Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
579
|
Posted - 2015.10.12 14:33:41 -
[31] - Quote
Nafensoriel wrote:Donnachadh wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Considering how many freighters make it through gank systems unscathed we should be trying to make it easier to bump and gank freighters. Obviously CCP disagrees with this assessment or it would be easier to bump and gank. ~snipsnip~. CCP has never sided with "immunity" pleas. The only thing CCP has moved against in the ganking community is ensuring it takes people. Arguably they are doing this to ensure gankers have to put forth enough isk to gank a target profitably but without the metrics they used to decide this its just a guess. IE 20 catalysts=Good 1 hyperdunker=bad according to CCP. Personal opinions are, of course, personal. My comment was posted as a simply rely to one made by Daichi Yamato, please review those and rethink. His comment was that CCP should make bumping and ganking easier, I simply pointed out the fact that CCP disagrees with that point of view an we know that to be true because CCP has never done anything to make ganking easier.
Leads me to wonder about you, and why you chose to inject something into my post that was not there to start with? |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
579
|
Posted - 2015.10.12 14:39:53 -
[32] - Quote
Calanthas wrote:Donnachadh wrote: would CCP want to arbitrarily restrict passage through an area of space? what possible good comes to CCP for doing this?
-1 because of your restrictions based on mass which would always give priority to the largest ships unfairly restricting the passage of other players simply because they choose to fly smaller ships. Yea I have developed the OP, without any editing, as people respond and give feedback. I was anticipating this, and I appreciate it, along with the content that has been produced. I wouldn't want to suggest "restrictions", more some type of "tag" placed on an eligible ship allowing THAT ship unrestricted access because that structure placed a tag on it. If somebody tries to restrict THAT ship, I am suggesting consequences - or suspect status. Tags or whatever else you want to call them, they are still giving a priority treatment to select ships based on some criteria, and that criteria seems to be heavily based on size(mass) of the ship so -1.
And I find myself in agreement with many others here if by "unrestricted access" you mean and immunity to ganking or even a reduction in the risks of ganking then you get a -1 again. |
DrysonBennington
Aliastra Gallente Federation
233
|
Posted - 2015.10.12 15:20:02 -
[33] - Quote
If you want to make it riskier for gankers at gates in High Sec try this approach.
Place a Micro Mobile Jump Unit 15km away from the gate in the direct path of all NPC stations and other gates.
A normal autopilot warps the ship to 15km away from the gate for safety reasons. Once the pilot lands they will automatically be in the range, 5,000km activation range, of the MMJU as soon as they land and can activate the MMJU right away to be warped 100km away from the gate where they can then proceed with their haul.
If the ganker tries to bump the ship while the MMJU is being activated the bump will throw the ship in a random direction making it nearly impossible for the ganker to align and then use the MMJU to jump to the ship.
Even if the ship is not bumped the ganker will still have some difficulty in aligning perfectly with the same vector that the targeted ship did and could end up 50 to 100 km away from the ship even though the ganker appears to be on the same vector as the targeted ship. |
Calanthas
Ninja Pixels
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.12 15:38:15 -
[34] - Quote
DrysonBennington wrote:If you want to make it riskier for gankers at gates in High Sec try this approach.
Place a Micro Mobile Jump Unit 15km away from the gate in the direct path of all NPC stations and other gates.
A normal autopilot warps the ship to 15km away from the gate for safety reasons. Once the pilot lands they will automatically be in the range, 5,000km activation range, of the MMJU as soon as they land and can activate the MMJU right away to be warped 100km away from the gate where they can then proceed with their haul.
If the ganker tries to bump the ship while the MMJU is being activated the bump will throw the ship in a random direction making it nearly impossible for the ganker to align and then use the MMJU to jump to the ship.
Even if the ship is not bumped the ganker will still have some difficulty in aligning perfectly with the same vector that the targeted ship did and could end up 50 to 100 km away from the ship even though the ganker appears to be on the same vector as the targeted ship.
This is an intriguing idea. I like it because there is no direct contact with the ganker - the freighter would have to be on their toes to respond. You could start a whole different thread with this idea.
Another idea that has been discussed would be damage done to the ganker's ship because they make contact with another ship. I'm not big on that idea because it involves everybody all over the universe. Whereas your idea focuses on a select spot in space and people can choose to interact with the device, or not (asleep at the wheel). |
Calanthas
Ninja Pixels
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.12 15:44:36 -
[35] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:And I find myself in agreement with many others here if by "unrestricted access" you mean and immunity to ganking or even a reduction in the risks of ganking then you get a -1 again.
Nope. A tag would be placed on the ship by a structure - placed in high traffic locations, different times of day as needed. Anybody trying to restrict that ship at a particular time at a particular place would be made suspect. Just an example how to make things riskier for gankers - people who target those ships in particular at those particular places at particular times. |
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra Gallente Federation
306
|
Posted - 2015.10.12 16:10:49 -
[36] - Quote
Unsupported, takes tasks from human players. They're called scouts.
Just to be clear that the only real 100% way to not get ganked in systems known for years to be trouble is to AVOID that system.
You are content to be content. This is not a jedi mind trick, you're just the game
|
Iain Cariaba
1884
|
Posted - 2015.10.12 16:25:06 -
[37] - Quote
Calanthas wrote:Donnachadh wrote:And I find myself in agreement with many others here if by "unrestricted access" you mean and immunity to ganking or even a reduction in the risks of ganking then you get a -1 again. Nope. A tag would be placed on the ship by a structure - placed in high traffic locations, different times of day as needed. Anybody trying to restrict that ship at a particular time at a particular place would be made suspect. Just an example how to make things riskier for gankers - people who target those ships in particular at those particular places at particular times. Basically forcing a portion of the playerbase to change the time of day they get to play EvE, just so you can autopilot your freighter through Uedama and Niarja risk free.
How would you feel if CCP came out with a rule that said younweren't able to play the game the way you wanted to during the only time of day you're able to be online to play?
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
|
Calanthas
Ninja Pixels
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.12 16:34:50 -
[38] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote: Basically forcing a portion of the playerbase to change the time of day they get to play EvE, just so you can autopilot your freighter through Uedama and Niarja risk free.
How would you feel if CCP came out with a rule that said younweren't able to play the game the way you wanted to during the only time of day you're able to be online to play?
Nope. Suggesting more content, without any permanent changes, or effects applied to everybody. Im suggesting a mobile structure that would be set up and moved as needed, therefore the game play and times would be sporadic. Im also suggesting consequences to incidents that may occur. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
103
|
Posted - 2015.10.12 21:04:58 -
[39] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Nafensoriel wrote:Donnachadh wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Considering how many freighters make it through gank systems unscathed we should be trying to make it easier to bump and gank freighters. Obviously CCP disagrees with this assessment or it would be easier to bump and gank. ~snipsnip~. CCP has never sided with "immunity" pleas. The only thing CCP has moved against in the ganking community is ensuring it takes people. Arguably they are doing this to ensure gankers have to put forth enough isk to gank a target profitably but without the metrics they used to decide this its just a guess. IE 20 catalysts=Good 1 hyperdunker=bad according to CCP. Personal opinions are, of course, personal. My comment was posted as a simply rely to one made by Daichi Yamato, please review those and rethink. His comment was that CCP should make bumping and ganking easier, I simply pointed out the fact that CCP disagrees with that point of view an we know that to be true because CCP has never done anything to make ganking easier. Leads me to wonder about you, and why you chose to inject something into my post that was not there to start with?
In a debate it matters less who brings up a topic than it does that the topic was brought up at all. In this case your sentence clearly suggests(even if you intended sarcasm) that CCP has attempted in any way to prohibit bumping and ganking. This is a bad road to go down for discussions like this because it has no validity. I merely outlined that CCP is more interested in maintaining risk/reward even for activities such as ganking and thus consideration should be given to this fact for future points in the discussion.
To the idea behind structures being tossed around.. Its not exactly unprecedented. In nullsec we have mobile cyno inhibitors. These work much in the same way you want a highsec version to work. They dont stop "local help" but sure as heck stop the "hammer of god" from helping.
The question is cost ratios and if you really want highsec to be opened up to that level of warfare. To cost the structure cant be to inexpensive or it will be abused. This is eve.. we'd abuse a chicken sandwich if we could. With that extra cost comes the problem of limiting gankers to more expensive targets. This might not be optimal to their play style if that "expensive target" becomes insanely rare.
The other side of the coin is that you will be exposing the "safe" space to a mechanic that allows engagement without consent and possibly with little to no penalties(depending on the idea being referenced). Would highsec players actually enjoy this style of gameplay? Even if, like MCyno Inhibs, you could engage and destroy the "threat structure" before it activated or simply warp off grid to escape it? |
Nyalnara
AdAstra. Beach Club
152
|
Posted - 2015.10.12 23:45:03 -
[40] - Quote
Nafensoriel wrote:This is eve.. we'd abuse a chicken sandwich if we could.
Dunno... Is it yummy?
In case of ponies, keep calm and start running.
French half-noob. Founder of [DEUPP]Dark Evil Undead Ponies Productions.
|
|
Calanthas
Ninja Pixels
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.13 21:48:59 -
[41] - Quote
Nafensoriel wrote:Even if, like MCyno Inhibs, you could engage and destroy the "threat structure" before it activated or simply warp off grid to escape it?
I was trying to suggest a structure that would be put in place by Concord or CCP, not player controlled at all. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
120
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 01:08:49 -
[42] - Quote
Considering the current development direction is less NPC and more Player.. that would be counter intuitive.
There is also reasoning behind this... In a sandbox making an NPC mechanic often slams the door on any other use. You use that one thing that one way.. no innovation.. no exploitation(yes this can be good sometimes).. and no immersion. Wormholes are a prime example of why PLAYER choice is always superior. Devs never intended them to be lived in.. yet now they develop them with dwellers in mind because players spent time, effort, and energy making it work and digging in.
With player controlled you get all these innovations though. Things like hyperdunking. Regardless of how you feel about it we can all agree a dev sat down after they heard about it and rubbed his head in wonder at the ingenuity of EVE players in using things in ways in which they were never conceivably intended. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
579
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 14:43:57 -
[43] - Quote
Calanthas wrote:Nope. A tag would be placed on the ship by a structure - placed in high traffic locations, different times of day as needed. Anybody trying to restrict that ship at a particular time at a particular place would be made suspect. Just an example how to make things riskier for gankers - people who target those ships in particular at those particular places at particular times. Still missing the question so I will rephrase.
Do all ships that pass this structure get a "tag", or only some of them? If it is oly some ships then you get a -1 from me no matter what the criteria used to determine who gets these "tags". If they all get them then I have to agree with those who say it would be a nerf to ganking and you get a -1 from me for that.
The only other reason I can see for this are the rare systems that get locked because they already contain the max number of players the node can handle and these tags would give some ships prioroty to getting into that system. In this case you get a -1 because first come first served.
Nafensoriel wrote:In a debate it matters less who brings up a topic than it does that the topic was brought up at all. In this case your sentence clearly suggests(even if you intended sarcasm) that CCP has attempted in any way to prohibit bumping and ganking. This is a bad road to go down for discussions like this because it has no validity. I merely outlined that CCP is more interested in maintaining risk/reward even for activities such as ganking and thus consideration should be given to this fact for future points in the discussion. Again you are not understanding the context of my post. It was a simple response to a statement made by Daichi Yamoto nothing more and nothing less. So remove all other motives from your mind and look at it in those simple terms and you will clearly understand.
So to recap and rephrase and in hopes that you can get to terms with the context of this here goes. Daichi Yamoto stated that ganking should be made easier. My comment was that CCP does not agree with this statement since they have done nothing to make ganking easier.
That's it plain and simple there is no sarcasm intended, there are no other motives, there are no requests being made to alter the current situation. It is simply a factual response to a simple statement made by another poster.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |