| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Lubomir Penev
interimo
    |
Posted - 2008.07.25 12:18:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: RuleoftheBone
Originally by: Cailais
The introduction of FW in low sec actually makes the process of Low Sec Mission running safer - not more dangerous.
The FW Militias are a severe deterent to all but the most determined pirate groups
1-Oh really?
Ask your old mates in Veto how smart it is to gatecamp one jump from Villore.
--
Coming to you, Assault Ships fix, by the people saying that the Gallente Recons are fine. |
Bellum Eternus
Gallente
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 12:30:00 -
[32]
Originally by: c0rny
[b][b]I am aware that the subject of harrassment by player pirates is a mine field for you - but i would like to raise this complaint with you to see whether you can do anything about this problem.
When a player undertakes a mission of L4 or L5 difficulty and is sent into a low-sec 0.4 thru 0.1 environment, player pirates are searching out the complexes and engaging in pvp. infact - they have even gone one step further since the introduction of the Militia programme, by camping the gates to low-sec and blowing you up before you get anywhere near your destination. 
As far as I am concerned - this is harrassment. This means that you - CCP - are forcing players into engaging into PVP when they clearly do not want to - nor are set up to do so. Not only is this grossly unfair - it is a clear violation of our rights as players to play the game peacefully should we wish to do so.
It would be far more sensible to make a player - who has undertaken a mission at any level - 'invulnerable' to player pirates - with the mission complexes being impossible to find by the current probing means. To avoid any exploit, the player would then have to finish the mission. He would not be allowed to travel anywhere other than the mission destination and would not be able to access any other area of eve û other than his mission.
In fairness to player pirates, if a player then chooses to travel through low sec space û outside of a mission, then he/she must expect to deal with the dangers of low sec and its bounty strapped, red flashing inhabitants. 
Please can i know your suggestions. I see that in most 'chat' channels - this is becoming an increasing topic of conversation with a very angry undertone.
There are a portion of members in the Eve community - who play a peaceful game.
c0rny 
WoW is... that way ------>
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION
Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 12:42:00 -
[33]
Originally by: c0rny
It would be far more sensible to make a player - who has undertaken a mission at any level - 'invulnerable' to player pirates - with the mission complexes being impossible to find by the current probing means. To avoid any exploit, the player would then have to finish the mission. He would not be allowed to travel anywhere other than the mission destination and would not be able to access any other area of eve û other than his mission.
I wholeheartedly support the permanent imprisonment of mission runners in deadspace. 
|
RuleoftheBone
Minmatar
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:17:00 -
[34]
Edited by: RuleoftheBone on 25/07/2008 13:22:21
Edited by: RuleoftheBone on 25/07/2008 13:20:10
Originally by: Lubomir Penev
Originally by: RuleoftheBone
Originally by: Cailais
The introduction of FW in low sec actually makes the process of Low Sec Mission running safer - not more dangerous.
The FW Militias are a severe deterent to all but the most determined pirate groups
1-Oh really?
Ask your old mates in Veto how smart it is to gatecamp one jump from Villore.
No idea what you are on about. And knowing Veto it was probably a rolling camp after a corp meeting. VETO>you (and most of EvE) regardless of whatever single engagement you are blathering about.
But I can promise you that should the recent revelations regarding speed fits come about I WILL be spending even more time in losec happily ganking the living shit out of every mission runner I can probe out.
You don't want that. Trust me on this. Support speed fits and keep Bone away from losec as much as possible .
**EDIT**Changed "griefing" to "ganking". That dev blog has my head spun round. But unluckily for you...I use AB's on my covops and mission-bust setups .
**EDIT**
One covops to probe them...
One covops to scram them...
One covops to damp the target...
And in the deadspace...kasplat them.
"Lead Me..Follow Me..Or get the **** out of my way"
General George Patton USA
|
EpicFailTroll
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:30:00 -
[35]
I wish there was a PvE buffer between pirate players and non-pirate players.
Pirate players could engage juicy PvE targets, which players could defend, becoming then flagged for pirates to attack
Or something like that. Current system is okay, but just creates bad blood between players, which is just stupid. It's a game, people should have good clean fun. Instead, we have:
- Players who don't stop getting mad at videogames, and hate other players.
- Players who want other players to have a strong emotional attachment to virtual goods, so they can blow it up and bask in the schadenfreude. All the while lecturing other party with the "dude its just a gaem"
I know for one i would irl headbutt jerks like lofty or assorted scum. This is wrong, and EvE is the only goddamn game that makes me want to enact irl revenge upon the less considerate members of this virtual society.
Therefore the need for PvE buffers, to reduce the hate, increase the peace and consensual fun.
|
Lubomir Penev
interimo
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 15:44:00 -
[36]
Originally by: RuleoftheBone
No idea what you are on about. And knowing Veto it was probably a rolling camp after a corp meeting. VETO>you (and most of EvE) regardless of whatever single engagement you are blathering about.
A bit out of touch are we?
--
Coming to you, Assault Ships fix, by the people saying that the Gallente Recons are fine. |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
NIght's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 16:30:00 -
[37]
Originally by: c0rny
When a player undertakes a mission of L4 or L5 difficulty and is sent into a low-sec 0.4 thru 0.1 environment, player pirates are searching out the complexes and engaging in pvp.
Yep, good business too ;)
Although, people doing L5s in proper groups can be a tad nasty to take down.
Originally by: c0rny
infact - they have even gone one step further since the introduction of the Militia programme, by camping the gates to low-sec and blowing you up before you get anywhere near your destination.
Since? My friend, gatecamping has been popular since, well, forever.
Originally by: c0rny
As far as I am concerned - this is harrassment. This means that you - CCP - are forcing players into engaging into PVP when they clearly do not want to
But, you undocked. By the act of undocking, you consented that you're OK with being engaged in PvP. It's how EvE works. Unconsensual PvP and all that jazz, read the manual mate.
- nor are set up to do so. Not only is this grossly unfair - it is a clear violation of our rights as players to play the game peacefully should we wish to do so.
Originally by: c0rny
There are a portion of members in the Eve community - who play a peaceful game.
As one of our former victims and now a valued business partner said: "We don't shoot anyone; we're playing sim city, you're playing doom."
In EvE, you must use your competitive advantages if you want to stay alive. Industrials have them; they manufacture the ships, they know how to haul them, and they manufacture the modules. We spend them, setting us all up for a lovely simbiotic relationship.
Naturally, mission runners are the blight of EvE, do nothing for the economy except print ISK, so naturally the only cooperation you can have with them is rob them of their ISK somehow, either via blowing them up and taking their stuff, by ransoming them or having them pay protection money for missioning in the area.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
NIght's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 16:35:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Cailais
The introduction of FW in low sec actually makes the process of Low Sec Mission running safer - not more dangerous.
The FW Militias are a severe deterent to all but the most determined pirate groups. And, by and large, these Militias aren't going to waste their time spending hours trying to probe out a mission site. - Heck most wont even give a passing glance at the belts!
Travel is potentially dangerous if the FW militia's decide to engage neutrals: but the majority probably wont, as they need sec to return to their Empire High Sec areas to re arm and resupply.
Finally if you want a peaceful existence: dont fly into a war zone. 
C.
This. It has become way more dangerous to move around as a pirate, particularly if soloing, due to all the FW blobs (generally very numerous so can catch you on both sides AND heavy with tacklers, unlike the heavier gangs pirates prefer) making it way too risky to move.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint |
Slade Hoo
Amarr
xPlaguex
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 16:37:00 -
[39]
omg...i'm harassing people by forcing them into PvP in a PvP-Area /o\
I feel so bad now..makes me cry...almost..
|
Zev'Nar
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 16:42:00 -
[40]
Originally by: c0rny
There are a portion of members in the Eve community - who play a peaceful game.
c0rny
Those who play peacefully people use the game mechanics to do that.
That means following the golden rules of EVE including staying out of Low Sec.
Risk Vs. Reward stay in Hi Sec and take a lower quailty Agent/Mission.
|
|
Infomad
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 17:13:00 -
[41]
While he did a poor job of getting his point across I think I see what he means. This is not a topic against low-sec, pirates or even really pvp.
I think his point is that ship setups for missions and ship setups for pvp are vastly different. Having hi-sec mission givers send you to low-sec to do a mission in a mission setup ship is a bit silly. Since you are doing a hard mission you have to be properly setup to do that mission, which in turn puts you at a large disadvantage in a PvP situation.
Would anyone here want to do some pvp with a mission running setup on your ship? No ECW, long range setups, ?missiles?, and tanked for specific enemy damage types. Not exactly a winning combination for PvP.
There are mission agents in lower-sec for people who want to run missions in lower-sec space, but hi-sec mission agents shouldn't send you to low-sec.
I myself turn down any low-sec mission that will put a expensive mission running ship into a pvp situation. I have other ships for PvP. If I do accept a low-sec mission I use the help of a alt to make sure the path is clear to get to the mission area and use a cheap setup on a much cheaper ship. It takes longer, but that is the price you pay when you accept a mission without looking where it takes place.
|
RuleoftheBone
Minmatar
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 18:38:00 -
[42]
Edited by: RuleoftheBone on 25/07/2008 18:45:11
Originally by: Lubomir Penev
Originally by: RuleoftheBone
No idea what you are on about. And knowing Veto it was probably a rolling camp after a corp meeting. VETO>you (and most of EvE) regardless of whatever single engagement you are blathering about.
A bit out of touch are we?
I hope your not an Invicta alt as I actually respect them as players.
Looks to me like Veto & company did pretty darn well given engaging 1:2 under sentry fire (21-v-24 kills).
Continue failing...and I suspect had Veto&company NOT had sentry aggro you wouldn't have posted stupid crap like this in the first place .
And yes...out of touch given I have not flown with Veto for what--3 months? Whats your point? Are you some sad panda CSM alt? Or a mission runner I ganked into oblivion? I hope so .
**EDIT**Pfffft....search of killboards details your awesomeness. Hi thar Mr can-flipper/wannabee whatever .
"Lead Me..Follow Me..Or get the **** out of my way"
General George Patton USA
|
Lubomir Penev
interimo
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 19:22:00 -
[43]
Originally by: RuleoftheBone
I hope your not an Invicta alt as I actually respect them as players.
I'm a main thank you.
Quote:
Looks to me like Veto & company did pretty darn well given engaging 1:2 under sentry fire (21-v-24 kills).
They all died, how can that be good? I never even hinted than the the militias on average where remotely as good as decent pirate corps, man for man. They just have a huge blobbing power and willingness to engage, and yes it reshaped lowsec piracy in fw areas.
Quote:
**EDIT**Pfffft....search of killboards details your awesomeness. Hi thar Mr can-flipper/wannabee whatever .
Ahem... interimo kb is private and I never flipped a can while in interimo, some corpmates do it when bored otoh.
This never had anything to do with me anyway, the subject was blobbing power of the militia and the impact it has on lowsec piracy in fw area.
--
Coming to you, Assault Ships fix, by the people saying that the Gallente Recons are fine. |
Verone
Gallente
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 19:25:00 -
[44]
Originally by: RuleoftheBone
Edited by: RuleoftheBone on 25/07/2008 18:45:11
Originally by: Lubomir Penev
Originally by: RuleoftheBone
No idea what you are on about. And knowing Veto it was probably a rolling camp after a corp meeting. VETO>you (and most of EvE) regardless of whatever single engagement you are blathering about.
A bit out of touch are we?
Looks to me like Veto & company did pretty darn well given engaging 1:2 under sentry fire (21-v-24 kills).
Continue failing...and I suspect had Veto&company NOT had sentry aggro you wouldn't have posted stupid crap like this in the first place .
And yes...out of touch given I have not flown with Veto for what--3 months? Whats your point? Are you some sad panda CSM alt? Or a mission runner I ganked into oblivion? I hope so .
**EDIT**Pfffft....search of killboards details your awesomeness. Hi thar Mr can-flipper/wannabee whatever .
lol, standard militia posting principle mate, blob and talk shit on the forums.
The engagement went pretty well for us to be honest considering in total we were 23, plus a scout who had advanced one jump ahead. Local peaked at about 88-90 on our fraps, every one who wasn't us was hostile, and most of our members were jammed for best part of the fight. It was laggy, but not unmanageble, slight delays. They followed our gang several jumps down the pipe toward the north, a few jumps behind.
We noticed them as they followed us into Aeschee I believe it was, and hung back to let them come through.
Clarification for the random smacktalking faction sheep :
1. We weren't camping, you should have known, since your gang followed us several jumps.
2. We hung back, hoping for a decent fight, sadly we got a blob heavy on ECM. Ce'st la vie... it happens.
3. It was fun, and I now have an alt in all four militias, so we'll be looking for a window to play games again at some point.
4. We learned a lot from that single engagement, so remember to keep switching your tactics. Sheer numbers doesn't work forever.
As for the fight, it was good fun... and I rather enjoyed it. 
\o/ EON FICTION WRITER OF THE YEAR! \o/
>>> THE LIFE OF AN OUTLAW <<< |
Kahega Amielden
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 19:29:00 -
[45]
Quote:
- Players who don't stop getting mad at videogames, and hate other players.
- Players who want other players to have a strong emotional attachment to virtual goods, so they can blow it up and bask in the schadenfreude. All the while lecturing other party with the "dude its just a gaem"
Which is the fault of, get this...the players.
If a person gets ****ed off because they lost an internet spaceship in EVE, that's their problem. I say this as someone who has lost a fair bit to pirates (before I knew how to dodge lowsec gankers/camps)
|
Lubomir Penev
interimo
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 19:40:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Verone
lol, standard militia posting principle mate, blob and talk shit on the forums.
I didn't talk of skills at anytime
Originally by: Verone
2. We hung back, hoping for a decent fight, sadly we got a blob heavy on ECM. Ce'st la vie... it happens.
You won't get a decent fight from any militia. It's blobbing all around, which made quite a few people who were after the good fights leave already.
And the subject anyway was, did faction warfare change lowsec piracy, I think it's pretty clear that it did.
--
Coming to you, Assault Ships fix, by the people saying that the Gallente Recons are fine. |
Marcus Tradwin
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 19:53:00 -
[47]
No it didn¦t really. Not all lowsec is FW.
And the the only thing that "changed" is you can take out a T1 cruiser gang deep into FW territory where the blob does not go because its dark out there and hope for a fun little fight with a FW gang consisting of about the same. |
RuleoftheBone
Minmatar
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 19:58:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Lubomir Penev
oooops....
To the backpedal machine.....stat.
"Lead Me..Follow Me..Or get the **** out of my way"
General George Patton USA
|
Veldya
Caldari
Guristari Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 20:07:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Infomad
While he did a poor job of getting his point across I think I see what he means. This is not a topic against low-sec, pirates or even really pvp.
I think his point is that ship setups for missions and ship setups for pvp are vastly different. Having hi-sec mission givers send you to low-sec to do a mission in a mission setup ship is a bit silly. Since you are doing a hard mission you have to be properly setup to do that mission, which in turn puts you at a large disadvantage in a PvP situation.
Would anyone here want to do some pvp with a mission running setup on your ship? No ECW, long range setups, ?missiles?, and tanked for specific enemy damage types. Not exactly a winning combination for PvP.
There are mission agents in lower-sec for people who want to run missions in lower-sec space, but hi-sec mission agents shouldn't send you to low-sec.
I myself turn down any low-sec mission that will put a expensive mission running ship into a pvp situation. I have other ships for PvP. If I do accept a low-sec mission I use the help of a alt to make sure the path is clear to get to the mission area and use a cheap setup on a much cheaper ship. It takes longer, but that is the price you pay when you accept a mission without looking where it takes place.
That is a problem, it would be akin to forcing all PvPers to field an tank for heavy rat damage at gate camps, hard to make the one-dimensional gank ships if you also have to maximise your PvE surviability, which unfortunately is radically different.
Missions should have functioned much like PvP so there isn't much of a difference. I think rat AI is also sadly lacking, the encounter you are in should look to spread the damage out a lot more, this will make it easier for multiple people to do missions and will also be a deterant to a pirate warping into a full mission spawn and have half the rats engage him.
|
Ryas Nia
Minmatar
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 20:13:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Lubomir Penev
A bit out of touch are we?
Good fun, would do again, A++ Blob
 |
|
Grandis Fustis
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 20:16:00 -
[51]
Originally by: c0rny
[b][b]I am aware that the subject of harrassment by player pirates is a mine field for you - but i would like to raise this complaint with you to see whether you can do anything about this problem.
When a player undertakes a mission of L4 or L5 difficulty and is sent into a low-sec 0.4 thru 0.1 environment, player pirates are searching out the complexes and engaging in pvp. infact - they have even gone one step further since the introduction of the Militia programme, by camping the gates to low-sec and blowing you up before you get anywhere near your destination.
As far as I am concerned - this is harrassment. This means that you - CCP - are forcing players into engaging into PVP when they clearly do not want to - nor are set up to do so. Not only is this grossly unfair - it is a clear violation of our rights as players to play the game peacefully should we wish to do so.
It would be far more sensible to make a player - who has undertaken a mission at any level - 'invulnerable' to player pirates - with the mission complexes being impossible to find by the current probing means. To avoid any exploit, the player would then have to finish the mission. He would not be allowed to travel anywhere other than the mission destination and would not be able to access any other area of eve û other than his mission.
In fairness to player pirates, if a player then chooses to travel through low sec space û outside of a mission, then he/she must expect to deal with the dangers of low sec and its bounty strapped, red flashing inhabitants.
Please can i know your suggestions. I see that in most 'chat' channels - this is becoming an increasing topic of conversation with a very angry undertone.
There are a portion of members in the Eve community - who play a peaceful game.
c0rny
WHAT RU TALKING ABOUT ITS LOW SEC!!!!!!!! if no one got ganked in lowsec it would be called super happy time space and carebears like you would completely ruin the game. But i do agree that missions need to be harder to probe down. I mean one of my corpies can scan them down so fast they barely get to kill one rat. making it almost complete impossible to do the mission. So yes nerf scan deviations for ships inside missions.
P.S care bear tears are yummy
|
MrHalls
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 20:26:00 -
[52]
Listen...in the nice terms .. Eve is a multilayer game that we all pay for that has been designed to facilitate human interaction in any way and form, whenever is a missions, trade or combat yes that includes PvP. If we all here wanted to play single player game that only involves doing missions and not a step to the side... we would not play EvE. Just consider everything that happens in the game as a part of the game!
|
Verone
Gallente
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 12:31:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Lubomir Penev
You won't get a decent fight from any militia. It's blobbing all around, which made quite a few people who were after the good fights leave already.
And the subject anyway was, did faction warfare change lowsec piracy, I think it's pretty clear that it did.
We've had a couple of decent fights from the other militias, so you're wrong there.
As for changing lowsec piracy, it depends on who you talk to. For the static gatecamping noob bombers, yeah, it's ruined it having 0.0 size blobs roaming around. For belt pirates, it hasn't really changed much to be honest. We still pick of random people or ransom them, and when an organised group gets together they generally won't fight without 3:1 odds.
So yeah, nothing much has changed for us.
\o/ EON FICTION WRITER OF THE YEAR! \o/
>>> THE LIFE OF AN OUTLAW <<< |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |