These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Two CSMs of EVE Online

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#181 - 2011-10-16 16:19:17 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
No player-run corporation in this game should be able to recuse themselves from the sandbox.

This policy change allows every highsec corporation to do just that, avoid all non-consensual highsec PvP except the suicide gank.
Yes, but at least it'll be cheap!

Only 2M. Pre-order now! P
Asuka Smith
StarHunt
#182 - 2011-10-16 16:29:16 UTC
Empire PVP is awful anyways, it's got all the problems of lowsec and then on top of that a million neuts and RR exploits and blah blah blah. In 0.0 you avoid this BS, fight like men, AND it's not like people stay in EVE-Uni for their entire career. More targets for me when they get big fish small pond syndrone and form an alliance like CVA.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#183 - 2011-10-16 16:31:29 UTC
Asuka Smith wrote:
AND it's not like people stay in EVE-Uni for their entire career.
You would be surprised.
Simetraz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#184 - 2011-10-16 16:34:16 UTC
And what I find interesting about this thread.

That EVE university has to have a war dec shield.
And the number of people in NPC corps because of war dec's.
Something is wrong with this picture.

EVERYBODY KNOWS
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#185 - 2011-10-16 16:38:43 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Cipher Jones wrote:
If you want to kill nubs you're a sad piece of work, and if you can't find anybody to kill in New Eden, biomass now and save yourself the imminent tears.
No player-run corporation in this game should be able to recuse themselves from the sandbox.

This policy change allows every highsec corporation to do just that, avoid all non-consensual highsec PvP except the suicide gank.

And EVE University is not a corp filled with newbs. The majority of their members are a year old or older. It is a carebear corporation.


If you only play Eve to grief, this policy may make you asshurt enough to quit over it.

And if you only play Eve to grief and you've been doing it a while you've made people quit.

If you only play Eve to carebear and have been harassed by griefers this policy would likely make you wish to stay/rejoin.

Furthermore, griefing is in fact against the eula, but it is rarely enforced.

CCP could choose to leave the rules intact and simply ban the griefers, but this course of action would result in a loss in income. CCP chose to change one rule so that they wouldn't have to enforce 2 rules. Its funny how people only cry about the one that effects then negatively. i.e. you are harassing Caldari Citzen10917 in game, he corp jumps, you cry. You would cry a lot harder if CCP banned your ass for harassment, which they have explicitly reserved the right to do.

And of course, this is so they can work on important stuff like FiS instead of mediate.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#186 - 2011-10-16 16:43:02 UTC
Cipher Jones wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Cipher Jones wrote:
If you want to kill nubs you're a sad piece of work, and if you can't find anybody to kill in New Eden, biomass now and save yourself the imminent tears.
No player-run corporation in this game should be able to recuse themselves from the sandbox.

This policy change allows every highsec corporation to do just that, avoid all non-consensual highsec PvP except the suicide gank.

And EVE University is not a corp filled with newbs. The majority of their members are a year old or older. It is a carebear corporation.


If you only play Eve to grief, this policy may make you asshurt enough to quit over it.

And if you only play Eve to grief and you've been doing it a while you've made people quit.

If you only play Eve to carebear and have been harassed by griefers this policy would likely make you wish to stay/rejoin.

Furthermore, griefing is in fact against the eula, but it is rarely enforced.

So, basically killing anyone in highsec (without a wardec), you would call griefing and/or harassment?

Quote:
And of course, this is so they can work on important stuff like FiS instead of mediate.
That's the GM job. To mediate. They don't code. They don't work on FiS. They are the customer service reps.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#187 - 2011-10-16 16:48:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Cipher Jones wrote:
If you only play Eve to grief, this policy may make you asshurt enough to quit over it.
The problem is that this won't affect griefers in any way.

It probably won't affect the nuisance deccers all that much either, since they'll just switch methods to get their killmails, but it does affect proper warfare something immensely.
Handsome Hussein
#188 - 2011-10-16 16:59:00 UTC
Tippia wrote:
It probably won't affect the nuisance deccers all that much either, since they'll just switch methods to get their killmails, but it does affect proper warfare something immensely.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how much such a decshield costs on a weekly basis? Seems to me that would be a pretty big ISK sink.

FWIW the only non-consensual PvP I worry about in high-sec is suiciding or aggression mechanics. If my corp gets war-deced and I don't want to deal with it, I would simply drop corp and come back when the nuisance is gone.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the Uni (and Tippia in a month) have essentially created NPC corps for a weekly fee. Where's the problem here, tax rate or something? The Uni already has a pretty stiff tax rate IIRC.

Leaves only the fresh scent of pine.
Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
#189 - 2011-10-16 17:03:29 UTC
Awwww......ONE alliance in the whole of Eve that you can't war dec and you want to cry....

Boo hoo, maybe you'll have to war dec someone that will actually fight back this time...

I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg

CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#190 - 2011-10-16 17:04:14 UTC
Handsome Hussein wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the Uni (and Tippia in a month) have essentially created NPC corps for a weekly fee. Where's the problem here, tax rate or something? The Uni already has a pretty stiff tax rate IIRC.

Kelduum Revaan wrote:
"I have been in communication with CCP about various things. Some time ago I did make a list of ways to improve our teaching facilities ... amongst them was adding E-UNI to the CONCORD NPC faction in game. (source)
Handsome Hussein
#191 - 2011-10-16 17:15:48 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Handsome ******* wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the Uni (and Tippia in a month) have essentially created NPC corps for a weekly fee. Where's the problem here, tax rate or something? The Uni already has a pretty stiff tax rate IIRC.

Kelduum Revaan wrote:
"I have been in communication with CCP about various things. Some time ago I did make a list of ways to improve our teaching facilities ... amongst them was adding E-UNI to the CONCORD NPC faction in game. (source)


Yeah, I've read that several times while you were making a fool out of yourself. What's the issue? Also, Kelduum has repeatedly stated that he has never petitioned or asked CCP for special treatment, regardless of what was actually on his list. I have no reason to believe you over him, especially since he could just be trolling the village idiot Stanziel.

Leaves only the fresh scent of pine.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#192 - 2011-10-16 17:18:14 UTC
Handsome Hussein wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Handsome ******* wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the Uni (and Tippia in a month) have essentially created NPC corps for a weekly fee. Where's the problem here, tax rate or something? The Uni already has a pretty stiff tax rate IIRC.

Kelduum Revaan wrote:
"I have been in communication with CCP about various things. Some time ago I did make a list of ways to improve our teaching facilities ... amongst them was adding E-UNI to the CONCORD NPC faction in game. (source)


Yeah, I've read that several times while you were making a fool out of yourself. What's the issue? Also, Kelduum has repeatedly stated that he has never petitioned or asked CCP for special treatment, regardless of what was actually on his list.
Making a list of how E-Uni's existence in EVE could be improved and then handing that list to CCP ... that's not asking for special treatment? How would you describe that then?
Handsome Hussein
#193 - 2011-10-16 17:20:04 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Making a list of how E-Uni's existence in EVE could be improved and then handing that list to CCP ... that's not asking for special treatment? How would you describe that then?

So, even if he did, I don't see any special treatment being handed out. Tippia is about to use the same mechanic to (hopefully) turn a profit. Please explain to me where all the fuss is.

Leaves only the fresh scent of pine.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#194 - 2011-10-16 17:21:22 UTC
Simetraz wrote:
And what I find interesting about this thread.

That EVE university has to have a war dec shield.
And the number of people in NPC corps because of war dec's.
Something is wrong with this picture.


If there's something wrong with this picture we should all start thinking what's the cause of it.

It's not the new "shield" or the NPC corps. It's how player corps run, the time play requirements in those, the notion of KB stats where you get warnings because you've got ganked 5 times this month and only made 2 poor kils, Ring bell CTA's.

Those you mentioned mean some freedom, everything else doesn't. That's the problem when the game notion becomes a second job.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#195 - 2011-10-16 17:23:50 UTC
Handsome Hussein wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Making a list of how E-Uni's existence in EVE could be improved and then handing that list to CCP ... that's not asking for special treatment? How would you describe that then?

So, even if he did, I don't see any special treatment being handed out. Tippia is about to use the same mechanic to (hopefully) turn a profit. Please explain to me where all the fuss is.
I contend that this wardec policy change was to benefit the Uni ... that it actually affects all highsec corporations just gives it the appearance that no favouritism was involved.
Handsome Hussein
#196 - 2011-10-16 17:25:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Handsome Hussein
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
I contend that this wardec policy change was to benefit the Uni ... that it actually affects all highsec corporations just gives it the appearance that no favouritism was involved.

Even if it was done to benefit a carebear learning institute, who ******* cares? Anyone can use the mechanic.

Leaves only the fresh scent of pine.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#197 - 2011-10-16 17:28:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Handsome Hussein wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
I contend that this wardec policy change was to benefit the Uni ... that it actually affects all highsec corporations just gives it the appearance that no favouritism was involved.

Even if it was done to benefit a carebear learning institute, who ******* cares? Anyone can use the mechanic.
Making yourself immune to wardecs should be available to nobody.

There should be some sort of system in place (bidding system?) where some wardecs will get through and some won't ... depending on how much you want to pay to initiate or avoid.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#198 - 2011-10-16 17:31:57 UTC
Handsome Hussein wrote:
Out of curiosity, does anyone know how much such a decshield costs on a weekly basis? Seems to me that would be a pretty big ISK sink.
If you absolutely have to go with a decshield, it depends on how high you want the cost for the enemy to be. The wiki provides us with the formula:

B * (N +1) * (W + 1), where B = Base Price (2M for a corp, 50M for an alliance), N = number of wars you currently have (1 for your shielddeccing corp), W = number of wars currently against the target corporation (which is the number you're aiming to inflate with the shield).

For a single corp, though, joining and leaving a decshedding alliance will probably be cheaper (only 2M a month in upkeep fee per corp, which the alliance will probably want to recoup as a fee), and will also have more effect (since you get rid of the wardec entirely, instead of just making it more expensive).
Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the Uni (and Tippia in a month) have essentially created NPC corps for a weekly fee. Where's the problem here, tax rate or something? The Uni already has a pretty stiff tax rate IIRC.
The problem is that this makes wardecs in highsec pointless. If I want to save my POSes from someone who wants “my” moon, then I can just evade the wardec that is needed to get rid of it, and no-one will ever be able to disrupt my S&I activities there.
FadeIN Fr0St
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#199 - 2011-10-16 17:37:25 UTC
Skunk Gracklaw wrote:
Sara XIII wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Jessie Kenan wrote:
I wouldn't mind if Estel Corp did the same, but of course they don't need to since they don't attract the ***** wardecs as they're not full of noobs.

Neither is EVE University. You've been misled. Only 15% of their total membership are characters less than three months old.


Can you back this up?

Poetic never lets things like facts or proof get in the way of his obsession with the uni.



After reading some of this thread, I got too yours. Never have I laughted so hard. SO SO TruePirate

"All hail Wang ... the little fella in Command. When 'trouble' starts to spread, I'm sure he will rise to the occasion."

Azahni Vah'nos (Best reply ever)
Handsome Hussein
#200 - 2011-10-16 17:39:31 UTC
Tippia wrote:
B * (N +1) * (W + 1), where B = Base Price (2M for a corp, 50M for an alliance), N = number of wars you currently have (1 for your shielddeccing corp), W = number of wars currently against the target corporation (which is the number you're aiming to inflate with the shield).

So quite a bit. CCP might just be thinking "rather than deal with all these petitions that are kind of hard to prove, we just let them have the ISK sink."

Tippia wrote:
The problem is that this makes wardecs in highsec pointless. If I want to save my POSes from someone who wants “my” moon, then I can just evade the wardec that is needed to get rid of it, and no-one will ever be able to disrupt my S&I activities there.

I gathered that much, and that is really the only problem I see. Here is where I see petitioning working to alleviate the problem, until and if high-sec warfare gets a facelift (which apparently it needs?)

Leaves only the fresh scent of pine.