These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Two CSMs of EVE Online

First post First post
Author
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#81 - 2011-10-14 17:12:32 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
As it stands, there is no real way to win a war, which limits their value to creating an involuntary sustained PVP environment.


What kind of avoidance?

Seems to me the moment you pay you can wardec, the cost is to high? Pirate
Evelgrivion
Origin.
Black Legion...
#82 - 2011-10-14 17:18:40 UTC
Tanya Powers wrote:
Evelgrivion wrote:
As it stands, there is no real way to win a war, which limits their value to creating an involuntary sustained PVP environment.


What kind of avoidance?

Seems to me the moment you pay you can wardec, the cost is to high? Pirate


I'm having trouble deciphering your sentence. What?
Esagila
#83 - 2011-10-14 17:20:09 UTC
As a teaching university for noobs I can certainly see it being argued that it is in CPP’s best interests to shield the newer players from griefing while they are trying to learn the game as it will probably boost retention… making new long term players. This is more or less, good for everyone.

However, do the non-noobs (say teachers, staff or graduates that hang around) really need a shield against war decs? I don’t understand why they would, having a selective war dec to protect the noobs but not give immunity to non-noobs I think would be a pretty good balance and allow for less abuse/griefing of new players. Maybe this is an outlandish suggestion or I am not understanding the tactics of the situation fully – but I am curious.
Poetic Stanzitroll
Doomheim
#84 - 2011-10-14 17:39:25 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:

The core concept of EVE Online is non-consensual PvP. That anyone, anywhere can **** on your day.


Exactly. There is nothing as non-consensual as not consenting to the consent of possible non-consensual war targets. I really think this point is quite obvious. Green eggs and ham even!

-Check out my blog, it's the best!

Barbelo Valentinian
Strategic Exploration and Development Corp
Silent Company
#85 - 2011-10-14 18:47:42 UTC
Esagila wrote:
As a teaching university for noobs I can certainly see it being argued that it is in CPP’s best interests to shield the newer players from griefing while they are trying to learn the game as it will probably boost retention… making new long term players. This is more or less, good for everyone.

However, do the non-noobs (say teachers, staff or graduates that hang around) really need a shield against war decs? I don’t understand why they would, having a selective war dec to protect the noobs but not give immunity to non-noobs I think would be a pretty good balance and allow for less abuse/griefing of new players. Maybe this is an outlandish suggestion or I am not understanding the tactics of the situation fully – but I am curious.


It's not that EVE-Uni can't handle wardecs, they have always done so very well, and have included newbies in the process.

The problem is that EVE-Uni was getting wardecced so often it was actually hampering the process of teaching newbies (as in actually having sessions, getting instruction, etc.).
Igualmentedos
Perkone
Caldari State
#86 - 2011-10-14 18:55:16 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Vyl Vit wrote:
Anyone that war decs EVE U should use mental floss more frequently. There may even be a few scrip bottles in the med chest that require some attention.

Why not just run a bus over the school kids in the crosswalk. That'll give you a sense of power!

Half their members are carebear lifers. Thirty-five percent are 4-8 months old. And fifteen percent are newbies. (You can run the stats on their full member list, available on their website.) They welcome newbies, but they're not a newbie corporation.

Besides, no one in this game should be able to recuse themselves from the Sandbox.


Why isn't it okay to artificially raise the price of a war dec, but it's okay to use neutral RR'ers when combating the vicious carebears? Also, why can you abuse aggression mechanics to kill lowbies? Why is it anything benefiting a carebear is automatic ****?
Evelgrivion
Origin.
Black Legion...
#87 - 2011-10-14 19:09:13 UTC
Igualmentedos wrote:
Why isn't it okay to artificially raise the price of a war dec, but it's okay to use neutral RR'ers when combating the vicious carebears? Also, why can you abuse aggression mechanics to kill lowbies? Why is it anything benefiting a carebear is automatic ****?


Being against war declaration avoidance does not imply an endorsement of aggression mechanics abuse or neutral remote repairs in high security space, nor does it imply a hatred of care bears. For the record, I am against neutral remote repairs in high security space, but "aggression mechanics abuse" is too broad in scope to support or oppose.
Igualmentedos
Perkone
Caldari State
#88 - 2011-10-14 19:25:56 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
Igualmentedos wrote:
Why isn't it okay to artificially raise the price of a war dec, but it's okay to use neutral RR'ers when combating the vicious carebears? Also, why can you abuse aggression mechanics to kill lowbies? Why is it anything benefiting a carebear is automatic ****?


Being against war declaration avoidance does not imply an endorsement of aggression mechanics abuse or neutral remote repairs in high security space, nor does it imply a hatred of care bears. For the record, I am against neutral remote repairs in high security space, but "aggression mechanics abuse" is too broad in scope to support or oppose.


I'm glad players like you exist. I want CCP to revise the whole thing, but notice how the second carebears gain a slight upper-hand the "leet pvpers" start flipping ****? That's absurd, and I hate to see players scream for "balance" just so they can spend time ruining other players' enjoyment. That's wrong, IMO, and only hurts EvE in the end.

Also, I think non-consensual PvP isgood, but not when it's excessively abused. Players shouldnt spend all of their time murdering little kestrels so they can pad their killboard. I think it's absurd that "leet pvpers" wont seek out an actual fight as opposed to the typical slaughter.

Some may view carebears as a problem to EvE online, and they may believe they are ruining the spirit of the game, or side-stepping the sandbox, but the whole point of the sandbox is to allow every (reasonable) style of play. It seems as though these "leet pvpers" are a cancer in EvE. Nothing is wrong with PvP, but excessive griefing makes for an annoying experience. Again, I'm not saying there shouldn't be conflict (I think PvP is great in EvE), but blowing harmless players up for the sake of blowing up harmless players is rather stupid.

Even the recent Goonswarm iniative to **** block ice mining is totally fine. They have a goal in the end to manipulate the ice market. Even something as disruptive as that is okay. Although there may be a fine line between necessary and abusive I still feel like the endless harassment of EvE uni is just outrageous.
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#89 - 2011-10-14 19:50:29 UTC
Poetic Stanzitroll wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:

The core concept of EVE Online is non-consensual PvP. That anyone, anywhere can **** on your day.


Exactly. There is nothing as non-consensual as not consenting to the consent of possible non-consensual war targets. I really think this point is quite obvious. Green eggs and ham even!


Glad you agree with yourself.



Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#90 - 2011-10-14 21:46:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Igualmentedos wrote:
Why isn't it okay to artificially raise the price of a war dec ...

It's okay to raise the cost of a wardec ... but ...

1. E-Uni is taking raising the cost to an extreme.

2. E-Uni is not bearing the cost itself of taking it to that extreme, utilizing an exploit to avoid the majority of the CONCORD fees to raise the cost of a wardec against them.
supersexysucker
Uber Awesome Fantastico Awesomeness Group
#91 - 2011-10-14 22:03:04 UTC
lol um did we all forget about CCP's last thing with a big alliance... you know cheating... O rite... nothing changed?
lol
Shocking.

Love for some 0.0 alliances to dec and pwn these asshats dec shield yourself all you want when the big guys come to **** you =)
Goddess Ishtar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#92 - 2011-10-14 22:31:28 UTC
supersexysucker wrote:
lol um did we all forget about CCP's last thing with a big alliance... you know cheating... O rite... nothing changed?
lol
Shocking.

Love for some 0.0 alliances to dec and pwn these asshats dec shield yourself all you want when the big guys come to **** you =)

Most of the 0.0 alliances get along quite well with E-Uni. I'm sure that will spawn some new conspiracy theories from their favorite stalker...
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#93 - 2011-10-14 22:31:55 UTC
I don't know about this threads actual topic but I know there are only two CSM members worth two ***** and thats Trebor and Seleen.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#94 - 2011-10-14 22:37:43 UTC
Goddess Ishtar wrote:
Most of the 0.0 alliances get along quite well with E-Uni. I'm sure that will spawn some new conspiracy theories from their favorite stalker...

What conspiracy? CCP has been bending over backwards to make EVE University's high-sec existence easier, because they believe EVE University is a newbie training corporation and that they help with new player retention.

The recent wardec policy change is evidence of this "backwards over bending."

(Whereas EVE University does recruit newbies, and they probably have some success retaining them as permanent paying customers for CCP, the majority of their members are long-time, experienced carebears who are not at all interested in PvP or the EVE sandbox.)
Jessie Kenan
Doomheim
#95 - 2011-10-14 22:41:48 UTC
@OP

Boo ******* hoo, I can't wardec a newbie corp to get cheap kills. Thing is that they're actually providing a service that benefits the whole of eve (new player retention) while all you do is ***** and moan on the forums.

I wouldn't mind if Estel Corp did the same, but of course they don't need to since they don't attract the pussy wardecs as they're not full of noobs.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#96 - 2011-10-14 22:43:21 UTC
Jessie Kenan wrote:
I wouldn't mind if Estel Corp did the same, but of course they don't need to since they don't attract the ***** wardecs as they're not full of noobs.

Neither is EVE University. You've been misled. Only 15% of their total membership are characters less than three months old.
Jessie Kenan
Doomheim
#97 - 2011-10-14 22:57:19 UTC
92% of all statistics are not based on actual facts.
Skunk Gracklaw
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#98 - 2011-10-14 22:58:36 UTC
Poetic Stanziel you need to forget about E-Uni and put your energies into destroying the real enemy: roleplayers
Trainwreck McGee
Doomheim
#99 - 2011-10-14 22:59:51 UTC
whhhhaaaaa i cant leet pvp noobs in a intro carebear corp whhaaaaa whaaaaa whaaaaa i might have to actually pvp with people who want to whaaaaa whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Seriously get a ******* life

CCP Trainwreck - Weekend Custodial Engineer / CCP Necrogoats foot stool

Sara XIII
The Carnifex Corp
#100 - 2011-10-14 23:51:01 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Jessie Kenan wrote:
I wouldn't mind if Estel Corp did the same, but of course they don't need to since they don't attract the ***** wardecs as they're not full of noobs.

Neither is EVE University. You've been misled. Only 15% of their total membership are characters less than three months old.


Can you back this up?
Between Ignorance and Wisdom