open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked The CSM wants to get rid of Jump Bridges.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (21)

Author Topic

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.21 00:33:00 - [271]
 

Yes, I was hinting that if you have a problem with people posting the you probably shouldn't be posting yourself, especially not just so you can post to tell people that you don't think they should be posting.

I see I wasn't explicit enough.

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.21 00:39:00 - [272]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
I've pointed out the fact that the ability to zip around the map is a theoretical and not a pragmatic one as fleets that are out for hours rarely, if ever, have the stamina and will left to go add a few more hours to their night.


So you are saying that in theory large blobs can zip around the map when in fact they really don't?

Also you say it is more of an accurate statement that fleets that are out for hours rarely have the stamina to add more hours to their trip if jump bridges are gone?

Sorry if my depth of vocabulary and word usage is not as vast as yours. I just want to make sure I fully understand what you are saying before I make a reply to it.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.21 00:47:00 - [273]
 

none of the last 6 posts add anything relevant to the main topic.

of course I could just ignore it. It happens all the time in every long thread. But it'd be nice if reminder to be considerate actually worked.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.21 00:56:00 - [274]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
none of the last 6 posts add anything relevant to the main topic.



None of your recent posts do, either, but you keep posting about how posting is bad.

Originally by: Marlona Sky

So


I do not understand your source of confusion.

-the ability to zip around the map is a theoretical and not a pragmatic one
because
-fleets that are out for hours rarely, if ever, have the stamina and will left to go add a few more hours to their night.

How many major fights have you been in, that drag on for hours with one or both sides repeatedly re-shipping, and after they're done the members in the fleet are eager to spend another several hours in a slugging match somewhere else?

Rafia Landras Audeles
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.21 01:06:00 - [275]
 

Edited by: Rafia Landras Audeles on 21/01/2011 01:06:48
This thread is lol.

Is it possible to use the same fleet for offense and defense in trivial time, regardless of distance?

Yes.

Does CCP, CSM, or from reading the thread, a significant amount of people like this?

No.

The attempts to deflect the discussion of the main subject to politics and now player stamina are hilarious and worthy of a third rate magician.

By the way, +1 to jump bridges burning. 0.0 is Hello Kitty and Friends online.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.21 01:18:00 - [276]
 

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles

Is it possible to use the same fleet for offense and defense in trivial time, regardless of distance?


Already identified is the fact that depending on regions, JB's don't save any significant time at all. We're talking a difference of ten minutes or twenty minutes round trip Tribute to Fountain core.
And, yes, the fact that players don't generally have the desire to play for hours straight in a major battle and then turn around and play more hours in another one is perfectly relevant to whether or not people will actually play for hours straight in a major battle and then turn around and play more hours in another one.

It's funny that you call that a "deflection".


Rafia Landras Audeles
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.21 01:25:00 - [277]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles

Is it possible to use the same fleet for offense and defense in trivial time, regardless of distance?


Already identified is the fact that depending on regions, JB's don't save any significant time at all. We're talking a difference of ten minutes or twenty minutes round trip Tribute to Fountain core.
And, yes, the fact that players don't generally have the desire to play for hours straight in a major battle and then turn around and play more hours in another one is perfectly relevant to whether or not people will actually play for hours straight in a major battle and then turn around and play more hours in another one.

It's funny that you call that a "deflection".




And in other regions they save a significant amount of time, funny you neglect to acknowledge that. Oh wait, you don't like facts that don't fit your argument. Right.

And whether those players play in a fleet again right after or not, it doesn't change the underlying fact that when they play again (if they didn't get too tired!), they will be able to move huge fleets in trivial amounts of time, regardless of distance (depending on the region, in some the time savings arent significant... however, in others, most you could say, they are Wink)

And so, I call it a deflection. The underlying problem is the ease of force projection and mobility bridges allow. And that CCP does not think bridges are working as intended. This is a problem you don't address, and which you replace with "Well, I think they work just dandy". Which they plainly and obviously, do not.

According to those who make the game.

That is the discussion and not politics, player stamina, or the color of your underwear.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.21 02:05:00 - [278]
 

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles

And that CCP does not think bridges are working as intended. This is a problem you don't address


Yeah, because you made it up.
CCP never said that bridges aren't working as intended. They're working exactly as intended. POS Bowling was a feature not working at intended. Being able to jump capitals to covert cynos is a feature not working at intended. Greyscale said that nullsec politics weren't working the way he wanted, not that JB's weren't working as intended. That's totally different, and you're trying to substitute what was actually said for a completely different issue.


Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles

Oh wait, you don't like facts that don't fit your argument. Right.


Swing and a miss. You being wrong is not me ignoring something.
Even going from the eastern tip of tenal at SF-XJ to PNQY you're looking at a difference of 29 jumps with bridges and 18 more without. Even if we were talking 30 jumps, or 40, that amount of time saved is insignificant to major battles that can and do go on for 4-8 hours.

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles

And whether those players play in a fleet again right after or not


Which is essential to determining whether or not JB networks actually allow for big fights at one end of the galaxy and then the other with the same fleet in theory or in standard practice. But, what's that? "Oh wait, you don't like facts that don't fit your argument. Right."

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles
in some the time savings arent significant... however, in others, most you could say, they are


1W on the eastern tip of Vale to PNQY, 28 jumps with bridges, 38 without. When compared to the process of getting thousands of people to a combat zone in multiple reinforcement waves, whether or not you save 20 minuets on the trip is not game breaking.

If that was really the objection, you could keep jump bridges and nerf ships' warp speed by 90%.

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles

The underlying problem is the ease of force projection and mobility bridges allow.


Force projection is accomplished whenever a large bunch of people decide to hit a target. That extra 20 minutes won't change that, and if that's really the goal it's pointless.



Rafia Landras Audeles
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.21 02:38:00 - [279]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero


Yeah, because you made it up.
CCP never said that bridges aren't working as intended. They're working exactly as intended. POS Bowling was a feature not working at intended. Being able to jump capitals to covert cynos is a feature not working at intended. Greyscale said that nullsec politics weren't working the way he wanted, not that JB's weren't working as intended. That's totally different, and you're trying to substitute what was actually said for a completely different issue.


But they did. They want to change bridges because they don't work as they wish. They aren't changing politics or any of the things you would rather discuss. And you accusing people of making something up? Hilarious. Quit your day job, comedy is for you.

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero


Swing and a miss. You being wrong is not me ignoring something.
Even going from the eastern tip of tenal at SF-XJ to PNQY you're looking at a difference of 29 jumps with bridges and 18 more without. Even if we were talking 30 jumps, or 40, that amount of time saved is insignificant to major battles that can and do go on for 4-8 hours.


Your opinion is noted. It is however, wrong. It is my postulation, that of CCP's, and from reading the thread, quite a few reasonable people that the amount of time saved is not insignificant. It may be to you, for you are immortal and got unlimited time, but apparently, for everyone else, its not.

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero


Which is essential to determining whether or not JB networks actually allow for big fights at one end of the galaxy and then the other with the same fleet in theory or in standard practice. But, what's that? "Oh wait, you don't like facts that don't fit your argument. Right."


In theory or standard practice, it happens, and is deemed a problem. Again, your opinion is valued but unfortunately, not based on facts.

And if those ships arent fighting offensive and defensive battles in different eds of the galaxy, well, where do they go when the pilots succumb to stamina? Vanish into thin air just to reintegrate somewhere else? Oh yeah, they jump back when needed. Yep, Jump bridges again.

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero


1W on the eastern tip of Vale to PNQY, 28 jumps with bridges, 38 without. When compared to the process of getting thousands of people to a combat zone in multiple reinforcement waves, whether or not you save 20 minuets on the trip is not game breaking.

If that was really the objection, you could keep jump bridges and nerf ships' warp speed by 90%.


But the problem is not warp speed, and warp speed does not teleport ships. By the way I like your new act of dismissing bridges now as irrelevant. Classy.

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero


Force projection is accomplished whenever a large bunch of people decide to hit a target. That extra 20 minutes won't change that, and if that's really the goal it's pointless.


You seem to be the only one with that opinion. I think that those extra 20 minutes WILL change that. The devs do too.

And really, if you are convinced its an irrelevant change that won't affect anything you care about, well, then you have no objection to it. And your numerous posts of straw men and out of context quoting, ommissions and whatnot are but part of your arguing for the sake of arguing fetish?

Intriguing.

krickettt
Golden Orb Technology inc
EVE Animal Control
Posted - 2011.01.21 03:36:00 - [280]
 

I support this! Nullsec is too small. Alliances hold too much space. Force people not to hold as much space!

If this doesn't pan out, then put jump bridges on planets or a module for the IHUB itself.

Pirokobo
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.21 04:51:00 - [281]
 

Edited by: Pirokobo on 21/01/2011 05:23:26
Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero


Yeah, because you made it up.
CCP never said that bridges aren't working as intended. They're working exactly as intended. POS Bowling was a feature not working at intended. Being able to jump capitals to covert cynos is a feature not working at intended. Greyscale said that nullsec politics weren't working the way he wanted, not that JB's weren't working as intended. That's totally different, and you're trying to substitute what was actually said for a completely different issue.


But they did. They want to change bridges because they don't work as they wish. They aren't changing politics or any of the things you would rather discuss. And you accusing people of making something up? Hilarious. Quit your day job, comedy is for you.



And both of you making the classic non-engineer mistake of confusing "do what I say" and "do what I mean".

In the end, all of CCP's decisions are done with the INTENT of making the game better but because they invest very little time in planning, testing, review, or for that matter really any part of the iterative model other then "implement" and "deliver", the results are at best unreliable.

When CCP added bridges, their intent was to link nullsec together, but their overriding intent has always been to make the game better. That is still their goal, but now they're less convinced that what they did jives with what they want to do.

They're kinda stuck on their own marketing BS really, they have a principle of providing deliverables on a timetable that leaves little room for serious thought about how to proceed. Considering that CCP is the ONLY major software company in Iceland (of any kind) I'm not exactly surprised that their adherence to good software design principles falls a bit short of say Blizzard.

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2011.01.21 11:39:00 - [282]
 

I do not support the idea of jump bridge removal. I'm not paying my subscription to look at gate getting slowly closer.

If you want 'bigger' universe add more systems.

Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
Posted - 2011.01.21 11:57:00 - [283]
 

Originally by: Carniflex
...
If you want 'bigger' universe add more systems.


space means nothing without time. if it takes one hour to go from one end to other, that's how big space is, regardless of how many systems there are. we could have huge universe with 100 systems, if it would take one hour from gate to gate and jump drives were limited to once per day. and we could have tiny universe with 10000 systems, if it takes 10 seconds from gate to gate and jump drives can jump from one side to other at will.

Saxton Hale
Posted - 2011.01.21 12:09:00 - [284]
 

Only anchor JBs at planets and only those of a particular type (plasma? storm?) - one per planet.


With Dust mercs can then interfere with JBs as one of their (high tier?) objectives either by greatly increasing fuel cost, causing a cooldown or whatever. Look CCP, synergy!

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.21 12:19:00 - [285]
 

Post with your main.

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles

But they did. They want to change bridges because they don't work as they wish. They aren't changing politics


Stop making **** up.
CCP has not stated that bridges are not working as intended. They are working exactly as intended. Greyscale specifically stated that one of the reasons for getting rid of bridges was to change politics. It's also rather dishonest for you to claim that the idea was to 'change' bridges or to fix them so they 'work as they wish'. The idea was to remove them completely from the game. And yet you're claiming that completely removing JB's from the game is 'fixing them so they work'.

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles

Your opinion is noted. It is however, wrong.


It's a fact not an opinion. And you've attempted to deny it with the bandwagon fallacy (plus the fallacy of appeal to authority). It's a bit hard to tell what you actually understand, as it seems that "Rafia Landras Audeles" evidently doesn't have combat experience and is an alt that started posting within the last 24 hours.
But the ability to save half an hour on deployment is insignificant when compared to how a battle actually unfolds, that getting podded home is often the way people return, and that folks often get to a system and fight until they're spent and then just log off somewhere and try to caravan back home at a later date.

That CCP doesn't get it is unsurprising. These are the people surprised when told what effects lag has on a big fleet battle.

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles

In theory or standard practice, it happens


Give proof or retract. How often does it "happen" and how much of an effect does it have on actual conflicts in progress? Also, as you keep ignoring it, how much of a difference are those 10 to 20 extra jumps. Do you have evidence that fleets say "Ah, well, it'll take us 10 extra minutes to get into another fight that we want to be in... so everybody stand down and make yourself a sammich"?

And yes, if those ships aren't fighting offensive and defensive battles they stand down, or log off in highsec/lowsec, or log off in nullsec and try to get a scout back later. And again, having 10-20 (or even ~gasp!~ 30) fewer minutes to make it back to home base is hardly game breaking.

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles

But the problem is not warp speed


And here we see that your argument is pretty much a troll. You've just been going on and on and on about travel time. I point out a very good way to reduce travel time, and all of a sudden nope, it's not about travel time anymore. And the objection that JB's "teleport" ships is immaterial, as gates do too, and you can camp/gank on both gates and JB's.

As for dismissing bridges as "irrelevant", yah, you're making that up too.

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles

You seem to be the only one with that opinion.


Bandwagon fallacy coupled with calling facts an opinion. Coalitions projected force long before JB's existed. Yes, sometimes even when it took a while to get where they were going. Because that's what's essential for force projection, the will to travel, not the ability to save 10 minutes on travel. The Argument From Nuhn Unhh!! doesn't change that fact.

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles
its an irrelevant change that won't affect anything you care about


Yah, stop making **** up.
Oh, and, even changes that 'don't effect things' might be bad ideas too. Letting a five year old draw new ship models would suck.

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles
straw men and out of context quoting, ommissions


You're making things up, there've been no stawmen. You're making things up, I've quoted nothing out of context.
You're making things up, there were no omissions.
But nice trolling. Obviously proving you wrong is only done because I have a "fetish" for arguing for it's own sake.

Post with your main.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.01.21 12:28:00 - [286]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Yes, they also have next to nothing to do with power blocs forming....

Absolutely true, but they are the sole reason for powerblocs being able to super-size.
The GBC, RA, Goons et al. of old were not coalitions made up of half the bloody map but rather regional powers forming alliances with neighbours. That changed dramatically as bridges grew in numbers and distance was no longer a hindrance.
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
See, even there the effect is being overstated. During the invasion of the Drone Regions recently...

"Lol" at using an invasion of the single hardest part of space to get to as example of anything regarding force projection being balanced.
When I lived there it it took half an hour to get to low-sec with bridges .. truly the ass-end of the cluster.

Bridges make null too easy, too convenient, too prosperous and provides power disproportionate to the costs.

And really, that crap about the sandbox .. stop it already or use it properly:
CCP not only owns the bloody box but are the sole purveyors on the sand within it.
They have on several occasion been forced to replace some of the sand that turned out to be cement in order for the box to be open for everyone.

Additional suggestion to bridge balance:
- Bridge consumes all available cpu/grid of POS.
Keeps the convenience but with same vulnerability as stargates.

Marc Younbrog
Posted - 2011.01.21 12:55:00 - [287]
 

I support the idea.

HOWEVER, the logistical item-moving that jump bridges support should not be ignored.

I think jump bridges should be reworked as hangars that may be accessed in two locations, with fuel requirements based on the cubic meters of volume moved.

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.21 12:56:00 - [288]
 

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
The GBC, RA, Goons et al. of old were not coalitions made up of half the bloody map but rather regional powers forming alliances with neighbours. That changed dramatically as bridges grew in numbers and distance was no longer a hindrance.


Wait what?

At its (pre-jump bridge) height the GBC stretched from Omist to Fountain, and the NC (if you choose to treat the current Deklein bloc as part of the NC) held more or less exactly the same space as they do now.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.21 13:01:00 - [289]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 21/01/2011 13:02:03
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida

Absolutely true, but they are the sole reason for powerblocs being able to super-size.


Are you using the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc, or ****hoc ergo propter hoc? Hard to tell. Can you elaborate?

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida

The GBC, RA, Goons et al. of old were not coalitions made up of half the bloody map but rather regional powers forming alliances with neighbours


You are simply wrong. The forces arrayed against BoB in the first great war included most of the north, plus the Goons, plus RA. BoB's empire was also significantly larger, taking up most of the west and much of the south.
And you're drawing a distinction without a difference. 'Sure, there were massive coalitions, but now coalitions are bigger so it doesn't count!'

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida

That changed dramatically as bridges grew in numbers and distance was no longer a hindrance.


As identified, the actual saving on time are fairly trivial. If distance is "not a hinderance" now, then it was equally "not a hinderance" before when the only difference was 10-20 minutes extra travel time in many cases. There are any number of factors that may have influenced the game, from the personality and agenda of the leadeship of the game's alliances to the influx of new players to sov mechanics, and so on. Claiming that bridges are the sole cause is an abdication of reason. Post hoc is a fallacy, not a piece of logical reasoning.

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida

"Lol"


You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
A massive invasion force was assembled, entire regions were invaded and a lot of space, including highly vital space, fell. The invasion was orchestrated, for all practical purposes, with JB's being irrelevant along one front and of negligable impact on the second. And the defenders had their own JB network but they were still beaten by invaders in numerous key battles.

This shows both that force projection can be accomplished without requiring bridges and that bridges are perfectly capable of being countered, even on a multi-region scale with a huge coalition defending them.

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida

Bridges make null too easy, too convenient, too prosperous


The "too easy" claim is not just subjective, but nonsensical. Saving people time in lugging **** around hardly makes nullsec easier in any essential manner; a coalition that's put to siege and their JB's reinforced is hardly going to have an easy time of things. "Too convenient" is simply subjective preference masquerading as objective truth. And it's one that disagrees with the perspective of many other people who'd rather spend more time playing the game and less time moving. To say nothing of the fact that, again, if moving slowly is the goal then you could cut warp speed down to 10% of current and accomplish it easily. As for JB's making nullsec "prosperous", that's simply fictional, not even subjective. Plexes, sanctums and moons would still exist without JB's.

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida

And really, that crap about the sandbox


The fact that CCP makes the game doesn't mean that they get to determine that player-created, player-driven content is being done wrong. Not if it's a sandbox game. Making a game and owning a game doesn't mean that you can turn it into a non-sandbox game and then claim that it's still a sandbox because you own it.


CommanderData211
Posted - 2011.01.21 13:04:00 - [290]
 

Couple of ideas here.

1. Have only 2 JB per constellation, and not let them be in the same system as one another. This allows the smaller guys to be able to have a JB going from one side of their constellation to the other, while mitigating the bigger guys ability to make an unbroken chain of them across multiple regions.

2. Eliminate standing or password requirement for non-alliance members to use JB. This will mean that you need to be in the owning alliance of the JB in order to use it. Personally not in favor of this one because it favors the super-mega-ultra alliance.

3. Make JB's an invulnerable structure that is not set up at a POS. This is my favorite option (maybe because I thought of it and maybe because it's awesome lol) because it then solves at least one major issue of JB's while maintaining an ability to control choke points on the map. This would mean that instead of specific and rather boring ways to go about destroying someone at a JB (cloaky dictor, bombers, etc...) you could have a real subcapital fleet camping a JB an maybe get a real fight out of the mess. This way, the people jumping through into the next system might actually have to use scouts instead of using a deathstar to guarantee their safety.

With the JB an invulnerable structure in the system - much like the TCU's or the IHUB's - they would only become vulnerable when SBU's are anchored. I believe the reason that the JB's are forced to be placed at POS's is for their protection, not the protection of those traveling through them. This eliminates that necessity.

Flame away boys and girls.

CommanderData211
Posted - 2011.01.21 13:09:00 - [291]
 

Oops, forgot.

4. REMOVE THEM ENTIRELY!

As a proviso to this option however, null-sec would need to become more self sufficient. Less logistical need for infrastructure and more real living in your space. The military logistics should be hard as it is.

Jonah Younbrog
Posted - 2011.01.21 13:20:00 - [292]
 

Perhaps we should look to creating dynamic region stargates that connect to certain regions at certain times?

As was proved with Planetside, static links tend to force combat towards the common ground, which in the case of EVE, is wherever hisec is nearest.

I think JBs were intended to nullify this tendency, and while their removal is certainly a good idea from a PvP point of view, you are still left with the utter isolation of the far reaches of nullsec. (though, perhaps, that's a good thing?)

The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.21 13:20:00 - [293]
 

if vuk didn't have irl stuff at the time of the summit, i doubt this nonsense would have seen the light of day

anyway i'm running, i'm not going to let this kind of idiocy take hold without a fight.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.21 14:01:00 - [294]
 

And Mittens knows where you live.

Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.21 14:13:00 - [295]
 

dear finnagain zero,

yet again i find your lack of reason / logic unsurprising. unlike you many people in this thread have actually read the notes released on the proposed changes and they are to be frank, completely within reason.

the fact that you run out here attempting to blindly brow beat anyone suggesting that these proposed changes are anything but terrible is easily read to be desperation or ignorance.

while you might think that you are helping your cause and your coalition, your lack of well reasoned arguments and lack of understanding as to what the proposed changes are reveals you and anyone else blindly complaining about issues which have no relation to what is being discussed (ie. sandbox games - if i want to put turrets on my drake i should be allowed to because its a sandbox game...) in paniced frenzy, are not concerned in the slightest about the wellbeing of this game, but your own misguided desire to "keep winning".

ive got news for you... if you say these changes will do nothing to you and your coalition, and honestly believed that as i do. i doubt you would be so fervently defending them.

on a closing note, the man who designed jumpbridges is now one of the biggest advocates for their removal. if this doesnt speek louder than the rest of this thread, there is nothing that can be done for you.

foreveralone.jpg

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.21 14:23:00 - [296]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 21/01/2011 14:45:09
Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 21/01/2011 14:24:42
Originally by: Massive Dragon
dear finnagain zero


Limegreen trolling?
What a surprise!

Originally by: Massive Dragon

yet again i find your lack of reason / logic unsurprising


Stop trolling and identify an actual argument you disagree with, then show why it's wrong.

Originally by: Massive Dragon

unlike you many people in this thread have actually read the notes released on the proposed changes


Lying troll, not only have I read them, I've found myself continually correcting people who've claimed things like that they're not explicitly about breaking up coalitions.

Originally by: Massive Dragon

on a closing note, the man who designed jumpbridges is now one of the biggest advocates for their removal. if this doesnt speek louder than the rest of this thread


Yes, it speaks to your utter lack of honesty and logic. JB's were not designed by one guy. And even if true, the minutes show that his objection was not that they're not functioning as intended, but that he wants to violate the sandbox and try to alter mechanics in order to hurt political choices he doensn't like.

You're also trolling, as the people who voice certain positions is an irrelevancy, and the support for those positions is all that matters.

I've been over all this, which is why you resort to trolling and can't actually address what I've said, and instead need to spew personal insults and babble about mistakes I've made rather than pointing out a single one.

Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.21 14:27:00 - [297]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Originally by: Massive Dragon
dear finnagain zero


Limegreen trolling?
What a surprise!

Originally by: Massive Dragon

yet again i find your lack of reason / logic unsurprising


Stop trolling and identify an actual argument you disagree with, then show why it's wrong.

Originally by: Massive Dragon

unlike you many people in this thread have actually read the notes released on the proposed changes


Lying troll, not only have I read them, I've found myself continually correcting people who've claimed things like that they're not explicitly about breaking up coalitions.

Originally by: Massive Dragon

on a closing note, the man who designed jumpbridges is now one of the biggest advocates for their removal. if this doesnt speek louder than the rest of this thread


Yes, it speaks to your utter lack of honesty and logic. JB's were not designed by one guy. And even if true, the minutes show that his objection was not that they're not functioning as intended, but that he wants to violate the sandbox alliance and try to alter mechanics in order to hurt political choices he doensn't like.

I've been over all this, which is why you resort to trolling and can't actually address what I've said.



desperate complaining is not an argument, the fact that you feel the need to pick through every single post that isnt agreeing with you in some feeble attempt to discredit it is both childish and weak.

i would disagree with you if you actually believed what you are saying. as it stands you are going down a path where "the ends justify the means" where you are willing to say pretty much anything to stop these proposed changes going through. of course if you actually knew what the changes were you might have a better shot at making arguments against them, but then... you wouldnt be finnagain zero. so thats beyond the point.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.21 14:41:00 - [298]
 

Yah, again:
-Stop trolling.
-If you claim that I've made any errors, actually point them out an rebut them rather than spewing empty and impotent personal insults.
-Definitely stop trying to play Internet Psychologist, it's embarrassing and does not mesh well with your conspiracy theories either. Just because you're dishonest and troll because you hate coalitions doesn't mean that others are engaging in your same behavior; liars think everybody lies, thieves think everybody steals and trolls cannot understand that other people believe their own arguments.

Feel free to address the actual arguments or admit that you can not and your position is utterly bankrupt, by just trolling some more.

Br41n
Amarr
Ministry of War
Posted - 2011.01.21 14:50:00 - [299]
 

Originally by: Zelda Wei

Jump bridges are the second biggest mistake CCP every made, and they fixed #1.


No they didn't alliances still exist

Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.21 14:53:00 - [300]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Yah, again:
-Stop trolling.
-If you claim that I've made any errors, actually point them out an rebut them rather than spewing empty and impotent personal insults.
-Definitely stop trying to play Internet Psychologist, it's embarrassing and does not mesh well with your conspiracy theories either. Just because you're dishonest and troll because you hate coalitions doesn't mean that others are engaging in your same behavior; liars think everybody lies, thieves think everybody steals and trolls cannot understand that other people believe their own arguments.

Feel free to address the actual arguments or admit that you can not and your position is utterly bankrupt, by just trolling some more.


we are finaly making progress with you it seems, attempting to address arguments rather than choice exerts.

ive made my point, that is: you have not carefully read (or understood) the proposed changes. even should you, i dont expect you to see reason or be happy about them. the man who owns the cheap labor factory is never the most willing to see the world change. (that isnt to say that he doesnt see its wrong, just his integrity has a price on it.) you have been compromised.

your opinion on these matters is highly prejudice and you are incapable of weighing the benefits to this game against your own personal satisfaction.


i could spend a good hour or so going through the issues you have raised such as "sandbox game", "coalition mentality" and other largely poorly formed arugments you have made to smokescreen the real issues these changes are addressing, but im certain it will get me nowhere with you.

anyone who want to sit down on ts with me at any time and get a full explanation of my beliefs and reasoning is welcome to.


Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (21)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only