These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Nerfs, and the coming of the second shard

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#501 - 2015-02-15 05:48:43 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Genseric Tollaris wrote:

Asking CCP to nerf ganking is doing something about it myself.


No, it's asking for the game system to do it for you, so you don't have to.

In other words, it's the single greatest act of pure cowardice and laziness possible in this context.



Why are you so risk averse that you hang in hi-sec?

You seem to talk all billy bad ass but are afraid to go into low and null to pvp.
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#502 - 2015-02-15 05:50:55 UTC
Cancel Align NOW wrote:
Syn Shi wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
As mentioned repeatedly, analogising fiction with fact is not an argument, so it's rather ironic when you call anyone's argument weak. There are no wardec mechanics between corporations in real life, and while you call others' arguments weak, you don't even have one with this. It's not even a weak argument, it's a complete non-argument.

That would be pretty hilarious, wardec mechanics in real life



Its called Nato.
The US uses it quite allot.


The US are not a corporation. Sony, Nissan, GM, Coca-Cola, P&G can not use Nato to declare war on each other.



US is run by the corporations...stop being one of the sheep.
Lupe Meza
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#503 - 2015-02-15 05:57:23 UTC
Cancel Align NOW wrote:
Syn Shi wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
As mentioned repeatedly, analogising fiction with fact is not an argument, so it's rather ironic when you call anyone's argument weak. There are no wardec mechanics between corporations in real life, and while you call others' arguments weak, you don't even have one with this. It's not even a weak argument, it's a complete non-argument.

That would be pretty hilarious, wardec mechanics in real life



Its called Nato.
The US uses it quite allot.


The US are not a corporation. Sony, Nissan, GM, Coca-Cola, P&G can not use Nato to declare war on each other.


They would if Nato was the law of the land as Concord is in EVE. While US is not a corp the other examples are. They remain corporations with the added ability to declare war on each other and eliminate the competition directly. They couldn't however go after individuals after they left the corp, just like in EVE; just like in life because wardecs are things you do to corporations not people. You don't sue the CEO of McDonalds for burning yourself with your coffee, you sue McDonalds. You don't wardec Carebear McBeariby you dec his corporatuin.

Arguing about the action is silly, the issue is what a corp is, what a player or individual is, and why if a corp mirrors what we know to be a corp in our world like a super nova in New Eden can safely be assumed to be equivalent to a Super Nova in Andromeda; why should actions against corporations be transferable to the players after the corp is dissolved? This isn't how it works in the real world or eve. That is fact. Why would it or should it change to suit players exercising poor judgement in levering wars against disposable corps with no interests or assets to defend. Sue a company and they go disband or go bankrupt, you don't paid, workers lose their pensions and most definitely can't crash at the CEO's crib. Dec a corp in EVE and they fold you don't get kills.

Again, EVE treats corporations and the members identically to how laws in the actual world treat them as far as holding them to be separate things legally. This is just again..well true. Empirically so. You don't even have to examine real world corporate law because EVE's concord separates the corp and the person the same way in how it handles the concept. Again,empirically true. If it were not true, how do people use corporations to hide assets and most importantly player characters in to separate them from being exposed to the risks of being affiliated with characters in other corporations?

Dec a corp, try to carry on action against a player no longer part of the corp either by them leaving or the corp dissolving. You can't since the corp and it's assets are the entity affected not the player. Similarly you can't go after members of a corporations assets and personally in the real world either as result of settling a legal dispute. "Law of the Land" and Law of eve treat the Corporate construct identically in regards to the separation of person and corp.

The actual action is irrelevant. No you can't wardec a corp in the real world, whatever it would look like in the real world, it wouldn't extend to an individual no longer affiliated with the corporation. I'll make up an action. Pollyfuxt. You can only Pollyfuxt a corp on alternate Tuesdays. You can only Pollyfuxt a corp. If CCP implements a form of Pollyfuxt in EVE, which would be awesome, you can Pollyfuxt as many corps as you like at downtime. But since pollyfuxting is something that you do to corporations, if a player leaves a corporations, breaking all ties and access to the assets and resources it has (if any) he is no longer subject to Pollfuxting as he is a player, not a corp.

I really can't explain this any clearer. If people don't understand or intentionally want to misunderstand I have no control over that. But you all really have no argument.
Lupe Meza
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#504 - 2015-02-15 05:58:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Lupe Meza
Lupe Meza wrote:
Cancel Align NOW wrote:
Syn Shi wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
As mentioned repeatedly, analogising fiction with fact is not an argument, so it's rather ironic when you call anyone's argument weak. There are no wardec mechanics between corporations in real life, and while you call others' arguments weak, you don't even have one with this. It's not even a weak argument, it's a complete non-argument.

That would be pretty hilarious, wardec mechanics in real life



Its called Nato.
The US uses it quite allot.


The US are not a corporation. Sony, Nissan, GM, Coca-Cola, P&G can not use Nato to declare war on each other.


They would if Nato was the law of the land as Concord is in EVE. While US is not a corp the other examples are. They remain corporations with the added ability to declare war on each other and eliminate the competition directly. They couldn't however go after individuals after they left the corp, just like in EVE; just like in life because wardecs are things you do to corporations not people. You don't sue the CEO of McDonalds for burning yourself with your coffee, you sue McDonalds.

You don't wardec Carebear McBeariby you wardec his corporation.

Arguing about the action is silly, the issue is what a corp is, what a player or individual is, and why if a corp mirrors what we know to be a corp in our world like a super nova in New Eden can safely be assumed to be equivalent to a Super Nova in Andromeda; why should actions against corporations be transferable to the players after the corp is dissolved? This isn't how it works in the real world or eve. That is fact. Why would it or should it change to suit players exercising poor judgement in levering wars against disposable corps with no interests or assets to defend. Sue a company and they go disband or go bankrupt, you don't paid, workers lose their pensions and most definitely can't crash at the CEO's private crib. Dec a corp in EVE and they fold you don't get kills. You don't get to pursue members that leave personally.

Again, EVE treats corporations and the members identically to how laws in the actual world treat them as far as holding them to be separate things legally. This is just again..well true. Empirically so. You don't even have to examine real world corporate law because EVE's concord separates the corp and the person the same way in how it handles the concept. Again,empirically true. If it were not true, how do people use corporations to hide assets and most importantly player characters in to separate them from being exposed to the risks of being affiliated with characters in other corporations?

Dec a corp, try to carry on action against a player no longer part of the corp either by them leaving or the corp dissolving. You can't since the corp and it's assets are the entity affected not the player. Similarly you can't go after members of a corporations assets and personally in the real world either as result of settling a legal dispute. "Law of the Land" and Law of eve treat the Corporate construct identically in regards to the separation of person and corp.

The actual action is irrelevant. No you can't wardec a corp in the real world, whatever it would look like in the real world, it wouldn't extend to an individual no longer affiliated with the corporation. I'll make up an action. Pollyfuxt. You can only Pollyfuxt a corp on alternate Tuesdays. You can only Pollyfuxt a corporation. If CCP implements a form of Pollyfuxt in EVE, which would be awesome, you can Pollyfuxt as many corps as you like at downtime. But since pollyfuxting is something that you do to corporations, if a player leaves a corporations, breaking all ties and access to the assets and resources it has (if any) he is no longer subject to Pollfuxting as he is a player, not a corp.

I really can't explain this any clearer. If people don't understand or intentionally want to misunderstand I have no control over that. But you all really have no argument.
Colette Kassia
Kassia Industrial Supply
#505 - 2015-02-15 06:32:16 UTC
All they should have done was not have unlawful, green kills generate killmails (outside of nulsec).

If they fixed that then they could roll-back all of that other stuff.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#506 - 2015-02-15 06:39:51 UTC
At most you would put bounties on people....

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 ?
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#507 - 2015-02-15 06:42:35 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I was talking about playstyles in highsec, since that's the theme of the whole thread and all. Mining, mission running, trading, hauling, what's left of salvaging and exploring, those all have no mechanical consequences that are inflicted just for doing them.

Ganking does. (gate camping in highsec is ganking, by the way)


Missioning has mechanical consequences. Tanking your opposing faction standings locks you out of parts of Empire and gets you shot at. Of course these mechanics can be dealt with (avoiding faction kill missions and running some standings repair from time to time), but that comes with cost (real or opportunity). It's no more or less than telling gankers to deal with sec status by purchasing tags for sec. So your claim that there are no mechanics consequences for highsec activities is factually incorrect.

Further, hauling or mining for missioning comes with the same mechanics issue as above. Hauling otherwise is inherently a PvP activity because ALL hauling contracts are made by players, ergo all hauling is dealing with the various scams/schemes from other people already. So of course there is no mechanics penalty there. Same argument goes for trading; it's already a PvP activity with all the risk that implies. Complaining that there are no mechanic penalties for trading in highsec would be like complaining that there are no mechanic penalties for shooting people in null.

That just leaves mining and exploration as the two PvE/solo activities that come with no mechanics penalties in highsec and no risk at all outside of ganking. Which is true and a valid concern. But everyone already agrees that mining is **** anyway, and most of the newer exploration content (even highsec) comes with real risk once again, just not in the form of rats which was an obviously bad way to introduce risk to a specialist activity requiring specialist, non-combat ships. The newer explodey bits putting your ship at real risk on failure is very good stuff, though, and I hope CCP revisits all highsec exploration sites to add this element.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#508 - 2015-02-15 06:43:52 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:

Why are you so risk averse that you hang in hi-sec?


I live there, why shouldn't I PvP there? EVE Online is a PvP game, and PvP belongs everywhere.

Quote:

You seem to talk all billy bad ass but are afraid to go into low and null to pvp.


Yeah, that explains how my first few years in the game were as a nullsec line member.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#509 - 2015-02-15 06:47:50 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:

Missioning has mechanical consequences.


Not since they decoupled standings from just about everything. Clones will be next I suspect.


Quote:
Tanking your opposing faction standings locks you out of parts of Empire and gets you shot at.


If only faction missions weren't 100% optional. Oh hey, I have a good idea! We should give gankers a way to avoid any and all sec status penalties once every few hours.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#510 - 2015-02-15 07:13:02 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Genseric Tollaris wrote:

Asking CCP to nerf ganking is doing something about it myself.


No, it's asking for the game system to do it for you, so you don't have to.

In other words, it's the single greatest act of pure cowardice and laziness possible in this context.



Why are you so risk averse that you hang in hi-sec?

You seem to talk all billy bad ass but are afraid to go into low and null to pvp.


You think risk averse players don't hang out in low and null, and that high sec PVP can't be challenging and unforgiving?

You clearly don't play the game like, at all.

“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
#511 - 2015-02-15 07:14:49 UTC
Lupe Meza wrote:


Still blurring the lines between fantasy and reality.



Still pretending video game stuff is analogous to its real life counterpart I see. If you're right, we'd better go and ask all those plumbers out there why they can't shoot fireballs.

“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
Valkin Mordirc
#512 - 2015-02-15 07:16:18 UTC
Quote:


You seem to talk all billy bad ass but are afraid to go into low and null to pvp.



Quote:
Yeah, that explains how my first few years in the game were as a nullsec line member.


A simple check in fact shows that, and I know, Hold your breat,h he actually was in lowsec O.o
#DeleteTheWeak
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#513 - 2015-02-15 07:25:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Valkin Mordirc wrote:
Quote:


You seem to talk all billy bad ass but are afraid to go into low and null to pvp.



Quote:
Yeah, that explains how my first few years in the game were as a nullsec line member.


A simple check in fact shows that, and I know, Hold your breat,h he actually was in lowsec O.o


Furthermore, this guy started as an alt, when I got back into the game a little while back. This isn't my first character, or even my third.

I've lived just about everywhere in EVE, with the exception of Provi.

Oh, and one more thing. This guy is fully trained as a Guardian pilot. It's pretty hard to get on killmails as logi, after all. The majority of his combat experience is unrecorded, since logi is such a thankless task.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Midgard Academy
#514 - 2015-02-15 08:15:41 UTC
Im too lazy to read the first 25 pages. Is he complaining that high sec piracy is much harder than it used to be?

Why Can't I have a picture signature.

Also please support graphical immersion, bring back the art that brought people to EvE online originaly.
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#515 - 2015-02-15 11:27:56 UTC
Quote:
2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.

I have removed some posts that were off-topic and in violation of the aforementioned rules. Please contribute constructively to discussions.

ISD Decoy

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#516 - 2015-02-15 11:40:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Edited due to ISD forum cleaning.

“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
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#517 - 2015-02-15 14:13:00 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:

Some would say the goal should be to get people out of NPC corps entirely and into the game with others, not create another bastardized non-remedy construct who's real intent is to give carebears their cake, and to eat it too.

I’m no fan of NPC corps, but they exist and people have been using them for years. Like you say some would say the goal should be to get people out of them, but then again, some say allow us to create a corp that can’t be war deced. you keep talking about players having a choice but only what that choice on one side.

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:

The meat of it is that many feel existing NPC corp taxes are too low and a pre-existing condition, and if you don't boot players after 30 days from NPC corps, you should at least increase NPC corp taxes to 50%+ to adequately reflect a premium for being 100% safe from wardecs.

Many feel ? can you please show me your data. More like you feel.
100% safe from a war dec? they are in an NPC corp you can’t war dec them. But that doesn’t mean you can’t kill them.

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:

What is chilling (and to your question) is I have NO faith CCP will put a 50%+ NPC tax on these new 'social corporations', and it will either be low, or set ZERO by a CEO, so the carebears now not only get their 100% war immunity, but also a formal player corporation construct.

Dude that’s your issue that you have no trust or faith in CCP. People in NPC corps (not going to call them carebears because not everyone in NPC corps are carebears) already have 100% immunity to war decs. Having a channel to talk in isn’t realling a player corp now is it.


Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:

Ideas like that are never offered for 'some reason', its always more nerfs to non-consensual aggression. No moves are made to fix the existing wardec-dodging exploits, or evaluate future changes through the lens of all the preceding nerfs that went before.
Its that lens of doing what is TRULY right for EvE that can only be applied by player CSM's in CONTRAST to CCP going for a 'moar subs' quick fix, and for that reason why we need more Tora Bushido and Sabriz's on the CSM, and fewer Mike Asariah's, Sugar Kyle's, and Ripard Tegs.

You’re ranting now.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:


The choice is yours, the players. The intent of this post, was to give you the info you need to make those choices.

Choose wisely, not short-term self interestedly, we already have enough of those implementing these nerfs doing that already.

F


You’re under some illusion that you represent the players, get off your orange box until you’re voted in.
All I’m seeing is as bad as the so called carebears you seem to really hate.

QQ is all I’m seeing. How about you take the same advice you’re trying to make others take and HTFU and deal with it.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#518 - 2015-02-15 20:32:10 UTC
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:


QQ is all I’m seeing. How about you take the same advice you’re trying to make others take and HTFU and deal with it.



Problem is that the nerfs have been very one sided for a decade with a good many simply being unnecessary.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#519 - 2015-02-15 20:45:18 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


If only faction missions weren't 100% optional. Oh hey, I have a good idea! We should give gankers a way to avoid any and all sec status penalties once every few hours.


If only X weren't 100% optional, for any X in the set of activities available in EVE. Including ganking.

As I said clearly it's a relatively trivial issue incurring only opportunity cost to mission runners. But buying sec tags is a trivial thing incurring nothing but cost as well for gankers.

You don't help your case much when being too obstinate to even admit a blatant mistake and overgeneralized statement on a trivial point that was easily disproven. Yelling louder is not an effective debate technique.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#520 - 2015-02-15 21:12:13 UTC
Judging by the fact that people keep relentlessly ganking with minimal consequences...I'd say more nerfs are needed. Until the gankers are doing cost/benefit analysis and targeting loot filled ships instead of empty ones, the system is broken.