Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
SamuraiJack
Tritanium Industries and Technology Backseat Promises
75
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 19:57:29 -
[31] - Quote
You could show your PVP prowess in the AT... oh wait you're banned cos you all rage logged after your team was unable to compete in anything but thorax/catas.
Hows that working out for you?
SJ's Chronicles - http://www.fanfiction.net/u/2103579/CLS-SamuraiJack
|
Paranoid Loyd
5436
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 19:59:57 -
[32] - Quote
I rest my case
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Mag's
the united
19514
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 20:18:11 -
[33] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:Ah yes. CODE the uber "Pvpers" of eve. Cos shooting **** that cant shoot back is pro?
Add to that recycling of alts etc... Rules dont apply right?
whatever. Is this the 'I cannot defend my stance, therefore resort to insults and claim a win anyway' retort?
As far as your stance is concerned. Using your logic, should I refrain from using my queen in chess, because it moves better than other pieces and you may lose a few? Or that I should not use the castle move? Because even though I know I can, I really shouldn't.
It's a very odd stance to take, considering it's a game. Don't shoot ships, in a game designed around shooting ships.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Solstice Punk
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
18
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 20:19:52 -
[34] - Quote
Please don't give the griefer the attention he does not deserve. Don't let his hate dictate the progress of this thread.
It's a Sibyyl-thread ! We don't do these things in her threads ... right?
Right.
Thanks !
- All incoming connection attempts are being blocked. If you want to speak to me you will find me either in Hek local, you can create a contract or make a thread about it in General Discussions. I will call you back. -
|
Ashlar Maidstone
Moonfyre Science and Research Inc.
185
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 21:56:48 -
[35] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:From patch notes for Carnyx: Quote:Ships in high-sec space piloted by a character with a Criminal Flag will now be unable to use in-space re-fitting facilities. This should not affect Hyperdunking in any way. The only mention of the refitting tactic that I could find was in a Failhelp post from 2012 discussing CCP closing the boomerang exploit, so it seems like this tactic had been around for a while: smagd wrote:Combat refitting is probably an intended feature, since I'm fairly sure CCP is aware of the Rooks & Kings video that demonstrated refitting sieged dread back and forth between more tank and more gank and that's far more of an abuse if you ask me. ("Oh look I'm primary, switching out faction gyros for T2 hardeners"). This tactic is described by RnK Lord Maldoror, referencing their Clarion Call 4 video, in a Mittani article. Why is this even an issue? Doesn't a criminal's warp-incapable ship get popped after CONCORD lands on grid? Edit: posting from a phone is hard
The tactic used by RnK is a valid tactic used everywhere else other than hisec as I have watched that particular clip a number of times, and as a result does NOT result in a GCC.
Editing from a phone is a pain btw LOL!.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25194
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 22:32:23 -
[36] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:Or you're confusing exploitive abuse of "mechanics" as "gameplay" No. That would be you again. You think that something that has been designed as part of your gameplay should be turned into a passive game mechanic for no sane or sensible reason.
Quote:Add to that recycling of alts etc... Rules dont apply right? What does that rule have to do with anything? It applies to everyone equally and is of pretty much zero relevance to this change.
Agondray wrote:it doesn't even fix the "impossible" fleet of -10's sitting on a gate bumping ships 300kms before the ganking. Of course not, largely because there is nothing to fix. Also, there's nothing impossible about them, with or without quotation marks.
Quote:the only thing it fixes is after you pop someone you cant go to an orca or pos and reship until your 15 mins is up No, it doesn't GÇ£fixGÇ¥ that GÇö in fact, it doesn't even touch that ability. This is a good thing since there's nothing to fix there either.
Again, all this fix does is enforce the costs of unlawful aggression. Nothing more, nothing less.
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¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
516
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 23:43:59 -
[37] - Quote
I have cleaned this thread, and don't want to do it again. Please follow our simple rules on trolling, staying on topic, being constructive, and not making personal attacks.
Quote:2. Be respectful toward others at all times.
The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
23. Post constructively.
Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.
ISD Decoy
Commander
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Solstice Punk
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
20
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 23:58:29 -
[38] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:I've got much better idea.
If you GCC. Concord Pods you. End of hyperdunking.
You are a criminal in highsec. They shouldnt just pop you. They should kill you. You broke the law. Have some ****ing concequences. Hows that for realism.
He's definitely not a roleplayer either.
- All incoming connection attempts are being blocked. If you want to speak to me you will find me either in Hek local, you can create a contract or make a thread about it in General Discussions. I will call you back. -
|
stoicfaux
5679
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 01:03:02 -
[39] - Quote
Maybe to prevent you from refitting and/or abusing the invulnerability link at a citadel?
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5739809#post5739824 "Refitting will most likely drain capacitor (like on ships) so while you could do it in combat, this would not be advisable."
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5739809#post5739836 "Yeah it's going to be a new docked state, like a cross between docking in a station and sitting inside a POS shield."
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5739873#post5739973 "The invulnerability link (we need a new name for this, taking suggestions) provides security while you are undocked and mobile around the structure."
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Sibyyl
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
25237
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 01:12:06 -
[40] - Quote
Yes that makes a lot of sense stoicfaux. I remember there were a few suggestions for naming the Invulnerability Link, like Skylight.. combining this with GCC could be problematic.
I think your explanation, combined with Shed's historical explanation in post #7 explains this mystery..
All our times have come
Here but now they're gone
|
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
235
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 02:36:06 -
[41] - Quote
Talos. Polarized neutron blaster cannons. Orca.
As far as I know nobody was actually doing it though, I did explain it to a few people and meant to myself but never got a good excuse to use it to its full potential with polarized guns. I did petition it (likely resulting in this nerf), and it was not an exploit at the time and presumably won't be one so feel free to do it this weekend. You won't have another chance.
it seems a bit silly that CCP decided to nerf a tactic which few gankers have even employed (I've used it a few times, just to save costs when the target's completely afk for the minute it takes to deploy a depot), but it won't affect the meta much. |
Solstice Punk
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
34
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 08:52:41 -
[42] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Talos. Polarized neutron blaster cannons. Orca.
As far as I know nobody was actually doing it though, I did explain it to a few people and meant to myself but never got a good excuse to use it to its full potential with polarized guns. I did petition it (likely resulting in this nerf), and it was not an exploit at the time and presumably won't be one so feel free to do it this weekend. You won't have another chance.
it seems a bit silly that CCP decided to nerf a tactic which few gankers have even employed (I've used it a few times, just to save costs when the target's completely afk for the minute it takes to deploy a depot), but it won't affect the meta much. Leaving it in would open a huge can of issues with the weak and defenseless. CCP's right in removing it early, before it spreads.
LET'S ALL USE POLARIZED WEAPONS FOR MAXIMUM GANK BECAUSE WE DON'T NEED THE RESISTANCES ANYWAY K BOIS???
Yeah that's totally not going to cause an uproar.
- All incoming connection attempts are being blocked. If you want to speak to me you will find me either in Hek local, you can create a contract or make a thread about it in General Discussions. I will call you back. -
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15994
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 10:57:21 -
[43] - Quote
Solstice Punk wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Talos. Polarized neutron blaster cannons. Orca.
As far as I know nobody was actually doing it though, I did explain it to a few people and meant to myself but never got a good excuse to use it to its full potential with polarized guns. I did petition it (likely resulting in this nerf), and it was not an exploit at the time and presumably won't be one so feel free to do it this weekend. You won't have another chance.
it seems a bit silly that CCP decided to nerf a tactic which few gankers have even employed (I've used it a few times, just to save costs when the target's completely afk for the minute it takes to deploy a depot), but it won't affect the meta much. Leaving it in would open a huge can of issues with the weak and defenseless. CCP's right in removing it early, before it spreads. LET'S ALL USE POLARIZED WEAPONS FOR MAXIMUM GANK BECAUSE WE DON'T NEED THE RESISTANCES ANYWAY K BOIS??? Yeah that's totally not going to cause an uproar.
Also not going to happen. The gank ship would become very worthy of ganking iteself
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15994
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 10:58:15 -
[44] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:
But TLDR ppl want to be dicks in space. No change there... (but they keep their alts in NPC corps so you cant wardec them)
Do I hear a call to nerf NPC corps here?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Solstice Punk
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
37
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 11:02:30 -
[45] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:SamuraiJack wrote:
But TLDR ppl want to be dicks in space. No change there... (but they keep their alts in NPC corps so you cant wardec them)
Do I hear a call to nerf NPC corps here? Nah that's one of those guys who can't seperate reality from a game. I feel pity for him. I bet in every other game he's a big hero. Must be quite the shock to see he's actually not.
Looking for friends ? Want to boost your Likes ? Ever wanted to chat with the hottest Lady in New Eden ??
Join LAGL ! Post "Sol said Hi !" and receive ten Million ISK!
They have IRC too!
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
5129
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 13:06:18 -
[46] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Talos. Polarized neutron blaster cannons. Orca.
As far as I know nobody was actually doing it though, I did explain it to a few people and meant to myself but never got a good excuse to use it to its full potential with polarized guns. I did petition it (likely resulting in this nerf), and it was not an exploit at the time and presumably won't be one so feel free to do it this weekend. You won't have another chance.
it seems a bit silly that CCP decided to nerf a tactic which few gankers have even employed (I've used it a few times, just to save costs when the target's completely afk for the minute it takes to deploy a depot), but it won't affect the meta much.
Thought of it; considered it too much effort for not enough performance increase.
Shoot everyone. Let the Saviour sort it out.
I enforce the New Haliama Code of Conduct via wardec ops. Ignorance of the law is no excuse - read about requirements for highsec miners at www.minerbumping.com
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13216
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 13:10:41 -
[47] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Talos. Polarized neutron blaster cannons. Orca.
As far as I know nobody was actually doing it though, I did explain it to a few people and meant to myself but never got a good excuse to use it to its full potential with polarized guns. I did petition it (likely resulting in this nerf), and it was not an exploit at the time and presumably won't be one so feel free to do it this weekend. You won't have another chance.
it seems a bit silly that CCP decided to nerf a tactic which few gankers have even employed (I've used it a few times, just to save costs when the target's completely afk for the minute it takes to deploy a depot), but it won't affect the meta much. Thought of it; considered it too much effort for not enough performance increase.
Instead of the Orca, you would just bring a second Talos...
Too much tinfoil in this thread.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Magnus Roden
5
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 13:24:17 -
[48] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Yeah, this is fairly obviously a change to enforce the costs of aggression, and little else. SamuraiJack wrote:I've got much better idea.
If you GCC. Concord Pods you. End of hyperdunking. There's no reason to end that strategy though, and even less reason for NPCs to do the job assigned to players. If you want someone to lose their pod, it is your job to make that happen GÇö stop trying to flog off your personal responsibilities on unrelated game mechanics, and your problem will go away. So you're confusing the word GÇ£betterGÇ¥ with GÇ£nonsensical and pointlessGÇ¥.
Using that logic you might as well remove Concord and state that it's the player's responsibility to kill people who are flashy, that not being the case and this being a game of consequences I see no reason why NPC in general, and Concord in particular, shouldn't also pod. Other than "that's not how it has been so far" I see no compelling reasons to not change it and I see quite a few (apart from the obvious "HTFU") reasons FOR that change.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
236
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 13:40:59 -
[49] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Talos. Polarized neutron blaster cannons. Orca.. Instead of the Orca, you would just bring a second Talos...
Quite, hence why I hadn't actually employed it yet. Some people use an Orca as a scout anyway, but those people are crazy. The most reasonable application is freighter ganks where the Orca's fleet bay is desirable for looting purposes purposes anyway and you could use multiple polarized Taloses (Taloi?), otherwise a gank which normally wouldn't justify losing two Taloses but can't quite be done with one.
There are multiple possible counters to this if it became common for freighter ganks and it would furthermore be profitable to employ them because of the value of polarized weapons but apparently that won't come to pass. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25217
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 14:30:59 -
[50] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Using that logic you might as well remove Concord and state that it's the player's responsibility to kill people who are flashy No, that does not follow. CONORD serves a purpose that has nothing to do with players' responsibilities. Making CONCORD do something some players are too incompetent or lazy to do is not the same thing as redefining half of New Eden.
Using the actual logic, CONCORD is there to enforce the single defining characteristic of highsec: that aggression costs. This is not something that should or even can be transferred to players because players cannot be relied upon to effect the required outcome GÇö they are not an automatic and unavoidable game mechanic. As a bonus, CONCORD does this in a way that also ensures that hostile activities end, giving the victim an avenue of escape. Poddings are wholly unnecessary for either one, and as such, the podding of enemies has been left the sole domain of players GÇö an additional punishment for the clumsy.
Quote:I see no reason why NPC in general, and Concord in particular, shouldn't also pod. Simple: because there is no need to increase the costs involved and because it leaves something for players to do above and beyond what NPCs do. It makes players the threat you should worry about, not the environment, which is a cornerstone for how the entire game is designed.
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¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16000
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 15:30:42 -
[51] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Tippia wrote:Yeah, this is fairly obviously a change to enforce the costs of aggression, and little else. SamuraiJack wrote:I've got much better idea.
If you GCC. Concord Pods you. End of hyperdunking. There's no reason to end that strategy though, and even less reason for NPCs to do the job assigned to players. If you want someone to lose their pod, it is your job to make that happen GÇö stop trying to flog off your personal responsibilities on unrelated game mechanics, and your problem will go away. So you're confusing the word GÇ£betterGÇ¥ with GÇ£nonsensical and pointlessGÇ¥. Using that logic you might as well remove Concord and state that it's the player's responsibility to kill people who are flashy, that not being the case and this being a game of consequences I see no reason why NPC in general, and Concord in particular, shouldn't also pod. Other than "that's not how it has been so far" I see no compelling reasons to not change it and I see quite a few (apart from the obvious "HTFU") reasons FOR that change.
The only activity it would impact is hyperdunking and that is already easily avoided. It an unnecessary nerf to an already over nerfed activity.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
5573
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 15:57:55 -
[52] - Quote
Removed some more off topic posts.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
1081
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 22:05:52 -
[53] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Talos. Polarized neutron blaster cannons. Orca.
As far as I know nobody was actually doing it though, I did explain it to a few people and meant to myself but never got a good excuse to use it to its full potential with polarized guns. I did petition it (likely resulting in this nerf), and it was not an exploit at the time and presumably won't be one so feel free to do it this weekend. You won't have another chance.
it seems a bit silly that CCP decided to nerf a tactic which few gankers have even employed (I've used it a few times, just to save costs when the target's completely afk for the minute it takes to deploy a depot), but it won't affect the meta much. Thought of it; considered it too much effort for not enough performance increase. Instead of the Orca, you would just bring a second Talos... Too much tinfoil in this thread. Yeah, or simply two Catalyst with t2 guns which is still a lot cheaper than the Talos hull and has more damage.
the Code ALWAYS wins
|
Steppa Musana
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 23:06:10 -
[54] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:Using that logic you might as well remove Concord and state that it's the player's responsibility to kill people who are flashy No, that does not follow. CONORD serves a purpose that has nothing to do with players' responsibilities. Making CONCORD do something some players are too incompetent or lazy to do is not on par with GÇö or even on the same consequence chain as GÇö redefining half of New Eden. Using the actual logic, CONCORD is there to enforce the single defining characteristic of highsec: that aggression costs. This is not something that should or even can be transferred to players because players cannot be relied upon to effect the required outcome GÇö they are not an automatic and unavoidable game mechanic. As a bonus, CONCORD does this in a way that also ensures that hostile activities end, giving the victim an avenue of escape. Poddings are wholly unnecessary for either one, and as such, the podding of enemies has been left the sole domain of players GÇö an additional punishment for the clumsy. Quote:I see no reason why NPC in general, and Concord in particular, shouldn't also pod. Simple: because there is no need to increase the costs involved and because it leaves something for players to do above and beyond what NPCs do. It makes players the threat you should worry about, not the environment, which is a cornerstone for how the entire game is designed. Okay, the argument is not that CONCORD should pod players because of consequences, its that CONCORD podding players could be a solution to the exploit that is Hyperdunking. And yes, it is an exploit, CCP always say "not an exploit" until they find a way to actually fix it. And no, just because you can counter an exploit doesnt mean its not still an exploit. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16003
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 23:09:40 -
[55] - Quote
Steppa Musana wrote: Okay, the argument is not that CONCORD should pod players because of consequences, its that CONCORD podding players could be a solution to the exploit that is Hyperdunking. And yes, it is an exploit, CCP always say "not an exploit" until they find a way to actually fix it. And no, just because you can counter an exploit doesnt mean its not still an exploit.
CCP saying its not an exploit makes it not an exploit and they will not be changing their mind over this. There is nothing that needs to be fixed.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25226
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 23:29:29 -
[56] - Quote
Steppa Musana wrote:Okay, the argument is not that CONCORD should pod players because of consequences, its that CONCORD podding players could be a solution to the exploit that is Hyperdunking. In other words, there is no argument for CONCORD podding players, since there is no exploit and nothing to solve.
Quote:And yes, it is an exploit CCP says no. That's the end of it. So you're just flat out wrong on that one.
Quote:CCP always say "not an exploit" until they find a way to actually fix it. No. They say it is an exploit when they determine it is an exploit. Then they start looking for ways to program the exploit out of the game. So you're flat out wrong on that one too.
Beyond that, it's trivially easy to see why they determined that hyperdunking is not an exploit: because at no point is any of the key indicators for a CONCORD or aggression-game exploit present. At no point are any game mechanics bypassed. At no point is the obligatory loss avoided. At no point is any punishment deferred, nullified, or otherwise adjusted. At no point is CONCORD made to do something it is not supposed to do. If you think it is an exploit, not only are you objectively wrong, you immediately disqualify yourself from discussing the matter since you have no idea what the word even means.
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¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
236
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 01:31:30 -
[57] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Talos. Polarized neutron blaster cannons. Orca.
As far as I know nobody was actually doing it though, I did explain it to a few people and meant to myself but never got a good excuse to use it to its full potential with polarized guns. I did petition it (likely resulting in this nerf), and it was not an exploit at the time and presumably won't be one so feel free to do it this weekend. You won't have another chance.
it seems a bit silly that CCP decided to nerf a tactic which few gankers have even employed (I've used it a few times, just to save costs when the target's completely afk for the minute it takes to deploy a depot), but it won't affect the meta much. Thought of it; considered it too much effort for not enough performance increase. Instead of the Orca, you would just bring a second Talos... Too much tinfoil in this thread. Yeah, or simply two Catalyst with t2 guns which is still a lot cheaper than the Talos hull and has more damage.
Actually, no, two Catalysts are not better than a Talos, not remotely. And certainly not better than a polarized Talos. |
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
332
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 06:18:00 -
[58] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:I've got much better idea.
If you GCC. Concord Pods you. End of hyperdunking.
You are a criminal in highsec. They shouldnt just pop you. They should kill you. You broke the law. Have some ****ing concequences. Hows that for realism.
That would also keep more people from quitting EVE after their first time being ganked. |
Magnus Roden
5
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 10:20:37 -
[59] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:Using that logic you might as well remove Concord and state that it's the player's responsibility to kill people who are flashy No, that does not follow. CONORD serves a purpose that has nothing to do with players' responsibilities. Making CONCORD do something some players are too incompetent or lazy to do is not on par with GÇö or even on the same consequence chain as GÇö redefining half of New Eden. Using the actual logic, CONCORD is there to enforce the single defining characteristic of highsec: that aggression costs. This is not something that should or even can be transferred to players because players cannot be relied upon to effect the required outcome GÇö they are not an automatic and unavoidable game mechanic. As a bonus, CONCORD does this in a way that also ensures that hostile activities end, giving the victim an avenue of escape. Poddings are wholly unnecessary for either one, and as such, the podding of enemies has been left the sole domain of players GÇö an additional punishment for the clumsy. Quote:I see no reason why NPC in general, and Concord in particular, shouldn't also pod. Simple: because there is no need to increase the costs involved and because it leaves something for players to do above and beyond what NPCs do. It makes players the threat you should worry about, not the environment, which is a cornerstone for how the entire game is designed.
Concord's purpose is to provide a, somewhat, meaningful layer of defence and security through repercussion. There is no logical reasoning to have that stop at podding, there's also not one to NOT have that stop ad podding as it's just an arbitrary choice. There's no other logical reasoning against NPC/concord podding than "I don't like it".
How is increasing risk/cost a bad thing? It's not as if ganking is somehow a dwindling profession, it's quite obvious that it's very widespread and overly used even against lol targets. Personally I have nothing against ganking at all, it's a tax on the lazy, but at the same time it just doesn't feel "right" that folks get to gank "whatever" for the heck of it. Ganking in high sec should come at such a cost that it's a conscious choice with massive repercussions, each and every time and it, obviously, just isn't.
There is no valid argument against NPC/Concord podding players, other than "that's not how it's been so far and it would increase cost" which as arguments go is a slim one.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Magnus Roden
5
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 10:23:45 -
[60] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:The only activity it would impact is hyperdunking and that is already easily avoided. It an unnecessary nerf to an already over nerfed activity.
Given the amount of ganking that goes on and taking into account the cost for the ganker vs gankee I'm sure you'll agree it's in no way a dying profession or nerfed to a point where it's balanced. It isn't balanced, at all.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |