These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

So this is it for eve, is this the future, is it?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Linistitul
Gea'Vii Enterprises
#561 - 2013-09-04 16:44:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Linistitul
Barzai Mekhar wrote:
So... if alliances can be as big as they want... how is your suggestion supposed to break up the doughnut? If anything it is likely to cause even larger alliances, as it encourages the fusion of alliances that are currently content to blue each other.

There is a skill that limits the alliance size.

Barzai Mekhar wrote:
Even with your suggested change I still believe this system is prone to abuse and insufficient to enforce NRDS due to its automated nature, baiting residents into shooting neutral logis (and thus getting their entire alliances set as criminals) comes to mind.

It's not that hard to educate people. And if someone is repping criminals, current rules apply. The safety mechanism could be modified to work in sov space also.
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#562 - 2013-09-04 16:58:10 UTC
Linistitul wrote:
Yeep wrote:
Oh sorry, I didn't realise this was in addition to your other stupid idea rather than instead of it.

Oh, I see, show me on the blue doughnut where the bad people touched you. Argument from consequences much?


The consequences of your suggestion that corps can only set standings to corps, alliances can only set standings to alliances and individuals can only set standings to individuals?

Well firstly individual corporations will no longer be able to have any dealings with alliances, even temporary. Want to provide industrial goods to an alliance during a war? Sorry can't do that; Linistitul says we're not allowed to set you blue.

Secondly people will stop giving neutrals any leeway at all because they could be harmless or they could be someone Linistitul says we're not allowed to set red.

See that large gang moving through our space trying to find a fight? Sorry we'd love to set them red but Linistitul says we can't until they actually manage to shoot somebody.
JinSanJong
Doomheim
#563 - 2013-09-04 17:11:21 UTC
Tippia wrote:
JinSanJong wrote:
Sorry what was that? I really don't have a clue what you're saying, just comes out as gibberish

So you agree then, seeing as how you still can't think of any kind of counter-argument or proof to the contrary, and instead have to resort to even more ad hominems.


Sorry what?
Arya Greywolf
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#564 - 2013-09-04 17:14:59 UTC
JinSanJong wrote:
Tippia wrote:
JinSanJong wrote:
Sorry what was that? I really don't have a clue what you're saying, just comes out as gibberish

So you agree then, seeing as how you still can't think of any kind of counter-argument or proof to the contrary, and instead have to resort to even more ad hominems.


Sorry what?


"Winning."
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#565 - 2013-09-04 17:15:32 UTC
JinSanJong wrote:
Sorry what?
So you still agree then, seeing as how you have proven yourself incapable of thinking of anything that could even remotely be considered a counter-argument or proof to the contrary, and instead have to resort to an ever-expanding library of fallacies.

That's ok. We understood this the first time. If you absolutely want to keep confirming this fact, you're obviously free to, but you'll just keep repeating what everyone knows already.
Linistitul
Gea'Vii Enterprises
#566 - 2013-09-04 17:19:24 UTC
Yeep wrote:
Want to provide industrial goods to an alliance during a war? Sorry can't do that; Linistitul says we're not allowed to set you blue..

And finally wars will have a meaning and alliances will no longer be able to bypass them using blue hauler corps. No longer will wars hurt only the poor noobs on Jita undock, they will actually be used as a tool for denying you resources.
Yeep wrote:
Secondly people will stop giving neutrals any leeway at all because they could be harmless or they could be someone Linistitul says we're not allowed to set red.

I don't think that missing a red tag will make people stop shooting each other. It's your choice if you want to be NRDS or NBSI.
Yeep wrote:
See that large gang moving through our space trying to find a fight? Sorry we'd love to set them red but Linistitul says we can't until they actually manage to shoot somebody.

Again, why do you need to set them red if you want to shoot them? You just shoot them, it's your space. They are not shooting back? Cool then, easy kills.
Barzai Mekhar
True Confusion
#567 - 2013-09-04 17:26:25 UTC
Linistitul wrote:
Barzai Mekhar wrote:
So... if alliances can be as big as they want... how is your suggestion supposed to break up the doughnut? If anything it is likely to cause even larger alliances, as it encourages the fusion of alliances that are currently content to blue each other.

There is a skill that limits the alliance size.


Really? All I found researching this topic was Sovereignty, which affects Corp size, not alliance size. According to this, the maximum corporation size is 6301 members, which is already plenty for blobbing without any alliances at all....


Linistitul wrote:

Barzai Mekhar wrote:
Even with your suggested change I still believe this system is prone to abuse and insufficient to enforce NRDS due to its automated nature, baiting residents into shooting neutral logis (and thus getting their entire alliances set as criminals) comes to mind.

It's not that hard to educate people. And if someone is repping criminals, current rules apply. The safety mechanism could be modified to work in sov space also.


Have 5 neutral logis on field, use only 4. Someone screws up, shoots the 5th logi, suddenly 10% of all "good citizens" of the region become flashing red criminals. While the ensuing chaos might be quite hilarious for observers, I believe the people directly concernd might be slightly disgruntled.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#568 - 2013-09-04 17:29:51 UTC
Yeep wrote:
Linistitul wrote:
Yeep wrote:
Oh sorry, I didn't realise this was in addition to your other stupid idea rather than instead of it.

Oh, I see, show me on the blue doughnut where the bad people touched you. Argument from consequences much?


The consequences of your suggestion that corps can only set standings to corps, alliances can only set standings to alliances and individuals can only set standings to individuals?

Well firstly individual corporations will no longer be able to have any dealings with alliances, even temporary. Want to provide industrial goods to an alliance during a war? Sorry can't do that; Linistitul says we're not allowed to set you blue.

Secondly people will stop giving neutrals any leeway at all because they could be harmless or they could be someone Linistitul says we're not allowed to set red.

See that large gang moving through our space trying to find a fight? Sorry we'd love to set them red but Linistitul says we can't until they actually manage to shoot somebody.

Lucky no one seems to be listening to Linistitul then

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
#569 - 2013-09-04 17:31:47 UTC
Barzai Mekhar wrote:
Linistitul wrote:
Barzai Mekhar wrote:
So... if alliances can be as big as they want... how is your suggestion supposed to break up the doughnut? If anything it is likely to cause even larger alliances, as it encourages the fusion of alliances that are currently content to blue each other.

There is a skill that limits the alliance size.

Really? All I found researching this topic was Sovereignty, which affects Corp size, not alliance size. According to this, the maximum corporation size is 6301 members, which is already plenty for blobbing without any alliances at all....

Well it's hardly the first time that people haven't paid attention before spewing things on the forum.

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 ?
Linistitul
Gea'Vii Enterprises
#570 - 2013-09-04 17:49:56 UTC
Barzai Mekhar wrote:
Have 5 neutral logis on field, use only 4. Someone screws up, shoots the 5th logi, suddenly 10% of all "good citizens" of the region become flashing red criminals. While the ensuing chaos might be quite hilarious for observers, I believe the people directly concernd might be slightly disgruntled.

Sorry, 4 logis are in your fleet? Or in enemy fleet. Or there are 5 random logis? Did they set safety off? Though luck then.
samualvimes
Brothers At Arms
#571 - 2013-09-04 17:51:29 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Barzai Mekhar wrote:
Linistitul wrote:
Barzai Mekhar wrote:
So... if alliances can be as big as they want... how is your suggestion supposed to break up the doughnut? If anything it is likely to cause even larger alliances, as it encourages the fusion of alliances that are currently content to blue each other.

There is a skill that limits the alliance size.

Really? All I found researching this topic was Sovereignty, which affects Corp size, not alliance size. According to this, the maximum corporation size is 6301 members, which is already plenty for blobbing without any alliances at all....

Well it's hardly the first time that people haven't paid attention before spewing things on the forum.



Strange....I've always found the forums to be a hotbed of relevant discussion about important matters by well adjusted individuals with no bias or misinformation.


I mean not THESE forums but you know....

If you've never tried PvP in EvE it's quite possible you've missed out on one of the greatest rushes available in modern gaming.
Linistitul
Gea'Vii Enterprises
#572 - 2013-09-04 17:52:16 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Lucky no one seems to be listening to Linistitul then

Humm, the ad hominem argument.
samualvimes
Brothers At Arms
#573 - 2013-09-04 17:57:17 UTC
Linistitul wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Lucky no one seems to be listening to Linistitul then

Humm, the ad hominem argument.


No Ad hominem is making up slights against you.

mentioning that noone is really paying attention to you is not a ad hominem it's practically the opposite

you know "if you can't think of something nice to say, don't say anything at all"

If you've never tried PvP in EvE it's quite possible you've missed out on one of the greatest rushes available in modern gaming.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#574 - 2013-09-04 18:03:40 UTC
Yeep wrote:
Linistitul wrote:
Yeep wrote:
Oh sorry, I didn't realise this was in addition to your other stupid idea rather than instead of it.

Oh, I see, show me on the blue doughnut where the bad people touched you. Argument from consequences much?


The consequences of your suggestion that corps can only set standings to corps, alliances can only set standings to alliances and individuals can only set standings to individuals?

Well firstly individual corporations will no longer be able to have any dealings with alliances, even temporary. Want to provide industrial goods to an alliance during a war? Sorry can't do that; Linistitul says we're not allowed to set you blue.

Secondly people will stop giving neutrals any leeway at all because they could be harmless or they could be someone Linistitul says we're not allowed to set red.

See that large gang moving through our space trying to find a fight? Sorry we'd love to set them red but Linistitul says we can't until they actually manage to shoot somebody.



That would suck, making people responsible for their decisions and all.

Screw single man corps and npc corps and out of corp logistics.

The forest needs a purging anyways.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Geanos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#575 - 2013-09-04 18:04:52 UTC
samualvimes wrote:
Linistitul wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Lucky no one seems to be listening to Linistitul then

Humm, the ad hominem argument.


No Ad hominem is making up slights against you.

mentioning that noone is really paying attention to you is not a ad hominem it's practically the opposite

you know "if you can't think of something nice to say, don't say anything at all"

Don't be hasty my friend. Implying that someone is irrelevant qualifies it as an ad hominem argument.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#576 - 2013-09-04 18:06:57 UTC
Wouldn't that be contradictory, calling someone irrelevant?

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Elizabeth Aideron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#577 - 2013-09-04 18:09:21 UTC
Linistitul wrote:
Yeep wrote:
Want to provide industrial goods to an alliance during a war? Sorry can't do that; Linistitul says we're not allowed to set you blue..

And finally wars will have a meaning and alliances will no longer be able to bypass them using blue hauler corps. No longer will wars hurt only the poor noobs on Jita undock, they will actually be used as a tool for denying you resources.


It wouldn't change anything in nullsec, which is allegedly the focus of this discussion. NPC/alt corp freighters will still be used in highsec because it doesn't matter if you have blue standings or not there. Once you're out of highsec, wardecs don't matter.
Geanos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#578 - 2013-09-04 18:10:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Geanos
Murk Paradox wrote:
Wouldn't that be contradictory, calling someone irrelevant?

Candidates are doing it during the elections.
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#579 - 2013-09-04 18:21:33 UTC
Linistitul wrote:

I don't think that missing a red tag will make people stop shooting each other. It's your choice if you want to be NRDS or NBSI.


No its not. Under your proposed system your choices are Not Blue Shoot It or Not Conforming To Some Specific Gameplay Mechanic Don't Shoot. You can't be NRDS because you can't set individuals or corporations red as an alliance.

Standings are a purely social mechinc. Trying to force them to conform to some stupid gameplay rules does nothing but remove depth from the game and is a terrible idea.
Barzai Mekhar
True Confusion
#580 - 2013-09-04 18:23:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Barzai Mekhar
Linistitul wrote:
Barzai Mekhar wrote:
Have 5 neutral logis on field, use only 4. Someone screws up, shoots the 5th logi, suddenly 10% of all "good citizens" of the region become flashing red criminals. While the ensuing chaos might be quite hilarious for observers, I believe the people directly concernd might be slightly disgruntled.

Sorry, 4 logis are in your fleet? Or in enemy fleet. Or there are 5 random logis? Did they set safety off? Though luck then.


The agressor brings 5 logis which are in currently neutral corps (or let's just say X logis, I have no idea how many logis typically are involved in fleet engagements), but utilizes only X-1. Those X-1 logis influence the combat, do not provide criminal sov tags when attacked (as they support criminals) and are too important to be ignored. The Xth logi acts as "innocent bystander"/bait, in order to draw fire from the residents so that their alliance receives a criminal sov tag.