These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Burn Jita a sandbox move?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#21 - 2012-04-16 20:53:19 UTC
Evidently the supposed gankers will get a -10 rating from Concord and Caldari fleet ships will begin shooting them on sight. Sounds about right.



Everything else is just a matter of whether or not you think the criminal system in empire is borked.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Bel Amar
Rules of Acquisition
#22 - 2012-04-16 20:55:00 UTC
MasterEnt wrote:
Would The Caldari State and other empires really allow Goons back into high-sec after Burning Jita.


Nope, which is why their security status will take a hit.
Gevlin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2012-04-16 23:35:19 UTC
you know some kid is about to kick in you castle..... what do you do?

Fight back
Make plans to build a new one
Wait till the next day and return... hoping the sand castle is still there

honesly - if you really want to screw over Goons. Be in Jita. Wait till they get concorded. Since they are all Flashy I think you may still be able to pod them as their aggression timer is still active....

For some goons their death clone will still be in Branch or Decklan... So you will have really ruined some greifers day..

Someday I will have the time to play. For now it is mining afk in High sec. In Cheap ships
Ad'Hakim Tahous
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#24 - 2012-04-16 23:59:26 UTC
Tippia wrote:
MasterEnt wrote:
I thought the burn Jita initiative was pretty cool, until I realized it was very one sided and not very sandboxy at all. They are hiding behind a nice little one-way mirror on the sandbox reflection there. Maybe industrial carebears should be able to petition the empires to ban certain alliances from commerce lanes they are willing to grind to a halt.
No, that would be one-sided. The sandbox is there as it is: they have tools at their disposal and they're using them to impact the game world. The traders also have a number of tools at their disposal and can use them to impact the game world.

What you're suggesting is that one party should be allowed to change the world and not the other.


This!
StonerPhReaK
Herb Men
#25 - 2012-04-17 00:02:51 UTC
MasterEnt wrote:
So the United States pretty much banned the Taliban form walking the streets of New York after they flew a couple airplanes into some buildings.

Would The Caldari State and other empires really allow Goons back into high-sec after Burning Jita.

I thought the burn Jita initiative was pretty cool, until I realized it was very one sided and not very sandboxy at all. They are hiding behind a nice little one-way mirror on the sandbox reflection there. Maybe industrial carebears should be able to petition the empires to ban certain alliances from commerce lanes they are willing to grind to a halt.



Even if they wer banned form empire. They would use alts and freighter services, So petitioning the factions will not work.

Signatures wer cooler when we couldn't remove them completely.
Serene Repose
#26 - 2012-04-17 05:23:04 UTC
MasterEnt wrote:
So the United States pretty much banned the Taliban form walking the streets of New York after they flew a couple airplanes into some buildings.

Would The Caldari State and other empires really allow Goons back into high-sec after Burning Jita.

I thought the burn Jita initiative was pretty cool, until I realized it was very one sided and not very sandboxy at all. They are hiding behind a nice little one-way mirror on the sandbox reflection there. Maybe industrial carebears should be able to petition the empires to ban certain alliances from commerce lanes they are willing to grind to a halt.
Yeah, well, you've struck upon the sophomoric, infantile visualization the CCP staff has with regard to the word "sovereignty". They use it cause they think it sounds cool. Read the news. The sovereigns are up to their necks in displays of ultra-coolness, which I imagine a CCP staffer would see as a preferred leadership method, and aren't concerned at all that people are walking all over their authority, as though they're the blowhards they seem to be.

This is what is meant when people say "CCP favors the criminals." It gets said a lot around here, too. Apparently you can add "reading-comprehension challenged" to that list of attributes - or would that be the description panel?

reading comp. -99.3959965684838339395969669
gov. comp. -99.953454584573482745894534

We must accommodate the idiocracy.
Corwin Arzakh
Singidunum Stellar Exploration
#27 - 2012-04-25 10:00:04 UTC
Personally, I don't like what Goons are doing. But, hey! If game allows it then that is a part of the game, we all know that. And let's be fair, this is known action, so at least it's honest slaughter
This will be like Goons Incursion. :) EVE is built so you can really influence game if you are strong enough. That is exactly what they are after. Working as intended. Liking it or not is personal and irrelevant. Fairness of action? In EVE? Are you kidding?
Himnos Altar
An Errant Venture
#28 - 2012-04-25 10:13:36 UTC
lanyaie wrote:
Micheal Dietrich wrote:
lanyaie wrote:
Whenever someone compares eve to reallife I just ignore the thread.


lanyaie wrote:
Whenever someone compares eve to reallife I just ignore the thread.



Oh no a guy posted 2x let me go think off something funny to say.




.......


........


.......dammit.
Nirnias Stirrum
UberWTFBBQ and Battle Technologies
#29 - 2012-04-25 10:22:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Nirnias Stirrum
You do to goons what AMURIKA did to the taliban, war dec them and stop them......
Previous page12