|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Radioactive Babe
   |
Posted - 2006.11.07 18:19:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Illistar DeathWing
Well, the guy flew in an iteron V (so we know he can use transport ships), he did not use secure containers to hide his goods from scanners, not did he equip his ship deffencively. This tactic is nothing new, I my self am for it because as much as they try they never get me with it, and they always lose bs,bcs in the process.
Putting the item in a container in hold does not hide it from cargo scanners.
I dont mind pirates, they would not be able to blow up my command ship before they got popped by concord 
The only problem with pirates is that there are far too many now... 0.1 - 0.4 is a wasteland now because there were just too many peeps in gank/ecm fitted ships that can very very easily pop miners/haulers/npcers... |
Radioactive Babe
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 18:51:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Sendraks
Why can't you have a friend on hand to scoop your loot the moment you pop?
wtf? I have to have a friend in a hauler with me when transporting stuff??
Originally by: Sendraks
Why can't you fly a ship that can withstand the attacks of suicide bombers?
Well, it has to be said I think he messed up badly by not having his stuff in a decent ship
Originally by: Sendraks
Your proposal would completely negate the possibility of this kind of piracy happening, which while I'm sure would appeal greatly to those players who want a free ride and can't be arsed to plan ahead, does nothing for the game.
what?? who is getting the free ride here exactly? the idiot with no skills who sits on a gate in a raven popping someone who may drop something expensive (for no appreciable loss it has to be said) or the person who npc'd and mined for fricking ages?
Originally by: Sendraks
While I agree that CCP should make it so ships destroyed by concord don't get insurance payouts, I fail to see why further changes should be made.
Indeed, this on its own would severely restrict this daft mechanic
Originally by: Sendraks
If people can't be bothered to protect their assets, then they shouldn't complain when said assets are lost.
To be honest, I have a friend who never comes to this forum because if it isnt whining its flaming and he couldnt be arsed sifting through all the rubbish. He was unaware that this quasi-suicide crap was going on at the scale it was doing. He had not been caught and will be unlikely to be caught out now as he will be transporting anything in a heavily tanked BS, and no AFKing either |
Radioactive Babe
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 14:59:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Sendraks
Yes, but apparently people keep missing this or assuming that the removal of suicide piracy is necessary or desirable when in fact it is neither.
That viewpoint is shared by you and the vocal pierat minority of EVE's playerbase ... it must be 5 to 1 majority of pierats to npcers/traders/miners AT LEAST on the forums  ...but at the rate that piracy is increasing it will be at that level ingame before too long
Quote:
What needs to be done is for it to be made harder, not remove the possibility entirely. But some folk seem to want to remove that possibility so they can have responsibility free, risk free hauling in empire.
heaven forbid 
but I dont want all of the anti pierat suggestions mentioned above to be implemented, just that hi-sec aggressors dont get insurance if they were attacked by concord |
Radioactive Babe
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 18:01:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Wolfways
On the pirate side...Suicide killing does give the pirate a cheap, and maybe highly profitable kill...but that's what pirates are really. The easier the fight the better.
Thats the nub of the issue, its very very easy and has almost no consequences for the pierat (sec status hit? kill 0.0 npc's for a week and you'll be +5 again)
if they stood a chance of losing out on it (attacking a hauler that may not drop enough items to cover the cost of a new ship) then the whole thing balances out .. but they only lose 40mil isk at present (plat insurance + fittings), this makes hitting a ship with 100mil worth of mins/bpo's/mods a viable proposition ...... which is daft |
Radioactive Babe
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 20:15:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2
same could be said for logging by the way that has been around for the entire spawn of EVE i guess logging to avoid death MUST BE INTENDED! Wrong... So please do not confuse the fact that something going unfixed for a long period of time is the same as being intended....
Indeed, we all know that CCP will not call something an bug/exploit if its difficult to stop or hard to fix in the code ... (macro miners/logoffski/pos targeting etc etc) .. if it was easy to fix (like using wasps after one patch because they were seriously overpowered) then they will call using that an exploit and fix asap
Quote:
It seems obvious to me the reason it is said in the tutorial that empire isnt 100% safe, isnt because of suicide gankers, but possibly the fact there are things like WAR dec's, and now jet cans are flagged for pvp... and who knows what else...
that was also my understanding as well, but the pierats twisted that round to make what they are doing seem to be what CCP intended |
Radioactive Babe
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 20:41:00 -
[6]
Originally by: 000Hunter000
....didnt bother arse even looking at the last page to get an idea of the threads direction....
ya ya ya ... move along to find another thread to flame OR read at least a few of the last pages and join the lively discussion  |
Radioactive Babe
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 20:42:00 -
[7]
Originally by: murder one
... same as the other bloke above, needless flamage because he didnt read the thread ...
RTFT |
|
|
| |
|