Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 39 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Kherho S1n
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 11:15:00 -
[721]
Originally by: Katarina Shadows Edited by: Katarina Shadows on 23/09/2009 10:56:23
Originally by: Kherho S1n
Originally by: Katarina Shadows Oh dear, there is so much infantile, playground animosity in this thread it is positively unbelievable. So many childish individuals demonstrating the mental capacity of a hairless simian smearing itself with its own faeces and behaving in a manner I haven't seen since I was 9 and used to bully my younger sister.
I was attracted to this game because unlike other MMOs it was actually considered relatively difficult and thus required some effort to play and yet the longer I play the more it seems the developers are merely trying to create a product that appeals to the baser aspects of human nature. There are so many replies in this thread that offer no constructive input but are just people openly gloating at the distress of others and even more posts which are just designed to anger and insult other players and yet the moderators to do nothing to remove these posts.
I would ask the people in this thread who are gloating and being vociferously in favour of this change to demonstrate undeniably how this change will actively benefit them and their play-style because as far as I can see so far none of them have , they are just here to annoy the "carebears". If, as I suspect, these people are just "trolling" may I respectfully invoke rule 7 of the forum rules and politely ask the moderators to remove their input from this disccussion.
Now I fully understand this post will be instantly met with such Einsteinian replies as "Cry more" and "Your tears fuel me" to which I can only retort "You've got brown on you."
"is so much infantile", "So many childish individuals", "I haven't seen since I was 9 and used to bully my younger sister"... youre the only in here doing what you criticize ^^ sorry dude, i cant see any "constructive input" from your side ;-)
The constructive input is asking the moderators to remove all of the troll posts and in the interest of fairness I would ask them to do this for posters on both side of the argument. Also the post you quoted hasn't been my only contribution to this thread but I wouldn't really expect you to realise that.
Your reply, however, added what exactly?
Furthermore I would argue that by pointing out how immature some of the comments being made have been I am taking the first steps towards turning this into a sensible and serious discussion rather than the futile flamefest it has become. While I have severe doubts as to the success of my endeavour one can never hope to achieve anything without trying.
whats wrong with you? cant you argue without personal attack in every post? do you know me that you can expect something from me? my replay is a reaction of your personal attacks against ppl in here combined with your arrogance. i dont believe it would be constructive to delete posts, equal if you think they are usefull. the last posts only became non sensible and non serious becouse you beginn to ride on personal attacks. lets keep this thematically and not offensive.
|
Harkwyth Mist
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 11:31:00 -
[722]
Originally by: Lotus Sutra
Originally by: Xing Fey
And you haven't chosen to see my valid argument! *meanie*
lol I'm sorry. Here let me wipe those tears from off your view screen for you.
I am rather enjoying this thread. I keep wanting so bad to admit that I think CCP should really apply the tax to ALL transactions and activities. Start charging docking/undocking fees etc.
I think they should do that for everyone across the board. Flat fee to dock/undock from any station you are in unless your corporation has an office at the station or +5 or higher standing with that corporation.
The tears from implementing that would be totally epic and a dry planet like Mars would become a salty ocean world from it all.
And gate taxes !!!...
Seriously though, a docking Tax would actually hurt the newer players more than the long term players, as new players won't have the standings needed to avoid them, where most longterm mission runners will.
It could have the benefit of possibly making people think more about joining a non-npc corp, but that would become a moot point once they reached the standings threshhold.
In principle I like the idea, but i can't see something like this ever getting the 'green light' as it won't affect the right targets.
|
AsheraII
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 11:39:00 -
[723]
Originally by: Arcelian So whats to stop someone from just making their own one or two man corp and putting the tax to 0%?
Wardecs, since it makes them a legal target to be shot *anywhere* by another corp.
Though I'm not sure wardeccing every 1-2 men corp you encounter just to get your PvP shots in highsec will be a really profitable experience. People just need to move to some other set of starsystems to get away from you, while it costs your corp 2m isk to start the war. By the time the war is officially started, the target mini-corp is notified and will probably just move away.
So yes, w'll probably see many more 1-2 men lonewolf corps appearing now.
|
Katarina Shadows
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 11:55:00 -
[724]
Edited by: Katarina Shadows on 23/09/2009 11:55:10
Originally by: Kherho S1n
whats wrong with you? cant you argue without personal attack in every post? do you know me that you can expect something from me? my replay is a reaction of your personal attacks against ppl in here combined with your arrogance. i dont believe it would be constructive to delete posts, equal if you think they are usefull. the last posts only became non sensible and non serious becouse you beginn to ride on personal attacks. lets keep this thematically and not offensive.
There is nothing wrong with me but I thank you most graciously for your expression of concern for my wellbeing. Yes I am more than capable of having an argument without resorting to personal attack and in fact I maintain I have done so throughout, however, please feel free to identify the person I have attacked with any of my posts if you construe otherwise. No I do not know you and in fact I only find myself conversing with you as you took it upon yourself to single me out and attempt to deconstruct my comments by partially quoting them to the point they lost context. That does not tend to be a very successful debating technique, by the way, as it is too easy to rebut.
You claim to make a reply (or at least I believe that is what you intended to say) to personal attacks made by myself and again I would ask you please to identify the person I have attacked with any of my posts. When debating a topic it is a far more successful strategy to attack the argument and not the person making the argument and as I am aware of this it tends to be the tactic I employ. Pointing out that many of the arguments being made lack maturity is not a personal attack it is merely a statement of fact that anyone can verify by reading back through the (to date) 24 pages of posts. You claim I make personal attacks instead of argument and then proceed to call me arrogant. OK I will, for the sake of expedience, ignore the blatant irony and instead point out that arrogance is defined as unfounded conviction in one's own belief. Since it is immediately viable for anyone choosing to do so to read back through the pages of this thread and identify countless immature arguments being made I would postulate that my beliefs are therefore not unfounded. Hence I fail to see how this fulfills the definition of arrogance.
It would be difficult for anyone to deny there are a lot of children posting in this thread and also that a lot of the comments being made lack maturity. I chose to point this out as many such comments add nothing of worth and serve only to inflame what is obviously a very emotive subject. For some reason you chose to take offence at that but I can assure you that, other than my questioning what exactly you hoped to achieve by taking my comments out of context, nothing I have stated was aimed at you personally. I suspect you could not state the same in reverse.
|
AsheraII
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 11:55:00 -
[725]
Originally by: Ukucia They currently interact with others via the NPC corp channel. They just don't want others telling them what to do (be in a player corp) or have to tell others what to do (create their own corp). But they'll still chat.
I'd rather be completely corpless than in an NPC corp. Game mechanics just don't allow it. Oh, and this is a recurring question in rookie help chat I might add: "Can I be not in a corp, not even an NPC one?". I see it a few times a day, and I don't even have chat constantly open, only while I'm docked.
Sometimes while bored and docked, I enter rookie chat while I still can. I never, *ever* even look at corp chat. I'd rather close my chat windows than minimize them. Funny enough, the only options available for that window are PIN and MINIMIZE.
|
Hamshoe
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 12:22:00 -
[726]
Edited by: Hamshoe on 23/09/2009 12:23:06
Originally by: Ranger 1 ... At worse it levels certain playing fields a bit. ...
The official line is still that this is intended to encourage players to join player run corporations.
The obvious approach to that goal is to improve the player corp experience.
Deciding to make the alternative to the goal suck to an equal degree is the very definition of fail.
Kicked in the head by a horse, what's your excuse? |
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 12:32:00 -
[727]
Originally by: Ranger 1 ... and corp jumping to avoid war decs can get you banned...
Nope! Please look at this then....
Originally by: GM Nythanos Hello,
For #1, Closing a corporation and opening a new one with the same members is allowed, and the people who declared war on your now closed corporation can declare a new war on your new corporation if they choose to do so.
For #2, Using alt corps to increase the cost of wars against your corporation or alliance is prohibited.
To help clarify this, there are restrictions with regards to joining and leaving corporation, such as mentioned here: http://www.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=2317&tid=1
This is an official GM ruling posted on EO less than 3 months ago.....
Ok, it does speak about closing a corp and opening another one and not directly about hopping between corp, but this is how 1-man corp WOULD do it since you can do that in 5 seconds (at a minor ISK cost).
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Zantris
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 12:46:00 -
[728]
Edited by: Zantris on 23/09/2009 12:46:32 The problem isn't 1 man corps avoiding wardecs, its that the wardec mechanics suck.
Until you place mechanics in that prevent larger corps from picking on newb/smaller player corps in what basically equates to sanctioned no-risk highsec piracy, players won't leave the NPC corps.
Wardecs are great when its a actual fair fight, but 99% of the time its a bigger dog ****ing all over a puppy. Put more limitations on wardecs and you'll see more players coming out of NPC corps. At the same time you get rid of this lame no-risk piracy that wardeccing has evolved into.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 12:49:00 -
[729]
Edited by: Kerfira on 23/09/2009 12:49:07
Originally by: AsheraII
Originally by: Arcelian So whats to stop someone from just making their own one or two man corp and putting the tax to 0%?
Wardecs, since it makes them a legal target to be shot *anywhere* by another corp.
Allow me to educate you....
Corp A pays 2m ISK to wardec corp B (a 1-man corp) Member of corp B logs on, sees he has an active wardec. Member of corp B press the 'Disband' button on his corp page. Ex-member of corp B press the 'Create' button on his corp page (cost 1.6m ISK). Ex-member of corp B is now a member of non-wardec'ed corp C. Corp A fumes in silent anger at their wasted 2m ISK!
Seriously, wardec's are a paper tiger.....
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Kherho S1n
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 12:59:00 -
[730]
Edited by: Kherho S1n on 23/09/2009 13:00:06 Edited by: Kherho S1n on 23/09/2009 12:59:40
Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 23/09/2009 12:49:07
Originally by: AsheraII
Originally by: Arcelian So whats to stop someone from just making their own one or two man corp and putting the tax to 0%?
Wardecs, since it makes them a legal target to be shot *anywhere* by another corp.
Allow me to educate you....
Corp A pays 2m ISK to wardec corp B (a 1-man corp) Member of corp B logs on, sees he has an active wardec. Member of corp B press the 'Disband' button on his corp page. Ex-member of corp B press the 'Create' button on his corp page (cost 1.6m ISK). Ex-member of corp B is now a member of non-wardec'ed corp C. Corp A fumes in silent anger at their wasted 2m ISK!
Seriously, wardec's are a paper tiger.....
thats right. and if they want to fool you completely they join npc corp.. the easiest step to get away wardec. we see that after we declare war to a macrominer corp.
|
|
Hydra Ki
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 13:22:00 -
[731]
11% is too low for all the benifits the npc corporations offer to thier pilots. Adjusting that tax rate higher, like 53 to 86% tax rate would be more benificial to the npc corp player communities.
Fees, Export and Import Taxes could also benifit the players in npc corps as well, for npc corporations excellent assistance in refining, manufactering, contracts, market buy, sell orders, and adjustments to existing orders.
This next patch is looking great so far, keep it up guys.
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 14:26:00 -
[732]
Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 23/09/2009 14:28:10
Originally by: Hydra Ki Adjusting that tax rate higher, like 53 to 86% tax rate would be more benificial to the npc corp player communities.
86%?? Are you serious? Have you gone completely mad? That is WAY TOO unreasonable.
I'm thinking more like 88%. That is more in line. Don't you think?
|
Hydra Ki
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 14:43:00 -
[733]
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 23/09/2009 14:28:10
Originally by: Hydra Ki Adjusting that tax rate higher, like 53 to 86% tax rate would be more benificial to the npc corp player communities.
86%?? Are you serious? Have you gone completely mad? That is WAY TOO unreasonable.
I'm thinking more like 88%. That is more in line. Don't you think?
After giving your tax evaluation proposal considerable thought, i concur with your judgement.
The NPC Coporation benifits and safety in high security space has been given away and taken for granted for far too long.
|
Ath Amon
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 14:58:00 -
[734]
11% is an ok isksink, but if the purpose is to push players out of npc corps i dont see working, people will just stay there (or at best join 1man corps) for the safety or will start to leave the game if more extreme measures will be put in place
i think people will need some "protection" for their gamestyle. wardecs need to be dealt with as too many times it becomes a way to get some cheap kills if not to harass people... same can be said for corp scams...
make corps more safe and desirable and people will join them
Originally by: Diana Merris
Unfortunately, rather than address the slot layout/tanking issues for Minmatar the Devs have simple declared that it makes us "versitile".
|
X Kent
Respect Legionnaires
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 15:10:00 -
[735]
11% is nothing, it will not move that 4-5 year old all faction fitted caldari navy raven monkey away from his state war academy. Tax should be 20%-25%
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 15:14:00 -
[736]
Originally by: X Kent 11% is nothing, it will not move that 4-5 year old all faction fitted caldari navy raven monkey away from his state war academy. Tax should be 20%-25%
The real question is will this change be enough to satisfy the spiteful name-calling haters such as yourself.
|
Julian Lynq
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 15:16:00 -
[737]
Originally by: X Kent 11% is nothing, it will not move that 4-5 year old all faction fitted caldari navy raven monkey away from his state war academy. Tax should be 20%-25%
Actually now I hope that Ccp will raise it to 60%. Just so that all of you will see that tax is not why people stay in Npc corps.
|
Blackthorney
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 17:37:00 -
[738]
I'm not entire positive, but I think upon checking my "transactions" wallet log this morning, the tax was being applied to the sale of loot to buy orders. If the 11% tax will be applied to everything, I'm definitely going to make myself a 1-man corp.
|
Ukucia
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 17:52:00 -
[739]
Originally by: Blackthorney I'm not entire positive, but I think upon checking my "transactions" wallet log this morning, the tax was being applied to the sale of loot to buy orders. If the 11% tax will be applied to everything, I'm definitely going to make myself a 1-man corp.
Market taxes != corp taxes. There have always been market taxes.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 18:06:00 -
[740]
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 23/09/2009 14:28:10
Originally by: Hydra Ki Adjusting that tax rate higher, like 53 to 86% tax rate would be more benificial to the npc corp player communities.
86%?? Are you serious? Have you gone completely mad? That is WAY TOO unreasonable.
I'm thinking more like 88%. That is more in line. Don't you think?
69% at least it has some other connotation.
|
|
Ranger 1
Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 18:38:00 -
[741]
Okay, try looking at it this way. You stick it to the man by forming your own 1 person corp. Go you. But then you find yourself missing corp chat and the several friends that you had made in your NPC corp. You know, the ones that you actually trust and enjoy flying with. So one of these people convo's you, and lo, he admits that he misses the old gang as well and is considering going back despite the 11%. And before you know it you find yourself saying those evil words "Well ya know, if you joined my corp we'd still have no tax and would share the same corp chat again. It might even be handy to have that corp hanger for us to both have access to." Before you know it, not only is he in your corp but so are all of your old buddies from the NPC corp, having a great time and making more isk than ever before by working more closely and easily together.
Then it hits you, and it chills your heart. You have become the enemy, you have become the man, you cannot be trusted, you player corp CEO you. So you boss everyone around for awhile, turn into a complete jerk, and ultimately steal the corp wallet... because, ya know, thats what they all do. To sum up, I heartily concur. How dare CCP give you incentive to go in this direction
===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you. |
Julian Lynq
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 18:51:00 -
[742]
Edited by: Julian Lynq on 23/09/2009 18:52:00
Originally by: Ranger 1
miss corp chat ? friends from the npc corp ?
shall I ever miss corp chat I will chat in local. Same quality conversation in there..
I am not making friends in corp chat either. I am a solo player. If I could I would be in no corp at all. It doesnŠt make sense anyway to be employed by one corp, but do the actual work for another.
but maybe you look at it this way:
Ccp makes changes that does not profit you, or ANYONE. They try fixes without knowing what the problem is. They are become too arogant to even argue with the players about it. Even worse they insult their paying customers and accuse them of RMT trading only because they are in npc corps. Again: the uproar is not about the change it is about everything surrounding it beginning with how it was thought off ending with how it is communicated. And this kind of Ccp behaviour can and propably will hit you too at some point. then they will call YOU stuff and tell you that your style of play now doesnt fit anymore in their vision of the game. mark my words. |
Ranger 1
Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 19:13:00 -
[743]
Interestingly, some of the most compelling arguements have been from people swearing vehemently that their NPC corp mates are a tight knit, fun loving group that do ops together most of the time anyway. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you. |
Hamshoe
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 19:21:00 -
[744]
Originally by: Ranger 1 Interestingly, some of the most compelling arguements have been from people swearing vehemently that their NPC corp mates are a tight knit, fun loving group that do ops together most of the time anyway.
Maybe that's because if they wanted to be a CEO they'd already be doing it, and if they wanted to work for a CEO they'd be doing that.
Why is that so hard to understand? Kicked in the head by a horse, what's your excuse? |
Julian Lynq
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 19:21:00 -
[745]
Originally by: Ranger 1 Interestingly, some of the most compelling arguements have been from people swearing vehemently that their NPC corp mates are a tight knit, fun loving group that do ops together most of the time anyway.
And some of the other half of the most compelling arguments have been from people that are lone wolf players. However I note with grace that you agree that the arguments of the npc player people are the some of the most compelling. |
Ranger 1
Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 19:26:00 -
[746]
Originally by: Hamshoe
Originally by: Ranger 1 Interestingly, some of the most compelling arguements have been from people swearing vehemently that their NPC corp mates are a tight knit, fun loving group that do ops together most of the time anyway.
Maybe that's because if they wanted to be a CEO they'd already be doing it, and if they wanted to work for a CEO they'd be doing that.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Why is it so hard to understand that you can continue just as you are?
===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you. |
Julian Lynq
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 20:01:00 -
[747]
Edited by: Julian Lynq on 23/09/2009 20:02:08
Originally by: Ranger 1 Edited by: Ranger 1 on 23/09/2009 19:24:24 Interestingly, some of the most compelling arguements have been from people swearing vehemently that their NPC corp mates are a tight knit, fun loving group that do ops together most of the time anyway.
By the way, CCP never said all NPC corp members are into RMT. However, since it "is" a widespread problem in NPC corps this step also helps to address this issue. Bonus points.
In the many years since beta I have often been seriously affected by game play changes far more sweeping than this. Frankly, this in nothing... a tempest in a tea cup if you will. The effect on people in NPC corps is minimal at best (you can reference people using this same point as an arguement not to do it), and has had pretty much universal support including many people that are still in NPC corps. This is an inducement, and a balancing, nothing more. Happens all the time in this game, as it should. And as far a CCP "justifying and explaining" their decision... you got a concise statement. I'm afraid they aren't going to post the meeting notes from the last few months for your perusal. If it were a big deal they might go more in depth, but tbh it is not.
If it were not a big deal there were not two threads >20 pages about controverse discussion about it.
Saying this step addresses the issue of rmt trading is complete nonsense. 11% more tax address RMT trading ? how ? Because RMT traders will now join PVP alliances ? Is that your logic ?
And what CCP Prism said remains what he said. Wether or not you interpret it to be towards all NPC corp members it is full of arrogance towards them.
Originally by: CCP Prism X For my part, I had wet dreams about making it 100%.. cause I really dislike people farming ISK with immunity and intending to sell it through RMT. Thankfully they don't let draconian little me design stuff.
|
Hamshoe
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 20:08:00 -
[748]
Originally by: Ranger 1
Originally by: Hamshoe
Originally by: Ranger 1 Interestingly, some of the most compelling arguements have been from people swearing vehemently that their NPC corp mates are a tight knit, fun loving group that do ops together most of the time anyway.
Maybe that's because if they wanted to be a CEO they'd already be doing it, and if they wanted to work for a CEO they'd be doing that.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Why is it so hard to understand that you can continue just as you are?
It's not.
The point you're avoiding is that if people wanted to be in player corps, they already would be. I mean, it is a pretty evident possibility in the game. It's not some mysterious, hidden mechanic. Some folks just choose not to.I don't think they should be penalized for that choice, and I don't understand the jealousy of people who do want to be in player corps.
I also think it's terrible design. Imagine the following:
You build a toll road. You want people to use the toll road because, well, it makes you money. Turns out people who use the toll road are likely to use it longer, and thus make you more money. Now, a certain percentage of drivers just don't like your nice shiny toll road, in spite of all it's obvious advantages. Maybe they don't like the scenery, the other drivers, the toll booths, the accident rate, whatever. Now, in order to convince more drivers to use your toll road do you:
a.) Improve the service on the toll road, provide easier access, clearer signage, etc.
b.) Try to make the other routes people use suck as much as your toll road.
Option "b" is a confession of failure. I don't understand the support for that. Kicked in the head by a horse, what's your excuse? |
Ethaet
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 20:28:00 -
[749]
Goodbye EVE, you will be missed -------------------------------------------------------------- Seriously, we need some kind of separation between the post and signature. There you go. Now that wasn't so hard |
Lt Forge
Pilots From Honour Aeternus.
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 20:56:00 -
[750]
Edited by: Lt Forge on 23/09/2009 20:56:22 Congratulations CCP, you have officially turned all NPC corps into Caldari/American corps! _____________
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 39 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |