Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1373
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:15:00 -
[31] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:It's nice to have a straight up admission that you are literally trying to discourage highsec PVP.
Can you explain exactly what you mean by "highsec PVP" in this context?
|
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
733
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:16:00 -
[32] - Quote
You know, shooting at people in highsec. In this context specifically when the people being shot at aren't at war with you. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1342
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:20:00 -
[33] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:yeah cause this game totally ISNT about having consequences for your actions. AT ALL. Amirite?
So why do you want to shoot suspect-flagged characters without consequences? a rogue goon |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
412
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:33:00 -
[34] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:As to "invicible logis", in the current design yes, that is the case
Great plan. Really, wonderful idea to have ships taking part in a fight without the other participants being able to legally shoot them. That's not going to get abused at all. -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
145
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:34:00 -
[35] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Having a global "vigilante" flag doesn't seem like a good option to us, because it allows you to then undock your thirty suspect-flagged associates and gank them, which is not the effect we're looking for here, and allowing transitive individual kill rights takes us back to square one.
Yet in the currently-proposed system, anyone can shoot suspects. You're already creating a mechanic where a suspect is on his own with individual aggression. This allows someone to undock thirty of their associates and gank the suspect and any other suspects nearby. In fact, if there were 30 suspects on the undock, you could undock 30 of your friends, shoot one, and the others couldn't help. 29 other suspects would sit idly as they watched your blob kill their friend.
You need to create a system where those with suspect flags can all shoot the same targets and help each other out. If you engage a suspect, all suspects should be allowed to engage you. Simply sort people into 'teams'. No need for transitive individual kill rights there. Anyone who is a suspect can shoot anyone who is a vigilante.
It's - surprise - a risk. When you sit on an undock as a suspect in the proposed system, you are going to get blobbed. Likewise, if you sit flagged as a vigilante, there's a good chance some suspects are going to roll over you. That encourages people to group up and look out for each other, creating a system where random people are fighting alongside each other in a very emergent way.
I guess I don't see why you're opposed to a vigilante flag. The ganking is going to happen one way (Neutrals blapping suspects), but I see no reason to deny suspects the opportunity to do the same in return. Trying to shoot someone who is a suspect (hint: criminal/dangerous individual) shouldn't carry the risk of having the suspect's friends show up and strong-arm you.
In fact, a Vigilante/Suspect system not only fixes some of the current issues with the aggression system, it also creates an ENTIRE NEW PLAYSTYLE for people. There would be corps of people who are constantly vigilantes, and corps who are constantly suspects. They would brawl it out all the time. Perhaps, once you get such a system worked out and implemented, you could add incentives for being suspects and vigilantes. Vigilantes gain concord standing and rewards, and Suspects gain pirate faction standing/rewards, perhaps? There's a lot that can come out of such a system besides being a blanket-fix for your problems.
It's like you're looking to make a system where shooting suspects is a fish in a barrel or some other analogy involving a Japanese word spelled with some of the same letters as bucket |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1343
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:37:00 -
[36] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Having a global "vigilante" flag doesn't seem like a good option to us, because it allows you to then undock your thirty suspect-flagged associates and gank them, which is not the effect we're looking for here.
But on the other hand, you're looking to allow players to participate in a fight in a very meaningful way without risk or consequence. That's great! a rogue goon |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
145
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:41:00 -
[37] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Having a global "vigilante" flag doesn't seem like a good option to us, because it allows you to then undock your thirty suspect-flagged associates and gank them, which is not the effect we're looking for here. But on the other hand, you're looking to allow players to participate in a fight in a very meaningful way without risk or consequence. That's great!
Yeah what they're really looking for is a system where people can undock their neutral characters and gank a suspect-flagged character without any other suspects being able to help out their bros. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1919
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:49:00 -
[38] - Quote
The proposed crimewatch feels a lot less like iteration, and a lot more like a total rewrite. It's a shame they won't JUST fix the ability of logis to jump/dock with aggression, and THEN reconsider the whole aggression mechanic (which can be tweaked before being completely thrown out). The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:49:00 -
[39] - Quote
I mean realy
why shouldnt every faction fit battleship pilot in anymajor lv4 hub every have to risk loseing it anyways
It a great idea to have them just call in all of local to save there butt becasue thay made a ******** misstake with there billions of isk faction battleship
but hey its not there falt thay opend fire on a merlin and the merlin won was it
At not point was there anyway for them to know in there time playing eve online that mabye just mabye shooting at the guy stealing from your wrecks was a bad idea
its kinda like a jump bridge in null suck whan the titan jumps itself insteed of the fleet its deffently not the titans ******** action that was the problem
|
Jonas Xiamon
83
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:55:00 -
[40] - Quote
Grinder2210 wrote:I mean realy
why shouldnt every faction fit battleship pilot in anymajor lv4 hub every have to risk loseing it anyways
It a great idea to have them just call in all of local to save there butt becasue thay made a idiotic misstake with there billions of isk faction battleship
but hey its not there failt thay opend fire on a merlin and the merlin won was it
At no point was there anyway for them to know in there time playing eve online that mabye just mabye shooting at the guy stealing from your wrecks was a bad idea
its kinda like a jump bridge in null suck whan the titan jumps itself insteed of the fleet its deffently not the titans idiotic action that was the problem
You're dumb, concord will kill them. I usally write one of these and then change it a month later when I reread it and decide it sounds stupid. |
|
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
6
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:57:00 -
[41] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:It's nice to have a straight up admission that you are literally trying to discourage highsec PVP. Can you explain exactly what you mean by "highsec PVP" in this context?
I'm a bit new here, but since noone else is answering your question I will chime in.
I believe what people are refering to as "highsec PVP" is the practive known as "can flipping" in which a player steals another players cargo and hopes they are ignorant in the rule mechancis and fire back so the "can flipper" can enact revenge and blow up the offending player.
I believe this to be different than old fashioned "ore thievery" in which the suspect is actually trying to get away with the ore and not nessessarily blow up the other player's ship.
I could be wrong, but I believe that is what is being refered to as "highsec PVP". |
Jonas Xiamon
83
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:02:00 -
[42] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:It's nice to have a straight up admission that you are literally trying to discourage highsec PVP. Can you explain exactly what you mean by "highsec PVP" in this context? I'm a bit new here, but since noone else is answering your question I will chime in. I believe what people are refering to as "highsec PVP" is the practive known as "can flipping" in which a player steals another players cargo and hopes they are ignorant in the rule mechancis and fire back so the "can flipper" can enact revenge and blow up the offending player. I believe this to be different than old fashioned "ore thievery" in which the suspect is actually trying to get away with the ore and not nessessarily blow up the other player's ship. I could be wrong, but I believe that is what is being refered to as "highsec PVP".
Pretty much, though not exclusively. I usally write one of these and then change it a month later when I reread it and decide it sounds stupid. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
801
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:16:00 -
[43] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Having a global "vigilante" flag doesn't seem like a good option to us, because it allows you to then undock your thirty suspect-flagged associates and gank them, which is not the effect we're looking for here, and allowing transitive individual kill rights takes us back to square one.
As to "invicible logis", in the current design yes, that is the case, but only in the scenario where you've already done something to become a suspect. There's a point at which we have to say "look, you've done something 'illegal', this fight isn't going to be fair, sorry" if we want to avoid the complexity of the current system.
With the things that will get you into this state in the first place (such as neutrals repping war targets), we're deliberately giving you the ability to do the "bad thing" and take a hit for it rather than simply mechanically banning it, because that's the way we like to do things round here. There does however come a point where we're bending so far over backwards to make the consequences of doing the "bad thing" fair that we have to either stand up or fall over, and in these cases we're currently leaning towards saying "if you don't enjoy it, maybe you should consider not getting into that situation so often in the first place".
so. if you bring a cloaked logi into a lvl4 mission you are basically immune against ninja salvagers. If they become suspect you shoot them. If they come back with a pvp ship you decloak the invincible logistic ship. Or did i miss something?
(i don't say thats good or bad, just try to understand the new system)
a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
197
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:16:00 -
[44] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
It wouldn't really be a huge issue if it was just going to be the case that everyone can shoot you, but you can shoot back just like normal and if you bring logi they can shoot your logi, but if they bring logi you can shoot it too
Why the hell arent we doing this? This sounds great
Like an ever expanding mini war
That sounds like itd be fun... cause you could recruit military types into it... you know, warriors for hire... oh crap theres a word for them... http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
146
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:18:00 -
[45] - Quote
Bienator II wrote: (i don't say thats good or bad, just try to understand the new system)
That's bad |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
146
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:20:00 -
[46] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:
It wouldn't really be a huge issue if it was just going to be the case that everyone can shoot you, but you can shoot back just like normal and if you bring logi they can shoot your logi, but if they bring logi you can shoot it too
Why the hell arent we doing this? This sounds great Like an ever expanding mini war That sounds like itd be fun... cause you could recruit military types into it... you know, warriors for hire... oh crap theres a word for them...
Hi just make suspects and vigilantes. If you assist either, you are flagged that way. No need for checking individual aggro between players. Any suspect can shoot any vigilante. No individual kill rights at all. SUPER. *******. SIMPLE. |
Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:21:00 -
[47] - Quote
[/quote]
I'm a bit new here, but since noone else is answering your question I will chime in.
I believe what people are refering to as "highsec PVP" is the practive known as "can flipping" in which a player steals another players cargo and hopes they are ignorant in the rule mechancis and fire back so the "can flipper" can enact revenge and blow up the offending player.
I believe this to be different than old fashioned "ore thievery" in which the suspect is actually trying to get away with the ore and not nessessarily blow up the other player's ship.
I could be wrong, but I believe that is what is being refered to as "highsec PVP".[/quote]
There are 4 types of pvp in highsec as i currently stands
1 wardecs 2 sucide ganking 3 Can baiting / fliping 4 Corp pvp |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1489
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:21:00 -
[48] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:It's nice to have a straight up admission that you are literally trying to discourage highsec PVP. Can you explain exactly what you mean by "highsec PVP" in this context? I am guessing that Vimsy is concerned that you are artificially stacking fights against those that gain a suspect flag, probably resulting in no one ever voluntarily gaining a suspect flag in a real ship. I say real, because im sure people will still ninja loot in t1 frigates and whatnot.
This wouldn't be such a bad thing if wars were a viable alternate source of PvP, but in their current state they are a bit of a joke. Almost everything in high sec can be done via NPC alts with no detrimental effect, and war dec evasion via corp hopping is trivial.
On top of that you're also finally deciding to give the miners ships that can't be suicide ganked, whilst screwing up can flipping and still not doing anything to discourage NPC corp mining/hauling etc.
Oh, and still no logi adopting aggression timers? I thought that was supposed to be coming aaaaaages ago?
"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 |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
197
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:22:00 -
[49] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Having a global "vigilante" flag doesn't seem like a good option to us, because it allows you to then undock your thirty suspect-flagged associates and gank them, which is not the effect we're looking for here, and allowing transitive individual kill rights takes us back to square one.
As to "invicible logis", in the current design yes, that is the case, but only in the scenario where you've already done something to become a suspect. There's a point at which we have to say "look, you've done something 'illegal', this fight isn't going to be fair, sorry" if we want to avoid the complexity of the current system.
With the things that will get you into this state in the first place (such as neutrals repping war targets), we're deliberately giving you the ability to do the "bad thing" and take a hit for it rather than simply mechanically banning it, because that's the way we like to do things round here. There does however come a point where we're bending so far over backwards to make the consequences of doing the "bad thing" fair that we have to either stand up or fall over, and in these cases we're currently leaning towards saying "if you don't enjoy it, maybe you should consider not getting into that situation so often in the first place".
Id like to see it where the neutral repper becomes free to kill for involving themself in the fight LIKE IN EVERY OTHER MMO
(that I know of anyways)
Take WoW (ugh first thing I thought of off the top of my head) you see a fight (on a non PVP server and/or in your faction held area - then again this is several tears ago, may be different now), youre a healer, the guy getting his ass handed to him is a friend, so you start throwing heals on him. THAT PVP FLAGS YOU
It SHOULD here too.
Given the cold, harsh universe idea lol
Or would that make it too "fair"? http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
6
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:24:00 -
[50] - Quote
Grinder2210 wrote: There are 4 types of pvp in highsec as i currently stands
1 wardecs 2 sucide ganking 3 Can baiting / fliping 4 Corp pvp
That is my understanding. And since the suspect flag only appies to option number 3 then I would assume that it the "highsec PVP" that is being refered to. |
|
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
197
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:25:00 -
[51] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:It's nice to have a straight up admission that you are literally trying to discourage highsec PVP. Can you explain exactly what you mean by "highsec PVP" in this context? I'm a bit new here, but since noone else is answering your question I will chime in. I believe what people are refering to as "highsec PVP" is the practive known as "can flipping" in which a player steals another players cargo and hopes they are ignorant in the rule mechancis and fire back so the "can flipper" can enact revenge and blow up the offending player. I believe this to be different than old fashioned "ore thievery" in which the suspect is actually trying to get away with the ore and not nessessarily blow up the other player's ship. I could be wrong, but I believe that is what is being refered to as "highsec PVP".
Yes, and when you try to discourage this, it makes you evil, but it also promotes consequences for the ppl that do it (something that doesnt really exist now) and all this screaming about how THEY CANT DO THAT and ITLL KILL HIGHSEC PVP is funny when these are the same ppl who scream that EVE is a harsh game and EVE isnt fair and how there should be consequences for you actions and I fing that just ******* funny
Jason Xado wrote:Grinder2210 wrote: There are 4 types of pvp in highsec as i currently stands
1 wardecs 2 sucide ganking 3 Can baiting / fliping 4 Corp pvp
That is my understanding. And since the suspect flag only appies to option number 3 then I would assume that it the "highsec PVP" that is being refered to.
As Ive SEEN devs say in blogs/posts that EVERYTHING IN THIS GAME is PVP But I think its damn funny DAMN FUNNY That the players try to argue that they know more about the direction of the game than the ppl developing the game lol (its already been proven the players know how to GAME the rules better lol) http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:25:00 -
[52] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Having a global "vigilante" flag doesn't seem like a good option to us, because it allows you to then undock your thirty suspect-flagged associates and gank them, which is not the effect we're looking for here, and allowing transitive individual kill rights takes us back to square one.
As to "invicible logis", in the current design yes, that is the case, but only in the scenario where you've already done something to become a suspect. There's a point at which we have to say "look, you've done something 'illegal', this fight isn't going to be fair, sorry" if we want to avoid the complexity of the current system.
With the things that will get you into this state in the first place (such as neutrals repping war targets), we're deliberately giving you the ability to do the "bad thing" and take a hit for it rather than simply mechanically banning it, because that's the way we like to do things round here. There does however come a point where we're bending so far over backwards to make the consequences of doing the "bad thing" fair that we have to either stand up or fall over, and in these cases we're currently leaning towards saying "if you don't enjoy it, maybe you should consider not getting into that situation so often in the first place". Id like to see it where the neutral repper becomes free to kill for involving themself in the fight LIKE IN EVERY OTHER MMO (that I know of anyways) Take WoW (ugh first thing I thought of off the top of my head) you see a fight (on a non PVP server and/or in your faction held area - then again this is several tears ago, may be different now), youre a healer, the guy getting his ass handed to him is a friend, so you start throwing heals on him. THAT PVP FLAGS YOU It SHOULD here too. Given the cold, harsh universe idea lol Or would that make it too "fair"?
it is here logi currently gains any and all agression applyed to the person he / she is repping |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
412
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:27:00 -
[53] - Quote
Grinder2210 wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Having a global "vigilante" flag doesn't seem like a good option to us, because it allows you to then undock your thirty suspect-flagged associates and gank them, which is not the effect we're looking for here, and allowing transitive individual kill rights takes us back to square one.
As to "invicible logis", in the current design yes, that is the case, but only in the scenario where you've already done something to become a suspect. There's a point at which we have to say "look, you've done something 'illegal', this fight isn't going to be fair, sorry" if we want to avoid the complexity of the current system.
With the things that will get you into this state in the first place (such as neutrals repping war targets), we're deliberately giving you the ability to do the "bad thing" and take a hit for it rather than simply mechanically banning it, because that's the way we like to do things round here. There does however come a point where we're bending so far over backwards to make the consequences of doing the "bad thing" fair that we have to either stand up or fall over, and in these cases we're currently leaning towards saying "if you don't enjoy it, maybe you should consider not getting into that situation so often in the first place". Id like to see it where the neutral repper becomes free to kill for involving themself in the fight LIKE IN EVERY OTHER MMO (that I know of anyways) Take WoW (ugh first thing I thought of off the top of my head) you see a fight (on a non PVP server and/or in your faction held area - then again this is several tears ago, may be different now), youre a healer, the guy getting his ass handed to him is a friend, so you start throwing heals on him. THAT PVP FLAGS YOU It SHOULD here too. Given the cold, harsh universe idea lol Or would that make it too "fair"? it is here logi currently gains any and all agression applyed to the person her / she is repping
Read CCP Greyscale's post, right up there. Where it says they're currently planning to change that, creating invincible logis. -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:27:00 -
[54] - Quote
Grinder2210 wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Having a global "vigilante" flag doesn't seem like a good option to us, because it allows you to then undock your thirty suspect-flagged associates and gank them, which is not the effect we're looking for here, and allowing transitive individual kill rights takes us back to square one.
As to "invicible logis", in the current design yes, that is the case, but only in the scenario where you've already done something to become a suspect. There's a point at which we have to say "look, you've done something 'illegal', this fight isn't going to be fair, sorry" if we want to avoid the complexity of the current system.
With the things that will get you into this state in the first place (such as neutrals repping war targets), we're deliberately giving you the ability to do the "bad thing" and take a hit for it rather than simply mechanically banning it, because that's the way we like to do things round here. There does however come a point where we're bending so far over backwards to make the consequences of doing the "bad thing" fair that we have to either stand up or fall over, and in these cases we're currently leaning towards saying "if you don't enjoy it, maybe you should consider not getting into that situation so often in the first place". Id like to see it where the neutral repper becomes free to kill for involving themself in the fight LIKE IN EVERY OTHER MMO (that I know of anyways) Take WoW (ugh first thing I thought of off the top of my head) you see a fight (on a non PVP server and/or in your faction held area - then again this is several tears ago, may be different now), youre a healer, the guy getting his ass handed to him is a friend, so you start throwing heals on him. THAT PVP FLAGS YOU It SHOULD here too. Given the cold, harsh universe idea lol Or would that make it too "fair"? it is here logi currently gains any and all agression applyed to the person he / she is repping
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1343
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:31:00 -
[55] - Quote
"if you rep something aggressed to another thing, the other thing should be able to shoot you"
Why do you disagree with this, Greyscale? a rogue goon |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
733
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:32:00 -
[56] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:Grinder2210 wrote: There are 4 types of pvp in highsec as i currently stands
1 wardecs 2 sucide ganking 3 Can baiting / fliping 4 Corp pvp
That is my understanding. And since the suspect flag only applies to option number 3 then I would assume that it the "highsec PVP" that is being refered to. Grinder also missed ninja salvaging as well as intentionally putting out "fight" cans to cause engagements of varying scales. Can flipping, remote repping for aggro, can baiting and "fight" cans can all be put under the general label of "Intentionally gaining an aggression countdown so that an individual or members of a corporation or alliance can shoot you". |
Gatosai
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:33:00 -
[57] - Quote
Am i the only one here that sees this as a direct attack to what people love about this game in the first place? That the players words count and that our opinions matter? Just seems to me that this is one really intricate game of Russian roulette with eve online looking down the barrel. you kill highsec pvp you kill yet another role to play in this game and thus in turn you kill a community of players love for the game. IGÇÖm not trying to point my finger at anyone and question their intelligence but really this doesnGÇÖt seem like a bad idea to ccp? |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
197
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:40:00 -
[58] - Quote
Grinder2210 wrote:
it is here logi currently gains any and all agression applyed to the person he / she is repping
yes, read the thread tho; CCP dude is saying this is changing
The quote I QUOTED that YOU QUOTED when you included what I said said as much http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
EpicFailTroll
Hedion University Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:40:00 -
[59] - Quote
I for one endorse this meta griefing of highsec griefers |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
197
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:45:00 -
[60] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote: Grinder also missed ninja salvaging as well as intentionally putting out "fight" cans to cause engagements of varying scales. Can flipping, remote repping for aggro, can baiting and "fight" cans can all be put under the general label of "Intentionally gaining an aggression countdown so that an individual or members of a corporation or alliance can shoot you".
Funniest thing I ever had happen to me was missioning, a ninja salvager came in, started his thing. This was a mission called "pot meet kettle" where you shoot mines that spawn rogue drones (but where it also does damage apparently to everyone/everything in the pocket).
He jumped in, I blew up like 4 to 6 mines and killed his ship, he warped out, came back in a Tengu, fired on me and got CONCORDED then started bitching in local about how I fired on him and was a cheating hacker.
http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |