Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 31 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
410
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 16:09:09 -
[421] - Quote
May I point you to an idea I posted some time back ... https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=409733
... corp aggression tied to property ... scrap wardecs (make them duels) ... no need for "social corps" (not to be confused with "clubs", "societies", etc., to organize people cross corps, these are still needed) ... everyone in player corp can join the party
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
Eve Solecist
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
3113
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 16:59:54 -
[422] - Quote
Tipa Riot wrote:May I point you to an idea I posted some time back ... https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=409733 ... corp aggression tied to property ... scrap wardecs (make them duels) ... no need for "social corps" (not to be confused with "clubs", "societies", etc., to organize people cross corps, these are still needed) ... everyone in player corp can join the party That looks familiar.
If you think mass griefing in EVE ONLINE is a thing already ...
... then you better pray we don't actually start doing it .................
Click! Read! Win!!!
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1482
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 20:33:11 -
[423] - Quote
Eve Solecist wrote:Elinarien wrote:Simple answer for social corps would be to make them align to an empire and as such they are valid targets for any FW corps. The simple answer is the inevitable. CCP is making them targets for suicide gankers. And then they will cry even more. And they will call for a nerf. And then C.C.P. ... ... is S.O.L. Everyone is already a potential target for suicide ganking. How would social corps change or enhance that? |
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
81
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 04:02:33 -
[424] - Quote
Reading Feyd the wardec wackjob is always fun, kinda of like a wardec crazy version of dinsdale piranha. |
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Origin. Black Legion.
2254
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 15:39:01 -
[425] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:Reading Feyd the wardec wackjob is always fun, kinda of like a wardec crazy version of dinsdale piranha. As fun as listening to your horrible podcast about EvE, which is about anything but EvE Urz? I mean at least there is meat to my commentary, a point is made supported by facts. You guys however just stroke each other with intro's for half an hour, followed by an hour of clueless commentary (amounting to carebear and nullbear advocacy, usually centering around the Marmite boogey man..), followed by another half hour of shout-outs? Jeebus, worst...podcast...ever.
F
Would you like to know more?
|
Carrie-Anne Moss
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
153
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 15:42:43 -
[426] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:I have no problem with wars being made more meaningful and driving more content creation by making NPC corps war deccable. Especially when this is an existing exploit used by pansies to shed wars (i.e. dropping from corp to NPC corp to avoid the war). That wouldn't drive content, it would simply drive players out of the game who have no interested in getting shot by the players who want to do nothng but shoot other players. And it's not an exploit, it's completely allowed. As far as I can tell it's never been an exploit, since nobody can provide a link to any official mention of dropping corp to get around wardecs being an exploit. e wars follow a toon whenever they leave a corp under wardec, for 1 week or normal war expiry, even if they return to an NPC corp. Done Again, all that does is punish people who don't want to pew pew. An it would simply result in the same situation we have now, where people simply don't join corps because it's simpler to just stay in NPC corps. Undoubtedly you'd then be in favour of more restriction on NPC corps and punishments for remaining in them. Once again it all boils down to you wanting everyone to be forced into pew pew, even though that's now all that EVE is about. t the end of the day wars are a big boon to content creation in hisec, and many players (in the merc community and out) use this mechanic to great effect to drive player driven content. I see no reason why the answer to fixing existing exploits in war mechanics is to create more exploits like 'social corps' that are un-deccable, rather than closing existing exploits. Unless that is your agenda is to WoW-ify hisec and make it a risk-free Disneyland theme-park.[/quote]The problem you seem to repeatedly run into here is this who "exploit" misunderstanding. It's not an exploit, it's the way it's supposed to be. You're not supposed to be able to force someone into either having to fight or stop playing. If you choose a target that is small enough to reform, that you're own fault for picking a weak target. Social corps aren't even a way to get around this, it's a way to merge chat rooms, mailing lists and shared fittings into a single place so groups who rely on ad-hoc tools to create these groups (primarily PvP groups) can do so with more ease and thus create content.
save my strongest venom however for people pretending social corporations is anything but just another way to neuter hisec war mechanics.[/quote]How does it neuter them? What stops people setting up a chat channel and a mailing list and sharing fittings that way to run their little industrial corps right now? Nothing. The problem with that is that when you have fast paced PvP groups such as spectre fleet, it quickly becomes unmanageable. You honestly want to fight against a mechanic which will help boost casual PvP because risk averse players will remain as risk averse?
Amusingly I run multiple actual corp for my high sec industry alts and still never worry about wardecs because the characters never undock. I'll gain nothing from social corps, since all my guys are in fact in chat channels, and social corps would lack the key features I would use, namely shared wallets and offices. Honestly, I think if you sat down and though rationally about it you'd realise that most non-PvP highsec entities really wouldn't benefit much from these glorified chat channels. That might be asking a bit much though.[/quote]
The quote that was linked that i dont feel like finding was a developer saying exactly "Folding and recycling corporations to evade wars is NO LONGER CONSIDERED TO BE AN EXPLOIT.
Can you grasp what that phrase means? That at some point PRIOR to the dev saying that, it WAS CONSIDERED an exploit, yet at that exact moment in time, it NO LONGER was considered an exploit.
Are you a native English speaker? I dont want to make fun of you if you just cant understand the meaning of that phrase becasue you dont speak english well. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13100
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 23:36:11 -
[427] - Quote
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote: Are you a native English speaker?
I believe he is, he just has a Master's in Being Obtuse.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Carrie-Anne Moss
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
153
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 01:20:38 -
[428] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Carrie-Anne Moss wrote: Are you a native English speaker?
I believe he is, he just has a Master's in Being Obtuse. I remember some of the old minerbumping posts talking about how once ccp stopped enforcing the war evasion exploit, he started doing it to everyone that decced them and take a wild guess what tune the bears sang when he repeatedly folded his corp voiding their wars? They screamed and rage exploit! Hax! Lol yet just months prior that same group cried about wars and got the rule changed lol.
I find it ironic and funny. |
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy Caldari State
246
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 04:44:51 -
[429] - Quote
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:The quote that was linked that i dont feel like finding was a developer saying exactly "Folding and recycling corporations to evade wars is NO LONGER CONSIDERED TO BE AN EXPLOIT.
Can you grasp what that phrase means? That at some point PRIOR to the dev saying that, it WAS CONSIDERED an exploit, yet at that exact moment in time, it NO LONGER was considered an exploit.
Are you a native English speaker? I dont want to make fun of you if you just cant understand the meaning of that phrase becasue you dont speak english well.
Semantics? I want to play.
See how the quote says "CONSIDERED"? That's different than a phrase like "Folding and recycling corporations to evade wars is NO LONGER AN EXPLOIT." In the former quote, the tactic was viewed by some to be exploitative, but in the latter quote, the tactic is positively affirmed to have been an exploit.
It's kind of like the difference between the statements: "I consider your mom to be a fat, ugly pig." and "Your mom weighs 500lbs., has an extremely asymmetrical face, and is a specimen of the genus sus." The former is an opinion. The latter is either a lie or an indication that we are talking to a member of a different species or perhaps some sort of mutant-human hybrid or super pig that is capable of comprehending human speech at that level.
We should consider the considerations of others, but they aren't necessarily facts. Was anybody ever warned or banned for exploiting the ability to leave or disband a corporation at war?
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:I remember some of the old minerbumping posts talking about how once ccp stopped enforcing the war evasion exploit, he started doing it to everyone that decced them and take a wild guess what tune the bears sang when he repeatedly folded his corp voiding their wars? They screamed and rage exploit! Hax! Lol yet just months prior that same group cried about wars and got the rule changed lol.
lol, those crazy carebears. One minute, they're evading war dec's by dropping/disbanding their corp. The next minute, they're . . . WAR DEC'ING PVP CORPS??? WTF?!
lol, thanks for the laugh. |
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
82
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 04:51:05 -
[430] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Urziel99 wrote:Reading Feyd the wardec wackjob is always fun, kinda of like a wardec crazy version of dinsdale piranha. As fun as listening to your horrible podcast about EvE, which is about anything but EvE Urz? I mean at least there is meat to my commentary, a point is made supported by facts. You guys however just stroke each other with intro's for half an hour, followed by an hour of clueless commentary (amounting to carebear and nullbear advocacy, usually centering around the Marmite boogey man..), followed by another half hour of shout-outs? Jeebus, worst...podcast...ever. F
You wouldn't know going by our staying power and download counts. :trollface:
Do it for 3 years, then attempt to think to speak to me about it, kay? |
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5801
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 13:09:56 -
[431] - Quote
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:As far as I can tell it's never been an exploit, since nobody can provide a link to any official mention of dropping corp to get around wardecs being an exploit. The problem you seem to repeatedly run into here is this who "exploit" misunderstanding. It's not an exploit, it's the way it's supposed to be. The quote that was linked that i dont feel like finding was a developer saying exactly "Folding and recycling corporations to evade wars is NO LONGER CONSIDERED TO BE AN EXPLOIT. Can you grasp what that phrase means? That at some point PRIOR to the dev saying that, it WAS CONSIDERED an exploit, yet at that exact moment in time, it NO LONGER was considered an exploit. Are you a native English speaker? I dont want to make fun of you if you just cant understand the meaning of that phrase becasue you dont speak english well. Sigh... You misread that quote. It's amusing that you are attempting to talk down to me and act as if I'm the one who doesn't understand basic English when it's you that's misread the quote to begin with. Here, I'll even relink the post. You are reading the part: Corp hopping to evade war decs which states: "No longer an exploit." This is not what we are talking about.
We are talking about this section:
Quote:4) Corp recycling to evade war decs Not an exploit. Players are free to close and recreate corporations as they see fit due to the inconveniences usually involved in closing down a corp and the (miniscule) costs of founding a new one. Read it. It's says "Not an exploit". It doesn't say anything about it having ever been an exploit, it doesn't say "No longer an exploit".
So no, you're wrong. Learn to read.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
37537
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 13:55:28 -
[432] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:We are talking about this section: Quote:4) Corp recycling to evade war decs Not an exploit. Players are free to close and recreate corporations as they see fit due to the inconveniences usually involved in closing down a corp and the (miniscule) costs of founding a new one. Read it. It's says "Not an exploit". It doesn't say anything about it having ever been an exploit, it doesn't say "No longer an exploit". So no, you're wrong. Learn to read. I guess I might need to learn to read to Lucas, or maybe you are thinking you responded to something else that Feyd wrote:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5764568#post5764568
Seems pretty clear you responded to corp hopping, not corp recycling.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Wendrika Hydreiga
347
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 13:58:24 -
[433] - Quote
Hey! Hey! Here's a good idea!
Remove Wardecs as a mechanic.
Then add a bunch of "social corps" named after Pirate Factions (Guristas/Sansha/Serpentis) that exempt you from CONCORD intervention from aggression in Highsec and make you a criminal target. Give also the option for player Corporations and Alliances to sign to these "social corps" like if they were a Militia.
Then everyone would be happy, Highsec would cease to be the safe haven everyone loves to hate and eventually dissolve into a Darwinist survival jungle of chaos and anarchy! Piracy everywhere for days!
This is a fair compromise right? Gankers would be able to gank with impunity, people that don't want to be ganked would learn to defend themselves and the game would be the pure PvP experience some of you want it to be.
I'd for one would be all over a Guristas themed social corp. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5801
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 14:24:03 -
[434] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:We are talking about this section: Quote:4) Corp recycling to evade war decs Not an exploit. Players are free to close and recreate corporations as they see fit due to the inconveniences usually involved in closing down a corp and the (miniscule) costs of founding a new one. Read it. It's says "Not an exploit". It doesn't say anything about it having ever been an exploit, it doesn't say "No longer an exploit". So no, you're wrong. Learn to read. I guess I might need to learn to read to Lucas, or maybe you are thinking you responded to something else that Feyd wrote: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5764568#post5764568 Seems pretty clear you responded to corp hopping, not corp recycling. Again, that's not the corp hopping exploit, that's simply leaving a corp and going to an NPC corp, which was never an exploit. The corp hopping exploit that was actually declared an exploit is no longer possible through the mechanics.
Not to mention that Carrie-Anne Moss was explicitly talking about corp recycling as shown by her quote:
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:The quote that was linked that i dont feel like finding was a developer saying exactly "Folding and recycling corporations to evade wars is NO LONGER CONSIDERED TO BE AN EXPLOIT. which is categorically wrong.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Carrie-Anne Moss
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
154
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 17:04:22 -
[435] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:We are talking about this section: Quote:4) Corp recycling to evade war decs Not an exploit. Players are free to close and recreate corporations as they see fit due to the inconveniences usually involved in closing down a corp and the (miniscule) costs of founding a new one. Read it. It's says "Not an exploit". It doesn't say anything about it having ever been an exploit, it doesn't say "No longer an exploit". So no, you're wrong. Learn to read. I guess I might need to learn to read to Lucas, or maybe you are thinking you responded to something else that Feyd wrote: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5764568#post5764568 Seems pretty clear you responded to corp hopping, not corp recycling. Again, that's not the corp hopping exploit, that's simply leaving a corp and going to an NPC corp, which was never an exploit. The corp hopping exploit that was actually declared an exploit is no longer possible through the mechanics. Not to mention that Carrie-Anne Moss was explicitly talking about corp recycling as shown by her quote: Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:The quote that was linked that i dont feel like finding was a developer saying exactly "Folding and recycling corporations to evade wars is NO LONGER CONSIDERED TO BE AN EXPLOIT. which is categorically wrong. Dude the old "known exploit page" listed it. When they changed the rule, they took it off the damn page. Google cache doesnt go back that many years. You are wrong bear |
Lan Wang
Stillwater Corporation That Escalated Quickly.
641
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 17:50:43 -
[436] - Quote
Wendrika Hydreiga wrote:Hey! Hey! Here's a good idea!
Remove Wardecs as a mechanic.
Then add a bunch of "social corps" named after Pirate Factions (Guristas/Sansha/Serpentis) that exempt you from CONCORD intervention from aggression in Highsec and make you a criminal target. Give also the option for player Corporations and Alliances to sign to these "social corps" like if they were a Militia.
Then everyone would be happy, Highsec would cease to be the safe haven everyone loves to hate and eventually dissolve into a Darwinist survival jungle of chaos and anarchy! Piracy everywhere for days!
This is a fair compromise right? Gankers would be able to gank with impunity, people that don't want to be ganked would learn to defend themselves and the game would be the pure PvP experience some of you want it to be.
I'd for one would be all over a Guristas themed social corp.
This would solve a few issues :)
EVEALON Creative - Logo Design & Branding | Digital Design
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5801
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 18:42:59 -
[437] - Quote
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:Dude the old "known exploit page" listed it. When they changed the rule, they took it off the damn page. Google cache doesnt go back that many years. You are wrong bear Prove it. It's that simple. If it was against the rules then we would see a cached page, or the wiki history or a GM/DEV post on eve-search, but it's not there. The reason is because it was never an exploit to remake a corp to avoid a wardec. Some random said it once and people like you jumped on it and believed it.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Sibyyl
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
25104
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 18:46:05 -
[438] - Quote
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote: Dude the old "known exploit page" listed it. When they changed the rule, they took it off the damn page. Google cache doesnt go back that many years. You are wrong bear
Adding "dude" to the argument doesn't make it any less weak.
The Minerbumping article about decc dodging from 2012 has a GM Homonoia quote from 2011 which specifically uses the language "never an exploit".
If that's not convincing enough here is a circa 2009 quote from GM Nythanos
GM Nythanos wrote:Closing a corporation and opening a new one with the same members is allowed, and the people who declared war on your now closed corporation can declare a new war on your new corporation if they choose to do so.
Lucas is correct on this one.
8.000 dead, 18,000 injured, 130k homes destroyed. PLEX for Good: Nepal Earthquake Relief. USD $15 donated for each PLEX you donate. Loose ISK can be sent to Chribba
|
Carrie-Anne Moss
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
154
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 19:49:25 -
[439] - Quote
That was back from when wars cost like the exact same price as opening a corp. Now wars are 50mill and still 3mill to open a corp. See the problem with that now? |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5801
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 20:39:50 -
[440] - Quote
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:That was back from when wars cost like the exact same price as opening a corp. Now wars are 50mill and still 3mill to open a corp. See the problem with that now? Nope, since you can only recycle a corp with ease if it's tiny and has no assets. If a wardeccer is picking a target small enough to simply recycle, then they picked the wrong target and should exercise better judgement.
I get that you don't like it, but it's the way it is.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
Sibyyl
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
25106
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 20:52:50 -
[441] - Quote
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:That was back from when wars cost like the exact same price as opening a corp. Now wars are 50mill and still 3mill to open a corp. See the problem with that now?
I would think that the point of any game mechanic is for both involved parties to have fun. At the moment I think wardecs are not meaningful encounters, either for attackers farming kills and not pewing a capable opponent, or defenders who are either too lazy to learn how to watch Local and scout ahead or too new to game mechanics to figure out what happened.
Closing the decc avoidance mechanic or lowering the decc cost won't solve that fundamental problem.
8.000 dead, 18,000 injured, 130k homes destroyed. PLEX for Good: Nepal Earthquake Relief. USD $15 donated for each PLEX you donate. Loose ISK can be sent to Chribba
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13112
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 23:20:40 -
[442] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote: I would think that the point of any game mechanic is for both involved parties to have fun.
It can be, but it's not being used correctly. Since it can be trivially dodged without consequence, people do not have to engage with the opposing side, and thus the fun of fighting is denied to everyone.
Fixing wardecs starts with making them not functionally consensual.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Sibyyl
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
25108
|
Posted - 2015.05.25 00:27:21 -
[443] - Quote
Kaarous, I think we both know that in the present system:
- Aggressor pays the bill for the war upfront
- Defender can opt out any time by rolling corps. They can even opt to keep the original corp from being shuttered by having an alt for a CEO. The aggressor has no recourse here.
- Defender can call in allies. Aggressor has no equivalent ability here.
- NPC corps are unconditionally sheltered against war declarations, but pod killing an NPC Corp player has dire Player->Corp standings loss implications (47.5-75% loss depending on the situation, even in cases where sec status hit wouldn't be incurred due to aggression).
And people have been arguing about how one sided it is in the opposite direction.
8.000 dead, 18,000 injured, 130k homes destroyed. PLEX for Good: Nepal Earthquake Relief. USD $15 donated for each PLEX you donate. Loose ISK can be sent to Chribba
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13115
|
Posted - 2015.05.25 00:38:00 -
[444] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:Kaarous, I think we both know that in the present system:
- Aggressor pays the bill for the war upfront
- Defender can opt out any time by rolling corps. They can even opt to keep the original corp from being shuttered by having an alt for a CEO. The aggressor has no recourse here.
- Defender can call in allies. Aggressor has no equivalent ability here.
- NPC corps are unconditionally sheltered against war declarations, but pod killing an NPC Corp player has dire Player->Corp standings loss implications (47.5-75% loss depending on the situation, even in cases where sec status hit wouldn't be incurred due to aggression).
And people have been arguing about how one sided it is in the opposite direction.
Their flagrant bias in the matter is easily understood if you realize that these people actually believe that a chance of non consensual PvP greater than 0% is not acceptable.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
83
|
Posted - 2015.05.25 05:48:31 -
[445] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Sibyyl wrote:Kaarous, I think we both know that in the present system:
- Aggressor pays the bill for the war upfront
- Defender can opt out any time by rolling corps. They can even opt to keep the original corp from being shuttered by having an alt for a CEO. The aggressor has no recourse here.
- Defender can call in allies. Aggressor has no equivalent ability here.
- NPC corps are unconditionally sheltered against war declarations, but pod killing an NPC Corp player has dire Player->Corp standings loss implications (47.5-75% loss depending on the situation, even in cases where sec status hit wouldn't be incurred due to aggression).
And people have been arguing about how one sided it is in the opposite direction. Their flagrant bias in the matter is easily understood if you realize that these people actually believe that a chance of non consensual PvP greater than 0% is not acceptable.
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
415
|
Posted - 2015.05.25 06:18:25 -
[446] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Sibyyl wrote:Kaarous, I think we both know that in the present system:
- Aggressor pays the bill for the war upfront
- Defender can opt out any time by rolling corps. They can even opt to keep the original corp from being shuttered by having an alt for a CEO. The aggressor has no recourse here.
- Defender can call in allies. Aggressor has no equivalent ability here.
- NPC corps are unconditionally sheltered against war declarations, but pod killing an NPC Corp player has dire Player->Corp standings loss implications (47.5-75% loss depending on the situation, even in cases where sec status hit wouldn't be incurred due to aggression).
And people have been arguing about how one sided it is in the opposite direction. Their flagrant bias in the matter is easily understood if you realize that these people actually believe that a chance of non consensual PvP greater than 0% is not acceptable. Just to put that into perspective, highsec wardecs are abused to farm easy kills on noobs who neither have the knowledge nor the skills/power to defend themselves. This with the perverted safety of highsec in favour of the aggressor (read pimped, max implanted highend PvP ships).
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2429
|
Posted - 2015.05.25 06:25:05 -
[447] - Quote
That's literally a "Think of the children" argument.
People with intellectual integrity don't make those. |
Sibyyl
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
25112
|
Posted - 2015.05.25 06:26:41 -
[448] - Quote
Tipa Riot wrote: Just to put that into perspective, highsec wardecs are abused to farm easy kills on noobs who neither have the knowledge nor the skills/power to defend themselves.
Citation needed. I assume you'll provide CCP statistics or zkillboard stats as a response.
Quote:This with the perverted safety of highsec in favour of the aggressor (read pimped, max implanted highend PvP ships).
You guys should decide if you want to complain about "10M destroyers with empty pods" or "pimped, max implanted highend PvP ships".
All our times have come
Here but now they're gone
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5801
|
Posted - 2015.05.25 06:45:46 -
[449] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:Tipa Riot wrote:Just to put that into perspective, highsec wardecs are abused to farm easy kills on noobs who neither have the knowledge nor the skills/power to defend themselves. Citation needed. I assume you'll provide CCP statistics or zkillboard stats as a response. 89% of all wars with recorded kills were won by the aggressor. 76% of all wars with recorded kills are completely one sided to the aggressor (no kills from the defender) . You can check this with CREST.
It's obvious why this is the case. Wardec mechanics provide no additional rewards for going after targets that can fight back, so the most efficient way to run wardecs is to go after targets with juicy ships to lose and no ability or desire to fight back. For the most part this is rookie players who haven't yet realised how to evade wardecs or why their support characters should just live in NPC corps.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
417
|
Posted - 2015.05.25 06:50:19 -
[450] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote: You guys should decide if you want to complain about "10M destroyers with empty pods" or "pimped, max implanted highend PvP ships".
I'm not "you guys", I'm far from complaining. ... on the other side ... suicide gankers at least put some effort into their business.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 31 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |