EVE Search - Fixing high sec war decs

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Fixing high sec war decs

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lotala DLM Enterprises Advent of Fate 7	Posted - 2015.11.05 06:18:53 - [1] - Quote I don't believe that the fee should be changed, that corps should be limited to how many that they can have, harder to make, player made corps be allowed to op out, or anything of that nature. That said you get a group of people who are have little to no pvp skills going up against a group who has done what it has done a thousand times. So what happens the war deccing corp has to war dec hundreds of corps/alliances just stand a chance against a hand full of kills and the defense just switch corps to and npc corp or not log in. In the end little pvp content is created for either side. How do I think we should fix this. We add a new site. Let's tentatively call it a Concord system mainframe. It would only appear to those involved in the wardec. This doesn't mean that others who aren't involved in the wardec can't find you here by scanning down your ship. This site would have several destructible Concord ships, regular Concord will not come here. However if you are not involved in the war, and you get an aggression timer and leave before that timer is up, Concord will kill you. The destructible Concord I would want to be individually as powerful as Sansha incursion rats but perhaps a little less numerous. They are there mainly to prevent one side or another to take the site without fully committing to it. At the center of the site is the Concord system mainframe, it is entosiable successfully entosis it and you get a point. If you are the attacker that point goes towards extending the war If you are the defender it goes towards ending the war. Which could in theory continue forever or end in one day. If no one bothers with it war behaves as it does currently. Why bother with this? Well it gives the defender reason to undock, the potential of ending the war early. On the other hand, it gives the attacker the potential for conflict if they are willing to fight someone who is potentially prepared to fight. This also punishes war decing corps that stretch themselves too thin. So potential pit falls for this idea that I foresee: People leaving the corp for a npc corp to avoid war dec. Potential fixes, either ban leaving a corp that at is war or have a fee for leaving the corp the scales to on sp. Alternatively have the war attached to the players. The players that are in a corp that is war decced are that subject that war dec until it ends. In addition that corp is war decced. Additional ideas for other uses for the points:( certain benefits would cost more points then others.) (their would be specific corp permissions for spending these points) Delaying local with each point delaying it by lets say 2 seconds for the other side. allow the opposing side engage by any one with out retribution from concord for 15 mins. Increasing the amount of time it takes the opposing side to degrees. Increasing the amount of time it takes entosis a node for an enemy Decreasing the amount of time it takes for you to entosis a node. Undoing the point expenditures of the other group. Other potential concerns: I know alot of people who don't like entosising. So maybe instead replace entosising with data analyzer mini game or make either a possibility In conclusion The numbers listed here aren't set in stone and it doesn't have to be implemented in its entirety . CCP will obviously need to tweak with the numbers some of my suggested numbers might be to little or to much to be worth it. Some caps might need to be placed. Such as how long a war will last on someone who leaves the corp. Just my two cents.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1908	Posted - 2015.11.05 07:35:37 - [2] - Quote No. As was said in last weeks "fix wardecs" thread, wardecs are needed to remove structures. Citadels are going to require more than 7 days to destroy so you already have to extend the war once. You cannot have wars end early and make structures invulnerable, especially when that requires the aggressor to play a mini-game at times when they may not be able to be online to even have a chance at reinforcing the structure. That is far too much safety for structures. Aggressors need to have a chance to kill the structures if they are to generate any conflict, and that requires them to finish the war. Wars are here to stay. Look elsewhere for changes to make them more balanced. I suggest you start with the "social corp" proposal and work from there. Perhaps it is time for a sticky "fix wardecs" thread?
Lotala DLM Enterprises Advent of Fate 7	Posted - 2015.11.05 07:51:35 - [3] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: No. As was said in last weeks "fix wardecs" thread, wardecs are needed to remove structures. Citadels are going to require more than 7 days to destroy so you already have to extend the war once. You cannot have wars end early and make structures invulnerable, especially when that requires the aggressor to play a mini-game at times when they may not be able to be online to even have a chance at reinforcing the structure. That is far too much safety for structures. Aggressors need to have a chance to kill the structures if they are to generate any conflict, and that requires them to finish the war. Wars are here to stay. Look elsewhere for changes to make them more balanced. I suggest you start with the "social corp" proposal and work from there. Perhaps it is time for a sticky "fix wardecs" thread? This doesn't remove that the possibility of destroying structures in high sec or wars lasting 7 days. It simply adds another tactical option for ending or extending the war.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1908	Posted - 2015.11.05 08:24:58 - [4] - Quote Lotala wrote: This doesn't remove that the possibility of destroying structures in high sec or wars lasting 7 days. It simply adds another tactical option for ending or extending the war. Of course it does. If the defender manages to shoot the beacon and end the war, then the aggressor is unable to shoot the citadel when the last reinforce timer ends. To kill a citadel I have to: I declare war -> 24h later I reinforce structure -> 24h later I reinforce again -> I renew war for a second week -> 7 days after the first shot the structure becomes vulnerable one last time and I can try to kill it. If the defender can end the war during those 7 days, then how can I try to kill the citadel when it become vulnerable the last time?
Lotala DLM Enterprises Advent of Fate 7	Posted - 2015.11.05 08:46:45 - [5] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Lotala wrote: This doesn't remove that the possibility of destroying structures in high sec or wars lasting 7 days. It simply adds another tactical option for ending or extending the war. Of course it does. If the defender manages to shoot the beacon and end the war, then the aggressor is unable to shoot the citadel when the last reinforce timer ends. To kill a citadel I have to: I declare war -> 24h later I reinforce structure -> 24h later I reinforce again -> I renew war for a second week -> 7 days after the first shot the structure becomes vulnerable one last time and I can try to kill it. If the defender can end or shorten the war during those 7 days, then how can I try to kill the citadel when it become vulnerable the last time? Or do you mean the aggressor could just extend the war anyway by paying another 50M ISK? The aggressor is able extend the war by wining the beacon. I am not certain if the old mechanic for extending the war should exist or not.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1908	Posted - 2015.11.05 09:05:04 - [6] - Quote Lotala wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Lotala wrote: This doesn't remove that the possibility of destroying structures in high sec or wars lasting 7 days. It simply adds another tactical option for ending or extending the war. Of course it does. If the defender manages to shoot the beacon and end the war, then the aggressor is unable to shoot the citadel when the last reinforce timer ends. To kill a citadel I have to: I declare war -> 24h later I reinforce structure -> 24h later I reinforce again -> I renew war for a second week -> 7 days after the first shot the structure becomes vulnerable one last time and I can try to kill it. If the defender can end or shorten the war during those 7 days, then how can I try to kill the citadel when it become vulnerable the last time? Or do you mean the aggressor could just extend the war anyway by paying another 50M ISK? The aggressor is able extend the war by wining the beacon. I am not certain if the old mechanic for extending the war should exist or not. So if the aggressors lose the beacon (say they aren't online) and the war ends, how can they shoot the citadel when it comes out of reinforcement after 6 days?
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 2365	Posted - 2015.11.05 09:24:40 - [7] - Quote I'm giving this 7-10 pages of mud slinging before ISD rock up and lock it. Again. Perhaps another candidate for a sticky. Maybe we just just have a new subforum called "circular arguments" and be done with it.
Lotala DLM Enterprises Advent of Fate 7	Posted - 2015.11.05 09:28:41 - [8] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Lotala wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Lotala wrote: This doesn't remove that the possibility of destroying structures in high sec or wars lasting 7 days. It simply adds another tactical option for ending or extending the war. Of course it does. If the defender manages to shoot the beacon and end the war, then the aggressor is unable to shoot the citadel when the last reinforce timer ends. To kill a citadel I have to: I declare war -> 24h later I reinforce structure -> 24h later I reinforce again -> I renew war for a second week -> 7 days after the first shot the structure becomes vulnerable one last time and I can try to kill it. If the defender can end or shorten the war during those 7 days, then how can I try to kill the citadel when it become vulnerable the last time? Or do you mean the aggressor could just extend the war anyway by paying another 50M ISK? The aggressor is able extend the war by wining the beacon. I am not certain if the old mechanic for extending the war should exist or not. So if the aggressors lose the beacon (say they aren't online) and the war ends, how can they shoot the citadel when it comes out of reinforcement after 6 days? I am thinking they have to loose multiple beacons, defenders wining a beacon would say subtract a day from it. There are ways to limit it, say limit the number of beacons that can spawn in a day. Also if your war deccing someone do some research find out when their prime time is. Look for someone in a similar prime time to war dec. If you have to war dec someone not in your prime time. Hire a mercenary that do work in their prime time to help you.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1908	Posted - 2015.11.05 09:35:29 - [9] - Quote Lotala wrote: I am thinking they have to loose multiple beacons, defenders wining a beacon would say subtract a day from it. There are ways to limit it, say limit the number of beacons that can spawn in a day. Also if your war deccing someone do some research find out when their prime time is. Look for someone in a similar prime time to war dec. If you have to war dec someone not in your prime time. Hire a mercenary that do work in their prime time to help you. Ok, but what if I am wardeccing someone to boot them from "my" system. Why should I be forced to play some mini-game or lose my ability to attack someone? As was said in the other thread, all this will do is push solo and small group wardeccers into larger wardeccing alliances to spread out the effort of dealing with this annoyance, and prevent small, non-professional corps from using the wardec mechanic to attack structures unless they are willing and able to play a minigame for 7 days straight. So -1.
Lim Hiaret Hiaret Family 55	Posted - 2015.11.05 09:44:57 - [10] - Quote afkalt wrote: I'm giving this 7-10 pages of mud slinging before ISD rock up and lock it. Again. Perhaps another candidate for a sticky. Maybe we just just have a new subforum called "circular arguments" and be done with it. Maybe we need something different. Forum threads aren't the right place to discuss controversial topics or recurring issues. Handling a topic on 100++ pages is dumb. Handling a topic on 100++ different threads, where no one can follow the whole discussion is a broken mechanic. So CCP should go full round an buy some working discussion platform (if there is one).
Lotala DLM Enterprises Advent of Fate 7	Posted - 2015.11.05 09:48:00 - [11] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Lotala wrote: I am thinking they have to loose multiple beacons, defenders wining a beacon would say subtract a day from it. There are ways to limit it, say limit the number of beacons that can spawn in a day. Also if your war deccing someone do some research find out when their prime time is. Look for someone in a similar prime time to war dec. If you have to war dec someone not in your prime time. Hire a mercenary that do work in their prime time to help you. Ok, but what if I am wardeccing someone to boot them from "my" system. Why should I be forced to play some mini-game or lose my ability to attack someone? As was said in the other thread, all this will do is push solo and small group wardeccers into larger wardeccing alliances to spread out the effort of dealing with this annoyance, and prevent small, non-professional corps from using the wardec mechanic to attack structures unless they are willing and able to play a minigame for 7 days straight. So -1. So what, you want a couple of guys risking little more then the fee for the war and spam war decs all they want. This way if a corp is active and willing to undock and pvp you should have to be on your A game to maintain that war. Right now it has no real meaning. If you lose you still have the option of just war deccing a second time 24 hours become its come out and hitting the reinforce.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1915	Posted - 2015.11.05 11:29:03 - [12] - Quote Lotala wrote: So what, you want a couple of guys risking little more then the fee for the war and spam war decs all they want. This way if a corp is active and willing to undock and pvp you should have to be on your A game to maintain that war. Right now it has no real meaning. If you lose you still have the option of just war deccing a second time 24 hours become its come out and hitting the reinforce. No, I just want the ability to attempt to remove a structure when I declare war rather than babysit some contrived site or beacon for 7 straight days just to earn the right to try to shoot a citadel. That's also clearly how CCP intends for us to contest structures. I see very little chance of them offering an out to corporations to end the war before the final vulnerability window thus making the structure invulnerable. If you want to force attackers to risk a structure then fine, but it won't be tied to the existence of the war itself.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 14911	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:06:43 - [13] - Quote Lotala wrote: So what, you want a couple of guys risking little more then the fee for the war and spam war decs all they want. They risk the same thing the defender does. Their undocked ships. Right now, wars allow both parties to shoot at each other, nice and simple. That's about as "fair" as it's going to get. What you want is for it to not be fair, for it to be unfair in your favor. Because you suck at the game, you want to handicap the other side. And that is never going to happen. "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.
Felsusguy Aliastra Gallente Federation 377	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:12:18 - [14] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Lotala wrote: So what, you want a couple of guys risking little more then the fee for the war and spam war decs all they want. They risk the same thing the defender does. Their undocked ships. Right now, wars allow both parties to shoot at each other, nice and simple. That's about as "fair" as it's going to get. What you want is for it to not be fair, for it to be unfair in your favor. Because you suck at the game, you want to handicap the other side. And that is never going to happen. There's a difference between what is fair and what is equal. The Caldari put business before pleasure. The Gallente put business in pleasure.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 14911	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:16:36 - [15] - Quote Felsusguy wrote: There's a difference between what is fair and what is equal. Of course there is. One of them belongs in a video game, the other absolutely does not. Especially in an MMO, extra especially in a sandbox MMO, "equal" is something that should and will never happen. You can take your lie of "equality" and stick it. But thanks for admitting that what you Space Justice Warriors really want is an unfair advantage, by the way. I screenshotted that so you can't edit it out. "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.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3582	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:19:16 - [16] - Quote Felsusguy wrote: There's a difference between what is fair and what is equal. That's some 1984 level doublethink.
Tora Bushido EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective 2885	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:51:24 - [17] - Quote I believe the industrial side of Eve should be nerfed. I am a pvp player and have lot's of experience with shooting people in the face, but I have 0% experience with industry. This is unfair to people like me. I dont mind if people still build stuff or mine, but the money they make with it should be cut in half, so it's more fair for us non industrials..... Boohooo, boohoooo, booo... HFTU and use the money you make to hire mercs if you are pvp clueless. DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !
Felsusguy Aliastra Gallente Federation 377	Posted - 2015.11.05 14:08:46 - [18] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Felsusguy wrote: There's a difference between what is fair and what is equal. Of course there is. One of them belongs in a video game, the other absolutely does not. Especially in an MMO, extra especially in a sandbox MMO, "equal" is something that should and will never happen. You can take your lie of "equality" and stick it. But thanks for admitting that what you Space Justice Warriors really want is an unfair advantage, by the way. I screenshotted that so you can't edit it out. I have no idea what that even means. The Caldari put business before pleasure. The Gallente put business in pleasure.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Carpe Noctem. Pandemic Legion 2586	Posted - 2015.11.05 14:22:20 - [19] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: ... ...Look elsewhere for changes to make them more balanced. I suggest you start with the "social corp" proposal and work from there. No. Social corps are purely designed by carebears for one purpose and one purpose only, to give incursion runners hiding out in NPC corps access to corporation features without ante'ing up any increased risk... In short, all social corps are about is giving incursion runners immunity to wardecs, while still getting corporation features 'for free'. That is not EvE. You want something, risk something. The community needs to wake up to this back-door nerf to wars people like Mike Asariah are trying to slip past the CCP goalies, who seem to be playing checkers to his game of chess.. Right now the only incentive for incursion runners hiding out (safe from wardecs) in NPC corps to get in the game and join a real corporation, is to get those corporation features, like bookmarks, shared fittings, et al, by joining an actual player corp. As intended. They must not get these things for free, under any name, without ante'ing up to risk of wardec. F Would you like to know more?
Felsusguy Aliastra Gallente Federation 378	Posted - 2015.11.05 14:32:19 - [20] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Right now the only incentive for incursion runners hiding out (safe from wardecs) in NPC corps to get in the game and join a real corporation, is to get those corporation features, like bookmarks, shared fittings, et al, by joining an actual player corp. As intended. They must not get these things for free, under any name, without ante'ing up to risk of wardec. Shared bookmarks and fittings? Those are the features you're so worried about? Not corporate hangars? Not player-owned structures? Are you unaware that you can already share bookmarks and fittings with people outside of your corp? The Caldari put business before pleasure. The Gallente put business in pleasure.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Carpe Noctem. Pandemic Legion 2586	Posted - 2015.11.05 14:35:49 - [21] - Quote Felsusguy wrote: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Right now the only incentive for incursion runners hiding out (safe from wardecs) in NPC corps to get in the game and join a real corporation, is to get those corporation features, like bookmarks, shared fittings, et al, by joining an actual player corp. As intended. They must not get these things for free, under any name, without ante'ing up to risk of wardec. Shared bookmarks and fittings? Those are the features you're so worried about? Not corporate hangars? Not player-owned structures? Are you unaware that you can already share bookmarks and fittings with people outside of your corp? Are you seriously asking me to explain to you what 'et al' means? Would you like to know more?
Felsusguy Aliastra Gallente Federation 378	Posted - 2015.11.05 14:44:18 - [22] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Felsusguy wrote: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Right now the only incentive for incursion runners hiding out (safe from wardecs) in NPC corps to get in the game and join a real corporation, is to get those corporation features, like bookmarks, shared fittings, et al, by joining an actual player corp. As intended. They must not get these things for free, under any name, without ante'ing up to risk of wardec. Shared bookmarks and fittings? Those are the features you're so worried about? Not corporate hangars? Not player-owned structures? Are you unaware that you can already share bookmarks and fittings with people outside of your corp? Are you seriously asking me to explain to you what 'et al' means? I know what it means, but the fact that you give the example of bookmarks and fittings first makes me question your priorities and logic. There are any number of other benefits you could have made an example of. The Caldari put business before pleasure. The Gallente put business in pleasure.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Carpe Noctem. Pandemic Legion 2586	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:01:32 - [23] - Quote Felsusguy wrote: I know what it means, but the fact that you give the example of bookmarks and fittings first makes me question your priorities and logic. There are any number of other benefits you could have made an example of. This may shock you, but my goal here isn't to make you happy nor play grade-school debate team word games. Let me be clear for all the reee reee's that can't put brain in gear.... Giving ANY feature 'for free' to a social-corp bastardized version of full corporations without the associated increase in risk to wardec that comes with being in a corporation, is antithesis to what EvE is and should be. If someone wants ANY corporation feature, they should join..you know...a corporation. Now, if you ask the supporters of these social corp abominations why they are needed and why they simply don't join a full corporation, the real answer that inevitably bubbles up when you wade past the bulls1t is that they don't want to be subject to wardecs while still getting corp-like features. Social corporations are merely a means by which incursion runners in NPC corps or those in full corps who dislike wardecs, get to re-form in an organization that is immune from wardecs, while still enjoying corp-like features, risk free. Everything else in the entire debate about social corporations, corp-lite, whatever you call it -- is merely smoke and mirrors to keep the reee reee's from realizing what the real intent of them is. They musn't get a single feature, not a SINGLE ONE, without acceptance of risk to wardec. The line must be drawn here. F Would you like to know more?
Felsusguy Aliastra Gallente Federation 378	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:08:33 - [24] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: They musn't get a single feature, not a SINGLE ONE, without acceptance of risk to wardec. Any particular reason why you feel that way? I can understand if we're only talking about things which give an actual tangible advantage, but surely things like, say, shared calendar dates do not warrant that sort of risk? The Caldari put business before pleasure. The Gallente put business in pleasure.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 1546	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:15:59 - [25] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: No. As was said in last weeks "fix wardecs" thread, wardecs are needed to remove structures. Citadels are going to require more than 7 days to destroy so you already have to extend the war once. You cannot have wars end early and make structures invulnerable, especially when that requires the aggressor to play a mini-game at times when they may not be able to be online to even have a chance at reinforcing the structure. That is far too much safety for structures. Aggressors need to have a chance to kill the structures if they are to generate any conflict, and that requires them to finish the war. Wars are here to stay. Look elsewhere for changes to make them more balanced. I suggest you start with the "social corp" proposal and work from there. Perhaps it is time for a sticky "fix wardecs" thread? Being that the new citadels won't be tied to moons, there will no longer be a need to remove them. They come with space magic so you won't get loot. There will be zero reason to remove a citadel from space beyond the cost of their construction and the emotional sting of blowing up someones stuff. HS moons will have a value of zero once citaldels arrive. What would be the reason to spend any time taking down a lootless citadel in HS? That's a lot of effort for a kb trophy. I like the WHQ idea more than adding CONCORD sites. The agressor having a meaningful attackable asset in space is just brilliant. You talk about too much safety for the structures and the need for the agressor to have a chance to kill them, which is fine, but I'd also like to see an agressor structure out there that has real war related value attached to it also, because at current - agressors currently risk nothing. I think putting risk out there for both sides is good for the game. POCO will be the only reason to have war decs going forward.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1238	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:18:47 - [26] - Quote banning non corp members (logi+OFB) from having any effect in a war would be a start, then capping the amount of wars and then adding the merc marketplace place CCP promised would help make high sec wars better. T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely. ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 highslots for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Carpe Noctem. Pandemic Legion 2588	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:19:31 - [27] - Quote Felsusguy wrote: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: They musn't get a single feature, not a SINGLE ONE, without acceptance of risk to wardec. Any particular reason why you feel that way? I can understand if we're only talking about things which give an actual tangible advantage, but surely things like, say, shared calendar dates do not warrant that sort of risk? Because many of us feel NPC corps shouldnt exist at all, or at a minimum players should be ejected out of them after 30 days never to return and put in regular corporations, and the existing compromise to allowing someone to stay in an NPC corp forever and forever be safe from wardec today is that if they do want any corporation feature they must then actually join... wait for it... A CORPORATION. The simple fact above highlights how carebears use the slippery-slope to inject nerfs over time. It's not good enough that they ALREADY HAVE the NPC corporation mechanic to be 100% safe from wardecs noooooo.... Now you say its corp feature 'a'...then next year its feature 'b'...then 'c'...and before you know it people are leaving full corporations to re-form in corporation-lite wardec-dodging units to have their cake and eat it too. The line must be drawn, here. F Would you like to know more?
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 1547	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:23:15 - [28] - Quote Felsusguy wrote: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: They musn't get a single feature, not a SINGLE ONE, without acceptance of risk to wardec. Any particular reason why you feel that way? I can understand if we're only talking about things which give an actual tangible advantage, but surely things like, say, shared calendar dates do not warrant that sort of risk? Shared calender dates?? Really. You want to create a game breaking war immune social group so you can mass post calender dates? Make a mailing list. Put your buds on it and hit SEND. Everyone on the list can then update their own calendar. As Feyd (stop the click bait) said - It's all bullsh1t and eventually boils down to wanting an undeccable corp that has corp benefits. Everyone in eve, do the forums a favor. Put (stop the click bait) in every post that refers to Feyd. Eventually he'll get it.
Felsusguy Aliastra Gallente Federation 378	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:26:31 - [29] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Because many of us feel NPC corps shouldnt exist at all, or at a minimum players should be ejected out of them after 30 days never to return and put in regular corporations Translation: I am in a corporation, ergo everyone else should be. Alternate Translation: I am subject to wars, ergo everyone else should be. Third Translation: People should be forced to cooperate with people they hate, because reasons. The Caldari put business before pleasure. The Gallente put business in pleasure.
Felsusguy Aliastra Gallente Federation 378	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:28:12 - [30] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: You want to create a game breaking war immune social group so you can mass post calender dates? No, I don't. The Caldari put business before pleasure. The Gallente put business in pleasure.

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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