| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Vadimik
    |
Posted - 2007.12.14 00:12:00 -
[121]
Edited by: Vadimik on 14/12/2007 00:12:48
 Originally by: Khudo
I agree, if the attackers fail, the defenders can ask isks in order to sign a peace treaty.
But exposing assets is anti liberal (mean heavy game mechs) and that don't fit with eve IMO.
Not "ask" for isk, but get it by default. And then have the right to end wardec here and now.
(contribution should be taken as part of wardec fee, and returned to attacker if not used when the war ends).
As for "exposing assets is anti liberal"... What the hell are you talking about ? You declare a war, what kind of liberty to you expect ? It's just to make attackers resposible for their own actions, and, even more so, to give defenders a clear way to stike back.
Because if you don't, attackers will just dock every time a counter-attack is being launched. Assets open to attack would mean that docking will not be a viable way to avoid a counter-attack.
|
Khudo
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 00:24:00 -
[122]
Edited by: Khudo on 14/12/2007 00:26:24
Quote:
Because if you don't, attackers will just dock every time a counter-attack is being launched. Assets open to attack would mean that docking will not be a viable way to avoid a counter-attack.
And "carebears" (no flame in this) can't make money while sieging the attackers.
Hell that's true !
mhhh.. but attackers won't have money. It is a +1 - 1 sum. The sum MUST be negative in defavor of the attacker if they are beaten. If not the mechanics are unbalanced.
i dunno what to answer to this.
/agreed
|
Vadimik
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 00:38:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Khudo
Edited by: Khudo on 14/12/2007 00:26:24
Quote:
Because if you don't, attackers will just dock every time a counter-attack is being launched. Assets open to attack would mean that docking will not be a viable way to avoid a counter-attack.
And "carebears" (no flame in this) can't make money while sieging the attackers.
Hell that's true !
mhhh.. but attackers won't have money. It is a +1 - 1 sum. The sum MUST be negative in defavor of the attacker if they are beaten. If not the mechanics are unbalanced.
I will be. First, attackers pay for wardec. Then, if they fail, they lose the assets, and pay contribution, and the war ends, if defender so desire.
So if attacker flat out lose, they and up paying contribution, losing assets, and not having an active wardec either.
|
Khudo
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 00:39:00 -
[124]
But how to judge if attackers fail ?
|
Vadimik
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 00:49:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Khudo
But how to judge if attackers fail ?
As I said, force attacker to have a POS and declare is as a kind of "operation HQ". Pos destroyed or offlined = fail. Pure and simple.
|
Khudo
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 01:03:00 -
[126]
Edited by: Khudo on 14/12/2007 01:05:39
If the problem you found is right imo, i don't like the solution.
- The pos can be 60 jumps away "and" in 0.0
- Having a pos is annoying (my opinion)
What do you think of this instead:
If the attackers dont do any kill while x hours, the war is
- automatically cancelled
- + X days peace treaty +
- + X amount of isk given to the defenders
"X" is proportionnal to the isks the attackers put in the wardec:
more isks in the wardec =
- shorter duration of peace treaty
- longer timer of no killing.
The isks spend can be distributed to defenders or concord... that's not an issue.
So if the attacker keep docking, they can't kill and the war end.... AND they loose isks. Small amount invested, small annoyance. Big amount invested, high annoyance but a much bigger reward/risk !
|
Nur Vadenn
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 01:08:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Icarus Starkiller
IMO wars should flag all members of the corp/alliance so that jumping corps won't work. The war flag should remain in place on each pilot for the duration of the war no matter where they go. So if they jump their werdecced corp and join another one... they (and they alone in that corp) are at war with the declaring corp, until the duration lapses.
This will prompt people to remain with their corp and work as a team to push off the enemy. Joining a new corp and being all alone at war (new corpies cannot assist if the target is attacks a war target. If the war target attacks them first then the corpies can assist.)
My goodness... How in the name of Vishnu will this ôprompt people to remain with their corp and work as a teamö? Thankfully CCP realizes that this kind of attitude won't really fly. If a corporation is poorly managed and/or maintained I should be able to leave at will war or no war.
Originally by: Roy Batty68
Detailed death of NPC corporation memberships
Well at least you're honest. No veiled attempts to rid EVE of NPC corps here. Refreshing, even if those changes are appalling at their core.
Originally by: Roy Batty68
Good thing I'm not running the show, eh? 
Damn good thing I would say. I think the added touch of not even making player run corporations a little more appealing, but worst in fact. That was an interesting addition.
I must say a lot of these suggestions calling for the gutting of NPC corporations seem to say that its been a long while since you guys have had to deal with looking for a good player corporation. The process is far from easy and very few effective tools are out there to help. Overall its one of the most underdeveloped portions of the game in my opinion, yet its one of the things most players in an NPC corporations are bombarded with every day. Ultimately the process boils down to trial and error. That is a hell of a set of punishments to deal with just because you discovered the sales pitch given by the recruiter did not match the actual corporation.
I'm still not sure where all this NPC corporation hate comes from. 
|
Khudo
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 01:13:00 -
[128]
Quote:
I'm still not sure where all this NPC corporation hate comes from.
Traders that stay in empire are un-attaquable if they never fly AFK for example.
Ore thieves "quite" too (you can attyck him if he is flagged, but if he is flagged its too late ^ ^). Anyway, mining in high sec, i agree is not very lucrative.
ninja salvagers ... and so on...
|
MongWen
Farmer Killers
United Corporations Against Macros
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 01:22:00 -
[129]
And all the damn Farmers that perma stays in npc corps.
Opinions are my opinions. They do not reflect view of UCAM, if it is not stated |
Vadimik
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 01:27:00 -
[130]
Edited by: Vadimik on 14/12/2007 01:30:38
Originally by: Khudo
Edited by: Khudo on 14/12/2007 01:08:46
Edited by: Khudo on 14/12/2007 01:05:39
If the problem you found is right imo, i don't like the solution.
- The pos can be 60 jumps away "and" in 0.0
- Having a pos is annoying (my opinion)
What do you think of this instead:
If the attackers dont do any kill while x hours, the war is
- automatically cancelled
- + X days peace treaty +
- + X amount of isk given to the defenders
"X" is proportionnal to the isks the attackers put in the wardec:
more isks in the wardec =
- shorter duration of peace treaty
- longer timer of no killing.
The isks spend can be distributed to defenders or concord... that's not an issue.
So if the attacker keep docking, they can't kill and the war end.... AND they loose isks. Small amount invested, small annoyance. Big amount invested, high annoyance but a much bigger reward/risk !
POS is the only viable option I see.
Why ? Because there is nothing else in EvE you can't simply dock and make invincible.
As for having a POS in 0.0 Well, that's the point, if you have the firepower to hold a POS in 0.0, you deserve the right to use it.
And if you just ramdomly place it there to make it hard for defenders - defenders contact local 0.0 allience and your POS is being wiped out in no time.
And as for a pos being annoying... Being wardeced is much more annoying, so it's a small price.
Now, any method that involves player kills will be foiled by docking, pure and simple.
So POS is all that remains.
Quote:
That
+ "nerfing" noob corp
+ wardecing on a character level and not corp level
and eve could be my sexiest dream.
Wardecing on a character level will not work due to the nature of wardecs. They are here to allow corps to make a formal stand when diplomacy failed, not to grief a given person.
As for nerfing noob corps... why bother, they will simply bail into one-men corps...
|
|
MongWen
Farmer Killers
United Corporations Against Macros
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 02:20:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Vadimik
Edited by: Vadimik on 14/12/2007 01:30:38
Originally by: Khudo
Edited by: Khudo on 14/12/2007 01:08:46
Edited by: Khudo on 14/12/2007 01:05:39
If the problem you found is right imo, i don't like the solution.
- The pos can be 60 jumps away "and" in 0.0
- Having a pos is annoying (my opinion)
What do you think of this instead:
If the attackers dont do any kill while x hours, the war is
- automatically cancelled
- + X days peace treaty +
- + X amount of isk given to the defenders
"X" is proportionnal to the isks the attackers put in the wardec:
more isks in the wardec =
- shorter duration of peace treaty
- longer timer of no killing.
The isks spend can be distributed to defenders or concord... that's not an issue.
So if the attacker keep docking, they can't kill and the war end.... AND they loose isks. Small amount invested, small annoyance. Big amount invested, high annoyance but a much bigger reward/risk !
POS is the only viable option I see.
Why ? Because there is nothing else in EvE you can't simply dock and make invincible.
As for having a POS in 0.0 Well, that's the point, if you have the firepower to hold a POS in 0.0, you deserve the right to use it.
And if you just ramdomly place it there to make it hard for defenders - defenders contact local 0.0 allience and your POS is being wiped out in no time.
And as for a pos being annoying... Being wardeced is much more annoying, so it's a small price.
Now, any method that involves player kills will be foiled by docking, pure and simple.
So POS is all that remains.
Quote:
That
+ "nerfing" noob corp
+ wardecing on a character level and not corp level
and eve could be my sexiest dream.
Wardecing on a character level will not work due to the nature of wardecs. They are here to allow corps to make a formal stand when diplomacy failed, not to grief a given person.
As for nerfing noob corps... why bother, they will simply bail into one-men corps...
hmm okey, but what if is an alliance, that can have sov + many POS's in 0.0 decs a high/low sec alliance? or any other 0.0 based alliance?
since it issent just 1 corp in an alliance is it 1 POS for all off the alliance or is it every one of them ?
or better yet why not just setup a high sec death star? tbh that will take alot of time to take down in BS's.. and doing a fuel run with a NPC corp alt and just useing a corp member to drop the fuel in the tower..
will that not make more problems than your idea solves your issue ?
Opinions are my opinions. They do not reflect view of UCAM, if it is not stated |
Khudo
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 07:08:00 -
[132]
+ Pos sieging isn't fun at all
|
Vadimik
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 08:36:00 -
[133]
Originally by: MongWen
hmm okey, but what if is an alliance, that can have sov + many POS's in 0.0 decs a high/low sec alliance? or any other 0.0 based alliance?
since it issent just 1 corp in an alliance is it 1 POS for all off the alliance or is it every one of them ?
or better yet why not just setup a high sec death star? tbh that will take alot of time to take down in BS's.. and doing a fuel run with a NPC corp alt and just useing a corp member to drop the fuel in the tower..
will that not make more problems than your idea solves your issue ?
It is one (or more) POS they declare as operation HQ at the time of wardec. If they fail to protect it, they pay up the contribution. Now, attackers will have an option to declare more then one HQ, but for every HQ they lose, they will have to pay contribution again, and should they lose them all, defenders will be able to terminate the wardec.
And yes, it's pretty fair, because if you've got the whole alliance to wardec you, you will have to deal with the said alliance to win the war.
If some alliance starts to wardec everyone and his cat, it will be wiped out pretty fast by combined affords of it's victims and other alliances that want it's territory.
As for highsec death star - just prohibit highsec large and medium POS'es from being declared as operation HQ's.
One last thing - contribution per every POS lost must be pretty high. At least 100m per pos, and ever higher if attacker want to prevent defender from leaving wardec'ed corp.
The idea goes like this:
At the start of wardec, attacker sets up a contribution of (100m + "binding fee") for every POS that is declared as HQ.
Now, if a member of defenders wants to leave, he must pay "binding fee"/(number of palyer in his corp at the start of wardec)*2 to attacker.
(So if everyone leaves, attackers get twice the "binding fee")
If he does not have the isk'is or does not want to pay, but wants to leave, there will be a discount of 50% per week, if he declares as "on leave". (Or 100% discount if he waits for two weeks.)
While "on leave" he can be attacked by wardec'ers, but can't attack them unless in self-defense, nor can he have any corp roles.
"Binding fee" will not returned to wardec'er at the end of wardec cycle, because that's the fee you pay to keep enemy players in their corp for the incoming week.
Oh, and if one of attackers leave, he will have to pay "binding fee"/(number of palyer in his corp at the start of wardec) to defenders just as well, with the same rules.
|
Vadimik
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 08:37:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Khudo
+ Pos sieging isn't fun at all
That's why contribution must be pretty high.
If you are paid in cash, it will be much less boring.
|
MongWen
Farmer Killers
United Corporations Against Macros
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 09:34:00 -
[135]
Originally by: Vadimik
It is one (or more) POS they declare as operation HQ at the time of wardec. If they fail to protect it, they pay up the contribution. Now, attackers will have an option to declare more then one HQ, but for every HQ they lose, they will have to pay contribution again, and should they lose them all, defenders will be able to terminate the wardec.
And yes, it's pretty fair, because if you've got the whole alliance to wardec you, you will have to deal with the said alliance to win the war.
If some alliance starts to wardec everyone and his cat, it will be wiped out pretty fast by combined affords of it's victims and other alliances that want it's territory.
As for highsec death star - just prohibit highsec large and medium POS'es from being declared as operation HQ's.
One last thing - contribution per every POS lost must be pretty high. At least 100m per pos, and ever higher if attacker want to prevent defender from leaving wardec'ed corp.
The idea goes like this:
At the start of wardec, attacker sets up a contribution of (100m + "binding fee") for every POS that is declared as HQ.
Now, if a member of defenders wants to leave, he must pay "binding fee"/(number of palyer in his corp at the start of wardec)*2 to attacker.
(So if everyone leaves, attackers get twice the "binding fee")
If he does not have the isk'is or does not want to pay, but wants to leave, there will be a discount of 50% per week, if he declares as "on leave". (Or 100% discount if he waits for two weeks.)
While "on leave" he can be attacked by wardec'ers, but can't attack them unless in self-defense, nor can he have any corp roles.
"Binding fee" will not returned to wardec'er at the end of wardec cycle, because that's the fee you pay to keep enemy players in their corp for the incoming week.
Oh, and if one of attackers leave, he will have to pay "binding fee"/(number of palyer in his corp at the start of wardec) to defenders just as well, with the same rules.
funny idea, but it will force Corps/alliances too run POS's that they dont need and take up moons that other may need for their play style...
i realy dont see CCP making a change like this, since this will almost limit PVP to the ritch, and leave new corps with new players that want to start PVP to grind ISK, or worse...
and this issent a fix for corp jumping anyways, since it will only help a few corps/alliances in a case by case
Opinions are my opinions. They do not reflect view of UCAM, if it is not stated |
Ki An
Gallente
Filiolus Of Bellum
The Church.
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 09:59:00 -
[136]
Edited by: Ki An on 14/12/2007 10:02:11
Yeah, the POS idea is just bad. And I mean... really bad.
I can't understand why you claim there's no way of 'winning' a war anyway. I've been a part of winning several wars. I've been a part of losing a few too. It's not exactly rocket science to be able to do either one. Let me give you a hint of a way to win a war against an agressor: Shoot him. If you can't be arsed, pay someone else to shoot him.
 |
Illyrinia
Caldari
Epiphyte Mining and Exploration
Combined Planetary Union
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 10:54:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Noodle Pastaman
If you want permanent non-consensual PVP go play counterstrike or something. The majority of people who play EVE want a PVE game with the occasional bit of PVP . They bring the real life money into the business of CCP and thats what is fundamentally comes down to. Quite obvious most people would be quite happy to have PVP flags in hi sec the only people it would **** of would be a few pirates who are clearly in the minority
um wrong, most the ppl in empire havnt the ability to live with the nano gangs, and what not in 0.0, EVE IS PVP, no way around that, and war decs SHOULDNT be dodged, ive been accused of war dodging myself, but im more than willing to put up a fight, ive lost many t2 cruisers and a few battleships (i dont fly bs much) to prove it. i think low sec and empire need a revamp.
You are trying to post to a locked thread
CONCORD has been notified
 |
Illyrinia
Caldari
Epiphyte Mining and Exploration
Combined Planetary Union
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 10:58:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Vadimik
Edited by: Vadimik on 14/12/2007 00:00:33
Want to make wardec meaningful ?
Force attackers to expose some valuable assets to counter-attack and make them pay contibution if they fail to protect the said assests, on top of premature wardec termination.
Only then implement any resrictions on avoiding the said wardec.
If you go as far as declare a war, there must be a way to beat you it. And since at the moment "attackers" can bail at any time without any penatly (just to resume pew-pew an hour later), it's pretty balanced that "victims" aren't compelled to anything just as well.
if you would stop being a noob and look at the options via war, deced corps can always make it mutual in which the attackers CANT withdraw, thank you very much. i used to be 2ic (2nd in command, on a former pilot) of a high sec pirate corp, many corps made a 30 minute stand, normally outnumbering us 2-1, but tactics and pvp experience made the difference. some corps even hired us AFTER they paid ransom to protect them in the advent that another corp like ours war decs them. but everything here is off from the OP, hes deccing KNOWN isk farmers, and they just corp hop... honestly now, look at those names 
You are trying to post to a locked thread
CONCORD has been notified
|
C Black
Gallente
BLACK CARTEL
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 11:09:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Illyrinia
Originally by: Vadimik
Edited by: Vadimik on 14/12/2007 00:00:33
Want to make wardec meaningful ?
Force attackers to expose some valuable assets to counter-attack and make them pay contibution if they fail to protect the said assests, on top of premature wardec termination.
Only then implement any resrictions on avoiding the said wardec.
If you go as far as declare a war, there must be a way to beat you it. And since at the moment "attackers" can bail at any time without any penatly (just to resume pew-pew an hour later), it's pretty balanced that "victims" aren't compelled to anything just as well.
if you would stop being a noob and look at the options via war, deced corps can always make it mutual in which the attackers CANT withdraw, thank you very much. i used to be 2ic (2nd in command, on a former pilot) of a high sec pirate corp, many corps made a 30 minute stand, normally outnumbering us 2-1, but tactics and pvp experience made the difference. some corps even hired us AFTER they paid ransom to protect them in the advent that another corp like ours war decs them. but everything here is off from the OP, hes deccing KNOWN isk farmers, and they just corp hop... honestly now, look at those names
thanks....they have jumped again. They leave the ceo alt in the corp and leave. And that crap about POS. Are you a DUMB. How many wars would be going on...only big corps could fight. I am trying my best to help clean up eve and all i end up doing is spending movey on war decs that cant be fought. i have ****ed off at least one GM already about this and showed him the corp history that proved that the character was war dodging. Leaveing the corp and then coming back in it. i was told that there was nothing wrong with that. One again i have to CALL BS on it. All of my character are in PC and can be targeted.
I have seen some good ideas and some really DUMB people. Once again i am wanting some way to lock the character into a corp long enough to make them fight. They can fight i have killed war ships but they use some wrong tactics and i keep getting them. Yes i have lost two ships to them.
I had a offer to join the corp to help out today. I had to tell him sorry. i am out of money to keep the war decs going for the time being. 30 mil to have 5 hours of shooting is really bad ratio.
thanks ILLYRINIA for the support. Good to see people helping to combat RMT/Isk farmers....cause CCP is supporting the hell out of them
C Black
Making new sign curently....Look back later...i am working on something cool...
Looking for all old friend of Wishsong Corp. eVe Mail me. C Black |
Ace Garpy
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 11:42:00 -
[140]
Edited by: Ace Garpy on 14/12/2007 11:43:45
Originally by: C Black
Originally by: Illyrinia
Originally by: Vadimik
Edited by: Vadimik on 14/12/2007 00:00:33
Want to make wardec meaningful ?
Force attackers to expose some valuable assets to counter-attack and make them pay contibution if they fail to protect the said assests, on top of premature wardec termination.
Only then implement any resrictions on avoiding the said wardec.
If you go as far as declare a war, there must be a way to beat you it. And since at the moment "attackers" can bail at any time without any penatly (just to resume pew-pew an hour later), it's pretty balanced that "victims" aren't compelled to anything just as well.
if you would stop being a noob and look at the options via war, deced corps can always make it mutual in which the attackers CANT withdraw, thank you very much. i used to be 2ic (2nd in command, on a former pilot) of a high sec pirate corp, many corps made a 30 minute stand, normally outnumbering us 2-1, but tactics and pvp experience made the difference. some corps even hired us AFTER they paid ransom to protect them in the advent that another corp like ours war decs them. but everything here is off from the OP, hes deccing KNOWN isk farmers, and they just corp hop... honestly now, look at those names
thanks....they have jumped again. They leave the ceo alt in the corp and leave. And that crap about POS. Are you a DUMB. How many wars would be going on...only big corps could fight. I am trying my best to help clean up eve and all i end up doing is spending movey on war decs that cant be fought. i have ****ed off at least one GM already about this and showed him the corp history that proved that the character was war dodging. Leaveing the corp and then coming back in it. i was told that there was nothing wrong with that. One again i have to CALL BS on it. All of my character are in PC and can be targeted.
I have seen some good ideas and some really DUMB people. Once again i am wanting some way to lock the character into a corp long enough to make them fight. They can fight i have killed war ships but they use some wrong tactics and i keep getting them. Yes i have lost two ships to them.
I had a offer to join the corp to help out today. I had to tell him sorry. i am out of money to keep the war decs going for the time being. 30 mil to have 5 hours of shooting is really bad ratio.
thanks ILLYRINIA for the support. Good to see people helping to combat RMT/Isk farmers....cause CCP is supporting the hell out of them
C Black
I was in a corp a long time ago. We were constantly war decce'd over the 8 months we were active and it got tiresome at the end. We all jumped corp to get away from it. Some of us went NPC corp others started there own up.
Why should you ruin someone else's game if they don't want to play by your rules? There are some players who simply don't want to PvP. We all pay our money to play the way we want to.
If CCP doesn't care about the ISK farmers then why should you? It's not your problem. It's a game get over it there is life away from your monitor.
Sig removed, maximum allowed image dimensions are 400x120 and maximum allowed size is 24,000 bytes. Please contact mods@ccpgames.com for more info (including a copy of your picture!) -wystler
The Knight said - Oh that is an excellent story of payback, international romance, and James Bondery |
|
Atrelle
The Illuminati.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 11:45:00 -
[141]
Originally by: C Black
I am a ONE person corp. I have been working on killing RMT corps. Take a look at "the eggs" contracts and you will see the trail of money...
We was killing haulers, frigs, cruiser and drakes. I have lost a few ships but the ratio is nice. I have got two Drakes from a ishkur while taking out a cara and kessy.
The singluar "I" and plural "We" confuse me.
Are you all a single man corp or aren't you all?
|
Noodle Pastaman
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 11:53:00 -
[142]
Or why not just leave the Empire for PVE, which is blatantly what the vast majority of people want.
Want to PVP go to somewhere with no Concord, and don't give me any of this rubbish about 'EVE is a PVP game'. EVE is whatever brings in subscribers
|
Ice Moon
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 12:03:00 -
[143]
If you declare war, you're declaring war against a corporation, not against an individual or a set of individuals.
If the corp disbands, congrats, you've won the war. If those individuals that were in the corp all start another corp, so what? You achieved your objective and destroyed the initial corporation.
You can't force people to fight and you can't wardec people, afaik (but I'm a n00b). Wanting either of these would support turkey shooting - if that's what you want, just come out and say it rather than dressing it up as a whine against putative exploitation of game mechanics.
Meh.
|
MongWen
Farmer Killers
United Corporations Against Macros
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 12:10:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Ace Garpy
I was in a corp a long time ago. We were constantly war decce'd over the 8 months we were active and it got tiresome at the end. We all jumped corp to get away from it. Some of us went NPC corp others started there own up.
Have you even read the OP?
Ok, so you say that you had a 8 months with wars, ok, what was the reason for those wars ? and as the OP says it total bs that people can jump the corp faster than he can dec and make a dent, and doing it over and over with all of the memmbers joining the same corp, not going thir own way like you...
now if they had joined back to the same corp to avoid the dec it is a exploit.
if you had read somemore of the posts you whod have seen that it issent about leaving a corp with a dec, its about doing it over and over and over again and just making new corps with new names, with the same members in them.
Originally by: Ace Garpy
Why should you ruin someone else's game if they don't want to play by your rules? There are some players who simply don't want to PvP. We all pay our money to play the way we want to.
Yes, but why shod other players change their play style when this is a PVP game and/or fit your play style? Originally by: Ace Garpy
If CCP doesn't care about the ISK farmers then why should you? It's not your problem. It's a game get over it there is life away from your monitor.
Now clearly you dont know what damage farmers can and will do to a mmo.. and CCP do care, but not in the way that we as players do.
but the fact is that if some players hate them and have fun hunting them/killing them, who are you to say that we need to change our play style ?
Opinions are my opinions. They do not reflect view of UCAM, if it is not stated |
MongWen
Farmer Killers
United Corporations Against Macros
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 12:13:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Noodle Pastaman
Or why not just leave the Empire for PVE, which is blatantly what the vast majority of people want.
Want to PVP go to somewhere with no Concord, and don't give me any of this rubbish about 'EVE is a PVP game'. EVE is whatever brings in subscribers
and give mission farmers a safe space ? no...
whats next? turn all systems into 1.0 and change all ammo into flowers? god no...
EVE is a PVP game, always has been, and guess it will always be a PVP game.
Opinions are my opinions. They do not reflect view of UCAM, if it is not stated |
Ice Moon
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 12:17:00 -
[146]
I still don't see the problem in forming new corps with the same member set as old corps - this kills the old corp and hands victory to the corp wardeccing.
So, the wardeccing corp has won.
Given this, what's the relevance of a bunch of people stuff with new different corps? They're not dodging the war by doing this, unless to capitulate is to "dodge".
If people leave a corp temporarily and come back - well, if the corp's still there to come back to, the wardeccing corp obviously didn't win the war, and if you don't win a war, I don't see how you can expect to dictate terms.
Please explain?
|
MongWen
Farmer Killers
United Corporations Against Macros
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 12:40:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Ice Moon
I still don't see the problem in forming new corps with the same member set as old corps - this kills the old corp and hands victory to the corp wardeccing.
So, the wardeccing corp has won.
Yes it a "victory" but that is if that is the main reason behind the dec, now if the reason is something else, then it issent a "victory". Originally by: Ice Moon
Given this, what's the relevance of a bunch of people stuff with new different corps? They're not dodging the war by doing this, unless to capitulate is to "dodge".
Well if you get deced, you and all your corp mates deside to close down the corp and make a new one is the easyest way to get out of the war.
so you get every thing that the corp has, and everyone leaves, shortly followed by a new corp creation, every one that was in your former corp joins that corp, you put all the assets that the old corp had back into the wallet/hangers.... is it just me or issent that just the same corp with a diffrent name ?
so it happens again, you and you corp mates do the same again... that is corp jumping to avoid war dec's
Originally by: Ice Moon
If people leave a corp temporarily and come back - well, if the corp's still there to come back to, the wardeccing corp obviously didn't win the war, and if you don't win a war, I don't see how you can expect to dictate terms.
Please explain?
now leaving a corp Temporary issent that bad but when all off the members (exept 1 to hold the corp) do it to avoid a war dec, and rejoin the same corp after te dec is over it is a exploit. now if 2-3 people do it, who cares..
Opinions are my opinions. They do not reflect view of UCAM, if it is not stated |
Ghaelsto Kakram
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 12:43:00 -
[148]
C Black, you're a tool. (Albeit a brave one)
You want the means to wardec farmers? If you get them it will mean others will get the means to grief regular players. Thats's bad for business.
Besides, farmers doing their 23/7 stuff isn't CCP's gripe. But when CCP find out they are selling ISK for RL cash. (Then again these farmers are playing cat/mouse game with CCP)
And still its always possible for people to evade wardecs. If you set a lvl 5 skill and don't log in for a week/month and use an alt you're hardly stopping farmers.
Cycle corp, cycle char. We all want them to cycle MMO that's for darn sure. |
Ice Moon
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 12:54:00 -
[149]
From recent posts, it sounds like most of the problem is around an expectations gap around what a corporation actually is.
Some might argue that "declaring war on a corporation" does not immediately share all the connotations of "revengenating on one individual smacktard".
If there's a need for a mechanic that allows serial persecution of one specific individual in high sec by an arbitary number of arbitrarily experienced and dedicated other players, without the ability for the hapless victim to take sanctuary, then possibly the best solution is for CCP to roll out a new, appropriately named mechanic rather than try and shoehorn semantically dissonant features under one wilting canvas of corporation war declaration.
A corporation is a named organisational entity. It has members. It is, however, not merely identically equal to its consituent members (it has a number of other properties too). Going after the coporation is not the same as going after the people, although clearly there's a segment of the player-base that wants it to be.
|
Ki An
Gallente
Filiolus Of Bellum
The Church.
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 13:06:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Ice Moon
From recent posts, it sounds like most of the problem is around an expectations gap around what a corporation actually is.
Some might argue that "declaring war on a corporation" does not immediately share all the connotations of "revengenating on one individual smacktard".
If there's a need for a mechanic that allows serial persecution of one specific individual in high sec by an arbitary number of arbitrarily experienced and dedicated other players, without the ability for the hapless victim to take sanctuary, then possibly the best solution is for CCP to roll out a new, appropriately named mechanic rather than try and shoehorn semantically dissonant features under one wilting canvas of corporation war declaration.
A corporation is a named organisational entity. It has members. It is, however, not merely identically equal to its consituent members (it has a number of other properties too). Going after the coporation is not the same as going after the people, although clearly there's a segment of the player-base that wants it to be.
Given the fact that one of Eve's corner stones is having to take responsability for your actions (one universe, reputation and all that), declaring war on a corporation is THE means of accomplishing that. I'd be all for being able to take out contracts on specific players, but I'm not sure you'd want that.
As you can see, there really IS a need for a mechanic that allows serial persecution of one specific individual in high sec by an arbitrary number of arbitrarily experienced and dedicated other players. However, the victim DOES have the means of sanctuary. It's called an NPC corp. In fact, it's such a good sanctuary that it needs to be penalized more.
War dodging is done by people who won't take responsability for their own actions. All wars are fought for a reason. Wether that reason is that the target corp has cornered a market, stolen your ore, or simply failed to provide adequate protection for themselves doesn't matter.
Finally, a corporation, in Eve, is a group of players flying under a common banner. What's important is not the name of the corp, or the database entry of that particular corpname. What's important is, always has been, and always will be, the players in that corp. Those are the ones who's actions can get your corp decced, and those are the ones that needs to be able to take responsability. The name of the corp means absolutely nothing. However, with corp jumping being as prevalent as it is, wars are meaningless. They might as well be free of charge, as you get nothing out of them anyway.
So, to make this post a bit more constructive: Either remove the cost of a war declaration and leave the rest as it is now, or introduce a way to prevent unreasonable corp jumping and limit NPC corporations.
|
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |