| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jarrick Camdar
   |
Posted - 2003.08.25 20:15:00 -
[1]
Never drive angry, never post angry. Good rules. But I can't help myself.
Moments ago I had an encounter with a player character who had a -1.5 sec rating in a high security system. It said "Wanted" on his character info sheet... damn right! This was my chance to collect a bounty. -1.5 isn't just a little bit bad, that's dirty. And last I'd heard you can collect a bounty anywhere. He was in a Rifter, I was in a nicely appointed Omen with a combat drone to boot. Yehhaa! My time with this game was finally about to pay off. As I closed on the guy I thought about what a good game this was going to be once more time passed and the fighting had a chance to begin....
So I open fire. And, in a matter of seconds I was blown to bits by cops.
Now, don't get me wrong, perhaps I should have known better. I don't read the endless supply of patch notes as thoroughly as I should - and a buddy of mine says (in retrospect) whoever shoots first in high security zones gets shot by the cops...
Fine. But that sucks alot. Actually, makes me wonder if I want to continue in this universe. Why would CCP make fighting the bad guys so hard? I have to wait until this wanted guy steps into 0.0 non-empire space before I can collect the bounty? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Like I said, I don't normally flame, I hate it in fact, but I've just had a brush with a giant waste of my time and thought I'd share.
Thanks,
Jarrick Camdar
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2003.08.25 20:18:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Joshua Calvert on 25/08/2003 20:21:18
You can only attack players in high security space (and by high security I mean 0.5 and above) if the player has a personal sec rating -5.0 or lower.
In systems 0.4 and under you will suffer a sec rating drop but no interference from CONCORD.
In 0.0 systems you suffer no penalties at all.
It's harsh that you lost your ship, but hey, it's a lesson learned.
A -1.5 sec rating isn't such a bad thing - he could've been a good guy who shot an ore thief and took a sec hit.
Of course, the bounty casts doubt on that but it's best not to assume too much 
I expect Jash might have something to say about this topic since CONCORD and their OTT reactions are his favourite subject du jour.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Jarrick Camdar
|
Posted - 2003.08.25 20:22:00 -
[3]
Yeah, what an interesting lesson - here's an idea, don't let people place bounties on players you can't shoot.
This game needs a lot more fighting to be interesting, and there are ways to keep your security rating high. Let's mix it up... oh screw it, I hardly care anymore.
formerly,
Jarrick Camdar
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2003.08.25 20:25:00 -
[4]
I always wondered why you could place bounties on players with -2.0 but you weren't able to collect them in high security space.
Apparently the whole bounty system is undergoing a serious overhaul and might be different in the next patch.
It won't help you, of course, but don't be too disheartened. We've all lost ships through stupidity (sometimes our own).
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Lola
|
Posted - 2003.08.25 20:26:00 -
[5]
ShockAndAwe is never going to go to 0.0 space. He sits at that gate all day collecting loot off people like you who don't know the rules. Consider this a hard lesson learned. Like that time you sold all your isogen for 1 isk (or almost did). The experssion "look before you leap" fits here I think.
-----------------------------------------
Sig rented by Drethen Nerevitas. |
Cao Cao
|
Posted - 2003.08.25 20:31:00 -
[6]
Jarrick,
I'm sorry to hear you lost your Omen. I lost a 105 million isk Raven with lots and lots of rare lewt due to my own personal stupidity, so don't feel so bad.
Drive on soldier!
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2003.08.25 20:35:00 -
[7]
Sorry to hear about that. You didn't do anything dumb, you just fell victim to CCP's extreme unwillingness to elaborate on their security rules.
Many people have asked them repeatedly (begged even) for them to clarify exactly where and for what you take which security hits, and where and at what security levels you can legally shoot people.
This they have pretty much refused to do.
I'm also afraid that if you petition, you will meet their extreme unwilligness to replace lost equipment.
|
Jarrick Camdar
|
Posted - 2003.08.25 20:37:00 -
[8]
ShockandAwe? I never mentioned that was the players name... this guy is well known and is exploiting a stupid rule and nothing is done? Nice.
I love you fans - hey, I'm often one of you, no doubt. The game can do no wrong and needs no right-ing.
And guess what, I've lost a ship before in this game and it didn't bother me because I was at fault. But this is just plain stupid. If he's wanted and his security rating is low he should be fair game, end of story. The way the game stands right now it encourages people who would be pirates to semi-exploit instead - pull con jobs, and generally hide where they can't be attacked. It's beyond frustrating, it's broken.
Jarrick
|
Bad Harlequin
|
Posted - 2003.08.25 20:40:00 -
[9]
if the forthcoming hacking skill will let me flip the gate sentries ROE, it will all be worth it. Tho they'll probably be mysteriously invulnerable  .
You are in a maze of twisty little asteroids, all alike. |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2003.08.25 20:41:00 -
[10]
The only possible thing this character can be exploiting is not the game mechanics but peoples naivete.
The problem with being able to target anyone with a negative security comes from the fact you can get a negative rating without being a bad guy - splash damage, protecting your assets in high security space, and mistakes such as yours can all lead to negative sec rating.
Would YOU like to be attacked by everyone because you gained a negative status that way? No.
The whole bounty/who can I shoot/splash damage debate has been had a bajillion times and seems no nearer to being fixed.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Scragg
|
Posted - 2003.08.25 20:53:00 -
[11]
 Quote:
I was in a nicely appointed Omen
Emphasis on WAS. Don't point that thing at someone if you don't know how to use it and don't know the rules.
Scragg, Tyrell Corporation
Vice-Director Military Operations |
Jarrick Camdar
|
Posted - 2003.08.25 20:56:00 -
[12]
Hey Josh, rotate. I'm not a newb, just never looked deeply into the secret hidden security rating rules. I assumed that a wanted man can be shot. How naive. Pfffffft.
A minus 1.5 security rating isn't easily come by - .01 through .05 I can understand, heck I've been there for the reasons you mentioned. But if you read above that's not what our forementioned ***** monkey is doing.
Jarrick
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2003.08.25 21:00:00 -
[13]
Quote:
Hey Josh, rotate.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
zoop
|
Posted - 2003.08.25 21:02:00 -
[14]
was the guy called 'ShockAndAwe' ?
he hangs around the the 1.0 systems,locks people hoping they fire back, waits for concord to do their stuff then loots whatever drops.
complete coward.....gimp of the highest order
----------------------------
*My God, it's full of gimps*
|
SISQO
|
Posted - 2003.08.25 21:37:00 -
[15]
-5.0 rating is to extreme, -2.5 is good enough. Whats the point of bounty if you can't collect it? Bounty means, KILL and COLLECT ON SIGHT. So either CCP needs to lower the rating or don't allow bounties to be placed on anyone with sec more then -5.0, which is also stupid.
Besides its such a ***** to raise your sec now anyways, so if you've got more then -2 or -2.5 your basically a pirate/criminal.
|
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.08.25 21:48:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Jash Illian on 25/08/2003 21:49:03
Quote:
I expect Jash might have something to say about this topic since CONCORD and their OTT reactions are his favourite subject du jour.
You damn skippy I do. And I place blame on people like you Joshua.
Prior to your "PvP is actually fun?!?" conversion, you pushed and howled like a banshee for Concord to become to killing machine it is today. Congratulations, you got it and everyone is stuck with it.
If CCP had followed their original plan, with the security rating of a system designating the response Concord would give, he might have had a chance of actually surviving the encounter. But as you later pointed out, what we have is an On/Off switch and nothing more. >=.5 and die. <=.4 and kill with impunity. I won't bother mentioning the stupidity of punishing new players like they're experienced pirates. It's getting old.
I will say if I have to spend another couple hours worrying that a brand new player and member of my corp will experience the full stupidity of Concord because he's a Caldari (Merlin + Missiles + Complete n00b = Catastrophe Waiting to Happen), I'll pod Pann next chance I get. 
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Shock
|
Posted - 2003.08.25 22:07:00 -
[17]
It's plain ridiculous how in 0.5 the cops are ubermighty and in 0.4 they're all gone.
---
soonÖ |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2003.08.25 22:09:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Joshua Calvert on 25/08/2003 22:10:28
He's hardly a n00b - he owns a Vexor.
I hardly wailed like a banshee either - I just wanted CONCORD beefed up so they could deal with battleship-owning pirates.
It seems an unfortunate consequence of that means players who don't know the rules get punished.
Ignorance is far from bliss, it seems.
I agree with you, though, Jash.
My question is this: If players cannot understand the rules of engagement as they are now, when they're as black and white as can be, how would introducing varying levels of CONCORD response be understood by those players?
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Tivalus LinG
|
Posted - 2003.08.25 22:27:00 -
[19]
shockandawe is a retard, never goes into anything lower then 0.6
the -5.0 is firefree rule isnt widely known (it should be explained at login, along with a good explenation of secure space rating imo)
|
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.08.25 22:28:00 -
[20]
Quote:
Edited by: Joshua Calvert on 25/08/2003 22:10:28
He's hardly a n00b - he owns a Vexor.
I hardly wailed like a banshee either - I just wanted CONCORD beefed up so they could deal with battleship-owning pirates.
It seems an unfortunate consequence of that means players who don't know the rules get punished.
Ignorance is far from bliss, it seems.
I agree with you, though, Jash.
My question is this: If players cannot understand the rules of engagement as they are now, when they're as black and white as can be, how would introducing varying levels of CONCORD response be understood by those players?
If we're talking about a big huge message "CONCORD HAS BEEN NOTIFIED OF YOUR TRANSGRESSION AND WILL BE RESPONDING SHORTLY" and they still die, then I blame them for not running. During beta when Concord worked (like barely near the beginning of the abortive Phase 6), you could run from Concord with a low sec rating. You couldn't do anything else tho. Standing still meant dying.
Stopping battleship players after the fact is a waste of time. If they're alreadt in Amarr, you might as well say "Screw it!" and grab the popcorn to enjoy the show. They should be stopped Prior to getting whereever CCP doesn't want them to go. If they make it there despite all the attempts to stop them, they earned it in my opinion.
The current system allows 0 mistakes in .5+ areas while .4 and below makes a REAL Texan drool while grabbing the ammunition. Thank God I'm a Texan
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2003.08.25 22:36:00 -
[21]
The problem with your otherwise good idea, Jash, is that while docking/jumpgate use is prohibited due to agressive actions, CONCORD will still get you even after you're given time by the warning.
In order to make your idea work the prohibitions would need to be removed which, as you know, would make RUS happy as a pig in dirt and make wars even more useless.
How would you like to see CCP prevent players from certain areas?
I'm assuming it would be a relationship between the players sec rating and the system sec rating?
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Wrangler
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 00:54:00 -
[22]
From Support:
Why can't I freely attack wanted players, or place a bounty on them?
[Read the Rules!] - [Email the Moderators] |
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 01:35:00 -
[23]
Quote:
The problem with your otherwise good idea, Jash, is that while docking/jumpgate use is prohibited due to agressive actions, CONCORD will still get you even after you're given time by the warning.
In order to make your idea work the prohibitions would need to be removed which, as you know, would make RUS happy as a pig in dirt and make wars even more useless.
How would you like to see CCP prevent players from certain areas?
I'm assuming it would be a relationship between the players sec rating and the system sec rating?
Said it a long time back but findig it on these forums would be impossible. The time in which Concord responds should be according to the sec rating of the system, the sec rating of the person and the overall security of the system at the time. Sec rating should also determine the fleet makeup for the response, with escalation working properly (destroy 1 and 2 take its place). Finally, Concord does not need stupifying amounts of damage. Between webifiers and EW, the fleet makeups prior to the UberCops could easily nibble a bship to death if they had been armed with 1 other item: Energy Neutralizers to kill the shield hardeners.
Concord should neutralize the person to prevent them from killing players where CCP does not want them killing players. It should eventually kill the idiot if they do not heed the fleet telling them "You should not be here". It should escalate if by some miracle the person finds a way to actually do something besides run. But Concord should not be the Furbearer's Revenge Machine.
Everytime I see someone say "You got what you deserved", it makes me pray for the day I find them in 0.0 space and they need help. Normally, I'll help out someone in a bit of a jam. But for them...I'll gladly repeat their own mantra back to them before their pod goes squish.
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Tim Maser
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 01:56:00 -
[24]
Quote:
From Support:
Why can't I freely attack wanted players, or place a bounty on them?
I just wanted to paste the text from that support link here incase anyone misses the link:
Question
Why can't I freely attack wanted players, or place a bounty on them?
Answer
There are varying levels of criminality. The mere fact that a player is sought by CONCORD does not automatically signify that he qualifies as an automatic target for everyone else.
In the eyes of the official law, someone who's committed only minor crimes in EVE does not deserve to be shot. Note the word "official": Other players can place a bounty on someone's head if his security status falls below a certain level (currently -1.0) but this does not imply CONCORD approval. A player can only justifiably be attacked if his security status is below -5.0. If you see someone with a "Wanted" stamp, they're wanted by other players and not necessarily the system itself. The discrepancy in these levels is a result of the Empires' policy to keep personal bickering out of the hands of CONCORD, who are already taxed to the limit dealing with pirates and more serious criminals. Thus, attacking a player, regardless of his wanted status will result in Concord attacking YOU, if the attack takes place in a high security sector of Empire space.
Keep in mind that bounty hunters always operate, if not on the wrong side of the law, then on its very edge. They're trespassing on CONCORD's territory and are therefore naturally not held in high regard by official forces. If you try to place a bounty on someone whose security status is high enough that he's clearly not a serious criminal in the eyes of CONCORD or the Empire then it won't be allowed, no matter what personal vendettas you may have. Neither can you expect help or any kind of assistance from the police if you choose to take up bounty hunting as a career. Violence and murder are serious crimes and are treated as such. If you're in pursuit of another player, your losses - of security, ship or life - are your own.
|
Jarrick Camdar
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 02:14:00 -
[25]
Quote:
My question is this: If players cannot understand the rules of engagement as they are now, when they're as black and white as can be, how would introducing varying levels of CONCORD response be understood by those players?
Cannot understand? Aren't you the diplomat. Ya that's it, clearly you can see my grasp of complicated logic like "you can't kill anyone above -5 security rating in empire space" is limited. Poor me, guess I'm just dumb.
Or maybe, Columbo, if you used some of the grey matter given to you, you would note that perhaps this kind of knowledge is either on or off, not complicated. Players have either read it or not read it. But said player has to look for the security information if they're interested, and the rules have changed since the beginning.
As I mentioned before, I don't comb through all the patch notes because right now the game just isn't that exciting. So far I've been hangning in hoping CCP will come through with improved content - and most importantly get the fighting started... I'm beginning to lose faith.
Jarrick
|
Tim Maser
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 02:45:00 -
[26]
The whole problem here sounds like knowledge. If people knew when and when not to attack there wouldn't be a problem, but the whole security rating rules arn't out in plain site (you can't even search the forums to find out)
I think there should be a warning, like there is now when taking a hostile action, but saying exactly the consiquences, wheather your action will be taken as hostile in the eyes of the police, then if not, what happens to your rating and such anyway.
As a newb, If I saw a wanted sign and a negative rating, and I had the upper hand, hell yes I would have attacked. But I guess at second though, that person could be one of the most law abiding players, but just had an accident. Though, you say -1.5 is hard to get I guess, I hope not, since then when would you ever see a -5.0 so you can attack.
I think the wanted by police is confusing. It sounds like if they see him or her, they'll go to make an arrest, or destroy. It should just say something like, "Concord has marked this player as potentially dangerous, use causion"
Also, on the problem with there being no way to run, since you can't dock or jump, and the whole thing was an accident, there's another game that had a different way of handling the police. If you screwed up by hitting someone by mistake or just tried to attack, the police should message you with an option to cease fire and pay a fine, if one doesn't have any isk, make a bill or take it out of sales you do. Or you can choose to fight or run, but sounds like that is suicide. Now if you killed a p already, I don't think you can get out with a simple fine.
|
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 02:48:00 -
[27]
Quote:
...
Though, you say -1.5 is hard to get I guess, I hope not, since then when would you ever see a -5.0 so you can attack.
...
If I shoot someone in high sec space, it'll cost me almost double that amount in sec loss.
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Tim Maser
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 02:53:00 -
[28]
On my first loggin to the game, I got attacked in 1.0 space. Turns out that someone was in a tutorial on attacking, I think I was in the training area and the person though I was part of it. Well, the concord came pretty quickly. But it was an accident.
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 07:05:00 -
[29]
Quote:
Quote:
My question is this: If players cannot understand the rules of engagement as they are now, when they're as black and white as can be, how would introducing varying levels of CONCORD response be understood by those players?
Cannot understand? Aren't you the diplomat. Ya that's it, clearly you can see my grasp of complicated logic like "you can't kill anyone above -5 security rating in empire space" is limited. Poor me, guess I'm just dumb.
Or maybe, Columbo, if you used some of the grey matter given to you, you would note that perhaps this kind of knowledge is either on or off, not complicated. Players have either read it or not read it. But said player has to look for the security information if they're interested, and the rules have changed since the beginning.
As I mentioned before, I don't comb through all the patch notes because right now the game just isn't that exciting. So far I've been hangning in hoping CCP will come through with improved content - and most importantly get the fighting started... I'm beginning to lose faith.
Jarrick
I wasn't flaming/attacking you in anyway so get off your bloody high horse and simmer down.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Jolo
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 07:24:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Jolo on 26/08/2003 07:25:08
Quote:
From Support:
Why can't I freely attack wanted players, or place a bounty on them?
sure am glad i hadn't read this before concord nuked my battleship too. wish there was some warning. or something. Uberconcord sucks. chalk it up to lesson learned. back to mining!
---------------------------------------
|
Jolo
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 07:51:00 -
[31]
Is there a good reason why negative sec people are protected by concord? is it for the newbies?
I can't see why concord kills you for fighting a negative security person. that's why its there right? So you know who is good and who isn't. if you obey the law, you get a positive sec status. if you have any negative, i should be able to blast you to dust on the steps of the galatic capital. doesn't that make sense?
as of now 150 million isk says i'm wrong. =)
---------------------------------------
|
Ruulex DeMors
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 07:53:00 -
[32]
EVE has never been newbie friendly, it's one of the reasons it isn't growing (I'm not calling the original poster a newbie). There is nothing in the manual about this (heck the manual was out of date on release).
Polaris members and everyone who posts here agrees that the number of ppl posting here are about 10-15% of the ppl that play the game. So how can they expect to the newbies to know what's going on? The tutorial warns ppl about the threat colors, but I don't recall it saying don't fire in .5 and above space unless the person has a -5.0 sec rating.
-------------------------------------
Interm-CEO for EVE Marshals
http://www.EVEMarshals.com |
Jolo
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 08:00:00 -
[33]
Agreed. I had no clue about securty stuff until my megathron was reduced to ashes. I have been in beta and I guess i should have done a search in the Support pages about "Security status" before engaging in PVP. But that would to easy :P It's confusing, and most don't learn how it works till CONCORD takes you out with 120000 battleships. Then you learn!(i lasted SO much longer in BETA againt CONCORD)
This game is very anti newbie. The tutorial isn't great, the web page isn't that big of a help. the manual is like so out of date it's a joke. As I said...back to mining for a new ship...
---------------------------------------
|
Velthem Cthulhu
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 08:28:00 -
[34]
Quote:
Edited by: Joshua Calvert on 25/08/2003 20:21:18
In 0.0 systems you suffer no penalties at all.
Bull crap.. I took a -2.5 for pod'ing a guy that attacked our Indy in 0.0 (HED-GP), come to find out there are "some" 0.0 sectors that still carry a neg security hit because they are still empire space...
personally I think it should be 0.1 if it is going to leave a sec hit, but it seems some dev at CCP thinks they should surprise you with the security hit in 0.0 space.. Retarded if you ask me.
|
Drutort
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 08:55:00 -
[35]
ya i never got it why you can have a bounty IF you cant be shot at until -5.0
that is just wack... make it that you can only place a bounty on people you can fire up on.
i wonder what ccp thought when they put that?
the system needs to be improved some how.
support Idea: QuickInfo an alternative to ShowInfo
my MoBlog |
Indira Firebrand
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 11:24:00 -
[36]
once thy have a bounty placed on them irregardless of their security rating they should be fair game anywhere!
|
Jarrick Camdar
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 13:51:00 -
[37]
The system needs to be tweaked so that the bad guys don't say to themselves "Hmm. Looks like -4.9 is a good place to be... I can be a bad ass and not suffer any consequences!"
The game the way it stands is wimping out when it comes to PvP. This game would certainly have an extra thrill if there was a chance you might face combat from players. Right now no one wants to face the consequences.
Jarrick
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 14:19:00 -
[38]
Edited by: j0sephine on 26/08/2003 14:23:33
Jolo
"I can't see why concord kills you for fighting a negative security person. that's why its there right? So you know who is good and who isn't. if you obey the law, you get a positive sec status. if you have any negative, i should be able to blast you to dust on the steps of the galatic capital. doesn't that make sense?"
... No, it doesn't; your security rating doesn't tell who is 'good' and who isn't. It merely tells who's involved in destruction of property and/or life, without providing any background behind such acts.
Further to the point; if you obey the law, you don't get positive security -- you're just not penalized with negative security. And getting negative security is as easy as activating your smartbomb near a station by mistake, or firing one too many missiles in the 'sanctioned' fight. None of those are actions which would justify 'blasting them to dust' by a self-appointed sheriff. :s
Indira
"once thy have a bounty placed on them irregardless of their security rating they should be fair game anywhere!"
Check this thread to see how easy would that be to abuse.
|
Jahbulon
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 14:33:00 -
[39]
The problem, as I see it, is trying to mentally reconcile what sec system you're in against the sec of the attacker or wanted person.
The game could make it much, much easier by having a coloured targetting thing, like the yellow / orange / red system now. In other words, use another colour, like blue, to signify "you can fire on this person in this system and you won't take a sec hit or be destroyed by concord". |
Molly
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 14:34:00 -
[40]
Not everyone with a negative rating and a bounty deserves to be attacked by a clueless carebear like you.
That's why I am glad, that CONCORD destroyed your ship by protecting the other guy.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 14:40:00 -
[41]
I'm amazed by the people who in the same breath, complain about them losing security status and being destroyed by Concorde for attacking another negative sec player, and then loudly declare they should be able to incinerate any negative sec player anywhere.
Killing and podding one person will take you down to -2.5 I think. (If you are at 0.0) I am not sure, because I've never actually destroyed anyone in Empire space, just levied tolls.
However there are thousands of reasons a person might get a small negative security - blowing up someones drone by mistake, shooting someone once by mistake, wayward missiles impacting on stations, poorly timed smartbombs hitting a gate - all kinds of things.
|
Amairgen
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 15:02:00 -
[42]
Don't suppose you're the Ulstan from DAoC Bedevere are ya ?
Amairgen
|
Jolo
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 17:18:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Jolo on 26/08/2003 17:19:05
Molly: Quote:
Not everyone with a negative rating and a bounty deserves to be attacked by a clueless carebear like you.
That's why I am glad, that CONCORD destroyed your ship by protecting the other guy.
please note the other guy was harrassing miners. I am also not a carebear thank you.
I thought you quit anyways, you still here?
---------------------------------------
|
Danton Marcellus
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 17:57:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Danton Marcellus on 26/08/2003 18:01:26
How can you be a so called carebear if you're attacking other people and engaging in PvP? That Molly really must be 10 years old.
Oh and about ShockAndAwe, that retard really should be banned for griefing.
Convert Stations
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 17:59:00 -
[45]
Don't pay attention to Molly.
Nobody else does.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Indira Firebrand
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 18:40:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Indira Firebrand on 26/08/2003 18:41:23
Edited by: Indira Firebrand on 26/08/2003 18:41:08
Josephine...
I must be stupid because I dont see how that thread relates at all
|
Quince al'Pillan
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 19:49:00 -
[47]
Quote:
sure am glad i hadn't read this before concord nuked my battleship too. wish there was some warning. or something. Uberconcord sucks. chalk it up to lesson learned. back to mining!
Well there IS a warning... most people just turn it off immediately. Its a little popup box that comes up when you click to activate hostile weapons. Remember that one?
-Q
|
Jolo
|
Posted - 2003.08.26 20:29:00 -
[48]
it's a pointless warning. there should be some way to tell who you can shoot, when and where.
not have to do some math with decimals.
If an ore thief is firing missles and messing with people on purpose i should be able to cap him.
---------------------------------------
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 00:00:00 -
[49]
"I must be stupid because I dont see how that thread relates at all"
... You suggested that anyone with a bounty on their head should be a free target anyone can shoot without consequences. Perhaps presuming the bounties are something that's put only on people who deserve this and thus such treatment... but note, little stops the 'bad guys' from using such system (be it official bounties or otherwise) to their own advantage. The thread i pointed out was just a sample of how it can be done.
|
Molly
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 03:57:00 -
[50]
"please note the other guy was harrassing miners. I am also not a carebear thank you.
I thought you quit anyways, you still here?"
Just make sure you shoot people with -5.0 or lower and you do not need to start a big whine on the forums.
End of story.
|
Jolo
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 04:00:00 -
[51]
I forgot Molly was the true voice of the Forums. Don't decide what's fit to print here.
---------------------------------------
|
Molly
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 04:20:00 -
[52]
After reading your posts from 2 different chars I still see only carebear whining containing words like "exploit", "harassing miners", "bad guys" and so on.
And all because you have lost a ship to an ore thief by shooting him in a high security zone (BTW did he steal from you  ?).
Choose some:
[ ] Know the rules,
[ ] realize that not everyone with a bounty or negative security rating is a "bad guy",
[ ] use secure containers against ore thievery,
[ ] suck it up and learn from your mistake,
[ ] lose a ship due to own nescience,
[ ] call the game broken,
[ ] request a FoF-fire button,
[ ] threaten indirectly to quit,
[ ] post unoriginal whinage on the forums.
And so on.
I have my reasons why I am happy about your loss to CONCORD. Because I have been shot 2 times by buffoons like ROLF and Technolisa who thought that I am a pirate or something (at this time I was a miner). FYI: Criminals have rights too  .
|
Jolo
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 06:03:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Jolo on 27/08/2003 06:11:03
Secure cans are still jacked. 2 of them dont even work. The person uses missles to splash damage the cans and blow them up. He would warp to every belt, and trahs everyones cans, just to **** people off. Molly why do you have to be so negative. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
BTW: I am no fool, I respect people who respect me, if A pirate blockades a route, and is nice and cool about the situation, that's fine. But some people are in the game just to **** people off and not for fun. Just to amuse themselves at the expense of people who have a different vision of fun gameplay. I can tell when someone is being a ***** and when someone is legitimatly playing a pirate role.
---------------------------------------
|
GRIMS REAPER
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 09:13:00 -
[54]
[Pulls out the marshmellows]might as well with the flaming thats going on in this thread.
|
Kimi
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 09:19:00 -
[55]
"I don't read the endless supply of patch notes as thoroughly as I should ..."
An "endless supply"????????
You must have some serious reading disabilities.
Patches come out about every 3 to 4 weeks.
Patch notes consist of usually 2-3 pages of plain text, max.
IMO, Darwin was right...
|
Athule Snanm
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 10:17:00 -
[56]
It would be helpful if instead of just 'wanted' over all neg status portraits there was 'wanted' for non-kill-on-sight pilots and 'wanted, dead or alive' for kill-on-sight (ie -5 and below) pilots.
_______________________________
Doomheim - EVE's only hygiene! |
Jarrick Camdar
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 18:27:00 -
[57]
Quote:
"I don't read the endless supply of patch notes as thoroughly as I should ..."
An "endless supply"????????
You must have some serious reading disabilities.
Patches come out about every 3 to 4 weeks.
Patch notes consist of usually 2-3 pages of plain text, max.
IMO, Darwin was right...
Interesting, you think that I'm a Darwinian weak link because I don't carefully read CCP patch notes? I think you need to get outside more : )
I know a lot of people that are currently playing this game on cruise-control. Raising their stats, mining from time to time and waiting for the population to rise and the game to be improved.
Seems its being steered the wrong way.
Whatever a carebear is, it's not me. I loved the RvR in DAoC. I want to see players mix it up. Kill and be killed. It would be great for the player economy, and add a little something to the game... something called, I don't know... excitement?
Argue what you will about how the game should work PvP - but what ShockandAwe has been doing is an exploit, a soft one no doubt, but still not the game working as intended : P
Hey, if he can get away with it and CCP doesn't care, more power to him, I guess. Not sure what's going to happen to the players cruising this game to see if it works out, though.
Jarrick
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 19:28:00 -
[58]
"Don't suppose you're the Ulstan from DAoC Bedevere are ya ?
Amairgen"
Actually yes, that is me.
And it's pointless (and misleading) to call what ShockandAwe is doing an exploit. Exploits are things people get banned for, usually for taking advantage of a *bug* in the code.
A *bug* should not be confused with a design flaw on CCP's part.
Let me elaborate
- Finding a bug that lets you move around in 1.0 space w/out police attacking you and continually using this to kill players - exploit.
- Being attacked by police in 1.0, but these police being too weak to hurt you, so you go around killing players - not an exploit. CCP should've made the police stronger.
Shockandawe is not taking advantage of a bug. He is taking advantage of people's ignorance. It is CCP's fault (or theirs) that they are ignorant, not ShockandAwe's.
|
Battle Arena
|
Posted - 2003.08.28 00:11:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Battle Arena on 28/08/2003 00:14:10
I've had a run in with this character before. Apparently his reasons for his action are becuase he hates CCP policies about pirate rules, I've not seen him for a couple of days in Tash-Murkon but I remember him saying that all players with bounties should be fair game. In some respects I have to agree with that. He's just a protester trying to make a point which we all feel the same way about.
|
Jarrick Camdar
|
Posted - 2003.08.28 02:05:00 -
[60]
Quote:
And it's pointless (and misleading) to call what ShockandAwe is doing an exploit. Exploits are things people get banned for, usually for taking advantage of a *bug* in the code.
Let me reiterate what may not be clear regarding my encounter and destruction: bravo ShockandAwe. I don't blame him, in fact I hope his crusade against the rules as they stand continues and finds success, because as I've stated above they do not encourage conflict which should be central in this game.
BUT this old hair splitting argument about what is and what is not an exploit is nothing but semantics. Go check a dictionary and see what exploit means.
How about this instead - ShockandAwe is "taking advantage" of the mechanics of the game in a way which was not the intention of CCP when they instituted said mechanics, and he is profitting from said "advantage taking". CCP did not originally intend for anyone to be instantly dismantled by cops - it was a patchwork response to *****ing and whining on this very board. And those of us that started this game hoping to be bounty hunters couldn't be more disappointed with the bounty system...
May ShockandAwe's risk free pseudo-pirateness serve to illustrate a need for change, and soon. Amen.
Jarrick
|
Morlocke
|
Posted - 2003.08.28 02:54:00 -
[61]
Quote:
ShockandAwe? I never mentioned that was the players name... this guy is well known and is exploiting a stupid rule and nothing is done? Nice.
[snip]
And guess what, I've lost a ship before in this game and it didn't bother me because I was at fault. But this is just plain stupid. If he's wanted and his security rating is low he should be fair game, end of story. The way the game stands right now it encourages people who would be pirates to semi-exploit instead - pull con jobs, and generally hide where they can't be attacked. It's beyond frustrating, it's broken.
Jarrick
Yep. Quite broken. Same deal on ore *****s. They can waltz right up and pop your can even when you're in a corp mining session, and if you shoot them, the cops come down on you.
Perhaps CCP gets a kickback from the crime scene in this game? Or perhaps CCP staffers simply prefer to play as ore *****s and want some protection from the victims that want to plug them.
M
|
ShockAndAwe
|
Posted - 2003.08.28 07:55:00 -
[62]
Actions speak louder than words, you've witnessed my actions now hear my words:
1. All pirates with a bounty should be freely attacked by anyone, in any security without police protection.
2. I will delete the character if CCP ask me to.... Polaris have turned up twice, but have said or done nothing.
3. I will continue to use this method as my only option of protest, becuase we all know petitions do jack ****.
4. The more people that complain and moan about my actions the better, CCP will start to listen and take notice of the silly pirate protection rules.
5. I don't target new characters.
6. As soon as I can freely target and kill a wanted player, without retribution from Concord, I will delete this character and go back to being a happy miner.
7. I work alone and have turned down all offers of joining pirate corps. |
Amairgen
|
Posted - 2003.08.28 15:02:00 -
[63]
Ulstan : Cool, I was Tjolnir on there. I got ya once or twice :P
ShockandAwe: You did your trick on my Newb character Lisen once. Glad I fell for it in my Velator instead of my Maller :P
Amairgen
|
Asmodia
|
Posted - 2003.08.28 15:10:00 -
[64]
Quote:
A minus 1.5 security rating isn't easily come by - .01 through .05
wrong man, one of our members blow up a MOA in 15 seconds and killed the pod with slashdamgae .. -2.9 for the pod. other member got -.5 for the kill.
------------------------------------------------
CEO of Spectre Syndicate - Curse Alliance
------------------------------------------------ |
Asmodia
|
Posted - 2003.08.28 15:11:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Asmodia on 28/08/2003 15:16:18
damn lags 
double post
------------------------------------------------
CEO of Spectre Syndicate - Curse Alliance
------------------------------------------------ |
Commander Jones
|
Posted - 2003.08.28 15:28:00 -
[66]
Quote:
1. All pirates with a bounty should be freely attacked by anyone, in any security without police protection.
i tend to agree... when killing bountied pirates one is in fact helping CONCORD so why should one get shot at or suffer sec lvl penalties? ...it should work just like npc pirates.
just my 2 isk
"You end up paying good money for the sort of treatment you ancestors spent their short, brutal lives trying to avoid. That's progress"
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |