These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

@CCP : Do not cave in to Goons on Inferno 1.1

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#421 - 2012-06-18 21:04:19 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
Well leaving aside the deceiful argumentation - forgetting "in this thread" - the reality is that Karrde is not on your side of the argument - he's on his own if anything. He opposed the 1.1 changes as he makes clear on the Crossing Zebra's podcast I linked you earlier where he expresses his great dissatisfaction with the team BFF developers on the issue.

You really are not very good at this.


my argument is "goonswarm doesn't give a flying **** about wardecs"

his argument is "the number of allies should be hard-capped"

obviously two completely separate and unrelated arguments, but neither of which you're in a position to agree with



My argument is that he doesn't support the 1.1 change and nor does anyone else much outside the CFC.


And no one in the CFC gives a damn about the 1.1 changes, so go look some where else.
Kyle Myr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#422 - 2012-06-18 21:04:31 UTC
Jade, your stated position is 'Keep infinite free allies'. Then, when this was explained as really, really bad, you changed it to 'keep infinite free allies up until the number of characters on the defender side of the war equals the number in the attacker's side', entirely ignoring the concept of corp-hopping.

I've yet to see anyone from the CSM defend either of those positions. Them saying the 1.1 changes aren't a great final fix to the whole mercenary/allies system is very different from them agreeing with you. This isn't a binary debate. Our position, for its part, is 'we don't care, but you, Jade Constantine, are a bad poster and entirely too much fun to rile up.' Given that we're on EVE-O thread 3, and 1 EVE NEWS 24 article later, it's been a good week for you typing words.

I mean, this is the EVE-O general forums. Top secret plans will doubtless be discussed in other channels so it won't be neccessary to infiltrate simply for the purpose of listening.
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#423 - 2012-06-18 21:05:25 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
My argument is that he doesn't support the 1.1 change and nor does anyone else much outside the CFC.


so why does the CFC, a nullsec bloc, support changes to wardecs?

if we were that worried we'd never have wardecced anybody

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Holander Switzerland
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#424 - 2012-06-18 21:06:40 UTC
Kyle Myr wrote:
. Top secret plans will doubtless be discussed in other channels so it won't be neccessary to infiltrate simply for the purpose of listening.



I LIED YOU INFILTRATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING SOME HOT SNATCH SAUSAGE OR THE DEBONED FISH WITH TAR-TAR SAUCE ALFREDO IF YOU CATCH MY DRIFT.




























































to spacefuck
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#425 - 2012-06-18 21:07:57 UTC
Krios Ahzek wrote:
I'm this close to starting a ''Bring back the old ally system'' thread so that all of highsec can be locked into a foreverwar with us.

Can we do that? I think a lot of people would like the changes to not occur.

Even Jade would agree with such an idea, surely we're on the right path :shobon:

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
dontbanmebro
Doomheim
#426 - 2012-06-18 21:09:18 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
nor does anyone else much


citation needed

Jade Constantine wrote:
outside the CFC


citation needed
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#427 - 2012-06-18 21:09:41 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
jade come now lying this blatantly is unseemly

My my, isn't that a pretty rude thing to do?

Lying on the EVEO forums...

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#428 - 2012-06-18 21:10:43 UTC
dontbanmebro wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
nor does anyone else much

citation needed
Jade Constantine wrote:
outside the CFC

citation needed

Man, the new requirement to have proof for statements made on the Forums is quite a burden on badposters.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Enaris Kerle
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#429 - 2012-06-18 21:11:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Enaris Kerle
Richard Desturned wrote:
so why does the CFC, a nullsec bloc, support changes to wardecs?

if we were that worried we'd never have wardecced anybody

no you see we've wardecced jade but now he's got his 40 valiant three member corp allies we're in over our head and weaselior is scared because of OH LOOK THERE A THREE HEADED MONKEY

Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm.
Krios Ahzek
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#430 - 2012-06-18 21:12:59 UTC
Jade Constantine makes less sense than The Secret

 Though All Men Do Despise Us
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#431 - 2012-06-18 21:13:36 UTC
I think this quote from Macbeth best describes jade's logic:

It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#432 - 2012-06-18 21:14:14 UTC
Enaris Kerle wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
so why does the CFC, a nullsec bloc, support changes to wardecs?

if we were that worried we'd never have wardecced anybody

no you see we've wardecced jade but now he's got his 40 valiant three member corp allies we're in over our head and weaselior is scared because of OH LOOK THERE A THREE HEADED MONKEY

Jita undock, one of the most dangerous areas in EVE Online.

Unless you're in a corp that is neutral to everyone ... kind of like an NPC corp I guess.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#433 - 2012-06-18 21:20:17 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
Well leaving aside the deceiful argumentation - forgetting "in this thread" - the reality is that Karrde is not on your side of the argument - he's on his own if anything. He opposed the 1.1 changes as he makes clear on the Crossing Zebra's podcast I linked you earlier where he expresses his great dissatisfaction with the team BFF developers on the issue.

You really are not very good at this.


my argument is "goonswarm doesn't give a flying **** about wardecs"

his argument is "the number of allies should be hard-capped"

obviously two completely separate and unrelated arguments, but neither of which you're in a position to agree with



My argument is that he doesn't support the 1.1 change and nor does anyone else much outside the CFC.

So he doesn't support the SPECIFIC change that is 1.1 and so, therefore, must be supporting leaving 1.0 unchanged, DESPITE him saying he warned CCP that 1.0 was utterly terrible and broken dogpiling would happen?

What are you smoking?

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#434 - 2012-06-18 21:21:59 UTC
Jade tell me you don't actually believe this **** and are just hoping if you push an agenda far enough, even on complete nonsense terms, your "goal" is somehow being met?

You realise this is basically just ANOTHER threadnaught where everyone points and laughs at you and no one agrees?

Also, not in the CFC and disagree. Do I need a signed triplicated form to be counted?

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#435 - 2012-06-18 21:21:59 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
So he doesn't support the SPECIFIC change that is 1.1 and so, therefore, must be supporting leaving 1.0 unchanged, DESPITE him saying he warned CCP that 1.0 was utterly terrible and broken dogpiling would happen?

What are you smoking?

Hopefully not "bath salts".

Let's just say "boosters illegal in most of Empire space".

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Kyle Myr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#436 - 2012-06-18 21:22:05 UTC
I had a post about who actually cares about 1.1 changes, but it was wordy, so I deleted it. Here's the tl;dr:

A small corp declaring war on anyone at all in 1.0 gets the same response a large corp gets declaring war on anyone in 1.0: Open to allies and let everyone who wants in, get in for free. Therefore, anyone who actually makes their money in high sec suffers disproportionately from declaring war in the Inferno 1.0 system, as does anyone who wants to make money as an ally.

In inferno 1.1, this can be still true (there are still free allies, and with the right couple of picks, the defender can cause hassle for the attacker for the low price of 30m for 3 allies), but it is not the default response to just call all free allies. Picking and choosing based on who is fighting who becomes necessary.

If you want a diplomatic envoy's transport to be blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances, you need to choose your allies carefully.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#437 - 2012-06-18 21:23:10 UTC
Also, not reading 440 posts.

Has Jade yet answered why anyone in the CFC would want highsec wardecs changed or is he still on a circular argument?

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#438 - 2012-06-18 21:23:24 UTC
Kyle Myr wrote:
Jade, your stated position is 'Keep infinite free allies'. Then, when this was explained as really, really bad, you changed it to 'keep infinite free allies up until the number of characters on the defender side of the war equals the number in the attacker's side', entirely ignoring the concept of corp-hopping.

I've yet to see anyone from the CSM defend either of those positions. Them saying the 1.1 changes aren't a great final fix to the whole mercenary/allies system is very different from them agreeing with you. This isn't a binary debate. Our position, for its part, is 'we don't care, but you, Jade Constantine, are a bad poster and entirely too much fun to rile up.' Given that we're on EVE-O thread 3, and 1 EVE NEWS 24 article later, it's been a good week for you typing words.

I mean, this is the EVE-O general forums. Top secret plans will doubtless be discussed in other channels so it won't be neccessary to infiltrate simply for the purpose of listening.


I'm a CSM and I've basically supported what Jade has suggested several times in fact. I believe allies should be free up to a point based on the size of the opponent. The fees for extras in a manner that the fees are passed to the mercs you could hire. So pretty much the same as Jade suggests.

Again, amazed at the goon ratio of posters in this thread.

Issler
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#439 - 2012-06-18 21:25:09 UTC
Kyle Myr wrote:
I had a post about who actually cares about 1.1 changes, but it was wordy, so I deleted it. Here's the tl;dr:

A small corp declaring war on anyone at all in 1.0 gets the same response a large corp gets declaring war on anyone in 1.0: Open to allies and let everyone who wants in, get in for free. Therefore, anyone who actually makes their money in high sec suffers disproportionately from declaring war in the Inferno 1.0 system, as does anyone who wants to make money as an ally.

In inferno 1.1, this can be still true (there are still free allies, and with the right couple of picks, the defender can cause hassle for the attacker for the low price of 30m for 3 allies), but it is not the default response to just call all free allies. Picking and choosing based on who is fighting who becomes necessary.

If you want a diplomatic envoy's transport to be blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances, you need to choose your allies carefully.

Who cares about the corps that actually live in highsec and will never use the now broken wardec system, it's all about the goons who live in nullsec.

And who ganks diplomatic envoy transports anyway? You won't get insurance anymore.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Kyle Myr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#440 - 2012-06-18 21:25:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Kyle Myr
Issler Dainze wrote:
Kyle Myr wrote:
Jade, your stated position is 'Keep infinite free allies'. Then, when this was explained as really, really bad, you changed it to 'keep infinite free allies up until the number of characters on the defender side of the war equals the number in the attacker's side', entirely ignoring the concept of corp-hopping.

I've yet to see anyone from the CSM defend either of those positions. Them saying the 1.1 changes aren't a great final fix to the whole mercenary/allies system is very different from them agreeing with you. This isn't a binary debate. Our position, for its part, is 'we don't care, but you, Jade Constantine, are a bad poster and entirely too much fun to rile up.' Given that we're on EVE-O thread 3, and 1 EVE NEWS 24 article later, it's been a good week for you typing words.

I mean, this is the EVE-O general forums. Top secret plans will doubtless be discussed in other channels so it won't be neccessary to infiltrate simply for the purpose of listening.


I'm a CSM and I've basically supported what Jade has suggested several times in fact. I believe allies should be free up to a point based on the size of the opponent. The fees for extras in a manner that the fees are passed to the mercs you could hire. So pretty much the same as Jade suggests.

Again, amazed at the goon ratio of posters in this thread.

Issler


You're the only one, as far as I can tell. Mea culpa for forgetting you were on the CSM. Forgive me if I think it's because we also declared war on you. And you have it opened and have 38 allies.

I mean, you've also stated you'll spend the 3.5 *10^18 ISK to keep those allies in 1.1. Stating it doesn't make that plausible.