| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Troll Bait
   |
Posted - 2011.05.10 11:47:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Troll Bait on 10/05/2011 11:50:59
Edited by: Troll Bait on 10/05/2011 11:50:33
since canflippers act in gangs -mostly- there should be equal rights for all. There are few approaches to this:
1) Every pilot with an agressive mod on their ship from the flipping players corp will get aggro towards your corp AND your gang. (this could also be reduced to a range of 32AU (oh exploitable) to 3 jumps out)
2) You can fight back with less risk. (his corp mates cannot interfere, nor do you get a timer for their whole corp)
3) expand the aggro timer for the canflipper, that guy stole your stuff. maybe even get killrights.
4) Protection rights for dedicated mercenary corps. This would give a corp or member the option to take care of the ones they love, without the need of a wardec.
Either way, players should feel more responsibility when making a quick steal or try to be a pain in the ass. i'm just sayin'.
Also would this add more need for a slightly better balance of players within corps, people would "work" more together, and for those who want to see the world burn, they get all the heat they need.
Other changes to the game mechanics should be done aswell, if someone in a fleet agresses a player, all gang members should get a limited aggro timer just for the heck of less concordokken exploitation.
edit: did i mention my idea of having an extra window to see who you can kill? oh well, there we go =)
and while we're at it, another extra window to see where the players are you have killrights on, that would be nice.
|
Danika Princip
Minmatar
Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 13:33:00 -
[2]
HTFU.
No.
|
Kaelie Onren
|
Posted - 2011.05.11 06:39:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Kaelie Onren on 11/05/2011 06:39:37
I'm not sure if you are being serious or just trying to troll (forgive me if the former, but you may want to choose a better name) but if you want people to consider your proposal (and even then sometimes they won't :) you may have to spend a bit more time laying out exactly the problem you are trying to solve for here, and how the proposal will proportedly solve it, and point out any unexpected potential side effects it may have. (although the veterans in the forum will no doubt do that for you if you miss any).
The first point alone seems a little too far fetched with way too many negative reprocussions (what is an aggressive module?) to accept without more clarification.
I usually take the side of the carebears in these matters (hey someone has to, as our CSM are all nullsec alliance pvp'ers.) but even then I find it hard to support this.
|
Alexander Third
Gallente
Crystal Industries
|
Posted - 2011.06.04 02:03:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Troll Bait
Edited by: Troll Bait on 10/05/2011 11:50:59
Edited by: Troll Bait on 10/05/2011 11:50:33
since canflippers act in gangs -mostly- there should be equal rights for all. There are few approaches to this:
1) Every pilot with an agressive mod on their ship from the flipping players corp will get aggro towards your corp AND your gang. (this could also be reduced to a range of 32AU (oh exploitable) to 3 jumps out)
2) You can fight back with less risk. (his corp mates cannot interfere, nor do you get a timer for their whole corp)
3) expand the aggro timer for the canflipper, that guy stole your stuff. maybe even get killrights.
4) Protection rights for dedicated mercenary corps. This would give a corp or member the option to take care of the ones they love, without the need of a wardec.
1. corp always gets KR's, as for gangs, that could be very greatly exploited
2.Exploitable...
3.You do get killrights and if you don't get the theif in 15 minutes, you're not going to
4. WHAT? I don't understand that. also how do you define merc corp, it would take forever to code for that.
|
Azver Deroven
Amarr
Pitch Black.
Shadow Cartel
|
Posted - 2011.06.04 03:40:00 -
[5]
Would it, really?
I mean the guy's a troll but its a fair point; Merc corps should be capable of 'taking the killrights' from carebears via corporation deal of sorts; Basicly "Carebears Alliance" hires "We smash stuff" to protect them from flippers and sorts; When someone flips Carebear alliance's can, We smash stuff gets killrights instead Carebears.
That'd be kinda nice, if 1 corp has system where they heavilly do **** they could hire an corp by the hour to post guard to gates & stations.
----------------------------------------------------
My views do not represent those of my alliance, corporation or myself. Trully, sometimes I manage to confuse even myself.
|
Mr Stark
|
Posted - 2011.06.04 17:43:00 -
[6]
You have the right to remain silent.
|
Seamus Donohue
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.06.04 22:07:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Azver Deroven
Would it, really?
I mean the guy's a troll but its a fair point; Merc corps should be capable of 'taking the killrights' from carebears via corporation deal of sorts; Basicly "Carebears Alliance" hires "We smash stuff" to protect them from flippers and sorts; When someone flips Carebear alliance's can, We smash stuff gets killrights instead Carebears.
That'd be kinda nice, if 1 corp has system where they heavilly do **** they could hire an corp by the hour to post guard to gates & stations.
Formal treaties where one corporation inherits the rights to shoot at another corporation's thieves? I could support that.
Hasn't CCP talked about a proper treaty system, before? This feature wouldn't be too much additional work on top of the rest of the treaty system.
_____
SURVIVOR of Teskanen, fan of John Rourke.
The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated |
Dopesick
Ice Hogz
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 13:33:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Dopesick on 05/06/2011 13:33:26
Solution: Don't mine into Jet Cans.
edit: spelling error (I just woke up)
|
Azver Deroven
Amarr
Pitch Black.
Shadow Cartel
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 17:51:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Seamus Donohue
Originally by: Azver Deroven
stuff
Formal treaties where one corporation inherits the rights to shoot at another corporation's thieves? I could support that.
Hasn't CCP talked about a proper treaty system, before? This feature wouldn't be too much additional work on top of the rest of the treaty system.
This.
I could support that as well but as it stands in this thread, no thanks.
----------------------------------------------------
My views do not represent those of my alliance, corporation or myself. Trully, sometimes I manage to confuse even myself.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |