| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jaggati Khan
   |
Posted - 2009.12.29 09:41:00 -
[1]
So bounties are broke..
Ganks happen quite often...
Griefers are in almost every belt..
Why not have some kind of 'faction war' type corp that allows players to hunt down other players with low sec status in high sec?
Requirements to sign up could be having a certain sec status which could also affect who you can shoot and when?
Obviously it would have to be in the plus, maybe something like this-
0.5 - can shoot anyone with bad sec status in any low sec system without taking a sec hit
1 - 0.9 and up
2 - 0.8
3 - 0.7
4 - 0.6
5 - 0.5
5.5 - anywhere with out taking a sec hit
Probably wants looking at but as a general idea i think it could work and would be kinda fun, and i guess if worked right it could be a good excuse to have more pew pew in high sec :)
Other ideas are another type of flag maybe for 30 minutes or some such after an incident has happened but only for these player police? (so when say a gate gank happens concord has the normal 15 minutes but theres an additional 15?)
|
Daugar Draaken
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 15:35:00 -
[2]
I don't know how this would be a change from the existing situation, however if you make this a CONCORD based nonfactional militia, stricly hunting pirates I kinda like the dynamic of this in practice. Additionally - let them be able to call for *NPC* reinforcements under some conditions. Only logical right?
Also - make reaction times of CONCORD vessels in case of piracy dependent on standing.
|
Istvann
Minmatar
Order Reliance and Belonging
|
Posted - 2009.12.30 19:32:00 -
[3]
I thought I had read somewhere that Concords reaction time is already based upon the victims standings with the highest and lowest standings being approx a minute or two apart.
|
Gais Ganor
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 01:24:00 -
[4]
I agree with the idea of a police unit of some kind - you might be interested in reading the post about it http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1240216
the idea of using sec level as a way to set access rights would work. We definitely need some way to even eve up
|
Usagi Tsukino
Miyazaki Zaibatsu
APEX Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 01:30:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Istvann
I thought I had read somewhere that Concords reaction time is already based upon the victims standings with the highest and lowest standings being approx a minute or two apart.
It's based upon the security status of the system IIRC.
---
|
Reggie Stoneloader
JAFA Trade and Manufacturing Cooperative
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 07:30:00 -
[6]
Until sec status gets fixed, this would just be a griefmobile, making a -0.1 sec status a death sentence all over the galaxy, leading to "police" endlessly camping high-sec stations and podding "pirates" amid gusty laughs and smacktalk. Plenty of baby-eaters maintain sec well over 0.0 through ratting, and there are thousands of non-combat pilots who have suffered a hit to sec due to error or necessity or decent behavior that will take months or years to correct due to their disinclination toward NPC genocide. I myself wore a yellow badge of shame for a long time for my role as tackling bait barge during the strategic murder and podding of a low-sec ore thief, until I got around to killing Guristas en masse.
The only time you cna be reasonably sure a target is legitimately criminal s****is when he either has a GCC, murdered you earlier, or is an outlaw, in which case he's fair game anyway. Non-consensual PvP in high-sec requires either the formality of a wardec/can flip, kill rights, or an appropriate CONCORD response. Nothing broken here, and if you want cheap kills, you'll have to dip into the negative yourself, tough guy.
======================
Crusades: Security Status |
Jaggati Khan
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 10:28:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader
Until sec status gets fixed, this would just be a griefmobile, making a -0.1 sec status a death sentence all over the galaxy, leading to "police" endlessly camping high-sec stations and podding "pirates" amid gusty laughs and smacktalk. Plenty of baby-eaters maintain sec well over 0.0 through ratting, and there are thousands of non-combat pilots who have suffered a hit to sec due to error or necessity or decent behavior that will take months or years to correct due to their disinclination toward NPC genocide. I myself wore a yellow badge of shame for a long time for my role as tackling bait barge during the strategic murder and podding of a low-sec ore thief, until I got around to killing Guristas en masse.
The only time you cna be reasonably sure a target is legitimately criminal s****is when he either has a GCC, murdered you earlier, or is an outlaw, in which case he's fair game anyway. Non-consensual PvP in high-sec requires either the formality of a wardec/can flip, kill rights, or an appropriate CONCORD response. Nothing broken here, and if you want cheap kills, you'll have to dip into the negative yourself, tough guy.
so your a low sec gatecamper then?
any difference?
|
Reggie Stoneloader
JAFA Trade and Manufacturing Cooperative
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 19:57:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Jaggati Khan
so your a low sec gatecamper then?
any difference?
Huh? What's that got to do with anything? Do you think the idea you've sketched out here will stop gate campers, that gate campers will object to it because it'll make their lives harder? Good gate campers tend to be -10 anyway, full outlaw and far beyond the reach of any consequences you've suggested here. This idea will penalize casual PvPers, experimental PvPers, and newbies and industrialists who don't have the skills or resources to go ratting in 0.0 for forty-seven hours to build their sec up.
It would also encourage "high-sec gatecampers", who would grind their sec up and then float around in Jita waiting for some sucker to fly through with -0.1 sec status in order to gank him for lulz. It would be a great profession for the griefers who lack the self-confidence to risk low sec status, so we'd have you to thank for the explosion of griefing and badger-blasting that would ensue in high-sec.
======================
Crusades: Security Status |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |