| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
MiniMe1
   |
Posted - 2006.08.13 08:44:00 -
[1]
Edited by: MiniMe1 on 13/08/2006 08:45:03
As has been said before....pirates and those who choose to disobey the laws of "the highway" (.5) and above should get insurance payouts revoked when on x minus security standing.
They get on minus security standing no insurance payouts.
But I think it's should be a LOT harder to get back into + security standing than it currently is...I mean most pirates just rat/mission grind for a week or so get back into + standings when they need to get to safe space again, then contine to pirate.
How about Concord in low sec have a "bounty hunter" option for pirates (On minus x security standing ONLY)who want to get there standing increased faster. You can "beef up" Concord's low sec force with pirats who wish to gain a larger standing increase. Once you are part of that (For a set amount of time??) other pirates with x minus security status become viable targets for you to take out and you get a get a bigger security standing increase against those than if you just NPC rat.
Pirates get to PvP against other pirates/lawless players (more of a fair fight) while low sec is made more "intresting" to travel through for ALL players (Potentially).
In local "bounty Hunters" would be flagged so pirates know they are in the system.
It's a new idea I came up with...flame away if you want...but hell new ideas are what keep Eve alive 
Tar for reading.
Ohhh PS
Don't ask me specifics...I want you lot to flesh out the idea and if it could work or not 
|
Clytamnestra
Jazz Associates
R i s e
|
Posted - 2006.08.13 08:48:00 -
[2]
I'm gonna go out on a limb here... you don't like pirates very much do you?
Going from -10 to zero security standing takes longer than a week of ratting. And that's based on the premise that you have access to 0.0 ratting.
I'm sure there are other ways of getting around the problem of having gate-campers suicide kill you. Adapt and overcome.
--
|
MiniMe1
|
Posted - 2006.08.13 08:57:00 -
[3]
Errr who does like pirates?
They should have more risk than simply waiting at gates / setting up bubbles and waiting.
Why not have some bounty hunters in game?
I'm asking for a discussion of the idea not just random comments 
|
Caleb Paine
|
Posted - 2006.08.13 10:19:00 -
[4]
The bounty hunter option isn't a bad idea at all, although I disagree with some other points in your post.
If in low sec, blowing up pirates with a negative security status helps your own negative security status. That's actually a brilliant idea tbfh. Wanna be a pirate? sure but beware of other pirates as they will cut your throat to take out the opposition and get the security advantage. Ofcourse there's enough people who have a negative sec status who aren't a pirate but still to get negative you attacked someone and you obviously didn't do the ratting up redeem yourself so tough luck, you're now a big target.
It could be abused ofcourse by 2 pirates shooting eachother in newbieships but to prevent this make it so you only get a sec gain on the same target once every 24 hours or so, or even longer. You MIGHT even add that when you got the security bonus you have to play nice for a certain amount of time, if you aren't the bonus gets deducted again.
Devs, come have a look at this!
Looking for a corp? INCH caters for newer and the somewhat more relaxed, mature player. |
Infinity Ziona
Space Elves of Ragnoroth
|
Posted - 2006.08.13 10:50:00 -
[5]
I think further penalizing the already penalized pirates in low sec would be an unnecessary and stupid move on the behalf of CCP.
A single evening of attacking ships in 0.1-0.4 would take me to -9.x and would take months to get back to 0.0 security rating.
Meanwhile the guy next door in XYZ 0.0 system can kill everyone he sees and then 5 minutes later jump into a 1.0 system and go shopping.
Your right the security system is severely fecked up but its not in the way you think.
'The alliance should not be a solo contentmobile' - Albert Einstein |
MiniMe1
|
Posted - 2006.08.13 11:31:00 -
[6]
What IS the security standing loss in .4 and below systems?
I'm not saying all low sec should be like this...
IF you decide to pirate you make a concious decision to screw you're sec status over for hopefully some juicey mods and other rewards.
As a result of that you "Should" be classed a target. Lets face it the "Bounty system" as is aint that great...yeah I'll put some money on you're head and.....then what? A corp m8 or alt can blow him up / pod him (In a jump clone maybe) and get the cash that was put on his head originally so the pirate gains all the payers loot AND the bonus of cash that was put on his head.
Pirates are hardly hard done by. Gate camping is lame...I agree that if you want to pirate then yes players are going to come by a gate more often than not. Yes there should be risk in traveling in .4 BM's should probably be removed but how much fun is there in running a gate camp of 2 or more people who are over 100k away and have 0 risk of being taken down?
Lots of fun to the pirates no doubt...not so much for the rest of us.
It's a dog eat dog universe...pirates vs pirates (turned bounty hunter) would be an intresting twist.
|
Tao Han
Caldari
Crucial Electronics
|
Posted - 2006.08.13 11:45:00 -
[7]
 Originally by: MiniMe1
Errr who does like pirates?
They should have more risk than simply waiting at gates / setting up bubbles and waiting.
Why not have some bounty hunters in game?
I'm asking for a discussion of the idea not just random comments
Just want to clarify something here.
There are no "pirates" in 0.0 where those bubbles would be setup, since there isnt a law there cant be criminals. What you have out there are simply Soldiers (aka Sheep) and asshats.
On-topic I would like to see insurance reworked with less payout and in the case of highsec suicide ganking no insurance payout whatsoever.
1: Anytime Concord lays the final blow there has been a criminal act and thus should not receive insurance.
2: Empire wars should not payout any insurance either. Or perhaps only half of the insurance, EVE needs a way to define a loser in wars.
3: 0.0 is a huge warzone and alliances go at eachother for months without anyone losing. Again I say, half insurance unless the 2 alliances has declared war on eachother, then no insurance should be paid to either alliance. The result here would be that alliances can actually defeat eachother.
The downside of this is of course that people will fight even more cowardly than now, stabs and logon exploits (RAT anyone?) would run rampant so neither of my suggestions would work with the current mechanics and would have to be changed first.
typing this I suddenly realized.... Why am I posting this in this thread?
|
Infinity Ziona
Space Elves of Ragnoroth
|
Posted - 2006.08.13 13:19:00 -
[8]
Originally by: MiniMe1
Pirates are hardly hard done by. Gate camping is lame...I agree that if you want to pirate then yes players are going to come by a gate more often than not. Yes there should be risk in traveling in .4 BM's should probably be removed but how much fun is there in running a gate camp of 2 or more people who are over 100k away and have 0 risk of being taken down?
How so? A covert ops recon + a gang mate in a HAC or even a blasterrax would own a sniping BS in no time at all.
'The alliance should not be a solo contentmobile' - Albert Einstein |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |