EVE Search - The end of Corpmate Awoxxing?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The end of Corpmate Awoxxing?

» 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 30 .. 33 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8855	Posted - 2014.10.31 12:38:49 - [451] - Quote Prince Kobol wrote: Okay.. lets say CCP remove the ability to awox but new players are still leaving in large numbers and players are still staying in NPC Corps. What next? Reimburses Corp thefts? Removing War Dec's ? Banning Ganking ? I mean are their people who truly believe that stopping the ability to awox is really going to make people stay in HS Corps and not leave Eve? What should happen in that kind of situation is a person thinking "hmmm, what i believed would happen, didn't happen, perhaps I need to reconsider this issue, and also figure out what is wrong with my core belief system that led me to this incorrect conclusion" What actually happens is this: : "Hmmm, so it's didn't work, someone must have not done it right, they should do it over and over again until they get it right!" Quote: The backfire effect occurs when, in the face of contradictory evidence, established beliefs do not change but actually get stronger. The effect has been demonstrated experimentally in psychological tests, where subjects are given data that either reinforces or goes against their existing biases - and in most cases people can be shown to increase their confidence in their prior position regardless of the evidence they were faced with. In a pessimistic sense, this makes most refutations useless.
Brochan McLeod Frigateer 68	Posted - 2014.10.31 12:40:20 - [452] - Quote Balshem Rozenzweig wrote: TL;DR loosing a ship you need to totally replace with your own work is awesome. Don't take it away from these poor newbies. If they don't like it they will not like the game either. I dont like my ships to be shot ... but i like the rest of the game. Lots of aspects of this game are rather 'niche' ... maybe 'niche' dont pay the bills no more or stunts any further growth? CCP has a lot of intel on why folks walk away and are acting accordingly as far as i can say. If this AWOXing is causing Corp's to be so suspicious of new players to the extent that you have to have someones full API and stuff then maybe AWOXing has to go. Im sure it was fresh and new once but seems its just old and bothersome now. Im sure as heck NOT giving anyone full API... didnt need that in 2012 and i dont see a reason for 'wearing a chip' now, so they can check up on me. Im here paying and playing because i like a huge part of this game AND i dont mind not beeing in a large player corp. Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
Revis Owen 49	Posted - 2014.10.31 12:40:48 - [453] - Quote One More NerfGäó strikes again! Honestly, in 11 years how much have these increased subscription revenue? Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Highsec Operations Permit, please contact me for issuance.
Mike Adoulin Adolescent Radioactive Pirate Hamsters 966	Posted - 2014.10.31 12:41:20 - [454] - Quote This....is a really bad idea, CCP. Elite Dangerous is looking downright appealing. Everything in EVE is a trap. And if it isn't, it's your job to make it a trap...:) You want to know what immorality in EVE Online looks like? Look no further than Ripard "Jester" Teg.
Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 59	Posted - 2014.10.31 12:49:21 - [455] - Quote What Jenn is saying in that little box, is that idiots will always stick to what they believe is right and will ignore everything that shows that they are wrong, because being wrong hurts their vulnerable little egos and they can't deal with that. Thinking is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.
Bob Bedala 52	Posted - 2014.10.31 12:56:16 - [456] - Quote Having just read the minutes, there is a lot of wrong being talked in there by CCP (sorry). The two stated reasons for the change; Quote: CCP Masterplan - The main goal of this is to make recruitment safer for the recruiter and the recruitee. And it will remove the fact that you current cannot mitigate the risk of recruiting someone which makes people not recruit. Not true, you can mitigate the risk by having training corps while trust is earned -- and people do this already. (Or a new "corp lite" as was hinted in the minutes, or some kind of provisional membership role where CEO's can limit access to map intel, shooting corpies etc.) (Speaking of training, being able to shoot your corpies is hugely important for PVP training (not just for RvB as the minutes state) and I didn't see any workable suggestions in the minutes to fix this damage.) People can still steal assets, provide intel to enemies etc etc and Fozzie sez he doesn't want this changed. So there are still huge recruitment risks which can be mitigated by improving and adding roles -- the tool designed exactly for this job! Additionally AFAIK an awoxer can still go in your mission outside of your fleet, pew some rats, and pretty easily con you into taking from a yellow wreck. So, this is definitely not a barrier to recruitment. It may make people more uneasy, but it is not a barrier. There are a whole bunch of reasons risk-averse CEO's don't hire, and awoxing is just one. This leaves the main reason -- rookie joins, gets ganked & quits aka Safaris. Now firstly, I reckon people don't Safari people to shoot their t1 frigs. If a naive player has spent PLEX to jump into a blingy Golem after two months, they are going to lose that Golem one way or another, and I'll bet Safaris are way down the list compared to mission baiting and ganking. I knew a player who quit cos he PLEXed a blingy Golem ASAP when I advised him not to, set up his own corp when I advised him not to, recruited when I advised him not to, and got awoxed by a pro awoxer (not a "griefer"). He quit and gave me all his stuff because I was "the only player he met in the game who wasn't a complete ******". That guy was determined* to lose his stuff and you are never going to catch all those guys without killing Eve so please stop eroding Eve's USP. Anyway, if they ragequit over this I'm not sure how likely they are to stick around, given all the other permaloss they will experience in their eve career. DJ Funkybacon & Ali Aras both suggest the problem is education; Quote: DJ Funkybacon - Can we not educate people against this instead of changing mechanics? CCP Fozzie - Then we get to the point where we have huge amounts of documentation that covers bad game mechanics if we keep doing this? Not a great counter argument IMO. Anyway, we have the "Be Careful" alert that pops when you are about to jump into lowsec, they should have similar warnings the first time you join a player corp. Warn about safari ganks. Warn about "helping to move all your assets" etc. This has the added benefit of actually making players think about the possibilities of what can be done with corps in eve.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8855	Posted - 2014.10.31 12:58:02 - [457] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: No, what they added was NPC and anoms in lowsec which some people then fought over. This encourages players to move together an interact. Currently corp aggression mechanics push people away, both members and CEOs who legitimately want to help show newbies the ropes. The removal of that will help bring people into corps where they can learn how to actually play EVE with others, not just get ganked and laughed at by some asshat who's too scared to go fight actual combat driven players. This is your prejudice talking, and why you can't think rationally about the issue. Quote: I guess "forever" would be the answer to this since it's absolute bullcrap. whether you like it or not this will help newbie retention. You can kick and scream about how everyone joining EVE should enter the game as a hardened battle veteran all you want, but it won't change the fact that a lot of people quit because rather than show them how to play eve a lot of the scum in this game prey on them as easy targets and force them out of the game before they get a chance to figure out that they like it. So in 6 months , if this doesn't help player retention, you will be adult enough and man enough to come here and admit that you were wrong? We can both book mark this here thread and meet back here in 6 months. You game? Like many 'bleeding heart' type people, you let yourself believe that if only you 'give people a chance' they'll do what yo want them to. You don't understand people. Most of the people who quit ANYTHING quit because they don't have what it takers to succeed. Most of the people who continue with something do so no matter what barrier you put in their way. Making the game safer has zero effect on the guy or girl sitting at the keyboard trying to fulfil their entertainment needs with a video game. This is why things like what you advocate on here are doomed to failure, because (again, in your prejudice) you are 'transferring fault' for something (in this case, low player retention) in an external cause you don't like ('mean people' lol) instead of considering that perhaps the problem lies not in the game but in the incompatible individuals who try it. Quote: When you joined (and when I joined) the barriers were naturally lower, since there were far less people trying to ruin your day the moment you made a character. I've played from the perspective of a brand new newbie to see what the NPE was like very recently, and it's considerably tougher now than it was when I arrived. This part either means you are lying (most likely as you dismiss ideas that don't fit into your narrow world view) or you are that incompetent. EVe is safer now than when i started, hell you could TANK npc police (we did so to the caldari militia with hilarious results) back then, older players would tell of how you could tank CONCORD back in the day. A ganker got an insurance payment when I started. Gankers could dodge Concord by shooting and warping off. Can flipping was easy. Scams were easier. Lots of the game mechanics that keep people safe now didn't even exist then. Any objective analysis of the 2007 EVE vs today will demonstrate (with absolute certainty) that current EVE's "barriers" are lower, EVE was a much more dangerous (and free) place then. How on earth could any video game discussion be so important to you that you'd need to lie like that? Because if you aren't actually mentally ill, you can't believe what you are typing.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 6577	Posted - 2014.10.31 12:59:43 - [458] - Quote Sol Project wrote: What Jenn is saying in that little box, is that idiots will always stick to what they believe is right and will ignore everything that shows that they are wrong, because being wrong hurts their vulnerable little egos and they can't deal with that. Thinking is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. That's a bit generic. While true, it applies to almost every single player (and their chosen dogma) that logs into the game. Jenn included. It's not that they are idiots. It's that they are passionate about the narrow little niche they have chosen in this big, big universe. I respect them for fighting for their chosen playstyle, even though most of them are completely wrong. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8856	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:07:01 - [459] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: Sol Project wrote: What Jenn is saying in that little box, is that idiots will always stick to what they believe is right and will ignore everything that shows that they are wrong, because being wrong hurts their vulnerable little egos and they can't deal with that. Thinking is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. That's a bit generic. While true, it applies to almost every single player (and their chosen dogma) that logs into the game. Jenn included. It's not that they are idiots. It's that they are passionate about the narrow little niche they have chosen in this big, big universe. I respect them for fighting for their chosen playstyle, even though most of them are completely wrong. Mr Epeen This is the internet, so information never really gets lost. Feel free to link the post where I explicitly ignore evidence in favor of something else. I'll wait.
Good Posting Reloaded My Real Mind 5	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:10:52 - [460] - Quote First the bans of scumbags, now this. Bad times for the tough guy wannabe crowd. HAHA, i must add.

Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 60	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:15:46 - [461] - Quote What's wrong about not wanting their playstyle to be removed for reasons that are bullshit to begin with? Read what people write. They assume new players don't join corps because of awoxxing. Think: How would they know? Do you seriously believe the majority of people knows that before they join the game? How about the more realistic approach, which combines with what is going on already? .) Lowsec is a death trap. .) All PvPers are griefers. .) Mining and mission running is a good start into the game. Where do the people come from who just level up their ravens? Do they join this game because they knew upfront that it's what they want, or are they being told to do that and then stick with it? The whole issue is a social engineering one, not a game mechanics one.
Bob Bedala 52	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:19:22 - [462] - Quote And the crux is this: Quote: CCP Fozzie - It is the game not acting in a reasonable way that a reasonable human being would understand. DJ FunkyBacon disagrees. Spot on FunkyBacon. This concept of "reasonableness" is exactly the problem with the "permabanned because you were being unreasonable and we're not going to tell you why" problem (and it is a problem). People come to the game with different expectations of what is reasonable, begat from differing experiences of gaming & "normal" culture, and from what they learned about the game before joining. It is irresponsible and (ironically) unreasonable of CCP not to educate the players as to what CCP thinks is "reasonable". There seems to have been a cultural shift at CCP over the years, and while loads of brilliant things are being done to improve the game there seems to be a pernicious shift behind the scenes which continues to erode Eve's USP -- which to me seems much more of a threat to the longevity of the product than bewildered rookies. Educate them!
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 123	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:22:29 - [463] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Agreed that it may not be the main reason people don't join corps, but it certainly is a reason why people have negative experiences once they join a corp and is a huge contributor to many decent corps having security policies which exclude newer players. Lucas Kell wrote: The risk reduction is negligible. All it means is that to kill a member of a corp you'll have to use the wardec mechanic as it is designed to be used. Nothing will prevent you awoxing the corp by setting up a kill or providing intel, it's purely the act of avoiding concord by being in the corp that would be removed. I am confused by the apparent self-contradiction here. If the risk of awoxing to a highsec corp "is negligible" as you say, why then do you think that awoxing is "a huge contributor to many decent corps having security policies which exclude newer players"? If awoxing (that is CONCORD-free violence against corpmates) poses such little risk, what makes you think that highsec corps will change their behaviour and start taking in newbies after awoxing is removed? Certainly the other risks of inviting an enemy into your corp will still exist even if CONCORD now protects you, so new players will still be excluded, no?
Brochan McLeod Frigateer 68	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:33:13 - [464] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Agreed that it may not be the main reason people don't join corps, but it certainly is a reason why people have negative experiences once they join a corp and is a huge contributor to many decent corps having security policies which exclude newer players. Lucas Kell wrote: The risk reduction is negligible. All it means is that to kill a member of a corp you'll have to use the wardec mechanic as it is designed to be used. Nothing will prevent you awoxing the corp by setting up a kill or providing intel, it's purely the act of avoiding concord by being in the corp that would be removed. I am confused by the apparent self-contradiction here. If the risk of awoxing to a highsec corp "is negligible" as you say, why then do you think that awoxing is "a huge contributor to many decent corps having security policies which exclude newer players"? If awoxing (that is CONCORD-free violence against corpmates) poses such little risk, what makes you think that highsec corps will change their behaviour and start taking in newbies after awoxing is removed? Certainly the other risks of inviting an enemy into your corp will still exist even if CONCORD now protects you, so new players will still be excluded, no? I think you underestimate the effect of people seeing their corpbuddies die in front of their eyes by another corpbuddy, right before he/she shoots you in the face ... and you just had such an enjoyable conversation with him/her as well. I imagine for a bunch of folks that's the one that's making them think twice before paying for the second (or third) month sub. Sure, its a great way of 'seperating the men from the boys' ... but them's real paying customers running out the door there. Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1346	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:34:04 - [465] - Quote Bob Bedala wrote: And the crux is this: Quote: CCP Fozzie - It is the game not acting in a reasonable way that a reasonable human being would understand. DJ FunkyBacon disagrees. Spot on FunkyBacon. This concept of "reasonableness" is exactly the problem with the "permabanned because you were being unreasonable and we're not going to tell you why" problem (and it is a problem). People come to the game with different expectations of what is reasonable, begat from differing experiences of gaming & "normal" culture, and from what they learned about the game before joining. It is irresponsible and (ironically) unreasonable of CCP not to educate the players as to what CCP thinks is "reasonable". There seems to have been a cultural shift at CCP over the years, and while loads of brilliant things are being done to improve the game there seems to be a pernicious shift behind the scenes which continues to erode Eve's USP -- which to me seems much more of a threat to the longevity of the product than bewildered rookies. Educate them! What they find unreasonable is probably the rules being different while you are in a corp and those difference not being shown properly. The very same reason in the end for the creation of crimewatch 2.0 because the first one was an absolute nightmare of ifs and buts put together which permitted some wild play to be done that no newbie could ever hope to understand why it works that way. The decision was probably between finding a good way to illustrate the law change once you are a member of a player corp and changing crimewatch. The second option was probably chosen because it was much simpler and CCP could not figure a way to show in an acceptable way (for them, not us) how the rules were different once you joined a corp.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8856	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:37:15 - [466] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: I am confused by the apparent self-contradiction here. If the risk of awoxing to a highsec corp "is negligible" as you say, why then do you think that awoxing is "a huge contributor to many decent corps having security policies which exclude newer players"? If awoxing (that is CONCORD-free violence against corpmates) poses such little risk, what makes you think that highsec corps will change their behaviour and start taking in newbies after awoxing is removed? Certainly the other risks of inviting an enemy into your corp will still exist even if CONCORD now protects you, so new players will still be excluded, no? Exactly. If 'awoxing' can keep a person out of a corp, ANY threat can. That means that the 'gains' from this change equal zero. Meanwhile an avenue that some players (awoxxers) use to have an impact on other people is closed. Sure, they will find others, but EVe shouldn't be taking away things like that, but adding them. Kell mentions 'negative effects' on people. The people who need ONLY positive experiences in a game (like not ever losing lol) shouldn't have been playing a competitive game in the 1st place. Making EVE into a game where people are less likely to have negative experiences is a recipe for doom. Negative experiences are the things that make good players better. CCPs (and Lucas') outlook on these matters mirror some bad crap that is happening in real life. CCP spending so much time worrying about newbies and the NPE and such could also backfire. It's not hard to notice how eve "grew" when the barriers were higher and the NPE was worse and ganking was easier....
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4368	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:38:55 - [467] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: It is relatively clear from the minutes that they are just guessing like everyone else. If they had the numbers they would show them right away and end the discussion right there. Your ad-hominem attacks and fals claims are a bad substitute for real arguments. Maybe you should remain silent if you are not capable of discussing in a civilized manner. They haven't leapt to giving out stats before, so why would they do so now? It's clear that it's an issue they are aware of, so I'm fairly sure it's no guess. And what ad hominem attacks? CODE kill people in untanked mining barges. Most of those people are solo players and many of them relatively new. The players CODE generally don't attack are huge fleets of highly tanked mining barges. This means that it's a fact that CODE are supporting botters by attacking the people that would compete with botters and play in a way which is not botlike, and not attackign botters. I'm sorry if you were not aware of what your group really stood for when you look past the propaganda, but it's not an attack and not a false claim. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Good Posting Reloaded My Real Mind 6	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:41:39 - [468] - Quote High sec should be safer for new players, and since many old players are too scared of leaving the kiddie pool and they continue ******* with newbies, ccp is hitting their butt with a stick because they have been very very bad boys. Now the supposed bad boys are whining like the true pussies thay always have been.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4368	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:47:34 - [469] - Quote Haedonism Bot wrote: I think the frustration with wardec-immune NPC corps and with wardec evasion comes from the fact that wardecs have already been so heavily nerfed. Wardecs got on just fine back when they were 2 million isk a pop, and wardec evasion was considered an exploit. The myth of corps wardeccing hundreds of others used to be reality - and I think most of us can agree that it was awesome. I can only think of one alliance right now that maintains over 100 wardecs, and when you do the math the amount of isk they are paying for wardec fees is pretty mind boggling. 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. Haedonism Bot wrote: Wardec fees for one week against one corp start at 50 mil per week and scale up to 500 mil. Sure, carebears love to scoff at how cheap that is, but when you run multiple decs- which even a solo wardeccer must do to maintain it as a viable playstyle - it gets pricey fast. Imagine what that hypothetical corp maintaining 100 wardecs is paying - base price would be 20-25 billion per month assuming that all the targets were small 50 million isk decs and that they 25% of them didn't simply evade the dec. That much isk for an organization that doesn't have nullsec rental income or moongoo income. For a group of several hundred people that's nothing. Not to mention that some of their wars are paid for by people outside of their corps, and the amount of isk you can make from looting the wrecks is phenomenal. Don't make out that these types of groups are hard done by, because that's utter nonsense. Haedonism Bot wrote: Evasion as it exists today I'm actually ok with. Wardecs I was fine with, but this AWOX nerf really demands that they be rebalanced to maintain the risk:reward ratio in highsec. The best way to do that is to nerf NPC corps, and the best way to nerf NPC corps is to make them all faction warfare corps - excepting the starter schools of course (must think of the children). A wardec fee price reduction would be the icing on the cake. And again, all that would do is create hundreds of solo corps, and making a bunch of people quit, since they can't play the game they want because your playstyle is being catered to over theirs. It's a sandbox game, where you can play how you want, not where everybody else has to do what you want. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8856	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:47:37 - [470] - Quote Brochan McLeod wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Agreed that it may not be the main reason people don't join corps, but it certainly is a reason why people have negative experiences once they join a corp and is a huge contributor to many decent corps having security policies which exclude newer players. Lucas Kell wrote: The risk reduction is negligible. All it means is that to kill a member of a corp you'll have to use the wardec mechanic as it is designed to be used. Nothing will prevent you awoxing the corp by setting up a kill or providing intel, it's purely the act of avoiding concord by being in the corp that would be removed. I am confused by the apparent self-contradiction here. If the risk of awoxing to a highsec corp "is negligible" as you say, why then do you think that awoxing is "a huge contributor to many decent corps having security policies which exclude newer players"? If awoxing (that is CONCORD-free violence against corpmates) poses such little risk, what makes you think that highsec corps will change their behaviour and start taking in newbies after awoxing is removed? Certainly the other risks of inviting an enemy into your corp will still exist even if CONCORD now protects you, so new players will still be excluded, no? I think you underestimate the effect of people seeing their corpbuddies die in front of their eyes by another corpbuddy, right before he/she shoots you in the face ... and you just had such an enjoyable conversation with him/her as well. I imagine for a bunch of folks that's the one that's making them think twice before paying for the second (or third) month sub. Sure, its a great way of 'seperating the men from the boys' ... but them's real paying customers running out the door there. CCp can choose between more people paying for shorter periods of time or few people (the current community + a few new players who are hearty enough to join and stay) paying forever. EVE survives because it's not for everyone, not in spite of that. In the past I've used the example of McDonalds vs Spago. Saying that EVE Online should cater to "boys" is like saying Wofgang Puck should wise up and add a Dollar Menu so he can be a boss like Ronald McDonald.

Bob Bedala 52	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:49:08 - [471] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Ima Wreckyou wrote: It is relatively clear from the minutes that they are just guessing like everyone else. If they had the numbers they would show them right away and end the discussion right there. All MMO companies are twitchy about releasing retention-related figures (due to competitive analysis, I assume). Lucas Kell wrote: The players CODE generally don't attack are huge fleets of highly tanked mining barges. This means that it's a fact that CODE are supporting botters by attacking the people that would compete with botters and play in a way which is not botlike, and not attackign botters. CODE kill botfleets too.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4368	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:50:39 - [472] - Quote Sol Project wrote: How in hell is CODE pro-botting now?? See my above post. It basically boils down to their targets being non-botters and the guys they leave alone being botters. Try it. Fly a solo yield fit retriever like a noob in a system with plenty of CODE about, you'll get ganked. Fly 20 procurers fit for tank and don't respond to any form of input, you'll get left alone. Obviously they want to get rid of the competition that keeps botters ore sale prices down. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 64	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:53:43 - [473] - Quote Good Posting Reloaded wrote: High sec should be safer for new players, and since many old players are too scared of leaving the kiddie pool and they continue ******* with newbies, ccp is hitting their butt with a stick because they have been very very bad boys. Now the supposed bad boys are whining like the true pussies thay always have been. Post with your main, so we can kick his ass.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8856	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:54:57 - [474] - Quote Good Posting Reloaded wrote: High sec should be safer for new players, and since many old players are too scared of leaving the kiddie pool and they continue ******* with newbies, ccp is hitting their butt with a stick because they have been very very bad boys. Now the supposed bad boys are whining like the true pussies thay always have been. That amount of prejudice is amost LucasKellion is magnitude. Funny is that I just read a post of yours espousing the same "E-honor" type of thinking in the missions forum.. EVE is a game dude most played by adults. It's ok to explore in high sec and compete with the "new guys" (and gank them, and scam them, or at least try to if you are so inclined) because doing so inspires the good 'new guys' to become better players (because they get mad at losing the competition to you). Their is no help for the 'bad' new guys to begin with, ANY negative experience is going to have them running out of the game. Being nice to them (allowing their false sense of safety and entitlement to grow) is bad for them in the long run, because as with the spoiled kids in real life that grow up to be a spoiled clueless adults, you are denying them the opportunity to create healthy coping mechanisms that allow for a more successful navigation of life. The BEST thing you can do for most rational people is present them with a challenge to overcome.
Brochan McLeod Frigateer 68	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:56:29 - [475] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: EVE survives because it's not for everyone, not in spite of that. That might have been true at some point but EvE evolving may need a different approach. Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
Good Posting Reloaded My Real Mind 6	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:56:35 - [476] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Sol Project wrote: How in hell is CODE pro-botting now?? See my above post. It basically boils down to their targets being non-botters and the guys they leave alone being botters. Try it. Fly a solo yield fit retriever like a noob in a system with plenty of CODE about, you'll get ganked. Fly 20 procurers fit for tank and don't respond to any form of input, you'll get left alone. Obviously they want to get rid of the competition that keeps botters ore sale prices down. Well, that and the fact they use ISBot for ganking too. They stopped being bot aspirants and took it to a new level: mutibotting.
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2951	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:57:04 - [477] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Sol Project wrote: How in hell is CODE pro-botting now?? See my above post. It basically boils down to their targets being non-botters and the guys they leave alone being botters. Try it. Fly a solo yield fit retriever like a noob in a system with plenty of CODE about, you'll get ganked. Fly 20 procurers fit for tank and don't respond to any form of input, you'll get left alone. Obviously they want to get rid of the competition that keeps botters ore sale prices down. This is highsec pubbie levels of tinfoil man what the hell have you been smoking? This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Bob Bedala 52	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:58:56 - [478] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Obviously they want to get rid of the competition that keeps botters ore sale prices down. If you seriously think CODE are running botfleets in hisec and are ganking to help ore prices you are mad in the head department. The truth is much more obvious, it's been done before by Goons and if you can't see the obvious I'm not going to point it out to you.
Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 64	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:59:27 - [479] - Quote OMG the mission forum... I'll have a good and long peak at that one...........
Good Posting Reloaded My Real Mind 6	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:00:12 - [480] - Quote Sol Project wrote: Good Posting Reloaded wrote: High sec should be safer for new players, and since many old players are too scared of leaving the kiddie pool and they continue ******* with newbies, ccp is hitting their butt with a stick because they have been very very bad boys. Now the supposed bad boys are whining like the true pussies thay always have been. Post with your main, so we can kick his ass. I post with the account i please, and by the way, you never left high sec so i doubt you would come to hunt me where i am. Stay in high sec like the true shitlord you are, mr big mouth.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: 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.