open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked The wisdom of NBSI
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

Author Topic

Liu Kaskakka
PAK
Posted - 2007.01.12 19:53:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: Ceanthar Cerbera
But why arent there any wild bill hickock and wyatt earp in EVE?


Liez, check my title ingame!

Ceanthar Cerbera
Minmatar
Lone Gunmen
Posted - 2007.01.12 19:55:00 - [62]
 

Originally by: Malicia Skirj


Let's look at this another way. A more realistic way.


Two arbitrary countries...let's say a very small pack of US warplanes suddenly enters Russian airspace...what do you think is going to happen to those planes? And this is in reality with real consequences, so it should be perfectly understandable that unknown people in an area held by another group are going to be shot down first and interrogated later. If you think that's an unreasonable example, feel free to look up some info on Gary Powers.



Well this is not realistic. Because thats not what happens. What happens is they get escorted out, diplomacy arises and the incident is resolved. Either in peace with apologies or with agression if the US dont back down. If real life applied NBSI the cold war would have led to a world war. It didnt happen.

Ralagina
Caldari
ReviveX Fleet
White Noise.
Posted - 2007.01.12 19:55:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: Dark Shikari
Heard of CFS?

They proved to EVE that a non-NBSI policy does not work for a large territory-holding alliance.


Hard of ISS up north? Laughing

Xelios
Minmatar
Broski Enterprises
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2007.01.12 20:00:00 - [64]
 

Edited by: Xelios on 12/01/2007 20:01:42
Originally by: Ceanthar Cerbera
Edited by: Ceanthar Cerbera on 12/01/2007 18:05:24
Originally by: Xelios
Edited by: Xelios on 12/01/2007 17:59:33
What's the point of owning space if you need an escort fleet every time you want to move a hauler around in it?



whats the point of owning a car when someone might steal it tonight? I live in a quite safe town but I can never be sure I wont be robbed or worse. Still that dont make me runa around treating everyone with suspicion.

edit: well ok maybe I to view people with a little suspicion but I dont go araound beating them up just to be sure they wont do it to me.

I think a better analogy would be leaving the front door of your house wide open all the time with a little sign above saying "Please don't take my stuff". Inside you have tons of expensive electronics and all kinds of nice things that a lot of people would like to have but don't. Now when some complete stranger walks into your house without saying hello are you suspicious?

NBSI is a lot like leaving the door locked. It means "stay out of our space". But because we can't lock the gates the only way is to pod people out, asking nicely may work 1 time out of 10, the other 9 while you're asking nicely he's moving on about his business. Maybe he gives a little "lol yea right" in local before he jumps out too.

But as for the car analogy, if stealing that care wasn't against the law and the only person standing between the theif and a free $10,000 automobile was you, maybe you'd feel a little differently when you see people looking into the windows? In 0.0 anything goes, you have to assume the worst because more often than not that's exactly what you get. That's what makes it different from empire in the first place.

Araviel
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2007.01.12 20:09:00 - [65]
 

Originally by: Dark Shikari
Heard of CFS?

They proved to EVE that a non-NBSI policy does not work for a large territory-holding alliance.


Sorry dark, I think it worked very well for a very long time, and i dont think it was our non NBSI policy that brought CFS down ;)
But this was long before we had the user base that we got today.

Today its a diffrent mather, its just simply to many groups and individuals in space to administrate in a convenient way, specially whit a standing limit of 300 corps. (Or have they changed that? I just got back and havent updated myself fully on kali yet)

I still think it works tho, but in a completly diffrent scale.
We got plenty of corps and smaller alliances that issue this policy today,
But I agree that if your a large tarritory holding alliance it wouldnt be recommeded, atleast its nothing i would like to try again Smile

Ceanthar Cerbera
Minmatar
Lone Gunmen
Posted - 2007.01.12 20:15:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: Xelios


But as for the car analogy, if stealing that care wasn't against the law and the only person standing between the theif and a free $10,000 automobile was you, maybe you'd feel a little differently when you see people looking into the windows? In 0.0 anything goes, you have to assume the worst because more often than not that's exactly what you get. That's what makes it different from empire in the first place.


No I wouldnt take your car even if that was the case. And In the wild west that wasnt the case for many people either. For some yes but not for most people.
Why do we have the laws we have? If it werent any reason behind them they wouldnt exist. Nothing just happens.

Venkhar Krard
Posted - 2007.01.12 20:18:00 - [67]
 

Oh please..
Its only a game.. dont compare it to real life.
Please dont speak about kindness or humanity.. we dont kill you in RL when we destroy your ship..
Its A GAME.
If you want to make utopia out of 0.0, claim some land and try it.
Oh and dont call people "childish and stupid" only beacause they play the game other way than you..



Ceanthar Cerbera
Minmatar
Lone Gunmen
Posted - 2007.01.12 20:24:00 - [68]
 

Edited by: Ceanthar Cerbera on 12/01/2007 20:21:24
Originally by: Venkhar Krard
Oh please..
Its only a game.. dont compare it to real life.
Please dont speak about kindness or humanity.. we dont kill you in RL when we destroy your ship..
Its A GAME.
If you want to make utopia out of 0.0, claim some land and try it.
Oh and dont call people "childish and stupid" only beacause they play the game other way than you..





so I have to accept your style of playing when you dont accept mine? Circular argument my friend ;)

edit: but no I realize that people play it differently. just like.. oh yes real life!

Malicia Skirj
Posted - 2007.01.12 20:25:00 - [69]
 

Originally by: Ceanthar Cerbera
Originally by: Malicia Skirj


Let's look at this another way. A more realistic way.


Two arbitrary countries...let's say a very small pack of US warplanes suddenly enters Russian airspace...what do you think is going to happen to those planes? And this is in reality with real consequences, so it should be perfectly understandable that unknown people in an area held by another group are going to be shot down first and interrogated later. If you think that's an unreasonable example, feel free to look up some info on Gary Powers.



Well this is not realistic. Because thats not what happens. What happens is they get escorted out, diplomacy arises and the incident is resolved. Either in peace with apologies or with agression if the US dont back down. If real life applied NBSI the cold war would have led to a world war. It didnt happen.



Evidentally, you didn't read that bit at the bottom. Not only is it realistic, it's proven itself. Powers wasn't escorted out. He was shot down. Real life applied NBSI...and you're right...it nearly lead to a war and lead us to the cuban missile crisis, which also nearly lead to war. But not quite.

Another incident of NBSI in reality would be the USS Vincennes shooting down that Iranian airbus in 1988. They didn't ask or crank up the diplomacy. They said, "Hey...could be an enemy. Kill it."


Now let's take a look at non-NBSI in reality. When the two flights that were flown into the WTC left their designated flight paths, they were asked why. When they didn't respond and continued along with their new flight plan, they should have been shot down. As it was, when they finally decided to get some jets in the air, the passenger planes' transponders had been shut off making them harder to find. We already know the results of that non-NBSI action.


So. Three examples of reality. Two NBSI actions that nearly led to war. Nearly. And one non that did actually lead to war, just because people hesitated when they were unsure of the intentions of the people piloting those aircraft.

Ceanthar Cerbera
Minmatar
Lone Gunmen
Posted - 2007.01.12 20:28:00 - [70]
 

Originally by: Malicia Skirj
Originally by: Ceanthar Cerbera
Originally by: Malicia Skirj



Well this is not realistic. Because thats not what happens. What happens is they get escorted out, diplomacy arises and the incident is resolved. Either in peace with apologies or with agression if the US dont back down. If real life applied NBSI the cold war would have led to a world war. It didnt happen.



Evidentally, you didn't read that bit at the bottom. Not only is it realistic, it's proven itself. Powers wasn't escorted out. He was shot down. Real life applied NBSI...and you're right...it nearly lead to a war and lead us to the cuban missile crisis, which also nearly lead to war. But not quite.

Another incident of NBSI in reality would be the USS Vincennes shooting down that Iranian airbus in 1988. They didn't ask or crank up the diplomacy. They said, "Hey...could be an enemy. Kill it."


Now let's take a look at non-NBSI in reality. When the two flights that were flown into the WTC left their designated flight paths, they were asked why. When they didn't respond and continued along with their new flight plan, they should have been shot down. As it was, when they finally decided to get some jets in the air, the passenger planes' transponders had been shut off making them harder to find. We already know the results of that non-NBSI action.


So. Three examples of reality. Two NBSI actions that nearly led to war. Nearly. And one non that did actually lead to war, just because people hesitated when they were unsure of the intentions of the people piloting those aircraft.


Let's look at this another way. A more realistic way.


Two arbitrary countries...let's say a very small pack of US warplanes suddenly enters Russian airspace...what do you think is going to happen to those planes? And this is in reality with real consequences, so it should be perfectly understandable that unknown people in an area held by another group are going to be shot down first and interrogated later. If you think that's an unreasonable example, feel free to look up some info on Gary Powers.



why is it that people always use exceptions as examples on how something doesnt work. the world as a whole arent in chaos like 0.0 how is that possible if the NBSI logic is what drives us?

Hakera
Freelance Unincorporated
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2007.01.12 20:30:00 - [71]
 

neutrals will only abuse what you fight to protect, the friends you have will watch your back for you when needed. That is the difference. If you dont use NBSI, you will be used and you must accept that. Under NBSI, you know who your friends are, and if the rest arnt with you, they are against you.

Malicia Skirj
Posted - 2007.01.12 20:31:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: Ceanthar Cerbera
Edited by: Ceanthar Cerbera on 12/01/2007 20:21:24
Originally by: Venkhar Krard
Oh please..
Its only a game.. dont compare it to real life.
Please dont speak about kindness or humanity.. we dont kill you in RL when we destroy your ship..
Its A GAME.
If you want to make utopia out of 0.0, claim some land and try it.
Oh and dont call people "childish and stupid" only beacause they play the game other way than you..





so I have to accept your style of playing when you dont accept mine? Circular argument my friend ;)

edit: but no I realize that people play it differently. just like.. oh yes real life!



He never said yours was rejected. Simply that it's just a game. In fact, in his second to last line he's welcoming you to try your style of play.

And yes, when you go into another country, you have to accept their laws just as they have to accept yours (if you're strong enough to enforce them) or concord's when they're in your 'country'.

Venkhar Krard
Posted - 2007.01.12 20:33:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: Ceanthar Cerbera

so I have to accept your style of playing when you dont accept mine? Circular argument my friend ;)

edit: but no I realize that people play it differently. just like.. oh yes real life!


Oh I accept your style of playing and understand it. You can do whatever you think is right. Claim your own space, play the game like you like, create your own rules.. But dont come to our space and wonder, why we play it the other way around and pls dont try to change it, accept it.


Malicia Skirj
Posted - 2007.01.12 20:40:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: Ceanthar Cerbera


why is it that people always use exceptions as examples on how something doesnt work. the world as a whole arent in chaos like 0.0 how is that possible if the NBSI logic is what drives us?



Those weren't the exceptions. Those were the rules. The US wanted an 'open skies' treaty. Russia didn't. In other words, if it isn't russian they'll attempt to shoot it down. The fact that their anti-aircraft capabilities sucked didn't change their NBSI policy.

In our military we're taught not to fire warning shots like you see in the movies all the time. Granted, the recognition systems the navy was using at the time weren't so great, but that doesn't change the fact that they'll shoot down an aircraft that appears hostile, whether it is or not.

Pre 9/11 protocols for aircraft in the US deviating from flight plans more than marginally required the FAA and NORAD talking to each other and getting jets in the air to evaluate the flight plan of the hijacked plane and if necessary, shoot it. That's not an exception. That's standard procedure. It simply wasn't followed.

Neon Genesis
GoonFleet
Posted - 2007.01.12 20:41:00 - [75]
 

It's far more efficient that trying to discern which targets are friendly that don't have standings, and it's fun. That's all.

Ceanthar Cerbera
Minmatar
Lone Gunmen
Posted - 2007.01.12 20:42:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Malicia Skirj
Originally by: Ceanthar Cerbera
Edited by: Ceanthar Cerbera on 12/01/2007 20:21:24
Originally by: Venkhar Krard
Oh please..
Its only a game.. dont compare it to real life.
Please dont speak about kindness or humanity.. we dont kill you in RL when we destroy your ship..
Its A GAME.
If you want to make utopia out of 0.0, claim some land and try it.
Oh and dont call people "childish and stupid" only beacause they play the game other way than you..





so I have to accept your style of playing when you dont accept mine? Circular argument my friend ;)

edit: but no I realize that people play it differently. just like.. oh yes real life!



He never said yours was rejected. Simply that it's just a game. In fact, in his second to last line he's welcoming you to try your style of play.

And yes, when you go into another country, you have to accept their laws just as they have to accept yours (if you're strong enough to enforce them) or concord's when they're in your 'country'.


yes but for most countrys in real life and systems with concord you dont go in suspecting everyone wants you harm and will shoot you on sight.
Well actually there is one place they do that and its a small island with "natives" (people that have had no contact with modern man) where they attack anyone on sight. There even was an incident where survivors from an helicopter crash was killed when the reached the island. But its an extreme example for sure =)
Still we hail from those people and have made sure to establish UN and Geneva and such. How is that if theres no will for "non-NBSI"?

Ozzie Asrail
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2007.01.12 20:43:00 - [77]
 

People who equate RL to a computer game worry me that Jack Thomson might actually be right... ugh

Pham Sirge
VersaTech Interstellar Ltd.
SMASH Alliance
Posted - 2007.01.12 20:43:00 - [78]
 

Hi all,

Unless you have lived in 0.0 for an extended period of time you have no right to question it.

If you canít even be bother joining/teaming up with the alliance who is actively defending the space you deserve to get blasted into meaty bite sized chunks.

NBSI is there to allow the alliance to defend their space. They are paying the POS fuel costs, they are killing the pirates/enemies and finally they live there.

You are leeching off them, you provide in most cases nothing to them and in turn cost them money by running their complex's, mining their ore or killing their rats that others could use.

Its on your own back to get friendly with an alliance, it isnít their job to baby sit you.

,
Pham Sirge

Ceanthar Cerbera
Minmatar
Lone Gunmen
Posted - 2007.01.12 20:44:00 - [79]
 

This turned out a quite interesting thread. Shows theres quite a few who recognize this as being a bit faulty, or so it would seem to me.

Rod Blaine
Evolution
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2007.01.12 20:45:00 - [80]
 

Edited by: Rod Blaine on 12/01/2007 20:44:24
You're all being far too nerdy about it.

NBSI is FUN, that's all that there's to it for most of us. Sure it can be fun to build a web of standings using gradations up the waazoo and trying to keep up wioth all the altcorps, who has joined/left privateers this week and whatever else you'd have to do in order to make sure everyone that needs to be at negative standing actually is at negative standing.

Or, you just set those to postitive that matter and shoot the rest, easy. Additional benefit: you get to shoot more people, which, whatever way you twist it, is the endgame of Eve for most of us. Another nice benefit: your alliance gets to keep pvp members, which you need to survive.

So, if you know a way in which a large group of people will like spending two hours a day in meetings over who should be shot and who not, who should be reimbursed for being shot unneccesarily and what you all should do to combat the bleeding of combatants from your alliance once everyone is bored of hunting the same old two dozen npc station hugging logoffgankers, then by all means do it. As you said, iss tried an approach, blue tried an approach, and cfs tried one, they all failed.

Eve is a game, people will not behave rationally in it, espcially seeign how we're all post-human immortals flying spaceships with lots of guns in it.

In eve, you leave your morals at the loginscreen, and choose yourself a role to play.

Xaintrix
Revolution.
The Shadow Ascension
Posted - 2007.01.12 20:52:00 - [81]
 

Originally by: Malicia Skirj
Another incident of NBSI in reality would be the USS Vincennes shooting down that Iranian airbus in 1988. They didn't ask or crank up the diplomacy. They said, "Hey...could be an enemy. Kill it."



+10 Standing for you. My father was on the Vincennes when that occured, just as an Engineer, but still. That was some freaking scary stuff.

Tiger Cruise was fun, I got a shell from the deck cannon and some dummy phalanx rounds. :)

That's fatherly affection for you... *cough*

Kovid
Applied Agoraphobia
Posted - 2007.01.12 21:09:00 - [82]
 

Originally by: Keshi Linegod
I understand the reasons for NBSI, but I also think that it is counter productive to what people have been trying to do recently that is repopulate low-sec and get people out of empire.

With NBSI you can never ask a few people who are not part of a large allience to take the risk of getting shot up every where and move out of the saftey of empire.


Likely, CCP would like to see more people out of empire and spread about.

And you should always be on your toes in lowsec - 0.0. People in NBSI alliances still have plenty of people getting ganked because they get lulled into a safe sense (which they shouldn't.) But that is a lesson learned really.

NBSI does not stop people in cloaked ships spying or disrupting mining operations by parking in a safespot and going to work for the day logged on safe and sound.

You shouldn't need NBSI to notice a hostile fleet in a well operated alliance.

If you allow a more lenient policy like NRDSI and let people dock in 0.0 stations trade can flow outside of empire without convoys or carrier runs. Trade hubs could be less important. 0.0 market prices would drop for alliances that did so. No longer would you have to pay 50-100k for a shuttle or something else stupid. Or just having a market stocked for that matter.

As for one comment on 0.0 being 99% for PVPers, that's far and away untrue. Plenty of industrialists get lured by rare rocks.

Malicia Skirj
Posted - 2007.01.12 21:16:00 - [83]
 

Originally by: Ceanthar Cerbera

yes but for most countrys in real life and systems with concord you dont go in suspecting everyone wants you harm and will shoot you on sight.
Well actually there is one place they do that and its a small island with "natives" (people that have had no contact with modern man) where they attack anyone on sight. There even was an incident where survivors from an helicopter crash was killed when the reached the island. But its an extreme example for sure =)
Still we hail from those people and have made sure to establish UN and Geneva and such. How is that if theres no will for "non-NBSI"?



Since we're in a game world, let's consider a game world scenario. If someone were flying some type of fighter and entered another country's airspace without notifying them in advance...I think they'd be pretty silly not to expect to be shot down. Most countries would, or might give you some kind of warning if they're not feeling so twitchy. Either way amounts to the same thing, though. You don't get to fly through their airspace. Lots of corps have this policy in Eve from what I've seen, and lots of countries do, too, despite this odd view you seem to have of things. Hell, even when you do say you're going into another country, they still act suspicious....and yes..Customs Agents can shoot you if they feel you're a threat.

Rod Blaine
Evolution
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2007.01.12 21:19:00 - [84]
 

Edited by: Rod Blaine on 12/01/2007 21:20:12
I really don't get where people get the assumtpion from that NBSI means that only the territorial alliance gets to use the space.

What it comes down to, for those that actually play with their eyes open and know what they're talking about, is that instead of simply doing whatever the **** you like in 0.0 claimed by someone else, you now have the option to negotiate so that the territorial alliance gives you that positive standing that results in a somewhat safer environment for you, and allows docking, offices, whatever. NBSI doesn't mean noone but the alliance operates in that space. People that think that need to actually go out there and look really. Wastelands are so 2004, player empires are 2006 and 2007, just watch and see.

Also, neutrality is simply a fiction. Since your presence in someone else space either helps them or does not help them, there's no way in which your presence does nothing. So there's no such thing as neutrality since anyone choses sides in 0.0 space merely by the fact which part of it they ply their trade in. Theoretically neutralisty might bge an option, but then you place too much value in the Eve backstory section and too little in the accumualted player experience we like to also call reality. Adn even if neutrality would be practically feasible in Eve0.0 space, it would just not be funto most of the people that affect your safety in that part of space.

Neutrality has always been made possible only by convenience and by overlapping interests of nations. It is nothing different in Eve, except that here gameplay fun is an interest people too often neglect in these discussions.


Erik Pathfinder
Caldari
M. Corp
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2007.01.12 21:28:00 - [85]
 

Please stop trying to say that the Iranian airliner shot down is an example of NBSI in real life, it's not. It's an example of a ****y commander, un-trained officers and confusion leading to something happening that simply does not happen. Read the wikipedia article on it for more information. Iran Air Flight 655

Xaintrix
Revolution.
The Shadow Ascension
Posted - 2007.01.12 21:34:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: Erik Pathfinder
Please stop trying to say that the Iranian airliner shot down is an example of NBSI in real life, it's not. It's an example of a ****y commander, un-trained officers and confusion leading to something happening that simply does not happen. Read the wikipedia article on it for more information. Iran Air Flight 655


Which is a good point. It was more of a good example of NBSI FAILING in real life. Basically they screwed up the standings, or rather the person at the keyboard was colorblind and unloaded.

But even then, to really compare and contrast with real life tragedies leaves a lot to be desired. Still, it's nice to know someone knows that ship, infamous as it may be.

I have to say one thing, the food actually wasn't half bad.

Mog Carns
Southern Crossfire
Cartel Syndicate
Posted - 2007.01.12 22:00:00 - [87]
 

It's fun, it's practical, and it works. What other reasons exist? Given that the only possible downside is, occasionally, someone gets their toes bruised, is not a great deal of concern.

We concern ourselves in real life because they have real life consequenses. People who die do not come back. We would very much like to keep as many of our people alive as we can, and we therefore show some restraint in our tactics and policies. Please note, this allows others to do a great deal of harm, but with a very small loss of life on either side.

This does not apply only to contries, but in our personal lives. I do not have a howitzer on my jeep, so I cannot blow up the guy doing 28 in a 55. It takes me over an hour to get home instead of 30 minutes. I am harmed, it is not fun, but the loss of actual life is less (zero). Having more loss of life would be fun, at first, but then going to prison, or the gas chamber, would not be. Thus, restraint.

I have some bratz who have been egging my cars and house at night going on 4 years. I go out in the cold and dark and wash things off. This is not fun, it is wet and cold and miserable. I could landmine my yard, set up cameras for survielance, and then invade the home of the delequint and slaughter the whole family. However, that would have undesirable consequences, as above. So we go with the unfun restraint.

We play EVE for fun. People here do, in fact, come back from the dead. There are no real world consequenses. The reasons for restraint are removed. Guess which option everyone chooses.

And the only people who would complain about it are the car going 28 mph and the egg throwing brats. Not a lot of concern if I bruise your toes, I have to say...

x racer
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.01.12 22:56:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: Erik Pathfinder
Please stop trying to say that the Iranian airliner shot down is an example of NBSI in real life, it's not. It's an example of a ****y commander, un-trained officers and confusion leading to something happening that simply does not happen. Read the wikipedia article on it for more information. Iran Air Flight 655


The interdiction of the EP3-C in Hinan, China is a much better example

x

Culmen
Caldari
Culmenation
Posted - 2007.01.13 07:33:00 - [89]
 

Edited by: Culmen on 13/01/2007 07:35:12
Edited by: Culmen on 13/01/2007 07:31:00
Originally by: x racer
Originally by: Erik Pathfinder
Please stop trying to say that the Iranian airliner shot down is an example of NBSI in real life, it's not. It's an example of a ****y commander, un-trained officers and confusion leading to something happening that simply does not happen. Read the wikipedia article on it for more information. Iran Air Flight 655


The interdiction of the EP3-C in Hinan, China is a much better example

x


A) Nobody shot anything, that was a mid air collision
B) the incident started over international waters, not chinese territory, so china didnt have POSs up in those waters
C) its an EP3-E not an EP3-C

overall i still think NBSI is a good idea
over time it leads to less neutrals
less neutrals means less n00bs
less n00bs means less pirates hunting n00bs
less pirates hunting n00bs is less pirates

Shakuul
Caldari
RuffRyders
Axiom Empire
Posted - 2007.01.13 09:36:00 - [90]
 

Like others have pointed out, alliances really don't have much to gain by allowing neutrals into their territory. Again, as others have pointed out, the mistake you are making in saying it is "childish and stupid" to have a policy of NBSI is that you are comparing EVE to the real world. In EVE, when you pod someone or whatever, you aren't seriously harming them. Sure, they might get annoyed/discouraged, but thats part of the game. You are just sending a strong message of "stay out of my territory."

NBSI is the result of people responding rationally to incentives. CCP has a system where standings are limited in number and complexity (for example you can't set all noob chars to negative standings, etc). So, even if I wanted to make an alliance that issued hunting passes that would be visible next to your name in local, I couldn't. It just isn't worth the risk letting a bunch of "neutrals" through if a few are actually hostiles. If alliances with sovereignty could charge (limited) gate fees, or get a % of every bounty regardless of member corp, or something like that, it might provide further incentive to choose a policy other than NBSI.

When you are looking for a "higher purpose" in EVE, you again confuse life and EVE. Life may have a "higher purpose," EVE certainly does not. Its a game, its about fun. Everything else (mining, hunting, pvp, whatever) is all done directly or indirectly to have fun. I guess if you really want to hunt for values in EVE you might be able to argue that brotherhood/camaraderie/unity are values, since they are necessary for functional corporations and alliances.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only