EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2007-12-30 08:13
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-04-07 21:09
  • Number of Posts: 8,157
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 6,258

Teckos Pech

Security Status 0.4
  • Amok. Member since
  • Goonswarm Federation Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Alphas and F2P Have Failed in EVE Communication Center

    Issler Dainze wrote:

    - add pets because of the puppies and bunnies


    Pets?!?! Puppies and bunnies?!?!? In space?!?!?!

    Okay, I'm convinced.

  • Alphas and F2P Have Failed in EVE Communication Center

    Louise Verger wrote:
    Soel Reit wrote:

    players with 200mil SP started from 0 --> they are still here
    i started from 0, 2 years ago --> i'm still here
    people that i know that started recently --> are still here

    or are we all masochist! could be Cool
    or we know how to create our own content and losers that leave the game at the start need to learn it as well and HTFU or leave ^^

    patience my little pawadan! have patience and the world will be yours Blink

    edit: instant gratification games are... ---------->>>>>>>>>>> that way Cool


    Even If you achieved something playing this game for two years it does not justify such arrogance. Somehow I don't feel inferior, not at all. It night have not occurred to you but people you call 'losers' do not vanish, it's just they have got better things to do.

    Quote:
    If you go in with Karmafleet, TEST, EVE Uni, Brave, Pandemic Horde, etc. you can get right into the thick of the fight. All of those groups welcome new players and will help them out.


    PvP in EVE is a bit of a joke. I haven't seen another game where PvP is less dependent on skill. It is like 90% money and 9% luck. Besides, it's just boring. There is not much PvP apart from gank and I'm not interested in it.
    It's funny you suggested to join one of those corps. Although they are not as despicable as CODE. but still mostly scumbags and i'd rather stay away from that lot.


    Roll

  • Why Eve Can't attract new players, and has lost 20,000 so far. in Council of Stellar Management

    Oh and regarding a new player grinding for a PLEX.

    Hey, you dopes....opportunity cost.

    You get it when it comes to mining your own minerals, but you completely fail to get it everywhere else.

    Hint: Opportunity cost applies to literally everything.

    Holy ****, can't believe I had to explain this.

  • Why Eve Can't attract new players, and has lost 20,000 so far. in Council of Stellar Management

    Sivar Ahishatsu wrote:
    This is actually very correct many players undergo the same.

    Especially the last part about not giving feedback. Most players will not, They will indeed throw the game in the garbage bin and move on. The problem being the game.


    If a new player is busy trying to earn a PLEX, I'm sorry he is doing it wrong. If you were to buy a sub for an entire year it costs $10.95 vs. $19.95 for a PLEX. Grinding for a PLEX is going to be very costly in terms of leisure time forgone, especially for a new player. Such a player is, literally, setting himself up for failure.

    Sivar Ahishatsu wrote:
    Having said this there is also those who come in to the game fully aware of its realities but simply wanting to enjoy the other aspects of it sans too much PvP aggression or conflict. I mean the occasional suicide gank etc is acceptable, it is part of the reality of the game. But one can still enjoy it through some missions still enjoy various "Careers" between security distribution, mining and research. Small scale industry can be fun as well.

    The issue here is of a different nature. people who are not interested too much in PvP aggression and conflict are limited in how far they can have fun in the game.

    And in the long terms the game does become boring under that limitation. Someone said I do not remember in which thread that CCP made some statistic and found out that people who were ganked were more likely to stay in game that those that haven't.


    First off, this is a competitive game. No matter what you are in competition with other players. You will always be in competition with other players even if you are never ganked.

    That is suppose you want to mine. And further suppose you are never, ever ganked. You are still in competition with other players who are mining and buying minerals, and those who are engaged in arbitrage of minerals between regions. The point is, if you define PvP as competition it is everywhere in EVE. You cannot avoid it. Ever.

    Now if you want to avoid ship-to-ship PvP fine. Go for it, but given the nature of EVE if another is determined that you experience such PvP you are going to experience it.

    So get used to it.

    And yes, the analysis suggests that those who interact with other players vs. being isolated in their own solar system never interacting stay substantially longer with the game.

    Quote:
    I say this maybe so, I would not dispute the factual statistic, but I am disputing the interpretation of them. The people who stay after being ganked did so because the gank gave them anew area to explore of the game many of then most probably wanted to learn how to fight themselves and it was a change of pace and added more time to their enjoyment. But the people who were not ganked and quit did not leave because they did not get ganked, they left because the game is boring in HIGH sec in the long run if you do not wish to PvP...


    That is possible, but you are omitting that those killed legally stay almost as lone, on average, as those ganked. The implication is pretty clear: player-on-player interaction is good for retention. That is treating the game as a console game and having no interaction is bad for retention.

    Quote:
    And I think the actual numbers were not given I seriously think that there were far more people who left than those who stayed.


    Of course those who left probably outnumbered those who stayed. Those who were ganked and killed legally were about 15% of the sample. Thus 85% were not suicide ganked or killed legally. So it is reasonable to conclude those who left was larger...but those who left were predominantly those who were not suicide ganked or killed legally. In other words, you don't know how to interpret the data yourself.

    I have cut off the rest as it the usual mealy-mouthed nonsense about "Some players do not like PvP." Fine, then GTFO. This is a competitive MMORPG. No matter what you are going to do you are going to come into conflict/competition with other players. Be it via the market, trying to suck up all the ice before the other guy, or shooting him in the face. That is the core nature of the game. Either you grasp that or you get out of f***town.

  • Can we get rid of CSM after the recent PLEX insider trading fiasco? in EVE Communication Center

    commander aze wrote:
    Or... just a thought we elect people with high moral character via elecrions from the popular vote


    Hahahahahahaha....

    Sure. That will work.

  • Can we get rid of CSM after the recent PLEX insider trading fiasco? in EVE Communication Center

    Professor Push wrote:
    “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

    ― Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations


    Execellent, bringing up Adam Smith, but.....

    Who loses on this? People buying PLEX for RL money and selling them for ISK? No.

    People who are holding PLEX? No.

    People who have lots and lots of ISK and are looking to buy a PLEX to extend their account? Yes.

    So you are butthurt over rich, long term players with a large pile of ISK.

    Wow....people upset over the mega rich in game. WITF?

  • Can we get rid of CSM after the recent PLEX insider trading fiasco? in EVE Communication Center

    Jeremiah Saken wrote:
    Sir BloodArgon Aulmais wrote:
    Plex prices go up and down all the time.

    Proof? Or are you just spewing garbage.

    Check PLEX price history for last 3 days. Disturbing. I don't believe last patch had some much influence.

    Today we have devblog about PLEX changes. Price rising would start today not 3 days ago.

    It stinks, PLEX is bought with real money and CCP may have real problems with that situation.


    What problem would that be? That the item you bought for real money would be worth more in game? That is bad how?

    Edit: To be clear: the people losing out on this price increase are not people buying PLEX for RL money. Nor is it people currently holding PLEX. The people who lose out are those who are going to be buying PLEX for ISK after after the price started going up in game.

    Seriosuly, learn to think thing through in a rational and based on solid economic theory not some bullshit nonsense.

  • Alphas and F2P Have Failed in EVE Communication Center

    Louise Verger wrote:
    Soel Reit wrote:
    Gogela wrote:
    I don't think alpha accounts have anything to do with it. There's an impression amongst some gamers that the older players are entrenched and nobody could "catch up" to them... I obviously don't believe this but that's the prevailing impression. I think CCP should speed up training for lower SP accounts. Something like <10 mil SP gets you an 10x multiplier. 10-30mil SP = 8x training multiplier, etc...

    I'm just over 200 mil SP. I actually wish skills weren't even a thing. 'If you can buy it you can fly it' is my attitude.


    top lel kek!
    learn a skill that may be very useful to you: PATIENCE Cool


    Patience? This is not a question of patience. The game is simply hostile to new players. Being a pushover for months is anything but fun. What is the point of wasting a few month only to begin actually paly this game while there are others with interesting content for new players? One have to be quite a masochist to enjoy the beginning of one's career in EVE. No wonder most newcomers choose to leave.


    *sigh*

    You know you can work with others right? Even a multi-year veteran will die to players with much less time in game.

    Having more SP, having more ISK, etc. is not an "I win" button.

    If you go in with Karmafleet, TEST, EVE Uni, Brave, Pandemic Horde, etc. you can get right into the thick of the fight. All of those groups welcome new players and will help them out.

    The worst thing you can do is try to go it alone, IMO. Unless you are willing to unwind your credit card you are going to have some major obstacles that a group of friends can help you with.

    When you are new playing with others is key. When you are a bitter vet...playing with others is key. I just switched alliance.corp after 8 years because my old corp/alliance largely went into hibernation. To obtain content I decided to join a corp that is active.

    Now you can ignore all this...but well, whatever.

  • Advantages and Risks of Micro Transactions in Subscription Based Games in EVE Communication Center

    Mr Mieyli wrote:
    I'll point out one gigantic flaw, or benefit depending on viewpoint, and that is plex. Plex serves as a mechanic to allow legal RMT in one direction only, supposedly to put off isk farmers and account hackers. It allows you to convert one hour of real work into X hours of isk farming in eve, so now to the problem. If I can obtain X hours worth of isk, which is only attainable by putting yourself at risk normally, then why would I go the slow route and farm X hours? I'd just buy a plex to sell for isk to fund whatever.

    When players are required to invest time in your game, they have to find the game enjoyable, which means creating content they will enjoy. If players don't have to invest time, but only log in for :content: someone else has created we are going to run out of 'someone elses' eventually.


    What you are missing is spending time to get the ISK in the first place is not generally considered fun which is why it is called "grinding". Especially early on when you are grinding for skill books and just to be able to buy a second or third ship. The idea of PLEX lets players accumulate enough ISK early on to do more, take more risks, and not have to spend as much time on the boring aspects of the game. Further, it will help redistribute ISK from those with substantial amounts of ISK already to those without. You can buy alot of T1 PVP firgates and the like for a billion ISK.

    Seriously what is fun? Mining in a venture? Maybe for some, or selling PLEX and then finding a group to go and have fun in LS or NS? And as the player gains more SP he can develop some of the better ISK streams and become less dependent on PLEX.

    Seriously, this idea is about as silly at the dignity of work arguments. These arguments are silly because if I offered a person the same pay at half the hours spent working they'd jump at it. More leisure time and no loss of income? Only a workaholic would turn that down. Work is a cost, labor is a cost. These are things to be minimized. If PLEX represents an improvement for both new players and veterans...who cares?

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mike Voidstar wrote:
    Bronson Hughes wrote:
    Mike Voidstar wrote:
    Plenty of ships require lots of training, have high costs, and/or are weak-to-incapable of combat. If none of them are immune to non-consensual PvP under any circumstance but using a cloak, what makes the cloak so special?

    When you acknowledge that cloaks only make ships immune to PvP under an exceedingly limited set of circumstances, we can discuss the justification necessary for that limited immunity.

    Deal?



    Exceedingly limited? You mean the extremely common and most well known use for them?

    They have an unreasonably high standard of safety for nearly any use where they might, through pilot error, be broken. For the level of safety they provide at a safe spot there isn't even that thin shred of justification.

    I'm willing to listen, but seriously it needs to be a pretty solid reason.



    Jesus...did somebody have a reading fail? Mike he wrote "exceedingly limited circumstances" that is not about usage. And we don't know if AFK cloaking is the most common use of a cloaked ship. You keep claiming it is, but that is a baseless assertion. I'm pretty sure damn few of those blockade runners are used for cloaky camping.

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mike Voidstar wrote:
    Teckos Pech wrote:
    Mike Voidstar wrote:


    Oh look, more distraction. Wanna bet those ships were not using their cloak at the time, or were choosing to engage in more dangerous activities?


    Nice to see you finally admit your lie.

    You are gonna have to be more clear. I have always said that cloaks can't be broken unless the pilot chooses to engage in higher risk activities.

    You just can't give up your own hyperbole can you?


    This is the only tactic the Pro-cloak people have used since the beginning of the thread and long before it was created.

    Shout down any dissent by flooding the discussion with fallacy and rhetoric.


    It isn't a fallacy Mike. Ships with cloaks die all the time, every day in fact. By the dozens. They are only immune in a very limited setting....one that also puts severe limits on those who want that degree of safety.

    So, why in that specific context is cloaking a problem? Seems to me there is little to no problem. I am totally safe...but I've put an extremely severe constraint on what I can do in game.

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mike Voidstar wrote:
    Teckos Pech wrote:
    Mike Voidstar wrote:
    Teckos Pech wrote:
    I will also add that your claim of immunity is pure baloney, and since it is baloney you have done literally nothing to show that cloaks are over powered. All we have is your self admitted "hyperbole" (i.e. lying). How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you use hyperbole vs. reasonable rhetoric. And then to whine about other people using fallacies....how truly pathetic.

    We covered overpowered a long time ago.


    No Mike, it is something you have claimed and tried to back it up with falsehoods, ignorance and misrepresentations.

    Try again....maybe without the li..errr hyperbole.


    So...uh... You are just going to ignore literally the next words which conceded you won that argument. Ok. Like I said, exceedingly poor winner.


    But you keep bringing it up.

    Yes, a ship sitting at a secret safe and cloaked is extremely safe. But it is also extremely boring game play. So boring I might as well go AFK because it is marginally better than staring at the wall behind my computer. And that is a cost goddammit. If I am going to be bared from more-or-less playing the game to maintain that safety...where is the problem?

    I already had to undock, and if in a blockade runner that can be very dangerous even in HS, go through gates which makes me vulnerable every single time. When I use my blockade runner I have to warp and cloak near instantly because of fast locking insta-blap tornados that play the lottery with such ships.

    Yet ships in space with a cloak are immune. Roll

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mike Voidstar wrote:


    Oh look, more distraction. Wanna bet those ships were not using their cloak at the time, or were choosing to engage in more dangerous activities?


    Nice to see you finally admit your lie.

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mike Voidstar wrote:
    Teckos Pech wrote:
    I will also add that your claim of immunity is pure baloney, and since it is baloney you have done literally nothing to show that cloaks are over powered. All we have is your self admitted "hyperbole" (i.e. lying). How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you use hyperbole vs. reasonable rhetoric. And then to whine about other people using fallacies....how truly pathetic.

    We covered overpowered a long time ago.


    No Mike, it is something you have claimed and tried to back it up with falsehoods, ignorance and misrepresentations.

    Try again....maybe without the li..errr hyperbole.

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mike Voidstar wrote:
    Teckos Pech wrote:
    Mike Voidstar wrote:
    At what point does it matter if a ship is a threat to anyone. There are plenty of ships that are completely incapable of threatening anyone in any way, and far more that are not a credible threat to anyone in a combat ship. None of them deserve any special safety due to that weakness, nor for any training time they require. Harmlessness isn't a factor in if a ship in space should be safe from non-consensual PvP.

    Really, really, really simple here...

    If it's in space, it's subject to non-consensual PvP.

    Cloaks do not meet this most basic standard of play. It's that simple.


    All the red herrings about local, stations, drawbacks, etc... None of that is relevant so long as there is a ship in space that is immune to player interaction.


    This has already be covered Mike. Those ships allow the player to have a direct effect on the game.


    And has been covered, that's not where the bar to being subject to PvP lies. Is it in space? Then it should be at risk.

    Not is it in space and doing something. If that were the case then just shutting off modules would be enough to grant immortality. Not is it in space and capable of doing something, because then Pods and Shuttles would be immortal.

    In Space. That is all. Cloaks do not meet that standard.


    Part of the problem is you are just too literal. PvP is not limited to just shooting the guy. PvP is pretty much everything in the game. You are almost always in competition with other players. To the extent that a cloaked guy in systems is "competing with you in terms of gathering resources" it is up to you to find a way around that. Rat/mine while in the standing fleet. Do it in the same anomaly if you need too. These are counter that renders the cloaked ships attempt to keep you from using your system useless. Competition in game can be either direct or indirect. Your insistence that it must always be direct is the issue.

    Second when a cloaked ship is in space it can indeed end up being forced into non-consensual PvP. Go to zkillboard and look up the ship type Crane. Roll

    OMG: 9 Crane's died yesterday....but, but, but Mike said they were immune when in space. Guess we can chalk this up to more lies.

    Edit II: Oh no! 11 died the day before yesterday. Oh well, so much for Mike and his "immune in space." Oh wait, maybe they were killed in station. Yeah, that must be it. Roll

    Edit the third: And 45 blockade runners were some how miraculously destroyed despite being immune while in space.

  • EvE's Ecology in EVE Communication Center

    Mr Mieyli wrote:
    Right now eve is just confused as to what it wants to be, it has been since incarna, the buzzword is sandbox and to me that means, do what you like.


    Yes, do what you like...but you cannot completely insulate yourself from some degree of interacting with others. You are playing in an MMO, a competitive MMO so some how other players are going to have an effect on you even if it is via the price system in game. What you are talking about is mechanically preventing or limiting interactions and that is not this game. If you want that, there are plenty of games, I'm sure, that will give you that....just not this one.

  • EvE's Ecology in EVE Communication Center

    Mr Mieyli wrote:
    Truth is what aligns with reality, but eve is a game. That means the reality of the game is open to change. Aside from economics, and I'd also push for nerfs to rewards in line, I haven't seen a good argument for why eve should push away 'carebears' when it is trying to grow.

    I don't care if HS players can't afford anything better than T1 battlecruisers, but why can't eve have a place which actually is safe?


    It isn't pushing them away, it is just a hostile environment for them. It is like expecting a horse to live in the ocean. It can be done for a bit, but after awhile the horse gets tired and drowns (bored) or it gets eaten by ocean predator (the PvP turns of the carebear so he leaves).

    What you appear to asking for is a fundamental change to the environment. And in doing that how many current customers might be lost?

    Everyone making a push for more carebears assume the game environment can be changed to accommodate these new customers but that such a change would not induce current customers to leave.

    I would suggest that some consideration, at least, be given to the notion that there are fewer players because this has already happened to some extent.

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mike Voidstar wrote:
    At what point does it matter if a ship is a threat to anyone. There are plenty of ships that are completely incapable of threatening anyone in any way, and far more that are not a credible threat to anyone in a combat ship. None of them deserve any special safety due to that weakness, nor for any training time they require. Harmlessness isn't a factor in if a ship in space should be safe from non-consensual PvP.

    Really, really, really simple here...

    If it's in space, it's subject to non-consensual PvP.

    Cloaks do not meet this most basic standard of play. It's that simple.


    All the red herrings about local, stations, drawbacks, etc... None of that is relevant so long as there is a ship in space that is immune to player interaction.


    This has already be covered Mike. Those ships allow the player to have a direct effect on the game.

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I will also add that your claim of immunity is pure baloney, and since it is baloney you have done literally nothing to show that cloaks are over powered. All we have is your self admitted "hyperbole" (i.e. lying). How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you use hyperbole vs. reasonable rhetoric. And then to whine about other people using fallacies....how truly pathetic.

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mike Voidstar wrote:
    Bronson Hughes wrote:
    Mike Voidstar wrote:
    I'm still waiting to hear a solid argument for why a module with trivial training[1], fitting[2], and cost provides safety superior to a station[3]. I'd love to hear why a ship in space needs a module to make it immune to player interaction under any circumstances[4], much less on a semi-permanent basis[5].


    1. Training for a non-CovOps cloak is trivial. Even training into a CovOps cloak is pretty trivial. But training into most CovOps ships isn't exactly trivial. The training limitation comes (in most cases) from the ship, not the module. (I'd just like to point out that docking in a station requires zero training.) (EDIT: Also important to note that the Covert Cyno is quite a long train, which is kind of a big deal given the whole Schrodinger's Hotdrop phenomena.)

    2. Fitting a non-CovOps cloak to a non-bonused hull may be easy fittings-wise, but it does impart pretty heavy penalties for combat. CovOps ships generally have fewer slots and less fitting than their non-CovOps counterparts. So, again, the limitation from the CovOps cloak comes more from the ship than from the module. (Again, I'd like to point out that docking in a station requires zero fitting.)

    3. In a station, literally the only thing that can happen to you in terms of asset destruction is the destruction of the station. Anything short of that, including improper inputs (aside from accidentally undocking), disconnecting, etc. and you're still safe. Cloaks are less safe than stations because they are more susceptible to input errors (which is, I will grant, a subjective observation), disconnects (you will be visible for brief periods while E-warping or logging back in from space), etc. Also, while in a station, you have the option of leaving the system unopposed by way of a jump clone, an option that is not available to a cloaked pilot without self-destructing their pod (and, presumable, sacrificing their ship).

    4. If you are sitting stationary at a safe spot, alone on-grid, and nobody else managed to get a scan hit on you before you cloaked, yes, you are pretty much immune to player interaction under any circumstance.

    Just like if you were in a station.

    But the instant you warp somewhere, unless it is also an empty-grid safe spot that nobody else has managed to scan, you are subject to player (or environmental) interaction.

    Warping to a belt? There's the chance of bouncing off of a 'roid or passing a ship, wreck, etc.

    Warping to a gate? There a chance of passing too close to objects deliberately laid to decloak people.

    And, of course, there are bubbles that can drag you specifically to land on a camp.

    I will grant you that the odds of interaction are quite low, but they are not zero like they are in a station.

    5. I do concede that being cloaked in a safe is something that you can do pretty much without interruption. But that's by design. Part of the reason that cloaks exist is specifically so players can do that. CCP has even said as much, so this point is pretty much irrelevant. (See my previous post.)


    The way I see this, cloaking offers much of the protection of docking in a station while requiring more effort, more risk, and sacrifices in fitting (compared to flying non-cloaking ships). You risk more, and you get more rewards for it. You sacrifice performance in one area to gain more in another.


    Yet, at no point did you address a Need for cloaks to provide that level of safety, nor a justification.

    Plenty of ships require lots of training, have high costs, and/or are weak-to-incapable of combat. If none of them are immune to non-consensual PvP under any circumstance but using a cloak, what makes the cloak so special?


    So points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are clearly being conceded. The only remaining question is why is it justified.

    And would you stop lying about being immune. If they were immune they'd not show up on the kill boards.

Forum Signature

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online