Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lotus Sutra
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 02:57:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Lotus Sutra on 20/09/2009 02:58:31 Here is why.
All you gank bears screamed and whined you wanted NPC corp players forced out of NPC corps so you could war dec them, and if CCP goes through with this proposed change that is exactly what you won't get.
What you just succeeded in doing is costing yourselves a lot of isk for nothing and giving mission runners the biggest laugh at you in a long time. My Wallet would like to thank you for all the pressure you put on CCP to help make this come about.
|
Burning Horizon
The Lighthouse Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 02:59:00 -
[2]
Some will, yes.
But not all are that smart
|
Lotus Sutra
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 03:02:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Burning Horizon Some will, yes.
But not all are that smart
True but the dumb ones will probably go back to NPC corps after a few war decs and eat the 11% tax anyway.
|
Lui Kai
Better Than You
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 03:10:00 -
[4]
Crosspost to single post in different thread on same forum, which is one of four similar threads.
2/10. ----------------
|
Lotus Sutra
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 03:15:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Lui Kai Crosspost to single post in different thread on same forum, which is one of four similar threads.
2/10.
A whine is not similar to a gloat [I am gloating] and it is two other threads not four unless they have scrolled off the first and second pages.
|
Khemul Zula
Amarr Keisen Trade League
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 03:15:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Lui Kai Crosspost to single post in different thread on same forum, which is one of four similar threads.
2/10.
This.
What was the point of this thread, besides a "look at me, I can hit the 'new topic' link"?
|
Flex Nebura
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 03:21:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Flex Nebura on 20/09/2009 03:21:33
|
Lotus Sutra
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 03:25:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Khemul Zula
Originally by: Lui Kai Crosspost to single post in different thread on same forum, which is one of four similar threads.
2/10.
This.
What was the point of this thread, besides a "look at me, I can hit the 'new topic' link"?
This thread was to point out that the proposed 11% tax on NPC corps actually HURTS gank bears. All the drooling and foaming at the mouth in glee in the other two threads dried up fast when I pointed out how this tax would hurt them more in the long run than it will do them any good.
PLEASE CCP MAKE THIS HAPPEN! I WANT TO WATCH ALL THE GANK BEARS EMORAGEQUIT!
|
Myra2007
Shafrak Industries
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 03:33:00 -
[9]
Corp hopping to avoid wardecs? Oh yeah totally undiscovered feature until now.
--
Originally by: Professor Slocombe
I will only buy tickets if the prize is your stuff and you leave Eve. Forever. You irritating self obsessed cretin.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 03:36:00 -
[10]
Except that, you know, this all assumes the wardec mechanics will stay "as is"...
Granted, there's a big chance it will stay the same way it is now, but there's a small (yet significant) possibility something MIGHT change about the way wardecs and corp-hopping works.
For instance, what if wardeccing a corp locked people in that corp for 48 hours (24h of no wardec, just the announcement, then 24h of actual war) ? Sure, there would have to be other small changes made too, like, say, to avoid the "wardec minigun" of alternating incoming wardecs to perma-lock players in a corp, by, say, allowing people to opt for an "auto-kick out" at the end of the 48 hours (non-rescindable option to prevent abuse) even if additional wardecs arrive. Or, what if a wardec would follow each individual pilot around for at least 1 week, no matter what corp he moves to ? Or, or, or... a lot of other possibilities, this being just the tip of the "possibility iceberg".
Not such a rosy situation anymore, now is it ?
_
Info about our corp | Beginer's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper |
|
Lotus Sutra
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 03:38:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Lotus Sutra on 20/09/2009 03:41:12
Originally by: Myra2007 Corp hopping to avoid wardecs? Oh yeah totally undiscovered feature until now.
I am pointing out how doing this busts gank bears dreams of many fat easy mission runner targets in 1 or 2 man corps. The act itself is not new, they just forgot how it could be used against them when they heard about the proposed NPC corp tax and the shouts of glee from them needed to be stopped by pointing this out to them once again.
Originally by: Akita T Except that, you know, this all assumes the wardec mechanics will stay "as is"...
Granted, there's a big chance it will stay the same way it is now, but there's a small (yet significant) possibility something MIGHT change about the way wardecs and corp-hopping works.
For instance, what if wardeccing a corp locked people in that corp for 48 hours (24h of no wardec, just the announcement, then 24h of actual war) ? Sure, there would have to be other small changes made too, like, say, to avoid the "wardec minigun" of alternating incoming wardecs to perma-lock players in a corp, by, say, allowing people to opt for an "auto-kick out" at the end of the 48 hours (non-rescindable option to prevent abuse) even if additional wardecs arrive. Or, what if a wardec would follow each individual pilot around for at least 1 week, no matter what corp he moves to ? Or, or, or... a lot of other possibilities, this being just the tip of the "possibility iceberg".
Not such a rosy situation anymore, now is it ?
I actually suggested that myself as a method of fixing the currently broken war dec mechanics in the other thread. I think they should lock players into a corp for a week if they are at war. BOTH corps not just the one being attacked. But in the mean time until they fix it the gank bears crowing was tiring and they needed to be shown what current mechanics can do to them.
I also hope this thread and the other two will be an incentive for CCP to look into the warfare mechanics of the game because they are overdue for an overhual.
|
Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 03:41:00 -
[12]
It's easier to just pay the damned 11% tax than go through all that crap.
I'll bet you'd be sick of it after a week.
|
Khemul Zula
Amarr Keisen Trade League
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 03:42:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Lotus Sutra
Originally by: Khemul Zula
Originally by: Lui Kai Crosspost to single post in different thread on same forum, which is one of four similar threads.
2/10.
This.
What was the point of this thread, besides a "look at me, I can hit the 'new topic' link"?
This thread was to point out that the proposed 11% tax on NPC corps actually HURTS gank bears. All the drooling and foaming at the mouth in glee in the other two threads dried up fast when I pointed out how this tax would hurt them more in the long run than it will do them any good.
PLEASE CCP MAKE THIS HAPPEN! I WANT TO WATCH ALL THE GANK BEARS EMORAGEQUIT!
No, that was the point of your post in the thread on the subject.
This thread was you apparently making a public announcement that you posted.
Anyways. I think you are making way too much out of this concept. If anything, if corp-hopping to avoid wardecs becomes even more widespread after this change CCP has an even bigger reason to declare it an exploit (if they haven't already declared disbanding/reforming to avoid wardec an exploit).
|
Lotus Sutra
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 03:46:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Khemul Zula
Originally by: Lotus Sutra
Originally by: Khemul Zula
Originally by: Lui Kai Crosspost to single post in different thread on same forum, which is one of four similar threads.
2/10.
This.
What was the point of this thread, besides a "look at me, I can hit the 'new topic' link"?
This thread was to point out that the proposed 11% tax on NPC corps actually HURTS gank bears. All the drooling and foaming at the mouth in glee in the other two threads dried up fast when I pointed out how this tax would hurt them more in the long run than it will do them any good.
PLEASE CCP MAKE THIS HAPPEN! I WANT TO WATCH ALL THE GANK BEARS EMORAGEQUIT!
No, that was the point of your post in the thread on the subject.
This thread was you apparently making a public announcement that you posted.
Anyways. I think you are making way too much out of this concept. If anything, if corp-hopping to avoid wardecs becomes even more widespread after this change CCP has an even bigger reason to declare it an exploit (if they haven't already declared disbanding/reforming to avoid wardec an exploit).
I think disbanding and reforming is already an exploit, but they haven't stated a character leaving a corp to avoid a war dec an exploit as long as a someone remains in the corp to keep it alive. The mechanics need to be revamped in a major way. I am personally for locking players into a corp for a minimum of 48 hours in the event of a war. They can indicate they wish to leave but instead of 24 hours it should require they stay in the corp for 48 hours from the time the war was declared before they can leave.
Maybe when thousands of one man corps suddenly pop up CCP will take a long hard look at the war dec mechanics.
|
Lui Kai
Better Than You
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 04:28:00 -
[15]
This thread was to link to a post on a different thread that pointed that out. Which is why you got a bonus point, bringing you to 2/10.
It takes work to make a thread that worthless. ----------------
|
Lotus Sutra
Caldari Sutra Inc
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 04:41:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Lui Kai This thread was to link to a post on a different thread that pointed that out. Which is why you got a bonus point, bringing you to 2/10.
It takes work to make a thread that worthless.
Your just mad because I am right. Gank bears thought they had something great coming for them with that tax, until I showed them just had bad it can be for them instead. ------------------------------------------------
No you can't have my stuff |
Lui Kai
Better Than You
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 04:45:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Lotus Sutra
Originally by: Lui Kai This thread was to link to a post on a different thread that pointed that out. Which is why you got a bonus point, bringing you to 2/10.
It takes work to make a thread that worthless.
Your just mad because I am right. Gank bears thought they had something great coming for them with that tax, until I showed them just had bad it can be for them instead.
I'm not mad at all. I like the change, and I agree with what you're saying. Calling you a tosser for trying to devote a whole thread to an obvious point made in a single post in a different thread and agreeing with your point aren't mutually exclusive. ----------------
|
Lotus Sutra
Caldari Sutra Inc
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 04:50:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Lui Kai
Originally by: Lotus Sutra
Originally by: Lui Kai This thread was to link to a post on a different thread that pointed that out. Which is why you got a bonus point, bringing you to 2/10.
It takes work to make a thread that worthless.
Your just mad because I am right. Gank bears thought they had something great coming for them with that tax, until I showed them just had bad it can be for them instead.
I'm not mad at all. I like the change, and I agree with what you're saying. Calling you a tosser for trying to devote a whole thread to an obvious point made in a single post in a different thread and agreeing with your point aren't mutually exclusive.
If it makes you happy. ------------------------------------------------
No you can't have my stuff |
Khemul Zula
Amarr Keisen Trade League
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 04:52:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Lotus Sutra
Originally by: Lui Kai This thread was to link to a post on a different thread that pointed that out. Which is why you got a bonus point, bringing you to 2/10.
It takes work to make a thread that worthless.
Your just mad because I am right. Gank bears thought they had something great coming for them with that tax, until I showed them just had bad it can be for them instead.
Technically, since the feature hasn't even been tested yet, this is impossible.
Plus it is rather silly to claim credit for an idea that many people already pointed out in the other thread. It is extremely silly to make a thread announcing that you are claiming credit for an idea that many people already pointed out in another thread. Not sure what to even call gloating about making a thread announcing that you are claiming credit for an idea that many people already pointed out in another thread.
|
Lotus Sutra
Caldari Sutra Inc
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 04:55:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Khemul Zula
Originally by: Lotus Sutra
Originally by: Lui Kai This thread was to link to a post on a different thread that pointed that out. Which is why you got a bonus point, bringing you to 2/10.
It takes work to make a thread that worthless.
Your just mad because I am right. Gank bears thought they had something great coming for them with that tax, until I showed them just had bad it can be for them instead.
Technically, since the feature hasn't even been tested yet, this is impossible.
Plus it is rather silly to claim credit for an idea that many people already pointed out in the other thread. It is extremely silly to make a thread announcing that you are claiming credit for an idea that many people already pointed out in another thread. Not sure what to even call gloating about making a thread announcing that you are claiming credit for an idea that many people already pointed out in another thread.
better re-read those threads, most of the people in them were gank bears gloating about how many mission runners they were going to get to pawn if this goes live, a few said they would make and disband corps as needed (which IS an exploit if I remember what CCP said about that correctly). I explained how easy it would be to make many 1 man corps with alt characters and how that would screw gank bears up. So yes, I am taking crediot for what I said. ------------------------------------------------
No you can't have my stuff |
|
Erichk Knaar
Caldari Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 05:01:00 -
[21]
What the hell is a gank bear?
|
Khemul Zula
Amarr Keisen Trade League
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 05:04:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Lotus Sutra Edited by: Lotus Sutra on 20/09/2009 04:59:07better re-read those threads, most of the people in them were gank bears gloating about how many mission runners they were going to get to pawn if this goes live, a few said they would make and disband corps as needed (which IS an exploit if I remember what CCP said about that correctly). I explained how easy it would be to make many 1 man corps with alt characters and how that would screw gank bears up. So yes, I am taking credit for what I said.
Bolded the important part.
|
Lotus Sutra
Caldari Sutra Inc
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 05:08:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Erichk Knaar What the hell is a gank bear?
In case that question wasn't a troll
Gank Bears: Players that spend their time in high sec attacking mission/mining/manufacturing corps that are based in high sec and are not interested in or into pvp, because they are easy targets, and they then think of themselves as elite PVP players for doing it. The term is derogatory and implies they are as much care bears as the pilots they prey upon.
------------------------------------------------
No you can't have my stuff |
Lui Kai
Better Than You
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 05:12:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Erichk Knaar What the hell is a gank bear?
Click...and fear ----------------
|
Lotus Sutra
Caldari Sutra Inc
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 05:14:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Khemul Zula
Originally by: Lotus Sutra Edited by: Lotus Sutra on 20/09/2009 04:59:07better re-read those threads, most of the people in them were gank bears gloating about how many mission runners they were going to get to pawn if this goes live, a few said they would make and disband corps as needed (which IS an exploit if I remember what CCP said about that correctly). I explained how easy it would be to make many 1 man corps with alt characters and how that would screw gank bears up. So yes, I am taking credit for what I said.
Bolded the important part.
Yes but the difference is it is only an exploit if they close a corp and then re-open a new one to avoid a war dec, not if they create an alt to be the ceo of a corp who stays in the corp, keeping it open and then join and leave the alt corps as needed. ------------------------------------------------
No you can't have my stuff |
Lui Kai
Better Than You
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 05:25:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Lotus Sutra
Yes but the difference is it is only an exploit if they close a corp and then re-open a new one to avoid a war dec, not if they create an alt to be the ceo of a corp who stays in the corp, keeping it open and then join and leave the alt corps as needed.
Look, trolling aside - You keep pointing this out as if it's in some way inobvious, or hasn't been pointed out numerously by others, or is in some conceivable way clever.
It's not that people aren't getting your point. It's that you're the one trying to argue everyone into believing what color the paint on the walls is. They're not mocking you for being wrong - they're mocking you for thinking what you noticed was worth not only pointing out, but creating a thread to tell us you pointed it out. ----------------
|
Khemul Zula
Amarr Keisen Trade League
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 05:28:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Lotus Sutra
Originally by: Khemul Zula
Originally by: Lotus Sutra Edited by: Lotus Sutra on 20/09/2009 04:59:07better re-read those threads, most of the people in them were gank bears gloating about how many mission runners they were going to get to pawn if this goes live, a few said they would make and disband corps as needed (which IS an exploit if I remember what CCP said about that correctly). I explained how easy it would be to make many 1 man corps with alt characters and how that would screw gank bears up. So yes, I am taking credit for what I said.
Bolded the important part.
Yes but the difference is it is only an exploit if they close a corp and then re-open a new one to avoid a war dec, not if they create an alt to be the ceo of a corp who stays in the corp, keeping it open and then join and leave the alt corps as needed.
I'm not entirely sure you'd be dodging an exploit there though.
The exploit would be that you are specifically closing/opening corps for no other reason then to avoid the wardec. Whether it is your alt (CCP can check this) making one before-hand or you making it after the wardec doesn't really change the intent. You are obviously not switching to a legitimate corp.
This would really require a GM to specify what is and is not an exploit in this matter. Especially before you start gloating about how clever you are.
|
Lotus Sutra
Caldari Sutra Inc
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 05:34:00 -
[28]
Why is responding to others posts with pertinent thoughts on their comments arguing? I am not arguing with anyone I am discussing what I think is a flaw in some players thoughts on the tax issue, I have also already suggested as have several others, several ways that corp jumping could be countered and some possible fixes CCP could do to make it harder to do the corp jumping bit.
The one who seems to have the issue with my posting is you more than anyone else, and you and I seem to be in agreement that the 11% tax isn't going to hurt or cause mission runners any problems in the long run so I don't see where there should be a problem.
Discussions mean, someone posts their thoughts, I post mine, they post theirs, I post mine. That is what a DISCUSSION FORUM is about. ------------------------------------------------
No you can't have my stuff |
The AEther
Caldari Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 05:45:00 -
[29]
To my knowledge players are already doing this kind of corp-hopping in game to avoid wardecs, so I don't really get the cleverness of your trick. It will ruin your character's corp-history so if you ever to apply to a real corp with that char or try to sell it on character bazaar, it ain't gonna be a positive thing for it.
As for 11% tax, try to think of from a point of view other than "zomg, the griefers are out to dec me and get my iskies!!!111onelevenone!" and you'll see that nobody is really foaming at the mouth at the chances of ganking you. Wardec corps have limited number of slots for wars so rest assured your 2-man corps will be very low on the priority list.
|
Lotus Sutra
Caldari Sutra Inc
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 05:50:00 -
[30]
Originally by: The AEther To my knowledge players are already doing this kind of corp-hopping in game to avoid wardecs, so I don't really get the cleverness of your trick. It will ruin your character's corp-history so if you ever to apply to a real corp with that char or try to sell it on character bazaar, it ain't gonna be a positive thing for it.
As for 11% tax, try to think of from a point of view other than "zomg, the griefers are out to dec me and get my iskies!!!111onelevenone!" and you'll see that nobody is really foaming at the mouth at the chances of ganking you. Wardec corps have limited number of slots for wars so rest assured your 2-man corps will be very low on the priority list.
I am not worried about someone declaring war on my one man corp. I am a Jita trade alt and never undock so they can declare war all day long and it has no effect on me. In the other thread there were a bunch of people gloating and drooling about how wonderful this tax will be because it will force players out of NPC corps so they can war dec them. They kept that up till I and other players pointed out how little it will effect players who stay in an NPC corp, and how little it will bother people who make one man corps because they can just corp jump to avoid the war dec. ------------------------------------------------
No you can't have my stuff |
|
The AEther
Caldari Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 05:57:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Lotus Sutra ...there were a bunch of people gloating and drooling about how wonderful this tax will be because it will force players out of NPC corps so they can war dec them. They kept that up till I and other players pointed out how little it will effect players who stay in an NPC corp, and how little it will bother people who make one man corps because they can just corp jump to avoid the war dec.
yeah ... it's called trolling, saying things you don't really mean or believe in to provoke others into responding ... looks like they succeeded
|
Lotus Sutra
Caldari Sutra Inc
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 05:58:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Lotus Sutra on 20/09/2009 05:58:08
Originally by: The AEther
Originally by: Lotus Sutra ...there were a bunch of people gloating and drooling about how wonderful this tax will be because it will force players out of NPC corps so they can war dec them. They kept that up till I and other players pointed out how little it will effect players who stay in an NPC corp, and how little it will bother people who make one man corps because they can just corp jump to avoid the war dec.
yeah ... it's called trolling, saying things you don't really mean or believe in to provoke others into responding ... looks like they succeeded
probably ------------------------------------------------
No you can't have my stuff |
Ranger 1
Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 08:18:00 -
[33]
The purpose of the mechanic is simply to remove one of the advantages to staying in an NPC corp.
It may surprise you to learn that most people will be quite happy to hear about this change for reasons other than to gank people. It will bring an infusion of new players out into the greater EVE universe, and take away a reason to stay safely hanging on to momma NPC corps apron strings.
This means more players looking for a good corp to join, some of them perhaps quite experienced in the mission running side of EVE, which in turn makes player created corps stronger. And it is an incentive to those self same players to finally take the steps necessary to enjoy a fuller portion of what the game has to offer.
I'm sure there are plenty of people that have issues relating to other people, or are simply lone wolf type personalities, that are happier playing in isolation... and they still can. But they won't have a small but distinct advantage over anyone else any longer. Those that are simply a little shy, or have been procrastinating, will have a little more incentive to take the plunge into a larger world.
Those people that chose to go to exorbitant lengths to circumvent the system and hold onto that precious 11% in a series of sham one man corps are more than welcome to do so. Nobody cares.
===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you. |
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 08:22:00 -
[34]
What is this tax advantage you speak of? Player corporations do not cost you magically 10% or something to tax. There is no reason why a mission runner corp would have a tax, and there is no reason why the tax that is in other corporations would not be used to help the members of the corporations.
So sure tax them 11%, and use that to buy BPs the npc corp members can use.
|
wickedpheonix
Guy Fawkes Trust Fund
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 08:33:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Akita T For instance, what if wardeccing a corp locked people in that corp for 48 hours (24h of no wardec, just the announcement, then 24h of actual war) ? Sure, there would have to be other small changes made too, like, say, to avoid the "wardec minigun" of alternating incoming wardecs to perma-lock players in a corp, by, say, allowing people to opt for an "auto-kick out" at the end of the 48 hours (non-rescindable option to prevent abuse) even if additional wardecs arrive.
All that this manages to do is essentially force carebears (with no PVP skills) to log off for a day until the timer counts down. It's essentially griefing because no carebears are going to be online, so no gankers would get kills, and it's wardeccing for the sake of getting people to emologoff. Doesn't sound like something CCP would want to implement.
|
Ariane VoxDei
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 09:24:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Akita T Except that, you know, this all assumes the wardec mechanics will stay "as is"...
Granted, there's a big chance it will stay the same way it is now, but there's a small (yet significant) possibility something MIGHT change about the way wardecs and corp-hopping works.
For instance, what if wardeccing a corp locked people in that corp for 48 hours (24h of no wardec, just the announcement, then 24h of actual war) ? Sure, there would have to be other small changes made too, like, say, to avoid the "wardec minigun" of alternating incoming wardecs to perma-lock players in a corp, by, say, allowing people to opt for an "auto-kick out" at the end of the 48 hours (non-rescindable option to prevent abuse) even if additional wardecs arrive. Or, what if a wardec would follow each individual pilot around for at least 1 week, no matter what corp he moves to ? Or, or, or... a lot of other possibilities, this being just the tip of the "possibility iceberg".
Not such a rosy situation anymore, now is it ?
Ridiculous. What you would achive is to kill off every hisec playerrun corp of any significant size. They'd end up totally fragmented, split among a ton of tiny corps, a few broken souls going back to NPC (no matter if the tax was 95%), a tiny fraction being absorbed by the 0.0 corps (tiny because they don't just accept anyone, specially anyone with a considerable time in NPC's) and finally a number are going to say what the hell we may as well just turn pirate or lootninjas since the game has now been rigged to be against mission runners, with their last refuge being taken away.
And still, this tax only really effecting hitting mission runners and won't come anywhere near doing what is being pushed as the excuse for doing it: "nudging" people towards player corps.
* Explorers/plexers get the wast majority of their money from faction and pirate loot - not taxed. * Miners & co are uneffected. * Freighter pilots, and other hauling types, are uneffected. * "neutrals" are uneffected. These guys are a source of a ton of crying, due to their effect in hi-sec warfare. In lowsec/0.0 they are just targets like everyone else and their npc membership not a factor. * Players engaging in criminal activity are uneffected. Also a source of crying.
It just hits mission runners, who noone truly has a problem with, apart from a bit of tax envy.
All this gloating over the misfortune of others is envybased and extremely shortsighted ("tears, give more tears" is apparently all going through those dumb heads).
However, looking a bit further, despite how utterly this idea is going to fail at achieving the objective of "nudging people", you can see a connection to the Dominion plans. There is, if not spelled out, then certainly between the lines, a agenda that says we want to shift population towards this new 0.0 system. Crudely beating mission runners with the tax stick *could* in that light be seen as a move in that direction. It just won't have the desired effect and certainly wont do anything to motivate non-missioners. You need a large set of other radical changes to do that. |
Mikayla Grey
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 10:47:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Ariane VoxDei
Ridiculous. What you would achive is to kill off every hisec playerrun corp of any significant size.
Hmm i didnt know that every highsec corp only consists of clueless smacktalking noobs.
|
Hroya
Gallente TerraNovae
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 11:17:00 -
[38]
If you are referring to your post where you say you have 4 active accaunts and 2 inactive ones where you will just activate the inactive ones so you can corp hop accordingly and then claim you win .. err .. right .. so you pay for 2 more accaunts and that is win .. oke.. ccp wins, not you i guess. |
Okonaa
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 11:33:00 -
[39]
goons wont give a damn if they wardec all your alt corps, you will stay docked all day and whine and lose money by not missioning.
|
Doddy
The Executives IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 11:36:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Lotus Sutra
Originally by: Khemul Zula
Originally by: Lui Kai Crosspost to single post in different thread on same forum, which is one of four similar threads.
2/10.
This.
What was the point of this thread, besides a "look at me, I can hit the 'new topic' link"?
This thread was to point out that the proposed 11% tax on NPC corps actually HURTS gank bears. All the drooling and foaming at the mouth in glee in the other two threads dried up fast when I pointed out how this tax would hurt them more in the long run than it will do them any good.
PLEASE CCP MAKE THIS HAPPEN! I WANT TO WATCH ALL THE GANK BEARS EMORAGEQUIT!
|
|
Irida Mershkov
Gallente War is Bliss
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 11:46:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Irida Mershkov on 20/09/2009 11:45:37 Now to be an *******, I'm going to suicide gank the people who don't leave NPC corps.
|
Doddy
The Executives IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 11:47:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Irida Mershkov sig
Mr Flibbles ftw.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |