EVE Search - Ore thief solution idea?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Ore thief solution idea?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
VeNT	Posted - 2004.12.26 21:37:00 - [31] ore thieves will out its sad but true, ore thieves are here to stay, live with it,
VeNT	Posted - 2004.12.26 21:37:00 - [32] ore thieves will out its sad but true, ore thieves are here to stay, live with it,
RollinDutchMasters	Posted - 2004.12.26 21:41:00 - [33] If you aggress against another player in .5+ which causes a concord response against you, you must die. Otherwise should you be petitioned, the GMs will take steps up to and including banning you from the game. It is an exploit not to die to concord. If youre referring to the Zombie event in Yulai as precedent, you should remember that the individuals involved in that were banned. Originally by: Sochin CCP has provided you with the tools you need to avoid crime. You're just too lazy/stupid to use them.
RollinDutchMasters	Posted - 2004.12.26 21:41:00 - [34] If you aggress against another player in .5+ which causes a concord response against you, you must die. Otherwise should you be petitioned, the GMs will take steps up to and including banning you from the game. It is an exploit not to die to concord. If youre referring to the Zombie event in Yulai as precedent, you should remember that the individuals involved in that were banned. Originally by: Sochin CCP has provided you with the tools you need to avoid crime. You're just too lazy/stupid to use them.
fghr	Posted - 2004.12.26 21:43:00 - [35] Edited by: fghr on 26/12/2004 21:49:38 Edited by: fghr on 26/12/2004 21:46:40 well to me if its posseble its in the game its like you adept and conquer if its a exploit admin must remove the possebilety not ban peps its hardly my fault if i am smarter then my foe (or my foe live by some own codex like many do in games and that codex they got will never win a game for does peons ) as i said you adept and conquer
fghr	Posted - 2004.12.26 21:43:00 - [36] Edited by: fghr on 26/12/2004 21:49:38 Edited by: fghr on 26/12/2004 21:46:40 well to me if its posseble its in the game its like you adept and conquer if its a exploit admin must remove the possebilety not ban peps its hardly my fault if i am smarter then my foe (or my foe live by some own codex like many do in games and that codex they got will never win a game for does peons ) as i said you adept and conquer
Icarus Starkiller	Posted - 2004.12.26 23:23:00 - [37] IMO there should be an additional command for drones: 'Harass target' - they do the 'approach and bump' thing that buggers ships in tight clusters. It's not an attack, but the would-be thief's ship is too busy bouncing around to approach the vessel controlling the drones. And if they fire on the drones, or smart bomb, or whatever... CONCORD puts the royal smackdown on them. I've found that a frigate with a MWD or AB 'approaching' a vessel that's coming at you does wonders to bounce it off course. Just keep doing this and eventually they get frustrated and go look for easier pickings somewhere else. The bigger the bouncing ship, the more radically the target's course is affected.
Icarus Starkiller	Posted - 2004.12.26 23:23:00 - [38] IMO there should be an additional command for drones: 'Harass target' - they do the 'approach and bump' thing that buggers ships in tight clusters. It's not an attack, but the would-be thief's ship is too busy bouncing around to approach the vessel controlling the drones. And if they fire on the drones, or smart bomb, or whatever... CONCORD puts the royal smackdown on them. I've found that a frigate with a MWD or AB 'approaching' a vessel that's coming at you does wonders to bounce it off course. Just keep doing this and eventually they get frustrated and go look for easier pickings somewhere else. The bigger the bouncing ship, the more radically the target's course is affected.
Sorja	Posted - 2004.12.26 23:41:00 - [39] 30,000 m¦ secure corporation cans. Only same corp can launch, move to cargo, or open. Problem solved. Unless ore thieving is considered a valuable addition to the game, in which case it requires more efforts from CCP, which means never seeing the workload.
Sorja	Posted - 2004.12.26 23:41:00 - [40] 30,000 m¦ secure corporation cans. Only same corp can launch, move to cargo, or open. Problem solved. Unless ore thieving is considered a valuable addition to the game, in which case it requires more efforts from CCP, which means never seeing the workload.
Psychomar	Posted - 2004.12.26 23:47:00 - [41] I rammed one earlier today with my mwd Rupture and sent him flying. That nice bump shot him about 333,000km away. You should've seen him in local complaining. He didn't get much sympathy from his victims.
Psychomar	Posted - 2004.12.26 23:47:00 - [42] I rammed one earlier today with my mwd Rupture and sent him flying. That nice bump shot him about 333,000km away. You should've seen him in local complaining. He didn't get much sympathy from his victims.
Tormon	Posted - 2004.12.27 03:27:00 - [43] My understanding of the ore thief issue is one of risk vs. reward. Ore thieves in 0.4 and lower are earning everything they get because they are taking a big risk ( an angry miner tossing missles at them for example ). Stealing ore in 0.5 and up has no risk so any old coward can do it and not get nervous. Therefore my only objection to ore thieves in 0.5 and up is that there is no risk to balance the potential reward.
Tormon	Posted - 2004.12.27 03:27:00 - [44] My understanding of the ore thief issue is one of risk vs. reward. Ore thieves in 0.4 and lower are earning everything they get because they are taking a big risk ( an angry miner tossing missles at them for example ). Stealing ore in 0.5 and up has no risk so any old coward can do it and not get nervous. Therefore my only objection to ore thieves in 0.5 and up is that there is no risk to balance the potential reward.
Frost88	Posted - 2004.12.27 12:10:00 - [45] Originally by: MooKids I'm starting to think that the only people that post about ore "theft" are nothing more than griefers that intend to start a flame war. I honestly don't think someone in such a prominent position, as Archbishop is, will do this to start a flame war. It's an interesting idea. What would be better is to just get the miners into 0.4 and lower, then they can stop worrying about ore thieves... ------------------------------------------------ I've always owned Kehmor, cheap as chips off Ebay
Frost88	Posted - 2004.12.27 12:10:00 - [46] Originally by: MooKids I'm starting to think that the only people that post about ore "theft" are nothing more than griefers that intend to start a flame war. I honestly don't think someone in such a prominent position, as Archbishop is, will do this to start a flame war. It's an interesting idea. What would be better is to just get the miners into 0.4 and lower, then they can stop worrying about ore thieves... ------------------------------------------------ I've always owned Kehmor, cheap as chips off Ebay
Karoth Tyu	Posted - 2004.12.27 15:00:00 - [47] Originally by: NGRU Rix Edited by: NGRU Rix on 26/12/2004 19:23:29 Thats the lamest thing ive ever heard in a MMORPG - if you escape the guards you're exploiting. More like theres loads of non exploitive ways of escaping, that arnt that hard to pull off, CCP just cant be bothered to get a better working system. Uhoh we've got the guards after us, better stand here and let them kill us so we dont get banned. Thats the rules around here, if you run you'll be banned. Thats the kind of rule some retarded little kiddie madeup game would have, NANA ONCE THE POLICE (pete and fred) ARE AFTER YOU, YOU ARNT ALLOWED TO RUN ITS BREAKING OUR RULES AND THEN WE WONT LET YOU PLAY ANY MORE! Word. Concord responses should be overwhelming, especially in 1.0 space, but making the guards invincible and then banning people for "exploiting" when they just happen to be smart enough or strong enough to actually evade the Uber-GM-Police-Department is the ***est thing in any MMOG to date. Other games like AO and UO had damn near invincible guards, but at least you weren't banned if you managed to escape their wrath.
Karoth Tyu	Posted - 2004.12.27 15:00:00 - [48] Originally by: NGRU Rix Edited by: NGRU Rix on 26/12/2004 19:23:29 Thats the lamest thing ive ever heard in a MMORPG - if you escape the guards you're exploiting. More like theres loads of non exploitive ways of escaping, that arnt that hard to pull off, CCP just cant be bothered to get a better working system. Uhoh we've got the guards after us, better stand here and let them kill us so we dont get banned. Thats the rules around here, if you run you'll be banned. Thats the kind of rule some retarded little kiddie madeup game would have, NANA ONCE THE POLICE (pete and fred) ARE AFTER YOU, YOU ARNT ALLOWED TO RUN ITS BREAKING OUR RULES AND THEN WE WONT LET YOU PLAY ANY MORE! Word. Concord responses should be overwhelming, especially in 1.0 space, but making the guards invincible and then banning people for "exploiting" when they just happen to be smart enough or strong enough to actually evade the Uber-GM-Police-Department is the ***est thing in any MMOG to date. Other games like AO and UO had damn near invincible guards, but at least you weren't banned if you managed to escape their wrath.
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2004.12.27 15:02:00 - [49] Anyone who knows anything knows who and what Archbishop stands for. Anyone accusing him of exploiting or trying to start a flame war should make a New Years resolution in 4 days time to be less n00bish in 2005. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2004.12.27 15:02:00 - [50] Anyone who knows anything knows who and what Archbishop stands for. Anyone accusing him of exploiting or trying to start a flame war should make a New Years resolution in 4 days time to be less n00bish in 2005. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Archbishop	Posted - 2004.12.27 15:18:00 - [51] Quote: "Anyone who knows anything knows who and what Archbishop stands for. Anyone accusing him of exploiting or trying to start a flame war should make a New Years resolution in 4 days time to be less n00bish in 2005." Thank you for all the moral and character support. It's not my intention to create an exploit or anything. I've been victimized by these ore thieves (since I live in Empire and mine where I cant shoot them). I've tried to think of various ways to defeat them. This idea came about after nearly losing a load of ICE to a thief. It was a Bestower race to the ore I won by about 550m (very intense ). Someone posted about "risk vs. reward" and correctly pointed out that in Empire the ore thieves operate with impunity. They have nothing but reward with no risk at all. Thats why I decided to try and figure out a way to counter them. While I do some mining in .5-.7 I also mine a .9 system heavily (has about 500 belts and is close to home). I can't use locked cans there and hauling 20 loads of tritanium to my base to build an Apoc isn't "fun" so I have to mine close to were I build. I'm not real familiar with the "Zombie Incident" someone mentioned. I'd heard some players were gate camping in Empire in heavily tanked ships. I wasn't aware they had been banned. Oh well. It was just an idea. From the sounds of it Concord is too quick and with .5 second lock times anyone trying this wouldn't have time to hit the cloak before being cannon fodder for Concord. Archbishop VISIT THE PIE HOMEPAGE & FORUMS PIE INFORMATION CENTER
Archbishop	Posted - 2004.12.27 15:18:00 - [52] Quote: "Anyone who knows anything knows who and what Archbishop stands for. Anyone accusing him of exploiting or trying to start a flame war should make a New Years resolution in 4 days time to be less n00bish in 2005." Thank you for all the moral and character support. It's not my intention to create an exploit or anything. I've been victimized by these ore thieves (since I live in Empire and mine where I cant shoot them). I've tried to think of various ways to defeat them. This idea came about after nearly losing a load of ICE to a thief. It was a Bestower race to the ore I won by about 550m (very intense ). Someone posted about "risk vs. reward" and correctly pointed out that in Empire the ore thieves operate with impunity. They have nothing but reward with no risk at all. Thats why I decided to try and figure out a way to counter them. While I do some mining in .5-.7 I also mine a .9 system heavily (has about 500 belts and is close to home). I can't use locked cans there and hauling 20 loads of tritanium to my base to build an Apoc isn't "fun" so I have to mine close to were I build. I'm not real familiar with the "Zombie Incident" someone mentioned. I'd heard some players were gate camping in Empire in heavily tanked ships. I wasn't aware they had been banned. Oh well. It was just an idea. From the sounds of it Concord is too quick and with .5 second lock times anyone trying this wouldn't have time to hit the cloak before being cannon fodder for Concord. Archbishop VISIT THE PIE HOMEPAGE & FORUMS PIE INFORMATION CENTER
Karoth Tyu	Posted - 2004.12.27 15:40:00 - [53] Originally by: Archbishop I'm not real familiar with the "Zombie Incident" someone mentioned. I'd heard some players were gate camping in Empire in heavily tanked ships. I wasn't aware they had been banned. It wasn't a gate camp. A group of people gathered together a heavily tanked fleet, went to Yulai (on the Test server I believe) and picked a fight with Concord. They killed four Concord battleships and numerous smaller Concord craft. But because a few of them LIVED through the experience, they were all banned.
Karoth Tyu	Posted - 2004.12.27 15:40:00 - [54] Originally by: Archbishop I'm not real familiar with the "Zombie Incident" someone mentioned. I'd heard some players were gate camping in Empire in heavily tanked ships. I wasn't aware they had been banned. It wasn't a gate camp. A group of people gathered together a heavily tanked fleet, went to Yulai (on the Test server I believe) and picked a fight with Concord. They killed four Concord battleships and numerous smaller Concord craft. But because a few of them LIVED through the experience, they were all banned.
Xavier Arron	Posted - 2004.12.27 17:02:00 - [55] Edited by: Xavier Arron on 27/12/2004 17:07:32 Originally by: Karoth Tyu Originally by: Archbishop I'm not real familiar with the "Zombie Incident" someone mentioned. I'd heard some players were gate camping in Empire in heavily tanked ships. I wasn't aware they had been banned. It wasn't a gate camp. A group of people gathered together a heavily tanked fleet, went to Yulai (on the Test server I believe) and picked a fight with Concord. They killed four Concord battleships and numerous smaller Concord craft. But because a few of them LIVED through the experience, they were all banned. A load of Zombie corp went to Yulai (on the live server) and tanked an apoc against the sentries and concord at one of the gates. This was at a time when ships supporting another in battle were not considered criminal and as such they had loads of apocs and scorps with shield and energy transfer arrays transferring to the single apoc and making it basically invulnerable to concord. The apoc used 8 large smart bombs since concord insta locks / jams a target. Needless to say the result was impressive; I think it was something like 228 player ships destroyed, 91 people podded, and 272 Concord destroyed. You have to give the zombies there due, it was well throughout and executed at the time. The reason they got banned is because the GMs told them to stop and they didn't. Not because they killed in 0.0 and didnÆt get pwnd by Concord. I wish the whole event had been role played more (e.g. by having the GMs / devs coming in / hunting them down and wtfpwning them all with titans ). Check out these threads to read some of the fall out: Thread Yulai Incident Thread Yulai Incident If you want to look at the threads around that time check out the general discussion forum around page 574 and upwards (573, 572 etcà) Drunk made the best video of the æincidentÆ check out this link. Drunk's Yulai Incident Video (Appears as thought the video section is down, donÆt know if itÆs hosted anywhere else?)
Xavier Arron	Posted - 2004.12.27 17:02:00 - [56] Edited by: Xavier Arron on 27/12/2004 17:07:32 Originally by: Karoth Tyu Originally by: Archbishop I'm not real familiar with the "Zombie Incident" someone mentioned. I'd heard some players were gate camping in Empire in heavily tanked ships. I wasn't aware they had been banned. It wasn't a gate camp. A group of people gathered together a heavily tanked fleet, went to Yulai (on the Test server I believe) and picked a fight with Concord. They killed four Concord battleships and numerous smaller Concord craft. But because a few of them LIVED through the experience, they were all banned. A load of Zombie corp went to Yulai (on the live server) and tanked an apoc against the sentries and concord at one of the gates. This was at a time when ships supporting another in battle were not considered criminal and as such they had loads of apocs and scorps with shield and energy transfer arrays transferring to the single apoc and making it basically invulnerable to concord. The apoc used 8 large smart bombs since concord insta locks / jams a target. Needless to say the result was impressive; I think it was something like 228 player ships destroyed, 91 people podded, and 272 Concord destroyed. You have to give the zombies there due, it was well throughout and executed at the time. The reason they got banned is because the GMs told them to stop and they didn't. Not because they killed in 0.0 and didnÆt get pwnd by Concord. I wish the whole event had been role played more (e.g. by having the GMs / devs coming in / hunting them down and wtfpwning them all with titans ). Check out these threads to read some of the fall out: Thread Yulai Incident Thread Yulai Incident If you want to look at the threads around that time check out the general discussion forum around page 574 and upwards (573, 572 etcà) Drunk made the best video of the æincidentÆ check out this link. Drunk's Yulai Incident Video (Appears as thought the video section is down, donÆt know if itÆs hosted anywhere else?)

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.