Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3639
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 14:09:50 -
[121] - Quote
lilol' me wrote:baltec1 wrote:lilol' me wrote:
and thats EXACTLY the problem..
What is? people not being able to take those assets when you can drop 1000 dreads and supers..... but i guess its OK for you to have passive income but not others...hmmm sounds like hypocricy Those people spent a lot of effort to get those 1000 dreads and supers to take and defend their space where this passive income is possible. It is the reward for holding that space. Not sure why you feel entitled to get a passive income as well for zero effort.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Wolfgang Jannesen
The Evesploratory Society
68
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 14:15:40 -
[122] - Quote
lilol' me wrote:baltec1 wrote:lilol' me wrote:
and thats EXACTLY the problem..
What is? people not being able to take those assets when you can drop 1000 dreads and supers..... but i guess its OK for you to have passive income but not others...hmmm sounds like hypocricy
All ship losses are your responsibility, you're complaining about the game functioning as intended. |
Keno Skir
1312
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 16:21:40 -
[123] - Quote
lilol' me wrote:baltec1 wrote:lilol' me wrote:
and thats EXACTLY the problem..
What is? people not being able to take those assets when you can drop 1000 dreads and supers..... but i guess its OK for you to have passive income but not others...hmmm sounds like hypocricy
Well, they worked for what they have as a group and as you pointed out, now defend it as a group. For some reason folks who haven't worked for it also expect passive income, which is obviously stupid
<Gùï> 250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <Gùï>
<Gùï> Contact me regarding my trusted Alliance Creation Service <Gùï>
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18677
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 18:14:42 -
[124] - Quote
lilol' me wrote:
people not being able to take those assets when you can drop 1000 dreads and supers..... but i guess its OK for you to have passive income but not others...hmmm sounds like hypocricy
We are not invincible |
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
416
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 18:40:48 -
[125] - Quote
Have to say I've not read the whole thread, but pirate battleships tend to be fairly solid targets. For example a vindicator can put up some serious tank with quite cheap modules. In all this means a lot of ehp and likely not much loot for the gankers, besides the KM.
In contrast, mining ships can be killed with one or two destroyers, freighters tend to be jammed full of expensive cargo, and marauders tend to use shiny modules which can be looted. I'm no ganker but I know which targets I would be going for.
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
Reiisha
1014
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 19:06:35 -
[126] - Quote
Suicide ganking and gatecamping are not a problem whatsoever.
The real problem lies in the unlimited use of alts to sidestep all consequences.
However, that is hilariously difficult to even think about fixing and most people are so ensorceled by the alt meta (which has existed since 2003) that they will defend it to the death, despite the massive problems alts bring to the systems currently in place - Let alone that the game has been quasi designed around the use of alts over the years.
You can bet that if gatecampers and suicide gankers couldn't use alts anymore, they'd be hypocritically crying havoc over how unfair the game is to them once they actually have to deal with the consequences of being at -10.
Sadly, this will likely not happen for a long time, given how critical alts are for nullsec - Even if just to keep the game from being too boring (unless there are people who want to play a fulltime cyno character for example).
If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18679
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 20:47:37 -
[127] - Quote
Reiisha wrote:Suicide ganking and gatecamping are not a problem whatsoever.
The real problem lies in the unlimited use of alts to sidestep all consequences.
However, that is hilariously difficult to even think about fixing and most people are so ensorceled by the alt meta (which has existed since 2003) that they will defend it to the death, despite the massive problems alts bring to the systems currently in place - Let alone that the game has been quasi designed around the use of alts over the years.
You can bet that if gatecampers and suicide gankers couldn't use alts anymore, they'd be hypocritically crying havoc over how unfair the game is to them once they actually have to deal with the consequences of being at -10.
Sadly, this will likely not happen for a long time, given how critical alts are for nullsec - Even if just to keep the game from being too boring (unless there are people who want to play a fulltime cyno character for example).
That would hit miners and mission runners just as hard if not harder. |
Cade Windstalker
903
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 21:58:00 -
[128] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Reiisha wrote:Suicide ganking and gatecamping are not a problem whatsoever.
The real problem lies in the unlimited use of alts to sidestep all consequences.
However, that is hilariously difficult to even think about fixing and most people are so ensorceled by the alt meta (which has existed since 2003) that they will defend it to the death, despite the massive problems alts bring to the systems currently in place - Let alone that the game has been quasi designed around the use of alts over the years.
You can bet that if gatecampers and suicide gankers couldn't use alts anymore, they'd be hypocritically crying havoc over how unfair the game is to them once they actually have to deal with the consequences of being at -10.
Sadly, this will likely not happen for a long time, given how critical alts are for nullsec - Even if just to keep the game from being too boring (unless there are people who want to play a fulltime cyno character for example). That would hit miners and mission runners just as hard if not harder.
Yeah, going to second this. Removing alts from the game is just a generally bad idea.
Also clearly Reiisha has never heard of exchanging tags for sec status. This would actually impact gankers *less* than almost any other profession since sec status is actually pretty easy to buy back or grind back if you know what you're doing. It's even less costly if you don't bother popping pods, since that's a way larger sec status hit than just blowing up a ship. |
Infinity Ziona
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
2528
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 06:45:50 -
[129] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Its a continuing mystery to me why suicide ganking is so over-represented in discussion here, considering its tiny rate of occurrence in EVE.
Its also a mystery to me why some people want to turn HS into a WoW-style Goldshire.
I also dont understand people trying to nerf LS gatecamps, when its pretty much the only thing LS has going for it. (LS gets the poopy end of the stick on just about everything anyways) Its pretty simple. Its much too easy. The risk vs reward balance is out of wack.
I have pirated, carebeared, wardecced, mined, mission, done wormholes, null anoms, small, med, fleet pvp and suicide ganked.
Suicide ganking is the only thing that requires almost no effort risk. You can jump in a ship for under 10 mill, sit at station / gate while protected by concord and kill ships many times more valuable than yours.
Gankers like to claim theyre making EvE more hardcore but theyre doing so while exploiting their non-consensual pvp flag and using disposable alts / concord protection to avoid any of EvEs hardcore penalties. I personally know a large number of miners / anom runners who refuse to PvP or undock in Null if any risk is involved who smack talk people theyve just ganked on their code / alliance ganker alts.
There should be no easy mode in EvE but there is and its ganking by a long shot. Its riskier to undock a mining barge or mission ship
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Salvos Rhoska
2264
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 08:35:46 -
[130] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:. Removing alts from the game is just a generally bad idea.
Yet in another thread you said making some activities more alt reliant (such as gathering intel in non-Local ID Player Sov), is generally a bad idea.
There is a degree of contradiction there.
Removing alts would be devastating for CCPs bottomline. Its obviously out of the question.
It thus makes sense to instead encourage use of alts.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
Kaeden 3142
State Protectorate Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 08:37:06 -
[131] - Quote
I guess you can't really blame the market on the oversupply of factions battleships. The economy of eve is one of its strengths in its setting . The tganking does represent one sided fights which does cannibalise on the player community. I would like to see even matches it would make eve like an overwatch and players would be less risk versed. |
Salvos Rhoska
2264
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 08:50:35 -
[132] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:.Suicide ganking is the only thing that requires almost no effort risk. You can jump in a ship for under 10 mill, sit at station / gate while protected by concord and kill ships many times more valuable than yours.
I dont disagree with the rest of your post, some parts are not quite the way I see them, but they are only a matter of few degrees from which we perceive the issues.
I however want to draw attention the specific part above. Suicide Ganking has a very unique and peculiar equity of risk/reward. As you say, suicide gankers benefit from the same CONCORD protection as their targets. Yet when they make their attack, they suddenly are hit with a 100% fatal risk from CONCORD. As to their reward vs that risk, they can fairly accurately estimate their costs/effort vs potential profits. They can fairly accurately estimate their dps/alpha vs usual standards of EHP. Sure, the loot drop is random, but it balances out in the long run as a predictable average.
Im sure its been suggested before, but how about making cargo scanning in HS trigger a suspect timer?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3643
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 08:52:25 -
[133] - Quote
Kaeden 3142 wrote:I guess you can't really blame the market on the oversupply of factions battleships. The economy of eve is one of its strengths in its setting . The tganking does represent one sided fights which does cannibalise on the player community. I would like to see even matches it would make eve like an overwatch and players would be less risk versed. EVE is an open world sandbox game with non-consensual PvP at the center. It is not a MOBA. If you want to.play a MOBA, go play overwatch or dota.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Infinity Ziona
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
2528
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 09:00:42 -
[134] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:.Suicide ganking is the only thing that requires almas rd ost no effort risk. You can jump in a ship for under 10 mill, sit at station / gate while protected byisntconcord and kill ships many times more valuable than yours.
I dont disagree with the rest of your post, some parts are not quite the way I see them, but they are only a matter of few degrees from which we perceive the issues. I however want to draw attention the specific part above. Suicide Ganking has a very unique and peculiar equity of risk/reward. As you say, suicide gankers benefit from the same CONCORD protection as their targets. Yet when they make their attack, they suddenly are hit with a 100% fatal risk from CONCORD. As to their reward vs that risk, they can fairly accurately estimate their costs/effort vs potential profits. They can fairly accurately estimate their dps/alpha vs usual standards of EHP. Sure, the loot drop is random, but it balances out in the long run as a predictable average. Im sure its been suggested before, but how about making cargo scanning in HS trigger a suspect timer? The suicide ship is basically ammunition. In accounting terms an expense not an asset. If there was more variability, random rather than definitive delay on Concord thatd be a risk, a gamble, but otherwise no.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Salvos Rhoska
2264
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 09:13:23 -
[135] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:.Suicide ganking is the only thing that requires almas rd ost no effort risk. You can jump in a ship for under 10 mill, sit at station / gate while protected byisntconcord and kill ships many times more valuable than yours.
I dont disagree with the rest of your post, some parts are not quite the way I see them, but they are only a matter of few degrees from which we perceive the issues. I however want to draw attention the specific part above. Suicide Ganking has a very unique and peculiar equity of risk/reward. As you say, suicide gankers benefit from the same CONCORD protection as their targets. Yet when they make their attack, they suddenly are hit with a 100% fatal risk from CONCORD. As to their reward vs that risk, they can fairly accurately estimate their costs/effort vs potential profits. They can fairly accurately estimate their dps/alpha vs usual standards of EHP. Sure, the loot drop is random, but it balances out in the long run as a predictable average. Im sure its been suggested before, but how about making cargo scanning in HS trigger a suspect timer? The suicide ship is basically ammunition. In accounting terms an expense not an asset. If there was more variability, random rather than definitive delay on Concord thatd be a risk, a gamble, but otherwise no.
Well, its an asset, that is expended, as a cost inorder to attempt to generate profit.
If cargo scanning in HS triggered a suspect timer, it would at least warn the potential target as well as others of someone trying to ascertain their value, as well as make the scanning ship a free-for-all target.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3643
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 09:35:41 -
[136] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: If cargo scanning in HS triggered a suspect timer, it would at least warn the potential target as well as others of someone trying to ascertain their value, as well as make the scanning ship a free-for-all target.
It would take 10s and another whine post about throw away scan alts would pop up on the forums.
The problem like always is not that one side can't be touched, but that one side is actually interested how the game mechanics work and work out ways to to use them in their favour. In most traditional games that would be called 'game strategy' or simply 'playing the game', carebears in EVE call it 'exploitiation of game mechanics'.
The other side has no interest in doing so and rather comes to the forums to whine for nerfs to the enemy and more isolation. It has always been this way and IZ is one of the biggest whiners since forever. Don't expect a rational discussion.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Salvos Rhoska
2264
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 09:56:56 -
[137] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote: If cargo scanning in HS triggered a suspect timer, it would at least warn the potential target as well as others of someone trying to ascertain their value, as well as make the scanning ship a free-for-all target.
It would take 10s and another whine post about throw away scan alts would pop up on the forums. The problem like always is not that one side can't be touched, but that one side is actually interested how the game mechanics work and work out ways to to use them in their favour. In most traditional games that would be called 'game strategy' or simply 'playing the game', carebears in EVE call it 'exploitiation of game mechanics'. The other side has no interest in doing so and rather comes to the forums to whine for nerfs to the enemy and more isolation. It has always been this way and IZ is one of the biggest whiners since forever. Don't expect a rational discussion.
Sure, I can understsnd what you mean, but none of that refutes or contradicts my suggestion above.
Its a very soft change. Wouldnt affect mission ship suicide ganking largely at all, as you are more concerned with the modules which are unscannable, rather than cargo contents. Wouldnt make suicide ganking impossible along trade lines either, just less certain of their profits. Throwaway alts arent really a topic imo, as they occur anyways, and are a matter of player choice, not game mechanics.
I think cargo scanning should be considered an invasive action in HS, and hence subject to a suspect timer. CONCORD wont yet interfere, but other players can, and the target is warned that an attack may be impending, as are other ships in the system.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3644
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 10:16:47 -
[138] - Quote
They are already warned if they are at the keyboard. If you are targeted by a scanner you get an animation and a sound.
The only thing that would change is that instead of scanning with the scout ship they would bring in an alt in a noobship with a scanner to do the job.
Also most AG will not shoot a suspect in anything with weapons since they have no NPC support
But hey, I don't say don't implement it. I just say it wont change much
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18687
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 11:06:14 -
[139] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Sure, I can understsnd what you mean, but none of that refutes or contradicts my suggestion above.
This is what we call the just one more nerf argument.
Ganking is already the most punished activity in EVE as well as needing to be one of the most organised as far as highsec goes and undoubtedly the most expensive activity in EVE outside of the suicide dreads. |
Agent 5B
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 11:28:49 -
[140] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:IB4L?
A real good example here of someone seeing only what they want, and confusing facts.
He mentions LP for pirate battleships. Not one mention of the fact that CCP increased the escalation chances for anomalies (which means more escalations, which means more pirate battleship BPCs).
And then he displays more ignorance by suggesting that pirate battleships will cost less than T1. Meaning he doesn't understand how the price of something can't dip below the cost of the materials used to build it.... Pirate battleships were way overpriced do to scarcity, they are cheaper now because of CCP increasing escalation chances.
I mean really, how batshit crazy do you have to be to conflate pirate BS prices, ganking, and safety in high sec?
That's correct the price of a pirate faction BS will be relative to the demand and the supply.
If the demand is lower than the price of producing them then the supply ceases to exist until the price rises again.
The supply is limited by the number of BPC that drop from sites and the number of people willing and able to run pirate faction missions to get them.
(In terms of minerals) That isn't quite correct because the Pirate faction ships can be bought from the LP store without having to provide a T1 battleship in exchange at the bargain price of 80 mil and 800 k LP.
Still I can't see that ever getting to the state where it is cheaper than a T1 battleship though potentially a Mackerel could become cheaper than a Typhoon Fleet issue and probably has at times. |
|
Salvos Rhoska
2264
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 11:34:10 -
[141] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:They are already warned if they are at the keyboard. If you are targeted by a scanner you get an animation and a sound.
The only thing that would change is that instead of scanning with the scout ship they would bring in an alt in a noobship with a scanner to do the job.
Also most AG will not shoot a suspect in anything with weapons since they have no NPC support
But hey, I don't say don't implement it. I just say it wont change much
Sure, they can bring a noobship in an alt, but that also means having to logout to change ship, or paying for an omega alt that wastes all its potential flying in a noobship. Or hiring/involving a legit Alpha noob to participate.
AG would not need NPC support to engage a simple scanning shiip. Infact, they probably wont, because the intel of knowing there is a cargo scanning ship is reason enough for them to consider they might be in the right place to engage against a suicide gank effort.
Its a soft change. Just takes a bit of the edge off, and provides a little more surface area for conflict (ie: the scanning ship goes flashy).
And I mean overall, I think most people can agree that cargo scanning should be considered a suspect offense. What business does someone have checking out my cargo hold? Customs NPCs scan for contraband, but they have legitimate reason to do so.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2264
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 11:42:46 -
[142] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Sure, I can understsnd what you mean, but none of that refutes or contradicts my suggestion above.
This is what we call the just one more nerf argument. Ganking is already the most punished activity in EVE as well as needing to be one of the most organised as far as highsec goes and undoubtedly the most expensive activity in EVE outside of the suicide dreads.
I already went over the peculiar nature of this in a previous post.
Making cargo scanning a suspect offense in HS, doesnt upset that.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18687
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 12:05:05 -
[143] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I already went over the peculiar nature of this in a previous post.
Making cargo scanning a suspect offense in HS, doesnt upset that.
Why should this happen? Ganking is already at its lowest point in history as is highsec pvp content in general.
Frankly we should be expanding scanning more not punishing more. Bring in more content such as players hunting for drugs and such. |
Salvos Rhoska
2264
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 12:41:02 -
[144] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I already went over the peculiar nature of this in a previous post.
Making cargo scanning a suspect offense in HS, doesnt upset that.
Why should this happen? Ganking is already at its lowest point in history as is highsec pvp content in general. Frankly we should be expanding scanning more not punishing more. Bring in more content such as players hunting for drugs and such.
The change should happen, because it rationalizes the underlying mechanics.
Cargo scanning is an invasive action. You intrusively pry into the hold of another player. This should not occur without a reciprocal cost. Currently, there is none. Having a scanning ship on site, does not in and of itself constitute a cost, because the scanning ship is not currently implicated in any way. They can scan all the ships they want, intrude i to their holds, at no cost or risk.
Cargo-scanning is not mandatory for suicide ganking Its just a convenience to pick out lucrative targets.
If cargo scanning issued a suspect flag, they can still continue scanning as many holds as they wish, unless so eone eliminates them.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18687
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 12:50:34 -
[145] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: The change should happen, because it rationalizes the underlying mechanics.
Cargo scanning is an invasive action. You intrusively pry into the hold of another player. This should not occur without a reciprocal cost. Currently, there is none. Having a scanning ship on site, does not in and of itself constitute a cost, because the scanning ship is not currently implicated in any way. They can scan all the ships they want, intrude i to their holds, at no cost or risk.
So we should do the same with combat probes too then?
Salvos Rhoska wrote: Cargo-scanning is not mandatory for suicide ganking Its just a convenience to pick out lucrative targets.
How else are you going to know what the hauler is carrying to make the call on if it is profitable or not? Its fundamental to ganking.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: If cargo scanning issued a suspect flag, they can still continue scanning as many holds as they wish, unless so eone eliminates them.
We all know that cargo scanning ships are implict in the suicide gank operational system. They are part of the suicide gank team effort, as much as the attack ships, and the loot pickup ships. Th attack ships get rekt by CONCORD, the loot pickup teams go suspect. So too should the cargo scanning elements go suspect.
You have yet to answer why ganking needs yet another nerf. |
Salvos Rhoska
2264
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 13:42:41 -
[146] - Quote
1) Combat probes do not scan the contents of a ship, merely its location at that moment. Furthemore a combat probe search requires far more time and effort, and is homologous with core probing sigs.
2) My change does not mean they cant ascertain the contents of a ship. Just that they incur a suspect flag for intrusively obtaining that data of what is on someone elses ship. What justification is there, for a ship in HS to pry into the contents of somone elses autonomous ship, without consequence?
If a cargo scanning ship is implicit in the suicide gank team effort, they should carry commensurate personal risk. The attac ships get rekt by CONCORD, the loot ships get suspect. Atm, the scanning ships get no penalty.
3) This is not a nerf to suicide ganking. None of the mechanics are changed to detriment.. It just includes the rational risk, which is currently absent, into scanning ships which invasively pry into the hold of another autonomous players ship.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18687
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 13:55:59 -
[147] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:1) Combat probes do not scan the contents of a ship, merely its location at that moment. Furthemore a combat probe search requires far more time and effort, and is homologous with core probing sigs.
Combat probes are more than core probes, they are made with the goal of hunting down other ships. Its the same as scanning a ship, both are pvp activities just with slightly differnt goals. One lets you find a players ship even though they don't want you to and the other scans a players ship even though they dont want you to.
It can also lead to other problems such as the bloakade runner now has. CCP adding the unscannable bonus to them did not make them safer, it put more risk on them because the ganks went from targeted to random.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 2) My change does not mean they cant ascertain the contents of a ship. Just that they incur a suspect flag for intrusively obtaining that data of what is on someone elses ship. What justification is there, for a ship in HS to pry into the contents of somone elses autonomous ship, without consequence?
You can already counter the scanner.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 3) This is not a nerf to suicide ganking.
Yes it is. |
Starrakatt
Celtic Anarchy The Bastard Cartel
652
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 14:30:24 -
[148] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Its a very soft change. Wouldnt affect mission ship suicide ganking largely at all, as you are more concerned with the modules which are unscannable, rather than cargo contents. Wouldnt make suicide ganking impossible along trade lines either, just less certain of their profits.
There is a thing called a Ship Scanner that does exactly that (scan mods) and work on the same principle of that of a Cargo Scanner.
Also by your reasonning, just looking into someone's jettisoned cargo or wreck should trigger a Suspect Timer, as it is prying into someone's privacy...
Join Celtic Anarchy!
Sneaky bastard.
|
Wolfgang Jannesen
The Evesploratory Society
71
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 14:32:56 -
[149] - Quote
There's nothing wrong with cargo scanners. Salvos, your suggestions would make high sec super safe but they're messing with gameplay that is not a problem. If you get ganked in highsec, CCP did t do anything wrong, you did. |
lilol' me
Retribution Holdings Corp Retribution.
72
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 15:50:08 -
[150] - Quote
Wolfgang Jannesen wrote:There's nothing wrong with cargo scanners. Salvos, your suggestions would make high sec super safe but they're messing with gameplay that is not a problem. If you get ganked in highsec, CCP didnt do anything wrong, you did.
i love those its not me its you quotes. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |