EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2011-04-06 19:39
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-10-17 16:53
  • Number of Posts: 201
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Kyle Myr

Security Status 2.0
  • Brutor Tribe Member since
  • Minmatar Republic Faction

Last 20 Posts

  • Why do Wormholers pick on the little guy? in EVE Gameplay Center

    Garr Khan did nothing wrong. Except this awful thread.

  • Tranquility: Incompatible Build (FIXED) in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Arthur Aihaken wrote:
    So this morning there's a Mac patch (no details whatsoever), and after initially working I can no longer login to Tranqulity. I logged in later with a different account on the same machine, it re-ran the patch for that character and after the authentication process it now returns an "Incompatible (Build)" error. Great.


    I got the same problem on my installation. This was after successfully launching once, signing in, and changing things around, too.

  • Retaining new players, the non-new player pov. in EVE Communication Center

    Yeah, sorry, I thought your fit was an awful PvP fit, not an awful PvE fit. It can be hard to tell.

    I'm sorry you wanted to help newbies and then quit. Take solace in the fact that you were probably just giving bad advice.

  • Retaining new players, the non-new player pov. in EVE Communication Center



    Why do you have a large remote armor rep on a shield tanked Machariel?

    I'm not the best source of advice for new players out there, but 'don't fly what you can't afford to lose' and 'don't mix tanks' are two of the basic lessons everyone should get. If you weren't teaching those, what were you teaching?

  • Expedition Bookmarks/Sharing in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I earned my first couple billion as the middleman in this process. Flying around bookmarking stages of escalations was honestly as much or more work than running the sites themselves (and the less fun part of the process, though I enjoyed navigating space and dodging hostiles). Occasionally, I got bookmarks from someone who'd right clicked and bookmarked from their journal, thinking that was how this process worked, and had to scramble to explain to them no, that's not how it works.

    This is definitely one of the little things that could be improved about EVE.

  • New dev blog: Tech is fine l2p in EVE Information Center

    EvilweaselSA wrote:
    Kyle Myr wrote:
    Soldarius wrote:
    I was all like :sadpanda: when we were told to move to Period Basis. Then I looked at dotlan.

    Known Period Basis Moons.

    Sov Holders

    vOv




    Don't trust Dotlan's moon scan data. At best, it's incomplete. At worst, it's a fabrication.

    Those scans are likely accurate because when they were uploaded there'd have been no reason to lie.


    Fair enough. I'd certainly believe Cobalt, but I just remember the odd bit of 'found' Tech that some director other squirreled away that we happened across in the north in Branch, Tenal, and Venal. No one had reasons to lie about Cobalt, though, as it wasn't profitable (then, or likely now), then, so I see why you say that.

  • New dev blog: Tech is fine l2p in EVE Information Center

    Soldarius wrote:
    I was all like :sadpanda: when we were told to move to Period Basis. Then I looked at dotlan.

    Known Period Basis Moons.

    Sov Holders

    vOv




    Don't trust Dotlan's moon scan data. At best, it's incomplete. At worst, it's a fabrication.

  • New dev blog: Tech is fine l2p in EVE Information Center

    Sigras wrote:
    im not having trouble with that, my rebuttal was to the people who said that alchemy would be done with 0 profit. Im saying that nobody would do the alchemy on a tower for 0 profit, especially since that now means the tower cant be used for much else. which is not the case with just mining cobalt and dumping it into a silo.

    My contention is that the idiots who sell their products assuming the minerals they mine are not free are not (for the most part) running POSs


    Again, the current margins on a lot of types of alchemy, and the presence of towers running these reactions in rented space and low sec suggests you're wrong. I've scanned plenty of towers that mine evaporites and nothing else. I can understand your personal view that the amount of effort that goes into maintaining a POS isn't worthwhile without a good return on effort invested, but other people would rather undercut, sell their stuff, and just be able to have fuel costs met for their safe sport and can of ammo/CHA/SMA/whatever.

  • New dev blog: Tech is fine l2p in EVE Information Center

    Sigras wrote:

    TL;DR
    I understand that alchemy could push the Tech price to essentially cost, but that would require a lot of people doing a lot of work for almost no return, just like mining could push the mineral price to zero, but who would do all that work for nothing?


    The fact cobalt is currently mined below cost, as are many other low end moon minerals, as a way to recoup fuel costs on a tower used for other purposes?

    Edit: I can't explain this from a behavioral standpoint, I simply point to the fact it's being done right now as proof.

  • Destruction Testing the New Wardec System (Ganks Included - Free wardec inside) in EVE Gameplay Center

    Jade Constantine wrote:
    Lord Zim wrote:
    I've already said I was wrong, I'd forgotten about a few suggestions which were hidden amongst posts of people (like jade) taking the express train to mount tinfoil and then actually start making suggestions.


    Second page of the first thread on 1.1 I made a proposal to resolve the issue here No suggestions were "hidden" and this proposal was generally praised by most independents in the discussion thread. CCP's only substantive objective to it was "wars in eve aren't meant to be fair" - which is ironic given that the fairness to "mercs" and 0.0 alliances getting dogpiled were the major factors cited for the 1.1 change.



    Mercs and 0.0 alliances = Everyone who made an offensive wardec. Sure, OK. There definitely weren't corps out there who were allies in 30, 50, 70 wars. No, it's just GSF and TEST complaining that enacted this change.

    No, this doesn't sound hysterical at all.

  • Destruction Testing the New Wardec System (Ganks Included - Free wardec inside) in EVE Gameplay Center

    Jade Constantine wrote:

    Given that 1.1 introduced the mandatory interruption in defensive ally participation I certainly can. 1.1 is a rushed mess of a patch that does nothing except protect large alliances from the consequences of their wardecs.


    So you believe game mechanics should be grandfathered in? Maybe that titans built during the remote AOE doomsday era should be capable of that mechanic still? If we're going to take this to illogical extremes, might as well go whole hog.

    Anyway, you keep posting that I'm accusing you of being a rebel that's a thorn in the side of larger power structures. That's not really true, and if you want an example of people I actually respect for that sort of thing, I'll bring up a group that's a good example of everything I've been talking up (organization, tactics, not posting terribly):

    Walltreipiers: the last Bastion of SoCo Delve: http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Delve/T-IPZB . As of this post, it's the one system in Delve that hasn't flipped in a 25000+ v 25000+ bloc war that has been, thus far, mostly one sided. There are a few smaller, newer organizations on both sides of the war - 99% and TASHA both on the northern side, and Walltreipiers being a key example on the other side. 99% and TASHA have been fighting for their side, and thus earning their space. Walltreipiers hasn't been so lucky. They've had to do everything they can with their 350 man alliance that's just a bit over a year old to hold on to their station, without much (any?) coordination with their side in a bloc war, but through careful tactics, a lot of organization, and a ton of balls, they've done it so far.

    I respect these pilots because they're actually putting up a very good fight, and even some bits of propaganda to go with it. They have organization at an alliance level to hold their own under extreme adversity, and I suspect that when the dust settles here, they'll all do fine, as they have their act together, even though they've been on the wrong side of the war. I suspect that if a group like this decided the next best thing for them to do would be to cause problems for GSF on our home turf, or by helping whoever we're at war with at a given time, they'd be able to actually cause some damage.

    When you do something on that level, then you'll have bragging rights. Until then, please enjoy your new career in FW - it seems you're much better at it than your old one.

  • Destruction Testing the New Wardec System (Ganks Included - Free wardec inside) in EVE Gameplay Center

    Jade, the reason he's calling you out for lying about moon money income is because you either are horribly misinformed, or deliberately copying misinformation.

    Goonfleet's finances are a fairly open book, and we've actually been chronically broke until somewhere around a year and a half ago. We didn't own Delve for most (almost any?) of the Neo/Dys/Prom R64 era. We fell into owning tech during the Tech era when TCF decided to move on and give us the space in Dek we'd been crashing with them in. Even then, the NC still controlled the majority of the tech until they fell last spring. Now, that tech is shared among OTEC entities, but even OTEC is an extremely new concept, dating back to April. OTEC is 'months', us having vastly profitable moon goo is 'a year and change'. We formed 5 years ago mining Crokite in a rented belt in Syndicate - hardly birth with a silver spoon in mouth.

    At the moment, though, we're up, though honestly the difference between 2m and 50m is pretty small to all but the poorest of entities. A competent L4 mission runner could earn 50 in an hour, conceivably, as could 2-3 Hulks mining Scordite. For 2 weeks of war, that's really not that much cash. 500m is a bit more, but again, multiply those numbers by ten, for the prospect of hundreds of times the targets of a minimum cost wardec. The scaling isn't perfect, but still, either way, the first ally is still free, and the first war is still always affordable.

    I'll agree with you that there's a difference in what mercs can accomplish differently between 'achieving an objective' and 'just running around shooting guys I guess', but that hits the crux of your arguments: you seem to think EVE wars have victory conditions.

    EVE wars have never been about victory conditions except in an abstract sense that game mechanics don't (and won't) address. They're a formalized system of bribing the cops to look the other way while you shoot a guy. 'Victory' is simply an abstract where it becomes worth it for the other guy not to pay the war bill, or you no longer are a viable target (you have no assets to smash, your pilots are scattered, or you no longer whine on the forums). Alternately, denying your opponents kills by properly counter-forming, moving shop, playing in a different timezone, or other options all work as a way to 'win' a war.

    Finally, RE: neutral freighters: I think Burn Jita says more about how GSF feels about this than I ever could - we'd love if freighters could be shot more easily, but for now we have a working solution.

    Finally, I don't get this whole 'claim to fame' argument - your fame, Jade, was earned in work many would say would bring infamy. I'm not sure you're in a great position to cast stones.

  • Destruction Testing the New Wardec System (Ganks Included - Free wardec inside) in EVE Gameplay Center

    When you're in a coalition of thousands, you have the benefit of a large talent pool. We actually do have a few members who are comparatively good at fighting in empire, and a few fleet commanders who are skilled enough at running fleets that are able to fight on structures that empire war is fundamentally similar to fighting in NPC 0.0 for them. I've flown with both of these types of people, so I feel comfortable enough commenting on these subjects. I don't personally have a mercenary background on an economic level, but I've talked to a few players that have. I'll agree EVE is vast enough that it's difficult to gain extensive personal experience with every aspect of the game, but so it goes.

    I disagree with you that Inferno 1.0 and 1.1 represent little or no progression on the empire war front. Pre 1.0, the issue of Dec-Shielding and wardec evasion was so prevalent that last November, it was ruled that dec shielding was no longer an exploit (previously, it was an offense that could be petitioned), and immediately alliances sprang up willing to act as a wardec shield for any and all comers. Inferno 1.0 changed the war system so this was no longer possible. This is progress.

    Inferno 1.0 introduced the allies system, designed to add a way with game mechanics that mercenaries could be hired. The fact that there was no cost at all to add any and all allies meant that soon many wars, instead of being dodged via dec shields, were opened to any and all allies for free. Mercenaries seeking to differentiate themselves and be desirable allies (possibly even paid for it) had no way, beyond deals made outside game mechanics (like POS destruction, as mentioned above), to differentiate themselves from the many people willing to take all ally contracts for free, as any war could simply add infinite allies at no cost. Inferno 1.1 adds the fixed costs for allies beyond the first, which forces defenders to choose their allies if they want effective aid for free, and removes the dog pile defender's advantages that signifies many 1.0 wars. This, too, represents iteration and progress.

    Do I think that the war system is perfect? No. Even as something of a dabbler in empire combat, the ability to drop corp in space, or to re-form corporation to dodge a war still strikes me as odd loopholes which circumvent the system. But I'd say it requires a fair amount of blindness of perspective, intentional or otherwise, to call the changes of inferno 1.0 and 1.1 'no progress'.

  • Destruction Testing the New Wardec System (Ganks Included - Free wardec inside) in EVE Gameplay Center

    Jade Constantine wrote:
    Kyle Myr wrote:
    and accept that you don't mean any of this as a personal attack because you're incapable of seeing people with GSF tickers as individuals.


    Does that actual upset you or are you just being sarcastic?
    (actually a serious point)
    Do you think I should see you guys as individuals?



    Honestly? I can't tell. I'm not sure how much you believe your own gimmick.

    Edit: no, I'm not upset, just mostly amused. I'm not really emotionally invested in EVE, though I think it's a fantastic entertainment value for the price of entry.

    I'm not actually going to reference your claim to fame in this post because it's irrelevant. The topic has drifted pretty far. Can we just agree that you really don't 'get' 0.0 or how alliances that hold space function and move back to the nitty gritty of the thread: It is no longer possible to shoot anyone who issues a wardec in EVE for free. i mean, that point is sort of dead, so we can keep explaining how sov holding entities function. I'm involved in a few groups within GSF, maybe I can help explain how larger organizations in EVE are able to function by dividing responsibilities. ed: you were honestly missing out on talking to weaselior if you wanted to actually know anything, he's got a much better perspective on how we function, financially, than I do.

  • Destruction Testing the New Wardec System (Ganks Included - Free wardec inside) in EVE Gameplay Center

    Jade Constantine wrote:

    Your explanation has nothing really to do with the point I made. No real surprise though since the whole purpose of your post was to make a subtle troll / personal attack (bravo btw, you are getting better at slipping the blades in under the table). Still it does come down to you rejoicing in the value of "friends" in 0.0 play while condemning the role that "friends" played in the 1.0 wardec defensive ally system.


    I guess I'll complement you on picking up what I'm putting down. The truth, and the past does hurt, but, as you say, it's somewhat irrelevant. It's not a personal attack as an address of your qualifications and expertise. I wouldn't dream to claim any sort of knowledge of those parts of EVE.

    What IS relevant is the nature of actions of an organization versus actions of individuals. Wardecs joining on in the Inferno 1.0 system aren't allies (or mostly aren't, there's no incentive you be picky, or choose at all.) You never actually organized anything. You simply just clicked 'accept' on any and all comers. Your OP says as much. There is no organization there.

    This is fundamentally different from an alliance/coalition which structures its income, provides competent (sometimes) FCs to them, and reimburses its members for actions taken to aid the group. That involves actual work and effort.

    I could try to explain the difference between individuals losing personal jump freighters and the alliance losing an alliance JF hauling our harvested moon goo, but it seems like you're being deliberately dense on understand that difference. I guess I can let it slide, and accept that you don't mean any of this as a personal attack because you're incapable of seeing people with GSF tickers as individuals.

  • Destruction Testing the New Wardec System (Ganks Included - Free wardec inside) in EVE Gameplay Center

    Powers Sa wrote:
    Kyle Myr wrote:
    Jade Constantine wrote:
    Lord Zim wrote:
    This is a baldfaced lie. 1.0 was a wardec patch which was supposed to be with mercs in mind, it just failed miserably because of the allies mechanic loophole which a lot of wardecced corps/alliances ended up abusing. 1.1 closed this loophole, and mercs are more viable, now, than they were in 1.0.


    Well what can one say, you have no understanding of wardec mechanics pre or post Inferno - and precious little concept of the way mercenary work goes. Probably best to spare your blushes at this point.



    I dunno, we hired PL to kill Issler's towers fine. I'd say that meets the definition of both war dec work, mercenary, and results.

    Except we didn't actually hire anyone. We called up a favor.


    Yeah, I just explained the series of events. I think I covered it fairly well. I suppose calling it 'hiring' rather than 'a favor' skews the nature of the trade toward more direct business rather than dealing, but at the end of the day it's still something they did for us, as an organization, for something we did for them, as an organization.

    edit: as a counterexample, trading favors with individuals would involve you trading services as a member of your organization to an individual client for ISK or ships. The nature of your old work is individual, rather than the collective nature of fleet fights and POS shots. This is the sort of difference we are discussing.

  • Destruction Testing the New Wardec System (Ganks Included - Free wardec inside) in EVE Gameplay Center

    Jade Constantine wrote:
    Kyle Myr wrote:
    I dunno, we hired PL to kill Issler's towers fine. I'd say that meets the definition of both war dec work, mercenary, and results.


    One of the biggest problems in conducting a discussion with a 9000 man organization is the issue with when "we" is collective or singular. I say that "zim" has no understanding of mercenary realities or wardecs and its "we do" (meaning the 9000) I say that a particular goon has done something foolish and suddenly the collective responsibility is vanished. It means we literally speak different languages. Perhaps the best thing of all is that we simply remain in contention and shoot one another. Unfortunately the 1.1 Inferno wardec patch removes competitive dynamism from that option so nothing but forum angst remains.


    All I hear from this is that aside from organizing RP organizations for some people with unique tastes, you're unable to work with others. You call it being an anarcho-idealist, I call it bad people skills. We'll agree to disagree.

    'We' in this sense refers to the people that showed up on a few fleets to defend PL's tech towers. I was in those fleets (as logi, there's no evidence of this, but rest assured that others remember my presence). They returned the favor by killing towers. I mean, sure, I didn't individually kill any towers in this situation, but I contributed to the process that killed them. I hope this clear listing of events helps you understand how EVE is played at a level of corporations with >100 members interacting with each other.

    edit: RE collective vs individual responsibility: do you understand the concept of action as an organization versus as an individual who happens to be a member of an organization? Please respond, I want to know what I'm working with before i explain this.

  • Destruction Testing the New Wardec System (Ganks Included - Free wardec inside) in EVE Gameplay Center

    Jade Constantine wrote:
    Lord Zim wrote:
    This is a baldfaced lie. 1.0 was a wardec patch which was supposed to be with mercs in mind, it just failed miserably because of the allies mechanic loophole which a lot of wardecced corps/alliances ended up abusing. 1.1 closed this loophole, and mercs are more viable, now, than they were in 1.0.


    Well what can one say, you have no understanding of wardec mechanics pre or post Inferno - and precious little concept of the way mercenary work goes. Probably best to spare your blushes at this point.



    I dunno, we hired PL to kill Issler's towers fine. I'd say that meets the definition of both war dec work, mercenary, and results.

    Your timeline also has a few obvious holes in it. Goonswarm was disbanded in 2010 when our CEO went fuckgoons, which led to us crashing on TCF's couch. I don't see how that qualifies as 'on top' for many years, unless 'many' is 'less than two'. I know the original Band of Brothers mk. 1 was disbanded in 2009, but your co-worker db preacher should've been kind enough to feed you information from the iterations which Reikoku was present for continuing through 2011, when IT alliance last held any sov. While their defense of Fountain wasn't their finest hour, they existed then, and the campaign there was chalked up as much to the strength of the old NC as it was to any nascent Deklein coalition.

    I understand how it must be difficult for an outsider to have any concept of what's going on, but basic fact-checking with the history of influence.png or dotlan's son history would tell you that Goonswarm/the CFC hasn't appeared to be an invincible power bloc for anything more than 10 months, tops.

    You really should stop with the personal attacks. I know you're a big name EVE personality and all after your work with the Maison, but I would think the ISD is above a double standard about who is allowed to post baseless conspiracy theories and let them go un-moderated.

  • FYI: HOW TO FIX THE BLACK SCREEN-OF-EVE-DEATH in EVE Technology and Research Center

    This worked great. If you are comfortable with the terminal environment, the only necessary step of that process is removing those 4 files.

  • Destruction Testing the New Wardec System (Ganks Included - Free wardec inside) in EVE Gameplay Center

    All I hear is you admitting you can't do anything about us except talk, and even then you don't make any sense. That's fine, but a bit more intellectual honesty and less words would suffice.

    0.0 is perfectly competitive. GSF came from nothing and was opposed by the existing power structure from its start. We've only been top dog for less than a year, and were disbanded a few years back. The Northern Coalition flat out died last year. We've managed to take two regions off the group that went to invade us. Delve has changed hands numerous times.

    If I saw you actually do more than complain on the forum, I'd cut you more slack, but you have repeatedly stated you're unwilling to play the game on a level where you could cause real impact. You want something for nothing. If you wanted to be a threat, organize one.

    I find it interesting that now you're waving the 'come and get me' flag instead of the 'my actions are causing harm to Goonfleet'. It's a bit more honest, but for us to really want to kill you, you'll have to stop posting. Your disjointed ramblings are a reward all of their own. This is a place where honeyed words will have the opposite of the beneficial effect they used to bring you.