Just been reading the proposed war dec costs, is it me or does it basically mean the the large alliances will essentially be immune to any war dec because of the massive costs involved?

If this is the case the the smaller corps are just going to get hit even harder before.

For me if 1 person wanted to war dec a medium to large high sec alliance he should be able to, with the proposed costs this is just not going to be feasible any more.

Just been reading the proposed war dec costs, is it me or does it basically mean the the large alliances will essentially be immune to any war dec because of the massive costs involved?

If this is the case the the smaller corps are just going to get hit even harder before.

For me if 1 person wanted to war dec a medium to large high sec alliance he should be able to, with the proposed costs this is just not going to be feasible any more.

various stuff in many different posts

You should spend some time reading up on how the Goons prep their noobs and you will see that a group of new players can be a force if they are prepared to fight.

I'm going to try answer some of your questions from a High Sec care bear pov because that is what I am

The issue we have in Eve today when it comes to ganks and War dec's is that too many people want it easy.

This is Eve and you always have an option, its up to you which option you take.

I have only ever been ganked once and I completely deserved. (Carrying 200m+ of stuff in a bestower doh!!!)

Maybe fewer, but smarter, classier villains?

BTW "You have options" =! a good argument. We all have the option of not playing EVE, and this renders all discussion moot. So keep the "options" stuff out of it - after all, you all have the option not to be scum.

Yes, you're right, I do have the option to not be scum. However, in my case, not taking that option leads to an increase in the amount of ISK I make, and the amount of enjoyment I get out of the game. As such, my decision to not take this option pays off. Carebears, on the other hand, seem to choose the options that lead to loss and lack of enjoyment (options such as not tanking their ships, not teaming up with people for protection, et cetera). So it can objectively be said that the options they choose are suboptimal.

Now please tell me why having options is a bad argument. You make this claim, but don't follow up with any proof or an argument in favor of it. It seems to me that you declared the conversation moot simply because you have nothing left to say.

When you jump into a system in your Industrial and 10 people from 6 different corps all target and scan you, something is seriously wrong with the game balance.

Indeed, those are not the best examples of clever or interesting villains. On the other hand, the new crimewatch mechanics could make that situation more interesting than the would-be gankers imagined. Will cargo scanning make a player suspect? Maybe it should.

For instance: Scum argument: "Carebears have options, therefore changes should not be made." Counter argument: If the changes are made, you will have the option not to flip that can when there's 30 people in the belt. You have the option to scout an easier target. Therefore, the changes should be made."

See how that works: it's called mutual mootability.

No, it's called employing a logical fallacy to strawman your opponent's argument.

You claim my argument was:

Premise 1: carebears have options
Conclusion: changes should not be made

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. This is not a complete argument, because the truth of the conclusion has nothing to do with the single premise.

My argument was:

Premise 1: carebears have options
Premise 2: the options consist of game mechanics that allow for sufficient defense against unwanted aggressive behavior
Conclusion: carebears have sufficient tools at their disposal to protect themselves

The conclusion follows from the premises.

Your second argument:

If: changes are made
Then: I have the option to not flip a can when there are 30 people in a belt

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. This is not a complete argument, because the validity of the conclusion has nothing to do with the single premise. I always have the option to not do something entirely (in this case, flip a can), regardless of what changes are made.

Your third argument:

Premise 1: I have the option to scout an easier target
Conclusion: changes should be made

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. This is not a complete argument, because the validity of the conclusion has nothing to do with the single premise. The only way this argument works is if you add a premise that the ability to scout an easier target is objectively bad for the game.

You can send me a hundred million for this logic 101 lesson at your leisure.

Premise 1: carebears have options
Premise 2: the options consist of game mechanics that allow for sufficient defense against unwanted aggressive behavior
Conclusion: carebears have sufficient tools at their disposal to protect themselves

Ah yes, the good old "thanks for telling everyone how right I am!" comeback.

Well, feel free to explain how I explained that the "you have options" argument is a crap argument, if you still have any steam left.

:allears:

BTW, your second premise: "Carebears have sufficient tools" is unproven. Don't think I didn't notice that.

I provided a nice writeup that explained my arguments in detail. You gave the generic "thanks for proving I'm right, noob!" line. That's pretty much admitting defeat in my book.

However, in your next post you actually wrote something interesting. I'd like you to follow through on that, because then you might actually have a very good argument in favor of changes on your hands.

I'll give you a clue: you'll have to prove that situational awareness will be possible in a populated high-sec system when you're flagging yourself to the whole EVE universe.

I proved my second premise in detail here. Right after the first big paragraph.

BTW, your second premise: "Carebears have sufficient tools" is unsupported. Don't think I didn't notice that.

Erm no, carebear have sufficient tools,

the problem is that most of them like you refuse to use those tools and instead just come on the forums and cry.

This goes back to Options, however since the only option that players like you want to take is the "Give me everything or I quit" option then very little can be done other then to tell you to leave.

This is why you point blank refuse to admit that their are options available to you.

Anything which allows the players to do any activity afk without risk is wrong

Sufficiency comes from the fact that every action in EVE has some kind of counter

Lots of writing.. no substance

Inability to quote any of the statements that he attributed to T'Pawl. Insults her instead.

Backing out now that she actually has to do some thinking and support her statements.

It is perfectly reasonable to expect these folks to be fair and see both sides of the issue and be excellent advocates for both sides. I'm sure CCP reognizes the honor that exists among them and will receive their messages with all due respect.

AAAAHHHHHH AHAHAHA - GUFFAW HOOOHHAAAAHHHAHAHAHA ahem.... (stands back up and dusts off the suit)

All due respect in this instance means CCP is laughing their asses off, too!! These mental deficients look at the issue as though it was a football field and believe - they are so deluded, that they truly believe they are standing on the 50 yard line - the exact middle of the issue, the top of the bell curve... The reality is they are so far down past the endzone, that they are really in the parking lot. In statistical terms, they are what is known as outliers - points of data on the standard bell curve that are so extreme, they are just a few dots way over on one side, just barely on the sheet of paper. They are as far away from the central view of the issue as it is possible to be.

Listen to the recording? I hope I managed to load the wrong recording. I tried, but the convo is banal, so lurid, so profanity laden, so full of unfounded conjhecture, so full of wolf tickets - it is ridiculous. I'd like to think they are sincere, but I have no evidence of it from past behaviors or current events. I can't imagine they have the collective sense to have entered into a conspiracy to produce this silly recording so they could "scam" the world into thinking they are sincere to just to give themselves another vial of tears. I think they are just all huffed up with their false bravado and inapprppriate sense of importance and think may actually be taken seriously.

I think CCP can count and when they are looking at projected losses on their tally sheet, they will be glad to see these guys go so they can have a better chance of retaining the players they have spent so much money to lure into their first paid monthly sub. I do not know the number, but I can tell you the management at CCP has it figured down to the penny just how much money is spent on advertising, trial account expenses, discounts and specials just to get the average new player to plop down their first monthly sub fee. They can then look at the number of players who leave the game after one, two, maybe six months of paid sub time and know if one player fills out the "I'm quitting because" questionnaire with griefing as the reason, that they can be statistically sure how many others left for the same reason and with enough disgust to not bother filling out the questionnaire. That is all part of basic market analysis. I'll bet Hilmar, CCP's CEO, can even recite the number of lost potential players which can be attributed to each different reason given on the few exit questionnaires that are completed by the friend's of potential players who left unhappy. This is not rocket science, this is just basic market research. No one can can seriously think CCP is relying on the CSM to provide all that data. If they were, CCP would not be asking those who close an account to complete a customer satisfaction questionnaire.

Oh, they are partying at the top of the world right now and all buddy-buddy, but then it will be back to business - the really serious business of internet space ships. The world of profit and loss. The hard look at what brings in and keeps customers happy and what drives them away angry, will be back at the front of everyone's mind. And crappy recordings will be just that - crappy.