Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
TjanitN Tcroxlr
|
Posted - 2005.05.21 01:09:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu Edited by: Istvaan Shogaatsu on 20/05/2005 21:21:45
Quote: The Merc Corp in question claims to be a destroyer of corps, but we've actually grown larger (in assets and members) during the war... I'm confused, why would the Merc Corp continue the war if they never log on to fight it? Wouldn't their client be displeased?
'Destroyer of corps' is ® Guiding Hand Social Club 2004. Any other mercenary corporations offering this service may not deliver satisfactory results. For proven performance in the field of corporate disruption and applied atrocity, don't settle for the rest - contract the best.
(If you'd like to see the Guiding Hand in action, we're currently dismantling a corporation called The Gun Runners. Their member count before the war started was 71 - count down along with us!)
Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu 'Destroyer of corps' is ® Guiding Hand Social Club 2004. Any other mercenary corporations offering this service may not deliver satisfactory results. For proven performance in the field of corporate disruption and applied atrocity, don't settle for the rest - contract the best.
(If you'd like to see the Guiding Hand in action, we're currently dismantling a corporation called The Gun Runners. Their member count before the war started was 71 - count down along with us!)
With all due respect, Sir. I understand your need to address the violation of your copyright, but couldnt that have been done on a seperate thread? However, I am extremely interested in your views on the topic.
If you are hired to war a corp for a limited time; Do you differentiate between a completed job and a win/loss? I mean; in your professional opinion, is it possible to complete the contract successfully, but still consider the war a loss? If so, under what conditions would you consider a fulfilled contract a lost war?
|
TjanitN Tcroxlr
|
Posted - 2005.05.21 01:10:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Viceroy There doesn't have to be a standard criteria for winning a war you know. I guess the best you could hope for in the way of a victory would be for the enemy to surrender. Other than that, I don't see why there has to be a fixed universal standard of winning.
I agree that there doesnt have to be one, I was just wondering if there is.
|
Velsharoon
|
Posted - 2005.05.21 12:00:00 -
[33]
Just remember that a lot of merc corps arent actually merc corps and just want a veneer of respectability :(
|
Roger Dodger
|
Posted - 2005.05.22 03:03:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Adhamhnon
Tell that to the Fathers of Carthage......
You mean the same Carthage that the Romans burned to the ground and salted the earth so that nothing would ever grow there again?
I wouldn't call Carthage winners.
---- Proud member of the SinBin Fan Club
|
F'nog
|
Posted - 2005.05.22 06:12:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Roger Dodger
Originally by: Adhamhnon
Tell that to the Fathers of Carthage......
You mean the same Carthage that the Romans burned to the ground and salted the earth so that nothing would ever grow there again?
I wouldn't call Carthage winners.
That was his point. Rome clearly won.
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.05.22 10:34:00 -
[36]
Historically wars have not been decided by who was right as much as by who was left. ______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots. They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
invaderzim
|
Posted - 2005.05.22 18:44:00 -
[37]
It's my understanding that the outcome or war is decided by the "historians" who chronicle them. There have been several battles in history where, due to the "spin" placed on the story, one side appears to be the victor. When, in fact, it was more of a draw.
The winner of a war may be the corp who can best recover from their losses in time for the next war.
ULEASH THE MONKEY! |
Galaxion
|
Posted - 2005.05.22 21:25:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Galaxion on 22/05/2005 21:25:38 Really the winners are generally the ones left alive. Case in point, ****** shot himself in 1945 and thus he is considered to have lost WW2. King Harold took an arrow in the eye in 1066, he lost that war on account of the fact that he was well... dead.
Although in EVE you cant really kill someone (shame too... mass murderer would have been an interesting skill path) so it's kinda skewed up. I'd say the winner was the one who owned the space afterwards.
edit: i dont get it, they blocked the name of a person? ----------------------------------------- Everlasting Vendetta PVP Commander, yarr
|
Chyana
|
Posted - 2005.05.23 01:32:00 -
[39]
my one ISK of a thought: grandma hires mercs to wage war against grandpa for one weak with a certain goal - the mercs win if: get paid more isk than the cost of ships and items lost in the war; PLUS - grandma wins if the goal is acieved / if the goal isnt acieved then grandpa wins. Thats it.
ohh, about history - it teaches us that in war the winner is the side that destroys the other / if neither one side is destryed that the war sucked bigtime and there can not be any winners -- in such cases lamers from both sides come up with criteria in such way that they won the war
last - no spelling flame - non native english speaker/writer
|
Nero Scuro
|
Posted - 2005.05.23 01:41:00 -
[40]
Quote: edit: i dont get it, they blocked the name of a person?
I think they're going on the theory that if they ignore something, it'll go away. Well, it's worked so far for bugs! ---------------- Haha, stupid monkey! Now I'VE got the Oscar! Enjoy your worthless gun! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |