Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5370
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 15:18:12 -
[421] - Quote
Danalee wrote:It doesn't?
You fear the loss of your zero-risk NPC corp characters. You fear CCP seeing the problem with risk-free hisec, which is catering to the bears too much and that will result in you having to actually work for your isk and take risks.
This fear forces you to derail each and every thread about the subject with silly conjecture like the tale of big PVE corps being imposiburu and wardecs being some form of cancer that needs to be cut out.
Sums it up for you? It sums up what you mistakenly believe to be correct. I really don;t care if they remove NPC corps from my personal point of view. I'd go from having NPC corp alts to alts each in their own corporation (or a social one, since you know those are coming if they drop NPC corps) and I'll still be shipping everything through red frog. That said, I doube CCP will ever remove NPC corps as they understand that a huge portion of their playerbase uses them to avoid players like yourself who feel you should be able to have all the comfort of a safe highsec but at will remove that safety from anyone you want at a miniscule cost.
The thing is just yesterday you could see my point. Now that your leader is here, I'm suddenly just fearful of losing NPC corps. I think we all know that wardecs suck and need a serious revamp, even if Tora refuses to admit it because he's worried he'll actually have to put effort in if they change it.
Danalee wrote:EDIT: you are also very jealous of Tora for his succes in game and out. What success? In game he runs a joke of a merc corp, which pretty much hangs around on gates and station in the Jita -> Amarr pipe talking bad smack. out of game is all super secret, undoubtedly because he's ashamed of working at a supermarket checkout. What's there to be jealous of?
Danalee wrote:Edit 2: Why don't you post something constructive in the constructive thread if you aren't here for the trolling and nothing but the trolling? You can't? Yeah... I knew that You mean the duplicate thread which is basically the same as this one, especially since it still has yourself and Tora posting rubbish in it? I may as well just stick about here, already got the tab open.
And lol, you of all people accusing others of trolling. Good one, top kek.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
4430
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 15:50:03 -
[422] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it.
The Rules: 5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
371
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 15:52:53 -
[423] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:That said, I doube CCP will ever remove NPC corps as they understand that a huge portion of their playerbase uses them to avoid players like yourself who feel you should be able to have all the comfort of a safe highsec but at will remove that safety from anyone you want at a miniscule cost. Why don't you read my proposed changes on the thread that isn't busy discussing everything under the sun wrong with the game while at the same time trolling and dickfencing taking up pretty much every post on each page. What are we on page 16? and maybe 4 solid posts about the subject matter. The other thread has that already without somebody having to read the drivel. Then if you have any ideas on how to improve it please post them there. Avoid trolling arguing and generally being a douche over there and maybe we can make it a thread worth reading and see some real changes happen. Personally i think the current system is broken as and the multiple offensive wardecs needs to end. You can read my ideas on how there and even contribute your own ideas or offer change suggestions to those 1's. With multiple offensive wardecs gone we would do away with the need for NPC corps too and I feel it would make high-sec a much more sociable and interactive place. What do you think on the subject Lucas?
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5370
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 16:35:51 -
[424] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:That said, I doube CCP will ever remove NPC corps as they understand that a huge portion of their playerbase uses them to avoid players like yourself who feel you should be able to have all the comfort of a safe highsec but at will remove that safety from anyone you want at a miniscule cost. Why don't you read my proposed changes on the thread that isn't busy discussing everything under the sun wrong with the game while at the same time trolling and dickfencing taking up pretty much every post on each page. What are we on page 16? and maybe 4 solid posts about the subject matter. The other thread has that already without somebody having to read the drivel. Then if you have any ideas on how to improve it please post them there. Avoid trolling arguing and generally being a douche over there and maybe we can make it a thread worth reading and see some real changes happen. Personally i think the current system is broken as and the multiple offensive wardecs needs to end. You can read my ideas on how there and even contribute your own ideas or offer change suggestions to those 1's. With multiple offensive wardecs gone we would do away with the need for NPC corps too and I feel it would make high-sec a much more sociable and interactive place. What do you think on the subject Lucas? I think that a thread made by a Marmite member, particularly one in the corp you are in is unlikely to remain troll free. I think that multiple offensive wardecs are OK up to a point, but too much once you start hitting double digits for the low price paid. I think removing NPC corps would result in a simply ludicrous number of one man corps and further fragment an already fragmented area. I think that wardecs in their current format encourage players to attack, and reward players for attacking the weakest targets, whereas a well designed mechanic should encourage you to pick a level of challenge that suits your ability and reward you appropriately for that challenge - the best rewards should go to those willing to face the most risk and display the most skill.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
373
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 16:45:48 -
[425] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Noragen Neirfallas wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:That said, I doube CCP will ever remove NPC corps as they understand that a huge portion of their playerbase uses them to avoid players like yourself who feel you should be able to have all the comfort of a safe highsec but at will remove that safety from anyone you want at a miniscule cost. Why don't you read my proposed changes on the thread that isn't busy discussing everything under the sun wrong with the game while at the same time trolling and dickfencing taking up pretty much every post on each page. What are we on page 16? and maybe 4 solid posts about the subject matter. The other thread has that already without somebody having to read the drivel. Then if you have any ideas on how to improve it please post them there. Avoid trolling arguing and generally being a douche over there and maybe we can make it a thread worth reading and see some real changes happen. Personally i think the current system is broken as and the multiple offensive wardecs needs to end. You can read my ideas on how there and even contribute your own ideas or offer change suggestions to those 1's. With multiple offensive wardecs gone we would do away with the need for NPC corps too and I feel it would make high-sec a much more sociable and interactive place. What do you think on the subject Lucas? I think that a thread made by a Marmite member, particularly one in the corp you are in is unlikely to remain troll free. I think that multiple offensive wardecs are OK up to a point, but too much once you start hitting double digits for the low price paid. I think removing NPC corps would result in a simply ludicrous number of one man corps and further fragment an already fragmented area. I think that wardecs in their current format encourage players to attack, and reward players for attacking the weakest targets, whereas a well designed mechanic should encourage you to pick a level of challenge that suits your ability and reward you appropriately for that challenge - the best rewards should go to those willing to face the most risk and display the most skill. I think if you read it you will find well thought out ideas and a rather accepting atmosphere. I have also tried to offer exactly that kind of balance in my posts. I am a firm believer in giving corps a chance. Ask eve college. I arranged to end their DEC and told them it would resume in 6 weeks time to give them a chance because they have potential. I want to see what they are in 5.5 weeks. I doubt I'll be able to hold head to head
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
247
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 17:53:58 -
[426] - Quote
If you removed the mechanisms for avoiding wardecs, how would that highsec retain any security advantage over other regions? It would be lowsec for any pvp entity with deep pockets.
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6596
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 18:03:08 -
[427] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:If you removed the mechanisms for avoiding wardecs, how would that highsec retain any security advantage over other regions? It would be lowsec for any pvp entity with deep pockets.
Highsec wardec as "pay for lowsec". Never saw it that way before.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
382
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 18:04:07 -
[428] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:If you removed the mechanisms for avoiding wardecs, how would that highsec retain any security advantage over other regions? It would be lowsec for any pvp entity with deep pockets.
I proposed a limit on wardecs. Both to offensive and assistance.
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
895
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 18:16:52 -
[429] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:If you removed the mechanisms for avoiding wardecs, how would that highsec retain any security advantage over other regions? It would be lowsec for any pvp entity with deep pockets. That was the initial design of the game. Even if wardecs were not avoidable, highsec would be very much safer than lowsec because you have a short and defined list of who can attack you at any given moment, as opposed to everyone in lowsec.
It is called highsec, not safesec. Knowing, and having shown to you in local, the small number of people that can shoot you legally is definitely higher security than what is found in lowsec and elsewhere. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
832
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 18:27:28 -
[430] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:If you removed the mechanisms for avoiding wardecs, how would that highsec retain any security advantage over other regions? It would be lowsec for any pvp entity with deep pockets.
I proposed a limit on wardecs. Both to offensive and assistance.
But now we rub up to an issue with the new structures, if a corp or alliance builds a station structure and the Goons decide to remove it, if you limit the number of people who can assist how the hell can anyone build anything in hisec?
I also think that there has to be a limit to the time that entities can be war decc'd as the OP quite rightly pointed out its too much to leave it totally open ended.
I have now decided to act on this, it was OK when it was just Marmite but with another merc alliance dog-piling on us I just gave the order for people involved in the anti-ganking activities to leave their corps in Second-Dawn, I want them out and about in the pipe doing their stuff not avoiding your people. You see your war has no interest to us at all, no reason to fight you and the result is what I just did, anti-ganking activities come first.
Ella's Snack bar
|
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
247
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 18:40:38 -
[431] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:If you removed the mechanisms for avoiding wardecs, how would that highsec retain any security advantage over other regions? It would be lowsec for any pvp entity with deep pockets.
I proposed a limit on wardecs. Both to offensive and assistance.
I saw that comment. My statement was more directed to the people who don't see a problem with the current system aside from the fact that wars can be avoided.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
832
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 18:42:55 -
[432] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Noragen Neirfallas wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:If you removed the mechanisms for avoiding wardecs, how would that highsec retain any security advantage over other regions? It would be lowsec for any pvp entity with deep pockets.
I proposed a limit on wardecs. Both to offensive and assistance. I saw that comment. My statement was more directed to the people who don't see a problem with the current system aside from the fact that wars can be avoided.
The avoidance of wars has to be there due to the total open ended nature of such war decs, plus the dog-piling of others into the fray.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5378
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 18:46:43 -
[433] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:If you removed the mechanisms for avoiding wardecs, how would that highsec retain any security advantage over other regions? It would be lowsec for any pvp entity with deep pockets. That was the initial design of the game. Even if wardecs were not avoidable, highsec would be very much safer than lowsec because you have a short and defined list of who can attack you at any given moment, as opposed to everyone in lowsec. It is called highsec, not safesec. Knowing, and having shown to you in local, the small number of people that can shoot you legally is definitely higher security than what is found in lowsec and elsewhere. Yeah, then they changed the dec fee mechanics and that small number became "whoever fancies it". Amusingly though, lowsec is pretty dead, so obviously the mechanics there don't work too well.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5378
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 18:48:35 -
[434] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Noragen Neirfallas wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:If you removed the mechanisms for avoiding wardecs, how would that highsec retain any security advantage over other regions? It would be lowsec for any pvp entity with deep pockets. I proposed a limit on wardecs. Both to offensive and assistance. I saw that comment. My statement was more directed to the people who don't see a problem with the current system aside from the fact that wars can be avoided. The avoidance of wars has to be there due to the total open ended nature of such war decs, plus the dog-piling of others into the fray. To be quite honest, the avoidance of wars has to be there to stop people being prevented from playing. If you can declare war on someone and they can't get out, can't fight and have nothing to offer you that you'll accept to drop it, they are stuck paying for a game they are unable to play. I can't see CCP allowing that.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2173
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 19:00:40 -
[435] - Quote
I don't think most people really advocate for making avoiding wars in any way impossible Or even particularly difficult, rather they want there to be some consequence for things like dropping out of and closing corps. As it stands there isn't much in the way of consequences for using war evading tactics and the tactics are brutally effective.
It's a bitter pill to swallow when the justification given for the pricing and cost scaling of wars was "paying for targets". I'd you really are paying for targets should you not reasonably expect to get the targets you paid for?
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
249
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 19:07:07 -
[436] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:If you removed the mechanisms for avoiding wardecs, how would highsec retain any security advantage over other regions? It would be lowsec for any pvp entity with deep pockets. That was the initial design of the game. Even if wardecs were not avoidable, highsec would be very much safer than lowsec because you have a short and defined list of who can attack you at any given moment, as opposed to everyone in lowsec. It is called highsec, not safesec. Knowing, and having shown to you in local, the small number of people that can shoot you legally is definitely higher security than what is found in lowsec and elsewhere.
Initial design does not necessarily mean best design. The game has undergone numerous changes both good and bad depending on who you ask.
There is a short, defined list of who can attack you in lowsec and nullsec also. It's called local.
It's called high security space. Not low or null. It is intended to be safer. If a highsec pvp group can wardec me on a whim because I was seen undocking in something bigger than a T1 cruiser, how is that any different in practice than lowsec? Ubiquitous wardecs would break highsec in a matter of weeks, and considering how much of the player base is in highsec, it's no wonder CCP has gone in the opposite direction.
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
249
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 19:13:40 -
[437] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I don't think most people really advocate for making avoiding wars in any way impossible Or even particularly difficult, rather they want there to be some consequence for things like dropping out of and closing corps. As it stands there isn't much in the way of consequences for using war evading tactics and the tactics are brutally effective.
It's a bitter pill to swallow when the justification given for the pricing and cost scaling of wars was "paying for targets". I'd you really are paying for targets should you not reasonably expect to get the targets you paid for?
If 50M a week was in any way significant to someone who's been playing for years or people who have demonstrated a tendency to sink real world money into PLEX, alts, and bought characters, I'd agree with you.
At this point I am seriously considering joining a merc corp because it clearly affords the easiest, least risky access to high value targets in the game. 50M a week per target is peanuts.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
832
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 19:18:07 -
[438] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I don't think most people really advocate for making avoiding wars in any way impossible Or even particularly difficult, rather they want there to be some consequence for things like dropping out of and closing corps. As it stands there isn't much in the way of consequences for using war evading tactics and the tactics are brutally effective.
It's a bitter pill to swallow when the justification given for the pricing and cost scaling of wars was "paying for targets". I'd you really are paying for targets should you not reasonably expect to get the targets you paid for?
The issue is that it really depends on your own conduct, this type of war with Marmite is utterly boring, my experienced members just have no interest in chasing around Marmites GTFO type of play, so they are all playing GTA 5. When I was around there was one roam, while I was away they did three roams and we did not get anything to shoot and were happy to lose the ships we were in. So now my corpmates are not logging in, that is at the core of the issue, I have PvP players who find Marmite so boring that they don't bother logging in and I feel bad because I got them to come back to the game, wish I had waited until the 0.0 changes had been applied, would have been better.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Danalee
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
1385
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 19:18:24 -
[439] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:At this point I am seriously considering joining a merc corp because it clearly affords the easiest, least risky access to high value targets in the game. 50M a week per target is peanuts.
Do it. I dare you. At least you'd be talking about something you know a bit about. as opposed to the nullbears defending their risk free supply line.
D.
Proud member of the Somalian Coast Guard Authority
Member and Juror of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
249
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 19:24:12 -
[440] - Quote
Danalee wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:At this point I am seriously considering joining a merc corp because it clearly affords the easiest, least risky access to high value targets in the game. 50M a week per target is peanuts.
Do it. I dare you. At least you'd be talking about something you know a bit about. as opposed to the nullbears defending their risk free supply line. D.
Only problem is I really like being able to get 2 of the best ships in the game really cheaply through FW, and I can't travel through Amarr or Caldari space, once again due to FW.
|
|
Danalee
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
1385
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 19:28:39 -
[441] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Danalee wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:At this point I am seriously considering joining a merc corp because it clearly affords the easiest, least risky access to high value targets in the game. 50M a week per target is peanuts.
Do it. I dare you. At least you'd be talking about something you know a bit about. as opposed to the nullbears defending their risk free supply line. D. Only problem is I really like being able to get 2 of the best ships in the game really cheaply through FW, and I can't travel through Amarr or Caldari space, once again due to FW.
Wah? Can't fly through certain systems? How is that an issue? You'd be raking in isks from dropping fleets on miners and newbies everywhere at the same time? right?
Anyhow, there are standing repair plans for that if you really think it's an issue. Too much effort already?
D.
Proud member of the Somalian Coast Guard Authority
Member and Juror of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5380
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 19:45:38 -
[442] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I don't think most people really advocate for making avoiding wars in any way impossible Or even particularly difficult, rather they want there to be some consequence for things like dropping out of and closing corps. As it stands there isn't much in the way of consequences for using war evading tactics and the tactics are brutally effective.
It's a bitter pill to swallow when the justification given for the pricing and cost scaling of wars was "paying for targets". I'd you really are paying for targets should you not reasonably expect to get the targets you paid for? The problem being that the same people want NPC corps gone. So where do players go who want to drop out of a war, and what consequences can they pay if they have nothing?
And you do get the targets you pay for. If you pick a target small enough to fold their corp on a whim, you paid for the wrong target and they bested you.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
249
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 19:55:09 -
[443] - Quote
Danalee wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Danalee wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:At this point I am seriously considering joining a merc corp because it clearly affords the easiest, least risky access to high value targets in the game. 50M a week per target is peanuts.
Do it. I dare you. At least you'd be talking about something you know a bit about. as opposed to the nullbears defending their risk free supply line. D. Only problem is I really like being able to get 2 of the best ships in the game really cheaply through FW, and I can't travel through Amarr or Caldari space, once again due to FW. Wah? Can't fly through certain systems? How is that an issue? You'd be raking in isks from dropping fleets on miners and newbies everywhere at the same time? right? Anyhow, there are standing repair plans for that if you really think it's an issue. Too much effort already? D.
You've convinced me. Is Marmite recruiting? Where do I sign up? Is there a minimum neutral alt requirement?
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
835
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 20:00:23 -
[444] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
You've convinced me. Is Marmite recruiting? Where do I sign up? Is there a minimum neutral alt requirement?
When you have joined Marmite come and shoot my POS please
Ella's Snack bar
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
896
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 20:02:55 -
[445] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote: Initial design does not necessarily mean best design. The game has undergone numerous changes both good and bad depending on who you ask.
There is a short, defined list of who can attack you in lowsec and nullsec also. It's called local.
It's called high security space. Not low or null. It is intended to be safer. If a highsec pvp group can wardec me on a whim because I was seen undocking in something bigger than a T1 cruiser, how is that any different in practice than lowsec? Ubiquitous wardecs would break highsec in a matter of weeks, and considering how much of the player base is in highsec, it's no wonder CCP has gone in the opposite direction.
My point was that highsec is suppose to have risk, and more importantly is a place intended to have conflict. Wardecs are intended to allow that conflict to take place albeit in a slightly limited manner where you are not fighting everyone and anyone at once. That is a far cry from lowsec and a much safer environment, or "higher" security.
You were never intended by CCP, or are now required to be locked into a war. The NPC corp is suppose to be a place for you flee to if you have had enough of a war. The problem is when players gain all the benefits of being in a player corp (which are suppose to be subject to wardecs) with none of the downsides of the NPC corp by briefly fleeing to them after a wardec is declared to shed the dec.
I am not sure where you think we do not have ubiquitous wardecs right now. Any corp can be wardecced at anytime and in any number by another willing to pay the cost. All that exists now is this loophole that allows small corporations without in-space assets to dodge them trivially. Large corps and ones reliant on POSes are completely subject to the whims of highsec PvP groups as the game was originally designed - just look at the OP of this threadnaught.
It will be very interesting to see how new in-space structures change this balance. This loophole could very well close itself if carebears decide that these new in-space structures are necessary for their gameplay. |
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
249
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 20:45:29 -
[446] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote: Initial design does not necessarily mean best design. The game has undergone numerous changes both good and bad depending on who you ask.
There is a short, defined list of who can attack you in lowsec and nullsec also. It's called local.
It's called high security space. Not low or null. It is intended to be safer. If a highsec pvp group can wardec me on a whim because I was seen undocking in something bigger than a T1 cruiser, how is that any different in practice than lowsec? Ubiquitous wardecs would break highsec in a matter of weeks, and considering how much of the player base is in highsec, it's no wonder CCP has gone in the opposite direction.
My point was that highsec is suppose to have risk, and more importantly is a place intended to have conflict. Wardecs are intended to allow that conflict to take place albeit in a slightly limited manner where you are not fighting everyone and anyone at once. That is a far cry from lowsec and a much safer environment, or "higher" security. You were never intended by CCP, or are now required to be locked into a war. The NPC corp is suppose to be a place for you flee to if you have had enough of a war. The problem is when players gain all the benefits of being in a player corp (which are suppose to be subject to wardecs) with none of the downsides of the NPC corp by briefly fleeing to them after a wardec is declared to shed the dec. I am not sure where you think we do not have ubiquitous wardecs right now. Any corp can be wardecced at anytime and in any number by another willing to pay the cost. All that exists now is this loophole that allows small corporations without in-space assets to dodge them trivially. Large corps and ones reliant on POSes are completely subject to the whims of highsec PvP groups as the game was originally designed - just look at the OP of this threadnaught. It will be very interesting to see how new in-space structures change this balance. This loophole could very well close itself if carebears decide that these new in-space structures are necessary for their gameplay.
We have significantly less wardecs now than we would if they were unavoidable and NPC corps were heavily disincentivized, which is what you lot are arguing for.
If me and my friends can, for a trivial price, engage anyone we want in highsec; how is that different in any meaningful way? |
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
249
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 21:11:03 -
[447] - Quote
Danalee wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote: If me and my friends can, for a trivial price, engage anyone we want in highsec; how is that different in any meaningful way?
Yes, when you and your dinky friends wardec anyone it's game over for them isn't it You could single handedly ruin hisec for everyone! It's not like players in Hisec are real people that can talk and maybe play the game and stuff... Jeezus, how could we be so blind. D.
How do you play the game while being permacamped by people you don't have the SP or assets to fight?
|
Danalee
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
1385
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 21:12:59 -
[448] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Danalee wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote: If me and my friends can, for a trivial price, engage anyone we want in highsec; how is that different in any meaningful way?
Yes, when you and your dinky friends wardec anyone it's game over for them isn't it You could single handedly ruin hisec for everyone! It's not like players in Hisec are real people that can talk and maybe play the game and stuff... Jeezus, how could we be so blind. How do you play the game while being permacamped by people you don't have the SP or assets to fight?
I play it as if it was a MMORPG set in a dark hostile universe. Group up, fly smart, don't trust anyone, don't fly what I can't afford to loose... The usual.
D.
Proud member of the Somalian Coast Guard Authority
Member and Juror of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
896
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 21:13:23 -
[449] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:We have significantly fewer wardecs now than we would if they were unavoidable and NPC corps were heavily disincentivized, which is what you lot are arguing for. Of course we would have more wardecs as by definition they would be unavoidable.
But no one here is arguing that. People here are arguing there should be consequences for declining a war and that there should be added rewards for being in, and defending a player corp. If you don't want to fight, fine. But then go to the NPC corp and carry on your business as the game was designed.
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:If me and my friends can, for a trivial price, engage anyone we want in highsec; how is that different in any meaningful way? You cannot engage anyone you want in highsec using a wardec. You can engage anyone in a specific player corp in highsec who, for this exposing themselves to this risk, are benefiting from the (admittedly limited) benefits that being in a player corp provides.
That is currently the situation and as you are well aware, highsec is currently a much safer place then low, null and wormhole space. There is a very real difference from being able to attack anyone anywhere without notice, or being at war with a limited number, and knowable enemy which you gather intel on. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12778
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 21:41:40 -
[450] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote: But no one here is arguing that. People here are arguing there should be consequences for declining a war and that there should be added rewards for being in, and defending a player corp. If you don't want to fight, fine. But then go to the NPC corp and carry on your business as the game was designed.
And their claim is that they're special, so they should be allowed to have the best of both worlds.
Their claim is that the rules should only apply to them if they feel like it, and that PvP should be something that you can turn off.
Their claim is that it's somehow okay to bypass the surrender mechanic by using loopholes in the corp creation system.
Their claims are pure hypocrisy, simple as that.
"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.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |