EVE Search - Customer Support lifting previous restrictions regarding war declaration mechanics

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Customer Support lifting previous restrictions regarding war declaration mechanics

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 71	Posted - 2011.12.04 07:51:00 - [1] - Quote Russell Casey wrote: Farrina wrote: Quote: you don't understand "griefing" as defined by the devs... Except the Devs don't run the game. The players do. False. Helicity learned this the hard way when he tried telling one of them to DIAF. Sorry they got your hopes up, but if you hadn't heard, Helicity's back. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=459247#post459247 IIRC, it was due to popular uproar by the players. So what lesson was learned?
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 86	Posted - 2011.12.08 12:24:00 - [2] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Multi-quoting the same person is usually nit-picking and annoying to read. I usually skip those posts entirely. I prefer it over trying to respond to a wall-o-textGäó with multiple separate points I wish to rebut using a second wall-o-textGäó
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 165	Posted - 2011.12.19 22:02:00 - [3] - Quote Poetic Stanziel wrote: Amber Libertus wrote: Proteus Maximus wrote: Posting to add my displeasure with ccp. Will you guys ever fking learn? Do your fking jobs, listen to the entire player base... Just posting to add my thumbs up to CCP for this. You don't understand EVE. Go back to WOW and/or SWTOR, please. What you're looking for is a single-player MMO, where you can't be bothered. The prime principle of EVE Online is that you can be bothered. Anytime. Anywhere. Yes. We still have ganks. But there needs to be a large scale mechanic for settling differences or just annoying people ... wardecs. We need them back. ^^ This. Gotta keep this post at the top to remind people to be annoyed. And finally, IB4the Blog Link
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 169	Posted - 2011.12.20 05:24:00 - [4] - Quote Asuri Kinnes wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Just re-iterating that I think this change is good. It gives people a defence against griefing and more freedom of choice. Griefing is illegal... and enforced by CCP Hi-sec wars aren't greifing. And you can bet your last isk, war-decs are being looked at. Prediction: OP won't like where CCP goes with Wardec changes. (Since I don't see CCP deleting them altogether)
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1031	Posted - 2011.12.30 22:48:00 - [5] - Quote Mu-Shi Ai wrote: Wacktopia wrote: 2. The solution should no be to remove them. They haven't been removed! Seriously. That's the mentality that isn't quite clicking for me here. Corps having the option to use a mechanic to avoid your dec /= wardecs have been removed. Overstating the case you're trying to make never helps. Wardecs were a method of (kind of) forcing PvP on a corporation for a week. Meaning POSes were vulnerable, and operations might be disrupted for that week. Currently Wardecs are a method of forcing PvP on a corporation for 24h. Meaning POSes are not vulnerable and operations will not be disrupted for longer than a day. Add to that the fact that an alliance hopping corp is immune from wardecs going live for the 24hr period following the vulnerability, and wardecs are now useless for affecting any corporation who is not in an alliance. (This doesn't affect Sov holding alliances because alliance hopping has some slightly negative effects re: Sov mechanics) So wardecs for anything other than consensual war between hisec corps, beating up on people who are too new to know how to alliance hop, and trying to kill Sov holder JF pilots has disappeared. Wardecs for POS bashing profit are gone, wardecs to disrupt rival industrial elements are gone. All that's left among nonconsensual hisec wardecs are the wardecs that people have been complaining about, the so called "griefing" wardecs of newbies.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1033	Posted - 2011.12.31 00:51:00 - [6] - Quote Mu-Shi Ai wrote: RubyPorto wrote: Mu-Shi Ai wrote: Wacktopia wrote: 2. The solution should no be to remove them. They haven't been removed! Seriously. That's the mentality that isn't quite clicking for me here. Corps having the option to use a mechanic to avoid your dec /= wardecs have been removed. Overstating the case you're trying to make never helps. Wardecs were a method of (kind of) forcing PvP on a corporation for a week. Meaning POSes were vulnerable, and operations might be disrupted for that week. Currently Wardecs are a method of forcing PvP on a corporation for 24h. Meaning POSes are not vulnerable and operations will not be disrupted for longer than a day. Add to that the fact that an alliance hopping corp is immune from wardecs going live for the 24hr period following the vulnerability, and wardecs are now useless for affecting any corporation who is not in an alliance. (This doesn't affect Sov holding alliances because alliance hopping has some slightly negative effects re: Sov mechanics) So wardecs for anything other than consensual war between hisec corps, beating up on people who are too new to know how to alliance hop, and trying to kill Sov holder JF pilots has disappeared. Wardecs for POS bashing profit are gone, wardecs to disrupt rival industrial elements are gone. All that's left among nonconsensual hisec wardecs are the wardecs that people have been complaining about, the so called "griefing" wardecs of newbies. This all assumes, of course, that the corp in question actually alliance hops when you dec them. A tiny carebear mining corp probably stands a 100% chance of doing this (assuming they're even aware it's possible). But I'm not sure I'd say the same for every single hi-sec corp in existence. A great portion of them, yes. But it's not impossible to have a wardec commence successfully. And that falls under "Consensual PvP" and consensual PvP is fine and all, but not the issue.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1033	Posted - 2011.12.31 00:58:00 - [7] - Quote Mu-Shi Ai wrote: Poetic Stanziel wrote: Mu-Shi Ai wrote: ... cowardly trolls who can't hack it in low or nullsec. This is a tired and fallacious argument. Dickheads hide under the umbrella of Empire Space, and when confronted throw out the "go pick on people in low/nullsec" whine. Well who is searching for a fight in hi-sec? Oh wait, that's right! You are! But somehow it's only the carebears who are "dickheads." Funny how that works. Wardec'ing carebears for "teh lulz" is very serious, important space business, it would seem. Welcome to a Multiplayer Sandbox. If someone wants to spend their time or make their isk running missions, they can. If someone wants to spend their time or make their isk by wardeccing those who do the former, They Can Too. The restriction on alliance hopping was a band aid on an arterial bleed of hisec PvP (which is a valid form of gameplay because: Sandbox), ripping it off did not make things better.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1034	Posted - 2011.12.31 05:05:00 - [8] - Quote Mu-Shi Ai wrote: RubyPorto wrote: Welcome to a Multiplayer Sandbox. If someone wants to spend their time or make their isk running missions, they can. If someone wants to spend their time or make their isk by wardeccing those who do the former, They Can Too. The restriction on alliance hopping was a band aid on an arterial bleed of hisec PvP (which is a valid form of gameplay because: Sandbox), ripping it off did not make things better. Without any increased expense for waging war, banning alliance hopping was basically tantamount to CCP endorsing troll wardecs of carebear hi-sec corps. There's a difference between a game that lets you do something, and a game that gives you a direct incentive to do something. I think EVE should do the former, not the latter. Like I said before, make wardecs a lot more expensive to wage--such that one would have to think twice about whether they really want to throw that much ISK down a hole just to troll some carebear corp--and I'll be right there with you. Until then, alliance hopping is legit as far as I'm concerned. An incentive would be a negative cost. If your carebear corp keeps missioning/mining/ giving away kills, you are the one providing the incentive for continued wardecs of your and other similar corps. Increasing the cost would simply take wardecs away from new players, since one decent gank of a mission runner will pay for any reasonable wardec, and ones done for the lulz won't be affected by a reasonable increase. The current prices are fine. Even if they weren't, cost is not a good way to balance things in Eve.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1036	Posted - 2011.12.31 11:18:00 - [9] - Quote ShipToaster wrote: Mu-Shi Ai wrote: Keep bawling. Far more constructive than actually getting on with things, right? Gotta love it when forum 'tards get knocked out in the first round by a better set of arguments and resort to the claims of tears. Also, I'm not sure how articulating the reasons why the change is a terrible idea is both Crying and Not Constructive I think it's certainly more constructive than a one liner telling us we're using the forum incorrectly.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1049	Posted - 2012.01.01 00:17:00 - [10] - Quote Mu-Shi Ai wrote: Poetic Stanziel wrote: Mu-Shi Ai wrote: The game may be a sandbox, but that doesn't mean that CCP has to make it easy and dirt cheap for you to do anything you want to do within it. You've at least changed your tune since entering this thread. At first you were all "Rawr! It's great that any corp that doesn't want to fight can do so at no cost. High-sec as a consensual PvP zone makes EVE better! Rawr!" Now you're all "Rawr! It should be expensive to wage war in the high-sec part of the sandbox, but you should be able to wage war against anyone if you're willing to pay silly money! Rawr!" I think we can now agree. I have no problem with wardecs costing some coin. I have no problem with corps bribing to end wars for similar coin. I have no problem with large corps/alliances paying through the nose to dec small corps/alliances, and for small corps/alliances to pay through the nose to wardec large corps/alliances. But the thing is that these changes would have virtually the same outcome. If you have to pay half a billion ISK to wardec some carebear hi-sec corp with 3 members, chances are you're not going to see too many people doing that. Yeah, there may be a handful of players who are crazy rich and just don't give a crap about dumping that much money down the drain, but honestly, if I were in that carebear corp, I'd feel satisfaction that I was leading somebody to dump that much ISK down a hole, even if it meant staying docked up for a week or whatever. So I'm not sure why you regard once change as legitimate while the other is just beyond the pale. I'd be somewhat OK with that IF it cost the carebear corp a hefty bribe to keep that protection. Some kind of wardec-counterbribe thing, so long as it's a fair bit more expensive for the defender. This is EVE. The next expansion's focus is on creating War. Conflict is, has been, and should be encouraged. If you don't want to play in the multiplayer sandbox, where someone can kick down your sandcastly, you can play WoW or play on SiSi.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1094	Posted - 2012.01.02 00:33:00 - [11] - Quote Izziee wrote: Blah blah blah. It;s not a pvp game, it's a sandbox. It's a Multiplayer Sandbox. You can do whatever you like, I can do whatever I like. If those to interests interfere with each other, we have to sort things out without the game doing it for us. A detailed explanation of what I mean.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1094	Posted - 2012.01.02 00:44:00 - [12] - Quote Izziee wrote: RubyPorto wrote: Izziee wrote: Blah blah blah. It;s not a pvp game, it's a sandbox. It's a Multiplayer Sandbox. You can do whatever you like, I can do whatever I like. If those to interests interfere with each other, we have to sort things out without the game doing it for us. A detailed explanation of what I mean. Keep telling yourself that. It's whatever the individual makes. (For the record, I've always been a PvP player in every game but I also do PvE when I want me time, and guess what, I do just fine in eve when I don't wish to interact with anyone) I agree with you. It's whatever the group of individuals called the playerbase (and their individual, often competing interests) make of the game. It's what you like to do an what I like to do all smashed together. And sometimes when you smash things together, someone gets a black eye. Eve is the collected Black Eyes of all its players. And unless you built everything you fly, and have never touched the market or contracts, you're presence as an economic being means you're interacting with people (missioning drives the value of Isk and LP down, Mining does the same for minerals, etc, etc)
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1094	Posted - 2012.01.02 01:08:00 - [13] - Quote Izziee wrote: Poetic Stanziel wrote: Izziee wrote: That's exactly what I enjoy about eve, the complete freedom to do what a player wishes to do. So, why are you whining? You have freedom to try to do what you want, and other people have the freedom to try to kill you ("griefing" as you would incorrectly refer to it.) I'm not the one who is whining. Not once. Unless you assume by me saying I find something amusing, whining? Which..is pretty whack if you ask me. And my analogy of griefing is just fine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Griefing If someone sets out to ruin someone elses day for funzies, that's griefing. Am I against it? No, Eve wouldn't be as we know it without it. Do I think it's pathetic? It completely depends. As I stated, in the case of a player who sets out to do this, while themselves, being to cowardly to actually have any risk themselves, then yes, very much so. I think it's extremely pathetic, but if the player griefs while actually putting themselves into risk (be it by PvPing in null or whatever) then no, nothing wrong with that at all. (I include griefing in high sec in that analogy just for the record) It's called cowards. Wikipedia wrote: more specifically, intentionally disrupting the immersion of another player in their gameplay Eve is a cold, dark, harsh gameplay environment. By breaking your shit for funzies, I increase the immersion you have into the game. So shooting you is antigriefing per your definition. Fun Fact: CCP does not define (or indeed mention) griefing in the EULA, the TOS, or the Rules of Conduct.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1094	Posted - 2012.01.02 01:21:00 - [14] - Quote Izziee wrote: Point to me any single place I said they did? Can you? Edit, you can't. So what have we learned. Today I PvE'd, and I still think it is amusing the the biggest criers are the griefers. So what's changed? Absolutely nothing. On that note, I'm off to bed. Toodles and happy new year ;) Right here: Izziee wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Griefing If someone sets out to ruin someone elses day for funzies, that's griefing. You pointed at Wikipedia, saying that certain activities you dislike are Griefing. I pointed out that in Eve, per Wikipedia's definition, they're not, and per CCP they're not. So they are unambiguously not Griefing. I don't play in hisec besides logistical stuff. But the breaking of the Wardec mechanic is bad for Eve. I like Eve. Therefore, I make noise to help CCP realize its mistake.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1094	Posted - 2012.01.02 01:56:00 - [15] - Quote Rellik B00n wrote: griefing does not exist in eve except in starter systems in terms of ship pvp. Again, someone would have to come out and say "here is our definition of griefing" (maybe it already exists). Until that point the bolded statement is generally accepted as truth. CCP has clearly defined what actions are considered Harassment and thus invite sanction. Baiting Newbies, Bumping Freighters, and Abusive Language. And that's about it. They do not use the term Griefing because that comes with a bunch of extra baggage. There is no griefing in Eve. There is Harassment and Normal Game Play.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1094	Posted - 2012.01.02 02:03:00 - [16] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: This topic has gone on long enough. It is nothing but a hatefest now. If you have ideas about how to fix Wardecs you ought to post it in the F&I forum. Requesting lock as A) CCP made their decision and most likely wont be influenced by this topic as opposed to finding a good system to replace the current one. B) This is not an idea topic. tl;dr I'm loosing, where's my Forum DecShield. Help
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1098	Posted - 2012.01.02 08:07:00 - [17] - Quote iudex wrote: Missing the Economic point Any time isk enters the economy, the real income of everyone who relies on an isk faucet for income decreases. Any time minerals enter the economy, the price of minerals decrease, so the incomes of miners decreases. The point was that there is no Pure PvE in Eve because everyone is connected and in competition. The point is not saying that fighting Red crosses is the same as fighting blinky red squares. As for KB stats, what the fuck? Everyone knows people have alts and that their main might not be the character they Pew with. And if you're going to drag up KB stats, yours have taken a fine beating these past two years, haven't they
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1098	Posted - 2012.01.02 09:56:00 - [18] - Quote iudex wrote: RubyPorto wrote: iudex wrote: Missing the Economic point Any time isk enters the economy, the real income of everyone who relies on an isk faucet for income decreases. Any time minerals enter the economy, the price of minerals decrease, so the incomes of miners decreases. The point was that there is no Pure PvE in Eve because everyone is connected and in competition. The point is not saying that fighting Red crosses is the same as fighting blinky red squares. As for KB stats, what the fuck? Everyone knows people have alts and that their main might not be the character they Pew with. And if you're going to drag up KB stats, yours have taken a fine beating these past two years, haven't they No i didn't miss that, read my post again, the economic interaction between players is included in it. But this kind of interaction can not be called PVP, for the reasons i've given above. As for my KB stats: they are irrelevant since i don't try to teach people on the forums about PVP, like the person in question does, i even don't see myself as PVPer. As for the alts: why is that smartass not posting with his main then, if Tippia is his alt ? Yes sure, this is my alt too, my other two characters are Chribba and Shrike. If you'd read the conversation, Tippia and I are the ones trying to get this WarDec change retracted. So calling Tippia out for carebearism doesn't make much sense. As for alts. Say I'm an industrialist and make a name on the forums with that toon. Then I make a Pew alt. I post with my main, but my main doesn't do any Pew and thus doesn't get any kills. Doesn't mean I don't (as a person) pew or know how to pew.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1115	Posted - 2012.01.02 22:29:00 - [19] - Quote Chribba wrote: So many character imposters in this thread You're not my real Chribba. Izziee wrote: ShipToaster wrote: Izziee wrote: I think those who legitimately want to wage war with a corp because they generally hate them, or been annoyed by them should be allowed tbh Just to make it clear to all: you have annoyed me and validated my declaration of eternal hatred to eve university and have legitimised my war against them. Good job. Did you get kicked for posting here? Or was your leaving just a coincidence? Wow! are you really THAT ******? I honestly didn't think people could actually be that thick, shocker. Do you honestly think by you running to a corp tell tailing like a little kiddiewink would to their mummy and daddy, a corp that I've been in no more than a couple of days would actually offend or even upset me in the slightest? For your information, I doubt very much you actually got me kicked, It might even have something to do with me telling the ceo (Actually, not sure who he is) that he has double standards and unprofessional..... AND STUFF Yeah, his point was that trying to categorize or legitimize wardecs by motives is ridiculous, since he went ahead and declared that he has a grievance with everyone, so per you, all his outgoing wardecs are legitimate. Quote:** Yes, you're definitely a suck up lol. Happy new year :O Oh an by all means, please do feel free to war dec them, that's "really" going to annoy me lol!! Edited for failage quoting :( Yeah, asking for the Mods to "Oh God Please make it stop" is a sure sign of being in a good position.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1115	Posted - 2012.01.02 22:56:00 - [20] - Quote ShipToaster wrote: Another few threads about wardecs posted in features and ideas are worth checking out. Moving off topic Izziee wrote: Epic tale! Cool story bro. Poetic Stanziel wrote: Izziee wrote: Do you honestly think by you running to a corp tell tailing like a little kiddiewink would to their mummy and daddy... I had to stop reading after that sentence. Are you using a random word generator? I can handle arguments, rage, tears and whines with a degree of aplomb but claiming I told on you to carebear uni is a bit low. The only contact I want to have with eve university is if I can have them all f*** to death by space robo donkeys. (before the report post spam starts it is in game I want eve university members to be f* to death by space robo donkeys, I dont want them f*** to death by space robo donkeys in real life ) You might enjoy the Penny Arcade video games. They have Fruit Fuckers.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1130	Posted - 2012.01.04 14:02:00 - [21] - Quote Skippermonkey wrote: it just occured to me how to 'fix' this as a war dec costs isk, there is a value attached to the war, and by extension, each pilots worth in the war. To leave a corp during war, and in so doing leaving the war, you should pay a fee that is returned to the aggressor corp that paid for the war. the cost of he war dec, divided by the amount of pilots in corp when the war dec was paid should be the fee paid to escape the war. this seems the simplest way of automatically policing wars and claims of 'corp hopping' and the like. The result of all this is that the aggressor corp gets reimbursed if the corp / alliance they attack dissolves on purpose to avoid the war, and the people being aggressed have a method of leaving the fight without 'cheating'. please discuss Alt corp wardecs alt corp 2. Flood Alt Corp 2 with Alts. All alts in Alt corp 2 hav 0 isk. Alts in alt corp 2 leaves Corp, goes negative isk. Free Isk. (This is if you calculate the reward when the Dec is announced) Incoming wardec. Flood the Corp with alts. Make it ludicrously cheap to leave whenever. (This is if you calculate the reward when the Dec is live). I don't see any other time to calculate those. Any method of tying Wardecs to corp size is hugely vulnerable to abuse by Alts (Expired Trial alts stay on the corp rolls until purged).
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1138	Posted - 2012.01.05 03:05:00 - [22] - Quote Skippermonkey wrote: make it impossible to leave unless you have sufficient isk and just limit the payback to 100% of the weekly cost for the wardec that was easy So poor players in small corps get shafted. And for the second one, I can still massively inflate my corp size so that it costs nothing to leave.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1216	Posted - 2012.01.15 23:10:00 - [23] - Quote ShipToaster wrote: RubyPorto wrote: So poor players in small corps get shafted. This is a rule of EVE. Big sharks eat small fish. Joining a corp should have some sort of consequence and allowing players to join and leave at will has some pretty irritating side effects. I prefer it to letting Corps duck their decs at will.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1216	Posted - 2012.01.15 23:26:00 - [24] - Quote ShipToaster wrote: Must be having a bad forum day. Forum ate my post and I meant to have this link in last post. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=57596&find=unread why dropping corp with no consequence is irritating. 1. He didn't show up red and flashy in their overview 2. They got the concord warning 3. The got concorded for shooting him Working as intended.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1216	Posted - 2012.01.16 00:38:00 - [25] - Quote ShipToaster wrote: Elessa Enaka wrote: At what point does this become griefing if at all? Is it possible that Corp A could wardec Corp B again every 48-72 hours ad infinitum without it ever becoming griefing? There is no point when it becomes griefing. Wardecs, according to the devs, are never considered griefing. RubyPorto wrote: ShipToaster wrote: Must be having a bad forum day. Forum ate my post and I meant to have this link in last post. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=57596&find=unread why dropping corp with no consequence is irritating. 1. He didn't show up red and flashy in their overview 2. They got the concord warning 3. The got concorded for shooting him Working as intended. Read the rest. I did. Looks like my analysis was spot on. If they didn't receive the Concord warning, that's the bug they should have petitioned. Otherwise PEBCAK. Namely, if you're going to fight a war (emigrating is perfectly legit to run from incoming decs), read up on the rule's you're going to fight it under.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1219	Posted - 2012.01.16 12:09:00 - [26] - Quote Milla Lekarariba wrote: This is just terrible and wrong... Yet another blow for the new player, and those trying to start a new corp. Why? Think about it, the only people that are going to be able to afford this 'dec shield' are the larger corporations with the isk to spare or those with a lot of support from other corporations / alliances. New corps do not have tons of isk to waste on things like this, it is already difficult enough to recruit new players, and this latest move is just going to make it even more difficult to get a new corp off the ground as most people will obviously prefer to go to those with a dec shield. Bad move CCP, very bad move, a move to towards a more stale eve which only favours the vets Decshield Alliance doesn't charge atm. dAWwww, here he goes. -áPoastin' Drunk agin.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1223	Posted - 2012.01.17 11:34:00 - [27] - Quote Milla Lekarariba wrote: My point still stands.. I believe you are referring to the making the war mutual? hence eliminating the costs? You still need to have friends in other alliances / corps or enough alts to do this. Its yet another bit or meta gaming that is spoiling the game There are two types of DecShields. One is done by getting a lot of incoming decs, toggling their being mutual to keep the cost to dec you high, and the cost to keep the decshield up low. This costs some Isk to set up, no isk to maintain. EvE-University does this. The other is to Join and Leave an alliance. Done right, your POS is never susceptible to a Wardec when it comes out of RF. This is what the DecShield alliance offers for free. dAWwww, here he goes. -áPoastin' Drunk agin.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1224	Posted - 2012.01.17 13:22:00 - [28] - Quote Cyzlaki wrote: Isn't the next expansion about WAR? Why get your knickers in a twist, it's probably a temporary thing. Isn't the pain of getting kicked in the nuts fleeting? Why be bothered by getting kicked in the nuts if it's just going to not hurt soon. Just sayin' Just because a piece of stupid is temporary doesn't make it not stupid. Plus, they only did this when people started noticing that EvE-University had had a very large shield up for ~4months. dAWwww, here he goes. -áPoastin' Drunk agin.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1228	Posted - 2012.01.18 03:17:00 - [29] - Quote Poetic Stanziel wrote: RubyPorto wrote: Just sayin' Just because a piece of stupid is temporary doesn't make it not stupid. Plus, they only did this when people started noticing that EvE-University had had a very large shield up for ~4months. Their shield, previously, was two or three corps. Now it is 17 corps. I was under the impression it had ballooned into ~10 around 4 months before the announcement. dAWwww, here he goes. -áPoastin' Drunk agin.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1237	Posted - 2012.01.19 14:32:00 - [30] - Quote Poetic Stanziel wrote: RubyPorto wrote: Poetic Stanziel wrote: RubyPorto wrote: Just sayin' Just because a piece of stupid is temporary doesn't make it not stupid. Plus, they only did this when people started noticing that EvE-University had had a very large shield up for ~4months. Their shield, previously, was two or three corps. Now it is 17 corps. I was under the impression it had ballooned into ~10 around 4 months before the announcement. Not as far as I know. My entire time in the Uni is was 2 or 3 corps (can't remember which). They called it Decshield 2.0. It was around 10 last year, before CCP told them to stop it, giving them permission for the 2/3 corp decshield they used from that point until the changes to wardec policy. So they got permission to use a limited expression of an exploit unavailable to other players. That's some nifty information. dAWwww, here he goes. -áPoastin' Drunk agin.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1239	Posted - 2012.01.21 00:28:00 - [31] - Quote Asuri Kinnes wrote: Poetic Stanziel wrote: What? FACTS scare you? It's a fcking fact. What do you have to hide? That you pop up here the moment someone mentions E-Uni, and you get out of sorts at the mention of a FACT ... hell, what is your problem? Unknot your panties, Asuri. If my reply was anything, I did E-Uni a favour, by correcting a misconception on the history of the Decshield. Dude, I pop into this thread every few days. I just like to point out your pathological obsession with E-U. Hide anything? Surely you jest... As for you* ever doing the Uni a favor? The best thing you could do for e-uni is biomass / uninstall. Leave it at "War Dec mechanics need to be overhauled" and you'll be fine. E-U does more for this game (and the players in it) in one day than you have or will do. o7 E-Uni used to be a great beacon of teaching in this game. They have, however, attracted a huge amount of baggage over the years, to the point where the primary activity in the corp is no longer teaching, and what teaching occurs is subpar (judging by results, forum activity of members, and the attitude the leadership showed during the recent RvB war). dAWwww, here he goes. -áPoastin' Drunk agin.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1370	Posted - 2012.02.05 20:29:00 - [32] - Quote Asuri Kinnes wrote: C) They train n00bs - who the **** are you to tell them they can't have x,y,z number of characters over any age? What's the cut-off? Who decides? If they're asking for and receiving special protections on the basis of their claim that their purpose is to train new players, then a high percentage of relatively old characters (who are not actively teaching) would tend to work against that claim. In addition asking for special protections and receiving special protections would seem to me to work against their stated mission of training new players in all aspects of EvE; a game where nobody's special and nobody's safe. If they weren't asking for nor receiving special protections, then the decision would be moot, and the community would decide if they wanted to punish those who attacked E-Uni. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox. 5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1446	Posted - 2012.02.26 02:32:00 - [33] - Quote Raneru wrote: Sounds like a rule being changed due to changes/additions/whatever to wardecs in the upcoming expansion. Look again at the date of the OP. This was changed back in October (so the upcoming expansion at the time of the announcement would have been Crucible), and it was changed due to either: 1) E-UNI's secret use of techniques that had never been publicly announced as legal, 2) Customer Service decided that they no longer had the manpower to enforce the rules, or 3) Customer Service (not a game development department) decided that the game was best served by reversing longstanding exploit rulings. I have my own suspicions on which is most likely, but none are good reasons. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox. 5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.