Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Spruillo
Gallente Spruillo Corp
|
Posted - 2010.10.20 03:37:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Spruillo on 20/10/2010 04:01:28
Originally by: Elder Lemon
Blah blabablahblahblah BORING
Im all for punishing harder if it was INTERESTING Gankers and troublemakers are paying customers too they need in-game consequences of course for in-game behavior but do it in a way that adds depth and intrigue
Eve needs Jails. Thats right, G-A-L. And it MUST be combined with walking-in-stations. With sentencing guidelines, possibility of bail, fines etc paid for early release, possibilities for escape (both from the station jail and from CONCORD who would apprehend and detain subjects as the natural progression of CONCORDUKKEN)
Combine it somehow with the bounty system too. I want to deliver wanted criminals like Captain HurrDurr to station authorities then stroll down the cellblock and laugh at their avatar which is asleep on a cot when they log or up and under their control when online. Then Captain HurrDurr's avatar, stuck with orange jumpsuit and plastic Bob Barker jailhouse sandals, could beg me to drop charges or spring bail while I bunny-hop around the hallway in my underwear.
Tie bounty system to actual isk damages or losses. A guy who ganks a hauler w/ 1b cargo, -AND GETS POD-NABBED- (CONCORD semi-insta lockers?)along with a reverse-criminal timer on anyone cargoscanning in the past 15m or so, and along with anyone not in corp or high standings with victim grabbing loot, all face a week-month(?) sitting behind bars if they, their corpmates, or pals cannot spring them by reimbursing damages to victim(s) and paying fines.
As long as there was some chance of slipping out to losec for ganker and looter that would make highway robbery the SRS BIZNIS it should be for the rewards involved.
I should run for CSM I could fix this game better Im not on anyone's damned side I just want entertainment when I play with my internet space toys and even MORE entertainment when other ppl play with my toys.
And further more, although it would be seriously complicated to impliment in a cool enough way not to make ppl quit or get greifed outta the game, nulsec alliances should have some way to take and hold prisoners too.
Just think of the possibilities.
|
The marketmagicmaker
|
Posted - 2010.10.20 07:42:00 -
[32]
I think the point everyone seems to have glossed over in their rush to spew memes is the one point that does seem to be a valid one, the almost totally without risk use of alts. Using the buddy programme/plex application you can have a character with 51 days training for nothing more than the cost of their skillbooks and insurable T1 gank ship. Hisec should have an element of risk or its duller than dirty dishwater. Safer, not safe, but wheres the risk to the free suicide alt? Hell you start training a new one every 30 days, by the time the first is down to unusable negative security status, the replacements ready to rinse and repeat.
Risk free ganking? Seems fairly difficult to justify.
|
Paknac Queltel
Standards and Practices
|
Posted - 2010.10.20 07:44:00 -
[33]
Originally by: The marketmagicmaker I think the point everyone seems to have glossed over in their rush to spew memes is the one point that does seem to be a valid one, the almost totally without risk use of alts. Using the buddy programme/plex application you can have a character with 51 days training for nothing more than the cost of their skillbooks and insurable T1 gank ship. Hisec should have an element of risk or its duller than dirty dishwater. Safer, not safe, but wheres the risk to the free suicide alt? Hell you start training a new one every 30 days, by the time the first is down to unusable negative security status, the replacements ready to rinse and repeat.
Risk free ganking? Seems fairly difficult to justify.
Careful there. The last thread to discuss evading the don't-recycle-alts rule that way got locked for discussing exploits. - Paknac Queltel
|
Buck Marui
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2010.10.20 09:38:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Tarsas Phage Why don't gankers get kill rights exercised on them more often? Probably because people like the OP aren't fully aware of How Things Work and why they are that way... and better yet, how to avoid getting into these situations in the first place. See Also: being in fleet conveys aggro rights.
What would be the point? If someone has the ISK to throw ships at Concord why would anyone waste time trying to destroy it, it clearly means nothing to the owner.
I support the idea of a fine.
If you suicide gank someone you should be fined the cost of the ship that you destroyed (not the contents and/or fittings) this could also go to the person that was ganked but that would be open to abuse so a cleverly thought out mechanic would be in order.
Also just as a side note, the people responding in this thread with flames are laughable, especially the "GB2WoW" kiddies, they are the people I don't want playing EVE, the people who do nothing to improve the game in any way and clearly get overly upset at someone airing a suggestion on a public board. |
Roguehalo
Caldari Resonance Laboratories
|
Posted - 2010.10.20 11:27:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Joe McAlt 50,000 MMO players poled have balls of steel. Actually you have to hand it to CCP for not dumbing the game down to the common level.
Actually as everybody knows and much to the frustration of the griefers most of 0.0 and low sec is more or less deserted. The majority of Eve players are carebears and have already voted with their feet by staying well away from 0.0 and low sec.
Presumably griefers get some fun from their activities(if you can call deliberately trying to f*ck up somebody elses day fun) but fun is a 2 way process and it's something the griefers can't seem to get their heads around.
High level pvping in WOW(think high level 5v5 rating) requires huge amounts of skill and hopefully is fun for ALL involved.
Happy slapping is presumably fun for the 20 strong groups of moronic brain dead kids engaging in it. Not so much fun for the victims though.
|
Vharl Ochre
Burning Technologies
|
Posted - 2010.10.20 12:11:00 -
[36]
I cannot believe people are seriously responding to a poor troll, but just in case some of these replies are serious: CCP gives you the tools and mechanics to avenge yourself, so if you think more punishment is required, go deliver it, rather than whining.
The whole GB2WoW/Hello Kitty this way--> thing, whilst overused, is pretty apt because its about consequences (or lack thereof).
There are ways to avoid being ganked, and ways to get revenge, or, you can suck it up and get over the loss of an imaginary spaceship that exists in a game. Or you can, erm, try Hello Kitty Online
dammit
|
DuKackBoon
|
Posted - 2010.10.20 13:28:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Roguehalo WOW = 13,000,000 players Eve Online = 50,000 players
Let me fix that for you:
WoW: 11-12 million players EVE: +300 thousand players.
EVE: 62 thousand players on a single server simultaneously. WoW: 5-7k players on a single server.
|
Mytzso
Private Nuisance Segregati0n
|
Posted - 2010.10.20 15:31:00 -
[38]
ITT: f4gg0t trolls who just made my must suicide list
|
Jason Hardwick
|
Posted - 2010.10.20 15:34:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Elder Lemon Edited by: Elder Lemon on 20/10/2010 03:35:25
As everyone may well already know, if one breaks the 'law' in eve, their ship is destroyed by CONCORD. But is this realy enough? In eve, everyone has guns because they are an impliment of everyday life. We can slap on the guns and go were we want, so long as we do not harm anyone without justifiable reason such as war or aggression. But if harm is inflicted upon an innocent victim (depending on system security) he must wait for concord to arrive and destroy the hostile ship of who now is in a pod and must run to a station and sit cooked up in there for 15 minutes. But is this enough? Think about modern society. If someone randomly runs over someone else the police dont just take away the car and tell the person to stand in the corner for 15 minutes. No, the car is impounded (be it lambroghini or kia), the person is fined, then sent to prison for some time depending on intentions, fined a heafty sum, sometimes put on bail, and the drivers licence is revoked. To top it off the person recieves a criminal record. Now only would law enforcement like this be effective in eve but would eventualy make the security status in systems actualy mean something. Reprocussions would make an alt much harder to raise and skill up to be a 'scuicide alt'.
Concord should... - not only destroy the ship but put the person on agression for 24 hours rather than a laughable 15 minutes. - lower their security status - if the action is done multipule times ban the person from the system (just as someone with low faction standings is baned from that factions space) - take half the ships value from the players wallet. If the player does not have this sum they will pay 50% of all earning from then on to concord until the debt is paid. - possibly start taking skillpoints away if repeated multipule times.
Im not saying "OMG ALL GANKERS SHOOD B RAEPED!" no, im simply saying that if you have an alt, the rules virtualy dont apply to you. If someone is thrown in prison, do they toss their personality in another body and have the benifits transfered to that body? no, theyre screwed over to think about what theyve done. So if you go gank someone, dont bother switching accounts and playing on that. No, just stick to that player and see how fun things are. Thats the idea, make the crime life in high security less profitable.
These actions would make eve a safer place. Of course these enforcements would be held in security systems from 1.0 to .5
We all know jita would be such a better pplace to be if the people after your hauler werent alowed to be there
i agree
|
captain foivos
|
Posted - 2010.10.20 15:42:00 -
[40]
Captain HerpDerp reporting as requested.
Obviously, we need to make it so that people can no evade CONCORD. No, wait, we already did that. I guess we need to make CONCORD kill anyone with a GCC. No, wait, we already did that. I guess we need to make CONCORD kill anyone with a GCC within fifteen seconds. No, wait, we already did that. I guess we need CONCORD to insta-lock, jam, and neut everyone once they initiate criminal actions. No, wait, we already did that.
I guess we need to outlaw outlaws. -- I, for one, welcome the chance to open a bar I can decorate with the corpses of those I have slain. All hail Incarna. |
|
Elder Lemon
|
Posted - 2010.10.20 16:14:00 -
[41]
Originally by: The marketmagicmaker I think the point everyone seems to have glossed over in their rush to spew memes is the one point that does seem to be a valid one, the almost totally without risk use of alts. Using the buddy programme/plex application you can have a character with 51 days training for nothing more than the cost of their skillbooks and insurable T1 gank ship. Hisec should have an element of risk or its duller than dirty dishwater. Safer, not safe, but wheres the risk to the free suicide alt? Hell you start training a new one every 30 days, by the time the first is down to unusable negative security status, the replacements ready to rinse and repeat.
Risk free ganking? Seems fairly difficult to justify.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD I THANK YOU! you seem to be one of the only people understanding the point of my post. The conciquences are to make eve SAFER. im not saying 1.0 sec down to .5 should be gank free zones, rather, ide prefer not to loose another expensive ship because of somebody's alt who can happily hop on his main and use what he just stole from me whild concord glares angerly at his alt while tapping the man on its head calling him the law abiding citizen. the system is flawed and most of the people going against it are the ones who have 2 or 3 accounts happily profiting from this. Serious;y. "oh blah blah blah high sec needs risk." Like marketmagicmarker said, if oyu want risk, THEN STOP SCUICIDING WITH AN ALT AND DO IT WITH YOUR MAIN LIKE A MAN! Theres your risk.
|
Elena Niyana
Garoun Investment Bank
|
Posted - 2010.10.20 16:39:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Elena Niyana on 20/10/2010 16:41:32 people need to stop *****ing about this ****, i lost a HG slave omega to a suicide ganker, did I care? yes, did I think it was so unfair that i was suicide ganked? no, i left it AFk on a stargate near jita in a cloaky hauler that wasn't cloaked.
Thats my fault, not the gankers.
If you get ganked forget about exacting precision vengeance, just get vengeance on everyone.
i.e. Player B just killed player A, so player A kills players C through H as an act of vengance, doesnt upset player B but sure as hell makes player A feel better.
Also you can avoid alot of ganking by not being stupid, that helps.
Charging people money when they kill you as a game mechanic is ****ing pathetic.
|
AureoLion
|
Posted - 2010.10.20 16:43:00 -
[43]
LOLTEARS apart, i think i'd support account-wide sec status. but that wouldn't fix anything, six plex-founded alt accounts are free for 51 days.
|
Elder Lemon
|
Posted - 2010.10.20 17:55:00 -
[44]
People here seem to love this trait of 'realism' in eve. Lets try this again. Player A has an alt named player A(1). Player A sees something he wants on player B's ship. Ok, now player A makes player A(1) go kill player B. Little does player B know player A has yet another alt, Player A(2). Player A(2) takes whats left in the wreckage and tries not to get killed by anyone in Player B's corperation. Then player A(2) gives the loot to player A, the players main character so nothing can be traced. Meanwhile player B is a bit ticked off player A is laughing and making player A(1) and A(2) laugh it up as well because the whole scheme has inflicted NO damage whatsoever on player A because player A(1) gets all the blame from concord slapping him on the wrist and if his security status is low enough runs off to 0.0, kills some rats, and flies right by CONCORD who is nodding their heads saying "what a good citizen" as he jumps back to the system ready to start the cycle over again.
The next time you want your realism back, think about who is going to recieve the blame, you? or your scuicide alt. Where is the realism now? Oh yeah, spewing out of player B's wallet by the hundreds of millions.
I found something that relates to this a bit in the U.S. electoral system. Democrats say "its my right to not own insurance" (while everyone knows they have it anyway) so they can get elected. The republicans know the insurance if for the best. The only people who are thinking "Its my right to be able to get scuicide ganked" are the people who have the 3 alts and are bending the law enforcement programing in the game making all the money without the risk they fight to the death for.
|
Feligast
|
Posted - 2010.10.20 18:37:00 -
[45]
Elder, I think you're missing the key point that's already been posted. EVE DOES NOT EQUAL RL. The game is "realistic", not REAL. Therefore, using consequences for real life actions as a basis for what should happen in-game is pointless, and more than a little naive. The game is what it is.. and the fact that you have lost 9 ships in 2 months proves you're the type that expects everyone else, including making rules, in the game to change to make you comfortable, rather than you adapting to what others do in the game. As a famous man once said, go look mirror.
|
captain foivos
|
Posted - 2010.10.20 19:03:00 -
[46]
Edited by: captain foivos on 20/10/2010 19:07:56
Originally by: Elder Lemon I found something that relates to this a bit in the U.S. electoral system. Democrats say "its my right to not own insurance" (while everyone knows they have it anyway) so they can get elected. The republicans know the insurance if for the best. The only people who are thinking "Its my right to be able to get scuicide ganked" are the people who have the 3 alts and are bending the law enforcement programing in the game making all the money without the risk they fight to the death for.
Arctic yarn, kinsman.
I have this person I know who plays EVE, goes by the name Ankhesentempoopkah or something like that--you and she should get together some time and work on ideas like the ones in the OP. I can see great things happening.
Edit: oops, I forgot something. -- I, for one, welcome the chance to open a bar I can decorate with the corpses of those I have slain. All hail Incarna. |
Dian'h Might
Minmatar Cash and Cargo Liberators Incorporated
|
Posted - 2010.10.20 23:15:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Roguehalo High level pvping in WOW(think high level 5v5 rating) requires huge amounts of skill and hopefully is fun for ALL involved.
Happy slapping is presumably fun for the 20 strong groups of moronic brain dead kids engaging in it. Not so much fun for the victims though.
Not a 1:1 comparison for two reasons: 1) WoW is quite limiting in terms of recourse other than pvp-ing someone back. In eve you have the potential to get even in many different ways other than attempting to fight them in space with fixed odds.
2) In WoW if a low level player dies 20 times and finally kills a higher level on the 21st try, why would the high level player care? All he needs to do is walk back to his corpse. In eve a loss actually hurts. If a group of new players is getting harassed by a group of older players, chances are that all they really need to do is kill one aggressor to come out ahead isk-wise. - - - Dian'h Might - C&Ps resident "internet kleptomaniac" |
Flinx Evenstar
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.10.20 23:30:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Flinx Evenstar on 20/10/2010 23:33:02
Originally by: Roguehalo
High level pvping in WOW(think high level 5v5 rating) requires huge amounts of skill and hopefully is fun for ALL involved.
Happy slapping is presumably fun for the 20 strong groups of moronic brain dead kids engaging in it. Not so much fun for the victims though.
As a moronic brain dead kid, I would like to hear more about the high level challenges involved in doing a 5v5 rating thing, the huge amount of skill needed might be too much for me to handle, so please use pictures.
--- Witness epic fleet battles in Dominion
|
Lady Spank
Amarr Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2010.10.20 23:35:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Flinx Evenstar Edited by: Flinx Evenstar on 20/10/2010 23:33:02
Originally by: Roguehalo
High level pvping in WOW(think high level 5v5 rating) requires huge amounts of skill and hopefully is fun for ALL involved.
Happy slapping is presumably fun for the 20 strong groups of moronic brain dead kids engaging in it. Not so much fun for the victims though.
As a moronic brain dead kid, I would like to hear more about the high level challenges involved in doing a 5v5 rating thing, the huge amount of skill needed might be too much for me to handle, so please use pictures.
Flinx Evenstar how very dare you talk smack about challenge and skill.
I hereby challenge you to a fight, any shiptype. I bet you are scared.
I will see you on SISI for this srs bsns.
~_~
|
Flinx Evenstar
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.10.20 23:40:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Lady Spank
Flinx Evenstar how very dare you talk smack about challenge and skill.
I hereby challenge you to a fight, any shiptype. I bet you are scared.
I will see you on SISI for this srs bsns.
I'm literally that bad, I can only get sisi to work on a full moon when the wind blows from the west. (why do they make it so hard)
Instead I could always gank you in high sec when you are not expecting it, that would help to validate the ops point that this game has no honour. --- Witness epic fleet battles in Dominion
|
|
Infinity Ziona
Minmatar Red Whine
|
Posted - 2010.10.21 05:07:00 -
[51]
Punishments in general are there for 2 reasons. Mainly as a deterrent and secondly as a punitive measure (cause we want to see someone suffer if they made us suffer).
At the moment both of these mechanics are broken in EVE. Instead of deterrence for suiciding there is real incentive (lots of isks and insurance payout). There are no punitive measures. You can simply do a few profit making things to get your sec back up (disregarding the very common recycling that isn't really policed).
It should be possible to suicide someone if you really want to put in effort. But I don't think it should be so easy as to be probably the least risky and easiest method of making lots of isk in EVE at the moment. Proving once again, that, I AM BETTER THAN YOU. |
Creepy CousinRoger
|
Posted - 2010.10.21 11:44:00 -
[52]
This topic is pretty funny
|
Lady Spank
Amarr Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2010.10.21 11:50:00 -
[53]
Flinx I will give you a schedule to my high sec mining and hauling activities, please remember to bring a side dish and bottle. ~_~
|
Child Pork
|
Posted - 2010.10.21 18:46:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Spruillo
Originally by: Elder Lemon
Blah blabablahblahblah BORING
Anke-style garbage
Dont lead the Lemon on, he might think his ideas are any good
|
Spectre80
Caldari The Knights Templar R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.10.21 19:18:00 -
[55]
tbh i like this idea.
|
Mr Moris
|
Posted - 2010.10.21 21:13:00 -
[56]
When I fund raise for expensive toys, I suicide gank. It's the fastest, easiest, most profitable way to make isk if you can stand the initial boredom of scanning/scouting (for me at least).
Some don't have the moxy for it just like some people can't ever seem to get their heads around station trading. To each their own.
Some people are poor gankers, grabbing some ****ty t1 hauler for a few score mil (maybe a hundred mil even :). Others have it refined to a science (Barqs anyone?)
In the end it's all bull****. Because the CONCORD response is so very predictable with a little bit of planning the penalties can be mitigated while the rewards are sky high. Tempest w/ insurance you're out 25mil w/ a 12k alpha strike leaves a lot of wiggle room.
Maybe we need some randomizing in penalties. More drastic sec losses or huge fines able to put wallets in the negatives. Remove the ability to station trade or loot wrecks from negative wallets to completely trash "throw-away" alts if they are used.
Maybe make CONCORD blow up all wrecks on grid instantly upon arrival? You could still grief whomever you want, but you're not gonna gain anything from it. Net loss for everyone involved.
Maybe we could make it so any aggressive actions are effected by an instant CONCORD counter measure preventing said attack unless the attacker is an upstanding citizen (3.0-5.0 sec status?). Force people to get their standing sky high before they're given wiggle room by CONCORD to even try the attack. Example: sec status 0.0 You fire at t1 hauler noob. Concord responds by detecting your weapons priming and blowing up your ship before they fire. sec status 3.0 You fire at a t1 hauler noob. Concord is busy watching all the untrustworthies in system and doesn't notice until you've fired and normal concord response commences.
As it stands, it's pretty lame. Get 2-3 friends together and you can pop any non-freighter transport. I personally like the idea of leaving the system the same except all wrecks get toasted by concord so there is never any loot from a highsec gank. Call it a breach of the Yula treaty or whatever and open up a nice isk-sink.
|
Lady Spank
Amarr Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2010.10.21 21:22:00 -
[57]
A better way to cull the amount of suicide ganking is to remove autopilot, or impose a stupidface tax on people flying around with too much isk value in crappy untanked ships. ~_~
|
Mr Moris
|
Posted - 2010.10.21 21:30:00 -
[58]
Stupidface tax=they lose everything, just as it is now. Only difference is the gankers get nothing either.
|
Roguehalo
Caldari Resonance Laboratories
|
Posted - 2010.10.21 22:04:00 -
[59]
"When I fund raise for expensive toys, I suicide gank. It's the fastest, easiest, most profitable way to make isk if you can stand the initial boredom of scanning/scouting (for me at least)."
I guess me sitting on 35b and refusing to do anything with it..........and particularly not investing it in any kind of carebear ship is not such a dumb decision.
|
Schwa88
Death By Association Violent Intent
|
Posted - 2010.10.21 23:17:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Elder Lemon Troll stuff
tl;dr internet spaceships should be exactly like real life for no apparent reason
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |