Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
809
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 13:40:45 -
[241] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:GÇó In addition to the WarDec fee, the attacking corporation pays an additional fee based on the respective difference in size, up to a maximum of 400%. We'll call this the WarDec Premium. GÇó The Defending corporation has 24 hours to prepare. Once war has taken effect, the defending corporation is unable to do anything for a period of 48 hours. After that time, the defending corporation has the option to end the war by matching the initial WarDec fee (not the premium). The war continues for another 24 hours and then ends. The second point will have the consequence of pushing wardecs from larger, established corporations that can afford the counter-bribe onto poorer, new corporations that cannot. That is the opposite of what the system should encourage.
Further, wars should not be able to be ended by the defending corporation without the consent of the attacker, or you no longer have a non-consensual PvP mechanism you can use to disrupt your competitors.
The scaling idea is good though. There should be a fee incentive to discourage larger corps from going after smaller corps, and for professional wardeccers to go after larger entities that can defend themselves. Right now the big corps most able to defend themselves are the most expensive to wardec. Still, it can't be too expensive so that even one-man corps can be wardecced if they annoy someone enough. |
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
4262
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 13:43:11 -
[242] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
The Rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
3616
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 13:43:36 -
[243] - Quote
Really? Isn't this a bit redundant? |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1019
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 13:45:25 -
[244] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Further, wars should not be able to be ended by the defending corporation without the consent of the attacker, or you no longer have a non-consensual PvP mechanism you can use to disrupt your competitors.
Not sure I entirely agree. If the "defenders" dunk (or get solid allies to dunk) the "attackers" then they should be able to end it, especially if the "attackers" dock up and wont fight/have no exposed assets or the "attackers" should be equally trapped and exposed as the "defender".
I'm using quotes around terms because those who start the "defender" need not end the "defender", if you see what I mean?
I get the direction you're aiming for, but I we must consider situations where the tables turn. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12452
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 13:45:55 -
[245] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote: GÇó When a corporation is WarDec'd, is is unable to disband and its members are unable to quite or leave the corporation.
I still disagree with this. Reductions in player freedom are bad, especially one sided ones. Whether I like industrial groups or not (and personally, I want to see many of them slow roasted over a fire) does not change that.
I favor adding killrights as additional consequences, to potentially widen the conflict as well, rather than forbidding it outright. Besides this, corp creation mechanics almost certainly need a barrier put in front of them, both in terms of skillpoints and of isk. Player corps should not be trivial.
Now, regarding your additional fee suggestion, here is my take on the concept.
Wars become functionally free, a 5 million isk fee.
But, when you declare a war, you post a war bond of an amount of your choice. The defender's kills against you count the hull value of your lost ships against this amount. If the defender exceeds this amount, they can petition Concord to withdraw the war in 24 hours, unless the defender increases the bond again within that time. If the attacker does not raise the bond, the dec is dropped and the defender cannot be decced again by that group for one calendar week. If the wardec is withdrawn normally or allowed to expire, the war bond is refunded, minus the defender's kills.
This makes it so that the defender is incentivized to fight, by being able to get rid of it early and cost the attacker more money. This allows for maximum player freedom and decision making on both sides, with meaningful consequences.
And of course, remember our previous conversation about adding more reasons to be in a player corp, to go alongside this.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1053
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 14:13:03 -
[246] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote: What is wrong with playing the game as a cowardly pirate who runs from the first sign of opposition and uses the protection of the NPC corp to increase his safety? Such a villain adds depth to the game and give "good" players something to fight against (AKA content). Besides, you don't seem to be calling the carebears who do the exact same thing (neutral haulers, scouts, etc.) as "not brave" or are calling them out for having it both ways.
There's nothing wrong with the cowardly pirate/smart predator, I would never try to tell someone else how to ply a sandbox game unlike some others.
Black Pedro wrote:While the scanning thing is inane - there are plenty of uses for scanners outside of ganking and it is no where close to a hostile act - I am not totally adverse to the first suggestion. It might generate more content, but the problem is that it will negatively impact on a large swath of players who participate in more "traditional" piracy in lowsec. Perhaps these "pirate POSes" could give a bonus to the gankers (shorter Criminal timer?) so that they would voluntarily use them and expose themselves to "white knights" seeking retribution. But ultimately, the -10 restrictions are currently so harsh that no outlaw can give a "gudfight" to a white knight even if they wanted to as the faction police will get involved. It's probably best to leave gankers as rats that scurry out from the darkness and strike the odd unsuspecting target than to elevate them to "supervillain" status with bases and the ability to defend themselves.
Scanning isn't hostile, I said it should be 'suspicious' much like if someone walks up to your house and checks out your security. The -10 restrictions are a) a choice, you can buy and use tags to stay above it and b) meaningless to all intents and purposes as the -10 alt does not tool around in space looking for fights, he undocks in a gank cat and hits a target scanned by a totally safe NPC neut then gets melted by CONCORD 40 seconds after the job is done. If its a freighter gank then a neut in an NPC corp loots the wreck then jetcans for another NPC neut to legally launder it into their hold. The -10 is literally at no risk as it is only undocked when it is about to die anyway.
Black Pedro wrote:As was said, wardecs are irrelevant to gankers as they are already freely shootable to all. They operate under war conditions all the time, and I might add, lose ships to white knights regularly. What more do you want other than preventing them from operating at all in the first place?
Freely shootable for all of 40 seconds before CONCORD vaporizes you anyway. It is little to no risk as you do not need to fly in space beyond to the gank and cannot be wardec'd as what would be the point? You don't need to undock as a ganker except for 40 seconds to go and die somewhere. The use of neut alts allows the ganker's -10 alt to completely negate the downsides of being -10. FacPo? They won't turn up before the gank is done. White Knights? I've flown around many areas with known miner gankers and never yet seen any.
I wasn't actually advocating such change, it was to make a point about the hypocrisy in Kaarous' argument about eating cake. As a code ganker he is doing the exact same thing. He is using NPC corps to negate any risk in his activities. If the indy players must have POS to make real profits thenwhy shouldn't a -10 char in hisec empire space not have to either dodge the law or dock in a POS that will allow them to? Any empire station inviting a -10 in is like a hotel inviting Norman Bates and his 'mother' to stay for a while. If the indy player must be at risk to operate by having Player corps and structures then so should gankers and wardeccers.
In fact that is one caveat I would add to any changes to wardecs (yes I did suggest some ways to try to improve it earlier, I'm playing devil's advocate as much as anything else). Any corp wishing to wardec another corp should only allowed to dock in a POS that they or an ally own (in the future structure system) as noNPC corp would even want a war party on its doorstep.. The defender should be able to hide in NPC stations (losing time), dock in their own POS (in danger in space), or leave the corp. The CEO should not be able to close the corp without some comeback and any wardec should follow them to any other corp they join. This would allow an aggressor to screw with the defenders industry by them running away but would also put the attackers into space where they can be attacked freely. If the defender wishes to counter dec to actively defend and prolong the war then they too would only be able to dock in a POS. |
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4291
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 14:13:36 -
[247] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I still disagree with this. Reductions in player freedom are bad, especially one sided ones. Whether I like industrial groups or not (and personally, I want to see many of them slow roasted over a fire) does not change that. Yes, I hadn't considered corporations like RvB and revised my original suggestion to just preventing corporate dissolution. Cool?
Quote:I favor adding killrights as additional consequences, to potentially widen the conflict as well, rather than forbidding it outright. Besides this, corp creation mechanics almost certainly need a barrier put in front of them, both in terms of skillpoints and of isk. Player corps should not be trivial. How would this work exactly? Can you provide some additional details?
Quote:Now, regarding your additional fee suggestion, here is my take on the concept.
Wars become functionally free, a 5 million isk fee.
But, when you declare a war, you post a war bond of an amount of your choice. The defender's kills against you count the hull value of your lost ships against this amount. If the defender exceeds this amount, they can petition Concord to withdraw the war in 24 hours, unless the attacker increases the bond again within that time. If the attacker does not raise the bond, the dec is dropped and the defender cannot be decced again by that group for one calendar week. If the wardec is withdrawn normally or allowed to expire, the war bond is refunded, minus the defender's kills. I assume you meant "attacker" (bold) in the above? The only problem with your war bond idea is that it can be manipulated by setting an obscenely high value and then flying cheap ships to deny the defender the opportunity to ever meet it - since it's refunded at the end of a WarDec.
I prefer the idea of simply tagging on a premium to wage war on smaller corporations.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12457
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 14:20:28 -
[248] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote: How would this work exactly? Can you provide some additional details?
If you leave a corporation during an active war, a killright is generated that can be used by anyone with a director position in the opposing corp.
If the CEO decides to screw you over and disbands the corp, every member gets a killright.
That ends dec dodging nicely and neatly, with a minimal development effort on CCP's part.
Quote: I prefer the idea of simply tagging on a premium to wage war on smaller corporations.
Why should being less defended result in being more safe? Seems remarkably counter intuitive.
Besides, my suggestion allows for a similar result anyway, by letting a smaller corp alpha strike the attackers, exceed the war bond, and get the dec revoked early. Promotes conflict, not restricts 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
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12457
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 14:24:07 -
[249] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote: I assume you meant "attacker" (bold) in the above? The only problem with your war bond idea is that it can be manipulated by setting an obscenely high value and then flying cheap ships to deny the defender the opportunity to ever meet it - since it's refunded at the end of a WarDec.
I prefer the idea of simply tagging on a premium to wage war on smaller corporations.
That's deliberate, to keep RvB and other such things in business.
Besides, if the attack is flying dirt cheap doctrines, they aren't that much of a threat, are they?
Think about it in more realistic terms.
I fly a Sacrilege during a wardec. Those cost about 120-140 mil. Now, if I want to keep the dec, I have to put a bond up that is higher than that number.
I'm already putting forth more than twice what I would have to declare war in the first place, and I lose it if they kill me, and the dec is dropped early. Which is a damn sight more than how it works now.
How much more carrot can I dangle in front of the defenders than this? I really don't think any more is necessary.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4291
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 14:30:34 -
[250] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:If you leave a corporation during an active war, a killright is generated that can be used by anyone with a director position in the opposing corp. If the CEO decides to screw you over and disbands the corp, every member gets a killright. That ends dec dodging nicely and neatly, with a minimal development effort on CCP's part. That's an interesting idea - I actually kind of like it. I think there would need to be a time limitation placed on these type of killmails though, like a period of 48-72 hours as opposed to the normal 30 days.
Quote:Why should being less defended result in being more safe? Seems remarkably counter intuitive. To prevent abuse.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12457
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 14:34:22 -
[251] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote: That's an interesting idea - I actually kind of like it. I think there would need to be a time limitation placed on these type of killmails though, like a period of 48-72 hours as opposed to the normal 30 days.
I had thought until the end of the active dec.
Of what? Wars being declared is working as intended.
Size should have no ramifications on price, or that actually will be abused. My first thought is by people who will min/max their corp size based on it, and secondly by wardec groups breaking up into smaller entities but still working together, so it's more expensive to go after them than it is for them to go after you.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4291
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 14:43:18 -
[252] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I had thought until the end of the active dec. That works, too. Just so long as the determination is made at the time the player leaves said corporation.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Dornier Pfeil
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 14:57:24 -
[253] - Quote
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:Regarding OP's 'problem #1', I recently heard a better idea from Sabriz Adoudel:
give corp members corp bonuses depending on corp age and member history - e.g. mining yield
it's much better to create incentives to make a corp and not drop it, then to punish or hinder people from dropping corp.
Seconded. (and liked) |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
224
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 15:02:38 -
[254] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Name three in-game activities that aren't PvP. Depending on YOUR definition of PvP there are hundreds or their are none. Keep reading for more on this in response to others.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:As far as your needs aa a PvP player to "grind" standing that is as they say a horse of a different color and a discussion for another topic.
No, it's not. In fact it's an excellent point in my argument.
If you can expect me to have to engage in PvE to get by(which is the case in the game at present), why is it not reasonable to suggest that industry oriented groups have to engage in PvP?
Why do you think they get to be different, why do they get to be the exception?
Why is what's good for the goose, not good for the gander? Indeed what is good for the goose is good for the gander. First you are running off half cocked here as they say. Where did I even suggest that you should be required to "grind". If you will set your anger and hatred for those of us that prefer the PvE game aside you would find that I stated that you should face consequences for YOUR decision to shoot others that are not valid targets. This is a direct quote of the part your anger and hatred has caused you to misinterpret, importnat parts bolded etc so you can find them easily. " although I will not argue that the "grind" is the proper way to handle it." You should face rather stiff consequences for your choice to shoot players that are not valid target. Perhaps standings and the required grind are not the proper way to handle them but at the moment I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THAT. CCP are the ones who DECIDED THAT YOU MUST GRIND so vent your anger on them and not me.
Madd Adda wrote:please define pvp, I like to hear your definition before answering. Not sure your aimed this at me but I want to comment on it anyway.
Throughout the history of online gaming including EvE, PvP has always meant game play that puts 2 or more in game characters into a battle from which only one in will walk, run or fly away. In EvE this means 2 or more ships attempting to blow each other up.
I the last year or so there is this emerging belief that PvP describes any activity where 2 or more players are involved in ANY form of competition with each other.
I do not dispute that the second definition is correct from a technical standpoint, what I would argue is that since it goes against a decades old understanding of the term PvP in computer gaming it can be and often is the source for confusion and mi-understandings on these discussions and as such we should use the first definition to avoid those confusions.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Madd Adda wrote: And your not exploiting a loophole using a neutral alt with the intention of warping in on another character to gank them?
They actually think this, ladies and gentlemen. You use alts as a way of dodging FacPo, Concord as well as other PLAYERS that may want to shoot your -5 or lower character. They use alts or corp jumping to dodger a war dec that they do not want to be a part of Only differecne I see here is that one is something YOU are doing so it is OK, the other is something your potential targets are doing so that is not OK.
The ultimate irony in your arguments here is this. You want changes to the game because the current situation allows for players to "escape" from potential PvP (see first definition above) interactions and you consider that an exploit. At the same time you use alts to avoid that same PvP(see first definition above) contact until such time AS YOU WANT TO ENGAGE in that activity, and this according to you is not an exploit.
Well news flash here sir, they are both VALID options provided by the game and only CCP can decide if one or the other is an exploit. And since players have been dropping and reforming corps, or dropping out into an NPC to doge war decs in high sec for as long as I have been playing this game the answer is very clear. Dropping corp to NPC or dropping and reforming is not an expoit in the eyes of CCP it is a valid game mechanic used by those who want no part of what they see as your worthless kill board padding war decs. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12459
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 15:14:05 -
[255] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote: Only differecne I see here is that one is something YOU are doing so it is OK, the other is something your potential targets are doing so that is not OK.
Of course you do, you're so bound to your narrative that you can't tell the difference.
No surprises here.
Quote: You want changes to the game because the current situation allows for players to "escape" from potential PvP (see first definition above) interactions and you consider that an exploit.
Wrong.
People can escape all they please, be it by d-scan, warp stabs, cloaks, or whatever.
But completely mitigating the need to do anything at all to defend yourself, while maintaining the advantages of a player corp? Absolutely unacceptable.
This is not about "alts vs not alts", despite the insistent carebear obfuscation on the matter.
Alts exist, the game intends for them to exist, and the game intends for people with negative sec status to use them, since they are locked out of so many mechanics. That is intended gameplay.
Being 100% immune to wars by playing games with the corp creation mechanics? That is not intended gameplay, and I dare you to say otherwise.
Quote: Well news flash here sir, they are both VALID options provided by the game and only CCP can decide if one or the other is an exploit.
New flash, carebear. That's what I'm here for.
I want CCP to fix this unacceptable exploit that you people have abused for so long.
Quote: And since players have been dropping and reforming corps, or dropping out into an NPC to doge war decs in high sec for as long as I have been playing this game the answer is very clear. Dropping corp to NPC or dropping and reforming is not an expoit in the eyes of CCP it is a valid game mechanic used by those who want no part of what they see as your worthless kill board padding war decs.
This is what the ISBotters said, too.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
2626
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 16:06:43 -
[256] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Hisec requires high effort and good co-ordination or higher player skills to make lots of isk.
You're the half-time entertainment, I presume.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff | No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that.
A recent survey of applicants to CODE. corporations showed that 100% accepted James 315 as their saviour. You can't argue with facts.
|
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
60
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 16:23:57 -
[257] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote: How would this work exactly? Can you provide some additional details?
If you leave a corporation during an active war, a killright is generated that can be used by anyone with a director position in the opposing corp. If the CEO decides to screw you over and disbands the corp, every member gets a killright.
That ends dec dodging nicely and neatly, with a minimal development effort on CCP's part.
Quote: I prefer the idea of simply tagging on a premium to wage war on smaller corporations.
Why should being less defended result in being more safe? Seems remarkably counter intuitive. Besides, my suggestion allows for a similar result anyway, by letting a smaller corp alpha strike the attackers, exceed the war bond, and get the dec revoked early. Promotes conflict, not restricts it.
Oh I absolutely love this! I can create a new corp for newbros, get as many as possible and wardec it with my alt. I can roll the corp and get killrights on all of them! Safari Time! Happy hunting! |
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4292
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 16:45:19 -
[258] - Quote
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:Oh I absolutely love this! I can create a new corp for newbros, get as many as possible and wardec it with my alt. I can roll the corp and get killrights on all of them! Safari Time! Happy hunting! Stop salivating already - I can feel the splashes on my screen from here.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
817
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 16:51:33 -
[259] - Quote
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:Oh I absolutely love this! I can create a new corp for newbros, get as many as possible and wardec it with my alt. I can roll the corp and get killrights on all of them! Safari Time! Happy hunting! Why would getting kill rights that last the duration of the war was to last be any better than just wardeccing the corp straight up? The wardec seems better to me as you at least get a chance at multiple kills and you could record the new player's anguish on your corp's Teamspeak. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12472
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 16:55:19 -
[260] - Quote
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:Oh I absolutely love this! I can create a new corp for newbros, get as many as possible and wardec it with my alt. I can roll the corp and get killrights on all of them! Safari Time! Happy hunting!
That isn't anything you couldn't do already with the existing mechanics. Except you wouldn't even need to go to the trouble of deccing yourself, just invite them to a corp with the safety off and blow them up. Or heck, just shoot them during the war, since as the CEO you have intel on them.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4293
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 17:01:38 -
[261] - Quote
Is it just me or has this entire discussion really made NPC corporations appealing?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
60
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 17:04:33 -
[262] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:Oh I absolutely love this! I can create a new corp for newbros, get as many as possible and wardec it with my alt. I can roll the corp and get killrights on all of them! Safari Time! Happy hunting! Why would getting kill rights that last the duration of the war was to last be any better than just wardeccing the corp straight up? The wardec seems better to me as you at least get a chance at multiple kills and you could record the new player's anguish on your corp's Teamspeak.
Um, I'm note CODE.?
You guys totally miss the point. I can do this without 'tarnishing my good name', so to speak. And it also opens a whole new safari system for infiltrating a corp (that was done in by the corp-killing switch). The meta-gaming this would allow is wonderful in so many ways. I can think of a number of ways to capitalize on this already...
I did oppose that change in corp-killing mechanics, btw.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1055
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 17:19:39 -
[263] - Quote
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote: How would this work exactly? Can you provide some additional details?
If you leave a corporation during an active war, a killright is generated that can be used by anyone with a director position in the opposing corp. If the CEO decides to screw you over and disbands the corp, every member gets a killright.
That ends dec dodging nicely and neatly, with a minimal development effort on CCP's part.
Quote: I prefer the idea of simply tagging on a premium to wage war on smaller corporations.
Why should being less defended result in being more safe? Seems remarkably counter intuitive. Besides, my suggestion allows for a similar result anyway, by letting a smaller corp alpha strike the attackers, exceed the war bond, and get the dec revoked early. Promotes conflict, not restricts it. Oh I absolutely love this! I can create a new corp for newbros, get as many as possible and wardec it with my alt. I can roll the corp and get killrights on all of them! Safari Time! Happy hunting!
Not abusable at all. You could park your CEO in an NPC station afterwards just to rub it in!
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1021
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 17:29:47 -
[264] - Quote
I'm still curious as to why people refuse to use options available to them other than shooting to harm people they so desire. I mean, if the 'industrial' guys are making such waves surely it is a trivial job to make your own?
People expect industrialists to learn direct combat skills - why does that expectation not extend to combat corps having an economic warfare wing? Napoleon and snowball would be proud indeed.
The cornerstone of EvE is indeed PvP, but too many people can't see past shooting. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12475
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 17:33:12 -
[265] - Quote
afkalt wrote: People expect industrialists to learn direct combat skills - why does that expectation not extend to combat corps having an economic warfare wing?
If you can expect me to do that, then I can expect them to not be 100% immune to wars.
That's why.
(nevermind that, more than a few of us do that anyway. It wouldn't surprise me if CODE alts are the biggest suppliers of barges in highsec)
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
60
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 17:33:46 -
[266] - Quote
afkalt wrote:I'm still curious as to why people refuse to use options available to them other than shooting to harm people they so desire. I mean, if the 'industrial' guys are making such waves surely it is a trivial job to make your own?
People expect industrialists to learn direct combat skills - why does that expectation not extend to combat corps having an economic warfare wing? Napoleon and snowball would be proud indeed.
The cornerstone of EvE is indeed PvP, but too many people can't see past shooting.
99% of what I do is PvP. The other 1% is drinking coffee... |
admiral root
Red Galaxy
2628
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 17:37:39 -
[267] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:It wouldn't surprise me if CODE alts are the biggest suppliers of barges in highsec
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff | No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that.
A recent survey of applicants to CODE. corporations showed that 100% accepted James 315 as their saviour. You can't argue with facts.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1021
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 17:41:22 -
[268] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote: People expect industrialists to learn direct combat skills - why does that expectation not extend to combat corps having an economic warfare wing?
If you can expect me to do that, then I can expect them to not be 100% immune to wars. That's why. (nevermind that, more than a few of us do that anyway. It wouldn't surprise me if CODE alts are the biggest suppliers of barges in highsec)
All I expect is for you to use all the tools at your disposal. Adapt, thrive.
Also, unless I misread it, there's a 7 day block on new corps anchoring POS anyway. So what's the problem, it's the same length as an initial wardec - that's your impact right there |
Dornier Pfeil
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 17:42:29 -
[269] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Given the recent revelations, it's fairly clear that both ganking and wars need drastic buffs if CCP is to ever hope to improve player retention.
How exactly would you buff ganking? Against a helpless target it is already completely safe to do. Only Concord injects the risk, post-gank. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12475
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 17:45:08 -
[270] - Quote
afkalt wrote: All I expect is for you to use all the tools at your disposal. Adapt, thrive.
But of course, it doesn't apply to your side.
Since Ezwal seems to come running whenever I call you a hypocrite, I'll just say instead that your obvious self interest does you no good in this argument, when you're claiming that rules should only apply to one side.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |