| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Hazzim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
0
   |
Posted - 2013.03.18 03:08:00 -
[1] - Quote
So far proponents of New Order's policy to maintain sandbox theme reverts to the basic real life "there is a risk to reward". I would consider that incomplete as a whole. "risk comes reward or consequences". Advocates of upping the risk for high-sec dwellers to maintain the theme one must also see the ability of players to become "villains" through the act of robbery, extortion or other criminal activity. Like the former who contends with risk the latter must contend with consequences. High-sec is not null-sec, it has its own police force or militia which distributes justice accordingly. My point is, to raise the risk we must raise the consequences.
I would recommend temporary persona non-grata on individual empires by "capsuleer podding by npc" as a consequence.
Wants real life sand box, gets real life rules. Real life the ultimate sand box. |
Hazzim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.18 04:28:00 -
[2] - Quote
Lin Suizei wrote:Hazzim wrote:Wants real life sand box, gets real life rules. Real life the ultimate sand box. EVE is real, I was there. PS. Tornado alts can be done with <900k SP - concord can pod away, couldn't care less.
What i meant by that was a persona-non grata would not be allowed to enter specific empire space without getting podded at the first sign of Concord and empire navies albeit temporarily similar to a jail sentence. Cant leave station without getting podded, cant enter empire space without getting podded That I think you would care. |
Hazzim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.18 07:16:00 -
[3] - Quote
Lin Suizei wrote:Hazzim wrote:What i meant by that was a persona-non grata would not be allowed to enter specific empire space without getting podded at the first sign of Concord and empire navies albeit temporarily similar to a jail sentence. Cant leave station without getting podded, cant enter empire space without getting podded That I think you would care. Protip - mechanical restrictions for people you don't like don't work for long, mostly because we're pretty quick to adapt - in this case, I'd cycle between 3-4 tornado alts to constantly gank people who reject the sandbox, while the others waited out their "jail time" and one or two went to friendly space to grind sec status/some spare change for ammo and magstabs.
I see the restriction to allow breathing room for high-sec players. That is if increasing risk is implemented for high-sec players. And what if the restriction was a week's worth or more depending on the severity of the risk you took? say 20 days off from entering empire space. I suppose you would adapt with 10 or more alts.Then with my the love i bear for ingame "criminals" sub 10 accounts So you risk it shall you ripe the consequences. That's all I am saying. Making high-sec players pay for what they earn should also include the consequences on the risk gankers take.
Just as null-sec, game mechanics allow for restriction placed by players on those they dont like. High-sec game mechanics should allow a measure of security and justice players hence the name high-security. Unless you prefer EVE turn into an Open ended PVP MMO. |
Hazzim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.18 12:06:00 -
[4] - Quote
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:Hazzim wrote:[quote=Lin Suizei][quote=Hazzim]
I see the restriction to allow breathing room for high-sec players. That is if increasing risk is implemented for high-sec players. And what if the restriction was a week's worth or more depending on the severity of the risk you took? say 20 days off from entering empire space. I suppose you would adapt with 10 or more alts.Then with my the love i bear for ingame "criminals" sub 10 accounts So you risk it shall you ripe the consequences. That's all I am saying. Making high-sec players pay for what they earn should also include the consequences on the risk gankers take.
Just as null-sec, game mechanics allow for restriction placed by players on those they dont like. High-sec game mechanics should allow a measure of security and justice players hence the name high-security. Unless you prefer EVE turn into an Open ended PVP MMO. CCP will not put in mechanical restrictions on travel. It goes against one of the core aspects of the game, everyone can access any part of the universe. Gankers do pay for their negative sec status. Outlaws can be shot anywhere, and are chased by facpo. If you want "restriction placed by players on those they don't like", you have to work for it, just like nullsec alliances do. Stop crying to Someone Else (CCP) to fix it, train some combat skills, and get rid of the bad people. You have exactly the same tools we do to pull it off. You may not have noticed, but Eve *IS* an Open ended PVP MMO. We call it The Sandbox.
EVE has its limit interns of sandbox. If it was open ended there wouldn't be a high-sec. CCP puts in place a secure space to ensure compatibility too all players of different interpretation. Safety over adventure and vice-versa. If we were to consider crying over things, I would look to null-sec or opponents of high-sec pilots. Crying out how high-sec is generating too much isk. Safe to say game mechanics allows that to happen, and your ability to negate that effect pisses you off and turn to CCP for game mechanics to be change to ensure null-sec dominance.
As I have clearly stated my point. Your advocation of increased risk to reward in high-sec is commendable. But you must realize risk to consequences must be proportional as the latter. Temporary travel restriction thats all I ask.
My views are of a pilot who has done pretty much everything except criminal activities. It's nice to debate until a label appears. |
Hazzim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.19 07:59:00 -
[5] - Quote
Lin Suizei wrote:Hazzim wrote:Crying out how high-sec is generating too much isk. Safe to say game mechanics allows that to happen, and your ability to negate that effect pisses you off and turn to CCP for game mechanics to be change to ensure null-sec dominance. I find it hard to believe that you have really lived outside of highsec if you think the risk-reward balance we're all crying for are to "ensure null-sec dominance", or think highsec needs to be made safer by making life hard for suicide gankers. Again. Besides, why not broaden your horizons, and walk a mile in our shoes, before you try to comment on suicide ganking?
Character check please before you make assumptions. Whatever you believe it has no bearing on my views or opinion. My point of contest is there should be a proportional increase in both consequences for gankers and risk for high-sec players. Unless you asking me to indulge myself in suicide ganking and point out how unfair the current system is for gankers you have another thing coming. My comments stops here. You have yourself a lovely day.
|
Hazzim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.21 05:43:00 -
[6] - Quote
Agent Trask wrote:Hazzim wrote:
Character check please before you make assumptions. Whatever you believe it has no bearing on my views or opinion. My point of contest is there should be a proportional increase in both consequences for gankers and risk for high-sec players. Unless you asking me to indulge myself in suicide ganking and point out how unfair the current system is for gankers you have another thing coming. My comments stops here. You have yourself a lovely day.
Right. You don't like the existing CONCORD mechanics, because they make you stay at the keyboard and play the game, or risk losing your ship. So you want CCP to turn Highsec space into some kind of World of Warcraft PvE realm, where you can never be harmed if you don't flip your PvP flag on. Go play World of Warcraft, little bunny.
I had to reply seeing you obviously did not get my point "Big Shot". I am satisfied with the current state of high-sec mechanics. However it seems "New Order" is somehow butt hurt over high-sec mechanics and wants it changed. So in light of you advocacy of increased risk to high-sec dwellers then I advocate an increased risk to high-sec gankers. No changes to one no changes to the other, and everyone is happy. Unless you arent? Then take it somewhere else. |
Hazzim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.21 14:40:00 -
[7] - Quote
Lin Suizei wrote:Hazzim wrote:So in light of you advocacy of increased risk to high-sec dwellers then I advocate an increased risk to high-sec gankers. Here's the thing though - you don't seem to be advocating increased risk, it's more along the lines of increased cost. Being forced to live in lowsec and nullsec isn't really a "risk", most of us are -10 and quite a number of us are/have lowsec/nullsec mains. As for the New Order being "butt hurt" over highsec mechanics... well, if you call disagreeing with the current (and frankly ridiculous) status quo "butt hurt", then so be it.
A risky endeavor is a costly one and vice versa. Why would force anyone to do anything they don't want to? sandbox right? You took the calculated risk to enter lowsec/nullsec based on circumstances that you accepted. Other may see differently. if you are somehow unhappy with the current mechanics, don't drag the rest of us along with you. You inflated sense of professionalism should allow you to adapt to the current situation am I right? |
Hazzim
Retired Space Pilots
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 05:32:00 -
[8] - Quote
Fractal Muse wrote:Hazzim wrote:
A risky endeavor is a costly one and vice versa.
Actually, a risky endeavor is one that has a CHANCE of having an outcome and not a guaranteed result. What you are writing about has nothing to do with increasing risk - it has to do with increasing the guaranteed penalty. That's a fundamental difference. Carry on.
Fundamentally the applications of law where law is applied, stipulates that an action i.e robbery, assault, guarantees a reactive consequence to that action if caught. In example, a robbery is a risky endeavor which fundamentally guarantees an outcome of two (A) getting away with it (B) getting caught. No ifs or buts. Get caught equates to Jail time, getting away with it you're bound to get caught. Apply that to crimes committed in High-sec. Same action. sane consequences.
My point have been Risk vs Reward vs Consequences. High-sec as the name would suggest, is a place where an active and neutral Law is applied for the safety of its denizens. Trying to deviate away from that conceptual understanding does not make sense. If laws don't guarantee consequences what then?
|
| |
|