|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations BlackWater.
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 07:33:00 -
[1]
…so, basically, you're whining about not knowing that what you ask for already exists? Well… good news for you!
No sig for me, thankyouverymuch. |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations BlackWater.
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 08:20:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Tippia on 02/01/2009 08:21:28
Originally by: Trader20 Sign my petition for Concord to be able to pod -5.0 players. Come on CCP less pirates in highsec means less lag.
Only if all NPCs started to pod their enemies… Come on, CCP. Fewer mission runners in means less lag.
No sig for me, thankyouverymuch. |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations BlackWater.
|
Posted - 2009.01.03 02:35:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Al Drevika 1. Podkills are not allowed for -5 sec (without penalty). Two representatives of CCP said so. Get a clue.
These representatives (or you, in asking the question) are confusing killright targets and outlaws. Outlaws are always fair game.
If you feel this is not the case, you should bug report it. Once fixed, you should then petition CCP to restore the current situation (i.e. reintroduce the bug as the intended behaviour).
No sig for me, thankyouverymuch. |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations BlackWater.
|
Posted - 2009.01.03 16:42:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Tippia on 03/01/2009 16:47:05
Originally by: Al Drevika Again, the solution doesn't need to be one-sided. You guys have your issues, too, and a rational conversation is what's needed.
About what? The solution is already in the game and it's already not one-sided. You are the one claiming it's one-sided when in fact it's just a lack of understading of the game and/or unwillingness to use the many options open to you.
If you choose not to make use of these mechanics, than that's your problem, not a problem with the game.
Originally by: Guttripper Perhaps it was mentioned previously, but why not change gang security status to equal the lowest security ranking of a player within the gang for all players involved? Then once the gang breaks apart, the security status of the individual players slowly returns to their original status - maybe like a countdown timer.
Pointless. Aiding criminals directly already gets you CONCORDOkkened so guilt by association exists right now, and basing it around gangs would would only mean that people don't include their neutrals in the gang.
No sig for me, thankyouverymuch. |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations BlackWater.
|
Posted - 2009.01.03 18:45:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Al Drevika
Originally by: Bloss0m
You get your hauler blown up because you screwed up thats the way it goes, the other guy took a sec hit and lost his ship and you have to go back to working your way back up. Although if the pirate is -10 in highsec and has a fully insured ship he really doesn't lose anything. Where are the repercussion? The carebear loses everything for screwing up and afk hauling or bringing too weak of a ship but the pirate really isn't losing anything and is possibly gaining millions if not billions.
Thank you for so succinctly summarizing the imbalance of the situation.
That's not an imbalance — quite the opposite. It's the one thing that brings a bit of risk to highsec, making it balanced against the lower secs.
No sig for me, thankyouverymuch. |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations BlackWater.
|
Posted - 2009.01.03 19:16:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Bloss0m To get back on subject though highsec ganking is part of the game ccp just needs to make sure people arent getting away with risk free/repercussion free ganks in highsec.
There are risks and repercussions. It's just that the gankers don't consider them as such — they consider them challenges and rewards that make the game more fun. It is as it should be.
No sig for me, thankyouverymuch. |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations BlackWater.
|
Posted - 2009.01.03 20:28:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Al Drevika You really didn't read the post I quoted, did you? I even pulled out the salient point for you to make it easy? Are you really that bad at reading? Send me an Eve-mail with your address, I'll send a Cat in the Hat book to you.
You didn't understand what I said did you? I even used small words. Are you really that stupid? I'm afraid no eve-mail or books will help so I won't bother with it. Tu quoque is always a good answer to ad hominem, so that makes us even…
Quote: We don't mind being at risk. The issue is that the pies are at no risk. […] I'm asking for pie actions in high sec to have some kind of repercussions that are meaningful and exact a meaningful price.
This is a thoroughly flawed assumption. I repeat: there are risks and repercussions. It's just that the gankers don't consider them as such — they consider them challenges and rewards that make the game more fun. It is as it should be. The fact that this view on the game brings balance to high-sec is only icing on the cake. The fact that the repercussions already solve your problem makes your complaint redundant.
Quote:
- Buff lowsec rewards, bring more carebears (targets) in
Won't happen — or, rather, won't work — by very definition of carebear.
Quote:
- Fix the bounty system
- Transferrable kill rights
Won't matter. They're already free targets, and you can already hire someone to kill them.
Quote:
- Eliminate sec status hits for shooting in lowsec (or at least reduce it)
…so that more gankers have to come to highsec to get their coveted -10?
Quote:
- Fix insurance (somehow) so suicide gankers IN HIGH SEC can't collect, or collect less
Might as well remove insurance completely then. The argument against this is always "but think of the n00bs" because they'll do something stupid like accidentally ignore the no-fire warning and get themselves blown up… With your suggestion, they'll get no insurance anyway and since the ones who actually need it won't get it, you might as well remove the mechanics as a whole.
No sig for me, thankyouverymuch. |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations BlackWater.
|
Posted - 2009.01.03 20:48:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Tippia on 03/01/2009 20:48:43
Originally by: Qui Shon
Originally by: Tippia I repeat: there are risks and repercussions.
Bull****. But we've gone over that already.
You maintain that meaningless reprecussions, such as a change in sec status from -9.30 to -9.31 count as actual reprecussions, but that is a ridiculous stance.
And why is it ridiculous? It is an actual repercussions and there is risk, but as I keep saying: it's just that the gankers don't consider them as such — they consider them challenges and rewards.
Just because you personally don't like that some people take pride in their punishment and reinterpret the repercussions into rewards doesn't mean that the punishment doesn't exist.
If you want to solve that little problem (short of banning anyone with sec status <0), I'd suggest taking up penology — they've been wrestling with that problem for the last 15,000 years or so…
No sig for me, thankyouverymuch. |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations BlackWater.
|
Posted - 2009.01.03 21:10:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Tippia on 03/01/2009 21:12:07
Originally by: Bloss0m I just dont see the repercussions of breaking the law in highsec with the current mechanic work arounds in place.
Then you're seeing the repercussions. Yes, there are work-arounds but that doesn't mean there aren't repercussions — just that they are designed not to be debilitating.
Quote: I just wanna know whats so risky about a properly done gank by a -10 pirate with insurance in highsec.
Well, that's a leading question if there ever was one. But ok: there is no risk to such a gank, but that's because nothing that is properly done is risky (incidentally, this also means that properly done carebearing is safe too because it effectively removes you from the target list of a properly done gank). Outside of that, there is a risk that other, more vigilant players won't let you do it properly because they ensure that you die the instant you poke your head in above 0.45… The risk is there — it's just that other players fail to turn that risk into reality.
Quote: I also disagree with you on the point buffing highlowsec wont help. It may not bring in "carebears" […]
Then we don't disagree. Carebears won't come no matter what because of the risks. Industrialists may come, but they aren't carebears.
No sig for me, thankyouverymuch. |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations BlackWater.
|
Posted - 2009.01.03 21:34:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Karath Piki If you're not willing to fight for what you have in Eve... you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.
Sigworthy! --- “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations BlackWater.
|
Posted - 2009.01.03 22:14:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Bloss0m Now people can fight back and they can take out the pirate ...but really isn't that what low sec is for thats why we have the sec status system.
Well, it's certainly what sec status is for. After all, that's one of the benefits/penalties (depending on what side of the fence you're on) of having low status: people are now free to wipe you out wherever and whenever they like. Low-sec, however, is a different matter. Low-sec is where you can do anything you like, provided you do it out of sight. However, since sec rating already takes care of the problem of allowing you to hunt pirates, you don't need low-sec for that purpose any more. So, no: I can't see that that's what low-sec is for.
Quote: CCP wanted a way to keep pirates with low sec status in low sec and out of highsec.
Really? They've expressly allowed them to enter (they gates let them through). They've expressly given them an avoidable automatic response (defeatable and avoidable navies). They expressly given them safe passage if they really behave (fly in a pod). Seems to me that CCP most definitely wants to have pirates in high-sec, but they want them to have to jump through some hoops to get there. Heck, they even warn about high-sec piracy in the tutorial(!)
Quote: Its pretty obvious by the way the game was laid out ccp wanted highsec semi safe... you can kill people but your gonna have to go work off the sec status before you come back in.
…and it is semi-safe — more than semi-safe in fact, given all the advantages non-criminals have. And as mentioned, they already let the criminals back in — you only need to work on your sec status if you want to go there peacefully. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations BlackWater.
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 12:03:00 -
[12]
I just noticed that you can squeeze 275,000 EHP (omni) out of an Orca, combined with a shield regen to rival a mid-range mission ship, and still be able to carry more cargo than an Itty V…
Maybe you should try that — it just might be enough to let you AFK with some piece of mind… ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
|
|
|