| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Typherin laidai
   |
Posted - 2005.06.17 11:37:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Typherin laidai on 17/06/2005 11:50:51
Haha dispite the title and my usual posts this isn't a flame. but a very quick and simple to solution to the high Sec ganking going on atm.
Please note I do not personally see a problem with it... but it is taking up some of my valubale trol... I mean posting time.. So .. heres my solution.
[1 Way Ticket Out Of CarebearVille]
Any acts of Ship Destruction Or Pod Destruction within 0.5 - 1.0 space will result in a -40.0% sec decrease.
And before the Ooo but what if I did it by accident ?
CCP have implemented warning systems to inform you you are about to commit an act of aggression. if you choose to ignore this that is your choice..
As to accidents with smartbombs.... I couldn't care less.. sorry to bring up Rl comparrisons... but If I set off a bomb in the centre of london then the police probably wouldn't be too interested in my "awww come on.. t'was an accident"  but note how I didn't mention the sec hit for simply attacking a player.. the Sb doesn't normally kill anyone in one... so the accident will generally just result in your standard ship loss 
so... It would eliminate persistant griefers... especially those using alt's as they would be a 1 hit wonder making recycling Very obvious.
So that be my idea.... feel free to comment / flame me... not too bothered. but people seem to want a fix to high sec griefing and this is one
[EDIT] changed title to something a bit more flameproof 
 Originally by: Eris Discordia
*gives Typherin some loving*
|
babylonstew
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 11:42:00 -
[2]
as a matter of fact, thats probably the first sensible idea i have heard so far,and i agree with it.
if someone wants to deierately ruin a players day in high sec, they should have to pay a serious penalty for it, and chain rats whatever for a fair amount of time to compensate for it..
bravo for your first serious post joke 
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination. |
Hulemand
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 11:42:00 -
[3]
Good idea!
It's hard to do ship kill by accident 
|
Typherin laidai
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 11:48:00 -
[4]
Originally by: babylonstew
bravo for your first serious post joke
I resent that
Originally by: Eris Discordia
*gives Typherin some loving*
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 11:59:00 -
[5]
Bad idea.
Someone is mining in Jita.
Ore thief comes along.
Miner goes to get Caracal.
Miner ganks ore thief.
Miner can never mine in Jita again.
Hauler escorts see potential gankers.
Escorts fire first to ensure hauler survives.
Escorts banished from Empire.
Nope - solves nothing, bad idea, not thought through.
______________________________________________
Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay. |
Typherin laidai
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 12:02:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Avon
Bad idea.
Someone is mining in Jita.
Ore thief comes along.
Miner goes to get Caracal.
Miner ganks ore thief.
Miner can never mine in Jita again.
Hauler escorts see potential gankers.
Escorts fire first to ensure hauler survives.
Escorts banished from Empire.
Nope - solves nothing, bad idea, not thought through.
And who commited the crime ? the Ore thief or the Miner ?
Id like to say the Miner Anyway I aint gunna argue... Ore theft is not a crime. Attacking someone is
Originally by: Eris Discordia
*gives Typherin some loving*
|
SinBin
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 12:13:00 -
[7]
Edited by: SinBin on 17/06/2005 12:15:12
hehe what a poor effeort avon d- for you, but i see it would effect you as you like a bit of empire work.
Originally by: Avon
Bad idea.
Someone is mining in Jita.
Ore thief comes along.
Miner goes to get Caracal.
Miner ganks ore thief.
Miner can never mine in Jita again.
1, I dont think a greedy smart miner will go for his caracel & he will read the wrnings also & not bother.
2, Who cares if he killed something its his own fault & hes
a greedy 1.0 miner ?.
Quote:
Hauler escorts see potential gankers.
Escorts fire first to ensure hauler survives.
Escorts banished from Empire.
Nope - solves nothing, bad idea, not thought through.
Since when does anyone escort there hauler in empire ? & fire on gankers first ?.
Only in wars but then thats a war target ?.
_______________________________________
Ill Shutup when CCP remove bookmarks
Maybe end the election round will do it ?
& could save hundred of Users & Mods pain. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 12:18:00 -
[8]
You people are unreal.
The two examples I just gave are the most pimped 'solutions' to 'carebear' problems proposed by 'gankers' recently.
Now you are saying that they should be nerf'd by game mechanics?
I am all for players comming up with solutions, and yet still people propose game mechanic changes instead.
Do they never learn from the history of the game?
Ah well, whatever.
Makes no difference to me, just more targets on the list.
______________________________________________
Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay. |
anthonieak
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 12:20:00 -
[9]
In my opinion. Ore that is jettison in space. Is not a crime in eyes of CCP, because you jettison it. They forgot too mention that those jettisons cans can have 7 times the cargo capacity as the highest giant secure can that is availeble.
So every scammer, pirate and other players that do not work in eve, can empty your mined ore. The only problem for pirate is they cannot kill you in high security space, but the crime in my eyes stay the same.
Those people do not know what working is in Eve, they are just a virus in eve, for the hard working miner. They are the egoist in Eve, they only think on themselves. And how too make the life in Eve for many as unpleasants as possible.
AK
***********************************************
Missing Lola Gold Since 6-4-2004
Miner Addicted |
Tobiaz
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 12:21:00 -
[10]
Fine by me, but not until they fix piracy in frigates and cruisers in low security.
And CCP, don't come with that 'next patch zydrine' crap. Miners are annoying, they don't pay ransoms, they are unlike to use anything more valuable then a T2 mining laser on Ospreys, and FFS I'm not interested in stealing 4500m3 of Jaspet if I'm in a frigate!
You can't touch the traffic unless you're in a battleship and even then forget about agent runners or traffic on instas.
BTW, <0.4 NPC are deadly for frigate and cruiser pirates. Why can't pirates get some friendly standing with NPC pirate factions in return of pirates no longer NPC-ing or mining belts. Maybe in combination with some special NPC services and requiring a -5.0 security standing.
It might stop hobby-pirating with good security standings and with multimillion ISK wallets, and hey! No more high sec ganking, repair and repeat.
Oh and FFS get rid of those <0.4 system traps surrounded by high sec empire. There are less pirates in those then even Yulai!
Maybe connect them with NPC pirate faction gates for frigates & cruisers only belonging to pirates with good standing and bad sec.
Oh and ofcourse...sentries...
IMHO there is nothing wrong with high sec ganking as long as the rest is broken too.
Anyway, get a T2 indy or just transport your BS bpos in a battleships, nice bandaid until the rest is actually solved.
Spacerats recruiting! |
Typherin laidai
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 12:21:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Avon
You people are unreal.
The two examples I just gave are the most pimped 'solutions' to 'carebear' problems proposed by 'gankers' recently.
Now you are saying that they should be nerf'd by game mechanics?
I am all for players comming up with solutions, and yet still people propose game mechanic changes instead.
Do they never learn from the history of the game?
Ah well, whatever.
Makes no difference to me, just more targets on the list.
This changes game mechanics how ? you simply get a larger sec hit for your actions in empire ? Whats wrong where u planning on doing some hauler bashing yourself ?
Originally by: Eris Discordia
*gives Typherin some loving*
|
Sykosys
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 12:25:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Typherin laidai
Edited by: Typherin laidai on 17/06/2005 11:50:51
Haha dispite the title and my usual posts this isn't a flame. but a very quick and simple to solution to the high Sec ganking going on atm.
Please note I do not personally see a problem with it... but it is taking up some of my valubale trol... I mean posting time.. So .. heres my solution.
[1 Way Ticket Out Of CarebearVille]
Any acts of Ship Destruction Or Pod Destruction within 0.5 - 1.0 space will result in a -40.0% sec decrease.
And before the Ooo but what if I did it by accident ?
CCP have implemented warning systems to inform you you are about to commit an act of aggression. if you choose to ignore this that is your choice..
As to accidents with smartbombs.... I couldn't care less.. sorry to bring up Rl comparrisons... but If I set off a bomb in the centre of london then the police probably wouldn't be too interested in my "awww come on.. t'was an accident" but note how I didn't mention the sec hit for simply attacking a player.. the Sb doesn't normally kill anyone in one... so the accident will generally just result in your standard ship loss
so... It would eliminate persistant griefers... especially those using alt's as they would be a 1 hit wonder making recycling Very obvious.
So that be my idea.... feel free to comment / flame me... not too bothered. but people seem to want a fix to high sec griefing and this is one
[EDIT] changed title to something a bit more flameproof
Heh your the guy who tried to extort money by your bogus killing all your slaves hostage junk.
This idea is way to harsh a penalty. Some people actually abide by laws and know sometimes you have to sacrifice to kill those who would do the same first. Its harsh world which is eve.
But what your suggesting is WAY to harsh.
And seriously do you play EVE?? I don't mean to flame but you come onto the forums and spout alot of nonsense like this. Please don't limit your thinking so much, expand and then post.
_______________________
"She'll fly apart sir,"
"FLY HER APART THEN!!!" |
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 12:29:00 -
[13]
High sec ganking is not the problem.
Stupid carebears like you are the problem.
Overdone sec status penalties are not the solution.
Getting stupid carebears like you to quit is the solution.
--
The best description of alliances, ever:
|
Badshah
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 12:31:00 -
[14]
I don't personally like Typherin's idea. My reasons are purely my own, as I said, personal. But it is a god idea for those who are interested in getting rid of high security gankers.
As for Avon's comments, I am simply stunned. It begs the question, did he think it through? Of course Typherin's idea is good, it is excellent in that it is the least intrusive of all possible solutions. (I personally don't think a solution is needed.) To arbitrarily state that it is a bad idea, wouldn't work, not thought out... what nonsense.
Just me,
Bad |
fairimear
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 12:31:00 -
[15]
Nope.
Game is not so u can be safe every where.
If u get ganked in hisec it's your fault.
The pirate will get hit by CC and it's only unfair if they avoid the CC punishment.
If you guys want to be moving billion isk bpo's in t1 frigs it's you own fault.
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world Domination.
|
Typherin laidai
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 12:34:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Sykosys
Heh your the guy who tried to extort money by your bogus killing all your slaves hostage junk.
This idea is way to harsh a penalty. Some people actually abide by laws and know sometimes you have to sacrifice to kill those who would do the same first. Its harsh world which is eve.
But what your suggesting is WAY to harsh.
And seriously do you play EVE?? I don't mean to flame but you come onto the forums and spout alot of nonsense like this. Please don't limit your thinking so much, expand and then post.
Lol yes I posted some stuff about killing slaves (which where blown up btw) mainly just to annoy the Roleplayers... seems it worked.
How is this a silly idea ? and Way to harsh exactly ?
1.0 - 0.5 is supposed to be violence free (or so you people keep saying) so how is this unfair ?
"sacrifice and kill to kill first" ? right so that would be YOU who commited a crime not the potential thief/ganker.
I personally dont see this as 'spouting nonsense' at all..
and if your not going to add anything constructive other than flaming me... run along.
Originally by: Eris Discordia
*gives Typherin some loving*
|
Typherin laidai
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 12:36:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
High sec ganking is not the problem.
Stupid carebears like you are the problem.
Overdone sec status penalties are not the solution.
Getting stupid carebears like you to quit is the solution.
How am I a Carebear exactly ? ?
Im interested to know ?
**** prehaps someone saw me mining in my first month of the game
Originally by: Eris Discordia
*gives Typherin some loving*
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 12:44:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Avon on 17/06/2005 12:46:00
Originally by: Badshah
Edited by: Badshah on 17/06/2005 12:31:56
I don't personally like Typherin's idea. My reasons are purely my own, as I said, personal. But it is a good idea for those who are interested in getting rid of high security gankers.
As for Avon's comments, I am simply stunned. It begs the question, did he think it through? Of course Typherin's idea is good, it is excellent in that it is the least intrusive of all possible solutions. (I personally don't think a solution is needed.) To arbitrarily state that it is a bad idea, wouldn't work, not thought out... what nonsense.
Er, I actually pointed out what was wrong with it.
It takes power away from the players to decide their fate and increases their reliance upon CCP to defend them.
Hauler example again.
If the hauler you are defending is going to get ganked, you MUST fire first if it is to be saved (assuming you aren't tanking it).
You have to reduce the attackers firepower to a level which the hauler can survive.
Now, in doing this you lower your sec and lose your ship .. but your objective, protecting the hauler, is achieved. Quick rinse of your sec and you can do it again.
If, however, you increase the penalty you can only ever defend a hauler once. After that the hauler has to hope there are no more gankers anywhere in Empire space. It only has one small set of players (his corpmates) for defence .. facing a huge amount of potential gankers.
And how do these little escorts get their sec status back up?
A small decrease can be managed effectively, but when you get to the needing to chain 750k BS's stage you are going to struggle if all your assets are out of reach.
I am against changes which takes away from a players ability to take control of their own fate.
Play the game, don't let the game play you.
______________________________________________
Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay. |
Typherin laidai
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 12:49:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Typherin laidai on 17/06/2005 12:50:07
Right so really your trying to mask the fact that you wont want to chain bs's to enter high sec again ?
O hang on I think the pirate community's heard this qoute many times "You lowered your sec through your own actions... now deal with the consiquences"
CCP intended for people to pirate in 0.0 - 0.4 ... not high sec.
Originally by: Eris Discordia
*gives Typherin some loving*
|
Typherin laidai
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 12:54:00 -
[20]
hehe il stop moaning now... like I said I dont care iether way.. i dont go in high sec so doesn't make any diff to me.
And to be fair Avon probably does have a point.. but il still argue anyway normally... but cant be bothered  Though personally I would love to see how funny your average bear finds raising their sec status 
Originally by: Eris Discordia
*gives Typherin some loving*
|
Rafein
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 13:02:00 -
[21]
Personally, i think looting a non-corp player in Secure space should give a -.1 Sec hit in itself, thus driving the ore Theives away as well.
|
Acuna Traos
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 13:04:00 -
[22]
High sec ganking doesn't really bother me one way or the other, but to round things off I'd just like to point out to Avon that while he does have a point, the same pirates that attacked said convoy (using this high sec hit proposal) would occasionally be successful. This would drastically lower there sec status and so they couldn't go to empire anymore (at least not for a fair while). Decoy convoys anyone? So the pirates get a gank then for a while at least the convoys are safe and in no need of escort in high sec space.
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 13:18:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Acuna Traos
High sec ganking doesn't really bother me one way or the other, but to round things off I'd just like to point out to Avon that while he does have a point, the same pirates that attacked said convoy (using this high sec hit proposal) would occasionally be successful. This would drastically lower there sec status and so they couldn't go to empire anymore (at least not for a fair while). Decoy convoys anyone? So the pirates get a gank then for a while at least the convoys are safe and in no need of escort in high sec space.
Yes, but when the pirates are successful they get a nice payoff, and when they fail they lose nothing.
The escorts when successful can no longer defend, so the pirates just grab new ships and hit a now unprotected hauler.
______________________________________________
Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay. |
Matthew
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 13:36:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Avon
Hauler example again.
If the hauler you are defending is going to get ganked, you MUST fire first if it is to be saved (assuming you aren't tanking it).
Yes, of course, you MUST take this route and fire first, whereby the change completely breaks you, rather than taking the other, perfectly viable, remote tanking route that remains completely unchanged.
Sufficient tools would still be avaliable, you'd just have to adapt to use them.
Originally by: Avon
If, however, you increase the penalty you can only ever defend a hauler once.
Which by the same logic also means the pirate can only attack one hauler. If you tank it decently, it may require several pirates to make that sacrifice at the same time in order to take you down
Originally by: Avon
It only has one small set of players (his corpmates) for defence .. facing a huge amount of potential gankers.
Very simple way to deal with this - use the remote tanking method. With that, you could let any number of gankers come at you in small numbers at once without loss. Or have the loss of the hauler blunted by the knowledge that the large group that just ganked you are all out of commission as far as future empire-ganks are concerned.
Besides, if empire-ganks become a one-shot sec-status killer, I'd be surprised if many would choose to do it in the first place.
Originally by: Avon
A small decrease can be managed effectively, but when you get to the needing to chain 750k BS's stage you are going to struggle if all your assets are out of reach.
And that's just the problem, sec-status loss for killing in empire is too easy to manage. It's stopped being any real disincentive, and has become merely an annoyance for people who choose to do this.
Originally by: Avon
I am against changes which takes away from a players ability to take control of their own fate.
Play the game, don't let the game play you.
This is a good principle for game design, but there are situations that develop where following it slavishly can blind you to genuine problems.
You seem to advocate that empire becomes an area of suicide pirates, and suicide escorts, waging a war with each other while concord wades in and obliterates them both. If the game heads down that road too far, you may as well just get rid of concord altogether, and let high-sec space become a poorer version of 0.0. Which would be just as bad a solution.
Originally by: Tobiaz
BTW, <0.4 NPC are deadly for frigate and cruiser pirates.
They're deadly for cruiser and barge miners as well - you don't hear us complaining
Originally by: Tobiaz
Why can't pirates get some friendly standing with NPC pirate factions in return of pirates no longer NPC-ing or mining belts. Maybe in combination with some special NPC services and requiring a -5.0 security standing.
I don't see a problem with something like that being introduced either. Though if you've gone that far down a formal association with a pirate faction, the -5.0 should be mandatory, and standings with the empires should be lost. Also, you should only be able to earn the trust of one pirate faction at a time - unlike the empires, they are not joined together and they are suspicious or outright hostile towards each other.
The big problem with using the pirate factions as a -ve security mirror to empire is the space the pirates occupy - 0.0. 0.0 has always been supposed to be an area for complete player control and interaction. Giving the pirate factions significant roles beyond the basic NPCs-to-shoot role would encroach on that.
|
Acuna Traos
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 13:46:00 -
[25]
Lets add another suggestion in that may have been said before but I just made it up cause I'm bored at work.. something along the lines of target jamming being legal against people who have locked or are locking any hauler in your group and bring in sig radius suppression modules (for the hauler). Make the escorts fast locking and jammers. Kestrels and other missile ships would then have to switch to FoF for any hope of firing (taking 10 seconds or so depending on how quick they are), and even then the Hauler wonĘt be doing anything aggressive so the missiles would go after the escorts.
Firing on the "pirate" ship without said pirate ship aggressing would still incur sec hit as normal, thus preventing haulers from locking people who may have auto lock back on so that their escorts can gank them.
This way you can protect your convoy in high sec space while still leaving some risk involved if you slip up. (note: sniping would still be a problem, though with good skills and some ships you can jam out to 120 odd km)
Disclaimer: This was thought up in a very short period of time while bored at work and hence can be ignored at leisure.
|
Matthew
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 14:03:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Acuna Traos
Lets add another suggestion in that may have been said before but I just made it up cause I'm bored at work.. something along the lines of target jamming being legal against people who have locked or are locking any hauler in your group......
Interesting suggestion, but a bit hard to work. But it does lead me to another line of thinking....a new type of jamming module. Instead of a module that stops one ship targetting anything (the current jammers), instead have a module that stops anything jamming one ship (subject to the normal EW strength system of course). If necessary, this could be balanced by a penalty to the person using it - maybe say that using it lights you up like a christmas tree, proportional to the size of what you're trying to shield from targetting (so maybe the penalty adds the sig radius of your target to your own). This would be a great boon to all forms of escorting, allowing the escort to force attackers to eithe defeat the escort first, or bring enough EW to defeat the target-shielding. It could also be used in fleet battles to extend the survivability of frigate tacklers and cruiser support.
|
TheMoog
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 14:05:00 -
[27]
You really think that the only solution for empire ganking is to commit another crime ? Think again.
To protect a badger in 1.0 space, you don't need no armed escorts, only one booster battleship.
No ship can come close to kill a boosted-hauler before Concord fry their behind. All that without taking a sec hit by engaging gankers first. You don't lose any ship nor any cargo either.
Quit crying, adapt to the game.
_________________
CEO, 3240 Inc.
We Solve Problems |
Trader Klyde
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 14:20:00 -
[28]
Lets just increase the hitpoints on indys 20x what they are now, make em harder to kill than a BS. Thats the only thing that will stop what people are whining about.
I hate to say it, but there are 100's of ways to protect yourself in Empire space from being ganked. It does mean that a little thought has to be put into it, God forbid!
Come-on people, if this game gets any safer than it currently is... sheesh.
________________________________________________
From deep in space where nobody hears my screams...
Sometimes in fear, sometimes in anger, mostly just my singing style. |
Acuna Traos
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 14:21:00 -
[29]
Originally by: TheMoog
You really think that the only solution for empire ganking is to commit another crime ?
If thatĘs how someone wants to play it then, yes. Every option should be plausible, some will have harsher consequences than others but then end goal (in this case save the hauler) should be doable in a variety of different ways. THAT is what makes EVE good, I love adapting to new things, but at the same time if adapting means LESS options then it really <self censored>. I'd like my brain to explode form different options to solve a situation rather than go.. hmmn now where did that win button go for this situation.
|
Deja Thoris
|
Posted - 2005.06.17 14:31:00 -
[30]
I think its a poor idea for the reasons Avon stated.
Blindly defending an idea when a flaw like that has been pointed out is immature.
Fact is, 90% of noobs have shot something in highsec. I know there is a popup but they wont know theres a really harsh penalty.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |