Originally by: Dawts

---

Originally by: Ann Drogynous

---

Originally by: Dawts

---

Ann Drogynous, we can't pick what ships our targets use. There is a reason they are flying noob ships and shuttles. They don't want to lose thier other ships.

---

While it may be true that you cannot pick what ships your targets use it still doesn't explain why, unless for padding killboard stats, it takes four of you to pop a velator. What, were you struggling to break his tank with your Harbinger and had to call for backup?

Obviously I'm just busting your balls a bit here but if you're gonna hand out "protips" it pays to be pro.

---

It just means that while trying to lock down the ship 4 of us got a lock before he popped.

---

Originally by: Dawts

---

We're getting off topic though. This isn't the end all answer, it just shows that CCP knows there is a problem and this is the first steps to address this problem. It says in the dev blog itself, they are willing to take additional measures if they don't see people leaving NPC corps.

---

Originally by: Dawts

---

Originally by: Vulpes macrotis

---

Originally by: Dawts

---

We're getting off topic though. This isn't the end all answer, it just shows that CCP knows there is a problem and this is the first steps to address this problem. It says in the dev blog itself, they are willing to take additional measures if they don't see people leaving NPC corps.

---

That is as maybe but if you ask me it is not financially prudent to start alienating your casual gamer playerbase with WoW: Cataclysm in the pipeline. Having said that Icelanders aren't particularly renowned throughout the world for being financially prudent.

---

I applaud the fact that CCP is not caving to the casuals, but rather keeping the game as they want it. Risk vs Reward.

Currently (I've read) that an average lvl 4 mission running can bring in 30-40 million isk an hour if not more. When in high sec what is the risk? You may get ninja salvaged a couple times, but it's unlikely that will happen very often. At least this should address the highest "rewarding" gameplay activitys of an NPC corp member.

---

Originally by: Dawts

---

So since your risk vs reward argument is flawed, you're going to result to personal attacks?

You should look up the word integrity.
That's why I applaud CCP, they aren't the same sheep that make all the MMOs and that's the reason your sitting here posting in their forums.
They created the game in the image they wanted and that's why I applaud them.
Just because you're a sell-out doesn't mean CCP should be too.

---

Originally by: Aralieus

---

HAHAHA, no more sucking faction tit for free protection, awsome

---

Originally by: GM Nythanos

---

Hello,

For #1, Closing a corporation and opening a new one with the same members is allowed, and the people who declared war on your now closed corporation can declare a new war on your new corporation if they choose to do so.

For #2, Using alt corps to increase the cost of wars against your corporation or alliance is prohibited.

To help clarify this, there are restrictions with regards to joining and leaving corporation, such as mentioned here:
http://www.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=2317&tid=1

---

Originally by: Vulpes macrotis

---

Edited by: Vulpes macrotis on 25/09/2009 12:02:55
Edited by: Vulpes macrotis on 25/09/2009 12:02:10

Originally by: Dawts

---

So since your risk vs reward argument is flawed, you're going to result to personal attacks?

You should look up the word integrity.
That's why I applaud CCP, they aren't the same sheep that make all the MMOs and that's the reason your sitting here posting in their forums.
They created the game in the image they wanted and that's why I applaud them.
Just because you're a sell-out doesn't mean CCP should be too.

---

Exactly which flawed risk v reward argument did I make? I cannot see the post that you are referring to. My only comment about risk was to suggest I risk my sanity with the mind-numbing boredom of running missions.

Stating that you are not coming across as being all that bright is not a personal attack it is a statement of fact. If I had said you were stupid then that could have been construed as a personal attack. I didn't. I merely observed that you don't come across as being all that bright. It remains possible, though unlikely, that you are, in fact, highly intellectual and are hoping to lull others into a false sense of security by attempting to hide your intelligence. I referred only to the way you communicate yourself and made no reference to your actual person. An intellectual would be able to appreciate this nuance and thus perceive the difference.

Allow me to demonstrate.

You refer to a flawed argument that I never made. (Not too bright.)
You applaud the decision by a commercial entity to alienate a large number of its paying customer base. (Not the cleverest idea.)
You claim you applaud CCP because "They created the game in the image they wanted" in a thread discussing a proposal by CCP to CHANGE the product they created. (Not an example of towering intellectual prowess or comprehension.)
You then end the post that begins with you attempting to nullify any points I have made by calling them a personal attack, how? By name-calling. (Again I would suggest this does not come across as being too bright.)
Incidentally, what exactly have I sold out?

You frequently and demonstrably throughout this thread claim this is a good change because it will enable you to derive more pleasure from the distress of others. (Not really intellectual behaviour.)
When somebody makes a point that your standpoint cannot counter you ignore that point and make a different point instead rather than concede that area of the debate. (Again do I really need to continue....)

All told you come across as not being all that bright and yet you expect your views to be held in the same regard as the posters in this thread that can demonstrate a modicum of intelligence? I don't think that is actually how it works in the real world. Sorry.

Also, as an aside, it would never occur to me to suggest someone look up the definition of a word. As someone who has an extensive vocabulary at my disposal I actually fall into the trap of assuming automatically that everyone else has. Clever people are like that. But of course you will know that as you are really only trying to "appear" less than intelligent.

Edit: Lol at the profanity filter. Does it also filter Cumulative? Obviously not - bizarre.

---

Originally by: FlyinS

---

Originally by: Lotus Sutra

---

Corp hopping isn't an issue to CCP. Opening a corp, then closing it because of a war dec and opening a brand new one with the same players etc is bannable though.

---

After lengthy discussions with several GMs because of a corp that was doing this repeatedly when we decced them, I can say this is incorrect.

CCP sees this as perfectly fine.

---

Originally by: Lotus Sutra

---

Yeah I saw the gm statements on that well after I wrote that. From previous gm statements a year or so ago it had been deemed an exploit to avoid war decs that way. Seems ccp has changed their stance on it.

---