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 : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... : last (21)

Author Topic

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.21 15:00:00 - [301]
 

Quote:

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




Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.21 15:04:00 - [302]
 

Edited by: Massive Dragon on 21/01/2011 15:13:34
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Quote:

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






the onus is not on me to prove that you have not read or understood the notes.

just sayin brah.


edit: although given it would be more fun if it was:

Quote:
So in response to people using game mechanics functioning as intended, to do things 100% allowed within a sandbox political/military environment, the response seems to be "No, you are sandboxing wrong!" Jump bridges aren't a problem. "Force projection" isn't even really a problem either. Human nature and the fact that people will cooperate to achieve mutual goals seems to be the 'problem'. If CCP wants a game where power blocs won't form and imbalance things, they need to set up sharded servers with instanced objectives and fixed-man raids. But short of WoWing, EVE will remain EVE. There were coalitions and "blobs" before JB's and supercaps, there will be coalitions and "blobs" after, too.


you assume you know what ccp intends and how the mechanics should be used. i say that ccp intended for ecm bursts to hit ships inside poses giving them agro... prove me wrong.

you address the notes as though they are irrelevant given human nature. the notes as i read them had nothing to do with removing blobs from the game. the fact that they will make it harder to blob does not remove your free choice to join blobs and does not stop your blob flying 60 jumps to do whatever it is you want to do.

it is about ballance and providing hopefully MORE INSTANCES OF PVP. the fact that so many people have read this to be "the end of pvp" or "the rise of macros" or best yet "the death of small alliances" proves to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that these people have either not understood the changes, or are so concerned for their own (abusive) style of play that they are prepared to spread panic and poor arguments to further their cause.

now at the end of the day when you cant really argue with this as an argument i expect you to either dismiss it as "lies and trolls" or pick out random bits and try shout it down.

but that my friend, is how ive come to the belief that you dont know what you are talking about.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.21 15:13:00 - [303]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero

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


I accept your admission that you are lying and trolling and you can not rebut or debunk a single thing I have said.

Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.21 15:37:00 - [304]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero

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


I accept your admission that you are lying and trolling and you can not rebut or debunk a single thing I have said.


“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.”

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.21 15:50:00 - [305]
 

Ah, I see that after I pointed out that you were still trolling, you edited your post to make it look like you aren't, of course you're still trolling.

Quote:

you assume you know what ccp intends and how the mechanics should be used.


Trollin: We do know what was intended and that the mechanic is working as intended. Just like we know that you are lying about having read the minutes as Greyscale never said that there was an exploit involved but that he wanted to institute a mechanics change to try to hurt political forms he doesn't like and to stop sandbox play so that only content that is CCP approved can be engaged in by the players.

Quote:

it is about ballance

Trolling: It was specifically stated that it was about trying to hurt players' ability to create political situations as they saw fit.

Quote:
the fact that so many people have read this to be "the end of pvp"


Strawman: People have pointed out that making it take longer to get fights may possibly slow the pace and/or encourage turtleing.
Trolling: You are trying to pretend that game mechanics aimed at breaking the sandbox and stopping players from creating Bullard content that us bit approved by CCP is about "more pvp", because you are dishonestly shilling for a position where CCP while prevent people from creating their own content in a sandbox game and instead try to force them to fight people they'd otherwise choose to cooperate with.

Quote:
so concerned for their own (abusive) style of play


Trolling: When people creating player-driven content that you do not like and can't counter in game is "abusive", you are obviously just flaming people for choosing to creat player-created content in a way that you, subjectively, hate.
Internet Psychologist: Just because you argue dishonestly and troll to support your position does not mean anybody else is doing so, let alone everybody who points out your many errors.

Quote:
you cant really argue with this


Obvious Trolling: no further elaboration required.

Quote:
pick out random bits


Trolling: responding to the premises or an argument is hardly improper, if essential context was actuallly missed you could then point it out and rebut any errors. Instead you simply troll about the fact that arguments are responded to individually and not with a wall of text.
Trolling: by lying and trolling and then stating that your lying and trolling will be pointed out, you are trying to premptively protect your trolling and dishonesty from rebuttal.

Quote:
ive come to the belief that you dont know what you are talking about.


Trolling: as proven I have bit only read the minutes but either you have not or you are lying about their contents.

Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.21 15:55:00 - [306]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Ah, I see that after I pointed out that you were still trolling, you edited your post to make it look like you aren't, of course you're still trolling.

Quote:

you assume you know what ccp intends and how the mechanics should be used.


Trollin: We do know what was intended and that the mechanic is working as intended. Just like we know that you are lying about having read the minutes as Greyscale never said that there was an exploit involved but that he wanted to institute a mechanics change to try to hurt political forms he doesn't like and to stop sandbox play so that only content that is CCP approved can be engaged in by the players.

Quote:

it is about ballance

Trolling: It was specifically stated that it was about trying to hurt players' ability to create political situations as they saw fit.

Quote:
the fact that so many people have read this to be "the end of pvp"


Strawman: People have pointed out that making it take longer to get fights may possibly slow the pace and/or encourage turtleing.
Trolling: You are trying to pretend that game mechanics aimed at breaking the sandbox and stopping players from creating Bullard content that us bit approved by CCP is about "more pvp", because you are dishonestly shilling for a position where CCP while prevent people from creating their own content in a sandbox game and instead try to force them to fight people they'd otherwise choose to cooperate with.

Quote:
so concerned for their own (abusive) style of play


Trolling: When people creating player-driven content that you do not like and can't counter in game is "abusive", you are obviously just flaming people for choosing to creat player-created content in a way that you, subjectively, hate.
Internet Psychologist: Just because you argue dishonestly and troll to support your position does not mean anybody else is doing so, let alone everybody who points out your many errors.

Quote:
you cant really argue with this


Obvious Trolling: no further elaboration required.

Quote:
pick out random bits


Trolling: responding to the premises or an argument is hardly improper, if essential context was actuallly missed you could then point it out and rebut any errors. Instead you simply troll about the fact that arguments are responded to individually and not with a wall of text.
Trolling: by lying and trolling and then stating that your lying and trolling will be pointed out, you are trying to premptively protect your trolling and dishonesty from rebuttal.

Quote:
ive come to the belief that you dont know what you are talking about.


Trolling: as proven I have bit only read the minutes but either you have not or you are lying about their contents.



for the record im 3 from 3 in predictions in this thread, and i would like to encourage you to never stop posting. each time you sperge like this you give strength to everything ive been saying.

i doubt the panic and ignorance you hope to sew will change the decisions makers minds at this stage, as it is just sperging.

Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.21 16:10:00 - [307]
 

for people who are not finnagain zero i would like to provide you with something to think about. (he will no doubt sperge i hope you learn from his mistakes and actually think about the changes.)

these changes do not take away you choice or your ability to group up in numbers. what it does is encourages the use of stargates and increases the danger in sovreign 0.0. (whether it be yours or your enemys).

how is this likely to affect 0.0? provide overall more instances of pvp by bring slightly more imperative to dealing with hostile gangs and by encouraging convoy systems.

arguments based on the nature of this game being a sandbox are completely irrelevant and non-sensical as these changes in no way affect your option to make choices and form what coalitions you want. that these changes ENCOURAGE smaller scale pvp again (hopefully revitalising 0.0 pvp and giving meaning to smaller gangs once more - which has been lacking for some time.


if you are reading these changes as an attack on the coalition system, you are so so so wrong. the point is not to stop people blobbing, and ccp nor their representatives have ever said anything like this. that you read encourage smaller gangs and more pvp to "the deliberate attack on coalitions" i think is very telling. seeking to victimise yourselves i find highly ironic, as every time a game mechanic crops up that you deem "unfair" you are more than willing to spam all up and down these forums until such a thing is changed - point in case 07' carrier changes.

however when this game is at the precipice of changing for greater oppertunities for pvp and a more vibrant and active 0.0scape you are prepared to throw it all away for your own ignorant fear.




i promiss you, and im on a bit of a roll with cool quotes today: “The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about”.

these changes are of great benefit to anyone who enjoys pvp. if you dont enjoy pvp, then fine... contest these changes, but do so on those ground. not some false sense of moral panic.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.21 16:46:00 - [308]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 21/01/2011 16:48:23
Quote:
3 from 3


Trolling: yet again in this thread minigin is unable to accurately describe facts, engage actual arguments, deal with others' let alone provide factual refutations of his own, and can only troll.

Speaking of which:

Quote:
attack on the coalition system


Trolling an lying: minigin proves that he did not actually read the minutes and had been trolling about how others allegedly did not. Greyscale makes clear, specifically, that his goals are to try to hurt coalitions and force them to fight amongst themselves rather than going across the map and attacking other groups simply to start wars for th sake of pvp.

Rafia Landras Audeles
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.21 17:21:00 - [309]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero


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...


They have, and it was Greyscale who threw the idea of deleting Jump Bridges altogether. You know, the dev, wishing to remove something because, well, it doesn't work as intended. You may want to read the minutes.

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero


It's a fact not an opinion....


Ad hominem fallacy, zip up bro, your hypocresy is showing. No, its an opinion with nothing backing it up but your own unreliable statements. Facts are backed by something, and you have neither statistics nor.. well facts to back any of your utterly wrong opinions.


Originally by: FinnAgain Zero


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.


The developers disagree, I disagree, etc. In b4 omfg fallacies, the onus is on you to prove your nonsensical claims, do you have numbers regarding any of this? Didn't think so.

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero

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.


More misdirection? First it was politics, then sandboxing wrong, now it is warp speed that is the problem? Protip: The topic today is Jump Bridges. I know you don't want to talk about those, feel free to submit your grandiose ideas about warp speed in a relevant thread.

Inb4 "No really, the problem is local" Wink

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero

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.


Your opinion, as has been established, is an opinion, Your opinion, is not a fact. I don't think the word fact means what you think it means. Protip: it does not mean "Finnagain's opinion"

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero

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.

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....


So now the problem is five year olds and ship models? One whole post is too much for you to stay on topic? And where is you know, proof for anything you claim?

There is only one troll here, and that would be you.

By the by, here is a map of the northern bridge network. See the colorful tendrils? Those are jump bridges connecting.. well everywhere with everywhere. I guess some people see the time savings as significant. Go figure. Rolling Eyes
Map

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.01.21 17:21:00 - [310]
 

You want to make space bigger, let us blow up stations.

Stations are more to blame for how spread out alliances are than bridges. If there wasn't a station in near every single large alliance null sec system, people wouldn't be as spread out. Bridges wouldn't be used to connect all the ratting grounds. It would take time and warfare, but the sandbox would then be molded by the players rather than some artificial intervention by CCP.

Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.21 17:30:00 - [311]
 

Edited by: Massive Dragon on 21/01/2011 17:35:59
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 21/01/2011 16:48:23
Quote:
3 from 3


Trolling: yet again in this thread minigin is unable to accurately describe facts, engage actual arguments, deal with others' let alone provide factual refutations of his own, and can only troll.

Speaking of which:

Quote:
attack on the coalition system


Trolling an lying: minigin proves that he did not actually read the minutes and had been trolling about how others allegedly did not. Greyscale makes clear, specifically, that his goals are to try to hurt coalitions and force them to fight amongst themselves rather than going across the map and attacking other groups simply to start wars for th sake of pvp.



yes im sure that sounds aweful for you, nearby pvp as opposed to the other side of the map? ludacris. thats just unfair. people should be encouraged by mechanics to form giant naplists that there are no closeby targets. i dont see how anyone should be for changing jumpbridges now. well played sir.



for those of you who actually want to read the minutes though: "CCP has always wanted smaller goals that can be achieved with smaller fleet subsets"

"“*CCP has+ gone *too far+ in the direction of making players lives easy – we've got jump freighters and jump bridges and all this *stuff+ – and I think there is an agreement here *at CCP+ that we want to pull back from that."

"Much of the CSM agreed that alliance logistics is too easy"

"It was suggested that CCP, as part of any changes to logistics, take the opportunity to eliminate mindless pain, and add gameplay value."

"more opportunities for conflict in the logistics, making it easier for other players to trap you if you're being sloppy."

"There is concern that logistics into deep nullsec will be much more difficult than shallow nullsec.
Greyscale: Awesome, more things to fight over. and more importantly, more differentiation between different areas of space.."

"Greyscale feels that reduction in mobility will decrease need for big coalitions, because huge coalition blobs won't be able to move as fast; result should be smaller local wars."

"It is noted that the cost of supporting coalition allies will increase, which will increase friction; coalitions may fragment so reds are easier to find. This may make it easier for small alliances to set up shop, with less supercapital curb stomping."

"The CSM notes that if changes are made to make logistics more difficult, entry points into nullsec will become even bigger choke-points than at present. This issue was discussed in June, with the CSM suggesting more entry points."

"What is CCP's vision about small alliances? CCP wants them to be able to be independent if they want, and feels reducing the ability of large alliances to hold a lot of space will make this more viable – it make the curb-stomping harder. Another issue is that at present large alliances start feeling secure, get bored, and say "we have nothing better to do, let’s go crush these guys.""

"The CSM feels that avoiding a fight should cost you, and notes that when controlling large amounts of space, it's hard to respond to stuff happening on the periphery. There needs to be incentives to take the fight vs. "let them knock it over and we'll go fix it afterwards""

"Greyscale: “Shooting structures suck, it is a terrible mechanic.”"

"With respect to the issue of aggression timers and logoffski, Greyscale deployed his catch-phrase – it “sucks balls”. The problem of legitimate disconnects remains, but if you are in a fight and lose your connection, then that ought to be tough luck."


well done ccp for heading in the right direction.

a big thank you from me!

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.21 18:26:00 - [312]
 

Minigin is trolling, again. Notice that the part he underlined was about shooting structures and did not even that it was not working as intended, just that the intention had been bad. Mini proves he was lying and trolling and hadn't read it and is kind enough to quote it, where Greyscale says over and over that his goal is to break player-created content, try to hurt politics he doesn't like and break up coalitions.

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles

They have


No, seriously though, stop lying. They did not allege a single exploit or claim that JBs were somehow operating other than designed. Minigin inexplicably posted the text of the minutes to prove that he'd been lying about their content and having read them, who do you expect to fool when they're still posted?
Quote:

Ad hominem fallacy


I know that you heard someone talk about fallacies and thought it was cool, but they have actual definitions. You clearly have no clue what an ad hom is. You also clearly have no idea what hypocrisy is. I've spent time in many, many long fleet fight and speak from experience. You are on an alt troll account with no combat stats and no facts to back up your nonsense.


Quote:

The developers disagree

Lying and trolling. The objection came from Greyscale not "the developers". Also trolling as you have no data to back up your pains and you are posting on an alt troll account with no combat experience while I actually know from experience.

Quote:
misdirection?


More trolling. Your lack of compehension is not q lack of clarity on my part. The minutes clearly show that the intend is to alter nullsec's political landscape. It obvious that you're trolling as it explicitly says just that. Likewise you are trolling by pretending that you don't understand the player-created politics is the same exact thing as sandbox gaming and telling people that their player-creates politics are "wrong" is indeed telling them they're sandboxing "wrong".
The point about warp speed showed that you were trolling in that point as well, as you claim that you want to make it slower to move long distances, which nerfing warp speed would do, but you babble and try to avoid that fact. Especially relevant since a need to warp speed would be fair and applied to everybody and not just sov holders.


Quote:

Your opinion

More trolling. Caught using the bandwagon fallacy, being wrong about game history and bit understanding how cooperation and force projection actually work, you're calling facts opinions. Additionally you are trolling as you claimed that correctly pointing out that your subjective opinions weren't factual was a "ad hominem" and that you object to "hypocrisy". Also trolling in that you've opted for a "I know you are but what an I" tactic.

Quote:

So now the problem is five year olds and ship models?


No, the problem is that you won't stop trolling. I pointed out that even things which would have zero effect on gameplay, like five year olds drawing ship models, could be oppose as bad ideas. You are now trolling and pretending that a direct response to your claim is a change of topic. You are also trolling about proof when everything I have pointed out is either documented fact about the game's history, unlike your ignorance if the history of coalitions, or drawn from extensive experience with fleets, unlike your alt troll account with no combat stats.

Quote:

Those are jump bridges connecting.. well everywhere with everywhere.


Trolling. The JB network does not connect "everywhere", only NC territory.
Also trolling in an already refuted point, the time savings even from the eastern tip of Tenal or Vale to PNQ are fairly minimal and not enough to significantly influence force projection and certainly not 4-8 hour long battles, let alone full scale invasions like the recent drone regions invasion. Still no prof from an alt troll with no combat stats.

Rafia Landras Audeles
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.21 18:58:00 - [313]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
I like my opinion and my opinion which is vastly supported by my opinion should be considered facts. Also, I am right because I say so.


Oh? I didn't see any proof of anything Finn, you are of course, entitled to your opinions, unsubstantiated as they may be.

By the way, I'll save you the trip to google:

ad ho·mi·nem   
[ad hom-uh-nuhm ‐nem, ahd-] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Funny, your claim of me being a troll while offering nothing to substantiate your opinions, fits perfectly there. But hey, Troll is your favorite word, and a reasonable fallback for when you have nothing to say.

Thats okay, I understand you have no argument, and concede in the guise of childish personal attacks. I know, I know, expecting you to give any substantiation to your claims is asking for too much from you, and as we all know you are of the opinion that bridges offer insignificant time savings and that ship models are somehow relevant Rolling Eyes

I would buy you a dictionary because you clearly do not understand half the words you use, but if Google is too hard for you to use, I don't see why you'd use a paper one. I recommend you look up "fact" "hypocrisy" "troll" and "lying".

At any rate, I am glad that you think that the changes would be inconsequential and that the bridges "everywhere" (not specific enough? sorry go back to internet lawyer school) are there because they look pretty in maps and not because they offer any significant tactical, or time advantage. Although I disagree on the current impact of the bridges, if you think them so insignificant (which they aren't) then there is no objection you can raise against them going.

By the way, CCP is the authority on bridges, and I believe that their arguments that they don't work as intended hold.. vastly more water than yours that they do Wink. Especially since CCP has, you know, facts and data, and you have unsupported opinions and forum posturing.

So the bridges go.

Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.21 19:06:00 - [314]
 

lack of engagement of core issues, fixation on assumptions(poor ones at that), senseless reiteration of the same poor points(you dont even bother changing the wording most of the time), lack of ability to engage a complete argument you rather clutch at exerts and even then you dont deal with those exerts you seek only to discredit them not on their merrits but with general fabrications you have been throwing at anything that isnt "yes i think jumpbridges should not be changed".

what is the point of discussing anything with you?

yes we know you dont like the propsed changes, why dont you give us the real reasons you dont like them?


Pirokobo
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.21 19:32:00 - [315]
 

Edited by: Pirokobo on 21/01/2011 19:36:17
Originally by: Massive Dragon
yes im sure that sounds aweful for you, nearby pvp as opposed to the other side of the map? ludacris. thats just unfair. people should be encouraged by mechanics to form giant naplists that there are no closeby targets. i dont see how anyone should be for changing jumpbridges now. well played sir.



If bridges disappear it will change nothing. We will still form coalitions and we will still be fighting halfway across the map, because we love technetium and we love shooting IT and we love that the one lets us do the other a lot.

Eldaec
Posted - 2011.01.21 19:33:00 - [316]
 

This thread shows exactly the problem with the CSM and taking feedback from this forum.

About 90% of the people here clearly don't know how Jump Bridges are used.

CCP consulting the current CSM on any 0.0 detail like this also seems absurd given two thirds of the group haven't reached 0.0.


Fallacy 1

Jump Bridges encourage blobs, allow blobs to move, allow blobs to form.

Rubbish. Large fleets only occasionally use JBs. Nothing stops fleets moving through normal gates anyway, they aren't going to be ganked or blocked on a gate route, it is just a more boring way to play. You know how we know this? It happens today when there doesn't happen to be a JB route where we want to go (ie. most of the ****ing time).

Jump bridges aren't what allows a 200 man fleet to form in a staging system either - jump clones do.



Fallacy 2

Jump Bridges reduce small scale pvp/ganking.


I'll tell you want reduces small scale pvp. The fact that there are no small scale objectives worth fighting for in a contested pvp encounter, and ganking gets steadily harder as the player base gains a better understanding of game mechanics (warping to a safespot is not hard).


All jump bridges really do is allow member and small corp level logistical and industrial activity within alliance organisations. Take away jump bridges and you'll just leave more activities that can only be performed by alliance (blob) level organisation, or by bitter vets with capitals. The guys who are currently hard (not that hard) to gank on JBs will be impossible to gank in a blob, they'll just be more bored because everything is taking longer for no reason.

Small gangs use them to chase targets as well, but I don't see how that is a bad thing - given that it means more pew pew.

Professional game designers ought to have realised by now that players will always feel they have to do things the best possible way or not at all. They will then complain or go off in a huff when they then find they are not having as much fun.


Fallacy 3

Logistics doesn't take long enough.


Well Jesus ****ing Christ, this is what you get when you vote for the current CSM. Nobody can seriously think this.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.21 20:09:00 - [317]
 

Originally by: Pirokobo
If bridges disappear it will change nothing. We will still form coalitions and we will still be fighting halfway across the map, because we love technetium and we love shooting IT and we love that the one lets us do the other a lot.
If bridges disappear it will change PvP dynamics significantly. Stargate traffic would increase significantly, number of small scale PvP encounters would rise, large scale PvP operations would require more effort to organize and execute, with more risks for counter attacks and multiple fronts.
0.0 would become more hardcore - that cannot be disputed.

It will have minimal impact on political structures of EVE.
It's not the intent of CCP to break up big power blocks. But CCP seems to be concerned with PvP strategies used by the power blocks.

Brian Khan
Amarr
StarHunt
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2011.01.21 20:18:00 - [318]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
Originally by: Pirokobo
If bridges disappear it will change nothing. We will still form coalitions and we will still be fighting halfway across the map, because we love technetium and we love shooting IT and we love that the one lets us do the other a lot.
If bridges disappear it will change PvP dynamics significantly. Stargate traffic would increase significantly, number of small scale PvP encounters would rise, large scale PvP operations would require more effort to organize and execute, with more risks for counter attacks and multiple fronts.
0.0 would become more hardcore - that cannot be disputed.

It will have minimal impact on political structures of EVE.
It's not the intent of CCP to break up big power blocks. But CCP seems to be concerned with PvP strategies used by the power blocks.


You seem to assume that people would use gates. I would say they would be using jump capable ships instead. Carriers are nowadays cheaper than ships people use for ratting for quite significant portion of playerbase. So it's quite easy to get one and use it to haul your pod and whatever ships you need to be moving. Only ones using gates would be alts in shuttles.

This not the EVE that was when jump bridges were first introduced. When hotdroppin people with 3 carriers was 'a statement'. Nowadays 3 carriers at a gate are a bait.

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.21 20:20:00 - [319]
 

Originally by: Eldaec
This thread shows exactly the problem with the CSM and taking feedback from this forum.


Actually, the only thing this thread has proven is that Finnagain loves his jump bridges. He manages to make a point to reply to every post that is for a change to jump bridges with arguments that can be directly applied right back at him.

CCP, CSM and many players agree that there needs to be a change. It is time to let this thread, that is nothing more than people debating back and forth, further entrenching each other into what they believe to be so called facts, die.

I suggest we take this over to features and ideas section where we can talk about it.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.21 20:21:00 - [320]
 

Quote:
Fallacy 2

Jump Bridges reduce small scale pvp/ganking.


I'll tell you want reduces small scale pvp. The fact that there are no small scale objectives worth fighting for in a contested pvp encounter, and ganking gets steadily harder as the player base gains a better understanding of game mechanics (warping to a safespot is not hard).
I'm sorry, but anyone who claims Jump Bridges don't reduce SMALL SCALE pvp doesn't actually spend any time doing small scale PvP.

The simple, easily understandable fact of the matter is that JB are designed to provide easy and safe alternative to stargate travel. That's pretty much a given. The vast majority of small scale PvP engagements happens either around a stargate or asteroid belt. Therefore, reducing the traffic thru stargates would automatically reduce number of small pvp encounters.

There are small scale objectives worth fighting for: I fight for sake of getting kills, which I find a fun thing to do. The main objective of the game is fun - not isk, not outpost holding, not moon holding - but fun.

While large organizations need concrete game objectives to justify their existence, small scale entities, such as individuals and small groups of people, have "pvp fun" as their main objective.

Sure, not all people want to "pvp for fun", but quite a few do. And that's enough reason to start most of the small scale fighting that goes on all over EVE - high sec, low sec, and 0.0

Cassus Temon
Aliastra
Posted - 2011.01.22 03:29:00 - [321]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Ah, I see that after I pointed out that you were still trolling, you edited your post to make it look like you aren't, of course you're still trolling.

Quote:

you assume you know what ccp intends and how the mechanics should be used.


Trollin: We do know what was intended and that the mechanic is working as intended. Just like we know that you are lying about having read the minutes as Greyscale never said that there was an exploit involved but that he wanted to institute a mechanics change to try to hurt political forms he doesn't like and to stop sandbox play so that only content that is CCP approved can be engaged in by the players.

Quote:

it is about ballance

Trolling: It was specifically stated that it was about trying to hurt players' ability to create political situations as they saw fit.

Quote:
the fact that so many people have read this to be "the end of pvp"


Strawman: People have pointed out that making it take longer to get fights may possibly slow the pace and/or encourage turtleing.
Trolling: You are trying to pretend that game mechanics aimed at breaking the sandbox and stopping players from creating Bullard content that us bit approved by CCP is about "more pvp", because you are dishonestly shilling for a position where CCP while prevent people from creating their own content in a sandbox game and instead try to force them to fight people they'd otherwise choose to cooperate with.

Quote:
so concerned for their own (abusive) style of play


Trolling: When people creating player-driven content that you do not like and can't counter in game is "abusive", you are obviously just flaming people for choosing to creat player-created content in a way that you, subjectively, hate.
Internet Psychologist: Just because you argue dishonestly and troll to support your position does not mean anybody else is doing so, let alone everybody who points out your many errors.

Quote:
you cant really argue with this


Obvious Trolling: no further elaboration required.

Quote:
pick out random bits


Trolling: responding to the premises or an argument is hardly improper, if essential context was actuallly missed you could then point it out and rebut any errors. Instead you simply troll about the fact that arguments are responded to individually and not with a wall of text.
Trolling: by lying and trolling and then stating that your lying and trolling will be pointed out, you are trying to premptively protect your trolling and dishonesty from rebuttal.

Quote:
ive come to the belief that you dont know what you are talking about.


Trolling: as proven I have bit only read the minutes but either you have not or you are lying about their contents.


You're quick to make claims about trolling; regarding comments that are worded carefully, and with some thought, aren't you. Yet, you quite obviously misinterpret, and manipulate others words, to suit your argument; while trashing somebody elses, and making statements about their ignorance and knowledge of the subject in question.

I think we can disregard anything you have to say; given the gross distortion of facts. I wonder what Greyscale would say.. I would assume, he wouldn't be particularly happy about how you twist his words; based on what little representation he has, in the meeting minutes. I've read some of them, and scanned others; and I know what he didn't say.


FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 04:24:00 - [322]
 

Originally by: Cassus Temon
given the gross distortion of facts.

I haven't distorted a single fact, let alone Greyscale's own words which are perfectly clear on the subject. If you actually believed I'd distorted anything, you could quote it. Instead, you just went straight to an ad hom fallacy.

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles
[fake troll-quote snipped]


Trolling: I pointed out that my experience of how hours-long fleets work, especially WRT the NC, which you keep freaking about, is relevant. I've asked you to show anything that backs up your claims, as your posting on an alt troll account with no kills, and you still haven't given any proof. At all.

Quote:

ad ho·mi·nem   



Trolling: Pointing out that you're an alt troll with no fleet experience or facts is relevant to whether or not you have facts or experience of how fleets work. Experience and knowledge is hardly an attack on your character instead of your understanding and factual support. "You like the color blue, therefore your argument is wrong" is an ad hom fallacy. "You don't understand what you're talking about and you have no facts to back up your claims", is not.

Quote:
while offering nothing to substantiate your opinions


Lying and trolling: I have pointed out that actual numbers in terms of minutes/jumps saved, I have pointed out that I have hundreds of hours of experience with the fleets and the jump bridge network that you're freaking out about.

Quote:
you have no argument


Trolling: I have made numerous points as part of my argument, from why altering game mechanics to curtail player-created political content is a dangerous precedent to the fact that there were massive coalitions before JB's and there will be after them, to the fact that force projection requires only dedication not bridges, and so on. You keep feigning ignorance and trolling on each point. Like...

Quote:
and that ship models are somehow relevant


Trolling: you were lying and trolling and claimed that I'd said that JB's are "insignificant", so I shouldn't mind if they're changed. I pointed out that even if they really were insignificant to game play, that it's perfectly rational to oppose stupid things that have no impact on game play, like letting 5 year olds design our ship models. You immediately started trolling and have kept up, claiming that a direct response to your own point is somehow off topic.

Quote:
you clearly do not understand half the words you use


Trolling: see above about your feigned objection to personal insults. You were also trolling earlier when you claimed that I was engaging in "hypocrisy", as well. I pointed out that I had experience of how things work to back up my claims and you didn't have any facts, or any experience, to back up yours. You claimed that was hypocritical, and pointing out that you had no facts and no experience to substantiate your claims was an "ad hominem fallacy".

Quote:
I am glad that you think that the changes would be inconsequential[...]if you think them so insignificant (which they aren't) then there is no objection you can raise



Trolling and lying: that's the tangent that brought up your trolling of the "five year olds shouldn't design our ships, either" rebuttal. To say nothing of your trolling on that point as I've already listed other reasons why breaking sandbox play is the wrong thing to do, even if it was an "insignificant" change that was implemented in order to break sandbox play.

Quote:
their arguments that they don't work as intended hold


Trolling and lying: CCP never claimed that the bridges aren't working as intended. They have never claimed that they're an exploit. Bridges were designed to let any blues with the password jump. That's exactly what they do. They're functioning as intended.

The issue, that you're deliberately ignoring, is that Greyscale wants to alter game mechanics to hurt player-created content that he doesn't like.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 04:40:00 - [323]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron

It's not the intent of CCP to break up big power blocks.


This is simply fiction.
Originally by: CCP's intent to break up big power blocs

It is noted that the cost of supporting coalition allies will increase, which will increase friction; coalitions may fragment so reds are easier to find. This may make it easier for small alliances to set up shop, with less supercapital curb stomping.


Or are you going to claim that "fragment" is totally different from "break up"?


Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.22 04:48:00 - [324]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Originally by: Ephemeron

It's not the intent of CCP to break up big power blocks.


This is simply fiction.
Originally by: CCP's intent to break up big power blocs

It is noted that the cost of supporting coalition allies will increase, which will increase friction; coalitions may fragment so reds are easier to find. This may make it easier for small alliances to set up shop, with less supercapital curb stomping.


Or are you going to claim that "fragment" is totally different from "break up"?





so what you are saying is that large coalitions wouldnt exist without all the insentives ccp gives them to nap up?

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 06:56:00 - [325]
 

Rafia, I realized you were an alt, I didn't realize just how much.

Quote:

Employment history:
Center for Advanced Studies from 2011.01.20 07:25 to this day


That's it. Less than 48 hours old.
So, yeah, identify what you actually know about fleet combat and what facts, if any, you have to support your position.

And do it with your main.

Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.22 07:03:00 - [326]
 

Edited by: Massive Dragon on 22/01/2011 07:08:26
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Rafia, I realized you were an alt, I didn't realize just how much.

Quote:

Employment history:
Center for Advanced Studies from 2011.01.20 07:25 to this day


That's it. Less than 48 hours old.
So, yeah, identify what you actually know about fleet combat and what facts, if any, you have to support your position.

And do it with your main.


no offence finnagain but for someone who puts so much emphasis on stats and pvp knowledge... you seem to have very little of either: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=FinnAgain+Zero

now if youd like to continue telling us how much you know about this game... and how little we do... i understand.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 08:17:00 - [327]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 22/01/2011 08:34:56
No, seriously Minigin, I've had enough of your trolling and I'm not going to feed you anymore.
Only an idiot reading along would believe that someone with a 48 hour character had PvP experience, or someone who's spent hundreds of hours in NC fleets doesn't know how NC fleets operate.
If you want to troll for the idiots, that's your deal, but you'll have to troll on your own.
Hell, anybody who's not an idiot who clicks on the link you inexplicably provided will know that you're trolling and lying about my experience, too.
No matter how you troll, people will always be free to play EVE the way they want to. It's player created content and not minigin-dictated content. It's also not Greyscale created content, which is why stupidly nerfing or eliminating JB's still won't change the fact that people will play the way they want to, not the way anybody else tells them to.
Deal with it.

Go away until you stop trolling. I'm more than willing to have an honest discussion with you in this forum if you'e capable of being honest and stopping trolling (and seriously, stop with your ****ing creepy invitations to your TS server), but you obviously only want to troll.
Stop trolling and discuss issues honestly, or at least go troll someone else.

Tertiacero
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.01.22 10:01:00 - [328]
 

Edited by: Tertiacero on 22/01/2011 10:03:06
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 22/01/2011 08:34:56
No, seriously Minigin, I've had enough of your trolling and I'm not going to feed you anymore.
Only an idiot reading along would believe that someone with a 48 hour character had PvP experience, or someone who's spent hundreds of hours in NC fleets doesn't know how NC fleets operate.
If you want to troll for the idiots, that's your deal, but you'll have to troll on your own.
Hell, anybody who's not an idiot who clicks on the link you inexplicably provided will know that you're trolling and lying about my experience, too.
No matter how you troll, people will always be free to play EVE the way they want to. It's player created content and not minigin-dictated content. It's also not Greyscale created content, which is why stupidly nerfing or eliminating JB's still won't change the fact that people will play the way they want to, not the way anybody else tells them to.
Deal with it.

Go away until you stop trolling. I'm more than willing to have an honest discussion with you in this forum if you'e capable of being honest and stopping trolling (and seriously, stop with your ****ing creepy invitations to your TS server), but you obviously only want to troll.
Stop trolling and discuss issues honestly, or at least go troll someone else.

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

TimMc
Brutal Deliverance
Gypsy Band
Posted - 2011.01.22 11:28:00 - [329]
 

Even if this was a terrible idea I would support it out of trolling potential.

Good thing I like the idea.

/supported.

Borza Slavak
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2011.01.22 11:38:00 - [330]
 

Well this thread's well and truly killed.
Looks like someone made the mistake of correlating a proposed mechanics change with nerfing the NC. Cue TrollAgain Zero, Northern Coalition Forum Defender Extraordinaire.


Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... : 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