These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Social Corps

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#321 - 2015-05-20 01:02:57 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Also closing loopholes for wardec evasion only promotes alt proliferation and/or inactivity because for the most part fighting wars is by necessity a losing proposition for one side by way of loss or inactivity.


Is this your new excuse to try and keep this exploit? It's not a good one.

"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.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#322 - 2015-05-20 01:12:31 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Also closing loopholes for wardec evasion only promotes alt proliferation and/or inactivity because for the most part fighting wars is by necessity a losing proposition for one side by way of loss or inactivity.


Is this your new excuse to try and keep this exploit? It's not a good one.

Did you have an actual argument against it to present?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#323 - 2015-05-20 01:15:32 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Also closing loopholes for wardec evasion only promotes alt proliferation and/or inactivity because for the most part fighting wars is by necessity a losing proposition for one side by way of loss or inactivity.


Is this your new excuse to try and keep this exploit? It's not a good one.

Did you have an actual argument against it to present?


The fact that it's unintended, and used to circumvent an intended mechanic to avoid the consequences thereof? It's a textbook exploit.

"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.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#324 - 2015-05-20 01:20:02 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
The fact that it's unintended, and used to circumvent an intended mechanic to avoid the consequences thereof? It's a textbook exploit.

Should CCP decide to declare it so that would be relevant. While it was in the past it isn't now. It also doesn't counter what I stated at all. The issue of inactivity being a preferred reaction still remains and the devaluation of the act through alts is still just as real.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#325 - 2015-05-20 01:23:28 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Should CCP decide to declare it so that would be relevant.


It was already. That was altered due to a flood of tears from people who feel entitled to have the benefits of a player corp and an NPC corp at the same time.

I advocate for that to be reworked.

Quote:
The issue of inactivity being a preferred reaction still remains and the devaluation of the act through alts is still just as real.


Why should we bother catering the game around people who rather actively not play it than accept risk? I don't think it's even a stretch to say "no big loss".

"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.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#326 - 2015-05-20 01:30:22 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Should CCP decide to declare it so that would be relevant.


It was already. That was altered due to a flood of tears from people who feel entitled to have the benefits of a player corp and an NPC corp at the same time.

I advocate for that to be reworked.

Quote:
The issue of inactivity being a preferred reaction still remains and the devaluation of the act through alts is still just as real.


Why should we bother catering the game around people who rather actively not play it than accept risk? I don't think it's even a stretch to say "no big loss".


Except it won't be a loss for defenders. That's the point. Aggressors will continue throwing isk into holes chasing players who just log in with different characters if at all. That's not a healthy mechanic and leaves those with the most to lose the least affected. The game caters to that just fine so attempts to simply lock characters in wardecs will have limited meaning.

Also why selective quote to state what was already stated about past exploit declarations?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#327 - 2015-05-20 01:35:43 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Except it won't be a loss for defenders. That's the point.


Personally, since I actually like this game, I would consider not playing it to be a loss.


Quote:

Also why selective quote to state what was already stated about past exploit declarations?


Because your banal excuses trying to justify this exploit stopped being relevant long ago.

They have squelched conflict for a long time, and it turns out? Conflict is what makes people stay in the game. You might want to hurt player retention to benefit yourself, but I don't.

Conflict is the way forward. Mechanisms that serve no purpose but to handcuff conflict and player interaction will be dealt with. That will be a net loss of safety, and it will be for the better of the game as a whole. It might not be for the better of your game, but you lot have been howling that at PvP players for years(while actively harming the game yourselves), so it's time for you to taste your own medicine.

"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.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#328 - 2015-05-20 01:52:39 UTC
Stop projecting and read Kaarous. Stop assuming that everyone who points out an issue with any part of your willfully blind mindset is against every aspect of the game as a whole. Read what people actually write and address it rather than skip over it. If you don't you aren't really having a conversation.

You literally selective quote to change meanings by omitting anything you either don't want to address or want to make look like a point you made yourself. I don't know who you are trying to convince f anything like that but it's not going to work.

If you want an empty mechanic to suit your liking and won't hear any issues it has then so be it. I'll still have the luxury through various means to still not be affected. Further I'm confident it won't go away, mostly because the conversation about the full issue won't happen.

Keep in mind the ones doing this aren't the new players. They aren't the ones looking for this specific type of conflict to engage with the game. They already know what they need to do to stack things to their advantage as much as they can be bothered to and that won't change with any mechanic. Retention has nothing to do with this.
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#329 - 2015-05-20 02:54:43 UTC
Here's a fix:

1. Let the NPC corps be declared war on.

2. Let the faction NPCs fight alongside the NPC corp members. (Scale by system sec. status)

3. Give rewards for the NPC ships almost like bounties.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#330 - 2015-05-20 05:15:45 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

If you want an empty mechanic to suit your liking and won't hear any issues it has then so be it.


And you tried to claim that I'm projecting.

What you wrote above, is precisely what the wardec mechanic is right now.

"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.
Jayne Fillon
#331 - 2015-05-20 06:01:27 UTC
I'll be creating a new thread (soonTM) on this subject in order to discuss the actual societies proposal and not the echo chamber version that's being portrayed here. In the meantime, since y'all are lighting your hair on fire about not being able to wardec these new proposed groups, why don't you go wardec Spectre Fleet and then get back to me. Cheers.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.
Sointu Luonnotar
Doomheim
#332 - 2015-05-20 06:33:00 UTC
So what I've gotten from this thread is: "oh no we can't grief players that can't realistically fight back! WAAAAAGH! (as in the ork warcry)"

Nullseccers also seem way too obsessed about the goings on of high-sec.
Delegate
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#333 - 2015-05-20 08:21:34 UTC
Pierre CaDiZzle wrote:

.


You didn't answer my question.

Pierre CaDiZzle wrote:

I do this because I want to gather SP and ISK before I try to compete with the high double digit SP and Dragon Den's ISK players in PVP.

Carebear? Sure.


Let me repeat: it doesn't take much skills to huff gas in wormholes. And you will “gather” more ISK this way than mining in hi-sec. You will also learn much more game mechanics.

Pierre CaDiZzle wrote:
Delegate wrote:

Why do you insist on "hisec"? Why won't you day trip to wormholes? It doesn't take much skills to harvest gas in a low class system (including clearing rats). Isk is better than mining in hisec. Venture is cheap. Far less players around. One day you may settle with your group in your “own” wormhole.
So why insist on playing this game in the strictly worst way possible?


I dont insist on playing on any specific way. I didn't choose the HighSec Life, The HighSec Life chose me.

Just kidding.

My, probably misconception of non high sec space as a new player.

Low Sec = Death by Gate campers or cloaky things or some ****.
Null Sec = Death by alliance
Wormhole Space = Good luck getting back + death by some ****.

OR

High Sec = Safest minus occasional gankers (still havent seen it) OR War Dec Dodge that **** like that dude from the matrix.


Your misconceptions are irrelevant. Let me ask you again: why you insist on playing EVE the worst way possible? Why you refuse to consider options that the game gives you right now? You can't expect to be taken seriously if you argue your case like this.
Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#334 - 2015-05-20 10:17:08 UTC
Jayne Fillon wrote:
I'll be creating a new thread (soonTM) on this subject in order to discuss the actual societies proposal and not the echo chamber version that's being portrayed here. In the meantime, since y'all are lighting your hair on fire about not being able to wardec these new proposed groups, why don't you go wardec Spectre Fleet and then get back to me. Cheers.
Quoting, so you cant edit afterwards. Smile

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.
Pierre CaDiZzle
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#335 - 2015-05-20 10:20:43 UTC
Delegate wrote:
Pierre CaDiZzle wrote:

.


You didn't answer my question.

Pierre CaDiZzle wrote:

I do this because I want to gather SP and ISK before I try to compete with the high double digit SP and Dragon Den's ISK players in PVP.

Carebear? Sure.


Let me repeat: it doesn't take much skills to huff gas in wormholes. And you will “gather” more ISK this way than mining in hi-sec. You will also learn much more game mechanics.

Pierre CaDiZzle wrote:
Delegate wrote:

Why do you insist on "hisec"? Why won't you day trip to wormholes? It doesn't take much skills to harvest gas in a low class system (including clearing rats). Isk is better than mining in hisec. Venture is cheap. Far less players around. One day you may settle with your group in your “own” wormhole.
So why insist on playing this game in the strictly worst way possible?


I dont insist on playing on any specific way. I didn't choose the HighSec Life, The HighSec Life chose me.

Just kidding.

My, probably misconception of non high sec space as a new player.

Low Sec = Death by Gate campers or cloaky things or some ****.
Null Sec = Death by alliance
Wormhole Space = Good luck getting back + death by some ****.

OR

High Sec = Safest minus occasional gankers (still havent seen it) OR War Dec Dodge that **** like that dude from the matrix.


Your misconceptions are irrelevant. Let me ask you again: why you insist on playing EVE the worst way possible? Why you refuse to consider options that the game gives you right now? You can't expect to be taken seriously if you argue your case like this.


Oh boy, I was trying to lighten up the posting a bit. I guess since you can't take my seriously I'll break it down for you...

My misconceptions are absolutely relevant when you ask why I play in High Sec. They are the reason I play in high sec. Open your eyes.

And what do you mean by "Worst way possible."? You can't possibly know my situation and what I find enjoyable.
Now if you would have said " Why do you play in the most inefficient way possible?" I might have had more respect for you.

I mean your post is like me kicking in your door at home, making you take off your fedora, shave your neck beard, make you eat something other than Doritos and Mountain Dew. All the while screaming at you saying "Why do you insist on living life in the worst way possible?"

I don't do that because that's a **** move. And also who am I to judge you for spending your time in a way that you enjoy?

Besides what does mining gas in a wormhole have to do with social clubs?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#336 - 2015-05-20 10:57:25 UTC
Sointu Luonnotar wrote:
So what I've gotten from this thread is: "oh no we can't grief players that can't realistically fight back! WAAAAAGH! (as in the ork warcry)"

Nullseccers also seem way too obsessed about the goings on of high-sec.


Risk vs. Reward doesn't just apply to one area of space. Nor does it stop applying to one particular area of space, either.

"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.
Jayne Fillon
#337 - 2015-05-20 13:55:14 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
Jayne Fillon wrote:
I'll be creating a new thread (soonTM) on this subject in order to discuss the actual societies proposal and not the echo chamber version that's being portrayed here. In the meantime, since y'all are lighting your hair on fire about not being able to wardec these new proposed groups, why don't you go wardec Spectre Fleet and then get back to me. Cheers.
Quoting, so you can't edit afterwards. Smile
Am I supposed to interpret this as you accepting my challenge....? If so, I'm waiting~

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.
Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#338 - 2015-05-20 14:42:50 UTC
Jayne Fillon wrote:
Tora Bushido wrote:
Jayne Fillon wrote:
I'll be creating a new thread (soonTM) on this subject in order to discuss the actual societies proposal and not the echo chamber version that's being portrayed here. In the meantime, since y'all are lighting your hair on fire about not being able to wardec these new proposed groups, why don't you go wardec Spectre Fleet and then get back to me. Cheers.
Quoting, so you can't edit afterwards. Smile
Am I supposed to interpret this as you accepting my challenge....? If so, I'm waiting~
Could you tell me how to war dec Spectre Fleet ?

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.
Jayne Fillon
#339 - 2015-05-20 14:55:55 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
Jayne Fillon wrote:
Tora Bushido wrote:
Jayne Fillon wrote:
I'll be creating a new thread (soonTM) on this subject in order to discuss the actual societies proposal and not the echo chamber version that's being portrayed here. In the meantime, since y'all are lighting your hair on fire about not being able to wardec these new proposed groups, why don't you go wardec Spectre Fleet and then get back to me. Cheers.
Quoting, so you can't edit afterwards. Smile
Am I supposed to interpret this as you accepting my challenge....? If so, I'm waiting~
Could you tell me how to war dec Spectre Fleet ?
It would be foolish for me to assume I could ever instruct the self-professed master of evil on how to do his job properly.

However, I do have a sneaking suspicion that it has nothing to do with shitposting on the forums. Best of luck.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#340 - 2015-05-20 15:19:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

No aspect of the game could be altered by the introduction of social corps so long as their abilities are restrained to that of NPC corp membership. Also closing loopholes for wardec evasion only promotes alt proliferation and/or inactivity because for the most part fighting wars is by necessity a losing proposition for one side by way of loss or inactivity.

Lets again cut the crap...

If social corps were accessible to NPC corp members, said NPC corp members would be much more inclined to never leave NPC corps and get in the 'interact with real people' part of the game. Classic have your cake and eat it too conflict avoidance perpetuated. This is the opposite of what we want, more people getting out of NPC corps and into player corps and into the game. NPC corp membership is an existing war dodging mechanic and exploit IMHO, and if anything people should be auto-kicked from them (never to return) after 60-90 days...

Also your assertions re: war mechanics are patently false. There are long lists of well documented ways to survive and prosper during wartime, the issue is one of knowledge, not mechanics.

News flash: If players want a way to interact socially in EvE there is this amazing existing mechanic called 'Corporations', which they can join to come together and work on common goals. Why not use that existing mechanic? Oh yeah, you want your cake and eat it too without the risk of conflict or wardec.

And thats the f$%cking bottom line with the whole 'social corp' movement.

The problem with each new generation of EvE players, is they come over from WoW wanting to be handed 100% safety on a fricken platter, and we have to keep re-educating them that THIS IS EVE.

What is worse, is that CCP (and pansied CSM's entrusted with protecting the sandbox) hear the siren call of MOAR WOW SUBS!, and get lured towards the rocks with continued nerfs over time.

NO to social corps or corp lite, until existing wardec loopholes are closed FIRST.

F

Would you like to know more?