| 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.
|
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Carpe Noctem.
Pandemic Legion
2588
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 15:31:09 -
[31] - Quote
Felsusguy wrote: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.
Translation: You are an idiot.
Would you like to know more?
|
Felsusguy
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
378
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 15:32:37 -
[32] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Felsusguy wrote: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. Translation: You are an idiot.
Why yes, that was exactly what I was trying to say.
The Caldari put business before pleasure. The Gallente put business in pleasure.
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
3585
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 16:22:47 -
[33] - Quote
I personally just wish Feyd would stop posting entirely. Even if his ideas were good, which they generally aren't, every single god damned post has a link to his horrible image macro infested, badly written blog. |
Cidanel Afuran
Static-Noise
Upholders
396
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 16:53:51 -
[34] - 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, 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
If NPC corps are only for carebears I assume no one in a HS merc corp uses NPC alts for hauling? |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1548
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 17:07:14 -
[35] - Quote
Cidanel Afuran wrote: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, 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
If NPC corps are only for carebears I assume no one in a HS merc corp uses NPC alts for hauling?
They are mostly used for scouting alts. If you put a scouting alt in a player corp it could be dec'd and rendered useless. Empire mercs don't do a lot of hauling. They kill stuff on the Jita undock, so the market is relatively close. |
Cidanel Afuran
Static-Noise
Upholders
396
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 17:11:57 -
[36] - Quote
[quote=Serendipity Lost]They are mostly used for scouting alts. If you put a scouting alt in a player corp it could be dec'd and rendered useless. Empire mercs don't do a lot of hauling. They kill stuff on the Jita undock, so the market is relatively close./quote]
I understand, my point was just that I would bet a plex on the fact that a decent chunk of people calling for NPC corps to go away more than likely use NPC corps themselves. |
Lotala
DLM Enterprises
Advent of Fate
7
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 17:21:23 -
[37] - 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.
I never made this about being fair and a high sec mercenary corp/greifer corp in my mind will always have the advantage at pvp. I am ok with that. Here is the thing, if the only thing that is risked is undock ships. Then no one undocks. If a griefer corp sees an actual threat to their ships they dock up. This system is design to penalize those who stay docked. If all that is risked is someone ships, then no one undocks, if no undocks then there is no content, and if there is no content eve dies a little. Now I suppose if we want to be fair we could make the station aggressable by the orginal wardeccer until its gets enough health that its get is second reinforce. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
3589
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 17:28:22 -
[38] - Quote
Err whenever I declare a war every singlevel customs office and POS tower my alliance owns is at risk.
And often times the people I'm declaring war on have no such structures of their own. Please shove your baseless assertions back where you pulled them from, namely your butthole. |
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Carpe Noctem.
Pandemic Legion
2590
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 17:34:38 -
[39] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I personally just wish Feyd would stop posting entirely. Even if his ideas were good, which they generally aren't, every single god damned post has a link to his horrible image macro infested, badly written blog.
Salty!
I think you're just butthurt because I propose to get rid of wardecs entirely (for a big price), and propose to upset your personal apple cart.
Or perhaps it's something simpler...you see in me everything you are afraid to be, the man who could put down wardecs and clubbing baby seals over the back of the head in hisec, and left it to get in the real game?
Ooooo..burn.
Fuccboi.
F
Would you like to know more?
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
3589
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 17:44:16 -
[40] - Quote
Please could you make your post more adolescent and badly written. I don't think they're quite at /r9k/ levels yet. |
Lotala
DLM Enterprises
Advent of Fate
7
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 17:45:07 -
[41] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Err whenever I declare a war every singlevel customs office and POS tower my alliance owns is at risk.
And often times the people I'm declaring war on have no such structures of their own. Please shove your baseless assertions back where you pulled them from, namely your butthole.
I have a feeling this thread is going to get closed soon. Are you really risking them? Has anyone tried killing them? I searched your alliances killboard, You have mostly kills and a few loses but none of those loses are structure loses. So I am not really convinced that you feel they are risk. I would go further and say you don't feel you are a risk when you undock. |
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Carpe Noctem.
Pandemic Legion
2593
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 18:05:04 -
[42] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Salty! I think you're just butthurt because I propose to get rid of wardecs entirely (for a big price), and propose to upset your personal apple cart. Or perhaps it's something simpler...you see in me everything you are afraid to be, the man who could put down wardecs and clubbing baby seals over the back of the head in hisec, and left it to get in the real game? Ooooo..burn. Fuccboi. EDIT: Added a link, just for you bb Vimsy Vortis wrote:Please could you make your post more adolescent and badly written. I don't think they're quite at /r9k/ levels yet.
Not exactly a refutation of my points though is that Vimsy.
You just got dunked on...ayyyyyyyyyy
Would you like to know more?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14914
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 20:56:10 -
[43] - Quote
Lotala wrote:
I never made this about being fair
Believe me, it was obvious.
Quote: Here is the thing, if the only thing that is risked is undock ships. Then no one undocks. If a griefer corp sees an actual threat to their ships they dock up.
You mean, exactly like the defender does?
"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
380
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 21:22:57 -
[44] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:You mean, exactly like the defender does?
The difference is that the defenders are penalized for it.
The Caldari put business before pleasure. The Gallente put business in pleasure.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14914
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 21:34:15 -
[45] - Quote
Felsusguy wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:You mean, exactly like the defender does? The difference is that the defenders are penalized for it.
No, they're not. The mechanic does not punish anyone for being docked, regardless of which side they're on.
"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.
|
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
81
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 23:12:01 -
[46] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Felsusguy wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:You mean, exactly like the defender does? The difference is that the defenders are penalized for it. No, they're not. The mechanic does not punish anyone for being docked, regardless of which side they're on.
Yes they are. They bleed playtime wasting it to be on attacker's terms no matter who of two is outgunned. Bleeding playtime, with the current plex prices, is a major penalty, considering something like 2 hours per day of playtime, it'll be 20 million ISK per hour, or 280 million ISK per week of war dec that attacker gets to deny by just pressing a silly little overpowered button and sitting docked (or in some cases even offline).
I probably can't get through your thick, bladder content covered, dysfunctional intracranial substance, but I'd like to know how you are going to deny 280 million PER ACCOUNT not being a major punishment. Though you're likely to pick the word out of the whole post and say something stupid on it, utterly ignoring the rest of it. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
3593
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 23:18:23 -
[47] - Quote
Lotala wrote:I have a feeling this thread is going to get closed soon. Are you really risking them? Has anyone tried killing them? I searched your alliances killboard, You have mostly kills and a few loses but none of those loses are structure loses. So I am not really convinced that you feel they are risk. I would go further and say you don't feel you are a risk when you undock.
Our structures, specifically our customs offices get attacked and reinforced frequently, generally by people who we declared war against. However when that happens we defend them effectively. If you'd like a demonstration please feel free to reinforce one of our customs offices there are many of them and you can simply ally in to one of our wars for no cost.
The war declaration mechanic itself does the exact same thing to the structures of the aggressor as it does to to the defender or the allies of the defender. It enables a finite group of people to shoot at them. The aggressor is actually under greater threat because allies can join the defender for free at any time.
Any time you declare a war it exposes structures to risk attack by the defender or allies of the defender, regardless of whether or not the defender has any structures of their own.
The aggressor does not get some kind of magical bonus to resists simply because he is the one who pushed the button. |
Lotala
DLM Enterprises
Advent of Fate
8
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 23:57:06 -
[48] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Lotala wrote:I have a feeling this thread is going to get closed soon. Are you really risking them? Has anyone tried killing them? I searched your alliances killboard, You have mostly kills and a few loses but none of those loses are structure loses. So I am not really convinced that you feel they are risk. I would go further and say you don't feel you are a risk when you undock. Our structures, specifically our customs offices get attacked and reinforced frequently, generally by people who we declared war against. However when that happens we defend them effectively. If you'd like a demonstration please feel free to reinforce one of our customs offices there are many of them and you can simply ally in to one of our wars for no cost. The war declaration mechanic itself does the exact same thing to the structures of the aggressor as it does to to the defender or the allies of the defender. It enables a finite group of people to shoot at them. The aggressor is actually under greater threat because allies can join the defender for free at any time. Any time you declare a war it exposes structures to risk attack by the defender or allies of the defender, regardless of whether or not the defender has any structures of their own. The aggressor does not get some kind of magical bonus to resists simply because he is the one who pushed the button.
Define often. You think if someone was serious threat to your precious poco's you would have lost one by now. Even the best pvper's have a bad day. Your war decing targets who are safe targets who get not benefit from taking down your pocos which at best is a minor incovience for you. Simply put I don't think their exposure is a significant enough threat to your play style. Your play style is dependent on keeping a war like that open as long as possible and as often as possible. If the aggressor isn't willing to invest resources into fighting a war, why should it stay open? |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
3593
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 00:00:41 -
[49] - Quote
I'm dreadfully sorry that nobody is able to seriously contest our structures. This is absolutely the fault of the war declaration mechanics even though somehow we've destroyed structures under every conceivable circumstance. |
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
81
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 00:38:02 -
[50] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Our structures, specifically our customs offices get attacked and reinforced frequently, generally by people who we declared war against. However when that happens we defend them effectively. If you'd like a demonstration please feel free to reinforce one of our customs offices there are many of them and you can simply ally in to one of our wars for no cost.
Why are you so strongly against it then?
I'm not entirely for it as well, just asking.
Vimsy Vortis wrote:The war declaration mechanic itself does the exact same thing to the structures of the aggressor as it does to to the defender or the allies of the defender. It enables a finite group of people to shoot at them. The aggressor is actually under greater threat because allies can join the defender for free at any time.
We've been over this a hundred times.
Attacker carries zero risk - he can just dock up if he doesn't like the odds, and if defender ships out of combat ships into certain death indy ships, the odds have changed and attacker can undock again, so the defender is penalized and forced to basically either sit in a combat ship he doesn't need and wasted ISK to get all week long, or don't login all week long (which is a better decision since the end result is the same, but you don't waste ISK on useless combat ship and don't risk it blowing up juuuuuust like the attacker does).
Allies are useless and irrelevant - all they can do is scare the attacker, though considering the amount of moaning that mechanic gets, being scared is a major deterrent for all war dec griefers.
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Any time you declare a war it exposes structures to risk attack by the defender or allies of the defender, regardless of whether or not the defender has any structures of their own.
If you prefer to keep structures in your war dec corp, that is your own stupidity. Keep them in an alt corp, join as allies when it's decced, or stop complaining.
Vimsy Vortis wrote:The aggressor does not get some kind of magical bonus to resists simply because he is the one who pushed the button.
The aggressor gets immunity by picking a target which he can grief with no risk of retribution (and just in case you haven't got it first time - allies are useless and irrelevant, since they bring literally nothing but a slim and perfectly manageable chance of said immunity weakening, and I've yet to see it happen). |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
3596
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 03:03:25 -
[51] - Quote
Exactly how are allies useless and irrelevant? I've allied in to wars and saved POS towers, inflicted billions in losses to the aggressor or even had the aggressor surrender to the defender.
Allies are only useless and irrelevant if you have useless, irrelevant people as allies. Much like aggressors are only dangerous if they're competent and defenders are only at a disadvantage if they're not competent.
There's nothing about the system itself that puts any involved party in a particular position of disadvantage (other than the fact that defenders can bring in allies for free and in a very short amount of time).
The actual outcome is entirely determined by the competence of the player entities involved. And the competence of particular groups of players is not something that the game should be balanced around. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14914
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 03:05:16 -
[52] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
The actual outcome is entirely determined by the competence of the player entities involved.
This is exactly why carebears hate it.
"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.
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1011
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 06:13:00 -
[53] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Exactly how are allies useless and irrelevant? I've allied in to wars and saved POS towers, inflicted billions in losses to the aggressor or even had the aggressor surrender to the defender.
Allies are only useless and irrelevant if you have useless, irrelevant people as allies. Much like aggressors are only dangerous if they're competent and defenders are only at a disadvantage if they're not competent.
There's nothing about the system itself that puts any involved party in a particular position of disadvantage (other than the fact that defenders can bring in allies for free and in a very short amount of time).
The actual outcome is entirely determined by the competence of the player entities involved. And the competence of particular groups of players is not something that the game should be balanced around.
This is true only up to a point.
The war itself is a detriment to the decced corp. While a great many won't defend themselves and get no mercy from me on that score, the current mechanics don't actually allow for any victory conditions for the defender, assuming they were PvE focused.
They want to mission, mine, whatever. Under a dec they cannot do so without some pretty severe losses in the name of security, so you are inflicting financial and morale damage as a default if you so much as bother to enter the same system with them. Never mind the losses they incur if you actually catch and destroy them. Those losses affect them even if they win every fight, as what they wanted was to enjoy their game time doing activities that are both fun and profitable for them. If they enjoyed fighting people the way you have forced them to, they would not have needed to be forced into it.
While not necessarily true of your particular corp, most of the corps that do this sort of thing keep nothing in the way of actual assets in space. PvP ships in general are built to be either disposable or operate in fleets where they are in little danger, especially when fighting against opponents carefully chosen for their lack of combat ability. There is therefore very little damage that can be inflicted by the defending corp that the aggressor will find meaningful. Financially they don't fly ships that are a burden to lose, and their morale is actually boosted by the encounters.
The aggressor also holds all the initiative in the conflict. If the defender manages to inflict such losses that the aggressor decides to retreat from any organized resistance, there is nothing to end the conflict and allow the defender to return to their preferred play. There is no way to 'win' for them. Best case scenario is they can hang out in space and keep the aggressor docked.
That's the part that needs to change. Wars should have clearly defined Victory and Loss conditions, and meeting those conditions should end the war. If your goal is unrestricted PvP, there is the other 3/4 of the game to go and explore. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14919
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 06:19:28 -
[54] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:[Wars should have clearly defined Victory and Loss conditions
No, they should not. That should be up to the players. You don't get to chop player freedom off at the knees.
Quote: If your goal is unrestricted PvP, there is the other 3/4 of the game to go and explore.
No. EVE Online is a PvP game first, last and always. PvP belongs everywhere, including (and especially) highsec. If your goal is no PvP at all costs, there is every other MMO in the industry for you to go play instead.
"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.
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1011
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 07:44:44 -
[55] - Quote
Hi Strawman!
The goal isn't to remove all PvP. There are many shades and graduations of PvP that are possible. Fully 3 out of 4 areas of EVE allow completely unrestricted PvP. You and your playstyle is well taken care of in any of those areas. I can certainly understand how trying to prey upon targets prepare to actually shoot back would be an issue, but this is EVE afterall, and choices have consenquences.
Highsec is specifically set up as an area that is supposed to have strict controls on unprovoked aggression. Currently those controls are failing in a few specific areas and those failures are being used to the detriment of the game as a whole and the enjoyment of the largest segment of the paid subscribers.
What is being asked for, at least by me, isn't a get out of PVP free card. It's simply a mechanism by which those that do not share your playstyle (IE, almost everyone else in the game) can actually win in the conflict being generated.
While the average narcissist cannot comprehend that others outside themselves have rights, needs or desires, there are in fact many different kinds of people and in a game that advertises itself as a sandbox those other playstyles can be supported without kowtowing to just one of them. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14920
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 07:48:00 -
[56] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:
The goal isn't to remove all PvP.
No, just bring about Trammel. You've been quite clear about that, so trying to tiptoe around isn't fooling anyone.
Mike Voidstar wrote:Currently those controls are failing in a few specific areas
Wars and ganking still being around are not "failures", those are deliberate and intended gameplay.
You're still playing the wrong game.
"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.
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1011
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 07:56:26 -
[57] - Quote
Ganking was never a problem. You really like to put up just whole fields of those strawmen, don't you?
Wars aren't a problem in themselves either. The fact that they are one sided and have no victory condition for the defender is a problem.
Highsec is not supposed to have unrestricted PVP without consequence. That's why we have Concord and sec status hits. Conflict is great, and a war that can be successfully prosecuted by both sides can be a fun element in a game. The way these wars are being used they don't meet that requirement of mutual fun, and instead are being used simply to ruin the game for the defending players who have been left with no effective recourse but simply stop playing as to not feed the trolls. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2668
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 07:59:18 -
[58] - Quote
Just leave Wardecs alone until after we have all the new structures.
They can't avoid wardecs so the entire face of wars is going to be changed, lets see how it all actually lands before trying to change it shall we. |
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
81
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 10:20:38 -
[59] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:[Wars should have clearly defined Victory and Loss conditions
No, they should not. That should be up to the players. You don't get to chop player freedom off at the knees.
Kaarous trademark picking on a single phrase ripped out of context of the whole post - chess pigeon mode he activates on every argument he can't refute... which is every second one.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Quote: If your goal is unrestricted PvP, there is the other 3/4 of the game to go and explore. No. EVE Online is a PvP game first, last and always. PvP belongs everywhere, including (and especially) highsec. If your goal is no PvP at all costs, there is every other MMO in the industry for you to go play instead.
"EVE Online is a sandbox game with PvP in it" (c) CCP Seagull.
Every time you claim otherwise, you lose the argument... though you lose it on every page. |
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
81
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 10:34:23 -
[60] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Ganking was never a problem. You really like to put up just whole fields of those strawmen, don't you?
While ganking has one certain problem with it, it's not the point.
The point is, our buddy Kaarous does not operate his intracranial tissue on a level which allows to comprehend the meaning of "strawman". He's deliriously convinced that going with whatever comes up when his bladder content hits the skull is the way to go and automatically assumes that to be the peak of intelligence and spreads that peak to everyone - in short, he is convinced we all are going with the first thought which comes up when bladder content hits the brain.
Therefore, he cannot be reasoned with. Solid numeral proof is being ignored because it's incomprehensible for the subject. Solid logical point is ignored on the subject that everyone is just using backwards reasoning - simply he thinks we just rationalize our agenda with whatever means possible, and if our agenda doesn't match his, it's false, so we lie, but he doesn't know where (because he's incapable of conscient thought level which allows us to operate on things detached from our bladder gut feels), so he just ignores the reasoning and discards the reasoning part altogether, addressing just the end result, which he believes to be our agenda with no basis but the bladder gut feeling, and claiming it as false.
Therefore, reasoning with Kaarous is impossible - you cannot reason with something which is effectively a piece of cabbage.
Mike Voidstar wrote:Wars aren't a problem in themselves either. The fact that they are one sided and have no victory condition for the defender is a problem.
He's just gonna pick on this phrase saying wars work fine for him so they're fine and need no to be touched because everyone else should be kewl kid like him, HTFU, and play his game, and whoever dares to do otherwise has no place in eve (because apparently he holds the copyright to what eve should be over CCP).
Mike Voidstar wrote:Highsec is not supposed to have unrestricted PVP without consequence. That's why we have Concord and sec status hits. Conflict is great, and a war that can be successfully prosecuted by both sides can be a fun element in a game. The way these wars are being used they don't meet that requirement of mutual fun, and instead are being used simply to ruin the game for the defending players who have been left with no effective recourse but simply stop playing as to not feed the trolls.
We told him quite a number of times to go out and poke nullbears, but I think he perfectly realizes he'll get rekt every day if he tries, so he's cringing for mother concord to protect only him and nobody else, and royally butthurt about the fact someone can take his concord immunity from him by the great treachery of allies mechanic.
Too bad he can't comprehend "double standard" either or he'd be mentally hurt. Also too bad you can't mentally hurt someone with no mentality whatsoever. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |