Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 46 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 01:50:19 -
[751] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Brad Neece wrote:Simple disabling transfers from anybody on TImers......no database needed. And an alt that is not on any timer? Isn't that the problem with looting? That an alt comes on grid and transfers from the wreck to the DST/Orca? So how would switching off transfers based on timers change anything in relation to the issue? It would just nerf other looting in the game and have no effect on the thing being complained about, leading to another round of requests for changes.
Yeah, bad wording on my part, good catch... but basically this, If action is going to create a Suspect timer on the one transferring.....no transfer. If you want to loot, you must be the one to physical move it to your ship. |
Iain Cariaba
2502
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 01:51:15 -
[752] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: can't counter bump, can't fly anything expensive, etc. More like won't than can't. Besides, you don't need anything expensive to counter bump. A t1 cruiser with a mwd can do it.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44180
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 01:53:53 -
[753] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:Yeah, bad wording on my part, good catch... but basically this, If action is going to create a Suspect timer on the one transferring.....no transfer. So all ninja looting in highsec and lowsec would be removed from the game?
Well, I'm fairly confident CCP would never do something like that, thankfully.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25776
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 01:57:44 -
[754] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:Simple disabling transfers from anybody on TImers......no database needed. Yeah, great idea; to fix a problem, that if it exists at all only exists in hisec, change a fundamental mechanic and stop everybody with a suspect or criminal timer from transferring loot.
Before you start with "restrict the change to hisec", you can't. The initial flag is acquired under the crimewatch mechanic, which applies throughout empire space regardless of whether it's high or low sec; the only difference being that in hisec the reaction to a criminal flag is escalated beyond gate and station guns.
Before suggesting changes to mechanics you would do well to understand the current ones and how they work.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21154
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 02:04:22 -
[755] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote: If you thread my earlier posts, I have already stated I will be covering different timezones and different days.
Luckily, as research is part of my daily work, designing studies is something I do all the time. The data won't be incomplete.
Ahh I did not see that in the thread of comment. But should not be needed I think at this point as official proof to CCP that this happens. They have the data already. They can verify claims and then we can move to the actual fix. But feel free, if you want a science experiment, go for it! :) That this happens? Verify claims? We've constantly asked for evidence of a problem and so far all we have from you is that bumping occurs and looting into DST's happen.
I've even tried to open a dialog with you and you shut me down. Reasonable questions go unanswered and now all of a sudden you're here telling us CCP has all the data and we'll soon be seeing a fix. A fix to what I'm unsure about, but a fix nevertheless.
That's great. I look forward to hearing what the problem actually is.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 02:08:16 -
[756] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Brad Neece wrote:Yeah, bad wording on my part, good catch... but basically this, If action is going to create a Suspect timer on the one transferring.....no transfer. So all ninja looting in highsec and lowsec would be removed from the game? Well, I'm fairly confident CCP would never do something like that, thankfully.
Thats not ninja looting......if the act of TRANSFERING directly from a wreck to another ships hangar would result in a Suspect timer for any party, no transfer allowed. |
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 02:14:05 -
[757] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Brad Neece wrote:Simple disabling transfers from anybody on TImers......no database needed. Yeah, great idea; to fix a problem, that if it exists at all only exists in hisec, change a fundamental mechanic and stop everybody with a suspect or criminal timer from transferring loot. Before you start with "restrict the change to hisec", you can't. The initial flag is acquired under the crimewatch mechanic, which applies throughout empire space regardless of whether it's high or low sec; the only difference being that in hisec the reaction to a criminal flag is escalated beyond gate and station guns. Before suggesting changes to mechanics you would do well to understand the current ones and how they work.
Yeah, it was bad wording on my part....If a transfer would result in one party going FY....there should be no transfer at all. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44185
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 02:16:30 -
[758] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Brad Neece wrote:Yeah, bad wording on my part, good catch... but basically this, If action is going to create a Suspect timer on the one transferring.....no transfer. So all ninja looting in highsec and lowsec would be removed from the game? Well, I'm fairly confident CCP would never do something like that, thankfully. Thats not ninja looting......if the act of TRANSFERING directly from a wreck to another ships hangar would result in a Suspect timer for any party, no transfer allowed. It would be great if the story can be kept consistent.
Nowhere did you mention hangar before just this now.
I'm not sure how the game deals with cargo holds vs fleet hangars, so it might be possible to ban one and not affect the other, but that isn't what you originally wrote.
You wrote disable transfers by anyone on a timer, then if the transfer would result in a suspect flag, no transfer allowed. That would very much affect ninja looting (since taking it from a wreck into your own cargo hold is also a transfer).
So now, since the proposal is to ban transferring to a hanger, a DST pilot can't even loot the wreck themselves.
Luckily, I'm still confident CCP would never make a change like that anyway. They've already provided a safety system so that people can choose whether they go criminal or suspect, or avoid those situations. I can't see them preventing it all together. That's removing player choice and not something they seem interested in doing.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25779
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 02:22:32 -
[759] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Brad Neece wrote:Yeah, bad wording on my part, good catch... but basically this, If action is going to create a Suspect timer on the one transferring.....no transfer. So all ninja looting in highsec and lowsec would be removed from the game? Well, I'm fairly confident CCP would never do something like that, thankfully. Thats not ninja looting......if the act of TRANSFERING directly from a wreck to another ships hangar would result in a Suspect timer for any party, no transfer allowed. Ninja looting doesn't just apply to stealing from other peoples wrecks, it also applies to the practice of looting the scene of a fight with multiple ships and transferring the goodies to a hauler of some description. What you suggest also affects miners, I've gone suspect many times while mining, normally as a result of emptying another miners unattended can, I usually transfer the contents to to an Orca while I keep mining; a suspect Procurer or Skiff is often bait and nobody really bothers suspects anyway, your naive suggestion would prevent myself and other unscrupulous miners from stealing from the ones that can't be bothered to be at the keyboard and are dumb enough to mine into a freight container.
BTW it wasn't that you worded your suggestion, it's that your idea is bad and has consequences that go far beyond the scope of the thread.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44185
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 02:45:15 -
[760] - Quote
Mag's wrote:That this happens? Verify claims? We've constantly asked for evidence of a problem and so far all we have from you is that bumping occurs and looting into DST's happen. For me, it's not only this, but also the other things that have been written in the thread:
You, I and others have asked for the evidence throughout the thread, only to have these comments made:
KickAss Tivianne: This post has grown with people adding more evidence.(1)
to then be addressed like this when I've asked for the evidence:
KickAss Tivianne: You my friend need to start trolling somewhere else with a comment at this point of the discussion.(2)
When challenged on that, I was told:
KickAss Tivianne: ... just swing by Uedama and watch, it really would not be hard to see it happen.(3)
Only for it ultimately to change to:
KickAss Tivianne: This is a problem, and it is something that evidence does not come easily.(4)
Well, the story just keeps changing, from the very person who started this thread claiming a problem exists that needs the mechanics to be changed.
So if the person claiming there is a problem won't make the effort to collect the data, but will continually stick to an unverfied view that there is a problem, then I'll go get the evidence myself, one way or the other.
Whinging about something only goes so far. Ultimately there needs to be evidence to use as the basis of sound judgement.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4592
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 03:40:58 -
[761] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Teckos Pech wrote: They weren't guesses they were statements based on your statements. Things like "not being able to earn ISK in HS." You didn't want to risk that, so you weren't willing to gank. You said so yourself.
No guessing, just reading what you wrote and pointing out the implications.
You strech your implications way too far, and - as I said, are not too good at that guessing game. Guess what, I don't make my isk in HS, mostly am not even there unless doing some AG stuff. You're presuming that when talking about inability to make isk in HS I'm talking about myself, and you are wrong. This game is not only about you or me and trying to look at stuff form other's perspective might benefit you. As for me, I mind killrights on Rham not because of isk making but because that prevents me from trying to effectively fight gankers - can't counter bump, can't fly anything expensive, etc.
What a load of Bravo Sierra...funny how gankers manage this just fine.
With insta undocks, and reasonable precautions ganking a bumping ship is indeed quite feasible, but go ahead and grasp at straws.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4592
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 03:45:05 -
[762] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Brad Neece wrote:Simple disabling transfers from anybody on TImers......no database needed. And an alt that is not on any timer? Isn't that the problem with looting? That an alt comes on grid and transfers from the wreck to the DST/Orca? So how would switching off transfers based on timers change anything in relation to the issue? It would just nerf other looting in the game and have no effect on the thing being complained about, leading to another round of requests for changes. Yeah, bad wording on my part, good catch... but basically this, If action is going to create a Suspect timer on the one transferring.....no transfer. If you want to loot, you must be the one to physical move it to your ship.
Just no, as it means locking the loot down to whomever ganked the wreck or the person ganked. Talk about being completely antithetical to a sandbox PvP game. Sheesh.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4592
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 03:50:08 -
[763] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne: This post has grown with people adding more evidence.(1)[snip] KickAss Tivianne: This is a problem, and it is something that evidence does not come easily.(4)[snip
Really don't want to mangle that post, but I thought it would be worth while to put those two comments right next to each other to show the intellectual bankruptcy of a thread participant.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 05:11:07 -
[764] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Brad Neece wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Brad Neece wrote:Yeah, bad wording on my part, good catch... but basically this, If action is going to create a Suspect timer on the one transferring.....no transfer. So all ninja looting in highsec and lowsec would be removed from the game? Well, I'm fairly confident CCP would never do something like that, thankfully. Thats not ninja looting......if the act of TRANSFERING directly from a wreck to another ships hangar would result in a Suspect timer for any party, no transfer allowed. It would be great if the story can be kept consistent. Nowhere did you mention hangar before just this now. I'm not sure how the game deals with cargo holds vs fleet hangars, so it might be possible to ban one and not affect the other, but that isn't what you originally wrote. You wrote disable transfers by anyone on a timer, then if the transfer would result in a suspect flag, no transfer allowed. That would very much affect ninja looting (since taking it from a wreck into your own cargo hold is also a transfer). So now, since the proposal is to ban transferring to a hanger, a DST or Orca pilot in highsec can't even loot the wreck themselves (nor Carriers in lowsec if they needed to). Luckily, I'm still confident CCP would never make a change like that anyway. They've already provided a safety system so that people can choose whether they go criminal or suspect, or avoid those situations. I can't see them preventing it all together. That's removing player choice and not something they seem interested in doing.
Well this is a ideas discussion forum..... i'm giving examples and getting feedback based on topic, no story really needed.... its making me think of the repercussions elsewhere :) But I've brought up transferring to another ship a few time.....I may have made the mistake of not stating that implied a fleet hanger transfer though. |
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
65
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 05:27:34 -
[765] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne: This post has grown with people adding more evidence.(1)[snip] KickAss Tivianne: This is a problem, and it is something that evidence does not come easily.(4)[snip Really don't want to mangle that post, but I thought it would be worth while to put those two comments right next to each other to show the intellectual bankruptcy of a thread participant.
And so..... what is your point? There has been other people who have viewed this.. A witness aka evidence. However getting actual physical evidence does not come easy, all for the reasons I mentioned in the thread. CCP has the evidence. I don't have to prove anything to you.
I appreciate your comments, you point is noted. But if this is going to be the caliber of comment you have from now on, please move along.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4595
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 05:40:41 -
[766] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne: This post has grown with people adding more evidence.(1)[snip] KickAss Tivianne: This is a problem, and it is something that evidence does not come easily.(4)[snip Really don't want to mangle that post, but I thought it would be worth while to put those two comments right next to each other to show the intellectual bankruptcy of a thread participant. And so..... what is your point? There has been other people who have viewed this.. A witness aka evidence. However getting actual physical evidence does not come easy, all for the reasons I mentioned in the thread. CCP has the evidence. I don't have to prove anything to you. I appreciate your comments, you point is noted. But if this is going to be the caliber of comment you have from now on, please move along.
Let me see, you claim you'll update as "more evidence" is posted...and when Scipio posts some evidence you...try your damnedest to dismiss it and spin in your favor. And claim evidence does not come easily on top of it when Scipio is clearly going to be sacrificing his time to try and get some decent data.
I'm sorry, if anyone should move on, it is you. And you don't have anything to prove because you can't prove anything.
BTW, I have flown through Uedama quite a bit. I do invention on a number of alts to supplement my income and you know what...other than the time I was bumped in a freighter I have yet to see a freighter getting bumped. Maybe it is just because of the TZ in which I play, but the claim, "Just swing by Uedama and see the bumping" or whatever is nonsense.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21155
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 07:09:01 -
[767] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:And so..... what is your point? There has been other people who have viewed this.. A witness aka evidence. However getting actual physical evidence does not come easy, all for the reasons I mentioned in the thread. CCP has the evidence. I don't have to prove anything to you. Viewed this? Viewed what exactly? Oh and a witness isn't evidence unless they can show what they viewed or prove it through actual data.
Let me break down your complaint.
Bumping. You have issues with it going on for an hour. I've provided a link from this forum and the unedited version from eve-search.com. Those link show someone complaining of a bump that went on for an hour or so. The facts we can readily see from those links is, working as intended. You've chosen to ignore my actual evidence and gone with your 'i and others have viewed this and CCP have the data'. You've ignored reasonable questions and requests at discourse. When topics you yourself raise work against you, you decide you won't be discussing them anymore and then refuse further discussion of that subject.
Why did you ignore those links?
Looting. I've yet to see any evidence of pilots transferring loot after they gank whilst waiting from concord to kill them. The timing of such a move is quite frankly, unbelievable. Now we are in a situation where posters are recommending changes that affect far more, simply due to some special situation that I personally have yet to see any proof of.
But now we're meant to just take your word for it and accept CCP have all the data, and a fix will be along soon. Sorry, but I tend not to believe someone who's been using a crystal ball when they say "Trust me, I'm a doctor."
No doubt you'll say something along the lines of not talking to me anymore, so be it. But as I've been quite decent through this thread, that type of response only goes to show what little faith you have in your argument.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
264
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 09:12:11 -
[768] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: can't counter bump, can't fly anything expensive, etc. More like won't than can't. Besides, you don't need anything expensive to counter bump. A t1 cruiser with a mwd can do it. Sure. Reliability of counter bumping is ****** even with a properly fit mach, let alone a t1 cruiser with half of mach's agility.
Teckos Pech wrote:What a load of Bravo Sierra...funny how gankers manage this just fine. With insta undocks, and reasonable precautions ganking a bumping ship is indeed quite feasible, but go ahead and grasp at straws. Roll What the heck are you talking about? Insta undocks, precautions? I'm not talking about ganking the bumper, I'm talking about doing anything in hisec with a kill right on your head if the person holding that kill right has any idea about what can be done with it (judging from your posts, you obviously don't). Gankers (or their ganking chars) don't care about killrights, hell they don't care about sec status to start with since current crimewatch mechanics allow them to be completely functional regardless of concord and facpo. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2119
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 09:48:48 -
[769] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:What the heck are you talking about? Insta undocks, precautions? I'm not talking about ganking the bumper, I'm talking about doing anything in hisec with a kill right on your head if the person holding that kill right has any idea about what can be done with it (judging from your posts, you obviously don't). Gankers (or their ganking chars) don't care about killrights, hell they don't care about sec status to start with since current crimewatch mechanics allow them to be completely functional regardless of concord and facpo. So the killrights and your sec status are of really great concern to you but they are completely without consequence for other players like the gankers?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Iain Cariaba
2508
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 09:50:47 -
[770] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: can't counter bump, can't fly anything expensive, etc. More like won't than can't. Besides, you don't need anything expensive to counter bump. A t1 cruiser with a mwd can do it. Sure. Reliability of counter bumping is ****** even with a properly fit mach, let alone a t1 cruiser with half of mach's agility. Not really. You do know there's more to proper bumping than just clicking approach, right? If you know what you're doing it's not really that difficult.
Oh, wait, I forgot, :effort:.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:What a load of Bravo Sierra...funny how gankers manage this just fine. With insta undocks, and reasonable precautions ganking a bumping ship is indeed quite feasible, but go ahead and grasp at straws. Roll What the heck are you talking about? Insta undocks, precautions? I'm not talking about ganking the bumper, I'm talking about doing anything in hisec with a kill right on your head if the person holding that kill right has any idea about what can be done with it (judging from your posts, you obviously don't). Gankers (or their ganking chars) don't care about killrights, hell they don't care about sec status to start with since current crimewatch mechanics allow them to be completely functional regardless of concord and facpo. Oh no!!! You might get a killright that you can have a friend buy off cheaply!!!!!!
Look, you can either learn how to bump effectively and bump the mach risk free, or you can accept the consequences of ganking the mach. You have the same choices the gankers do, you just refuse to realize this.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17265
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 10:08:08 -
[771] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Sure. Reliability of counter bumping is ****** even with a properly fit mach, let alone a t1 cruiser with half of mach's agility. .
MWDing mach = 13 seconds align time, 8.03 seconds align time with nothing but nanofibers in the lows.
MWDing stabber = 7.67 seconds align time, 4.58 seconds align time with nothing but naofibers in the lows.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 10:47:40 -
[772] - Quote
I want to play in HIGHSEC and be SAFE. What is wrong with that?
I want to play the game in MY way; not have someone force their game on me.
I don't mind ganking; if someone wants to suicide themselves, that's cool. Happens in RL.
But people are cleverly exploiting rules and game mechanics to grief other players in HIGHSEC.
If you use BUMPING in an aggressive way in HIGHSEC, you should be tagged as a criminal.
If you are hiding in a NPC corp while coordinating a gank fleet, you should be tagged as a criminal.
Eve takes place in a very technically advanced future universe and we are talking about the most protected areas in that universe GÇô HIGHSEC.
In any real, modern society, criminals are not allowed to continue their criminal acts in areas with heavy surveillance & police presence. Random violence can always happen; but it would not be allowed to continue indefinitely.
Career criminals should `permanently' lose their access rights to gates leading to HIGHSEC. There are certainly other areas where they can pursue criminal activities freely.
I want an area where I can pursue my peaceful activities in relative peace. What's wrong with that?
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17265
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 10:56:37 -
[773] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:
I want an area where I can pursue my peaceful activities in relative peace. What's wrong with that?
That's not EVE, go play STO if you want to be safe.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 11:00:00 -
[774] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:
I want an area where I can pursue my peaceful activities in relative peace. What's wrong with that?
That's not EVE, go play STO if you want to be safe.
Don't tell me what to do.. You don't own this game.
You didn't develop this game and it's not up to you to define it.
I want to play THIS game and I want it to be more REALISTIC. That's all.
Realism should trump douchery..
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17265
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 11:03:13 -
[775] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:
I want to play the game in MY way; not have someone force their game on me.
Bella Jennie wrote: Career criminals should `permanently' lose their access rights to gates leading to HIGHSEC. There are certainly other areas where they can pursue criminal activities freely.
I want an area where I can pursue my peaceful activities in relative peace. What's wrong with that?
bit of a contradiction
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25781
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 11:09:24 -
[776] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:I want to play in HIGHSEC and be SAFE. What is wrong with that? You're playing the wrong game, CCP define it as a PvP game at the core. Hisec is not safe, merely safer than the other places in the game, even then it's only as safe as you make it.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 11:23:25 -
[777] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:
I want to play the game in MY way; not have someone force their game on me.
Bella Jennie wrote: Career criminals should `permanently' lose their access rights to gates leading to HIGHSEC. There are certainly other areas where they can pursue criminal activities freely.
I want an area where I can pursue my peaceful activities in relative peace. What's wrong with that?
bit of a contradiction
Sorry, can't see it; what is the contradiction in my statements?
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25781
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 11:32:51 -
[778] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:baltec1 wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:
I want to play the game in MY way; not have someone force their game on me.
Bella Jennie wrote: Career criminals should `permanently' lose their access rights to gates leading to HIGHSEC. There are certainly other areas where they can pursue criminal activities freely.
I want an area where I can pursue my peaceful activities in relative peace. What's wrong with that?
bit of a contradiction Sorry, can't see it; what is the contradiction in my statements? You wish to pursue your own path in Eve while asking CCP to deny others the opportunity to do the same; how is that not a contradiction?
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 11:35:12 -
[779] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:You're playing the wrong game, CCP define it as a PvP game at the core. Hisec is not safe, merely safer than the other places in the game, even then it's only as safe as you make it.
With all due respect, I don't need to be advised what to play by you.
I purposely used the word "RELATIVELY" along with safe. I'm aware of Falcon's post.
I said suicide ganking is fine. Just looking for Logical Realism in rules & game mechanics.
Jonah Gravenstein wrote: It's a little hypocritical to say that you should be be able to play as you want to but that others shouldn't be able to do the same. The good news is that you can play as you want to. The bad news, for you anyway, is that there is no guarantee that you'll succeed because everybody else can do the same; if you don't like that idea, there's plenty of other games out there that will cater to your wants.
Again, you can play as you want to according to the rules.
I'm pointing out that the rules (and gameplay mechanics) are not logical; not realistic and not in line with CCP's concept of "RISK vs REWARD".
Currently the griefers can bother other players in HIGHSEC without any risk.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 11:39:13 -
[780] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:You wish to pursue your own path in Eve while asking CCP to deny others the opportunity to do the same; how is that not a contradiction?
see my post above
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 46 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |