| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Seradhin
   |
Posted - 2006.03.03 03:29:00 -
[31]
So far from what I have read in this thread I see only 2 legitmate reasons for implementing this change, both of these could be resolved by other changes which would avoid the widespread possibilities of griefing etc the suggested change would introduce.
Firstly people wanting to clear up the huge mass of abandoned secure cans in belts, wouldn't a more sensible solution be to change it so that secure cans auto unanchor after an extended period of being unused, ie not opened, had items added or remove. If this time was say 1-3 months or that sort of figure it would allow truly abandoned cans to be tidied but shouldn't have any major impact on legitimate users play time.
Secondly people who want to be able to destroy cans when ratting with others, a simple solution to this would be to change it so that concord doesn't intervene when the can belongs to an active gang member, since I'm guessing the majority of people in this situation are ganged with the other players they are ratting with.
These measures would address the concerns of people raised here but leave far less scope for abuse than blanket removing of the concord response when destroying a can.
|
Filan
|
Posted - 2006.03.03 03:50:00 -
[32]
how about include cans as war targets? so quiet miners in NPC corps still have their cans protected by concord but someone in a player corp that is at war has to protect their cans as disrupting of resources is a valid war tactic.
Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bps, ty - Cortes |
Yaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
|
Posted - 2006.03.03 03:58:00 -
[33]
 Quote:
Sure it does. You are not your can. CCP could easily change the logic. If you steal or destroy anyone's can but your own, the owner can come after you. What's so hard?
Oooo I can make Broad Sweeping statements about topics that i have barely any understanding of too!
See!
Genetistists can EASILY design a human with wings and a cats tail, all they have to do is move a couple of ammino acids around. What's so hard?
Do some legit research into AI design and programming some Game Development stuff too. Then come back.
Till then, someone buy this guy a clue.
|
Cade Morrigan
|
Posted - 2006.03.03 04:02:00 -
[34]
Yeah, that sounded sooo tough to code there Yaaarrrrrrrrwtf 
|
Daddy's Belt
|
Posted - 2006.03.03 04:20:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Grimwalius d'Antan
I find the whole idea of Concord blowing ships up and not podding the captain to be incredibly hilarious. They are ready to MURDER hundreds, even thousands of crew members, but not the one person that is responsible for the crime: The ship captain. "Whoa, he is shooting someone's cheap property! Kill his crew and destroy his equipment, but don't pod him, it's against protocol to murder elite pilots!"
Ships having crews was a dumb story idea anyway. No one REALLY believes that there are crews on our ships.
|
Tevrai
|
Posted - 2006.03.03 05:39:00 -
[36]
Here's my view. I don't like the idea:
A. When a person steals your ore, you have a chance to get the ore back. The "product" has not been destroyed, it can be retrieved.
B. When someone destroys your can, it is impossible to get your "product" back. It's gone, period.
So, I do not think the response should be the same because they really are two different scenarios.
Asteroid death dealer, they never saw it coming!
|
Lysithea
|
Posted - 2006.03.03 06:56:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Lysithea on 03/03/2006 06:56:34
Originally by: Yaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Quote:
Sure it does. You are not your can. CCP could easily change the logic. If you steal or destroy anyone's can but your own, the owner can come after you. What's so hard?
Oooo I can make Broad Sweeping statements about topics that i have barely any understanding of too!
See!
Genetistists can EASILY design a human with wings and a cats tail, all they have to do is move a couple of ammino acids around. What's so hard?
Do some legit research into AI design and programming some Game Development stuff too. Then come back.
Till then, someone buy this guy a clue.
Ummm... I'm a Project Manager for a software development company. I got there after years of writing code for a living. Maybe you should shut YOUR mouth before making any general assumptions. Nice flaming alt btw.
|
Captain Deathbringer
|
Posted - 2006.03.03 07:07:00 -
[38]
With regard to the loot cans that contain rubbish after doing a complex or mission, why not after checking them just rename them "junk" then use the overview to go to the unchecked cans. Works for me.
|
Semblence
|
Posted - 2006.03.03 11:57:00 -
[39]
(1) I don't remember can-destruction as being a particularly prevalent form of griefing before can-flagging was introduced. Perhaps someone could take up the challenge and post a link to a pre-RMR whinge?
(2) You get CONCORDOKEN for activating any aggressive module on a can, even if it would not result in the can being destroyed, e.g. (my personal favourite), warp-scrambling a can. (it's not like the can is going to warp anywhere is it..?)
|
Lord WarATron
|
Posted - 2006.03.03 12:15:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 03/03/2006 12:15:51
Ok so what happens if
Apoc With all mods to give it 150km range with tach, and 7 WCS.
Aligns with safespot, doing driveby sniper greifing on miners by blowing up their jetcan? A new form of high sec piracy. "If your can is not Blue (with standing) I will shoot it"
To stop this happening, CCP made can destruction a Concord offence.
---
Slot 10 Akemons Modified 'Noble'Zet 5000 implant +8% Armour
FREE |
|
|
Semblence
|
Posted - 2006.03.03 12:37:00 -
[41]
Yes but my point is that drive-by can destruction rarely happened as a form of griefing. Hence the challenge to find a pre-RMR whinge on these forums along the lines of:
"I'm fed up with apocs killing my cans when I'm mining", because I don't remember it happening. I agree it could happen but it probably won't.
After all, it's a particularly dull form of griefing compared to can switching. The point of can switching is to make the unaware miner take from the griefer's can so the griefer can shoot the miner's ship.
Shooting the miner's cans is dull dull dull, from a griefer's point of view. And easily defeated by the miners (even farmers are smart enough to only transfer their ore when the hauler is ready to come and get it.)
|
Sable Schroedinger
|
Posted - 2006.03.03 12:39:00 -
[42]
*yawn*
there people go again, describing things as "griefing" just because they don't like it.
yeah, I know, lets have all can thieves concorded, cos they're griefers too!!!
--------------------------------------------
Nothing is as cruel as the righteousness of innocents |
Grash Freedom
|
Posted - 2006.03.03 12:43:00 -
[43]
Not a good idea imo
maybe if you shoot the can the owner gets kill rights on you, thats good
but shooting the can and just get red to him no no no
|
Snake Jankins
|
Posted - 2006.03.03 13:03:00 -
[44]
Like others said, not a good idea. Would be abused just to annoy people or make them leave. e.g. with a sniping BS. Catching a sniper needs some effort and I don't think that you want to do deal with them in 1.0. E.g. one could use a cruise raven, fit 5 wcs, fire 6 cruise missiles from 200km, shout 'Heya, watch out for the cruise !', have a laugh, when 6 cans explode and dock.  Do you want that ? 
___________
'Only ships can be assembled, this is a Frigate.' |
Tommy TenKreds
|
Posted - 2006.03.03 13:29:00 -
[45]
Personally, I think anyone who so much as farts in Empire should get Concordokkened.
That would sure keep gameplay interesting. 
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.03 13:37:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 03/03/2006 13:37:45
Originally by: Foobie
Originally by: Rendill
Stupid idea. Cos then can killing could be done in inties etc, and people could fly around griefing miners all day long without fear of reprisals. In fact, only a grief causer would want this system.
I totally agree. Allowing players to shoot each others cans will just increase griefing.
Shrug. Comparative crime, comparative punishment. Why do people have such a fear of consistant behavior...
And...
*hands Tommy a plate of beans*
Digital Communist> The Jin-Mei are probably more profficient in training for Tofu and Noodles than Spaceship Command |
Yarek Balear
|
Posted - 2006.03.03 13:38:00 -
[47]
WTB: Tech2 PLUG !!!
On topic - don't agree with the OP - shooting cans is an aggressive act and should be responded to accordingly, depending on the system. Don't create means for people to grief miners... We have the war system for that :P
|
Tommy TenKreds
|
Posted - 2006.03.03 13:47:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Filan
how about include cans as war targets? so quiet miners in NPC corps still have their cans protected by concord but someone in a player corp that is at war has to protect their cans as disrupting of resources is a valid war tactic.
That's really sensible IMO. In fact, it's one of those gameplay points that you would expect to already be implemented.
/signed
|
Luther Kincaid
|
Posted - 2006.03.03 13:51:00 -
[49]
Would you apply this to secure cans aswell?
hmmm blowing up peoples secure cans would prolly improve server performance.. 
-------------------------------------------
*sig space for hire,the fee is merely your soul and a buttload of pain*
*warning, this sigspace is fitted with T2 antihijack technology*
Too bad we have Jove technology then, cause this was no match for us - Wrangler
I have already won the thread, end of forum boss respawns when Kieron says so - Cortes
 - - Imaran |
Grisham
|
Posted - 2006.03.03 14:10:00 -
[50]
I agree with the number of secure cans littered around systems these days. It never used to be anything like it is now. Though at the same time I remember having three secure cans deployed before I took a break in August ... can't remember where I left them :p
Some way to locate old cans and auto-destruct them if you can't be bothered to retrieve them might be an idea. Losing ancoured status after 3 months of being deployed might be another way of doing it ... can't think through all the drawbacks of that one though.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |