These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

3-M BOYCOTT IS NOW ON

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Organic Lager
Drinking Buddies
#121 - 2014-06-23 16:01:51 UTC
A carebear finally contributes an idea for some player created content and everyone dumps on the poor guy.... wouldn't it make more sense to just target the manufacturing of gank ships like the thrasher, catalyst and tornado?

Also consider purchasing everything currently on the market to dry up existing inventory.

PS don't cry to CCP to make the change for you, if your boycott gains enough support you might be able to squeeze the suicide gankers margins the eve way
Xam Nesse
Bufalo Inc
Thundering Herd
#122 - 2014-06-23 16:02:26 UTC
OP: really?
[places tinfoil hat on]
this is what they want, no HiSec goods made or shipped, that needs to be solely the purview of null-sec manufacturing.
This is what industry updates are all about, the gank-folk are just helping it along.
[tinfoil hat off]
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#123 - 2014-06-23 16:07:19 UTC
Do you mean the 3M corporation ? I haven't seen them about for ages. Big smile
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#124 - 2014-06-23 16:09:57 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Organic Lager wrote:
A carebear finally contributes an idea for some player created content and everyone dumps on the poor guy....


"Finally"? This isn't a new idea. There have been dozens of carebear calls to boycott which have been wholly indistinguishable from this one. The fact that you think this seems like a novel occurrence should tell you something about the efficacy of such boycotts.

Quote:
wouldn't it make more sense to just target the manufacturing of gank ships like the thrasher, catalyst and tornado?


That would be no more effective than anything else. As others have already pointed out, the belief that "carebears" are solely responsible for the industrial side of Eve is wholly fictitious.

Ganking isn't a problem for industrialists - ganking is a problem for pussies. It's a boon for industrialists. It drives demand, which generates profit. If you're not a completely incompetent ****-wit, you can trivially manage the risk of ganking as a simple business expense, while reaping the benefits.

So, sure, the carebears could stop making those ships... but all that would mean is improved margins for the rest of us, who recognize and appreciate the symbiotic relationship between industrialists and gankers.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Lord Fudo
Doomheim
#125 - 2014-06-23 16:12:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Fudo
-5 to -10 standing characters should not be allowed by npc stations to dock in highsec.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#126 - 2014-06-23 16:15:42 UTC
Lord Fudo wrote:
-5 to -10 standing characters should not be allowed by npc stations to dock in highsec.


Why?

“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
Ahost Gceo
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#127 - 2014-06-23 16:19:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Ahost Gceo
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Lord Fudo wrote:
-5 to -10 standing characters should not be allowed by npc stations to dock in highsec.


Why?

In a roleplaying sense it seems logical. Why would factions want capsuleers who are criminal docking in their stations?

CCP ignore me please, I make too much sense.
Lord Fudo
Doomheim
#128 - 2014-06-23 16:19:41 UTC
Concord should also destroy pods too, not just their ship.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#129 - 2014-06-23 16:22:46 UTC
Ahost Gceo wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Lord Fudo wrote:
-5 to -10 standing characters should not be allowed by npc stations to dock in highsec.


Why?

In a roleplaying sense it seems logical. Why would factions want capsuleers who are criminal docking in their stations?


Most stations belong to individual, ostensibly for-profit corporations. Why would they give a good goddamn what CONCORD's opinion of any particular pilot is? Their money still spends.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Ahost Gceo
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#130 - 2014-06-23 16:27:23 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Ahost Gceo wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Lord Fudo wrote:
-5 to -10 standing characters should not be allowed by npc stations to dock in highsec.


Why?

In a roleplaying sense it seems logical. Why would factions want capsuleers who are criminal docking in their stations?


Most stations belong to individual, ostensibly for-profit corporations. Why would they give a good goddamn what CONCORD's opinion of any particular pilot is? Their money still spends.

The corporations still fall under a specific racial faction though, who all chip into CONCORD to make it a universal entity.

CCP ignore me please, I make too much sense.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#131 - 2014-06-23 16:31:53 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Ahost Gceo wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Ahost Gceo wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Lord Fudo wrote:
-5 to -10 standing characters should not be allowed by npc stations to dock in highsec.


Why?

In a roleplaying sense it seems logical. Why would factions want capsuleers who are criminal docking in their stations?


Most stations belong to individual, ostensibly for-profit corporations. Why would they give a good goddamn what CONCORD's opinion of any particular pilot is? Their money still spends.

The corporations still fall under a specific racial faction though, who all chip into CONCORD to make it a universal entity.


And you think this means... what?

You do understand that the factions and Concord aren't precisely BFFs, right?

You haven't even made an effort to explain why they would care about a "criminal" docking. Is the criminal a threat to them? No. Do they have any reason to clutch their pearls at the sight of a garden-variety space criminal? Not really.

You could make an argument about low standings, but bad security status? There's no reason they would give more than zero fucks about that.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#132 - 2014-06-23 16:35:12 UTC
I just received a phone call from 3M Global asking me to explain what Highsec is.

I did my best to answer their questions.. but I feel they left the conversation very puzzled.




I guess I didn't use the word "Entitlement" enough to describe the situation. Ill call them back.

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
Lord Fudo
Doomheim
#133 - 2014-06-23 16:39:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Fudo
Actually, they should be able to dock, if they are given permission to dock by the npc faction. Player should have to request permission to dock, the lower the player's security status, the longer the request approval should take. Then there should be a high chance of denial of docking permission the lower your security status.

There should be better rewards for having a high security status and a greater risk for having a lower security status in High Security space.

They could still use a pos to reship/refit. Fairly safe.
Organic Lager
Drinking Buddies
#134 - 2014-06-23 16:49:44 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Organic Lager wrote:
A carebear finally contributes an idea for some player created content and everyone dumps on the poor guy....


"Finally"? This isn't a new idea. There have been dozens of carebear calls to boycott which have been wholly indistinguishable from this one. The fact that you think this seems like a novel occurrence should tell you something about the efficacy of such boycotts.

Quote:
wouldn't it make more sense to just target the manufacturing of gank ships like the thrasher, catalyst and tornado?


That would be no more effective than anything else. As others have already pointed out, the belief that "carebears" are solely responsible for the industrial side of Eve is wholly fictitious.

Ganking isn't a problem for industrialists - ganking is a problem for pussies. It's a boon for industrialists. It drives demand, which generates profit. If you're not a completely incompetent ****-wit, you can trivially manage the risk of ganking as a simple business expense, while reaping the benefits.

So, sure, the carebears could stop making those ships... but all that would mean is improved margins for the rest of us, who recognize and appreciate the symbiotic relationship between industrialists and gankers.


Whoa simmer down, I don't troll the forums much it's the first post like this i've seen.

Never said it was a good idea, never said it would work, never said ganking was a problem.

I was just happy to see a carebear thread with more content then ccp plz fix for me... Ok there was a bit of that but I'm going to choose to ignore it.
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#135 - 2014-06-23 16:51:12 UTC
Posting in a 'gankers don't target mission runners' thread.

Lol.
Kijo Rikki
Killboard Padding Services
#136 - 2014-06-23 16:58:31 UTC
I propose those that are boycotting 3-M to instead support their rival, PCS. Prospecting, Construction and Sales.

You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#137 - 2014-06-23 17:01:27 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:


And you think this means... what?

You do understand that the factions and Concord aren't precisely BFFs, right?

You haven't even made an effort to explain why they would care about a "criminal" docking. Is the criminal a threat to them? No. Do they have any reason to clutch their pearls at the sight of a garden-variety space criminal? Not really.

You could make an argument about low standings, but bad security status? There's no reason they would give more than zero fucks about that.


Well technically they care if you are in their space so I don't see it as too far fetched if they were to also deny docking in their station. I am not in favor of this change but it kinda make sense based on that.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#138 - 2014-06-23 17:01:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Lord Fudo wrote:
Concord should also destroy pods too, not just their ship.
Just as soon as we can gank you in game, via a button on the forums, for posting stupid ideas.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Lord Fudo
Doomheim
#139 - 2014-06-23 17:05:24 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Lord Fudo wrote:
Concord should also destroy pods too, not just their ship.
Just as soon as we can gank you in game, via a button on the forums, for posting stupid ideas.


You mad? Lol
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#140 - 2014-06-23 17:12:44 UTC
Lord Fudo wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Lord Fudo wrote:
Concord should also destroy pods too, not just their ship.
Just as soon as we can gank you in game, via a button on the forums, for posting stupid ideas.


You mad? Lol
Nope, your suggestions aren't new, and have been discussed to death multiple times in the past. If you want to see pods pop, do it yourself instead of asking for an NPC to do it for you.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack