These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#441 - 2012-06-18 21:25:26 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.


I've pointed out to Jade multiple times that, ironically, the ONLY groups who can weather a dogpile and still operate in highsec (if they chose to do so) would be large alliances, but it's completely lost on him.

"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,

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#442 - 2012-06-18 21:25:31 UTC
Shockingly, a posting alliance thrives on posting in bad threads started by a bad poster and propped up by even worse posters.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#443 - 2012-06-18 21:26:20 UTC
Kyle Myr wrote:
[And you're the only one. 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.

If they'll pay to give us more targets, that would be great.

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.
#444 - 2012-06-18 21:27:15 UTC
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

I'm *not* amazed that the only 2 people directly supporting the "Jade plan" just happen~ to have been wardecced by the same entity that neither can help but go into paranoid shitposting about.

WE ARE LITTLERALLY[sic] BEING ATTACKED BY THE CSM!!!!!!!

"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,

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#445 - 2012-06-18 21:28:59 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
I'm *not* amazed that the only 2 people directly supporting the "Jade plan" just happen~ to have been wardecced by the same entity that neither can help but go into paranoid shitposting about.

WE ARE LITTLERALLY[sic] BEING ATTACKED BY THE CSM!!!!!!!

But see, even if that was literally quoted, word for word, from Issler's mail, it was misquoted and misinterpreted because it would just be silly to say the entire CSM and CCP and CFC and other TLAs starting with C were just ganging up on poor wittle Issler.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#446 - 2012-06-18 21:29:06 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
I'm *not* amazed that the only 2 people directly supporting the "Jade plan" just happen~ to have been wardecced by the same entity that neither can help but go into paranoid shitposting about.

WE ARE LITTLERALLY[sic] BEING ATTACKED BY THE CSM!!!!!!!

Tsk tsk. Just because Pandemic Legion was nearby and felt an itch to shoot some structures.

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 ?
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#447 - 2012-06-18 21:29:07 UTC
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 should go back to making the "we are being attacked by the CSM" posts those were more funny.

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
#448 - 2012-06-18 21:29:39 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
I'm *not* amazed that the only 2 people directly supporting the "Jade plan" just happen~ to have been wardecced by the same entity that neither can help but go into paranoid shitposting about.

WE ARE LITTLERALLY[sic] BEING ATTACKED BY THE CSM!!!!!!!

But see, even if that was literally quoted, word for word, from Issler's mail, it was misquoted and misinterpreted because it would just be silly to say the entire CSM and CCP and CFC and other TLAs starting with C were just ganging up on poor wittle Issler.

That's Issler for you. Someone copy the whole mail, by the way? We need that important [citation].

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 ?
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#449 - 2012-06-18 21:30:21 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:

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

I take it you're not willing to defend Two Step from Jade's accusations then, and will happily trash a well-respected CSM member because it's in line with changes you want pushed through for your own personal benefit?

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#450 - 2012-06-18 21:30:26 UTC
Quote:
Again, amazed at the goon ratio of posters in this thread.

I stopped ratting, this thread delivers so much more than just mere isk/hour can compensate me for.

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 ?
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#451 - 2012-06-18 21:31:37 UTC
Kyle Myr wrote:
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.


You made up the number, I said I'd pay for the most effective allies, likely the top four. But nice try.

So if you don't care about war decs why care that I have 38 allies? And thanks for letting me know the number, I lost track a while back! P

Issler
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#452 - 2012-06-18 21:31:53 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Issler Dainze wrote:
Issler

I take it you're not willing to defend Two Step from Jade's accusations then, and will happily trash a well-respected CSM member because it's in line with changes you want pushed through for your own personal benefit?

No way, this has never happened be---

oh, ok, tossing people under online forums buses occurs all the time.

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 ?
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#453 - 2012-06-18 21:33:29 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:
Kyle Myr wrote:
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.


You made up the number, I said I'd pay for the most effective allies, likely the top four. But nice try.

So if you don't care about war decs why care that I have 38 allies? And thanks for letting me know the number, I lost track a while back! P

Issler


I don't care that you have 38 allies, I think its funny that you and jade tinpost so many stupid things over it.

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
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#454 - 2012-06-18 21:34:55 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Issler Dainze wrote:
Kyle Myr wrote:
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.


You made up the number, I said I'd pay for the most effective allies, likely the top four. But nice try.

So if you don't care about war decs why care that I have 38 allies? And thanks for letting me know the number, I lost track a while back! P

Issler


I don't care that you have 38 allies, I think its funny that you and jade tinpost so many stupid things over it.


I've also said repeatedly while I don't like the change, I don't believe it was some sort of conspiracy. No tinfoil here, move along.

Issler
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#455 - 2012-06-18 21:34:57 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
I don't care that you have 38 allies, I think its funny that you and jade tinpost so many stupid things over it.

Boat can practice his station camping in highsec, far far away from the rest of nullsec.

I like the idea.

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 ?
Marconus Orion
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#456 - 2012-06-18 21:36:45 UTC
/brings out fresh bowl of popcorn

Anyone? I kept the butter and salt separate so each of you can make it how you like.
Kyle Myr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#457 - 2012-06-18 21:37:10 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
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

I'm *not* amazed that the only 2 people directly supporting the "Jade plan" just happen~ to have been wardecced by the same entity that neither can help but go into paranoid shitposting about.

WE ARE LITTLERALLY[sic] BEING ATTACKED BY THE CSM!!!!!!!


Here's a solid way to work it - move the Jade Constantine and Issler Dainze characters and obvious alts into a few alt corps, and compile which if your ~80 allies actually has managed to land kills on us during these wonderful few weeks (I recommend RNT Initiatives, they managed to pull a very nice kill on me by psychically predicting my movements: http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=13678986 . I must admit you have some talented allies.). Between you both and how much The Mittani feels like spending on vanity wardecs, you can probably scrounge up a dozen wardecs over 4 corps for 120m isk. That should be plenty to pick up the groups that actually get results.

Issler, specifically: You should congratulate Ivan and Vortexo for making it out to VFK, though I suggest they start working both sides of the I30 gate, rather than both AFKing in the same system. That was generally Pandemic Legion's modus operandi, and most hostile groups since then have also worked that particular gate. You might also want to talk to Ivan about fits - Drake generally passive tank in PvP, and fit damage mods. If you look for public mirrors of our wiki, the fits suggested there are still pretty robust.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#458 - 2012-06-18 21:37:31 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:

I've also said repeatedly while I don't like the change, I don't believe it was some sort of conspiracy. No tinfoil here, move along.

Issler


[Citation Required]

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
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#459 - 2012-06-18 21:38:03 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Issler Dainze wrote:
Issler

I take it you're not willing to defend Two Step from Jade's accusations then, and will happily trash a well-respected CSM member because it's in line with changes you want pushed through for your own personal benefit?

No way, this has never happened be---

oh, ok, tossing people under online forums buses occurs all the time.



Sorry, I block Weaselior in the forums most of the time so I missed that, but I have said several times and just said it again, I don't think this change came from some secret brain control of CCP or the CSM from mittens or anyone else. CCP believes this to be the best improvement and came to that conclusion on their own.

Hope that is clear enough for you now.

Issler
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#460 - 2012-06-18 21:38:37 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Issler Dainze wrote:

I've also said repeatedly while I don't like the change, I don't believe it was some sort of conspiracy. No tinfoil here, move along.

Issler


[Citation Required]


Citation citing the need for citation before a citation can be provided.

Issler