| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Qutsemnie
   |
Posted - 2004.11.17 14:19:00 -
[331]
Corp wars dont support a darn thing in your post.
You invoked these grand images of galatic struggle and last corp standing that make corp wars sooo romantic.
And reality a corp war is fight until the declarer gets bored with you or you whine enough to annoy them.
Theres no destruction of their strategic industrial complex.
And one guy said go after their miners! Ya right~ All the corp wars that got declared on me were by people that had no miners or agent runners in their corp. They were all straight PvPrs and really that echos the lopsided nature of the corp war rules.
The corp war rules now favor these lean corps that everyone understands the point of the corp is to pvp naturally the people attracted are the people that want to pvp 24/7 and for some reason want nothing to do with 0.0 and invariably eventually or more often then not they declare empire war on a big fat corp of bunches of people THAT ARNT IN A STRAIGHT PvP CORP FOR A REASON. The natural result is one side gets joy and the other thinks this game is f**k'd.
Youve got a fine theory but corp wars are so anemic they look like nothing more then cheap shot pirating in empire then something deserving the title war.
They certainly dont bear any resemblence to two great industrial complexes at war for the commercial heart of the universe. The consequences arnt that mortal or relevant. Its more like bored players causing grief while they wait for their BPO to research another ME level.
Its fine if you want to go run around clobbering each other cause its the only thing you can find worth your time but its senseless and annoying to alot of us and when you try to explain it you use phrases that just dont wash in practice. Theres no grand struggle hinging on the outcome of any battle in empire.
0.0 is a different story.
The new moon facilities MIGHT make it a different story.
However for corps with interest in neither its all make believe even in the scope of the game. These wars in empire really dont have any consequences other then you getting to harrass me out of the game i wanted to play that evening.
As far as invoking THE END OF EVE DOOOOOOOOOOM. Right... Empire exist for a reason. It was a good idea. They are just working disharmoniously with their concept of empire versus 0.0 when they allow nearly random PK'n in empire.
|
Qutsemnie
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 14:19:00 -
[332]
Corp wars dont support a darn thing in your post.
You invoked these grand images of galatic struggle and last corp standing that make corp wars sooo romantic.
And reality a corp war is fight until the declarer gets bored with you or you whine enough to annoy them.
Theres no destruction of their strategic industrial complex.
And one guy said go after their miners! Ya right~ All the corp wars that got declared on me were by people that had no miners or agent runners in their corp. They were all straight PvPrs and really that echos the lopsided nature of the corp war rules.
The corp war rules now favor these lean corps that everyone understands the point of the corp is to pvp naturally the people attracted are the people that want to pvp 24/7 and for some reason want nothing to do with 0.0 and invariably eventually or more often then not they declare empire war on a big fat corp of bunches of people THAT ARNT IN A STRAIGHT PvP CORP FOR A REASON. The natural result is one side gets joy and the other thinks this game is f**k'd.
Youve got a fine theory but corp wars are so anemic they look like nothing more then cheap shot pirating in empire then something deserving the title war.
They certainly dont bear any resemblence to two great industrial complexes at war for the commercial heart of the universe. The consequences arnt that mortal or relevant. Its more like bored players causing grief while they wait for their BPO to research another ME level.
Its fine if you want to go run around clobbering each other cause its the only thing you can find worth your time but its senseless and annoying to alot of us and when you try to explain it you use phrases that just dont wash in practice. Theres no grand struggle hinging on the outcome of any battle in empire.
0.0 is a different story.
The new moon facilities MIGHT make it a different story.
However for corps with interest in neither its all make believe even in the scope of the game. These wars in empire really dont have any consequences other then you getting to harrass me out of the game i wanted to play that evening.
As far as invoking THE END OF EVE DOOOOOOOOOOM. Right... Empire exist for a reason. It was a good idea. They are just working disharmoniously with their concept of empire versus 0.0 when they allow nearly random PK'n in empire.
|
Juan Andalusian
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 14:31:00 -
[333]
Edited by: Juan Andalusian on 17/11/2004 14:39:47
 Quote:
These wars in empire really dont have any consequences other then you getting to harrass me out of the game i wanted to play that evening.
The game you wanted to play that evening involves PvP, in many forms. It's an online game which involves other people. They can interact with you as they see fit as long as it remains within the game rules.
Anyone who comes into an online game without having accepted the fact that at some point or another he WILL be affected by people in situations where concession won't be required, shouldn't be playing an online game.
Quote:
As far as invoking THE END OF EVE DOOOOOOOOOOM. Right... Empire exist for a reason. It was a good idea. They are just working disharmoniously with their concept of empire versus 0.0 when they allow nearly random PK'n in empire.
It is impossible to clasify and grade the reasons behind war declarations. Calling it nearly random is simply assumptions.
It doesn't matter since no means exist to clasify which war declaration has valid reasoning without imbalancing the game and present exploitable situations.
**Pain is meant to be felt** |
Juan Andalusian
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 14:31:00 -
[334]
Edited by: Juan Andalusian on 17/11/2004 14:39:47
Quote:
These wars in empire really dont have any consequences other then you getting to harrass me out of the game i wanted to play that evening.
The game you wanted to play that evening involves PvP, in many forms. It's an online game which involves other people. They can interact with you as they see fit as long as it remains within the game rules.
Anyone who comes into an online game without having accepted the fact that at some point or another he WILL be affected by people in situations where concession won't be required, shouldn't be playing an online game.
Quote:
As far as invoking THE END OF EVE DOOOOOOOOOOM. Right... Empire exist for a reason. It was a good idea. They are just working disharmoniously with their concept of empire versus 0.0 when they allow nearly random PK'n in empire.
It is impossible to clasify and grade the reasons behind war declarations. Calling it nearly random is simply assumptions.
It doesn't matter since no means exist to clasify which war declaration has valid reasoning without imbalancing the game and present exploitable situations.
**Pain is meant to be felt** |
Qutsemnie
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 14:45:00 -
[335]
Your invoking that declaring a war on someone that didnt deserve it is less heinous then disallowing a war against someone that did deserve it. Im invoking the opposite.
Further wars cant accomplish goals in the majority of cases. Those cases are below.
Give the benefit of the doubt to lowest rung on the totem pole.
These include corps that meet these criteria:
corps that dont own a player structure/ moon facility.
corps that dont own a lab (cause their in demand)
corps with less then 4 offices
corps with less then 4 factories
corps not in alliance
Your argument is then some corps that DESERVE empire war will escape without a war. But so what.
Is this about punishment or the right to curtail expansion? A corp that fits all of those criteria above isnt very powerful. Will never be a dominate powerhouse because of their corp status. (they might work outside the corp but so what). Such a corp gets the benefit of the doubt.
So whats that leave... punishment? Is that what this is about. Your right to distributive punitive harrassment to those that deserve it? Maybe it is and maybe thats why i been reacting so coldly when i encounter it. Man f**k your punishment. Thats just a plain bad vibe game enviornment. I want notta to do with it even from 100 yards away. Take your game~
Its one thing to use our minds and time to struggle over space, resources, and various facilities. When space is take able thats honorable gaming. When resources are winnable thats honorable gaming. If moon facilities are part of an alliance slug fest thats honorable gaming. If your pirating at a gate thats honorable gaming. When your killing someone for the stuff they carry thats honorable gaming.
But when your reserving the right to harrass as punishment as opposed to stragic dominance. That gaming will rub off on your real life character. You can take that game of harrassing game players. I dont want it. Good riddence.
They are emphasises a negative thing if they are emphasising punishment over strategic struggle/enviornmental game play benefit of the doubt.
|
Qutsemnie
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 14:45:00 -
[336]
Your invoking that declaring a war on someone that didnt deserve it is less heinous then disallowing a war against someone that did deserve it. Im invoking the opposite.
Further wars cant accomplish goals in the majority of cases. Those cases are below.
Give the benefit of the doubt to lowest rung on the totem pole.
These include corps that meet these criteria:
corps that dont own a player structure/ moon facility.
corps that dont own a lab (cause their in demand)
corps with less then 4 offices
corps with less then 4 factories
corps not in alliance
Your argument is then some corps that DESERVE empire war will escape without a war. But so what.
Is this about punishment or the right to curtail expansion? A corp that fits all of those criteria above isnt very powerful. Will never be a dominate powerhouse because of their corp status. (they might work outside the corp but so what). Such a corp gets the benefit of the doubt.
So whats that leave... punishment? Is that what this is about. Your right to distributive punitive harrassment to those that deserve it? Maybe it is and maybe thats why i been reacting so coldly when i encounter it. Man f**k your punishment. Thats just a plain bad vibe game enviornment. I want notta to do with it even from 100 yards away. Take your game~
Its one thing to use our minds and time to struggle over space, resources, and various facilities. When space is take able thats honorable gaming. When resources are winnable thats honorable gaming. If moon facilities are part of an alliance slug fest thats honorable gaming. If your pirating at a gate thats honorable gaming. When your killing someone for the stuff they carry thats honorable gaming.
But when your reserving the right to harrass as punishment as opposed to stragic dominance. That gaming will rub off on your real life character. You can take that game of harrassing game players. I dont want it. Good riddence.
They are emphasises a negative thing if they are emphasising punishment over strategic struggle/enviornmental game play benefit of the doubt.
|
Seleene
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 14:48:00 -
[337]
Originally by: Qutsemnie
And reality a corp war is fight until the declarer gets bored with you or you whine enough to annoy them.
Theres no destruction of their strategic industrial complex.
You think so? I admit that you can find ways around the war. Alt haulers and escrow, etc... But none of that will replace your own skilled players organized activities being stopped by the threat of getting destroyed. I guarentee you that you will not be running any 10-20 man strip-mining ops with my corp at war with you, or a few other corps for that matter.
If a determined corp sits on you long enough then you will eventually start losing members out of frustration and no amount of alt characters can replace the members of your corp that are sitting in a station doing nothing or getting podded when they undock.
It's all a matter of will. If a war is carried out long enough, and enough damage is done, the morale of the corp in question can and will be shattered. While that may mean that in real life a player is upset enough to quit the game, within the context of the game itself, that is a victory for the attacking corp and (if it has one) their employeer.
Quote:
Its fine if you want to go run around clobbering each other cause its the only thing you can find worth your time but its senseless and annoying to alot of us and when you try to explain it you use phrases that just dont wash in practice. Theres no grand struggle hinging on the outcome of any battle in empire.
WRONG on so many levels. You think that shutting down a mega corp's empire ops is not going to hurt it? Also, the reasons for an empire war are many. Someone could want us to divert a corp's attention from a war in 0.0. We might be hired to just see what the threat potential of a corp is to another. I could go on, but I think it's obvious.
Quote:
These wars in empire really dont have any consequences other then you getting to harrass me out of the game i wanted to play that evening.
In-game, the war is stopping you from conducting your 'normal' day-to-day buisness, yes? So how can you say it has no consequences? You can't mine. Your agent runners stand a good chance of getting ganked. Your 'fighters' keep getting podded. Half your corp stops logging in, prefering to play HALO 2 or Halflife 2. Your corp becomes a shell of its former glory.
I think Riddari made some good points about the economic version of PvP as well and that's a side of the game I understand also. But to sit here and claim over and over that a corp war is pointless and serves no greater goal... 
-
T2 Weapons Testing in progress! Volunteer today! |
Seleene
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 14:48:00 -
[338]
Originally by: Qutsemnie
And reality a corp war is fight until the declarer gets bored with you or you whine enough to annoy them.
Theres no destruction of their strategic industrial complex.
You think so? I admit that you can find ways around the war. Alt haulers and escrow, etc... But none of that will replace your own skilled players organized activities being stopped by the threat of getting destroyed. I guarentee you that you will not be running any 10-20 man strip-mining ops with my corp at war with you, or a few other corps for that matter.
If a determined corp sits on you long enough then you will eventually start losing members out of frustration and no amount of alt characters can replace the members of your corp that are sitting in a station doing nothing or getting podded when they undock.
It's all a matter of will. If a war is carried out long enough, and enough damage is done, the morale of the corp in question can and will be shattered. While that may mean that in real life a player is upset enough to quit the game, within the context of the game itself, that is a victory for the attacking corp and (if it has one) their employeer.
Quote:
Its fine if you want to go run around clobbering each other cause its the only thing you can find worth your time but its senseless and annoying to alot of us and when you try to explain it you use phrases that just dont wash in practice. Theres no grand struggle hinging on the outcome of any battle in empire.
WRONG on so many levels. You think that shutting down a mega corp's empire ops is not going to hurt it? Also, the reasons for an empire war are many. Someone could want us to divert a corp's attention from a war in 0.0. We might be hired to just see what the threat potential of a corp is to another. I could go on, but I think it's obvious.
Quote:
These wars in empire really dont have any consequences other then you getting to harrass me out of the game i wanted to play that evening.
In-game, the war is stopping you from conducting your 'normal' day-to-day buisness, yes? So how can you say it has no consequences? You can't mine. Your agent runners stand a good chance of getting ganked. Your 'fighters' keep getting podded. Half your corp stops logging in, prefering to play HALO 2 or Halflife 2. Your corp becomes a shell of its former glory.
I think Riddari made some good points about the economic version of PvP as well and that's a side of the game I understand also. But to sit here and claim over and over that a corp war is pointless and serves no greater goal...
-
T2 Weapons Testing in progress! Volunteer today! |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 14:50:00 -
[339]
All I want to do is play the game 'as advertised'.
I have the balls to play Eve, I don't ask to opt out of the bits I don't like.
I have seen enough nerfing and carebearing already, Eve is becoming 'fluffy'.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 14:50:00 -
[340]
All I want to do is play the game 'as advertised'.
I have the balls to play Eve, I don't ask to opt out of the bits I don't like.
I have seen enough nerfing and carebearing already, Eve is becoming 'fluffy'.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Juan Andalusian
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 14:53:00 -
[341]
Quote:
That gaming will rub off on your real life character
Utterly pathetic.
**Pain is meant to be felt** |
Juan Andalusian
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 14:53:00 -
[342]
Quote:
That gaming will rub off on your real life character
Utterly pathetic.
**Pain is meant to be felt** |
DarkMatter
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 15:00:00 -
[343]
Quote:
Anyone who comes into an online game without having accepted the fact that at some point or another he WILL be affected by people in situations where concession won't be required, shouldn't be playing an online game.
EVE-Online has a section of space that is secure.
I'm all for multiplayer situations where concessions are not required in regards to combat, those areas of the game are 0.0 & 0.1-0.4 space.
1.0-0.5 space is not the place for non-consensual PK'ing...
There are all kinds of other non-consensual forms of PvP in secure space:
1 Ore stealing
2 Price wars
3 Roids belts are first come first serve
4 Office space
5 Factory & lab slots
There are plenty of ways non-combatants can interact in secure space. Many players have no need for non-consensual PvP to extract enjoyment from EVE-Online.
PK'ers want soft targets for risk free PK'ing, this is all I am hearing from the opposition, no matter how it's worded...
|
DarkMatter
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 15:00:00 -
[344]
Quote:
Anyone who comes into an online game without having accepted the fact that at some point or another he WILL be affected by people in situations where concession won't be required, shouldn't be playing an online game.
EVE-Online has a section of space that is secure.
I'm all for multiplayer situations where concessions are not required in regards to combat, those areas of the game are 0.0 & 0.1-0.4 space.
1.0-0.5 space is not the place for non-consensual PK'ing...
There are all kinds of other non-consensual forms of PvP in secure space:
1 Ore stealing
2 Price wars
3 Roids belts are first come first serve
4 Office space
5 Factory & lab slots
There are plenty of ways non-combatants can interact in secure space. Many players have no need for non-consensual PvP to extract enjoyment from EVE-Online.
PK'ers want soft targets for risk free PK'ing, this is all I am hearing from the opposition, no matter how it's worded...
|
Riddari
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 15:11:00 -
[345]
Originally by: Avon
Eve is becoming 'fluffy'.
Yes it is, we have scores of battleships wanting to shoot industrials
¼©¼
a history |
Riddari
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 15:11:00 -
[346]
Originally by: Avon
Eve is becoming 'fluffy'.
Yes it is, we have scores of battleships wanting to shoot industrials
¼©¼
a history |
Riddari
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 15:13:00 -
[347]
Edited by: Riddari on 17/11/2004 15:19:09
Originally by: Seleene
While that may mean that in real life a player is upset enough to quit the game, within the context of the game itself, that is a victory for the attacking corp and (if it has one) their employeer.
And a loss for CCP and a loss for EVE.
I don't mind being beaten or beating opponents, but griefing them out of the game is something that I consider going too far.
It's a matter of where you draw the line. In another topic I saw how CA planted alts in systems that were much used as cloning stations for their opponents, so that once someone was podkilled and woke up there, they would try to pod him again, even with the player not being able to renew his clone (because the station he chose did not have medical).
Podding someone repeatedly not giving them a chance to get a new contract is griefing in my book. It makes us lose players to interact with and CCP doesn't get their monthly $15 or more (if several accounts).
Draw a line between beating someone and utterly annhiliating them to the point that they leave the game.
Yes you may have won that war, but collectively we all lose. Less players, less to interact with and less money in CCPs account.
¼©¼
a history |
Riddari
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 15:13:00 -
[348]
Edited by: Riddari on 17/11/2004 15:19:09
Originally by: Seleene
While that may mean that in real life a player is upset enough to quit the game, within the context of the game itself, that is a victory for the attacking corp and (if it has one) their employeer.
And a loss for CCP and a loss for EVE.
I don't mind being beaten or beating opponents, but griefing them out of the game is something that I consider going too far.
It's a matter of where you draw the line. In another topic I saw how CA planted alts in systems that were much used as cloning stations for their opponents, so that once someone was podkilled and woke up there, they would try to pod him again, even with the player not being able to renew his clone (because the station he chose did not have medical).
Podding someone repeatedly not giving them a chance to get a new contract is griefing in my book. It makes us lose players to interact with and CCP doesn't get their monthly $15 or more (if several accounts).
Draw a line between beating someone and utterly annhiliating them to the point that they leave the game.
Yes you may have won that war, but collectively we all lose. Less players, less to interact with and less money in CCPs account.
¼©¼
a history |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 15:15:00 -
[349]
Originally by: Riddari
Originally by: Avon
Eve is becoming 'fluffy'.
Yes it is, we have scores of battleships wanting to shoot industrials
And no-one willing to defend their industrials.
Seriously, these issues should be resolved by players, not game mechanics.
Crying to have game mechanics adjusted so you can reduce your personal responsability is carebearism.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 15:15:00 -
[350]
Originally by: Riddari
Originally by: Avon
Eve is becoming 'fluffy'.
Yes it is, we have scores of battleships wanting to shoot industrials
And no-one willing to defend their industrials.
Seriously, these issues should be resolved by players, not game mechanics.
Crying to have game mechanics adjusted so you can reduce your personal responsability is carebearism.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 15:17:00 -
[351]
Originally by: Riddari
Originally by: Seleene
While that may mean that in real life a player is upset enough to quit the game, within the context of the game itself, that is a victory for the attacking corp and (if it has one) their employeer.
And a loss for CCP and a loss for EVE.
I don't mind being beaten or beating opponents, but griefing them out of the game is something that I consider going too far.
If they leave because they don't like the game it is no loss.
That is like people quitting a game of monopoly because they land on someones hotel.
What do you do, agree that some people don't have to pay if they land on them, but others do?
Play the game, don't let the game play you.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 15:17:00 -
[352]
Originally by: Riddari
Originally by: Seleene
While that may mean that in real life a player is upset enough to quit the game, within the context of the game itself, that is a victory for the attacking corp and (if it has one) their employeer.
And a loss for CCP and a loss for EVE.
I don't mind being beaten or beating opponents, but griefing them out of the game is something that I consider going too far.
If they leave because they don't like the game it is no loss.
That is like people quitting a game of monopoly because they land on someones hotel.
What do you do, agree that some people don't have to pay if they land on them, but others do?
Play the game, don't let the game play you.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Riddari
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 15:19:00 -
[353]
Originally by: Avon
That is like people quitting a game of monopoly because they land on someones hotel.
What do you do, agree that some people don't have to pay if they land on them, but others do?
Play the game, don't let the game play you.
I added extra paragraphs while you were writing your post. That explains my position better.
¼©¼
a history |
Riddari
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 15:19:00 -
[354]
Originally by: Avon
That is like people quitting a game of monopoly because they land on someones hotel.
What do you do, agree that some people don't have to pay if they land on them, but others do?
Play the game, don't let the game play you.
I added extra paragraphs while you were writing your post. That explains my position better.
¼©¼
a history |
Discorporation
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 15:21:00 -
[355]
Originally by: Riddari
And a loss for CCP and a loss for EVE.
I don't mind being beaten or beating opponents, but griefing them out of the game is something that I consider going too far.
So do I.
However, 100% safety in 0.4 - 1.0 is too abusable. Most high-end manufacturing corporations (Xanadu, Tyrell, etc) have their sales offices in 1.0. By making those 100% pvp proof, you essentially remove the ability to attack their empire-based support. Something that can be considered quite essential in long-term warfare.
I'm all for protecting new players and people that are unwilling to defend themselves or that are simple not interested in PvP-combat. That's why I suggested that people who are not interested in that aspect of the game start a communal chat chann and stay in the newbie corp or join up with an NPC corp.
The only downside will be the inability to share hangars and the need for a greater level of trust between them. Something that can quite possibly be solved with a working contract system (using contracts to make sure your refiner doesn't skim or keeps the minerals, that your builder build the ship, etc).
It all boils down to eduication and explaining people what their options are, what the downsides can be, etc. I don't believe that Eve should EVER have a total risk-free zone.
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|
Discorporation
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 15:21:00 -
[356]
Originally by: Riddari
And a loss for CCP and a loss for EVE.
I don't mind being beaten or beating opponents, but griefing them out of the game is something that I consider going too far.
So do I.
However, 100% safety in 0.4 - 1.0 is too abusable. Most high-end manufacturing corporations (Xanadu, Tyrell, etc) have their sales offices in 1.0. By making those 100% pvp proof, you essentially remove the ability to attack their empire-based support. Something that can be considered quite essential in long-term warfare.
I'm all for protecting new players and people that are unwilling to defend themselves or that are simple not interested in PvP-combat. That's why I suggested that people who are not interested in that aspect of the game start a communal chat chann and stay in the newbie corp or join up with an NPC corp.
The only downside will be the inability to share hangars and the need for a greater level of trust between them. Something that can quite possibly be solved with a working contract system (using contracts to make sure your refiner doesn't skim or keeps the minerals, that your builder build the ship, etc).
It all boils down to eduication and explaining people what their options are, what the downsides can be, etc. I don't believe that Eve should EVER have a total risk-free zone.
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|
DarkMatter
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 15:34:00 -
[357]
Edited by: DarkMatter on 17/11/2004 15:37:24
Quote:
I'm all for protecting new players and people that are unwilling to defend themselves or that are simple not interested in PvP-combat. That's why I suggested that people who are not interested in that aspect of the game start a communal chat chann and stay in the newbie corp or join up with an NPC corp.
The only downside will be the inability to share hangars and the need for a greater level of trust between them. Something that can quite possibly be solved with a working contract system (using contracts to make sure your refiner doesn't skim or keeps the minerals, that your builder build the ship, etc).
There is already a mechanism in place to achieve all this; it's called Player Corporations...
CCP just needs to tweak the system to rout out "grieferism"
The DEV's at CCP are good, they made this game, I'm confident they can find a solution.
The fact that we saw that 48 hour "illegal war" business on the test server proves that CCP is not happy with the status quo concerning corp war declarations, and are looking into alternatives...
And Avon, griefers are going to target empire corps that can't fight back, that is the whole point, they find the weakest corps to attack, for maximum griefing pleasure...
Allowing this to happen is turning the game on it's head for the corp being unjustly targeted, to the point where those players may feel EVE is nothing but grieferdom... It's not good for CCP's image and not good for the future of this game if this problem is not resolved.
|
DarkMatter
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 15:34:00 -
[358]
Edited by: DarkMatter on 17/11/2004 15:37:24
Quote:
I'm all for protecting new players and people that are unwilling to defend themselves or that are simple not interested in PvP-combat. That's why I suggested that people who are not interested in that aspect of the game start a communal chat chann and stay in the newbie corp or join up with an NPC corp.
The only downside will be the inability to share hangars and the need for a greater level of trust between them. Something that can quite possibly be solved with a working contract system (using contracts to make sure your refiner doesn't skim or keeps the minerals, that your builder build the ship, etc).
There is already a mechanism in place to achieve all this; it's called Player Corporations...
CCP just needs to tweak the system to rout out "grieferism"
The DEV's at CCP are good, they made this game, I'm confident they can find a solution.
The fact that we saw that 48 hour "illegal war" business on the test server proves that CCP is not happy with the status quo concerning corp war declarations, and are looking into alternatives...
And Avon, griefers are going to target empire corps that can't fight back, that is the whole point, they find the weakest corps to attack, for maximum griefing pleasure...
Allowing this to happen is turning the game on it's head for the corp being unjustly targeted, to the point where those players may feel EVE is nothing but grieferdom... It's not good for CCP's image and not good for the future of this game if this problem is not resolved.
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 15:40:00 -
[359]
Originally by: DarkMatter
And Avon, griefers are going to target empire corps that can't fight back, that is the whole point, they find the weakest corps to attack, for maximum griefing pleasure...
Oh please!
I'm pretty sure that historically wars have been declared by the powerful upon the weak.
It isn't griefing, its common bloody sense.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 15:40:00 -
[360]
Originally by: DarkMatter
And Avon, griefers are going to target empire corps that can't fight back, that is the whole point, they find the weakest corps to attack, for maximum griefing pleasure...
Oh please!
I'm pretty sure that historically wars have been declared by the powerful upon the weak.
It isn't griefing, its common bloody sense.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |