per non-trial member could be good, but you REALLY need to consider all cases.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature