Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Eryn Velasquez
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 23:11:00 -
[121] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:You use the example of a 3 week old player v one who has been playing for years, please give a couple of examples where this type of 1 v 1 fight would happen within High Sec?
A couple? You really think, this only happens occasional?
No buddy, the scum in highsec spreads, and since they brought in the T3 BCs, it's gettin' worse.
There are scumbags who train an alt solely to kill pods, the best i saw was a 3 weeks old char with 15 pod kills in highsec, and nothing else.
I haven't heard of a "fair" ganker/griefer yet, and my main is around for more than 4 years. They trick beginners into fights they never can win. Of cause you can say, it's allright, so the victims learn the hard way. I would agree, when these things would really happen occasionally - this is what it looks like from the pov from the ganker. He does not realize, that there are dozens of other scumbags like him, doin' the same thing, so it's not a problem to be the target of this so called "fun" 3 or 4 times a day.
For me personally all this is no problem, i was lucky and had good teachers in the beginning. Not everybody has this. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1174
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 23:16:00 -
[122] - Quote
Psychotic Monk wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Also, on that closing idea, the POCO-style thing wasn't my idea. Just for the record. I *am* pretty big on the idea of giving people a reason to not be in NPC corps. I talked in this blog entry about what I'd like to see change. That was all me. Someone brought up how that's counter to Need For Speed, but barring that I think it provides actual motivation to be in a corp as well as a structure to fight over An alternative that would give a reason to be in a corp, although not give people something to fight over would be to make corporate management skills that allow CEOs to confer bonuses, even out of fleet or out of system. A couple refinements to this idea have been floating around in my head, too To be clear, I'm *not* suggesting anything major. Just enough to motivate and also allow differentiation of corp specialties. "Well, our corp hands out bonuses to warp speeds and cargo capacities. We're primarily a hauling corp."
Running with this idea, here's what comes to mind:
Create an anchorable Corporate Office. Each corporation can only have one, and a corp cannot exceed more than 5-12 members without it. There would be different varieties of COs as you described, allowing them to give various bonuses to members. The CO would become the new corporate headquarters and its location would be listed on the corp attributes.
The bonuses would have to be significant enough to matter, but no so significant that the wrong CO means you can't compete. Proximity to the CO could play a part in the bonuses in order to prevent COs being tucked away at inaccessible locations and used to pass bonuses. Another incentive might be to deny certain corp-level activities--like corp contracts and market orders--without the presence of a CO. I would definitely require a CO for any corp looking to join an alliance.
Bonuses could also be tied to a system's sec level, so that the higher you go, the lower the bonus gets. This encourages adventurous corps to dive into lowsec for the added bonuses.
If a CO is destroyed, the losing corp would have ~7 days to put up a new one, or be disbanded. They would work similar to POCOs as far as combat goes.
All numbers are arbitrary for the sake of presenting the idea.
In short - Require COs for corps to grow beyond a handful of people - Have COs offer compelling bonuses - COs might be required to enable certain corp services - Losing a CO gives you 7 days to replace it. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Dutarro
Matari Munitions The Fendahlian Collective
36
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 04:18:00 -
[123] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: - Require COs for corps to grow beyond a handful of people - Have COs offer compelling bonuses - COs might be required to enable certain corp services - Losing a CO gives you 7 days to replace it.
Sensible, and doesn't even have to be a new kind of structure .. just extend the functions of the POS. Corp HQ in an NPC station would imply the low member limit, in the same way corp size is limited by the CEO's corporation skills. Changing HQ to a corp POS increases the member limit based on the tower size. If the POS goes offline or is destroyed, the corp's HQ reverts to an NPC station and they can't recruit until a new POS is up and running.
Bonuses and extra corp services could be added by anchoring new module types on the HQ POS. It might be interesting if corp hangars were only at the corp's POSs ... more stuff to loot.
Also, it should be mandatory that a corp have an anchored headquarters in order to declare war on other corps/alliances. If the defender and their allies manage to destroy the attacker's HQ, the war ends immediately.
|
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
669
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 07:42:00 -
[124] - Quote
Jax Slizard wrote:At one point, you guys talked about having a delay in joining or leaving the corp of an attacker. Why not have that system constantly apply to everyone all the time? Leaving a corp takes 24 (48?) hours from when you push the button, and a corp leaving an alliance takes 5 (6?, 7?) days. The process is irreversible, to avoid people/corps constantly 'leaving' every day and then undoing it if nobody decs.
Keeps people from running away. The only downside is a lack of immediate gratification. The obvious response is that choices have consequences, don't join a corp or alliance unless you are sure you want to stay a day or a week. If you do not have roles, leaving a corp can be done immediately at any time. Leaving an alliance is also immediate, and as far as I'm aware can be done at any time. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
669
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 07:50:00 -
[125] - Quote
Dutarro wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: - Require COs for corps to grow beyond a handful of people - Have COs offer compelling bonuses - COs might be required to enable certain corp services - Losing a CO gives you 7 days to replace it.
Sensible, and doesn't even have to be a new kind of structure .. just extend the functions of the POS. Corp HQ in an NPC station would imply the low member limit, in the same way corp size is limited by the CEO's corporation skills. Changing HQ to a corp POS increases the member limit based on the tower size. If the POS goes offline or is destroyed, the corp's HQ reverts to an NPC station and they can't recruit until a new POS is up and running. Bonuses and extra corp services could be added by anchoring new module types on the HQ POS. It might be interesting if corp hangars were only at the corp's POSs ... more stuff to loot. Also, it should be mandatory that a corp have an anchored headquarters in order to declare war on other corps/alliances. If the defender and their allies manage to destroy the attacker's HQ, the war ends immediately. The problem with this is that it requires hisec corporations of any size to maintain a presence in lowsec of 0.3 or lower unless they have the skills to anchor in high security levels, unless these rules are changed or bent. It also forces the issue with a corporation that wishes to move from place to place. I know of at least one entirely nomadic corporation that has grown to as much as 20 members while traversing the entire ring in 0.0, and I would not want to see them forcibly tied down. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Dutarro
Matari Munitions The Fendahlian Collective
36
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 08:07:00 -
[126] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote: The problem with this is that it requires hisec corporations of any size to maintain a presence in lowsec of 0.3 or lower unless they have the skills to anchor in high security levels, unless these rules are changed or bent.
POS anchoring in 0.4 does not have any standing requirement. You can't do moon mining in 0.4 of course, but who cares if it's just a POS for corp administration. Typically, 0.4 systems are the ones right next to high sec as well.
Quote: It also forces the issue with a corporation that wishes to move from place to place. I know of at least one entirely nomadic corporation that has grown to as much as 20 members while traversing the entire ring in 0.0, and I would not want to see them forcibly tied down.
That's an issue with any anchorable structure proposal, whether it involves POSs or some new structure. |
Tora Bushido
Count With Teddy Mercenaries Stay Calm Don't Panic
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 10:23:00 -
[127] - Quote
Most is said already...so I wont repeat it. Just a big +1 for your actions. I've seen a totally different side of some of you (a positive one) .... My resists to bad posts are 78-89-83-90 ....... The metal head plate increased it by 5%.
|
BuzzyBeagle
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
110
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 12:58:00 -
[128] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote:And congrats on being elelcted again.
Atleast my 2 votes counted.
+2 votes here. |
|
CCP Spitfire
C C P C C P Alliance
1397
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 04:58:00 -
[129] - Quote
Offtopic posts removed. Please stay on the subject.
CCP Spitfire | Russian Community Coordinator @ccp_spitfire |
|
Psychotic Monk
The Skunkworks
199
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 05:41:00 -
[130] - Quote
Tora Bushido wrote:Most is said already...so I wont repeat it. Just a big +1 for your actions. I've seen a totally different side of some of you (a positive one) ....
Shh! Don't tell anyone! |
|
Cannibal Kane
Praetorian Cannibals
326
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 05:58:00 -
[131] - Quote
Tora Bushido wrote:Most is said already...so I wont repeat it. Just a big +1 for your actions. I've seen a totally different side of some of you (a positive one) ....
You had a negative view of me before? I feel sad now. I'm not a Pirate, I'm a Terrorist. |
VegasMirage
Empire Douchebag Eviction Board
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 07:48:00 -
[132] - Quote
Ma Dudes... wot did I just listen to?
funny listening to "internet tough guys" who "abused" the current mechanics for years all of a sudden say it's "broken"
listening to Aleks always makes me feel like he's jamming sharp objects in my ears, FFS please stop, write it down and hand it to Widders or Darius to deliver.
golden moment of round table:
Alekseyev Karrde whining, "Darius, you can write this down. We have a record low number of mercs in the merc contracts channel. [blah blah sniffle snort wipe]"
Yes it's not because most people realize that your channel is irrelevant and unnecessary and that most corps who list there are terrible at what they do. It's not because we've been war deccing nearly every corp in that channel and negotiated cease fires based on them leaving - funny how you're the last to find out.
We are the terrorists of Eve, we don't dec industrialists, mission runners and miners. We dec mercs and tools who like to hurt small kittens.
We need a Terrorist Round Table to make it easier to frustrate wackos like Aleks and the irrelevant Noir. f1 monkeys and meat puppets who fly with him. Darius? |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
670
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 08:13:00 -
[133] - Quote
Of all the sock puppets that I have seen that are actually on fire, VegasMirage is by far my favorite. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
670
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 08:22:00 -
[134] - Quote
Dutarro wrote:Iam Widdershins wrote: The problem with this is that it requires hisec corporations of any size to maintain a presence in lowsec of 0.3 or lower unless they have the skills to anchor in high security levels, unless these rules are changed or bent.
POS anchoring in 0.4 does not have any standing requirement. You can't do moon mining in 0.4 of course, but who cares if it's just a POS for corp administration. Typically, 0.4 systems are the ones right next to high sec as well. You should need 4.0 faction standings to anchor a POS in an 0.4 system. I know this because I have actually anchored POS in 0.4 before. If this is no longer the case that means that it changed quite recently. Additional sources: one, two, three, four, five. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
VegasMirage
Empire Douchebag Eviction Board
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 08:56:00 -
[135] - Quote
[quote=Iam Widdershins]Of all the sock puppets that I have seen that are actually on fire, VegasMirage is by far my favorite.[/quote
Don't get me wrong Widders (I respect your knowledge of the game), I agree the game can always be improved but it's clear that certain mechanics work for the masses and not for the merc community and those are the things you're focused on. You guys seem scared that more people will learn how to do what we're doing to you guys. That would be hilarious. Mercs would basically be shut down.
A change to corp hopping or dec shields don't change anything for me and 99% of Eve. You guys are saying you want guaranteed targets cause you paid for them. Most merc targets are people who don't want to pvp. Seems unfair.
If you want Eve to be true to life, then don't constrain it with unnecessary rules. An attempt to force people to stay in a corp is silly and a waste of CCP staff time
I've actually worked with CCP over months of petitions against us to ensure the Corp jumping mechanics we use are acceptable. It's not easy to do, it takes mad amounts of energy, coordination, admin work, spreadsheets, alts and intel. Most people can't do what we do or can't be bothered to invest the time. We have a developed system that works.
What's wrong with me having a group of players who each have their own corps and help each other out with their war decs when asked?
What's broken about me having 32 wars on at any one time using 14 corporations costing me a 10th of what you guys been paying for years? Being able to kill whenever I want without being killed? Or me being able to solo a fleet of re-tarded mercs with my logi, falcon and vindi alts. What's next a ban on the number of alts you can have running at one time?
Seriously, go incursion or POS bash if you want easy targets
To those who cry over people not standing still when they shoot at them, either hide behind a 7,000 man armada or grow up, get a job and pay CCP if you wanna be a boss in this game.
|
Dutarro
Matari Munitions The Fendahlian Collective
65
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 12:32:00 -
[136] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:You should need 4.0 faction standings to anchor a POS in an 0.4 system. I know this because I have actually anchored POS in 0.4 before. If this is no longer the case that means that it changed quite recently. Additional sources: one, two, three, four, five.
I anchored a POS in 0.4 about a year ago, and our corp definitely didn't have 4.0 faction standing back then. Also, towers in 0.4 don't use charters.
|
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
874
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 14:19:00 -
[137] - Quote
this recording was MUCH more fun than the ACTUAL fanfest roundtable on war decs
which was seemingly a competition on how many simultaneous conversations you could get going at the same time
the highlight was the EVE UNI representative shouting down some hisec grifers as 'SHITBIRDS'
to which Tycho from TK instantly replied 'DEAL WITH IT'
basically, the people not being angry nulbearlords were advocating corp aggro instead of this retardaggro everything idea
i remember somebody having great difficulty grasping the fact that the first weeks war dec fee was paid at the beginning and the second weeks cost was decided at the beginning. The first time the war dec fee could change was for the 3rd weeks of war dec (we spent far too long talking on that because of mr. slowpoke)
also most people thought the new war dec fees were plucked out of the air and not really fair
the people that war decced also realised this new pricing mechanic priced out small corps war deccing larger entities. Some wise person suggested the war dec fee be based on the relative size of your corp vs. the corp you are deccing.
If we never again get the chance to be SHITBIRDS by deccing EVE UNI for the lulz, EVE will be in a worse place for it My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
ZANE VOIDSTALKER
Concentrated Evil Mining For Profit Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 16:48:00 -
[138] - Quote
i have read through the min and have few points i would like to make. We stay in highsec because small gang is just more challanging we are always out numberd. my corp dec 1200 man alliance's dealing with large feets and coming up woth creative ways to counter there fleet set up is challanging. we dont like low null because there your just another alpha ship. that is just not fun for alot of us. nuet logi in high sec its is easy to counter. you dont even have to have ecm "falcon to do it. it takes just couple days to train skills to eliminate enemy nuetral logi. i wont give away my fleet tactics but anyone can do it just ready through mods list and figure it out. as far as logi getting agression and cant jump thats insane it get that right because its a unarmed ship. Simple fact is this IS a challanging game, and pvp is not for everyone. not everyone will be able to think cratively and deal with enemy fleets. but should we keep changing game mech. for these people every time they cry about it. answer is simple NO we shouldnt. they can recuite a fc or hire one. thats what big companyss do in real life and isnt that part of ccp thing want eve to be like real life.
thank you for your time zane voidstalker director cevl
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1205
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:42:00 -
[139] - Quote
ZANE VOIDSTALKER wrote:as far as logi getting agression and cant jump thats insane it get that right because its a unarmed ship That's like saying the getaway driver shouldn't be in trouble because he didn't actually carry a gun and rob the bank.
It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Christy D Floyd
Transportation Logistics Inc.
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:53:00 -
[140] - Quote
If you put a group of turds together you get a big pile of steamy S#$% |
|
Istyn
Tactical Knightmare
94
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:11:00 -
[141] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:ZANE VOIDSTALKER wrote:as far as logi getting agression and cant jump thats insane it get that right because its a unarmed ship That's like saying the getaway driver shouldn't be in trouble because he didn't actually carry a gun and rob the bank.
This.
Christy D Floyd wrote:If you put a group of turds together you get a big pile of steamy S#$%
You do. Good job figuring that out. :) |
VegasMirage
Empire Douchebag Eviction Board
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:54:00 -
[142] - Quote
ZANE VOIDSTALKER wrote:i have read through the min and have few points i would like to make. We stay in highsec because small gang is just more challanging we are always out numberd. my corp dec 1200 man alliance's dealing with large feets and coming up woth creative ways to counter there fleet set up is challanging. we dont like low null because there your just another alpha ship. that is just not fun for alot of us. nuet logi in high sec its is easy to counter. you dont even have to have ecm "falcon to do it. it takes just couple days to train skills to eliminate enemy nuetral logi. i wont give away my fleet tactics but anyone can do it just ready through mods list and figure it out. as far as logi getting agression and cant jump thats insane it get that right because its a unarmed ship. Simple fact is this IS a challanging game, and pvp is not for everyone. not everyone will be able to think cratively and deal with enemy fleets. but should we keep changing game mech. for these people every time they cry about it. answer is simple NO we shouldnt. they can recuite a fc or hire one. thats what big companyss do in real life and isnt that part of ccp thing want eve to be like real life.
thank you for your time zane voidstalker director cevl
Hey Zane o/
One of my guys fought your crew 1 v 8 [or more] and our logi couldn't keep up with your 45 ec-drones because we "forgot" to undock the ECCM casting alt.You decided to forgo the extra drone dps. Had we planned a bit better, he'd proly have done decent against you guys. We all had fun and it was nice to see you're one of the few groups who don't run away from gangs with logi or cry about it when you lose a ship. Neither do we.
"Everybody has logi in hi-sec naow!!!" is the universal cry for change from merc contracts channel these days.
Just wanted to add they [the round table] are asking people who have spent years training max skills for a hulk/Orca to remain docked or not play because the mercs wanna shoot them. "well, ya ofc!"
alpha > ewar > cap war > logi order of importance and effectiveness imo
Learn to fit and learn to determine/estimate ehp on hostile ships.
|
Zedrik Cayne
Standards and Practices
99
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 01:42:00 -
[143] - Quote
VegasMirage wrote:Don't get me wrong Widders (I respect your knowledge of the game), I agree the game can always be improved but it's clear that certain mechanics work for the masses and not for the merc community and those are the things you're focused on. You guys seem scared that more people will learn how to do what we're doing to you guys. That would be hilarious. Mercs would basically be shut down.
A change to corp hopping or dec shields don't change anything for me and 99% of Eve. You guys are saying you want guaranteed targets cause you paid for them. Most merc targets are people who don't want to pvp. Seems unfair.
If you want Eve to be true to life, then don't constrain it with unnecessary rules. An attempt to force people to stay in a corp is silly and a waste of CCP staff time
I've actually worked with CCP over months of petitions against us to ensure the Corp jumping mechanics we use are acceptable. It's not easy to do, it takes mad amounts of energy, coordination, admin work, spreadsheets, alts and intel. Most people can't do what we do or can't be bothered to invest the time. We have a developed system that works.
What's wrong with me having a group of players who each have their own corps and help each other out with their war decs when asked?
What's broken about me having 32 wars on at any one time using 14 corporations costing me a 10th of what you guys been paying for years? Being able to kill whenever I want without being killed? Or me being able to solo a fleet of re-tarded mercs with my logi, falcon and vindi alts. What's next a ban on the number of alts you can have running at one time?
Seriously, go incursion or POS bash if you want easy targets
To those who cry over people not standing still when they shoot at them, either hide behind a 7,000 man armada or grow up, get a job and pay CCP if you wanna be a boss in this game.
We want to stop these situations:
1) Pilot camped in station...leaves corp. 2) Pilot thumbs nose at war targets. 3) Some time later (ten, twenty minutes) rejoins corp, handily evading the camp, but then able to rejoin the festivities.
1) Corporation at war has scouted a group of systems. And one of them starts missioning. 2) The aggressor has an alt in a non-related corp or npc corp.. Scans out said mission runner. 3) Alt in non-related npc corp redocks..hops into combat ship. Joins aggressor corp. Undocks..pounds on mission runner. 4) Alt redocks..leaves corp.
Both 'valid' ways of moving around corporations. But they bend the war aggression rules in a pretzel. The first is typically used by the defending corporation. And the second primarily by the attacking corporation. And both are horrible. (In fact, the second is actually an exploit if done incorrectly. As you've probably been told in whatever conversations you have had with the GM's in petitions.)
While you are running right up against the edge of the 'letter' of the law. The spirit is left bleeding on the floor. And you know what? While they are busy making up a new set of rules. Might as well fix some of the more broken aspects and make being in a war consequential. Either from the aggressor or defender side.
You leave the aggressing corp? You can't go back. You leave the defending corp? Same deal. Leaving has a consequence. You want to join a corp at war? You need to wait 24 hours. Or at least that's my personal feelings on the subject. The way you and your 'merc friends' hop around there is no consequence. That is what is broken. (Hey, you asked)
You are the internet equivalent of a Mars bar filled with stupid. |
Mr Kobb
Professional Losers
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 06:34:00 -
[144] - Quote
Woah Woah Woah Woah Woah
What the hell is highsec Pvp? |
VegasMirage
Empire Douchebag Eviction Board
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 08:24:00 -
[145] - Quote
Zedrik Cayne wrote:VegasMirage wrote: tl;dr corp jumping is fun...
We want to stop these situations: 1) Pilot camped in station...leaves corp. 2) Pilot thumbs nose at war targets. 3) Some time later (ten, twenty minutes) rejoins corp, handily evading the camp, but then able to rejoin the festivities. 1) Corporation at war has scouted a group of systems. And one of them starts missioning. 2) The aggressor has an alt in a non-related corp or npc corp.. Scans out said mission runner. 3) Alt in non-related npc corp redocks..hops into combat ship. Joins aggressor corp. Undocks..pounds on mission runner. 4) Alt redocks..leaves corp. Both 'valid' ways of moving around corporations. But they bend the war aggression rules in a pretzel. The first is typically used by the defending corporation. And the second primarily by the attacking corporation. And both are horrible. (In fact, the second is actually an exploit if done incorrectly. As you've probably been told in whatever conversations you have had with the GM's in petitions.) While you are running right up against the edge of the 'letter' of the law. The spirit is left bleeding on the floor. And you know what? While they are busy making up a new set of rules. Might as well fix some of the more broken aspects and make being in a war consequential. Either from the aggressor or defender side. You leave the aggressing corp? You can't go back. You leave the defending corp? Same deal. Leaving has a consequence. You want to join a corp at war? You need to wait 24 hours. Or at least that's my personal feelings on the subject. The way you and your 'merc friends' hop around there is no consequence. That is what is broken. (Hey, you asked)
You must be docked in another system different than that of a war target before you can join/rejoin a corp at war. This means typically a war target will see you enter system (whether you jumped or not) and most probably they have eyes. So, what you propose makes no difference. Perhaps a mechanism that says, "if there's a war target in system you may not join this corporation at war, please leave and rejoin in another system"... you could force it to be 2 systems out if you wanted.
I do this daily, it's not easy if you follow the rules set out by CCP. Problem has been solved.
Who cares how many times you change corps in a day or whether your target remains in corp so you can shoot them [your war is against the corp not the person]. There are other alternatives to killing the ones you hate like suicide, awoxing etc.,
If you're trying to close a corp or alliance in hi sec down it's not that hard. We just keep the pressure on, when they join dec shield we redec for as long as it takes, eventually their members (die to us) and then leave for greener pastures.
The down side is that your employment history precludes you from joining "normal" corps because corp jumpers are considered dirt bags. There are consequences.
The can flipping mechanics (I know you said nothing of this), but I want to add are fine also. It simply provides for consensual pvp in Eve. Very rare and hard to find.
I think what you are asking for is also already in place. It's called making a war mutual. Which I have tried to do with many merc corps and they say no ;( |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
672
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 08:43:00 -
[146] - Quote
Zedrik Cayne wrote:The way you and your 'merc friends' hop around there is no consequence. That is what is broken. (Hey, you asked) I don't want to see you pointing fingers here. Both are broken and you know it. The only reason hopping between aggressors doesn't look broken sometimes is because what the defenders can do is effectively so much more powerful. It's the difference between joining a corporation to have a chance at killing someone... and leaving a corporation so that there is no chance of being killed. And if you say "oh well they could just suicide them," you're both forgetting how expensive suiciding low-value targets is these days and ignoring that they could've just done that anyway.
I am a very strong advocate for heavy restrictions on movement in and out of corporations at war. I think that declaring a war should really mean something, that it should represent a significant investment of time and money and effort. I don't think that a war against an inflated super-alliance should be too expensive to handle, but I do think that any war fee should be an amount of money that has meaning. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
802
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 13:41:00 -
[147] - Quote
Maybe make sure you're linking to these posts from the dev blog? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=88487
(Or just post there instead? Although hopefully this is one of the threads that the devs are following.) |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
94
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 16:21:00 -
[148] - Quote
Comments on the roundtable
[u]Logi flagging concerning docking/jumping[/u
If assisting means you truly inherit the timer from the pilots you're repping/boosting then there should be no problem. Basilisk shieldreps a Machariel on a gate who has 5 minutes on his GCC or a 10 seconds left on his jump-timer: now the Basilisk has too. If another Basilisk has a energy transfer on him, he now inherits the other Basilisks timers as well. In the end, once the Mach is in the clear, so is everything assisting him, directly or indirectly
[u]Corphopping/dropping corp or alliance[/u If you can't shed a war as an idividual as easily and immediately as you can now, you also lower the incentive of people to massively jump the ship, making it also less likely to sink. If you leave a corporation during a war, you will remain flagged towards the enemies for a week. And as long as you're flagged, you can't join another corp. This can also be applied to corporations leaving alliances. They remain targets for a week, after which the attacker has the option to pay to continue war with them or not
[u]Consequences for attacking another corp by mutualizing a war[/u Whenever a defending corporation declares a war mutual, the attacking corporation can then only stop the war using the mechanic to formally surrender (too many allies joined, attacker wants out: fine, but now you have to pay up)
The reason for someone to start an corporation is by creating something bigger then one single pilot can achieve. Hold assets like a POS, a POCO or maybe other features in the future. But the thing is that by doing so, you ACCEPT that you become vulnerable for legitimized war in high-sec. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen, and stay in NPC corporations. If you don't have the means, either financially or military to keep your pilots and your assets secure, your fail-corp has no right to exist and thus should fall to natural selectio
You want to be big? You become a possible target! Are you too weak to defend yourself? You'll eventually become prey. Simple as that
EVE is just littered with no-good, 'more-alts-then-players' vanity corporations and I think they are detrimental to the newbie experience and doesn't help them in any way to overcome EVE's steep learning curve. Too many newbies get sucked into these empty shells consisting of uncaring individuals messing about, thus burning newbies out before they ever learn that there are much better corporations to join
This is why I also think there should be a much higher bar for founding and maintaining a corporation, so the good workerbees don't have to sift through so much rubbish to join a decent corporation and the wannabe dictator-CEOs are stuck in NPC corps http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Tobiaz/sig_complaints.gif
How about fixing image-linking on the forums, CCP? I want to see signatures! |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
892
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 16:54:00 -
[149] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:EVE is just littered with no-good, 'more-alts-then-players' vanity corporations and I think they are detrimental to the newbie experience. It doesn't help them in any way to overcome EVE's steep learning curve. Too many newbies get sucked into these empty shells consisting of uncaring individuals messing about, thus burning out new players before they ever learn about the proper corporations out there
That's why high-sec warfare, in the form of racketeers and mercs, are a vital part of the gameplay. They are the foxes taking out the weak and sick rabbits that otherwise form a health-risk for EVE.
This is why I also think there should be a much higher bar for founding and maintaining a corporation, so the good workerbees don't have to sift through so much rubbish to join a decent hive and the wannabe dictator-CEOs remain stuck in NPC corporations.
I never thought of it like that but its perfectly true.
Its a good test of character to all those involved when a wardec hits.
Do they go out and fight
Do they sit camped in station mouthing off in local
Or do they log off for a week and play Minecraft My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
ZANE VOIDSTALKER
Concentrated Evil Mining For Profit Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 20:02:00 -
[150] - Quote
Hey Zane o/
One of my guys fought your crew 1 v 8 [or more] and our logi couldn't keep up with your 45 ec-drones because we "forgot" to undock the ECCM casting alt.You decided to forgo the extra drone dps. Had we planned a bit better, he'd proly have done decent against you guys. We all had fun and it was nice to see you're one of the few groups who don't run away from gangs with logi or cry about it when you lose a ship. Neither do we.
"Everybody has logi in hi-sec naow!!!" is the universal cry for change from merc contracts channel these days.
Just wanted to add they [the round table] are asking people who have spent years training max skills for a hulk/Orca to remain docked or not play because the mercs wanna shoot them. "well, ya ofc!"
alpha > ewar > cap war > logi order of importance and effectiveness imo
Learn to fit and learn to determine/estimate ehp on hostile ships.
exactly mate there are ways around everything in this game. you win some you lose some. but the constant cry about changing when will it stop. and as far as troll give it a rest some of us would like to have a real conversation about the direction of the game. act like an adult for once in your life. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |