Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |

William Cane
The Black Company LLC
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 10:19:00 -
[1] - Quote
Okay I have been an Eve player on and off for some time now. Real life hass taken up a great deal of time for me. Due to the lack of time and lack of good in-game contacts I have not ventured too far into low Sec, Null sec, or WH space. But I have fun with what I do. My main source of income is mining and mission running with a small ammount of exploration. Again I have a good time with Eve. That is until today.
I have herd about "Bot Miners" from other players over the years, and never really knew how to recognize one to be honest. Recently this changed. I noticed some 'players' who were all in the same 4 person Corp logging in and, each, going out to different asteroid belts. Where they would do a little mining and then go to another belt, do some mining there and go to another belt, then dock up. Undock....and well starting over. However, they were running the same route each time. No defensive measures were made agains the random NPC "belt rats" that would show up. This sparked several hours worth of attempts were made to get some sort of a response out of each of these 'players', but nothing. This turned into several days worth of efforts to get any sort of response out of ANY of the Corp members, again this achieved nothing. These 'players' routinely went from location to location mining. Over and over and over, for hours, never staying in one belt for too long. But going to the same belts each time. So the War was initiated.
So now I joind my friends Corp. I thought this might be interesting, never done this before. The War starts! A Mackinaw, and 2 Retrievers were popped, along with 2 pods. There was NO attempt what so ever made to defend themselves untill the 4 ship was attacked, and it managed to run away. Now considering 4 seperate asteroid belts had to be gone to, in order to find..... approach.... and attack each one of the targets. Each pilot logged out shortly after this. Within a couple minuets each of the pilot logged back in, and logged back out. This happened several times.
Then I get a eve-mail from CONCORD. It announces that the war is over, they surrendered. The War lasted like an hour!!! How dose the war last an hour??!! I thought for 50mil it was suppose to last a week. Unless one side surrendered and paied an agreed ammount or that it was agreed to call it off. +(which did not happen)+ Even then there is a 24h time peroid until the fighting stops. Apparently this is not the case. I do not think that if a Corp is IN, or Pending a wardeck it should be allowed to just "Close", so that ALL of the members are placed into a default NPC Corp. At least untill the War is over. Because this maks them safe and sound to continue on about thier merry way.
Now the only way I can see the War only lasting 1h is that the 'bot controler' happened to noticed the pending wardec, and closed the Corp about 1h after getting it. Then ended up with some losses due to poor time management, bad composit risk management skills, or just did not care if there were any losses. Especially if the profit margin was high enough to not be a n issue. However, I beieve that this is an exploit of the Wardec mechanics and needs to be fixed. As this has allowed this person controling these 'players' to continue to rake in loads of ISk.
Further more I know that Bot Reports have been filed on all 4 of these 'players', but nothing has been done as of yet. But they are all now in Default NPC Corps back out Bot mining away, even as I type this, with no way to stop them.
So, with some of the more recent changes made to the game. Like the removal of the meta 0 items and the changes in the dron loot drop. That were done to help fix the game market. Why has what appears to be very little been done about this? |

Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
63
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 10:21:00 -
[2] - Quote
[quote=William Cane]found some botsquote]
Report them, have fun seeing the bot accounts getting permabanned. Take all the rocks for Yourself. Profit. There's nothing a million chinese guys can't do cheaper. |

Whitehound
1022
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 10:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
Does one need a permit to stalk miners or is this yet unregulated? Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
862
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 10:45:00 -
[4] - Quote
closing a wardecced corp is a stupid way to completely evade a wardec
ccp apparently allows it because they think it's somehow difficult or inconvenient to recycle the corp
wardecs are a joke |

GreenSeed
229
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 10:50:00 -
[5] - Quote
1- check the warp ins, once you find the warp in, stand on it and sort belts type and distance to see what he will mine next
2- exhaust one of the next roids to the point one cycle is left in it.
3- watch the bot mine it in one cycle, but remain in belt doing nothing for minutes.
4- ?????
5- disregard possible profit from ganking the bot, and recognize that doing the gank would legitimize the botting activity by not attacking the source of it, but instead fulfilling the role of the statistically predicted ganker, on the cost/benefit equation the botter already calculated before beginning his operations. and instead, report him providing full details on your observations. break the cycle.
|

Jonah Gravenstein
Universal Corporate Repossession Inc.
6005
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 10:58:00 -
[6] - Quote
You can still mess with them, even if they are hiding in an NPC corp, you can mine stuff out from under them as above, you can bump them away from mining range, or clean out of belts, a Stabber with a MWD is an excellent choice for doing both, or you could hire people who would suicide gank their own grandmothers for isk to do it for you.
Eve in a nutshell, it's you vs the universe, and everybody in it. |

Dante Uisen
Push button receive bacon
143
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 11:13:00 -
[7] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:wardecs are a joke
didn't ccp mention something about their vision of wardecs and hi-sec corporations, was that the war should be mutual.
|

Rex Aparte
The Scope Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 11:59:00 -
[8] - Quote
Thinks the point of wardecs are for mining or indy or noob corps - check
Whines when said corp uses game mechanics to get out of a wardec they don't want to be in - check
Even calls it an exploit and wants game changed so corps that don't want to be at war get "trapped" for at least a week. - check
I find it so funny that people are a. proud of their "wardecs" and b. surprised when their foe doesn't want to fight, and cry about it all day long on the forums. As someone smarter than me said, go ahead and wardec the best hisec merc alliance. I guarantee you they won't try and get out of it. But then again, that won't give you the easymode free kills you're looking for. Then it would you docking up and dissolving your corp instantly. Cry. Moar.
If they are indeed botters, petition them, wardeccing them does nothing to help your cause. |

Dante Uisen
Push button receive bacon
143
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 12:35:00 -
[9] - Quote
Rex Aparte wrote:I find it so funny that people are a. proud of their "wardecs" and b. surprised when their foe doesn't want to fight, and cry about it all day long on the forums. As someone smarter than me said, go ahead and wardec the best hisec merc alliance. I guarantee you they won't try and get out of it. But then again, that won't give you the easymode free kills you're looking for. Then it would you docking up and dissolving your corp instantly. Cry. Moar.
I'm not sure we are playing the same game, eve online is supposedly taking place in a cold and harsh universe, it should be possible to wardec player run corporations. |

Whitehound
1022
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 12:39:00 -
[10] - Quote
Dante Uisen wrote:I'm not sure we are playing the same game, eve online is supposedly taking place in a cold and harsh universe, it should be possible to wardec player run corporations. And this the OP did, they surrendered and yet was it not what he wanted.
It is true that it is a cold and harsh universe. It just is not a stupid one. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
|

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
863
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 12:44:00 -
[11] - Quote
Dante Uisen wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:wardecs are a joke didn't ccp mention something about their vision of wardecs and hi-sec corporations, was that the war should be mutual. that was a point of discussion in the csm minutes. i don't think it's an actual thing. |

Skeln Thargensen
The Scope Gallente Federation
41
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 12:45:00 -
[12] - Quote
really it's your own fault if you haven't checked out the corp and its history before wasting money. is that cold and harsh enough for you? I take back my previous statements and judgements of others. -áyou can mine in iteron if you want. |

Spurty
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
808
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 12:51:00 -
[13] - Quote
If an alliance costs 1bill to form, shouldn't a corp cost "something" as well?
Should be relatively more painful to close a corp and start a new one than to survive through a wardec.
Meh, the entire Corp/Alliance and standings of Blues/Reds/Greys needs some loving.
Way too cheap (0 ISK) to move things around. --- GÇ£If you think this Universe is bad, you should see some of the others.GÇ¥ GÇò Philip K. **** |

Skeln Thargensen
The Scope Gallente Federation
41
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 12:55:00 -
[14] - Quote
that's a good point, it;s ridiculously cheap and easy to start a corp. I did it myself for a hoot, think it was 8 minutes training and a million or so ISK. I take back my previous statements and judgements of others. -áyou can mine in iteron if you want. |

Dante Uisen
Push button receive bacon
143
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 12:55:00 -
[15] - Quote
Spurty wrote:If an alliance costs 1bill to form, shouldn't a corp cost "something" as well?
i think i costs 1-2M to form a corporation. |

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
863
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 12:57:00 -
[16] - Quote
Spurty wrote:If an alliance costs 1bill to form, shouldn't a corp cost "something" as well?
Should be relatively more painful to close a corp and start a new one than to survive through a wardec.
Meh, the entire Corp/Alliance and standings of Blues/Reds/Greys needs some loving.
Way too cheap (0 ISK) to move things around. it costs an entire 1.6 millions of isk
sighs  |

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
137
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:02:00 -
[17] - Quote
Sounds more like an anti-social guy with a routine rather than a botter if he reacted that quickly after facing a real threat... I mean, rats are weak enough where yeah, a high end miner can just shrug them off, so them not defending themselves isn't actually all that surprising. Could be a botter who kept nearby his computer though, but I wouldn't jump to this assumption unless the time between his warps was pretty even.
TL;DR: A bot isn't just someone with a routine and doesn't respond to you.
Although yeah, really should get a wardec refund in this situation. |

Whitehound
1023
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:07:00 -
[18] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Spurty wrote:If an alliance costs 1bill to form, shouldn't a corp cost "something" as well?
Should be relatively more painful to close a corp and start a new one than to survive through a wardec.
Meh, the entire Corp/Alliance and standings of Blues/Reds/Greys needs some loving.
Way too cheap (0 ISK) to move things around. it costs an entire 1.6 millions of isk sighs  It costs 1.6m ISKs for a few friends to start something and 50m ISKs for a loner to hate them for it. ... Working as intended. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Rex Aparte
The Scope Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:16:00 -
[19] - Quote
Dante Uisen wrote:Rex Aparte wrote:I find it so funny that people are a. proud of their "wardecs" and b. surprised when their foe doesn't want to fight, and cry about it all day long on the forums. As someone smarter than me said, go ahead and wardec the best hisec merc alliance. I guarantee you they won't try and get out of it. But then again, that won't give you the easymode free kills you're looking for. Then it would you docking up and dissolving your corp instantly. Cry. Moar. I'm not sure we are playing the same game, eve online is supposedly taking place in a cold and harsh universe, it should be possible to wardec player run corporations.
Wow, first time I've ever seen someone miss their own point. |

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
1015
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:20:00 -
[20] - Quote
You've unfortunately stumbled upon the problems of corp hopping during war decs and npc corps in general.
Good luck trying to get CCP to fix them, we've been trying for years :( |
|

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
1015
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:25:00 -
[21] - Quote
Rex Aparte wrote:Thinks the point of wardecs are for mining or indy or noob corps - check
The purpose of war decs is to let me fight anyone I want even in highsec. Be that because they're botters, or because they're part of the logistics for null sec operations, or because they insulted me, or because of any other reason at all.
The point of war decs is to let you fight someone. That's it. You can be butthurt if someone targets "weak" corps, but thats up to them - it is not, as you incorrectly imply - missing the "point" of war decs. It's absolutely on point.
War decs do not and should not have a requirement to be "fair fights", or mutually agreed upon, despite what some themeparking idiots (including the odd csm member or ccp dev) says. |

Skeln Thargensen
The Scope Gallente Federation
41
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:28:00 -
[22] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:[quote=Rex Aparte]The purpose of war decs is to let me fight anyone I want even in highsec. Be that because they're botters, or because they're part of the logistics for null sec operations, or because they insulted me, or because of any other reason at all.
The point of war decs is to let you fight someone. That's it. You can be butthurt if someone targets "weak" corps, but thats up to them - it is not, as you incorrectly imply - missing the "point" of war decs. It's absolutely on point.
War decs have and should not have a requirement to be "fair fights", or mutually agreed upon, despite what some themeparking idiots (including the odd csm member or ccp dev) says.
This is incorrect, read the definition. Wars are between corp and alliance entities not players. I take back my previous statements and judgements of others. -áyou can mine in iteron if you want. |

Tub Chil
Last Men Standing
33
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:31:00 -
[23] - Quote
Dante Uisen wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:wardecs are a joke didn't ccp mention something about their vision of wardecs and hi-sec corporations, was that the war should be mutual. lol mutual war |

Whitehound
1023
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:34:00 -
[24] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:You've unfortunately stumbled upon the problems of corp hopping during war decs and npc corps in general.
Good luck trying to get CCP to fix them, we've been trying for years :( They have fixed it in so far that a corporation will take a war with them if they were in an alliance.
However, there should not be any mechanic stopping players from going back into an NPC corporation, because it will only lead to a play style where this becomes a method for making players quit.
...
Better learn to know when you have won, because it is important for not being a loser. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Rex Aparte
The Scope Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:37:00 -
[25] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Rex Aparte wrote:Thinks the point of wardecs are for mining or indy or noob corps - check The purpose of war decs is to let me fight anyone I want even in highsec. Be that because they're botters, or because they're part of the logistics for null sec operations, or because they insulted me, or because of any other reason at all. The point of war decs is to let you fight someone. That's it. You can be butthurt if someone targets "weak" corps, but thats up to them - it is not, as you incorrectly imply - missing the "point" of war decs. It's absolutely on point. War decs do not and should not have a requirement to be "fair fights", or mutually agreed upon, despite what some themeparking idiots (including the odd csm member or ccp dev) says.
Is butthurt that the weak people he wardecs, can get out of said wardecs. - check
You're missing my point entirely. Wardec whoever the hell you want. Just don't cry about it when the mining corp you wardecced surprisingly doesn't want to fight you! Wardeccing those corps is an option, but not the point. If you wardec someone who doesn't want to fight you, expect to be disappointed.
Who's the real carebear? The guy who uses game mechanics to his advantage, or the guy who cries on the forums about not being able to do whatever he wants, without a counter? |

dexington
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
581
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:45:00 -
[26] - Quote
Rex Aparte wrote:Who's the real carebear? The guy who uses game mechanics to his advantage, or the guy who cries on the forums about not being able to do whatever he wants, without a counter?
I'll say the guy whining when ccp fixes corp jumping is the real carebear. GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥ |

Rex Aparte
The Scope Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:49:00 -
[27] - Quote
dexington wrote:Rex Aparte wrote:Who's the real carebear? The guy who uses game mechanics to his advantage, or the guy who cries on the forums about not being able to do whatever he wants, without a counter? I'll say the guy whining when ccp fixes corp jumping is the real carebear.
Assumes CCP agrees with his views on the game - check
There will always be a counter. Cry all you want, I'll get some tissues. Oh noes, you're not a GM alt are you?
Edit: I'll go one step further and explain it. Here is the definition of a carebear: A carebear is a person who knows what the counter is but refuses to use it. Doesn't tank his mining vessel (doesn't buy a permit), doesn't check dscan, doesn't scout, etc etc on and on. |

Kristopher Rocancourt
Quality Assurance The Marmite Collective
59
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:55:00 -
[28] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:closing a wardecced corp is a stupid way to completely evade a wardec
ccp apparently allows it because they think it's somehow difficult or inconvenient to recycle the corp
wardecs are a joke
if you are a spineless wimp that succumbs to threats by running like a scalded cat. |

Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
3544
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:56:00 -
[29] - Quote
Wow. I could have typed the same OP in relation to 2 groups of miners out here in 'nowhere Ammatar'.
CCP is condoning this idiotic behavior because they are Boxing, not Botting. But it indeed has the same ultimate destructive effect on the game. EVE is becoming crowded, and the startling lack of resources and things to do for the industrialist that has developed over the past 8 months or so, is not a great way to retain players.
New players choosing the Industrial career path will eventually unsubscribe do to boredom caused by these botters AND boxers sucking up an unbalanced amount of resources.
Edit: 2 typos. When I'm angry I typo. Be yourself; everyone else is already taken.-á-á-á-á-á-á - Oscar Wilde - 1870's |

March rabbit
player corp n1
569
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:57:00 -
[30] - Quote
Dante Uisen wrote:Rex Aparte wrote:I find it so funny that people are a. proud of their "wardecs" and b. surprised when their foe doesn't want to fight, and cry about it all day long on the forums. As someone smarter than me said, go ahead and wardec the best hisec merc alliance. I guarantee you they won't try and get out of it. But then again, that won't give you the easymode free kills you're looking for. Then it would you docking up and dissolving your corp instantly. Cry. Moar. I'm not sure we are playing the same game, eve online is supposedly taking place in a cold and harsh universe, it should be possible to wardec player run corporations. you have wardecs. enjoy. |
|

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
863
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 14:02:00 -
[31] - Quote
Kristopher Rocancourt wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:closing a wardecced corp is a stupid way to completely evade a wardec
ccp apparently allows it because they think it's somehow difficult or inconvenient to recycle the corp
wardecs are a joke if you are a spineless wimp that succumbs to threats by running like a scalded cat. imma having trouble understanding the intent of your post
also how does cat without spine run  |

dexington
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
581
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 14:07:00 -
[32] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Dante Uisen wrote:Rex Aparte wrote:I find it so funny that people are a. proud of their "wardecs" and b. surprised when their foe doesn't want to fight, and cry about it all day long on the forums. As someone smarter than me said, go ahead and wardec the best hisec merc alliance. I guarantee you they won't try and get out of it. But then again, that won't give you the easymode free kills you're looking for. Then it would you docking up and dissolving your corp instantly. Cry. Moar. I'm not sure we are playing the same game, eve online is supposedly taking place in a cold and harsh universe, it should be possible to wardec player run corporations. you have wardecs. enjoy.
It's nothing more then a corporation dueling option, where you are allowed to refuse the invitation. GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥ |

March rabbit
player corp n1
569
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 14:37:00 -
[33] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Rex Aparte wrote:Thinks the point of wardecs are for mining or indy or noob corps - check The purpose of war decs is to let me fight anyone I want even in highsec. Be that because they're botters, or because they're part of the logistics for null sec operations, or because they insulted me, or because of any other reason at all. you already can fight anyone you want in high-sec. Just turn your switchers to RED and have fun
|

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1754
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 14:38:00 -
[34] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Kristopher Rocancourt wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:closing a wardecced corp is a stupid way to completely evade a wardec
ccp apparently allows it because they think it's somehow difficult or inconvenient to recycle the corp
wardecs are a joke if you are a spineless wimp that succumbs to threats by running like a scalded cat. imma having trouble understanding the intent of your post also how does cat without spine run 
The cat was scalded, the wimp was spineless. Don't mix your metaphors.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |

Whitehound
1024
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 14:42:00 -
[35] - Quote
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:EVE is becoming crowded, and the startling lack of resources and things to do for the industrialist that has developed over the past 8 months or so, is not a great way to retain players. I agree with you as far as EVE is getting crowded. EVE is now back at the player numbers it used to be 2 years ago.
This means the resources will become thinner, but we only have been living in fat times when it comes to the size and number of untouched belts.
The price for Tritanium used to be as low as 3-4 ISKs not too long ago and only now with the increased player numbers beginning with December is the price for it slowly decreasing again. It is just a few weeks ago when one could sell billions of Tritanium for more than 6 ISKs per unit. The price is slowly decreasing and it is staying below the 6 ISKs mark now.
If there was a shortage in minerals then this would not be possible, but the price would continue to increase and run off. Rather is the demand now being met. Once the mineral prices drop further will the amount of mining find a balance of its own.
TL;DR: The economy is in full swing and a few wheels are squeaking and aching to underline its awesome performance. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

dexington
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
581
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 14:53:00 -
[36] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:The price for Tritanium used to be as low as 3-4 ISKs not too long ago and only now with the increased player numbers beginning with December is the price for it slowly decreasing again. It is just a few weeks ago when one could sell billions of Tritanium for more than 6 ISKs per unit. The price is slowly decreasing and it is staying below the 6 ISKs mark now.
3-4 isk trit has not been seen since the end or 2011 start of 2012, that was when the trit prices started to grow, and was in the last quarter of 2012 the sell price started to stabilized around 6 to 6.3.
But the supply also seemed to stabilize, which would explain why the price did the same. GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥ |

GreenSeed
231
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 15:05:00 -
[37] - Quote
say a player cant run from a wardec, when is the war over? is it when he cant undock anymore? and if so, hows that any different from griefing?
eve is a cold harsh place, but griefing will get you banned. |

Whitehound
1025
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 15:09:00 -
[38] - Quote
dexington wrote:3-4 isk trit has not been seen since the end or 2011 start of 2012, that was when the trit prices started to grow, and was in the last quarter of 2012 the sell price started to stabilized around 6 to 6.3.
But the supply also seemed to stabilize, which would explain why the price did the same. When you look at the volumes for Tritanium in The Forge (Jita) then you will see a small increase in the volumes, which runs pretty much in parallel with the player numbers as seen on Chribba's EVE-Offline website. One can see the increase in volume either in the market history when in The Forge or in the 180-day history on EVE-Markets.net. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

0Lona 0ltor
Red Sky Morning BricK sQuAD.
31
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 15:22:00 -
[39] - Quote
Deal with facts.
1) CCP don't want you to PVP in high sec. Source from CCP and proof. A)Mining barge buff B) Boomerang manouvre closed C) Constant switching of War dec Mechanics in favour of defender D) Ability for defenders to drop corp/allince during war decs E) The cost of war Decs and the fact the price goes up on bigger entities (makes zero sense) F) Orca ship transfers nerfed in high G) Global flag system for looting ect, ect...
2) CCP don't care about botting unless yoit's RMT related. Source from CCP and proof. A) Botting is NOT a bannable offence, only after your third warning will CCP even contemplate banning you. B) Mining Barge Buff C) Failure of CCP to implement VAC style or mouse movement software that would detect automated programs with ease. D) CCP still allowing multibox programs
Anyway it would not be fair to ban botting at this stage in the game, the majority of eve's in game items have been constructed from macro's and bots. The only way to implement a true ban on botting would be a complete server restart and that's not going to happen.
Hate the game not the player, if you can't beat them join them HTFU. |

Alana Charen-Teng
The Stars Like Dust
297
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 15:33:00 -
[40] - Quote
William Cane wrote:Further more I know that Bot Reports have been filed on all 4 of these 'players', but nothing has been done as of yet. But they are all now in Default NPC Corps back out Bot mining away, even as I type this, with no way to stop them. The only way to interfere with them is suicide ganking. Wardecs are effectively useless, because anyone can immediately drop out of a corporation to avoid it. |
|

Ruskarn Andedare
Lion Investments
102
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 15:39:00 -
[41] - Quote
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:Wow. I could have typed the same OP in relation to 2 groups of miners out here in 'nowhere Ammatar'.
CCP is condoning this idiotic behavior because they are Boxing, not Botting. But it indeed has the same ultimate destructive effect on the game. EVE is becoming crowded, and the startling lack of resources and things to do for the industrialist that has developed over the past 8 months or so, is not a great way to retain players.
New players choosing the Industrial career path will eventually unsubscribe do to boredom caused by these botters AND boxers sucking up an unbalanced amount of resources.
Edit: 2 typos. When I'm angry I typo.
For me it's meant it's often easier to just buy the minerals for my limited manufacturing than mine them myself |

Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
3544
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 15:53:00 -
[42] - Quote
Ruskarn Andedare wrote:Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:Wow. I could have typed the same OP in relation to 2 groups of miners out here in 'nowhere Ammatar'.
CCP is condoning this idiotic behavior because they are Boxing, not Botting. But it indeed has the same ultimate destructive effect on the game. EVE is becoming crowded, and the startling lack of resources and things to do for the industrialist that has developed over the past 8 months or so, is not a great way to retain players.
New players choosing the Industrial career path will eventually unsubscribe do to boredom caused by these botters AND boxers sucking up an unbalanced amount of resources.
Edit: 2 typos. When I'm angry I typo. For me it's meant it's often easier to just buy the minerals for my limited manufacturing than mine them myself
So what ?
Someone has to get them, or did you forget that little part of the equation ? Be yourself; everyone else is already taken.-á-á-á-á-á-á - Oscar Wilde - 1870's |

dexington
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
581
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 17:25:00 -
[43] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:dexington wrote:3-4 isk trit has not been seen since the end or 2011 start of 2012, that was when the trit prices started to grow, and was in the last quarter of 2012 the sell price started to stabilized around 6 to 6.3.
But the supply also seemed to stabilize, which would explain why the price did the same. When you look at the volumes for Tritanium in The Forge (Jita) then you will see a small increase in the volumes, which runs pretty much in parallel with the player numbers as seen on Chribba's EVE-Offline website. One can see the increase in volume either in the market history when in The Forge or in the 180-day history on EVE-Markets.net.
Try setting the history to 540 days on eve-markets.net. GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥ |

Captain Tardbar
NEWB ALERT
174
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 17:32:00 -
[44] - Quote
William Cane wrote:Further more I know that Bot Reports have been filed on all 4 of these 'players', but nothing has been done as of yet. But they are all now in Default NPC Corps back out Bot mining away, even as I type this, with no way to stop them.
Man up and gank them.
Or pay someone that will. "Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby". If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down. |

0Lona 0ltor
Red Sky Morning BricK sQuAD.
31
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 17:46:00 -
[45] - Quote
Why do you want to gank the bots? They provide cheap minerals for you, If you feel your lagging behind in mineral production or in ISK set yourself up in a belt or null sec annom too.
I'd rather not have bots in the game and I'd like to see war dec's fixed so the defenders can not simply drop corps but none of these things are going to happen as CCP is not willing to lose paying customers such as botters and high sec war dodge bears.
If you can't beat them join them, it's ace you'll get all the isk you need to plex as many accounts as you want and be able to afford the isk to do anything you want.
Just listen to CCP warnings and all your accounts will be fine if they tell you to stop your macro then stop it, if not it's cool and the golden rule is never ever sell a single ISK for external game currency or they'll insta ban any accounts they can link to you. BTW this also includes giving ISK away free to your corp mates. That's how the EVE uni lad got banned. He never got banned for botting he got perma'd for RMT well charity RMT.
CCP's policy is perma ban RMT'rs |

Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
1642
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 17:53:00 -
[46] - Quote
Dante Uisen wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:wardecs are a joke didn't ccp mention something about their vision of wardecs and hi-sec corporations, was that the war should be mutual. I think they meant wars are already mutual in that no fighting occurs unless both sides stay in their respective corps and undock. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2902
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 18:46:00 -
[47] - Quote
Skeln Thargensen wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:[quote=Rex Aparte]The purpose of war decs is to let me fight anyone I want even in highsec. Be that because they're botters, or because they're part of the logistics for null sec operations, or because they insulted me, or because of any other reason at all.
The point of war decs is to let you fight someone. That's it. You can be butthurt if someone targets "weak" corps, but thats up to them - it is not, as you incorrectly imply - missing the "point" of war decs. It's absolutely on point.
War decs have and should not have a requirement to be "fair fights", or mutually agreed upon, despite what some themeparking idiots (including the odd csm member or ccp dev) says.
This is incorrect, read the definition. Wars are between corp and alliance entities not players.
With the new Wardec Pricing model, CCP has explicitly stated that wardecs are about buying targets. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
|

ISD LackOfFaith
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
454

|
Posted - 2013.02.27 19:13:00 -
[48] - Quote
Locked for cleaning up. ISD LackOfFaith Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|

EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
549
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 19:45:00 -
[49] - Quote
this post is just a reminder that every time you dodge a wardec you are forcing your style of gameplay on others without them having any sort of recourse |

EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
549
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 19:49:00 -
[50] - Quote
dear all new players:
if i, a three year old grizzled veteran with 3 accounts and a spreadsheet screw you over by making your preferred way to play the game essentially worthless then you're going to have to take the standings hit and be forced out of highsec eventually in order to get revenge
~deal with it~ |
|

Whitehound
1031
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 20:13:00 -
[51] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:this post is just a reminder that every time you dodge a wardec you are forcing your style of gameplay on others without them having any sort of recourse Nonsense. You are demanding a war and then fail to understand the meaning of a surrender. In order for you to demand a recourse will you first need to have a goal in your war. If your goal was not a surrender then you are playing the game wrong and not knowing how to play a game is not a play style but only dumb. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
447
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 20:16:00 -
[52] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Does one need a permit to stalk miners or is this yet unregulated?
I think it's optional....
The single biggest danger to EVE is the proliferation of ALTS! Kill an alt today!
Petition for a Minimum bounty of 10 mil. Prevent useless bounties!
|

EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
549
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 20:30:00 -
[53] - Quote
i surrender *completely ignores the aggressor and continues to do whatever they want*
working as intended |

Whitehound
1032
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 20:45:00 -
[54] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:i surrender *completely ignores the aggressor and continues to do whatever they want*
working as intended When you believe others should not continue to play the game then you are quite wrong, because without others would you be playing it alone. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Skeln Thargensen
The Scope Gallente Federation
41
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 20:47:00 -
[55] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:With the new Wardec Pricing model, CCP has explicitly stated that wardecs are about buying targets.
explicit or implicit? but of an odd use of language there.
it's still the corp that you're paying to declare war upon, not the players. just because you pay extra because it's a larger corp with more members doesn't mean those members are going to stick around or that you have any rights on them, which you don't. I take back my previous statements and judgements of others. -áyou can mine in iteron if you want. |

Jensaro Koraka
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 22:05:00 -
[56] - Quote
William Cane wrote: I do not think that if a Corp is IN, or Pending a wardeck it should be allowed to just "Close", so that ALL of the members are placed into a default NPC Corp. At least untill the War is over. Because this maks them safe and sound to continue on about thier merry way.
Now the only way I can see the War only lasting 1h is that the 'bot controler' happened to noticed the pending wardec, and closed the Corp about 1h after getting it. Then ended up with some losses due to poor time management, bad composit risk management skills, or just did not care if there were any losses. Especially if the profit margin was high enough to not be a n issue. However, I beieve that this is an exploit of the Wardec mechanics and needs to be fixed. As this has allowed this person controling these 'players' to continue to rake in loads of ISk.
I agree. War decs should prevent people from leaving the corp that was declared war on until the war is over. I see it as an exploit.
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -H.L. Mencken |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
624
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 22:43:00 -
[57] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:this post is just a reminder that every time you dodge a wardec you are forcing your style of gameplay on others without them having any sort of recourse They still have the ability to destroy a war dodgers ship, just at a potentially greater cost. This is the recourse afforded against anyone who undocks. If they don't undock they weren't going to be affected by the wardec anyways. |

Skeln Thargensen
The Scope Gallente Federation
41
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 22:55:00 -
[58] - Quote
yeah the only non-consensual PvP in highsec is the suicide gank, which is most certainly not an exploit.
it can also fail and give you a lolly exhumer killmail which is always delicious. I take back my previous statements and judgements of others. -áyou can mine in iteron if you want. |

Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 23:10:00 -
[59] - Quote
Jensaro Koraka wrote:I agree. War decs should prevent people from leaving the corp that was declared war on until the war is over. I see it as an exploit.
In my oppinion avatars with beards should not be allowed to post on the forums. I see it as an exploit. |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
624
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 23:14:00 -
[60] - Quote
Sal Landry wrote:Jensaro Koraka wrote:I agree. War decs should prevent people from leaving the corp that was declared war on until the war is over. I see it as an exploit.
In my oppinion avatars with beards should not be allowed to post on the forums. I see it as an exploit.
 |
|

EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
552
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 23:16:00 -
[61] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:dear all new players:
if i, a three year old grizzled veteran with 3 accounts and a spreadsheet screw you over by making your preferred way to play the game essentially worthless then you're going to have to take the standings hit and be forced out of highsec eventually in order to get revenge
~deal with it~
|

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
624
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 23:22:00 -
[62] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:EI Digin wrote:dear all new players:
if i, a three year old grizzled veteran with 3 accounts and a spreadsheet screw you over by making your preferred way to play the game essentially worthless then you're going to have to take the standings hit and be forced out of highsec eventually in order to get revenge
~deal with it~ Though even if those veterans were incapable of evading wardecs they are more capable of setting themselves up in a way that minimizes or nullifies the affect of your wardec. |

Whitehound
1035
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 23:27:00 -
[63] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:EI Digin wrote:dear all new players:
if i, a three year old grizzled veteran with 3 accounts and a spreadsheet screw you over by making your preferred way to play the game essentially worthless then you're going to have to take the standings hit and be forced out of highsec eventually in order to get revenge
~deal with it~ Your comment did not make any sense the first time. With only three years of EVE are you no veteran. Being a veteran then only enables you to tell about the old times, but it does not give you any rights with regards to the future (other than perhaps a place in a retirement home). Would you care to explain the rest of your comment, because dealing with it and without a further explanation means to ignore it. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Skeln Thargensen
The Scope Gallente Federation
41
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 23:32:00 -
[64] - Quote
grizzled vet demands right to shoot noobs in highsec, probably.
i hope i die before i get grizzled vet. I take back my previous statements and judgements of others. -áyou can mine in iteron if you want. |

EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
552
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 23:34:00 -
[65] - Quote
let's just ignore the whole part about where a player gets to run other players out of business and the only recourse that player has involves them being thrown out of highsec
instead let's talk about how a three year player isn't a veteran, or how those veteran players can somehow become immune from wardecs and combat, or how it's all about good players shooting noobs |

Skeln Thargensen
The Scope Gallente Federation
41
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 23:37:00 -
[66] - Quote
you could just explain what any of that meant in the first place. I take back my previous statements and judgements of others. -áyou can mine in iteron if you want. |

Whitehound
1035
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 23:42:00 -
[67] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:let's just ignore the whole part about where a player gets to run other players out of business and the only recourse that player has involves them being thrown out of highsec What exactly happened? Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
624
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 23:49:00 -
[68] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:let's just ignore the whole part about where a player gets to run other players out of business and the only recourse that player has involves them being thrown out of highsec
instead let's talk about how a three year player isn't a veteran, or how those veteran players can somehow become immune from wardecs and combat, or how it's all about good players shooting noobs Or we could not pretend every wardec is noobs trying to force veterans out of business (or about economic competition at all) and look at the mechanics as a whole. We could also look at the fact that recovering sec status is (tediously) possible. Or that they could create or buy dedicated alts and not be concerned with the sec status of that character like many already do. |

Lin Suizei
105
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 00:06:00 -
[69] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Or we could not pretend every wardec is noobs trying to force veterans out of business (or about economic competition at all) and look at the mechanics as a whole. We could also look at the fact that recovering sec status is (tediously) possible. Or that they could create or buy dedicated alts and not be concerned with the sec status of that character like many already do.
You cannot seriously think that the current system is okay, and highsec PvP should be based on suicide ganking, especially after the repeated nerfs which the fine art of suicide ganking has suffered. Please do not be a risk-averse coward. |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
624
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 00:16:00 -
[70] - Quote
Lin Suizei wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Or we could not pretend every wardec is noobs trying to force veterans out of business (or about economic competition at all) and look at the mechanics as a whole. We could also look at the fact that recovering sec status is (tediously) possible. Or that they could create or buy dedicated alts and not be concerned with the sec status of that character like many already do. You cannot seriously think that the current system is okay, and highsec PvP should be based on suicide ganking, especially after the repeated nerfs which the fine art of suicide ganking has suffered. I don't think things are in a good state, and I don't know how to fix it. But at the same time I don't believe locking people into combat situations for indefinite periods is going to be good for the game or the subscription base in the long run. some may be of the opinion that those lost are those the game should lose and will gain back others more "in tune with the true spirit of the game" but I'm not so optimistic. I'd also like to believe the sandbox does have some room for casuals, and locking people into wardecs sems a largely anticasual move.
In the meantime suicide ganking is a legit and workable mechanic. The threshold for profitability has been raised several times admittedly, but all that really means is that there is a disconnect between the level of triviality people believe there should be in doing so and possibly things that weren't initially considered in the meta game. |
|

Skeln Thargensen
The Scope Gallente Federation
42
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 00:27:00 -
[71] - Quote
ultimately, seeking to fight people who don't wish to fight is the 'mechanic' that is to blame. perhaps your other hobby is herding cats, i don't know. but there's any number of people up for a ruck in this game and it's not terribly hard to find them. you might not find them on your terms but that;s what you're wishing on others so HTFU etc. I take back my previous statements and judgements of others. -áyou can mine in iteron if you want. |

EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
552
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 00:31:00 -
[72] - Quote
Suicide ganking is basically a gigantic artificial hoop that players have to jump through in order to get any sort of reaction out of someone who you don't like, for legitimate reasons or not. It's a huge undertaking if you want to start suicide ganking someone, especially if you are a player who doesn't want to live in lowsec or nullsec, a poor player, or a new player. |

Skeln Thargensen
The Scope Gallente Federation
42
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 00:41:00 -
[73] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:Suicide ganking is basically a gigantic artificial hoop that players have to jump through in order to get any sort of reaction out of someone who you don't like, for legitimate reasons or not. It's a huge undertaking if you want to start suicide ganking someone, especially if you are a player who doesn't want to live in lowsec or nullsec, a poor player, or a new player.
ah the I care about noobs (I want to gank) post.
glass cannons is all you get, meight. get better at sums. I take back my previous statements and judgements of others. -áyou can mine in iteron if you want. |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
624
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 01:18:00 -
[74] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:Suicide ganking is basically a gigantic artificial hoop that players have to jump through in order to get any sort of reaction out of someone who you don't like, for legitimate reasons or not. It's a huge undertaking if you want to start suicide ganking someone, especially if you are a player who doesn't want to live in lowsec or nullsec, a poor player, or a new player. Prior to it's most recent nerf(s) subsidizing gankers to promote OTEC profitability was a thing. That said people were doing it quite often without those subsidies prior. Even now it doesn't seem to be limited to only rare and isolated incidents.
Perfectly balanced? Not sure, but there are things I would change. Unworkable and/or terribly intensive? On the scale of activities here, evidence would suggest no unless you were doing something on a large scale. |

Don Purple
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 05:04:00 -
[75] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:, or you could hire people, who would suicide gank their own grandmothers for isk, to go on the rampage for a week or so, on your behalf.
^ always down :) |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1864
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 07:10:00 -
[76] - Quote
Rex Aparte wrote:Thinks the point of wardecs are for mining or indy or noob corps - check
Whines when said corp uses game mechanics to get out of a wardec they don't want to be in - check
Even calls it an exploit and wants game changed so corps that don't want to be at war get "trapped" for at least a week. - check
I find it so funny that people are a. proud of their "wardecs" and b. surprised when their foe doesn't want to fight, and cry about it all day long on the forums. As someone smarter than me said, go ahead and wardec the best hisec merc alliance. I guarantee you they won't try and get out of it. But then again, that won't give you the easymode free kills you're looking for. Then it would you docking up and dissolving your corp instantly. Cry. Moar.
If they are indeed botters, petition them, wardeccing them does nothing to help your cause. This guy thinks wardecs have anything to do with anything other then one corp going to war with another.
You're not exempt because you're a miner.
|

dexington
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
583
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 07:23:00 -
[77] - Quote
It should be harder til avoid a wardec, and it should be more expensive to start a war. Increase the consequence of both parties. GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥ |

Whitehound
1041
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 07:30:00 -
[78] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:Suicide ganking is basically a gigantic artificial hoop that players have to jump through in order to get any sort of reaction out of someone who you don't like, for legitimate reasons or not. It's a huge undertaking if you want to start suicide ganking someone, especially if you are a player who doesn't want to live in lowsec or nullsec, a poor player, or a new player. You do get a reaction out of them when you declare war and they then surrender to you.
I am coming under the impression that it is something specific you want them to do, like you want them to fail at something, because you failed at it and you now hate them for it. Perhaps you want them to hate you back. If so then know that some players will always win the "hating game", because they just never hate another player and it is only a game to them, but they will only hate the game and themselves for failing at it. You just cannot get any reaction out of anyone just because you want them to. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1865
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 07:40:00 -
[79] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:EI Digin wrote:Suicide ganking is basically a gigantic artificial hoop that players have to jump through in order to get any sort of reaction out of someone who you don't like, for legitimate reasons or not. It's a huge undertaking if you want to start suicide ganking someone, especially if you are a player who doesn't want to live in lowsec or nullsec, a poor player, or a new player. You do get a reaction out of them when you declare war and they then surrender to you. I am coming under the impression that it is something specific you want them to do, like you want them to fail at something, because you failed at it and you now hate them for it. Perhaps you want them to hate you back. If so then know that some players will always win the "hating game", because they just never hate another player and it is only a game to them, but they will only hate the game and themselves for failing at it. You just cannot get any reaction out of anyone just because you want them to. It's not surrender when you disband your corp due to a wardec. It's exploitation of the NPC corps.
If disbanding the corp to get out of war was the intended method of surrender, there wouldn't be an actual option to surrender and high sec wouldn't be the only place this happens on a regular basis.
This seems to be the point some of you are neglecting, and I would guess because most of you understand this and won't admit to it because your afraid CCP would actually do something about it.
Every person the leaves a player run corp should be losing something significant. If those miners actually lost something, like the ability to mine just as well as before, they wouldn't disband corps as often.
|

Whitehound
1042
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 08:08:00 -
[80] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:It's not surrender ... bla bla bla. Yes, it is. You declare war - they disband. It is a reaction on your declaration and it is a surrender.
You are quite an annoying whiner for a Goon. What is wrong with you? Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
|

Psychotic Monk
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
772
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 08:09:00 -
[81] - Quote
This question boils down to one that needs to be awnsered by the Devs.
Is this a game about competition and player interaction, or is this a single player game with a chat box tacked on?
The game I'm here to play is a cutthroat competitive game where extensive knowledge of the interaction of many systems is your primary weapon and if you're bad at it you lose space-monies.
The game that many other players (and some developers) seem to have come here to be involved in is space-themed grinding sim where if you're bad at it you just don't advance as quickly as your peers.
Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Have a blog, if you care. |

Whitehound
1042
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 08:12:00 -
[82] - Quote
Psychotic Monk wrote:Is this a game about competition and player interaction, or is this a single player game with a chat box tacked on? Seems to me with all the crying over war-dec mechanics that it is an MMO, where some players want to live in high-sec and turn into into a single-player game by using war-decs and to drive others away and when it fails they try even harder by whining on it on the forums. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
138
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 08:15:00 -
[83] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:It's not surrender ... bla bla bla. Yes, it is. You declare war - they disband. It is a reaction on your declaration and it is a surrender. You are quite an annoying whiner for a Goon. What is wrong with you?
Not exactly a surrender if all they do is immediately reform soon after quite often. Does not really make for a good argument at all regardless of what side of the fence you're on :/ |

Whitehound
1042
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 08:30:00 -
[84] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:Not exactly a surrender if all they do is immediately reform soon after quite often. Does not really make for a good argument at all regardless of what side of the fence you're on :/ That is just you.
It is not different from surrendering to 5 wars simultaneously either. When you then do not like it then find someone else. Insisting to fight a specific target is just dumb and stupid, and riding on it for the sake of an argument can only have one goal - to harass specific players. When people do not want to fight then they do not want to fight. Get it into your head.
Should the game ever change and the targets then decide to fight you back and then suddenly kick your arse will you be again crying on the forum. This time then about how you cannot get out of war or how this is now all unfair. It is not them who cry about some mechanics, you know? Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
140
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 08:34:00 -
[85] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:Not exactly a surrender if all they do is immediately reform soon after quite often. Does not really make for a good argument at all regardless of what side of the fence you're on :/ That is just you. It is not different from surrendering to 5 wars simultaneously either. When you then do not like it then find someone else. Insisting to fight a specific target is just dumb and stupid, and riding on it for the sake of an argument can only have one goal - to harass specific players. When people do not want to fight then they do not want to fight. Get it into your head. Should the game ever change and the targets then decide to fight you back and then suddenly kick your arse will you be again crying on the forum. This time then about how you cannot get out of war or how this is now all unfair. It is not them who cry about some mechanics, you know?
Fairness is a two way street, not one. While it wouldn't be fair to go all hardcore on the mechanic, its also not fair for someone to spend 50 million for absolutely nothing of value to happen at all. Disband, reform, and all that happened is the aggressor lost 50 mil. I'm sorry, I'm against what a lot of the guys who want to expand wardecs are saying too, but ignoring this factor is just being self centered. |

Whitehound
1042
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 08:55:00 -
[86] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:Fairness is a two way street, not one. While it wouldn't be fair to go all hardcore on the mechanic, its also not fair for someone to spend 50 million for absolutely nothing of value to happen at all. Disband, reform, and all that happened is the aggressor lost 50 mil. I'm sorry, I'm against what a lot of the guys who want to expand wardecs are saying too, but ignoring this factor is just being self centered. I lose 30m-40m ISKs only by setting up a single market order and almost every day. I get nothing for it and the fact that I make a profit is my own doing. Now do you see me crying about it? No!
So stop with the crying over war-decs. You did not buy a damn thing with it other than the chance of a fight. You still have not realized that you are not even fighting and that your war can cause you losses, just like I can have losses on the market and the broker fee is not a guarantee for anything other than me getting a chance.
You may only think that if the war-dec cost would give you a guaranteed fight you would then also get a guaranteed win. It is a false logic.
Simply check a corp's war history and see if they have been in many wars and if kills/losses were made. If you do not see it then do not war-dec. And war-decs is not the only way to get fights in high-sec. You can always look for active wars with kills and offer assistance. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
140
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 09:00:00 -
[87] - Quote
The difference is that one involves skill, the other doesn't, which completely kills the argument you were trying to make from the first sentence. Your efforts make or break that 30-40m. If you lose a lot of money during the war from losses, that's because of your own failings, or the other side catching you with your pants down. Different situation here. |

Whitehound
1042
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 09:03:00 -
[88] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:The difference is that one involves skill, the other doesn't, which completely kills the argument you were trying to make from the first sentence. Your efforts make or break that 30-40m. If you lose a lot of money during the war from losses, that's because of your own failings, or the other side catching you with your pants down. Different situation here. No. I can lose billions on the market, too. Those 30m-40m ISKs do not give me anything. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
140
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 09:06:00 -
[89] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:The difference is that one involves skill, the other doesn't, which completely kills the argument you were trying to make from the first sentence. Your efforts make or break that 30-40m. If you lose a lot of money during the war from losses, that's because of your own failings, or the other side catching you with your pants down. Different situation here. No. I can lose billions on the market, too. Those 30m-40m ISKs do not give me anything.
And you'd be losing it due to your own doing. Your comparison would be like saying losing 30-40m gambling is the same as it using it to buy something, but instead of being given what you paid for, the seller runs away with the dough. |

Whitehound
1042
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 09:09:00 -
[90] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:Whitehound wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:The difference is that one involves skill, the other doesn't, which completely kills the argument you were trying to make from the first sentence. Your efforts make or break that 30-40m. If you lose a lot of money during the war from losses, that's because of your own failings, or the other side catching you with your pants down. Different situation here. No. I can lose billions on the market, too. Those 30m-40m ISKs do not give me anything. And you'd be losing it due to your own doing. Your comparison would be like saying losing 30-40m gambling is the same as it using it to buy something, but instead of being given what you paid for, the seller runs away with the dough. No. 30m-40m ISKs is the broker fee I have to pay on a daily basis. I trade with billions of ISKs and have high skills as well as good standings. It still costs me this much only to set up a single market order each time.
There is no difference here. It is an ISK sink just the same and I have to pay it like everybody else.
In fact, do I have to pay the price twice, because I buy with buy orders for I need to pay a fee and sell it with sell orders, which costs me again the same fee. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
|

Psychotic Monk
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
773
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 09:13:00 -
[91] - Quote
Yes, you paid the broker fee and you got to make your order. How would you feel about it if you paid your broker fee and the order wasn't created? And then you paid it again and the order wasn't created? And you paid it as many times as you could and the order was created maybe one time in twenty? Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Have a blog, if you care. |

Skeln Thargensen
The Scope Gallente Federation
42
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 09:15:00 -
[92] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:Fairness is a two way street, not one. While it wouldn't be fair to go all hardcore on the mechanic, its also not fair for someone to spend 50 million for absolutely nothing of value to happen at all. Disband, reform, and all that happened is the aggressor lost 50 mil. I'm sorry, I'm against what a lot of the guys who want to expand wardecs are saying too, but ignoring this factor is just being self centered.
it's chump change for someone whose been playing the game for any length of time and it's just a risk you take when you declare war on a corp with no war history. if you're worried about losing money then you can use http://evewho.com/ to check the members' employment history also.
personally, I think the cost of starting a corp should be on par with the war dec to stop that behaviour but trying to force people to fight is just a bad mechanic. if a corp has nothing to defend then there's no reason for them to fight unless they feel like it. they could corphop, dock up and log out or just go ninja ratting in null for a week to **** off the deccer, it makes no odds. I take back my previous statements and judgements of others. -áyou can mine in iteron if you want. |

Dave Stark
1871
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 09:15:00 -
[93] - Quote
Psychotic Monk wrote:Yes, you paid the broker fee and you got to make your order. How would you feel about it if you paid your broker fee and the order wasn't created? And then you paid it again and the order wasn't created? And you paid it as many times as you could and the order was created maybe one time in twenty?
so, you're suggesting that you paid the wardec fee, and the wardec wasn't placed? "100k for notifications of stupidity, i love this bounty system." |

Whitehound
1042
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 09:16:00 -
[94] - Quote
Psychotic Monk wrote:Yes, you paid the broker fee and you got to make your order. How would you feel about it if you paid your broker fee and the order wasn't created? And then you paid it again and the order wasn't created? And you paid it as many times as you could and the order was created maybe one time in twenty? Nonsense. You declare war and you have your war just like I get my order onto the market.
Whatever happens then is in the hands of other players. I cannot make them sell to me or buy from me. If I cancel the order will I also not get the fee back. It is the same in many places and it is called an ISK sink. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

dexington
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
583
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 09:17:00 -
[95] - Quote
It's absurd to try and compare the brokers fee to the cost of starting a war, you might as well compare the sound of blue to the smell of yellow, they are after all both colors so if should be easy to compare.
GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥ |

Whitehound
1042
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 09:21:00 -
[96] - Quote
dexington wrote:It's absurd to try and compare the brokers fee to the cost of starting a war, you might as well compare the sound of blue to the smell of yellow, they are after all both colors so if should be easy to compare. Not quite. You first need to cry about blue or yellow before you can enter into any argument and make a drama of it. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Whitehound
1042
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 09:24:00 -
[97] - Quote
Skeln Thargensen wrote:personally, I think the cost of starting a corp should be on par with the war dec to stop that behaviour but trying to force people to fight is just a bad mechanic. if a corp has nothing to defend then there's no reason for them to fight unless they feel like it. they could corphop, dock up and log out or just go ninja ratting in null for a week to **** off the deccer, it makes no odds. No. Not when you can now enter into existing wars by offering your assistance and even ask to be paid a price for it. You are just stuck in the old war mechanics. The new mechanics allow you to avoid these costs, but to make a profit while you could just stay docked and not help in a war at all. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
140
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 09:25:00 -
[98] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Psychotic Monk wrote:Yes, you paid the broker fee and you got to make your order. How would you feel about it if you paid your broker fee and the order wasn't created? And then you paid it again and the order wasn't created? And you paid it as many times as you could and the order was created maybe one time in twenty? Nonsense. You declare war and you have your war just like I get my order onto the market. Whatever happens then is in the hands of other players. I cannot make them sell to me or buy from me. If I cancel the order will I also not get the fee back. It is the same in many places and it is called an ISK sink.
Its not only in the hands of other players. There's a certain skill to it, otherwise it wouldn't be profitable and you wouldn't be doing it as it'd be too unpredictable. Wardecs only fall under that classification as long as they last, and generally for you to drop your order, someone would have had to of likely spent money in a way that pushed you in that direction, in otherwords its still a competition, and essentially gambling. Someone disbanding an hour into a war only to reform isn't you getting the war. Hiding in a station isn't you getting the war. I don't encourage preventing people from leaving, or anything along those lines, but they sure as hell should be getting their ISK back. |

Dave Stark
1873
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 09:26:00 -
[99] - Quote
dexington wrote:It's absurd to try and compare the brokers fee to the cost of starting a war, you might as well compare the sound of blue to the smell of yellow, they are after all both colors so if should be easy to compare.
actually it makes perfect sense.
you pay a fee (wardec or broker fee) and you receive a chance to do something. (be that pvp in high sec with impunity against a select group of people, or allow your item to be purchased by other players.
the comparison works fine. "100k for notifications of stupidity, i love this bounty system." |

Whitehound
1042
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 09:28:00 -
[100] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:Its not only in the hands of other players. There's a certain skill to it, otherwise it wouldn't be profitable and you wouldn't be doing it as it'd be too unpredictable. ... And it is the same with war-decs. If you declare war on a 1-man noob corp with no war history and expect to get a fight, then frankly, do you lack skill. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
|

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
140
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 09:41:00 -
[101] - Quote
Market broker fees - similar to stock market. You pay a broker to help you buy some stock, and to make a profit you have to also take into account your broker fees. Or it could be taxes, or whatever.
War decs don't sound like anything remotely close to that. They're not comparable just because they cost money. The fact you're even trying to is frankly just as absurd as the arguments for individual war decs.
Whitehound wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:Its not only in the hands of other players. There's a certain skill to it, otherwise it wouldn't be profitable and you wouldn't be doing it as it'd be too unpredictable. ... And it is the same with war-decs. If you declare war on a 1-man noob corp with no war history and expect to get a fight, then frankly, do you lack skill.
Noooot even close. Especially if say its 1-man noob vs 1-man noob and the defender still bails out. Skill had nothing to do with the bailout. |

Skeln Thargensen
The Scope Gallente Federation
42
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 09:41:00 -
[102] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Skeln Thargensen wrote:personally, I think the cost of starting a corp should be on par with the war dec to stop that behaviour but trying to force people to fight is just a bad mechanic. if a corp has nothing to defend then there's no reason for them to fight unless they feel like it. they could corphop, dock up and log out or just go ninja ratting in null for a week to **** off the deccer, it makes no odds. No. Not when you can now enter into existing wars by offering your assistance and even ask to be paid a price for it. You are just stuck in the old war mechanics. The new mechanics allow you to avoid the war-dec cost, to enter into existing wars and to make a profit while you can just stay docked and not help in the war at all.
someone has to pay to start the war though, regardless of how other players can join it. I take back my previous statements and judgements of others. -áyou can mine in iteron if you want. |

Whitehound
1042
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 09:53:00 -
[103] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:Market broker fees - similar to stock market. You pay a broker to help you buy some stock, and to make a profit you have to also take into account your broker fees. Or it could be taxes, or whatever. War decs don't sound like anything remotely close to that. They're not comparable just because they cost money. The fact you're even trying to is frankly just as absurd as the arguments for individual war decs. Whitehound wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:Its not only in the hands of other players. There's a certain skill to it, otherwise it wouldn't be profitable and you wouldn't be doing it as it'd be too unpredictable. ... And it is the same with war-decs. If you declare war on a 1-man noob corp with no war history and expect to get a fight, then frankly, do you lack skill. Noooot even close. Especially if say its 1-man noob vs 1-man noob and the defender still bails out. Skill had nothing to do with the bailout. The war-dec is what you pay to CONCORD for looking away. It is a fee or a bribe.
Sure there is skill involved, or ask yourself what the chances are for a 1-man corp to disband and what it is for a 50-man corp to disband? There is your skill, you just do not have any. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Whitehound
1042
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 10:02:00 -
[104] - Quote
Skeln Thargensen wrote:someone has to pay to start the war though, regardless of how other players can join it. True. The higher the war-dec cost then is the fewer wars there will be. However, this does not stop those from fighting wars who actually want to fight them. So while you get less wars overall do you get more true wars where there is fighting going on (relatively speaking). War histories then tell a much better picture and it becomes easier to find good wars.
When you lower the war-dec cost will you again get more uneventful wars and the picture on whom you can fight becomes more blurred.
There is however no reason why a war-dec should cost as much as the fee for creating a corp except for the opinion of a few who fail to find a war, which is entirely their own mistake. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Rex Aparte
The Scope Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 11:47:00 -
[105] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:Rex Aparte wrote:Thinks the point of wardecs are for mining or indy or noob corps - check
Whines when said corp uses game mechanics to get out of a wardec they don't want to be in - check
Even calls it an exploit and wants game changed so corps that don't want to be at war get "trapped" for at least a week. - check
I find it so funny that people are a. proud of their "wardecs" and b. surprised when their foe doesn't want to fight, and cry about it all day long on the forums. As someone smarter than me said, go ahead and wardec the best hisec merc alliance. I guarantee you they won't try and get out of it. But then again, that won't give you the easymode free kills you're looking for. Then it would you docking up and dissolving your corp instantly. Cry. Moar.
If they are indeed botters, petition them, wardeccing them does nothing to help your cause. This guy thinks wardecs have anything to do with anything other then one corp going to war with another. You're not exempt because you're a miner.
And you're not guaranteed kills because you're a "pvper" (lol).
|

Rex Aparte
The Scope Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 11:59:00 -
[106] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:Whitehound wrote:EI Digin wrote:Suicide ganking is basically a gigantic artificial hoop that players have to jump through in order to get any sort of reaction out of someone who you don't like, for legitimate reasons or not. It's a huge undertaking if you want to start suicide ganking someone, especially if you are a player who doesn't want to live in lowsec or nullsec, a poor player, or a new player. You do get a reaction out of them when you declare war and they then surrender to you. I am coming under the impression that it is something specific you want them to do, like you want them to fail at something, because you failed at it and you now hate them for it. Perhaps you want them to hate you back. If so then know that some players will always win the "hating game", because they just never hate another player and it is only a game to them, but they will only hate the game and themselves for failing at it. You just cannot get any reaction out of anyone just because you want them to. It's not surrender when you disband your corp due to a wardec. It's exploitation of the NPC corps. If disbanding the corp to get out of war was the intended method of surrender, there wouldn't be an actual option to surrender and high sec wouldn't be the only place this happens on a regular basis. This seems to be the point some of you are neglecting, and I would guess because most of you understand this and won't admit to it because your afraid CCP would actually do something about it. Every person the leaves a player run corp should be losing something significant. If those miners actually lost something, like the ability to mine just as well as before, they wouldn't disband corps as often.
High Sec is the only place this happens. Anywhere else, people can attack people freely, there is no other need for wardecs in the game. From your posts it is obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. You guys are the ones making wardecs a joke. You people who wardec easy victims, and then whine when they get out of the wardec. You cry, cry, cry, when that two day old mining in a destroyer used game mechanics put in place by CCP (read NOT AN EXPLOIT) to outsmart you. You want to make wardecs not a joke? Stop wardeccing people that don't want to fight. Or stop crying, I'm good either way.
If every "pvper" lost 50m every time they wardecced before they used their brain, oh wait...
|

dexington
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
583
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 12:05:00 -
[107] - Quote
Rex Aparte wrote:cry, cry, cry
Do you have any idea how stupid it makes you sounds when you repeat the same word over and over?, and no add in the occasional 'whine' is not helping. I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous. |

Whitehound
1045
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 12:17:00 -
[108] - Quote
dexington wrote:Rex Aparte wrote:cry, cry, cry Do you have any idea how stupid it makes you sounds when you repeat the same word over and over?, and no add in the occasional 'whine' is not helping. Crying is a repetitive task. One hopes to make others recognize it by repeating a word such as "cry". Or I could just say it goes on and on, and on and on, and on and on, and on and on ... Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Rex Aparte
The Scope Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 12:21:00 -
[109] - Quote
Says this:
dexington wrote:Rex Aparte wrote:Who's the real carebear? The guy who uses game mechanics to his advantage, or the guy who cries on the forums about not being able to do whatever he wants, without a counter? I'll say the guy whining when ccp fixes corp jumping is the real carebear.
Then when what I'm assuming is a real pvp entity wardecs the fake pvp entity, says this:
dexington wrote:March rabbit wrote:Dante Uisen wrote:
I'm not sure we are playing the same game, eve online is supposedly taking place in a cold and harsh universe, it should be possible to wardec player run corporations.
you have wardecs. enjoy. It's nothing more then a corporation dueling option, where you are allowed to refuse the invitation.
So apparently, when people "pvp" with noobs and carebears through wardecs, there are exploits that need to be fixed. But when real pvpers want to pvp with fake pvpers it's just "an option, where you are allowed to refuse the invitation". Tell me why I should take anything you say seriously? |

dexington
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
583
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 12:30:00 -
[110] - Quote
Rex Aparte wrote:So apparently, when people "pvp" with noobs and carebears through wardecs, there are exploits that need to be fixed. But when real pvpers want to pvp with fake pvpers it's just "an option, where you are allowed to refuse the invitation". Tell me why I should take anything you say seriously?
Do you know what non-consensual pvp means?, it's kind of one of the core elements of eve. I guess you are one of players who need special treatment because eve is to hard, so please don't talk about being taken serious.
I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous. |
|

Rex Aparte
The Scope Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 12:40:00 -
[111] - Quote
dexington wrote:Rex Aparte wrote:So apparently, when people "pvp" with noobs and carebears through wardecs, there are exploits that need to be fixed. But when real pvpers want to pvp with fake pvpers it's just "an option, where you are allowed to refuse the invitation". Tell me why I should take anything you say seriously? Do you know what non-consensual pvp means?, it's kind of one of the core elements of eve. I guess you are one of players who need special treatment because eve is to hard, so please don't talk about being taken serious.
Ah, non consensual pvp. To me that means forcing pvp onto someone regardless of consequences, like ganking - which is a great element of eve. Just say what you really want, non consequential pvp. Why gank, when if I got my way I could trap all those people I would have had to gank into a never ending "war" that has no downside for me. There will always be a counter.
Eve is hard, I live in a C4 wh/C2 static, I pvp every single day, no fake ass wardec necessary, so please don't talk to me about special treatment. |

Wacktopia
Noir. Black Legion.
470
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 12:45:00 -
[112] - Quote
Dante Uisen wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:wardecs are a joke didn't ccp mention something about their vision of wardecs and hi-sec corporations, was that the war should be mutual.
Someone at CCP mentioned it as part of the CSM7 meeting minutes but then later recounted that they merely said that such as to be able to represent a non-biased input opinion and to spark thought.
I think that given it was a fairly open conversation you really cannot read too much into the statement other than it was thrown in their to spark a conversation. The bottom line is that now I have one of those annoying signatures. |

dexington
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
583
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 12:56:00 -
[113] - Quote
Rex Aparte wrote:Ah, non consensual pvp. To me that means forcing pvp onto someone regardless of consequences, like ganking - which is a great element of eve. Just say what you really want, non consequential pvp. Why gank, when if I got my way I could trap all those people I would have had to gank into a never ending "war" that has no downside for me. There will always be a counter.
Ganking will always be an option, but in hi-sec concord will defend you if attacked, that system is working pretty well.
When you decide to leave the NPC corporations and start or join a player run corporation, you abandon the wardec protection that the NPC corporations provide, this is to some degree comparable with leaving hi-sec. You don't need to pay the npc tax, you can set up pos, form and alliance etc., but it comes at the cost of being legit war target of other players.
Currently the system is not working, and it is just as broken as the old bounty system. I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous. |

Skeln Thargensen
The Scope Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 13:12:00 -
[114] - Quote
dexington wrote:[quote=Rex Aparte]When you decide to leave the NPC corporations and start or join a player run corporation, you abandon the wardec protection that the NPC corporations provide, this is to some degree comparable with leaving hi-sec. You don't need to pay the npc tax, you can set up pos, form and alliance etc., but it comes at the cost of being legit war target of other players.
Currently the system is not working, and it is just as broken as the old bounty system.
nope because your continued membership of that corp is entirely voluntary and you would want to leave if your CEO and corpmates decide to dock up for the remainder and that's not how you want to play it. player corps are opt in and NPC holding corps are always the default for everyone other than new players. I take back my previous statements and judgements of others. -áyou can mine in iteron if you want. |

Rex Aparte
The Scope Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 13:19:00 -
[115] - Quote
dexington wrote:Rex Aparte wrote:Ah, non consensual pvp. To me that means forcing pvp onto someone regardless of consequences, like ganking - which is a great element of eve. Just say what you really want, non consequential pvp. Why gank, when if I got my way I could trap all those people I would have had to gank into a never ending "war" that has no downside for me. There will always be a counter. Ganking will always be an option, but in hi-sec concord will defend you if attacked, that system is working pretty well. When you decide to leave the NPC corporations and start or join a player run corporation, you abandon the wardec protection that the NPC corporations provide, this is to some degree comparable with leaving hi-sec. You don't need to pay the npc tax, you can set up pos, form and alliance etc., but it comes at the cost of being legit war target of other players. Currently the system is not working, and it is just as broken as the old bounty system.
Ok, that was very respectable so I shall be too. In my opinion, it should not be called wardec, it should be called "bribe". I haven't seen one person in this thread that didn't at least allude that what it is, is a bribe to look the other way. So lets just cut out all the bs and call it "Bribe Concord". You want to force pvp onto someone without losing your ship, bribe Concord. The counter for this will be the same button. The corp that is under attack can also "Bribe Concord" to once again protect them. Why would this option not work? |

dexington
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
583
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 13:27:00 -
[116] - Quote
Rex Aparte wrote:dexington wrote:Rex Aparte wrote:Ah, non consensual pvp. To me that means forcing pvp onto someone regardless of consequences, like ganking - which is a great element of eve. Just say what you really want, non consequential pvp. Why gank, when if I got my way I could trap all those people I would have had to gank into a never ending "war" that has no downside for me. There will always be a counter. Ganking will always be an option, but in hi-sec concord will defend you if attacked, that system is working pretty well. When you decide to leave the NPC corporations and start or join a player run corporation, you abandon the wardec protection that the NPC corporations provide, this is to some degree comparable with leaving hi-sec. You don't need to pay the npc tax, you can set up pos, form and alliance etc., but it comes at the cost of being legit war target of other players. Currently the system is not working, and it is just as broken as the old bounty system. Ok, that was very respectable so I shall be too. In my opinion, it should not be called wardec, it should be called "bribe". I haven't seen one person in this thread that didn't at least allude that what it is, is a bribe to look the other way. So lets just cut out all the bs and call it "Bribe Concord". You want to force pvp onto someone without losing your ship, bribe Concord. The counter for this will be the same button. The corp that is under attack can also "Bribe Concord" to once again protect them. Why would this option not work?
I guess some sort of bribe system could work, it would add a lot more consequence for both parties, and could also solve the problem with griefing being to easy or people being trapped in endless wars. I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous. |

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
1023
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 13:46:00 -
[117] - Quote
Rex Aparte wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:Rex Aparte wrote:Thinks the point of wardecs are for mining or indy or noob corps - check The purpose of war decs is to let me fight anyone I want even in highsec. Be that because they're botters, or because they're part of the logistics for null sec operations, or because they insulted me, or because of any other reason at all. The point of war decs is to let you fight someone. That's it. You can be butthurt if someone targets "weak" corps, but thats up to them - it is not, as you incorrectly imply - missing the "point" of war decs. It's absolutely on point. War decs do not and should not have a requirement to be "fair fights", or mutually agreed upon, despite what some themeparking idiots (including the odd csm member or ccp dev) says. Is butthurt that the weak people he wardecs, can get out of said wardecs. - check You're missing my point entirely. Wardec whoever the hell you want. Just don't cry about it when the mining corp you wardecced surprisingly doesn't want to fight you! Wardeccing those corps is an option, but not the point. If you wardec someone who doesn't want to fight you, expect to be disappointed. Who's the real carebear? The guy who uses game mechanics to his advantage, or the guy who cries on the forums about not being able to do whatever he wants, without a counter?
Except some of the mechanics for dropping corp and evading war decs are currently just... bad. I'm not saying that if you war dec someone you must be guaranteed the GoodFites or easy kills you desire, and that there shouldn't be avenues for them to surprise you or deny you what you want, but the current mechanics are very, very crappy and not conducive to good gameplay for anyone. |

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
1023
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 13:53:00 -
[118] - Quote
GreenSeed wrote:say a player cant run from a wardec, when is the war over? is it when he cant undock anymore? and if so, hows that any different from griefing?
eve is a cold harsh place, but griefing will get you banned.
Also, to address this and what some may think from my posts - I'm not saying someone who is wardecced shouldn't be able to get out of it, there obviously has to be a way to get of it or it could devolve into griefing. I think it needs balancing is all, it's too quick and easy and there's virtually no downsides to it right now. A few little things, like allowing a period - say 24 hours - after dropping corp where you're still a valid target, making the cost of trashing a corp and recreating it something that's more significant, etc.
|

Galaxy Pig
New Order Logistics CODE.
703
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 14:12:00 -
[119] - Quote
Yup yup yup, Corp-hopping is a lame joke of a mechanic and just another inch of ground claimed by the carebear creep. |

Whitehound
1047
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 14:25:00 -
[120] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Also, to address this and what some may think from my posts - I'm not saying someone who is wardecced shouldn't be able to get out of it, there obviously has to be a way to get of it or it could devolve into griefing. I think it needs balancing is all, it's too quick and easy and there's virtually no downsides to it right now. A few little things, like allowing a period - say 24 hours - after dropping corp where you're still a valid target, making the cost of trashing a corp and recreating it something that's more significant, etc. It is pointless.
If they are sitting docked at a station while waiting for roles to drop or for some other cool-down makes no difference to the outcome when they could get out instantly. It only turns into a "kick in the back on their way out" and this is not necessary.
Somehow the obduracy displayed here by some when they insist on their little war reminds me of this and it might it be a good idea to give you a pop-up note saying "No, you cannot do this." Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
|

Whitehound
1047
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 14:29:00 -
[121] - Quote
Galaxy Pig wrote:Yup yup yup, Corp-hopping is a lame joke of a mechanic and just another inch of ground claimed by the carebear creep. James 315 does it all the time, just so you know. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
1025
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 14:35:00 -
[122] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:Also, to address this and what some may think from my posts - I'm not saying someone who is wardecced shouldn't be able to get out of it, there obviously has to be a way to get of it or it could devolve into griefing. I think it needs balancing is all, it's too quick and easy and there's virtually no downsides to it right now. A few little things, like allowing a period - say 24 hours - after dropping corp where you're still a valid target, making the cost of trashing a corp and recreating it something that's more significant, etc. It is pointless. If they are sitting docked at a station while waiting for roles to drop or for some other cool-down makes no difference to the outcome when they could get out instantly. It only turns into a "kick in the back on their way out" and this is not necessary. Somehow the obduracy displayed here by some when they insist on their little war reminds me of this and it might it be a good idea to give you a pop-up note saying "No, you cannot do this."
Even if we just go with a grace period of 24 hours - you claim that is "no different" from them being able to instantly drop corp? How on earth do you think that? It means they've got to sit docked for a full day - no missioning, mining, whatever. There's an actual downside, albeit a fairly brief, trivial one. But there is at least one, rather than none.
Being able to instantly drop corp at no cost what so ever is stupid. This isn't me acting entitled, it's simply the truth. |

LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
484
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 14:36:00 -
[123] - Quote
William Cane wrote: Because this maks them safe and sound to continue on about their merry way.
There are a lot of people that fund their accounts with PLEX. Inability to "continue about their merry way" means they can't fund their accounts, and unsub.
CCP will ensure there are mechanisms in place that allow players to "continue about their merry way" because the alternative is a significant portion of the player base being forced out of the game.
|

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
865
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 14:43:00 -
[124] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Galaxy Pig wrote:Yup yup yup, Corp-hopping is a lame joke of a mechanic and just another inch of ground claimed by the carebear creep. James 315 does it all the time, just so you know. really |

LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
484
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 14:43:00 -
[125] - Quote
dexington wrote:Rex Aparte wrote:So apparently, when people "pvp" with noobs and carebears through wardecs, there are exploits that need to be fixed. But when real pvpers want to pvp with fake pvpers it's just "an option, where you are allowed to refuse the invitation". Tell me why I should take anything you say seriously? Do you know what non-consensual pvp means?, it's kind of one of the core elements of eve. I guess you are one of players who need special treatment because eve is to hard, so please don't talk about being taken serious.
Non-consensual PVP will be limited to the point that it does not drive subscribers away from the game. Yes, you can attack anyone at anytime, assuming you are willing to lose your ships to do it. But, if it becomes so common that people stop playing because of it, then CCP will change the game mechanics to reduce it to levels below that where it is driving people out of the game.
You can war dec, and there will be a way around that too, so that your war decs do not drive players out of the game. |

HollyShocker 2inthestink
State War Academy Caldari State
168
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 14:47:00 -
[126] - Quote
Rex Aparte wrote:Thinks the point of wardecs are for mining or indy or noob corps - check
Whines when said corp uses game mechanics to get out of a wardec they don't want to be in - check
Even calls it an exploit and wants game changed so corps that don't want to be at war get "trapped" for at least a week. - check
I find it so funny that people are a. proud of their "wardecs" and b. surprised when their foe doesn't want to fight, and cry about it all day long on the forums. As someone smarter than me said, go ahead and wardec the best hisec merc alliance. I guarantee you they won't try and get out of it. But then again, that won't give you the easymode free kills you're looking for. Then it would you docking up and dissolving your corp instantly. Cry. Moar.
If they are indeed botters, petition them, wardeccing them does nothing to help your cause.
Agreed...No one that wardecs a mining or indy corp is looking for a fair or good fight. They want free kills. same reason people gank miners and freighters...they cant fight back.
A good fix might make it so every time you wardec a indy corp you also wardec the top merc corp  |

Whitehound
1047
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 14:55:00 -
[127] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Even if we just go with a grace period of 24 hours - you claim that is "no different" from them being able to instantly drop corp? How on earth do you think that? It means they've got to sit docked for a full day - no missioning, mining, whatever. There's an actual downside, albeit a fairly brief, trivial one. But there is at least one, rather than none.
Being able to instantly drop corp at no cost what so ever is stupid. This isn't me acting entitled, it's simply the truth. Sure it is you acting entitled, but I do not care about it as we all have our reasons. More important is the fact that you cannot win and therefore do you want to make this the fault of others when it is really your own fault and you first need to learn how to pick your targets.
You still have not realized that you will want to get out of a war just as fast once the fight turns and you have become the losing party. When then someone insists on fighting you will you dock up just like everybody else and you will wait the 24h just the same. You will not undock and have your opponents pop all your ships one after another.
You are then misled in your beliefs when you think you need to punish others for not fighting you, but rather do you need to get away from it and to find a target who wants to fight and who you can fight. The sooner you learn who you can and cannot fight the better for you and all of us. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

0Lona 0ltor
Red Sky Morning BricK sQuAD.
32
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 15:07:00 -
[128] - Quote
I was apperantely advocating botting in the post so CCP snipped my posts but look I'm still here. So now I'm not allowed to tell you to bot.
Botters only get banned after the 3rd warning <------ What you do with the other 2 warnings I leave to your imagination, take this how you please.
I particularly hate bots but I see the error in telling noobs not to do while 50% EVE online was built with bots/macro's. |

Rex Aparte
The Scope Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 15:10:00 -
[129] - Quote
0Lona 0ltor wrote:look I'm still here.
Not for long, I would imagine. |

Whitehound
1048
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 15:12:00 -
[130] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Whitehound wrote:Galaxy Pig wrote:Yup yup yup, Corp-hopping is a lame joke of a mechanic and just another inch of ground claimed by the carebear creep. James 315 does it all the time, just so you know. really Check his corp history. James 315 opens and closes his little corp with every war-dec it seems. It is quite amusing to see one of his followers being against it. I actually think James 315 is right in doing it, because he is not the one who ganks miners. He only developed the idea of it. It is others who do the ganking. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
|

0Lona 0ltor
Red Sky Morning BricK sQuAD.
32
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 15:15:00 -
[131] - Quote
Rex Aparte wrote:0Lona 0ltor wrote:look I'm still here. Not for long, I would imagine.
Pfff I'm not advocating botting, I'm just stating facts.
CCP and facts and figures don't go well with each other tis true. |

LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
484
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 15:22:00 -
[132] - Quote
0Lona 0ltor wrote:Rex Aparte wrote:0Lona 0ltor wrote:look I'm still here. Not for long, I would imagine. Pfff I'm not advocating botting, I'm just stating facts. CCP and facts and figures don't go well with each other tis true.
You are implying that everyone else is doing it. You assert that half of EVE was built with bots and macros. What is your evidence of this?
|

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
865
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 15:37:00 -
[133] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:Whitehound wrote:James 315 does it all the time, just so you know. really Check his corp history. James 315 opens and closes his little corp with every war-dec it seems. It is quite amusing to see one of his followers being against it. I actually think James 315 is right in doing it, because he is not the one who ganks miners. He only developed the idea of it. It is others who do the ganking. I am shocked and appalled. And shocked. This is an outrage. |

asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 15:56:00 -
[134] - Quote
Debora Tsung wrote:[quote=William Cane]found some botsquote]
Report them, have fun seeing the bot accounts getting permabanned. Take all the rocks for Yourself. Profit.
This doesn't really work...i've had a few (more like 60) flagged for up to 6 months at a time...some even stayed around long enough to get into Tengu's.
I've given up on the "report bot" tool. It simply does not work.
Even then, there is NO reward when you turn in hundreds of them b/c CCP can't figure out how they are operating...yet in a couple hours i can find dozens. So i kinda stopped caring, b/c if CCP won't give me any compensation for doing their job better, then i will no longer do their job, and just wait for opportunities to gank the insanely faction fitted bot ships.
Thats my two cents.
Back On Topic.
I hate the fact that they are 100% SAFE instantly by quiting to an NPC corp, then remaking their exact same corp as soon as the last of their characters is out of corp and it is 'closed' |

Dave Stark
1875
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 16:04:00 -
[135] - Quote
asteroidjas wrote:100% SAFE instantly by quiting to an NPC corp
simply not true, you can still shoot them. there's NOTHING stopping you shooting them, not a single thing. "100k for notifications of stupidity, i love this bounty system." |

Skeln Thargensen
The Scope Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 16:10:00 -
[136] - Quote
asteroidjas wrote:I've given up on the "report bot" tool. It simply does not work.
Even then, there is NO reward when you turn in hundreds of them b/c CCP can't figure out how they are operating...yet in a couple hours i can find dozens. So i kinda stopped caring, b/c if CCP won't give me any compensation for doing their job better, then i will no longer do their job, and just wait for opportunities to gank the insanely faction fitted bot ships.
Thats my two cents.
Back On Topic.
I hate the fact that they are 100% SAFE instantly by quiting to an NPC corp, then remaking their exact same corp as soon as the last of their characters is out of corp and it is 'closed'
are you sure they're actually botters? i don't think botters would bother with a corp. there's nothing you can't do in an NPC corp with regard to mining afaik. even randoms in the belt i'm in can offer orca boost because it applies to fleet. I take back my previous statements and judgements of others. -áyou can mine in iteron if you want. |

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
144
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 20:02:00 -
[137] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:asteroidjas wrote:100% SAFE instantly by quiting to an NPC corp simply not true, you can still shoot them. there's NOTHING stopping you shooting them, not a single thing.
Actually, technically any sort of deterrent DOES stop people. That's what a deterrent is. Now granted, it doesn't stop EVERYBODY, but to say nothing is stopping them is flat out wrong. It'd be like saying the law doesn't stop someone from stealing. Doesn't stop everyone, but stops some.
Whitehound wrote:You are then misled in your beliefs when you think you need to punish others for not fighting you, but rather do you need to get away from it and to find a target who wants to fight and who you can fight. The sooner you learn who you can and cannot fight the better for you and all of us.
Frankly there's no reason to punish the aggressor for people not fighting them either... not that you agree since apparently you think something like the stock/commodities market is the same thing, but whatever. |

Dave Stark
1876
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 20:05:00 -
[138] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote: it doesn't stop EVERYBODY.
so. they aren't 100% safe, is what you're saying. "100k for notifications of stupidity, i love this bounty system." |

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
144
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 20:07:00 -
[139] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Aren Madigan wrote: it doesn't stop EVERYBODY. so. they aren't 100% safe, is what you're saying.
Yeah, saying that much is accurate at least. |

Whitehound
1054
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 20:13:00 -
[140] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:Frankly there's no reason to punish the aggressor for people not fighting them either... not that you agree since apparently you think something like the stock/commodities market is the same thing, but whatever. No, not only do I disagree, but I will not ever agree to a logic where an aggressor considers himself punished for an instant win, but chooses to think it is a punishment. It is outright stupid. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
|

EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
558
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 20:22:00 -
[141] - Quote
Everyone who plays this game LOVES non-consensual PVP. Except when it happens to them. Then it's not fair, needs to be removed from the game, will quit if it happens, etc. |

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
144
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 20:26:00 -
[142] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:Frankly there's no reason to punish the aggressor for people not fighting them either... not that you agree since apparently you think something like the stock/commodities market is the same thing, but whatever. No, not only do I disagree, but I will not ever agree to a logic where an aggressor considers himself punished for an instant win, but chooses to think it is a punishment. It is outright stupid.
Technically the defender is the one the won as they did more ISK damage and lost nothing beyond what it cost to make a new corp. So its more an instant loss. |

EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
559
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 20:33:00 -
[143] - Quote
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:A good fix might make it so every time you wardec a indy corp you also wardec the top merc corp  Good industrial corps should have enough ISK or can provide enough services to ensure that the top merc corp(s) favour them.  |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1875
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 20:36:00 -
[144] - Quote
People should be able to drop corp to get out of war, I do agree with that.
That isn't the problem though.
It's not losing anything when you do that I have an issue with.
You should gain something worth losing when you join a player run corp; not have nothing to lose by dropping it. The only hard thing about owning a PoS is getting the standin to put one up, and then you only need one character with the standing and any of your others can own the PoS.
|

Whitehound
1054
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 20:36:00 -
[145] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:Whitehound wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:Frankly there's no reason to punish the aggressor for people not fighting them either... not that you agree since apparently you think something like the stock/commodities market is the same thing, but whatever. No, not only do I disagree, but I will not ever agree to a logic where an aggressor considers himself punished for an instant win, but chooses to think it is a punishment. It is outright stupid. Technically the defender is the one the won as they did more ISK damage and lost nothing beyond what it cost to make a new corp. So its more an instant loss. No. You are in high-sec and have to pay CONCORD to look away. This is your very own bill you need to pay if you want to fight wars in high-sec. You can always move out into low- and null-sec, but high-sec is high-sec and there is a good reason for it. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
144
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 20:44:00 -
[146] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:Whitehound wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:Frankly there's no reason to punish the aggressor for people not fighting them either... not that you agree since apparently you think something like the stock/commodities market is the same thing, but whatever. No, not only do I disagree, but I will not ever agree to a logic where an aggressor considers himself punished for an instant win, but chooses to think it is a punishment. It is outright stupid. Technically the defender is the one the won as they did more ISK damage and lost nothing beyond what it cost to make a new corp. So its more an instant loss. No. You are in high-sec and have to pay CONCORD to look away. This is your very own bill you need to pay if you want to fight wars in high-sec. You can always move out into low- and null-sec, but high-sec is high-sec and there is a good reason for it.
And nothing you said was an argument against my previous statement. "no" isn't a good enough reason. Its money lost they had zero opportunity to get back. No, your market transactions aren't similar to this. Your sell orders take this into account if you want to profit and hell, its your choice to pull out of an order in the first place. You could always just leave it with the assumption that it'd drop back to that price eventually, you just end up getting impatient. |

Whitehound
1054
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 20:45:00 -
[147] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:It's not losing anything when you do that I have an issue with. HTFU. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Whitehound
1056
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 20:55:00 -
[148] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:And nothing you said was an argument against my previous statement. I cannot help you when you are too blind to see the obvious. High-sec is the high security space where players get protection. This includes protection from players with your mindset. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
144
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 20:58:00 -
[149] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:And nothing you said was an argument against my previous statement. I cannot help you when you are too blind to see the obvious. High-sec is the high security space where players get protection. This includes protection from players with your mindset.
I believe you've missed the part where I was against expanding wardecs. But hey, whatever floats your boat. You want to resort to personal attacks, that's your problem. There's plenty of ways to provide protection without being a total **** to one side. |

Bane Veradun
Black Sun Dawning
8
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 21:06:00 -
[150] - Quote
Fight the good fight, OP.
All bots must die, gank them if you must, but make it more costly for them to bot than to not bot. While you only co-opt the darkness for your petty purposes, I was borne of the darkness.
Malcanis for CSM 8 |
|

Whitehound
1057
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 21:38:00 -
[151] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:Whitehound wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:And nothing you said was an argument against my previous statement. I cannot help you when you are too blind to see the obvious. High-sec is the high security space where players get protection. This includes protection from players with your mindset. I believe you've missed the part where I was against expanding wardecs. But hey, whatever floats your boat. You want to resort to personal attacks, that's your problem. There's plenty of ways to provide protection without being a total **** to one side. Get out of high-sec. It just is not the fault of high-sec players when they do not want to fight, but it is your own when you can always go into low- or null-sec and fight your wars there, free from all CONCORD fees, and where players want you to come and to fight. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1876
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 21:42:00 -
[152] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:It's not losing anything when you do that I have an issue with. HTFU. Buddy, the only person here who needs to "HTFU" is the guy insisting that the NPC corps are there for you to avoid a wardec, YOU.
I lose something if I drop corp, pretty much everyone not in high sec does.
You on the other hand are a member of a one man corp, in a one corp alliance.
You're in no position to tell other to HTFU.
How about you learn to ******* play.
|

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1876
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 21:43:00 -
[153] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:
Get out of high-sec. It just is not the fault of high-sec players when they do not want to fight, but it is your own when you can always go into low- or null-sec and fight your wars there, free from all CONCORD fees, and where players want you to come and to fight.
GTFO
Wardecs are not intended to be done only in low and null, where they're the least improtant. |

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
144
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 21:45:00 -
[154] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:Whitehound wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:And nothing you said was an argument against my previous statement. I cannot help you when you are too blind to see the obvious. High-sec is the high security space where players get protection. This includes protection from players with your mindset. I believe you've missed the part where I was against expanding wardecs. But hey, whatever floats your boat. You want to resort to personal attacks, that's your problem. There's plenty of ways to provide protection without being a total **** to one side. Get out of high-sec. It just is not the fault of high-sec players when they do not want to fight, but it is your own when you can always go into low- or null-sec and fight your wars there, free from all CONCORD fees, and where players want you to come and to fight.
Now you're just not listening. |

Whitehound
1057
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 22:07:00 -
[155] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:Buddy, the only person here who needs to "HTFU" is the guy insisting that the NPC corps are there for you to avoid a wardec, .... Your logic is beginning to fall apart. NPC corps have always been there to avoid war decs.
Aren Madigan wrote:Now you're just not listening. Nor paying attention to my corp in a subject where you probably should, ironically one of the few times corp would matter. I don't imagine I'm paying for any wardecs from E-UNI. Oh, I am listening, but I am also waiting for the truth to sink into your head. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
144
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 22:08:00 -
[156] - Quote
Whitehound wrote: Oh, I am listening, but I am also waiting for the truth to sink into your head.
Obviously not because you keep insisting that I want to be able to wardec anyone freely when I at no point suggested that. |

Whitehound
1057
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 22:18:00 -
[157] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:Whitehound wrote: Oh, I am listening, but I am also waiting for the truth to sink into your head.
Obviously not because you keep insisting that I want to be able to wardec anyone freely when I at no point suggested that. Am I? Or am I telling you that you are wrong in your belief of a fair war-dec?
Tell me, when was EVE ever about fairness? At best does one get a fair chance on something. However, there has never been a guarantee on fair fights, fair costs, fair losses, or on anything else.
Please, if you think I am wrong then show me where. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1877
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 22:22:00 -
[158] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:[quote=Natsett Amuinn]Buddy, the only person here who needs to "HTFU" is the guy insisting that the NPC corps are there for you to avoid a wardec, .... Your logic is beginning to fall apart. NPC corps have always been there to avoid war decs.
No ****. I agreed with you!
I even said that the problem isn't being able to drop your corp to avoid a wardec.
The problem is having nothing to lose when you drop from your corp in high sec. You're response is to HTFU. This is a fact. Not a guy who flies around in null sec, with a freighter loaded with billions in cargo, needing to HTFU.
CCP wants you to play in a player run corp, and they want you to have a reason to deal with a wardec. I shouldn't even have to point this **** out anymore, everyone is aware of the conversation they had with the CSM's by now.
Instead of being a ****** EVE player and telling people wardecs don't belong in high sec, why don't you actually offer ideas on ways they can get players into corporations and stay there when they'res a war.
The majority of all industry is done in high sec. WTF is wrong with you people that think just because we do industry, we have no need or desire for war. You take war to where your enemy lives, in the case of every industrial and especially high sec indy corps, that's high sec.
The hell do I want to wardec a PvP or mission running corp for if I'm an industrial. It's the other industrialists that are my enemy, they're the ones who take profit from me.
Shame on you.
Quit trying to make my playstyle worse! Not every industrialist is a coward, afraid to get blown up, or god forbid actually shoot someone out of need.
This is EVE goddamn it. We resolve disputes by blowing people up, or reducing their ability to operate. War allows me to do that, but not if they can drop to the NPC corp and continue to function as well.
Industrialists are not exempt. There just need to be a reason. There currently isn't one. |

Whitehound
1057
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 22:32:00 -
[159] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:There just need to be a reason. There was no reason necessary for you before when war-decs only cost 2m ISKs. Now at 50m ISK do you need a reason?! I will give you a reason: because one can. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
144
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 22:39:00 -
[160] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:Whitehound wrote: Oh, I am listening, but I am also waiting for the truth to sink into your head.
Obviously not because you keep insisting that I want to be able to wardec anyone freely when I at no point suggested that. Am I? Or am I telling you that you are wrong in your belief of a fair war-dec? Tell me, when was EVE ever about fairness? At best does one get a fair chance on something. However, there has never been a guarantee on fair fights, fair costs, fair losses, or on anything else. Please, if you think I am wrong then show me where.
If you stop looking at fairness to some degree, it throws out any argument out the window. You could literally argue almost anything if you don't take that into consideration. You throw out all arguments for balancing. You throw out all arguments for even giving safety as that's based on fairness to a certain extent. Fairness isn't about everything always being good and dandy. Its about being reasonable. Nothing I suggested affects the safety of those who want to wardec avoid. They want to leave, let them, but for wardecs to work to their full intended extent, there needs to be both a reason NOT to leave, and also not to punish the aggressors just because someone chickens out. It isn't a win when someone "surrenders", causing you 50 million in wardec ISK damage to their, whatever the cost to form a corp is that I know is under that. And yes, I can be sure that they intend more with them than what is currently in place, just a read on them in the CSM minutes says that. |
|

Whitehound
1057
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 22:44:00 -
[161] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:If you stop looking at fairness to some degree, it throws out any argument out the window. Wrong. The more likely answer is that there have to be other reasons, only fairness is not one of them. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
144
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 22:49:00 -
[162] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:If you stop looking at fairness to some degree, it throws out any argument out the window. Wrong. The more likely answer is that there have to be other reasons, only fairness is not one of them.
When you're talking about balance for example, fairness is pretty much the only reason for it. Balance happens because its unfair to pilots of other ships, or other classes if you go in reference to other games. Anyone could fly the unbalanced ships, but it forces you into a play style, which violates a sense of fairness. You can't ignore it when making a game if you want it to be any good. Otherwise you could use the excuse that "oh, its just superior technology." which would be the real world explanation for such a thing. |

Lin Suizei
105
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 23:01:00 -
[163] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:Buddy, the only person here who needs to "HTFU" is the guy insisting that the NPC corps are there for you to avoid a wardec, YOU.
I lose something if I drop corp, pretty much everyone not in high sec does.
You on the other hand are a member of a one man corp, in a one corp alliance.
You're in no position to tell other to HTFU.
How about you learn to ******* play.
Don't let it get to you man. He's found a broken game mechanic (highsec) and exploits it to enrich himself, as is the way of New Eden - from cloaky/stabbed faction war to convo spam gatecamps to gsc smartbomb shield. In a game of "he who abuses broken mechanics first and hardest wins", that just makes him a good player.
Well played, Whitehound - thanks for pointing out yet another reason for supporting James 315 for CSM. Xeros S*** > are you really suprised? im not here to pvp so why the fuc not Xeros S**** > oh go cry somewhere else, im not in fw for the ****** pvp
Welcome to faction war. |

Whitehound
1058
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 23:02:00 -
[164] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:When you're talking about balance for example, fairness is pretty much the only reason for it. Balance happens because its unfair to pilots of other ships, or other classes if you go in reference to other games. Anyone could fly the unbalanced ships, but it forces you into a play style, which violates a sense of fairness. You can't ignore it when making a game if you want it to be any good. Otherwise you could use the excuse that "oh, its just superior technology." which would be the real world explanation for such a thing. No. Ship balance is not about fairness, because we already have all different skill sets and we can fly different ships.
Ship balance is about the number of ships used in the game and the exact ruling by CCP when they consider a ship as imbalanced is entirely their decision.
How do you even get the idea that there is fairness involved in this? It is about CCP running a business and they are trying to keep it as rich in variety as possible so we can play with it as much and as long as possible without getting bored and thus keep paying them for it and in the end put food on their tables. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Whitehound
1058
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 23:04:00 -
[165] - Quote
Lin Suizei wrote:Don't let it get to you man. He's found a broken game mechanic (highsec) and exploits it to enrich himself, as is the way of New Eden - from cloaky/stabbed faction war to convo spam gatecamps to gsc smartbomb shield. In a game of "he who abuses broken mechanics first and hardest wins", that just makes him a good player.
Well played, Whitehound - thanks for pointing out yet another reason for supporting James 315 for CSM. In case you have not read it, James 315 uses it himself. Check his corp history. You will love supporting him!  Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
144
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 23:06:00 -
[166] - Quote
Whitehound wrote: No. Ship balance is not about fairness, because we already have all different skill sets and we can fly different ships.
Ship balance is about the number of ships used in the game and the exact ruling by CCP when they consider a ship as imbalanced is entirely their decision.
How do you even get the idea that there is fairness involved in this? It is about CCP running a business and they are trying to keep it as rich in variety as possible so we can play with it as much and as long as possible without getting bored and thus keep paying them for it and in the end put food on their tables.
Better question is where did you get the idea that its about how many of a ship is being used and not about why the ship is being used so much? |

Whitehound
1058
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 23:12:00 -
[167] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:Better question is where did you get the idea that its about how many of a ship is being used and not about why the ship is being used so much? Firstly, because CCP has always made it about the numbers and secondly, because the ships have different roles.
Say, do you expect a fight between a logistic cruiser and a combat/attack cruiser to be fair? Is a fight between an assault frigate and an interceptor fair? ... Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Lin Suizei
105
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 23:14:00 -
[168] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Lin Suizei wrote:Don't let it get to you man. He's found a broken game mechanic (highsec) and exploits it to enrich himself, as is the way of New Eden - from cloaky/stabbed faction war to convo spam gatecamps to gsc smartbomb shield. In a game of "he who abuses broken mechanics first and hardest wins", that just makes him a good player.
Well played, Whitehound - thanks for pointing out yet another reason for supporting James 315 for CSM. In case you have not read it, James 315 uses it himself. Check his corp history. You will love supporting him! 
Have you ever considered that this is, perhaps, for comedic value, and to point out the irony of an utterly broken and pointless mechanic? Xeros S*** > are you really suprised? im not here to pvp so why the fuc not Xeros S**** > oh go cry somewhere else, im not in fw for the ****** pvp
Welcome to faction war. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2916
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 23:21:00 -
[169] - Quote
Skeln Thargensen wrote:RubyPorto wrote:With the new Wardec Pricing model, CCP has explicitly stated that wardecs are about buying targets. explicit or implicit? but of an odd use of language there. it's still the corp that you're paying to declare war upon, not the players. just because you pay extra because it's a larger corp with more members doesn't mean those members are going to stick around or that you have any rights on them, which you don't.
Explicit. "The increased cost reflects the easier access to multiple targets" http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=42269
I didn't say you did. I am saying you should. Or at least that there should be some significant downside to having everyone drop corp and reform into a new, not-wardecced corp with the exact same name and ticker. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
144
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 23:23:00 -
[170] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:Better question is where did you get the idea that its about how many of a ship is being used and not about why the ship is being used so much? Firstly, because CCP has always made it about the numbers and secondly, because the ships have different roles. Say, do you expect a fight between a logistic cruiser and a combat/attack cruiser to be fair? Is a fight between an assault frigate and an interceptor fair? ...
You're looking at it from the wrong standpoint. There's two standpoints to look at it from... first off, if one logistics ship is by far completely above what all other logistics ships are capable of, performing so well that people call you an idiot if you use any other ship. Then there's the other standpoint. Which is a little tougher to explain. I suppose best I can think of if say spider tanking was so amazing that there was literally no other viable tactic from group fights. That's what balance is, it goes beyond being merely because a lot of people fly a certain ship. I mean, hell, in a well balanced game people could be flying it just because it looks the best appearence-wise. I highly doubt they would nerf a ship just because of that. |
|

Whitehound
1058
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 23:34:00 -
[171] - Quote
Lin Suizei wrote:Have you ever considered that this is, perhaps, for comedic value, and to point out the irony of an utterly broken and pointless mechanic? Not really. He preaches ganking, too, but does he take part in it? No. So why there? Seems he is rather a practical man, who has found a way to let others do his bidding and also knows his way around mechanics. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Whitehound
1058
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 23:38:00 -
[172] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:You're looking at it from the wrong standpoint. No. You have the wrong standpoint. I only used it to show you that there is no fairness in balancing. QED. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
144
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 23:59:00 -
[173] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:You're looking at it from the wrong standpoint. No. You have the wrong standpoint. I only used it to show you that there is no fairness in balancing. QED. And you'd be full of it because I'm looking at it from the standpoint actually used. Popularity of a ship has nothing to do with why balance changes are made. Its the reason why the ship is popular that gets looked at. |

LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
489
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 23:59:00 -
[174] - Quote
back to the OP.
CCP is going to make sure that players are not driven or forced out of the game.
There WILL ALWAYS be a way for carebears to avoid war, to make ISK, to buy PLEX, to fund their accounts. Without such a mechanism, players that can't afford to pay a subscription will be unable to play. CCP will not allow that.
Cry all you want about how easy it is to avoid war decs, but CCP is never going to change that. PURELY a "working as intended" situation.
|

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1880
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 00:06:00 -
[175] - Quote
No they won't change that.
They'll make it more worthwhile to be in a player corp. |

LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
490
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 00:19:00 -
[176] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:No they won't change that.
They'll make it more worthwhile to be in a player corp.
There is no way to make "unwilling to undock because you are in a player corp that is war dec'ed" more appealing than "can pretty much do whatever I want, because I avoided war by dropping to NPC corp and ganking me is a huge money loser to griefers".
|

Whitehound
1058
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 00:20:00 -
[177] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:And you'd be full of it because I'm looking at it from the standpoint actually used. Popularity of a ship has nothing to do with why balance changes are made. Its the reason why the ship is popular that gets looked at. When popularity is the reason for a change, then it is the reason for the imbalance, too.
Take the Hulk and the Hurricane for example. The Hulk was the most popular mining ship. CCP then actually left the Hulk mostly unchanged and only adjusted the other mining ships. Now with the Hurricane is it rather the opposite and it gets nerfed pretty good. The only constant here is the popularity.
Going back to your belief of fairness, what about the following scenario:
An assault frigate attacks an interceptor and fires shots at it. The interceptor then flies away, because it can. Should the interceptor pilot now pay the ammo of the assault frigate pilot? Afterall, you want the fight to be fair and the interceptor pilot bailed out while the assault frigate pilot has lost ammo in this. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
144
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 00:51:00 -
[178] - Quote
Ignoring the whole reason the Hulk and Hurricanes were popular in the first place. I'm not going to argue with someone using non sequitur. The Hulk was popular because it was by far the best mining ship, hands down, no question, it was the best. The others were brought up to par because they felt the Hulk was where they wanted mining ships in terms of overall ability. Hurricane was fairly similar. These are things CCP has in fact openly stated. And in fact has openly stated that there are balance issues in other ship types and tiers that they intend to address. In no part of their statements do they say "this ship is too popular, so we gotta change it." I mean, dear god.. REALLY? That's really how you think balancing works? I've never seen a more out of touch statement. Also your example has nothing to do with my belief of fairness, so doesn't require answering. I already stated my viewpoint about differing roles and how they apply to fairness. |

Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
3187
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 00:57:00 -
[179] - Quote
Why does OP think the term 'cold and harsh universe' should only apply to the industrial corps he war decs and not himself?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |

Lin Suizei
107
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 01:09:00 -
[180] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:An assault frigate attacks an interceptor and fires shots at it. The interceptor then flies away, because it can. Should the interceptor pilot now pay the ammo of the assault frigate pilot? Afterall, you want the fight to be fair and the interceptor pilot bailed out while the assault frigate pilot has lost ammo in this.
Let's modify that scenario a little, to bring it more in line with reality - the assault frigate pilot has identified a mission bot in Caldari highsec, and would like to kill it to take it's faction mods. After sending in a report via the "report bot" function, the assault frigate pilot pays a CONCORD fee of 50M to declare war on the mission botting corporation, and waits the required 24 hours.
The mission bot's botting software identifies the wardec, and notifies the bot owner, who logs on and immediately drops and reforms corp, evading the war completely.
Should the mission bot owner be required to compensate the assault frigate pilot? No, the mission bot owner identified a clearly broken mechanic and exploited it to enrich himself. In this case, the assault frigate pilot made a poor choice attempting to declare war, and should have upshipped to a neut ship and attempted to suicide neut the CNR's active tank while it was under attack by NPC's, with a neutral bumping ship to prevent it from aligning out, a logistics ship to keep the bumping ship alive and a podder to kill the pod.
Should the war mechanic be looked at, and revamped? Yes. Xeros S*** > are you really suprised? im not here to pvp so why the fuc not Xeros S**** > oh go cry somewhere else, im not in fw for the ****** pvp
Welcome to faction war. |
|

Whitehound
1058
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 01:24:00 -
[181] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:Ignoring the whole reason the Hulk and Hurricanes were popular in the first place. I'm not going to argue with someone using non sequitur. The Hulk was popular because it was by far the best mining ship, hands down, no question, it was the best. The others were brought up to par because they felt the Hulk was where they wanted mining ships in terms of overall ability. Hurricane was fairly similar. These are things CCP has in fact openly stated. And in fact has openly stated that there are balance issues in other ship types and tiers that they intend to address. In no part of their statements do they say "this ship is too popular, so we gotta change it." I mean, dear god.. REALLY? That's really how you think balancing works? I've never seen a more out of touch statement. Also your example has nothing to do with my belief of fairness, so doesn't require answering. I already stated my viewpoint about differing roles and how they apply to fairness. Please, do go read the devblog by CCP Fozzie. He writes:
CCP Fozzie wrote:...Finally we were thankfully able to resolve some of the outstanding balance issues with the two most problematic Battlecruisers (Drake and Hurricane)... And he further shows a picture of their popularity.
Why do you think he does this? Is it pure coincidence when he says that there are "outstanding balance issues" and then shows a graph of their popularity where these two ships stand out? Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Whitehound
1058
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 01:29:00 -
[182] - Quote
Lin Suizei wrote:Let's modify that scenario a little, ... No, I was not asking you. It was meant for Aren Madigan, who has got a strong belief in fairness. I do not think you posses such a belief. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
990
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 02:26:00 -
[183] - Quote
Debora Tsung wrote:[quote=William Cane]found some botsquote]
Report them, have fun seeing the bot accounts for the rest of your eve life. .
Fixed that for ya!
HTFU!...for the children! |

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
869
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 02:27:00 -
[184] - Quote
Lin Suizei wrote:Whitehound wrote:In case you have not read it, James 315 uses it himself. Check his corp history. You will love supporting him!  Have you ever considered that this is, perhaps, for comedic value, and to point out the irony of an utterly broken and pointless mechanic? ssh don't tell him that |

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
144
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 02:32:00 -
[185] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:Ignoring the whole reason the Hulk and Hurricanes were popular in the first place. I'm not going to argue with someone using non sequitur. The Hulk was popular because it was by far the best mining ship, hands down, no question, it was the best. The others were brought up to par because they felt the Hulk was where they wanted mining ships in terms of overall ability. Hurricane was fairly similar. These are things CCP has in fact openly stated. And in fact has openly stated that there are balance issues in other ship types and tiers that they intend to address. In no part of their statements do they say "this ship is too popular, so we gotta change it." I mean, dear god.. REALLY? That's really how you think balancing works? I've never seen a more out of touch statement. Also your example has nothing to do with my belief of fairness, so doesn't require answering. I already stated my viewpoint about differing roles and how they apply to fairness. Please, do go read the devblog by CCP Fozzie. He writes: CCP Fozzie wrote:...Finally we were thankfully able to resolve some of the outstanding balance issues with the two most problematic Battlecruisers (Drake and Hurricane)... And he further shows a picture of their popularity. Why do you think he does this? Is it pure coincidence when he says that there are "outstanding balance issues" and then shows a graph of their popularity where these two ships stand out?
Because generally its a sign that they're the more powerful ships of their class because if you read the REST of his post, he goes on to explain WHY things are in that state in some of the specifics of the battlecruisers. You're trying to take one piece of the puzzle out of context. That massive difference was a SIGN of the problem, not THE problem. You've got your cause and effect backwards. |

Whitehound
1058
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 02:42:00 -
[186] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Lin Suizei wrote:Whitehound wrote:In case you have not read it, James 315 uses it himself. Check his corp history. You will love supporting him!  Have you ever considered that this is, perhaps, for comedic value, and to point out the irony of an utterly broken and pointless mechanic? ssh don't tell him that The media makes stuff up every day to keep the masses entertained. It is a huge money making business.
Would you really be shocked when you found out that a certain blogger does the same? Not the he gets rich of it, oh, wait...duh!  Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Whitehound
1058
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 03:23:00 -
[187] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:Because generally its a sign ... You mean it is the evidence of the problem and without it would you not have a problem. Welcome to my world!
In EVE is almost everything designed to be unfair and gives an advantage or a disadvantage of some kind. It lies at the heart of the game. Nothing is quite the same. Ships fly faster than others, they tank better or deal more damage. Older players have more skill points than younger players. Some have more friends than others. The market knows no refunds. Fights are easier found in null-sec than in high-sec. W-space knows no local... The list is almost endless. This is why EVE is a cold and harsh place!
Fairness itself is not a universal constant and everyone perceives it differently. We as players then take it as a challenge to make the best of it and to create our own "fair world" within the sandbox, but is is only a world fair for ourself.
Only if we flew all the same ship, with the same weapon and everyone having the same skills would EVE be fair for all. You could not find a single difference to call it unfair. As long as this is not the case will you have a hard time finding fairness in EVE. EVE just is not a warm and fair place as you might imagine it.
Popularity is then the only measure for finding balance issues. If this is the number of ships in the game, or perhaps the number of threads on a topic, makes little difference to the fact that it is still about popularity. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
144
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 03:36:00 -
[188] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:Because generally its a sign ... You mean it is the evidence of the problem and without it would you not have a problem. Not how it works at all.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2918
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 03:44:00 -
[189] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:Whitehound wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:Because generally its a sign ... You mean it is the evidence of the problem and without it would you not have a problem. Not how it works at all. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
He means that if you, as a game designer, think that something is overpowered, but none of the players are using it, there's probably some good reason that they're not using it that you haven't thought of, and that lack of use is actually evidence of it not being overpowered.
The aggregate of the players is usually smarter at finding the best uses for things than the game developers. (Canonical example, Jetcan mining.) This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
144
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 03:59:00 -
[190] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:Whitehound wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:Because generally its a sign ... You mean it is the evidence of the problem and without it would you not have a problem. Not how it works at all. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. He means that if you, as a game designer, think that something is overpowered, but none of the players are using it, there's probably some good reason that they're not using it that you haven't thought of, and that lack of use is actually evidence of it not being overpowered. The aggregate of the players is usually smarter at finding the best uses for things than the game developers. (Canonical example, Jetcan mining.)
Not necessarily. Sometimes there are limitations that reduce the number of players heading in that direction, sometimes its potential just hasn't been discovered yet. Now usually, yes, something being overpowered does trigger people heading in the direction of that particular thing, but its not something you take into itself. You look at WHY its happening though, but sometimes you can figure out a problem before it causes any substantial effect. Point is, he's treating the population shift as the cause for nerfs, not the effect that drew attention to the real cause. For example. In Warhammer Online, the brief time I played it, I chose a Chaos Chosen. It wasn't one of the most popular classes. In fact, far from it. However it had an ability that was so powerful, so ridiculous, despite not seeming as such at a glance, that when people started discovering it, it was rapidly changed before there was any significant population shift. Now obviously EVE is a different game, but that's ultimately the principle any balance changes are going to be based on. The shift is just a result of players discovering it long before you did and not changing it before it happens. |
|

Whitehound
1059
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 04:12:00 -
[191] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:Not how it works at all. You called it is a sign. I call it evidence. Is your sign suddenly gone or why are you giving me nonsense? Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Whitehound
1059
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 04:20:00 -
[192] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:...It wasn't one of the most popular classes. In fact, far from it. However it had an ability that was so powerful, so ridiculous, despite not seeming as such at a glance, that when people started discovering it, it was rapidly changed before there was any significant population shift... So you admit it is all about popularity and they changed it preemptively, believing it would have thrown the class out of balance. Damn, you needed a long time to get it, Aren!
Now that you can admit to this, how about you answer my question regarding the assault frigate and the interceptor? Should the interceptor pilot refund the ammo? Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
144
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 04:23:00 -
[193] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:Not how it works at all. You called it is a sign. I call it evidence. Is your sign suddenly gone or why are you giving me nonsense?
Its not absolute evidence though. For example. Say a corp of 1000 joined and all on a whim decided, "hey, we're going to be a Gallente only corporation" and they start off ONLY flying Gallente ships. That's a population shift that wouldn't be able to applied to such statistics. Its not an unrealistic one either. Well, maybe not so much now, but still. There are lots of potential causes to population shifts. You're trying to use it as the sole factor to look at. You don't only look at one thing like that if you're using any kind of logical thinking. |

Whitehound
1059
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 05:00:00 -
[194] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:Its not absolute evidence though. For example. Say a corp of 1000 joined and all on a whim decided, "hey, we're going to be a Gallente only corporation" and they start off ONLY flying Gallente ships. That's a population shift that wouldn't be able to applied to such statistics. Its not an unrealistic one either. Well, maybe not so much now, but still. There are lots of potential causes to population shifts. You're trying to use it as the sole factor to look at. You don't only look at one thing like that if you're using any kind of logical thinking. More nonsense. I already told you that it can be the popularity of a ship you are looking at or the popularity of a topic on the forums, and it can be the most popular production or the most popular prey, etc..
Your example here is then only bad. When a 1000 players do decide to fly Gallente then this is an imbalance. You can still argue it is not, but you would have 1000 voices against yours, voices of customers who pay for 1000 accounts. Who are you to tell any of them or CCP that this would not be an imbalance? Seriously, you need to get away from such examples. You think too much of your own opinion. CCP also not only balances the ships, but they also balance the races and other aspects of the game. And there are corporations, which fly a lot of Gallente ships - the militia corps. So you do get such events. Statistics is then as good as any science to deliver evidence, meaning, you can prepare for such cases and get useful data from it, which you can use in tuning the game. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
144
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 05:06:00 -
[195] - Quote
It used to be popular to believe the world was flat. They were wrong. |

Whitehound
1060
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 05:07:00 -
[196] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:What... in the holy ****... ok... you're just trolling, blocked. Hey, this is unfair!! I paid CONCORD. You should not be able to block me. Bla bla bla.
Amidoinitrite? Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Whitehound
1060
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 05:17:00 -
[197] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:It used to be popular to believe the world was flat. They were wrong. They could not accept the idea of the Earth being a ball, just like you cannot accept popularity as a measure. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2918
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 05:58:00 -
[198] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:It used to be popular to believe the world was flat. They were wrong.
Sure. It might have been popular ~2300 years ago. If we limit ourselves to only non-seafaring nations.
The Greeks conclusively proved the roundness of the world around the third century BC, and were able to calculate its radius fairly accurately shortly afterwards. (Once you invent Trig, it's pretty easy to do).
The whole "Colombus proved the world was round" is bunk. The problem people had with Colombus' plan was that he thought the world was a heck of a lot smaller than everyone knew it was (everyone else was correct).
Besides which, a Cartesian Skeptic would argue that we still do not know that the world is Round, so nothing is absolute evidence.
Regardless, popularity is one of the major metrics that CCP uses to detect imbalances, and rightly so, because nobody can perfectly weight every combination of incomparable stats, so the best you can do is find empirical evidence (i.e. usage statistics). This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
144
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 06:31:00 -
[199] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Regardless, popularity is one of the major metrics that CCP uses to detect imbalances, and rightly so, because nobody can perfectly weight every combination of incomparable stats, so the best you can do is find empirical evidence (i.e. usage statistics).
And yet Fozzie was able to pinpoint some of the reasons. Players are able to pinpoint why these things are better than others. The balance isn't off because the popularity. They become popular because the balance is off. Popularity is an effect, not a cause. Something can very easily become popular without being overpowered. For example. Almost every game with racial choices, the majority are human, regardless of any racial abilities, including ones where the racial clearly isn't the most powerful. From WoW to Star Trek Online, to even the D&D tabletop. Popularity is a hint at best. So what gets measured? Well, if you actually read Fozzie's blog that Whitehound posted, beyond just population levels, he tells you. He tells you why certain ships were the most popular. He tells you why the least popular Battlecruiser was unpopular. At no point did he say "we're changing this because of the population." In fact, lets quote what he said about the Prophecy...
Quote: It is no coincidence that the Prophecy is the least used Battlecruiser in the current meta. The combination of anemic damage and slow speed left the ship relegated to the role of obvious bait with the occasional creative fit that relied on the element of surprise rather than competitive performance.
The Prophecy was in dire need of a completely new role, and it has now found that role as the next step in the Amarr EmpireGÇÖs expanding drone carrier program. The energy weapon capacitor bonus is being replaced with a 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints per level, and the drone bandwidth is being increased to 75mbit (equal to the current Myrm) with a giant 225m3 bay to hold a wide variety of drones in the tradition of Amarrian drone doctrine.
The Prophecy is also seeing two highslots removed to make room for an extra midslot and lowslot, and the addition of missile launcher hardpoints alongside the turrets to give plenty of fitting options for the creative pilot.
Notice the fact it was least used was only mentioned passingly. The real meat and damnation of what the issues were laid with its **** poor damage and speed. It was a bait ship. An easy target. Not competitive. They barely looked at its lack of popularity. They looked at how it was being used, how it fared against other people. Still things that can be described in statistics, but more telling of the tale of why things turned out that way rather than saying "Well.. this ship isn't being used enough. Lets buff it." No, it was "why isn't this ship being used" and they went looking for the answers. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2918
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 06:44:00 -
[200] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Regardless, popularity is one of the major metrics that CCP uses to detect imbalances, and rightly so, because nobody can perfectly weight every combination of incomparable stats, so the best you can do is find empirical evidence (i.e. usage statistics). And yet Fozzie was able to pinpoint some of the reasons. Players are able to pinpoint why these things are better than others. The balance isn't off because the popularity. They become popular because the balance is off.
I'm not saying otherwise. Popularity is how you detect imbalances. Figuring out why they're popular is the first step in Fixing the problem.
Popularity is the primary evidence that you have a problem. And a theoretical problem that has no evidence suggesting a problem in practice is evidence that your theory is wrong (look at all the EFT warrior fits that crash and burn in actual testing). This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
|

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
144
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 06:55:00 -
[201] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Regardless, popularity is one of the major metrics that CCP uses to detect imbalances, and rightly so, because nobody can perfectly weight every combination of incomparable stats, so the best you can do is find empirical evidence (i.e. usage statistics). And yet Fozzie was able to pinpoint some of the reasons. Players are able to pinpoint why these things are better than others. The balance isn't off because the popularity. They become popular because the balance is off. I'm not saying otherwise. Popularity is how you detect imbalances. Figuring out why they're popular is the first step in Fixing the problem. Popularity is the primary evidence that you have a problem. And a theoretical problem that has no evidence suggesting a problem in practice is evidence that your theory is wrong (look at all the EFT warrior fits that crash and burn in actual testing).
Its not really foolproof evidence though is the thing. There are a lot of potential causes for something to become popular... hell, if you start using popularity as evidence of things, you could use it to say Twilight was good *shivers* and we don't want that. There are also times where something could be widely thought of as underpowered and thus underplayed, but in the hands of someone who is able to get past what people find to make it underpowered, they find it to be one of the most powerful things in the game. I can think of a few times that's happened. Meepo in DOTA 2 being one (who I suck royally with to be perfectly honest), so you also have to look at is it maybe just difficult to play, and if something being difficult to play is an imbalance when the players who do well with it pretty much outperform everyone else. Granted, some people would consider something being harder to play a balance issue in itself, but that's up to debate and its just one example. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2918
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 07:04:00 -
[202] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:Its not really foolproof evidence though is the thing.
So your problem is reading comprehension, then? Find where I said it was "foolproof evidence."
Twilight was good at appealing to its target audience, which is exactly what any successful book does. You're likely not a part of that target audience, so who cares if you hate it? If you want a "why," the Oatmeal has a pretty good comic explaining it. But basically it's popular because it's a very well done Romance Novel (you know, the Fabio on the cover type books).
Analogy: Twilight is an Arty Nado. A Teenage girl is a Rifter sitting still at 50km. You're a Wolf orbiting it at 500m. It's going to get the teenage girl, but you're going to laugh at it.
Find an example of a "widely considered to be underpowered, but actually overpowered" ship in EVE. This is a different thing from being able to win against a better ship through superior skill, btw. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |

Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
144
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 07:19:00 -
[203] - Quote
Couldn't really tell you if there's an EVE example, haven't seen enough, but the point still stands. Anyways, you may not have said its full proof evidence, but this whole conversation started because someone else did, which ultimately was the whole issue of why this is even a thing. |

Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
1043
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 07:36:00 -
[204] - Quote
Kid: "Dadee, someone blew up my ships!" CCP Nespot: "Don't worry, hunny bunny, I'll fix it."
/yes that was sarcasm
/yes that was a disclaimer
/yes the disclaimer was also sarcasm
EvE Forum Bingo |

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
1026
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 08:34:00 -
[205] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:Frankly there's no reason to punish the aggressor for people not fighting them either... not that you agree since apparently you think something like the stock/commodities market is the same thing, but whatever. No, not only do I disagree, but I will not ever agree to a logic where an aggressor considers himself punished for an instant win, but chooses to think it is a punishment. It is outright stupid.
Except the corp instantly dropping and reforming isn't a "win" for the aggressor. There are no goals I can think of that an aggressor may have in which that would be considered a "win". If they want gudfites? Not a win, as the other people skirted out of the war immediately. They want easy prey? Not a win. They want to disrupt a corporations activities for some reason (null logistics, general competition, grudges, etc)? Not a win, because you can't accomplish that if they can instantly drop and reform corp.
etc.
This is my entire bloody point, the ability to so quickly and easily drop and reform corps under a war means that goals of war deccing, the point of the system existing, can be completely undermined. |

Whitehound
1061
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:14:00 -
[206] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Except the corp instantly dropping and reforming isn't a "win" for the aggressor. There are no goals I can think of that an aggressor may have in which that would be considered a "win". If they want gudfites? Not a win, as the other people skirted out of the war immediately. They want easy prey? Not a win. They want to disrupt a corporations activities for some reason (null logistics, general competition, grudges, etc)? Not a win, because you can't accomplish that if they can instantly drop and reform corp.
etc.
This is my entire bloody point, the ability to so quickly and easily drop and reform corps under a war means that goals of war deccing, the point of the system existing, can be completely undermined. You will not achieve any of your goals either by the corp not disbanding, but only staying docked and waiting for the war to run out. Fact remains the corp disappears and therefore is it a surrender. If you wanted a surrender or not is irrelevant. You simply got a surrender. Period.
The corp then always needs to pay the fee for creating a corp each time they reopen it. Just like everybody else no matter if it is a new corp or an old corp reopening. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Whitehound
1061
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:24:00 -
[207] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:Couldn't really tell you if there's an EVE example, haven't seen enough, but the point still stands. Anyways, you may not have said its full proof evidence, but this whole conversation started because someone else did, which ultimately was the whole issue of why this is even a thing. Neither did I say it was fool-proof. You only think of it as fool-proof. You even now go as far as insisting on your view being the only right one while you are waiting for evidence to prove you right when you "Couldn't really tell" yet claim "the point still stands". This sounds like 300b ISKs all over again.
I have to ask, is this all part of role playing a university-inside-a-game? Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
419
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 11:49:00 -
[208] - Quote
GreenSeed wrote:1- check the warp ins, once you find the warp in, stand on it and sort belts type and distance to see what he will mine next
2- exhaust one of the next roids to the point one cycle is left in it.
3- watch the bot mine it in one cycle, but start mining it also.
4- stop your mining lasers slightly early. Mittani, where have you gone to? I miss you :( |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1882
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 12:02:00 -
[209] - Quote
Whitehound appears to be a member of a small group of people who think that the only pvp in high sec should be ganking.
Instead of people going to war with each other and having reasons to fight, he'd rather the only people who do pvp in high sec be gankers as apposed to people who have legitemate reason to go to war, like industrialists. |

Whitehound
1063
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 12:22:00 -
[210] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:Whitehound appears to be a member of a small group of people who think that the only pvp in high sec should be ganking.
Instead of people going to war with each other and having reasons to fight, he'd rather the only people who do pvp in high sec be gankers as apposed to people who have legitemate reason to go to war, like industrialists. As if one could not fight wars in high-sec any more. Cry more. Cry until you can cry no more. Please, start now and never stop. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
|

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1882
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 12:37:00 -
[211] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:Whitehound appears to be a member of a small group of people who think that the only pvp in high sec should be ganking.
Instead of people going to war with each other and having reasons to fight, he'd rather the only people who do pvp in high sec be gankers as apposed to people who have legitemate reason to go to war, like industrialists. As if one could not fight wars in high-sec any more. Cry more. Cry until you can cry no more. Please, start now and never stop. The extreme arguements have no merit.
Everyone is aware that the dropping corp when there's a wardec is a real thing that is practices more then just occasionally. It's become the standard method of operating in high sec.
Few people are saying you shouldn't be able to drop to the NPC corp, I'm not even one of them.
As an industrialist you have no real point in joining a player run corp, anywhere for the most part. PoS's aren't needed for the vast majority of industrialist in EVE, and that's only thing you can get as an industrialist; even then it's not something you need to join a corp for, it's something you start a one man corp to run.
Wars are largely meaningless in high sec, and CCP doesn't intend them to be. This is a fact everyone is aware of after the last CSM minutes were released and everyone read the pages worth of conversation about how they could improve high sec wardecs.
You seem to be the only person who thinks that everything is ok as it is, and keeps saying that it shold stay as is.
Telling people that you shouldn't be doing warfare in high sec is just irresponsible. High sec isn't exempt, neither are industrialist, and industrialists are the ones that should be benefiting most from wars in high sec.
The problem isn't "the guy looking for targets" vs the industrial corp. The problem is one industrial corporations ability to use a wardec in the place where the bulk of all industry occurs, to limit the ability of another industrial corporation to outperform them.
I personally do not give a **** about giving the guys in high sec who want easier targets, access to easier targets. I want wardecs and high sec player run corps to be fixed so that I as an industrialist can use the tools that CCP has given me to be a better industrialist then you.
Bounties and wardecs are largely useless when it's mostly small corps, and corporations with policies to drop corp when there's a war.
|

Whitehound
1063
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 12:47:00 -
[212] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:The problem is one industrial corporations ability to use a wardec in the place where the bulk of all industry occurs, to limit the ability of another industrial corporation to outperform them. Please, tell me what is it this one corporation can do, but no other can! Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1883
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 12:50:00 -
[213] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:The problem is one industrial corporations ability to use a wardec in the place where the bulk of all industry occurs, to limit the ability of another industrial corporation to outperform them. Please, tell me what is it this one corporation can do, but no other can! So you're just a troll?
You know goddmaned well that as an industrialist every other person that builds the same items you build is a competitor and reducing your profits.
Edit: I'm beginning to seee what you're doing. Troll enough, bait enough, and eventually the thread just gets locked. |

Whitehound
1063
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 12:54:00 -
[214] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:Whitehound wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:The problem is one industrial corporations ability to use a wardec in the place where the bulk of all industry occurs, to limit the ability of another industrial corporation to outperform them. Please, tell me what is it this one corporation can do, but no other can! So you're just a troll? You know goddmaned well that as an industrialist every other person that builds the same items you build is a competitor and reducing your profits. Edit: I'm beginning to seee what you're doing. Troll enough, bait enough, and eventually the thread just gets locked. No. You listen. Either you answer my request and tell me about it or you are the troll here.
Start talking. What is it this one corporation can do but no other can? Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2921
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 17:12:00 -
[215] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:You will not achieve any of your goals either by the corp not disbanding, but only staying docked and waiting for the war to run out.
That's fine. In that event, it costs something to deny your attacker their goals. Right now, it doesn't.
Quote:The corp then always needs to pay the fee for creating a corp each time they reopen it. Just like everybody else no matter if it is a new corp or an old corp reopening.
Oh God, how am I ever going to afford 1.6 Million ISK to reopen my corp? I'm going to have to send out the collection plate. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |

Whitehound
1064
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 19:43:00 -
[216] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Whitehound wrote:You will not achieve any of your goals either by the corp not disbanding, but only staying docked and waiting for the war to run out. That's fine. In that event, it costs something to deny your attacker their goals. Right now, it doesn't. Quote:The corp then always needs to pay the fee for creating a corp each time they reopen it. Just like everybody else no matter if it is a new corp or an old corp reopening. Oh God, how am I ever going to afford 1.6 Million ISK to reopen my corp? I'm going to have to send out the collection plate. It does not have to cost anything. When I shoot at another ship and it flies off does then anybody refund my ammo? No. One gets chances in EVE, not guarantees.
And 1.6m ISK may be less than 50m ISKs, but 50m ISKs is less than 1b ISKs, which is the price for an alliance creation. Shall we make war-decs cost 1b ISK now because of a stupid logic? Do you want this? ... Again, EVE is not fair.
Get over it. This is not a shop and not even EVE's markets give a refund. Not much then has changed and if players do not get the new mechanics then we will get only more stricter rules until every last idiot gets it. And maybe we need stricter rules... Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2921
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 20:01:00 -
[217] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:It does not have to cost anything. When I shoot at another ship and it flies off does then anybody refund my ammo? No. One gets chances in EVE, not guarantees. Sure, but you've denied that ship access to that location in space, and there are ways to keep the ship there.
What have you denied a corp who drops out of a wardec? They can keep the same name, corp ticker, and continue doing exactly the same thing they were doing.
Quote:And 1.6m ISK may be less than 50m ISKs, but 50m ISKs is less than 1b ISKs, which is the price for an alliance creation. Shall we make war-decs cost 1b ISK now because of a stupid logic? Do you want this? ... Again, EVE is not fair.
Disbanding an alliance doesn't free anyone from a wardec, since the member corps continue to be under wardec for the duration. If you're asking for corps to be treated similarly to alliances, you're asking for players to continue being under the effect of a wardec after their corp disbands.
Quote:Get over it. This is not a shop and not even EVE's markets give a refund. Not much then has changed and if players do not get the new mechanics then we will get only more stricter rules until every last idiot gets it. And maybe we need stricter rules... EVE's markets always give you what you pay for. CCP has said that wardecs represent paying for targets. Nobody's asking for a refund. We're asking for the targets we paid for. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |

Whitehound
1066
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 20:18:00 -
[218] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Sure, but you've denied that ship access to that location in space, and there are ways to keep the ship there.
What have you denied a corp who drops out of a wardec? They can keep the same name, corp ticker, and continue doing exactly the same thing they were doing. ... Disbanding an alliance doesn't free anyone from a wardec, since the member corps continue to be under wardec for the duration. If you're asking for corps to be treated similarly to alliances, you're asking for players to continue being under the effect of a wardec after their corp disbands. ... EVE's markets always give you what you pay for. CCP has said that wardecs represent paying for targets. Nobody's asking for a refund. We're asking for the targets we paid for. Stop with the stupid comment quoting. I am not arguing with you, I am telling you.
You somehow imply to know why the shots were fired, but you do not really know. Might as well be it just tanks your shots and you have to fly off. It also does not matter if someone leaves an alliance, but it is about the creation cost, because this is what you based your logic on and out of lack of a real argument. There just is no direct relation between the cost of a war-dec and the creation cost of a corporation. The amount was increased by CCP and on purpose, which is what you are really crying about. Like a Goon once said - it costs $1 to ruin a $50,000 car. You then only paid CONCORD and all they do is to look away and not to look towards. The game has change and you only did not get the news flash. It simply is cheaper to create a corporation than to declare war on it. Deal with it. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2921
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 22:14:00 -
[219] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Stop with the stupid comment quoting. I am not arguing with you, I am telling you.
You somehow imply to know why the shots were fired, but you do not really know. Might as well be it just tanks your shots and you have to fly off. It also does not matter if someone leaves an alliance, but it is about the creation cost, because this is what you based your logic on and out of lack of a real argument. There just is no direct relation between the cost of a war-dec and the creation cost of a corporation. The amount was increased by CCP and on purpose, which is what you are really crying about. Like a Goon once said - it costs $1 to ruin a $50,000 car. You then only paid CONCORD and all they do is to look away and not to look towards. The game has change and you only did not get the news flash. It simply is cheaper to create a corporation than to declare war on it. Deal with it.
You were implying that the 1.6 Million ISK corp creation cost was a significant one to escape a wardec. It's not. The cost of the Wardec is irrelevant.
I never said there was. I'm simply saying that escaping a wardec needs to come with a significant cost since, as CCP has said, Wardecs are about purchasing targets. Docking up for a week is a significant cost. 1.6 million ISK is not.
Where did I say that I didn't know that it is currently (and always has been) cheaper to create a corp than declare war on it? I only said that the 1.6 million ISK creation fee is not a significant cost for escaping a wardec.
Why do you think that wardecs should be consensual corp duels? Because without a significant cost to evade them, that's all they are. Consensual. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |

Whitehound
1067
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 22:41:00 -
[220] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:You were implying that the 1.6 Million ISK corp creation cost was a significant one to escape a wardec. It's not. The cost of the Wardec is irrelevant.
I never said there was. I'm simply saying that escaping a wardec needs to come with a significant cost since, as CCP has said, Wardecs are about purchasing targets. Docking up for a week is a significant cost. 1.6 million ISK is not.
Where did I say that I didn't know that it is currently (and always has been) cheaper to create a corp than declare war on it? I only said that the 1.6 million ISK creation fee is not a significant cost for escaping a wardec.
Why do you think that wardecs should be consensual corp duels? Because without a significant cost to evade them, that's all they are. Consensual. No. You implied cost as a factor. It was your argument, but now it is no good, which is the part you had to realize. You still seem to be hung up on a CCP statement, which you mistook as a guarantee for targets. Obviously you got it wrong, because it is not how it is working. The only guaranteed targets are NPCs, which is why we have NPCs.
I then do not think war-decs should be consensual or non-consensual. I make no demands at all to what it should or should not be, because we are on the Internet and it is a fundamental fact that you cannot make people do stuff they do not want to do. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
|

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
626
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 22:43:00 -
[221] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: ...I'm simply saying that escaping a wardec needs to come with a significant cost since, as CCP has said, Wardecs are about purchasing targets. Docking up for a week is a significant cost. 1.6 million ISK is not.
It could be argued that, with the proliferation of alts, for many wardecs would still remain effectively consensual as they could go about their activities unimpeded on another character. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2921
|
Posted - 2013.03.02 01:18:00 -
[222] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:No. You implied cost as a factor. It was your argument, but now it is no good, which is the part you had to realize. You still seem to be hung up on a CCP statement, which you mistook as a guarantee for targets. Obviously you got it wrong, because it is not how it is working. The only guaranteed targets are NPCs, which is why we have NPCs.
I then do not think war-decs should be consensual or non-consensual. I make no demands at all to what it should or should not be, because we are on the Internet and it is a fundamental fact that you cannot make people do stuff they do not want to do.
Whitehound wrote:The corp then always needs to pay the fee for creating a corp each time they reopen it. Just like everybody else no matter if it is a new corp or an old corp reopening. You implied that the corp creation fee was a significant factor in disbanding a corp. I am saying that it is not.
I'm saying that CCP came up with a flawed plan to reach their stated goals, and that WarDecs are currently just as badly broken as they were before the patch. Their entire rationale for the scaling costs was that "wardecs are purchasing targets."
You can, however, impose costs on behaviors. If the purpose of wardecs is only to allow for consensual corp dueling, that's one thing (and a bad thing for the game). If it's to allow players to disrupt the activities of other players in HS, then imposing a significant cost for escaping them is important. Whether that's a counterbribe, or docking for a week, or whatever.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:It could be argued that, with the proliferation of alts, for many wardecs would still remain effectively consensual as they could go about their activities unimpeded on another character.
Maintaining an alt is a cost. If you want to pay that cost to be unimpeded by a Wardec, that's fine. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |

Whitehound
1070
|
Posted - 2013.03.02 07:44:00 -
[223] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:You implied that the corp creation fee was a significant factor in disbanding a corp. I am saying that it is not. I'm saying that CCP came up with a flawed plan to reach their stated goals, and that WarDecs are currently just as badly broken as they were before the patch. Their entire rationale for the scaling costs was that "wardecs are purchasing targets." You can, however, impose costs on behaviors. If the purpose of wardecs is only to allow for consensual corp dueling, that's one thing (and a bad thing for the game). If it's to allow players to disrupt the activities of other players in HS, then imposing a significant cost for escaping them is important. Whether that's a counterbribe, or docking for a week, or whatever. Tyberius Franklin wrote:It could be argued that, with the proliferation of alts, for many wardecs would still remain effectively consensual as they could go about their activities unimpeded on another character. Maintaining an alt is a cost. If you want to pay that cost to be unimpeded by a Wardec, that's fine. Stop whining about the cost factor. You know it is a bad argument. If you want to whine to CCP then send them a petition. Tell them you did not get it and ask them to explain it to you.
People come to play EVE and they pay for it. Then disrupting someone's game is a terribly stupid idea. If you cannot play your game without disrupting or driving other players out then, frankly, it is you who needs to leave and not those who want to play. Nobody likes to play with biatches. HTFU and L2P. The mechanics are the same for everyone. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Lin Suizei
107
|
Posted - 2013.03.02 07:58:00 -
[224] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Stop whining about the cost factor. You know it is a bad argument. If you want to whine to CCP then send them a petition. Tell them you did not get it and ask them to explain it to you.
People come to play EVE and they pay for it. Then disrupting someone's game is a terribly stupid idea. If you cannot play your game without disrupting or driving other players out then, frankly, it is you who needs to leave and not those who want to play. Nobody likes to play with biatches. HTFU and L2P. The mechanics are the same for everyone.
Before I bumped miners like yourself, I used to think all the posts like this were just some normal EVE players gently trolling each other and having a bit of a laugh among themselves. Now, I'm not so sure, that scares me a bit - that you might actually believe what you're posting on some level.
Mate, turn the mining lasers off for a few cycles, go outside, and have a long hard think about what you're posting. Xeros S*** > are you really suprised? im not here to pvp so why the fuc not Xeros S**** > oh go cry somewhere else, im not in fw for the ****** pvp
Welcome to faction war. |

Whitehound
1070
|
Posted - 2013.03.02 08:08:00 -
[225] - Quote
Lin Suizei wrote:Before I bumped miners like yourself, I used to think all the posts like this were just some normal EVE players gently trolling each other and having a bit of a laugh among themselves. Now, I'm not so sure, that scares me a bit - that you might actually believe what you're posting on some level.
Mate, turn the mining lasers off for a few cycles, go outside, and have a long hard think about what you're posting. Yeah? Whine more, whine harder, whine longer and get some Duracells. I will not care for your tears.
Only the most immature players consider docking up for a week as valuable. It is the most stupid concept of all for a game. Logoff and biomass. You do not want to be playing EVE. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Lin Suizei
107
|
Posted - 2013.03.02 09:08:00 -
[226] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Yeah? Whine more, whine harder, whine longer and get some Duracells. I will not care for your tears.
Only the most immature players consider docking up for a week as valuable. It is the most stupid concept of all for a game. Logoff and biomass. You do not want to be playing EVE.
Quote:5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote. Xeros S*** > are you really suprised? im not here to pvp so why the fuc not Xeros S**** > oh go cry somewhere else, im not in fw for the ****** pvp
Welcome to faction war. |

Whitehound
1070
|
Posted - 2013.03.02 09:48:00 -
[227] - Quote
Lin Suizei wrote:Whitehound wrote:Yeah? Whine more, whine harder, whine longer and get some Duracells. I will not care for your tears.
Only the most immature players consider docking up for a week as valuable. It is the most stupid concept of all for a game. Logoff and biomass. You do not want to be playing EVE. Quote:5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote. Cry more. I still will not care. Give me reasons why I should. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Iminent Penance
Interstellar Military Assistance Corporation
43
|
Posted - 2013.03.02 10:22:00 -
[228] - Quote
PVP
Player Vs PVE'er
Oh you're proud of your killboard? Do tell me more how much skill it took and why you think eve should make it easier. |

March rabbit
No Name No Pain
571
|
Posted - 2013.03.02 10:45:00 -
[229] - Quote
Whitehound wrote: In other news:
I am the new Saviour of High-Sec.
Buy a war-dec permit for 10m ISKs and I will promise you that you will not be denied targets.
Do not invest into the cry tank. Cry tanks do not work. Buy a war-dec permit!
War-dec compliant high-sec PvPer are happy PvPers.
...
How you like denial now?
never post while drunk....  |

Whitehound
1070
|
Posted - 2013.03.02 11:03:00 -
[230] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:never post while drunk....  And yet you did. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
|
|

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
2023

|
Posted - 2013.03.03 22:28:00 -
[231] - Quote
I've removed some off topic posts. Please keep it on topic and civil. Thank you. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one page] |