Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vokan Narkar
New Eden Traders Aliance
11
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 17:48:37 -
[31] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote: And no you clearly do not think it is fine that suicide ganking is GÇ£fineGÇ¥ otherwise you would not be suggesting a nerf and an indirect buff to being stupid.
I do not think it is fine to basically live in high-sec with -9.9 security status. It makes no sense that the empire/system/npcs call it whatever allows you do use all their features completely ignoring the fact you have heavy criminal.
Btw neither you nor Daichi Yamato did answer my question.
Nevermind. I know how these forums works and who posts here. You will protect your own agenda for all costs no matter if someone actually have a point or not. Logic nor common sense doesn't apply here.
I have another way to prove my point. Didn't want to go that route but if thats the way CPP can notice something isn't alright then so be it.
Now I am done talking here it leads no nowhere - you are not even willing to read what I wrote. Now I go ingame and make a plan B. |
Cade Windstalker
1434
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 18:16:17 -
[32] - Quote
OP, Citadel access and usage restrictions are set by the Citadel owners not by CCP.
Also anyone with a -10 status doesn't need to use a rookie ship to move around, pods warp instantly and are functionally uncatchable in High Sec. Most active gankers with -10 sec status never have to enter a rookie ship, ever.
If you think ganking is too easy go camp one of the major ganking hotspots and mess with the gankers and make it harder for them. |
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
3893
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 20:42:18 -
[33] - Quote
Vokan Narkar wrote:Teckos Pech wrote: And no you clearly do not think it is fine that suicide ganking is GÇ£fineGÇ¥ otherwise you would not be suggesting a nerf and an indirect buff to being stupid.
I do not think it is fine to basically live in high-sec with -9.9 security status. It makes no sense that the empire/system/npcs call it whatever allows you do use all their features completely ignoring the fact you have heavy criminal. Btw neither you nor Daichi Yamato did answer my question. Nevermind. I know how these forums works and who posts here. You will protect your own agenda for all costs no matter if someone actually have a point or not. Logic nor common sense doesn't apply here. I have another way to prove my point. Didn't want to go that route but if thats the way CPP can notice something isn't alright then so be it. Now I am done talking here it leads no nowhere - you are not even willing to read what I wrote. Now I go ingame and make a plan B.
*let me pretend im taking the higher ground even though i didn't address half the concerns in this thread, didn't argue my idea, lied to push my agenda and belittle anyone who challenges my idea.
Instead I'll hint that there is an in game way to attack ganking. Hopefully no one will notice that this was the case all along and this thread was completely needless.*
Let me know when you plan to deviate from every anti-ganking thread ever.
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
|
Sarah Flynt
Flynt Enterprises Silent Infinity
286
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 20:46:08 -
[34] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:The tethering mechanic gives the same sort of in-space protection that the POS force field did. Criminals (and everyone else) have nothing new that they didn't have already with POSes in the tethering mechanic That's of course complete nonsense and you know that. You'll get shredded by the faction police if you sit in your ship under a POS forcefield as -10. They shoot right through the forcefield. You're perfectly safe from them however while tethered to a Citadel.
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6418
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 22:31:09 -
[35] - Quote
Vokan Narkar wrote:Teckos Pech wrote: And no you clearly do not think it is fine that suicide ganking is GÇ£fineGÇ¥ otherwise you would not be suggesting a nerf and an indirect buff to being stupid.
I do not think it is fine to basically live in high-sec with -9.9 security status. It makes no sense that the empire/system/npcs call it whatever allows you do use all their features completely ignoring the fact you have heavy criminal. Btw neither you nor Daichi Yamato did answer my question. Nevermind. I know how these forums works and who posts here. You will protect your own agenda for all costs no matter if someone actually have a point or not. Logic nor common sense doesn't apply here. I have another way to prove my point. Didn't want to go that route but if thats the way CPP can notice something isn't alright then so be it. Now I am done talking here it leads no nowhere - you are not even willing to read what I wrote. Now I go ingame and make a plan B.
I didn't answer your question because I find it irrelevant. The whole concept of suicide ganking would not exist if players using freighters were prudent and reasonable. The problem is not suicide gankers in anyway whatsoever, but is a function of the players using freighters. They may really bad decisions and as a result create the entire issue because of their own imprudence. How is this CCP's problem? If some player is an idiot...how do you expect CCP to address it via a patch? And why are you nerfing a symptom of the "problem" and not the "problem" itself?
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6418
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 22:33:57 -
[36] - Quote
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:I'd consider accepting docking restrictions now that we have citadels, but not without a trade. I'd be willing to support restricted docking for criminals if and only if faction police and customs ships stopped attacking ctiminals. The creep towards a safer highsec must be stopped.
And what about the market? And if you say, "That's what alt's are for," then it is a bad idea automatically.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Vokan Narkar
New Eden Traders Aliance
11
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 22:58:05 -
[37] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:I'd consider accepting docking restrictions now that we have citadels, but not without a trade. I'd be willing to support restricted docking for criminals if and only if faction police and customs ships stopped attacking ctiminals. The creep towards a safer highsec must be stopped. And what about the market? And if you say, "That's what alt's are for," then it is a bad idea automatically. Just to clarify - I did not suggested to restrict the ability to buy/sell in high-sec. How would that be done anyway? And there is no need to. When criminals won't be able to dock in high-sec they would have to choose if they: - fix their sec status to get the items from Jita 4-4 - use public courier contract to move them from 4-4 to citadel where is criminal allowed to dock or lowsec - contract the items on alt/friend/etc who will move them from 4-4 to citadel or lowsec again
EDIT (similar wise if they want to sell something - once its in station they can sell it remotedly
So either more annoyance if the criminal wants to do that alone using alts. Or more content if he choose to use the other options.
Also - since there is no way to prevent criminals to have a home station in high-sec they should be allowed to buy ship and stuff in case they appear there after losing clone or jump there. |
Lothros Andastar
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
250
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 23:43:00 -
[38] - Quote
Show me on the doll where the mean gankers touched you. |
Vokan Narkar
New Eden Traders Aliance
12
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 05:26:27 -
[39] - Quote
Lothros Andastar wrote:Show me on the doll where the mean gankers touched you. here |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
3381
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 08:12:13 -
[40] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:Black Pedro wrote:The tethering mechanic gives the same sort of in-space protection that the POS force field did. Criminals (and everyone else) have nothing new that they didn't have already with POSes in the tethering mechanic That's of course complete nonsense and you know that. You'll get shredded by the faction police if you sit in your ship under a POS forcefield as -10. They shoot right through the forcefield. You're perfectly safe from them however while tethered to a Citadel. Thanks for the clarification. I was referring to the player-player interactions that the OP says he wants to encourage. POS force fields, like tethering, provide protection for all players, regardless of security status, to the other players while they are in space.
Some NPC do in fact behave differently as you point out.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
|
Jubilum
DUST Expeditionary Team Good Sax
4
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 11:17:07 -
[41] - Quote
I totally agree with the OP. Consequences for suicide ganking need to be much higher. I'm am in no way suggestion to eliminate ganking, but there needs to be a real punishment for doing it, besides loss of a cheap ship, and a hit to sec. status.
I would suggest that anyone who ganks an unarmed ship in high sec. not only loose their ship to Concord but also their pod. And then be issued a "timeout" for 15 minutes as a base. The length of the "timeout" would be longer based on how low the gankers Sec. status is upto 1 hours. While you are in "timeout" you can not undock.
Also while the ganker(s) are in "timeout" anyone besides the original owner who tries to loot the wreck will also have their ship destoryed be Concord. After the "timeout" is over the wreck becomes available to anyone. This part is to simply to discourage the ganker from using an alt to scoop the dropped loot. Hence the punishment.
This simple change would cause gankers to think before acting "Do I really want to be stuck in a station for the next hour"? Or is there something much more constructive I could be doing with my play time. If the answer is no, then by all means go for it, I will support your action.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
47657
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 11:31:14 -
[42] - Quote
Jubilum wrote:I totally agree with the OP. Consequences for suicide ganking need to be much higher. I'm am in no way suggestion to eliminate ganking, but there needs to be a real punishment for doing it, besides loss of a cheap ship, and a hit to sec. status.
I would suggest that anyone who ganks an unarmed ship in high sec. not only loose their ship to Concord but also their pod. And then be issued a "timeout" for 15 minutes as a base. The length of the "timeout" would be longer based on how low the gankers Sec. status is upto 1 hours. While you are in "timeout" you can not undock.
Also while the ganker(s) are in "timeout" anyone besides the original owner who tries to loot the wreck will also have their ship destoryed be Concord. After the "timeout" is over the wreck becomes available to anyone. This part is to simply to discourage the ganker from using an alt to scoop the dropped loot. Hence the punishment.
This simple change would cause gankers to think before acting "Do I really want to be stuck in a station for the next hour"? Or is there something much more constructive I could be doing with my play time. If the answer is no, then by all means go for it, I will support your action.
They already receive a 15 minute timeout. You can't board a ship in space or undock in a ship while criminal.
If you do, you are CONCORDEd again. You have to wait for the crime watch flag to expire, which is 15 minutes.
Losing a pod would be nothing. No implants, instadock again. Means nothing. |
Vokan Narkar
New Eden Traders Aliance
12
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 12:19:02 -
[43] - Quote
Jubilum wrote:I totally agree with the OP. Consequences for suicide ganking need to be much higher. I'm am in no way suggestion to eliminate ganking, but there needs to be a real punishment for doing it, besides loss of a cheap ship, and a hit to sec. status. Their pods are empty and we do not lose skillpoints now for losing pod so that would not mean much. Possibly, there could be a small timer before criminal be allowed to warp his pod so there would be a chance to catch his pod and get at least some kind of satisfaction but thats it.
As for timer, there is already one and thats 15 minutes. For this time undocking with ship will lead to losing it again. I don't think the timer needs to be increased. Ganking is a legit gameplay and those who want to do it shouldn't be forced to wait one full hour before being able to play further. Also it can be workarounded by alts anyway (and its already happening) so it has no sense. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
2579
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 13:00:26 -
[44] - Quote
Whenever a flashy red pilot enters HS the flashing should be accompanied by a loud piercing beep beep beep. That way players that could care less about flashy red characters would now be annoyed..... dare I say angered at their presence. All of New Eden would quickly come to HATE flashy beepy characters and hunt them to extinction. The flashy beepy player would also have to listen to his constant beeping and come to HATE himself even more than he currently does. Those not hunted to extinction would quit due to a deep sense of self loathing.
Beeping would be a simple coding addition to the game requiring minimal effort by the dev team to incorporate.
The beeping would be produced by the motherboard itself (as happens with motherboard faults) and could not be muted in any way shape or form.
|
Cade Windstalker
1442
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 13:17:43 -
[45] - Quote
Jubilum wrote:I totally agree with the OP. Consequences for suicide ganking need to be much higher. I'm am in no way suggestion to eliminate ganking, but there needs to be a real punishment for doing it, besides loss of a cheap ship, and a hit to sec. status.
I would suggest that anyone who ganks an unarmed ship in high sec. not only loose their ship to Concord but also their pod. And then be issued a "timeout" for 15 minutes as a base. The length of the "timeout" would be longer based on how low the gankers Sec. status is upto 1 hours. While you are in "timeout" you can not undock.
Also while the ganker(s) are in "timeout" anyone besides the original owner who tries to loot the wreck will also have their ship destoryed be Concord. After the "timeout" is over the wreck becomes available to anyone. This part is to simply to discourage the ganker from using an alt to scoop the dropped loot. Hence the punishment.
This simple change would cause gankers to think before acting "Do I really want to be stuck in a station for the next hour"? Or is there something much more constructive I could be doing with my play time. If the answer is no, then by all means go for it, I will support your action.
The consequences for Suicide Ganking are fine. It's a part of the game not something to be put down with a hammer. The reason it feels like there are no consequences for it is because people do dumb things with their ships like put all their eggs in one basket, use autopilot with an untanked ship, don't use things like gatecheck, and generally play badly and then complain that someone took advantage of their bad play.
Losing a pod in a gank is basically a non-issue. Check the Uedama or Niarja kill boards sometime, there are tons of known ganker pods on there, popped by other players. They're always empty clones and they always have their clone set to the local station.
There's already a 'timeout', as pointed out by someone else. Extending it isn't needed or warranted, it just encourages either rolling more alts or not playing the game for that hour, neither of which is particularly good for the game as a whole.
If you think ganking is too easy or too prevalent that's probably because you don't understand the mechanics behind it or how to avoid being ganked. |
Carnivorous Swarm
New Eden Department of Sanitation
11
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 14:56:01 -
[46] - Quote
Ganking is easy with no consequences?
I urge anyone who really believes that to try to pull off twenty pod ganks. I doubt they'd be able to succeed in half.
Ganking requires logistics beyond standard high sec play: warp-ins, scan alts, and stocking of equipment. Ganks don't happen by chance, they're deliberate and focused.
Ganking either requires luck or a lot of scouts because you are an easy target. Anti-gankers, KB whoring mercs, and randoms can and do shoot at you all the time. It only takes an Alpha ECM frigate to stop 1 to 3 gankers in destroyers.
The ganker is effectively neutered from all other high sec play. The SP is stuck on that character. Yeah, you can buy tags, but then you'll still likely have a ton of killrights against you for the next month. The only other pilot in the entire game with the same level of restrictions is a pod-killing low sec pirate.
The gankers that "make it look easy" are experts or FC'd by expects of the playstyle. It still takes considerable effort to succeed, much more than running missions or freighter hauling (all three which I've done extensively in my Eve career).
Most importantly, it takes little effort to become an unattractive gank target.
So little that I do not understand how a player can be in a universe filled with other people and either 1) not know ganking exists by the time they can pilot a freighter, or 2) are unwilling to do anything to protect their one billion+ ISK investment. |
Tragot Gomndor
Khanid's Damnation
86
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 15:49:55 -
[47] - Quote
Best way to fix ganking?
Delete autopilot...
See i fixed ganking...
NONONONONONO
TO
CAPS IN HIGHSEC
NO
|
Vic Jefferson
Brand Newbros Test Alliance Please Ignore
1237
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 16:40:44 -
[48] - Quote
Vokan NarkarIts wrote:basically a zero risk activity.
Nonsense. They risk not finding targets. If you get ganked in HiSec, you are willfully negligent - 99.99% of losses in hisec are preventable with even a casual interest in one's own safety. Players could collectively make ganking a zero reward activity with a modest amount of effort, but choose not to. The way you beat the gankers is by not being ganked and wasting their time.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
28166
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 20:15:08 -
[49] - Quote
If you think that suicide ganking is a risk free activity, why aren't you out there creating risk for them? Be the change you wish to see in Eve.
As yet another hisec industrialist I shall echo the sentiments of my peers. Don't be f'king stupid and the risk of getting ganked drops to the extent that it may as well not exist.
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
New Player FAQ
Feyd's Survival Pack
|
Gerald Mardiska
Comms Black Initiative Mercenaries
37
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 02:02:52 -
[50] - Quote
Ooh look another hisec dweller whining about game mechanics. |
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6421
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 04:15:51 -
[51] - Quote
To try an kill this thread....
Most suicide ganks are not for ***** and giggles. Most are for profit. Thus the whole risk vs. reward discussion is literally not a CCP problem. At all.
The reward is created by the player who overloads his freighter. Further, by overloading his freighter the player has taken on considerable risk. This does NOT have to be matched by risk on the side of suicide ganking. To think this is a stilted and childish view of balance. If I act like an idiot in game I should suffer the consequences of being an idiot. To insist that the player(s) who are imposing consequences on me for my idiocy face that same level of risk as I do even though he (they) are not acting idiotic is itself idiotic. This kind of symmetry is just plain old vanilla stupid and only people who do not understand risk would make it.
The risk suicide gankers face is not an issue at all, let alone for CCP. The reward that suicide gankers receive is not an issue at all, let alone CCP. The solution to this problem is completely and fully in the hands of the players. Do not overload your freighter and you most likely be safe aside from the lulz gank.
In fact, if players using freighters tanked their freighters and kept the cargo value well below the replacement value of a gank fleet over time they might even be able to use autopilot again. But fortunately for suicide gankers there is no shortage or idiotic freighter pilots.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Sarah Flynt
Flynt Enterprises Silent Infinity
287
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 04:49:22 -
[52] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:To try an kill this thread.... So, business as usual for you
Teckos Pech wrote:Most suicide ganks are not for ***** and giggles. Most are for profit. Citation please
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6421
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 05:07:54 -
[53] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:To try an kill this thread.... So, business as usual for you Teckos Pech wrote:Most suicide ganks are not for ***** and giggles. Most are for profit. Citation please
Yes, business as usual as it is not a balance issue. As for a "citation" goo check the killboards for freighters, finding an empty freighter* killed in HS the exception not the rule. And yes I have done this and generally an empty freighter is rarely ganked.
*By empty I mean empty, not something with a double wrapped courier contract. Those will get ganked based on the idea that if it is double wrapped it is likely valuable otherwise why double wrap it.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Sarah Flynt
Flynt Enterprises Silent Infinity
287
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 05:25:07 -
[54] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Sarah Flynt wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:To try an kill this thread.... So, business as usual for you Teckos Pech wrote:Most suicide ganks are not for ***** and giggles. Most are for profit. Citation please Yes, business as usual as it is not a balance issue. As for a "citation" goo check the killboards for freighters, finding an empty freighter* killed in HS the exception not the rule. And yes I have done this and generally an empty freighter is rarely ganked. *By empty I mean empty, not something with a double wrapped courier contract. Those will get ganked based on the idea that if it is double wrapped it is likely valuable otherwise why double wrap it. This thread isn't about freighter ganking specifically even though you try to make it about it. It's about meaningful consequences for gankers in general or the lack thereof.
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6421
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 05:34:55 -
[55] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Sarah Flynt wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:To try an kill this thread.... So, business as usual for you Teckos Pech wrote:Most suicide ganks are not for ***** and giggles. Most are for profit. Citation please Yes, business as usual as it is not a balance issue. As for a "citation" goo check the killboards for freighters, finding an empty freighter* killed in HS the exception not the rule. And yes I have done this and generally an empty freighter is rarely ganked. *By empty I mean empty, not something with a double wrapped courier contract. Those will get ganked based on the idea that if it is double wrapped it is likely valuable otherwise why double wrap it. This thread isn't about freighter ganking specifically even though you try to make it about it. It's about meaningful consequences for gankers in general or the lack thereof.
Ganking mining ships is a subsidized activity.
Players gank blockade runners to play the numbers, again for profit.
Other ganking is just for ***** and giggles and not common. To see this suicide ganking of new players (15 days old or less) happens to about 1% of new players.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A92Ge2S8M1Y
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Sarah Flynt
Flynt Enterprises Silent Infinity
287
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 05:58:14 -
[56] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Ganking mining ships is a subsidized activity. Players gank blockade runners to play the numbers, again for profit. Other ganking is just for ***** and giggles and not common. To see this suicide ganking of new players (15 days old or less) happens to about 1% of new players. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A92Ge2S8M1Y Which, yet again, has nothing to do with what this thread is about.
Let me quote the relevant part of the OP again as you seem to have trouble finding it:
Vokan Narkar wrote:I do not care that some players are multiboxing 10+ alts for sucide ganking. I don't care they all attack simultaneously. But I do not think its right that they can live in highsec with -9.9 security status thats just nonsense.
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6422
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 06:01:14 -
[57] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Ganking mining ships is a subsidized activity. Players gank blockade runners to play the numbers, again for profit. Other ganking is just for ***** and giggles and not common. To see this suicide ganking of new players (15 days old or less) happens to about 1% of new players. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A92Ge2S8M1Y Which, yet again, has nothing to do with what this thread is about. Let me quote the relevant part of the OP again as you seem to have trouble finding it: Vokan Narkar wrote:I do not care that some players are multiboxing 10+ alts for sucide ganking. I don't care they all attack simultaneously. But I do not think its right that they can live in highsec with -9.9 security status thats just nonsense.
Then why did he mention suicide ganking and why does he want it nerfed...as per his own words? There is no problem with ganking and there is no problem with criminals accessing HS. Everything working as intended.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
3384
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 06:30:25 -
[58] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Then why did he mention suicide ganking and why does he want it nerfed...as per his own words? There is no problem with ganking and there is no problem with criminals accessing HS. Everything working as intended. Indeed. CCP has spent a lot of time building CrimeWatch to allow criminals and potential marks, and criminals and vigilantes to interact in highsec. CONCORD provides a cost/financianl disincentive to wanton aggression and is balanced such that "normal" ships doing normal things are unprofitable targets for a pirate as the game is intended to work. Players have options though, and some ships, like a Covetor are much more squishy but come with income benefits, while some ships, like tanked DSTs or Skiffs are so tough to crack you have to have to provided a large amount of motivation to get someone to pay the hundreds of millions of ISK in ships it costs to try to explode it.
I don't see an issue here. Criminals/pirates are an intended part of the game, and there is a wide range of choice for players of ships, almost all of them are unprofitable, some very unprofitable, to shoot in highsec making it impossible to pirate profitably unless a player makes a mistake or intentionally chooses to undock with too much value in their ship, either fit or as cargo. I don't see why this is an issue, or why CCP should try to keep criminals and non-criminals apart in a game built on player interaction, and where the players are suppose to serve as the primary source of risk for imprudence or intentionally risky choices.
Sure, I am sure the game can be improved and more opportunity for play and counter play created between the various players in the criminal highsec dance, but the ideas in the OP don't do that. The bottom line is that criminals are suppose to exist, you are intended to be at risk to them, and they are made at risk to everyone else. Any idea to change the criminal game better keep all of these ideas in mind when proposing a change, and ideas for changes citing the reason that it is a problem to repeatedly commit criminal acts in highsec misses the fundamental basis of the game design.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Sarah Flynt
Flynt Enterprises Silent Infinity
287
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 06:33:35 -
[59] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Then why did he mention suicide ganking and why does he want it nerfed...as per his own words? There is no problem with ganking and there is no problem with criminals accessing HS. Everything working as intended. Because usually those -10's who live in lowsec, the only place where you can gain that sec status otherwise, don't run around in highsec serial ganking nonstop (they live in lowsec after all).
He is questioning that very intention that you speak so highly of and the current status quo, that -10 gankers only have laughable consequences that are easily evaded. He has every right to discuss this in this forum section, as he makes a proposal for changes, even if you think that his opinion is wrong and that this thread should be "killed" - to use your own words.
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6423
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 06:51:15 -
[60] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Then why did he mention suicide ganking and why does he want it nerfed...as per his own words? There is no problem with ganking and there is no problem with criminals accessing HS. Everything working as intended. Because usually those -10's who live in lowsec, the only place where you can gain that sec status otherwise, don't run around in highsec serial ganking nonstop (they live in lowsec after all). He is questioning that very intention that you speak so highly of and the current status quo, that -10 gankers only have laughable consequences that are easily evaded. He has every right to discuss this in this forum section, as he makes a proposal for changes, even if you think that his opinion is wrong and that this thread should be "killed" - to use your own words.
Wait -10s live in LS so that is why he mentioned suicide ganking? Most HS suicide gankers have very low sec status and they either live in NS or HS.
A -10 living in LS is not a ganker. He is a pirate.
A -10 player cannot move around as easily as a player with a higher sec status.
Maybe he has every right to discuss it, but we have a right to rebut his statements...of course he is kind of a ***** whining about how people won't agree with him.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |