Oh, I'm sorry, here I thought you were one of those who wanted EVE to be a dangerous place, with actual risk.

I guess you just wanted easier ganking after all.

That is another Goon lie.

Many current alliances are simply the old alliances renamed. If you are referring to BoB....

their help was fired from CCP. Are you suggesting that is what is required to get rid of Goons?

I am refering to BoB, the NC, TRI (the first one all the way to the fifth) ASCN, MC, Red Alliance, C02 ect ect. All of them were seen as invincible at some point and all of them collapsed.

I don't want the blatant abuse of a poor corporation interface to replace actual fights, no.

Of course, without such hacks, Goons wouldn't be doing so well, would they?

BoB's lost Sov through an exploit. Period.

I don't want the blatant abuse of a poor corporation interface to replace actual fights, no.

Of course, without such hacks, Goons wouldn't be doing so well, would they?

BoB was disbanded by a member of BoBs leadership. The result of months of infighting.

The logic that one person couldn't really click their heels together and cause an empire to lose control of all its' territory?

It was clear abuse of a game bug.

I mean really, it's logically insane that one "traitor" could magically cause a nation to suddenly "not have sov" over itself. How? He has a really, really long talk with the local police in a few thousand systems and they all decide "they no longer answer to BoB"?

So they would "patch the bug"(which they really should have done anyway) and then regrant Sov.

In fact, they should have done this.

But wait, who was BoB fighting at the time?

Oh. Light bulb.

I could look up their history and see where they reformed under other names, but I have to eat.

Those reading can decide whether you are a trustworthy and believable person.

What I said for BoB still stands unanswered by the way.

I could look up their history and see where they reformed under other names, but I have to eat.

Those reading can decide whether you are a trustworthy and believable person.

What I said for BoB still stands unanswered by the way.

If a CEO can't delegate responsibility to "trusted" members, then what can he do? Would you like to have the decision to disband be done by committee?

By your logic one could say that BoB's downfall was guaranteed by their joining EVE.

It's technically true, but really is beside the point. Bob lost sov over because of the disband, but then they retook sov almost immediately after under Kenzoku. They actually lost their space because of the huge blunder by the capital fleet resulting in the month-long hellcamp of PR-.

Are you suggesting that CEO's actually want "trusted" members to have the right to unilaterally disband their corporation and alliances?

Or is it the poor interface that requires this?

And yeah, I'm sure that CEO's would take "a vote required to disband corporation/alliance" than having to give every single "trusted" person that right.

It is a clear exploit of poor user interface.

There downfall was guaranteed by their CCP friends being fired/demoted/outed.

Else the exploit would have been rolled back.

In fact, it should have been rolled back anyway.

Why wasn't it?

Who was BoB fighting at the time?

Oh. Light bulb.

There downfall was guaranteed by their CCP friends being fired/demoted/outed.

Else the exploit would have been rolled back.

In fact, it should have been rolled back anyway.

Why wasn't it?

Who was BoB fighting at the time?

Oh. Light bulb.

You know, I'm starting to think someone's made Jesse-A mad.

This is literally Glenn Beck logic. You are a lost cause, I'm not arguing with you anymore. I sincerely hope you find some good psychiatric help before you really go off the deep end and hurt somebody.

Hard to tell with NPC corp forum alts..

Nah. This is stereotypical "I'm so mad I'm literally crying blood" mad.

I've seen some terrible threads in my day.

But arguing about whether BoB losing sov was CCP exploiting a mechanic to favor Goonswarm back in 2006 as part of some 5 Year Plan of Goon Domination in a thread about OTEC (not O-tech, not OTECH, not O-TEC, jesus christ) and comparing them to the recently nerfed Incursions...

This is the worst thread, posted in a terrible forum.

Oh oh, it was us, wasn't it !

That makes sense, actually we jacked all the T2 BPOs as well, and used BoB as the fall guy, right?

Look at that incoherent frothy sperg. LOOK AT IT.

Nope, I wasn't over-vaccinated with Thimerosal. No 'spergism here, skippy.

And no, that was a relatively minor mistake from Big Pharma.

Just a few years ago they killed a few hundred thousand Americans.

Didn't hear about it in the news? It's right in the mortality tables. How odd.

Drug introduced, sudden unexplained bump in heart attacks.

Drug banned. Sudden unexplained drop in heart attack death rate.

How is clever working out for you?

Look at that incoherent frothy sperg. LOOK AT IT.

So CCP have "balanced" incursions due to "risk vs isk" or thats the stand they will take on this, not going to go into details.

I have recently just been made aware of this "O-Tec" agreement between TEST, Raiden, CFC, PL, NCDot which basicaly means, who ever owns the tec moons currently will keep them. Now this simple agreement has completely removed the risk from owning such moons and therefore needs adressing.

The only reason incursions became relativly "risk free" was because of the awsome communitys made. THAT IS ALL

Now this o-tec agreement is in place, i think that should be nuked from orbit


This agreement effects 90% of the tech moons, how are new commers, the smaller corps/alliances ment to even get started?
Its things like this that put new people off and eventualy will be the death of the game

Clearly, being unable to "do it right" is no barrier at all to game destroying changes when the current group of Devs WANNA.

So, they don't WANNA change tech moons. The question is why.

Question. I crack myself up.