Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Belaz Purvanen
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 09:54:00 -
[91] - Quote
G'monk wrote:... Is CCP now indicating that they are ceeding the ability of a corp to OWN or control the commerce in a high-sec system?
Important question.
I mean, it is like the Mob 'owning' Las Vegas? |
Foxglove Digitalis
LightningStrikesTwice Elemental Tide
17
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 14:11:00 -
[92] - Quote
The real question is: Why doesn't crashing one ship into another at high speed cause damage to both?
Really? A speed optimised nano fit (lower armour lower structure and above all light) catalyst crashes into a tanked Mackinaw with 30K m^3 ore in hold... come on the catalys should be a thin layer on the macks hull with the mack drifting an aditional 0.5m/s due to the difference in mass.
So say 10K damage to each, umm thats the catalyst is dust and the mack has lost all shield and some armour - seems a sensible outcome. |
Runeme Shilter
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 15:19:00 -
[93] - Quote
Foxglove Digitalis wrote:The real question is: Why doesn't crashing one ship into another at high speed cause damage to both?
Really? A speed optimised nano fit (lower armour lower structure and above all light) catalyst crashes into a tanked Mackinaw with 30K m^3 ore in hold... come on the catalys should be a thin layer on the macks hull with the mack drifting an aditional 0.5m/s due to the difference in mass.
So say 10K damage to each, umm thats the catalyst is dust and the mack has lost all shield and some armour - seems a sensible outcome.
Omg, CCP make it so. That would be the most awesome change ever. No more GCC and sec status hit for killing miners! Just bump with X catalyst full speed. Great idea!
RS
PS: You know that for bumping most often stabbers are used? Or Machariels? |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2691
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 15:28:00 -
[94] - Quote
Foxglove Digitalis wrote:The real question is: Why doesn't crashing one ship into another at high speed cause damage to both?
Really? A speed optimised nano fit (lower armour lower structure and above all light) catalyst crashes into a tanked Mackinaw with 30K m^3 ore in hold... come on the catalys should be a thin layer on the macks hull with the mack drifting an aditional 0.5m/s due to the difference in mass.
So say 10K damage to each, umm thats the catalyst is dust and the mack has lost all shield and some armour - seems a sensible outcome.
And when it's a Machariel at 5km/s, massing 150 million kgs, with ~100k EHP bumping into your Mackinaw (mass 20 million kg, EHP <30k, speed <100m/s)? You're literally asking for CCP to allow people like me to be able to gank you without getting CONCORDed.
Not to mention the fact that you're suggesting a mechanic that would immediately lead to CONCORD-free freighter ganking. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
978
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 16:59:00 -
[95] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:A few issue (which may have been covered in the last couple of pages, I'm not caught up) I see:
Saying "just declare war on them" doesn't solve anything when npc corps still exist, does it?
I also don't like the "no following people" type rule, only because it's a little bit sketchy. We mighty Agents of the New Order have been roaming several regions since we started, generally spending a couple of weeks freeing and enlightening a given area before moving to another - what if one of the poor folk we'd been trying to help in the past fled to another region, one that we eventually grace with our wisdom and kindness, and we encounter them again?
I can imagine some of them immediately turning to this thread and going "BUT I WAS IN A DIFFERENT REGION! HARASSMENT!" even though they weren't personally being targeted or followed 1) When miners come calling for a removal of NPC corps and corp-hopping to evade wardecs, that will be a valid complaint. 2) I'd be surprised if that got you in trouble. I'm sure that CCP gets enough petitions that they can generally plot your movements to distinguish between "following someone" and "bad luck."
I believe 99 out of 100 times it wouldn't either, but it still presents a bit of a grey area, which at the very least will cause more people to think they have a case and petition. Won't someone think of the poor GMs!
Also, just for the sake of some people saying we can't claim these are "CCP sanctioned" actions... yes we can. Sanction means to be given permission. That's exactly what CCP did. They aren't actively advising people TO do it, but they gave us permission to.
All glory to the New Order, and the CCP sanctioned bumping of afk miners, bot aspirants and whoever else! |
Pap Uhotih
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 19:01:00 -
[96] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Also, just for the sake of some people saying we can't claim these are "CCP sanctioned" actions... yes we can. Sanction means to be given permission. That's exactly what CCP did. They aren't actively advising people TO do it, but they gave us permission to.
All glory to the New Order, and the CCP sanctioned bumping of afk miners, bot aspirants and whoever else!
Ah, the lost art of reading, if only they would bring it back.
GM Karidor wrote: We would also like to stress that if a gameplay activity is classified as being GÇ£within the rulesGÇ¥ this does not mean that we endorse, sanction or back player activity. We simply see this as emergent gameplay that has occurred due to the nature of game mechanics.
As such, any players who have any notes to this effect within their in game biographies should remove words of this nature immediately.
|
Red Frog Rufen
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
195
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 19:50:00 -
[97] - Quote
Foxglove Digitalis wrote:The real question is: Why doesn't crashing one ship into another at high speed cause damage to both?
our shield are magnetics, so it's just like when you try to press 2 magnet of the same polarity together!
|
Foxglove Digitalis
LightningStrikesTwice Elemental Tide
17
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 20:07:00 -
[98] - Quote
Runeme Shilter wrote:Foxglove Digitalis wrote:The real question is: Why doesn't crashing one ship into another at high speed cause damage to both?
Really? A speed optimised nano fit (lower armour lower structure and above all light) catalyst crashes into a tanked Mackinaw with 30K m^3 ore in hold... come on the catalys should be a thin layer on the macks hull with the mack drifting an aditional 0.5m/s due to the difference in mass.
So say 10K damage to each, umm thats the catalyst is dust and the mack has lost all shield and some armour - seems a sensible outcome. Omg, CCP make it so. That would be the most awesome change ever. No more GCC and sec status hit for killing miners! Just bump with X catalyst full speed. Great idea! RS PS: You know that for bumping most often stabbers are used? Or Machariels?
Did I say anything about GCC? No? Didn't think so. |
Runeme Shilter
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 21:53:00 -
[99] - Quote
Foxglove Digitalis wrote: Did I say anything about GCC? No? Didn't think so.
So, you want bumping to become an agressive action? Who is the offender? The one bumping into you?
RS |
Foxglove Digitalis
LightningStrikesTwice Elemental Tide
17
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 23:18:00 -
[100] - Quote
Runeme Shilter wrote:Foxglove Digitalis wrote: Did I say anything about GCC? No? Didn't think so.
So, you want bumping to become an agressive action? Who is the offender? The one bumping into you? RS
That's one option - or maybe the one with the higher velocity just before impact? I suppose you could engineer a way to getting yourself bumped to get a free gank.
Or perhaps the one who actually hit approach deliberately?
|
|
Red Frog Rufen
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
195
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 23:51:00 -
[101] - Quote
how about no bumping?
you just fly right through.
|
Emerik
Federated Industrial Collective
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 02:45:00 -
[102] - Quote
The problem are not the true miners, not even the gankers, bumpers or whatever you can call them, these are a reaction of so many botters hanging around the whole cluster, salvage bots, etc, etc... all in all... cause and effect. I dont blame them... maybe ill join forces, who knows...?? |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2708
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 04:16:00 -
[103] - Quote
Foxglove Digitalis wrote:That's one option - or maybe the one with the higher velocity just before impact? I suppose you could engineer a way to getting yourself bumped to get a free gank.
Or perhaps the one who actually hit approach deliberately?
So we manually pilot into you and kill you without getting CONCORDed because we didn't press the magic "CONCORD me" approach button.
Going with the slightly better (but still terrible) velicity idea:
Park a Freighter infront of the Jita Undock or on the warpin to the Perimiter gate. Now CONCORD is doing our ganking for us.
A sacrificial stabber plows into a group of Mackinaws sending them careening into each other, getting almost all of them CONCORDed.
Literally any what you slice it, Damage or Aggro from bumping results in either CONCORD-free ganks or ganks where CONCORD supplies the DPS.
For someone named after something deadly, you don't seem to be very imaginative when it comes to making things dead. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2708
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 04:18:00 -
[104] - Quote
Red Frog Rufen wrote:how about no bumping?
you just fly right through.
Yes, let's buff Station games, Titan POS games, and JFs. Great idea. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
978
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 07:11:00 -
[105] - Quote
Pap Uhotih wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Also, just for the sake of some people saying we can't claim these are "CCP sanctioned" actions... yes we can. Sanction means to be given permission. That's exactly what CCP did. They aren't actively advising people TO do it, but they gave us permission to.
All glory to the New Order, and the CCP sanctioned bumping of afk miners, bot aspirants and whoever else!
Ah, the lost art of reading, if only they would bring it back. GM Karidor wrote: We would also like to stress that if a gameplay activity is classified as being GÇ£within the rulesGÇ¥ this does not mean that we endorse, sanction or back player activity. We simply see this as emergent gameplay that has occurred due to the nature of game mechanics.
As such, any players who have any notes to this effect within their in game biographies should remove words of this nature immediately.
It's not my fault if Karidor doesn't know the definition of the words he uses
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2708
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 07:15:00 -
[106] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:It's not my fault if Karidor doesn't know the definition of the words he uses
Jon Lander wrote: If you pay attention, and youGÇÖve got your wits about you, you can avoid people coming in and ganking, a survival of the fittest kind of thing, and people are now able to actually make a much better living from mining because of things like Hulkageddon and Burn Jita, because minerals are more expensive.
http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/06/12/eve-online-interview-betrayal-at-fanfest-burn-jita-virtual-reality-and-the-president-of-iceland/
I see no reason why this doesn't apply equally to the new order. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Foxglove Digitalis
LightningStrikesTwice Elemental Tide
17
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 10:11:00 -
[107] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Foxglove Digitalis wrote:That's one option - or maybe the one with the higher velocity just before impact? I suppose you could engineer a way to getting yourself bumped to get a free gank.
Or perhaps the one who actually hit approach deliberately? So we manually pilot into you and kill you without getting CONCORDed because we didn't press the magic "CONCORD me" approach button. Going with the slightly better (but still terrible) velicity idea: Park a Freighter infront of the Jita Undock or on the warpin to the Perimiter gate. Now CONCORD is doing our ganking for us. A sacrificial stabber plows into a group of Mackinaws sending them careening into each other, getting almost all of them CONCORDed. Literally any what you slice it, Damage or Aggro from bumping results in either CONCORD-free ganks or ganks where CONCORD supplies the DPS. For someone named after something deadly, you don't seem to be very imaginative when it comes to making things dead.
You misunderstand me, I'd like to see damage from all collisions, not just ship v ship. You zone out mining and pile your barge into the huge spod rock? It's not going to bend, your ship will. You slam your ship into a forcefield at a pos station you dont have access to? Crunch.
When I first started playing Eve I was a little disappointed it was point and click not joystick and throttle. I'd also like to see manual docking for that matter. If you can't thread the needle with your ship you better be prepared to pay for the repairs or a new ship.
|
Daisai
The Riot Formation Unclaimed.
72
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 11:49:00 -
[108] - Quote
Translation of ccp's post.
They cant fix it or change because it takes to much time and effort to do so and banning it would take to much effort to look into every petition when someone bumps a other player. So they basicly allow it because they cant be bothered to change it. |
Lexmana
897
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 13:08:00 -
[109] - Quote
Daisai wrote:Translation of ccp's post.
They cant fix it or change because it takes to much time and effort to do so and banning it would take to much effort to look into every petition when someone bumps a other player. So they basicly allow it because they cant be bothered to change it. That ... or they just like emergent gameplay and wants to allow as much creativity as they can from players. |
Red Frog Rufen
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
196
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:29:00 -
[110] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Red Frog Rufen wrote:how about no bumping?
you just fly right through. Yes, let's buff Station games, Titan's near POSes, and JFs. Great idea.
i'm just asking.
wouldn't that make tackler even more wanted on the other end?
and i'm not talking about going thru station or any other object, only ship on ship. |
|
Kainotomiu Ronuken
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
861
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:35:00 -
[111] - Quote
Foxglove Digitalis wrote:You misunderstand me, I'd like to see damage from all collisions, not just ship v ship. You zone out mining and pile your barge into the huge spod rock? It's not going to bend, your ship will. You slam your ship into a forcefield at a pos station you dont have access to? Crunch.
When I first started playing Eve I was a little disappointed it was point and click not joystick and throttle. I'd also like to see manual docking for that matter. If you can't thread the needle with your ship you better be prepared to pay for the repairs or a new ship.
Hi there. Star Citizen is a game currently being made for EVE players who can't cope with the sandbox aspect and wanted to be able to fly their ships rather than click in space. You might be interested.
You have become the pubbie, Mittani. Yours is the temple whose technetium-clad tables are at risk of being overthrown, whose seats need mixing. You're the one who fears war. -- Sadleric |
Foxglove Digitalis
LightningStrikesTwice Elemental Tide
17
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 16:22:00 -
[112] - Quote
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote: Hi there. Star Citizen is a game currently being made for EVE players who can't cope with the sandbox aspect and wanted to be able to fly their ships rather than click in space. You might be interested.
Nothing wrong with the litter tray... I mean sandbox
I prefer to avoid Hisec as I have a better idea of who I need to be careful of down in null plus the bounties on the rats are better.
I disagree with the idea that you agree to PVP by undocking - it's more when you log in at all - if you dont accept this - dont play at all.
But Star Citizen does sound interesting from the physics viewpoint. I'll take a look, thanks. |
Daisai
The Riot Formation Unclaimed.
75
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 16:57:00 -
[113] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:Daisai wrote:Translation of ccp's post.
They cant fix it or change because it takes to much time and effort to do so and banning it would take to much effort to look into every petition when someone bumps a other player. So they basicly allow it because they cant be bothered to change it. That ... or they just like emergent gameplay and wants to allow as much creativity as they can from players.
Because we all know that a cruiser being able to bump a titan is emergent gameplay. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2708
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 20:00:00 -
[114] - Quote
Red Frog Rufen wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Red Frog Rufen wrote:how about no bumping?
you just fly right through. Yes, let's buff Station games, Titan's near POSes, and JFs. Great idea. i'm just asking. wouldn't that make tackler even more wanted on the other end? and i'm not talking about going thru station or any other object, only ship on ship.
Which would mean that you couldn't bump a station game player (or his RR carrier) away from the undock, making him much harder to trap and kill.
It would mean you couldn't bump a Titan out of a POS, making them ridiculously safe (there was a recent titan kill that happened because the titan pilot gave out his POS password to prevent the tier3 fleet from being bombed. After he bridged them, in warped the bump Machariels with the POS password).
And finally it would mean incredibly increased safety for JFs. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2708
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 20:03:00 -
[115] - Quote
Foxglove Digitalis wrote:You misunderstand me, I'd like to see damage from all collisions, not just ship v ship. You zone out mining and pile your barge into the huge spod rock? It's not going to bend, your ship will. You slam your ship into a forcefield at a pos station you dont have access to? Crunch.
When I first started playing Eve I was a little disappointed it was point and click not joystick and throttle. I'd also like to see manual docking for that matter. If you can't thread the needle with your ship you better be prepared to pay for the repairs or a new ship.
Which, again, would result in either CONCORD-free ganks, or ganks where CONCORD supplies the DPS. Those are the options when you add collision damage.
Also that sort of thing combined with the fact that EVE is a turn-based game with 1 second turns would be kind of terrible. Joystick and throttle would be even worse. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Red Frog Rufen
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
196
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 20:06:00 -
[116] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
Which would mean that you couldn't bump a station game player (or his RR carrier) away from the undock, making him much harder to trap and kill.
It would mean you couldn't bump a Titan out of a POS, making them ridiculously safe (there was a recent titan kill that happened because the titan pilot gave out his POS password to prevent the tier3 fleet from being bombed. After he bridged them, in warped the bump Machariels with the POS password).
And finally it would mean incredibly increased safety for JFs.
you can't bump them right now unless they move.
a JF is already pretty safe unless he's making a mistake. granted that would remove a few kills, but not that many. most are bad alignment of the cyno on the station, making them bump away from it out of the bubble of that station.
and really? bumping a titan out of a POS? it's already a stretch. nothing should be even be able to bump those in the first place. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2708
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 21:06:00 -
[117] - Quote
Red Frog Rufen wrote:you can't bump them right now unless they move.
a JF is already pretty safe unless he's making a mistake. granted that would remove a few kills, but not that many. most are bad alignment of the cyno on the station, making them bump away from it out of the bubble of that station.
and really? bumping a titan out of a POS? it's already a stretch. nothing should be even be able to bump those in the first place.
It seems that you don't actually know what station games are.
And most stations don't have a large camp of people waiting to kill the JF before it can inch back to the docking ring, meaning that most JF kills in LS require at least some bumping.
Why shouldn't titans be bumpable? Newtonian mechanics says they should be.
Almost forgot: Why does gate crashing need a buff? This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
dark heartt
Space Truckers Assoc
11
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 00:21:00 -
[118] - Quote
Foxglove Digitalis wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Foxglove Digitalis wrote:That's one option - or maybe the one with the higher velocity just before impact? I suppose you could engineer a way to getting yourself bumped to get a free gank.
Or perhaps the one who actually hit approach deliberately? So we manually pilot into you and kill you without getting CONCORDed because we didn't press the magic "CONCORD me" approach button. Going with the slightly better (but still terrible) velicity idea: Park a Freighter infront of the Jita Undock or on the warpin to the Perimiter gate. Now CONCORD is doing our ganking for us. A sacrificial stabber plows into a group of Mackinaws sending them careening into each other, getting almost all of them CONCORDed. Literally any what you slice it, Damage or Aggro from bumping results in either CONCORD-free ganks or ganks where CONCORD supplies the DPS. For someone named after something deadly, you don't seem to be very imaginative when it comes to making things dead. You misunderstand me, I'd like to see damage from all collisions, not just ship v ship. You zone out mining and pile your barge into the huge spod rock? It's not going to bend, your ship will. You slam your ship into a forcefield at a pos station you dont have access to? Crunch. When I first started playing Eve I was a little disappointed it was point and click not joystick and throttle. I'd also like to see manual docking for that matter. If you can't thread the needle with your ship you better be prepared to pay for the repairs or a new ship.
Yeah that wouldn't work. I live in Australia and part of that means that I have some pretty high latency for eve. A manual control scheme isn't going to work for people with high latency, so others would have more of an advantage than they do now with the point and click style of gameplay.
Also can we now stop talking about bumping. It really isn't that hard to avoid and if you aren't afk then it's not an issue. |
Dorah Hawkwing
Old Galactic Earth Regiment
5
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 12:42:00 -
[119] - Quote
Maybe it is time for a new high-slot module:
forcefield anchor.
Upon engaging, it roots the ship to a targetted asteroid, thus making it an immovable object. Furthermore, any object hitting the anchored ship takes HULL damage equal to it's velocity in m/s. For added risk, consider making the forcefield invisible (no visual effect). The downside: it costs use of a highslot... on a minning barge. |
Leonardo Esil
Miner Pinball INC
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 23:45:00 -
[120] - Quote
Dorah Hawkwing wrote:Maybe it is time for a new high-slot module:
forcefield anchor.
Upon engaging, it roots the ship to a targetted asteroid, thus making it an immovable object. Furthermore, any object hitting the anchored ship takes HULL damage equal to it's velocity in m/s. For added risk, consider making the forcefield invisible (no visual effect). The downside: it costs use of a highslot... on a minning barge.
The real downside? Every single mining barge that didn't have one fitted would die.
How? Anchor one of our barges next to the target. Bump target into our barge. Target dies.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |