Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 157 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 25 post(s) |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1162
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 14:37:00 -
[4261] - Quote
Okay since this is the half baked idea thread here's mine
1. Catalyst attacks mining barge
2. CONCORD sends a message to the attackers asking them to cease and desist this unauthorized attack or buy a CONCORD permit for it. Say one million ISK for a Retriever.
3. Catalyst selects "Buy permit" then CONCORD responds but not to attack the Catalyst but rather they destroy the mining barge.
|
Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
4363
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 14:38:00 -
[4262] - Quote
Nitchiu wrote:Personally I'd say the base time should stay the same while the time to press the button would be added to the time it takes for CONCORD to arrive. But still have the ship die in a blaze of CONCORD.
Actually, I'm quite fond of the idea of CONCORD not appearing at all if a ganki victim is afk. If he intentionally makes himself incapable of mitigating the risk to himself, why should someone else do it for him? In this case, why should a game mechanic be doing it for him?
The victim would still get killrights, and the ganker would still take a sec hit. Absolutely nothing else would change except that if a gank victim does not acknowledge an attack to himself, then punitive measures won't be taken. You could even put it into lore - how is CONCORD to know you're under attack if you don't tell them? GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104 |
Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
4363
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 14:39:00 -
[4263] - Quote
IIshira wrote:Okay since this is the half baked idea thread here's mine
1. Catalyst attacks mining barge
2. CONCORD sends a message to the attackers asking them to cease and desist this unauthorized attack or buy a CONCORD permit for it. Say one million ISK for a Retriever.
3. Catalyst selects "Buy permit" then CONCORD responds but not to attack the Catalyst but rather they destroy the mining barge.
You're talking about wardecs, dear. The game already has those. CONCORD isn't a personal army though. The idea is to try to ween highsec off CONCORD altogether, eventually. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104 |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1162
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 14:46:00 -
[4264] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Nitchiu wrote:Personally I'd say the base time should stay the same while the time to press the button would be added to the time it takes for CONCORD to arrive. But still have the ship die in a blaze of CONCORD. Actually, I'm quite fond of the idea of CONCORD not appearing at all if a ganki victim is afk. If he intentionally makes himself incapable of mitigating the risk to himself, why should someone else do it for him? In this case, why should a game mechanic be doing it for him? The victim would still get killrights, and the ganker would still take a sec hit. Absolutely nothing else would change except that if a gank victim does not acknowledge an attack to himself, then punitive measures won't be taken. You could even put it into lore - how is CONCORD to know you're under attack if you don't tell them?
So basically the same CONCORD response times based on the system but the pilot has to call for help by pressing a button or something?
I guess this would work but no calling CONCORD just because you feel threatened. Otherwise pilots would just press the button to always have CONCORD near. |
Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
4364
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 14:52:00 -
[4265] - Quote
IIshira wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:Nitchiu wrote:Personally I'd say the base time should stay the same while the time to press the button would be added to the time it takes for CONCORD to arrive. But still have the ship die in a blaze of CONCORD. Actually, I'm quite fond of the idea of CONCORD not appearing at all if a ganki victim is afk. If he intentionally makes himself incapable of mitigating the risk to himself, why should someone else do it for him? In this case, why should a game mechanic be doing it for him? The victim would still get killrights, and the ganker would still take a sec hit. Absolutely nothing else would change except that if a gank victim does not acknowledge an attack to himself, then punitive measures won't be taken. You could even put it into lore - how is CONCORD to know you're under attack if you don't tell them? So basically the same CONCORD response times based on the system but the pilot has to call for help by pressing a button or something? I guess this would work but no calling CONCORD just because you feel threatened. Otherwise pilots would just press the button to always have CONCORD near.
As suggested, a distress call pop up would appear the moment aggression occurs, one that doesn't interfere with GUI interaction. The concord timer can commence immediately as well, the moment aggression occurs. However, it would pause at 1 second or something if the popup has not been cleared. If the popup is not cleared, CONCORD never comes. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104 |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
195
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 15:17:00 -
[4266] - Quote
If they respond immediately this would be an extreme buff to botting, as it would be very simple to automatically respond to such an event.
EDIT: If it is not immediately, can he still call CONCORD if he is already dead? Alpha Fleet? the Code ALWAYS wins |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1162
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 15:24:00 -
[4267] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:If they respond immediately this would be an extreme buff to botting, as it would be very simple to automatically respond to such an event.
EDIT: If it is not immediately, can he still call CONCORD if he is already dead? Alpha Fleet?
I think he's talking about normal CONCORD response times but just if you don't press "OK" they don't come at all.
The pop up may make it easier to get a pod kill too
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 15:25:00 -
[4268] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Veers is like Gorilla and many before him a type of player we call New Order fanboys. They follow us around wherever we go and try to interrupt our operation. Some of them used to sympathize with the Code or parts of it, but do to some lack of social competence or good humor they never actually realized what it is all about and collided with the actual reality.
Since they are usually not really good at EVE, they don't come up with tactics that would actually stop us. I am absolutely convinced that everyone on the other side of this discussion would come up with a more effective counter in a few minutes than what they have tried so far.
Because they are so unsuccessful ingame they get frustrated and start to blame the game mechanics and CCP for not balancing the game. In their mind it should be possible to disrupt an operation of 20 people with a single player who does not even care about game mechanics. Also CCP should support them, because the fanboys protect the "new players" and the "innocent" and because of that they deserve special support from above.
So instead of actually playing the game they now use the forums and the petition system to fight us. Because they are just bad at the game.
But I guess this people are in every game, I remember back from the FPS games, when we used to play CS at LAN parties and suddenly some guy accused me of "being able to fly" or plain cheating. In reality they where just really really bad at the game and looking for an excuse to hide their own deficiencies. In their mind it was impossible that they where so bad at the game, there had to be another explanation. In my opinion we have a similar case here with Veers and friends.
|
Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
4371
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 15:29:00 -
[4269] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:If they respond immediately this would be an extreme buff to botting, as it would be very simple to automatically respond to such an event.
EDIT: If it is not immediately, can he still call CONCORD if he is already dead? Alpha Fleet?
A planned alpha gank is going to have the same effect whether a player is afk or not. This is more about whether or not CONCORD should respond at all to someone who isn't present in the first place. In other words, using this mechanic, your alpha fleet would not be CONCORDED if the target is afk.
On that note, an alpha fleet may destroy a target too quickly for them to respond, so I would suggest a minimum of maybe 30 seconds, and then the popup disappears. That way, if a victim isn't afk, but is ganked and podded, or not, due to being surprised and hesitant, which is normal, he can still summon the punitive measures of CONCORD from afar due to the pop up asking if he'd like CONCORD assistance staying up for that minimum of 30 seconds.
This still leaves room for being afk, but not very much.
On the other hand, if a target is going to be destroyed so quickly as to have no opportunity to respond, why should he be able to?
Some things worth thinking about and discussing further maybe. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104 |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 15:41:00 -
[4270] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Veers is like Gorilla and many before him a type of player we call New Order fanboys. They follow us around wherever we go and try to interrupt our operation. Some of them used to sympathize with the Code or parts of it, but do to some lack of social competence or good humor they never actually realized what it is all about and collided with the actual reality.
Since they are usually not really good at EVE, they don't come up with tactics that would actually stop us. I am absolutely convinced that everyone on the other side of this discussion would come up with a more effective counter in a few minutes than what they have tried so far.
Because they are so unsuccessful ingame they get frustrated and start to blame the game mechanics and CCP for not balancing the game. In their mind it should be possible to disrupt an operation of 20 people with a single player who does not even care about game mechanics. Also CCP should support them, because the fanboys protect the "new players" and the "innocent" and because of that they deserve special support from above.
So instead of actually playing the game they now use the forums and the petition system to fight us. Because they are just bad at the game.
But I guess this people are in every game, I remember back from the FPS games, when we used to play CS at LAN parties and suddenly some guy accused me of "being able to fly" or plain cheating. In reality they where just really really bad at the game and looking for an excuse to hide their own deficiencies. In their mind it was impossible that they where so bad at the game, there had to be another explanation. In my opinion we have a similar case here with Veers and friends.
Most of the new posts here are just recycling old arguments or trolling, and don't deserve a response. On the other hand I am always ready to respond to the reasoned discourse from my favorite New Order agent.
She begins by labeling me a "fanboy" of the New Order. What she neglects to mention is that the New Order incepted communications with me, demanding that I purchase their "mining permit" to run incursions. I replied that since I don't mine, I would not even consider purchasing such a permit. I was then prominently displayed on the minerbumping.com webpage. At that point I further engaged with CODE, becoming increasingly aware of their harming new players, and having a detrimental impact on the game.
She goes on to accuse me (a charge I also face from Loyalanon, their CEO) of "not being good at Eve" because I don't spend my precious time in half-hearted attempts to stop New Order ganks (of course they also malign the "white knights" who do impede their ganks). Of course, because I think that the New Order abuses game mechanics and looks for unintended loopholes, my time is better spent raising these issues and getting CCP to issue a global solution, rather than spending it trying to stop a few ganks (and inflicting minimal cost on the CODE agents who are not ganking for isk anyhow).
To me, as a supported of reasonable suicide ganking, it is quite painful to see CODE maligning the entire mechanic. When I was a young player, I was deeply impressed with the efforts of Myndowen, https://zkillboard.com/character/94217100/ , who was quite the expert at separating haulers from too valuable cargo. He always maintained positive security status, and used a well fitted tornado for his ganks. CODE, on the other hand, operates at -10 security status with dedicated suicide gank alts, who do virtually nothing else in the game. They find unintended loopholes in the game mechanics, and are not looking to gank ships with overvalued cargo, in the process teaching the players important lessons about Eve, rather they are purely doing it to generate tears and drive people from the game.
Given their growing number and impact, I think it's only a matter of time until CCP takes action. In addition to my change to nerf their abuse of bumping, I think it's critical to make -10 security status a lot more painful. Specifically, faction police spawn time should depend on security status, and people whose status is too low will be unable to operate in highsec until they go to lowsec and rat, run missions, etc.... This "grind time" will force CODE agents to be more selective about their ganks, and not just blow up every ship they see for tears and giggles. |
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 15:44:00 -
[4271] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Well to me this is settled. And to tie this back to the OP (always important!), the combination of CODE killing empty freighters, and using bumping to give it multiple shots at better tanked ones, is a broken mechanic, and out of line with the risk/reward of highsec. I would suggest adopting my bumping change, figuring out how to punish people with -10 sec status, and incentivizing gankers to target ships with lots of loot (perhaps more loot should drop from a ship where cargo value >> hull value + mod value). While I disagree with your conclusion (bumping freighters is an emergent use of existing mechanics, not broken) I am glad you have come to a resolution in your mind. And as to your suggestions, I believe the game already punishes those at -10 with significant, non-trivial penalties and that the actual loot drops from a target incentivizes gankers to go after non-empty ships. Your suggestion to make those agressed immune from bumping would be an extension of CONCORD's role and original purpose and thus should be raised properly in Features & Ideas where it can be discussed as a change in game mechanics (and where the unforeseen complications of it in other aspects of the game can be hashed out). However, I would point out that freighter ganks are incredibly rare as a fraction of total ship losses in New Eden, and ones that involve multiple attempts using bumping to keep the target from escaping are only a minority (tiny minority?) of these losses. Do you really think that adding this new ability to CONCORD is a useful use of game developer resources? This new "feature" you propose would only serve to help a handful of AFK haulers escape a gank at the expense of introducing a new mechanic that can possibly be exploited elsewhere in the game, and one that discourages player-to-player conflict through a new mechanism to avoid a fight. This seems like something CCP isn't likely to make a high priority. Perhaps you should find a new cause to direct your forum warrior energies, one more likely to be embraced by the game developers.
Given CODE's consistent use of the tactic it is becoming a more and more pressing issue. I wanted to give the folks here a chance to raise concerns with my idea, but, as can be seen, none of them were able to present a plausible case where it would be problematic. I think the bumping change, combined with forcing people with -10 sec status to grind it back up before they can operate in highsec, would push CODE towards fewer and better ganks, rather than just an endless stream of blown up empty ships to generate tears. |
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
1153
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 15:51:00 -
[4272] - Quote
How is it even possible to be that detached from reality. [witty image] - Stream |
Anne Dieu-le-veut
Natl Assn for the Advancement of Criminal People
145
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 15:59:00 -
[4273] - Quote
In theory, the "HALP!" button and CONCORD not even responding unless it's pushed is great. However, I don't doubt for a second that the better bot programs would hit this button immediately.
Edit: Change it so base response times are the same, but CONCORD's clock doesn't even start until they are called. |
E-2C Hawkeye
State War Academy Caldari State
677
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 15:59:00 -
[4274] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:If they respond immediately this would be an extreme buff to botting, as it would be very simple to automatically respond to such an event.
EDIT: If it is not immediately, can he still call CONCORD if he is already dead? Alpha Fleet? A planned alpha gank is going to have the same effect whether a player is afk or not. This is more about whether or not CONCORD should respond at all to someone who isn't present in the first place. In other words, using this mechanic, your alpha fleet would not be CONCORDED if the target is afk. On that note, an alpha fleet may destroy a target too quickly for them to respond, so I would suggest a minimum of maybe 30 seconds, and then the popup disappears. That way, if a victim isn't afk, but is ganked and podded, or not, due to being surprised and hesitant, which is normal, he can still summon the punitive measures of CONCORD from afar due to the pop up asking if he'd like CONCORD assistance staying up for that minimum of 30 seconds. This still leaves room for being afk, but not very much. On the other hand, if a target is going to be destroyed so quickly as to have no opportunity to respond, why should he be able to? Some things worth thinking about and discussing further maybe.
Yea lets apply this same pop up to afk cloakers and you have a deal. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
20655
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 16:02:00 -
[4275] - Quote
Crumplecorn wrote:How is it even possible to be that detached from reality. Excessive Psilocybin consumption?
The difference between a carebear and a bear is that one expects the world to revolve around them, the other accepts the world for what it is and works around it.
Nil mortifi sine lucre. |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
3894
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 16:08:00 -
[4276] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Some things worth thinking about and discussing further maybe. no it's offtopic and bad
highsec is a place where you can go afk to avoid having to do horrible boring arse things like mining with a reasonable chance of staying alive due to not many people wanting to die from magic space police attack
the reason you've supplied in favour is 'maybe people will afk less' which is silly because of this. first. being afk isn't by itself a bad thing. second. if someone's afking something it's because that thing is horrifically boring. forcing them to be there or lose the only safety net that reasonably allows them to afk is effectively forcing them to stare at the screen watching their spaceship do the stupendously boring thing.
it's all stick and no carrot. for the sake of 'preventing people from afking in highsec' because (???)
third. it's adding complexity to concord for the sake of the mentioned (???) and for compexity's sake. neither of which are a compelling reason to make changes. |
Steppa Musana
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 16:08:00 -
[4277] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Nitchiu wrote:Personally I'd say the base time should stay the same while the time to press the button would be added to the time it takes for CONCORD to arrive. But still have the ship die in a blaze of CONCORD. Actually, I'm quite fond of the idea of CONCORD not appearing at all if a ganki victim is afk. If he intentionally makes himself incapable of mitigating the risk to himself, why should someone else do it for him? In this case, why should a game mechanic be doing it for him? The victim would still get killrights, and the ganker would still take a sec hit. Absolutely nothing else would change except that if a gank victim does not acknowledge an attack to himself, then punitive measures won't be taken. You could even put it into lore - how is CONCORD to know you're under attack if you don't tell them? I'm a highsec miner that makes 90% of his income from being completely AFK while mining.
And I have to +1 this. It just makes sense what you're proposing. When I was a newbie I used to think it was damn absurd that people could go AFK in a supposed PVP game with little consequence. Through my time AFK mining I have lost perspective of that, but now I am reminded. It really is... completely stupid.
I would probably lose a freighter, or two, or three... but whatever. It would be good for game balance. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
7987
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 16:08:00 -
[4278] - Quote
Crumplecorn wrote:How is it even possible to be that detached from reality.
Answer: modern society.
In the past people 'detached from reality' would have been darwin'd by a bear or other wild animal in the wild. The draw back of modern civilization is that we paved over the wild to build a wal-mart, so no more bears to keep the delusional eco-system in balance
|
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
3894
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 16:09:00 -
[4279] - Quote
this was meant to be in my above post but regardless of (or perhaps considering) the idea's badness it should be in f&i and not the carebear mockery thread freighter gank thread |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
11385
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 16:58:00 -
[4280] - Quote
I can see this "push button, call concord" idea opening up a few exploits. It's neat in theory but you have to consider how to handle warping and docking for pilots who have engaged in a criminal act but haven't yet been flagged by the victim. It depends a lot on how long the victim has the option to CONCORD you, for example. It could lead to situations where people can escape CONCORD. People might also find a way to prevent the victim from clicking the dialogue box. Enjoying the rain today? ;) |
|
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 16:59:00 -
[4281] - Quote
Devils Embrace wrote:. Eve is a dark gritty universe and Eve has risks.
Unless you are a suicide ganker, and thats what this thread is about. Suicide gankers aren't playing the same game as the rest of us.
The reality is that sucide gankers are afraid of real pvp and that is why they chose to sit on high sec gates preying on noobs and casuals who aren't familiar with concord response times. Instead of looking for challenging opponents that would be much more satisfying to put down, they chose to prey on the weakest of players who usually have no recourse. There is no reason CCP needs to continue enabling these extremely risk-averse players who somehow feel entitled to screw with random noobs and casuals within the comfort of high sec.
These are the types of people who always get **** on in PVP games and have been reduced to suicide ganking in EVE for a reason. They are not people who you can respect and they do not deserve any special treatment in EVE.
Other game companies would realize by now that it is a bad idea to let the toxic sociopaths exploit newer and casual players whose only crime is not being familiar with concord response times. Suicide gankers do not benefit the game whatsoever, they take away from it. I'm personally disgusted that such a low-risk, low-cost, high-profit mechanic exists in EVE at all, the fact that it primarily targets newer/casual players for exploitation makes it even worse. It makes EVE feel unfair and like a disgusting game where the most pathetic of sociopaths get to have their cake and eat it too and don't have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. Fixing can flipping and creating crime watch were a step in the right direction and now something needs to be done to fix suicide ganking which more risk-averse players are flocking to everyday. These things don't seem to be a problem for CCP untill more people start doing it. It is only a matter of time before the head gets removed from where the sun don't shine. I'm confident of that. Nobody is asking for an end so high-sec pvp or some ridiculous thing like that. Suicide ganking is just completely broken and imbalanced and every intelligent person knows it. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
197
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 17:03:00 -
[4282] - Quote
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:Yea lets apply this same pop up to afk cloakers and you have a deal. Aaaaaand there is the rant about AFK cloacking, I think the thread is now complete and we can all go home. the Code ALWAYS wins |
Xuixien
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
1683
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 17:12:00 -
[4283] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:I can see this "push button, call concord" idea opening up a few exploits. It's neat in theory but you have to consider how to handle warping and docking for pilots who have engaged in a criminal act but haven't yet been flagged by the victim. It depends a lot on how long the victim has the option to CONCORD you, for example. It could lead to situations where people can escape CONCORD. People might also find a way to prevent the victim from clicking the dialogue box.
When you gank it would initiate a CONCORD timer. It scrambles your warping and lasts until the timer is up or they've called CONCORD.
Epic Space Cat |
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
1156
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 17:15:00 -
[4284] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:everyday i'm trollin' Now where did I put my carebear bingo card? [witty image] - Stream |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
20658
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 17:16:00 -
[4285] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:Devils Embrace wrote:. Eve is a dark gritty universe and Eve has risks.
Unless you are a suicide ganker, and thats what this thread is about. Suicide gankers aren't playing the same game as the rest of us. The reality is that sucide gankers are typically afraid of losing in real pvp and that is why they chose to sit on high sec gates preying on noobs and casuals who aren't familiar with concord response times. Instead of looking for challenging opponents that would be much more satisfying to put down, they chose to prey on the weakest of players who usually have no recourse. There is no reason CCP needs to continue enabling these extremely risk-averse players who somehow feel entitled to screw with random noobs and casuals within the comfort of high sec. These are the types of people who always get **** on in PVP games and have been reduced to suicide ganking in EVE for a reason. They are not people who you can respect and they do not deserve any special treatment in EVE. Other game companies would realize by now that it is a bad idea to let the toxic sociopaths exploit newer and casual players whose only crime is not being familiar with concord response times. Suicide gankers do not benefit the game whatsoever, they take away from it. I'm personally disgusted that such a low-risk, low-cost, high-profit mechanic exists in EVE at all, the fact that it primarily targets newer/casual players for exploitation makes it even worse. It makes EVE feel unfair and like a disgusting game where the most pathetic of sociopaths get to have their cake and eat it too and don't have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. Fixing can flipping and creating crime watch were a step in the right direction and now something needs to be done to fix suicide ganking which more risk-averse players are flocking to everyday. These things don't seem to be a problem for CCP untill more people start doing it. It is only a matter of time before the head gets removed from where the sun don't shine. I'm confident of that. Nobody is asking for an end so high-sec pvp or some ridiculous thing like that. Suicide ganking is just completely broken and imbalanced and every intelligent person knows it. Ignorance is not a defence.
When you play a game that is renowned for allowing stuff that other games consider bannable activities you make damn sure you at least know the basics. How fast Concord responds and what it responds to are fairly basic and easy mechanics to understand, it's also readily available public domain information. The difference between a carebear and a bear is that one expects the world to revolve around them, the other accepts the world for what it is and works around it.
Nil mortifi sine lucre. |
Xuixien
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
1684
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 17:19:00 -
[4286] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote: Unless you are a suicide ganker, and thats what this thread is about. Suicide gankers aren't playing the same game as the rest of us.
The reality is that sucide gankers are typically afraid of losing in real pvp and that is why they chose to sit on high sec gates preying on noobs and casuals who aren't familiar with concord response times. Instead of looking for challenging opponents that would be much more satisfying to put down, they chose to prey on the weakest of players who usually have no recourse. There is no reason CCP needs to continue enabling these extremely risk-averse players who somehow feel entitled to screw with random noobs and casuals within the comfort of high sec.
These are the types of people who always get **** on in PVP games and have been reduced to suicide ganking in EVE for a reason. They are not people who you can respect and they do not deserve any special treatment in EVE.
Other game companies would realize by now that it is a bad idea to let the toxic sociopaths exploit newer and casual players whose only crime is not being familiar with concord response times. Suicide gankers do not benefit the game whatsoever, they take away from it. I'm personally disgusted that such a low-risk, low-cost, high-profit mechanic exists in EVE at all, the fact that it primarily targets newer/casual players for exploitation makes it even worse. It makes EVE feel unfair and like a disgusting game where the most pathetic of sociopaths get to have their cake and eat it too and don't have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. Fixing can flipping and creating crime watch were a step in the right direction and now something needs to be done to fix suicide ganking which more risk-averse players are flocking to everyday. These things don't seem to be a problem for CCP untill more people start doing it. It is only a matter of time before the head gets removed from where the sun don't shine. I'm confident of that. Nobody is asking for an end so high-sec pvp or some ridiculous thing like that. Suicide ganking is just completely broken and imbalanced and every intelligent person knows it.
Hey there. Suicide ganker here. You can regularly find me PvPing in WH space and NullSec. I'd be more than happy to meet you somewhere for a 1v1.
Epic Space Cat |
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 17:22:00 -
[4287] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Ignorance is not a defence.
.
You missed the point.
Why am I not surprised. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
20658
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 17:22:00 -
[4288] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:Hey there. Suicide ganker here. You can regularly find me PvPing in WH space and NullSec. I'd be more than happy to meet you somewhere for a 1v1.
Shhhh everybody knows suicide gankers are too scared to do "real PvP"
The difference between a carebear and a bear is that one expects the world to revolve around them, the other accepts the world for what it is and works around it.
Nil mortifi sine lucre. |
Xuixien
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
1684
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 17:24:00 -
[4289] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Xuixien wrote:Hey there. Suicide ganker here. You can regularly find me PvPing in WH space and NullSec. I'd be more than happy to meet you somewhere for a 1v1. Shhhh everybody knows suicide gankers are too scared to do "real PvP"
Oops, sorry. Am I leaking secrets again? Epic Space Cat |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
20658
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 17:26:00 -
[4290] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Ignorance is not a defence.
. You missed the point. Why am I not surprised. Really? Please do enlighten me.
Try to include as many derogatory references, to people and things that you don't like, as you can. The difference between a carebear and a bear is that one expects the world to revolve around them, the other accepts the world for what it is and works around it.
Nil mortifi sine lucre. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 157 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |