| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Dark Shikari
    |
Posted - 2006.02.25 16:31:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Dark Shikari on 25/02/2006 16:30:51
 Originally by: Victor Valka
To end this:
I'll hope I'll be around to see the day when the space claiming alliances become more open and don't see the need to gank anyone in sight that is not blue, when free trade is possible between all. We need more alliances like ISS!
ISS, however, doesn't claim any territory. They own sovereignty, but they don't actually claim the space. They have NAPs with nearby alliances to allow that sovereignty and to run their POSs/outposts, but they do not actually claim any space.
There was a totally free alliance a while back: it was called the Coalition of Free Stars. It did not last very long. Its reincarnation, the United Free Stars, hardly lasted a month or two.
What ISS is doing is allowing free trade in areas that are not as restrictively held by creating open-access outposts. Providence, for example, is not claimed by anyone (ISS Borealis) and the area of Catch that Marginis is in is relatively open also.
Originally by: Victor Valka
Demmit, Dark! You are, like, in every second thread on New Citizen Q&A! 
Every second? I must be slacking.
[23] Member: Official Forum Warrior
What's with the blue robots? Click my sig.
|
Victor Valka
|
Posted - 2006.02.25 16:42:00 -
[62]
"ISS, however, doesn't claim any territory. They own sovereignty, but they don't actually claim the space. They have NAPs with nearby alliances to allow that sovereignty and to run their POSs/outposts, but they do not actually claim any space."
I know that. What I am trying to say is that we need alliances with a more open policy then NBSI. NBSI is not really the best on to have in place at all times. I think that is quite clear.
|
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2006.02.25 16:52:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Victor Valka
"ISS, however, doesn't claim any territory. They own sovereignty, but they don't actually claim the space. They have NAPs with nearby alliances to allow that sovereignty and to run their POSs/outposts, but they do not actually claim any space."
I know that. What I am trying to say is that we need alliances with a more open policy then NBSI. NBSI is not really the best on to have in place at all times. I think that is quite clear.
I think its quite clear that NBSI is the best policy. If you want to come into the space, you can negotiate a NAP so that you become blue. If you refuse to do so, you're probably up to no good.
[23] Member: Official Forum Warrior
What's with the blue robots? Click my sig.
|
Victor Valka
|
Posted - 2006.02.25 16:59:00 -
[64]
"I think its quite clear that NBSI is the best policy. If you want to come into the space, you can negotiate a NAP so that you become blue. If you refuse to do so, you're probably up to no good."
We obviously have different ideas on what an alliance should represent and how it should be run. Lets leave it at that.
|
Lienzo
|
Posted - 2006.02.25 17:35:00 -
[65]
Most places in 0.0 are chokepoints by my experience. 0.0 is less open grid behind the access points and moreso long, occasionally intersecting strings of highways with odd deadends hanging off them.
It would not be a challenge in many cases for a group to secure a "corner" of space by selecting these pockets and blocking the entrances. Of course, most groups out there don't bother to secure their borders because they mostly don't care due to the low traffic. NBSI policy scarcely applies to gatecamping for most deep space groups. You generally see gatecamps where one expects general traffic or a specific set of foes or targets to pass through in the near future.
The groups that exercise NBSI policy at 0.0 access points, Tyrell & Co. for example, are definitely pirates. Not that there's anything wrong with that. They're just bored pkers with no real agenda behind their actions like the rest of us. Most of these groups are no more interested in negotiating with potential targets than the targets are aware how they might do so. That also is intelligible as one must account for what new allies have to offer. Too many people in an alliance in one area and the npcs become scarce.
What we need is more pockets of space out in 0.0 and more difficult to control access points. This does not simply mean more 2-gate systems leading into 0.0, but instead, more gates leading into important systems as well. Every node should link to two low sec systems as well as two or more other 0.0 systems.
It's fine to have chokepoints as they will always be needed in targetpoor areas, especially at gates that are off the solar plane. However, all zone transitions need to be massively parallel. The systems that compose the border between high sec and low sec, and between low sec and no sec need to have multiple gates per system.
Transition zones are always more dangerous than deep space only because it is like shooting fish in a barrel in those situations. This will be best for both prey and predators alike, because as people have a harder time controlling borders, the non-affiliated will become emboldened, and the pool of potential random encounters will rise, especially in deep space.
|
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2006.02.25 18:14:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Victor Valka
"I think its quite clear that NBSI is the best policy. If you want to come into the space, you can negotiate a NAP so that you become blue. If you refuse to do so, you're probably up to no good."
We obviously have different ideas on what an alliance should represent and how it should be run. Lets leave it at that.
So you think that an alliance should let anyone, including their enemies in?
Because when you let people in without specific negotiation for each group, you will let in enemies. And they will destroy you.
P.S. There are no pirates in 0.0, by definition, as a pirate is someone who kills for profit in low security space.
[23] Member: Official Forum Warrior
What's with the blue robots? Click my sig.
|
Hoshi
|
Posted - 2006.02.25 18:43:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Lienzo
The groups that exercise NBSI policy at 0.0 access points, Tyrell & Co. for example, are definitely pirates. Not that there's anything wrong with that. They're just bored pkers with no real agenda behind their actions like the rest of us. Most of these groups are no more interested in negotiating with potential targets than the targets are aware how they might do so. That also is intelligible as one must account for what new allies have to offer. Too many people in an alliance in one area and the npcs become scarce.
I have to comment on this as this is a personal attack on me as I am part of the "& Co" above as a member of curse coallition.
No we are not pirates, no more than BoB or Iron or any other similar 0.0 alliance are. We have claimed a part of space just like many other, I fairly small part compared to most others as we only claim 2 constellations. And we are now working hard to secure this as our space.
Yes there happens to be a chokepoint and we defend that point as much as possible as we like all others want our space to be safe for our members. At present time we do no negotiatiate with individual corps for travel rights because we are still securing our borders and have little to gain from such negotations.
But what forces you to travel thru our space? While it is a chokepoint there are still several other possible paths towards the south, thru providance is the most obvious. If I where to travel thru any other alliance space which we have not negotiated standings with in advanved I would expect to get shot at, what makes our space different from others so that we are not allowed to secure it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 |
Victor Valka
|
Posted - 2006.02.26 09:03:00 -
[68]
"So you think that an alliance should let anyone, including their enemies in?"
Don't be a silly tachikoma.
"P.S. There are no pirates in 0.0, by definition, as a pirate is someone who kills for profit in low security space."
So how do you call someone who ganks your ship in a 0.0 space and belongs to a know pirate corporation? If SNIGG ganked you out in 0.0 would they not be pirates? 
|
Marie Trudeau
|
Posted - 2006.02.26 12:38:00 -
[69]
Contrary to popular belief and practice in 0.0 space, claiming space and having an NBSI policy are not necessary. What is necessary is the ability to defend against threats, and not everyone coming into an area of space is a threat. Jericho Fraction survives and thrives in 0.0 space, but claims no space at all, and does not practice an NBSI policy of any type.
---------------------------
 |
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2006.02.26 14:13:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Dark Shikari on 26/02/2006 14:13:13
Originally by: Marie Trudeau
Contrary to popular belief and practice in 0.0 space, claiming space and having an NBSI policy are not necessary. What is necessary is the ability to defend against threats, and not everyone coming into an area of space is a threat. Jericho Fraction survives and thrives in 0.0 space, but claims no space at all, and does not practice an NBSI policy of any type.
Well you seem to have contradicted yourself.
You don't have an NBSI policy but you don't claim space. That's like saying "oh we don't need guns, because we're not fighting a war! Nobody needs guns then!"
If you claimed space, you pretty much need an NBSI policy, or you won't be claiming space for very long. 
[23] Member: Official Forum Warrior
What's with the blue robots? Click my sig.
|
|
Gray Carmicheal
|
Posted - 2006.02.26 14:27:00 -
[71]
My entire corp is made of mostly noobs, and we all live happily in 0.0, along with the other noobs filling the other 5 corps of our informal alliance.
Making friends > soloing.
My sig was CONCORDOKKENED. I blame Wrangler H4x. |
David Hope
|
Posted - 2006.02.26 14:40:00 -
[72]
1) ISS Borealis is in Pure Blind, not Providence. But if you were to go there, none of the local alliances would shoot you as there isn't an NBSI policy in the area.
2) Your opinion on NBSI will change five seconds after you get ganked by a battleship in secure alliance space, and the pvpers at the bubble camp say "well hey! He looked alright. I'm just giving people the benefit of the doubt!"
|
Marie Trudeau
|
Posted - 2006.02.26 15:21:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Marie Trudeau on 26/02/2006 15:24:08
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Edited by: Dark Shikari on 26/02/2006 14:37:28
Originally by: Marie Trudeau
Contrary to popular belief and practice in 0.0 space, claiming space and having an NBSI policy are not necessary. What is necessary is the ability to defend against threats, and not everyone coming into an area of space is a threat. Jericho Fraction survives and thrives in 0.0 space, but claims no space at all, and does not practice an NBSI policy of any type.
Well you seem to have contradicted yourself.
You don't have an NBSI policy but you don't claim space. That's like saying "oh we don't need guns, because we're not fighting a war! Nobody needs guns then!"
If you claimed space, you pretty much need an NBSI policy, or you won't be claiming space for very long.
But as said before, if you don't want to claim space, there are quite a number of large NPC station regions. Anyone who "claims" these can usually be ignored (with the exception of Delve) because its impossible to stop people from doing what they want there. If I wanted to I could probably go on a 2 week NPCing trip in Stain
No my point was that one need not claim space, or be NBSI, to live permanently in 0.0 and prosper there (as much as those who claim the same space do). That may involve being involved in fighting with those who claim said space, depending on diplomatic efforts and openness. To the extent you aren't suggesting anything to the contrary, I think we agree.
---------------------------
|
Alexis DeTocqueville
|
Posted - 2006.02.26 15:47:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Alexis DeTocqueville on 26/02/2006 15:48:29
Originally by: Dark Shikari
I think its quite clear that NBSI is the best policy.
Strategically, yes. Economically, no. Just look at how ISS is rolling in profits. Why it took an independent starbase syndicate to do what alliances should have been doing from day one (offering hard-to-find services in 0.0 and taking a cut) challenges my faith in your usually rational economic judgement.
|
Lorth
|
Posted - 2006.02.26 23:03:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Victor Valka
Without being ganked by who? The alliance I joined? Okay. That's dandy. But what if someone or other decides that this is a nice day to gank a couple members of my corp and does so successfully?
My bet would be that my corp would just get told to suck it up and live on.
If I join an alliance and pay them I expect some sort of services in return. Like basic security. That's not much to ask for.
If I get no services in return I'm just paying a ransom to another group of pirates. That's how I see it.
I had to reply to this one.
Joining an allience expecting some sort of service from them, has been the downfall of most of the dead allience's in eve to date. Take for example xetic, a group of 5-6000 people, most of whom where there for them selves, excepting the rest to do the dirty work for them.
Paying an allience for acess to thier space is exactly that. You should expect nothing more in return, simply because you are offering nothing in return at all. The fee you pay, is ushally very small compard to the isk you bring out from the area. I would venture to guess that for the most part, 'guests' of alliences do far more harm to the area then they pay for, in terms of popping roids etc...
Victor, your attitude (and I'm not trying to flame here) is exactly why most allience fail. People with the same ideals as you have joined alliences in the past, and are constantly a source of fustration for them. Mining whne they should be PVP'ing, allowing free ganks to the enemy, and all the while demanding they be protected as if they are worht something to the allience.
Alliences don't need industrialists, or miners really at all. What they need are people who a dedicated to a common cause, and are willing to work with the rest of the allience to achieve it. People who are industrial types, who expect to gain all the benifitc of allience life, with out putting in any sort of effort to defend those ideals, are the bane of 0.0.
You do not ever join an allience and expect services in return. Asking for anything, which you are not willing to do your self, is always far to much to ask for. Which is why most of the successfull alliences in the game today are very quick to kick corps/people who display the attidudes you do.
 |
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2006.02.26 23:36:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Alexis DeTocqueville
Edited by: Alexis DeTocqueville on 26/02/2006 15:48:29
Originally by: Dark Shikari
I think its quite clear that NBSI is the best policy.
Strategically, yes. Economically, no. Just look at how ISS is rolling in profits. Why it took an independent starbase syndicate to do what alliances should have been doing from day one (offering hard-to-find services in 0.0 and taking a cut) challenges my faith in your usually rational economic judgement.
You seem to misunderstand.
The ISS doesn't claim space.
Do you know where their profits come from?
PvPers from neighboring space-claimining alliances buying stuff so that they can NBSI.
[23] Member: Official Forum Warrior
What's with the blue robots? Click my sig.
|
Verone
|
Posted - 2006.02.26 23:42:00 -
[77]
Three words to the original poster that say it all :
RISK VS REWARD
Veto Member Movies
|
Alexis DeTocqueville
|
Posted - 2006.02.26 23:46:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
You seem to misunderstand.
The ISS doesn't claim space.
Do you know where their profits come from?
PvPers from neighboring space-claimining alliances buying stuff so that they can NBSI.
I'm aware ISS doesn't claim space, they're focused on making outposts. The bit about where they get their income is irrelevant, if alliances had done it to begin with, they'd be rolling in the profits, but they're not. What about wars? A neutral alliance that sold to both sides would make a huge amount of money.
Your loss.
|
Drizit
|
Posted - 2006.02.26 23:54:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
P.S. There are no pirates in 0.0, by definition, as a pirate is someone who kills for profit in low security space.
Shikari, I am very surprised at a remark like that coming from you.
Pirates operate anywhere an everywhere. The definition is as you say, someone who kills for profit. But anywhere, not just in low sec. The only distinction between high sec and low sec is the level of retribution form the authorities. I won't even mention the completely lawless 0.0 since there are no authorities as such. However, piracy is piracy no matter which way you look at it.
Pirates in RL used to roam international waters to avoid any particular government taking arms against them. Their approach and methods were exactly the same and pirates they were nonetheless.
Also, as someone said, respectable amounts of ISK can be made in 0.0 so there's more potential for profit from piracy there than anywhere else. Most of Empire, even low sec is populated by people with little or no financial backing. Like myself, I have a BS but it cost me dearly and I have only about 100K isk left until I can find a way to make more. Since many of the low sec population are noobs trying to make a start, pirates there are little more than griefers since the pickings are not great and the targets are easy and the approach is similar to using a shotgun to kill a mouse.
--
My idea of an OS is one that Operates the System, not a complete package of every piece of software ever written.
Computers created "The Paperless Office". But some stupid fool invented a printer |
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2006.02.27 00:07:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Dark Shikari on 27/02/2006 00:07:44
Originally by: Drizit
Originally by: Dark Shikari
P.S. There are no pirates in 0.0, by definition, as a pirate is someone who kills for profit in low security space.
Shikari, I am very surprised at a remark like that coming from you.
Pirates operate anywhere an everywhere. The definition is as you say, someone who kills for profit. But anywhere, not just in low sec. The only distinction between high sec and low sec is the level of retribution form the authorities. I won't even mention the completely lawless 0.0 since there are no authorities as such. However, piracy is piracy no matter which way you look at it.
Pirates in RL used to roam international waters to avoid any particular government taking arms against them. Their approach and methods were exactly the same and pirates they were nonetheless.
Also, as someone said, respectable amounts of ISK can be made in 0.0 so there's more potential for profit from piracy there than anywhere else. Most of Empire, even low sec is populated by people with little or no financial backing. Like myself, I have a BS but it cost me dearly and I have only about 100K isk left until I can find a way to make more. Since many of the low sec population are noobs trying to make a start, pirates there are little more than griefers since the pickings are not great and the targets are easy and the approach is similar to using a shotgun to kill a mouse.
Most of the time those who talk about "pirates" in 0.0 call them merely "PvPers". If killing in 0.0 for fun and profit, then hell even Burn Eden are pirates. There are countless corporations that would then be put under the "pirate" banner when they really aren't.
Originally by: Alexis DeTocqueville
Originally by: Dark Shikari
You seem to misunderstand.
The ISS doesn't claim space.
Do you know where their profits come from?
PvPers from neighboring space-claimining alliances buying stuff so that they can NBSI.
I'm aware ISS doesn't claim space, they're focused on making outposts. The bit about where they get their income is irrelevant, if alliances had done it to begin with, they'd be rolling in the profits, but they're not. What about wars? A neutral alliance that sold to both sides would make a huge amount of money.
Your loss.
Well a certain member of my corp is currently making a huge amount of money doing exactly that in our space.
I would rather have our alliance making the money than someone else unrelated making money off us.
[23] Member: Official Forum Warrior
What's with the blue robots? Click my sig.
|
|
Fatima Nefestis
|
Posted - 2006.02.27 00:35:00 -
[81]
Originally by: "Lorth"
Alliences don't need industrialists, or miners really at all. What they need are people who a dedicated to a common cause, and are willing to work with the rest of the allience to achieve it. People who are industrial types, who expect to gain all the benifitc of allience life, with out putting in any sort of effort to defend those ideals, are the bane of 0.0.
Clarification requested by this newbie, please. Do you mean that industrialists/miners are not necessary at all to the success of a 0.0 territorial alliance, or that independent industrialists/miners - 'guests' of any given alliance - are not necessary for operation in 0.0? I've been operating under the assumption thus far than an industrial base of some sort is necessary for any alliance that wants to claim territory.
Are industrialists by definition unable to make the contribution to an alliance's success necessary to justify their existence on 0.0, or is it simply industrial corporations that want access to the resources in an alliance's space largely for their own gain that are unwilling to contribute? Would an industrial-oriented corporation be able to justify its existence as part of an alliance by manufacturing purely for the other corporations of that alliance - placing the needs of the alliance in terms of ships, modules, POS, etc. before their desire to maximise their own profit - or is there simply no place in an alliance for a corp that isn't first and foremost combat oriented?
I just want to be sure of what the relationship between combat pilots and industrialists in 0.0 genuinely is, and correct any misconceptions I've been carrying around thus far - I've been looking at alliances as something akin to the domains of feudal warlords, with corporations operating under some sort of liege/vassal system, but if that's a bad comparison I want to know so I can ditch it and rethink where I want to go and how I eventually want to get into 0.0.
|
Hoshi
|
Posted - 2006.02.27 01:26:00 -
[82]
Industrialists can be very useful to a 0.0 alliance, specially if they that's what they try to do, be useful to the alliance instead of making a profit of their own.
But I would not say industrials are needed for a 0.0 alliance. You don't need industrials to put up a pos if it's only purpose is for defence or offence. You only need them if you want to make money from the pos.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.02.27 01:27:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Most of the time those who talk about "pirates" in 0.0 call them merely "PvPers". If killing in 0.0 for fun and profit, then hell even Burn Eden are pirates. There are countless corporations that would then be put under the "pirate" banner when they really aren't.[
It depends how you define pirates. I would say BE are a pirate corp. We talk dirty and have no respect for any laws or soveirgnty. Living day to day, preying on the weak. We do a little bit of sentry tanking and low sec ganking now and then but we keep our Sec status' above -1.9.
When I here the term PVPers, I think of ganksquads of hacs, inties and AFs. BE fly mostly battleships and are one of the few corps who venture deep into enemy space in them in very small numbers.
I haven't looked up ther word in the dictionary but I think we fall under the category.
 |
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2006.02.27 01:30:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Shin Ra
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Most of the time those who talk about "pirates" in 0.0 call them merely "PvPers". If killing in 0.0 for fun and profit, then hell even Burn Eden are pirates. There are countless corporations that would then be put under the "pirate" banner when they really aren't.[
It depends how you define pirates. I would say BE are a pirate corp. We talk dirty and have no respect for any laws or soveirgnty. Living day to day, preying on the weak. We do a little bit of sentry tanking and low sec ganking now and then but we keep our Sec status' above -1.9.
When I here the term PVPers, I think of ganksquads of hacs, inties and AFs. BE fly mostly battleships and are one of the few corps who venture deep into enemy space in them in very small numbers.
I haven't looked up ther word in the dictionary but I think we fall under the category.
Actually you're probably right. BE is definitely more "pirate" than most 0.0 PvP corps.
[23] Member: Official Forum Warrior
What's with the blue robots? Click my sig.
|
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2006.02.27 01:32:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Fatima Nefestis
Originally by: "Lorth"
Alliences don't need industrialists, or miners really at all. What they need are people who a dedicated to a common cause, and are willing to work with the rest of the allience to achieve it. People who are industrial types, who expect to gain all the benifitc of allience life, with out putting in any sort of effort to defend those ideals, are the bane of 0.0.
Clarification requested by this newbie, please. Do you mean that industrialists/miners are not necessary at all to the success of a 0.0 territorial alliance, or that independent industrialists/miners - 'guests' of any given alliance - are not necessary for operation in 0.0? I've been operating under the assumption thus far than an industrial base of some sort is necessary for any alliance that wants to claim territory.
Are industrialists by definition unable to make the contribution to an alliance's success necessary to justify their existence on 0.0, or is it simply industrial corporations that want access to the resources in an alliance's space largely for their own gain that are unwilling to contribute? Would an industrial-oriented corporation be able to justify its existence as part of an alliance by manufacturing purely for the other corporations of that alliance - placing the needs of the alliance in terms of ships, modules, POS, etc. before their desire to maximise their own profit - or is there simply no place in an alliance for a corp that isn't first and foremost combat oriented?
I just want to be sure of what the relationship between combat pilots and industrialists in 0.0 genuinely is, and correct any misconceptions I've been carrying around thus far - I've been looking at alliances as something akin to the domains of feudal warlords, with corporations operating under some sort of liege/vassal system, but if that's a bad comparison I want to know so I can ditch it and rethink where I want to go and how I eventually want to get into 0.0.
The industrial base of an alliance is extremely important. A good alliance can not only fight, but its members have the ISK and minerals to fund that fight. The most powerful alliances, like BoB, have enough resources that they worry more about shiplosses hurting their killboard numbers than they worry about ISK.
Most alliances have very solid industrial bases that they would not exist without.
[23] Member: Official Forum Warrior
What's with the blue robots? Click my sig.
|
Tony Fats
|
Posted - 2006.02.27 02:51:00 -
[86]
Edited by: Tony Fats on 27/02/2006 02:52:37
Saying that alliances don't need NBSI is like saying Eve doesn't need war.
So whats the point of the game?
Mining simulator?
Everquest in space?
I can tell most of you are refugees from PVE games who desperately wish that Eve would go carebear because it makes you cry when the camping meanies destroy your ship.
The essence of Eve is war.
Thats the whole point of needing builders and miners. Duh.
C.ocaine is expensive because it is illegal, thats how drug barons become rich. If everybody could grow it, it would be the same price as Parsley.
Crokite is expensive because its guarded, thats how miners get rich. If everybody could mine it, it would be the same price as Veld.
|
Lienzo
|
Posted - 2006.02.27 04:30:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Hoshi
I have to comment on this as this is a personal attack on me as I am part of the "& Co" above as a member of curse coallition.
Quote:
".... We have claimed a part of space just like many other, I fairly small part compared to most others as we only claim... as our space."
Can't deny this. The other main access point to the south is only a region or two away.
Quote:
Yes there happens to be a chokepoint and we defend that point as much as possible as we like all others want our space to be safe for our members.
Fortunately, the primary activity of your members seems to be making financial gain from this chokepoint. How exceptionally efficient.
Quote:
At present time we do no negotiatiate with individual corps for travel rights because we are still securing our borders and have little to gain from such negotations.
What point exactly was it in my post you wished to take exception with again?
Quote:
But what forces you to travel thru our space?
I don't think you could fathom the answer to this if it wasn't related to your own private conception of how everything the rest of the playerbase does must somehow fit in with your merest presence.
Also, in the future, I hope that when you attempt to pod me yet again, you and your fellows do it with a bit of animosity at least. Why do I not hesitate to write these words? BECAUSE YOU WERE GOING TO SHOOT AT ME ANYWAY. I didn't mind then, and I don't mind now.
You can't hope to have others not summarilly categorize you in a manner that doesn't flatter your self-narrative simply because you protest. You will be called "pirates" if you talk and act like pirates. You will be called "incompetent pirates" if you aren't any good at it. Seriously, unwind a bit and admit that you're just like the rest of us and shoot people simply because you can and because you want to.
|
Guntaro
|
Posted - 2006.02.27 10:58:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Verone
Three words to the original poster that say it all :
RISK VS REWARD
Exactly the opposite! I would ask you where is the risk to alliance players if whole sections of space are blocked off and no outsider can enter? I say yes Risk vs Reward by letting there be more access routes into 0.0 space and make it harder to camp choke points with little risk.
The root of the issue here I feel lies with the game itself. While ingame, the reasons of defending territory and securing borders in 0.0 space seem legitimate enough, ultimately however what is happening is that many people cannot play a huge part of the game that they are paying for without first getting permission from other players and that is something I personally resent.
Why should I have to get permission from other players to play a part of a game that I am paying for?
The fact that the game mechanics seem to support this is a mistake and a flaw in the game in my opinion.
Especially with the growing numbers of players, I feel it is time to open up 0.0 space by adding more access routes.
|
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2006.02.27 11:25:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Guntaro
Originally by: Verone
Three words to the original poster that say it all :
RISK VS REWARD
Exactly the opposite! I would ask you where is the risk to alliance players if whole sections of space are blocked off and no outsider can enter? I say yes Risk vs Reward by letting there be more access routes into 0.0 space and make it harder to camp choke points with little risk.
The root of the issue here I feel lies with the game itself. While ingame, the reasons of defending territory and securing borders in 0.0 space seem legitimate enough, ultimately however what is happening is that many people cannot play a huge part of the game that they are paying for without first getting permission from other players and that is something I personally resent.
Why should I have to get permission from other players to play a part of a game that I am paying for?
The fact that the game mechanics seem to support this is a mistake and a flaw in the game in my opinion.
Especially with the growing numbers of players, I feel it is time to open up 0.0 space by adding more access routes.
Its quite obvious that you have never even bothered to go to 0.0 as alliance space is anything but "safe" or "risk-free."
The "OMG I'M PAYING FOR A GAME" attitude is absolutely stupid here. One of the unique features of EVE is that it allows players to claim their own space. You can go there, sure, but you won't be able to dock and it might be somewhat dangerous unless you stay in the off-route dead-end systems.
Don't like it? Don't play the game. Because this is the core of how EVE works: the players are the most important part of the game, and have the right to do what they want in 0.0.
[23] Member: Official Forum Warrior
What's with the blue robots? Click my sig.
|
Malachon Draco
|
Posted - 2006.02.27 11:31:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Alexis DeTocqueville
Edited by: Alexis DeTocqueville on 26/02/2006 15:48:29
Originally by: Dark Shikari
I think its quite clear that NBSI is the best policy.
Strategically, yes. Economically, no. Just look at how ISS is rolling in profits. Why it took an independent starbase syndicate to do what alliances should have been doing from day one (offering hard-to-find services in 0.0 and taking a cut) challenges my faith in your usually rational economic judgement.
You are making a warped comparison. ISS is more like say: Shell or Exxon, while the Alliances are more like nations. Exxon makes massive profits, and the US government is in deficit every year. Silly US government? (Or just about any western nation, not harping on US here). Most alliances have different objectives than ISS, thus economic profit is less important to them.
|
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |