Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 53 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8263
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 14:49:00 -
[1201] - Quote
Grog Aftermath wrote:
CCP decides how harsh
In some cases, CCP has decided wrongly. In doing so they hurt their cash cow game. Some of us would like to see a reverse of that, for the good of the entire EVE community.
Quote: , CCP also decides what toys to put into the sandbox and those toys in some cases will need restrictions to prevent them being tools for abuse. Sure they can get influenced by what players want, but ultimately it's their business and their decision. They also decide what players they want to market the game at.
I
And again, sometimes they have decided wrong. CCP could decide to put elves and unicorns into the game, it's their game and their decision, but it would be wrong.
Keeping the current war dec and npc corp mechanics is wrong because in a game like this innovation (and thus fun) come from necessity. When people have to figure things out, they do. Sure, the weak hearted will quit rather than try, but those types wouldn't stick with EVE in the 1st place.
For years CCP has gone down the wrong path. For example, in mission running, if you forget to load an item you need to drop off into your cargo hold, you now get a freaking POP UP that reminds you. in the past, you forgot stuff sometimes and that made you get better at the game by making you figure out how to not forget the item you need to drop off. now EVE damn near plays itself for you.
Same with the 'safeties" and "you are about to jump into low sec" pop ups we have now. Many a players 1st loss came with an accidental CONCORDOKKEN and THAT caused good players to learn CONCORD/high sec mechanics. Many a player's 1st pvp was jumping into a low sec gate game, for the good players, it made them learn to pay attention to their surroundings.
No you don't have to do a damn thing and the average EVE high sec gamer gets dumber and dumber as time passes, because they don't HAVE to learn anything. The war dec and npc corp mechancis reinforce this.
CCP needs to get EVE back on track before this downward slide becomes an unstoppable avalanche. CCP needs to remember WHY EVE is still here and why so many of us stuck with it despite being the totally sadistic mosh pit it was when most of us started. A mosh pit real PVE players (like my humble self) learned to survive in. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
93
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 14:59:00 -
[1202] - Quote
I see 55 pages of back and forth, without addressing the simplest issue here:
What is to prevent the target from docking up for a week and playing on alts? Please explain how your mechanic change prevents this solution? |
Grog Aftermath
Need more grog
134
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 15:00:00 -
[1203] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: For years CCP has gone down the wrong path.
Wrong path according to you.
It's CCP's business and it's up to them to decide which path they take.
|
Grog Aftermath
Need more grog
134
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 15:00:00 -
[1204] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:I see 55 pages of back and forth, without addressing the simplest issue here:
What is to prevent the target from docking up for a week and playing on alts? Please explain how your mechanic change prevents this solution?
It doesn't and that was discussed on page 1. |
Absolutely Not Analt
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
142
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 15:06:00 -
[1205] - Quote
Following the principle of Keep It Simple Stupid:
What if we just made it cost 50 million ISK per active wardec to dissolve a corp (no active wars = 0 ISK) and require a 24 hour timer before the corp dissolves. Now it costs exactly as much to end a war as it does to start one.
If you wanted to go one better, you could make it take a vote (LOL) of the shareholders to dissolve the corp which, I think, adds another 24 hours, and makes it more cumbersome to dissolve the corporation. Eve is a multi player game.-áAnd you are the content. - Ralph King-Griffin Being meh at two things is not better than being great at one. - Lugh Crow-Slave
|
Matcha Mosburger
Manu Fortius
5
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 15:07:00 -
[1206] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Matcha Mosburger wrote:Not trying to be an ass or troll... But seriously why WD a 1 or even 2 or 3 man corp in the first place? Also if they are loosing you so much money from WDing them and they they just close Corp... why do you keep WDing 1 man corps then?
(Again not trying to troll, I'm seriously curious why) On our case sometimes peopel PAY us to war dec even a 3 man corp. Go ask that person why they hate you so much. We do not care why.
That makes sense to me. Thanks for answering my curiosity =) |
Seneca Auran
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
32
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 15:16:00 -
[1207] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:If a wardec mechanic is going to exist at all it should be meaningful, that means a defender shouldn't be able to use a simple exploit (drop corp) to dodge it.
Now I can debate whether wars should exist at all or not, but what I cannot stomach is a failure in logic that tries to defend the indefensible, an exploit to a game mechanic.
CCP would say this isn't an exploit, and 'working as intended', that's them trying to have their cake and eat it too. I might selfsame just say bullsh!t, and bad war mechanic is bad...
In short...
- Wars *must* follow someone who drops corp under wardec, for one week or until war ends, whichever is sooner. Anything less is an exploit and loophole.
Additionally...
- Put wardec fees in a 'bucket' claimable by the defender, based on aggressor assets killed. - Increase NPC corp taxes to 50%. If someone wants to be safe, a premium should be paid for that.
DONE.
F
So would you also support strict limitations on numbers and duration of war declarations?
The whole "When I sit in a station and spam war decs at every random corporation I see with anything vaguely PVE related in it's description it should have meaning damn it!" argument is not terribly convincing. |
Josef Djugashvilis
2529
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 15:16:00 -
[1208] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Xuixien wrote: you keep throwing this word "harassment" around.
They do that as a roundabout way of trying to make their rabid risk aversion legitimate. Because unless it is legitimate, absolutely nothing justifies permitting this exploit to continue. So if they manage to establish the dialogue that PvP of any kind constitutes harassment, then avoiding is a *good* act, instead of an evil one.
Kaarous wrote, "...rabid risk aversion..."
Kaarous, you are just so cute at times. This is not a signature. |
Roushar Prhizer
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 15:17:00 -
[1209] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:I see 55 pages of back and forth, without addressing the simplest issue here:
What is to prevent the target from docking up for a week and playing on alts? Please explain how your mechanic change prevents this solution?
Its a joke. I told them exactly what their problem was. But because they don't like the answer, its deny, deflect, and red herring.
They war dec a corp, the threat is great enough and the cost small enough for them to reform into a new corp. So they do so. People come here and want to arbitrarily increase the costs of a basic function of the game so they do not have to change how they play (because apparently what they do it just fine, but what others do it not - go figure).
As I have said before. If you stopped targeting corporations whose costs to disband and reform were not so low. You would not have this issue. You are not entitled to think that the ability to declare war is a the ability to guarantee conflict, just as its not a guarantee to avoid conflict by joining a NPC corporation.
Its very easy as I have said before. You don't' see large corporations do this because the costs to disband and reform is too high. You don't see corporations with much in the way of space assets do this, the cost is too high. But you WILL see this if you dec corps of 4 guys with their 3 alts a piece mining. |
Aivo Dresden
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
376
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 15:19:00 -
[1210] - Quote
Absolutely Not Analt wrote:Following the principle of Keep It Simple Stupid:
What if we just made it cost 50 million ISK per active wardec to dissolve a corp (no active wars = 0 ISK) and require a 24 hour timer before the corp dissolves. Now it costs exactly as much to end a war as it does to start one.
If you wanted to go one better, you could make it take a vote (LOL) of the shareholders to dissolve the corp which, I think, adds another 24 hours, and makes it more cumbersome to dissolve the corporation. I like this idea. Since the corps just get disbanded and recreated within a short period of time, you might as well just add in a feature that cancels a war after 24 hours, for the fee of 50 mill isk.
I doubt however you'll find much sympathy here for any alternative suggestion that doesn't severely penalize the defending corporation.
|
|
Grog Aftermath
Need more grog
134
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 15:27:00 -
[1211] - Quote
Aivo Dresden wrote:Absolutely Not Analt wrote:Following the principle of Keep It Simple Stupid:
What if we just made it cost 50 million ISK per active wardec to dissolve a corp (no active wars = 0 ISK) and require a 24 hour timer before the corp dissolves. Now it costs exactly as much to end a war as it does to start one.
If you wanted to go one better, you could make it take a vote (LOL) of the shareholders to dissolve the corp which, I think, adds another 24 hours, and makes it more cumbersome to dissolve the corporation. I like this idea. Since the corps just get disbanded and recreated within a short period of time, you might as well just add in a feature that cancels a war after 24 hours, for the fee of 50 mill isk. I doubt however you'll find much sympathy here for any alternative suggestion that doesn't severely penalize the defending corporation.
Can't say I'm a fan of that idea, as a larger corp/corp with older characters where isk is no issue to them can keep hitting on a smaller corp. where isk is an issue to them. |
Aivo Dresden
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
377
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 15:28:00 -
[1212] - Quote
Roushar Prhizer wrote:They war dec a corp, the threat is great enough and the cost small enough for them to reform into a new corp. So they do so. People come here and want to arbitrarily increase the costs of a basic function of the game so they do not have to change how they play (because apparently what they do it just fine, but what others do it not - go figure). This is the part that really bothers me as well. The self entitlement here is insane. I honestly think they don't even realise how absurd it is. They want to define how others should play in the sandbox so it suits their own play style better. |
E-2C Hawkeye
State War Academy Caldari State
684
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 15:33:00 -
[1213] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Aivo Dresden wrote: [And this is where you're wrong. People get to play in the sandbox however they want. No party is more entitled to a play style than another.
No they don't. You don't get to play how you want. You get to play how you EARN. You get to do what you want when you are smart enoguh to overcome opposition. A sandbox game doesn't mean you get to do what you want, it means EVERYONE gets to do what they want, and some people want to shut you down. As it is now, people can either hide from consequences in an npc corp OR make a small "npc corp deluxe" small corp (all the NPC dec dodging, none of the NPC corp taxes) that they can just fold and reform. What should happen is that NPC corps are an option, but a poor one, and ANY player corp is subject to counters by other player corps that should necessitate actual creativity on the part of the smaller/weaker corp to avoid/mitigate (like getting or buying friends, somehow going 'guerrilla' on the bigger corp, getting bigger/stronger itself or something else). People who can't see the problem with the current status quo have a problem with honesty. There is no earn. My entitlement to play this game how I want comes when I pay my sub. When you pay my sub then you can tell me how to play my game. |
Absolutely Not Analt
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
144
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 15:35:00 -
[1214] - Quote
Aivo Dresden wrote:Absolutely Not Analt wrote:Following the principle of Keep It Simple Stupid:
What if we just made it cost 50 million ISK per active wardec to dissolve a corp (no active wars = 0 ISK) and require a 24 hour timer before the corp dissolves. Now it costs exactly as much to end a war as it does to start one.
If you wanted to go one better, you could make it take a vote (LOL) of the shareholders to dissolve the corp which, I think, adds another 24 hours, and makes it more cumbersome to dissolve the corporation. I like this idea. Since the corps just get disbanded and recreated within a short period of time, you might as well just add in a feature that cancels a war after 24 hours, for the fee of 50 mill isk.
Actually, that's just buying a get out of war free card, which I'm not sure I like. My suggestion would, if implemented correctly, actually require the defender to make some choices. Here is how I see it working:
1. Hour 0: Attacker (Corp A) declares war on defender (Corp D). Notices go out to all parties. 2. Hour 0: CEO of Corp D happens to be online, gets notice and immediately files for vote to disband corporation. 3. Hour 24: War goes live. Vote passes, CEO presses the DO IT NAO button with furious vengence. ISK is deducted from the corp wallet. If there is not enouigh to cover the total cost, the action is invalidated and a new vote must be taken.
At this point, all members of the corp lose all their corp roles and enter corporate stasis. I envision this being an irreversible process. They can call for the vote and do nothing, but once they actually act on the vote and click the disband button, they can't stop it, even if the attacker drops the war. At this point, Corp D will disband.
4. Hour 48: All members of Corp D are kicked and the corp dissolves. A mechanic would need to be put into place to handle assets and ISK left behind (especially POS towers), but I don't see any great technical hurdles.
In this scenario, the defender still gets to run away if they are wiling to pay to do so. And the attacker still has a minimum of a 24 hour window to catch some denfenders moving around and kill them. Eve is a multi player game.-áAnd you are the content. - Ralph King-Griffin Being meh at two things is not better than being great at one. - Lugh Crow-Slave
|
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
1209
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 15:38:00 -
[1215] - Quote
So, here's a more elaborate opinion...
Ok, war dec me. I have an industry alt. I stay in my corp and move my industry alt out of the corp. You honestly think that's an exploit? What about the alts of the war dec corp making their money for them? Then that's an exploit too.
You want to declare war on a one character/man corp? You really are king ******* neckbeard then. That's like Russia declaring war on Monaco. There's an old saying, "The juice isn't worth the squeeze". Everyone hates the "Eve is dying" threads, but if no one can start a new corporation Eve will undoubtedly die. If your endgame is nothing more than tears they will eventually be yours.
If you declare war on a small corp and some of the members just leave, that's not an exploit, its just people who don't want to be shot at with no provocation. In fact, most people on Earth are this way, no matter how tough they act on the virtually anonymous internet.
You declare war on a small corp and everyone drops the corp and reforms. They just lost all their standings with every (npc) corp in the game for 7 days. No more jump clones, no more missions that the character itself didn't grind standings with. At that point then it may or may not be crossing the line of "exploit", but for every case that's not "exploit" its definitely harassment. In other words if you did nothing to provoke the aggressor and have no assets worth taking then they are just harassing you.
Then of course the final scenario is corps that have real assets and or aggregates someone, then the whole corp drops and reforms. That's probably an exploit, but it one that costs you your POS, so you pay for it in spades. Accounts may not be used for business purposes. Access to the System and playing EVE is intended for your personal entertainment, enjoyment and recreation, and not for corporate, business, commercial or income-seeking activities.-á |
Aivo Dresden
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
377
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 15:44:00 -
[1216] - Quote
Yea, I can see your point. My question is; why make something super tedious and annoying? No one likes annoying mechanics. Why as a developer, would you purposefully add in something just to make things harder or more annoying? That's just bad design.
You know they'll just remake the corp anyway. Might as well just give them to option to as soon as hostilities between the 2 parties start, they can pay to surrender within 24 hours. And not the crazy fees but something along the lines of what the initial wardec costed.
That way there's always at least a 24h window of aggression and the defender doesn't have to go through the hassle of what you described. Declaring and paying for a war is just way to easy and if anything, this is what needs to change. |
Aiyshimin
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
69
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 16:30:00 -
[1217] - Quote
Wardec price should depend on the NPC standings and sec status of the corps involved. For a deccer, the price should be higher if they had bad relations to authorities, and even higher if the declared corp has better relations to authorities.
Furthermore, the declared corp should be able to counter-bribe CONCORD to nullify the war declaration.
|
Sibyyl
Gallente Federation
14399
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 16:32:00 -
[1218] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:Wardec price should depend on the NPC standings and sec status of the corps involved. For a deccer, the price should be higher if they had bad relations to authorities, and even higher if the declared corp has better relations to authorities.
Furthermore, the declared corp should be able to counter-bribe CONCORD to nullify the war declaration.
I like this idea. Gives value to higher standings.
my brains not functioning.. need somethign meaningful to say here --Pepper the Penguin ~ And when the seasons change, will you stand by me? ~ |
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
1416
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 16:43:00 -
[1219] - Quote
Carl Pator wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:If a wardec mechanic is going to exist at all it should be meaningful, that means a defender shouldn't be able to use a simple exploit (drop corp) to dodge it.
Now I can debate whether wars should exist at all or not, but what I cannot stomach is a failure in logic that tries to defend the indefensible, an exploit to a game mechanic.
CCP would say this isn't an exploit, and 'working as intended', that's them trying to have their cake and eat it too. I might selfsame just say bullsh!t, and bad war mechanic is bad...
In short...
- Wars *must* follow someone who drops corp under wardec, for one week or until war ends, whichever is sooner. Anything less is an exploit and loophole.
Additionally...
- Put wardec fees in a 'bucket' claimable by the defender, based on aggressor assets killed. - Increase NPC corp taxes to 50%. If someone wants to be safe, a premium should be paid for that.
DONE.
F While I've been pro dec dodging due to lack of a better option I think we may have just found one. I can find no fault in your post and the dec fees into a bucket for kill based payout would be a good insentive for the defender to fight. Should the cost of decing go up though? As I don't think 50mil would go very far. Anything is on the table as far as I am concerned, after the existing drop-corp loophole is closed.
Keep in mind though, wardec fees have already been increased -- it's long overdue the counter-balancing closing of drop-corp loophole is closed.
Then we can talk.
F
Would you like to know more? |
Ria Nieyli
20858
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 16:50:00 -
[1220] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:Aiyshimin wrote:Wardec price should depend on the NPC standings and sec status of the corps involved. For a deccer, the price should be higher if they had bad relations to authorities, and even higher if the declared corp has better relations to authorities.
Furthermore, the declared corp should be able to counter-bribe CONCORD to nullify the war declaration.
I like this idea. Gives value to higher standings. Edit: Be careful though Aiysh, a large established corp could probably grind for standings much easier than a small corp of eclectic players.
A large corp would have some difficulties getting all its member to grind the required standings, and that's without taking alts into consideration. Mirrored eyes |
|
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
1416
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 16:58:00 -
[1221] - Quote
Grog Aftermath wrote: [closing drop-corp loophole]...Which would be worse than the old system, you could hound someone back to an NPC corp or out of the game.
If a player chooses to hide out in an NPC corp to avoid wardecs, that's his call. He has that choice. It is not 'hounding', that is pansified carebear speech. WoW is that way -->
Grog Aftermath wrote: As the corps being targeted are PvE corps nothing would ever come out of the bucket, rendering it a complete waste of time.
Increase taxes to 50% and have players especially newer players asking themselves why do they even bother playing the game.
You talk about logic, yet your logic just follows a hard-line PvPers.
Corps are corps, they are both pvp and pve -- there shouldn't be different war mechanics to try and protect one subset.
If players (especially newer players) don't like paying 50% NPC corp taxes to enjoy safety from wardecs, they can choose to create their little 1 man corps as they do today. Nothing is stopping them from doing that. Choice equals consequence however THAT is EvE.
Also, there is this little thing called 'alliances', where even a PVE corp can join an alliance that also contains PVP corps for their protection. Your problem (and I would dare say many pansy carebears problems), is they refuse to organize to enjoy the protections offered by said organizations...
I would dare say, small corps that can't organize to defend themselves SHOULD be blasted from existance and die under wardecs, and said conflict ensure only those worthy of survival as a corp go on to join an alliance to protect it (or learn to protect themselves). Your problem is you think the weak and incompetent should be able to run (1 man tax dodging) corps without molestation at all, that is not HTFU, that is not EvE.
Finally, for your pansified heresies against EvE HTFU, we are adding a +1 to the Kill-It-Forward queue, where an innocent carebear will be murdered by us in hisec and told it was because of you and your heresies in this thread.
Your heresies, our hands, their blood, your conscience.
F Would you like to know more? |
Sibyyl
Gallente Federation
14403
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 16:59:00 -
[1222] - Quote
Ria Nieyli wrote:
A large corp would have some difficulties getting all its member to grind the required standings, and that's without taking alts into consideration.
I think it depends. Members with no standings at all do not contribute negatively, and there is a 7 day cooldown for member contributions to corp pool..
my brains not functioning.. need somethign meaningful to say here --Pepper the Penguin ~ And when the seasons change, will you stand by me? ~ |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8263
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 17:06:00 -
[1223] - Quote
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Aivo Dresden wrote: [And this is where you're wrong. People get to play in the sandbox however they want. No party is more entitled to a play style than another.
No they don't. You don't get to play how you want. You get to play how you EARN. You get to do what you want when you are smart enoguh to overcome opposition. A sandbox game doesn't mean you get to do what you want, it means EVERYONE gets to do what they want, and some people want to shut you down. As it is now, people can either hide from consequences in an npc corp OR make a small "npc corp deluxe" small corp (all the NPC dec dodging, none of the NPC corp taxes) that they can just fold and reform. What should happen is that NPC corps are an option, but a poor one, and ANY player corp is subject to counters by other player corps that should necessitate actual creativity on the part of the smaller/weaker corp to avoid/mitigate (like getting or buying friends, somehow going 'guerrilla' on the bigger corp, getting bigger/stronger itself or something else). People who can't see the problem with the current status quo have a problem with honesty. There is no earn. My entitlement to play this game how I want comes when I pay my sub. When you pay my sub then you can tell me how to play my game.
BS. Your sub gives you access to the game, nothing more. The only 'rights' you have in this game are contained in the EULA, that's it.
So you can play as you want, other people can play as they want, and if they want to stop you, that's fair game. What shouldn't happen is that you shouldn't be able to short-circuit someone playing against you so easily that it costs you nothing.
The above describes the hypocricy seen in many high sec posters. They don't like Ganking (for example) because 'it doesn't cost enough, catalysts are cheap', but when it's a beneficial game mechanic that costs NOTHING (folding then reform a corporation), well, hey, that's ok because sandbox/emergent gameplay.
|
Grog Aftermath
Need more grog
134
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 17:08:00 -
[1224] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Finally, for your pansified heresies against EvE HTFU, we are adding a +1 to the Kill-It-Forward queue, where an innocent carebear will be murdered by us in hisec and told it was because of you and your heresies in this thread. Your heresies, our hands, their blood, your conscience. F
Lol. so I was right about you being a hard-line PvPer.
Well if you want to play the in-game terrorist that's up to you. But their blood as you put it is not on my hands, it's squarely on yours. You're the one making that decision, not me. |
Ireland VonVicious
Vicious Trading Company
401
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 17:11:00 -
[1225] - Quote
Grog Aftermath wrote:Ireland VonVicious wrote: The biggest game mechanic issue is that we have no way to fight back with cold hard cash. This puts indy/trade and large new player groups at huge disadvantage.
There are mercenary corps for hire.
Complete joke for the defending side. You have no idea who put mercs on you in the first place. Odds are high your paying guys working with the guys who are deccing you.
I've yet to ever hear of one time hiring mercs helped a defending corp in over 5 years of playing. |
Grog Aftermath
Need more grog
134
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 17:12:00 -
[1226] - Quote
Ireland VonVicious wrote:Grog Aftermath wrote:Ireland VonVicious wrote: The biggest game mechanic issue is that we have no way to fight back with cold hard cash. This puts indy/trade and large new player groups at huge disadvantage.
There are mercenary corps for hire. Complete joke for the defending side. You have no idea who put mercs on you in the first place. Odds are high your paying guys working with the guys who are deccing you. I've yet to ever hear of one time hiring mercs helped a defending corp in over 5 years of playing.
Depends, helps if you know a good merc corp. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8263
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 17:16:00 -
[1227] - Quote
Cipher Jones wrote: You want to declare war on a one character/man corp? You really are king ******* neckbeard then. That's like Russia declaring war on Monaco. There's an old saying, "The juice isn't worth the squeeze".
You meant Ukraine....which the pretty much did. Same as when the United States invade Grenada. EVE, like real life, isn't some honorable 1v1 arena, it's cut throat dog eat smaller dog madness. It might suck in real life (because of all the dying) but it's fun in a video game.
I'm glad that some of you EVE players aren't George Lucas. If y'all was, Star Wars would have been a 10 minute short story about Luke Skywalker moaning about how unfair Galactic Empire Wardecs are (and then giving up without a fight). Because even with the force how can a few people beat Death Stars (he wouldn't have even thought about trying to Torpedo any exhaust ports because of the unfavorable Risk/Reward ration)?
I remain constantly amazed about the displays of risk aversion (like dec-dodging) in a meaningless video game where nothing tangible can be lost. |
Seneca Auran
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
33
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 17:17:00 -
[1228] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: The above describes the hypocricy seen in many high sec posters. They don't like Ganking (for example) because 'it doesn't cost enough, catalysts are cheap', but when it's a beneficial game mechanic that costs NOTHING (folding then reform a corporation), well, hey, that's ok because sandbox/emergent gameplay.
The same argument works just as well in reverse. It perfectly describes the hypocrisy of many gankbears. Pay 50 million ISK and click a button for unrestricted high sec PVP? A OK. Disband a corporation to avoid a war dec? "No! EVE is a HARD game for HARD people! You need to justify your existence and EARN your right to play!!" |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8264
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 17:20:00 -
[1229] - Quote
Seneca Auran wrote:Jenn aSide wrote: The above describes the hypocricy seen in many high sec posters. They don't like Ganking (for example) because 'it doesn't cost enough, catalysts are cheap', but when it's a beneficial game mechanic that costs NOTHING (folding then reform a corporation), well, hey, that's ok because sandbox/emergent gameplay.
The same argument works just as well in reverse. It perfectly describes the hypocrisy of many gankbears. Pay 50 million ISK and click a button for unrestricted high sec PVP? A OK. Disband a corporation to avoid a war dec? "No! EVE is a HARD game for HARD people! You need to justify your existence and EARN your right to play!!"
The things you mention aren't equal at all. The 'gankbears' pay 50 million is. what does the disbanding corp pay again? oh right, NOTHING.
The only reason the 'gankbears' exist is the same reason why gankers in general exist in high sec, that's where the weak minded explosion-fodder is.
|
Solecist Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
10091
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 17:22:00 -
[1230] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Seneca Auran wrote:Jenn aSide wrote: The above describes the hypocricy seen in many high sec posters. They don't like Ganking (for example) because 'it doesn't cost enough, catalysts are cheap', but when it's a beneficial game mechanic that costs NOTHING (folding then reform a corporation), well, hey, that's ok because sandbox/emergent gameplay.
The same argument works just as well in reverse. It perfectly describes the hypocrisy of many gankbears. Pay 50 million ISK and click a button for unrestricted high sec PVP? A OK. Disband a corporation to avoid a war dec? "No! EVE is a HARD game for HARD people! You need to justify your existence and EARN your right to play!!" The things you mention aren't equal at all. The 'gankbears' pay 50 million is. what does the disbanding corp pay again? oh right, NOTHING. The only reason the 'gankbears' exist is the same reason why gankers in general exist in high sec, that's where the weak minded explosion-fodder is. Now now ... ... it costs them A WHOLE MILLION to reform the corp ..................
.......... how dare you forget to mention that????
/sarcasm
Meta Portrait: umm, looks like youre 'busy', young love, sexual and sensual, soft&warm, OMG naked???, are you kissin or blo..., so much feels, most sexually suggestive pic I've seen. I make it feel real... Dear you-know-who. Don't force me to spread out my mail APIkey and chatlogs. Get off my back already. Thanks. :) |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 53 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |