EVE Search - The Office of the Chairman: A ~chill place~ for constituent issues

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

The Office of the Chairman: A ~chill place~ for constituent issues

» 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 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] .. 27 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1999	Posted - 2012.02.09 08:39:00 - [571] - Quote Imryn Xaran wrote: rodyas wrote: Imryn, I think the goons mean, dont come to the mittani to report another goon a bot or so. Or dont go to another goon to report a goon being a bot. Think you might still be able to click on the report a bot, but let CCP do the work of removing them and handling the bot issues not other goons handling that. Well that's not what I read. In the (leaked) article I saw he clearly stated that any goon who reported a fellow goon to CCP for botting would be kicked. Still awaiting clarification, and loving all the goon tears like i said, you're a stupid pubbie shoo, back to your asteroids and ice belts yeah no i'm not actually running for csm7 got you lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Imryn Xaran Coherent Light Enterprises 25	Posted - 2012.02.09 08:44:00 - [572] - Quote Ladie Harlot wrote: Imryn Xaran wrote: [quote=rodyas]Well that's not what I read. In the (leaked) article I saw he clearly stated that any goon who reported a fellow goon to CCP for botting would be kicked. Still awaiting clarification, and loving all the goon tears I can clarify it for you. The "leaked article" you read was correct. It is against Goonswarm Federation policy to report another member of the alliance for botting. What are you confused about? Thank you for that clarification, it is good to know that I didn't miss-remember what I read or get sucked in by a trolling article. Now all I need is the Mittani to clarify the contradictory positions he has taken on this issue. How does he justify telling the playerbase that they should report bots if they see them, but telling his own alliance that they will be kicked if they report a fellow goon for botting.
Hans Jagerblitzen Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance 1113	Posted - 2012.02.09 08:49:00 - [573] - Quote The Mittani wrote: Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Would you mind sharing with the voter community who exactly suggested this? You have already stated it wasn't you. I'm hoping you can either clarify this, or if you don't feel comfortable outing the person who proposed this initially, I'm hoping the CSM6 member who did has the integrity to step forth and take responsibility. Thank you, much appreciated! I'm pretty sure it came from CCP first, but I certainly agree with it. I'd rather new capture mechanics be tested on FW before being inflicted on nullsec. Cool, cool. It's kind of water under the bridge who came up with it, right? Cat's out of the bag now. I think the more important question is, what sort of mechanics do you have in mind that would work well for both Faction Warfare and null sec sovereignty? If you've got some good ideas, I can be convinced to get my people on board. We should definitely be talking specifics here though, I don't want my supporters getting all riled up about "null sec mechanics in FW" if there really isn't anything to get all doomsday about. If you can explain to the Faction Warfare community what options you endorse that might be tested, maybe we can deflate the whole argument before it gets too out of control.
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1999	Posted - 2012.02.09 08:53:00 - [574] - Quote Imryn Xaran wrote: Ladie Harlot wrote: Imryn Xaran wrote: [quote=rodyas]Well that's not what I read. In the (leaked) article I saw he clearly stated that any goon who reported a fellow goon to CCP for botting would be kicked. Still awaiting clarification, and loving all the goon tears I can clarify it for you. The "leaked article" you read was correct. It is against Goonswarm Federation policy to report another member of the alliance for botting. What are you confused about? Thank you for that clarification, it is good to know that I didn't miss-remember what I read or get sucked in by a trolling article. Now all I need is the Mittani to clarify the contradictory positions he has taken on this issue. How does he justify telling the playerbase that they should report bots if the see them, but telling his own alliance that they will be kicked if they report a fellow goon for botting. Gee, I don't know. Directors don't want to put up with petty ratting drama, and nobody in Goonswarm would want to be the "Director of Dealing with Stupid Bullshit Like Ratting Drama." Let's say that goons were allowed to shoot and report bots - every goddamn incident would be an incident that a diplomat or director would have to deal with, and it'd be a matter of one's word versus another's. Basically, the answer is that there is more important crap to deal with than being CCP Sreegs' little helpers. yeah no i'm not actually running for csm7 got you lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Mittani GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3093	Posted - 2012.02.09 09:04:00 - [575] - Quote Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Cool, cool. It's kind of water under the bridge who came up with it, right? Cat's out of the bag now. I think the more important question is, what sort of mechanics do you have in mind that would work well for both Faction Warfare and null sec sovereignty? If you've got some good ideas, I can be convinced to get my people on board. We should definitely be talking specifics here though, I don't want my supporters getting all riled up about "null sec mechanics in FW" if there really isn't anything to get all doomsday about. If you can explain to the Faction Warfare community what options you endorse that might be tested, maybe we can deflate the whole argument before it gets too out of control. It might be a cat out of a bag for your people, but my people are happier with CCP not implementing ~grand ideas~ on null without testing them elsewhere first. One man's scandal is another's good sense. However, I don't have any specific ideas about capture mechanics, nor did CCP bring up any at the summit, so the entire discussion is moot save for riling up your base (which is fine, do what you gotta do). It's actually kind of funny how little nullsec CSMs want to discuss sov mechanic changes, unless you've lived through the swap from Pos War to Dominion mechanics. (it was bad) We're more interested in working on risk/reward balance, force projection issues, tech rebalancing, etc. There's a widespread skepticism of CCP having 'good' capture mechanic ideas across the nullsec CSM reps, given the record of Dominion; most of null is worried that there'd be some kind of a sweeping revamp of the sov system that somehow makes things even worse. I think we'd prefer CCP beta-test ideas on a smaller population and see if they work out on a smaller scale, first. If CCP can fix FW somehow, great - but if they botch it, a la Dominion, then the damage is limited in scope. It sucks being a guinea pig, but FW has been neglected for so long that any attention at all is good attention. The sov issue/capture mechanic issue is different from stuff like Dead Horse (modular POS revamp). Everyone wants Dead Horse, it's just a matter of getting it done. There's no debate about it, no question about it being cool. By contrast, no one has a silver bullet idea for a workable capture mechanic; it's been discussed to death for years across null and CCP and no consensus has emerged other than 'all of this sucks balls and pos war, while ******, was better'. Conveniently, the post-Incarna CCP seems to be more interested in small iterative tweaks than grand revamps. We haven't seen any plans for sov revamps, and Stoffer mentioned in ~drinks with bolton~ a possible focus on pos stuff/dead horse after the upcoming expansion, which would imply that a major sov rework of any kind is at least 2+ expansions out. FW hasn't come up much besides dumping your suggestions in their lap and saying 'this guy knows what's up, do what he says'. (You're welcome, by the by) Amusingly for your run, I suspect by the time the elections are over most of the design work on a FW revamp will be done, since CCP began work on the post-Crucible stuff shortly after the Dec summit. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues
The Mittani GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3093	Posted - 2012.02.09 09:13:00 - [576] - Quote Imryn Xaran wrote: I want clarification on this contradictory position. you don't deserve one, sorry publord The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues
Imryn Xaran Coherent Light Enterprises 26	Posted - 2012.02.09 10:11:00 - [577] - Quote The Mittani wrote: Imryn Xaran wrote: I want clarification on this contradictory position. you don't deserve one, sorry publord Really? You are happy that anyone reading this thread will know that you appear to be a two faced liar? That publicly you support CCPGÇÖs efforts to suppress botting and RMT in EVE, including use of the GÇ£Report a botGÇ¥ feature, but in private you tell your alliance that if they report a fellow goon for botting they will be kicked. If you want us to take you as seriously as you obviously take yourself I suggest you start behaving like the big time space politician you obviously think you are and front up to this issue. Either you support CCP on this or you donGÇÖt GÇô you canGÇÖt have it both ways.
Richard Desturned 8	Posted - 2012.02.09 10:42:00 - [578] - Quote Imryn Xaran wrote: The Mittani wrote: Imryn Xaran wrote: I want clarification on this contradictory position. you don't deserve one, sorry publord Really? You are happy that anyone reading this thread will know that you appear to be a two faced liar? That publicly you support CCPGÇÖs efforts to suppress botting and RMT in EVE, including use of the GÇ£Report a botGÇ¥ feature, but in private you tell your alliance that if they report a fellow goon for botting they will be kicked. If you want us to take you as seriously as you obviously take yourself I suggest you start behaving like the big time space politician you obviously think you are and front up to this issue. Either you support CCP on this or you donGÇÖt GÇô you canGÇÖt have it both ways. why don't you post yet another GD thread about the mittani oppressing goons who only wish to report their fellow alliance members for botting
Vordak Kallager Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance 55	Posted - 2012.02.09 10:45:00 - [579] - Quote The Mittani wrote: Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Cool, cool. It's kind of water under the bridge who came up with it, right? Cat's out of the bag now. I think the more important question is, what sort of mechanics do you have in mind that would work well for both Faction Warfare and null sec sovereignty? If you've got some good ideas, I can be convinced to get my people on board. We should definitely be talking specifics here though, I don't want my supporters getting all riled up about "null sec mechanics in FW" if there really isn't anything to get all doomsday about. If you can explain to the Faction Warfare community what options you endorse that might be tested, maybe we can deflate the whole argument before it gets too out of control. It might be a cat out of a bag for your people, but my people are happier with CCP not implementing ~grand ideas~ on null without testing them elsewhere first. One man's scandal is another's good sense. Faction Warfare, The Official Guinea Pigs of New Eden.
The Mittani GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3094	Posted - 2012.02.09 10:47:00 - [580] - Quote Vordak Kallager wrote: Faction Warfare, The Official Guinea Pigs of New Eden. You guys could use some medical product testing, it beats being neglected since 2008. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues
Vordak Kallager Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance 55	Posted - 2012.02.09 10:51:00 - [581] - Quote The Mittani wrote: Vordak Kallager wrote: Faction Warfare, The Official Guinea Pigs of New Eden. You guys could use some medical product testing, it beats being neglected since 2008. As long as it makes my winter coat lustrous and shiny.
Ladie Harlot GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1509	Posted - 2012.02.09 11:06:00 - [582] - Quote Imryn Xaran wrote: The Mittani wrote: Imryn Xaran wrote: I want clarification on this contradictory position. you don't deserve one, sorry publord Really? You are happy that anyone reading this thread will know that you appear to be a two faced liar? What, exactly, has he lied about? He's publicly stated that it's not cool for Goons to report other Goons and if he told some pubbies to report each other...what difference does it make? Are you expecting him to care a great deal about what the pubbies do with the bot reporting system? If you want to accuse him of being some sort of RMT overlord then just man up and say it. The way you're currently going about it is embarrassing. The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.
Vordak Kallager Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance 55	Posted - 2012.02.09 11:43:00 - [583] - Quote Ladie Harlot wrote: Imryn Xaran wrote: The Mittani wrote: Imryn Xaran wrote: I want clarification on this contradictory position. you don't deserve one, sorry publord Really? You are happy that anyone reading this thread will know that you appear to be a two faced liar? What, exactly, has he lied about? He's publicly stated that it's not cool for Goons to report other Goons and if he told some pubbies to report each other...what difference does it make? Are you expecting him to care a great deal about what the pubbies do with the bot reporting system? If you want to accuse him of being some sort of RMT overlord then just man up and say it. The way you're currently going about it is embarrassing. I, FOR ONE, WELCOME OUR HAS-ALWAYS-BEEN-HERE RMT OVERLORD. Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7
Imryn Xaran Coherent Light Enterprises 26	Posted - 2012.02.09 11:46:00 - [584] - Quote Ladie Harlot wrote: Imryn Xaran wrote: The Mittani wrote: Imryn Xaran wrote: I want clarification on this contradictory position. you don't deserve one, sorry publord Really? You are happy that anyone reading this thread will know that you appear to be a two faced liar? What, exactly, has he lied about? He's publicly stated that it's not cool for Goons to report other Goons and if he told some pubbies to report each other...what difference does it make? Are you expecting him to care a great deal about what the pubbies do with the bot reporting system? If you want to accuse him of being some sort of RMT overlord then just man up and say it. The way you're currently going about it is embarrassing. He has publicly stated that he fully supports CCPGÇÖs efforts to eliminate botting, including GÇ£Report a botGÇ¥, but in his own alliance he has a rule to kick any member that reports another member for botting; therefore he has lied about his support for CCP on this. I am not accusing him of being an RMT overlord, or anything like that, but I am asking him to clarify his position on the issue. I donGÇÖt expect him to be too concerned about an individual goon running a bot, but I would like to know how he can actively protect that goon while still claiming to support CCPGÇÖs anti botting initiatives. This is a normal thing that politicians have to do. They get caught out in a lie or half-truth and they have to respond. The dumb ones refuse to answer, send out stooges to try to trash the person asking the question, or vilify them, or just to change the subject. The smart ones front up and make a statement, even if they have to eat a bit of humble pie. They answer the question and put the matter behind them. So Mittani, what sort of politician are you? Please clarify your contradictory position on supporting CCPGÇÖs efforts to eliminate bots.
Richard Desturned GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 10	Posted - 2012.02.09 13:12:00 - [585] - Quote Imryn Xaran wrote: He has publicly stated that he fully supports CCPGÇÖs efforts to eliminate botting, including GÇ£Report a botGÇ¥, but in his own alliance he has a rule to kick any member that reports another member for botting; therefore he has lied about his support for CCP on this. I am not accusing him of being an RMT overlord, or anything like that, but I am asking him to clarify his position on the issue. I donGÇÖt expect him to be too concerned about an individual goon running a bot, but I would like to know how he can actively protect that goon while still claiming to support CCPGÇÖs anti botting initiatives. This is a normal thing that politicians have to do. They get caught out in a lie or half-truth and they have to respond. The dumb ones refuse to answer, send out stooges to try to trash the person asking the question, or vilify them, or just to change the subject. The smart ones front up and make a statement, even if they have to eat a bit of humble pie. They answer the question and put the matter behind them. So Mittani, what sort of politician are you? Please clarify your contradictory position on supporting CCPGÇÖs efforts to eliminate bots. wow it's like you glossed over every explanation in this thread in any case, the way he runs his alliance is irrelevant to his CSM campaign - why do you insist on pushing such nonsense?
Imryn Xaran Coherent Light Enterprises 26	Posted - 2012.02.09 13:34:00 - [586] - Quote Richard Desturned wrote: Imryn Xaran wrote: He has publicly stated that he fully supports CCPGÇÖs efforts to eliminate botting, including GÇ£Report a botGÇ¥, but in his own alliance he has a rule to kick any member that reports another member for botting; therefore he has lied about his support for CCP on this. I am not accusing him of being an RMT overlord, or anything like that, but I am asking him to clarify his position on the issue. I donGÇÖt expect him to be too concerned about an individual goon running a bot, but I would like to know how he can actively protect that goon while still claiming to support CCPGÇÖs anti botting initiatives. This is a normal thing that politicians have to do. They get caught out in a lie or half-truth and they have to respond. The dumb ones refuse to answer, send out stooges to try to trash the person asking the question, or vilify them, or just to change the subject. The smart ones front up and make a statement, even if they have to eat a bit of humble pie. They answer the question and put the matter behind them. So Mittani, what sort of politician are you? Please clarify your contradictory position on supporting CCPGÇÖs efforts to eliminate bots. wow it's like you glossed over every explanation in this thread in any case, the way he runs his alliance is irrelevant to his CSM campaign - why do you insist on pushing such nonsense? He has not made any explanation in this thread. Several stooges have stepped up, but do they speak for him? No they donGÇÖt. The way he runs his alliance is very relevant in this case because his he has stated something in his campaign for CSM election that is completely contradicted in his running of his Alliance. He is a politician GÇô his whole life (in EVE terms) is fair game.
JamesCLK Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners 34	Posted - 2012.02.09 13:48:00 - [587] - Quote This place is less ~chill~ since Imryn started badposting; please GTFO and give me back my icicles before they melt!
Imryn Xaran Coherent Light Enterprises 26	Posted - 2012.02.09 13:55:00 - [588] - Quote JamesCLK wrote: This place is less ~chill~ since Imryn started badposting; please GTFO and give me back my icicles before they melt! Sure thing - right after I get an answer to my question.
Richard Desturned GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 10	Posted - 2012.02.09 16:05:00 - [589] - Quote you're a nobody - why should anybody take you seriously?
Imryn Xaran Coherent Light Enterprises 26	Posted - 2012.02.09 16:27:00 - [590] - Quote Richard Desturned wrote: you're a nobody - why should anybody take you seriously? I'm a person with a vote to cast (actually 4) just like you. I am sure I will not be the only person who is interested in the answer to my question. Anyway, Mittani's nice "chill" thread seems to be off the rails until I get my answer, or make it blatantly obvious to even the most sycophantic Mittani fanboy that he is not going to give an answer, let alone a straight one.
Richard Desturned GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 10	Posted - 2012.02.09 16:45:00 - [591] - Quote Imryn Xaran wrote: Richard Desturned wrote: you're a nobody - why should anybody take you seriously? I'm a person with a vote to cast (actually 4) just like you. I am sure I will not be the only person who is interested in the answer to my question. Anyway, Mittani's nice "chill" thread seems to be off the rails until I get my answer, or make it blatantly obvious to even the most sycophantic Mittani fanboy that he is not going to give an answer, let alone a straight one. sperging out is what pubbies do best, yes
Cearain Imperial Outlaws 253	Posted - 2012.02.09 17:02:00 - [592] - Quote The Mittani wrote: It might be a cat out of a bag for your people, but my people are happier with CCP not implementing ~grand ideas~ on null without testing them elsewhere first.. The people who do null sec sov war are after completely different things in eve than people who are in low sec or doing faction war. Your suggestion that the mechanics be the same, or one be a test bed for the other, completely misses this fundamental point. I will make an attempt to spell this out for you because you clearly don't get it. Yes there currently are more people in null sec. However, if CCP spent as much time thinking about and iterating on faction war and low sec and left null sec abandoned like they have low sec and faction war then the numbers would be more than reversed. The potential playerbase that would be attracted to low sec and faction war is much larger than the playerbase who can be attracted to null sec sov warfar. Sov null sec is for people who are willing to dedicate allot of their lives to a computer game. They are willing to wait around a long time for those epic battles. The epic battles are indeed epic and when they happen its extremely high stakes for a computer game. That part is great and works out well for people like yourself who are retired or perhaps people in college who havenGÇÖt yet fully experienced the real life grind. IGÇÖm not putting this part of the game down at all. If I had allot of extra time I would probably do that myself. But the reality is I donGÇÖt have that sort of time. And I am allot more typical GÇô at least when it comes to adults who might play eve - than people like yourself who are retired and have lots of free time for computer games. You said it yourself that one of the goals in sov warfare is to make it so the other side doesnGÇÖt want to sign on anymore. Well the problem is the things you have to do to in order to make the other side not want to sign in are extremely boring to allot of people. POS bashing Camping stations and gates never really getting anything but ganks and no really good fights for hours on end. This isnGÇÖt stuff allot of players find entertaining. However, sov null sec has to be that way because the stakes are higher. The timers should be slow giving each side time to get their large fleets together. CCP canGÇÖt make it so that if you sign off for a few hours you find that when you log back on you lost your system and all your crap there. With the high stakes comes allot of boring downtime that is all there is to it. Balancing or giving more isk for doing sov null sec stuff is just rolling that turd in glitter. I can only use isk in game and if the game play primarily consists of sitting around waiting for something to happen then itGÇÖs worthless. I couldnGÇÖt care less about it. Faction war and low sec is for people who want to be entertained without committing their lives to a computer game. Think GÇ£better than tv.GÇ¥ I come home from work put the kids to bed and I have a an hour or two before bed. I can watch tv with my wife or I can go shoot some people in the face. Like hans says the mechanics need to be set up to bring about frequent fun small scale fights. The faction war plexing mechanics seem to have been geared to do that but they have sat broken for years. These plex mechanics need to be fine tuned and balanced more often than anything else in eve. If a group at ccp took it upon themselves to say it is their goal to tweak and balance the plex mechanics to make sure that there is always lots of small scale pvp happening in these plexes (and low sec general) the eve subscriber base would explode. ItGÇÖs not going to be something where they just make one change and it works. It will need allot of fine tuning to get it going right. Lots of iterating. But it will be worth it to a much larger potential playerbase than sov null sec could ever hope to capture. But instead it sits neglected. So what happens? I and many in low sec will often sign on and spend a few hours roaming around with no action at all. Sorry thatGÇÖs not even better than tv. String several nights like that together where I go to sleep thinking I should have watched a show instead of signing on and ccp loses subscribers. Moreover, the fights should have some significance. I mean right now the low sec fights are just barely a step up from sisi. The stakes shouldnGÇÖt be so high that it turns into sov null sec but there should be some overarching goals that somewhat accurately measure who is doing well at the parts of the game people value.(i.e., who is doing well at small gang pvp) This is important so itGÇÖs not just a constant meaningless thunderdome. I would also bet that many people who have the time to play the null sec sov stuff would like to head over to faction war and low sec if ccp actually developed it. Just for a change of pace. TLDR: Eve can work for people who have allot of time to play the game and for people who don't. But the same mechanics aren't always going to work for both sets of people. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Imryn Xaran Coherent Light Enterprises 26	Posted - 2012.02.09 17:06:00 - [593] - Quote The Mittani wrote: This thread is to provide a consolidated place for my constituents to ask questions and receive personal responses from me.... I'm happy to clarify my positions on the issues of the day if you're wondering what I think about... whatever Come on Mittani. That quote is from your post opening this thread. Please can you clarify your position on supporting CCP's anti-bot and RMT initiatives when you actively protect goons that run bots.
Richard Desturned GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 11	Posted - 2012.02.09 17:29:00 - [594] - Quote Imryn Xaran wrote: The Mittani wrote: This thread is to provide a consolidated place for my constituents to ask questions and receive personal responses from me.... I'm happy to clarify my positions on the issues of the day if you're wondering what I think about... whatever Come on Mittani. That quote is from your post opening this thread. Please can you clarify your position on supporting CCP's anti-bot and RMT initiatives when you actively protect goons that run bots. learn what the word "active" means also he said it's for his constituents, so get out i love how you manage to inflate "thou shalt not file petitions against other goons" into "WE ACTIVELY PROTECT BOTTERS LOL" i guess that's just autism at work???
Osabojo GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 86	Posted - 2012.02.09 17:32:00 - [595] - Quote Imryn Xaran wrote: Come on Mittani. That quote is from your post opening this thread. Please can you clarify your position on supporting CCP's anti-bot and RMT initiatives when you actively protect goons that run bots. What's really dumb about your posting is not so much your deliberate refusal to understand things that have been explained more clearly and patiently than you deserve, but your seeming expectation that other people reading this thread are going to share your deliberate misunderstandings and false presuppositions, and go along with the implied claim that you are trying to bludgeon them with. Perhaps I am overestimating the average reader of this thread, but I think most of them will find your hamfisted attempts to manipulate the discourse rather insulting, regardless of how they feel about The Mittani as CSM Chair.
Sofia Wolf Ubuntu Inc. Lonely Maple Conglomeration 4	Posted - 2012.02.09 18:31:00 - [596] - Quote What is your position on following issues of high sec warfare: A) Neutral orcas in high sec wars http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Neutral_orcas_in_high_sec_wars_%28CSM%29 B) Neutral remote repers not getting aggression timer when remote repairing targets engaged in combat making them near invulnerable when positioned near stations. Do you think those are problems CCP should address? If yes what changes to mechanic would you advocate and what level of priority would you put on those changes?
Nicolo da'Vicenza Divine Power. Cascade Imminent 339	Posted - 2012.02.09 18:34:00 - [597] - Quote They can both be addressed by banning NPC corps and making individuals wardecable - neutral Orca/logi alt is wardec'd in turn. Ban NPC corps. Repeat until aggressor corporation has compiled a list of all the alts that need to be wardec'd the next time they want to take a swipe at the offending corp.
Fractals 4Lyfe GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 27	Posted - 2012.02.09 20:20:00 - [598] - Quote Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: They can both be addressed by banning NPC corps and making individuals wardecable - neutral Orca/logi alt is wardec'd in turn. Ban NPC corps. Repeat until aggressor corporation has compiled a list of all the alts that need to be wardec'd the next time they want to take a swipe at the offending corp. That's just trying to bandaid something that's already broken. Why let them keep switching corps? If a tower is reinforced, then don't let it be transferred to another corp.
JamesCLK Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners 34	Posted - 2012.02.09 20:21:00 - [599] - Quote Cearain wrote: :words::words::words::words::words::words: and more :words: Mittens prefering to test 0.0 sov mechanics on FW, and Mittens (as the chairman) trying to push the CSM to advocate 0.0 sov mechanics to be tested on FW, are two entirely different arguments. His stance is from my understanding the former of the two. Put the Drama Llama away?
Retar Aveymone GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 22	Posted - 2012.02.09 20:22:00 - [600] - Quote I do not believe it's possible to transfer an anchored tower between corps.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] .. 27 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.