EVE Search - Consensual wars only

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Consensual wars only

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Sariah Kion School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 191	Posted - 2013.03.04 20:55:00 - [31] - Quote Want to kill Eve. Nerf High Sec into the ground and cater to the hypocrites. First to go will be the economy. Then Sub numbers will drop steadily. The game will go down hill but the QQ along the way will be glorious. I would keep my subs long enough to see the end though. /popcorn Librarian and Exotic Dancer Extraordinaire Champion of the Working Men and Women of Empire Space Anti-Null Sec Opium Den Movement President Not the woman high sec wants but the Woman high sec needs. *A modern girl for a modern world.*
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Lords.Of.Midnight 67	Posted - 2013.03.04 20:55:00 - [32] - Quote Whitehound wrote: ..a lot of red-herring trolling redacted... Rather realize that wars are never non-consensual, but only non-mutual. Even in real life do some people rather kill themselves before they kill others. And on the Internet can you simply not force anyone to do what you want them to. People dock up or do not login or might only prefer a different time zone. "non-consensual wars" are a misnomer and sadly are you a victim of it, which is why it needs a change so it can be straightened out. I don't think anyone is saying dont fix wardecs which are quite broken, all that is being said is that making them mutual-only would kill it rather than cure it. Are you FOR mutual-only wars? Defend that position please. http://evedarklord.blogspot.ca
Sariah Kion School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 194	Posted - 2013.03.04 20:58:00 - [33] - Quote Risk averse null sec'rs leading the charge against risk averse high sec'rs. Its glorious! Librarian and Exotic Dancer Extraordinaire Champion of the Working Men and Women of Empire Space Anti-Null Sec Opium Den Movement President Not the woman high sec wants but the Woman high sec needs. *A modern girl for a modern world.*
Whitehound 1130	Posted - 2013.03.04 21:08:00 - [34] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Whitehound wrote: ..a lot of red-herring trolling redacted... Rather realize that wars are never non-consensual, but only non-mutual. Even in real life do some people rather kill themselves before they kill others. And on the Internet can you simply not force anyone to do what you want them to. People dock up or do not login or might only prefer a different time zone. "non-consensual wars" are a misnomer and sadly are you a victim of it, which is why it needs a change so it can be straightened out. I don't think anyone is saying dont fix wardecs which are quite broken, all that is being said is that making them mutual-only would kill it rather than cure it. Are you FOR mutual-only wars? Defend that position please. Then do not cry about it when you are ok with it. Just stop with the trolling, or troll some more. Your call. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Sariah Kion School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 194	Posted - 2013.03.04 21:12:00 - [35] - Quote Whitehound wrote: Then do not cry about it when you are ok with it. Just stop with the trolling, or troll some more. Your call. You should read his blog he has listed under corp. For folks who thrive off of others tears in game they sure do their fair share on the forums. Librarian and Exotic Dancer Extraordinaire Champion of the Working Men and Women of Empire Space Anti-Null Sec Opium Den Movement President Not the woman high sec wants but the Woman high sec needs. *A modern girl for a modern world.*
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Lords.Of.Midnight 67	Posted - 2013.03.04 21:18:00 - [36] - Quote Whitehound wrote: Then do not cry about it when you are ok with it. Just stop with the trolling, or troll some more. Your call. Im not sure what brand of crack you are on, but I recommend a new supplier; where did I say I am ok with the current war dec mechanic or mutual-only wars? Quite the opposite. Do you even READ what people post? http://evedarklord.blogspot.ca
Whitehound 1131	Posted - 2013.03.04 21:23:00 - [37] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Whitehound wrote: Then do not cry about it when you are ok with it. Just stop with the trolling, or troll some more. Your call. Im not sure what brand of crack you are on, but I recommend a new supplier; where did I say I am ok with the current war dec mechanic or mutual-only wars? Quite the opposite. Do you even READ what people post? Sure I read your crap. Why do you think I respond to you? You want me to defend something, right? Then start attacking it first. All I see is "I will unsub if they do this". If this is your attack then it is the worst I have ever seen. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Lords.Of.Midnight 67	Posted - 2013.03.04 21:37:00 - [38] - Quote Whitehound wrote: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Whitehound wrote: Then do not cry about it when you are ok with it. Just stop with the trolling, or troll some more. Your call. Im not sure what brand of crack you are on, but I recommend a new supplier; where did I say I am ok with the current war dec mechanic or mutual-only wars? Quite the opposite. Do you even READ what people post? Sure I read your crap. Why do you think I respond to you? You want me to defend something, right? Then start attacking it first. All I see is "I will unsub if they do this". If this is your attack then it is the worst I have ever seen. All I see is someone with 2 kills and 10 mining-related losses (totalling 1.7 billion) misdirecting their butthurtness at a pvp-enabler like myself, without debating the case at point on its merits..... http://evedarklord.blogspot.ca
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp 3678	Posted - 2013.03.04 21:37:00 - [39] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: Can flipping is still very viable, "if" you know how to do it. Ganking a miner should not commonly be about instant profit. Other goals should be the motivating force. The Venture is the most destroyed mining vessel in the game, by far. The "study" was to determine what needs to be changed about the war dec system, not to prove they should be mutual only. Nobody but you and James are suggesting there is any momentum toward removing the war dec mechanic. Can flipping is not can flipping anymore. Its suspect-baiting, you steal from a can to get a suspect flag and anyone BUT the intended target agresses you. i.e. The miner you looted from is NOT incentivized to agress you to get his crap back, and no longer aggro's when reclaiming his crap. Ergo the new mechanic just acts like a broader dual system, can flipping was killed in that the miner was bubble-wrapped. Knowledge is no longer key, a pre-defaulted 'safety' ensures warm fuzzy Hello-Kitty'ness for all miners throughout the EVE land.... Ganking was made less profitable, again irrefutably the pendulum swung towards Carebear bubble-wrapping and away from 'fit your ship properly based on knowledge so you can't be ganked'. The Venture no doubt is the most destroyed because its the most used, again because the of the inbuilt warp stab. Question is, how many MORE would be getting splashed without said stab. More bubble wrap.... I will be happy to find out you are right and this notion of mutual-only wars doesn't happen, I am just saying if it does the cure will be worse than the disease. On the subject of can flipping, my point stands. It can be done if you know how, but it is more convoluted than it used to be. I was, and still am, a big advocate of "if you don't want to be ganked mining, fit your ship and fly it accordingly". However the incentive was not, and never was supposed to be instant profit... and I can understand that. Other goals should apply... goals that drive miner ganking from a random yet profitable enterprise to being one that has ulterior motives. Whether those motives involve market manipulations or are more targeted to cripple a specific organization. The fact that the rebalancing gave actual reasons to fly the other mining vessels besides the Hulk was worth it in and of itself. Yes, the Venture has built in warp stabs, so does a Deep Space Transport... and a Blockade runner is agile and can cloak. None of these has managed to keep these ship types from being viable and frequently destroyed targets. If they lacked those abilities they would be fairly useless ships, and ultimately fewer would be destroyed because nobody would be flying them. They would have no hope of successfully performing the job they are designed to do. I don't think you have anything to worry about, as CCP spent their entire time patiently explaining the reasons why mutual only wars was a bad idea in their mind... and violated some of the most fundamental aspects of the game. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base.
Kinis Deren EVE University Ivy League 154	Posted - 2013.03.04 21:40:00 - [40] - Quote My impression on reading the CSM minutes, rather than some James_315 propoganda piece on TMC, was that Trebor popped on a De Bono hat to offer counter points during the subject discussion.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3460	Posted - 2013.03.04 21:42:00 - [41] - Quote Sariah Kion wrote: Want to kill Eve. Nerf High Sec into the ground and cater to the hypocrites. First to go will be the economy. Then Sub numbers will drop steadily. The game will go down hill but the QQ along the way will be glorious. I would keep my subs long enough to see the end though. /popcorn This is what will not be happening, of course. Rather, we will buff highsec's safety. Consensual wars only ! Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm
Whitehound 1131	Posted - 2013.03.04 21:43:00 - [42] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: All I see ... Your whining is no threat to anyone, son. All I see is that you have no arguments. Shut up until you do. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Takseen University of Caille Gallente Federation 330	Posted - 2013.03.04 21:56:00 - [43] - Quote "If I keep saying Hello Kitty Online, bubblewrap and carebear enough, people will ignore my lack of evidence or arguments"
Wescro Mormos Industries 292	Posted - 2013.03.04 21:57:00 - [44] - Quote Wars already are consensual. You consent to be in a deccable player corp, you consent to stay in one and not dissolve it to escape the wardec. I wardecced someone once, they dissolved corp. Yea no thanks, I'm not paying 50m for you to go through the laborious task of clicking 5 times to reform your corp. The current mechanics discourage wars and conflict, you know, the kind of thing that we all heard grand tales about before we subbed. James 315 for CSM8.
Takseen University of Caille Gallente Federation 330	Posted - 2013.03.04 22:08:00 - [45] - Quote Wescro wrote: The current mechanics discourage wars and conflict, you know, the kind of thing that we all heard grand tales about before we subbed. Name one news-worthy highsec war.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 628	Posted - 2013.03.04 22:10:00 - [46] - Quote Wescro wrote: Wars already are consensual. You consent to be in a deccable player corp, you consent to stay in one and not dissolve it to escape the wardec. I wardecced someone once, they dissolved corp. Yea no thanks, I'm not paying 50m for you to go through the laborious task of clicking 5 times to reform your corp. The current mechanics discourage wars and conflict, you know, the kind of thing that we all heard grand tales about before we subbed. How do you propose to compel people who don't want to fight to do so?
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises 1191	Posted - 2013.03.04 22:11:00 - [47] - Quote Takseen wrote: Wescro wrote: The current mechanics discourage wars and conflict, you know, the kind of thing that we all heard grand tales about before we subbed. Name one news-worthy highsec war. RvB Don't hit me. Your point is a valid one. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities.As well as mysql and CSV/XLS conversions of the Static Data Extract.
Takseen University of Caille Gallente Federation 330	Posted - 2013.03.04 22:11:00 - [48] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: Wescro wrote: Wars already are consensual. You consent to be in a deccable player corp, you consent to stay in one and not dissolve it to escape the wardec. I wardecced someone once, they dissolved corp. Yea no thanks, I'm not paying 50m for you to go through the laborious task of clicking 5 times to reform your corp. The current mechanics discourage wars and conflict, you know, the kind of thing that we all heard grand tales about before we subbed. How do you propose to compel people who don't want to fight to do so? Money!
Sentamon 725	Posted - 2013.03.04 22:17:00 - [49] - Quote Consensual Wars? Is that like all the pre arranged fights in null and lowsec because all the bitter-vets are friendly? ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~
Whitehound 1133	Posted - 2013.03.04 22:34:00 - [50] - Quote Sentamon wrote: Consensual Wars? Is that like all the pre arranged fights in null and lowsec because all the bitter-vets are friendly? It is a misnomer. An attack is in its nature a non-consensual act. Consensual / non-consensual is being confused with mutual / non-mutual. Even when a defender agrees to an attack then it often just means that the defender is prepared, but not necessarily demands the attacker to attack. Kids may twist this into any nonsensical meaning of their own liking of course. What is also wrong and gets mixed into the confusion is the idea that others could be forced into fighting back. It is however the defender's choice to make and not the attacker's. Another misconception is to see a value in docking up or logging out of the game, either as a strategy or as a punishment. Such values have no place in an MMO. Every active player is of value. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Takseen University of Caille Gallente Federation 330	Posted - 2013.03.04 22:36:00 - [51] - Quote Sentamon wrote: Consensual Wars? Is that like all the pre arranged fights in null and lowsec because all the bitter-vets are friendly? FW is essentially a consensual war, since both sides have to enlist in it. So is RvB. If nullsec had any wars going on, they'd kinda be consensual too, because if they didn't want to fight they could just retreat to highsec.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3460	Posted - 2013.03.04 23:04:00 - [52] - Quote Takseen wrote: Sentamon wrote: Consensual Wars? Is that like all the pre arranged fights in null and lowsec because all the bitter-vets are friendly? FW is essentially a consensual war, since both sides have to enlist in it. So is RvB. If nullsec had any wars going on, they'd kinda be consensual too, because if they didn't want to fight they could just retreat to highsec. Heh, back to highsec, the golden land. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm
Zaraz Zaraz Imperial Planetology Academy 85	Posted - 2013.03.04 23:07:00 - [53] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: "..CCP and the CSM have been feverishly discussing the total elimination of non-consensual wardecs, too." WTF? Now I'm not one to normally say "If 'x' happens I will resign my subscription", but if this asshattery happens I will. I put about $400-500 annually into the EVE universe (above subscriptions) because I can't be bothered humping asteroids or day trading to fund my pvp. CCP needs to ask itself, do you want to lose players like me on your road to nerfdom? (I almost quit when can-flipping and ganking got nerfed, doing this is without a doubt the last straw for me...) p.s. Yes, if this happens, someone can have my stuff. F Dude. Its just a game.
Alara IonStorm 4375	Posted - 2013.03.04 23:09:00 - [54] - Quote Zaraz Zaraz wrote: Dude. Its just a game. It is not just a game! It is also... um... ah... You win Captain Downer.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3460	Posted - 2013.03.04 23:14:00 - [55] - Quote Alara IonStorm wrote: Zaraz Zaraz wrote: Dude. Its just a game. It is not just a game! It is also... um... ah... You win Captain Downer. It is also real. EVE is real. I wasn't there. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm
Ryu Ibarazaki Brave Newbies Inc. 1	Posted - 2013.03.04 23:34:00 - [56] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Takseen wrote: FW is essentially a consensual war, since both sides have to enlist in it. So is RvB. If nullsec had any wars going on, they'd kinda be consensual too, because if they didn't want to fight they could just retreat to highsec. Heh, back to highsec, the golden land. We see this first-hand in BNI. Since moving to Low Sec I've seen one war target in our new home system, and we have anywhere between 6-8 'Wars' declared against us at any one time. That's not to say more isn't going on when I'm not around but it's certainly no war.
Hjofriour Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2013.03.04 23:36:00 - [57] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Can flipping is not can flipping anymore. Its suspect-baiting, you steal from a can to get a suspect flag and anyone BUT the intended target agresses you. Are you for non-consensual PvP or not? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. You're not really after PvP, you just want ganks.
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 1665	Posted - 2013.03.04 23:55:00 - [58] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Sariah Kion wrote: Want to kill Eve. Nerf High Sec into the ground and cater to the hypocrites. First to go will be the economy. Then Sub numbers will drop steadily. The game will go down hill but the QQ along the way will be glorious. I would keep my subs long enough to see the end though. /popcorn This is what will not be happening, of course. Rather, we will buff highsec's safety. Consensual wars only ! There has got to be a way to take out a POS. How about: No sov, no POS, no war. But put up a structure and you open yourself up to war. Then add in the POS revamp so there can be new, smaller structures all over high sec. Things worth defending, but are easy to set up and blow up. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/

ISD Flidais Asagiri ISD Community Communications Liaisons 49	Posted - 2013.03.05 00:02:00 - [59] - Quote Greetings Great discussion, lets keep the pyramid posting to a minimum and stay on topic. We all know that this type of post has the potential to get very emotional. So let us stay the course and not use personal attacks as a form of rebuttal. ISD Flidais Asagiri Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department

Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 1665	Posted - 2013.03.05 00:04:00 - [60] - Quote Takseen wrote: Wescro wrote: The current mechanics discourage wars and conflict, you know, the kind of thing that we all heard grand tales about before we subbed. Name one news-worthy highsec war. The war between Eve University and Castle Greyskull. The one where they lost their POS in Korsiki. (It was 3 years ago). Shows you how often it happens. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,06s, ref 20250922/0144
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

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