| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 05:55:00 -
[1] - Quote
Djakku wrote:Revealing the exact location in a solar system of a kill could be revealing vital intel, such as safespot locations etc.
It might be a bit intrusive to some
If you died there it's not much of a safespot |

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 07:45:00 -
[2] - Quote
evereplicant wrote:Quote:Change the war dec cost formula so that the cost is no longer increased by the number of wars target corp is in. Instead, the cost is modified by the number of players in target corp. I hope this is a joke, so now you are going to make it stupidly expensive to dec large alliances... Hmm wonder how did that get passed, did the CSM pass that one through i wonder.. Oh we can gank as much as we like wiht our large numbers but sorry we are going to make it super costly for you to war dec us...you have got to be kidding right?
Pretty sure 8,343 members in an alliance will take you out of realistic contention as far as wardecs go.
You have to hand it to Mitanni for blindsiding the CSM with that one. That or the rest just didn't bother to read it 
|

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
16
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 10:39:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Q: Price of war A: The current formula is 20 mill (for corp, 50 for alliance) base price plus 500.000 per member in target corp. We're looking into some sorts of diminishing returns/cap, but nothing has been decided yet. We will not modify cost based on aggressor size as it is too easily gamed
To declare war on the largest and most bloated alliances would cost
1. Goonswarm Federation - 4.23 Bi 2. Test Alliance Please Ignore - 3.24 Bi 3. Against All Authorities - 1.68 Bi 4. Intrepid Crossing - 1.49 Bi 5. Solar Citizens - 1.36 Bi 6. AAA Citizens - 1.27 Bi 7. Legion of xXDEATHXx - 1.21 Bi 8. Razor Alliance - 1.2 Bi 9. Fatal Ascension - 1.08 Bi 10. En Guarde - 1.04 Bi
23. Pandemic Legion - 737 Mi
100. Echoes of Nowhere - 222.5 Mi
per week
This change to cost formula serves only to protect the alliances that need protection least.
There is zero reason for CCP to interfere and seek to protect large bulky alliances, it doesn't make any sense that wars should be changed in this way. |

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
19
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 12:13:00 -
[4] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Taawuz wrote:Quote:The ally system and the surrender with enforced peace do give options beside just duking it out (or docking for a week), but if you absolutely do not want to be war decced, then the only option right now is to be in a NPC corp. This is not an optimal solution and we might iterate here in the future, but this is the direction weGÇÖre taking right now. Easy, just add an option for corporations to be untouchable by war in exchange for a tax % that goes directly to concord. BTW, at least CCP are aware that it makes no sense to penalyze players for being in NPC corps and right after they join a player corp penalyze them for being in a player corp... "Screwed if you do and screwed if you don't" goes a bit beyond being "not optimal".  Of course this solution makes sense on the assumption that people quit because they can't bully others, but that's one stretch of an assumption.
Only if they took the option to pay tax in return for being untouchable. It's a bad solution anyway, as no-one should be invulnerable, its the failure to address this that has led to the popularity of suicide ganking.
You've no doubt been told before but you're playing the wrong game if you expect to avoid PvP just because you don't want it. While I'd like to believe you're just trolling by playing the "Oh, people who do this are just bullies! Bullies I say!" card, it becomes irrelevent if a troll is lost because you've gone to such lengths to make it seem believable that only you will ever actually know. |

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
19
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 13:35:00 -
[5] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
In my book, shooting those who can't shoot back is not PvP, but bullying. Spin that how you want.
Thats quite possibly the worst attempt at spinning I've ever seen. Not being able to and refusing to shoot back are entirely different things. There is no character in the game that "cannot shoot back"
I look forward to your next preposterous post where you yet again choose to pretend to be ignorant, pursuing an angle of "bullying".
I take it you're trying to make some point that only you can understand related to the Mittani incident a few weeks ago? |

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
19
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 17:02:00 -
[6] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: Mkay, you're a troll. Ignored.
Don't you mean "verbal bully"?
Tell me again how you ended up playing this game and believe mechanics and principles of the game that have existed pretty much since its inception should be removed because it's "bullying".
If you're not busy later, I was wondering if you could help me with a post I'm making for the World of Warcraft forums? I want help to explain that, although I like the game, I think it could do with less swords, magic, elves and stuff and perhaps have more spaceships, laz0rs and missiles. It's seems you're the guy to seek advice from for a thread like that.
tia
|

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
20
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 18:01:00 -
[7] - Quote
Kemal Ataturk wrote:Ok now two questions for CCP I work my 10 hour shifts, come home spent some time with my rl and than i have 1 or 2 hours to play eve. I like eve i don't like facebookgames or wow i play eve since the days of the Great Northern War. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Great_northern_war. Well my main char. I ve played almost the whole eve map 1) I like to run (for example) lvl4 missions refuel my pos to talk on ts with my buddies and relax. After those 2 hours pass i have to log out cause of whatever stuff i have to do in rl Why the heck can't i run my lvl4 missions and refueling my pos while drinking my cup of tea, cause suddenly a 16year old wannabe pvper with his friends declares war on me? I want to run lvl4 for those 2 hours and not to pvp. Why do i have to pvp the moment someone decides that i have to pvp 2) If i want to pvp i go to low sec or 0.0. I want to CHOOSE MYSELF what i wanna do and when i want do it. Why don't you let me choose myself Quote:Q: How long will wars last A: As long as the aggressor pays every week and no one surrenders (or no surrender offer is accepted), then a war can last forever.
Because it's been in the game since you started. It's called Eve-Online not Kemal Ataturk online.
Good news though, NPC corps still can't be war dec'd, you're safe
|

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
22
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 19:36:00 -
[8] - Quote
Kemal Ataturk wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Or, you can have a corp, an then you will be wardecced by 1 years, et cetera.
CCP officially calls that "not optimal".
Captain Thunk wrote: Because it's been in the game since you started. It's called Eve-Online not Kemal Ataturk online.
Good news though, NPC corps still can't be war dec'd, you're safe. Well, you can just stay in a NPC corporation. This means you wil not play the game neither, but nobody will wardec you.
any link about CCP calling that "not optimal" and want me to move to facebook instead? NPC corps don't work about what i wrote. Wait if i want to choose myself when i pvp i have to stay in npc corps right? So its not allowed to have a pos for example because i want to choose myself when i pvp? Does that means that i have to pvp when you choose that i pvp? Is it Captain Thunk online? Besides you arent CCP.
Because it's been in the game since you started.
"Guys, I've been playing Eve-Online for 8 years, but, well, I hate spaceships. Can we get rid of them please and have virtual beaches where I sip cola and give donkey rides. I was told this was a sandbox game yet for some reason I'm not able to do what I wanted. This is what *I* want to do and I find it very unfair that DEVs aren't allowing me to do this. I would like to state my protest to this descpicable state of affairs in the strongest terms possible."
"Dear DICE, I recently purchased the excellent title 'Battlefield 3'. After installing the game I was horrified to discover the sheer violence and brutality of the other players in the game. While my team mates are generally friendly, I found that the other team are demonstrating clear social behaviour problems. Every round they would repeatedly display acts of aggression and clear violence shooting at me and killing me. I've just been released from hospital after having a breakdown because of this shocking behaviour that I found entirely unexpected. I've attached a bill for my medical expenses and an additional levy to cover the emotional trauma incurred through playing your game."
|

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
22
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 19:46:00 -
[9] - Quote
Kemal Ataturk wrote: ermm nope, what comes with inferno is not in the game since i at least started. Now if you hate playing spaceships stop trolling and go play the fancy BF3 that you bought. Oh wait you didn't answer one simple question if you wanna try read above

"There is currently no war-dec mechanism in Eve-Online" - Kemal Ataturk 2012 |

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
23
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 10:47:00 -
[10] - Quote
Argus Sorn wrote:I'm a little confused. I mean sure I am not a fan of all of the changes and want the price system scaled differently, but some of the posters to this section.. well, you do know that there is already a wardec system in place right?
The people 'raging' against the very existence of wardecs, I mean that is a different debate all together is it not? Most of you I assume are from small industry corps. Are you currently being permadecced? Because you can be now - already - the mechanic already exists for wealthy pvp griefers to just come and keep you decced literally FOREVER. This mechanic exists right now, it's there.
The new system actually does two things: 1) makes it more expensive to dec you and 2) let's you get help.
Is this not an improvement? Seriously, I don't think people are going around deccing people just for the laughs of ruining some poor innocent high sec dude's day as much as you think. Or am I just empire-naive?
Argus
Some years ago, it became popular to post things on forums that you don't actually mean, the idea is to start arguments and get angry responses. However, it doesn't have the correct effect when it's done en masse and they have to keep returning to make further explanations. You're supposed to just post, then lean back and enjoy the show.
These people are actually in 0.0 alliances and don't care either way what happens with war decs as it they don't consider it something that directly relates to them, even when wardec'd their alliance will have steps to limit its impact. Personally I just enjoy talking to them as they're internet troll #1,436,432,654 doing the ol' trollpost #7,239,354 first seen in 2005. Eventually they just stop replying and state I'm a troll. Who doesn't love irony? |

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
23
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 18:34:00 -
[11] - Quote
betoli wrote:Grikath wrote: The problem is actually not in the mechanism, but in the attitude of the rageposters: they are Entitlementalists Their "logic" leads them to believe that since they pay to play this game, they are somehow entitled to play it in the way they see fit, regardless of the rock-hard fact that what they are actually paying for is the right to participate in a game according to the rules of the organiser, in this case CCP.
*headdesk* If CCP didn't agree something was amiss, think that the game couldn't be improved, and wanted input from us lot, this thread wouldn't exist.
Indeed, but Grikath is still right. It's unfortunate, that CCP are unaware of the subtle changes over time that caused the War Dec mechanism and mercenary corps that used them to become obsolete. Not that this is CCPS fault, it's difficult to see what's going on when you can't participate directly.
The final nail in the coffin for the war dec mechanism was standings in local. Brought in because of the potential for some to import "portrait packs" into their Eve Cache, replacing portraits with clearly marked pics thus giving them and only them effectively standings in local that we all see today.
This change allowed a small and relatively unheard of alliance called Privateers to flourish overnight, declaring war on multiple alliances rendered war targets in pretty much every system. Despite almost exclusively war decing 0.0 supposedly independent alliances a large number of NPC characters sprang into action on the forums imploring to CCP to make changes rendering Privateers impotent. CCP agreed and left us with the scaling system of payment we have today, the system that allows Eve-Uni to manipulate the system to deliver a 1.5bn fee for 1 week of war - not sure 'how to cheat the system' is a good lesson in my personal opinion. At the same time Factional Warfare was introduced, which I believe is meant to be some kind of consolation for ex-privateers. Privateers worked at the time because they were few and 0.0 alliances regularly sent gangs to deal with Privateers but would usually get killed, this didn't fit in with their perceived perception of being higher up the food chain by virtue of living in 0.0. With so many outraged and humiliated, a draconian nerfing for Privateers was inevitible.
The problem with War Decs is, over time, people have become less and less enthusiastic about defending themselves, much as Grikath outlined above. This in addition to Standings in Local goes a good distance in protecting those under a war dec. Those that don't just log off for the duration of the war have easily accessible tools to protect themselves with minimal effort.
Before the Standings in local change it took what could be a considerable amount of effort to research and generate a list of pilots belonging to a corp and send it by corp mail to allow everyone to add them all to their addressbook. Like many things in Eve over the years, changes introduced made it so it was all done for you. Because the most vocal members of the forum are the ones that want to be able to do every single aspect of Eve themselves and take a violent dislike to the possibility that just maybe there are some things they're just not very good at.
After the Privateers nerf, one by one all the Mercenary corps of old wrapped up and closed for business, the main driving force behind privateers was "spreading the net". If you accept that the majority of people will turtle up because that is their nature and they refuse to play a game where they aren't in the driving seat at all times, then you need to spread the net across as high a number as humanly possible as this is what allows you to actually find someone logged in and in space. This is why when Privateers had plenty of war targets then you would find them spread all across Eve, after the nerf you find them in or on the highways to Jita and thats it. There is no point searching out targets as its hours spent for little reward. It's the same for the majority of wars, it's about Jita as thats about the only chance you have of finding red stars.
This is why further changes to the costing of wars is bad, limited to small numbers, it decreases the chance of ever finding an online target - it's only practical use will be for the removal of alt corp highsec towers. Even if it were capped at a limit, the system will be rendered useless because it's effectively impractical to make a living or find things to do as a "professional mercenary". It will only protect large alliances from the minor inconvenience of being war dec'd.
All this is a shame as people at CCP have clearly spent a lot of time and put in a lot of effort into some of the aspects of the new system. But as it stands, because of the fundamental issues I've outlined above, it won't be used. Having played as a mercenary, joined privateers and then returned to being a mercenary before accepting that that chapter in Eve was over with the mechanics as they are then I do think I have more insight into the subject than most. |

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
24
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 19:42:00 -
[12] - Quote
Xorv wrote:Pretty much disagreed with most of it. Article pushed what appeared to be EVE Uni's awful ideas for wardecs. Gives all the power to big blob entities and is another blow to small gangs and guerrilla warfare.
If only Eve-Uni taught people how to fight instead of how not to play the game. |

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
24
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 19:56:00 -
[13] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Doh, I wish i could figure out sentences like this: "it can't be good for EVE that the best course of action during a war is to log off and play another game for the duration."There you have it, CCP, better than how I could express it.
I've seen alliances logoff and play something else when attacked. Maybe CCP should delete ships and concentrate on Walking in Stations and player clothing. I can meet up with you and we can compare outfits (mine will be considerably better and much more expensive) |

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
28
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 08:21:00 -
[14] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:I like the scaling of cost with member number.
Why should it be more expensive to dec two 50 member corps over one 100 member corp?
There's a flat fee of 20mil to wardec a corp.
So to war dec 2 x 50 member corps it will cost 90 Million - to war dec 1 corp of 100 members would cost 70 Million
tl;dr: It's still more expensive to war dec two 50 member corps over one 100 member corp.
Even so, the ISK costs for corps with low numbers make the entire system unattractive. These changes don't actually look as though they're trying to reinvirgorate Empire wars or kickstart the Mercenary Business, which is a shame. These were enjoyable aspects of Eve that can no longer be enjoyed by New players.
I do hope Goonswarm repeat Jitageddon when this mechanic comes into play. The only way people could repel them is to shoot them before they suicide gank. To do that you would want to be in a state of war with the alliance. I'm interested to see who's willing to pay up the 4.2billion a week that will be needed to defend the gentle carebears of Jita Highsec. |

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
28
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 10:39:00 -
[15] - Quote
betoli wrote:Cost should include an imbalance factor, something based on ABS (aggressors total SP - defenders total SP) . This would penalise extremely imbalanced wars, which are either done to get killmails off noobs or disrupt the economics of large corps with minimal force projection.
The cheapest war should be an even fight.
No-ones going to pay 70mil a week to fight a 100 man corp.
Rule of thumb is that about 10% of the corp will be active during the corps primetime, this of course will be less during a war. So you're looking at 70mil a week for the right to shoot less than 10 people.
Trust me, absolutely no-one will use this war dec system other than to clear high sec pos's as and when required. If you wish to protect your pos, just make sure you have more members in corp than the other corps that have pos's in that system. |

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
40
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 18:08:00 -
[16] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:The new formula is not on Sisi, it's still the old formula, we're still working on implementing the new stuff.
There is no viable formula for escalating costs.
Consider a 100 man corp. Currently 20mil + 500k per member = 70mil (yes I know you said you're working on a new formula, but bear with me). 70mil is *not* a good figure. For a 100 man corp you're looking at 10-20% actually active during peaktime - that's normal when no wardec is in play, if under war conditions many members will simply take time off and do other things. So for 70mil a week you're looking at being able to shoot 5-10 characters, this isn't something you will find players chomping at the bit to pay up and do.
Now consider an 8,400 man Alliance 50mil +500k per member = 4.2bil (barring any caps once it reaches a certain figure). This means player events such as "Burn Jita" leave the sandbox and become an activity that ordinary high sec dwellers are powerless to prevent. This time round it was at least an option to wardec goons and make an attempt to 'defend' Jita. Some did although they failed to make an impact, next time there won't be an option as no-one in their right mind is going to pay that kind of ISK.
I appreciate you must have some reason for wanting escalating costs, though I am unsure what it is. There's certainly a tremendous amount of effort that has gone into this revamp, a lot of which deserves to be applauded. But I don't think you understand what it is that have caused War Declarations to fall out of favour over the years to end up in the great dumpster that is "grief war decs". I would assume the reasoning behind it is the spurious "grief decs" we're all familiar with, a corp with no more than a handful of members aggressing an entity with far superior numbers. While escalating costs may do well in preventing this, it has the unfortunate side effect of disuading everyone else from using the war dec system as well. I would anticipate in future that it will only be used by those wishing to remove and replace high sec pos's with ones of their own. I do not think this is a good trade off, the people who suffer "grief decs" are invariable large alliances that usually have 0.0 interests and stakes, the real question is 'why do these people need protecting from "grief decs"?' and is it really worth making an already unattractive system unusable for the purpose it is intended? These alliances already have logistical steps to immunise themselves from the effects anyway and frequently use alt corps to do the trips to Jita.
War decs currently only catch the afk, because of the plethora of warnings, helpful hints and information that goes into warning either side of the others presence. It takes minimal effort to skirt around the aggressors and people are naturally drawn to the path of least resistance. Aggressors too are drawn to this path which is why you find 99% of them in or on the route to Jita. If you take the time to look at how Eve wars ended up in this position you will find the reasons behind why war decs aren't currently used as intended. A long time ago, when such things were more popular, fighting could occur all over high sec, as a noob in 2006 I would frequently be flying around in my punisher gasping in awe as fighting errupted at a gate, lasors zapping and missiles zooming everywhere. This was because at the time, being in a war and knowing who and where you enemy was took a certain amount of effort. Both sides had to peruse killboards and build a memberlist of the corp(s) oppossing them and add them to their addressbook. This took time and effort, the reasoning was because back then you didn't see standings or war target symbols in the local list. You literally wouldn't know a war target was in your system unless you show info'd everyone in local, had them in your addressbook or they suddenly appeared on your overview. This made the whole scenario more dangerous and exciting, even when you didn't see the green light of your addressbook warning you then there was still the possibility of one of the corps members lurking in your system that you hadn't found on a killboard and added to your list.
This major element of engaging in high sec war was wiped in one fell swoop with the introduction of standings in local, it did work for the combatants, made it simple and was 100% accurate. It's at this point that things changed, with the ease of identifying opponents and giving ample warning of their approach the driving force behind declaring war became spreading the net across as many targets as possible, the larger the entity dec'd the better in an effort to increase the liklihood of finding a target in space. One relatively unheard of alliance at the time understood this and set in motion events that would kill off the practicality of declaring war as a gamestyle once and for all, they were called 'Privateers'. Armed with standings in local, they could set standings quickly and easy on alts to build a web of information on potential targets and move accordingly, easily evading 'blobs' and bringing fights to almost every system in Eve. Despite favouring the 0.0 alliances for targets, people got upset, fighting in high sec is not the same as Nullsec. Sovereignty holding power blocks basically got their faces stoved in, so changes were brought in to reduce the feasibility of war deccing. These changes shrank the net of potential targets to something that can be relatively easily evaded for a week and led to the Jita hugging we know today. You have to bear in mind these people actually want to shoot stuff, you could avoid Jita and go for days without seeing a war target or you can go to the one place people go to relatively regularly and at least get to fire your guns. (cont...) |

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
40
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 18:10:00 -
[17] - Quote
At its peak, in privateers you could login every night with a reasonable chance of getting two or more 'good fights' - a small gang of targets looking for privateers and happy to engage. This is actually a playstyle that some people prefer and largely does not exist today. The border between "Nullsec for PvP - Highsec for PvE" was nicely blurred. This meant you could PvP when you felt like it, not because a sovereignty timer expected it. You could go on an op and dockup and go afk if needed, instead of see it through to the end no matter how many hours that would take. It is a shame this gamestyle has left the game because of the "sovereignty holding" alliances that were so incapable of defending themselves outside of a call to arms.
This is where we are today and as I say, I don't think the formula matters. If you wish to resurrect the war mechanics and make the mercenary corporation a viable playstyle in the sandbox of Eve then you need to take a closer look at what went wrong in the firstplace. The state we know today is more about lack of any other option than any particular desire to go "griefing" 0.0 alliances logistically.
My personal preference would be to look at bringing back the harshness of Eve. Unleash the Privateers and allow them to wardec at least sovereignty holding alliances without the crippling financial constraints. Afterall why is it these alliances need so much protection? Why can't these alliances just defend themselves? What's wrong with encouraging the Highsec/Nullsec animosity? It is afterall perfectly possible to live entirely in their owned space without the need to make trips to Highsec. This allows people to play in a manner that may suit their lifestyle more and isn't a thinly disguised second job. It would also make the next "Burn Jita" infinitely more exciting. |

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
65
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 07:57:00 -
[18] - Quote
Dream Five wrote: Actually a safe space where you can recover from losses is required in order for the game to function otherwise it will be possible to permagrief players into quitting and CCP is smarter than allowing that. EVE will then turn into a game of self-elimination.
Why are people in 0.0 alliances if they require a safe haven to recover from their losses?
Instead of facing the obvious, there is an uncomfortable expectation that the game needs to be changed to accomodate these people, who're quite literally doing it all wrong.
Dear CCP, I don't happen to have arms or legs. I'm typing this through tactical headbutting and a special attachment. Obviously you need to rewrite your entire game for me, if you can pop me an email when you're done it'd be much appreciated, TIA. |

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
65
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 22:22:00 -
[19] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote: The reason eve should accommodate "these people" (Do I get a feeling of bigotry here?) is they are a major part, maybe a majority, of the players, and hence a huge part of CCP income.
Odd I was getting the same feeling. Mechanics by democracy is a stupid idea, nothing should be in the game simply because of "the majority of players"
I'm sorry you belong to an alliance whos whole nullsec enterprise is propped up by "safe" areas that have nothing to do with your alliances so called empire. If CCP would just allow your alliance to die because it clearly cannot stand on its own merits then it would improve the game. Instead we're forced to endure the existence of "empires" that have no real right to exist, which is detrimental to the game and makes a mockery of the so called harsh environment that is supposed to be Eve. |

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
66
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 23:54:00 -
[20] - Quote
Dream Five wrote:
Some people just don't want to be in 0.0 alliances (gosh, 72% of them). It's a big time commitment, some people want more casual gameplay.
Do you misquote people intentionally or do you just have difficulty following English? Understandable if it's not your first language.
I was speaking about 0.0 alliances who rely on alts in "safe" space to prop up their terrible empire. Which accounts for a large portion of that 72% you're talking about.
|

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
68
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 07:09:00 -
[21] - Quote
Dream Five wrote: If by saying this you were talking about "0.0 alliances who rely on alts in safe space to prop their empire", i apologize for not being able to read your mind over the internet.
It was the post I was answering that I expected you to read, the one that said:
Vincent Athena wrote:For those in Null who do not have such areas, they have alts in NPC corps in high sec.
I'm sure now I've explained this to you, you can see perfectly what I meant about misquoting out of context or just not being able to comprehend. This is the problem when you leap into a thread reading only the last couple of posts. No need to apologise to me personally, just bear this in mind in future. If you aren't able to follow all the details whether through mental disadvantage or simply English not being your native language then it maybe beneficial to post less and read more. |

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
70
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 11:00:00 -
[22] - Quote
Dream Five wrote: Actually you were answering to my quote directly, context had nothing to do with this particular exchange.
A quote where you were replying to a someone saying that if 0.0 alliances are 'goofing off in highsec then they aren't being challenged enough'. I know. It's so hard to keep ones attention fixed when these threads go over into another page isn't it?
I didn't read the rest of your post as I saw a lot of question marks and figured it'd be a massive waste of my time answering so many questions. |

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
70
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 11:45:00 -
[23] - Quote
Dream Five wrote: Regardless at least I hope you are not emotionally abusive at home to your wife and kids? You seem like the OCD controlling type who also tries his hardest to hurt other people with vitriolic remarks.
Ad hominem #1. Dream Five's credibility -= 1
|

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
70
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 12:45:00 -
[24] - Quote
Dream Five wrote:I was simply genuinely concerned about emotional well being of people close to you. If you genuinely thought that then you should know your comment would have lined my family up for another beating. Discarding the possibility that you're a sociopath who's praying that I am the domestic abuser you hope I am then this only leaves 2 possibilities.
1. You really are that naive. 2. You're lying in an attempt to cover up your earlier Argumentum Ad Hominem attack.
While I'm tempted to go with number 2. even if its only because such behaviour of being unable to contain your own rage is the basis for making the argument that you are infact a seasoned wife beater yourself, it's pretty ridiculous to state that you can tell someones psychological profile with any degree of accuracy from a handful of posts on a forum.
So I'm going to have to go with number 1. Your general pattern of posting of asking many questions, being unable to follow a topic that spans pages, displays of confusion and the outbursts of anger surrounding it seems to be a much better fit. Fortunately, I'm not an abuser so no-ones been inadvertently harmed by your accusations.
You should probably slow down a little and think before you post. If you have questions then check the newbie guides, there are lots of forums here and many 3rd party sites that can probably answer most of these for you. English is one of the harder languages to learn because of its many quirks and failure to adhere to its own supposed rules, so I don't want to be too hard on you for your failure to comprehend. There's a very good chance that there's an Eve forum in your own language which may be a better place for your posts.
Dream Five wrote:But do they understand that the rest of the motivation for wardecs in hisec is poorly rationalized at fundamental level (forcing hisec players without POSes who do not want to fight into leaving player corps)? With the current pricing strategy there's no danger of that happening. |

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
70
|
Posted - 2012.05.12 14:41:00 -
[25] - Quote
Naga Tokiba wrote:Let me start by saying that I love the game of EVE. There are so many options and styles of play - posibilities are endless. Except thats precisely what you don't like or want in the game. You want to do what you want with absolute impunity or interference from others.
|

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
70
|
Posted - 2012.05.13 09:48:00 -
[26] - Quote
I like the way so many are ignoring the ability to hire mercenaries to do the fighting for you if PvP isn't your thing.
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:....those who pay 72% of the bill. I guess you're referencing population distribution in Eve. I'm fairly sure most people did what I did, created a character which is my main then filled the 2 other slots with characters I barely use or don't use it all. Unsurprisingly these characters are still in the high security station they were born in. If everyone did that, and its reasonable to assume its a good rule of thumb, then that puts 66.6% of all characters in high security space, even if the main is flying in 0.0. It's not very clever to try and manipulate statistics to back your argument in such an obvious fashion as its easily seen and draws attention to how bad the basis of your argument actually is if you need to resort to such blurring of the truth. |

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
70
|
Posted - 2012.05.13 15:12:00 -
[27] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: 72% of the characters logged in were located in High Security Space.
Now, pick your poison:
- People log in their hisec characters Just For Fun (TM) - Whoever logs in to hisec (3/4 of players) does so for business, so it's relevant that this 72% of hisec characters can do whatever business they do so their account holders keep paying 72% of all active accounts
Statistics: they're bitches, but don't just let anyone shag them.
Exactly my point, all alliances use Jita and are constantly ferrying goods to and from Empire, with the current wardec mechanics and those proposed it's impossible to cut off supply lines. This has prevented Alliances from dying when their time is up leading to their ever presence in 0.0 and the stagnation of nullsec warfare.
What we need is a working wardec mechanic, so these can be attacked regardless of where they are and without system protection.
|

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
71
|
Posted - 2012.05.13 16:31:00 -
[28] - Quote
War isn't a war if you can just say "No thanks"
Surely the mistake here was in you picking a game that had war mechanics in the first place?
You can't buy a Ford car and then write to the manufacturers and say "actually, can you make this a Ferrari instead?" |

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
71
|
Posted - 2012.05.13 18:16:00 -
[29] - Quote
Dream Five wrote:Captain Thunk wrote:War isn't a war if you can just say "No thanks"
Surely the mistake here was in you picking a game that had war mechanics in the first place?
You can't buy a Ford car and then write to the manufacturers and say "actually, can you make this a Ferrari instead?" Actually yes, you can say no thanks and unsub if you don't like it. You can do it at any time. I think you are confusing real life wars with wars in a computer game.
It's a reasonable assumption that a virtual war in a computer game would at least in some fashion match a vague definition of the word.
I expect this, much like I expect a 'spaceship' to be a ship that sails in space and not a type of fruit grown in slightly acidic soil found in temperate wet climates.
|

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
71
|
Posted - 2012.05.13 18:32:00 -
[30] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: Well, war isn't war when i can't go to your home, shoot your head, **** your wife, tie her and your children to a girder and then set the house on fire so they burn to death. For an instance.
Past 10 years indicates that thats the US definition of 'war' at least.
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: I mean, EVE is a game, and as all games, it has got rules; and by being a computer game, also does have software routines (aka mechanics) that determine what can and can't be done. And it all is pretty arbitrary, and the developers can decide which way shall they shape the mechanics and the rules for their greater profit.
CCP is misled in thinking that their consumers want this kind of "war" they're implementing with Inferno, but then they may be wrong, and may find out that their consumers stop being such consumers if they really get wrong what the players expect from the rules and mechanics...
It's a mechanic that exists and has done since their customers signed up, no-ones been misled. Some people just had no clue what they were signing up to. I don't see why mechanics should be rewritten to accomodate people who don't even look into what they're getting into. People of such short attention span are unlikely to be long lasting or loyal customers anyway.
What you're saying is that you made a mistake and now instead of having the courage to own up to it and adapt, you expect everyone else to pay for it. |

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
72
|
Posted - 2012.05.13 21:49:00 -
[31] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Captain Thunk wrote:War isn't a war if you can just say "No thanks"
Surely the mistake here was in you picking a game that had war mechanics in the first place?
Which multilayer spaceship game would you suggest?
Any that isn't Eve-Online. Happy I could have helped, goodbye.
|

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
72
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 06:14:00 -
[32] - Quote
Dream Five wrote:Captain Thunk wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:Captain Thunk wrote:War isn't a war if you can just say "No thanks"
Surely the mistake here was in you picking a game that had war mechanics in the first place?
Which multilayer spaceship game would you suggest? Any that isn't Eve-Online. Happy I could have helped, goodbye. He doesn't want to suggest anything. I think its becoming pretty obvious from the last 10-20 posts that this individual is very bitter and enjoys trying to make people he communicates with feel like ****. Almost every single post contains some kind of a condescending remark. Just ignore him. Ad hominem #2. Dream Five's credibility -= 2
Dream Five, desperate and on the ropes fumbles for something to defend his crumbling argument and lashes out again with another attack brought to the man
Unsurprisingly, it's not my job to do other peoples research for them, neither am I obliged to pretend I actually care. I was kind though, I didn't point out the the absurdity of looking for a multiplayer spaceship game where the intent of the player in question is not to actually fly spaceships.
|

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
118
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 17:06:00 -
[33] - Quote
Tao Shaile wrote: * I think there are too many corps out there harassing other corps and the blackmailing will continue. Wardecs should be fun, not harassment.
You *think* this, but SoniClover has already said that that does not currently happen, nor is it likely to in the future.
My advice, carry on thinking if you wish, but refrain from posting your thoughts, they're incorrect and misguided.
|
| |
|