Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
1111
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 21:37:00 -
[181] - Quote
Sol Weinstein wrote:I will state... again... for those that couldn't find the gumption to read the entire post... This has nothing to do with war, war decs, war targets, 'waaah you won't undock', 'waaah station games', or anything remotely concerning shooting at other players. Don't let the corp name confuse you.
And I will state...again...as others have, that you do a completely **** job of laying out your arguments as to WHY these things are problems. Hence your proposed "fixes" are without base or merit.
Try again.
As an example, you state in your OP
Quote:There are many aspects of this game that are ruined, just ruined, by actions of players in NPC corporations. The bounty thing is one of the major ones.
Just saying it doesn't make it so. You fail to put forth any convincing argument to back up that statement?
How does a player in an NPC corp ruin bounties? As far as I am aware while you cannot put a bounty on an NPC corp, you can put a bounty on a player in an NPC corp.
If a player in an NPC corp is suicide ganked, why shouldn't he be allowed to place a bounty on his attacker for revenge?
|
Buzzmong
Aliastra Gallente Federation
238
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 22:16:00 -
[182] - Quote
Sol Weinstein wrote:Buzzmong wrote:
I think the OP has posted these ideas simply because he wants to shoot someone who is in an NPC corp and is afraid of Concord and hasn't realised killing a wardec target still has an isk cost.
You didn't read the post. To clarify, no, the reasons you stated are not the reasons. Thank you.
Haha, really they're not?
How odd, because people have repeatedly asked you what the actual problem is, but thus far you've declined to answer that question. Of course, I'm well aware if killing people is your objective you can't very well say that, as it'll undermine anything you say.
Now, if you'd be so kind and gracious as to actually spell out how people being in NPC corps is having a direct or indirect negative effect on everyone rather than just saying they do, then it would be much appreciated.
Thank you. |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
129
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 22:19:00 -
[183] - Quote
Sol Weinstein wrote:1. Place bounties on players 2. Place bounties on corps 3. Rent manufacturing or research slots in any station that is not owned by their NPC corp (This goes both ways. Those slots should be reserved for the members of that NPC corp.) 4. Anchor cans or secure cans in space. Sounds good to me. |
Sol Weinstein
Lunatic Warfare Federation
10
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 01:45:00 -
[184] - Quote
Buzzmong wrote:Sol Weinstein wrote:Buzzmong wrote:
I think the OP has posted these ideas simply because he wants to shoot someone who is in an NPC corp and is afraid of Concord and hasn't realised killing a wardec target still has an isk cost.
You didn't read the post. To clarify, no, the reasons you stated are not the reasons. Thank you. Haha, really they're not? How odd, because people have repeatedly asked you what the actual problem is, but thus far you've declined to answer that question. Of course, I'm well aware if killing people is your objective you can't very well say that, as it'll undermine anything you say. Now, if you'd be so kind and gracious as to actually spell out how people being in NPC corps is having a direct or indirect negative effect on everyone rather than just saying they do, then it would be much appreciated. Thank you.
Wrong, I posted those answers a few posts up. I will kindly ask you to read all the posts in a thread before making accusations.
Thank you.
|
Sol Weinstein
Lunatic Warfare Federation
10
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 01:51:00 -
[185] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote:Sol Weinstein wrote:I will state... again... for those that couldn't find the gumption to read the entire post... This has nothing to do with war, war decs, war targets, 'waaah you won't undock', 'waaah station games', or anything remotely concerning shooting at other players. Don't let the corp name confuse you.
And I will state...again...as others have, that you do a completely **** job of laying out your arguments as to WHY these things are problems. Hence your proposed "fixes" are without base or merit. Try again. As an example, you state in your OP Quote:There are many aspects of this game that are ruined, just ruined, by actions of players in NPC corporations. The bounty thing is one of the major ones. Just saying it doesn't make it so. You fail to put forth any convincing argument to back up that statement? How does a player in an NPC corp ruin bounties? As far as I am aware while you cannot put a bounty on an NPC corp, you can put a bounty on a player in an NPC corp. If a player in an NPC corp is suicide ganked, why shouldn't he be allowed to place a bounty on his attacker for revenge?
You will be given the same instructions as the other people: please read all the posts in this thread on all the pages.
I gave my reasons and I suggest you give the thread and posters the respect of reading them.
Thank you.
It's not news to anyone that players use alts in the safety of an NPC corp to do their "dirty work". It's not news. It never will be. And most people will gladly admit it.
If a NPC corp member gets suicide ganked, then they just got a lesson in what not to do. Don't be away from your keyboard or alt-tabbed on your facebook account. Stay aligned to a celestial or other warpable location. Fit some form of tank or use a ship that can't be ganked so easily. And even these things are not guarantees. Sometimes, being in a PRC is enough reason NOT to be targeted because it usually means that the player isn't just hiding in an NPC corp. And that there might be some real people behind the keyboard.
Why shouldn't he be allowed to set a bounty? Because he is in a NPC corp.
Thank you.
|
Sol Weinstein
Lunatic Warfare Federation
10
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 02:01:00 -
[186] - Quote
Everyone:
There is no "argument" here. Therefore, I can't give you answers to my "argument". This is an idea thread. The things I posted are ideas. And some of them have been changed or deleted through the discussion that has taken place over 9 pages so far.
I don't have to "defend" my reasons. Why? Because these are ideas. If you don't agree with them, and also refuse to take part in a meaningful discussion about them, then I refuse to "defend" my reasons. Why? Because you have already shown me that you don't agree and don't want to discuss the issues. The point of the thread is to discuss the ideas and find their strengths and flaws. And to find people who also agree that Something Needs To Be Done About The Players Who Use NPC Corporations To Abuse The Game Mechanics. Otherwise known as An Exploit. All of you asking "explain what this mystical exploit is" just got your answer.
I find it quite interesting that most of the people keep talking about the removal of the bounties. Yet, no one has said anything about preventing NPC corporations from anchoring cans or secure cans in space. Or the idea of NPC restricted lab slots. Every single disgruntled pilot is only focusing on the bounties. Interesting. Is it because you know damn well that you are abusing them? It is my opinion that you are aware of your abuse.
There is a part of me that would also suggest that players IN a NPC corp would be PROTECTED from bounties. Can't get them OR give them. Maybe the old system needs to be put back in place. NPC players need to have the old -2 secstatus in order to receive a bounty. I don't know. This is why the post was made. To discuss it. So, please wipe the foam from your mouth before you attack an idea or make accusations against me or my ideas.
Thank you. |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
1112
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 03:11:00 -
[187] - Quote
Sol Weinstein wrote:You will be given the same instructions as the other people: please read all the posts in this thread on all the pages.
I gave my reasons and I suggest you give the thread and posters the respect of reading them.
Thank you.
Not too far up the thread you said you updated the OP. Now I have to read through the entire 9 pages, hoping to not miss some small piece?
The fact that you maybe answered those questions 8 pages later is proof of your failure to outline your proposal (both it's justifications and fixes) in your original post.
Good luck however with your arguments. Happily given your inability to formulate anything in a concise manner couple with your overly arrogant attitude will pretty much ensure something this stupid will never get implemented.
|
Sol Weinstein
Lunatic Warfare Federation
10
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 06:08:00 -
[188] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote:Sol Weinstein wrote:You will be given the same instructions as the other people: please read all the posts in this thread on all the pages.
I gave my reasons and I suggest you give the thread and posters the respect of reading them.
Thank you.
Not too far up the thread you said you updated the OP. Now I have to read through the entire 9 pages, hoping to not miss some small piece? The fact that you maybe answered those questions 8 pages later is proof of your failure to outline your proposal (both it's justifications and fixes) in your original post. Good luck however with your arguments. Happily given your inability to formulate anything in a concise manner couple with your overly arrogant attitude will pretty much ensure something this stupid will never get implemented.
Skimming should get you to the posts you need.
Just because you can't (or are unwilling to) find the information doesn't mean that I have an "inability to formulate anything in a concise manner".
Overly arrogant. Mhm. I expect you to read the information and educate yourself on the topic in order to be taken seriously. Just acting out and making personal attacks, using name-calling, and other remarks about the post or the poster doesn't do anything but make your points invalid.
"Something this stupid." And here you fail to point out exactly how "stupid" it is. But, thank you for your negative opinion. It has been noted down and will be taken into consideration.
Thank you.
|
Humera Arran-Tiar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 06:39:00 -
[189] - Quote
I seriously thought this game was all about the freedom to do whatever you wished within the scope of the "sandbox". As individuals we choose freely whether to work for a company/corporation or go into business for ourselves. Your ideas of "forcing" people out of NPC corps and into player owned corps. How many one-man corps do we really need? The chat in NPC corps can be rather invigorating at times. Placing such constraints, imho, limits the game and deviates from the "free" path. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
207
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 08:23:00 -
[190] - Quote
Humera Arran-Tiar wrote:I seriously thought this game was all about the freedom to do whatever you wished within the scope of the "sandbox". As individuals we choose freely whether to work for a company/corporation or go into business for ourselves. Your ideas of "forcing" people out of NPC corps and into player owned corps. How many one-man corps do we really need? The chat in NPC corps can be rather invigorating at times. Placing such constraints, imho, limits the game and deviates from the "free" path.
No, apparently you're doing it wrong. You see, it seems that any attempt to deprive some people of blasting the snot out of people who aren't interested in it and aim to avoid that is not allowed.
Apparently, you can play the sandbox wrong, afterall. Who knew.
I also find the hilarity of argument "they shouldnt be able to hide and affect MY economy" bottomless. STATION TRADERS. How many of them has anyone ever killed? I'll help: ZERO.
How big an impact do they have on your economy? Significantly larger than the carebear mission running people you are so VERY desperate to shoot.
Repeat after me people: There is more to PvP than pew pew. |
|
Mikhael Taron
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 09:06:00 -
[191] - Quote
Sol Weinstein wrote:Mikhael Taron wrote:
NPC players are hit with 11% tax on earnings and have no way to reduce it. For that level of tax I want something in return. Everything you complain about is paid for by that tax.
I fixed this for you. NPC players that aren't smart enough to trade their goods to an alt are hit with 11% tax on earnings only in three areas of the game, ratting bounties, mission bonus/payouts, market transactions, and have no way to reduce it , other than join a Player Run Corporation or by use of an alt in a PRC. For that level of tax I want something in return , even though I will ignore the fact that a mere 11% affords me virtually complete protection from PVP unless I choose to go into the areas of space that allow me to be shot at without CONCORD protection, and absolutely no form of backlash for any of my actions or ChoicesGäó. Everything you complain about is paid for by that completely avoidable, or such a small amount that I can basically ignore it, tax. You're welcome. Thank you.
You appear to be hearing voices, as I haven't thanked you for anything, certainly not this vain attempt at an intellectual discussion.
You have fixed nothing, though you're under the delusion that you have..
Quote:a mere 11% affords me virtually complete protection from PVP unless I choose to go into the areas of space that allow me to be shot at without CONCORD protection
Exactly right! It's a player choice, something that is vital in a player-driven game. In your opinion we ought to be limited to choices approved by you?
You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time. You can make a fool out of yourself anytime.
|
Rented
Hunter Heavy Industries
53
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 09:08:00 -
[192] - Quote
1. Pointless. 2. Pointless. 3. Stupid. 4. Also Stupid.
I think that about covers it.
Now for my input. Get over it. Play how you want. Want other people to play differently, die in a fire. |
Mikhael Taron
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 17:41:00 -
[193] - Quote
Mustard Mitt, this is a wonderful trollthread. Ten pages and still active. I'm impressed. You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time. You can make a fool out of yourself anytime.
|
Maverick Ice
The n00b Experience
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 20:32:00 -
[194] - Quote
Sol Weinstein wrote:This has been changed after several pages of discussion. Some of the original ideas were poorly thought out and I have amended the post to reflect this. Read it all.
So the new list is:
1. Place bounties on players 2. Place bounties on corps 3. Rent manufacturing or research slots in any station that is not owned by their NPC corp (This goes both ways. Those slots should be reserved for the members of that NPC corp.) 4. Anchor cans or secure cans in space.
I might add in "light a cyno", but since they have to do it while in some form of 'harms way', I suppose we can let this one slide.
Thank you.
========
While I agree that NPC corps should be limited to some degree, it is my opinion that the ones you listed are a tad bit harsh and not needed.
I would amend the list to be something similar to this...
1. Be able to declare war on an individual in a NPC corp. Said war-dec would follow the person for 24 hours after they leave the corp, and would set a 24 hour war with the receiving corp/alliance. 2. Disallow the CEO to disband a corp under a war-dec, except as a term of surrender. This would prevent corp-hopping single-man corps. 3. Any corp member that leaves a corp/alliance under war-dec would receive a 24 hour personal war-dec, that would follow them into whatever corp they join...if that corp is a player run corp/alliance, said corp would also get that 24 hour war-dec.
|
Optimo Sebiestor
The Society Calyxes
144
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 21:47:00 -
[195] - Quote
Sol Weinstein wrote:
Players in NPC Corps should not be able to: 1. Place bounties on players 2. Place bounties on corps 3. Rent manufacturing or research slots in any station that is not owned by their NPC corp (This goes both ways. Those slots should be reserved for the members of that NPC corp.) 4. Anchor cans or secure cans in space.
.
I support this list! |
Sol Weinstein
Lunatic Warfare Federation
12
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 07:44:00 -
[196] - Quote
Humera Arran-Tiar wrote:I seriously thought this game was all about the freedom to do whatever you wished within the scope of the "sandbox". As individuals we choose freely whether to work for a company/corporation or go into business for ourselves. Your ideas of "forcing" people out of NPC corps and into player owned corps. How many one-man corps do we really need? The chat in NPC corps can be rather invigorating at times. Placing such constraints, imho, limits the game and deviates from the "free" path.
No one said anything about "forcing players out of NPC corps". Stop reading between the lines and making stuff up. Your mistaken analogies are not what this thread is about.
This is not about 1-man corps.
That is awesome that the chat may or may not be invigorating at certain times. (Yet you ignore that fact that it can be downright horrendous whenever it isn't "invigorating at time". And that is STILL not what this thread is about.)
Placing "such constraints", in my opinion, does not limit the game at all. Also, which points that I made would limit the game? The bounties? Okay. Explain. What about the lab slots? Okay. Explain. And the one about anchoring cans and secure cans? Okay. Explain.
You read what you wanted to read. I'm sorry you can't see that.
Thank you.
|
Sol Weinstein
Lunatic Warfare Federation
12
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 07:54:00 -
[197] - Quote
Maverick Ice wrote:Sol Weinstein wrote:This has been changed after several pages of discussion. Some of the original ideas were poorly thought out and I have amended the post to reflect this. Read it all.
So the new list is:
1. Place bounties on players 2. Place bounties on corps 3. Rent manufacturing or research slots in any station that is not owned by their NPC corp (This goes both ways. Those slots should be reserved for the members of that NPC corp.) 4. Anchor cans or secure cans in space.
I might add in "light a cyno", but since they have to do it while in some form of 'harms way', I suppose we can let this one slide.
Thank you.
========
While I agree that NPC corps should be limited to some degree, it is my opinion that the ones you listed are a tad bit harsh and not needed. I would amend the list to be something similar to this... 1. Be able to declare war on an individual in a NPC corp. Said war-dec would follow the person for 24 hours after they leave the corp, and would set a 24 hour war with the receiving corp/alliance. 2. Disallow the CEO to disband a corp under a war-dec, except as a term of surrender. This would prevent corp-hopping single-man corps. 3. Any corp member that leaves a corp/alliance under war-dec would receive a 24 hour personal war-dec, that would follow them into whatever corp they join...if that corp is a player run corp/alliance, said corp would also get that 24 hour war-dec.
This isn't bad. Although I do not agree that my original suggestions are harsh at all. But that is simply my opinion.
Thank you for actually contributing to the thread instead of acting out like everyone else. This is the point of the thread. To start a dialogue and discuss some of the issues that are having a negative impact on the game.
To the rest of the people:
I find it absolutely entertaining that people are getting so up-in-arms about my idea to restrict bounties. Bounties, in the way they are now, wasn't in the game for 9.5 years. You needed to bounty an actual criminal. Someone who had a standing of -2 (maybe it was -1, not 100% sure) before December 5th, 2012. And the players who are against my ideas are holding on to this like it is the holy grail of EVE and NPC corps and "freedom". I could at least see the anger over anchoring cans and secure cans. But to get so enraged over a mechanic that is literally 2 months old is very entertaining.
I will go out on a limb here and suggest that, in my opinion (because you have to say that now or people don't seem to get it), these same people are the ones who are gleefully... let's call it "taking advantage of" (and not say "abusing" or "exploiting", because those words seem to be flags that incite rage)... the new lax in the bounty assigning mechanics introduced exactly 2 months ago.
Thank you, Maverick Ice, for taking the time to see that all I wanted was to start a dialogue about a topic. Shame on the rest of you for using it as your podium for anger, rage, aggression, and just plain old bullying in this forum.
Thank you.
|
Sol Weinstein
Lunatic Warfare Federation
12
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 08:21:00 -
[198] - Quote
Mikhael Taron wrote:Sol Weinstein wrote:Mikhael Taron wrote:
NPC players are hit with 11% tax on earnings and have no way to reduce it. For that level of tax I want something in return. Everything you complain about is paid for by that tax.
I fixed this for you. NPC players that aren't smart enough to trade their goods to an alt are hit with 11% tax on earnings only in three areas of the game, ratting bounties, mission bonus/payouts, market transactions, and have no way to reduce it , other than join a Player Run Corporation or by use of an alt in a PRC. For that level of tax I want something in return , even though I will ignore the fact that a mere 11% affords me virtually complete protection from PVP unless I choose to go into the areas of space that allow me to be shot at without CONCORD protection, and absolutely no form of backlash for any of my actions or ChoicesGäó. Everything you complain about is paid for by that completely avoidable, or such a small amount that I can basically ignore it, tax. You're welcome. Thank you. You appear to be hearing voices, as I haven't thanked you for anything, certainly not this vain attempt at an intellectual discussion. You have fixed nothing, though you're under the delusion that you have.. Quote:a mere 11% affords me virtually complete protection from PVP unless I choose to go into the areas of space that allow me to be shot at without CONCORD protection Exactly right! It's a player choice, something that is vital in a player-driven game. In your opinion we ought to be limited to choices approved by you?
I am glad I have finally convinced you to agree with me! Thank you so much for admitting it here, too. You get a few extra brownie points from me! It shows a great fortitude of character to admit in public that you might have been mislead before and have now seen things in the correct way.
We both agree that player choice should have an impact on the gameplay of that person. And choosing to play in a NPC corporation should have impact on those choices. Some of that impact will be positive; and the other half will be negative. I am glad that you finally admitted to seeing the truth of how things work in this game and in real life! This is exhilarating to me!
You're welcome. And, thank you. |
Kogh Ayon
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
95
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 08:23:00 -
[199] - Quote
How about add this : "Any player corporation will have at least 10 people(and no trail accounts) after the day it founded, otherwise the corporation will be disbanded by concord."
No 0% tax private corps. |
Sol Weinstein
Lunatic Warfare Federation
12
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 08:32:00 -
[200] - Quote
Kogh Ayon wrote:How about add this : "Any player corporation will have at least 10 people(and no trail accounts) after the day it founded, otherwise the corporation will be disbanded by concord."
No 0% tax private corps.
I don't really understand this. Nor do I agree with it.
Again, this thread isn't about making PRCs better. It's about players who choose to play in a NPC corp to be impacted by that decision. I feel, again... *sigh*... in my opinion, and the point of the discussion, there are certain luxuries afforded to players in NPC corps that should not be available to them. I listed those things in my original post. However, I am more than willing to discuss them here!
My Suggestion #3 (see original post on page 1 of this thread) actually works in total favor of a player in a NPC corp!! Oh. My. Gosh. No. Way!
To get back on your suggestion, I feel that eliminating 1-man corps is just as harmful as forcing people out of a NPC corp. I like my 1-man corp. Also, there is a direct cost (1.6mil and the properly trained skills) to form a PRC, as well as indirect costs (open to wardecs, etc.). If the playerbase or CCP feels that these "costs" aren't in line with the benefits of being in a PRC, that should be handled in another forum thread. As that is not the discussion intended to take place here. However, feel free to post a synopsis of that thread and a proper link to it in this forum if you choose (as long as doing so would not violate the forum posting rules!).
Thank you. |
|
Zilero
The Littlest Hobos Whores in space
35
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 09:23:00 -
[201] - Quote
Not sure if this has already been posted but:
Trial accounts should not be able to post links to outside webpages and contracts in chat channels. |
Niveuss Nye
The Advent of Faith
15
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 14:26:00 -
[202] - Quote
Hate versus NPC corps aside, I do see one issue that will be abused with your suggestion as written.
If you restrict them to research stations only in thier own NPC corp, many will stay in the starter corp or leave the corp they are in for research spots. Especcially if only those in that NPC corp can use them. Ever tried to find an empty research slot?
It would accomplish the opposite of what I think the OP wants to achieve.
|
Sol Weinstein
Lunatic Warfare Federation
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 19:37:00 -
[203] - Quote
Niveuss Nye wrote:Hate versus NPC corps aside, I do see one issue that will be abused with your suggestion as written.
If you restrict them to research stations only in thier own NPC corp, many will stay in the starter corp or leave the corp they are in for research spots. Especcially if only those in that NPC corp can use them. Ever tried to find an empty research slot?
It would accomplish the opposite of what I think the OP wants to achieve.
Yeah. You're probably right.
It would be nice to see added slots to the universe. But, not sure if that would ever happen. Even though on Sunday there was over 50,000 players online (some might have been Dust514 players, but still), they still haven't seeded a few new slots around EVE. I'm sure the GMs know what they are doing.
Good point, Niveuss Nye. What do the rest of you think of this revelation?
Thank you. |
Sol Weinstein
Lunatic Warfare Federation
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 19:49:00 -
[204] - Quote
Zilero wrote:Not sure if this has already been posted but:
Trial accounts should not be able to post links to outside webpages and contracts in chat channels.
In other games Trial Accounts have tighter restrictions, such as not being able to trade or make a personal message (whisper) to other players, form Corps (guilds), and fully use the in-game 'black market' (auction house).
Having said that, this post was not about Trial Accounts. Because in EVE, Trial Accounts are not restricted in these ways. TAs are only hindered by not being able to train certain skills and/or fly certain ships. Ironically, even a TA can both train the Corporation Management skill AND form PRCs.
But, we are getting off track a slight bit. I would ask that this topic be further discussed in another forum thread. Feel free to link that thread here, as long as it doesn't violate the forum rules.
Thank you.
|
Reuben Johnson
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
33
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 21:32:00 -
[205] - Quote
Sol Weinstein wrote:Niveuss Nye wrote:Hate versus NPC corps aside, I do see one issue that will be abused with your suggestion as written.
If you restrict them to research stations only in thier own NPC corp, many will stay in the starter corp or leave the corp they are in for research spots. Especcially if only those in that NPC corp can use them. Ever tried to find an empty research slot?
It would accomplish the opposite of what I think the OP wants to achieve.
Yeah. You're probably right. It would be nice to see added slots to the universe. But, not sure if that would ever happen. Even though on Sunday there was over 50,000 players online (some might have been Dust514 players, but still), they still haven't seeded a few new slots around EVE. I'm sure the GMs know what they are doing. Good point, Niveuss Nye. What do the rest of you think of this revelation? Thank you. I already posted on that same "revelation." While on the surface the OP suggestion sounds good, it doesn't take much imagination to realize what you'll have is even more indy alts being created just to have one or two in every NPC Corp, spamming productions lines all over again. CCP would love it, though, 12 NPC starter Corps, 12 alts, 4 accounts..then there's the 12 holder NPC Corps, 4 more accounts. The failrly new or porr player will still have to wait days for an open line, and the older and richer players will gum up the works. |
Sol Weinstein
Lunatic Warfare Federation
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 16:37:00 -
[206] - Quote
Reuben Johnson wrote:Sol Weinstein wrote:Niveuss Nye wrote:Hate versus NPC corps aside, I do see one issue that will be abused with your suggestion as written.
If you restrict them to research stations only in thier own NPC corp, many will stay in the starter corp or leave the corp they are in for research spots. Especcially if only those in that NPC corp can use them. Ever tried to find an empty research slot?
It would accomplish the opposite of what I think the OP wants to achieve.
Yeah. You're probably right. It would be nice to see added slots to the universe. But, not sure if that would ever happen. Even though on Sunday there was over 50,000 players online (some might have been Dust514 players, but still), they still haven't seeded a few new slots around EVE. I'm sure the GMs know what they are doing. Good point, Niveuss Nye. What do the rest of you think of this revelation? Thank you. I already posted on that same "revelation." While on the surface the OP suggestion sounds good, it doesn't take much imagination to realize what you'll have is even more indy alts being created just to have one or two in every NPC Corp, spamming productions lines all over again. CCP would love it, though, 12 NPC starter Corps, 12 alts, 4 accounts..then there's the 12 holder NPC Corps, 4 more accounts. The failrly new or porr player will still have to wait days for an open line, and the older and richer players will gum up the works.
Very true. However I don't believe there is anything that will stop players using the NPC corps to get ahead in EVE.
But, it has become more obvious over the course of this thread that perhaps I went about it in the wrong way. Or I simply ChoseGäó poorly.
I think the general idea I was going for is: I believe that a player in a NPC corporation should not be able to impact a Player Run Corporation on a personal level. Giving the ability to bounty a PRC (impact on a personal level) is way too powerful. Some players in PRCs form them to be an extension of their in-game persona. It could also be part of a roleplay experience for the players of that corporation. To allow a person who has chosen to not take place in the experience of personalization of gameplay through the extension allowed by the PRC should not be able to impact those things in another player or corporation or alliance.
Perhaps player to player bounties are acceptable. But a NPC corp player should not be able to bounty a corporation or alliance.
Thank you.
|
Mikhael Taron
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 19:50:00 -
[207] - Quote
Sol Weinstein wrote:Mikhael Taron wrote:Sol Weinstein wrote: Zzzzzzzzzz.
You appear to be hearing voices, as I haven't thanked you for anything, certainly not this vain attempt at an intellectual discussion. You have fixed nothing, though you're under the delusion that you have.. I am glad I have finally convinced you to agree with me! Thank you so much for admitting it here, too. You get a few extra brownie points from me! It shows a great fortitude of character to admit in public that you might have been mislead before and have now seen things in the correct way. We both agree that player choice should have an impact on the gameplay of that person. And choosing to play in a NPC corporation should have impact on those choices. Some of that impact will be positive; and the other half will be negative. I am glad that you finally admitted to seeing the truth of how things work in this game and in real life! This is exhilarating to me! You're welcome. And, thank you.
Your trolling is a circus all by itself. Delusional ramblings with hints of psychosis is entertaining to a degree.
However, as YOU have agreed with ME, and not the other way round as you wrongly believe, you have voided the reason for this topic. You have recognised being in an NPC corp has +ve and -ve effects and, as that's fair, there is no need to change anything.
You're welcome. And, thank-you.
You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time. You can make a fool out of yourself anytime.
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 20:09:00 -
[208] - Quote
Posting in a troll thread.
EDIT: I suppose I should try to be constructive. So, here we go with that constructive-ness.
It seems very strongly to me as though OP has been the victim of a bounty placement, with the bounty-placer being the member of an NPC corp. In order for him to come here and make a thread about it, he must have had zero bounty before this alleged bounty-placement occurred, thus making him extremely angry. He decided to wardec the corporation of the person who bountied him, only to find that they are in a wardec-immune NPC corp. His blood boiling and his veins now pulsing with throbbing angry rage, OP decided "NPC corps are overpowered! They shouldn't be allowed to do this! Not to me! This is wrong! This is an EXPLOIT!" and came here to post his thread about how NPC corps are equal to rancid ***** in terms of being vile and needing to be made less-rancid, according to his opinion of what is and is not desirable. However, because one cannot create a justifiable thread on the act of placing bounties alone, OP decided that he should expand upon his original idea and came up with a hastily-prepared list of other ways to shackle, lock up, tie down, chain and otherwise inhibit the sandboxy freedom of anyone who's in an NPC corp.
Another Edit, Because I am Good at Editing: Watch as the OP responds to my post, accusing me of personally attacking him (I may or may not be, I didn't pay a lot of attention to that) and proceeds to condescend to me in the most demeaning and insulting way possible.
Edit Three (Last one, I promise) : I just noticed that OP is Amarrian. Maybe his condescending to everyone who isn't him is actually in-character! If so, then that would also explain why he dismisses the lion's share of disagreement as "not wanting to discuss" and/or "personal attacks", as well as insinuating very strongly that he only wants this thread populated by posts of people who agree with him. |
GreenSeed
180
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 20:17:00 -
[209] - Quote
Eve Forums are like FoxNews, they come up with a talking point and they bang on it 24/7...
no, NPC corps are not a problem. no, they should not be removed or modified in any way. no, Obama is not a foreigner, now get over it. |
Sol Weinstein
Lunatic Warfare Federation
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 07:58:00 -
[210] - Quote
Mikhael Taron wrote: there is no need to change anything.
I disagree, and so do a few others. This is the point.
Also, you should go re-read the main post. I won't give any spoilers. But, failing to do so means you respectfully withdraw from the discussion.
Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |