| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1006
   |
Posted - 2014.06.23 14:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
This is sure to be every bit as effective as all of the other famous carebear boycotts.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1006
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 15:01:00 -
[2] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:I do miss them sometimes, like now when I can't fully test the current disaster on Singularity. What's disastrous about it? And why on earth should anyone let their indy chars go just when industry is becoming good?
Because Grr, Goo... er... CCP!
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1006
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 16:09:00 -
[3] - Quote
Organic Lager wrote:A carebear finally contributes an idea for some player created content and everyone dumps on the poor guy....
"Finally"? This isn't a new idea. There have been dozens of carebear calls to boycott which have been wholly indistinguishable from this one. The fact that you think this seems like a novel occurrence should tell you something about the efficacy of such boycotts.
Quote:wouldn't it make more sense to just target the manufacturing of gank ships like the thrasher, catalyst and tornado?
That would be no more effective than anything else. As others have already pointed out, the belief that "carebears" are solely responsible for the industrial side of Eve is wholly fictitious.
Ganking isn't a problem for industrialists - ganking is a problem for pussies. It's a boon for industrialists. It drives demand, which generates profit. If you're not a completely incompetent ****-wit, you can manage the risk of ganking as a simple business expense, while reaping the benefits.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1006
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 16:22:00 -
[4] - Quote
Ahost Gceo wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:Lord Fudo wrote:-5 to -10 standing characters should not be allowed by npc stations to dock in highsec. Why? In a roleplaying sense it seems logical. Why would factions want capsuleers who are criminal docking in their stations?
Most stations belong to individual, ostensibly for-profit corporations. Why would they give a good goddamn what CONCORD's opinion of any particular pilot is? Their money still spends.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1006
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 16:31:00 -
[5] - Quote
Ahost Gceo wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:Ahost Gceo wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:Lord Fudo wrote:-5 to -10 standing characters should not be allowed by npc stations to dock in highsec. Why? In a roleplaying sense it seems logical. Why would factions want capsuleers who are criminal docking in their stations? Most stations belong to individual, ostensibly for-profit corporations. Why would they give a good goddamn what CONCORD's opinion of any particular pilot is? Their money still spends. The corporations still fall under a specific racial faction though, who all chip into CONCORD to make it a universal entity.
And you think this means... what?
You do understand that the factions and Concord aren't precisely BFFs, right?
You haven't even made an effort to explain why they would care about a "criminal" docking. Is the criminal a threat to them? No. Do they have any reason to clutch their pearls at the sight of a garden-variety space criminal? Not really.
You could make an argument about low standings, but bad security status? There's no reason they would give more than zero fucks about that.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1007
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 17:37:00 -
[6] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:
And you think this means... what?
You do understand that the factions and Concord aren't precisely BFFs, right?
You haven't even made an effort to explain why they would care about a "criminal" docking. Is the criminal a threat to them? No. Do they have any reason to clutch their pearls at the sight of a garden-variety space criminal? Not really.
You could make an argument about low standings, but bad security status? There's no reason they would give more than zero fucks about that.
Well technically they care if you are in their space so I don't see it as too far fetched if they were to also deny docking in their station. I am not in favor of this change but it kinda make sense based on that.
No, the faction police care. Why the **** would, e.g., Ishukone care? Are they the faction police? Do they have any reason to really care that Bob the pod pilot shot some other pilots? Is Bob going to light up their station? No? So what's it to them?
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1024
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 15:47:00 -
[7] - Quote
Lord Fudo wrote:
Well if Bob has bad standings with the station's corp, they won't give him missions or character location service. The same should apply to docking with a bad security status.
You do understand that repeating yourself isn't actually an argument, right?
If Bob has bad standings with a corp, the corp won't give him stuff because the corp doesn't like him.
If Bob has bad security status, that says abso-*******-lutely nothing about how any individual corp regards Bob. They have no reason to care about his security status, at all.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1029
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 17:18:00 -
[8] - Quote
Confirming that I have been devastated by the 3M boycott.
Didn't have my, "Don't forget to turn on DCU" Post-it note, got blapped. 
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
| |
|