| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gerald Taric
Adamantium Industry
49
   |
Posted - 2012.04.30 17:15:00 -
[31] - Quote
TWHC Assistant wrote:What gankers need to learn is no one's business but the gankers'. Do not make CONCORD the teachers of gankers. Nor want the carebears being teached by the gankers, how to play the game. EVE is not only 100% PvP.
Ganking is not desired in HighSec, but somehow "allowed" with the payment of loosing your ship. And it's working pretty fine the way it is implemented now - according to "Jita burning", isn't it? HighSec = Empire space unter strong control of empire state forces. A state would not get you away with murder and or damage to foreign property.
You are free to gank with less serverside party involvement in LowSec and no involvement in NullSec ( no empire, no state forces ). That's your area of operation, if you do not want to take the risk of losing your ship to CONCORD.
That's not fun enough, because the "nullsec carebears" are more well-fortified than the highsec carebears? Oh ... surprise ... |
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
300
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 17:18:00 -
[32] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:THE L0CK wrote:You got the evidence to back that claim up or are you just assuming that many others would puss out like you? You seem to misunderstand: the 50% that would be leaving would be the highsec carebears who would be constantly ganked without CONCORD, not the gankers who would be in paradise for a few days until all of the faction-fitted mission battleships are dead.
No I understood it completely as to who would leave and why, but I hate it when people give me make believe numbers.
Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |
TWHC Assistant
39
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 17:26:00 -
[33] - Quote
Gerald Taric wrote:TWHC Assistant wrote:What gankers need to learn is no one's business but the gankers'. Do not make CONCORD the teachers of gankers. Nor want the carebears being teached by the gankers, how to play the game....
It is irrelevant. It is not the business of CONCORD to care for any of the parties beyond establishing peace and to eliminate the cause (=> loot). |
Beckie DeLey
Brigade of Guards
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
49
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 17:31:00 -
[34] - Quote
Yatama Kautsuo wrote:THE L0CK wrote:concord should be removed. Ganking receives a 1 hour GCC that allows anyone to shoot on sight and -5 sec status makes you remain that way until status is upgraded.
Let us govern ourselves. b+ñm, more than half of eve accounts unsubbed
Indeed.
It would be glorious.
It's The Legendary Extraordinary Me |
Malamber
Nordic Innovations
Fatal Ascension
7
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 17:54:00 -
[35] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:concord should be removed. Ganking receives a 1 hour GCC that allows anyone to shoot on sight and -5 sec status makes you remain that way until status is upgraded.
Let us govern ourselves.
Without CONCORD, would there be a point to security status? |
Gerald Taric
Adamantium Industry
49
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 18:00:00 -
[36] - Quote
TWHC Assistant wrote:Gerald Taric wrote:TWHC Assistant wrote:What gankers need to learn is no one's business but the gankers'. Do not make CONCORD the teachers of gankers. Nor want the carebears being teached by the gankers, how to play the game.... It is irrelevant. It is not the business of CONCORD to care for any of the parties beyond establishing peace and to eliminate the cause (=> loot).
It is relevant. It's the setting we are playing in. Otherwise the game would only constist of Null-Space and no empire at all.
Some of us are obiously pissed because of some restrictions in their freedom.
But i claim, that they conveniently ignore the freedom of the other-minded.
There's a area in the game especially designed for the hardcore PvPers needs: unrestricted PvP in NullSpace.
There's also a area designed for the ones called "carebears", where they enjoy the game with less, but at least some risk - the HighSec.
I personally dislike this batant tries to conquer the others areas - both hardcore-PvPers and carebears.
- - - - - -
In the past i also played another MMORPG. There was a high demand for a PvP-only server with no secure areas.
The game developer at least introduced such a server. At the beginning there was a high peek in the player activity, but it very fast dropped to nearly zero ... for - in my opinion - obvious reasons. The server had been abandoned some time later. |
Super Chair
Project Cerberus
Caldari State Capturing
227
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 18:08:00 -
[37] - Quote
Where's the ignore bad poster button? I shouldn't have to see their threads when they start one. |
stoicfaux
989
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 18:10:00 -
[38] - Quote
Super Chair wrote:Where's the ignore bad poster button? I shouldn't have to see their threads when they start one.
Try "/unsub internet". It's worked for me in the past.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Gerald Taric
Adamantium Industry
49
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 18:11:00 -
[39] - Quote
Super Chair wrote:Where's the ignore bad poster button? I shouldn't have to see their threads when they start one.
hm .. you might click on the posters name on the left, where you should get an "hide posts" option.
But i don't know, if this also hides threads startet by the ignored person. Usually i do not ignore persons because of having other opinions than mine. |
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
303
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 18:18:00 -
[40] - Quote
Gerald Taric wrote:Super Chair wrote:Where's the ignore bad poster button? I shouldn't have to see their threads when they start one. hm .. you might click on the posters name on the left, where you should get an "hide posts" option. But i don't know, if this also hides threads startet by the ignored person. Usually i do not ignore persons because of having other opinions than mine.
He could always try the age old tactic of paying more attention to the thread creator name and choose not to enter though self restraint is a skill not often trained.
Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |
|
|
March rabbit
Trojan Trolls
Red Alliance
167
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 18:26:00 -
[41] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:concord should be removed. Ganking receives a 1 hour GCC that allows anyone to shoot on sight and -5 sec status makes you remain that way until status is upgraded.
Let us govern ourselves.
you really sure that victim will be satisfied by killing 10-20 t1 frigates after loosing freighter with cargo? 
problem is: "pvp"-er simply doesnt' worth his damage to victim in 100% cases. That;'s why kill rights and bounties don't work these days.... |
Scien Inkunen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
35
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 18:45:00 -
[42] - Quote
TWHC Assistant wrote:TrollSuggestion Of The Day:
Delay CONCORD response time by a factor of 3, leaving gankers more time to deal damage, but let CONCORD confiscate/destroy the wreck of the victim as well as that of the ganker's ship. No loot for anyone.
Discuss.
Remove everything that limits in any way and let the anarchy begin.
Read the "Fart file" and you will understand the meaning of life ! |
TWHC Assistant
39
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 18:48:00 -
[43] - Quote
Gerald Taric wrote:It is relevant.
No, it is not. Why should CONCORD care for either side? It is only stupid. You might as well have CONCORD call your mom and tell her that you got into an accident. |
Gerald Taric
Adamantium Industry
49
|
Posted - 2012.05.01 00:24:00 -
[44] - Quote
TWHC Assistant wrote:Gerald Taric wrote:It is relevant. No, it is not. Why should CONCORD care for either side? They care for no side. They care, because the agressor broke the rule of not doing illegal agression. Illegal is defined as "not in war with victim" and "having no killrights" and "did not stealed from you" in HighSec empire space. CONCORD holds up this rule, like a police in empire.
Removing limiting rules named "CONCORD interterence" will end up in an unlimited ganking massacre. Sound also "not professional" - and fatal for the game. I wrote it already: I was able to watch such a situatuion already in another game. It failed horribly.
|
TWHC Assistant
39
|
Posted - 2012.05.01 00:34:00 -
[45] - Quote
Gerald Taric wrote:They care for no side. They care, ...
They do not care, but they care? ...
Come back when you know how to make sense. |
MeBiatch
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
307
|
Posted - 2012.05.01 00:35:00 -
[46] - Quote
TWHC Assistant wrote:TrollSuggestion Of The Day:
Delay CONCORD response time by a factor of 3, leaving gankers more time to deal damage, but let CONCORD confiscate/destroy the wreck of the victim as well as that of the ganker's ship. No loot for anyone.
Discuss.
no gives the loot to the ganked...
kinda silly that concord comes to your rescue and does not even bother collecting stranded crew/mods...
PLEX FOR PIZZA!
TECH iii MINNING SHIPS! |
TWHC Assistant
39
|
Posted - 2012.05.01 00:39:00 -
[47] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:no gives the loot to the ganked...
kinda silly that concord comes to your rescue and does not even bother collecting stranded crew/mods...
No. The ganker could be a carebear who snapped and the victim could be a ganker who only bumped into him. You never really know which side did what. Therefore shall no one get anything. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
121
|
Posted - 2012.05.01 00:40:00 -
[48] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:concord should be removed. Ganking receives a 1 hour GCC that allows anyone to shoot on sight and -5 sec status makes you remain that way until status is upgraded.
Let us govern ourselves.
Liking this idea, maybe an intermediate phase where players could sign up to receive notifications of criminal acts and intervene coupled with reduced responsiveness from concord. Concord would still show up but take longer. Seems interesting, but who knows if it will ever work since the sandbox that allows everyone to do as they wish makes most of us pirates. |
Boomhaur
31
|
Posted - 2012.05.01 01:06:00 -
[49] - Quote
Removing concord would turn empire into low sec. As fun as it sounds it would ruin our economy and lead to our destruction even if you try to get us to police ourselves we simply won't as it's too much work and too annoying to do. Especially to kill some person in a lousy t1 BC or dessie with cheap mods so you don't even gain a profit form the kill assuming you even get the loot and somoene doesn't ninja it. |
Gerald Taric
Adamantium Industry
49
|
Posted - 2012.05.01 09:06:00 -
[50] - Quote
TWHC Assistant wrote:Gerald Taric wrote:They care for no side. They care, ... They do not care, but they care? ... Come back when you know how to make sense.
They care neither for victims side nor for the side of the ganker, they care for the rule being uphold. What a bummer you completely ignore the other arguments, especially that important one, that removing (or weakening to meaninglessness) limitation rules was ruinous in an other game, which i wrote down now for a third time here.
You're trolling very good.
