EVE Search - Gankers

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Gankers

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Jackson F Kenrick Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.07.17 19:06:05 - [1] - Quote A ganker should receive a penalty more then just the loss of their ship. A punitive punishment of a fine I think should be imposed for "criminal" activity. I feel that this fine should be adversely proportionate to the size of ship ganked. In other words the smaller the ship ganked the higher the fine. Imagine if you will someone drives down Main St in your city and shoots and kills a random person and the only penalty they receive is that the cops impound their car so that they have to go out and buy a new one? If Concord isn't going to blow up their capsule (not suggesting they do) then something MORE needs to be the penalty for ganking someone.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1327	Posted - 2015.07.17 19:12:04 - [2] - Quote I disagree with the premise to your idea and think it is unnecessary. I am sure someone else will link you the "Eve is a harsh, dark universe" speech. One could also reference the lex talionis - an eye for an eye - they destroyed your ship, so Concord destroyed their ship. Idle curiosity prompts me to ask, "If someone gets fined by Concord, can it give them a negative wallet?" Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1197	Posted - 2015.07.17 19:16:52 - [3] - Quote Jackson F Kenrick wrote: A ganker should receive a penalty more then just the loss of their ship. A punitive punishment of a fine I think should be imposed for "criminal" activity. I feel that this fine should be adversely proportionate to the size of ship ganked. In other words the smaller the ship ganked the higher the fine. Imagine if you will someone drives down Main St in your city and shoots and kills a random person and the only penalty they receive is that the cops impound their car so that they have to go out and buy a new one? If Concord isn't going to blow up their capsule (not suggesting they do) then something MORE needs to be the penalty for ganking someone. What? There are plenty of addition penalties for ganking but since the whine for additional "consequences" has been gone over a zillion times before in this sub forum, I will just focus on the only novel bit of your post. Why should smaller ships be additionally protected? Because you fly them? Usually people come here arguing that big expensive ships should be additionally protected from gankers for some reason, probably because they lost a freighter or the like. Smaller ships are the most naturally protected from gankers because they are so nimble. If you get ganked, it can only be because you were AFK or were auto-piloting. Seems like you have all the tools you need be safe, why do we need more NPC enforced "consequences"?
Rah McGee Lords and Ladies of event horizon H.O.M.E. Coalition 1	Posted - 2015.07.17 20:12:05 - [4] - Quote -10 shouldn't be able to dock anywhere in high space
Paranoid Loyd 6307	Posted - 2015.07.17 20:21:56 - [5] - Quote Yarr! "Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata Fix the Prospect!!!
Iain Cariaba 1663	Posted - 2015.07.17 20:24:19 - [6] - Quote Rah McGee wrote: -10 shouldn't be able to dock anywhere in high space Why? The mega corporations who own those stations don't answer to Concord, so why should they give two ****s what you do to other immortal capsuleers? I could understand being denied docking based on your standing with the owning corporation, but not based on sec status. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Will troll for a t-shirt.
Amonios Zula Aeon Ascendant 50	Posted - 2015.07.17 20:52:01 - [7] - Quote If anything Ganking should be made a little less punishing. People are getting way too comfortable & entitled in Hisec.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 277	Posted - 2015.07.17 21:11:29 - [8] - Quote Jackson F Kenrick wrote: A ganker should receive a penalty more then just the loss of their ship. A punitive punishment of a fine I think should be imposed for "criminal" activity. I feel that this fine should be adversely proportionate to the size of ship ganked. In other words the smaller the ship ganked the higher the fine. Imagine if you will someone drives down Main St in your city and shoots and kills a random person and the only penalty they receive is that the cops impound their car so that they have to go out and buy a new one? If Concord isn't going to blow up their capsule (not suggesting they do) then something MORE needs to be the penalty for ganking someone. You are playing the wrong game sir. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Madd Adda 99	Posted - 2015.07.17 21:41:25 - [9] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: Rah McGee wrote: -10 shouldn't be able to dock anywhere in high space Why? The mega corporations who own those stations don't answer to Concord, so why should they give two ****s what you do to other immortal capsuleers? I could understand being denied docking based on your standing with the owning corporation, but not based on sec status. why? mega corps even in the future would have reputation to consider. Haboring criminals would a good to destroy one's own reputation. Carebear extraordinaire
Iain Cariaba 1664	Posted - 2015.07.17 22:16:46 - [10] - Quote Madd Adda wrote: Iain Cariaba wrote: Rah McGee wrote: -10 shouldn't be able to dock anywhere in high space Why? The mega corporations who own those stations don't answer to Concord, so why should they give two ****s what you do to other immortal capsuleers? I could understand being denied docking based on your standing with the owning corporation, but not based on sec status. why? mega corps even in the future would have reputation to consider. Haboring criminals would a good to destroy one's own reputation. Oh, that's funny. Even today large corporations are harborers of criminals. Google HSBC's relationship with the mexican drug cartels, or the Koch brothers shutting down a refinery because that'll let them avoid paying a couple million dollars to clean up the polution. What makes you think corporations even larger would care about what you think of them? Edit: if you want, I can provide you dozens of other examples of corporations conducting criminal activity with little to no legam ramifications. If I expand the list to those outside the US, that list grows to hundreds. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Will troll for a t-shirt.
Galphii Oberon Incorporated Get Off My Lawn 316	Posted - 2015.07.17 22:41:16 - [11] - Quote Rah McGee wrote: -10 shouldn't be able to dock anywhere in high space I'd tweak this to: If your sec status is low enough that the cops chase you in a given system, you can't dock in that system (aiding and abetting). "Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
Madd Adda 99	Posted - 2015.07.17 23:08:15 - [12] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: Madd Adda wrote: Iain Cariaba wrote: Rah McGee wrote: -10 shouldn't be able to dock anywhere in high space Why? The mega corporations who own those stations don't answer to Concord, so why should they give two ****s what you do to other immortal capsuleers? I could understand being denied docking based on your standing with the owning corporation, but not based on sec status. why? mega corps even in the future would have reputation to consider. Haboring criminals would a good to destroy one's own reputation. Oh, that's funny. Even today large corporations are harborers of criminals. Google HSBC's relationship with the mexican drug cartels, or the Koch brothers shutting down a refinery because that'll let them avoid paying a couple million dollars to clean up the polution. What makes you think corporations even larger would care about what you think of them? Edit: if you want, I can provide you dozens of other examples of corporations conducting criminal activity with little to no legam ramifications. If I expand the list to those outside the US, that list grows to hundreds. in that case, low sec status should incur a fine from them. After all, the corps are shielding them, they should get something out of it. lower the status is, the more money needed to pay. you can't pay, you can't dock. Carebear extraordinaire
Naga Elohim Aeras Krekan Syndicate 23	Posted - 2015.07.17 23:46:17 - [13] - Quote Simple solution... Remove the ability to fit ships if your sec status is below a certain level.(According to existing sec-status rules) Just the same way gate/station guns will engage criminals when they undock/decloak, the station should deny them services. It could keep with Eve lore and all that. To Concord, anyone assisting them is really harboring a criminal so naturally law-abiding authorities (Caldari Navy) would deny the fitting service.
Iain Cariaba 1664	Posted - 2015.07.17 23:57:30 - [14] - Quote Naga Elohim wrote: Simple solution... Remove the ability to fit ships if your sec status is below a certain level.(According to existing sec-status rules) Just the same way gate/station guns will engage criminals when they undock/decloak, the station should deny them services. It could keep with Eve lore and all that. To Concord, anyone assisting them is really harboring a criminal so naturally law-abiding authorities (Caldari Navy) would deny the fitting service. Simpler solution... Read the guides put out by the gankers themselves on how to avoid getting ganked, follow the guides, and never get ganked again. There doesn't need to be some New mechanic or new punishment. You just need to fly smarter than you currently do. Apparently this is way too hard for some people, who insist that "just one more nerf" will fix where all the previous nerfs failed. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Will troll for a t-shirt.
Rah McGee Lords and Ladies of event horizon H.O.M.E. Coalition 2	Posted - 2015.07.18 00:22:07 - [15] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: There doesn't need to be some New mechanic or new punishment. You just need to fly smarter than you currently do. Apparently this is way too hard for some people, who insist that "just one more nerf" will fix where all the previous nerfs failed. I don't care, I just don't want to se red flashing sc.. docked at the same station.
Rah McGee Lords and Ladies of event horizon H.O.M.E. Coalition 2	Posted - 2015.07.18 00:24:07 - [16] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: There doesn't need to be some New mechanic or new punishment. You just need to fly smarter than you currently do. Apparently this is way too hard for some people, who insist that "just one more nerf" will fix where all the previous nerfs failed. I don't care, I just don't want to see red flashing sc.. docked at the same station.
Kenrailae Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships. 435	Posted - 2015.07.18 00:28:58 - [17] - Quote Amonios Zula wrote: If anything Ganking should be made a little less punishing. People are getting way too comfortable & entitled in Hisec. Concord could disband.... faction police only. Though I do like the idea of a pod scanner to read implants. The Law is a point of View
Paranoid Loyd 6307	Posted - 2015.07.18 01:43:21 - [18] - Quote Rah McGee wrote: I don't care, I just don't want to see red flashing sc.. docked at the same station. And I don't want to hear whining about something that is easily avoidable by using that small pea pinging around in your skull. Guess neither of us gets what we want. "Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata Fix the Prospect!!!
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1198	Posted - 2015.07.18 05:06:25 - [19] - Quote Rah McGee wrote: Iain Cariaba wrote: There doesn't need to be some New mechanic or new punishment. You just need to fly smarter than you currently do. Apparently this is way too hard for some people, who insist that "just one more nerf" will fix where all the previous nerfs failed. I don't care, I just don't want to see red flashing sc.. docked at the same station. If it bothers you so much just don't dock there or undock and move to another station. Seems a simpler solution than a draconian change that will dramatically affect a number of players other than gankers (like lowsec pirates), just because a flashing symbol bothers you. This game isn't a solo game specially crafted so you can feel like you win all the time. It is a multiplayer sandbox where there is suppose to be a criminal element in highsec. I am afraid you will be more successful dealing with that using in-game methods rather than trying to metagame CCP into changing the rules to your favour on the forums.
Rah McGee Lords and Ladies of event horizon H.O.M.E. Coalition 2	Posted - 2015.07.18 07:36:50 - [20] - Quote Paranoid Loyd wrote: Rah McGee wrote: I don't care, I just don't want to see red flashing sc.. docked at the same station. And I don't want to hear whining about something that is easily avoidable by using that small pea pinging around in your skull. Guess neither of us gets what we want. Again, It is illogical that criminals can dock at stations in high or even low, period. I don't care if something is 'easily' avoidable or not. Not ganking is easy too. Who is so stupid enough to do this shouldn't be able to dock anywhere. Period.
Angelica Dreamstar Miner's House of ill repute 1040	Posted - 2015.07.18 07:39:40 - [21] - Quote Unless you can provide a month's worth of killmails from ganking, you have no experience or clue what you are talking about. "People need to realise that saying "someone else will do it" also mean that other someone else might be thinking the exact same thing..." -- Frostys Virpio, very attentive person, thoughtful, smart responses. Understands self responsibility.
Rah McGee Lords and Ladies of event horizon H.O.M.E. Coalition 2	Posted - 2015.07.18 07:45:38 - [22] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: This game isn't a solo game specially crafted so you can feel like you win all the time. It is a multiplayer sandbox where there is suppose to be a criminal element in highsec. I am afraid you will be more successful dealing with that using in-game methods rather than trying to metagame CCP into changing the rules to your favour on the forums. How does not allowing criminals to dock changes the rules? I am still gankable, am I. So the only reason gankers whine about this proposal its endanger of their easy life in high sec.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1199	Posted - 2015.07.18 08:03:34 - [23] - Quote Rah McGee wrote: Paranoid Loyd wrote: Rah McGee wrote: I don't care, I just don't want to see red flashing sc.. docked at the same station. And I don't want to hear whining about something that is easily avoidable by using that small pea pinging around in your skull. Guess neither of us gets what we want. Again, It is illogical that criminals can dock at stations in high or even low, period. I don't care if something is 'easily' avoidable or not. Not ganking is easy too. Who is so stupid enough to do this shouldn't be able to dock anywhere. Period. How would criminals operate efficiently in this game if they couldn't dock?
Rah McGee Lords and Ladies of event horizon H.O.M.E. Coalition 2	Posted - 2015.07.18 08:09:40 - [24] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: [quote=Rah McGee] How would criminals operate efficiently in this game if they couldn't dock? How do people opperate efficiently in wh space without the possibility to dock?
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1201	Posted - 2015.07.18 08:23:10 - [25] - Quote Rah McGee wrote: Black Pedro wrote: [quote=Rah McGee] How would criminals operate efficiently in this game if they couldn't dock? How do people opperate efficiently in wh space without the possibility to dock? They don't really. They are forced to lug in POSes and fuel so that they can farm the lucrative PvE sites in wormholes which makes the effort worth it. If you are suggesting that criminals should have to set up a POS, they cannot as the faction police will destroy them while they are trying to deploy the tower. Nor under your plan would they be able to dock in a station to buy a POS or the fuel in the first place.
Hauler Monkey Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.07.18 08:46:28 - [26] - Quote Jackson F Kenrick wrote: A ganker should receive a penalty more then just the loss of their ship. A punitive punishment of a fine I think should be imposed for "criminal" activity. I feel that this fine should be adversely proportionate to the size of ship ganked. In other words the smaller the ship ganked the higher the fine. Imagine if you will someone drives down Main St in your city and shoots and kills a random person and the only penalty they receive is that the cops impound their car so that they have to go out and buy a new one? If Concord isn't going to blow up their capsule (not suggesting they do) then something MORE needs to be the penalty for ganking someone. Oh look it's this whine-thread again. Did da widdle newbie autopilot his cute widdle fweighter through a 0.5?
Mag's the united 19805	Posted - 2015.07.18 09:08:09 - [27] - Quote "Just one more nerf and it will be balanced." Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Rah McGee Lords and Ladies of event horizon H.O.M.E. Coalition 2	Posted - 2015.07.18 10:10:27 - [28] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Rah McGee wrote: Black Pedro wrote: [quote=Rah McGee] How would criminals operate efficiently in this game if they couldn't dock? How do people opperate efficiently in wh space without the possibility to dock? They don't really. They are forced to lug in POSes and fuel so that they can farm the lucrative PvE sites in wormholes which makes the effort worth it. If you are suggesting that criminals should have to set up a POS, they cannot as the faction police will destroy them while they are trying to deploy the tower. Nor under your plan would they be able to dock in a station to buy a POS or the fuel in the first place. They still can have their POS in Null or even dock there. They can buy their stuff there.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1202	Posted - 2015.07.18 10:34:38 - [29] - Quote Rah McGee wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Rah McGee wrote: Black Pedro wrote: [quote=Rah McGee] How would criminals operate efficiently in this game if they couldn't dock? How do people opperate efficiently in wh space without the possibility to dock? They don't really. They are forced to lug in POSes and fuel so that they can farm the lucrative PvE sites in wormholes which makes the effort worth it. If you are suggesting that criminals should have to set up a POS, they cannot as the faction police will destroy them while they are trying to deploy the tower. Nor under your plan would they be able to dock in a station to buy a POS or the fuel in the first place. They still can have their POS in Null or even dock there. They can buy their stuff there. So you want a new player who decides to play the game as a criminal to fly to nullsec, spend a couple hundred million on some POS that they can't even deploy in highsec. Yeah, that's balanced. I can't see that having any affect on the number of criminals operating in the game.
Rah McGee Lords and Ladies of event horizon H.O.M.E. Coalition 2	Posted - 2015.07.18 12:22:01 - [30] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: So you want a new player who decides to play the game as a criminal to fly to nullsec, spend a couple hundred million on some POS that they can't even deploy in highsec. Yeah, that's balanced. I can't see that having any affect on the number of criminals operating in the game. Stop bs pls. A new player can't gank by himself. And yes, if he decides to be a criminal he shouldn't be able to dock. If I decide to go WH as a new player I can't start whining that I can't dock there and it is too hard etc.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1208	Posted - 2015.07.18 12:33:53 - [31] - Quote Rah McGee wrote: Black Pedro wrote: So you want a new player who decides to play the game as a criminal to fly to nullsec, spend a couple hundred million on some POS that they can't even deploy in highsec. Yeah, that's balanced. I can't see that having any affect on the number of criminals operating in the game. Stop bs pls. A new player can't gank by himself. And yes, if he decides to be a criminal he shouldn't be able to dock. If I decide to go WH as a new player I can't start whining that I can't dock there and it is too hard etc. Criminals are in the game by design. Suicide ganking is an intended mechanic; this has been confirmed by CCP many times. They are there to provide player-driven risk in highsec. You are suggesting an "idea" that raises the bar of ganking to the point that only the most dedicated, organized and established players will be able to do it. And you have offered no reason for such a drastic change in game balance. Good luck on getting that "idea" implemented.
Kenrailae Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships. 438	Posted - 2015.07.18 12:37:07 - [32] - Quote Ganking is not the problem. Lazy and careless pilots are. I support the removal of these hazardous individuals from the space lanes. The Law is a point of View
Rah McGee Lords and Ladies of event horizon H.O.M.E. Coalition 2	Posted - 2015.07.18 12:41:35 - [33] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Criminals are in the game by design. Suicide ganking is an intended mechanic; this has been confirmed by CCP many times. They are there to provide player-driven risk in highsec. Them not being able to dock doesn't restrict them from ganking, so this is not even an argument. Black Pedro wrote: You are suggesting an "idea" that raises the bar of ganking to the point that only the most dedicated, organized and established players will be able to do it. And you have offered no reason for such a drastic change in game balance. Ofc I did. It is simply illogical that criminals who cannot stay anywhere safe in a solar system can safely dock, ressuply and use stations for their criminal activities.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1208	Posted - 2015.07.18 12:45:43 - [34] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: You are suggesting an "idea" that raises the bar of ganking to the point that only the most dedicated, organized and established players will be able to do it. And you have offered no reason for such a drastic change in game balance. Ofc I did. It is simply illogical that criminals who cannot stay anywhere safe in a solar system can safely dock, ressuply and use stations for their criminal activities.[/quote] "Logic" is not a game balance reason. Far too many things are illogical in this game, starting with the infallibility of CONCORD itself.
Rah McGee Lords and Ladies of event horizon H.O.M.E. Coalition 2	Posted - 2015.07.18 12:47:58 - [35] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: [quote=Black Pedro] "Logic" is not a game balance reason. Far too many things are illogical in this game, starting with the infallibility of CONCORD itself. Yeah sure, lets defy logic for balance sake.
Valkin Mordirc 1252	Posted - 2015.07.18 12:52:12 - [36] - Quote Rah McGee wrote: Black Pedro wrote: [quote=Black Pedro] "Logic" is not a game balance reason. Far too many things are illogical in this game, starting with the infallibility of CONCORD itself. Yeah sure, lets defy logic for balance sake. Logically EVE spaceships could only fly in one trajectory, instead of like a plane Logically the sun would burn a ship up, instead of bouncing off. Logically the amount of 'near earth' planets in EVE would be far fewer Logically going into a WH with a blackhole would mean death Logically you shouldn't be able to zip between solar systems. WHO WANT TO BE LOGICAL AND TRAVEL AT LIGHT SPEED TO JITA AND AMARR NOT FUCKIN ME `#DeleteTheWeak`
Rah McGee Lords and Ladies of event horizon H.O.M.E. Coalition 2	Posted - 2015.07.18 12:59:47 - [37] - Quote Valkin Mordirc wrote: Logically EVE spaceships could only fly in one trajectory, instead of like a plane Logically the sun would burn a ship up, instead of bouncing off. Logically the amount of 'near earth' planets in EVE would be far fewer Logically going into a WH with a blackhole would mean death Logically you shouldn't be able to zip between solar systems. WHO WANT TO BE LOGICAL AND TRAVEL AT LIGHT SPEED TO JITA AND AMARR NOT FUCKIN ME you are mistaking reality for plausibility. With the given set of rules or laws all that you have nemtioned above is completetely plausible and for that logical. Criminals hunted everywhere but not on stations in high sec by police is completely implausible and for that illogical.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1210	Posted - 2015.07.18 13:15:49 - [38] - Quote Rah McGee wrote: you are mistaking reality for plausibility. With the given set of rules or laws all that you have nemtioned above is completetely plausible and for that logical. Criminals hunted everywhere but not on stations in high sec by police is completely implausible and for that illogical. Yet here we all are. Playing a game full of illogical things, like criminals going un-hunted in highsec stations all because it makes for a better game. I hope your brain doesn't explode from the implausibility of it all.
Kenrailae Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships. 438	Posted - 2015.07.18 13:16:07 - [39] - Quote Mega corps with a monopoly on everything probably don't care whether criminals dock there, as long as they have Isk to spend The Law is a point of View
Rah McGee Lords and Ladies of event horizon H.O.M.E. Coalition 2	Posted - 2015.07.18 13:19:31 - [40] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: I hope your brain doesn't explode from the implausibility of it all. Don't worry, the world is run by people like you.
James Baboli The.Primary.. 1012	Posted - 2015.07.18 14:08:54 - [41] - Quote Rah McGee wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Yet here we all are. Playing a game full of illogical things, like criminals going un-hunted in highsec stations all because it makes for a better game. I see this as a bug or a glitch. Betta map is broken too. Code exists to deny docking permission. It isn't implemented. Has not been implemented, despite REPEATED dousings of the forums with tears, from the quick cry and run to high ceremonial tear-rantuals that threaten to overflow the collectors. Maybe this is in fact intended. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Valkin Mordirc 1252	Posted - 2015.07.18 14:37:28 - [42] - Quote Rah McGee wrote: Valkin Mordirc wrote: Logically EVE spaceships could only fly in one trajectory, instead of like a plane Logically the sun would burn a ship up, instead of bouncing off. Logically the amount of 'near earth' planets in EVE would be far fewer Logically going into a WH with a blackhole would mean death Logically you shouldn't be able to zip between solar systems. WHO WANT TO BE LOGICAL AND TRAVEL AT LIGHT SPEED TO JITA AND AMARR NOT FUCKIN ME you are mistaking reality for plausibility. With the given set of rules or laws all that you have nemtioned above is completetely plausible and for that logical. Criminals hunted everywhere but not on stations in high sec by police is completely implausible and for that illogical. Oh I'm sorry I guess you know Physics better then you know. People who study physics. `#DeleteTheWeak`
Nyalnara AdAstra. Beach Club 84	Posted - 2015.07.18 14:49:27 - [43] - Quote Rah McGee wrote: Kenrailae wrote: Mega corps with a monopoly on everything probably don't care whether criminals dock there, as long as they have Isk to spend So concord cares if someone is getting shot but they don't care when criminals dock at teheir station? Is the guy shooting at the station? No, so they don't care. As simple as that. In case of ponies, keep calm and start running. French half-noob. Founder of [DEUPP]Dark Evil Undead Ponies Productions.
Mag's the united 19809	Posted - 2015.07.18 16:03:53 - [44] - Quote Rah McGee wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Criminals are in the game by design. Suicide ganking is an intended mechanic; this has been confirmed by CCP many times. They are there to provide player-driven risk in highsec. Them not being able to dock doesn't restrict them from ganking, so this is not even an argument. And you restricting a perfectly legitimate game style because you do not like it, isn't an argument for change either. You folks make me laugh. You join a game known for ganking since it's birth, then do nothing but complain about it. Games night at yours, would be an absolute blast I'm sure. "What do you mean the Queen can move in all directions?????? What the hell? That sir is illogical and we should change it henceforth!!!" Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Angelica Dreamstar Miner's House of ill repute 1055	Posted - 2015.07.18 16:17:27 - [45] - Quote Wow, stop responding to these stupid children already and rather slap them like they deserve it. "People need to realise that saying "someone else will do it" also mean that other someone else might be thinking the exact same thing..." -- Frostys Virpio, very attentive person, thoughtful, smart responses. Understands self responsibility.
Rah McGee Lords and Ladies of event horizon H.O.M.E. Coalition 2	Posted - 2015.07.18 16:31:30 - [46] - Quote Mag's wrote: And you restricting a perfectly legitimate game style because you do not like it..bla bla bla..some tears Again wrong. Since you have problems to understand this, I will gladly repeat it for you: If we take away the ability for criminals to dock in stations in high sec this does not make people less gankable. Mag's wrote: You join a game known for ganking since it's birth, then do nothing but complain about it. The only tears and complainsI see in this thread are from people who fear about their 'gamestyle'.
Iain Cariaba 1671	Posted - 2015.07.18 16:37:19 - [47] - Quote Rah McGee wrote: Mag's wrote: You join a game known for ganking since it's birth, then do nothing but complain about it. The only tears and complainsI see in this thread are from people who fear about their 'gamestyle'. Nope, your "ganking is bad, gankers need to be punished" line definitely count as tears, and you're full of complaints about how gankers shouldn't be allowed to dock because you don't like it. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Will troll for a t-shirt.
Mag's the united 19813	Posted - 2015.07.18 16:39:45 - [48] - Quote Rah McGee wrote: Mag's wrote: And you restricting a perfectly legitimate game style because you do not like it..bla bla bla..some tears Again wrong. Since you have problems to understand this, I will gladly repeat it for you: If we take away the ability for criminals to dock in stations in high sec this does not make people less gankable. And I shall repeat, as reading and or comprehension doesn't seem to be your forte. Restricting a perfectly legitimate game style because you do not like it, isn't a reason for change. Rah McGee wrote: Mag's wrote: You join a game known for ganking since it's birth, then do nothing but complain about it. The only tears and complainsI see in this thread are from people who fear about their 'gamestyle'. Irony. Now you just need to mention bullying, for ganker whine bingo. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Rah McGee Lords and Ladies of event horizon H.O.M.E. Coalition 2	Posted - 2015.07.18 16:40:50 - [49] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: Nope, your "ganking is bad, gankers need to be punished" line definitely count as tears, and you're full of complaints about how gankers shouldn't be allowed to dock because you don't like it. Here we have the perfect example why we need this to be fixed asap. All the times I am talking about criminals, not only gankers, and those people with their 'gamestyle' only refere to themselves. You get -10 not only by ganking in high sec, you know?
Mag's the united 19813	Posted - 2015.07.18 16:46:03 - [50] - Quote Rah McGee wrote: Mag's wrote: Restricting a perfectly legitimate game style because you do not like it, isn't a reason for change. No one is restricting the gememechanic. You still will be able to gang. Oh my bad. I thought not being able to dock was a restriction. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Rah McGee Lords and Ladies of event horizon H.O.M.E. Coalition 2	Posted - 2015.07.18 16:50:06 - [51] - Quote Mag's wrote: Rah McGee wrote: Mag's wrote: Restricting a perfectly legitimate game style because you do not like it, isn't a reason for change. No one is restricting the gememechanic. You still will be able to gang. Oh my bad. I thought not being able to dock was a restriction. I am glad that you see where you are wrong. This is not a restriction but a gamefix. Criminals will still be able to dock in null sec for instance.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1223	Posted - 2015.07.18 16:53:20 - [52] - Quote Mag's wrote: Rah McGee wrote: Mag's wrote: Restricting a perfectly legitimate game style because you do not like it, isn't a reason for change. No one is restricting the gememechanic. You still will be able to gang. Oh my bad. I thought not being able to dock was a restriction. I didn't mention gangs btw. It not a restriction, it's just logical. Anything else just doesn't make sense. Why are your so resistant to these ideas? You will still technically be able to gank. It's not like he asking for all offensive modules to be locked out in highsec or anything.
Iain Cariaba 1673	Posted - 2015.07.18 16:54:02 - [53] - Quote Rah McGee wrote: Iain Cariaba wrote: Nope, your "ganking is bad, gankers need to be punished" line definitely count as tears, and you're full of complaints about how gankers shouldn't be allowed to dock because you don't like it. Here we have the perfect example why we need this to be fixed asap. All the times I am talking about criminals, not only gankers, and those people with their 'gamestyle' only refere to themselves. You get -10 not only by ganking in high sec, you know? Mag's wrote: Restricting a perfectly legitimate game style because you do not like it, isn't a reason for change. No one is restricting the gememechanic. You still will be able to gang. Yep, knew this post was coming. People like you are so predictable. Didn't bother to even look up who you're talking to before you shitposted, did you? How could I possibly be "crying" that you're trying to ruin my "gamestyle" when I'm not even a ganker? EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Will troll for a t-shirt.
Mag's the united 19817	Posted - 2015.07.18 16:54:24 - [54] - Quote Rah McGee wrote: Mag's wrote: Rah McGee wrote: Mag's wrote: Restricting a perfectly legitimate game style because you do not like it, isn't a reason for change. No one is restricting the gememechanic. You still will be able to gang. Oh my bad. I thought not being able to dock was a restriction. I am glad that you see where you are wrong. This is not a restriction but a gamefix. Criminals will still be able to dock in null sec for instance. Cute. So your restriction to a game style, fixes what exactly? Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Mag's the united 19817	Posted - 2015.07.18 16:55:57 - [55] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Mag's wrote: Rah McGee wrote: Mag's wrote: Restricting a perfectly legitimate game style because you do not like it, isn't a reason for change. No one is restricting the gememechanic. You still will be able to gang. Oh my bad. I thought not being able to dock was a restriction. I didn't mention gangs btw. It not a restriction, it's just logical. Anything else just doesn't make sense. Why are your so resistant to these ideas? You will still technically be able to gank. It's not like he asking for all offensive modules to be locked out in highsec or anything. That's coming in the next, "*Just one more nerf and it will be balanced." thread. Destination SkillQueue:-* It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Rah McGee Lords and Ladies of event horizon H.O.M.E. Coalition 2	Posted - 2015.07.18 16:58:45 - [56] - Quote Mag's wrote: So your restriction to a game style, fixes what exactly? As we agreed before: It is not a restriction but a fix to the logical glitch.
Mag's the united 19818	Posted - 2015.07.18 17:02:29 - [57] - Quote Rah McGee wrote: Mag's wrote: So your restriction to a game style, fixes what exactly? As we agreed before: It is not a restriction but a fix to the logical glitch. Your forum foo is as poor, as your reading and comprehension it seems. What logical glitch and why should a game style be restricted? Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Valkin Mordirc 1256	Posted - 2015.07.18 17:02:40 - [58] - Quote Rah McGee wrote: Mag's wrote: So your restriction to a game style, fixes what exactly? As we agreed before: It is not a restriction but a fix to the logical glitch. Oh you are THE fuckin idiot of the day aren't you? `#DeleteTheWeak`
Iain Cariaba 1674	Posted - 2015.07.18 17:03:38 - [59] - Quote Rah McGee wrote: Mag's wrote: So your restriction to a game style, fixes what exactly? As we agreed before: It is not a restriction but a fix to the logical glitch. Except your fix is not logical. Concord is not a policing agency with any direct authority over the Empires of EvE, so your suggestion that the mega-corporations of those Empires should care about what Concord says makes zero sense. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Will troll for a t-shirt.
Rah McGee Lords and Ladies of event horizon H.O.M.E. Coalition 2	Posted - 2015.07.18 17:07:04 - [60] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: Rah McGee wrote: Mag's wrote: So your restriction to a game style, fixes what exactly? As we agreed before: It is not a restriction but a fix to the logical glitch. Except your fix is not logical. Concord is not a policing agency with any direct authority over the Empires of EvE, so your suggestion that the mega-corporations of those Empires should care about what Concord says makes zero sense. So then you must see the hostility of emperial police as illogical. Why else would it chase and kill you if you are -10?
Alric Rosenthal Vetus Inmortales 126	Posted - 2015.07.18 17:09:53 - [61] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: Rah McGee wrote: -10 shouldn't be able to dock anywhere in high space Why? The mega corporations who own those stations don't answer to Concord, so why should they give two ****s what you do to other immortal capsuleers? I could understand being denied docking based on your standing with the owning corporation, but not based on sec status. Actually... the SCC, a division of Concord is responsible for regulating and monitoring all trade transactions that take place on space stations. It has agents on all stations that record the transactions and they also offer courier and escrow services to make trade smooth. This includes all transactions for us and all transactions for the npc corporations. To think that Concord does not have a say in what transpires on space stations owned by the factions or various npc corporations is a farce. While I do not agree with the thread starter's ideas it makes perfect sense that a criminal would be unable to dock in highsec. On the flip side: You're either wolf or a sheep. If you absolutely must be a sheep you should at least think like a wolf to avoid getting eaten by one. GÇ£War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.GÇ¥ - William Tecumseh Sherman \| Just Hit Undock
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 3087	Posted - 2015.07.18 17:48:28 - [62] - Quote Jackson F Kenrick wrote: Imagine if you will someone drives down Main St in your city.... You should have just stopped right there, rethought your post, and then used either the back button or closed down your browser. This. Is. A. Game. It. Is. Not. Real. Life. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 3088	Posted - 2015.07.18 17:58:51 - [63] - Quote Madd Adda wrote: Iain Cariaba wrote: Rah McGee wrote: -10 shouldn't be able to dock anywhere in high space Why? The mega corporations who own those stations don't answer to Concord, so why should they give two ****s what you do to other immortal capsuleers? I could understand being denied docking based on your standing with the owning corporation, but not based on sec status. why? mega corps even in the future would have reputation to consider. Haboring criminals would a good to destroy one's own reputation. Right. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 3088	Posted - 2015.07.18 18:12:39 - [64] - Quote Rah McGee wrote: Black Pedro wrote: [quote=Black Pedro] "Logic" is not a game balance reason. Far too many things are illogical in this game, starting with the infallibility of CONCORD itself. Yeah sure, lets defy logic for balance sake. Yes. Lets. Game balance is far more important than what you think is logical. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 3091	Posted - 2015.07.18 18:31:22 - [65] - Quote Rah McGee wrote: Mag's wrote: Rah McGee wrote: Mag's wrote: Restricting a perfectly legitimate game style because you do not like it, isn't a reason for change. No one is restricting the gememechanic. You still will be able to gang. Oh my bad. I thought not being able to dock was a restriction. I am glad that you see where you are wrong. This is not a restriction but a gamefix. Criminals will still be able to dock in null sec for instance. First off, this is just stupid. A "gamefix" can be a restriction. In this case, your "gamefix" is a restriction. Pilots with a -10 standing will be restricted from docking in HS space. So maybe you can stop the stupid **ing bullshite in regards to this being a restriction. Second lets sit down and think of some consequences of this errant nonsense. First off, once you hit -10 sec status you are not stuck there. You can get it higher and thus allow for docking. So all this restriction would do is result in a the -10 pilot running to a belt shoot a rat, go to the next system and rinse and repeat. Once he is at -9.9 he can dock up again. Second, previous nerfs to HS ganking can probably be at least partially credited with the creation of CODE. and possibly even miniluv. Here's a bold idea...further "nerfs to ganking" might lead to ganking becoming even more and better organized. As an aside, look at executive compensation (yes, yes, I know RL example, shame on me, but just bear with me....). Ever since the Great Depression in the U.S. it has come under increasing regulation. Much of it "well intended" to prevent the growth of wealth and income inequality. Problem is, it is now looking like that those very regulations are exacerbating the situation not helping it. So the point is....careful for what you **ing wish for because you might get it....and in this game it means right in the face with every barrel of anti-matter filled tech II light neutron cannon! Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Kenrailae Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships. 448	Posted - 2015.07.18 18:35:21 - [66] - Quote Why would I waste time shooting belt rats when I can just go buy tags? The Law is a point of View
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 3092	Posted - 2015.07.18 18:38:12 - [67] - Quote Kenrailae wrote: Why would I waste time shooting belt rats when I can just go buy tags? Well...shooting rats is "free" so if you are low in ISK it is an option and it puts ISK in your wallet too. But a very good point. People who gank will have a way around this, probably many ways some of which we have not even thought of yet. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode ISD Community Communications Liaisons 6186	Posted - 2015.07.18 20:25:57 - [68] - Quote Quote: Forum rules 17. Redundant and re-posted threads will be locked. As a courtesy to other forum users, please search to see if there is a thread already open on the topic you wish to discuss. If so, please place your comments there instead. Multiple threads on the same subject clutter up the forums needlessly, causing good feedback and ideas to be lost. Please keep discussions regarding a topic to a single thread. Closed. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.