Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 15:48:00 -
[511]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 21/08/2008 15:49:12
Originally by: Barstander Essentially, I believe this is the best solution. However, some people are concerned that if this goes into effect, whenever they war dec a corp, that corp will join a Militia as a response. This supposedly makes militias a 'war dec avoidence' system. Of course, that only works if said corp always travels in fleets, and only has an effect if those fleets are made of other militia members.
Personally, I think it is a better solution than the current situation, but that is a matter of strong contention here.
I still think the solution of the free buy-in to wardecs of other militia CORPs as per the Assembly hall issue was a good solution but as you can see I was a 1-7 minority on the CSM with that one.
But the thing is I don't believe that State Protectorate npc corp members should EVER be able to fire upon corps and alliances in hisec (unless) those corps and alliances can fire on them.
There is currently a 100% immunity from 3rd party wardec conferred by npc militia membership. Fine, but that should never be coupled with the ability to commit unilaterally aggression against a player corp or alliance member AND membership of fleet does not sidestep that rule.
The last major expansion changed the rules on fleet aggression mechanics - it used to be that if you joined a fleet that had a pilot at war with somebody else you'd share that war vulnerability) ie you could be attacked too. That mechanic has changed -> because of faction warfare. Its not reasonable to ask the mechanic to be reintroduced and turned into an effect purely beneficial to npc militia members that want to be able to unilaterally attack players involved in 3rd party wars.
Thats just silly.
|
Bartholomeus Crane
Gallente The Crane Family
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 15:48:00 -
[512]
I normally don't say this, but please, Jade, can you be a little bit less specific? |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 15:54:00 -
[513]
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane I normally don't say this, but please, Jade, can you be a little bit less specific?
What do you mean ?
|
Tara Armitage
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 15:58:00 -
[514]
Edited by: Tara Armitage on 21/08/2008 16:03:12
Originally by: Pithecanthropus
Originally by: Tara Armitage
The short story: FW is pretty crummy for us, because we can't war dec all four militias and go out to have fun.
If you nor any of your rolemates can't comprehend how alliances joining FW, whether it be in militias or deccing war, can GREATLY stir up more abuse than good... than you ALL are so frickin naive and selfish. PERIOD.
If its crummy... then leave! What's the problem? Look at both sides... your objective to will NEVER HAPPEN!
Waaa-waaa-waaaaaaaa... you can't dec war on ALL FOUR MILITIAS! You serious! You want to dec war on roughly 20,000 players! Who in the right mind would find THAT appropriate jsut to let whining little roleplayers play! OMFG... you guys are idiots.
Well. As I said, we understand why it was not implemented that way - it would not be good for the game as a whole as much as it would please us for selfish reasons. Would you care to change your whine now? Or do you need me to explain it to you once more and even more plainly? Maybe a picture and a wire model?
Yes, we'd quite love to wardec 20000 people. It is quite understandable to me why it is not allowed, as I said before and again just above this paragraph - not really because of our tiny alliance but because there are a lot of others as well.
As for being whiny and the rest of it - I will not go into amateur psychology with you regarding the tone and quality of your posts, as tempting as it would be.
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 16:25:00 -
[515]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 21/08/2008 16:28:33
Originally by: Beltantis Torrence Try reading the context of the post. Jade was saying that its against their arpee to join a militia. But for whatever reason it isn't against their arpee to join an alliance.
The militia is a nationalist paramilitary constituted by hierarchical imperialist authority. Its an organization for immortal capsule pilots to surrender their personal influence on the cluster and retreat from any notions of free individual sovereignty. Milita pilots attain the level of simple dirtside conscripts given a rifle and told the enemy is "over the next hill". The militia is not a sovereign entity in the eyes of concord - it is simply an enforcement arm of the imperial navies.
Quote: And from a roleplaying standpoint, there isn't a huge difference.
An alliance is an independent capsuleer entity that may be many things dependent on the will and outlook of the pilots involved. Capsule-pilot alliances are sovereign entities recognized both by concord and the Jovians (by those that know their eve history). As an independent entity alliances have the power to make wardecs that will be sanctioned by concord.
Whereas the militias are all the same (in essence though the political dogma would argue otherwise). Alliances are as varied as the individuals involved in them. Star Fraction Alliance is a radical anarcho capitalist movement of posthumanist free captains. We're as different as can be imagined from the staunch authoritarian collectivist entities of IRON or Goonswarm or Morsus Mihi or the like. But we are empowered with individual sovereignty on the alliance level and that differentiates the militia/alliance issue entirely.
Quote: The sort of RP where you just make up stuff that doesn't happen and expect everyone to go along (like militias ordering you around and being part of a formal military) is stupid - because that doesn't actually happen in the game.
Well our "RP" is the sort of RP where we declare enmity against militias of 7000 people and annihilate their command and control corporations, blow up hundred upon hundred of spaceships, execute militia leaders in the full view of their troops, burn our reputation and threat level into the collective psyche and drive nationalist dogs from their cause with an unholy firestorm of anarchy and terror until the target entity is largely incapable of any central planning or organized resistance whatsoever. And this most assuredly does happen in the game. Pay attention to your militia channel sometime.
Quote: It reminds me of those lame IRC rooms years ago where people would be like /me punches you in the face and you DIE! and then get ****y when you're like "...what?".
That statement says more about you than us I think
|
snotvomit
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 16:27:00 -
[516]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: snotvomit I want to ask about this suggestion again - just in case it's getting lost in all the flames and trolls: How about this rule...
Well, first of all let me tell you that I spent a decent time with the CSM debating empire space aggression rules on various things.
(...etc)
Fair enough. I just wanted to explore that possibility.
Right now, the problem is that a FW fleet can be forming up in High Sec, and the FC (and other fleet members) get taken out by someone who is outside the FW mechanics.
That really disrupts FW. It's fair enough to say "join the corp and fight back", but the idea of FW is that you join primarily to go and fight other FW fleets within the FW mechanics (presence of Navy in high sec etc.)
Maybe there's no solution that works
Anyway, it's pointless to blame Star Fraction for this issue. If SF weren't doing it, someone else would be (will be). Overall, I think it's bad for FW, but it seems that any potential solution can cause as many problems as it solves.
Damn shame
|
Barstander
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 16:28:00 -
[517]
Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 21/08/2008 15:49:12
I still think the solution of the free buy-in to wardecs of other militia CORPs as per the Assembly hall issue was a good solution but as you can see I was a 1-7 minority on the CSM with that one.
But the thing is I don't believe that State Protectorate npc corp members should EVER be able to fire upon corps and alliances in hisec (unless) those corps and alliances can fire on them.
There is currently a 100% immunity from 3rd party wardec conferred by npc militia membership. Fine, but that should never be coupled with the ability to commit unilaterally aggression against a player corp or alliance member AND membership of fleet does not sidestep that rule.
Hey, just so we are on the same page with this. The NPC corp aggression bit. Is it a matter of first strike or shooting in general? As in, I agree with you that the NPC corp should not be able to roam around and shoot neutral aggressor corps without provocation. Especially because those neutral corps cannot war dec them. The pertinent question is if a neutral attacks a fleet, and the militia guys get the aggression timer, and choose to shoot, they also become valid targets to the neutral. So specifically ship to ship, they get first shot at the neutral after the neutral attacks a fleet militia mate. Just want clarification so I know where you are coming from. (I admit, I like specifics) |
Stab Wounds
Caldari State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 16:45:00 -
[518]
Originally by: Beltantis Torrence I see a lot of suggestions that we reform our militia by having people form corps just to war dec SF alliance. Wouldn't it make more sense to suggest SF split from their alliance and join FW as individual corps if they want to join so badly?
yeah right they would never do this they are just cowards. |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 16:50:00 -
[519]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 21/08/2008 16:54:03
Originally by: Barstander Hey, just so we are on the same page with this. The NPC corp aggression bit. Is it a matter of first strike or shooting in general? As in, I agree with you that the NPC corp should not be able to roam around and shoot neutral aggressor corps without provocation. Especially because those neutral corps cannot war dec them. The pertinent question is if a neutral attacks a fleet, and the militia guys get the aggression timer, and choose to shoot, they also become valid targets to the neutral. So specifically ship to ship, they get first shot at the neutral after the neutral attacks a fleet militia mate. Just want clarification so I know where you are coming from. (I admit, I like specifics)
They shouldn't get first strike ever. I would support a theoretical proposal that meant they could fire at wardec enemies of fleet mates while themselves becoming vulnerable to fire from the wardec enemies of fleet mates in principle (neither/both sides get first strike). But it would have to be very carefully worked and include a cool down period of vulnerability (to prevent people leaving the fleet to get opponents concorded) + there IS a problem with surprise hisec aggression by simply joining a fleet - you might have program a system where you cannot join a fleet once shots have been fired or something but then how do you handle rejoins after crashes mid battle etc etc?
But the problem is the mechanics - they just don't exist in eve at the moment. We got to sit down with the developers on very close to this issue and its complex. Changing the aggression mechanics like this is FAR more difficult than changing the wardec mechanics and has wide-reaching impacts on other parts of the game. I have to say I've got doubts the npc militia members will ever be able to get involved with 3rd party wardecs because as many have argued here - it does turn the FW entity into a wardec avoidance exploit potential and you do need to be looking at the "what ifs" of the situation. How do you stop a random corp on corp war getting spoiled by one side suddenly joining the militia and fleeting with a bunch of additional militia randoms and surprise ganking one side in the fighting?
I honestly feel the only valid issue here is that the wardec system itself is a bit cumbersome and it should be easier for corporations in Militia to defend other corporations via utilization of the existing wardec system (hence the assembly hall issue) but I can't honestly think of a mechanic that would allow NPC militia members to participate in aggression against 3rd party wardecs without themselves being under wardec status.
Maybe the answer is to make a wardec vs any militia corp a wardec against the whole militia? But you'd have to bar corps under wardec from joining the militia while the wardec is in force, and you couldn't really tie it to the faction police mechanic or you'd be back in wardec avoidance city.
What we end up coming against is the "solutions" proposed here are often far worse and more intrusive than those "solutions" currently available in the game. This is like the some episode of the simpsons where homer invents a machine to help him get up from the couch with machinery that fills the whole living room. The solution is "getting up from the couch" not building some arcane machine to do it for you. The militia corps right now could join together - issue counter wardecs, consolidate - remote rep each other etc etc. Militia npc members could remote rep their FCs' (which will aggression flag them and involve them in the fighting).
See my point there are solutions that don't involve building a huge machine to lift these guys out of the couch but they do involve a bit of work within the current mechanics (ie using their legs to stand up).
|
Sykes
Minmatar Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 16:50:00 -
[520]
One of the things that makes Eve special is that it's a single universe sandbox where the players create 'reality' to a far larger extent than they do in other MMORPGs. That means you get emergent effects that weren't intended by the designers, in this case SF's ideology causing it to attack Caldari leadership corps. That's the sort of stuff that makes Eve so absorbing, and if the Caldari milita were to try to find some way to deal with the 'terrorist threat' presented by SF, that would make things more interesting too.
Those emergent effects, resulting from players bringing their own content to the game are a large part of what makes Eve so great though. Trying to make FW some sort of discrete mini-game magically isolated from the rest of Eve runs totally counter to that principle, so if the devs do make some changes to the FW mechanics, I trust that the changes won't take us in any such direction. |
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 16:51:00 -
[521]
Originally by: Stab Wounds
Originally by: Beltantis Torrence I see a lot of suggestions that we reform our militia by having people form corps just to war dec SF alliance. Wouldn't it make more sense to suggest SF split from their alliance and join FW as individual corps if they want to join so badly?
yeah right they would never do this they are just cowards.
I refer you to the post several posts above and indeed to the rest of this thread. Become informed of the issues and arguments and you will be able to make a worthwhile contribution to this debate.
|
Kavu
Genos Occidere
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 17:26:00 -
[522]
Edited by: Kavu on 21/08/2008 17:27:03
I still dont get what the problem is join a NPC corp, or take your corp out of FW, believe it or not you can avoid PVP in EVE,
HALP I signed up for war and someone shot me!
you will never hear anyone in Genos complain about too many targets
|
Tainted OrPHeN
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 17:34:00 -
[523]
Originally by: Kavu Edited by: Kavu on 21/08/2008 17:27:03
I still dont get what the problem is join a NPC corp, or take your corp out of FW, believe it or not you can avoid PVP in EVE,
HALP I signed up for war and someone shot me!
you will never hear anyone in Genos complain about too many targets
I'd hope so Kavu or I'd have to go yell at Angelwhisper
and as for you Stab Wounds, I'm sure you have a nerf nano thread to go troll insted of moving onto these threads or atleast take the time to read what is being discussed and have a remote idea of what SF is and what we do. |
Kavu
Genos Occidere
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 17:36:00 -
[524]
Originally by: Tainted OrPHeN
Originally by: Kavu Edited by: Kavu on 21/08/2008 17:27:03
I still dont get what the problem is join a NPC corp, or take your corp out of FW, believe it or not you can avoid PVP in EVE,
HALP I signed up for war and someone shot me!
you will never hear anyone in Genos complain about too many targets
I'd hope so Kavu or I'd have to go yell at Angelwhisper
and as for you Stab Wounds, I'm sure you have a nerf nano thread to go troll insted of moving onto these threads or atleast take the time to read what is being discussed and have a remote idea of what SF is and what we do.
you misunderstand im not saying anything bad about star fraction im saying dont "sign" up for PVP, kill enough of the opposing faction to draw attention to yourself then cry when someone does something about it |
Tainted OrPHeN
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 17:46:00 -
[525]
and I was refering to you (or genos as a corp) complaining about too many targets :P because if you were, then something is drasticly wrong with the ranks
hope you guys are giving them hell though still
/offtopic |
Kavu
Genos Occidere
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 17:49:00 -
[526]
Edited by: Kavu on 21/08/2008 17:51:47
Originally by: Tainted OrPHeN and I was refering to you (or genos as a corp) complaining about too many targets :P because if you were, then something is drasticly wrong with the ranks
hope you guys are giving them hell though still
/offtopic
yeah we are oh and check caldari state kb im #4 and the top three are all Genos EDIT: Maybe i shouldnt tell you that, lol |
Tainted OrPHeN
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 18:03:00 -
[527]
I wouldn't expect anything less of you guys |
Pithecanthropus
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 18:17:00 -
[528]
First off... you SF people are like those big ole calculators with those HUGE buttons... you're so easy to push. I'm talking about how easily you get frustrated with opinions... and of course my slanders, which I do enjoy immensely.
However, if there was a middle ground here... wouldn't it lie within the corp that is being decced? How about letting THEM choose what kind of war should be escalated? They either fight the war as is, and choosing whether or not to leave the militia. Or, they escalate the war into a FULL militia war, where you guys get all the targets of the militia, along with all the restrictions and effects of being in a militia.
Seems fair. No? |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 18:30:00 -
[529]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 21/08/2008 18:31:10
Originally by: Pithecanthropus However, if there was a middle ground here... wouldn't it lie within the corp that is being decced? How about letting THEM choose what kind of war should be escalated? They either fight the war as is, and choosing whether or not to leave the militia. Or, they escalate the war into a FULL militia war, where you guys get all the targets of the militia, along with all the restrictions and effects of being in a militia.Seems fair. No?
2 problems.
First: is the wardec evasion problem. X corp gets wardecced and joins the miltia - decides "this is a full militia war!" the aggressor corp then gets slapped with full restrictions of being in an enemy militia and finds itself barred from the hisec of the victim corp. That is war-dec avoidance exploit pure and simple. And for additional lols - what if said corp also has standings to the opposing militia and decides after a couple of days to leave X militia join Y militia and swap the hisec safe zones. Its crazy.
Second: why should X corp be able to involve the rest of the militia against their will? Perhaps they don't want to be involved with the 3rd party war? Since the militia is an open door entity ANYONE with the standings can join and utilize these mechanics so they must not be abusive mechanics.
So I'll say your idea could work on the following changes:
1. Wardecs against corps in the militia could be escalated to the whole militia but this will never include faction response in hisec since this is different matter entirely to faction on faction warfare but:
2. It requires a vote of militia membership to ennact and needs 51% of active members to agree to the war.
This means that FW cannot be used as wardec evading exploit - or used to embroil players who don't want to be embroiled in 3rd party wardecs.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Sirial Soulfly
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 18:35:00 -
[530]
Originally by: Pithecanthropus First off... you SF people are like those big ole calculators with those HUGE buttons... you're so easy to push. I'm talking about how easily you get frustrated with opinions... and of course my slanders, which I do enjoy immensely.
Ah the good ole 'I admit to being a troll and look how smart I am post', classic.
|
|
Pithecanthropus
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 18:59:00 -
[531]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
First: is the wardec evasion problem. X corp gets wardecced and joins the miltia - decides "this is a full militia war!" the aggressor corp then gets slapped with full restrictions of being in an enemy militia and finds itself barred from the hisec of the victim corp. That is war-dec avoidance exploit pure and simple. And for additional lols - what if said corp also has standings to the opposing militia and decides after a couple of days to leave X militia join Y militia and swap the hisec safe zones. Its crazy.
If the war is escalated, you have the entire militia to fight... surely they won't all revert to high sec. Its just as similar now if any of our militia corp wished to dec SF you have the avoidance of space too. You... or any other corp.
Quote: Second: why should X corp be able to involve the rest of the militia against their will? Perhaps they don't want to be involved with the 3rd party war? Since the militia is an open door entity ANYONE with the standings can join and utilize these mechanics so they must not be abusive mechanics.
Why should X corp be able to dec an entire militia in the first place? isn't that your agenda? They are made of multiple corps... many running their own raids... many separate from the core people in the militia. Simply adding your corp to the militia fight is all I'm proposing... but its clear you wouldn't want to deal with what FW people have to deal with.
Quote: So I'll say your idea could work on the following changes:
1. Wardecs against corps in the militia could be escalated to the whole militia but this will never include faction response in hisec since this is different matter entirely to faction on faction warfare but:
Losing the navies defeats the militia purpose of escalating the war. There are two situations where its flawed... an out side dec lets them (A) fight FW without npc militias, and (B) avoid other militias members to help. No sense in fighting an entire militia, without the navies... that greatly abuses it more.
Quote: 2. It requires a vote of militia membership to ennact and needs 51% of active members to agree to the war.
a vote is a good idea, however, npc navies must still be involved.
war rule should always be on an equal level for BOTH parties. as it is now, its unbalanced and unfair to militia corps against the outside deccing corps. you need propose something that gives both sides and equal playing field. if your fear is war avoidance, that's a least of my worries. not loggin in, or simply flying 50 jumps away is always a war avoidance. will you argue about that?
--------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man. |
Tara Armitage
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 19:03:00 -
[532]
Originally by: Pithecanthropus
However, if there was a middle ground here... wouldn't it lie within the corp that is being decced? How about letting THEM choose what kind of war should be escalated? They either fight the war as is, and choosing whether or not to leave the militia. Or, they escalate the war into a FULL militia war, where you guys get all the targets of the militia, along with all the restrictions and effects of being in a militia.
Seems fair. No?
You see. If I was selfish griefing coward like some people are claiming I am, I would be all over your awesome solution like so many others before it in this thread. However, just for lols, let me point out why this is a very bad idea.
I am not an evil person. However, if I was, I would do the following:
1. Create an alt corporation with 1 (one) member who has just the barebone skills to make the corp. 2. Gang the fore mentioned alt and run a few missions for each militia to get the required standings. 3. Join up to a militia of choice (of the week) 4. Wardec with my evil main's corp 5. Escalate 6. Pew pew 7a. Repeat with other militia when bored OR ALTERNATIVELY 7b. Create another three of these corps and gain all four militias as targets.
Lovely times. Is this what you are proposing Pithecanthropus?
|
Pithecanthropus
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 19:10:00 -
[533]
Edited by: Pithecanthropus on 21/08/2008 19:10:48
Originally by: Tara Armitage
You see. If I was selfish griefing coward like some people are claiming I am, I would be all over your awesome solution like so many others before it in this thread. However, just for lols, let me point out why this is a very bad idea.
I am not an evil person. However, if I was, I would do the following:
1. Create an alt corporation with 1 (one) member who has just the barebone skills to make the corp. 2. Gang the fore mentioned alt and run a few missions for each militia to get the required standings. 3. Join up to a militia of choice (of the week) 4. Wardec with my evil main's corp 5. Escalate 6. Pew pew 7a. Repeat with other militia when bored OR ALTERNATIVELY 7b. Create another three of these corps and gain all four militias as targets.
Lovely times. Is this what you are proposing Pithecanthropus?
Ummmm....
Quote: a vote is a good idea, however, npc navies must still be involved.
yes, that's exactly what I'm proposing...
--------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man. |
Tara Armitage
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 19:19:00 -
[534]
Edited by: Tara Armitage on 21/08/2008 19:24:36 By bringing in navies, you'd break war dec -mechanism for the whole of Eve, to fix FW mechanism for those who are not willing to use the tools already given to them. Eve is a PvP game, war decs are one of the defining things in the game, and they affect everything from manufacturing to 0.0 wars in one way or another. I'd say your solution is very poor, and that is being generous.
EDIT: I see you are already changing your well thought-out solution. The vote. Don't be insulted now, but how do you think it would differ from how things are now? Do you honestly expect that for example Caldari militia would vote to escalate our war against you? What about after two weeks of total annihilation? How does this fit into any of the stuff about "new players learning PvP" and other hee haa you have been writing? We'd slaughter you like lambs all over, and you know it. And we are a small alliance. Do you expect the militia would escalate other wars against larger PvP alliances as well?
No, they wouldn't. Not after the first time. And then what would you have solved? Nothing, because it would be just like it is now.
|
Pithecanthropus
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 19:38:00 -
[535]
Edited by: Pithecanthropus on 21/08/2008 19:40:51
Originally by: Tara Armitage Edited by: Tara Armitage on 21/08/2008 19:24:36 By bringing in navies, you'd break war dec -mechanism for the whole of Eve, to fix FW mechanism for those who are not willing to use the tools already given to them. Eve is a PvP game, war decs are one of the defining things in the game, and they affect everything from manufacturing to 0.0 wars in one way or another. I'd say your solution is very poor, and that is being generous.
you fail to realize there is ANOTHER war mechanism now in Eve. You would have a point far before FW was ever implemented, but since it is here now... things have changed, and your living in the past. my solution has promise, your solution leads to more abuse.
Quote: EDIT: arrogant stuff
-militias would vote to escalate if the corp being decced is a highly touted FC and pvp corp. don't speak for militias if you too afraid to join one. -two weeks of fair fighting... bring it on. -FW is for new players learning pvp... why would that change, unless you are looking for spins and excuses to make an valid point.
it would definitely change the aspect now. open your eyes.
--------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man. |
Farrqua
Minmatar Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 19:45:00 -
[536]
Edited by: Farrqua on 21/08/2008 19:45:53 The FW'rs want their own little game where outside parties can not affect it at all. Another words they want a safe exclusive PVP zone where they do not have to deal with the rest of EVE.
By saying they want the option to fight back as a militia in its entirety is basically a bluff. They do not want anything to do with any major corps/alliances even getting close to them or getting involved.
They want an opt out option to have wars. They want consensual PVP. Period.
|
Pithecanthropus
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 20:00:00 -
[537]
Originally by: Farrqua Edited by: Farrqua on 21/08/2008 19:45:53 The FW'rs want their own little game where outside parties can not affect it at all. Another words they want a safe exclusive PVP zone where they do not have to deal with the rest of EVE.
By saying they want the option to fight back as a militia in its entirety is basically a bluff. They do not want anything to do with any major corps/alliances even getting close to them or getting involved.
They want an opt out option to have wars. They want consensual PVP. Period.
No... they want two war scenarios to have equal mechanics based on the higher power. Just as you can't dec an alliance corp only... why should those corps get safety of alliances. If X corp did something in an alliance, you'd have to involve the entire alliance to fight them. However, militias are far different.
I could care less what is consensual or not... but as it is now people are playing Poker with their own little set of advantage rules against their opponent. If people really wanted consensual pvp they'd join the npc militia. don't pigeon whole the entire militia if you are too naive to understand it. but then again, you're just here to troll.
--------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man. |
Dave Davies
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 20:15:00 -
[538]
Originally by: Pithecanthropus
-militias would vote to escalate if the corp being decced is a highly touted FC and pvp corp.
Hey guys, it's way too hard to get our FCs to fly Falcons. Let's just rabble for an overhaul of game mechanics instead.
----- Pop Quiz -----
Can you tell me what's wrong with this sentence. |
Sykes
Minmatar Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 20:36:00 -
[539]
Originally by: Farrqua Edited by: Farrqua on 21/08/2008 19:45:53 The FW'rs want their own little game where outside parties can not affect it at all. Another words they want a safe exclusive PVP zone where they do not have to deal with the rest of EVE.
By saying they want the option to fight back as a militia in its entirety is basically a bluff. They do not want anything to do with any major corps/alliances even getting close to them or getting involved.
They want an opt out option to have wars. They want consensual PVP. Period.
Yep, that's the problem. One of the great virtues of Eve is that we're all in the same universe and have to deal with each others weirdness. That's what's so great about the one universe sandbox environment. You can bring your own content and everyone has to deal with it, whether it's Star Fraction's stylish and sexy revolutionary warfare or the Goons wearing plastic breasts, puking on each other and laughing at cripples.
Having a sterile mini-game disconnected to the rest of the Eve universe is totally against that ethos.
|
Mihailovich
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 21:37:00 -
[540]
Interesting thread this, just a couple of observations to make...
1. I used to play a lot of monopoly and used to hate to have to pay someone ú2000 for landing on a hotel on Mayfair. After writing several hundred letters to Waddingtons demanding that they nerf Mayfair and getting no response I came to the following conclusion. For right or wrong a set of rules exist, all you can ask is that they are consistent for everyone, the winner is the one who best adapts to the game as it exists.
2. The hilarious thing about this thread is that you guys in the milita are asking for a change to a rule that was designed to protect you! If you get what you are asking for there are much bigger and badder people in this game than SF who will exploit this change for free combat against your entire fleet and will consistently blow you all out of space. EVE is not nice place and is all the better for it, be creative and use the mechanics that are available to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |