These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

When NPCs become detrimental to PVP

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#241 - 2017-01-03 13:05:52 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Snip


Blocked.

My post to Torin still stands.


No, it doesn't, and it's been repeatedly explained to you why your question, which is laid out as a yes/no one, does not have a yes/no answer. You can either rephrase the question, or accept the answers that have been given in context.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Salvos Rhoska
#242 - 2017-01-03 13:09:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Snip


Blocked.

My post to Torin still stands.


No, it doesn't, and it's been repeatedly explained to you why your question, which is laid out as a yes/no one, does not have a yes/no answer. You can either rephrase the question, or accept the answers that have been given in context.


Yes, it does.

I have explained why.

Furthermore, it is addressed to Torin. Not you.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#243 - 2017-01-03 13:10:28 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Snip


Blocked.

My post to Torin still stands.


No, it doesn't, and it's been repeatedly explained to you why your question, which is laid out as a yes/no one, does not have a yes/no answer. You can either rephrase the question, or accept the answers that have been given in context.


Yes, it does.

I have explained why.


Salvos, you've been given an answer. Your own personal rejection of that answer is your own personal problem.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Salvos Rhoska
#244 - 2017-01-03 13:13:36 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Snip


Blocked.

My post to Torin still stands.


No, it doesn't, and it's been repeatedly explained to you why your question, which is laid out as a yes/no one, does not have a yes/no answer. You can either rephrase the question, or accept the answers that have been given in context.


Yes, it does.

I have explained why.


Salvos, you've been given an answer. Your own personal rejection of that answer is your own personal problem.


I have given you my answer as well.
If you choose to reject it, that is your problem, not mine.

Furthermore the question is addressed to Torin. Not you.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#245 - 2017-01-03 13:23:38 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


I have given you my answer as well.
If you choose to reject it, that is your problem, not mine.

Furthermore the question is addressed to Torin. Not you.


Doesn't matter who it was addressed to, it was answered, and your post is just more 'intellectual' posturing. You're always so quick to dismiss or block people that challenge you on any level that makes you feel uncomfortable, aren't you. You know, there's actually a name for the problem you have - Dunning-Kruger.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Lasisha Mishi
A Blessed Bean
Pandemic Horde
#246 - 2017-01-03 14:00:06 UTC
finally my standings with so many NPC corps will pay off =D

and gankers don't be sad. as you say all the time. its content.
your getting the consequences of your actions.

now we get the benefit of our work for NPC corps.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#247 - 2017-01-03 14:10:16 UTC
Lasisha Mishi wrote:
finally my standings with so many NPC corps will pay off =D

and gankers don't be sad. as you say all the time. its content.
your getting the consequences of your actions.

now we get the benefit of our work for NPC corps.


Sorry, but this doesn't affect gankers. Gankers don't have to worry about standings because they are intentionally losing ships to gank. And I have already explained repeatedly throughout this thread why these 'consequences' are unbalanced, favouring certain players over others, while not actually being consequences that are related to PVP in any way. Please read threads before posting, it will save you the trouble of looking like a complete buffoon in the future.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#248 - 2017-01-03 14:10:34 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Snip
Blocked.

Since you did the same with reason and reality I'm in good company it seams.

Evil RatKid
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#249 - 2017-01-03 14:14:04 UTC
Lasisha Mishi wrote:
finally my standings with so many NPC corps will pay off =D

and gankers don't be sad. as you say all the time. its content.
your getting the consequences of your actions.

now we get the benefit of our work for NPC corps.

I'm not sad. I get an NPC defence fleet for my looter

Evil RatKid
Lasisha Mishi
A Blessed Bean
Pandemic Horde
#250 - 2017-01-03 14:22:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Lasisha Mishi
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Lasisha Mishi wrote:
finally my standings with so many NPC corps will pay off =D

and gankers don't be sad. as you say all the time. its content.
your getting the consequences of your actions.

now we get the benefit of our work for NPC corps.

I'm not sad. I get an NPC defence fleet for my looter

good

and it works both ways (something the OP of this thread seems to ahve forgotten)


what do i mean.
go check out what happens when i tried to mine in gallente space <.<

.....i think they know i'm caldari.


Remiel Pollard wrote:
Lasisha Mishi wrote:
finally my standings with so many NPC corps will pay off =D

and gankers don't be sad. as you say all the time. its content.
your getting the consequences of your actions.

now we get the benefit of our work for NPC corps.


Sorry, but this doesn't affect gankers. Gankers don't have to worry about standings because they are intentionally losing ships to gank. And I have already explained repeatedly throughout this thread why these 'consequences' are unbalanced, favouring certain players over others, while not actually being consequences that are related to PVP in any way. Please read threads before posting, it will save you the trouble of looking like a complete buffoon in the future.

favoring certain players?

not really. if i choose to work for a corp cause i know they send fleets to this system.
then it pays off


cause i worked for that corp specificially.


unbalanced favortism. bit like the rest of EVE with who has friends in each system.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#251 - 2017-01-03 14:29:39 UTC
Lasisha Mishi wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Lasisha Mishi wrote:
finally my standings with so many NPC corps will pay off =D

and gankers don't be sad. as you say all the time. its content.
your getting the consequences of your actions.

now we get the benefit of our work for NPC corps.

I'm not sad. I get an NPC defence fleet for my looter

good

and it works both ways (something the OP of this thread seems to ahve forgotten)


what do i mean.
go check out what happens when i tried to mine in gallente space <.<

.....i think they know i'm caldari.


I haven't 'forgotten' anything, I know it works 'both ways', and have explained in great detail a number of scenarios why it's bad. I have also stated in no uncertain terms that I can adapt to it, and use it to my advantage, just fine. That doesn't make it balanced. You talk about 'consequences'. Well, why are players in NPC corps protected by these 'consequences', even in low sec, why nobody else is? No one has even tried to answer this question yet, nor has anyone refuted the obvious incentive in this to stay in NPC corps. This sort of stuff just goes right over your head, which doesn't surprise me in the least since you seem happy to just bumble your way in here without reading anything that's come before in this thread so far. It's like walking in half way through a conversation, and thinking you know what it's about.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Lena Crews
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#252 - 2017-01-03 14:31:04 UTC
I think the simple answer is to change nothing about the behavior of NCP miners... just make sure that none of the mining fleets belong to corps that players can be a part of.

If I understand it correctly... right now there is one corp that has mining fleets that players can be a part of. Just... take their mining fleets away. Problem solved.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#253 - 2017-01-03 14:33:35 UTC
Lasisha Mishi wrote:

favoring certain players?

not really. if i choose to work for a corp cause i know they send fleets to this system.
then it pays off


cause i worked for that corp specificially.


unbalanced favortism. bit like the rest of EVE with who has friends in each system.


No, it doesn't work like that. It's meant to be PLAYERS providing you that protection, not the NPCs. That's how you drive player interactions. And in case you haven't noticed, we're talking about low sec primarily here, and why anyone should get this kind of 'protection' there. You've already got concord in high sec.

Sorry, but again, I've explained in great detail exactly how this favours certain players over others, and if you'd read the thread, you'd have that context. But I am not repeating myself. Lrn2read.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Salvos Rhoska
#254 - 2017-01-03 14:38:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


I have given you my answer as well.
If you choose to reject it, that is your problem, not mine.

Furthermore the question is addressed to Torin. Not you.


Doesn't matter who it was addressed to, it was answered, and your post is just more 'intellectual' posturing. You're always so quick to dismiss or block people that challenge you on any level that makes you feel uncomfortable, aren't you. You know, there's actually a name for the problem you have - Dunning-Kruger.


When I ask someone specific a question, its because I want an answer specifically from them.
You can answer it too, but I dont care about your answer, nor did I solicit it.
(Nor did it answer the question, anyways.)

As to intellectual posturing, I think you should check your mirror.

Ima is iirc the first person Ive ever blocked, and even that is only temporary for this thread.
I read the post, found it pointless, just trying to dig for a reaction and decided I have no further interest in what that person says. There is a hide function on this board, and Im free to use it when I wish.

So no. Its not Dunning-Kruger, which btw you are misapplying anyways.
You arent nearly half as smart as you seem to think you are.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Lasisha Mishi
A Blessed Bean
Pandemic Horde
#255 - 2017-01-03 14:40:25 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Lasisha Mishi wrote:

favoring certain players?

not really. if i choose to work for a corp cause i know they send fleets to this system.
then it pays off


cause i worked for that corp specificially.


unbalanced favortism. bit like the rest of EVE with who has friends in each system.


No, it doesn't work like that. It's meant to be PLAYERS providing you that protection, not the NPCs. That's how you drive player interactions. And in case you haven't noticed, we're talking about low sec primarily here, and why anyone should get this kind of 'protection' there. You've already got concord in high sec.

Sorry, but again, I've explained in great detail exactly how this favours certain players over others, and if you'd read the thread, you'd have that context. But I am not repeating myself. Lrn2read.


CCP is trying to make it so npcs can emulate player actions. hence the mining fleet.

however, that should just be for highsec.


didn't know you were talking about them in lowsec.




so leave them as they are right now in highsec.
but yeah, should probably remove them from lowsec..........though part of me wants to say except faction warfare systems...but thats a debate i can't even decide on.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#256 - 2017-01-03 14:43:57 UTC
Lasisha Mishi wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Lasisha Mishi wrote:

favoring certain players?

not really. if i choose to work for a corp cause i know they send fleets to this system.
then it pays off


cause i worked for that corp specificially.


unbalanced favortism. bit like the rest of EVE with who has friends in each system.


No, it doesn't work like that. It's meant to be PLAYERS providing you that protection, not the NPCs. That's how you drive player interactions. And in case you haven't noticed, we're talking about low sec primarily here, and why anyone should get this kind of 'protection' there. You've already got concord in high sec.

Sorry, but again, I've explained in great detail exactly how this favours certain players over others, and if you'd read the thread, you'd have that context. But I am not repeating myself. Lrn2read.


CCP is trying to make it so npcs can emulate player actions. hence the mining fleet.

however, that should just be for highsec.


didn't know you were talking about them in lowsec.




so leave them as they are right now in highsec.
but yeah, should probably remove them from lowsec..........though part of me wants to say except faction warfare systems...but thats a debate i can't even decide on.


Again, you don't understand what's being asked for because you haven't read the thread. While I don't want these NPCs in the game at all, after putting much thought into it, I'm not actually asking for their removal, or even a change in their behaviour. I'm asking that the standings hit and consequences you get for killing players actually be related to the players, and not the NPCs just because they're in an NPC corp. In other words, if I kill players in DCM, even if I kill ones that attacked me in lowsec, I lose standings to DCM, eventually becoming KOS to their mining fleets. THIS IS A PROBLEM, because their response fleets now come after me because of standings related to killing players in fights, not going after their mining fleets. See, this is me repeating myself again, and I shouldn't have to, because you should READ THE DAMN THREAD.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#257 - 2017-01-03 14:48:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


I have given you my answer as well.
If you choose to reject it, that is your problem, not mine.

Furthermore the question is addressed to Torin. Not you.


Doesn't matter who it was addressed to, it was answered, and your post is just more 'intellectual' posturing. You're always so quick to dismiss or block people that challenge you on any level that makes you feel uncomfortable, aren't you. You know, there's actually a name for the problem you have - Dunning-Kruger.


When I ask someone specific a question, its because I want an answer specifically from them.
You can answer it too, but I dont care about your answer, nor did I solicit it.
(Nor did it answer the question, anyways.)

As to intellectual posturing, I think you should check your mirror.

Ima is iirc the first person Ive ever blocked, and even that is only temporary for this thread.
I read the post, found it pointless, just trying to dig for a reaction and decided I have no further interest in what that person says. There is a hide function on this board, and Im free to use it when I wish.

So no. Its not Dunning-Kruger, which btw you are misapplying anyways.
You arent nearly half as smart as you seem to think you are.


That's nice, dear. I'm done with your excuses. The fact you can't even see how incompetent you are is the very definition of Dunning-Kruger. And as long as I've been reading your posts, you are literally worse than, more autistic than, and less amusing than Anslo. You actually make me miss him a little. I'm not surprised you're still in a starter corp. No one can stomach you long enough to let you in a real one.

Yes, you asked a direct question of a person. And he answered it. Once again, your rejection of that answer is a personal problem. You seem to be having a lot of those, lately, especially that little bit of irony where you question my intellect while managing to fail at apostrophes.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Salvos Rhoska
#258 - 2017-01-03 14:49:13 UTC
It makes sense that a player would lose standing for killing capsuleers in a corp.

Just as killing capsuleers in a player corp causes antagonism.

In this way NPC corps emulate player corps.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Lasisha Mishi
A Blessed Bean
Pandemic Horde
#259 - 2017-01-03 14:49:48 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Lasisha Mishi wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Lasisha Mishi wrote:

favoring certain players?

not really. if i choose to work for a corp cause i know they send fleets to this system.
then it pays off


cause i worked for that corp specificially.


unbalanced favortism. bit like the rest of EVE with who has friends in each system.


No, it doesn't work like that. It's meant to be PLAYERS providing you that protection, not the NPCs. That's how you drive player interactions. And in case you haven't noticed, we're talking about low sec primarily here, and why anyone should get this kind of 'protection' there. You've already got concord in high sec.

Sorry, but again, I've explained in great detail exactly how this favours certain players over others, and if you'd read the thread, you'd have that context. But I am not repeating myself. Lrn2read.


CCP is trying to make it so npcs can emulate player actions. hence the mining fleet.

however, that should just be for highsec.


didn't know you were talking about them in lowsec.




so leave them as they are right now in highsec.
but yeah, should probably remove them from lowsec..........though part of me wants to say except faction warfare systems...but thats a debate i can't even decide on.


Again, you don't understand what's being asked for because you haven't read the thread. While I don't want these NPCs in the game at all, after putting much thought into it, I'm not actually asking for their removal, or even a change in their behaviour. I'm asking that the standings hit and consequences you get for killing players actually be related to the players, and not the NPCs just because they're in an NPC corp. In other words, if I kill players in DCM, even if I kill ones that attacked me in lowsec, I lose standings to DCM, eventually becoming KOS to their mining fleets. THIS IS A PROBLEM, because their response fleets now come after me because of standings related to killing players in fights, not going after their mining fleets. See, this is me repeating myself again, and I shouldn't have to, because you should READ THE DAMN THREAD.

fair enough

and maybe if the thread wasn't 13 pages of arguing.

tldr is needed in the opening post
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#260 - 2017-01-03 14:50:55 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
It makes sense that a player would lose standing for killing capsuleers in a corp.

Just as killing capsuleers in a player corp causes antagonism.

In this way NPC corps emulate player corps.



NPC corps are not meant to emulate player corps, but, if they are, if that's the argument, then we can use the same one to justify wardeccing NPC corps.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104