Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Yes he is. He's braindead. He's essentially arguing for every change to turn the game into a starfleet kind of game. Consentual pvp , no wars etc. Probably because Star Trek sucks and he wants to substitute EVE for it, but without the risk.

Anti War
Anti Cloak

Etc. He needs to be forum banned for trolling.

I've started up another account myself, as I'm starting to see the light regarding the PvP focus of EVE. I'll end up using this account to satisfy my carebear desires while I alternate to dishing out death in null-sec. While I have yet to read an official statement from CCP that EVE is intended to focus upon "non-consensual" PvP, I do feel that the current set-up and immense circumstantial evidence is highly in favor of it. Basically, being a player corp means that you will go to war, and there should be no way around it. By joining a corp, you've put your junk on a block and basically now have to defend it. It's why I now feel that EVE University should be regularly targeted as well, as it is a corp just like any other out there.

But this is where my next argument comes in- I do think organizations with the same focus as EVE University should be allowed to operate peacefully, but with severe restrictions. Basically, giving up some of the freedoms of a corp, and obtaining security instead. It's like our TSA system at the airports (bad example, I know) in which we give up certain freedoms in order to maintain the safety of our air-travel systems. This is again where my idea of a corp "lite" comes into play. Basically an extension of an NPC corp. Players can join it, have a shared mailbox, have a name, have a shared wallet, and the ability to have a shared hangar. Minuses- still paying that 11% NPC tax, no sovereignty, no war-dec'ing, and NO POSes.

With this in-place, Player Corps would also have more restrictions themselves (to make it obvious that they will need to fight to survive). First, you can't flee easily from the Corp during a war-dec. Basically, you have to wait seven days or so to leave a corp after a war has been declared. You signed up for a Corp- better be ready to defend it. Second, no war-dec shields. You had the option to join the corp "lite", but you chose to stick your neck out in a Player Corp. Again, be ready to defend it. Here's another one, but it'd get a lot of flak from the research corps- POSes would require a "shut-down" sequence to put off-line. This sequence could take a few days, giving the competition ample time to pound it into dust. Again, you'll be required to defend it.

Caliph Muhammed,

20% NPC tax? I see that being fair as well. Heck, 25% would be fine. It'd help act as a greater ISK sink, and it'd help cut-back on the arguments that High-Sec mission-running is too profitable. Additionally, mineral deposits in high-sec should be lessened as well. It'd encourage more to move to low-sec to get their minerals. Furthermore, the high tax-rate would encourage people to join Player Corps.

Find a new game then. POS have nothing to do with a corp perk in that sense. They are extremely expensive to run and most can't afford them anyway so its essentially asking for risk to be removed while giving up nothing. The idea is never going to be put in place because it acts as immunity to pvp which is only going to go on for so long before the game subs start to bleed. Thats a fact. And 11% NPC tax is for NPC corps with no benefits. You have no right to a corp or it's perks while having immunity to pvp. And no matter how much you cry about it that's how it is. And it's how it's going to stay. And the war dec shield is going bye bye as well sooner or later as it makes wars useless and wars are a prime motivator for plex purchases.

The community can't take serious suggestions by alt trolls. You could be a star trek dev trying to sabotage EVE's success.

en·deav·or (n-dvr)
n.
1. A conscientious or concerted effort toward an end; an earnest attempt.
2. Purposeful or industrious activity; enterprise.
v. en·deav·ored, en·deav·or·ing, en·deav·ors
v.tr.
To attempt (fulfillment of a responsibility or an obligation, for example) by employment or expenditure of effort: endeavored to improve the quality of life in the inner city.
v.intr.
To work with a set or specified goal or purpose.

Starfleet

this is my perspective on how wars should be fought. if a war is declared, there should not be a corp out there that allows players to abandon them. they would be imprisoned, simple as that. so if your in a corp during a war dec, you do not have an option of leaving said corp. now players may join corp, because they would be eagerly looking to recruit. (but i do realize that this would be abused, for example; a pirate corp recruits a member, only to black mail that character for isk's to save their ship. then do this daily because they could not leave until the war is over. maybe a way around this exploit would be to allow players to leave a corp during a war, only if that player joined a day (maybe two) before or during the war decloration.)

I like the idea of surrendering- i see it as paying the enemy alliance a fee to allow them to leave the corp they are in.

although, im sorry, but i have to disagree with a "peacefull" corp. i dont like where that mechanic would lead the game, because it should stay completely harsh and "scary"... I beleive strongly that the only safe spot ever should be while docked. be the only moment of sanity for a player to live their real life (interesting idea though)

I also support the idea of making wars last a little longer, and removing deck sheilds.

its funny to me how alot of the people i have grown to know as the "hardcore" greifers want all the war exploits to stay the same. kinda carebeary in my oppinion.. (not gona mention names)

(i love theads that play with ideas where people actually get somewhere in conversation, instead of the lame "i dont like that, or you, so NO")

Well, we all know where you stand. Of course, I knew that before you started playing name-your-name games. You're a clear antagonist, who really wants nothing more than to pick on other people for not sharing your idea, being different, or otherwise having some fundamental lack of similar idealogy.

Plenty of people like Star Trek, Star Wars and other Space Sagas, Operas, and so forth. Not many go so far as to name their characters in such a fashion, but the fact is if it weren't for Star Trek, BSG, and many other old television shows we'd hardly have an idea what a future in space was.

In fact, the whole genre likely wouldn't exist at all.

Aside from that: Have you got anything meaningful to say; or are you just spewing **** out your mouth?

I'm going to have to go back to some of your much-ignored posts, and read a bit to see if you actually have presented any contributions for or against any ideas here within your only moderately disguised attempts to bash peoples egos and inflate your own.

edit: Well, aside from an over-inflated sense of your own apparently all-encompassing knowledge; it seems you at least contribute here and there. All of it thoroughly one-sided, but contributions nonetheless.

You really do disgust me.

I see loits of mentions of fees being paid to the Deccers here. Is this an attempt to recoup costs for the WarDecs taking place, or is it something else?

Seriously, ISK sinks should be exactly that. We don't need some new system that allows griefers to extort money from other players through an in-game mechanic designed for that purpose.

You want to extort; try asking for ISK to drop the WarDec. Wait.. that doesn't work because none of you have a shred of honesty to begin with anyway. You'll just take the ISK and continue on as planned with the WarDec.

I'm not sure that's possible, and I fail to see your reasoning where this is the case.

I'm fairly certain that a Dec Shield allows you to engage the target if you are willing to pay past it. The corp behind it may not, but that is entirely their choice.

Loads of reasons why I like this.

Paying the ISK to the aggressors encourages wardecs against bloated groups and there are a lot of these in EVE. It will make groups a little more picky in letting people with a tendency to drop at the first whiff of trouble join. It will generate resentment against people who drop and will make people question their loyalty and commitment. By paying the ISK to the aggressors your dropping actively hurts your (former) group and your (former) friends. Enough people drop and your war is free, more drop and you make a profit; let the target fatten themselves up again and repeat.

It will screw with eve university who I now despise. This is a juicy bonus.

ISK sinks are boring and redundant in relation to wardecs as deccing a group with ten incursion runners in it will be an effective way of stopping 20 billion ISK per week being generated. An ISK sink of maybe 100 million or pay that to the deccers to fund another war that stops another 20 billion entering the game?

Ah, ye olde new player defence.

Before I spend time replying I refer you to this thread and ask you to provide your source for your claims in this regard: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=596946#post596946 otherwise will have to tag you as a bullshitter.

I am still not sure if you are a troll or a bullshitter after getting the TOS and griefing in EVE so wrong.