Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative Trans-Stellar Industries
260
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 02:42:00 -
[31] - Quote
Darxia Thornblade wrote:Imagine the world where you go to work happily, and then a guy comes over to you. Politely says: "Hello!" and starts beating you up. Then, after you get beaten up a little, maybe your nose is bleeding, maybe you have a cracked rib or two, and a cut or bruises. Then, a policeman walks by and stops. He stares at you and the man beating you up. He asks politely whats going on, and the man who was beating you says: "I've declared war to him yesterday!" and continues to beat you up, while the policeman walks away whistling.
Makes no sense? Right? How about...
You go to work happily, a man comes over and he seems familiar, you may have seen him yesterday, or maybe he's a totally different man. It doesn't matter. You see him swinging his fist at you, and you strip your uniform or colors instantly and dress into another uniform. The man stares at you and can't touch you as you're wearing different clothes now. If he tries to swing at you, he'll be beaten up by a policeman (the same one from the day before).
Makes no sense either? Right?
The mechanic is broken... Or is it? Makes no sense? Right?
Space ships flying through space like submarines. Makes no sense right?
Now imagine a world where people go to work, come home tired and stressed out, log in to their computers and boot up their favorite multiplayer computer game. This game gives them the right and freedom to do nearly anything, to assume characters they wouldn't ever want to be in real life, to pretend. This world has them flying spaceships like submarines, living as immortals in a far off universe, where right and wrong are fundamentally defined differently.
These individuals love the immersion and the separation from reality. They play this game because it is NOT real life, nor does any actions in the game have real life consequence. They can be married (or not), have slaves, lead armies and command fleets. They can become miners when they are really computer data entry clerks or policemen. And, because the rules of the game say that this universe is rough and hard and the occupants are vicious and backstabbing, if they want to assume that role, they can do so without any sane person ever being able to judge them.
Because sane people understand that this is a game. If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality.-á That 'griefer/thief' is probably more sane than you are.-á How screwed up is that? |
RoAnnon
Strategic Acquisitions Group Tactical Research Lab
66
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 03:33:00 -
[32] - Quote
I don't get how some corp is immune to being war-decced. Is there a limit of new corps that one can create where the final one is immune? Or can that next n+1st corp still be war-decced if the price is paid?
Seems about as silly to say that a corp is immune to being war-decced as it is to say a cloaked ship can never be found. So, you're a bounty hunter. No, that ain't it at all. Then what are you? I'm a bounty hunter. |
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative Trans-Stellar Industries
260
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 03:38:00 -
[33] - Quote
RoAnnon wrote:I don't get how some corp is immune to being war-decced. Is there a limit of new corps that one can create where the final one is immune? Or can that next n+1st corp still be war-decced if the price is paid?
Seems about as silly to say that a corp is immune to being war-decced as it is to say a cloaked ship can never be found.
Well, NPC corps are immune.
And I don't think the original poster meant corps being immune, but players within those corporations able to avoid their corporations war for a short time, thus making themselves immune.
That's more or less like saying that logging off in the middle of a fight, only to log back in with your ship later and rejoin the battle, should remain a valid tactic. If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality.-á That 'griefer/thief' is probably more sane than you are.-á How screwed up is that? |
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
16
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 04:20:00 -
[34] - Quote
Sounds to me like the OP is butt hurt because was able to out think him instead of corporations playing by rules that he assumes should be adhered to and not bent in favor of brilliant strategical manuevers on the behalf of the other corp. |
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative Trans-Stellar Industries
260
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 04:30:00 -
[35] - Quote
DrysonBennington wrote:Sounds to me like the OP is butt hurt because was able to out think him instead of corporations playing by rules that he assumes should be adhered to and not bent in favor of brilliant strategical manuevers on the behalf of the other corp.
The op does come off as one who would rather insult and degrade his opponents tactics, instead of recognizing that they are viable and working mechanics at this time.
Not very constructive, I'll agree. If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality.-á That 'griefer/thief' is probably more sane than you are.-á How screwed up is that? |
StoneCold
Somali Coast Guard BootCamp
180
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 07:11:00 -
[36] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:StoneCold wrote: ...the mentioned suicide ganks; which doesnt totaly not fit to the philosophy of EvE...
Sure it is. If anything it represents the philosophy of Eve better than just about anything else. Once you undock, there is nothing the ensure your safety. Not a noob corp, an NPC corp, high sec, Concord....nothing.
StoneCold wrote: They 'generate' ISK in a no-risk environment (besides the mentioned suicide ganks; which doesnt totaly not fit to the philosophy of EvE). Also a change would make merc-work more 'important'.
You see what you did here? They 'generate' ISK in a no-risk environment (besides the mentioned suicide ganks). They 'generate' ISK in a no-risk environment (which doesnt totaly not fit to the philosphy of EvE).
I get the impression of some (nullsec)people in this thread are in fear to lose their '100% risk-free ISK generation' in highsec.
I realy like Ruzes way to solve this 'exploit'. My true stories |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
2852
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 07:30:00 -
[37] - Quote
Darxia Thornblade wrote:Imagine the world where you go to work happily, and then a guy comes over to you. Politely says: "Hello!" and starts beating you up. Then, after you get beaten up a little, maybe your nose is bleeding, maybe you have a cracked rib or two, and a cut or bruises. Then, a policeman walks by and stops. He stares at you and the man beating you up. He asks politely whats going on, and the man who was beating you says: "I've declared war to him yesterday!" and continues to beat you up, while the policeman walks away whistling.
Makes no sense? Right? How about...
You go to work happily, a man comes over and he seems familiar, you may have seen him yesterday, or maybe he's a totally different man. It doesn't matter. You see him swinging his fist at you, and you strip your uniform or colors instantly and dress into another uniform. The man stares at you and can't touch you as you're wearing different clothes now. If he tries to swing at you, he'll be beaten up by a policeman (the same one from the day before).
Makes no sense either? Right?
The mechanic is broken... Or is it? Makes no sense? Right?
Imagine a world where you go to work happily, expect your workplace was bombed last night, your mother and girlfriend raped and your workplace assets confiscated. Nearest kindergarten was attacked by gunmen and kids either died or wounded, and they couldn't get to hospital because it was destroyed by fighter planes. The small patch of land your family has farmed for centuries was bulldozed and fenced houses are built on it. You are not allowed to move freely. You are not allowed to leave.
The whole world stops by and looks at the mess that once used to be your country. They ask the people who did that to you "WTF ****?" and the monsters reply "Because we are Israeli nenennenneeee". Half the world gives the monsters more guns and money and then all turn their backs.
Makes no sense? Right?
Games make more sense than reality.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
El Geo
Pathfinders. The Marmite Collective
106
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 08:03:00 -
[38] - Quote
I love the way players have all these ideas of what PvP should be, and how highsec PvP corps only attack small, weaker targets while using out of corp scouts and logistics, but mostly I love the hypocrisy of nullsec alliance members.
A couple of examples:
0.0 alliances who hug their own sov stations complaining about highsec 'station games'. Complaining the use of neutral logi/scouts but have coalition members as well as neutral alts perform myriad of tasks including scouting, logi, lighting of cyno's, transporting goods safely through highsec (npc corp frieghters) and the infamous batphone. Complaints of hitting weaker targets (from a tactical point of view that statement in itself is just stupid). Failing to realize the HUGE benefits of having local 'intel tool' in 0.0
I feel if players want to remain 'undecable' they should stay in an NPC corporation, Its not difficult to understand. To the OP I would say if you are after an individual who keeps skipping corps then infiltration of some sort if your only real option. path-+find-+er (pthfndr, p+ñth-)n. 1. One that discovers a new course or way, especially through or into unexplored regions.
http://www.youtube.com/user/EvEPathfinders/videos?view=0 |
StoneCold
Somali Coast Guard BootCamp
180
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 11:58:00 -
[39] - Quote
RoAnnon wrote:I don't get how some corp is immune to being war-decced. Is there a limit of new corps that one can create where the final one is immune? Or can that next n+1st corp still be war-decced if the price is paid?
Seems about as silly to say that a corp is immune to being war-decced as it is to say a cloaked ship can never be found.
Not the corp is immune to a wardec, the members are.
Let-¦s say:
Corp A gets wardeced (for x isk). Now Corp B is created and all member of Corp A moving themself to Corp B (before the fight even starts). Now Corp B gets wardeced. Corp C is created and all member of Corp B moving themself into Corp C. . . . Now Corp n gets wardeced. Corp(n+1) is created and all member of Corp n moving themself into Corp (n + 1).
The people in the corp are immune to wars.
Also to the 'haters':
Every region got their own problems (as it seems from forums). - 0.0: afk cloakers - lowsec/fw: stabbed plexers and so on.
IMO that corp(n+1) thingie is a problem of highsec.
EDIT:
Ofc the 'solution' in the 1st post is just a quick draft. Maybe you can put in something like a 'surrender offer on pilot basis'. My true stories |
RoAnnon
Strategic Acquisitions Group Tactical Research Lab
67
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 12:42:00 -
[40] - Quote
StoneCold wrote:The people in the corp are immune to wars.
No. If they were truly immune, they wouldn't need to keep forming new corps. What I see is a group of folks that want to play EVE their way, and not your way. They're more willing to pay whatever costs are involved in setting up a new corp. The question is whether you're willing to keep paying the additional wardeck fees. Sounds like economic warfare to me, and from the fact you're complaining about, it seems that you're losing.
You need to look at the bigger picture.
So, you're a bounty hunter. No, that ain't it at all. Then what are you? I'm a bounty hunter. |
|
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
2861
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 12:58:00 -
[41] - Quote
RoAnnon wrote:StoneCold wrote:The people in the corp are immune to wars. No. If they were truly immune, they wouldn't need to keep forming new corps. What I see is a group of folks that want to play EVE their way, and not your way. They're more willing to pay whatever costs are involved in setting up a new corp. The question is whether you're willing to keep paying the additional wardeck fees. Sounds like economic warfare to me, and from the fact you're complaining about, it seems that you're losing. You need to look at the bigger picture.
Yes. If they weren't immune, OP wouldn't need to keep declaring new wars. What I see is a group of folks that want to play EVE their way, and not the bears way. They're more willing to pay whatever costs are involved in starting new wars. The question is whether CCP is willing to raise the corp forming fee to be equal with war declaration fees. That would be economic warfare, but as it's currently favouring the corp hoppers, people are complaining.
You need to have a clue about what you are talking, and only then try tell others about looking at the bigger picture.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
170
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 13:39:00 -
[42] - Quote
WTF...weird....double post |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
170
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 13:40:00 -
[43] - Quote
StoneCold wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:StoneCold wrote: ...the mentioned suicide ganks; which doesnt totaly not fit to the philosophy of EvE...
Sure it is. If anything it represents the philosophy of Eve better than just about anything else. Once you undock, there is nothing the ensure your safety. Not a noob corp, an NPC corp, high sec, Concord....nothing. StoneCold wrote: They 'generate' ISK in a no-risk environment (besides the mentioned suicide ganks; which doesnt totaly not fit to the philosophy of EvE). Also a change would make merc-work more 'important'.
You see what you did here? They 'generate' ISK in a no-risk environment (besides the mentioned suicide ganks). They 'generate' ISK in a no-risk environment (which doesnt totaly not fit to the philosphy of EvE). I get the impression of some (nullsec)people in this thread are in fear to lose their '100% risk-free ISK generation' in highsec. I realy like Ruzes way to solve this 'exploit'.
Your semi-colon was pertaining the suicide ganking not risk free isk generation. And I've been in the same corp for over 3 years...not like I jump ship as soon as there is a war dec. Lastly, as I hinted at earlier there is more to risk in this game than simply being shot by some boob on the Jita undock.
Really, your thought process is just odd at times. |
RoAnnon
Strategic Acquisitions Group Tactical Research Lab
67
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 13:53:00 -
[44] - Quote
Roime wrote:Yes. If they weren't immune, OP wouldn't need to keep declaring new wars. What I see is a group of folks that want to play EVE their way, and not the bears way. They're more willing to pay whatever costs are involved in starting new wars. The question is whether CCP is willing to raise the corp forming fee to be equal with war declaration fees. That would be economic warfare, but as it's currently favouring the corp hoppers, people are complaining.
You need to have a clue about what you are talking, and only then try tell others about looking at the bigger picture.
If they were immune, declaring new wars would be irrelevant and useless. Right now for the OP it's tedious and time consuming, but there's a chance he can outlast them and get a wardec on them that'll last long enough he can get a kill before they can reform again. The fact that it costs more to wardec than to form a new corp doesn't invalidate it as economic warfare.
No need to resort to ad hominem attacks on me to make your point. It's obvious from his narrow viewpoint about warfare that the OP isn't looking at the bigger picture. So, you're a bounty hunter. No, that ain't it at all. Then what are you? I'm a bounty hunter. |
StoneCold
Somali Coast Guard BootCamp
181
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 14:41:00 -
[45] - Quote
While using this 'exploit' they make them invulnerable to wars. About that there is no inch to discuss about (if it-¦s working as intended is an other question).
It-¦s not like they got allready the tool of 'allies' to counter a wardec. My true stories |
StoneCold
Somali Coast Guard BootCamp
181
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 14:44:00 -
[46] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:StoneCold wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:StoneCold wrote: ...the mentioned suicide ganks; which doesnt totaly not fit to the philosophy of EvE...
Sure it is. If anything it represents the philosophy of Eve better than just about anything else. Once you undock, there is nothing the ensure your safety. Not a noob corp, an NPC corp, high sec, Concord....nothing. StoneCold wrote: They 'generate' ISK in a no-risk environment (besides the mentioned suicide ganks; which doesnt totaly not fit to the philosophy of EvE). Also a change would make merc-work more 'important'.
You see what you did here? They 'generate' ISK in a no-risk environment (besides the mentioned suicide ganks). They 'generate' ISK in a no-risk environment (which doesnt totaly not fit to the philosphy of EvE). I get the impression of some (nullsec)people in this thread are in fear to lose their '100% risk-free ISK generation' in highsec. I realy like Ruzes way to solve this 'exploit'. Your semi-colon was pertaining the suicide ganking not risk free isk generation. And I've been in the same corp for over 3 years...not like I jump ship as soon as there is a war dec. Lastly, as I hinted at earlier there is more to risk in this game than simply being shot by some boob on the Jita undock. Really, your thought process is just odd at times.
Out from wiki about use of semicolons:
Applications of the semicolon in English include:
Between items in a series or listing containing internal punctuation, especially parenthetic commas, where the semicolons function as serial commas: She saw three men: Jamie, who came from New Zealand; John, the milkman's son; and George, a gaunt kind of man.
But then again, english is only my 3rd tongue.
EDIT: bolded the important part. My true stories |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
172
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 15:18:00 -
[47] - Quote
StoneCold wrote:
snipping due to quote limitations...
Out from wiki about use of semicolons:
Applications of the semicolon in English include:
Between items in a series or listing containing internal punctuation, especially parenthetic commas, where the semicolons function as serial commas: She saw three men: Jamie, who came from New Zealand; John, the milkman's son; and George, a gaunt kind of man.
But then again, english is only my 3rd tongue.
EDIT: bolded the important part.
Good god.... Your semicolon was in a parenthetical, hence its application is ambiguous (did it apply to the previous phrase regarding suicide ganking, or the statement outside the parenthetical on risk free isk generation) at least to me. See the last bullet in the wiki page on semi colons, "(Fig. 8; see also plates in Harley 1941, 1950; Schwab 1947)". The various subjects separated by colons are refer back to fig. 8. Also, there is the use of semicolons for independent clauses that are not joined by a conjunction.
Lets just stipulate the following:
1. Risk free isk generation is anti-thetical to the philosophy of Eve. 2. Suicide ganking is very much in line with the philosophy of Eve.
Are we in agreement? Can we chalk up the above discussion to the vagaries of English and reading a post a bit too quickly on a BB?
Now with the grammar out of the way...
Isk generation in Eve is rarely risk free. Some instances of it have too little risk relative to the rewards, others not. War decs however are a **** poor way to introduce risk into the game since a smart player who is paying attention can avoid the risk altogether, granted he'll likely reduce his isk making, but is that the sole function of war decs? Stop people from making isk? If that is the case then war decs are a game mechanic like afk cloaking. AFK cloaking rarely leads to a kill...and people often find work arounds (working in a group, moving over a system, etc.). So they found a work around for war decs. BFD, in the past many people might put an alt in to keep the corp open during a war dec and everyone else bails to an NPC corp. Or move to the ass end of high sec. I notice you guys rarely leave Caldari space, one option could be to pull up stakes and head to some high sec system way down south.
TL;DR, like AFK cloaking war decs are an imperfect mechanism to try and inject risk into the game. Always has been and likely always will be, because people can often be rather creative at finding ways to mitigate risk. Trying to force people to stop that kind of thing is damn hard since there is always one option you can never do anything about: station spinning while the war is active.
(Okay, that was a long TL;DR) |
StoneCold
Somali Coast Guard BootCamp
181
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 18:30:00 -
[48] - Quote
Agreed to grammar thingy ;)
The rest, as i understand, you partially agree that the mechanic is imperfect. If it-¦s imperfect (or even broken) it need-¦s redisign. That is and was all what i asked for.
We keep to caldari space because like 95% of our targets are there. My true stories |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
174
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 19:20:00 -
[49] - Quote
StoneCold wrote:Agreed to grammar thingy ;)
The rest, as i understand, you partially agree that the mechanic is imperfect. If it-¦s imperfect (or even broken) it need-¦s redisign. That is and was all what i asked for.
We keep to caldari space because like 95% of our targets are there.
Yeah, and any attempt to try and redesign it will likely fail, IMO.
|
Iudicium Vastus
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 20:31:00 -
[50] - Quote
StoneCold wrote:While using this 'exploit' they make them invulnerable to wars. About that there is no inch to discuss about (if it-¦s working as intended is an other question).
It-¦s not like they got allready the tool of 'allies' to counter a wardec.
To 'counter' a wardec in that fashion would mean they're interested in fighting and will stay for some battles. People like you just need to accept the fact-of-life in eve that you cannot force someone to fight you. Even if things went into the b***s*** realm of locking someone as a WT for a week, they'd just not login and spend the time freed up doing other stuff. You still did not achieve them as a target. They will not fight if they have zero interest in fighting you.
"EVE is harsh" is a common thing people like you say towards targets and claim people can't get what they want (safety). Well guess what, that goes both ways. You dec'ers also can't always get what you want (unlimited WT), so they come here and whine just as much as someone who got a barge popped because their targets got away from the dec.
EVE is harsh bro, HTFU.
|
|
StoneCold
Somali Coast Guard BootCamp
182
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 21:10:00 -
[51] - Quote
Well, yes and no.
Ofc none can force someone to fight. But, just a litlte moment, think about that those people that don-¦t want to fight in wardecs would maybe leave highsec?
Wouldn-¦t that be awesome? A crowded lowsec (where pirates band together with industrialists (which would make them freebooter somehow). Or a mass-exodus to nullsec? why not.
And yeah, maybe my idea wasn-¦t the best. Which doesn-¦t mean that a 'battleproofed' gamedesigner can't come up with a good one. My true stories |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
174
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 21:15:00 -
[52] - Quote
StoneCold wrote:Well, yes and no.
Ofc none can force someone to fight. But, just a litlte moment, think about that those people that don-¦t want to fight in wardecs would maybe leave highsec?
Wouldn-¦t that be awesome? A crowded lowsec (where pirates band together with industrialists (which would make them freebooter somehow). Or a mass-exodus to nullsec? why not.
And yeah, maybe my idea wasn-¦t the best. Which doesn-¦t mean that a 'battleproofed' gamedesigner can't come up with a good one.
As long as people aren't forced to log in and/or forced to undock, I'm not sure how game design can solve the problem. |
StoneCold
Somali Coast Guard BootCamp
182
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 21:32:00 -
[53] - Quote
As soon as they are 'locked out' the war at least got some impact on them.
Not mentioned yet so i just toss it in now:
Imo the wardeccing corp shouldnt also be able to leave a war if the defender got allies. (so if, it needs to apply for both sides). My true stories |
Azrael Dinn
The 20th Legion Mildly Sober
107
|
Posted - 2013.05.18 10:22:00 -
[54] - Quote
StoneCold wrote:There is so much fail in some replies.
The corp was picked because it had over 150 people. Also they finished 5 wars (also vs. well known entities) without a single kill or loss.
All those HTFU go to lowsec. been there, done that. You ofc wouldnt kill a hulk mining in a 0.3 because its a to soft target for you, AM I RIGHT?
So they don't want to fight... quess what, if they don't want to fight, you wont get any targets even if you want.
If you realy want to shoot someone go shoot people who wants to shoot back.
Even a complete idiot knows how to pick a proper fight... and from reading your answers it starts to seem you don't know how to pick a fight.
And no to your solution. There are more important things to be fixed than a corp swap cause you can get a fight if you want. I just have a feeling your picking your fights in a way that you don't even have a small chance of loosing. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
126
|
Posted - 2013.05.18 10:26:00 -
[55] - Quote
Declare on a corp that's likely to take any and all available measures to avoid the war, then complain when they do exactly what you knew they were likely to do in the first place.
Right. |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
55
|
Posted - 2013.05.18 12:28:00 -
[56] - Quote
I agree that the corporations should mean to players much more than they currently do to some. Some even use it just as an chat channel. But how should we fix this?
Maybe if the NPC corp tax which only currently really applies to missioning should be made to affect all sort of things you can profit from. Or maybe the tax should be removed, income rebalanced and corporations receive buffs instead making them more attractive.
Also creating a new corporation should be made much more difficult than currently but while raising the cost of forming one could be raised to 100m this would be completely unfair for the newer players. Maybe if you were limited to making just single new corporation in a month or even longer? Certainly this could be abused just by having different character making the new corporation but some sort limitation and commitment should be introduced.
In my opinion the problem should not be fixed by forcing the people to stay in corporations but instead make the corporations matter more to the people so they do not want to leave them. If the corp members leave the corporations even then that is how much it mattered to them... they should have the freedom to choice.
And should you choose to fight back or go with less aggressive solutions you will know that those who stayed in your corporation are the ones worth gold and your trust.
Edit: typo |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |