EVE Search - I've never played a game that cators to grief play as much as this one

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

I've never played a game that cators to grief play as much as this one

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 .. 16 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Ginger Magician Minmatar OctoberSnow Corp	Posted - 2006.11.08 12:11:00 - [391] I'M sorry for your loss Rekindle but u made the mistakes of using a tech 1 hauler,not using bookmarks,not tanking your ship,not using a tech 2 indy and putting all your eggs in one very fragile basket. However I think that it should be made clear to all players whether they read the forums or not that no space in EVE is entirely safe and u can lose any ship anywhere if people are determined enough.
Steven Dynahir Gallente Avaruuslaivanrakentajat Oyj	Posted - 2006.11.08 12:22:00 - [392] Edited by: Steven Dynahir on 08/11/2006 12:25:08 I've come to a conclusion that the suggested fixes would be adequate to resolve this issue: 1) No insurance payout if ship is lost due Concord 2) Confiscation of cargo containers if Concord is involved Optional fix for compensation of the loss could be: 3) All confiscated containers go directly to the person who got attacked. IE, if assaillent module survives, it's given to the one being attacked. edit: scrap #3. This would cause people shoot at friend first, and the target second, thus transferring the cans to the initial person involved. Better solution. If concord was not shooting at you, your belongings are beamed to nearest station. If concord was shooting at you, they go poof. --- Sell orders Recruitment
Ikvar Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.11.08 12:23:00 - [393] Originally by: Ginger Magician I'M sorry for your loss Rekindle but u made the mistakes of using a tech 1 hauler,not using bookmarks,not tanking your ship,not using a tech 2 indy and putting all your eggs in one very fragile basket. However I think that it should be made clear to all players whether they read the forums or not that no space in EVE is entirely safe and u can lose any ship anywhere if people are determined enough. Ginger in 'post makes sense' shocker Originally by: Rekindle I was in an empire system when they used their grief tactics to explode everything I own.
Taram Caldar Caldari Acheron Vanguard Armada The Shadow Ascension	Posted - 2006.11.08 12:31:00 - [394] Edited by: Taram Caldar on 08/11/2006 12:35:32 Originally by: Rekindle Read people , read. I perfectly understand this is accepted game play...thats my point. The fact that non combat characters can't move their crap through safe space is grief at its very core. No you don't understand. Empire space, even 1.0 space, isn't "SAFE" it's just "More Safe" than 0.0 and lowsec. There is no "SAFE" space in EVE. Get it through your skull. How can you have played for 2+ years and not know this? Yes, it absolutely sucks that you lost your stuff. Some folks in my alliance lost things to suicide squads recently. But claiming that suicide pirates are 'griefing' is beyond silly. It's accepted tactics by CCP. The players guide specifically states that NO space is safe. In fact even during the Tutorial the game makes it VERY clear that the only time you are "SAFE" is when you are docked. Period. It goes on to state that high security space, patrolled by concord, is Safer but it is not a guarantee of safety. Bottom line if you're hauling valuables haul them in a T2 Indy with a strong shield tank mounted. Preferably with an escort but at the VERY least a T2 indy. Otherwise just accept that you're taking a risk by hauling high value items in a T1 Indy that's fairly easy to pop. Don't claim someone is "Griefing" just because you were foolish enough to load billions of ISK worth of valuables onto a T1 Indy and fly it god knows how many hops through space without even so much as a frigate for escort.
Dee Ellis	Posted - 2006.11.08 12:32:00 - [395] Originally by: Ikvar Originally by: Ginger Magician I'M sorry for your loss Rekindle but u made the mistakes of using a tech 1 hauler,not using bookmarks,not tanking your ship,not using a tech 2 indy and putting all your eggs in one very fragile basket. However I think that it should be made clear to all players whether they read the forums or not that no space in EVE is entirely safe and u can lose any ship anywhere if people are determined enough. Ginger in 'post makes sense' shocker Holy mother of christ, we're doomed! /me fetches the Doomsayer bell and his very small 'Repent' sign
Sendraks TOHA Heavy Industries	Posted - 2006.11.08 12:37:00 - [396] Originally by: Steven Dynahir . Better solution. If concord was not shooting at you, your belongings are beamed to nearest station. If concord was shooting at you, they go poof. No. Better is for Customs (not Concord) to confisicate contraband/stolen goods and for those goods never to be seen again. The pirates/theives should have a chance to evade customs (if they put time and effort into doing so) rather than have NO CHANCE by having Concord on scene to Deus Ex any potential profit they could make away. If there is a mechanism in game where the authorities return stolen possessions to their owners, then it makes hauling in empire risk free. At which point there is no incentive for pilots to take responsibility for their ships and fit and fly the appropriately. Asking players to take less respomsibility = a bad thing.
James Duar Merch Industrial	Posted - 2006.11.08 12:45:00 - [397] Originally by: Sendraks Originally by: Steven Dynahir . Better solution. If concord was not shooting at you, your belongings are beamed to nearest station. If concord was shooting at you, they go poof. No. Better is for Customs (not Concord) to confisicate contraband/stolen goods and for those goods never to be seen again. The pirates/theives should have a chance to evade customs (if they put time and effort into doing so) rather than have NO CHANCE by having Concord on scene to Deus Ex any potential profit they could make away. If there is a mechanism in game where the authorities return stolen possessions to their owners, then it makes hauling in empire risk free. At which point there is no incentive for pilots to take responsibility for their ships and fit and fly the appropriately. Asking players to take less respomsibility = a bad thing. Anything which removes the profit factor from suicide ganking removes suicide ganking. This should be obvious. --- Recently returned from vacation on a sunny planet in 0.0. Guess which one!
Sendraks TOHA Heavy Industries	Posted - 2006.11.08 12:56:00 - [398] Originally by: James Duar Anything which removes the profit factor from suicide ganking removes suicide ganking. This should be obvious. 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. 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.
Osia Gallente Astrum Contract Services Group	Posted - 2006.11.08 14:27:00 - [399] Originally by: Sendraks Originally by: Alowishus But the fundamental problem here is in whether one believes that suiciding is an exploit (in CCP terms) of game mechanics or not. I suppose it depends whether you deem the entire process of suicide ganking to exploitive or just a portion of it. I think it would be fair to say that most players consider the part after the hauler is destroyed by the pirate ship, which is subsequently destroyed by concord, and its cargo is floating in space to be scooped by a) friend of pirate or b)alt of pirate, to be the exploit. Anything preceding that point is not, on the grounds that the hauler pilot has measures within the game to defend themselves. Even then the ACTUAL theft of the cargo is not an exploit because stealing a victims cargo is part of piracy, the exploit part is that another party can steal the haulers cargo under the eyes of concord. There is also the small matter of suicide pirates getting insurance payouts on their ships, which could also be considered exploitative. In summary. 1) Attacking as a suicide pirate = not an exploit. The player can defend. 2) Using a 3rd party to steal cargo = exploit. The player cannot defend. The issue is how you fix part 2, without effecting all other players. Should cargo theft = sec hit? Intervention by concord in the form of an attack is probably a little extreme, but I suppose stolen cargo could be flagged as "stolen" for a duration (say 24hrs) in which time customs would treat the cargo at jump gates as it would contraband i.e. cargo confiscated, fine imposed. I don't think stolen cargo should be returned. If it was appropriately protected in the first place, it wouldn't get stolen. Carelessness should not be rewarded or risk free. If you implemented a mechanism like this, it wouldn't do away with suicide piracy (and I see NO reason why this should be done away with) and nor would it do away with theft. It would just make it much more difficult. The thief would have to know which gates/stations, if any, did not have customs patrols currently on them to be able to exit the system or dock. I completely agree with Sendraks here. The goal is to make this activity more difficult, not prevent it from happening. Once made more difficult the practice will remain, but the prevalence will diminish. In addition to this I would repeat my suggestion for a module to counter the cargo scanner. Just as a module is present to counter most other modules, there needs to be a counter for this one. This goes directly to taking responsibility for the cargo you carry. If you are carrying something important you can mask the contents of your ship. Another thing that seems certain is that issues like suicide ganks may be addressed based on player outcry. One only has to look at CCP's track record to see that trend. Can crimnal flagging, warp core stabilizer changes, T2 ammunition changes, 50% more hit points for longer battles are all examples of issues highlighted by the player base that eventually saw change. Anyone who believes threads like this one are pointless might want to take note of those changes. --- Logistics XO, Astrum Contract Services Group
Radioactive Babe	Posted - 2006.11.08 14:59:00 - [400] 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

Steven Dynahir Gallente Avaruuslaivanrakentajat Oyj	Posted - 2006.11.08 15:02:00 - [401] Originally by: Sendraks If there is a mechanism in game where the authorities return stolen possessions to their owners, then it makes hauling in empire risk free. At which point there is no incentive for pilots to take responsibility for their ships and fit and fly the appropriately. You seem to forget that items are constantly being destroyed when ship is lost. By returning whats left is not risk free. If you are hauling a T2 BPO and it blows up, then it's gone. This change would only cause the pirating to move to the low-security space instead of Jita and other hub systems. Current system just caters those "pirates" who do not have the time and will to attack on those people who really are prepared. This would still be a viable way to cause financial loss to the target by blowing up his ship & stuff. But with a cost to the attacker. (Now one gains for doing this) But then again, when we have a wuss like Foiritan as President, we'll propably wont see any change to this. --- Sell orders Recruitment
Tanis Bastar Caldari Interstitial Incorporated	Posted - 2006.11.08 15:07:00 - [402] Originally by: Osia You see real world analogies don't often work in respect to EVE. Just pulling your chain. The basic point I was trying to make is that "high security" never means "perfect security". If you haul valuable goods, wherever you are, expect that some crazy bad man might try to take them from you by force. Actually, I totally agree that suicide gankers should not get insurance payouts, but otherwise I would leave things as they are...
Sendraks TOHA Heavy Industries	Posted - 2006.11.08 15:10:00 - [403] Originally by: Radioactive Babe 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 Interesting that you lump me in with the pirates when it should be obvious that I am not one. I am a trader/miner/NPCer and I am vehemently opposed to anything that would make empire into a risk free, carebear playground. Players should be prepared to think and take responsibility for their possessions no matter what segment of space they are in. Originally by: Steven Dynahir You seem to forget that items are constantly being destroyed when ship is lost. By returning whats left is not risk free. If you are hauling a T2 BPO and it blows up, then it's gone. Yes, but by returning all lost cargo you simply aren't encouraging players to take more responsibility for their actions. I see no value in returning the stolen cargo. Once its confisicated thats it. If people fitted their ships properly, it wouldn't happen. Eve is a game that does, and SHOULD, reward those players who make the most effort to sa*uard themselves against piracy. This measure rewards those players more, which is how it should be. Originally by:** Steven Dynahir This change would only cause the pirating to move to the low-security space instead of Jita and other hub systems. Current system just caters those "pirates" who do not have the time and will to attack on those people who really are prepared. Piracy is all about attacking unprepared, poorly defended targets. That is the pirating ideal. What pirating shouldn't be about is attacking unprepared targets without having made suitable preparations yourself i.e. are there customs vessels about and what route do I take to get my "booty" to safety?
Abaddon Nostros Minmatar Nostros Shipyards	Posted - 2006.11.08 15:10:00 - [404] I only have one thing to say to the original poster, and dont feel like going through 14 pages to see if it was said already. ______________________________ Thank god, we may actually have something unique here, if you dont like it, go play one of the other games that you like so much. Have a nice day. Can I have your stuff?
fire 59 Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.11.08 15:12:00 - [405] Originally by: DrAtomic Originally by: Taaketa Frist (And whoever said transports where for deep space only, no they weren't. They were for better protection of hauling simply because this kind of play became popular and a counter needed to be put in place.) That was me. Read their description, it says it all. Blokkade running in empire? Empire regarded as deep space now? So a battleship should never be used for mining by your logic? This is so dumb it hurt's, there are counter's, they get punished, stop whining ffs, adapt or die. This game is great becasue it is harsh and if you screw up, you get hurt, theres risk everywhere and it's fantastic. None of this safe zone crap. I personally, when flying through empire with fat lootz, use a blockade runner with a nice fat tank and instas, nanos and a scout if its really fat and juicy. Result, never been ganked yet although i was shot at but warped off long before it hurt me. The tools are there, stop expecting ccp to think for you and stop being so fricking lazy. This comes up everytime some idiot can't be assed to be careful and instead packs a t1 hauler with all expanders to cram in as much as possible and then cries when they get popped, i mean come on. It's darwin's law in full effect, it's seriously not that hard. I am stunned by the refusual to adapt Let's see who's standing at the end when the dust settle's
Santa Anna	Posted - 2006.11.08 15:18:00 - [406] Originally by: Radioactive Babe 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 I'm more or less an empire carebear and I don't see anything wrong with suicide ganking. Just because I'm not a pirate doesn't mean I don't think pirates should exist. Frankly, this game would be much more boring for me when I carebear around low sec if there weren't pirates lurking behind every jumpgate. In high sec, I'm much more comfortable and I afk when I'm just moving a ship somewhere, but if there were no risk at all in empire I'd find the game less interesting. I've been targeted more in empire than in low sec or 0.0, not counting passive targeters (which I wouldn't know about). If you don't like suicide gankers go find their camping spots and annoy them until they leave. You could also wait for them to do their thing then instapop their pod or loot their can or instapop their slave and loot the original target's can with your own alt/slave/buddy. Suicide gankers are in it to make money. Deprive them of their payoff 3 or 4 times and they'll go clog up someone else's trade route.
Steven Dynahir Gallente Avaruuslaivanrakentajat Oyj	Posted - 2006.11.08 15:18:00 - [407] Quote: Yes, but by returning all lost cargo you simply aren't encouraging players to take more responsibility for their actions. I see no value in returning the stolen cargo. Once its confisicated thats it. If people fitted their ships properly, it wouldn't happen. Eve is a game that does, and SHOULD, reward those players who make the most effort to sa*uard themselves against piracy. This measure rewards those players more, which is how it should be. The people taking all the sa*uards and making the effort would not be blown up in the first place (unless multiple attackers who really want him dead), thus the more rewards for effort concept would be still intact. --- Sell orders Recruitment
Sendraks TOHA Heavy Industries	Posted - 2006.11.08 15:27:00 - [408] Originally by: Steven Dynahir The people taking all the sa***uards and making the effort would not be blown up in the first place (unless multiple attackers who really want him dead), thus the more rewards for effort concept would be still intact. I think the words we;re looking for are "profound" and "less significant." In short, if careless players get their cargo back after being pirated, then the rewards for players who are careful are not as "profound." By making the rewards for being careful "less significant" you diminish the value of being careful. When there isn't much distinction between two things, people will take the easier option as the reward is not perceived as being worth it and probably wouldn't be in this case, By maintaining the penalties for being careless (stolen cargo = gone), you keep the significance of the reward for being careful intact. Thus those who make the effort feel that they have achieved something over those who couldn't be bothered. Which in the environment of a game, is pretty ideal.
Steven Dynahir Gallente Avaruuslaivanrakentajat Oyj	Posted - 2006.11.08 15:40:00 - [409] Originally by: Sendraks I think the words we;re looking for are "profound" and "less significant." Dunno, I'm not an English speaking person But basically we are now engaged in the discussion of the value for being prepared, and while we both agree on the confiscation of the loot, we are just getting on a semantic sidetrack. One hauler can easily contain 200m of stuff and should that cargo be destroyed by half it would mean the loss of 100m. By being prepared one would be 100m richer. In every case the value of being prepared would be bigger than the value of not being prepared, and the value would always be proportional to the cargo being transported. Thus I see no need for additional loss for being unprepared. --- Sell orders Recruitment
Santa Anna	Posted - 2006.11.08 15:48:00 - [410] Being able to insure cargo for a limited time (1 hr?) would give haulers another way to limit exposure to suicide gankers when they pack up their EVE Life in a can and cart it across space. You'd make it really expensive of course, but that'd be the price of not using best practices. Being able to insure a ship but not its contents doesn't really make sense anyway. Perhaps a player corp could put something together, actually.

Bill Shankly	Posted - 2006.11.08 15:53:00 - [411] Greifplay lol my advice for the OP is uninstall.
Sendraks TOHA Heavy Industries	Posted - 2006.11.08 16:00:00 - [412] Edited by: Sendraks on 08/11/2006 15:59:52 Originally by: Steven Dynahir Dunno, I'm not an English speaking person I dunno, you seem entirely conversant with the language to me. It might not be your first tongue, but you certainly seem able to speak it. Originally by: Steven Dynahir One hauler can easily contain 200m of stuff and should that cargo be destroyed by half it would mean the loss of 100m. By being prepared one would be 100m richer. In every case the value of being prepared would be bigger than the value of not being prepared, and the value would always be proportional to the cargo being transported. Thus I see no need for additional loss for being unprepared. Very true. The loss becomes more significant the great value of your cargo. If you're transporting 200million ISK worth of cargo that equates to "everything you own" then I imagine a lot of players would balk at the outlay of an expensive ship or an organised security escort if all they stood to lose was 100million ISK. Whereas someone with 2 billion ISK would obviously try harder. The lower the value of cargo you get, the less significant the loss becomes. Lose 20million ISK of cargo but get 10million ISK back? Scarcely worth the bother of going to the extra effort for the majority of people, sod the additional outlay and rest safe in the knowledge that you'll get at least half your cargo back. Maybe more. The value of being prepared doesn't necessarily scale with the value of the cargo. I'd go along with what you were suggesting if there was someway for the game to calculate this.
Osia Gallente Astrum Contract Services Group	Posted - 2006.11.08 16:09:00 - [413] Originally by: fire 59 So a battleship should never be used for mining by your logic? This is so dumb it hurt's, there are counter's, they get punished, stop whining ffs, adapt or die. This game is great becasue it is harsh and if you screw up, you get hurt, theres risk everywhere and it's fantastic. None of this safe zone crap. I personally, when flying through empire with fat lootz, use a blockade runner with a nice fat tank and instas, nanos and a scout if its really fat and juicy. Result, never been ganked yet although i was shot at but warped off long before it hurt me. The tools are there, stop expecting ccp to think for you and stop being so fricking lazy. This comes up everytime some idiot can't be assed to be careful and instead packs a t1 hauler with all expanders to cram in as much as possible and then cries when they get popped, i mean come on. It's darwin's law in full effect, it's seriously not that hard. I am stunned by the refusual to adapt What I think you're missing here is while those who choose to use this tactic are punished, it is perceived as inadequate. The security hit a person gets is trivial at best. Between alt recycling and methods of security status repair. The insurance payout for the ship used in the attack means this activity has almost no monetary loss for potential huge gains. In truth this is simply an effort to have the attacker's free ride taken away, not an attempt to cover the defender's laziness. The suggestion was have customs officials on the gate confiscate the loot after a short time. Don't give the suicide's alt a free ride, make them have to think and adapt as well to profit from their misdeeds. Like you I fly transports and blockade runners when carrying precious cargo. Like you I use a scout when the situation demands it. In my experience I have taken fire from far more high security attacks in various places in the EVE universe than low security and 0.0 attacks, and I frequent several low security areas. To date I have not lost a cargo. The point is however why is high security space MORE dangerous than low security and 0.0 areas? --- Logistics XO, Astrum Contract Services Group
Taram Caldar Caldari Acheron Vanguard Armada The Shadow Ascension	Posted - 2006.11.08 16:41:00 - [414] Edited by: Taram Caldar on 08/11/2006 16:44:19 Edited by: Taram Caldar on 08/11/2006 16:42:20 It absolutely floors me that this discussion has gone on this long. 1) CCP has stated in documentation AND in the tutorial that you are NOT safe in eve EXCEPT when you are docked. Period. There is no such thing as SAFE space. PER the guide AND the tutorial. Where you people get this idea is beyond me. Empire space is 'safer' but if you go hauling millions of ISK around in a ship that can be quickly popped by a cruiser or 3 you are just begging for anyone with a cargo scanner to blow you to shreds (you do know that's SPECIFICALLY why cargo scanners are in the game, right?). 2) The OP admittedly loaded millions, probably hundreds of millions of ISK worth of goods into a Tech 1 Industrial and carted it uncountable hops through space and got popped. While I feel bad for him for his losses it's just flat out his own darn fault. The rules of the game, the tutorial for the game and the GUIDE for the game, not to mention the devs themselves, have stated on numerous occasions that THERE IS NO PLACE OTHER THAN DOCKED THAT YOU ARE SAFE. Ipso Facto: You can, and will, get popped ANYWHERE if someone decides they want to kill you. Period. Furthermore they have specifically provided Tier 2 Haulers so that people can cart their cargo much more safely. Merely training for a few more days before making this journey and buying a slightly more expensive hauler would have prevented this entire episode because a Tech 2 Hauler can't be popped by suicide squads before concord wipes them out. 3) Piracy is NOT griefing. Popping a hauler to steal the cargo is NOT griefing. Popping a player every time they undock and preventing them from playing is griefing. Stealing cargo, for the sake of stealing cargo, is ok. Killing a player repeatedly for the sake of killing that player: Is griefing This discussion is silly. I don't even pirate, I've had corp members popped by suicide squads... I've even had friends popped by them. But as much as I may not like it when they do this it is NOT illegal and it is NOT griefing.
Rekindle	Posted - 2006.11.08 17:27:00 - [415] I think theres still some confusion over the initial intent of this post. I don't think piracy is bad for the game. But anyone whos lost the ability to discren between the concept of suicide ganking in empire and sitting at a low sec/0 sec gate committing acts of piracy (or otherwise working within the confinds of normal game mechanics) is clouding the issue. this isnt a whine post about nerfing piracy or begging for a 1 up on the "bad guys". It makes me sick that everytime people bring up an issue its an automatic challege to the rights of the poor disenfranchised "pvp" members of the community. It also makes me sick that by pointing out some obvious flaw - that is a difference between what was intended, and what is actually happening, that i am some how unworthy or I dont understand the game mechanics or that this is how it is and you should live with it. This is a message forum to discuss things. I think you need to ask who is actually whining when you examine the issue. Some of us have raised a point that suicide ganking is inordinate when compared to the rest of the "protections" offered by teh "automatic" systems of this game.....others suggest that any discussion around such inconsistiencies is a direct threat to their playstyle. If your playstyle is based on a game flaw which causes an inordinate amount of risk to other players and results in your gain then you are, by definition a griefer. Grab a cookie and play some game on cheat mode. Maybe the lines between true pvp and game mechanics have been allowed to blur for too long and your judgement is completely lost. -------------------------------------------
Wolfways Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2006.11.08 17:37:00 - [416] Hmm, had a talk about this with a friend who was one of those pk scumbag types in UO and i think i may be changing my stance on this... I'd like a question answered though. Does anyone know the Concord response times in the various security levels? But as of now this is the way i see things. On the cargo hauler side...Theres nothing wrong. You take better precautions and you lower the risk of losing stuff. 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. The only problems i have with suicide killing are seen from a rp point of view i think. How willing should a pilot be to kill himself for profit? We get cloned yes, but even so i think the thought of throwing yourself into certain death isn't something most people could easily do. But even in rl we have religious fanatics and kamikaze pilots who do exactly that, although obviously their motivation is more important to them than money. I guess unless CCP tell us we are supposed to think a certain way about pilot death (unlikely) then it's up to each of us individually. If you want to play a nutjob, play a nutjob. The actual attack? Well this is similar to above. If the reason for attacking someone in hi-sec is to kill them (for whatever reason) then i can see the validity of hi-sec suicide attacks..."He killed my wife. I may die now, but so will he!" Only CCP can say why Concord just sit and watch the haulers loot being...looted. But i do believe that while the game mechanics are realistic as they are (i.e. anyone could come along and steal the loot) letting the pirate loot after the kill (yes i know it's a different character, but it all comes down to the player getting the benefit, not some random passerby) seems like it's just giving the pirate free loot that he otherwise has little chance of obtaining after he clones, gets a ship, and returns to the scene to loot. So in the end (yeah finally ) i think the reward for the pirate should be lowered. No insurance for Concord-killed ships sounds fair. From a rp point of view maybe the pirate should not get the loot. Maybe Concord should confiscate the lot...not sure how i stand on this yet. Good discussion so far though, apart from the insults Delusions of invincibility combined with a strong homicidal urge... I have a kick-your-ass fetish
Radioactive Babe	Posted - 2006.11.08 18:01:00 - [417] 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
Antdung	Posted - 2006.11.08 18:30:00 - [418] Edited by: Antdung on 08/11/2006 18:32:18 Sympathies on the loss, but it goes to prove you should still place some sort of defence (Plates/extenders etc) for those who are willing to sacrafice & feel the wrath of the law for their gain, The game mechanics will deal with crime in 0.5 above very swiftly. swift enough for a hauler with some defence to escape, but not someone with expanders etc
Jalia Kovac Placid Reborn Placid Coalition	Posted - 2006.11.08 18:38:00 - [419] Originally by: Radioactive Babe 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 Really? I think it's great. It gives empire space a bit of gritty realism that it sorely needs. ► Intaki Canonical Resouces ◄
DrAtomic Atomic Heroes Forces of Freedom	Posted - 2006.11.08 19:06:00 - [420] To be honest a lot of the 'pirate' responses in this thread support the statement that started this post and makes me wonder how many pirates even understand the meaning of true pvp. In a true pvp fight two sides engage each other, be it consentual or not where odds are determined by tactics and skill. Ganking/PK-ing is the player killing without him having any chance whatsoever. Ganking/PK-ing defenseless characters is considered griefing in all if not most other MMORPGs. The suicide practise that goes on is just that; griefing. Sadly a lot of people here classify ganking/pk-ing as pvp, something it is most defenitly not. It makes me wonder how those people would stand in true pvp matches, odds are that they'll get creamed hard and fast. I have respect for the true pirates, however I'd never pay them. I'd rather loose my stuff then to grant them their wishes. A lot of people do that and that is most likely why the real pirating has turned into empire ganking/pk-ing defenseless haulers. It doesn't make it a good and acceptable practice though, unless CCP has really intended it to be a griefers paradise. ----------------------------------------------- The BIG Lottery



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 .. 16 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.