Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nana Skalski
Poseidaon
11377
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 08:31:01 -
[1] - Quote
Well this thread gave me an IDEA. What about a module fitted to freighters that would DESTROY all cargo in the event of destruction of ship? Like an "autodestructive cargobay". Would give additional 20% more cargospace.
More I think about it, it becomes even more funny.
( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ =ƒÅ¦ - my sandcastle
Every part of a game helps to tell a story. =ƒôò
Planetary Interaction 2.1
|
darkneko
Black Cat mining Inc.
10
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 08:53:12 -
[2] - Quote
Sounds interesting. But I think it should make the cargo bay smaller not larger and if a module like this was introduced the normal drop rate from kills should be increased. |
Nana Skalski
Poseidaon
11378
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 09:04:32 -
[3] - Quote
More cargospace if for more stuf that would be destroyed. Do you think that gankers would still gank those, I think that CODE would, and that would be so fun to watch.
( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ =ƒÅ¦ - my sandcastle
Every part of a game helps to tell a story. =ƒôò
Planetary Interaction 2.1
|
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
771
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 10:25:19 -
[4] - Quote
Sounds like a wonderful module for those butthurt noobs who cannot deal with loss.
No thanks. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2536
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 10:37:25 -
[5] - Quote
Nana Skalski wrote:More cargospace if for more stuf that would be destroyed. Do you think that gankers would still gank those, I think that CODE would, and that would be so fun to watch.
In the spirit of EVE, assuring that destruction of vessel can be inevitable, but at least you would deny all loot. Player choices matter. Perhaps CODE might (although if this was the norm probably not for long as ganking freighters with no drops gets expensive quick), but what about all the other gankers who are after the loot? Why would you want to remove one of the main motivations for players to attack other players in the game?
Piracy is suppose to be a profession in this game. I fail to see how removing loot drops is going to bring content to the game or make it better in any way.
Player choices matter. If you choose to undock in something, you are taking the risk that someone is going to try and take your stuff so you better make provisions to defend yourself. No, CCP is not going to give you a way to deny the victor the spoils of a PvP engagement just to satisfy your childish desire for spite. If you lose your stuff to a pirate, man up and give them the 'gf' they deserve for beating you.
Why Do They Gank?
|
Nana Skalski
Poseidaon
11380
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 12:16:57 -
[6] - Quote
Quote:Why would you want to remove one of the main motivations for players to attack other players in the game? One of the main motivator was not always loot, but a destruction of others vessels and making others lives miserable. With this module, both gankers and haulers can live a miserable life.
If the gankers would want to attack, and the haulers would choose to equip this module. They would.
And module is only for freighters that cant defend themselves as a ships. Especially against gankers.
( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ =ƒÅ¦ - my sandcastle
Every part of a game helps to tell a story. =ƒôò
Planetary Interaction 2.1
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2536
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 13:01:15 -
[7] - Quote
Nana Skalski wrote:Quote:Why would you want to remove one of the main motivations for players to attack other players in the game? One of the main motivator was not always loot, but a destruction of others vessels and making others lives miserable. With this module, both gankers and haulers can live a miserable life. If the gankers would want to attack, and the haulers would choose to equip this module. They would. And module is only for freighters that cant defend themselves as a ships. Especially against gankers.
If you want to make ganker's lives "miserable" why don't you just do one of the many things you can do to keep your freighter safe? Then you can thumb your nose at the gankers and get to keep your stuff.
Asking the game to just be made more aggravating for subset players for no reason that you have provided doesn't seem like something CCP is going to implement.
People's stuff is suppose to be at risk to, and be taken by, the other players. Yes, that even includes the freighter pilots that you falsely assert "can't defend themselves as ships". Actually, especially those fat loot pinatas called freighters whose primary design purpose is to put them at risk of attack so hauling is actually a profession rather than just something you click 'autopilot' to do.
Why Do They Gank?
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
861
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 13:43:06 -
[8] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Piracy is suppose to be a profession in this game. I fail to see how removing loot drops is going to bring content to the game or make it better in any way. Ah the tired old removing game play options argument, which we can only interpret as this would remove some of the gankers game play options. And yet I can see at least one very interesting game play option this module would produce, I will simply call it trolling for gankers. Can I make a ship and fit that will attract a gank simply so I can self destruct it to deny the gankers any profit. With the tables turned and their profits stripped away by a player choice action I wonder if the gankers would "man up" as you put it and offer a GF? Would they man up and admit that they had been out played or would they simply rage about how unfair it is that we were able to deny them the profits from their efforts? Like you are doing right here in this topic. |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat FETID
3055
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 13:56:22 -
[9] - Quote
plot twist: module fitted makes you suspect
FETID now recruiting pvp pilots & corporations | lowsec pvp & piracy - Join FETID
Loyalist to Angel Cartel & Serpentis
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1150
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 14:05:25 -
[10] - Quote
I would be for it, but it should definitely cut the cargo space, not increase it. I'd say 30-50%, with a huge, high damage explosion that leaves your pod as a criminal for the terrorist act you just caused for at least an hour. Everyone destroyed in the blast, be it ganker or innocent bystander now has kill rights on you.
You will lose the ship, all cargo, and your pod will be fair game. You may or may not get the attackers, even outside of High Sec where CONCORD assures it, but it will cost you. |
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2536
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 14:05:54 -
[11] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Ah the tired old removing game play options argument, which we can only interpret as this would remove some of the gankers game play options. It would remove one of the primary motivations for players to attack one another in the sandbox. At the very least it would have to come with a massive hit to cargo capacity to balance this (unlike the bonus the OP proposed) to make it a purely military baiting strategy, rather than just a salve to sooth the bruised ego of haulers who have just lost a PvP engagement.
I remind you that pirates are suppose to exist and ability to take each other's stuff is at the very core of the design of this full-time PvP sandbox.
Donnachadh wrote: And yet I can see at least one very interesting game play option this module would produce, I will simply call it trolling for gankers. Can I make a ship and fit that will attract a gank simply so I can self destruct it to deny the gankers any profit.
You can already troll gankers now. If you want more tools I think there is also room for some module that screws with cargo scanners or the like to mess with pirates. But if you want to just deprive the victor of his prize out of some sense of spite, that is terrible game play that just removes the motivation to pirate. Both the victim and the victor are left unsatisfied which is not something a game feature CCP is going to willingly add to the game.
Donnachadh wrote:With the tables turned and their profits stripped away by a player choice action I wonder if the gankers would "man up" as you put it and offer a GF? Would they man up and admit that they had been out played or would they simply rage about how unfair it is that we were able to deny them the profits from their efforts? Like you are doing right here in this topic. Of course most would. I always try offer up a gf when I miss a gank.
Lol, there is no "raging" here. I am just pointing out to the OP why there is exactly zero chance of this being implemented. CCP loves the conflict that piracy brings to the game - they built Eve after all. They aren't going to patch it out so a bunch of pouting sore losers can feel slightly better about their in-game failures.
Eve has precious few conflict drivers as it is. Expect more ways to take other players stuff, not less, as we go forward.
Why Do They Gank?
|
Nana Skalski
Poseidaon
11382
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 14:14:05 -
[12] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Nana Skalski wrote:Quote:Why would you want to remove one of the main motivations for players to attack other players in the game? One of the main motivator was not always loot, but a destruction of others vessels and making others lives miserable. With this module, both gankers and haulers can live a miserable life. If the gankers would want to attack, and the haulers would choose to equip this module. They would. And module is only for freighters that cant defend themselves as a ships. Especially against gankers. If you want to make ganker's lives "miserable" why don't you just do one of the many things you can do to keep your freighter safe? Then you can thumb your nose at the gankers and get to keep your stuff. Asking the game to just be made more aggravating for subset players for no reason that you have provided doesn't seem like something CCP is going to implement. People's stuff is suppose to be at risk to, and be taken by, the other players. Yes, that even includes the freighter pilots that you falsely assert "can't defend themselves as ships". Actually, especially those fat loot pinatas called freighters whose primary design purpose is to put them at risk of attack so hauling is actually a profession rather than just something you click 'autopilot' to do. Nor freighters will be unkillable, nor any loot will be at no risk, it would just all go POOF!.
( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ =ƒÅ¦ - my sandcastle
Every part of a game helps to tell a story. =ƒôò
Planetary Interaction 2.1
|
Nana Skalski
Poseidaon
11382
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 14:19:54 -
[13] - Quote
Quote:deprive the victor of his prize Ha ha ha, deprive the ganker of the easy loot you mean. With no hesitation so much players would make this choice.
( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ =ƒÅ¦ - my sandcastle
Every part of a game helps to tell a story. =ƒôò
Planetary Interaction 2.1
|
Cyrus Tybalt
Blap n Pew
20
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 19:26:58 -
[14] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Nana Skalski wrote:More cargospace if for more stuf that would be destroyed. Do you think that gankers would still gank those, I think that CODE would, and that would be so fun to watch.
In the spirit of EVE, assuring that destruction of vessel can be inevitable, but at least you would deny all loot. Player choices matter. Perhaps CODE might (although if this was the norm probably not for long as ganking freighters with no drops gets expensive quick), but what about all the other gankers who are after the loot? Why would you want to remove one of the main motivations for players to attack other players in the game? Piracy is suppose to be a profession in this game. I fail to see how removing loot drops is going to bring content to the game or make it better in any way. Player choices matter. If you choose to undock in something, you are taking the risk that someone is going to try and take your stuff so you better make provisions to defend yourself. No, CCP is not going to give you a way to deny the victor the spoils of a PvP engagement just to satisfy your childish desire for spite. If you lose your stuff to a pirate, man up and give them the 'gf' they deserve for beating you.
Piracy is supposd to be a profession in this game, yes.
But how many real pirates do you know of that basically destroyed the ships they were targeting BEFORE looting them? |
Paranoid Loyd
9090
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 19:47:09 -
[15] - Quote
I realize you are probably just trolling for attention but giving you the benefit of the doubt, they just removed the ability to one-shot wrecks, what makes you think they want to put a module back in that would basically negate that change?
With the exception of CODE and a few other small groups I don't know many gankers that are not ganking for the isk, so stop spouting that BS about only doing for destruction.
Fix the Prospect! New Server Hardware!
|
Nana Skalski
Poseidaon
11387
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 20:09:28 -
[16] - Quote
Gone in a a ball of fire. For even more damage it should do an area of effect damage, like smartbomb. Completely obliterating vessels around it. One shooting rookie ships and untanked tech 1 frigates 10 km around it.
( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ =ƒÅ¦ - my sandcastle
Every part of a game helps to tell a story. =ƒôò
Planetary Interaction 2.1
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4461
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 20:24:20 -
[17] - Quote
Sure, you can have a module that would instantly be fit to every single freighter in eve.
But it reduces you to 1 structure HP, and removes all your resistances. That should balance it nicely. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3283
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 20:59:05 -
[18] - Quote
Cyrus Tybalt wrote:
Piracy is supposd to be a profession in this game, yes.
But how many real pirates do you know of that basically destroyed the ships they were targeting BEFORE looting them?
Great idea.
Module that allows you to steal loot right out of a ships cargo bay without destroying the target ship. User goes suspect.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat FETID
3057
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 21:54:14 -
[19] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Cyrus Tybalt wrote:
Piracy is supposd to be a profession in this game, yes.
But how many real pirates do you know of that basically destroyed the ships they were targeting BEFORE looting them?
Great idea. Module that allows you to steal loot right out of a ships cargo bay without destroying the target ship. User goes suspect.
yes! we can call it a Plunder Beacon
FETID now recruiting pvp pilots & corporations | lowsec pvp & piracy - Join FETID
Loyalist to Angel Cartel & Serpentis
|
Nana Skalski
Poseidaon
11387
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 22:05:19 -
[20] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Cyrus Tybalt wrote:
Piracy is supposd to be a profession in this game, yes.
But how many real pirates do you know of that basically destroyed the ships they were targeting BEFORE looting them?
Great idea. Module that allows you to steal loot right out of a ships cargo bay without destroying the target ship. User goes suspect. Only after Autodestructive cargoholds will become a reality. That would make some sense then. But tie it with boarding parties and boarding mechanics. Of course every such boarding action in high sec would get you an instant criminal flag.
And boarding should take some time.
( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ =ƒÅ¦ - my sandcastle
Every part of a game helps to tell a story. =ƒôò
Planetary Interaction 2.1
|
|
darkneko
Black Cat mining Inc.
10
|
Posted - 2016.06.02 02:11:29 -
[21] - Quote
Nana Skalski wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Cyrus Tybalt wrote:
Piracy is supposd to be a profession in this game, yes.
But how many real pirates do you know of that basically destroyed the ships they were targeting BEFORE looting them?
Great idea. Module that allows you to steal loot right out of a ships cargo bay without destroying the target ship. User goes suspect. Only after Autodestructive cargoholds will become a reality. That would make some sense then. But tie it with boarding parties and boarding mechanics. Of course every such boarding action in high sec would get you an instant suspect flag. And boarding should take some time.
make it similar to a hacking mod and you go suspect as soon as you turn it on then the instant you succeed concord comes after you and you lose sec stats like a normal attack,meaning you have a limited time to sort through what you want. this would be added on with the mod that destroys your cargo but no one knows you have it fit so they might still try to destroy you thinking they will get a portion of your cargo.
also to the guy who said something about care bares not being able to take a loss... this would still be a big loss but the one who killed you wouldn't get anything either except a kill mail. |
Nana Skalski
Poseidaon
11394
|
Posted - 2016.06.02 05:07:15 -
[22] - Quote
darkneko wrote:Nana Skalski wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Cyrus Tybalt wrote:
Piracy is supposd to be a profession in this game, yes.
But how many real pirates do you know of that basically destroyed the ships they were targeting BEFORE looting them?
Great idea. Module that allows you to steal loot right out of a ships cargo bay without destroying the target ship. User goes suspect. Only after Autodestructive cargoholds will become a reality. That would make some sense then. But tie it with boarding parties and boarding mechanics. Of course every such boarding action in high sec would get you an instant suspect flag. And boarding should take some time. make it similar to a hacking mod and you go suspect as soon as you turn it on then the instant you succeed concord comes after you and you lose sec stats like a normal attack,meaning you have a limited time to sort through what you want. this would be added on with the mod that destroys your cargo but no one knows you have it fit so they might still try to destroy you thinking they will get a portion of your cargo. also to the guy who said something about care bares not being able to take a loss... this would still be a big loss but the one who killed you wouldn't get anything either except a kill mail. Hacking mod, but you would basically make a mini strategic game, with outline of vessel where you can capture points on deck, disable automatic turrets, fight security onboard. All of that using and expending your own boarding parties that are limited before the fight. Also the capturing vessel could have those security guards. I think that more than suspect flag in high sec while doing such things would make things enough of hassle for the pirate. Also the boarding parties would have limited capacity to move stuff, that could be expanded in the form of transport units for the cost of the fighting force.
What stuff to loot you would have to choose beforehand, choosing it from the list in the scan results. That means the vessel would have to sacrifice more modules for the operation beforehand. Risky bisiness.
( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ =ƒÅ¦ - my sandcastle
Every part of a game helps to tell a story. =ƒôò
Planetary Interaction 2.1
|
Cyrus Tybalt
Blap n Pew
22
|
Posted - 2016.06.02 13:13:07 -
[23] - Quote
Boarding actions is what Dust 514 should've been about, amd whatever EVE FPS that CCP decides to develop should be about as well. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3285
|
Posted - 2016.06.02 13:20:18 -
[24] - Quote
If concord are coming after you it means you're criminal. If you are criminal you cant warp. So no of course concord won't come after you.
No bull **** mini-game either. Just activate, steal and go suspect. The target and any escorts he has can fight for their stuff back. Now we can have looting like 'real life pirates' \o/
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
861
|
Posted - 2016.06.02 15:01:41 -
[25] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:I remind you that pirates are suppose to exist and ability to take each other's stuff is at the very core of the design of this full-time PvP sandbox.
Bunch of stuff snipped here read it above.
Eve has precious few conflict drivers as it is. Expect more ways to take other players stuff, not less, as we go forward. Thank you for proving my point about gankers and raging over anything that adversely affects the profits from their game play. Also want to thank you for proving that you are all for added game play option when they benefit YOU, and against any game play options that may adversely affect you.
You still do not get it do you. It is not your pirate / ganking ways that many of us are against it is your entitled attitude that you deserve to profit from these activities simply because you choose to do them. Piracy in all it's forms throughout all of human history has carried an element of risk that you will gain nothing financially from the activity. That is until we come to EvE where profit from piracy is not only expected it is in fact demanded.
I find it very telling of your attitude that you consider piracy / ganking to be a conflict driver. Webster definition of conflict If you choose the wrong ship and in the wrong circumstances then piracy can and often does deliver conflict. On the other hand ganking is not a conflict driver it is simply going to a range and shooting at a target that cannot shoot back. Shooting well at a range is extremely difficult and so is ganking someone, but that difficulty does not make it a conflict.
In an odd twist I agree with you 100% this game needs more things that drive conflict between players or groups of players. By conflict I mean going out and shooting at players that want to shoot back at you, not going to a range and shooting things that cannot shoot back. Looking at the conflict driver from that angle making high sec significantly safer and dare I say it maybe even 100% safe in some limit ways or areas could be the biggest and easiest conflict driver CCP could make. If all of you elite PvP players that roam high sec as gankers had to actually go to low, nul or a worm hole to shoot at other players who would actually shoot back image the conflict that would create. I challenge you simpy try to imagine the glorious battles of all sizes that could occur all over the EvE universe if this was to happen. Now that would be a conflict driver, but no you do not want that type of conflict, what you want is the virtually risk free roam around high sec and shoot at those who cannot or will not shoot back thing that you champion as "conflict".
Oh and the answer is yes I am aware that by definition conflict can be a war of words, and if a war of words is what you want when you say we need more conflict then you and this game are indeed doomed to the scrap heap of gaming history. |
Nana Skalski
Poseidaon
11397
|
Posted - 2016.06.02 15:17:34 -
[26] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:like 'real life pirates' \o/ You abviously dont have any knowledge about real life piracy and stealing stuff from ships.
I give you ( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ Boarding bays Gÿá
Every part of a game helps to tell a story. =ƒôò
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2538
|
Posted - 2016.06.02 16:06:04 -
[27] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Thank you for proving my point about gankers and raging over anything that adversely affects the profits from their game play. Also want to thank you for proving that you are all for added game play option when they benefit YOU, and against any game play options that may adversely affect you. :) You have a very strange definition of "raging". I have been calmly explaining how this game has been designed, and why such a proposal as the OP is incompatible with that design. Why would I "rage" over something I am 100% convinced will never be implemented? You act like I am upset over some new change CCP is planning to remove piracy when nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, CCP has buffed direct piracy just this year with the wreck changes and there is no hint that CCP is considering any change to the basic design of the game.
You are the one whining for changes to the game to directly benefit you. I am just explaining why such a change (like the OP) will never be implemented. Interpret that how you will, but I think you are drifting well into hypocrite territory if you are accusing me of self-interest for just pointing out why a proposed change will not be implemented while you are actively lobbying to have your in-game activities made safer and easier for your direct profit.
Donnachadh wrote:You still do not get it do you. It is not your pirate / ganking ways that many of us are against it is your entitled attitude that you deserve to profit from these activities simply because you choose to do them. Piracy in all it's forms throughout all of human history has carried an element of risk that you will gain nothing financially from the activity. That is until we come to EvE where profit from piracy is not only expected it is in fact demanded. I find it very telling of your attitude that you consider piracy / ganking to be a conflict driver. Webster definition of conflictIf you choose the wrong ship and in the wrong circumstances then piracy can and often does deliver conflict. On the other hand ganking is not a conflict driver it is simply going to a range and shooting at a target that cannot shoot back. Shooting well at a range is extremely difficult and so is ganking someone, but that difficulty does not make it a conflict. Suicide ganking is how you pirate in highsec. Wars give enough warning they are effectively consensual (and you can opt-out), as are duels so the only way you can non-consensually take people's stuff is to sacrifice a ship to CONCORD.
Piracy is content and is conflict. It is content as it is predator-prey game play that is happening in our shared virtual universe and where the decisions each player makes will determine the outcome of the PvP engagement. It is conflict as there are two sides with opposing goals/desires - one wants to keep their stuff and one wants to take it for their own. It is exactly the type of criminal game play CCP has deliberately coded into the game as they have confirmed many times. Criminals don't have to shoot things that can shoot back. They can shoot things that can't or won't shoot back. I am not sure why you have a problem with this concept.
This nowhere-is-safe game play is a fundamental pillar of the game design. CCP doesn't hide this (the opposite in fact if you bother to read the New Pilot FAQ) nor is Eve a new game where players can claim they haven't heard this yet. If you don't like the fact that you can be shot without your consent, or when you are not prepared, you are playing the wrong game.
Donnachadh wrote:In an odd twist I agree with you 100% this game needs more things that drive conflict between players or groups of players. By conflict I mean going out and shooting at players that want to shoot back at you, not going to a range and shooting things that cannot shoot back. Looking at the conflict driver from that angle making high sec significantly safer and dare I say it maybe even 100% safe in some limit ways or areas could be the biggest and easiest conflict driver CCP could make. Meh, CCP isn't going in your carebear-y direction. All players are targets in this game, not just those that are seeking a fight. Citadels have put carebears at decidedly more risk, not less and there is no sign of CCP changing direction. In fact, I expect we are entering a phase of less-and-less safety for carebears as the new structures are implemented, and eventually major revisions to the faction police and CONCORD in order to let capitals back into highsec. Highsec will continue to be the full-time, open PvP zone it is and was always intended to be.
If you are playing this game that you are clearly not comfortable with because you have some faint hope that CCP is going to make highsec into your 100% safe, carebear paradise in the future, I think you should re-evaluate how you are spending your leisure time. Eve is always going to allow criminals and pirates to prey on the weak without their consent, exactly like it has for the last 13 years.
Eve Online is about conflict and player-driven content and piracy and non-consensual interactions are a central part of that. You are welcome to continue to regularly grovel on these forums begging CCP to change that, but I am afraid you are always going to remain a prey item for the other players as has been the case since the servers went live so long ago.
Why Do They Gank?
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3285
|
Posted - 2016.06.02 16:20:37 -
[28] - Quote
Nana Skalski wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:like 'real life pirates' \o/ You abviously dont have any knowledge about real life piracy and stealing stuff from ships. You should look at the post i originally replied to.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Nana Skalski
Poseidaon
11397
|
Posted - 2016.06.02 16:30:06 -
[29] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Nana Skalski wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:like 'real life pirates' \o/ You abviously dont have any knowledge about real life piracy and stealing stuff from ships. You should look at the post i originally replied to. But it was more about "No bull **** mini-game either. Just activate, steal and go suspect. " You know there would be fight and it would take some time and skills to attack the vessel, and also , while in real you could steal whole ship, in EVE that would be impossible because it is piloted by capsuleer that effectively have power over it, and only coming inside the ship and destroying crew members would be feasible. Then after initial shock and surprise would fade away whole ship would initiate lockdown so you have time to grab only this most valuable thing to transport it to your vessel. Thing for which you are there in the first place.
I give you ( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ Boarding bays Gÿá
Every part of a game helps to tell a story. =ƒôò
|
Ran Dimaloun
Order and Prosperity
10
|
Posted - 2016.06.02 16:47:22 -
[30] - Quote
Gives me an idea. What about an explosive you can jettison from your cargohold and trigger only by shooting it? Has a small AOE that can take care of nearby drones or frigates. But only your shot will activate it.
I like your idea of a destructible cargohold on freighters, but don't make it automatic. It would basically force players not to autopilot or afk in any way while going through high-risk systems if they wanted to detonate their cargo in time. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |