Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 53 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Trixie Lawless
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
38
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 18:19:00 -
[901] - Quote
Your idea of making NPC corps more attractive for noons and carebears is def something I can get on board with. Cheap taxes and non deccable is good, but make the player corp incentives be for people who have been in the game longer, or are ready to say...hey, I'm ready or willing to defend myself and my corp.
I think one of the big reasons there are so many super small corps, is the trust issue that EVE players have themselves placed into the game. Awoxers, thievery, and whatnot scare the hell out of newbs, so they form small corps with trusted people only, that's why you see hundreds of small Indy corps all over the place.
People want to see players corps mean more, wardeccers want to not have dinky corps roll up, and carebears just want to carebear. This could be a start to good ideas.
Props Ssabat |
thatonepersone
Black Jack 0-1
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 19:08:00 -
[902] - Quote
If you jump corp and reform to often ccp will get on you for it. |
Prince Kobol
2175
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 19:20:00 -
[903] - Quote
Carl Pator wrote:Prince Kobol wrote:To all the people who are complaining asking why people people war dec one man corps or its the fault of the war deccers for not selecting a valid target, As soon as you log into Eve you a valid target for aggression.
Whether it be by suicide ganking, war decing, baiting, duelling etc you are a valid target and as for the reason why sojmebody should go after another person or corp, it is completely irrelevant. Fair but then you can't blame the target for using a perfectly viable mechanic to avoid being a target (at least in 1 way). You wouldn't blame someone for declining a duel would you? People are saying go nuts and dec all the "mission bill's blatant tax dodge" corps you want but don't cry on the forums when he folds his corp.
Here is the thing, Folding your corp should be the very last thing you would want to do but at the moment it is the first thing many people do, why, because the gap between NPC corps and HS Corps are so small and the penalty for folding your corp is non existent that it damn well makes no difference.
The game mechanics is teaching players that it is better to stay in a NPC Corp then a player corp and that is just wrong. |
Lady Spank
The Intaki Ladies Deep Space Astrogation Auxiliary
3644
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 19:21:00 -
[904] - Quote
Hi-sec problems. (a¦á_a¦â) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (a¦á_a¦â) |
Carl Pator
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 19:41:00 -
[905] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:Carl Pator wrote:Prince Kobol wrote:To all the people who are complaining asking why people people war dec one man corps or its the fault of the war deccers for not selecting a valid target, As soon as you log into Eve you a valid target for aggression.
Whether it be by suicide ganking, war decing, baiting, duelling etc you are a valid target and as for the reason why sojmebody should go after another person or corp, it is completely irrelevant. Fair but then you can't blame the target for using a perfectly viable mechanic to avoid being a target (at least in 1 way). You wouldn't blame someone for declining a duel would you? People are saying go nuts and dec all the "mission bill's blatant tax dodge" corps you want but don't cry on the forums when he folds his corp. Here is the thing, Folding your corp should be the very last thing you would want to do but at the moment it is the first thing many people do, why, because the gap between NPC corps and HS Corps are so small and the penalty for folding your corp is non existent that it damn well makes no difference. The game mechanics is teaching players that it is better to stay in a NPC Corp then a player corp and that is just wrong.
You're not wrong, folding a corp should be a last resort. However, is that an issue with a lack of penalties related to closing a corp or an issue with wardecs? If players aren't having fun under a war dec to the point they would want to close their corp should they really be forced to partake in it for over a week?
Personally I feel we should be looking for ways to encourage players to participate in war decs. Instead of looking for ways to punish them for not wanting any part of it. |
Ssabat Thraxx
Dominion Tenebrarum Reverberation Project
536
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 19:54:00 -
[906] - Quote
Carl Pator wrote:
Personally I feel we should be looking for ways to encourage players to participate in war decs. Instead of looking for ways to punish them for not wanting any part of it.
I agree, however I would have it go along with making NPC corps more attractive as well, as I discussed a few posts ago. Let them stay in the NPC corp and reap good benefits until theyve "grown up" and are rdy to join a player corp. Joining a player corp should be a big step up for noobs and carebears. Make it count. And then, yes, encourage them to fight the wars somehow. We need more ideas on this then we can take it to F&I
Either the rules apply to everyone, or they don't justly apply to anyone.
|
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
1395
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 20:02:00 -
[907] - Quote
If someone leaves a corp under wardec, the wardec should follow them, just like a corp leaving an alliance under wardec.
The current mechanic of dropping corp to avoid wardecs is an exploit. If a wardec mechanic is going to exist at all, it should be a meaningful mechanic, not 'meh...just drop corp to shed it. Done'.
The fact this existing loophole and exploit has not been closed already, makes it clear to me that CCP is ultimately about nerfing hisec, while talking a good HTFU game out of the other side of their mouth.
One just has to took at the long list of progressive nerfs on the road to nerfdom, to see CCP is all about carebear lovin pansification these days.
::sadpanda::
F
Would you like to know more? |
Seneca Auran
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
14
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 20:36:00 -
[908] - Quote
Ssabat Thraxx wrote: So how do you shoot a corp? How do you extract money from a corp? You don't. There should be some sort of disincentive to just packing up and dropping corp any time a war is declared, otherwise you trivialize war deccing in general, and cut out several options of emergent gameplay. Basically what I'm getting from you guys is that you don't want any non-consentual PVP in hisec at all. Why dont you just tell us all to go join RvB?
There all ready is. If said corp has assets to defend or other reasons that dropping corp is the less desirable option. Sitting in a station and war deccing every corporation you see with 'mining', 'missioning' or 'pve' in it's description is trivializing war decs.
Quote:To at the very least throw aggressors a bone, how about a corp that disbands under a wardec can never have it's name or ticker used again, and the aggressor get's their concord fee refunded?
Yes, aggressors all ready have absolute control over declaring war, keeping the war going in perpetuity, and controlling surrender offers. Why can't CCP throw them a bone by taking away the single mechanic defenders have for directly affecting the war dec that isn't entirely dependent on the aggressors mood that day.
Quote:Lets go over this slowly. I "ordered" a war against ACME Corp. Because I "want to agress them." They all drop corp and dodge the war..
#1. I did NOT, in fact, get "exactly what I ordered a war.)"
You got exactly what you wanted, a war against ACME Corp. ACME Corp. no longer exists. Congratulations on your victory.
Quote:#2. Im still wondering how you can keep saying "TARGET SELECTION" when I have already asked how you expect a would-be attacker to know ahead of time if their target is or is not going to actually go to war?
Recon? Intel? Follow people around. Locate POS's and POCOS and find out who owns them? If you're just going to spam war decs at every likely looking 'carebear' you see without doing any kind of groundwork, you should expect it to be a crap shoot.
Prince Kobol wrote:To all the people who are complaining asking why people people war dec one man corps or its the fault of the war deccers for not selecting a valid target, As soon as you log into Eve you a valid target for aggression.
Whether it be by suicide ganking, war decing, baiting, duelling etc you are a valid target and as for the reason why sojmebody should go after another person or corp, it is completely irrelevant.
Yup. And if it turns out you war decced somebody who has nothing to lose or defend, you shouldn't be demanding that CCP force them to fight you anyway, or punish them for not doing so. Particularly when as you just helpfully pointed out, there's nothing stopping you from attacking them anyway, except that CONCORD is a bit tougher than your average Venture. |
Carl Pator
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 20:37:00 -
[909] - Quote
Delete |
Iudicium Vastus
Incognito Holdings and Savings
301
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 20:49:00 -
[910] - Quote
Way too many entitled types whenever the wardec subject comes up. Pick better targets that don't have a history of dropping corp or reforming. Or ones that you have located confirmed assets in space like POCOs or towers that they'll likely defend.
It's almost like they believe hisec intentionally exists as some sort of game preserve or ranch for them. Getting upset the turkeys don't turn up for the shoot. Hisec is not "La Grunta" Nerf stabs/cloaks in FW? No, just.. -Fit more points -Fit faction points -Bring a friend or two with points (an alt is fine too) |
|
malcovas Henderson
THoF
273
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 20:56:00 -
[911] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:If someone leaves a corp under wardec, the wardec should follow them, just like a corp leaving an alliance under wardec. The current mechanic of dropping corp to avoid wardecs is an exploit. If a wardec mechanic is going to exist at all, it should be a meaningful mechanic, not 'meh...just drop corp to shed it. Done'. The fact this existing loophole and exploit has not been closed already, makes it clear to me that CCP is ultimately about nerfing hisec, while talking a good HTFU game out of the other side of their mouth. One just has to took at the long list of progressive nerfs on the road to nerfdom, to see CCP is all about carebear lovin pansification these days. ::sadpanda:: F
I cannot get behind WD's following Players. You WD the Corp not the player. There should be however, some meaningful consequence to dropping corp.
Also you call it an Exploit. I am sorry you are wrong, CCP, in an unwise error of judgement, have deemed it permissible under the current scheme of things.
Yes CCP also seem to be heading for the Trammel state. On one hand they promote eve as a harsh environment, where the bad guys sells the game, while on the other hand removing said harsh environment.
While upping the consequences for dropping corp, makes for a more balanced mechanic. It in no way "Forces" players to engage into Combat PvP. Dropping is still an option.
|
thatonepersone
Black Jack 0-1
5
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 22:04:00 -
[912] - Quote
[/quote] Also you call it an Exploit. I am sorry you are wrong, CCP, in an unwise error of judgement, have deemed it permissible under the current scheme of things. [/quote]
Actualy if you drop corp and reform to often CCP will get on you for it. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9774
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 22:06:00 -
[913] - Quote
thatonepersone wrote: Actualy if you drop corp and reform to often CCP will get on you for it.
Despite having read that myself, I have never once seen them do this, even after I petitioned a guy who did it twenty times.
Since we're on this whole "figure out where the line is yourself" thing, I can only assume that the line is at least at twenty one. Or human decency, or some other ephemeral term. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |
Hiply Rustic
Aliastra Gallente Federation
155
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 22:30:00 -
[914] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:If someone leaves a corp under wardec, the wardec should follow them, just like a corp leaving an alliance under wardec.
I cannot get behind WD's following Players. You WD the Corp not the player. There should be however, some meaningful consequence to dropping corp.
Let's try it like this:
Hypothetically, my CEO decides...in his infinite(?) wisdom...to annoy Feyd to the point where the Harkonnens decide Kanly is the only reasonable course of action and Feyd wardecs the little corporation. I, being of more or less sound mind, evaluate my various options and decide my CEO has been smoking way too much of the indigenous flora to be trusted making my decisions for me any longer and I terminate my employment.
Feyd would have it that until he decides to accept the surrender of my former boss (or doesn't accept and just decides to dec that corp in perpetuity) I should be a legitimate target for his corp and allies. Seriously? That's a pretty damned one-way sandbox, isn't it?
It's one thing for a Corporation's decision-makers to be disincented in one way or another from disbanding corps to dec-dodge (even though it's not an exploit and is currently WAI) but it's a whole other thing to say that individual corp members should, additionally, have that wardec dog their steps no matter what they do.
Ralph King-Griffin wrote: "Eve deliberately excludes the stupid and the weak willied." EvE: Only the strong-willied need apply.
|
Ssabat Thraxx
Dominion Tenebrarum Reverberation Project
541
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 23:37:00 -
[915] - Quote
How about if only the original wardec stays on the player (as he would have it anyway had he stayed in corp) but once the initial 7 days are up he is not affected by the aggressor continuing the war against his former employer.
I think that's pretty fair. Either the rules apply to everyone, or they don't justly apply to anyone.
|
Mackenzie Nolen
XYJAX
24
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 23:55:00 -
[916] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:FYI, also from the same post, a few lines down:
(Edited from: Not an exploit per se, but excessively doing so will result in a warning. DonGÇÖt want the risk of wars being declared on you? Stay in NPC corps...)
In other words, their intent is ambiguous.
No. The "edited from" is what it USED to say. Before they changed the policy to say what it says NOW. Which is completely NOT ambiguous in any way. The "edited from" is just to maintain a revision history; it is not a statement about CURRENT policy.
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
86
|
Posted - 2014.09.16 01:22:00 -
[917] - Quote
Mackenzie Nolen wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:FYI, also from the same post, a few lines down:
(Edited from: Not an exploit per se, but excessively doing so will result in a warning. DonGÇÖt want the risk of wars being declared on you? Stay in NPC corps...)
In other words, their intent is ambiguous. No. The "edited from" is what it USED to say. Before they changed the policy to say what it says NOW. Which is completely NOT ambiguous in any way. The "edited from" is just to maintain a revision history; it is not a statement about CURRENT policy.
Shhh...don't confuse the wardeccers with facts now. |
Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
5259
|
Posted - 2014.09.16 01:28:00 -
[918] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Mackenzie Nolen wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:FYI, also from the same post, a few lines down:
(Edited from: Not an exploit per se, but excessively doing so will result in a warning. DonGÇÖt want the risk of wars being declared on you? Stay in NPC corps...)
In other words, their intent is ambiguous. No. The "edited from" is what it USED to say. Before they changed the policy to say what it says NOW. Which is completely NOT ambiguous in any way. The "edited from" is just to maintain a revision history; it is not a statement about CURRENT policy. Shhh...don't confuse the wardeccers with facts now.
I'm aware of what it says.
The point is, the changed their mind once.
But you've never really been very good at getting points have you Beers. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104 |
Grog Aftermath
Need more grog
112
|
Posted - 2014.09.16 11:00:00 -
[919] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Mackenzie Nolen wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:FYI, also from the same post, a few lines down:
(Edited from: Not an exploit per se, but excessively doing so will result in a warning. DonGÇÖt want the risk of wars being declared on you? Stay in NPC corps...)
In other words, their intent is ambiguous. No. The "edited from" is what it USED to say. Before they changed the policy to say what it says NOW. Which is completely NOT ambiguous in any way. The "edited from" is just to maintain a revision history; it is not a statement about CURRENT policy. Shhh...don't confuse the wardeccers with facts now. I'm aware of what it says. The point is, the changed their mind once.
But you've never really been very good at getting points have you Beers.
They changed their mind for a reason.
I suspect that reason was to reduce harassment of corps, meaning corps that keep hitting on the same corps that are incapable of fighting back.
Which comes back to, better to have people playing than bored sitting in stations or playing something else.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9782
|
Posted - 2014.09.16 12:10:00 -
[920] - Quote
Grog Aftermath wrote: I suspect that reason was to reduce harassment of corps, meaning corps that keep hitting on the same corps that are incapable of fighting back.
If you are "incapable of fighting back"(which I take to mean "unwilling", since everyone in this game has some gun skills trained by default) , then you don't deserve to be in a player corp in the first place.
Quote: Which comes back to, better to have people playing than bored sitting in stations or playing something else.
You do realize that actually playing the game is an option on the table? Well, if you aren't terribad at EVE anyway. I've elaborated quite clearly that I often mission under a wardec, and then there's always the option of *gasp* fighting back. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |
|
Grog Aftermath
Need more grog
112
|
Posted - 2014.09.16 12:32:00 -
[921] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Grog Aftermath wrote: I suspect that reason was to reduce harassment of corps, meaning corps that keep hitting on the same corps that are incapable of fighting back.
If you are "incapable of fighting back"(which I take to mean "unwilling", since everyone in this game has some gun skills trained by default) , then you don't deserve to be in a player corp in the first place.
You say that, but what about a group of friends that are PvE orientated, if you were in charge their only option would be to leave the game and play another MMO.
Sure they could still group in an npc corp., but why should they when they can do it properly in another MMO.
I play in solo corps these days, If I couldn't have a solo corp. I wouldn't be here either. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9782
|
Posted - 2014.09.16 12:37:00 -
[922] - Quote
Grog Aftermath wrote: You say that, but what about a group of friends that are PvE orientated, if you were in charge their only option would be to leave the game and play another MMO.
Nothing of the sort. And you know that, so it puzzles me why your side keeps repeating that lie.
Since they won't fight or interact with anyone else in the game anyway, their corp is no better than a chat channel to begin with.
Quote:
I play in solo corps these days, If I couldn't have a solo corp. I wouldn't be here either.
And if your sub honestly actually hinges on PvP not being allowed to happen in highsec, good riddance. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |
Grog Aftermath
Need more grog
112
|
Posted - 2014.09.16 12:41:00 -
[923] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Grog Aftermath wrote: You say that, but what about a group of friends that are PvE orientated, if you were in charge their only option would be to leave the game and play another MMO.
Nothing of the sort. And you know that, so it puzzles me why your side keeps repeating that lie. Since they won't fight or interact with anyone else in the game anyway, their corp is no better than a chat channel to begin with.
Actually you are wrong.
A corp. is no different to a guild, being in an npc corp. is nothing like being in a corp./guild. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9782
|
Posted - 2014.09.16 12:43:00 -
[924] - Quote
Grog Aftermath wrote: Actually you are wrong.
A corp. is no different to a guild, being in an npc corp. is nothing like being in a corp./guild.
No, you perfectly well described a corp that is nothing more than a chat channel with a group hangar. Why you think those deserve to exist at the expense of crowding out PvP in highsec is beyond me. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |
Grog Aftermath
Need more grog
112
|
Posted - 2014.09.16 12:46:00 -
[925] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Grog Aftermath wrote:
I play in solo corps these days, If I couldn't have a solo corp. I wouldn't be here either.
And if your sub honestly actually hinges on PvP not being allowed to happen in highsec, good riddance.
Don't think I've ever said there shouldn't be PvP in high-sec, you're starting to sound like a troll again. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9783
|
Posted - 2014.09.16 12:49:00 -
[926] - Quote
Grog Aftermath wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Grog Aftermath wrote:
I play in solo corps these days, If I couldn't have a solo corp. I wouldn't be here either.
And if your sub honestly actually hinges on PvP not being allowed to happen in highsec, good riddance. Don't think I've ever said there shouldn't be PvP in high-sec, you're starting to sound like a troll again.
Which is why I said "honestly, actually", because while I have seen plenty of people who hold this opinion, it may not apply to you specifically. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9783
|
Posted - 2014.09.16 12:52:00 -
[927] - Quote
Besides, that is really what this comes down to.
The ONLY justification that the carebear side has put up for continuing to allow wardecs to remain toothless is all the theoretical people who would apparently quit the game if PvP were ever allowed in their vicinity.
Well, that and "you can't make me", which is basically the same cop out answer that verifies that such a person belongs in an NPC corp anyway. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |
malcovas Henderson
THoF
276
|
Posted - 2014.09.16 13:05:00 -
[928] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Besides, that is really what this comes down to.
The ONLY justification that the carebear side has put up for continuing to allow wardecs to remain toothless is all the theoretical people who would apparently quit the game if PvP were ever allowed in their vicinity.
Well, that and "you can't make me", which is basically the same cop out answer that verifies that such a person belongs in an NPC corp anyway.
That and their own selfish reasons, which blinds them to all reason and sense. They have to know it is wrong. No one, and I mean no one could be that low of an I.Q.
Me Me Me and all Me. screw balance. Screw, good for the game. Me Me Me
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9786
|
Posted - 2014.09.16 13:09:00 -
[929] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Besides, that is really what this comes down to.
The ONLY justification that the carebear side has put up for continuing to allow wardecs to remain toothless is all the theoretical people who would apparently quit the game if PvP were ever allowed in their vicinity.
Well, that and "you can't make me", which is basically the same cop out answer that verifies that such a person belongs in an NPC corp anyway. That and their own selfish reasons, which blinds them to all reason and sense. They have to know it is wrong. No one, and I mean no one could be that low of an I.Q. Me Me Me and all Me. screw balance. Screw, good for the game. Me Me Me
Personally, I blame the public school system. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |
malcovas Henderson
THoF
276
|
Posted - 2014.09.16 13:10:00 -
[930] - Quote
Grog Aftermath wrote:
I play in solo corps these days, If I couldn't have a solo corp. I wouldn't be here either.
Basically then, you are saying that you want to be in a Corp for the benefits it offers. Remove that benefit and you'd be gone. The Only reason you are defending this mechanic is it keeps your benefits going. Sod trying to defend those benefits while I have absolute immunity from defending those benefits while still getting them.
Selfish |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 53 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |