EVE Search - Griefers, Stop moaning

All Channels

Crime and Punishment

Griefers, Stop moaning

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 2984	Posted - 2015.08.11 14:55:17 - [1] - Quote Lan Wang wrote: what i mean is wardeccing a corp and forcing them to stay in a station because thats all they feel they can do is not really player freedom, wardecs are removing freedom from a player to benefit another player. sorta thing A war declaration has exactly zero effect on the ability of players to do anything. You can still mine, run missions and incursions and transport goods in exactly the same way as you could while not at war. If players feel that because they are at war they can't undock that restriction is entirely self imposed and as such they can free themselves of it at any time if they so desire. The actual danger faced by people at war is incredibly variable based on who they are a war with, their proximity to that group and other variables, but essentially it just amounts to an increase in risk that needs to be accounted for and mitigated where possible. In situations where players will do nothing but sit docked while at war what is really happening is the player is placing the value of their virtual property above the value of their gameplay: "it's better to not play at all than it is to lose a ship" or corp/alliance leadership making similar decision on the behalf of its members. It's neither the war itself nor the aggressors who are responsible for them remaining docked, they have no control overy that. In fact they'd prefer a continuation of activity, generally speaking. It is all a matter of the attitude of the defenders and their willingness to respond to emergent situations in a way that provides them with gameplay. Is there a solution to that? I don't really know if it's actually a problem or even care for that matter. People are welcome to destroy their own game experience by sitting docked in a station for weeks at a time if they want, alternatively they can go join a different corp.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 2993	Posted - 2015.08.11 18:39:23 - [2] - Quote To be honest so long as I'm getting mine I'm not super concerned about whether the other person is moaning or crying or whatever else.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 2994	Posted - 2015.08.11 19:37:47 - [3] - Quote Generally speaking the rights that you have in eve are determined by your ability to apply and survive large quantities of projectile impacts, high energy coherent light and ionizing particle radiation.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3009	Posted - 2015.08.12 11:51:59 - [4] - Quote Tarojan wrote: The current state of play is that the high sec pvp community has such an apparantly high bar of entry , which the odds stacked so high against the pvers, that those who want a mixed game of pve/pvp are better served dodging war decs and just going to low sec for fun and pew pew. Wouldn't it be so much better if we got rid of concord, war decs and armed pve ships to not be flying coffins if pvped? This is a pvp game right? so why not make ALL ships pvp wether for fight or for flight? This happened when they changed wars to have a 2500% higher base cost and added the ally system that unilaterally benefits the defender. The higher pay barrier caused low skill or low income aggressors to join larger groups to spread the costs around. The ally system made being the aggressor so much more potentially dangerous that it became virtual suicide for anyone but a dedicated pvp group to declare war at all. It's a situation wrought out of a misguided attempt to nerf highsec aggression. Instead of achieving it's actual goal it just put highsec PVP groups in a position where they have an absolute monopoly on combat in highsec. I don't expect it to be fixed, ever. I expect any future changes to exclusively involve more nerfs of a similar nature and for the situation to just become more extreme.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3014	Posted - 2015.08.12 18:55:29 - [5] - Quote Robert De Lys3 wrote: Sorry but that's bull, you NEVER fly un scouted and have been known to order alliance members to step away so u can get solo kills. I'm trying to imagine myself as some insane authority figure who keeps his non-director peons on a tight leash. Dispike: Vimsy, please may we get on this badger kill? Rinth Naskingar: please, we let you have the last ten kills to yourself. Vimsy Vortis: Silence, serfs you aren't worthy, if you want kills go alpha rookie ships in jita. This fiction is hilarious to me, is it based on something you've heard or is it entirely your own fabrication?
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3017	Posted - 2015.08.12 21:20:58 - [6] - Quote Robert De Lyse wrote: have been known to order alliance members to step away so u can get solo kills. Wait, have you ever been in the alliance End of Life? Because that's the only plausible explanation for this comment. Also whatever, it's now an alliance meme that I'm some kind of whip cracking slave driver. I'm running with it.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3023	Posted - 2015.08.13 13:00:21 - [7] - Quote Nerath Naaris wrote: Ah, remember that (too short) time when CCP screwed up wardec mechanics and half of New Eden was caught in in one massive war? Good times, but sadly it did not last.... The mechanics had actually been screwed up for an extremely long time. What triggered that whole fiasco was CCP ruling that joining an alliance and then leaving it again to transfer a war was no longer considered an exploit. When that happened Zerg Overmind decided he was going to break it to demonstrate what a bad decision CCP had made in doing that. It was pretty hilarious and one of the proofs of CCP having no idea how either mechanics or rules policies affect highsec pvp.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3033	Posted - 2015.08.14 16:06:05 - [8] - Quote Not really sure what that long rambling post was trying to get at. All I got is that capitals should be allowed in highsec and I entirely agree. The losses of entire carrier fleets to suspect flagging alone would be worth it.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3033	Posted - 2015.08.14 16:09:31 - [9] - Quote I can only imagine the glory of "bomb ganking" entire mining fleets at once.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3037	Posted - 2015.08.14 16:29:21 - [10] - Quote Realistically in terms of resources and man power large nullsec entities are entirely capable of smacking the collective pee-pees of any given highsec pvp group even using subcapitals. They just don't because they lack the will to do it. Subsequently the presence of capitals in highsec isn't an intimidating idea because groups who have large quantities of capitals wouldn't use them for highsec pvp, meanwhile highsec PvPers who have their own capitals would use theirs for pvp. The situation wouldn't be any different to how it is now. I really want highsec capitals to happen so I can blap dread war targets.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3038	Posted - 2015.08.14 16:51:15 - [11] - Quote Bronson Hughes wrote: Vimsy Vortis wrote: I really want highsec capitals to happen so I can blap dread war targets. I feel that there would be benefits to having some areas of hisec remain off limits to capitals, but I am toying around with the notion of allowing them in to 0.7 and below. I see pros and cons and don't know yet which win. I don't see what the value would be to prohibiting them from systems based on sec status. The only possible concerns are how they'd be nigh invulnerable when flown by NPC corp characters because of their enormous EHP, otherwise they'd be completely reasonable. This is one of those reasons I think corporations and alliances should be upgradable and able to handle aurum transactions, "Empire capital licence" 2000 aur for a corp, 6000 aur for an alliance. Oh look you solved the problem of capital vulnerability in highsec, increased the value of a player group and added a monetization point too, everyone wins.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3038	Posted - 2015.08.14 16:57:35 - [12] - Quote It's a thing. We have to live with it.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3043	Posted - 2015.08.15 01:53:52 - [13] - Quote You can't remote sebo something in siege.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3043	Posted - 2015.08.15 01:59:51 - [14] - Quote Nobody wants remote sensor boosted, remote tracking linked blap dreads.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3048	Posted - 2015.08.16 04:52:18 - [15] - Quote Yukimisama wrote: where it matters in null Please make a convincing argument as to why something that happens in null matters.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3051	Posted - 2015.08.17 13:37:49 - [16] - Quote Generally the "Leader" of a "Newbie Corporation" and yes, both of those terms require quotations, aren't actually new themselves and are aware of the game mechanics. The problem with carebears facing war is timeless. They're paranoid, don't trust anyone and have no connections that aren't other carebears. If they want help and aren't the pets of a highsec PVP corp they're probably going to have to pay for their allies, against a group like BAW your options are limited, expensive and questionably effective. Not to mention that they hate to negotiate, don't like spending money and are intensely distrustful of everyone. 90% of the time generic carebear corp/alliance is going to be alone and going for the full duration because of their own nature.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3052	Posted - 2015.08.17 13:59:17 - [17] - Quote Scaling cost based on time would be disastrous, it would massively encourage "just dock up until the war ends" reactions. It would also undermine wars that are being fought for actual reasons. It'd incentivize continuously cycling between different groups over actually fighting a war to completion. That's like the exact opposite of better.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3052	Posted - 2015.08.17 14:20:25 - [18] - Quote Can we juse replace guns and RR with entosis links already? Want a ship killed? Entosis it, it goes into reinforced mode for 5 minutes, when it comes out there is a entosis tug of war between the two fleets, if the hostile fleet wins the ship is destroyed. Much easier than all this "shooting guns at the thing you want to blow up" nonsense.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.