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) |
Y'nit Gidrine
Gold Horizons Industrial
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 04:22:00 -
[91] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote: That is quite an idealistic scenario.
But anyway, I think you misunderstood what I meant by "meaningful". I meant to kill for financial gain, for power or to hurt a rival. As opposed to fighting for the sake of fighting, so for example killing people to stop them doing exploration sites in your area would be for a purpose. But that's currently impossible in Eve, because war decs are massively limited and easily avoidable.
Similarly currently there is almost never any point PvPing purely for profit, because almost everything expensive is moved via neutral alts. Neutral mining and the like is also just as bad, many corporations will essentially disband on a war coming in, only to rejoin ot afterward. In the meantime mining with no ill effect in NPC corps.
Of course it was idealistic. A more realistic situation would have been 1. Someone flags themselves on the 4-4 undock with tons of neutral RR on standby 2. People aggress the suspect, he reps himself with 5 guardians who all get flagged as suspects 3. People use THEIR neutral RR and all become flagged as vigilantes 4. Stuff dies But I think the meaningfulness of this form of PvP would be to encourage people to start fighting and understand PvP. There's no meaningfulness to high-sec war decs about 90% of the time, but players new to PvP do it so they can ease into fighting others. This gives these players an opportunity to learn how PvP works, and offers a simple no-individual-kill-right-timers solution to high-sec aggression.
Such a system would be incredibly abuseable.
Person A is mining into a can. Person B flips half of the can, and becomes a suspect. Person A then retaliates and shoots Person B and becomes a vigilante. Person C then warps into the belt and steals he rest of Person A's can, and thus also becomes a suspect. Person C can now shoot Person A even though Person A has done nothing to Person C.
And then you have confusing situations such as this:
Person A drops a can. Person B and Person C flip Person A's can and become suspects. Person C then proceeds to flip Person B's can. Is Person C a suspect, vigilante or both? Can he now attack everyone? Or perhaps he can attack no one?
Not to mention that the above system presumes that there are exactly two sides to a fight. |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
199
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 04:26:00 -
[92] - Quote
mkint wrote: Obvious reasons being Grayscale's known associates.
If they ever planned on enforcing that instaban for rumor thing this might be a bad comment lol
Mors Sanctitatis wrote:
The game design team is purposefully protecting stupid players
CONCORD purposefully protects criminals, whats your point lol
Try shooting an obvious ganker before he attacks. http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
415
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 04:38:00 -
[93] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:mkint wrote: Obvious reasons being Grayscale's known associates.
If they ever planned on enforcing that instaban for rumor thing this might be a bad comment lol Mors Sanctitatis wrote:
The game design team is purposefully protecting stupid players
CONCORD purposefully protects criminals, whats your point lol Try shooting an obvious ganker before he attacks.
CONCORD provides consequences for anyone shooting anyone who has yet to do something wrong. Innocent until actually guilty.
If people don't like that, they can move to where CONCORD isn't.
Besides that, how do you suggest Concord tell the difference between some newbie in a Catalyst warping to a belt to rat and a ganker in a catalyst warping to a belt to shoot Hulks? -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
880
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 04:43:00 -
[94] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Gogela wrote:So pretty much... log in alts, get them into remote sensor boosting logis, and sit by a gate in Jita with your main collecting free suspect bacon in your invincible insta lock bs?
OK. You mean to tell me there's a risk associated with being a suspect? And you also truly believe with a vigilante/suspect system that you would sit there camping for long before a group of suspects rolled up and zonked you?
Who have you been fighting?
*sigh* this is probably a troll but I'll bite. My logi reppers are going to be untouchable regardless. I could have 10 there. Officer fit... why not? They'll never have a flag. So now it's just me sitting on that gate. So let's say a guy jumps in w/ the flag and he looks good. An easy kill. Little do I know there's 10 of his buddies on the other side of the gate, right? Well... first of all I'll be able to tank them. I have a bunch of logis feeding me cap shield and armor. WTF do I care if he has friends? Second, we're taking Jita. How long will it be before a few other random bored pilots roll up to the gate and start sniping this fleet of suspects that are attacking me? The longer I sit there the more will come... not because they like me but just to test this or that fit on free meat... and I'll be sitting there a while. ...at lest until I run out of ammo.... at which point I can have an alt bring me more. I could do it all day.
I'm just saying it'll become a feature of high traffic gates. Huge empire gate camps will form. They will just hang out, hirr lemming bubble camp style... but in empire. Quote me on that.
|
Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
247
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 04:46:00 -
[95] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: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". I really dislike this post, but I'll get constructive criticism when I get off of work. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
152
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 04:50:00 -
[96] - Quote
You're right. With the currently-proposed system, your logis will never be flagged - might as well officer fit them. The currently-proposed system is idiotic.
When you shoot at suspects, you should be flagged as a vigilante, and when you assist a vigilante, you should be flagged as a vigilante. So now you're sitting there with your 1 battleship and 10 logi, maybe some other vigilante friends. You honestly believe that there won't be corps or large groups of players who do nothing but flag as suspects and come zonk you on the gate?
But absolutely, as long as the logis never get flagged as per CCP Greyscale's flawless logic, you could 100% sit on the Perimeter gate with an instalocking tackler, a BS, and RR and blap dudes all day long.
Edit: I also like how you made a post and then went back and edited it afterwards to add insults about my alliance losing ships worth a fraction of their AT budget. |
mkint
807
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 04:55:00 -
[97] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:mkint wrote: Obvious reasons being Grayscale's known associates.
If they ever planned on enforcing that instaban for rumor thing this might be a bad comment lol I'm not sure I'd care. This is not the first time Grayscale will have implemented something game breaking that only benefits some very specific people. Why would anyone want to play a game that gets developed to keep dev-friends empowered at the cost of everyone else? |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
152
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 05:01:00 -
[98] - Quote
Y'nit Gidrine wrote: Such a system would be incredibly abuseable.
Person A is mining into a can. Person B flips half of the can, and becomes a suspect. Person A then retaliates and shoots Person B and becomes a vigilante. Person C then warps into the belt and steals he rest of Person A's can, and thus also becomes a suspect. Person C can now shoot Person A even though Person A has done nothing to Person C.
And then you have confusing situations such as this:
Person A drops a can. Person B and Person C flip Person A's can and become suspects. Person C then proceeds to flip Person B's can. Is Person C a suspect, vigilante or both? Can he now attack everyone? Or perhaps he can attack no one?
Not to mention that the above system presumes that there are exactly two sides to a fight.
I'll address both concerns:
1. Engaging a suspect should carry the consequence of the suspect's friends possibly showing up and blapping you. This goes both ways, as the suspect - in the current design of Crimewatch as per CCP Greyscale - can now be shot by any player in EVE. The only amendment that a Vigilante/Suspect system makes is that those who engage suspects now run the risk of retaliation rather than being able to gang up on a single suspect without him being able to fight back with equal numbers. If you're going to allow suspects to be shot by all of EVE, then those who shoot suspects should be killable by all other suspects. Batman doesn't fight one super-villain without all of the other super-villains plotting against him at the same time.
2. Simple. Flipping the can of a neutral makes you a suspect. Stealing from a suspect (or any other hostile action) makes you a vigilante. If person B flips player A's can and become suspect, and player A steals from player B, he is performing a hostile action against a suspect, making him a Vigilante. Any action you perform against one 'faction' will automatically put you in the other, and any assistance will put you with them.
The system does presume that there are exactly two sides to a fight. If you're looking for more robust, multi-sided engagements, go to low-sec or 0.0. This is a polarized solution to reduce aggression confusion. The only difference between this and CCP Greyscale's current plan is that those who shoot suspects are vulnerable to attack by other suspects. His plan creates situations where 30 suspects could be in a gang, but if a hostile gang only shoots one of them, the other 29 can only sit and watch their friend die. |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
199
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 05:06:00 -
[99] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote:mkint wrote: Obvious reasons being Grayscale's known associates.
If they ever planned on enforcing that instaban for rumor thing this might be a bad comment lol Mors Sanctitatis wrote:
The game design team is purposefully protecting stupid players
CONCORD purposefully protects criminals, whats your point lol Try shooting an obvious ganker before he attacks. CONCORD provides consequences for anyone shooting anyone who has yet to do something wrong. Innocent until actually guilty.
Yeah cause the police totally wouldnt bother a known bank robber who is taking guns out of his car and walking into a bank
Real life comparisons work real well here lol
Pipa Porto wrote:
Besides that, how do you suggest Concord tell the difference between some newbie in a Catalyst warping to a belt to rat and a ganker in a catalyst warping to a belt to shoot Hulks?
remove CONCORD
Bet you werent expecting that... http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
736
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 05:19:00 -
[100] - Quote
Mors Sanctitatis wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:
We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons).
This is precisely what is wrong with all the existing game design in the first place. I'd like to point out for the billionth time that with the current game mechanics you will never be in a situation where you are shooting someone who is being assisted by logi and you can't shoot the logi. Once again because repetition helps people remember, it is currently the that logistics will always be flagged towards whoever is shooting at the person they are assisting.
So greyscale's crimewatch isn't even a failure to move forward, it is a direct step backwards. |
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
880
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 05:28:00 -
[101] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:You're right. With the currently-proposed system, your logis will never be flagged - might as well officer fit them. The currently-proposed system is idiotic.
When you shoot at suspects, you should be flagged as a vigilante, and when you assist a vigilante, you should be flagged as a vigilante. So now you're sitting there with your 1 battleship and 10 logi, maybe some other vigilante friends. You honestly believe that there won't be corps or large groups of players who do nothing but flag as suspects and come zonk you on the gate? Maybe even make it a good fight?
But absolutely, as long as the logis never get flagged as per CCP Greyscale's flawless logic, you could 100% sit on the Perimeter gate with an instalocking tackler, a BS, and RR and blap dudes all day long.
Edit: I also like how you made a post and then went back and edited it afterwards to add insults about my alliance losing ships worth a fraction of their AT budget. Yah. I used to be in hirr. It was awesome. Everyone was drunk or high and it was genuinely hilarious all of the time... even when nothing was coming through the gate we were on. There will be corps that form up to do nothing but. I may join one. Why not? No skin off my schlong...
Also: It wasn't really an insult. The jab at your flag ship.... maybe a little. I'm a big AT ship aficionado though, and it WAS very gutsy of PL to field them like they did (I'm putting their fleet at about 170 billion ISK fit not counting implants). It was the best alliance match I've ever seen. Very exciting to watch.... so kuddos to them. I'm amazed they didn't loose a Malice. From time to time I fit an AT ship and take it out to fight on sisi. Most of the time it's a PL pilot that kills me... and that's a fact. So much respect...
Edit: I would like to see things chain more in crimewatch. I would love to make empire more dangerous and have the probability of things spinning totally out of control and have entire empire systems collapse under the weight of complex aggression mechanics grow exponentially. I can't think of any better way to make empire vibrant and fun. At the same time, I appreciate the technical difficulties and from what I understand of what CCP Greyscale has written in other threads, I don't know how a solution can be found. I've thought a lot about it... I've got nothing.
|
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
153
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 05:33:00 -
[102] - Quote
Gogela wrote: Yah. I used to be in hirr. It was awesome. Everyone was drunk or high and it was genuinely hilarious all of the time... even when nothing was coming through the gate we were on. There will be corps that form up to do nothing but. I may join one. Why not? No skin off my schlong...
Problem is, with the current system, you'll never catch many suspects. They can't gang up and work together. Give suspects the ability to fight back together against the people shooting them and you'll get tons of fights on gates. It'd be interesting and maybe worth giving a shot.
As long as 50 people can shoot 1 suspect with only that suspect being able to shoot back via individual aggression timers, there's no point. You'll only catch a few stupid suspects in T1 looting/salvaging frigates. The rest will avoid gates like the plague until their timer is gone. |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
880
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 05:39:00 -
[103] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Gogela wrote: Yah. I used to be in hirr. It was awesome. Everyone was drunk or high and it was genuinely hilarious all of the time... even when nothing was coming through the gate we were on. There will be corps that form up to do nothing but. I may join one. Why not? No skin off my schlong...
Problem is, with the current system, you'll never catch many suspects. They can't gang up and work together. Give suspects the ability to fight back together against the people shooting them and you'll get tons of fights on gates. It'd be interesting and maybe worth giving a shot. As long as 50 people can shoot 1 suspect with only that suspect being able to shoot back via individual aggression timers, there's no point. You'll only catch a few stupid suspects in T1 looting/salvaging frigates. The rest will avoid gates like the plague until their timer is gone. You underestimate the power of the dumb side of the force...
|
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
415
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 05:40:00 -
[104] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:CONCORD provides consequences for anyone shooting anyone who has yet to do something wrong. Innocent until actually guilty. Yeah cause the police totally wouldnt bother a known bank robber who is taking guns out of his car and walking into a bank Real life comparisons work real well here lol Pipa Porto wrote:Besides that, how do you suggest Concord tell the difference between some newbie in a Catalyst warping to a belt to rat and a ganker in a catalyst warping to a belt to shoot Hulks? remove CONCORD Bet you werent expecting that...
Where did I make a Real Life Comparison? CONCORD provides consequences once you do something wrong and not a moment before. Why should CONCORD randomly decide that some Catalysts deserve death? As it is, your history of ganking is taken into account. The Faction Navies will hunt you and you can be preemptively shot at.
I'm not surprised by it. I think you've suggested it before. And I think I've pointed you to LowSec before. Lowsec is pretty much HS without CONCORD. Enjoy. -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
73
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 05:47:00 -
[105] - Quote
Concord should work like the police in GTA, if you can make it to a station and change paintjobs, they forget everything you ever did. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
736
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 05:48:00 -
[106] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Concord should work like the police in GTA, if you can make it to a station and change paintjobs, they forget everything you ever did. Didn't you hear what Greyscale said? Fun gameplay isn't allowed in highsec. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
153
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:00:00 -
[107] - Quote
Yeah, why would you want to expose players to interesting, compelling gameplay as soon as they start playing? |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1343
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:02:00 -
[108] - Quote
mkint wrote:I'm not sure I'd care. This is not the first time Grayscale will have implemented something game breaking that only benefits some very specific people. Why would anyone want to play a game that gets developed to keep dev-friends empowered at the cost of everyone else?
What "dev-friends" does it benefit and what other changes has he made for the benefit of "dev-friends?" a rogue goon |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
153
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:03:00 -
[109] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:mkint wrote:I'm not sure I'd care. This is not the first time Grayscale will have implemented something game breaking that only benefits some very specific people. Why would anyone want to play a game that gets developed to keep dev-friends empowered at the cost of everyone else? What "dev-friends" does it benefit and what other changes has he made for the benefit of "dev-friends?"
he nerfed titans
must be a goon alt for sure
maybe even shadoo's boyfriend |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
736
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:04:00 -
[110] - Quote
You should talk to GM Homonia about teaching people that highsec is for PVE and if that anyone bothers you while you're missioning or mining you're entitled to have them banned. |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1343
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:05:00 -
[111] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:mkint wrote:I'm not sure I'd care. This is not the first time Grayscale will have implemented something game breaking that only benefits some very specific people. Why would anyone want to play a game that gets developed to keep dev-friends empowered at the cost of everyone else? What "dev-friends" does it benefit and what other changes has he made for the benefit of "dev-friends?" he nerfed titans must be a goon alt for sure maybe even shadoo's boyfriend
I doubt many of the "titans are fine" guys played EVE, let alone in 0.0, before the titan nerf.
Not that nerf, that nerf. a rogue goon |
mkint
808
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:07:00 -
[112] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:mkint wrote:I'm not sure I'd care. This is not the first time Grayscale will have implemented something game breaking that only benefits some very specific people. Why would anyone want to play a game that gets developed to keep dev-friends empowered at the cost of everyone else? What "dev-friends" does it benefit and what other changes has he made for the benefit of "dev-friends?" Remember that one time Grayscale destroyed trillions of isk of value in sov upgrades that completely destroyed alliances and coalitions, and further entrenched others?
What kind of player do you think would benefit from being able to use neutral RR with impunity? Maybe the kinds who have big ol' piles of anom and moon min isk to plex lots of logi alts? Maybe the kind that Grayscale actively goes out of his way to make game-wide sweeping changes to benefit? |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
736
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:10:00 -
[113] - Quote
I don't think you understood the situation in which you'd be able to use neutral RR without anyone ever being able to shoot at you.
It's totally irrelevant to goons and nullsec alliances in general. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
153
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:14:00 -
[114] - Quote
mkint wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:mkint wrote:I'm not sure I'd care. This is not the first time Grayscale will have implemented something game breaking that only benefits some very specific people. Why would anyone want to play a game that gets developed to keep dev-friends empowered at the cost of everyone else? What "dev-friends" does it benefit and what other changes has he made for the benefit of "dev-friends?" Remember that one time Grayscale destroyed trillions of isk of value in sov upgrades that completely destroyed alliances and coalitions, and further entrenched others? What kind of player do you think would benefit from being able to use neutral RR with impunity? Maybe the kinds who have big ol' piles of anom and moon min isk to plex lots of logi alts? Maybe the kind that Grayscale actively goes out of his way to make game-wide sweeping changes to benefit?
You're right, it'd be such a joy to be able to spend all of our tech ISK on logi alts so we can use them in high-sec without getting shot at |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1343
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:14:00 -
[115] - Quote
mkint wrote:Remember that one time Grayscale destroyed trillions of isk of value in sov upgrades that completely destroyed alliances and coalitions, and further entrenched others?
what
mkint wrote:What kind of player do you think would benefit from being able to use neutral RR with impunity?
AFAIK neutral RR in wardec PvP will still work as it does - you get flagged upon repping somebody at war. In Crimewatch(TM) the current design will allow logistics to rep somebody shooting a suspect flagged player while still being "protected" by CONCORD.
Having to suicide gank a player who is assisting legal targets on the field is bad design. a rogue goon |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
199
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:15:00 -
[116] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:CONCORD provides consequences for anyone shooting anyone who has yet to do something wrong. Innocent until actually guilty. Yeah cause the police totally wouldnt bother a known bank robber who is taking guns out of his car and walking into a bank Real life comparisons work real well here lol Pipa Porto wrote:Besides that, how do you suggest Concord tell the difference between some newbie in a Catalyst warping to a belt to rat and a ganker in a catalyst warping to a belt to shoot Hulks? remove CONCORD Bet you werent expecting that... Where did I make a Real Life Comparison? CONCORD provides consequences once you do something wrong and not a moment before. Why should CONCORD randomly decide that some Catalysts deserve death? As it is, your history of ganking is taken into account. The Faction Navies will hunt you and you can be preemptively shot at. I'm not surprised by it. I think you've suggested it before. And I think I've pointed you to LowSec before. Lowsec is pretty much HS without CONCORD. Enjoy.
wait since when can you not bring dreadnaughts and **** into lowsec? Oh yeah... you can, so that comparison fails too
and btw; real life comparison: Innocent until proven guilty. Unless thats the in game rule of law in this game too and if so then CONCORD are just retards http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
mkint
808
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:16:00 -
[117] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I don't think you understood the situation in which you'd be able to use neutral RR without anyone ever being able to shoot at you.
It's totally irrelevant to goons and nullsec alliances in general. it's useful for any who want to go around being a nuisance in highsec.
Personally, I don't understand how people think the existing aggro system is complicated. It's not. You do something against someone, they get aggro rights on you. It's basically a "do you deserve it?" equation. All this new "well, you're now a suspect but then you become a vigilante, then you can be a sheriff but you have to chew space-tobacco" crap is just some dude trying to justify his position in a company that can no longer keep track of it's own employees. Bureaucracy at work. |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
199
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:17:00 -
[118] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:
AFAIK neutral RR in wardec PvP will still work as it does - you get flagged upon repping somebody at war. In Crimewatch(TM) the current design will allow logistics to rep somebody shooting a suspect flagged player while still being "protected" by CONCORD.
Having to suicide gank a player who is assisting legal targets on the field is bad design.
damn I hate agreeing with Goons but Ownt like this guy: http://youtu.be/FM1gEZXzunI http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
736
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:17:00 -
[119] - Quote
mkint wrote:it's useful for any who want to go around being a nuisance in highsec. You have no idea what you're talking about. Go back and actually read the posts. The people who will be able to receive RR without the RR getting flagged will be people shooting suspect flagged characters. The only thing goons do in highsec is gank folks and very occasionally shoot at war targets, in neither of those situations will they be using RR either at all or in a way that it won't be attack-able by someone.
mkint wrote:Personally, I don't understand how people think the existing aggro system is complicated. It's not. You do something against someone, they get aggro rights on you. It's basically a "do you deserve it?" equation. All this new "well, you're now a suspect but then you become a vigilante, then you can be a sheriff but you have to chew space-tobacco" crap is just some dude trying to justify his position in a company that can no longer keep track of it's own employees. Bureaucracy at work.
This part is pretty much exactly the case. I get the impression that CCP Greyscale just wants to be able to say that he completed some big project and doesn't even remotely care what the actual outcome is. He very obviously couldn't care less about crimewatch actually leading to sensible, working gameplay that is fun. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
153
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:18:00 -
[120] - Quote
mkint wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:I don't think you understood the situation in which you'd be able to use neutral RR without anyone ever being able to shoot at you.
It's totally irrelevant to goons and nullsec alliances in general. it's useful for any who want to go around being a nuisance in highsec.
Yeah I don't think that having RR that is immune from being shot by criminals is anywhere near as effective as just suicide ganking ice miners.
It's like you're fishing for a connection between CCP decisions and Goonswarm, but you keep catching boots. |
|
|
|
|
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 |