Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 .. 27 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |
Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
1584
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 03:26:00 -
[511] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Grumpymunky wrote:Those who have never lifted a finger against the evildoers of highsec will not change, but will expect a sudden influx of bounty-hunting heroes to do it for them now.
That's just not going to happen. The average member of the average highsec corporation won't engage anything unless he has 3-1 numerical superiority and the target is in a ship 2 hull sizes smaller than him. Just today I had a mixed battleship/BC fleet run away from our 4 assault frigates and a battlecruiser. That's the kind of thing we're dealing with here. The only people in highsec who will go out and seek PVP are already doing it right now. This bounty system won't do anything to increase the quantity of PVP occurring in highsec and in fact it adds a significant disincentive to suicide ganking and lowsec PVP for casual players. How many people who live in highsec but casually do lowsec roams are going to be discouraged from that by the possibility of someone randomly activating a killright on them without warning as they land on the perimeter gate in jita? I'm going to say plenty. You're certainly right about people who actually want to be bounty hunters being disappointed, it's probably the least useful an iteration that any mechanic has ever seen. I don't mean this to be offensive or to be a personal attack. I don't always agree with you, but this post here, this is gold. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
Ludi Burek
The Player Haters Corp
164
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 03:42:00 -
[512] - Quote
Grumpymunky wrote:Asuri Kinnes wrote:Carebears / hi-sec'ers don't attack when we're -10 flying in space now, what makes you think they are going to attack in the future? I am tempted to come back to the game just to see how bad this does become. Those who have never lifted a finger against the evildoers of highsec will not change, but will expect a sudden influx of bounty-hunting heroes to do it for them now. Those who have been waiting the last 9 years for bounty-hunting to become a viable profession are looking at these changes wondering why they even bothered.
Brief and precise summaries don't get much better then this.
Being one of the fools who stupidly expected a system that resembles actual bounty hunting under a license (kill rights) I just look at CCP's proposal and sigh. I fixed my sec for this? Sigh...
I personally have zero interest herpa derping after global suspects or paying for kill rights which allow everyone to act. Another area of eve I can add to, errr, return to the "don't bother basket". |
Touval Lysander
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
356
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 04:09:00 -
[513] - Quote
captain foivos wrote:Touval Lysander wrote:Now all we need is for the entire CCP team to realise they're not as smart as you guys and Eve will be "fixed". In all seriousness, that would be a godsend. "In all seriousness" << and right THERE lies the problem.
You ACTUALLY believe it. Amazing. I lost countless ships and millions of isk on gank attempts. I did not blame CCP, Concord or the miner. I blamed me for bothering. I made more money.......... mining.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
974
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 04:36:00 -
[514] - Quote
Touval Lysander wrote:captain foivos wrote:Touval Lysander wrote:Now all we need is for the entire CCP team to realise they're not as smart as you guys and Eve will be "fixed". In all seriousness, that would be a godsend. "In all seriousness" << and right THERE lies the problem. You ACTUALLY believe it. Amazing. I don't think they're unintelligent. They're simply misguided and/or dishonest about the direction they want to take. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1590
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 05:10:00 -
[515] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Touval Lysander wrote:captain foivos wrote:Touval Lysander wrote:Now all we need is for the entire CCP team to realise they're not as smart as you guys and Eve will be "fixed". In all seriousness, that would be a godsend. "In all seriousness" << and right THERE lies the problem. You ACTUALLY believe it. Amazing. I don't think they're unintelligent. They're simply misguided and/or dishonest about the direction they want to take. Can anyone but them tell the difference?
In fact, can they? Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
1217
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 06:19:00 -
[516] - Quote
Players like Lin-Young and Touval claim that the changes in their proposed form will lead to an increase in/betterment of pvp. I am not sure whether they think that sincerely, or whether saying something like this simply promotes their own agendas, whatever they may be. Either way, they refuse to even acknowledge our argument for why they are wrong. So, I will type it out here, in nice bold letters, so that they have no excuse to not address this point. Ready, everyone?
These changes will not affect us because will use alts to engage in criminal activities. We will use alts to suicide-gank, and we will use alts to flip peoples' cans.
In the case of suicide-ganking, our usage of alts will prevent loss and inconvenience because these alts are used in such a manner that they are only exposed to neutral players for very short periods of time, as in the couple of seconds they remain on grid after warping in but before CONCORD blows them up. These alts are already outlaws, and are disposable (as in, we do not care about further security status losses or killboard stats). Their ships are also disposable, so even if the alts get hit by players before CONCORD arrives, the loss is minimal and negligible.
In the case of can-flipping, the alts will flip miners'/missioners' cans, then transfer the entire contents to their own cans, at which point our mains will take from our alts' cans, and then transfer the contents to new cans. This way we will still be able to remain suspect-neutral on our mains, while at most risking a shuttle or a frigate on our alts to accomplish the same thing that can be done today using our mains alone.
This is why these changes will not result to increased/better pvp. Our mains will never gain those suspect flags, and no one will be able to openly shoot them. The only people who will legitimately suffer are low-sec pvpers who travel to high-sec. In fact, that might cause some of them to rethink their low-sec pvp habits. This would lead to a net decrease in pvp.
The reasons given above are why you are wrong. I am not saying this as a bystanding speculator. I am saying this as a person whose activities have been 99% pvp for almost a decade. We have absolutely no incentive to perform these criminal activities with our mains if they result in such unbalanced consequences. Therefore, you will never see us with suspect flags. Unless we are baiting, in which case you won't win anyway. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Vanyr Andrard
Foo Holdings Free 2 Play
5
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 06:28:00 -
[517] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
[b]These changes will not affect us because will use alts to engage in criminal activities. We will use alts to suicide-gank, and we will use alts to flip peoples' cans.
So, you're saying that with realistic penalties in place, people who live in high-sec won't engage in criminal activities on their mains, but that you'll use alts so that those criminal activities will still take place?
So 1. Realism is promoted, no more criminal mains in high-sec. 2. The cruel sandbox is preserved, as people will create criminal alts to still gank and canflip.
Sounds like a win-win to me. What's the problem again?
From the conclusion of the OP
"So, there you have it. CCP is finally getting rid of the undesirables. There's no other explanation for it. It's impossible to justify this new set of rules as anything other than "we no longer consider suicide-ganking, or for that matter any type of unwanted aggression, an acceptable gameplay mechanic."
That, or CCP really really wants people to roll more disposable Thrasher alts."
So, you've decided, after 26 pages, that, yes, CCP really wants people to roll more disposable thrasher alts, which is exactly where we started. Pointless thread is pointless? (p.s. disposing of those alts is a bannable exploit, surely you meant something else?) |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
1217
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 06:31:00 -
[518] - Quote
I didn't mention disposing of them anywhere.
You are correct on all other counts, however. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Vanyr Andrard
Foo Holdings Free 2 Play
5
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 06:33:00 -
[519] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:disposable Thrasher alts
I guess you mean thrasher alts on disposable accounts? That makes sense, nvm my point then. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
1217
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 06:37:00 -
[520] - Quote
Okay I see what you mean. It's really a matter of semantics. When we call them disposable, we mean that losing sec status or getting loss mails on those characters is not detrimental to our interests, like it might be with our mains.
When those gank alts hit -10, we continue using them. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
|
Vanyr Andrard
Foo Holdings Free 2 Play
5
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 06:43:00 -
[521] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Okay I see what you mean. It's really a matter of semantics. When we call them disposable, we mean that losing sec status or getting loss mails on those characters is not detrimental to our interests, like it might be with our mains.
When those gank alts hit -10, we continue using them.
People get too wrapped up in preserving the past. More penalties, more realism, more consequences is good. The problem is that balance isn't maintained in these consequences. Make highsec safer, fine..but keep the profit potential in hisec in balance with the danger. Have they implemented NPCs in lowsec that will only talk to people with low secstatus yet? The imbalance is the only thing that bugs me about these kinds of changes. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
292
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 10:31:00 -
[522] - Quote
Sounds like someones easy mode is getting broken . Of course someone elses easy mode is getting easier, ccp giveth and ccp taketh away. |
|
GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
926
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 10:48:00 -
[523] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:ISD Suvetar wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:That's just asking for a ban, you know rookie systems are like wildlife reserves, and rookies are a protected species, no hunting allowed. They shot first. I was just passing through on my way to being a good EVE citizen in Motsu. All absolute seriousness, I urge you not to test the GMs on this point So in other words if you pass through a rookie system and get engaged by noobs, petition it and don't shoot back? I'm just looking for clarification, here. Not to sound mean, but between the changes and the enforcement of said changes, they don't really know what they're doing. I can construct these tactics in such a manner that they'll have to invent a reason to punish me for something entirely arbitrary. Which is in fact what I'm doing right now.
I know I am very late to the party here, but I read this bit of conversation and I am going to clarify.
If you are attacked you can fight back, of course.
BUT, if you try and game the system to trick rookies into attacking you first (by, for example, having your alt activate the kill right on you right when you happen to sit at the undock of a rookie station(and yes, we can see that sort of thing) ) you are being the type of person that we give free vacations to. In all seriousness, do NOT try and game the system to go after rookies. We do not care how well you argue or how well your internet lawyering skills are. We do NOT allow this and the spirit of this principle trumps any and all other rules about game play we have. If you do this and your argument is "but this rule or this mechanic states..." then stop right there and do not bother; we WILL hammer down on that. No exceptions. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4908
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 11:38:00 -
[524] - Quote
Let me tell you about a little Law of EVE that some guy once discovered. MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
145
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 12:38:00 -
[525] - Quote
honestly just come camp a low sec gate if you want to catch rookies at a legit mistake, instead of baiting them :\ |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
145
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 12:50:00 -
[526] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:I wonder what will happen the first time a griefer corp warps 15 pilots to the Jita undock and has all of them go suspect at once.
One of them gets attacked and the others can't attack the opposition unless the opposition attacks them as well :P |
Meryl SinGarda
Belligerent Underpayed Tactical Team
613
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 13:26:00 -
[527] - Quote
Why are you upset over this? I would love being able to shoot someone in high security space without Concord taking me out for lunch. Either learn to accept and deal with change, or play another game that never changes.
|
Grumpy Owly
Paladin Philanthropists
675
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 14:15:00 -
[528] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Whine .. whine .. whine...
People get to shoot me now *cry*, I feel entitled to not allow others to do this freely, but expect suicide ganking to have no consequece for criminal activity.
I dont care, I'll just use alts like the coward I am, I dont care about EvE or gameplay, just an invalid sense of acheivement from cheating the system.
No respect for you at all Destiny Corrupted. Your worse than all the carebear whiners with your similar "I must win at all costs" mentality. Bounty Hunting - Soon (Gäó): Retribution (Winter 2012)
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
952
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 14:28:00 -
[529] - Quote
@OP
Are you even aware of the fact they're adding an idiot switch *not officially announced yet* that will basically stop anyone from accidentally shooting anyone and causing certain criminal actions?
Basically, your example with the Rookie is impossible, because it will be impossible for him to commit a crime with that switch set to "on".
You get the picture.
I agree with what you're saying. And as you said, people will just use alts specifically for this, and they will never see the light of day except to nado gank your freighter.
Where I am. |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
764
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 14:34:00 -
[530] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:Basically, your example with the Rookie is impossible, because it will be impossible for him to commit a crime with that switch set to "on". It's quite possible because the rookie would be shooting a legal target; a suspect can be shot by one and all. Nothing Found |
|
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
817
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 15:13:00 -
[531] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:BUT, if you try and game the system to trick rookies into attacking you first (by, for example, having your alt activate the kill right on you right when you happen to sit at the undock of a rookie station(and yes, we can see that sort of thing) ) you are being the type of person that we give free vacations to. In all seriousness, do NOT try and game the system to go after rookies. We do not care how well you argue or how well your internet lawyering skills are. We do NOT allow this and the spirit of this principle trumps any and all other rules about game play we have. If you do this and your argument is "but this rule or this mechanic states..." then stop right there and do not bother; we WILL hammer down on that. No exceptions.
Thx for this clarification GM Homonoia. Seems some people around are by far more interested on how to abuse rules to engage rookies than actually profit from this new awesome system you guys work on to actually get more pvp.
Would like your confirmation on my readings, you are actually creating more pvp opportunities and making high sec less safer.
Am I right? brb |
|
GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
933
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 15:20:00 -
[532] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:BUT, if you try and game the system to trick rookies into attacking you first (by, for example, having your alt activate the kill right on you right when you happen to sit at the undock of a rookie station(and yes, we can see that sort of thing) ) you are being the type of person that we give free vacations to. In all seriousness, do NOT try and game the system to go after rookies. We do not care how well you argue or how well your internet lawyering skills are. We do NOT allow this and the spirit of this principle trumps any and all other rules about game play we have. If you do this and your argument is "but this rule or this mechanic states..." then stop right there and do not bother; we WILL hammer down on that. No exceptions. Thx for this clarification GM Homonoia. Seems some people around are by far more interested on how to abuse rules to engage rookies than actually profit from this new awesome system you guys work on to actually get more pvp. Would like your confirmation on my readings, you are actually creating more pvp opportunities and making high sec less safer. Am I right?
That is something you would have to ask a game designer as game masters do not determine what will be put into the game or why. As another GM put it; if game design wants to add rusty bikes to the game we will support it, as long as we get logs stating how much rust is on the bike at any point in time and whose pants it manages to stain. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
293
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 15:21:00 -
[533] - Quote
I haven't seen anywhere where they say the will reduce killrights from 30days to 24 hrs..... |
Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
307
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 15:23:00 -
[534] - Quote
Doddy wrote:I haven't seen anywhere where they say the will reduce killrights from 30days to 24 hrs..... 30 days, even better. The hell of I know exactly how long they last. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
817
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 15:26:00 -
[535] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:Bloodpetal wrote:Basically, your example with the Rookie is impossible, because it will be impossible for him to commit a crime with that switch set to "on". It's quite possible because the rookie would be shooting a legal target; a suspect can be shot by one and all.
Read GM post above before even trying, if you do, don't cry after because ban hammer sent your account 6ft underground. There will be no excuse for playing with alts created for this single purpose, and as GM Homonoia just clearly stated, those are things they can perfectly spot. Now add petitions and figure out the number of tears incoming.
Anyway, individuals with this single goal of jerking other players do not deserve nor attention nor excuse and the game as a whole would be a lot better without them, they can go jerk some other game they will not be missed. brb |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
817
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 15:28:00 -
[536] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:BUT, if you try and game the system to trick rookies into attacking you first (by, for example, having your alt activate the kill right on you right when you happen to sit at the undock of a rookie station(and yes, we can see that sort of thing) ) you are being the type of person that we give free vacations to. In all seriousness, do NOT try and game the system to go after rookies. We do not care how well you argue or how well your internet lawyering skills are. We do NOT allow this and the spirit of this principle trumps any and all other rules about game play we have. If you do this and your argument is "but this rule or this mechanic states..." then stop right there and do not bother; we WILL hammer down on that. No exceptions. Thx for this clarification GM Homonoia. Seems some people around are by far more interested on how to abuse rules to engage rookies than actually profit from this new awesome system you guys work on to actually get more pvp. Would like your confirmation on my readings, you are actually creating more pvp opportunities and making high sec less safer. Am I right? That is something you would have to ask a game designer as game masters do not determine what will be put into the game or why. As another GM put it; if game design wants to add rusty bikes to the game we will support it, as long as we get logs stating how much rust is on the bike at any point in time and whose pants it manages to stain.
Thx for this interesting answer brb |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
764
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 15:35:00 -
[537] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Karl Hobb wrote:Bloodpetal wrote:Basically, your example with the Rookie is impossible, because it will be impossible for him to commit a crime with that switch set to "on". It's quite possible because the rookie would be shooting a legal target; a suspect can be shot by one and all. Read GM post above before even trying, if you do, don't cry after because ban hammer sent your account 6ft underground. There will be no excuse for playing with alts created for this single purpose, and as GM Homonoia just clearly stated, those are things they can perfectly spot. Now add petitions and figure out the number of tears incoming. I'm not into ******* with newbs, just pointing out how the new mechanics work, so it would be appreciated if you would actually read what I wrote before running your mouth about it. Nothing Found |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1436
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 15:55:00 -
[538] - Quote
A lot of hostility in this thread. I would like to add that kill rights should never expire until they are used.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
293
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 15:55:00 -
[539] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:Doddy wrote:I haven't seen anywhere where they say the will reduce killrights from 30days to 24 hrs..... 30 days, even better. The hell of I know exactly how long they last.
Well because there is nothing better than getting ganked by a bunch of wannabe pirates only to find them in thier high sec mission ships a week later.
|
Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
307
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 15:58:00 -
[540] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Karl Hobb wrote:Bloodpetal wrote:Basically, your example with the Rookie is impossible, because it will be impossible for him to commit a crime with that switch set to "on". It's quite possible because the rookie would be shooting a legal target; a suspect can be shot by one and all. Read GM post above before even trying, if you do, don't cry after because ban hammer sent your account 6ft underground. There will be no excuse for playing with alts created for this single purpose, and as GM Homonoia just clearly stated, those are things they can perfectly spot. Now add petitions and figure out the number of tears incoming. I'm not into ******* with newbs, just pointing out how the new mechanics work, so it would be appreciated if you would actually read what I wrote before running your mouth about it. It doesn't make it bad.
They're trying to remove tricking people into being able to get shot. This should make it clear who you can or can not shoot at, as well as provide the oportunity for more people to get involved in shooting each other in high sec.
Anything that can potentially make pvp more accessible to more people is a good thing for EVE.
Using it to greif new players is an entirely other issue, and something that people are already doing anyways. It's irrelevant, just don't do it.
The only people who will not benefit from this are those people who do not want more people being able to shoot at them. The people who want to gank without putting themselves into a situation where other people can easily retaliate against them.
I totally understand that many people would prefer that they just put in a toggle that allowed players to set a PvP flag to on, so that you can pvp in high sec without concord involvement, and they should.
The problem is, the ******* carebears wont use it! You'll get like 3 guys out of 300 thousand that will actually turn on the pvp flag, ******* yay.
However, give them the option to decide first, and you'll likely see more people engaging than less. Carebears don't want to be subject to RANDOM pvp, they want CONTROLLED CONCENSUAL pvp.
Non concensual pvp that is penalized with concensual pvp is just about the best way that CCP could have handled ganking and can flipping. Seriously, the only alternative is to remove the ability to gank and can flip entirely and put in only /pvp option.
People should learn to count their ******* blessings instead of bitching all time. CCP is literally giving us the best of both worlds and people are bitching about it. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 .. 27 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |