| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Miri Tirzan
   |
Posted - 2005.09.29 18:14:00 -
[121]
I still think that the best option is not to make it so that there cannot be sucide attacks but make it so that it is hard to get an economic benefit. If players were not making ISK, then they would not do it as often.
svetlana - "whining gets you stuff. that is why humans got to the top of the food chain and all the other animals got nerfed."
|
Aish Steiner
|
Posted - 2005.09.29 18:28:00 -
[122]
what can I say after reading all 4 pages it took on a new meaning for me 
|
Bbllaarrgg
|
Posted - 2005.09.29 19:24:00 -
[123]
Well, whilst i dont really have an opinion on either side of this fence, i cant help being reminded of something someone said on these forums ages ago (dunno who). In the past certain piratey events such as this have led to ccp making changes to the system, and most pirates i know did not like these changes because they made it harder to pirate effectively.
_________________________
Insert fnord here. |
Jacob Swell
|
Posted - 2005.09.29 20:11:00 -
[124]
 Quote:
Free-form Professions, ensure no limetations on professions. Be a trader, fighter, industialist, researcher, hunter pirate or mixture of them all.
Note that 'griefer' isn't included in the list.
|
Aish Steiner
|
Posted - 2005.09.29 21:00:00 -
[125]
Edited by: Aish Steiner on 29/09/2005 20:59:54
True, but also gotta note the, "ensure no limetations on professions." So if you really wanted to you could be a math teacher or something... and teach math in local
|
Mortuus
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 01:53:00 -
[126]
Wait a minute. Are the people that play with NO risk whining that someone is killing them with only a little risk?
In EVE you can die, get used to it.
Also, CONCORD are not normal police, they are more like the UN. When a guy goes on a killing spree in a local mall the UN doesn't go gank him. Another factor is this, in real life people have a chance to escape, not so in EVE. A third thing. The corporations could give a s**t about you dying, they just want your money. Pod pilots are near demigods, you fly ships that can lay waste to cities. In most cases you live outside the laws of normal people.
I say make CONCORD killable, and make the pirate factions joinable. If you want secure space. Make it yourself. At least you have NPCs and gate guns.
Put risk back into empire damnit. Its ruining the game. People with no risk making billions is wrong.
|
Thor Darkwing
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 06:01:00 -
[127]
What is wrong with you people?!
there i a reason taht some systems have a high security and seom a low sec.
and if you want all systems to be PvP enabled why do we even bother with having the 0.5-1.0?
Try and get it into you brains, everyone doesn't like PvP and geting ganked, some play the gaqme for the PvE action(period)
|
Deja Thoris
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 06:18:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Thor Darkwing
What is wrong with you people?!
there i a reason taht some systems have a high security and seom a low sec.
and if you want all systems to be PvP enabled why do we even bother with having the 0.5-1.0?
Try and get it into you brains, everyone doesn't like PvP and geting ganked, some play the gaqme for the PvE action(period)
Quoted because this is the most nearsighted post ever to disgrace the forums.
Go play a single player game.
EVE represents a universe. Good and bad things happen. That means it can happen to you.
You have 2 options to be perfectly safe.
1) Never undock
2) Quit.
|
California Lejeune
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 06:42:00 -
[129]
And please stop going on about deleting alts and making alts useless. I have 3 characters on one of my accounts, all of whom have 5m+ SP in their chosen areas of expertise.
Why should I suffer because other people use alts for ganking?
|
babyblue
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 06:45:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Deja Thoris
Originally by: Thor Darkwing
What is wrong with you people?!
there i a reason taht some systems have a high security and seom a low sec.
and if you want all systems to be PvP enabled why do we even bother with having the 0.5-1.0?
Try and get it into you brains, everyone doesn't like PvP and geting ganked, some play the gaqme for the PvE action(period)
Quoted because this is the most nearsighted post ever to disgrace the forums.
Go play a single player game.
EVE represents a universe. Good and bad things happen. That means it can happen to you.
You have 2 options to be perfectly safe.
1) Never undock
2) Quit.
He shouldn't because he's just plain right. The majority of players like to chat in their corp window and do PvE stuff. CCP know this and that is why they are implementing more PvE content. If you don't like it, don't applaud the 16k server totals.
|
Beringe
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 07:13:00 -
[131]
I always find it amazing that people defend those that "pull a Molly".
However, I also find it pretty amazing that some passing mission-setup BS didn't put Miz out of his mizery.
At any rate, I think we can expect CONCORD to get beefed. Again.
Geeze, thanks Miz. You retard.
-------------------------------------------
Sometimes, I wake up but keep on dreaming. |
Darth Slayer
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 07:20:00 -
[132]
Edited by: Darth Slayer on 30/09/2005 07:21:26
EDIT: This is actualy THOR DARKWING, but my friend was logged on and didn't notice :)
Originally by: babyblue
Originally by: Deja Thoris
Originally by: Thor Darkwing
What is wrong with you people?!
there i a reason taht some systems have a high security and seom a low sec.
and if you want all systems to be PvP enabled why do we even bother with having the 0.5-1.0?
Try and get it into you brains, everyone doesn't like PvP and geting ganked, some play the gaqme for the PvE action(period)
Quoted because this is the most nearsighted post ever to disgrace the forums.
Go play a single player game.
EVE represents a universe. Good and bad things happen. That means it can happen to you.
You have 2 options to be perfectly safe.
1) Never undock
2) Quit.
He shouldn't because he's just plain right. The majority of players like to chat in their corp window and do PvE stuff. CCP know this and that is why they are implementing more PvE content. If you don't like it, don't applaud the 16k server totals.
Thank you.
and Deja, I don't want ot be perfectly safe, therefor i go into 0.1-0.4 and soemtimes even 0.0 to do some more risky works, and belive it or not, even try out some PvP *shock*.
BUT when i'm flying in my bhaalgorn that took me over a year to afford i don't want to risk loosing it to some lame ganking squad camping a 0.2 gate. (and don't even start with all omg a factionship must be used for PvP and not PvE.)
1.0-0.5 should be safe if you're jsut a normal PvE player who want to enjoy the game in that way (that why there is nmpc content in the game, otherwish they would just have players and free ships to fly around ganking each other in). and if i'm in a pvp corp, sure i should be blown to dust in a yulai war.
0.4-0.1 fairly safe if you do things with care. and i can get ****** up there to, doesn't bother me, my own fault.
0.0 Anarky, i love it to, if i would have been in a larger corp i would have been out there to (but now i prefer having a smaller friendly corp that we can decide over as we like)
|
Miz Cenuij
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 07:25:00 -
[133]
Ok, lets clear some things up.
There were two massive threads on this under the crime and punishment forum.
It started out as little bit of roleplay and fun and grew beyond anything that I had imagined when I fired up that first smartbomb.
CCP acted only to protect thier investment, completley understandable, afterall a fair few people left the game over this (lost subs). However could they have done this in a more productive and polite manner? Yes.
People were informed on the forums long BEFORE each nights attacks began.
People did turn up and try to murder me. Im amazed any sensor boster 2's were left on the markets in Ourselaert on the 2nd nite, every ship on the gates seemed to be thrumming with them.
Despite this im amazed no one thought to use scan probes, the first few nights I rotated between numerous safespots every 2 minutes, towards the last few nights though I went for numerous little naps whilst sat in a safespot. Cozy.
If any1 had managed to pod me I would have lost half a billion of implants.
It cost me around the 21 million mark per attack.
I took NO loot from the cans, simply wasnt interested, the event and the cause I was fighting for were all that mattered.
By the 3rd night of attacks on Oursel, most mining had stopped, certainly nearly all the macro miners and afk miners had ceased operations in this system. Local even dropped by on average 50 people when it became widespread that "that lunatic suicide bomber" was in system.
Thanks to everyone who tried to kill me, helped out, donated ISK and mostly to those who took it on the chin with good humour when they died. You all made it a great week and turned what started out as one pirates merry little jaunt into empire into one of the largest, most talked about player driven events to date.
Give me a YARRR you pirate scum and remember - "Kill a cop - save a pirate from jail".
Lastly here is the video of the week Concord fell ompotent.
http://www.eve-files.com/media/corp/c0w/Mass_Murder.wmv
"Men are going to die..
and im going to kill them". |
Barbicane
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 07:27:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Miri Tirzan
I think only two things need to be changed to make sucide ganking in high sec not worth doing.
1. In high sec lock cans from players so that only the player, the players allies (gang/corp/alliance) or some one in a corp war with them can access the can.
2. No insurance payments for players killed by CONCORD.
If these two things are done, then high sec sucide missions can be done, but the players dont get any rewards for doing them. Now that would solve the problem without taking the ability to attack away, just the economic incentives that support it.
Those are excellent ideas! |
Jenny Spitfire
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 08:30:00 -
[135]
Originally by: Miz Cenuij
Ok, lets clear ...
Miz, tell us about what the GM says about your new plan please? I am also confused on what ppl can or can not do at the end of the day. Thanks 
♥♥♥♥♥
|
Sergeant Spot
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 09:01:00 -
[136]
I've delayed posting on this topic.
But I've given it some thought. I'll break my thought down to its component parts:
1: CCP seems to have a policy of allowing players a HIGH degree of control over how much PvP they have to face. (A policy I STRONGLY agree with).
2: There is a LONG history of 'some' pvpers struggling to find ways to "get at" the "carebears" that live in empire, and long history of CCP standing by it's policy of letting players choose how much PvP they have to face.
3: I don't expect this to end any differently.
4: The danger is that when CCP defends their policy against a new player idea, it often involves something getting nerfed, too much of which can have a bad effect on the game.
5: CCP allows suicide ships, on the condition that alts are not recycled. This puts TWO breaks on such piracy. There is the isk cost of the ships, AND the need for the attackers to earn back security before doing it again. With the "new" method, security rating is not an issue, thus my strong suspicion that CCP will act.
6: If CCP does not want the random death in 0.5+, The least intrusive idea I can think of is the following: If a player's security is to low for him to fly a ship in system without getting attacked by Concord, then he cannot board ship from his pod while in such a system.
7: If CCP is not concerned about this semi-new method of mayhem, then they need take no action.
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 09:04:00 -
[137]
There is nothing at all new about this method, it has been around for like, ever.
The difference here is one of scale and publicity.
Miz had a bit of fun, and stopped when asked.
Fair play.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Deka Kador
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 09:08:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Avon
There is nothing at all new about this method, it has been around for like, ever.
The difference here is one of scale and publicity.
Miz had a bit of fun, and stopped when asked.
Fair play.
Yes, and his type of "fun" has tended to result in extreme changes to game mechanics (sentry ranges? sentry power? CONCORD Nos/ECM/Web? Gang aggression? All unwanted changes due to some people having "fun").
No doubt the changes we will see if Miz continues with his "protection racket" will be unwanted and ruin many peoples game simply because one person can show no self-control.
______________________________________________
Note| This character is for forum posting purposes only. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 09:15:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Deka Kador
Yes, and his type of "fun" has tended to result in extreme changes to game mechanics (sentry ranges? sentry power? CONCORD Nos/ECM/Web? Gang aggression? All unwanted changes due to some people having "fun").
No doubt the changes we will see if Miz continues with his "protection racket" will be unwanted and ruin many peoples game simply because one person can show no self-control.
He isn't breaking any rules - in fact he is checking it is allowed first.
You complain about him ruining the game of others, but are in fact trying to ruin his.
And don't you dare preach to me about game mechanic changes from things like this. My gameplay has been seriously effected in the past by such changes. Does that mean I want Miz to stop?
Hell no.
If the mechanics are changed in a well thought out way, I have no issues with it - the problem only comes when there is a knee-jerk reaction to an unexpected use of the existing mechanics.
There are equally good examples of much needed changes which have been highlighted by similar events in the past.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Deka Kador
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 09:21:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Deka Kador
Yes, and his type of "fun" has tended to result in extreme changes to game mechanics (sentry ranges? sentry power? CONCORD Nos/ECM/Web? Gang aggression? All unwanted changes due to some people having "fun").
No doubt the changes we will see if Miz continues with his "protection racket" will be unwanted and ruin many peoples game simply because one person can show no self-control.
He isn't breaking any rules - in fact he is checking it is allowed first.
You complain about him ruining the game of others, but are in fact trying to ruin his.
And don't you dare preach to me about game mechanic changes from things like this. My gameplay has been seriously effected in the past by such changes. Does that mean I want Miz to stop?
Hell no.
If the mechanics are changed in a well thought out way, I have no issues with it - the problem only comes when there is a knee-jerk reaction to an unexpected use of the existing mechanics.
There are equally good examples of much needed changes which have been highlighted by similar events in the past.
How do you know he isn't breaking any rules if he has had to ask GM's? Are you saying you know what a GM is going to answer? We both know the only thing consistent about them is their inconsistency
I'm not trying to ruin his game. There are features in Eve which allow him to PvP in 0.5 to 1.0 (namely, war declarations) but he is avoiding these by taking advantage of lag in busy systems. It's a fact. We all know CONCORD are slow to respond when the server is straining and a system is busy.
Previous thoguhtless behaviour by players like Miz have resulted in piracy being long-range snipefests.
Miz is simply acting like a mobile "Zome Attack on Yulai" and we all know what happened to them. I expect the same to apply in this instance.
______________________________________________
Note| This character is for forum posting purposes only. |
elFarto
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 09:26:00 -
[141]
My simple solution to stop (or at least reduce) suicide gankers:
When you terminate a character, it's security status (+ or -) must be transfered to another character.
This way you must face the consequence of all the crimes you commit.
Regards
elFarto
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 09:27:00 -
[142]
Edited by: Avon on 30/09/2005 09:31:06
Originally by: Deka Kador
How do you know he isn't breaking any rules if he has had to ask GM's? Are you saying you know what a GM is going to answer? We both know the only thing consistent about them is their inconsistency
I'm not trying to ruin his game. There are features in Eve which allow him to PvP in 0.5 to 1.0 (namely, war declarations) but he is avoiding these by taking advantage of lag in busy systems. It's a fact. We all know CONCORD are slow to respond when the server is straining and a system is busy.
Previous thoguhtless behaviour by players like Miz have resulted in piracy being long-range snipefests.
Miz is simply acting like a mobile "Zome Attack on Yulai" and we all know what happened to them. I expect the same to apply in this instance.
Zombies got in trouble for not stopping when told to, Miz did.
If you ask a GM if something is OK, and they say yes you will not be punished for doing it, even if the descision is later overturned.
Miz is playing it by the book.
Added: As to piracy becoming a sniperfest, this has nothing to do with players abusing n00bs.
There were many contributing factors, but criminal flagging was the final nail in the coffin for most other forms of piracy.
It was meant to keep pirates trapped in a system so that players could seek revenge ... something I have never seen happen.
What it became was a meaningless timesink, with game mechanics becomming the limiting factor in piracy - removing the need for player interaction which it was meant to bring about.
If you must clutch at bits of history to flesh out your rant, clutch at the right bits, 'k?
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Deka Kador
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 09:34:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Deka Kador
How do you know he isn't breaking any rules if he has had to ask GM's? Are you saying you know what a GM is going to answer? We both know the only thing consistent about them is their inconsistency
I'm not trying to ruin his game. There are features in Eve which allow him to PvP in 0.5 to 1.0 (namely, war declarations) but he is avoiding these by taking advantage of lag in busy systems. It's a fact. We all know CONCORD are slow to respond when the server is straining and a system is busy.
Previous thoguhtless behaviour by players like Miz have resulted in piracy being long-range snipefests.
Miz is simply acting like a mobile "Zome Attack on Yulai" and we all know what happened to them. I expect the same to apply in this instance.
Zombies got in trouble for not stopping when told to, Miz did.
If you ask a GM if something is OK, and they say yes you will not be punished for doing it, even if the descision is later overturned.
Miz is playing it by the book.
Then I guess my respect for people in 0.5 to 1.0 systems who are obviously there because they don't want PvP (in the combat sense) means I simply will never agree that what Miz is doing is good for the game. This is made even more so by his admittance that he has made people quit. Is that good for the game? Losing a manufacturer who simply wanted to play the game to produce items?
To me, if you want PvP in 0.5 to 1.0 then you have to pay the price of a war declaration . It's that simple.
Too many people quoting "risk vs reward" see risk as something which results in the loss of a ship. To me, it can also mean whether you choose to mine one belt or another. You run the risk of limiting your mineral (therefore, isk) output - the correct choice means you gain the reward of a higher yield and the ability to produce more modules etc etc. Optimizing your profit.
This is what PvP is and should be for 0.5 to 1.0 system users except when a war declaration occurs.
Why do we have a pop-up warning when entering 0.4 and under systems if the exact same thing can happen in 0.5 to 1.0? Should we start setting pop-ups on every gate in Eve stating "There might be someone in the next system taking advantage of lag to gank you - don't worry though, he has the backup of Eve catchetisms!"?
______________________________________________
Note| This character is for forum posting purposes only. |
Deka Kador
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 09:39:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Avon
Added: As to piracy becoming a sniperfest, this has nothing to do with players abusing n00bs.
There were many contributing factors, but criminal flagging was the final nail in the coffin for most other forms of piracy.
It was meant to keep pirates trapped in a system so that players could seek revenge ... something I have never seen happen.
What it became was a meaningless timesink, with game mechanics becomming the limiting factor in piracy - removing the need for player interaction which it was meant to bring about.
If you must clutch at bits of history to flesh out your rant, clutch at the right bits, 'k?
Could you explain that to me again? I'm not sure I udnerstand what your point is - you seem to be saying that minority player actions resulted in a change which adversely affected gameplay for the majority. That somewhat proved my point.
______________________________________________
Note| This character is for forum posting purposes only. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 09:46:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Deka Kador
Could you explain that to me again? I'm not sure I udnerstand what your point is - you seem to be saying that minority player actions resulted in a change which adversely affected gameplay for the majority. That somewhat proved my point.
Not at all - no player action directly resulted in the introduction of criminal flagging.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Deka Kador
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 09:47:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Deka Kador
Could you explain that to me again? I'm not sure I udnerstand what your point is - you seem to be saying that minority player actions resulted in a change which adversely affected gameplay for the majority. That somewhat proved my point.
Not at all - no player action directly resulted in the introduction of criminal flagging.
Not the people who boosted war-decced characters with non-corp 2nd accounts?
______________________________________________
Note| This character is for forum posting purposes only. |
Fester Addams
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 09:48:00 -
[147]
As far as I understand it recycling alts to get out of the neg security status repetedly (as in doing a coupple of suicide runs and the recycling the char to get a new char that does the same) is considered abusing the game mechanics and is a bannable offence.
While it can be dificult for players to identify a player that abuses this it should be doable if you are detrermined, simply jot down the info on any suicide gankers you see (name, age and so on) and check if they get wiped within a few days, then petition the character to CCP for recycling suicide alts.
This meens the only real problem is the 14 day trial accounts, as they dont really have accountability, I would personally hate so see them go as it is probably one of the best ways to recruit new players to the game but if griefers cant not abuse them then maby they should be removed.
Sadly this is a common feature in MMO's, griefers abuse every facet of the game as much as they can for short time amusement/gain and for months on end the rest of us have to hear them and others who enjoys similar (but not abusive) gameplay whine about the carebears whining having destroyed their gameplay (see concord, gateguns...)
------------
20. Is it true all pvpers have carebear alts?
Yes, of course. I have so much fun looking up who's alt is who's
kieron
Community Manager,
EVE Online |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 09:52:00 -
[148]
Originally by: Deka Kador
Not the people who boosted war-decced characters with non-corp 2nd accounts?
Nope.
Criminal flagging was in place already, that was just a loophole which was closed.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Deka Kador
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 09:53:00 -
[149]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Deka Kador
Not the people who boosted war-decced characters with non-corp 2nd accounts?
Nope.
Criminal flagging was in place already, that was just a loophole which was closed.
Are you really sure about that? My recollection is different.
I guess there's no real way to answer that either 'cause it's my word against yours.
______________________________________________
Note| This character is for forum posting purposes only. |
Sergeant Spot
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 10:07:00 -
[150]
The Crux of the issue:
"Normal" Suicide ganking (which is CCP accepted) is limited by the need for the ganker(s) to regain their security between kills, and by the cost of ship replacement. Such suicide gankers do not "lightly" "spend" their security status. They save it for high priority targets.
While Miz must replace ships, Miz's method ignores security hits. He can be 10.0 or -10.0 and it makes no difference. With Miz's method he does not worry about taking 10,000 pod kill security hits, as it makes no difference.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |