| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jash Illian
   |
Posted - 2004.01.19 15:29:00 -
[61]
 Quote:
I have read through the Dev Blog and this thread and I still feel TomB has the right idea.
This system will allow an effectively unlimited number of wars to be declared and prevent anyone from being forced into a war they don't want. You can still shoot at anyone at any time - with a few repercussions in empire space 
Many people did not buy this game for PvP but as a space trading/mining/economic/empire building game (Elite anyone?) and not as a UT or CS clone.
Just my take on this ...
Since the possibility of having a war declared on your corporation does not make it a certainty in the slightest, it is not justified to remove the functionality that others use in valid gameplay.
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 |
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2004.01.19 15:33:00 -
[62]
Quote:
OMG 
I got viceroy, jade, and in 24hrs BH agreeing to one thing.
What's next, a blood red moon? Dogs and cats mating? Sutty not talking in local? Stavros not being an attention ho? OMGOMGOMGOMG Will Homo discover his lost CAPS KEY!!!!??!!
Tune in next week and the chilling answers shall be revealed.
Well you won't have me agreeing...not completely.
The argument that there is no cost for declaring a war raised in the dev blog was valid, imo. And a price should be added for each war declared.
10m per week for the first war. 20m for the 2nd war and 30m for the 3rd war seems appropriate.
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 |
Discorporation
|
Posted - 2004.01.19 15:47:00 -
[63]
Quote:
Well you won't have me agreeing...not completely.
The argument that there is no cost for declaring a war raised in the dev blog was valid, imo. And a price should be added for each war declared.
10m per week for the first war. 20m for the 2nd war and 30m for the 3rd war seems appropriate.
Won't work, for the same reason TechII isn't auctioned off.
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|
Adliger Krieger
|
Posted - 2004.01.19 15:50:00 -
[64]
CONSENTING TO WAR? GIMME AN F'ING BREAK!!
|
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2004.01.19 16:04:00 -
[65]
Quote:
Quote:
Well you won't have me agreeing...not completely.
The argument that there is no cost for declaring a war raised in the dev blog was valid, imo. And a price should be added for each war declared.
10m per week for the first war. 20m for the 2nd war and 30m for the 3rd war seems appropriate.
Won't work, for the same reason TechII isn't auctioned off.
Sometimes you have to ignore the extremes for the greater good. Despite what people want to say about m0o and SPVD, they're not griefers and shouldn't be classed as such.
A real griefer is unlikely to be able to afford much of any price because they spend the majority of their time trying to grief people. Not make money.
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 |
Denathis Arabar
|
Posted - 2004.01.19 16:05:00 -
[66]
I have not seen the full ideas, but i have to say i think you need to be able to declare war without the other side accepting. Without this war is no longer a point. As long as it is limited to only 3 slots it stops griefing. Most corps do not want to use up thier war declarations on small new corps just to annoy them. Maybe adding more consectual slots for war would be a good idea though, but keep the 3 war slots we have at the moment please.
|
Athule Snanm
|
Posted - 2004.01.19 16:07:00 -
[67]
I agree with most of what's been said against the consensual-only war proposal. For people who say that it will lead to a free-for-all for pirates, well we have non-consensual war at the moment and I don't see it happening. The only example I've seen or heard of is the one in the dev blog, and if that's not an example of hitting your enemy where they're weak I don't know what is. Some time ago there was a thread that gave the Art of War as suggested reading - any relevance that or other strategic texts have is severely compromised when you have ivory tower corps sitting untouchable in high sec space. Big items will likely always need lots of tritanium and pyerite - this means that empire space will always be attractive for big corps as they can mine it there with zero risk.
As to paying for wars, well its a bit of rough way of dealing with it but I think its the most viable one that's been listed so far. The fact that a lot of corps can afford 10M is neither here nor there - it just means that there is some cost to a war to stop random alt corps springing up. The issue is quite different from tech 2 bps. If it is scaled then I think it should be scaled to the size of corp that you have declared against not your own corp - possibly being cheaper the bigger a corp is and the more skills points they have between them. Other limits might be workable too - such as fewer war slots or getting a corp a large number of negative votes.
I completely agree with BH though, it isn't just removing wars that's the problem it's removing the potential for war. Consensual only war is likely to be a license to grief. It also opens the floodgates for corps to split into a 'safe' and a 'dangerous' division, essentially an OK official version of the current exploit where people jump corps to avoid war.
Maybe this is where CCP wants the game to go, but for me it strikes to the heart of the core environment that the game has had from the beginning (well at least as far back as I go, May).
_______________________________
Doomheim - EVE's only hygiene! |
ProphetGuru
|
Posted - 2004.01.19 16:08:00 -
[68]
Quote:
The argument that there is no cost for declaring a war raised in the dev blog was valid, imo. And a price should be added for each war declared.
10m per week for the first war. 20m for the 2nd war and 30m for the 3rd war seems appropriate.
Sorry, disagree. There is no POINT in making people pay for wars, as, isk is pathetically easy to acquire for large corps and alliances. For smaller corps, this will simply lock them out of an aspect of the game. I do not like any idea that discourages pvp, or creates an additional blockade.
Evolution..... Just when you thought you were winning.
|
Discorporation
|
Posted - 2004.01.19 16:16:00 -
[69]
Quote:
Sometimes you have to ignore the extremes for the greater good. Despite what people want to say about m0o and SPVD, they're not griefers and shouldn't be classed as such.
They're not griefers. they's smart people who like to fight 
Quote:
A real griefer is unlikely to be able to afford much of any price because they spend the majority of their time trying to grief people. Not make money.
A real griefer will need to make money in order to keep up with his intended targets. To instagank people, you will NEED a battleship. That means the griefer can afford at least over 100 million worth of stuff. It gets worse when they team up (I can already hear the maniacal cry of the Korean "Kekekeke" echoing on local)..
Isks to fuel a war is not a good way of curbing non-consentual corp wars.
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2004.01.19 16:20:00 -
[70]
Quote:
Quote:
The argument that there is no cost for declaring a war raised in the dev blog was valid, imo. And a price should be added for each war declared.
10m per week for the first war. 20m for the 2nd war and 30m for the 3rd war seems appropriate.
Sorry, disagree. There is no POINT in making people pay for wars, as, isk is pathetically easy to acquire for large corps and alliances. For smaller corps, this will simply lock them out of an aspect of the game. I do not like any idea that discourages pvp, or creates an additional blockade.
You missed the next reply. The point isn't to make wars a burden to a large corp or alliance. That's sdrawkcabssa thinking at it's prime.
The point of s.a.f.e.g.u.a.r.d.s is to prevent those who'd abuse a system to the detriment of others. A large scale corp or alliance isn't going to waste isk for the sake of griefing the small time Joe Lollipop Corp. But making it a burden for a large corp or alliance means that if Joe Lollipop Corp has a grievance and wishes to address it via a war, they can't afford it themselves.
Large corps and Alliances are the high ground. Joe Lollipop Corp is the low ground. Balance is the middle ground. You can't balance game mechanics that span the entire game based on the abilities of those at the extremes.
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 |
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2004.01.19 16:26:00 -
[71]
Quote:
Quote:
A real griefer is unlikely to be able to afford much of any price because they spend the majority of their time trying to grief people. Not make money.
A real griefer will need to make money in order to keep up with his intended targets. To instagank people, you will NEED a battleship. That means the griefer can afford at least over 100 million worth of stuff. It gets worse when they team up (I can already hear the maniacal cry of the Korean "Kekekeke" echoing on local)..
Isks to fuel a war is not a good way of curbing non-consentual corp wars.
Battleships are a bit more of an investment in time and isk nowadays. I'm down to 2 spares myself
But seriously, wars being free is no discouragement at all. And wars being consentual is ridiculous harebrained thinking (hares got fur too  ). What other cost is there?
Corp wide sec hit for every war declared?
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 |
Discorporation
|
Posted - 2004.01.19 16:33:00 -
[72]
Quote:
Battleships are a bit more of an investment in time and isk nowadays. I'm down to 2 spares myself
But seriously, wars being free is no discouragement at all. And wars being consentual is ridiculous harebrained thinking (hares got fur too ). What other cost is there?
Corp wide sec hit for every war declared?
Non-consentual corporation wars in the current setup is mandatory, in my opinion. Rather then a cost, offer viable solutions to the person that got war declared. Make it easier to hire merc corps and be sure they do their job (hi promised Contract system from late beta).
Anything but a cost to declare war. That's in my opinion, stupid, if based on isks.
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2004.01.19 16:35:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Jash Illian on 19/01/2004 16:36:04
Quote:
Quote:
Battleships are a bit more of an investment in time and isk nowadays. I'm down to 2 spares myself
But seriously, wars being free is no discouragement at all. And wars being consentual is ridiculous harebrained thinking (hares got fur too ). What other cost is there?
Corp wide sec hit for every war declared?
Non-consentual corporation wars in the current setup is mandatory, in my opinion. Rather then a cost, offer viable solutions to the person that got war declared. Make it easier to hire merc corps and be sure they do their job (hi promised Contract system from late beta).
Anything but a cost to declare war. That's in my opinion, stupid, if based on isks.
Okay, so I say again: Corp wide sec hit?
That is when it becomes possible to actually earn sec rating again 
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 |
ProphetGuru
|
Posted - 2004.01.19 16:39:00 -
[74]
Edited by: ProphetGuru on 19/01/2004 16:41:55
Hmm. I don't see how the system could be abused anymore then it currently is by retaining the current 3 slot system. The only difference really will be that consentual wars will not use up slots. edit- however if both set eachother to -10 and agree to war, good for them
I can't picture the day m0o would declare war on WeMineVeld Inc, when they only have 3 non consentual war slots.
/emote looking fwd to all those red/orange boxes in empire space.
Evolution..... Just when you thought you were winning.
|
Discorporation
|
Posted - 2004.01.19 16:40:00 -
[75]
Quote:
Okay, so I say again: Corp wide sec hit?
That is when it becomes possible to actually earn sec rating again
I don't see a way to attach costs to non-consentual wars at all, really 
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|
Ninja Panda
|
Posted - 2004.01.19 16:40:00 -
[76]
I see all this talk from TomB saying 'Its unfair for big corps to greif smaller corps under current mechanism' or 'PVP corps shouldnt be able to attack non PVP corps in Empire' as some sort of defence to introduce, what to me sounds ludicrous, Consensual war.
Let me show you another point of view then:
We are a very small and very new corp, none of our members have more than 500k skill points so I guess we most definately fall under the heading small noob corp (I hope we do coz we love it).
We have declared War on some of the largest corps in EVE because they are pirates in 0.0 space and we are such noble and honourable fun loving guys here to save the universe. They hit indy's in 0.0 space and then flee back to Empire to hide. We are too small and noobish to venture into 0.0 so we wage war on them in Empire space and destroy their Battleships (in droves....and boy its fun).
You are trying to protect small corps but your flawed idea also allows these huge mega corps to continue their piractical ways against us smaller corps and yet we would be able to do nothing about it.
Why would they accept our war declarations ? Consenual war is BAD MMMKAY, our enemies would simply refuse due to their lack of skills/balls etc.
Nubtastic Nubmen, to the Nubmobile
|
Cao Cao
|
Posted - 2004.01.19 16:50:00 -
[77]
In short, requiring the declaree's consent before war is official makes no sense at all. Wars are nearly always a power play where one party to the conflict does not want the conflict at all.
War should be declared within 24 hours of the first corporation to set a standing to -10. Consentual "war" is a misnomer. How or why would you "consent" to having someone declare war on you? In some cases maybe, but in most cases, ESPECIALLY in the case of a weaker corporation that is "squatting," they will never consent to war.
Simply allow wars to be declared when standing is set to -10 by one corporation. No need for the other corp to set their standing to -10 as well.
|
Cao Cao
|
Posted - 2004.01.19 16:54:00 -
[78]
The rule for ending wars should be implemented in starting them. If one corporation or player sets standing, then war is declared within 7 days. If both players/corporations set -10 standing, then it only takes 24 hours.
|
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2004.01.19 17:01:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Jash Illian on 19/01/2004 17:23:26
Quote:
Quote:
Okay, so I say again: Corp wide sec hit?
That is when it becomes possible to actually earn sec rating again
I don't see a way to attach costs to non-consentual wars at all, really
It's not about 'cost'. It's about discouraging potential abuse. Emphasis on the 'discouraging' and 'potential'.
I'm not looking at Wars as a feature to pay for or to 'earn' with isk, as isk is pathetically easy to amass as a large corp or alliance. But that doesn't negate the time invested to make a large corp or alliance just because it's easy for a large corp or alliance to amass isk. They're not griefers.
The 'griefer' that people should only be concerned with are the real ones. The misconceptions and prejudices of the people in this game distort what a griefer is so badly, people wouldn't recognize one if their life depended on it. While pointing the finger at the wrong people the entire time.
A Real Griefer lives by a single rule:
Maximize Grief, Minimize Investment.
Making them play the game to continue their activities is discouragement. They're not in it to actually play the game. Just to cause other people that are playing the game grief. Every time they're forced to earn isk, part of their fun is taken away. Every time they're forced to do anything but cause someone grief, their fun is taken away.
I've dealt with griefers from the other side of the fence. And the problem with TomB's suggestion, and essentially every 'solution' that CCP implements to handle 'griefers', is not understanding where the real concern may be.
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 |
Cao Cao
|
Posted - 2004.01.19 17:26:00 -
[80]
Implementing a recurring fee to declare war leads to the exact same problem that would arise if you charge a toll to use the superhighway jumpgates. It will be a drop in the bucket for the megaplayers and megacorps and an unreasonable burden for the newer guys.
After reading the entire thread I think the best solution is to implement the system but leave the 3 non-consentual war slots alone. Also, add say 10 PERSONAL war slots so that as an individual you can declare personal vendetta against up to 10 other individuals.
But TomB ... and the rest of the DEVs... PLEASE rethink this stupid lame retarded ricockulous consentual war crap, SO lame SO dumb and would totally ruin the game.
|
Harisdrop
|
Posted - 2004.01.19 17:39:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Harisdrop on 19/01/2004 17:41:34
One thing most are not looking at is the true makeup of Alliances as we know them now.
What is an Alliance?
What is the benifit to be in an Alliance?
I would hope these changes will cause the Alliances to change. Your corp ceo would have to consider the ideas and goals of an Alliance after this change. This will be paramont cause in this setup its all for one and one for all.
The game should goto a more black/white dynamic. Where different forces will be playing in the same regions.
The problem most here have is trying to fit an apple into and orange peel. This change will make Eve 100% different.
I like this change for the simple fact that you are now accountable for your standings. Ceo's are accountable to thier members.
Dev's ideas:
One thing I think Gan has been trying to say is a more democracy type corps.
Maybe you can implement a stock vote to standing change. That would be cool for corps.
You also might want to setup alliance stocks and office space where an alliance could have general members at stations.
YOu might want to be able to setup multiple hangar options like general ledger accounts.
Taxes for corps and alliances should be implemented soon.
--------------------------
Garsh ma it soo cool killing people in there space thingies |
Galfrey
|
Posted - 2004.01.19 17:44:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Galfrey on 19/01/2004 17:46:41
Quote:
Quote:
I have read through the Dev Blog and this thread and I still feel TomB has the right idea.
This system will allow an effectively unlimited number of wars to be declared and prevent anyone from being forced into a war they don't want. You can still shoot at anyone at any time - with a few repercussions in empire space
Many people did not buy this game for PvP but as a space trading/mining/economic/empire building game (Elite anyone?) and not as a UT or CS clone.
Just my take on this ...
Since the possibility of having a war declared on your corporation does not make it a certainty in the slightest, it is not justified to remove the functionality that others use in valid gameplay.
A fair point.
However, the current system is inherently safe-guarded to an extent by the 3 war limit. Few corps will want to waste a war slot on some unkown corp in Empire space.
Which is why when you have no effective limit on the wars you can create there must be a counterbalance - hence consensual wars. Maybe there is a better way to do this but so far I am not convinced.
Edit - Filter got me
|
McWatt
|
Posted - 2004.01.19 18:37:00 -
[83]
i second cao cao!
|
Ariell Lucinwind
|
Posted - 2004.01.19 21:51:00 -
[84]
Edited by: Ariell Lucinwind on 19/01/2004 21:52:25
I read through some of this -- but I have one question/scenario.
If two corps at war with the new system are going at it like hammer and tongs, and one of the corps gets some newbs or firends to fly through the middle and get hit with splash damage - does that make CONCORD show up and beat the snot out of the other corp?
Also - I agree on what the other three say (Jade, Legal Eagle Viceroy, and BH)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Came back cause I love you guys :P |
Tigrana Blanque
|
Posted - 2004.01.19 22:00:00 -
[85]
Edited by: Tigrana Blanque on 19/01/2004 22:02:13
My idea posted in the Blog and elsewhere was to 'charge' non-consentual wars (by the way, I"m on the bandwagon as agreeing they *must* be possible, albiet 'safe-guarded' or limited in some way) but not monetarily. Too many megas would lead to the price having to be too huge to effect them at all for it to be remotely reasonable for little guys. So unless you balanced it in relation to some sort of idea of corp assets you couldn't make it fair...and even then nothing stops creation of an alt-corp with nothing in their pockets to get a cheap go-to-war break.
Rather, undeclared wars lead to the potential of faction hits if actually persecuted in faction space. Fac hits would be levied against *all* members of the declaring company on execution of a warlike action (killing someone in "empire" space), modified by the sec status of the hit location, and by the sec and/or faction status of the individual doing the hit (would need some balancing to decide what do do in cases of extreme diff between the two).
Case A: 'ganker' wants to kill noobs. He's already got neg sec status. He does it without war declaration in 0.4 on down because 'he can' (no insta-response if he stays aware of SGs, only some security status hit). Now he delares non-consentual war wanting to do the same: instead not just the shooter but the *entire corp* takes faction hits scaled by the sec status of the space wherein any kill is prosecuted. Pretty soon he can't enter (for example) Caldari space w/out having the navy in addition to Concord on his butt, is denied docking priveledges, faces worse refining etc....and so are all his corpmates.
Case B. Corp declares one-sided war on cowardly scammers/theives etc who won't declare back. Most of this corp is working hard on agent missions, selling ore to NPC corps, etc. and generally working on *raising* faction rating. Those doing the hits have good ratings to begin with. So the war kills if prosecuted even in higher security space do 'hurt' and limit the length of time they'll want to continue a one-sided war, but provided that their military arm isn't outshooting their private arm they stay overall in reasonable good graces. Makes sense IC that a faction really wouldn't want its member corps fighting amongst themselves in supposedly "policed" areas, but would look the other way to a certain extent.
Case C: Big meany corp declares war on little bitty corp to squeeze them out of an area of space. They just may be able to pull it off...provided again they've got enough people working to counteract the downside of the faction hits for any actual kills they achieve in 'war' mode in higher security space. If you totally *prevent* this from being possible you totally obviate one of the supposed paths of the game..."rule a megacorp and squash your rivals".
Case D: Alt-war corp created just to prosecute additional wars, with a bunch of undertrained frig pilots just able to fly kestrels with big misiles and hit indies. They've probably invested no time at all in creating a faction rating above 0, hence a single hit from one of them hurts *all* of them more than a hit from a member of a corp who actually worked on their rating...shutting them down in that space much quicker.
Case E: Corp has 2 or 3 designated "hitmen" who do all their killing for them in one-sided wars. If those hitmen don't rehabilitate their faction ratings between these wars, they start hurting everyone faster the lower they drop, to the point where the ones not in combat can't keep up.
None of the above applies to consentual war, which can of course be no-holds barred anywhere between participants.
Anyway I'm sure there are balance issues with how much of a hit, what modifier scale to use, etc. but the bottom line is this idea would totally "prevent" *nothing*, yet certainly discourage overuse of nonconsentual wars for the sheer pleasure of getting an open license to kill. At least in the same place all the time....
Comments welcome.
(edited for safe-guarded. weird...)
|
DogzNutz
|
Posted - 2004.01.20 00:11:00 -
[86]
Edited by: DogzNutz on 20/01/2004 00:12:30
I agree that the corp wars and big battles is an excellent idea, BUT......
And that's a big But.
How the hell can you justify that patch when we cannot even fight properly due to lagfests.
One minute for module activation is NOT an option, it's a death-sentence, without parole without a pardon, do NOT collect $200 for passing go.
Just damn well die and smile when you pettition and get told that you cannot get Jack for doing exactly as Tomb wants.
|
Gan Howorth
|
Posted - 2004.01.20 01:34:00 -
[87]
Edited by: Gan Howorth on 20/01/2004 01:36:29
Hey Harisdrop, c.racked the idea of dictatorial Vs democratic corps. Use shares to weight the standing views of its members.
So if the CEO has all the shares then its a one man show, only what he thinks/decides via the standing system counts.
If everyone in the corp has an equal number of shares then its a democratic co-operative. Each persons views are equally important when calculating corp standings.
Obviously there is a whole slew of other ways shares could be implemented to create influence hierarchies.
|
Sally
|
Posted - 2004.01.20 05:01:00 -
[88]
Quote:
<TomB> This is the future, we are not barbarians anymore - but we will try to make the system as smooth as possible to give motives as features needed for war.
ROFL. That made my day. I'm pretty much sure that the human race will be barbarians in 20.000 or 200.000 years too. It's all relative anyway.
--
Stories: #1
--
|
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2004.01.20 05:13:00 -
[89]
Quote:
Quote:
<TomB> This is the future, we are not barbarians anymore - but we will try to make the system as smooth as possible to give motives as features needed for war.
ROFL. That made my day. I'm pretty much sure that the human race will be barbarians in 20.000 or 200.000 years too. It's all relative anyway.
I wondered about that line a bit and thought it wasn't worth asking the rather obvious questions.
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 |
Sally
|
Posted - 2004.01.20 05:23:00 -
[90]
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
<TomB> This is the future, we are not barbarians anymore - but we will try to make the system as smooth as possible to give motives as features needed for war.
ROFL. That made my day. I'm pretty much sure that the human race will be barbarians in 20.000 or 200.000 years too. It's all relative anyway.
I wondered about that line a bit and thought it wasn't worth asking the rather obvious questions.
It's an arbitrary "kill-a-discussion-line".
Or does
- "We are barbarians only if we both want to be barbarians (a.k.a. consensual war)",
- "We are barbarians only if CONCORD isn't controlling our space",
- "We aren't barbarians, but we have a few hundreds arms related ship modules",
- "We aren't barbarians, but we like slavery"
make any sense?
<irony>
"<TomB> This is the future, we are carebears - and we will try to make the system as smooth as possible to make us happy."
</irony>
Anyway, I might be wrong. Let's see what the system will be like.
--
Stories: #1
--
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |