Posted - 2010.09.25 11:51:00 - [92]

 

Well, you are either simply wanting Delilah to expose any such PVP toon so that you and/or possibly countless others can go after her (probbaly repeatedly), or your stupid enough not to realise she won't easily expose such a toon because that would be the inevitable result.

Which is it?

Posted - 2010.09.25 16:36:00 - [94]

 

Hi Daool,

Its nice to see you here.

Actually, Delilah Wild is my main, as well as my pvp account.

Finn is simply trying to be offensive, and poses no threat. He's too busy stalking the forums.

He also hasn't bothered to do his homework, or to consider alternatives (no surprise there), such as the many roles one can assume in pvp. When I started I received some excellent advice from a null sec pilot who tracked me into something beyond tackle. And I could care less about killboards and epeen.

Even so, I appreciate you speaking up. Those of us who are not griefers in eve or the forums need to stick together.

Cheers, Delilah

Posted - 2010.09.25 19:07:00 - [96]

 

Originally by: Delilah Wild

---

He also hasn't bothered to do his homework, or to consider alternatives (no surprise there), such as the many roles one can assume in pvp. When I started I received some excellent advice from a null sec pilot who tracked me into something beyond tackle. And I could care less about killboards and epeen.

---

If you took a look at Finn’s killboard stats you would be able to tell that he would know exactly what roles you can assume in pvp. Finn has amassed 1458 kills with a success ratio of 48:1. To me and I’m fairly sure many who may read this post it is you Delilah that haven’t done your homework.

I have no problem with you posting your ideas on these forums and I applaud your relaxed attitude but you can’t expect to be able to pull off “I am a pvper” to experienced combat veterans.

Posted - 2010.09.25 20:38:00 - [98]

 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 25/09/2010 20:49:18

Originally by: ViolenTUK

---

Finn has amassed 1458 kills with a success ratio of 48:1.

---

Actually it's a bit higher. My API verified kills with Razor go back to mid 2008 and they've a few more.
They don't include any combat I got into during the first two years I was playing EVE and Battleclinic is, unfortunately, somewhat spotty.

In any case, yes, I've flown just about every type of subcap ship from logis to command ships to fleet battleships to bombers to ceptors to HAC's to dictors to... I'm used to how small gang, large fleet and capital ships brawls work. Which is part of why I object to nonsense Delilah is trying to sell on that count.

Originally by: ViolenTUK

---

I have no problem with you posting your ideas on these forums and I applaud your relaxed attitude but you can’t expect to be able to pull off “I am a pvper” to experienced combat veterans.

---

The problem isn't merely the ideas (they are, in the main, very very bad ideas, but that's besides the point). It's the trolling and dishonesty that's used to sell them. It's one thing to say that you want to nerf lowsec PvP because you don't like PvP, but it's quite another thing to say that you want to stick it to PvPers in order to "balance" the game and you know what you're talking about because you're a PvPer. It's a pattern across many arguments.

Nor is faux-civility a beneficial cloak, either, if it's a troll. And, more to the point, it's rather poor faux civility. Her talk about how PvPers are "griefers" is just a step down from the mentally ill rhetoric that typified the disgraced and happily-departed Ank, of whom Delilah was a rabid defender. Delivering poison with a smile isn't true hospitality, and her used-car-salesman-smile while accusing Ank's critics of slander, even when they were quoting Ank's own words, was just more of the same.

The fact of the matter, trolling aside, is that Delilah's ideas are horrible precisely because she doesn't understand how PvP works or even the fact that EVE is a PvP game (when faced with that fact, she resorts to a pattern of trolling whereby she pretends that people who know EVE is a PvP game are "fumdamentalists".) That these bad ideas are, consistently, cast using dishonesty and from a rather disgusting position of white-knighting about how horrible "griefers" are in their "fundamentalism" since EVE is just a "cosmos", well...

The whole "and I'm a PvPer!" is just icing on the cake.

P.S. Delilah, stop trolling. What's it going to take?
An ad hominem argument is one that seeks to address an inconsequential personal detail about a person to debunk their argument. It is, properly, a non sequitor.

Pointing out that you are ignorant of PvP, and thus you're offering an uninformed opinion that displays a basic ignorance of game mechanics and therefore makes basic errors, that's not an ad hom. Pointing out that you have a near Ank-level hatred of PvPers in a PvP game, and that colors your every suggestion about combat in EVE, informing and forming the substance of many of your errors, is not an ad hom. Pointing out that you do hate PvPers, you are a liar when you claim to like and engage in PvP, and you are using your trolling about how much you like PvP to cloak your arguments for nerfing PvP is a fact. Not an ad hom.

Pointing out that your point of view fundamentally misses the basic dynamics of EVE, that because you rage against EVE being a PvP game and see yourself as a perpetual Victim who has to be saved by CCP, that because you view the very game style CCP deliberately set up as "grief play" shows that the view of EVE you have is toxic, ignorant, and antithetical to the functioning of the single best persistent PvP MMO ever created.

An ad hom argument would be that your avatar looks silly so your argument sucks.

Posted - 2010.09.26 11:51:00 - [100]

 

Delilah = mindless ankh fangirl, whoda thunk it

TBH I started ignoring her right after reading her first 3 paragraphs of bumf that boiled down to 'WHAAA pvpers are all griefers and I hates them' and seeing that every idea she has is poorly thought out, utterly unbalanced and totally ignorant of game mechanics. I suggest everyone else does the same.

Anyway in reference to the OP speaking as a low sec PVPer (Delilah take note, feel free to look up my stats any time you like, I personally recommend doing it via our alliance website http://www.shadowcartel.com/ but most of them are also on battle clinic) I would welcome and support any sort of reform that would encourage people to come into lowsec, even if its to shoot at me for reward money. More people = chance of more fights = more fun for me and I honestly dont care if being what I am would paint a big fat target on my head.

Posted - 2010.09.26 20:14:00 - [102]

 

Finn, I don't think Delilah's trolling. I think she's just like that normally.

Posted - 2010.09.26 23:02:00 - [104]

 

Well you're either deliberately misrepresenting that thread, or you are simply doing so without realising it....in it you will see most of the discussion was about Hi-Sec griefer wardec's (as in keep wardec'ing untill the corp members quit eve style griefing) as shown by

"Highsec grievers help noobs cancel the subscription, it's clearly in CCP's interest to encourage this with current wardec mechanics..."

Your confusing a dislike of people deliberately using game mechanics to force people out of eve entirely, and a enjoyment of one of the many integral components of the game (which Delilah has also stated as such) - combat between semi-consenting players.

Posted - 2010.09.27 01:38:00 - [106]

 

Daool is correct. If one looks back through the usual suspects comments on Ankgate, pvp fundamentalism, or this discussion of low sec, misrepresentation is their stock and trade.

No amount of reasoning will change that. You can't make the irrational reasonable. Even so, far more read these threads than the few forum griefers who try to shout the loudest. They may not contribute to these debates, but they can see such posts for what they are -- dogmatic, intolerant and hostile.

A bitter screed will follow this post, of course, now that I have my very own, personal stalker. That is all to the good, as far as I am concerned, as it drives the point home.

Cheers, Delilah

Posted - 2010.09.27 03:27:00 - [108]

 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 27/09/2010 03:30:52
Unfortunately I think that was just petulance, not a "You won't have me to kick around anymore!"

Originally by: Delilah Wild

---

misrepresentation is their stock and trade.

---

Mmm hmmmm. Figured out yet how you spend all that time "PvPing" and yet somehow not flying a combat prober, tackler, DPS ship, logi...
Same old, same old. People talk facts, you make vague handwaving gestures about "misrepresentation" and then, just-so-happen to be unable to discuss specifics. Just like Ank's own words were "smears". Just like everybody who plays a PvP game is a "fundamentalist" and people who point out how full of it you are are "griefers".

Originally by: Delilah Wild

---

A bitter screed will follow this post

---

loltrolling?
You sling insults and bull****, and then preemptively hop up on the cross moaning about how people might say something mean, and "grief" you? Heh, toss out the bait and then complain that you may have gotten some bites on that bait.

Anyways, get down off the cross, it's going to be winter soon and we'll need the wood.

Originally by: Delilah Wild

---

now that I have my very own, personal stalker.

---

You seem to have the same sort of mental issues that Ank did. Now you think anybody is "stalking" you? Is the CIA spying on you through your dental filling, too?
Two bits of advice: first, you're not important enough for anybody to care about enough to follow you (and of course there's the fact that nobody actually is following you and it's your own crazy paranoia, that anybody can check by looking at the threads you post in and who posts in them with you).

And second, when you start seeing a grand conspiracy of griefing stalkers when people simply point out your bull****, you need to up your dosage.

Posted - 2010.09.27 05:32:00 - [110]

 

Originally by: Daool

---

Not sure where I tried to change the subject.

---

The point where you went from absurdly defending Delilah's lies about her being a PvPer to distorting your comments in another thread and trying to keep the conversation on that point instead. Perhaps how you still refuse to admit that Delilah's claims about being a PvPer were obviously false.
Glad to clear that up for you.

Originally by: Daool

---

As for Delilah, my statement was "any such PVP toon" as I assumed she wouldn't be silly enough to point out obvious missrepresentations and trolling from a main

---

As the one trolling and making misrepresentations is Delilah (and now you, go figure) you don't have much of a point.
Of course, yet again, you're attempting to change the subject from the fact that Delilah was lying when she claimed that she PvP's and loves it.
But nice paranoia there. A PvPer has to be very careful about posting on the forums lest... people PvP with them!!! Which would be bad!!! Ayieeee!
Stalkers!!!

Originally by: Daool

---

As for the liked thread, you again missrepresent it (pattern much

---

Indeed, pattern exactly. Someone points out something that's going on, a few of the usual suspects furiously wave their hands while shouting "look over THERE!" Nothing was misrepresented, and I already linked to the thread, so folks can see you're not telling the truth. For instance, you just lied about something where I can quote the original thread.

Originally by: Daool

---

You say "a good idea if corps could just pay CONCORD to be wardec proof" when wardec proof was not, never has been, and never would be my position.

---

Originally by: you, saying what you're not claiming you never said, and is a "misrepresentation"

---

"If one corp can pay them to allow the war, another corp should be able to pay them to invalidate it. Make the War Dec a bidding process and expensive to undertake against a foe that doesn't want to fight."

Ooooh, this actually has real merit. Personnaly I don't mind empire war games but I haven't chosen industry wars as my own form of PVP :-)

I'd have thought CCP would like it as it has the potential to suck massive amounts of ISK out of the players hands.

Surely the hard corp griefers would like it - how often (as in this thread) do we hear 'lifes a ***** get over it", well thats true it is and just as in real life those that can pay dont often fight. Its just one more aspect of war, as has been said 'get over it'.

It also completely tastes of real life which while not absolutely necessary always helps.

Worth putting to CCP I'd have thought.

---

Let me guess, your own words are a "misrepresentation" of your own words, and I'm "griefing" you. Yes?
Are you also afraid of stalkers?

Posted - 2010.09.29 14:26:00 - [112]

 

No, my description of your original proposal was 100% accurate. Your new proposal is worse, however.

Originally by: Moar Dakka

---

Normalise the number of high/low/0.0 systems (exc. inaccessible bits of null, obv) to maintain the same population density in each of the three. Maybe also bin gate guns? Since you can kinda permatank them, they don't really achieve much of anything beyond irritating people.

---

To begin with, population density isn't determined by the number of systems, nor is population density, in and of itself, a goal. Gate guns also eliminate the utility of ultrafast tackle landing the first point.

But the point remains that 'normalizing' systems accomplishes nothing. If people aren't using N lowsec systems now, they're not going to use N+3 or N-5. The issue isn't the number of systems.
To say nothing of the utterly nonsensical mechanics you're proposing. What, established systems are going to be removed from regions? The POS's, assets, etc... will just have to transition/be lost/whatever? New systems will just spring up, randomly?

You were also looking into the wrong patch of lowsec. Check areas of high FW concentration of pipes like from Purjola to the Drone Regions. The fact that you'll find people there is a good hint as to the direction lowsec can take.

Originally by: Moar Dakka

---

I'm just making suggestions to salvage wasted space.

---

People not using space is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. It's not a problem. Trying to 'solve' something that's not a problem isn't a path that's worth taking. Making lowsec space into something that's worth holding is one issue, artificially trying to balance populations, just because, is quite another.

Posted - 2010.09.29 17:19:00 - [114]

 

Originally by: ViolenTUK

---

There is something you need to remember about low sec. It’s not just what you can or can’t do its how you play. It is true that most -10 players will spend the majority of time in low sec systems but others won’t stay there 23/7. Many other players will go to low sec to do something but the return to high sec for other activities or just simply dock up in a station and go afk. What I am trying to say is the low sec may seem less used than it may be. I personally rarely dock up in low sec I will usually head back to high sec for that.

Take high sec for example. You can pop your head into a high sec system and you might see 120 in system. A quick tour of the stations you will find that 80 or more of them are docked. I’m not just talking about trade hubs. Keep moving around systems and often you will see the same thing. Low sec doesn’t quite work the same way.

---

This is very true. A lot of corps, particularly ones in the factional militias, will spend most of the time in high sec and only venture out for roams. Doesnt mean they dont have an effect on lowsec though.

Posted - 2010.09.30 16:26:00 - [116]

 

Quote:

---

Law enforcement players
As it sounds this is players who have a high security status and like that but also want to PVP. As I write this most players don’t see bounty hunting other players as a real or even side profession within the game. In order to change that I think Player Pirates should have a bounty on them (on top of player created bounties) this should be based on the size of ship they are flying and how bad their security status is, and to make life more interesting the bounty should double if you can kill them when they have GCC.

---

this would encourage suicide by killing with alts

Posted - 2010.10.06 13:58:00 - [118]

 

An idea:

Each pirate that law enforcers kill adds to some type of concord bounty.

Each pilot that pirates kill adds to some type of pirate npc corp reward.

(reward values are calculated by ship value/moddules destroyed/podkill implants to avoid exploits)

Posted - 2010.10.06 16:10:00 - [120]

 

Originally by: Darek Castigatus

---

Edited by: Darek Castigatus on 06/10/2010 14:48:49

Originally by: Aelius

---

An idea:

Each pirate that law enforcers kill adds to some type of concord bounty.

Each pilot that pirates kill adds to some type of pirate npc corp reward.

(reward values are calculated by ship value/moddules destroyed/podkill implants to avoid exploits)

---

And this prevents alt based exploitation of the bounty system how exactly??

---

The rewards cannot be higher than the actual player isk loss