Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
376
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 16:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
This post is about cyno travel, and the ability to cyno directly from one station to another:
Let's review the risks of cyno travel: a.) You undock and wait out a 10 seconds session change timer while completely invulnerable (even to bumping). If you are bubbled, you can safely dock.
b.) After the session change timer expires, you can right click on your ship and cyno directly to another location while still completely untargetable because of the undock invulnerability.
c.) Assuming your destination is a station, which 99% of the time it is, you cyno into dock range, and have to survive a whole 10 second session change timer before you can dock. With 300+k EHP and eyes on grid before you cyno in, pragmatically, there is NO RISK to any jump capable ship!!
So, my question: Is riskless travel like this appropriate for EvE???
Note: Some might claim you are risking the cyno ship, so it's not riskless travel. However, since I can create a cyno alt that uses a noobship to light my cyno, I do NOT consider this a viable risk...
P.S. This GD thread is to discuss whether this form of travel is reasonable in EvE's "dangerous" areas. If you have ideas on how to change the mechanics, or what not, please post the idea in F&I.
This is how I'd solve it: Prevent Cynoing a ship into Dock Range of a Station. There are other ideas too: Nerf JF's and other ideas |
ElQuirko
Protus Correction Facility Inc.
810
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 16:46:00 -
[2] - Quote
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=11911041
/thread CISPA - Readin' your secret corptheft mails since 2012 |
Othran
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
205
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 16:46:00 -
[3] - Quote
Yeah things need tweaking since the session timer changes.
Won't happen though. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
376
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 16:49:00 -
[4] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=11911041
/thread
A carrier km hardly means cyno travel is risky....
Ratting in a carrier... Risky Cynoing a carrier to a POS.... Risky.... Cynoing a carrier onto a station.... Not Risky....
|
Kyle Ward
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
64
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 16:56:00 -
[5] - Quote
I too, wish CCP would make all the JF's cyno directly into my fleet of Tornado's... Poastin with my main while I AFK cloak in your system. |
baltec1
1552
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 16:56:00 -
[6] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Cynoing a carrier onto a station.... Not Risky....
We have managed to kill a good few. |
March rabbit
Trojan Trolls Red Alliance
202
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:08:00 -
[7] - Quote
hm.... some time ago someone said "suiciding hulks in empire and loosing ship to concord is a risk". What is the difference? |
Ephenos
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:18:00 -
[8] - Quote
Yes it is reasonable.
How would you manage to change this to have no risk without massive gameplay changes? Extended jump drive spoolup times? Might make nullsec logistics slower, but not really much more dangerous. Unable to dock for a certain amount of time after jumping? Still relatively ineffective unless it was something ridiculous like 5 minutes, as most caps jump to friendly stations.
And why should it be inherently dangerous? Much of the appeal of capital ships lays in their ability to jump from point A to point B without having to stop in between.
So without someway to drag them down in the middle of jump (whut?) The only points of vulnerability are start and endpoints,a and there is only so much you can do there without needing a nerfbat studded in nails and covered in dynamite.
Just my 2 cents worth, I see no reason to change the current system, unless you wanted a reversion to a 30 second session change timer, which still wouldn't do much
Edit: saw your idea's on nerfing being bale to jump within dock range. See your point, but cant really say I agree with them, to easy to shut down a massive area of jump logistics with a relatively low number of ships. |
Kieron VonDeux
44
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:20:00 -
[9] - Quote
Just remove cynos from the game and have all caps jump within 1-2 AU of star and Super Caps 10-20 AU of star. No moar hot-drop-oclocks.
Or simply remove all jump drives. |
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
166
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:21:00 -
[10] - Quote
I can fly thru low-sec risk free in a pod, or cloaky. Perhaps we should do away with warp to 0 and cloaks?
Looking to stamp out apiphobia in my lifetime..... |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
376
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:23:00 -
[11] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Cynoing a carrier onto a station.... Not Risky....
We have managed to kill a good few.
Please enlighten us, I really don't see how a competent carrier pilot loses their carrier when cynoing from one station to another station.
With a 10 second session change timer, you have to average 30+k dps to gank a JF before it can dock, or 50-100k dps to gank a carrier/dread/rorqual.
Are there tricks? The web-bump trick that is deemed an exploit... or you could cyno in a bunch of ships on top of it, hoping to bump it out of dock range... or You could have ships on grid, and try to bump it out of dock range before it can dock... or you can have a titan or fleet of SC's on grid ready to gank it the moment it cyno's in.
I consider the above risks extremely minimal to a competent player, although I'm sure they'll net you some kills the first time they encounter such tactics. Given the capital docking radius of stations, bumping it out of range within 10 s requires lots of luck. A cloaked ongrid titan is a legit risk, albeit a very uncommon one!!
Is there a tactic I'm unaware of, that makes cynoing from station to station even a little risky??? |
Pyramid Scheme
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
18
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:23:00 -
[12] - Quote
somebody should stationcamp this guy. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
377
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:34:00 -
[13] - Quote
Beekeeper Bob wrote:I can fly thru low-sec risk free in a pod, or cloaky. Perhaps we should do away with warp to 0 and cloaks?
Traveling gate-to-gate in a pod is an easy way to die... one Disko ship and you're going to wake up in a clone facility. It's not risk free.
As for cloaks.... Cloakers mitigate most risks to their ships with cloaks, and I think cyno's should mitigate most risks by traveling from point A to Point Z bypassing the risks in between. At the same point in time, a cloaker is still at risk of getting decloaked, it can be caught in bubbles, and it can't cloak next to a station, and traveling in a cloak ship is far from risk free.
I think a small nerf to cyno's can have the same effect.... Just prevent cynoing a ship within dock range of a station, and suddenly there is a reasonable risk to cyno travel.... |
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
166
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:37:00 -
[14] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Beekeeper Bob wrote:I can fly thru low-sec risk free in a pod, or cloaky. Perhaps we should do away with warp to 0 and cloaks? Traveling gate-to-gate in a pod is an easy way to die... one Disko ship and you're going to wake up in a clone facility. It's not risk free. As for cloaks.... Cloakers mitigate most risks to their ships with cloaks, and I think cyno's should mitigate most risks by traveling from point A to Point Z bypassing the risks in between. At the same point in time, a cloaker is still at risk of getting decloaked, it can be caught in bubbles, and it can't cloak next to a station, and traveling in a cloak ship is far from risk free. I think a small nerf to cyno's can have the same effect.... Just prevent cynoing a ship within dock range of a station, and suddenly there is a reasonable risk to cyno travel....
Caught in bubbles in low-sec?
And lol at your transparent attempt to justify this. Face it, you aren't capable of PvP, or you wouldn't be worried about getting enough carrrier kills....
Looking to stamp out apiphobia in my lifetime..... |
Qolde
Bombs Away. Nulli Tertius
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:39:00 -
[15] - Quote
Why should it be so risky to fly from friendly station to friendly station while not entering combat, AND paying attention to your surroundings, waiting for safer times to travel? The time and manpower investment required to set up such a situation where one can expect reasonable safety is while jumping capital ships is immense. Capitals are already prenerfed in a lot of situations where people would like to use them. Remember when you could actually carry a nice amount of stuff in a carrier? Should sleeper's spawn everytime a cyno is lit? Should carriers have a retardedly long session timer, just so they are less useful? They get their share of combat, and die all the time. They are not some invincible ship class. In fact, they are far from it. People just don't risk them as much as other less useful ships.
Also, what is this web bump trick that you speak of? If someone craps in your sandbox: 1. Light it on fire 2. Grab your shovel 3. Throw it back at them. |
Mikelii
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:46:00 -
[16] - Quote
Qolde wrote: Also, what is this web bump trick that you speak of?
There was an exploit you could use, with the properly fitted ship, to web a larger ship as it undocked. If the webs were powerful enough, it would get stuck entering warp. You couldn't stop warp, or redock the ship. So you basically sat there at 0 speed until you died. :CCP: coding at its finest.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
378
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:46:00 -
[17] - Quote
Ephenos wrote:Yes it is reasonable.
How would you manage to change this to have no risk without massive gameplay changes? Extended jump drive spoolup times? Might make nullsec logistics slower, but not really much more dangerous. Unable to dock for a certain amount of time after jumping? Still relatively ineffective unless it was something ridiculous like 5 minutes, as most caps jump to friendly stations.
Edit: saw your idea's on nerfing being bale to jump within dock range. See your point, but cant really say I agree with them, to easy to shut down a massive area of jump logistics with a relatively low number of ships.
Would it be that easy to shut down?? Cyno into a safe spot, or a random good distance from a POS and web to warp whatever you bring in.... I think my F&I change would increase the risk to a reasonable, yet manageable level.... At least, that's what I strive for!
Ephenos wrote: And why should it be inherently dangerous? Much of the appeal of capital ships lays in their ability to jump from point A to point B without having to stop in between.
Most of the activites in EvE are NOT risk free... we make decisions to mitigate risks. And I think any mechanic that allows us to completely mitigate risks is a bad mechanic... As for cyno travel, which is an explicitly nullsec/lowsec activity, having it be completely risk free is contrary to the purpose of lowsec/nullsec. |
Ephenos
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:46:00 -
[18] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Beekeeper Bob wrote:I can fly thru low-sec risk free in a pod, or cloaky. Perhaps we should do away with warp to 0 and cloaks? Traveling gate-to-gate in a pod is an easy way to die... one Disko ship and you're going to wake up in a clone facility. It's not risk free. As for cloaks.... Cloakers mitigate most risks to their ships with cloaks, and I think cyno's should mitigate most risks by traveling from point A to Point Z bypassing the risks in between. At the same point in time, a cloaker is still at risk of getting decloaked, it can be caught in bubbles, and it can't cloak next to a station, and traveling in a cloak ship is far from risk free. I think a small nerf to cyno's can have the same effect.... Just prevent cynoing a ship within dock range of a station, and suddenly there is a reasonable risk to cyno travel....
How far away would we be talking here? 1km 5? 10? Would be ok with carriers, they can likely survive long enough to call help. But JF logistics would be extremely risky, I'd suicide an entire 20 man bomber gang onto a JF in order to kill it, wouldn't you?
20 bombers can nuke even a high skilled JF in less time than it takes to scream in coms or chat and have people undock.
and even then they can likely kill it before they all die, any decent bomber pilot will do 500+ dps overheated, and why not heat if your suiciding?
Just don't think cynoing far off stations is the way to go.
(Just remove cynos from the game and have all caps jump within 1-2 AU of star and Super Caps 10-20 AU of star.) Now this guys one is interesting. Potentially viable unless on jumping in some "Here I am" beacon was created. That would completely kill nullsec travel. couple of titans, some SC's, and a few cynoalt could interdict all travel in jump range.
|
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub Like I Give A F--K
1362
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:49:00 -
[19] - Quote
Qolde wrote:Why should it be so risky to fly from friendly station to friendly station while not entering combat, AND paying attention to your surroundings, waiting for safer times to travel? The time and manpower investment required to set up such a situation where one can expect reasonable safety is while jumping capital ships is immense. Capitals are already prenerfed in a lot of situations where people would like to use them. Remember when you could actually carry a nice amount of stuff in a carrier? Should sleeper's spawn everytime a cyno is lit? Should carriers have a retardedly long session timer, just so they are less useful? They get their share of combat, and die all the time. They are not some invincible ship class. In fact, they are far from it. People just don't risk them as much as other less useful ships.
Also, what is this web bump trick that you speak of? lmfao, yeah it took me ages to train three cyno alts on my three accounts, and boy... That ten second timer?! The risk involved in moving my carriers / JFs around is immense.
I'm still not sold on blocking cynos on station though, I like hot dropping idiots who aggress in carriers on the undock too much. Maybe if it came along side a change to aggression timers based on mass.
I also think it would just result in people finding empty systems to cyno in to, or setting up a POS in every system along route.
*EDIT: I forgot to add, you claim friendly station to friendly station. Outside of sov null sec current mechanics make it trivial to cyno right into hostile stations without risk. Or travel right through the most heavily camped places in the game without breaking up the camp.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
378
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:53:00 -
[20] - Quote
Ephenos wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Beekeeper Bob wrote:I can fly thru low-sec risk free in a pod, or cloaky. Perhaps we should do away with warp to 0 and cloaks? Traveling gate-to-gate in a pod is an easy way to die... one Disko ship and you're going to wake up in a clone facility. It's not risk free. As for cloaks.... Cloakers mitigate most risks to their ships with cloaks, and I think cyno's should mitigate most risks by traveling from point A to Point Z bypassing the risks in between. At the same point in time, a cloaker is still at risk of getting decloaked, it can be caught in bubbles, and it can't cloak next to a station, and traveling in a cloak ship is far from risk free. I think a small nerf to cyno's can have the same effect.... Just prevent cynoing a ship within dock range of a station, and suddenly there is a reasonable risk to cyno travel.... How far away would we be talking here? 1km 5? 10? Would be ok with carriers, they can likely survive long enough to call help. But JF logistics would be extremely risky, I'd suicide an entire 20 man bomber gang onto a JF in order to kill it, wouldn't you? 20 bombers can nuke even a high skilled JF in less time than it takes to scream in coms or chat and have people undock. and even then they can likely kill it before they all die, any decent bomber pilot will do 500+ dps overheated, and why not heat if your suiciding? Just don't think cynoing far off stations is the way to go. (Just remove cynos from the game and have all caps jump within 1-2 AU of star and Super Caps 10-20 AU of star.) Now this guys one is interesting. Potentially viable unless on jumping in some "Here I am" beacon was created. That would completely kill nullsec travel. couple of titans, some SC's, and a few cynoalt could interdict all travel in jump range.
I was thinking 5-10 km's.... and lets be frank... peopel would NOT cyno in a JF 5 km's off a station... they would start cynoing them in a safe spot and web-to-warp them to a station, or they would cyno them in under the protection of a POS (although POS protection is not all that good). They would still be able to mitigate most risks, but they WOULD have risk... Pos protection is not impenetrable, safe spots can be busted, bubbles can be used to trap ships warping to any destination in nullsec... I'm not trying to make cyno logistics impossible or unreasonable risky, but I firmly believe there should be SOME risk!!! |
|
Qolde
Bombs Away. Nulli Tertius
52
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:59:00 -
[21] - Quote
Even if it were changed, it would just change how caps are flown. The people always find a way. Instead of cynoing right on the station, people would just have to find empty systems (not hard) and cyno to safes, kill the cyno ship, jettison a new one from the SMB, warp to a non cyno tainted safe, and cloak up. The amount of damage needed to kill a carrier from the 30 second session timer days was similar to the amount of time it would take to kill your own cyno in a safe spot and warp to another safe to cloak. Sure, you'd have to have more bookmarks and it would take a little more time. But it wouldn't get anymore caps killed.
[Nidhoggur, Safety First] Inertia Stabilizers II Inertia Stabilizers II Inertia Stabilizers II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II
Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script Target Painter II Target Painter II
Improved Cloaking Device II Drone Control Unit I Drone Control Unit I Drone Control Unit I Drone Control Unit I
Large Targeting Systems Stabilizer II Large Targeting Systems Stabilizer II Large Targeting Systems Stabilizer II
Garde II x13
If someone craps in your sandbox: 1. Light it on fire 2. Grab your shovel 3. Throw it back at them. |
Lady Ayeipsia
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
257
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:59:00 -
[22] - Quote
Claim sov, put up a cyno jammers, problem solved. Or... Lure the offending ship into a hotdrop ambush. Eve is hatd, thete should be no easy carrier killmail I win botton. Figure out a way or find other targets. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
378
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 18:01:00 -
[23] - Quote
Beekeeper Bob wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Beekeeper Bob wrote:I can fly thru low-sec risk free in a pod, or cloaky. Perhaps we should do away with warp to 0 and cloaks? Traveling gate-to-gate in a pod is an easy way to die... one Disko ship and you're going to wake up in a clone facility. It's not risk free. As for cloaks.... Cloakers mitigate most risks to their ships with cloaks, and I think cyno's should mitigate most risks by traveling from point A to Point Z bypassing the risks in between. At the same point in time, a cloaker is still at risk of getting decloaked, it can be caught in bubbles, and it can't cloak next to a station, and traveling in a cloak ship is far from risk free. I think a small nerf to cyno's can have the same effect.... Just prevent cynoing a ship within dock range of a station, and suddenly there is a reasonable risk to cyno travel.... Caught in bubbles in low-sec? And lol at your transparent attempt to justify this. Face it, you aren't capable of PvP, or you wouldn't be worried about getting enough carrrier kills....
Forgive me, I'm a PvP Noob!!!. WHen you boast a better PvP record than I, you're transparent troll jabs might bring a tear to my eye....
My point was warping in a POD has risks, and using a cloak to travel, even in lowsec, has risks. They are what I'd deam reasonable risks. And I think cyno travel should also have reasonable risks... |
Ephenos
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 18:06:00 -
[24] - Quote
Lady Ayeipsia wrote:Claim sov, put up a cyno jammers, problem solved. Or... Lure the offending ship into a hotdrop ambush. Eve is hatd, thete should be no easy carrier killmail I win botton. Figure out a way or find other targets.
What...exactly is this supposed to solve?
Hey, Cynojammer is up, now nobody can hotdrop me when I cyno in...ah wait a minute.
Now I can't cyno in either. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
378
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 18:07:00 -
[25] - Quote
Qolde wrote:Even if it were changed, it would just change how caps are flown. The people always find a way. Instead of cynoing right on the station, people would just have to find empty systems (not hard) and cyno to safes, kill the cyno ship, jettison a new one from the SMB, warp to a non cyno tainted safe, and cloak up. The amount of damage needed to kill a carrier from the 30 second session timer days was similar to the amount of time it would take to kill your own cyno in a safe spot and warp to another safe to cloak. Sure, you'd have to have more bookmarks and it would take a little more time. But it wouldn't get anymore caps killed.
[Nidhoggur, Safety First] Inertia Stabilizers II Inertia Stabilizers II Inertia Stabilizers II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II
Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script Target Painter II Target Painter II
Improved Cloaking Device II Drone Control Unit I Drone Control Unit I Drone Control Unit I Drone Control Unit I
Large Targeting Systems Stabilizer II Large Targeting Systems Stabilizer II Large Targeting Systems Stabilizer II
Garde II x13
I would approach it a littel differently to keep my capitals safe, but that's besides the point. The point is, suddenly you actually have to think about the risks to your cynoing ship, as they can't travel risk free anymore.... I don't want to prevent people from being able to mitigate the risks of cyno travel, I jsut want there to be risks that should be mitigated!!!! |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
378
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 18:13:00 -
[26] - Quote
Lady Ayeipsia wrote:Claim sov, put up a cyno jammers, problem solved. Or... Lure the offending ship into a hotdrop ambush. Eve is hatd, thete should be no easy carrier killmail I win botton. Figure out a way or find other targets.
Your post makes little to no sense....
If you cyno jam a system, you can't cyno in any ships.... Also, I'm not asking for easy carrier killmails... . I didn't say you can only cyno in at some unprotected, predetermined, easy-to-camp location. I'm asking for there to actually be a risk to cyno travel!!!
I also understand why peopel don't want to have risk associated with moving their expensive capital ships.... but really, why should cyno travel be riskless? Travel fit a carrier, combat fit a carrier, logistics fit a carrier.... these choices are irrelevent when moving a capital in today's eve because when cynoing from station to station, there are NO pragmatic risks....
|
Qolde
Bombs Away. Nulli Tertius
53
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 18:16:00 -
[27] - Quote
I'll have to admit, in lowsec it is kind of easy. I remember being wardecced by a triboxer who sat on our station with 2 carriers and a vulture. This was in the 30 second timer days, and it was annoying that he always had enough time to deaggress and dock let alone wait out a 30 second session timer. Mass based aggression timers would be nice for use against those who use crappy dock mechanics during a battle they volunteered for. Making it too easy to kill travelling carriers would be lame. If someone craps in your sandbox: 1. Light it on fire 2. Grab your shovel 3. Throw it back at them. |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub Like I Give A F--K
1363
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 18:23:00 -
[28] - Quote
Qolde wrote:I'll have to admit, in lowsec it is kind of easy. I remember being wardecced by a triboxer who sat on our station with 2 carriers and a vulture. This was in the 30 second timer days, and it was annoying that he always had enough time to deaggress and dock let alone wait out a 30 second session timer. Mass based aggression timers would be nice for use against those who use crappy dock mechanics during a battle they volunteered for. Making it too easy to kill travelling carriers would be lame. Won't somebody think of the poor jump freighters?
No but seriously, nice post. I wouldn't be opposed to blocking cynos on station if there were variable aggression timers, because it would give you time to hot drop off grid then warp in and kill the carriers.
Although I'd still just fit nothing but webs on my cyno alts' ships, and probably buy nomads for my jf alt too. Jump in, triple web and warp. Dunno what the align time is with nomads and three webs, but I doubt it would be very long.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
378
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 18:26:00 -
[29] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote: I'm still not sold on blocking cynos on station though, I like hot dropping idiots who aggress in carriers on the undock too much. Maybe if it came along side a change to aggression timers based on mass.
I also think it would just result in people finding empty systems to cyno in to, or setting up a POS in every system along route.
*EDIT: I forgot to add, you claim friendly station to friendly station. Outside of sov null sec current mechanics make it trivial to cyno right into hostile stations without risk. Or travel right through the most heavily camped places in the game without breaking up the camp.
I don't want to remove hotdropping idiot carrier pilots that agress on the undock.... I would just prevent the hotdropped ships from landing at zero on the station.... I know dock ranges for capitals are now HUGE, and I would hope, in practice, a cyno alteration would result in the hotdrop landing ~5km's from the station docking perimeter, which hopefully is no farther than 20-30 km's from the idiotic carrier pilot.... In short, I certainly don't want to remove the risks to people agressing on station (nor prevent it)....
Imagine the added risks to the hotdroppers if they bring in capital ships outside of dock range... It could escalate quite nicely!!!
|
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
178
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 18:37:00 -
[30] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:hm.... some time ago someone said "suiciding hulks in empire and loosing ship to concord is a risk". What is the difference?
its not, its a business expense. If you had a chance to escape there would be risk as youd have a chance to lose it, not a certainty of losing it.
risk noun 1. exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance:
If theres is no CHANCE there is no RISK
http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |