Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8578
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:34:00 -
[241] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:The inequality i was talking about is where you are put in an imbalanced situation by explicit mechanics rather than by the players. GǪand what mechanics are you referring to here?
Quote:The morality is certainly new; mechanics at the moment punish actual destruction of another players ship or pod in highsec due to making the game workable not due to core philosophy. The morality of stealing isn't as it is up to the players to punish, as it should be. GǪand nothing has changed in that respect. The morality of GǣgoodGǥ and GǣbadGǥ acts already exists and it is already up to players to mete out the punishment for most crimes. Neither of these will change with the new system.
Ohh Yeah wrote:There is no considerable reason to not have a two-flag system with an aggression flag that is the opposite of SUSPECT. GǪaside from it being ridiculously easy to exploit to screw over targets. The proposed idea already solves RR entirely: it makes it a horribly bad idea to do for everyone. Want to help? Bring something offensive and punish the sucker. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
881
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:34:00 -
[242] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote:But it doesn't. Explain to me how it makes sense that someone remote repairing a vigilante to help him fight crime should be flagged as a criminal and open to attack from all of EVE? It doesn't. Different issue. GǣMaking senseGǥ is something completely different to Gǣsolve problemsGǥ. There are tons of things that don't make sense in EVE, but which are in place because it provides better and more consistent gameplay. In this case, it makes sense because it means all neutral support is treated equally: it's always a horribly bad idea. It makes sense because it allows people being attacked to always take out any support the attacker might bring. If you want to fight criminals (including helping other crime fighters), just shoot the criminalsGǪ Cloaky Nullified T3s are invulnerable gate to gate anywhere in EvE. Blockade Runners and CovOps frigates are invulnerable gate to gate in low sec. Jump Bridges. Jump Freighters... pretty much invulnerable. There's enough invulnerable stuff in this game. Every year there's something new that's invulnerable. It's a lame trend. In the case of a ship well tanked getting reps from a logi fleet of unlimited size that cannot be agressed w/o CONCORD coming to their aid, you would have had a situation where a vigilante would in effect be invulnerable. That would really cross the line in my view. I don't care what kind of flag the logi gets, just so long as it can't contribute to the fight while remaining invulnerable. I agree w/ Tippia... I'm more concerned about the end state than I am about things making sense. Not being able to use a bubble or a bomb in low or high sec doesn't make any more sense... maybe the logi roll shouldn't be so broad in high sec either...
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
235
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:39:00 -
[243] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:Tippia wrote:Rara Yariza wrote:Now this proposed change, to a system where CCP says that this moral behavior/gameplay is 'bad' or 'good' and then unbalances situations to aid one side ('the good guys') removes that equal playing field. The GÇ£badGÇ¥ and GÇ£goodGÇ¥ morality is nothing new, so that's not a change, and with the idea mentioned in a later post GÇö that all neutral support is treated equally GÇö the imbalance is gone as well. The inequality i was talking about is where you are put in an imbalanced situation by explicit mechanics rather than by the players. The morality is certainly new; mechanics at the moment punish actual destruction of another players ship or pod in highsec due to making the game workable not due to core philosophy. The morality of stealing isn't, as it is up to the players to punish, as it should be. It would still be up to the players to punish the act. It just widens the range of players that can do so for a particular transgression. |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
881
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:41:00 -
[244] - Quote
Does anyone know if the plan still includes giving people smuggling contraband a suspect flag?
|
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
20
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:44:00 -
[245] - Quote
Tippia wrote:GǪand what mechanics are you referring to here?
That of suspect flagging leaving you open to be freely attacked by everybody whether you have done something to affect them or not. It is CCP punishing 'bad' behavior with this imbalance. rather than the player who you have agressed.
Quote:GǪand nothing has changed in that respect. The morality of GǣgoodGǥ and GǣbadGǥ acts already exists and it is already up to players to mete out the punishment for most crimes. Neither of these will change with the new system.
see above. It tips the fight way in the favor of the 'good' guy rather than it being on a level field where agression mechanics are the same for everyone. This is punishment of 'good' and 'bad' behavior that currently isn't present.
|
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
162
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:48:00 -
[246] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote:There is no considerable reason to not have a two-flag system with an aggression flag that is the opposite of SUSPECT. GǪaside from it being ridiculously easy to exploit to screw over targets. The proposed idea already solves RR entirely: it makes it a horribly bad idea to do for everyone. Want to help? Bring something offensive and punish the sucker.
So essentially you want to punish the use of an entire class of ship? I don't get it.
You shouldn't be _punished_ for using logistics. Logistics are used everywhere. The suspect should be able to shoot the logistics, but not everyone else.
Explain to me the justification for letting all of EVE shoot you for repairing someone who is fighting a suspect. Are logistics a force multiplier? Yes. Should they be made a "horribly bad idea to do for everyone" - no. Why would you actively discourage people from using an entire class of ship? Anyone with experience outside of high-sec knows that logistics are hailed as one of the most useful assets to a gang. Why would you teach new players and those who haven't been exposed to the null-sec climate that logistics are inherently bad and deserve punishment?
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
941
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:55:00 -
[247] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:
see above. It tips the fight way in the favor of the 'good' guy rather than it being on a level field where agression mechanics are the same for everyone. This is punishment of 'good' and 'bad' behavior that currently isn't present.
We have low-law space, and law-less space where this holds true.
Why should law-abiding space be a level playing field for criminals? The fights there *should* be tipped in the favor of the "good guy" imo.
(And this is from my perspective as a "criminal" that lives in lowsec and wanders all over hi and null as well)
Hell, if the system actually favors law-abiding hi-sec residents to turn vigilante, more of them might actually engage if they perceive a chance at victory. And all of you *know* you'll be able to play this to your advantage in some way.
Here's your sign... |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
941
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:57:00 -
[248] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Tippia wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote:There is no considerable reason to not have a two-flag system with an aggression flag that is the opposite of SUSPECT. GǪaside from it being ridiculously easy to exploit to screw over targets. The proposed idea already solves RR entirely: it makes it a horribly bad idea to do for everyone. Want to help? Bring something offensive and punish the sucker. So essentially you want to punish the use of an entire class of ship? I don't get it. You shouldn't be _punished_ for using logistics. Logistics are used everywhere. The suspect should be able to shoot the logistics, but not everyone else. Explain to me the justification for letting all of EVE shoot you for repairing someone who is fighting a suspect. Are logistics a force multiplier? Yes. Should they be made a "horribly bad idea to do for everyone" - no. Why would you actively discourage people from using an entire class of ship? Anyone with experience outside of high-sec knows that logistics are hailed as one of the most useful assets to a gang. Why would you teach new players and those who haven't been exposed to the null-sec climate that logistics are inherently bad and deserve punishment?
I also agree here - if CCP is rewriting the system to "do it right", there is no reason to take a shortcut and make using RR on a vigilante a criminal act.
Do it right, or don't do it CCP. Don't half-ass another feature onto us please. Here's your sign... |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
162
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:57:00 -
[249] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:low-law space, and law-less space where this holds true.
Why should law-abiding space be a level playing field for criminals? The fights there *should* be tipped in the favor of the "good guy" imo.
Because if they were performing criminal actions, CONCORD would be taking care of it. Stealing from a can or other similar actions that earn someone a suspect flag aren't really criminal actions, as CONCORD doesn't step in. It just makes them a suspect. Being a vigilante and trying to do the job of CONCORD by engaging someone who hasn't done anything to necessitate CONCORD intervention should come with the risk of getting beat up by the shady individuals you picked a fight with in the first place. |
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
20
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:03:00 -
[250] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:
We have low-law space, and law-less space where this holds true.
Why should law-abiding space be a level playing field for criminals? The fights there *should* be tipped in the favor of the "good guy" imo.
Why should it be tipped in favour of one? As it stands now it's equal, so people make the difference. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8578
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:05:00 -
[251] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:That of suspect flagging leaving you open to be freely attacked by everybody whether you have done something to affect them or not. That's not all that different to what we have now, when a whole heap of players can descend on you, even if you only affected one (or even none) of them. This is countered by the fact that you can trick them into being the same kind of free-for all target so it's just the stakes being raised on both sides.
Yes? The morality of good an bad still already exists and it's already up to players to mete out the punishment. None of what you said addresses or contradicts what I said and nothing about it all changes with the new system. Good and bad acts already exist as does the mechanical punishment for these acts GÇö go check out the criminal flagging wiki page.
Ohh Yeah wrote:So essentially you want to punish the use of an entire class of ship? Nope, and that's not what's happening either. What's being punished is the attempt to use GÇ£neutralsGÇ¥ to help you engage a target.
Quote:Explain to me the justification for letting all of EVE shoot you for repairing someone who is fighting a suspect. It makes the rules consistent and clear without any odd special edge cases to be abused and twisted into logical pretzels. It provides a single simple rule: don't use neutral remote support. No classes of ships are being discouraged GÇö it's one specific tactic (that pretty much everyone agrees is BS to begin with) that is being discouraged. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
20
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:14:00 -
[252] - Quote
Tippia wrote:That's not all that different to what we have now, when a whole heap of players can descend on you, even if you only affected one (or even none) of them.
Opening yourself up to be directly attacked by everyone in system is vastly different than just corp members of the aggressed player.
Quote:Yes? The morality of good an bad still already exists and it's already up to players to mete out the punishment.
The issue is that currently CCP doesn't make judgments on morality, whereas with these changes they do. I put this in my original post, i suggest you re-read it.
[ |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
162
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:14:00 -
[253] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:Explain to me the justification for letting all of EVE shoot you for repairing someone who is fighting a suspect. It makes the rules consistent and clear without any odd special edge cases to be abused and twisted into logical pretzels. It provides a single simple rule: don't use neutral remote support. No classes of ships are being discouraged GÇö it's one specific tactic (that pretty much everyone agrees is BS to begin with) that is being discouraged.
But with such a system, is there anything other than neutral logistics? Even if the logistics pilot is in your corporation, they're neutral to the suspect until they start repping their corp mate.
The entire class of ship IS being discouraged. There is no such thing as non-neutral support in high-sec with the proposed system. There's no such thing as support that a suspect can identify before engaging, as opposed to in-corp logistics during war-decs.
What is your opposition to having two different aggression flags - suspect and vigilante - and sorting their associated RR by giving them the same flag? That way, all of the suspects can shoot the RR, but random passerbys aren't encouraged to shoot at the logistics without retaliation.
CCP Greyscale's current proposition allows for random neutrals to shoot at logistics ships without the logistic pilot's friends being able to defend him. Some random pilot in a Falcon could jam out a vigilante's logistic ship just for fun, and the vigilante will never be able to protect his friend in the logi.
That, in fact, gives a huge advantage to suspects with Falcon alts, who can freely jam out a vigilante's support without expecting any retaliation of their own. With a two-flag system, the logi would become a vigilante, the Falcon would become a suspect, and all involved parties could fire on one another without wondering who is allowed to shoot who. The currently-proposed system does not make clearly defined rules, and makes more chains of "I can shoot your logi, but you can't shoot me, but you CAN shoot my friend, who can shoot you and your logi alt" |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8579
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:24:00 -
[254] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:Opening yourself up to be directly attacked by everyone in system is vastly different than just corp members of the aggressed player. Not much, and again, this is counter-balanced by how the targets will be treated by the same system and what you can open them up to that you can't nowGǪ
Quote:The issue is that currently CCP doesn't make judgments on morality, whereas with these changes they do. No, they really don't GÇö no more than they currently do. Nothing of what you've used to illustrate some kind of GÇ¥mechanic moralityGÇ¥ is new to the new system. If you think the new one imposes morality, than the current one does as well; if you think the current one does not impose morality, then neither does the new one.
Ohh Yeah wrote:But with such a system, is there anything other than neutral logistics? Yes. War logistics and logistics for acts without any legal flagging GÇö the two most common uses for logistics in highsecGǪ
Quote:What is your opposition to having two different aggression flags - suspect and vigilante - and sorting their associated RR by giving them the same flag? It's ridiculously easy to exploit to the point of making it utterly and absolutely suicidal to be a vigilante, thus making the whole system pointless. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
20
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:34:00 -
[255] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Not much, and again, this is counter-balanced by how the targets will be treated by the same system and what you can open them up to that you can't nowGǪ
'Not much' downplays it alot. Anyone in system being able to indiscriminately dog-pile you is a vastly lopsided situation compared to only corp members. It would be a disproportionate response made possible by explicit game mechanics.
Quote:No, they really don't GÇö no more than they currently do.
Yes, these new mechanics would. By saying you are flagged for stealing and flagging meaning you are opened up to the situation outlined above it is a punishment, as it is a massively one-sided advantage to the 'good guys'
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8580
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:38:00 -
[256] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:'Not much' downplays it alot. Not really. You're overestimating how keen people are on attacking other players when they could just go about their business and not bother with any of it.
There may be more of them but they also have a hell of a lot less incentive to do so than the corp members, and again, you keep ignoring the counter-balancing factor that the new system brings.
Quote:Yes, these new mechanics would. By saying you are flagged for stealing and flagging meaning you are opened up to the situation outlined above it is a punishment, as it is a massively one-sided advantage to the 'good guys' GǪand the flagging of Gǣbad guysGǥ and providing the Gǣgood guysGǥ with advantages is nothing new that CW2.0 brings. The same kind of morality already exists in the current system.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
162
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:39:00 -
[257] - Quote
Tippia wrote:It's ridiculously easy to exploit to the point of making it utterly and absolutely suicidal to be a vigilante, thus making the whole system pointless.
Any more suicidal than being a suspect? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8580
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:41:00 -
[258] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Tippia wrote:It's ridiculously easy to exploit to the point of making it utterly and absolutely suicidal to be a vigilante, thus making the whole system pointless. Any more suicidal than being a suspect? Much.
Joining a PUG against a co-ordinated fleet is far more suicidal than being in a co-ordinated fleet put together to fight PUGs. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1347
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:49:00 -
[259] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Not really. You're overestimating how keen people are on attacking other players when they could just go about their business and not bother with any of it.
When it is easily done as a group activity with absolutely no risk, yes, they are keen on getting easy kills. a rogue goon |
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
20
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:49:00 -
[260] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Not really. You're overestimating how keen people are on attacking other players when they could just go about their business and not bother with any of it.
That's a lot of 'ifs' though. The fact that with these mechanics such an imbalanced situation could happen is enough.
Quote:GǪand the flagging of Gǣbad guysGǥ and providing the Gǣgood guysGǥ with advantages is nothing new that CW2.0 brings. The same kind of morality already exists in the current system.
it is something new as it introduces the concept of 'good' and 'bad' guys, whereas currently it doesn't (in highsec) with regards to can flipping. CCP are making that judgment and providing a vast advantage that wasn't there before.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8581
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:52:00 -
[261] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:That's a lot of 'ifs' though. 0 is not GÇ£a lotGÇ¥.
Quote:The fact that with these mechanics such an imbalanced situation could happen is enough. Such an imbalanced situation could happen with the current mechanics as well.
Quote:it is something new as it introduces the concept of 'good' and 'bad' guys GǪwhich has been there all along GÇö it's not new. Good guys and bad guys have existed ever since aggression and criminal flagging was introduced back in the early Triassic era. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
162
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:52:00 -
[262] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote:Tippia wrote:It's ridiculously easy to exploit to the point of making it utterly and absolutely suicidal to be a vigilante, thus making the whole system pointless. Any more suicidal than being a suspect? Much. Joining a PUG against a co-ordinated fleet is far more suicidal than being in a co-ordinated fleet put together to fight PUGs.
And you don't think there will be co-ordinated fleets of vigilantes?
There will be single suspects getting ganked by groups of vigilantes.
There will be single vigilantes getting ganked by groups of suspects.
Goes both ways. Makes interesting conflicts. Gets people interested in PvP, gets people ganked. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8581
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:54:00 -
[263] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:And you don't think there will be co-ordinated fleets of vigilantes? GǪwhich should be easy to avoid and still exploit the system. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
20
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:58:00 -
[264] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Rara Yariza wrote:That's a lot of 'ifs' though. 0 is not GÇ£a lotGÇ¥. Quote:The fact that with these mechanics such an imbalanced situation could happen is enough. Such an imbalanced situation could happen with the current mechanics as well. Quote:it is something new as it introduces the concept of 'good' and 'bad' guys GǪwhich has been there all along GÇö it's not new. Good guys and bad guys have existed ever since aggression and criminal flagging was introduced back in the early Triassic era.
I think you are deliberately missing the point. There are a lot of ifs brought up by your reasoning. Saying someone might not shoot you is ignoring the fact that they have the opportunity to, and so the mechanics open up a lopsided advantage, It would be a vastly different situation than what is currently the case. The concept of 'good' or 'bad' is something new. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
162
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:59:00 -
[265] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote:And you don't think there will be co-ordinated fleets of vigilantes? GǪwhich should be easy to avoid and still exploit the system.
And you don't think that co-ordinated fleets of suspects won't be easy to avoid?
You'll likely end up with groups who consider themselves suspects or vigilantes that roam around unflagged - under the radar if you will - and jump on people.
The same thing is going to happen without a two-flag system. People are going to hell-death-camp gates with instalocking tackle, completely unaggressed to any suspects, and only pick off the ones they can deal with.
A two-flag system only provides opportunities for suspects to fight back. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8582
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:01:00 -
[266] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:Saying someone might not shoot you is ignoring the fact that they have the opportunity to, and so the mechanics open up a lopsided advantage, It would be a vastly different situation than what is currently the case. GǪand you're missing the point that the same GǣifGǥ exists right now.
Quote:The concept of CCP calling can flipping being 'good' or 'bad' is something new. GǪaside from it being having been GǣbadGǥ for many years now, since it triggers a criminal flag and lets Gǣgood guysGǥ come and shoot you.
Ohh Yeah wrote:And you don't think that co-ordinated fleets of suspects won't be easy to avoid? Not for the targets they're after. They're stupid enough as it is, and don't seem to get more clever with time.
Quote:A two-flag system only provides opportunities for suspects to fight back. They will have that opportunity regardless. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
235
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:01:00 -
[267] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:The concept of 'good' or 'bad' is something new. Considering standing loss consequences for certain actions leading to not being welcome in certain areas of space I'd say that yes, there is and has for some time been a concept of "good" and "bad" in the game. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
162
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:05:00 -
[268] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:A two-flag system only provides opportunities for suspects to fight back. They will have that opportunity regardless.
Yeah, if one person shoots you, you can shoot back.
If you have a group of 5-10 suspects, and another group of 5-10 vigilantes shoots you, none of your friends can help you out, since you're the only one with aggro.
That means to be successful as a suspect, it's gotta be one person in a DPS ship, and everyone else in logistics. Isn't that something you said should be discouraged? That will 100% be the outcome of crimewatch without a two-flag system. A single suspect with all of his friends in neutral RR meatgrinding those targets that don't "get more clever". |
Dr Frust
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:06:00 -
[269] - Quote
So far if I understood everything all the change does is remove content:
Stealing from a can for whatever reason will be nearly gone. Why? If you steal victim will call whole local for help unless it's stupid, victim will never engage which is the reason to do this(ex no more baiting miners & missioners, it would be suicide without profit). The second reason is to steal for the items worth which will be much riskier than before because everyone will be able to shoot you(ex. less stealing from suiciders or fights). The third is consentual pvp(1v1 cans) as you see it mostly at hubs (ex. mostly done for 1vs1s in highsec aswell as smaller more balanced fights which you can hardly find in low and null).
All of the above have currently good potential to escalate, this can be exciting for both sides (ex. Corpmates spanking ass, Logis join the fun etc.)
I have not seen the whole plan but the proposed changes seem to me to drastically reduce all of these activities. It seems to me that this is the wanted effect of the changes? Why? I get that for the code and servers efficiency and modifiability the current individual flag system needs to go and be replaced by something simple. But why target valid parts of the sandbox with such an overkill change? Why not try to preserve parts of EVEs holy grail: unexpected player interaction, we ultimately call it 'the sandbox'. It shouldn't be CCPs target to reduce sandbox content. And no you won't find these forms of potentially escalating 'carebear pvp' in low or null, its unique to high.
I'm thinking of the 2 trailers which made me join EVE: The Butterfly Effect & Causality.
I admit that because I don't know the big reasoning behind this I may actually not be aware of possible new content or improvements added with these changes. Just please be careful with this one CCP, theres still lots of time to engage constructive talk & draft, no need to rush while you revamp the code. |
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
20
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:08:00 -
[270] - Quote
Tippia wrote:and you're missing the point that the same GÇ£ifGÇ¥ exists right now.
The difference between corp members and anyone in system is vastly different.
Quote:GǪaside from it being having been GǣbadGǥ for many years now, since it triggers a criminal flag and lets Gǣgood guysGǥ come and shoot you.
it isn't bad, it is a mechanic that allows someone to attack people taking their stuff, which was implemented as those people losing their stuff wanted it. It's an aggression flag that is neither good nor bad. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |