| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
GOd''of''CHi
   |
Posted - 2010.03.17 14:56:00 -
[1]
Edited by: GOd''''of''''CHi on 17/03/2010 15:03:22
Edited by: GOd''''of''''CHi on 17/03/2010 15:00:31
I firmly believe that change is needed for the vast majority of high sec players that may be relient on concord & Faction police. Events of actual negative 10 players being able to kill players in high sec for example Jita bombing, this is unacceptble there should be measures of improvement like all FOF missiles should inflict no damage to other players furthermore showing that eve cannot be to easily exploited. My soloution is simple if you have started a rule of authority that is going ignored create a new one that cannot be ignored. Here is my soloution when a character who is not ment to be able to even access it never mind kill you simply make a rule that is all negative characters weapons will simple be disabled whilst in high sec and only if you target another player,this rule can apply to everyone in highy sec too, and if they try to fire at you nothing will happen and the concord or faction police will slowly destroy you aswell as your insurance as that too will be destroyed simple rules that brings order and ballance if you want to kill go to low sec.
|
James Tritanius
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 15:05:00 -
[2]
This depends solely on whether or not the devs deem -10 highsec suiciding as an intended game feature or not.
|
DuKackBoon
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 15:10:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: GOd''of''CHi
*cries*I got roflpwnd in highsec*cries*
No. Lol. EVE is not safe, deal with it or GBTWOW.
|
bassman234
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 15:16:00 -
[4]
This isn't a terrible idea. Voiding insurance for suicide ganks would make suicide ganks less common and would actually add some "thinking" to the whole thing. for instance, using a 1 fit bs for suicide ganking works, because you get your moneys worth if the drop is more than 10million. but voiding the insurance will mean that only higher value haulers will be targetted. which would make high sec have a little bit more security.
|
GOd''of''CHi
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 15:17:00 -
[5]
No i have never been a victim i know people who have and therefor have lost alot of stuff and im just giving my opinion of how if high sec is ment to be protected by concord i believe measures should be taken to improve the game
|
DuKackBoon
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 15:32:00 -
[6]
Originally by: GOd''of''CHi
high sec is ment to be protected by concord
It is NOT ment to be protected.
|
GOd''of''CHi
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 15:42:00 -
[7]
Well thats why the idea is disable the weapons when another player is targeted which then allows the concord or faction police to protect AND punish
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 15:57:00 -
[8]
Originally by: GOd''of''CHi
allows the concord or faction police to punish
they dont protect you, they just punish "misbehavior".
nothing to be fixed here.
|
Duchess Starbuckington
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 16:53:00 -
[9]
Originally by: darius mclever
Originally by: GOd''of''CHi
allows the concord or faction police to punish
they dont protect you, they just punish "misbehavior".
nothing to be fixed here.
^ This.
"Safer" does not mean "safe". Deal with it.
_________________________________
Originally by: Dodgy Past
Can't see the Caldari approving of free love though.
|
GOd''of''CHi
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 17:01:00 -
[10]
The point that even voiding the ensurance is a change 4 the better only if they kill another person in high sec like Jita this will imply more on the side of high sec being safer for new players and general trading or mission runners
|
|
|
ThatCrazyAltTwo
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 17:26:00 -
[11]
Edited by: ThatCrazyAltTwo on 17/03/2010 17:28:05
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 17:29:00 -
[12]
Originally by: GOd''of''CHi
The point that even voiding the ensurance is a change 4 the better only if they kill another person in high sec like Jita this will imply more on the side of high sec being safer for new players and general trading or mission runners
for smart people highsec, lowsec and 0.0 are reasonably safe. the rest dies. no matter where.
|
Triple Magpie
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 17:31:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Triple Magpie on 17/03/2010 17:31:20
I am backing up your ideas Chi as i believe they should imply more rules to deal with these pirets and doing any thing on what you have said will make a bigger change for the better
|
Izztyrr Maemtor
Caldari
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 17:45:00 -
[14]
Originally by: darius mclever
for smart people highsec, lowsec and 0.0 are reasonably safe. the rest dies. no matter where.
DING!
/thread
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Scout Trelan
Amarr
Retribution. Inc.
Looney Toons.
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 17:53:00 -
[15]
Eve is a cruel universe and nowhere you are 100% safe. Get use to it, or keep on dying. Pretty simple.
Scout Trelan
Retribution. Inc.
|
ThatCrazyAltTwo
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 18:05:00 -
[16]
Well why arent negative tens allowed in high sec because eve wanted high sec safer and now if negative tens are able to kill people there, change should be put into action or not bother even having a high sec and theres allways room 4 improvements
|
Triple Magpie
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 18:54:00 -
[17]
Well why arent negative tens allowed in high sec because eve wanted high sec safer and now if negative tens are able to kill people there, change should be put into action or not bother even having a high sec and theres allways room 4 improvements
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 19:01:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Triple Magpie
Well why arent negative tens allowed in high sec because eve wanted high sec safer and now if negative tens are able to kill people there, change should be put into action or not bother even having a high sec and theres allways room 4 improvements
the effort for -10 folks, who kill people in highsec, isnt small. and highsec is supposed to be safer but not safe. it is just one letter, but the difference is huge.
room for improvement ... hmm ... yes you definitely can improve your skills at surviving.
|
Triple Magpie
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 19:23:00 -
[19]
Survive im a 35million skill character and i used SAFER not safe and improvement is just looking at some OPINIONS chi has given which i agree with and dissagree with your thnking
|
OOBI 00
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 21:45:00 -
[20]
Your suggestion is irrational, you seem to be posting this out of frustration. The game is acting as it is expected to. These are all mechanics of the game and are functioning properly. Let me illuminate some points of interest so you can reevaluate your opinion.
-FOF missiles target the closest hostiles to you, acceptable.
-There are penalties for engaging in combat that is unwarranted, acceptable.
-There are penalties for trespassing in quarantined areas, acceptable.
-Characters be denied access to any part of the game because it upsets others, unacceptable
-Characters be penalized on their fittings that they have trained for, unacceptable
-Using a feature to affect a character whilst there is no natural module to do that in the game, unacceptable.
-Negating damage completely to and from players, unacceptable.
You are simply upset about features that were intended to happen in the game. That being said, you should take precautions to avoid such problems. Some of the following may be options:
-DonĘt step away from your computer when you are at risk.
-Add additional defenses to your ship incase of such actions taken against you.
-Request for help or have help near or on stand by.
There is a balance in the game as it standsą that balance is not shifting or changing in any way, you simply were not in the favorable outcome of the event. My apologies, but in this game, your ship and pod are not safe unless inside a station. Insure them, update your clone, and fit it appropriatelyą that is my advise to you.
|
|
|
GOd''of''CHi
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:16:00 -
[21]
Theres been changes in the past that players could do certain things so like you said it is acceptble however you changed them anyways for example the reason why capatals arent allowed in high sec or the fact how cargo cans arnt allowed to be spread all over the jump gate and have massive camps whilst doing that, i have given my views fair enough so if change isnt optional others will have to make unnecessary sacrifices but ALOT of people realy would like to see pirets insurance being voided if they kill in high sec 
|
Grarr Dexx
Amarr
GK inc.
Panda Team
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 23:08:00 -
[22]
Jeez man your posts are a pain in the ass to read.
___
|
Monda Hatake
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 02:39:00 -
[23]
my thinking is that a RL insurance compony would not keep backing a customer that crashes a car everyday. for high sec your insurance premium should rise with incresing clames. this wont kill off ganking nor should it, but will make them target only the most profitable.
|
Metalcali
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 06:04:00 -
[24]
"From a thread similar to this, my reply"
You can attack anyone anywhere for any reason, even no reason at all. Two quotes from the same thread show CCP Zymurgist supporting pvp in any form, and here is a quote from the meeting between CSM and CCP in Iceland.
Located on page 15
Quote:
The CSM brought up the issue of suicide ganking and feels it is too easy. The main problem is that this is in effect subsidized by insurance. CCP is aware of the issue and has discussed it at great length in-house. CCP feels it absolutely needs to compensate newbies that attack players by mistake in high-sec. This may get changed in the future but not in the summer expansion. It was made clear that suicide ganking is an accepted game mechanic.
Thread
Originally by: CCP Zymurgist
I'd like to stop by and remind everyone that Macroing is not allowed. Doing so risks your account. 
Please continue to file petitions against these people, as well as doing what C&P is great for... Blowing them up! Heck pod everyone you pirates, Get off the forums and go kill someone!
Originally by: CCP Zymurgist
You have always had permission to kill anyone in game you see fit to lose a ship!
---
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
Locked.
OP does not contain an idea.
|
Irn Bruce
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 17:33:00 -
[25]
Let's think logically. There are 11 steps on the security status scale, from 0.0 to 1.0. Everything 0.5 and higher is highsec. Surely there must be a reason why there are 6 different types of highsec? Sure, there are different levels where you can't anchor stuff, but there aren't 6 variations in that. The only thing that consistently varies across all 6 bands is the punishment for shooting at stuff you're not allowed to shoot at. The higher the sec, the quicker concord respond, and the more sec you lose. The very fact this mechanic exists is proof that suicide ganking is an intended part of the game. Therefore, it must remain possible.
As for voiding insurance payouts, suggest that to all the carebears who self destruct their ships every time the insurance is about to run out so they don't lose isk when they re-insure it. Surely going by the argument that "a RL insurance company wouldn't payout for this", that would be the same situation?
Besides, Eve is a PvP game. Everything you do in game is intended to derive enjoyment at the expense of others. Whether that's by mining out a belt (which therefore means someone else can't), by making a profit on the market (therefore costing someone else isk), or by blowing someone else up. Perhaps you enjoy it because you make isk from it, or perhaps you just enjoy to hear them cry. Personally, I reckon threads like these are just music to the gankers' ears  |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |