| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jade Constantine
   |
Posted - 2008.07.02 00:20:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 02/07/2008 00:23:51
Interesting thread, couple of observations:
Faction Warfare was always going to be a problem for Eve in some ways. The notion of allowing player characters to join an organization that protected them from unwanted wars (while giving them access to a controlled FW war) is a challenge to EveÆs essential sandbox nature. Since the beginning of the game itÆs been accepted wisdom that when you leave the NPC corp and join your first corporation you become a potential target to anyone who might wish to wardec and engage you. This is something that did get flagged up as an issue when the initial plans and designs were unveiled for faction warfare.
Still current FW participants do have several options û they can join the Militia npc entity where they are protected from wardecs. If they are finding their player corporation outmatched by an incoming wardec they can recruit, seek allies, hire mercenaries, fly cheap ships, even surrender and leave the militia entirely if the fight is too hard for them.
What IÆm reading in this thread is basically that some people have brought a corporation into a Militia to serve as a command and control role (presumably because they see advantage in being a corporation rather than simply a collection of common militia members) but that advantage comes with the risk that people might chose to wardec it as a way of fighting against the overall Militia interests in that region of space.
IÆm not going go too much into the motivations of SF here. But anyone who has followed our roleplay and history in Eve canÆt be that surprised that weÆre out there shooting nationalist militia members in the head every night surely. Star Fraction is a in-game anarcho-capitalist revolutionary movement opposing the 4 empires and believing that capsule pilots should be independent agents not mere puppets of the states. This current program of selective wardecs against FW command and control corporations fits our modus operandi and past intentions like a glove. WeÆre 140 pilots engaging an entity of 7000+ pilots by performing terror strikes against the leadership that paralyze the big blobs in Black Rise and make our message plain.
ôNationalism is regressiveö
As to what the targeted corps can do about, itÆs the conundrum that all eve corps have faced since 2003.
1. Get friends, organize, fight back. And its easier now since you have 7000 potential friends in that FW militia entity.
2. Enlarge your corp, recruit fighters.
3. Encourage other corps in your militia to counter wardec the aggressors.
4. Have a whip-round and hire mercenaries to wardec your enemies.
5. Hell, get the other Militia entities to follow your fleets around with logistics ships and keep your vessels immortal.
Or.
Surrender. Leave the Militia, run away and regrow your corp somewhere else and come back when you feel improved and capable.
These are all valid options.
All of them involve playing the game weÆve been given. At the moment Star Fraction is operating under the restriction that we cannot formally wardec the FW militias. We respond to that restriction by wardeccing individual high profile command and control corps and allowing our in-game ideology to manifest in bright acts of revolutionary violence and high profile battlefield assassination.
WeÆre playing Eve. Best suggestion is you guys do the same.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 01:28:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Ayrianna Na***a
Except you are only shooting one Caldari corp. Dec them ALL then if you have any balls! OMG is it too expensive? Then disband your alliance and dec them as one large corp. SF isn't that big anyway.
We are happy working with the existing mechanics. And we're generally running 3 simultaneous wardecs. Nothing is stopping those targets working together. And of course any other FW miltitia corps could wardec us.
Quote:
Jade I don't care about the one corp you decced. They CAN just leave and go into the NPC Militia corp. I am angry that SF thinks they should be respected for greifing a corp that is trying to
Pvp isn't Griefing and we didn't ask for your respect.
Quote:
a) organize with the NPC Militia in Nourv to engage in a game mechanic that was intended to work as such. Shooting in low sec. Then they get picked off one by one because of SF greifing them.
As I said above nothing is stopping you helping these guys if you feel strongly about it. Get into a ship and go help them.
Quote:
b) cannot get any help (logistics? yeah then they get killed as they get WT aggro for repping them) from thier Militia mates.
Give them ships. Join up perhaps. RR gangs. We're a small alliance, you have 7000 potential allies. Use them. Raise some money and hire mercenaries. Do something, anything, rather than complain on the forums that an RP anarchist corp is assassinating the command and control functions of a Nationalist Militia.
Quote:
You are exploiting an oversight in the game mechanics. It is like deccing one corp in an alliance. Grow a pair and take them all full force.
It is no oversight in the mechanics. People perceive there is an advantage to being in a corp as opposed to being rank and file militia. Well that advantage comes with a price-tag - in this case vulnerability to wardec. If you don't like this situation do something about it. In space.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 05:11:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Arlenna Molatov
No, what I find disparaging is that a CSM member would let their corp "work around" the rules and reasons that CCP laided down for FW in the first place.
Nobody is "working around" rules. We're playing entirely within the rules. Corporations can be wardecced. Thats the essential rule of Eve. I suggest you read the thread.
Quote:
Even IF this wasn't a big problem, you have the major issues of being able to war-dec one corp in a larger entity which CANNOT happen anywhere else in the game.
Then I suggest you argue for Alliances being able to wardec the militia or have any wardec against a corp in the militia automatically becoming a wardec for all. Obviously this has balance issues that you may not have considered but it seems to be what you are wanting. What you definitely won't get is a situation where corps joining a militia can become immune to wardecs since that is simply a recipe for wardec avoidance exploit.
Quote:
A corp that is part of a Militia is just as a corp is part of an Alliance.
Not true, its a different mechanic as was explained to us by the developers in question in Iceland.
Quote:
As a CSM MEMBER, this sticks out as much as a supernova would in terms of game imbalance...and as a CSM member, lets it happen.
As a CSM member elected by an electorate of pvpers its entirely appropriate to be engaging in pvp. Perhaps a little less wringing your hands and casting about for blame and a little more helping these guys out would with actual in-game support and spaceship combat would be appropriate.
Quote:
I'm sorry Jade, you have just proven to the whole community that you DO NOT BELONG in the CSM as you do not have the greater good of the Eve player base in your best interest, only your corps. This alone I would think would be a case for expulsion.
I don't believe allowing corporations to avoid wardecs would be in the benefit of the greater eve community - this is a game built on open pvp and dynamic consequence, the "eve" you desire is not the "eve" that I or countless other players enjoy. On this issue I believe you are arguing for a virtual sharding of the live server where you get to make your corporation immune to wardecs by militia affiliation and I believe this is a very bad thing. I am very confident that a large proportion of the eve pvp community feel the same way. If you believe otherwise you're welcome to stand at the next election and prove me wrong.
Quote:
I would VERY much like to hear imput from the Dev team themselves about this Issue as it is getting VERY ugly in the whole game with several matters.
The only "ugly" thing here is the occasionally poorly thought out complaint about a game mechanic that is working exactly as intended. Play the game, adapt, learn to fight back. Stop complaining about every little thing that goes against your interests in game. There are players in eve who will kill your character because of the choices you make in game. Live with it.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 14:42:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Ulstan
Quote:
My answer to that is to add a faction penalty to the faction the killed player belongs to for the killer. This results in several things: players that keep attacking militia's will find them unwanted in the corresponding faction space and corps inside the same militia wardecking each other will sooner or later find themselves outside the militia. Wouldn't you respond as a faction if your militia keeps getting harassed by the same people? Hell i would kick them out of my space on every opportunity. Just to serve the eve golden rule: every action has its consequences, even for those griefers, unlike as it is now.
Hmmm, another post seeming to indicate people war deccing militia corps are not getting attacked by those militia's NPC navies nor suffering standings losses.
Can anyone confirm this is indeed the case?
I disagree whole heartedly with the idea what militia corps should be immune to war decs (No place in EVE is totally safe) but I also agree entirely that people who do war dec militia corps must be considered 'at war' with that militia's faction (actions have consequences) and be attacked by the faction navies and suffer any appropriate standings losses.
SF should definitely enthusiastically be behind this idea, as they've always wanted to 'be at war' with the main factions. Now they could war dec a militia corp from each faction and be shoot on sight in all 4 empires, which should warm their anarchist little hearts.
Jade, use your position on CSM and get on this one!
I'm actually against it as the current mechanics stand. And the reason for is this:
I don't believe that corporations in a FW militia should get any more protection from wardecs and player consequence than a starting non-FW corp should. And if you follow the logical consequence of this suggestion -> ie corps fighting FW corps lose faction standing then they will eventually be in the same boat as enemy militias (ie constantly attacked by faction navy) WITHOUT the benefit of free concord wardecs against the whole militia entity and all associated corps. This isn't reasonable, and its also not a good thing for Eve Online to have the militias change in focus from being an entity one joins to engage in PVP to being an entity one joins to avoiding PVP.
Star Fraction vs Caldari Command Corps is a bad example in this context.
Lets say I'm the CEO of Friendly Fun Corp Inferno We're an industrial trading outfit and we've just been corp thefted and suicided ganked and generally smack-talked in Jita by Twilight Disco Ninjas . We declare war on our nemesis. This is Eve. Maybe we win, maybe we lose, but we're doing our own enforcement. At the moment there is nowhere the Twilight Disco Ninjas can go in empire to escape our vengeance.
But if you had this negative standings penalty thing for the militia - then the Twilight Disco Ninjas could just join the Caldari Militia and if we continued attacking them eventually we'd be hounded by faction navy in Caldari space and lose our ability to trade in Jita as well as having the decks stacked against us in every fight.
+ Also, any mercs we wanted to hire against the Twilight Disco Ninjas would be similarly afflicted, they'd lose standings fighting these guys that would penalize them for future merc work.
Joining the other militia? Not an option for alliances at the moment and still has the default problem that it makes caldari space home ground advantage for this bunch of ninja scum who don't care two hoots about faction warfare but just want to hide from the consequences of their actions on the corp vs corp stage.
You do need to think these things through properly.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 14:52:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Ecky Ptang
As it is at the moment, it seems a corp in a militia gets all the drawbacks without any advantages towards hostile actions from player corps. They are restricted in space and dont have an alliance to back them up, sometimes when just starting out a lot of "noob" playerbase to. Then there is the hostile alliance with experienced players, an alliance with solid income and badass ships, unrestricted in space.
Well your "advantage" in having a corp is:
A: corp channel
B: corp hangers
C: corp roles and admin
D: corp reputation and name
E: corp tax rate
F: corp mail
G: corp ability to wardec
etc etc etc. If you don't care about all that stuff you should simply stay in the militia as a default foot soldier.
The disadvantage is that you can be wardecced. Ultimately its up to your leaders to decide if this disadvantage is outweighed by the advantages of the corp entity. They need to make a decision on whether to keep the corp or not. But this is gameplay - not arguing for changes that protect you from wardecs and player consequence.
Quote:
My answer to that is to add a faction penalty to the faction the killed player belongs to for the killer. This results in several things: players that keep attacking militia's will find them unwanted in the corresponding faction space and corps inside the same militia wardecking each other will sooner or later find themselves outside the militia. Wouldn't you respond as a faction if your militia keeps getting harassed by the same people? Hell i would kick them out of my space on every opportunity. Just to serve the eve golden rule: every action has its consequences, even for those griefers, unlike as it is now.
Its a bad suggestion as I explain in the post above. It will make the miltias into an "anti-wardec" shell of use to anyone wishing to make it more difficult for other players to take matters into their own hands and conclude feuds and vendettas and all the good stuff that makes Eve - Eve.
A much better idea: which was something we touched upon in the Iceland CSM meeting was to make "buy-in" on 3rd party wars much easier.
I would support a system where by the militia kept a list of all incoming active wardecs against its corps and allowed ANY milita corp to join one of these wars completely FREE just by clicking a "help militia ally" button and waiting out the 24 hour timer. (with another 24 hour timer to withdraw the help of course). This would allow players in the Militia to aid player corps against attacks from player corps and would hopefully address the issue in a way that encourages pvp and consequence in Eve online.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 14:57:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Khyle
Originally by: Ulstan
Read again. Only people actually at war with you would take the standings hit. If you're in 0.0, you're fair game no matter what, so no people would bother to declare war on you.
I can't believe you're making such flimsy excuses.
The exact wording was "-war or not." So read again. Plus read Jades post, she came up with a more empire-centric example of the problem.
Most importantly, do militia members get standings hits for shooting players of hostile militias?*
Can¦t find any mention of this in the devblogs or guide. If no, then why should anyone else attacking militia members get standing hits.
* direct standing hits for aggression, not derived from your faction standing increasing by doing FW missions
At the moment I do not believe they do.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 15:15:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Ulstan
Jade, that's complete nonsense. A corp in the caldari militia cannot come after you in gallente hi sec space if you war dec them. Therefore, to keep things remotely equal, you should not be able to come after them in caldari hi sec space.
You are arguing for specific standings losses that have a lasting effect on players ability to move in empire space. But the reality is that your hypothetical corp in the Caldari Militia is NOT taking standings hits for shooting other players period. And COULD if it wished to leave the Caldari Miltia, wardec whom it chooses, even join the Gallente, Minmatar or Amarr miltias the next day to play the field from the other side. You cannot argue for equivalence on this basis.
Quote:
FW corps have signed up for a specific faction, with all the disadvantages and advantages that provides. People shouldn't be able to wardec them from outside the militias and simply bypass the whole FW bit.
Problem is there aren't really any disadvantages for a corp joining a miltia. Its a hellova lot of free wardecs and no lasting consequence should they wish to leave at any time they choose. I completely oppose any principle that would allow corporations to make themselves un-wardecable is the bottom line. I think there is a huge problem with the Militia npc corp itself being un-wardecable but thats another story. Faction Warfare is designed to be meaningful pvp in empire and a way of allowing nationalists to contest low-sec systems. Its not designed to be a war-dec avoidance mechanic to protect entities from the consequences of their non FW actions.
Quote:
I am completely fine with people wardeccing corps in the militia - but when they do so, they simply ought to be considered at war with that factions navies. (and associated standings hits, etc)
Consider my example above with a corporation using the Milita as a wardec avoidance exploit.
Also consider that at the present time you don't suffer standings losses for firing on player ships in enemy factions. It sounds like your want your cake and eat it Ulstan and the argument doesn't hold water.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 15:20:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 02/07/2008 15:20:56
Originally by: nVChicky
Originally by: Khyle
Edited by: Khyle on 02/07/2008 15:01:42
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Khyle
...Most importantly, do militia members get direct standings hits for shooting players of hostile militias? ...
At the moment I do not believe they do.
Which should instantly silence all people asking for non-militia corps fighting militia corps getting standing hits imho.
Can we get a definite answer on this? nVChicky, Ulstan, ...?
As far as I can tell reading from my logs you DO get a hit for fighting NPC militia when capping but you don't when when engaging players from opposing militia Corps
example: Kill mail >2008.06.23 22:21:00
Victim: Kingeal
Corp: Invicta.
Alliance: NONE
Faction: Gallente Federation
but no corresponding Faction Standing hit
Yes and thats the point. It is an absolute nonsense to argue that non FW corps should take standings hits for attacking FW corps when FW players themselves take NO standings hits for shooting at enemy FW corps.
This topic in my view is based on a fundimental misunderstanding of the mechanics at play here and has been partially hijacked by some interests that just want to be safe from ANY kind of wardec in Caldari hisec.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 15:26:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Ulstan
I am arguing for the navies to attack those at war with a militia corp in their hi sec, just as navies will attack those militia in other hi sec places. This is completely fair.
It CAN only be fair (read balanced) if the external power had the same target choice as an enemy militia has. At the moment this isn't the case. A player corp cannot declare war on the militia entity and cannot hisec aggress player members of the Militia.
You are confusing direct membership of the Militia (as you yourself have) and indirect membership of the militia through corp affiliation (as in the case of FCR and others). Your character is a loyalist sworn directly to Heth's cause Ulsan and you are protected by Concord from 3rd party interference and your faction navy from enemy militia interference.
But members of corps that have simply affilitated with militias are a different case - consider them privateers or freelancers or contracted help. They are not direct militia members and they are not held to the same standards of association (ie their individual memebers do not need the standings you do).
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 15:27:00 -
[10]
Originally by: nVChicky
The simple 'fix' is as Jade said, allow FW Corps to assist other FW Corps that are at war and allow alliances to join FW. Standing hits is irrelevant.
The point is when in a FW Corp, War dec'd, theres no ability of assistance.
Cool lets raise it as a CSM ISSUE on the Assembly hall forum and I'll be happy to support that.
Nice to see this thread developed the debate in a constructive direction.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 15:31:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Ulstan
[
The issue is one of simply equality: a militia corp cannot enter their enemies hi sec space while in the militia without navy interference. Therefore, to keep things even, if you war dec a corporation belonging to a faction militia, you shouldn't be able to enter their hi sec space without navy interference.
You are still confusing the status of personal membership in the Militia entity with Corporation association with the FW cause. Its not the same thing. The solution proposed (above) answers the problem of allowing FW corps to help other FW corps that are wardecced and its a player empowerment option that allows players to provide consequence to actions of other players.
You are really off-target with the standings issue because at the moment nobody is taking standings losses for firing on FW-aligned player corps.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 15:43:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Ulstan
Again, nope. Privateers or free lancers or contracted help would be just that: mercs, people like CVA, etc. Militia corps are official members of the militia - that's why they are barred from entering the opposing factions hi sec space, why every member of the opposing militia gets to shoot at them, and why they have to maintain appropriately high standings with the caldari faction and why they'll be kicked out of the militia if their standings fall too low.
The individual members of the FW associated corps do not need Caldari standings. They have an additional layer of removal from the Militia cause. These corporations have chosen to remain corporations rather than disbanding and all joining as individuals under individual standings scrutiny. They retain a degree of independence that comes with advantages for corporations - and disadvantages (the ability to be wardecced) this is all fine and above board.
The proposal I've discussed above is allowing ANY FW-aligned corporation to "buy-into" the wardecs against any other FW corporation free of charge. That would mean that if SF declare on FCR we could get 20-30 corps joining in and deciding to defend their allies in the militia. I think that would be fair enough and a good direction for the game to go in. Hence I'll be supporting it as an ISSUE and casting my vote for its escalation should it come up.
Quote:
The issue is a very simple one: militia corps cannot enter enemy hi spec space without being attacked by faction navies. Therefore, to keep things fair, people who war dec militia corps should be unable to enter their hi sec space without being attacked by their faction navies.
You are still confusing corps with individuals. The corps are not losing standings for shooting at enemy FW corps. Any time they want they can simply leave one Militia and travel where they choose.
Quote:
Any other arrangement breaks the parity and balance and leaves one side with a safe haven the other doesn't have an equivalent too.
There are no safe havens. Any of these corps could disassociate with the militia and counterattack on wardec with anybody it chooses. Thats eve.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 15:50:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 02/07/2008 15:52:22
Originally by: Ayrianna Na***a
I am really upset that the Chair for the CSM is so biased for his own perogatives.
I suspect you'll be hard pressed to find any member of the CSM to agree with your point of view on this. You need to appreciate you are arguing for the narrow interest of a small corporation aligned with the Caldari FW militia that appears to want to be safe from corporate wardecs while functioning as part of that Militia. The implications of the changes you desire are quite hideous for Eve as an open pvp game and would lead to a virtual sharding/pvp instancing of the server and FW becoming the ultimate war-dec avoidance exploit.
I feel I'd be failing completely in my responsibility of a CSM delegate if I didn't strongly oppose the direction you are arguing for the game.
So I'll repeat. Get into a spaceship. Fight. Make allies, hire mercs, play the game. I for one am completely unsympathetic to those that cry "exploit" "griefer" and whine for changes to the game rather than play the game itself when all the tools and opportunities and advantages you need are fully within your reach and grasp.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 16:44:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Miz Cenuij
Jade, you should be listening to the views of the majority, not simply and blindly defending your own selfish corner. You gave up the right to be so when you took the csm position. Remember you are in an ELECTED position, put there by the people to represent thier views and interests. TBH nothing good has been said about u since you were given that position, dont rate your chances for re-election much...
Course the problem is everybody thinks THEY are the majority. Everybody feels their understanding of an issue is the right one. But you honestly can't decide what the MAJORITY thinks by reading a couple of angry responses from a forum thread. Understanding of the pros and cons of various issues comes from talking to ALOT of players, in-game, out of game, reading round the subjects, testing things, trying things out for yourself. Nothing ever good came from taking angry posts from alts on the forums too literally Miz.
If you feel I'm wrong on this issue then feel free to post an assembly hall thread with your proposed solution. It'll get debated and we'll see if any CSM delegate is convinced by the argument and it'll go for votes if the logical is decent and its judged to be in the interests of the game.
As for my CSM performance I'd expect pretty much everyone who voted for me on the expectation I'd argue for the interests of small unit pvp and space combat dynamism would have no cause to complain so far. I'm happy to stand on my voting record and issues presented. I know its impossible to please everyone, particularly on emotive issues like this one - but I really don't lose sleep about people who disagree making murky comments about re-election. Hell, at the end of the day I'll point people at my election manifesto and say "thats what i got voted in to do" call me a liar if I fail to advocate those points, but cry me a river if you are surprised about my opinion when I gave you a 6000 word essay on the subject prior to the popular vote! 
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 17:04:00 -
[15]
Originally by: nVChicky
Jade please check your mail
Thanks
Will do, also supported your Assembly Hall thread.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 17:05:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Pithecanthropus
[ You have to listen to reasonable arguments from both sides, and as it loks now you already made your decision. That's a shame. Seeing no one in Eve has a chance to even argue the point when you can't even be open to other beliefs.
I am very happy to listen to reasonable arguments. Ad hoc silly personal attacks and personalizing the issue as exampled by the poster above me however just get ignored.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 19:28:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 02/07/2008 19:31:04
Originally by: Ulstan
I completely disagree. If a member of the CSM stoops to arguing for blatant imbalances that favor him, I think that is highly relevant to the playerbase. Jade's double standards are what is unbecoming here, not members of the community he was elected to serve calling him out on it. I understand that you are loyal to Jade and want to defend him no matter what, but think of how this will look to those members of the community not in SF.
There are no imbalances or double standards here. In my opinion nobody from your side of the argument in this thread has made a convincing case Ulstan. I've suggested if you are convinced of your logic you should make an assembly hall post advocating the changes you personally feel are neccessary. Those members of the community who have "called me out" on this thread appear to be taking the wardecs in question very personally and are arguing from hot-temper and complaint that they should be expected to fight a space war rather than camp the TAMA gate in NOUV with the protection of NPC warships. But this is no surprise - a vocal minority of eve players have argued against any kind of non-consensual pvp combat in this game since 2003.
Needless to say I don't take the "nerf-non-consensual-pvp" portion of this community seriously.
Quote:
And it would only make my arguments seem they couldn't stand up on their own if one had a reading disorder. The fact that my arguments (and those of many others in this thread) do stand up on their own is why I can level such a charge against Jade in the first place.
Saying that people who disagree with you "have a reading disorder" is insulting and crass. And its this kind of poorly disguised smack talk that categorizes virtually everything your side of this argument has said this afternoon. You cannot expect people to be persuaded by a point of view that is incapable of addressing fact and in-game logic and needs to fall back on simple bad-tempered insults in lieu of any substantive discussion.
Originally by: Ulstan
The simple fact remains that I am arguing for balance and parity, while SF and Jade are arguing for an imbalance that benefits them. Jade wants SF to get gallente navy NPC support while not facing caldari navy NPC opposition.
Where the heck have I said that a corp wardeccing a FW corp should get npc navy support? Thats utterly ridiculous.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 22:33:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Ayrianna Na***a
Wow... most of the people supporting Jade's views are part of Star Fraction. No surprise there.
This is what I find imbalancing about the current system.
FCR is in Nourv organizing a fleet. They are at a planet and getting others from other Militia corps and the NPC militia together.
SF comes in and finds them. They warp in and attack. Now the fleet which was put together and balanced according to all the militia members that were there, are reduced to only the ships that were in FCR. what if FCR was the DPS and State Pro was providing the ECM? Or the tackling?
Now Star Fraction has the protection of CONCORD from the rest of the fleet. They can fully attack all the FCR ships and slaughter them.
Why does SF get CONCORD protection from a war targets allies?
Thats imbalance.
When you dec a Caldari Militia corp (or ANY faction) you should face the wrath of thier NPC navy the same as if the Gallente tried to fight Caldari in high sec space.
Star Fraction should be able to dec FCR. BUT they should have to fight them in low sec where they are prepared to fight. Just like the Gallente Militia has to.
Star Fraction is getting an ADVANTAGE that the Gallente Militia are not afforded.
This makes me sick that Jade is a CSM.
I will vote for him to be removed.
The bottom line is you want controlled arena pvp where you get to fight in lowsec and get protected in highsec but sorry Eve is not the game you are looking for. We have decided to mess with your muster in hisec and assassinate your command and control because you have formed a corporation associated with the Militia - if you want to be "safe" in hisec disband the corporation. If you are sick to see a CSM rep advocating this position then you are sick with the majority of players who elected me. You are in the minority here and need to appreciate that on this issue you are the one that needs to shape up and learn to play the game of eve as it is rather than trying to whine into existence the idealized game of eve that exists in your mind.
The moment you formed a "command and control" corp in the Caldari Militia you became a target. You decided to raise your head from the barricades - don't act surprised about it when somebody decides to shoot you in the face.
This is eve online - not my little pony online.
Actions have consequence. Deal with that.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 23:21:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Skyy
Well then leave, since deccing a war with any Caldari militia enables you to be safe in Gallente space. You're a hypocrite.
We're in Caldari Space. And we're at exactly the same risk we place you at. Wardec means you can shoot back. Stop crying "exploit" and start fighting back. Honestly, at the moment you are just embarrassing yourselves.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 23:22:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Spineker
Who voted for that idiot again?
I think it is fine if you wardec a corp I just think it should be realistic that they would be considered mercenaries of a foreign power and have to fight the entire FW alliance.
I'd agree with you. I think any wardec against a part of an FW Militia should put us in a state of war with all the FW Militia.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 23:23:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Spineker
Then allow the entire alliance to fire back see how long you talk about "This is Eve" when you have been podded a few times
I wish the entire militia was at war with anybody wardeccing single Militia corps.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 23:33:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Cead Lothian
Originally by: Jade Constantine
The bottom line is you want controlled arena pvp where you get to fight in lowsec and get protected in highsec but sorry Eve is not the game you are looking for..... if you want to be "safe" in hisec disband the corporation.
Im going to quote this again in hopes that you actually answer it.
Considering this is exactly the situation corps war deccing militia corps are in, (like your own) how exactly can you say this is balanced?
Given that you were an FCR pilot who had an active wardec from our organization and had full rights to shoot back against SF ships without the interference of any npc force (in NOUV) - and given you chose instead to abandon your corp mates and skip back to the npc Militia entity to protect yourself from our wardec. I don't think you have very much to say in this discussion Caed Lothian.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 23:34:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Skyy
Originally by: Jade Constantine
We're in Caldari Space. And we're at exactly the same risk we place you at. Wardec means you can shoot back. Stop crying "exploit" and start fighting back. Honestly, at the moment you are just embarrassing yourselves.
Roll-eyes smiley is all very well but perhaps you'd like to answer the point?
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 00:07:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Ayrianna Na***a
No I am in the majority.
I don't believe that word means what you think it means.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 00:10:00 -
[25]
Originally by: masternerdguy
militia is an alliance, the agro system should be same, wardec a corp in an alliance and the entire alliance is at war with you,
We certainly wish that was the case 
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 00:29:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Marlana Eston
I love threads like this because there is a possibility here for improvement for the game. We have a CSM here that has the power to push certain issues... There has already been one proposal about FW: Letting those in npc militia join a wardec to help their brothers and sisters out at no cost. Good stuff.
Yep one was a good proposal and I was happy to support it.
Quote:
Why the reluctance to accept there is a disparity in this currect wardec system with regards to FW? A non-FW corp can declare and find solace in opposing space if they so choose. The targets of the dec, being involved in FW can't follow up and punish them without npc's on them.
They are free to leave the militia and pursue if they wish. Its really not a problem. Especially not in the example raised in this op of course since we (being the anarchist corp in the OP) have pretty much moved all our kit to Caldari hisec anyways. + As the Dead Parrots have shown the presence of faction police doesn't stop a well prepped gang going wherever it chooses. On balance this alleged "disparity" is not something that persuades me.
Quote:
This alt is still sitting at a safe in KBP... I'd have thought -SF- would be jumping all over a comprimise.
Well to my mind the allowing other corps in the militia that the wardecced corp is in counter declare for free is just that compromise.
Quote:
Obviously, you can't let the FW-corp roam unmolested in highsec opposing faction space. You could easily have a mechanic where if you dec a FW-corp you are "disrupting" war and get harassed by all faction police or some derivitave of that. Wouldn't -SF- have jumped at something like that for RP reasons?
Problem is the mechanic goes further than RP and makes wardec avoidance a real possibility for corps simply joining FW and sitting in the appropriate hisec knowing they now have additional protection from faction police. I'm very opposed to the notion that wardecs between corps should become more difficult or that any form of partial wardec immunity is to granted to player entities.
The answer is letting more players get involved in the war. We reached this compromise pages ago and it ended in a thread on the assembly hall.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 03:44:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Bertie
Your hypocrisy really knows no bounds. You have spent the last two pages of this thread choosing to ignore valid comments against your position on this matter, instead electing to only respond to less well-articulated arguments.
There really haven't been valid counter-arguments. All anyone is hearing from the Caldari Militia members on this issue is complaining that their corps can be wardecced in hisec. Its that simple. You are complaining about a mechanic that has been with Eve since the beginning of the game in 2003. Now it appears you want protection from wardecs while in a player corp and it simply doesn't fly. You have complete freedom to leave the militia if you choose and fly wherever you wish. You have complete freedom to remain in the militia with your corp and fight back. Nobody is tying your hands and preventing you from playing the game except your own lack of fighting spirit. Come on man, you joined Faction Warfare! There is a clue in the name. You should be prepared to fight.
Quote:
The fact stands that despite your claim of this being an RP element, your actions are clearly and simply using slightly imbalanced game mechanics to provide you with a massive advantage. Only you have the capability to pick apart fleets - with Concord protection in hi-sec. Only you can sneak around looking for blob fights, and get some easy kills while your wardec'ees are otherwise engaged. Only you can run back to Gall or Minnie space whenever you choose as a safe zone.
We are running nowhere and currently stand largely un-opposed in Nourvukaiken system where we have slaughtered some of your brothers at arms and are challenging you to do your worst. This is time for you to stand proud and represent the Caldari Militia and show you aren't cowardly dogs. Organize, hire fighters, get your allies to counter wardec. Do something, anything other than bring these continual pathetic cringing whines to the forums. This has gone beyond discussion of game-mechanics and into the realm of throwing your toys from the pram. Play the game and stop weeping about the unfairness of the universe. Eve is not My Little Pony online.
Here let me make it easy for you. I'm laughing at the Caldari Militia. You are a joke. Tibus Heth is a joke. Your entire nation is a joke. If you can't handle a war get out of your spaceship and go take up flower-arranging.
Quote:
... Yup I'd look to sign up to SF.
Sorry we only accept passionate warrior-poets and daring freedom fighters. We don't hire beaten dogs.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 04:12:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Ulstan
An actual corp of anarchists would relish the chance to be at war with all four factions, branded as notorious outlaws and criminals from one end of the galaxy to the other, relentlessly hounded by the foul minions of the law in all but the most desolate trackless wastes of space.
One could counter than an actual Caldari Faction Militia member wouldn't be weeping openly on the forums rather than defending his nation in space. Two can play the "your roleplay is wrong" card Ulstan.
Ultimately this is a silly thread and its a silly issue. Its only fit for RP posturing at this point.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 14:05:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Skyy
Let's not get into a debate about grief. But facts are small groups dec larger groups to have more targets, simple as that. They cloak, camp, and pick off solo pilots. If SF or anyone had the ability to do this to a militia, without the militia rules against them, it would be a sorry sight for this game. It defeats the purpose of having a faction war. You may as well drop all the rules and npc navies from faction warfare.
Nobody is asking for that. A reasonable quid-pro-quo to the ability to declare (for free/nominal fee) against the Faction Militia as a whole would be to be placed under the same restrictions as enemy militias currently work under. If Star Fraction could wardec the whole Caldari Militia we'd be happy to do it. And be chased by Caldari NPC assets in Caldari Hisec while the dec was active. That would be entirely fair enough and place us in the same boat as enemy factions currently occupy.
Where this debate has gone south is the FW militia blowhards from this thread would like to radically tilt the defense balance in their favour by having Caldari Hisec denied to any single corp that declares on any single corp in the militia and that is simply ridiculous. Militia is not an alliance and doesn't work like an alliance - if it did you'd have a point since one single wardec would catch everyone. But it doesn't work that way and is unlikely ever to work that way. And you need to raise your eyes from the short-sighted issue to look at the consequences of what you are proposing.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 14:28:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Skyy
What I'm proposing is to have the current situation the same, adding in the fact that you would have to deal with all the faction war rules. simple as that. You just agreed that you would be willing to do so IF you could declare on an ENTIRE militia. As much as I would sorta agree with that as an acceptable outcome, it let's alliances get involved. FW is not the place for alliances. Period.
Then its not quid pro quo. It would be utterly unbalanced to have a single corp forced to wardec single corps in the Militia (pay the dec) AND be hunted by faction npcs in that militia's hisec. Thats ridiculous and is simply a proposal for war-dec avoidance on the part of Militia members and it will lead to ANY corporation that gets wardecced opting to join a militia just to make it more difficult for declaring corps. Your proposal is a simple nerf on empire wardecs and it is not acceptable to me (but by all means try it as an ISSUE on the assembly hall and lets see what others think).
Quote:
The mechanics of it now are broken,
The mechanics right now are not broken. They are working exactly how ccp intended and we have quotes from the developer on the subject directly in this thread and I am telling you right now I sat across from those guys in Iceland and discussed this issue in the CSM meetings. This is how they wanted it to work. There is one significant change on the table at the moment thats whether corporations in alliances will get to join Militias without having to leave their alliances.
Quote:
and to have alliances dec militias would break the game even more.
Maybe so. But that is what you have to offer on the table if you want incoming wardecs to be part of hisec faction npc response. If somebody wardeccing a Militia (or corp in militia) is going to get excluded by that area of hisec and treated like an enemy militia they MUST be given the same target choice and opportunity as an enemy Militia. Its very simple.
Quote:
Alliances are too vast, and standings would be an issue. Does SF have a 0.5 with Gallente? Or do you just want to avoid that rule, declare war, and abuse the entire concept of FW?
Yes we have .5 with gallente, we have .5 with Caldari, we have point .5 with Minmatar etc etc. But thats not the point. We'd want to declare AGAINST a militia and would be happy to deal with faction npc response in the appropriate hisec. We'd get the same target list as an enemy militia would and suffer the time penalties in enemy hisec. Thats a fair proposal - but I can see why its not likely to happen because while SF is a small alliance that won't impact things too much in the long run any rules that let us get involved on those terms could be used by much larger alliances.
And lets lose the rhetoric and "griefing and abusing" the FW concept please. Its the stuff has turned this thread south from the first page.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 15:16:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 03/07/2008 15:16:25
Originally by: Ulstan
Originally by: Jade
It would be utterly unbalanced to have a single corp forced to wardec single corps
No ones forcing you to wardec single corps in the militia. You freely chose to do that. You can also freely choose to join the militia of your choice and get free permanent war decs against everyone in that militia.
Originally by: Jade Constantine
It would be utterly unbalanced to have a single corp forced to wardec single corps in the Militia (pay the dec) AND be hunted by faction npcs in that militia's hisec.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 15:26:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Kel'dar Drax
I have a solution...
Goons should announce a 'Jihadswarm' against Star Fraction and wardec them.
This would:
1. Permit Goons to shoot expensive stuff in Empire with no security hit.
2. Put a spanner in SF's nefarious works.
3. Humiliate Jade - probably the most insufferably arrogant pilot currently playing eve, (which is saying something).
What do you say Goonies...you up for it?
We wish.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 17:25:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Skyy
Originally by: Jade Constantine
We'd want to declare AGAINST a militia and would be happy to deal with faction npc response in the appropriate hisec. We'd get the same target list as an enemy militia would and suffer the time penalties in enemy hisec. Thats a fair proposal
Okay, so you want your little alliance to declare against a militia? You claim the system is not broken, but you want a change to enable alliances to fight FW. Yes, it is broken then. This whole thread is about what is wrong with FW, not what is right. You can't have the best of both worlds. I suggest if you want to fight a militia so bad, that you do so in a corp or join one of the many npc militias.
You're in your own world where your think you deserve something more. Why are you so in love with SF that you can't revamp it into a corp? Alliances are far too large, far to mixed, and having them join or declare war brings more problems than solving them. Not just problems to FW, but problems to every member of an alliance that doesn't have a say in which faction they want.
If you're looking for a compromise. I think CCP already found it. It's where we are at right now. Do what you have to do to partake in FW, but don't whine anymore when you have the same mechanics to join a militia as the rest of us. You need to realize the game mechanics are there for YOU too.
Nothing you just said makes any sense at all.
Fortunately we do have some decent changes on the horizon which should allow alliance corps to associate with Militias without leaving their alliances (allowing Ushra'khan, CVA and others to involve themselves) and then the situation will be fine. And as I've said elsewhere I'd also support allowing Miltia corps to get free buyin to wars declared against their militia allies.
Ultimately Skyy the only whining on this thread has come from Caldari Militia blowhards who don't like the fact they aren't immune to wardecs. I suggest you leave the rhetoric to others and get into your spaceship and fight.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 18:04:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Skyy
Bottom line is FW is broken... you want change... others want change. But then you contradict yourself saying its not broken. I don't care about the outcome, but at least I can sit here and admit there's a current problem. The fact you can't do that is quite amusing, maybe it has to do with the fact YOU are abusing the current problem.
You really aren't understanding this. Faction War is not broken. But it does need some additional functions. Alliance corporations need the ability to join. I think it would be a good thing for militia corps to be able to buy-in to 3rd party wardecs against corps in that same militia. The problem is while you sit there crying "exploit" "abuser" "broken" you aren't helping the discussion in the slightest. You are overreacting and spreading crazy rumors because you have been wardecced. Thats the bottom line Skyy, you are behaving precisely like every hisec whiner since the beginning of time has reacted to being the subject of an empire war with the additional sting that this time you are in an corporation that willingly signed up for a thing called FACTION WARFARE . Why on earth you believe you should have more protection against wardecs than a 2 day old mining corp should is something thats quite beyond sensible analysis.
Quote:
It's not about militia whiners afraid to pvp... please, go try your egotrip spins elsewhere. How about we all just let you debate this issue alone? Get real... the opinions of everyone here matter. You can try and place Caldari on the front page, but until other militia corps deal with this, you have no right.
And yet are we hearing about the Amarrian Miltia corps whining about the Ushra'khan wardecs here? I haven't noticed any. And I have had a very productive debate with some of the your FW members and an ISSUE thread has come from this that I'll be supporting to the CSM discussion after the 7 days of discussion have passed. Reality is Skyy you have gotten too close the matter because you personally are very upset that your corporation has been wardecced. Its natural to be upset if you really have no confidence in your fighting ability in game of course - but this is Eve, hire mercs, fight back, find friends, or even surrender or quit your corp. These are you options, but don't come crying "nerf wardecs" and expect to find much sympathy from a CSM delegate who was elected on the vote of small unit pvp'ers from across the server.
Quote:
Finally, grow up... name calling and faction bashing is no place for the chair of CSM.
Act with some dignity and I'll treat you accordingly. Address this issue objectively and it'll get discussed as such. But you are the one who has come here crying out about "exploits" "griefing" and "abuse" and you are the one continuing to claim that a specific mechanic that has been verified as functioning exactly as it was intended is "broken" simply because it means that you have might have to fight outside of the caldari faction blob on the TAMA gate in NOUV.
Chair of the CSM means I conduct meetings of the CSM and ensure ISSUEs get heard and debated and voted on.
Chair of the CSM doesn't mean I'm not going to point out that Eve players crying their eyes out and falsely accusing others of exploits and griefing and utilizing "broken" mechanics are behaving like spoiled children.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 18:40:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Steel Tigeress
Funny, the issue thread you talk about is the one I linked above that only has 15 people agreeing with it, while the 200-300 that want you removed get ignored and laughed at by you. Its strange Irony that you say Skyy has gotten too close to an issue to be objective in its debate. Pot meet kettle. Dont let the door hit you on your way....oh nevermind I hope it does.
15 meaningful posts are worth more than 200 moronic nonsense posts. Part of our role in the CSM is to sort between the useful comment and the useless comment. And like I said, CSM is proceeding very well. And you would find your time more profitably served by posting an actual ISSUE thread with your proposed solution rather than making silly attacks on CSM members.
Or you could keep crying because you've been war-decced.
There's always that.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 19:02:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Ayrianna Nagaya
Originally by: Jade Constantine
15 meaningful posts are worth more than 200 moronic nonsense posts.
There is more of your elitism. Just because you say they are moronic. The majority thinks they are correct.
I think I told you yesterday Ayrianna, you don't seem to understand what the word Majority means.
I'll give you a hint. It doesn't mean a couple of dozen embittered posts from the alts of butt-hurt FW characters sore about getting war-decced.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 19:08:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Steel Tigeress
Where is that power given too you? I dont recall seeing anything that says you can ignore and bypass issures you dont like..
Ultimately there are 2 ways an issue gets onto the table for CSM discussion. Either it gets advocated and presented by a CSM candidate who has been persuaded of the merits of the issue. Or - 25% of the voting electorate need to show support for the issue to force it onto the agenda. In either case no Issue is going to discussion with CCP unless it receives majority support from the CSM (and that generally means 5 of 9 delegate votes).
I have full authority to ignore and bypass issues I'm not convinced by. Thus far nothing you have said convinces me in the least. But you can try to convince another CSM delegate if you wish. Put it another way, the only Issues I'm going to personally advocate to CSM discussion are those I'm convinced are good for Eve and need raising. If I'm not convinced they won't get raised by me.
Not sure what you are complaining about here. This is all pretty straightforward stuff.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 19:17:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Steel Tigeress
Originally by: Jade Constantine
I have full authority to ignore and bypass issues I'm not convinced by.
Where is this power given to you. From all I've seen this is somthing that you have just contrived on your own. Show me in your charter where it says the chair can change policies to avoid issues it dissagree's with.
I think you are confusing yourself now. I have absolutely no obligation to raise an issue I don't agree with. Is that easier to understand? No CSM delegate can be forced to raise an issue they don't agree with. And the only way an issue that no delegate agrees with is getting onto the agenda is with 25% of the voting electorate in favour.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 19:37:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Steel Tigeress
Originally by: Jade Constantine
I think you are confusing yourself now. I have absolutely no obligation to raise an issue I don't agree with. Is that easier to understand? No CSM delegate can be forced to raise an issue they don't agree with. And the only way an issue that no delegate agrees with is getting onto the agenda is with 25% of the voting electorate in favour.
FALSE!!! This issue was going to be raised by the Goons at the meeting! That is until you changed policy and said he could not raise the issue untill it had 7 days discussion on these forums. Which I'll point out up untill this time, no other administrative issue had been forced to do this. Even admin issues raised by you could just be brought up and voted on.
But now that its the issue of your removal, its got to wait 7 days, be discussed, be endorsed, be voted on, then its forwarded to CCP for their approval. Thats alot of added things that somthing has to go through because you dont like it. Grow a pair and get out.
I think you need to get some fresh air. (And post your ISSUE. I'm sure everyone is waiting with baited breath to debate it).
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
| |
|