| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jash Illian
   |
Posted - 2004.01.17 00:50:00 -
[31]
 Quote:
Quote:
So go to 0.0. I know for damn sure you can get podkilled bang outside a station out there.
The whole point is to be able to attack corps that don't (or very rarely) go to 0.0...
Actually, I refer to the 'wisdom' [/sarcasm] of Kipkruide from the muppet brigade Kiroshi Group that started this nonsense:
Quote:
The simple TRUTH is we are a normal MANUFACTURING, corp that joined the sa, and this is obviuosly a great EXCUSE for SI, to come drive our new players from the game.
What's a member of Stain Alliance doing in empire space? They're part of an alliance and a valid target. Following Baldour's logic they should be up in 0.0 space making themselves targets.
As no alliance member would ever have any business in empire space, obviously 
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Celt Eireson
|
Posted - 2004.01.17 01:26:00 -
[32]
Well I think they do have a valid reason to be in Empire space, to use a real world example (and I know you hate these Jash :-) ) but current corporations have loads of bases around the world to act as local sales teams etc etc.
Big but though, if a corp associates itself with an alliance that is at war then they should expect repercussions regardless of where they are based.
|
Amicus
|
Posted - 2004.01.17 01:45:00 -
[33]
TomB's proposed alliance system seems to track more with pre-World War I alliances, rather than NATO. Austria declares war on Serbia, and suddenly almost all of Europe is at war because of alliances. Many would agree that was a stupid system leading to an exceedingly stupid war, but can't say it is unhistorical. 
|
McWatt
|
Posted - 2004.01.17 09:29:00 -
[34]
Quote:
.... WHY can you people not get it through your skulls that PvP in this game is OPTIONAL??
because it wasn t till now (in principal)???
|
Gan Howorth
|
Posted - 2004.01.17 12:15:00 -
[35]
I'm not a PvPer by first choice ...yet. Sure it means l have to be careful, arrange escort, avoid areas at certain times of the day...but the game is richer for it.
If a player can say l don't want to PvP and thus be somehow 100% able to avoid it through this declaration alone, then a large part of EVE will have died for me.
|
Celt Eireson
|
Posted - 2004.01.17 12:42:00 -
[36]
Gan
Even with the new system you will still have to be careful :-)
As far as I am aware itll really only have an effect on high sec areas. In areas 0.1-0.4 you can still be attacked in asteroid belts etc, and even at gates if the attacker stays out of range of the gate guns. And in 0.0 space the same old rules apply. So it has the most impact on 0.5-1.0 space.
Mind you whilst I'd like to see some way to eliminate possible abuse of the current system, I think the new system needs changes afore it leaves the drawing board.
|
Gan Howorth
|
Posted - 2004.01.17 13:25:00 -
[37]
Yeah it should leave the drawing board and go stright to the bin without passing go or collecting 200 isk. Standings in this game could provide so much scope and enrichment. It shold not be abondoned for some half baked traffic light system.
BTW my idea rocks, still waiting for the slap down. 
|
MrPops
|
Posted - 2004.01.17 13:49:00 -
[38]
Quote:
Quote:
.... WHY can you people not get it through your skulls that PvP in this game is OPTIONAL??
because it wasn t till now (in principal)???
BBzzzt! wrong! PVP is not shoved down your throat in this game. Ask the people who have yet to fire a shot against another player since day one.
"The human species suffers from a dimensional limitation. They are not able to understand that matter and mind are just one aspect of something more fundamental. We must strive to expand our perspective so we can see what our true reality is."
Deep toughts by Mr.Pops, while consuming large quantities of Blue Pill and staring at the EVE gate in Genesis.
|
Lallante
|
Posted - 2004.01.17 15:12:00 -
[39]
Quote:
Quote:
.... WHY can you people not get it through your skulls that PvP in this game is OPTIONAL??
because it wasn t till now (in principal)???
AND IT SHOULDNT BE OPTIONAL.
Anyone who thinks they should be able to mine Ark and Merc and run trade runs in 0.0 space with only NPCs to worry about should be summaraily kicked from the game. PvP should be an integral part of the game.
All you manufacturing corps? Dont you realise the ONLY thing driving sales is PvP! I have no doubt that more BSs have been sold than the whole Playerbase (including alts!)
Lall - THE Vocal Minority -
ShinRa
|
Celt Eireson
|
Posted - 2004.01.17 16:27:00 -
[40]
Lallente
I don't think anyone (even those who fully support the changes Tomb is thinking about) is saying that there should be no non-consensual PvP in the entire Eve space. Even with the proposed changes 0.0 is still gonna be as dangerous as ever.
The only question (with regards to the changes in war as opposed to the alliance system) is whether it should be possible, in high sec Empire space, to PvP against another corp at any time with no restrictions.
|
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2004.01.17 17:54:00 -
[41]
Quote:
Lallente
I don't think anyone (even those who fully support the changes Tomb is thinking about) is saying that there should be no non-consensual PvP in the entire Eve space. Even with the proposed changes 0.0 is still gonna be as dangerous as ever.
The only question (with regards to the changes in war as opposed to the alliance system) is whether it should be possible, in high sec Empire space, to PvP against another corp at any time with no restrictions.
That's misleading.
First, just because the possibility exists doesn't make it reality. Most of what's being said is exaggerated nonsense. As most corps that don't actively seek fights at a war level are never involved in one. They may get attacked by pirates. But the majority will never have an official war declared on them.
Second, and one of the misleading parts, is that there are restrictions. 48 hours from initiation of a vote to declare war to actually being able to shoot. 3 declared war max limit. There are restrictions in place and though they might need strengthing, they do just what any balanced restriction does: protect as many as possible while providing as much freedom as possible.
Third is that it's not about being able to attack another corp any time without restrictions. I don't know if that was written deliberately to be disengenuous or not. The issue here is being able to strike effectively against enemies. Financial infrastructures, shell corporations, supporters. During the TTi vs NVA war, there was the threat that anyone supplying one of them (I believe the threat came from the NVA in regards to supplying Ragnar & TTi) would be viewed as an accomplice. And that people should learn to choose who they supply better if they didn't want to get involved.
Baldour ranted something about PvP being optional. Unfortunately for him, it cannot be completely for the game to survive. There is no separating the Eve universe into a Felucca and Trammel. Not so long as people from both sides do business together and rely on each other.
And they do. Eltigre's Sweet Little Mining Corp would have feck all to do with the 45k cubic meters of ore per hour he claims he can mine in .5+ space without the corporations and alliances in 0.0 mining meg/zyd rich ores. So long as there are economic ties between the PvP and Non-PvP groups, PvP cannot be completely optional without making PvP utterly worthless because you have no means to do any actual damage to your foes.
Besides, joining or creating a corporation IS consenting to PvP. Unless this change takes place.
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Celt Eireson
|
Posted - 2004.01.17 22:47:00 -
[42]
"First, just because the possibility exists doesn't make it reality. Most of what's being said is exaggerated nonsense. As most corps that don't actively seek fights at a war level are never involved in one. They may get attacked by pirates. But the majority will never have an official war declared on them."
As I said in an earlier post somewhere, I have absolutely no idea whether the current system is being abused, and if so to what degree. For all I know there's no abuse or there may be a lot of it. From what little evidence I have seen I don't think there is much abuse of it going on. Would be nice if we could be given some idea from the devs etc about how many petitions they get about this so we might get a better picture. I just think that the current system is a little too open.
"Second, and one of the misleading parts, is that there are restrictions. 48 hours from initiation of a vote to declare war to actually being able to shoot. 3 declared war max limit. There are restrictions in place and though they might need strengthing, they do just what any balanced restriction does: protect as many as possible while providing as much freedom as possible."
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that there were no restrictions at all or to mislead. There are some, just not sure if they are enough as is. Then again I think the entirely consensual combat whihc is being proposed is going too far.
"Third is that it's not about being able to attack another corp any time without restrictions. I don't know if that was written deliberately to be disengenuous or not. The issue here is being able to strike effectively against enemies. Financial infrastructures, shell corporations, supporters. During the TTi vs NVA war, there was the threat that anyone supplying one of them (I believe the threat came from the NVA in regards to supplying Ragnar & TTi) would be viewed as an accomplice. And that people should learn to choose who they supply better if they didn't want to get involved."
I agree that anyone supporting an alliance should be open to retaliation. But in terms of manufacturers who put their items on sale on the general market, how do you stop someone buying your stuff? Theres a fine line between being totally neutral and selling to both sides, and being considered a supplier to your enemy?
Baldour ranted something about PvP being optional. Unfortunately for him, it cannot be completely for the game to survive. There is no separating the Eve universe into a Felucca and Trammel. Not so long as people from both sides do business together and rely on each other.
Besides, joining or creating a corporation IS consenting to PvP. Unless this change takes place.
A lot of people create corps for the benefits, shared hangars etc, or simply cos they want to run a corp. They are not explicitly agreeing to PvP, its simply that the current system basically says you have two choices - stay in a newbie corp or create a corp and leave yourself open to wars.
Believe me whilst I'm not really into PvP I would say its a mistake to hamper it too much. I'm not someone who sits around in high sec space all the time. I've spent plenty of time in 0.0 space from the start, and I've lost ships to pirates, I don't complain regardless of whether it was a fair fight or I was ganked or killed at a JIP, cos I was aware of the risks.
But I believe that there should be parts of space where neutral corps should be able to go about their business safely. However, this should be based on the fact that those corps who choose to be based or venture into 0.0 should be rewarded for doing so, problem is that currently there isn't really and until player owned stations etc come into being there won't be.
I don't want corps wars to be entirely consensual, I just want some kind of restriction put on the non-consensual ones to ensure that they're only used when there are valid reasons for doing so such as the ones you quoted. The only thing I'm not sure about is how to do that effectively and how to balance it.
|
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 00:06:00 -
[43]
Quote:
A lot of people create corps for the benefits, shared hangars etc, or simply cos they want to run a corp. They are not explicitly agreeing to PvP, its simply that the current system basically says you have two choices - stay in a newbie corp or create a corp and leave yourself open to wars.
The benefits come at a price: vulnerability to wars. I believe it's actually covered in the manual that corps are open to having wars declared on them.
The system is hardly being abused. Corporations that pose a real threat to another corp aren't wasting their war slots on harassing n00bs. And the single griefer from the grassy knoll holding a 20 man corp hostage is ridiculous. That was what another person try to post a while back. A single person declared war on his 20 man corporation and they couldn't have a battleship availible while they were mining to fight off his frigate.
The biggest abuses are coming from people like Dawnstar of the Kiroshi Group. They abuse the naivette and gullability of the developers.
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 01:24:00 -
[44]
IMO - TomB's idea is simple and should work if some agreement on non-consetial war and how alliance members can be officially recognised and targetted and not just leave when they need to to avoid war.
I think that there does have to be a fully fledged system in place much similar to the corp function we have now.
Just replace player members for corps or their CEO's and directors. Make the CEO role with less power - so that all 'leaders' are only directors and votes or something or needed to vote in new directors etc.
This will entail a alliance hanger, wallet, and will need an office, but it is a huge additon to the game treated like a 'ghost corp' or a mega corp in ways.
That way in the same workings as currently - you can set standings, declare an alliance war to other recognised alliances or corps using the current 3 non-consential wars slot.
It will involve a lot more work CCP side but a system like that based on the current corp functions would work better IMO than the standings based one.
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |