hmskrecik
The Scope
Gallente Federation
215
   |
Posted - 2014.09.06 15:17:00 -
[33] - Quote
Thanks to everyone for all replies so far.
Now to the issue at hand.
Donnachadh wrote:
The ability to opt out would have to be made available to all players and all missions.
It should be strictly opt in. You'd have to sign up for this (for both sides) and until that you'd get only AI opponents.
Quote:
One way that this system could be abused is for the gankers to use it to their advantage. As pointed out there is not much a ganker could do to a mission runner if they are controlling the NPC ships already in the pocket. However add in a few of his friends in properly fit ships and they could easily take down even the best mission ships/pilots.
Yes, this is one of consequences and after some thought I'm okay with it. Increased risk for increased reward.
Quote:
Would they be allowed to do whatever they wanted with the ships in the pocket, or would there be some limits applied?
This could be extremely important in the lower level missions where you would be dealing with low skilled new players and their occasional terrible fits..
Basically you become a red cross. Or more accurately, you possess one or some of them. This could actually be nicely woven into backstory in the form of NPC corps hiring capsuleer consultants to guide their ships via telepresence, with usual NPC captain still being at helm and crew on stations. Thus on one hand the clone wouldn't be lost upon ship's destruction and on the other, capsuleer doesn't have all capabilities he'd have in normal sitaution. So no refitting, no fleeting, no podding, no warping, no extra bonuses, etc, but in turn you can for example tell this scramming frig to approach on spiral trajectory....
Quote:
How do you police this activity to prevent abuses?
Who polices this activity?
If one of these players was found to be in violation of the rules what penalties would there be?
If a player lost a ship as a direct result of a violation of rules by one of these players who pays for it?
Vetting should be always supervised by CCP, even if not done directly. Later most if not all of policies can be enforced by technical means. NPCs are quite restricted, so I could risk an assumption that an abuse here would be by definition an exploit, so I don't see the need for extra attention in this regard. After all, you are here to kill the player and to prevent him from completing his mission, and he did sign up for this. How worse could it be for him? |