| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10398
   |
Posted - 2014.10.30 13:05:25 -
[1] - Quote
If such changes ever come to pass, I already know what I'll be playing instead of EVE Online.
In the meantime though, reported for trolling, flame baiting, and rumor mongering.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10398
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 13:08:38 -
[2] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Was awoxxing possible in ultima?
Yep.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10398
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 14:02:36 -
[3] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:There were 3 main reasons that have deterred me from joining Highsec corps -
1. Awoxxing
2. Wardeccs
3. Theft
Even if CCP knocks off reason 1, I still think 2 and 3 are a pretty big deterrent to joining corps, and a good reason for many to stay in NPC/1 man corps. The answer then is to greatly increase taxes in NPC corps, for if people are going to get the benefits you mention by hiding out in NPC corps then there should be a much higher premium to get that. Also, wardecs should follow a player who leaves a player corp, for one week (or until wardec ends) when they leave corp and join another (or go to an NPC corp). The existing exploit of ducking wardecs must be closed. IF wardec mechanics are to exist, they should be meaningful. We've been beaten into pansification for years with nerf sticks, its time for some content creation carrots CCP. F
Bingo.
CCP has correctly identified the existence of the problem only. That too many people are in NPC corps and they stay there for too long.
But they have, of course, incorrectly identified the cause of this.
It's not that player corps are unattractive. It's that NPC corps are entirely too attractive. They have too many benefits for not enough penalties.
The only actual penalty they have is POS use. Oh no, I don't get to use the single most pain-in-the-ass mechanic to ever exist in videogames, woe is me!
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10399
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 16:18:07 -
[4] - Quote
Gaan Cathal wrote:Why is this being framed as a Carebears vs Hardcore debate?
Because that's exactly what it is.
CCP spitting in the face of one group of players to bow and scrape in front of another.
One group matters, and if CCP goes too far they'll find out exactly which group that is.
Quote: You can still AWOX to your heart's content, but if you attack a non-hostile target, you will get Concordokkened.
So then you can't awox. At least be honest about taking a position on the sniveling, risk averse coward side.
Quote:
Actually, repeated harassment of the same individual can reach a point at which it's regarded as griefing by CCP.
Entirely untrue. A legal target is a legal target, always.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10399
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 16:20:55 -
[5] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:I try to see both sides of an argument, honest I do.
Forgive me if I don't believe you, while you and yours celebrate the death of my playstyle.
Quote:
That this 'buffs hisec' and makes the game safer? Yeah I see that.
Thing is it does so by removing a stupid loophole.
If closing a "stupid loophole" (by the way my playstyle is not a stupid loophole, thanks) means that highsec ends up with a net buff to safety, then other things need to be buffed to compensate.
Wardecs should not permit dodging, and CONCORD response time should be lowered across the board.
Awoxing is, right now one of the few decent ways to actually inflict damage on people in highsec. Highsec is too safe already. If you make it moreso, you HAVE to take something away in balance.
I don't care about whatever lore non logic you want to use to justify this.
Buffing highsec is unacceptable.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10401
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 16:46:47 -
[6] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:
The issue is not that AWOXing is going away. It is not going away, full stop. It may require more social engineering now, which is good! It might be more difficult, and more rewarding, gameplay for those inclined toward it.
Why do you people keep spouting this lie?
Yes, awoxing would be removed, full stop.
Because if you're talking about tricking someone into duelling you, I can do that without joining their corp.
You are not adding any player interaction, you are taking it away. At least be honest about it.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10401
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 16:49:36 -
[7] - Quote
Gaan Cathal wrote:
Sure you can, you just loose a ship in the process.
Then it's suicide ganking. Which I can do without joining their corp. Knock off the lies already.
Quote:
"Buffing highsec is unacceptable" seems a bit odd though, firstly - if highsec at some point was in need of a buff, it should get one.
And right now it's in need of nerfs. They have been nerfing it, in fact. It is finally no longer the only acceptable place to perform industry, which is a good start. Now they need to work on the fact that it's the only acceptable place to mission or run incursions. It's too safe by half.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10401
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 16:56:40 -
[8] - Quote
Doc Fury wrote:
Maybe there needs to be a consensus on what awoxing means exactly?
It's defined as individual, active betrayal of one's ostensible corporation.
Active, as in not spying.
It can encompass corp theft, but was originally used to describe the activity of providing warp ins for hostile players(which can be easily done with cloaked ships instead), and is presently used primarily to describe the act of infiltrating a corporation with the intent to attack them from within.
Removing this particular interaction reduces the concept of awoxing to have the functional effect of only permitting corp theft.
Thereby functionally removing the concept instead.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10401
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:05:27 -
[9] - Quote
I spit on your "flags that you can turn on and off".
That is purely consensual PvP. And removing a real avenue to inflict damage to replace it with such a thing is distasteful at best.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10401
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:10:14 -
[10] - Quote
Gaan Cathal wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:
Out of curiosity, what makes you think that the above are the real reasons new players quit? Have you stats? Exit polls? You know, the things CCP does to see why people leave?
All I personally know is that when I came into EVE, I joined a mission running corp and were told all these things that were untrue about lw and null. If it wasn't for CCP introducing Faction Warfare, I'd have quit because based on bad information I was too afraid to venture outside of high sec. The Vetbears in NPC corp channels thing is a real issue, but I'm dammned if I can think of an implementable solution that doesn't break something.
NPC corps should have extremely punitive mechanics if your character is older than 60 days. 35% tax rate to all transactions, inability to run level 3 and 4 missions, and you cannot join fleets. Once you move to an NPC corp, you cannot create a new player corporation for 7 days, although you may join one. All of which is exempted from Faction Warfare corps.
Leaves new players alone, smashes those exploting the increased safety. Also highly incentivizes player corps in comparison, makes it something worth fighting for, something worth keeping instead of just glorified chat channels.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10401
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:24:11 -
[11] - Quote
Syn Shi wrote:
Seems to me the only ones avoiding risk are the ones who awox.
No, they're embracing risk. They are alone, against an entire corporation.
It's the fault of their "victims" for not shooting back when they have free reign to do so. The only cowardice here is from their side, not from the side that happily straps on guns and gets into shooting range.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10403
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:46:20 -
[12] - Quote
Syn Shi wrote:The funny thing about all the QQ.
The OP didn't say anything about removing awox.
Now they just have to deal with Concord........the whole risk thing they have been avoiding.
At the end of the day, who cares if you lose an easily replaceable desi to Concord. Surely the reward of tears is worth it.
Suicide ganking already exists. I don't have to be in someone's corp to do that.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10403
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:51:11 -
[13] - Quote
Hey Mike, since you're so fixated on "makes sense" in regards to CONCORD ignoring inter corporate violence.
Tell me how it "makes sense" that if they can't be asked to show up in a mission pocket to shoot the NPC actual pirates, that they can just appear by magic if a player shoots at another player.
Please tell me how that "makes sense" and isn't exactly the kind of arbitrary thing you're claiming to crusade against.
If they won't show up to shoot the rats, I think they shouldn't show up at all. "Makes sense", right?
Or we can admit to ourselves that absolutely nothing about the Infallible Magic Space Police makes sense, and just talk about game mechanics without hiding behind non logic false flags. Because if you want it to "make sense", they should not exist in the first place, let alone have unstoppable weapons.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10403
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:55:25 -
[14] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Hey Mike, since you're so fixated on "makes sense" in regards to CONCORD ignoring inter corporate violence.
Tell me how it "makes sense" that if they can't be asked to show up in a mission pocket to shoot the NPC actual pirates, that they can just appear by magic if a player shoots at another player.
Please tell me how that "makes sense" and isn't exactly the kind of arbitrary thing you're claiming to crusade against.
If they won't show up to shoot the rats, I think they shouldn't show up at all. "Makes sense", right?
Or we can admit to ourselves that absolutely nothing about the Infallible Magic Space Police makes sense, and just talk about game mechanics without hiding behind non logic false flags. Because if you want it to "make sense", they should not exist in the first place, let alone have unstoppable weapons. NPC pirates are not considered a threat by concord.
Is that why there's a tutorial mission with precisely that? Along with a few other missions or arcs.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10403
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:58:38 -
[15] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Hey Mike, since you're so fixated on "makes sense" in regards to CONCORD ignoring inter corporate violence.
Tell me how it "makes sense" that if they can't be asked to show up in a mission pocket to shoot the NPC actual pirates, that they can just appear by magic if a player shoots at another player.
Please tell me how that "makes sense" and isn't exactly the kind of arbitrary thing you're claiming to crusade against.
If they won't show up to shoot the rats, I think they shouldn't show up at all. "Makes sense", right?
Or we can admit to ourselves that absolutely nothing about the Infallible Magic Space Police makes sense, and just talk about game mechanics without hiding behind non logic false flags. Because if you want it to "make sense", they should not exist in the first place, let alone have unstoppable weapons. Pretty sure it was never CONCORD's mandate to shoot at guristas and other such pirate group. I'm pretty sure they only have a word to say in affairs between capsulers such a corporation/alliance war declarations, illegal attack in high security space, ...
See above. Ever do the Angel Arc? You even hunt down and kill a CONCORD deputy. Sure seems like they are concerned with the NPCs.
It's pretty "inconsistent" for them to even shoot players at all if they can't deal with the actual pirates. Since "inconsistent" is also something the carebears seem so concerned with.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10403
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:00:52 -
[16] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Hey Mike, since you're so fixated on "makes sense" in regards to CONCORD ignoring inter corporate violence.
Tell me how it "makes sense" that if they can't be asked to show up in a mission pocket to shoot the NPC actual pirates, that they can just appear by magic if a player shoots at another player.
Please tell me how that "makes sense" and isn't exactly the kind of arbitrary thing you're claiming to crusade against.
If they won't show up to shoot the rats, I think they shouldn't show up at all. "Makes sense", right?
Or we can admit to ourselves that absolutely nothing about the Infallible Magic Space Police makes sense, and just talk about game mechanics without hiding behind non logic false flags. Because if you want it to "make sense", they should not exist in the first place, let alone have unstoppable weapons. Concord has hired the Capsiuleer running the mission to handle the threat. They then allow him/her to succeed or fail on thier own merits. But they DO interfere with capsuleer/capsuleer violence unless the appropriate fees have been paid (wardec) makes sense to me m
CONCORD is not the ones paying mission runners. They are almost exclusively one of the four factions.
So you're ignoring an inconsistency when it's in your favor. Okay, just wanted confirmation of that.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10404
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:06:58 -
[17] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:
Yeah, It doesn't all make sense but that does not preclude me from liking it when it does.
It does preclude you from pointing that finger at others.
So let's knock off the "makes sense" bullshit, and talk about it on it's own merits, or lack thereof.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10404
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:11:37 -
[18] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:
Yeah, It doesn't all make sense but that does not preclude me from liking it when it does.
It does preclude you from pointing that finger at others. So let's knock off the "makes sense" bullshit, and talk about it on it's own merits, or lack thereof. It is a major inconsistency that we can shoot corp mates w/o concord intervention, but not alliance mates. The proposed changes remedy that inconsistency. 
Personally, I am surprised that alliance bookmarks are still ignored.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10404
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:12:32 -
[19] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:
If the angel arc mark you kill a concord deputy, it means the angels want to kill concord, not that concord want to devote effort to kill pirates.
One wonders why CONCORD is in Curse, then.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10404
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:18:38 -
[20] - Quote
Paynus Maiassus wrote:Xuixien wrote:Persifonne wrote:When will hisec become pvp free (except for duels and wardecs). Anyone activating weapons on player ship that you arent wardecced to, isnt flashy red or in a duel with will get concorded. Only pvp in lowsec null and wh. This day is coming. It is closer than we think. I'm ready to unsub my accounts basically any time at this point. No point in staying subbed... once EVE goes themepark it'll go the way of all the other themepark MMOs. In it's place some other small, niche, dark game will pop up to satisfy people who actually enjoy hard games without having their hands held. AWOXING has nothing to do with Eve being hard or player skill. It's an exploit. Doesn't make sense from a lore perspective that the police will come to stop crime in a highly policed area except when the crime is a betrayal of a friend. AWOXERs need to get a real job. Do something hard in Eve. There's plenty to do. Eve is a hard game. AWOXING isn't one of them.
Dec dodging has nothing do with EVE being hard, or player skill. It's an exploit. It doesn't make sense from a lore perspective that a declared war suddenly goes away by paying 2 million isk if they reform under the same name as five minutes ago.
Dec dodgers need to go to NPC corps with the rest of the cowards. There's plenty to do in a player corp, dec dodging isn't one of them.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10404
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:23:27 -
[21] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:
I'll even cut your job a bit and grant you that if it does not hurt subs, there is absolutely no reasons to change this so you only really have to think about what you might do if it did.
Both option might be true in reality but we don't know which scenario is actually being played right now.
It doesn't cost subs.
But apparently we are so devoid of ways to actually create incentives to play the game that we are chasing after imaginary deterents.
Each and every reason given for why "it hurts new players" is handily debunked, starting with the "it makes people afraid to recruit" horseshit.
It does nothing of the sort. The fact that awoxing happens at all shows that clearly, people are getting into corps. I got into nine last month, without a problem.
So clearly, people are recruiting. It is not even hard to get into a corp.
There is zero impediment to social interaction caused by awoxing.
Furthermore, CCP should not be concerned with the kind of people who "level their Raven and then quit", because they'd be quitting anyway. This game will never attract AND keep such people, they treat it like it's a Facebook game. Getting them into player corps or not will not save their subs, they are intrinsically playing the game wrong and that is not going to change.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10404
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:27:27 -
[22] - Quote
Syn Shi wrote:
We just want to grief and gank under the guise that we are creating content. (and we don't want to risk anything)
Yeah, the Guiding Hand Social Club totally wasn't one of the single largest generators of long term subs in the history of the game.
It's just "griefing" that stops CCP from attracting the kind of people who just want to watch Family Guy with one hand down their pants while they mine endlessly in highsec. Oh, if only we could have less of the former and more of the latter!
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10404
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:41:04 -
[23] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:
I'll even cut your job a bit and grant you that if it does not hurt subs, there is absolutely no reasons to change this so you only really have to think about what you might do if it did.
Both option might be true in reality but we don't know which scenario is actually being played right now.
It doesn't cost subs. I will take your words for it as soon as you provide a proof of it. You seem to have access to CCP's account history data so it should not be hard for you to provide fact about how it does not cost subs.
Prove that it does.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10405
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:47:53 -
[24] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:
He can't prove his point without access to ccp's data anymore than you can prove yours. All we know is that ccp has the data, and they're the ones choosing to make these changes.
They're not making any change, they're floating ideas in the CSM minutes. One that I am stringently disagreeing with.
And as for the "Leveling their Raven" people. Yes, retaining them would be a benefit.
But never if that means taking away from the sandbox. Selling the soul of the game for the sake of purely theoretical casual players who already behave in a fashion contrary to the reality of the game is not worth it.
Ultima Online died doing exactly that.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10405
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:53:30 -
[25] - Quote
"If you remove awoxing, you will have more targets! ... for the mechanics that don't actually work like wardecs."
You lot expect us to swallow that nonsense?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10406
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:02:51 -
[26] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:
There is a metric ass ton of reason why CCP is losing potential costumer and no one in this discussion really has an answer to this. We are all making guess as to what it might or might not be while CCP is making moves on what I assume is there own analyse of the data they have.
I don't have to assume anything, or guess.
It can be easily inferred that not everyone will enjoy a sandbox game in the long term. Those people are not only inevitable losses, but of no concern for anything.
It can also be easily inferred that people who "Level their Raven", that meaning trying to play this game like it was World of Warcraft, are not suitable for the sandbox.
Hence my statement. Anything that is the "cause" of these people leaving is of no real consequence, they WILL quit anyway. But you're telling me that another month of their flash in the pan pretensions that this isn't a multiplayer game is worth the loss of my seven years of playing, the last five of which with 3 accounts at least.
Because the price of their subbing for maybe one more month before they realize they are playing the wrong game and quit is that my playstyle is removed and I unsub everything I might have had for the next few years, permanently. Me, and everyone like me.
Yeah, totally worth it. 
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10406
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:05:08 -
[27] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Also, Syn Shi made a very good point. They aren't removing awoxing. You can still find and gank high value targets via infiltration.
No, that's just suicide ganking. That existed before, and I can do 100% it without being in their corp beforehand. Also, as a largely solo player, my choice of targets is sharply limited by the unreasonable restrictions on this playstyle. While on the other hand, wardecs are toothless.
Stop with the disingenuous nonsense already.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10408
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:11:12 -
[28] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Convince your target to take their raven or w/e into a wormhole with you.
You're ****ing kidding me.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10408
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:17:39 -
[29] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:
Convince your target to take their raven or w/e into a wormhole with you.
You're ****ing kidding me. You're in their corp, yes? You've gained their trust, yes? Start running wh ops and spread a little loot around. And then, kill a target when the opportune moment arises. Wouldn't be the first time this happened. Use some social engineering, or accept the consequence of shooting something in hisec. Dealer's choice. Bottom line is you can adapt or quit. If you choose the latter, dibs on your stuff.
So... you actually think that PvP should require jumping through that many hoops, just to get the slightest chance to kill somebody? I just want to make sure you actually believe what you're telling me here, because I can barely believe it myself.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10408
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:28:27 -
[30] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
If I may take the liberty of of paraphrasing the delightfully always angry Kaarous:
- It's all about me and what I want.
Call me when they suggest the complete deletion of how you play the game.;
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10408
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:29:37 -
[31] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:
You actually think pvp should require nothing more than joining some daft fool's corp? I just want to make sure you actually believe what you're telling me here, because I can barely believe it myself.
If you think that's all that awoxing entails, then you're a fool.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10408
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:32:59 -
[32] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:
You actually think pvp should require nothing more than joining some daft fool's corp? I just want to make sure you actually believe what you're telling me here, because I can barely believe it myself.
If you think that's all that awoxing entails, then you're a fool. No, but it is the only aspect of awoxing that is modified by the proposed change. 
No, I can still get into the their corps.
Being able to do anything in any way after that is what is proposed to be removed.
Hell, even with your asinine "lure them into a wormhole" suggestion, I can do that without being in their corp.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10409
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:41:42 -
[33] - Quote
Syn Shi wrote:
I don't know about you but I think Goons have done a better job at removing pvp from the game than ccp or carebears have.
You not so good at the thinks.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10415
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:56:36 -
[34] - Quote
Krusty the Klown wrote:
I'm genuinely curious but how would someone inflict meaningful losses to you?
You do realize they can shoot back, right? That's how. My awox boat is a blinged out Gnosis, if anyone were to kill it, it's a significant loss.
Quote:
The problem is, that the people are well aware what an awoxer can do and might have even experienced one themselves but cannot understand any of the risks involved.
That's their problem. Not mine. It shouldn't necessitate the removal of my playstyle because they can't use Google.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10415
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:59:04 -
[35] - Quote
Hells Bells, there are usually thirty times as many of them as there are of me. If that's not risk, I don't know what is.
Their failure to capitalize on this is not my fault either. But somehow it's presented as though it were, or that their ignorance should merit them being shielded against my ever showing up ever again.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10418
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:18:59 -
[36] - Quote
Aqriue wrote:gank or GTFO of highsec
No. PvP belongs in highsec, plain and simple. There should be no one way to do it, much like you how you disgusting freaklings insist that no one should "force" you to play a certain way.
But of course because you're all hypocrites, you are just fine with forcing gameplay on others.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10421
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:55:07 -
[37] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Dave Stark wrote:y'all are aware that ecm will get you out of any high sec awox situation. right?
there have been many occasions when a perfect awox has been foiled by a single jam. Yeah. But fitting ECM every time you fly out with corp mates doesn't seem too reasonable. But what do I know  . just keep one in a station where you're living. if an awoxer shows up, just reship, jam him, get everyone off grid, and add him to the new kick queue and after downtime you're awoxer free.
But that requires more than zero effort, Dave, so it's unacceptable to them. It's also not a 100% guarantee, which they also won't budge on it seems.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10421
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 21:01:50 -
[38] - Quote
Ama Scelesta wrote:
The problem is that you're being reasonable
That's not reasonable, it's an absurdity that no one actually suggested.
What is being suggested is that you should have to do more than nothing to defend yourself. You would prefer to do nothing, and get 100% effectiveness for your nothing.
That tells me all I need to know about you.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10421
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 21:09:51 -
[39] - Quote
Syn Shi wrote:
The only rumored change...the awoxer will lose their ship.
Which means that awoxing ceases to exist, since what you described is suicide ganking and already exists.
Quote:
We get it, you are risk averse. You don't want consequences.
Of course I do, I'm the one attacking at a thirty to one odds. I don't use neutral logi either, just a cloaking device on a battlecruiser.
You're the one who wants 100% of your risk removed.
Quote:
Who is the carebear again?
Still you, you risk averse shitheel.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10421
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 21:17:09 -
[40] - Quote
Syn Shi wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Syn Shi wrote:Awox will still be possible if the rumor ends up being true.
do... do you even know what awoxing is? According to this thread the ability to kill anyone in a corp I join with no consequence to myself.
There are plenty of potential consequences, provided the corp you are screwing with has any balls. That's what a sandbox is, player actions should provoke player responses. If you don't respond, it's your fault.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10422
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 22:32:35 -
[41] - Quote
Syn Shi wrote:
You can still awox.
Stop lying. All that remains if this is changed is the same suicide ganking we've pretty much always had.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10422
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 23:00:03 -
[42] - Quote
Syn Shi wrote:
You can still awox.
No, you can't. It would be suicide ganking instead, which already exists.
Enough of your lies. If lies and lore bullshit are all the carebear community can dredge up to justify this, you are even more pathetic than I thought you were.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10425
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 23:26:16 -
[43] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
You can't be serious. Corp awoxing is almost exclusively documented as being used to grief new players.
Or to attack people who abuse the dec dodge exploit, in my case.
Quote:
There is nothing stopping you from being a warpin point for suicide gankers.
And there is nothing about that that requires me to be in their corp to do it. Hell I can do that with a ten hour old cloaked alt and a locator agent.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10425
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 00:01:25 -
[44] - Quote
Syn Shi wrote: a nice blingy ship for lvl 5 missions in low
Do you even play this game? No one actually does this, even total newbies.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10427
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 02:01:15 -
[45] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:
They kept you from being a part of the player driven environment. That is a detriment to EVE and it makes players like you a problem.
I would point out that anything that keeps him from interacting with other players (especially newbies) is probably a good thing.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10428
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 02:10:25 -
[46] - Quote
Nevil Oscillator wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:
They kept you from being a part of the player driven environment. That is a detriment to EVE and it makes players like you a problem.
I would point out that anything that keeps him from interacting with other players (especially newbies) is probably a good thing. It is detrimental to Eve not to be part of player owned empires.
No, I'm talking about Tears Belvar in particular.
Anything that prevents specifically him from being a part of the social dynamic of EVE Online is a great thing. The man has one of the most poisonous, disgusting attitudes seen in recent times.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10430
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 10:18:55 -
[47] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Kaarous, what stops you from joining a low/null corp and awoxing them there? Just a curiosity.
Such corps very often have better opsec. The opportunity is just not there within a suitable timeframe. Not saying it can't be done, because it can. But most people's assumptions of safety in highsec makes it much more likely that one is able to bag a T2 mining ship or a freighter or some such. In particular a freighter is much more likely to pay a ransom.
With low/null groups, a completely passive spy or corp thief can often do far more unrelated damage than an awox if one is actively working for "the enemy" whoever that might happen to be. But that really isn't within reach of a typical solo awoxer, is it?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10436
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 23:56:22 -
[48] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:And there was a reason it was changed - because people simply harassed other people by constantly wardeccing them when they stood no change of defending themselves, making it pointless to create corps with players that undock. 2m to effectively switch off concord was way too low. Most of the aggressors might have agreed it was awesome, being super cheap PvP against easy targets, but most of thsoe target probably didn't.
Horseshit.
Go ahead and pull up the dev blog for that change. It specifically states that the changes were intended to buff wardecs, since they were too easy to avoid with the dec shield exploit. (but of course the risk averse shitheels of highsec found another way to cheat their way past actually playing the game)
That's why it got changed.
Not because of this myth that somehow PvP in highsec isn't supposed to happen.
Never spout that lie again.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10440
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 00:25:04 -
[49] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
You are attempting to punish people for getting Wardec'ed. It will never work.
No, they'd be attempting to get people to shoot at each other in a PvP game. If "it will never work" then quite frankly those people belong in an NPC corp.
Quote:
You need something in space worth fighting over.
On this at least we agree. I believe that NPC corps should be sufficiently punitive for players over the age of 60 days that it makes a player corp something genuinely worth defending. Such a thing does not touch newbies, it encourages people getting out there and forming groups and interacting, and it neatly solves the problem of "leveling your Raven" players.
Quote:
And you need the ability to get a 'fair' fight. Sure this is EVE and fights aren't set up to be fair, but if it's a one sided shooting match, forcing the other guy into it is silly.
There is no such thing as a fair fight in EVE. Interestingly, neither is there such a thing as a one sided shooting match(at least in highsec where there are not capitals anyway), as each and every player is capable of fighting back. There is no way to not have gunnery skills in this game. (and if you choose to not train them, you have made the deliberate choice to be a prey animal. Sometimes prey animals are caught and eaten, but that's literally what you chose)
Quote:
I've made a number of suggestions of things worth fighting over in the past. As have other people. But the carrot is the way to get people out in space fighting when Wardec'ed. The stick is big enough already since the aggressor gets to choose targets they are sure they can beat.
The carrot is worthless so long as a player in an NPC corp only suffers the loss of (lol) mission bounties being taxed, and the "loss" of not being able (having) to deal with the POS system, one of the most brokenly awful mechanics in all of video gaming.
As long as NPC corps offer next to no negatives AND the gigantic positive of being immune to wars, the problem will never be solved.
Since you lot are so busily trying to slay my sacred cow, it's about time the guy with the cleaver takes a look at yours too.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10440
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 00:30:16 -
[50] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
On this at least we agree. I believe that NPC corps should be sufficiently punitive for players over the age of 60 days that it makes a player corp something genuinely worth defending. Such a thing does not touch newbies, it encourages people getting out there and forming groups and interacting, and it neatly solves the problem of "leveling your Raven" players.
If only NPC corps would dec each other every now and then.... It would be like a live event almost.
Another of my ideas is the ability to dec an NPC corp, in exchange for being locked out of that particular corp's stations/agents/etc for 30 days after the dec ends. It'd cost a lot too, of course.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10443
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 01:19:48 -
[51] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:It occured to me, reading Marsha's post above. Is being active in the forums a form of PvP? Especially if you are making that activity an effort to END another persons playstyle or shame them into stopping what they are doing through mockery or namecalling?
m
Hopefully this is not carried into the "doxxing someone is PvP" realm of thought.
But if you mean "is calling for the elimination of someone's playstyle PvP"? Then I would say no. That's the act of a spineless coward who can't back up what they want to do in game, so they'd rather run to Mommy instead.
As for mocking those people, I would say that is warranted. Anyone who would call for the outright elimination of the way someone else plays a videogame is not someone I would want to associate with. Social pressure is how you exert such an activity.
That's why I have no problem with someone who has a bad attitude quitting EVE. Because I try to cultivate the EVE that I would want to play, and that includes the people in it. If your behavior would get kicked out of Board Game Night at my house, then you get written off in this social setting too. And if someone tries to tell me "You can't play class X in Talisman, because I don't like them!" then not only do I kick them, I do so after telling them that I think they're a petty, fascist douchebag to boot.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10445
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 01:58:54 -
[52] - Quote
Syn Shi wrote:
In the context of the post you can still play class x in Talisman.
Yes, but notably only because I kick out the petty, whiny, wanna be fascists like you.
If they don't want Class X, then they can go play a different game.
That's the whole point. If you don't want PvP, go play butt****ing Star Trek Online then.
Quote:
Your last sentence shows you are only inclusive if they abide by your rules.
No, by THE RULES OF THE FREAKING GAME. Not my rules, the literal rules of the game that literally everyone else has agreed to play by.
You know, instead of trying to change the literal rules to benefit themselves?
Get it yet?
Quote:
Question...do you go out of your way to target naive people as friends so you can take advantage of them and tell them its for their own good?
I expect people to read the rules of a game they agreed to play.
If those rules, as Diplomacy does for example, and as Talisman does if you play certain classes, permit you to "steal" or "trick" other players, that is quite literally part of the game.
If this is a deal breaker for them, then they shouldn't sit down at the table in the first place.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10452
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 10:23:11 -
[53] - Quote
Omar Alharazaad wrote:AWOXing has been with EVE for just about forever and it's one of those things that has made EVE both famous and infamous over the years.
How many of us here would never have joined the game if not for having heard the story of Guiding Hand Social Club?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10457
|
Posted - 2014.11.02 00:45:54 -
[54] - Quote
mynnna wrote: the broken and uninuitive mechanic
Still not seeing how it's either of those things.
Hell, I'm pretty sure that infiltrating and assassinating your own corpmates was a deliberate mechanic. If it were a genuine accident it would not have persisted for as long as it has, despite repeated reworks of Crimewatch. Which means that it's not broken, pretty sure it's working as it was intended to since they did not alter it in any way after revisiting the flagging and limited engagement systems so recently.
I'm also not entirely sure as to why this topic has become such a big freaking deal all of a sudden. Because if you want to kill "unituitive" mechanics, I find it incredulous that something like being able to shoot your corpmates is first on the chopping block. How about the fact that we can't share bookmarks in an alliance? That seems counter intuitive to me, nevermind being a genuine problem that effects most of the game. The list goes on, as I am sure you are aware.
So yeah, nothing about this fits. Not the supposed problem, not the item identified as the cause of the supposed problem, and not the drum being beaten to justify it.
If you could enlighten me, I'd appreciate it. Because all I've seen so far from the "pro" camp is specious bullshit.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10461
|
Posted - 2014.11.02 02:02:53 -
[55] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
So the result you get is no trust, and people staying in NPC corps and 1-man corps in perpetuity. This helps gameplay how exactly?
It does certainly give us a reference point for severely nerfing both of the above.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10461
|
Posted - 2014.11.02 02:05:17 -
[56] - Quote
Bastion Arzi wrote:Syllviaa wrote:Yeah because new players are the only ones that get around in faction fit faction ships. Get over yourself. so they spent some money on plex its not unheard of
The question being asked is whether they should be protected from the results of such foolishness. Some people think that if you confront them with the consequences of an intensely stupid decision that they will quit, and that this is somehow a problem.
Others think that such a person quitting is fundamentally inevitable, and that casting aside long standing portions of the game for the sake of short term retention of such people is folly.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10463
|
Posted - 2014.11.02 02:18:48 -
[57] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
You can't force social interaction through the use of sticks.
Heh, wrong. The current climate of the game right now intensely disagrees with you, in fact.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
| |
|