Have fun furthermore. |
|
|
TWHC Assistant
39
|
Posted - 2012.05.01 09:13:00 -
[51] - Quote
Gerald Taric wrote:They care neither for victims side nor for the side of the ganker, they care for the rule being uphold. What a bummer you completely ignore the other arguments, especially that important one, that removing (or weakening to meaninglessness) limitation rules was ruinous in an other game, which i wrote down now for a third time here.
You're trolling very good.
Have fun furthermore.
Why would anyone care for your experience with another game?
Unless you want to make EVE like other games ... |
Ziranda Hakuli
Relativity Holding Corp
AAA Citizens
34
|
Posted - 2012.05.01 09:23:00 -
[52] - Quote
I think OP failed at making a troll thread. |
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3957
|
Posted - 2012.05.01 09:26:00 -
[53] - Quote
stop posting dumb ideas that only serve to kill off suicide ganking
"WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Killer Gandry
V I R I I
Ineluctable.
335
|
Posted - 2012.05.01 09:27:00 -
[54] - Quote
Andski wrote:stop posting dumb ideas that only serve to kill off suicide ganking
Only if you stop posting dumb idea's to make EVE one sided.
|
Rimase
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
26
|
Posted - 2012.05.01 09:31:00 -
[55] - Quote
There can be High-Sec rules and Low-Sec rules.
Low Sec changes are coming. We may know facts of concepts and definate upcoming changes though things are subject to change very much like the Micro-Jump Drive hinted in a recent TenTonHammer interview.
Low Sec changes are coming. But How?
Let's bring Concord into Low-Sec. Why the hell not? We have Null Sec so it's no big deal.
'Low Security' suggests there is security but highly limited unlimited 'High Security's' lowly limited, more security systems.
- How can Concord perform differently in Low Sec systems?
- How does Concord decide who to protect under constricting low-sec dangers?
- How does Concord decide who to not protect under constricting low-sec dangers?
- How can Concord be designed allow criminality to flourish in Low Sec, still?
Rimase wrote:Redefining 'Low Security'SUGGESTION - Revised game features:(Security Status rules for High Sec)- All is safe and normal apart from suicide gankers.
- Your low security status (Gëñ -5.0) neglects you from high sec. (Players can destroy your ship)
- Your low security status (Gëñ -9.451) banishes you from high sec. (Concord will attack your ship but not chase you)
(Security Status rules for Low Sec)- You can still change security status in low sec.
- You lose less security status as you operate in reducing security-level systems (Gëñ 0.3 Systems). This excludes pod-killing! (Eases pain of losing too much security status)
- Concord operate in low-sec! (Unlike high-sec's Concord)
- Your good security status rewards you with a level of Concord's responsiveness. (GëÑ 1.0)
- Your neutral security status leaves you semi-vulnerable in low-sec! (-0.5- 0.9)
(Concord will protect you only if they're nearby. They don't hang around long.)
- Your bad security status leaves you vulnerable in low-sec! (Gëñ -0.6)
- Concord can not linger in low-sec after their protocol is achieved. (Too many criminal! D:)
(Low-sec firing Conditions)- Non-damaging attacks are ALLOWED for +0.0 players: Jammers, Webifiers, anti-Warp, Drainers, etc.
(Contributes to Piracy)
- KEY PART OF WHOLE POST: Non-damaging attacks are DISCOURAGED for -0.0 players: {"same as above"}.
(Contributes to deception. Sub-sequently reduce Security Status)
- Any physical damage unto a good-status player will have Concord jump-in to save them (slow-to-medium response).
- Any physical damage unto a excellent-status player will have Concord jump-in to save them (medium-to-faster response).
(Protection speed in Low Sec) Concord response in low-sec is conditional and at their own risk. They can only match the responsiveness of 0.5 High Sec providing you have GëÑ 9.451 security status.
Thread: [Fanfest]: Low Sec changes
(Why CCP no improve Shareholding?):
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=71032#post71032 |
Liam Mirren
496
|
Posted - 2012.05.01 09:33:00 -
[56] - Quote
You using another alt now Grimpak?
Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3958
|
Posted - 2012.05.01 09:34:00 -
[57] - Quote
Killer Gandry wrote:Andski wrote:stop posting dumb ideas that only serve to kill off suicide ganking Only if you stop posting dumb idea's to make EVE one sided.
you'll always see the game as one-sided as long as dumb afk miners keep dying to suicide gankers ^_^
"WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
TWHC Assistant
39
|
Posted - 2012.05.01 10:06:00 -
[58] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:You using another alt now Grimpak?
Get a girl friend. |
Gerald Taric
Adamantium Industry
49
|
Posted - 2012.05.01 11:32:00 -
[59] - Quote
TWHC Assistant wrote:
Why would anyone care for your experience with another game?
Unless you want to make EVE like other games ...
*double-facepalm*
...
|
Liam Mirren
497
|
Posted - 2012.05.01 11:55:00 -
[60] - Quote
TWHC Assistant wrote:Liam Mirren wrote:You using another alt now Grimpak? Get a girl friend.
You might as well forget about using those characters who are/were in those two corps of yours Grimpak, it's pretty obvious.
Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |