|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |

Runeme Shilter
New Order Logistics CODE.
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 15:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:However, persistent targeting of a player with bumping by following them around after they have made an effort to move on to another location can be classified as harassment, and this will be judged on a case by case basis.
Does "move to another location" mean another Ice-Asteroid? Or another belt? Another system?
RS |

Runeme Shilter
New Order Logistics CODE.
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 16:48:00 -
[2] - Quote
Kimo Khan wrote: If said bumper is part of a gang which then proceed to gank me, why do I not get killrights on the bumper who prevented warp without using a scrambler and thus avoided invoking concord?
Because bumping is not an agressive or illegal action of course. It's not that hard.
RS |

Runeme Shilter
New Order Logistics CODE.
31
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 18:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:While it will involve inconvenience, we will have to see that one actively tried evasion before we consider someone being followed around and harassed. Merely changing belts in the same system or moving a few thousand meters to another asteroid would not qualify in this regard. Ideally you would move to other systems and more than just one or two jumps to avoid being found again quickly, requiring some effort to locate you again (i.e. through locator agents).
Thanks for the reply. That is a very wise and sensible ruling!
RS
|

Runeme Shilter
New Order Logistics CODE.
32
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 20:15:00 -
[4] - Quote
Red Frog Rufen wrote:what about bumping freighters out of grid, so they can gank and loot without being attacked by other players?
isn't that an exploit of the new crimewatch?
The other players can just follow the freighter to the next grid and shoot the suspects there... Why must always CCP provide protection/deem things an exploit? |

Runeme Shilter
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 15:19:00 -
[5] - Quote
Foxglove Digitalis wrote:The real question is: Why doesn't crashing one ship into another at high speed cause damage to both?
Really? A speed optimised nano fit (lower armour lower structure and above all light) catalyst crashes into a tanked Mackinaw with 30K m^3 ore in hold... come on the catalys should be a thin layer on the macks hull with the mack drifting an aditional 0.5m/s due to the difference in mass.
So say 10K damage to each, umm thats the catalyst is dust and the mack has lost all shield and some armour - seems a sensible outcome.
Omg, CCP make it so. That would be the most awesome change ever. No more GCC and sec status hit for killing miners! Just bump with X catalyst full speed. Great idea!
RS
PS: You know that for bumping most often stabbers are used? Or Machariels? |

Runeme Shilter
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 21:53:00 -
[6] - Quote
Foxglove Digitalis wrote: Did I say anything about GCC? No? Didn't think so.
So, you want bumping to become an agressive action? Who is the offender? The one bumping into you?
RS |

Runeme Shilter
New Order Logistics CODE.
44
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 11:06:00 -
[7] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: In other words, it is perfectly feasible to fight suicide gankers or to stop them from ganking you. Miners don't do it because, judging by their actual, in game actions, either ganking has never represented a significant enough threat to be worth making any adjustments to counter it (even during HAG), or they're really stupid.
It's the classic "Someone must do something - wait, no, not me, I'm afk mining". It's much easier to just cry on the forums for more nerfs to ganking. |

Runeme Shilter
New Order Logistics CODE.
66
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 15:35:00 -
[8] - Quote
Samuel Wess wrote:Allow wardecs to pilots from NPC corp. This should be possible. Also highsec crimes should get punished, instant -10 on any ship/pod kill without wardec.
Yes! No more hundreds of podkills to get to -10. +1 for that suggestion.
|

Runeme Shilter
New Order Logistics CODE.
73
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 17:00:00 -
[9] - Quote
Otto3d wrote:Given the cost of the war from the other corps, will this be consider as an exploit? Since James 315 has provided no way for other players to "get him" other than a suicidal gank?
Initially, dropping and reforming the same corp was considered an exploit. But carebears everywhere whined to CCP about wardecs and no way out and CCP changed the rules so that it no longer is an exploit. Thank the carebears! ;-) |
|
|
|