Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Simetraz
State War Academy Caldari State
246
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 03:41:00 -
[31] - Quote
Morganta wrote:so then people would be able to preemptively attack anyone who is yellow?
what if you or your corp engages in low sec skirmish warfare and you don't actually gank anyone at all in empire you pretty much make it possible for empire dwellers to gank anyone who engages in combat outside of null with NO REPERCUSSIONS
terrible idea is terrible
But I thought that was the idea, people want more PVP outside of null sec. Well there you go. If you run into a bounty hunter you will have to deal with him/her. I did say it worked both ways with no loss of standings.
Look at it this way it might open up a bunch of free kills, maybe. Of course they would be able to shoot back. |
Qolde
Bombs Away. Nulli Tertius
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 04:37:00 -
[32] - Quote
I like this idea a lot. I'd probably tweak the sec status's as such, though it wouldn't mean much in the long run. +1 allows you to attack -4 and below +2 allows you to attack -3 and below +3 allows you to attack -2 and below +4 allows you to attack -1 and below +5 allows you to attack anything below 0.
Now, someone with only a +1 is either a new carebear, or not a carebear at all. Add to this normal aggression mechanics, and WALLAH! Copious amounts of high sec (non gank) PVP at gates, belts and plexes. Maybe even missions and stations. DO EET CCP DO EET! |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
513
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 04:43:00 -
[33] - Quote
How can large numbers of people who are totally indistinguishable from everyone else in local being able to shoot a single individuals without warning who haven't actually done anything to those people be considered "non gank" PVP.
|
Internet Lawyer Steve
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 05:01:00 -
[34] - Quote
Aqriue wrote:To prove a point, you will never ******* see a ganker use a battleship anymore since there would be an amazing sense of loss without insurance. See, everytime someone even ******* mentions it they bitchwhine how the ganker gets to be the Godthumb and deliver a bitchslap of justice at minimal risk to themselves. See, that is called...get this you will ******* laugh out loud...risk adversion. You will never see a faction battleship take out a hulk with CONCORD retalliation, because like the guy they are shooting in the hulk but the ganker won't admit it...THEY ARE BOTH ******* HUMAN! Both the idiot in the hulk and the ganker in the destroyer, are spending time in highsec where hulk is getting minimal isk per hour (cause no where makes more and is total safe) while the ganker is spending mimimal risk of losing something. But they both pay the exact same amount to CCP, therefore....both should be ******* losers. Buff the hulk to survive DPS of tier 3 battleships and hulks have zero insurance payout...both parties are loosing several hundred million...which is equally fair. Or the hulk could get a make over, but we all know what the loud whiney Thai wh*re noise level parties do not want to happen. ( CCP should of just killed the mining profession all together.)
Everytime some idiot says that highsec is to safe, please show us exactly where the **** at all safe option is. What exactly prevents you from firing on a hulk, this option that makes them totally safe. What is it? Is it that....no wait this is not WoW where there is PVP only areas. See, when you fire on a hulk....without a wardec...in highsec....YOU FACE ******* REPERCUSIONS OF YOUR ACTIONS...BUT WHINEY LITTLE NEED THEIR ASS WIPED BY MOMMY RISK ADVERSE PILOTS DON'T LIKE LOSING TO CONCORD....No different then every other guy who you ******* blew away in lowsec and null....NO ******* HUMAN LIKES LOSING....but highsec is the only option that makes the least amount of isk (Where you you make more, with less risk then highsec? You can't nerf the bare minimum). Therefore, when one guy makes less isk YOU the other guy should face far more repercusions for your actions to blow them away. When they move elsewere for more isk with more risk...then its balanced.
Nothing prevents you from actually blowing the hulk away, but you don't like that POW! WHAM! KA-BOOM! sensation like when your father backhanded you for doing stupid as a kid...but as an adult you feel the need to do what ever you want with minimal repercussions. Sorry, but if you avoid risk just as much as the hulk pilot spending time in highsec...guess what you are no better if you pull the ******* trigger or not you are avoiding repercussions to your actions. That is something CCP needs to figure out, because they ****** up 9 years ago when they relized "OH, we didn't know that when you let someone do what ever you want...who is it that is actually right when both parties are our customers." Who faces the most risk? How do you make the most isk and what is acceptable minimum isk? How do you balance it...since its so grindly to replace something like a hulk that just ******* explodes because it only has two ******* fitting options that are barely adequate while nearly all other T2 ships have at least three: Max gank, Max Tank, Balanced Gank/Tank that doesn't ******* pop so easily unless OVERHWHELMING alpha hits it. The bare mimimum CCP needs to do is make it just as ******* grindy to replace sec status as it is to replace a hulk plus locking out even a ******* pod from highsec unless a bare minimum of -2.0 is reach and forget their ******* stupid idea to allow criminal tags to raise sec status. Sorry, but if you have to ******* grind to replace a hulk then the other guy has to ******* grind sec status...with one tick every 15 minutes and not every session change...then both parties are spending equal time grinding.
Oh, and for every ******* idiot that spouts "Fit a tank" to a hulk let me ask you...why didn't your subcap shitfleet adapt and not fly a subcap shitfleet anymore when your ass got splattered by titan guns? Bitchwhine got CCP to step in and fix this obvious "problem" when like a hulk pilot "fits a tank" when perhaps the ******* problem between the chair and the keyboard should of not bitched but insteaded of adapted their tank from a subcap fleet to a capital ship fleet of their own. Logic my friends, you are welcome for me pointing out that the last round of Titan nerfs where unecessary because you could not adapt just as much as you tell a hulk pilot to adapt a tank. To bad you never want to take a loss and certainly don't want CCP to fix such a stupid ship such as the hulk. You know what, knock every destroy down to 5 guns there by allowing it to have more then a frig and now it can get a hitpoint boost...then we can call it balanced without touching the hulk.
******* hypocrites, always beliving you get to apply max risk and punishment while avoiding it yourself. Wish CCP would HTFU like their little theme song and just cause SP loss to occur everytime your ship was destroyed for any reason (not T3 anymore.) Oh yes, even you will feel a soul tearing, nut crushing sense of loss in this version of EVE. ****, even permanent character death at ship explosion would balance out
Internet Lawyer Steve on the scene...
Aqriue it has come to the attention of the offices of Internet Lawyer Steve and Associates that you are upset about your Hulk. We have a comprehensive package detailing how to fit a Tank to your Ship. Please contact us A.S.A.P. (As Soon As Possible) for delivery. Internet Lawyer Steve and Associates,
Bringing Justice to New Eden, One post at a time... |
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
19
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 07:37:00 -
[35] - Quote
Simetraz wrote:I would rather have CCP create a licence or something a true bounty hunter. You would have a monthly bill for the license.
You get so much ISK based on Persons standing to concord for blowing up there ship -0.01 to -10 But if you engage a 0.0 or higher well concord-ed and immediate revoke of license.
This could also be an option. CCP has many abilities to add something in the game to balance the gankers vs. victim dilemma.
Morganta wrote:so then people would be able to preemptively attack anyone who is yellow?
what if you or your corp engages in low sec skirmish warfare and you don't actually gank anyone at all in empire you pretty much make it possible for empire dwellers to gank anyone who engages in combat outside of null with NO REPERCUSSIONS
If you read my post in detail and not just the TLDR section, then that is something I thought about as well. In theory, if one becomes this "sherrif" status, then it only applies to 0.5-1.0 systems (high-sec). Either their ability is revoked as soon as they enter low-sec or it is no longer possible for them to enter low-sec /null-sec systems at all. Low-sec gankers need to be able to roam freely as well of course. They should not be affected by this change as you are right: it would lead to an inbalanced situation of "sherrifs" being able to roam and instigate assaults everywhere without penalty.
Morganta wrote:where 2 fleets go at it on a low sec gate, someone has to shoot first. why should those people be penalized for playing the game?
Obviously, members of these two fleets in low-sec would not qualify to become "sherrifs". After all, they like to roam and fight low-sec with corp-members. Low-sec is their territory. This is how they like to play the game and that is never taken away from them.
Qolde wrote:I like this idea a lot. I'd probably tweak the sec status's as such, though it wouldn't mean much in the long run. +1 allows you to attack -4 and below +2 allows you to attack -3 and below +3 allows you to attack -2 and below +4 allows you to attack -1 and below +5 allows you to attack anything below 0.
Also a possible method, but perhaps this would result in the fact that it could be too easy to obtain. Only a true "do-gooder" of 5.0 should be given the option of becoming a "sherrif" in high-sec systems.
Vimsy Vortis wrote:How can large numbers of people who are totally indistinguishable from everyone else in local being able to shoot a single individuals without warning who haven't actually done anything to those people be considered "non gank" PVP.
Well, we are dealing with a black & white matter here. Provided Crimewatch works as intended, then if you do something bad (no matter what it is), your sec status goes down. If you hunt down rats, your status goes up. This, bare the small exception of some elements, is the only way your security status is changed. So if one is below 0 to -5.0, thus yellow, one has done something that was not considered lawful.
You do however raise a valid point. What to do to identify said "sherrifs". To be fair, one can distinguish a "yellow" from a "white" player. So if they can be legally hunted (SHIPS, mind you, not pods. A pod is not a threat), then one needs to make sure that the hunters receive specific colors as well. Problem is that were running out of options: red, yellow, purple, blue, green are all taken (perhaps I even forgot a color).
So... "sherrifs' become Cyan? Or Teal? Pink?
|
Helicity Boson
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
448
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 08:23:00 -
[36] - Quote
My goodness there is so much mad in here~
I approve of this. |
Gerald Taric
Adamantium Industry
50
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 09:07:00 -
[37] - Quote
Funny. Very funny.
So we have here the one side "Carebears" complaining about the "Gankers" having no great risk, and somehow an easy live, where on the other side --> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=103090 gankers are whining about a hard life and want CONCORD to be less harsh.
Combining these two point of views this seems perfectly balanced
Folks ... please stop whining on any side, and learn to deal with it, as it is!
|
Stirko Hek
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
30
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 10:58:00 -
[38] - Quote
AureoBroker wrote:Actions have consequences. Upon attacking anything a single time in hisec, you should be declared a public criminal, and unable to get back without going GREAT extents, not as a byproduct of ratting. That means: - On police hunting system. - Unable to use market or contracts with non-criminal players. - Unable to travel in CONCORD owned space. - Shootable.
That would also means CONCORD shooting can be rolled back: No need for instantaneous, unrealistic retaliation. Upon giving a realistic tank to hauling and mining barges (since there's no need for alpha-ing), a further rollback to having CONCORD only in CONCORD system, which would be labeled as "newbie" systems - with (very) limited quantities of resources.
For the shooting - galaxy-wide consequences are coming!
So, you pretty much just want to put a shotgun to the whole concept of a sandbox game and have hardcoded mechanisms to prevent interaction between players? This idea is as horrible as the whining from sperg lord guy above.
EDIT: Current system works pretty much better than the sheer majority of half baked droolings of heavy pain killer induced concepts. Align to a celestial, watch D-scan, don't go AFK, fit something that isn't paper thin. If you want to be greedy and fit your MLU's and crap, go ahead, but improved output comes with a price. |
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
19
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 14:44:00 -
[39] - Quote
Gerald Taric wrote:Funny. Very funny. So we have here the one side "Carebears" complaining about the "Gankers" having no great risk, and somehow an easy live, where on the other side --> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=103090gankers are whining about a hard life and want CONCORD to be less harsh. Combining these two point of views this seems perfectly balanced Folks ... please stop whining on any side, and learn to deal with it, as it is!
That would indicate that for every argument one makes, a counter-argument would need to be created and thus balance would be achieved. I'm not entirely sure that this would justify everything as being "perfectly balanced".
If I would threaten to kill you in real life, but complain to the authorities that I would have limited means to do so and you in turn would complain to the authorities that I am able to make such threats to you does not create a "perfectly balanced situation".
Your argument would stand, because the authorities in real life would in fact, protect you from me. I would be punished, not you.
EvE is by no means a mirror to real life, but what it does mean is that if a game creates a certain "authority" (Concord), then its creators (CCP) implemented a designated area in which Concord operates and upholds this authority. As it stands, it is actually failing on this promise of "safety" or at least, it is granting it to the wrong people.
EvE is just a game and an awesome one at that. In light of this and expanding on the sandbox design, I would favor an approach whereby players can intervene (under strict circumstances) and take matters into their own hands.
|
Xavier Bandar
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 14:55:00 -
[40] - Quote
Singulis Pacifica wrote:You do however raise a valid point. What to do to identify said "sherrifs". To be fair, one can distinguish a "yellow" from a "white" player. So if they can be legally hunted (SHIPS, mind you, not pods. A pod is not a threat), then one needs to make sure that the hunters receive specific colors as well. Problem is that were running out of options: red, yellow, purple, blue, green are all taken (perhaps I even forgot a color).
So... "sherrifs' become Cyan? Or Teal? Pink?
You give them a badge and a cowboy hat. Kinda obvious. |
|
OldSamurai
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 15:13:00 -
[41] - Quote
Singulis Pacifica is a genius. I really like the idea with a couple notes:
- Sheriffs (or Public Defenders) should be those with higher security standing (perhaps > 4.8 or even if you make it 5.0 I would be alright with it).
- These public defenders could act only in high security area (0.5 or higher).
- The resulting fight between the criminal and the sheriff would not transfer to their respective corporations. In other words, if the sheriff attacks, the criminal can fight back, but none of the corporation members can interfere (unless they also have the sheriff status). The criminal's corp mates should not be able to intervene either.
- I think the existing status quo for CONCORD should be kept as is. Instant punishment is needed for the gankers.
- I've seen people worrying about the color. It can be the dark blue that is used now for high sec status people, which at the moment has no use. So light blue for everyone with "good" security and dark blue for the sheriffs.
- Also, one could think of making it harder to become a sheriff, like being able to operate only in the space belonging to a faction for which they have a standing of 8+ ?
I really think this would bring some needed balance to the high sec area and perhaps more 1 vs 1 action. Think about the low sec guys that would come to high sec w the hope to get a good fight. And miners may be left a bit safer. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4129
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 15:16:00 -
[42] - Quote
dogspotting is a game you can play any time in any place, the rules are simple and it can be played alone or with others
you just gotta spot dogs, anywhere you see dogs, thats where the game is
single dog = 1pt
double dog = 4pt (must be one person walking two dogs, two people together each walking one dog is two single dogs)
triple dog = 6pt and so forth
particularly funny looking or ugly dogs are worth an additional point, very large dogs are also worth an additional point, though there is no bonus or lesser value placed on small dogs. Dogs in clothes falls under the heading of funny/ugly dogs.
You can tally your points on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis, I prefer to do daily.
Today I saw 3 single dogs, none particularly funny or large, and one double dog, so I had 7pts today.
I made this game up and its fun to play so if you wanna play along with me lets keep score together!
Naturally, some amendments and clarifications were made, which I will do my best to summarize here:
- Small dogs are worth +1. Small dogs with extremely fat owners are worth +2.
- +1 if you trick a dog into yawning by yawning yourself.
- +1 if they have a stick in their mouth.
- +1 for action dogs (swimming, chasing ducks, catching an object, fetching an object). Note: you cannot initiate the action.
- +1 for a dog in a car
- +2 for a dog in a car with its head out the window
- +10 for a dog in a helicopter
- Rescue dogs are worth +10 points. A rescue dog that rescues you from some rubble is worth +20 points. Note: you may not get yourself trapped in rubble intentionally for points.
- Drug dogs are worth +5
- Bomb sniffing dogs are worth +10
I wish you all the best of luck and high scores! This should make those boring summer days pass much faster! "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Carnes
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 15:19:00 -
[43] - Quote
I don't think this idea is good and i have a reason. The original argument only talks about highsec and doesn't think about repercussions for citizens in lowsec. I have almost always had a negative sec status because i already "sheriff" lowsec systems. It is always a game of cat and mouse unless the pirate is confident s/he can win. This usually means i have to take the opening shot, pulling station/gate aggro. The same goes if i catch a target ratting when i'm in my recon. I have to take the opening shot (or tackle, in this case) to commit them to the fight.
It might seem cut & dry in highsec but it is not so simple in lowsec. The only mechanism highsec citizens have to kill "bad guys" is to wait for them to gcc or use their killrights. In lowsec you can kill them anytime you want. Though you quickly become negative sec status yourself, it was not from doing anything "bad". |
Lharanai
Empyrean Guard IMPERIAL LEGI0N
149
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 15:23:00 -
[44] - Quote
but somehow he has one point in his rant, bitching about how unfair the titans are until they get nerfed but at the same time telling miners to tank or shut up seems just a little...........idiotic Seriously, don't take me serious, I MEAN IT...seriously |
Jon Taggart
State War Academy Caldari State
46
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 15:26:00 -
[45] - Quote
Managed to get blown up in a disco camp in Perimeter. I was so surprised to see one there I didn't care about the ~350 mil in Armor Plates I dropped!
Was a swift kick in the butt for me and a good learning experience. Now I fly my salvage in something a little sturdier. Like an ibis! |
OldSamurai
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 15:27:00 -
[46] - Quote
Carnes wrote:I don't think this idea is good and i have a reason. The original argument only talks about highsec and doesn't think about repercussions for citizens in lowsec. I have almost always had a negative sec status because i already "sheriff" lowsec systems. It is always a game of cat and mouse unless the pirate is confident s/he can win. This usually means i have to take the opening shot, pulling station/gate aggro. The same goes if i catch a target ratting when i'm in my recon. I have to take the opening shot (or tackle, in this case) to commit them to the fight.
It might seem cut & dry in highsec but it is not so simple in lowsec. The only mechanism highsec citizens have to kill "bad guys" is to wait for them to gcc or use their killrights. In lowsec you can kill them anytime you want. Though you quickly become negative sec status yourself, it was not from doing anything "bad".
Why don't you fight in null sec then? Your sec status would not be affected. When you attack one, you know the consequences.
It is simple, you should not be able to force people that only have time to play a couple hours a week, and therefore will play PvE only, into PvP unless you pay the price. I know people that have specifically chose this game because it offers the "safety" of high security (that and they like space ships too)
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4129
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 15:38:00 -
[47] - Quote
Lharanai wrote:but somehow he has one point in his rant, bitching about how unfair the titans are until they get nerfed but at the same time telling miners to tank or shut up seems just a little...........idiotic
hulks getting suicide ganked is much like titans blapping subcaps because "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4129
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 15:39:00 -
[48] - Quote
not that I expect you to answer that question because you're a hulk miner but w/e "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Whitehound
254
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 15:47:00 -
[49] - Quote
Singulis Pacifica wrote:... But the biggest complaint of the victims is that high-sec, the area that is introduced as the safest space in the game, is not really that safe at all. ... Another empty rant by an empty head and his empty view of the world.
Did you think about why you post before you posted your rant, or why you believe your moral should be important to us? No, you did not, but I tell you why, because you want to be told to shut up.
Did you then watch any of the Fanfest videos on what is coming? No, you did not. I suggest you start there.
No more crappy expansions!-á-á Raise A Little Hell"20 percent of CCP staff fired." - CEO Hilmar-á-á No more crappy layoffs! |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4130
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 15:50:00 -
[50] - Quote
OldSamurai wrote:Why don't you fight in null sec then? Your sec status would not be affected. When you attack one, you know the consequences.
It is simple, you should not be able to force people that only have time to play a couple hours a week, and therefore will play PvE only, into PvP unless you pay the price. I know people that have specifically chose this game because it offers the "safety" of high security (that and they like space ships too)
EVE is a game where you can PvP anywhere. Hisec is not intended as a "PvP-free" zone. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3685
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 15:54:00 -
[51] - Quote
Singulis Pacifica wrote:TLDR: at bottom.
With all the Hulkageddon kills going around, you will end up with compaints regarding unfair ganking and whatnot. And truth be told, ganking is never "fair". It's a dirty fight where the outcome is more or less pre-determined. Both the ganker and victim will lose their ship. The victim as a result of the ganker, and the ganker gets his/her ship turned into a floating scrapheap by Concord.
If a hauler is the victim, then he/she will lose ISK: the value of the of ship (full insurance only partially covers it) and the value of the cargo, where as the ganker can still generate a profit from said encounter: value of the cargo gained exceeds the loss incurred by the destroyed ship.
Now, this is all standard and we all have learned to live with it. But the biggest complaint of the victims is that high-sec, the area that is introduced as the safest space in the game, is not really that safe at all. Not for them at least.
These players are "at the mercy" of the gankers. Because it's that simple. A player, be it a miner, a hauler or anyone else always has to watch out for gankers operating in high-sec. The gankers themselves have to watch out for... nothing. Well, juicy rich targets that can be plucked. That's what they need to look out for. But even if they do have a bounty on their heads, most players will simply ignore the "yellows" hoping that they will not be targeted.
No one is interested in hunting down these players with a sec. status between -2.0 and 0, because if they would attack them, then Concord will see it as an unwarranted assault and attack the player that opened fire on the "yellow". So the "yellows" are the ones living in safety in high-sec, If they lose their rating due to a succesful kill, they just go ratting for a week and continue back to the role of the ganker.
And that's not a problem. It's how a sandbox should be. A ganker is a valid way to play the game. But... It lacks balance. As said before, there is no one stopping a ganker. He or she is playing pre-determined encounters. And that is what could change.
But not by CCP. Well, not directly.
What if players that have a sec. standing of 3.5 or higher acquire a "sherrif's badge". This allows them to attack players with a a negative security rating in high-sec systems without Concord seeing it as an unwarranted attack. This will lead to one thing: sherrifs vs. gankers. Whereby both sides are players with minimal interference from the game itself (Concord).
That is what a sandbox is all about. Make sure gankers can exist, but also make sure that they can be hunted by some players. Perhaps "sherrif players" that receive this ability are henceforth limited to only high-sec systems to make sure gankers can still operate in low-sec if they wish. Or perhaps "sherrif players" can only receive this badge if they are not part of a red vs. blue or factional warfare. So that only the "true neutrals" can acquire this rank and thus become the hunters of the ones that can now hunt freely in high-sec systems.
TLDR: Players that achieve a sec. status of 3.5 or higher can, under certain circumstances, become "sherrifs", which allows them to attack players with a negative security rating in High-Sec systems (without Concord interference) to balance the odds of ganker vs. victim.
The main issue with thi idea is that the ones making the most noise are already the ones who refuse to use the existing rights they already have to attack law-breakers. What makes you think your proposal will make them any more willing to engage in PvP?
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
RAP ACTION HERO
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
19
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 16:00:00 -
[52] - Quote
do you know lotsa goons have +5 from gurista all day? |
MrZany
Brood of Redemption
51
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 16:01:00 -
[53] - Quote
Morganta wrote:so then people would be able to preemptively attack anyone who is yellow?
what if you or your corp engages in low sec skirmish warfare and you don't actually gank anyone at all in empire you pretty much make it possible for empire dwellers to gank anyone who engages in combat outside of null with NO REPERCUSSIONS
terrible idea is terrible
in mutual combat situations, where 2 fleets go at it on a low sec gate, someone has to shoot first. why should those people be penalized for playing the game?
I see your point. Why should low-sec guys be punished for engaging one another? Maybe a way around it is the war-dec system. At the end of the day PvP in low-sec is still "illegal" even if both fleets are primed for a smack down. (sincere comment, no snarkiness)
Consider this though:
Null-sec guys camp any system they consider their turf.
Low-sec guys same thing.
WH camp their entry points.
Why not make it so anyone with a low sec status is engageable in hi-sec? Make a sweet spot where "bandits" are not chased by faction police but hi-sec players are free to try their hand at taking them down. I don't think the average low or null sec pvper has much to worry about unless they are AFK or not paying attention. Which is exactly what we tell the miners after they pop; should have been more aware of your surroundings.
You never know, it might make Eve an even more dynamic place. Low-security banditos roam through hi-sec looking for a brawl, hi-sec guys can engage if they want. Neither party loses sec status if the hi-sec guys engage first.
Just a thought. |
Riggs Droput
Born-2-Kill Northern Coalition.
30
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 16:05:00 -
[54] - Quote
Carnes wrote:I don't think this idea is good and i have a reason. The original argument only talks about highsec and doesn't think about repercussions for citizens in lowsec. I have almost always had a negative sec status because i already "sheriff" lowsec systems. It is always a game of cat and mouse unless the pirate is confident s/he can win. This usually means i have to take the opening shot, pulling station/gate aggro. The same goes if i catch a target ratting when i'm in my recon. I have to take the opening shot (or tackle, in this case) to commit them to the fight.
It might seem cut & dry in highsec but it is not so simple in lowsec. The only mechanism highsec citizens have to kill "bad guys" is to wait for them to gcc or use their killrights. In lowsec you can kill them anytime you want. Though you quickly become negative sec status yourself, it was not from doing anything "bad".
My views on this combined with the +5.0 allowed to hunt criminals is that if your +5.0 and your shooting a criminal in low sec your sec status should not be affected as long as all other conditions are met for you to be a sheriff in that space. This way the criminals have less place to hide. I would rather die on my feet, than live on my knees |
Spurty
D00M. Northern Coalition.
255
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 16:08:00 -
[55] - Quote
*nods* sagely and walks over to the next thread
---- CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off. |
Jessie42
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
114
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 16:14:00 -
[56] - Quote
lol ncdot |
Jessie42
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
114
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 16:14:00 -
[57] - Quote
still trying to be relevant~~ |
Antisocial Malkavian
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
66
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 16:16:00 -
[58] - Quote
Why the hell ARE outlaws protected by CONCORD? hat just doesnt make ANY sence.
Quote:Morganta wrote: so then people would be able to preemptively attack anyone who is yellow?
what if you or your corp engages in low sec skirmish warfare and you don't actually gank anyone at all in empire you pretty much make it possible for empire dwellers to gank anyone who engages in combat outside of null with NO REPERCUSSIONS
Yeah Gods forbid the GANKERS start getting ganked randomly when THEY think THEYRE safe that wouldnt be fair at all!!!
irony? http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2317/JKES0811.17.1 Bees That Drink Human Tears -- ITS SCIENCE!!! |
Jessie42
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
114
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 17:11:00 -
[59] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Why the hell ARE outlaws protected by CONCORD? hat just doesnt make ANY sence. Quote:Morganta wrote: so then people would be able to preemptively attack anyone who is yellow?
what if you or your corp engages in low sec skirmish warfare and you don't actually gank anyone at all in empire you pretty much make it possible for empire dwellers to gank anyone who engages in combat outside of null with NO REPERCUSSIONS Yeah Gods forbid the GANKERS start getting ganked randomly when THEY think THEYRE safe that wouldnt be fair at all!!! irony?
If they're below -5 sec status, you can kill them. That's official "outlaw" status.
Yellow, or those between 0 and -5, are just "low sec status" individuals. |
Aedaric
Sigillum Militum Xpisti Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 17:38:00 -
[60] - Quote
lol |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |