| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ridley Tree
The Black Rabbits
   |
Posted - 2007.06.08 01:17:00 -
[91]
Oh and as it stands right now. A smart mission runner is untouchable. I ran missions in Venal for a bit to get my Gurista Corp standings positive for RP reasons. I escaped multiple gate camps and station camps without issue and managed to watch my scanner well enough to avoid being discovered in my missions. Why mission runners want more safety just makes me go  .
----
The Ridley Tree Productions Vault of Videos |
MehTheTrader
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 01:40:00 -
[92]
 Originally by: Ridley Tree
Oh and as it stands right now. A smart mission runner is untouchable. I ran missions in Venal for a bit to get my Gurista Corp standings positive for RP reasons. I escaped multiple gate camps and station camps without issue and managed to watch my scanner well enough to avoid being discovered in my missions. Why mission runners want more safety just makes me go .
Recon Ships. They can cloak, you can't see them in scan, all griefers use those. You should know that since you are an expert in not *dying* during missions. So you would be easy prey to any griefer if you were missioning in low sec.
Its funny how these low sec players think they are good at pvp. pvp is in 0.0, ganking noobs is in low sec.
|
Ridley Tree
The Black Rabbits
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 01:55:00 -
[93]
Edited by: Ridley Tree on 08/06/2007 01:57:23
Edited by: Ridley Tree on 08/06/2007 01:56:37
Originally by: MehTheTrader
Edited by: MehTheTrader on 08/06/2007 01:44:16
Originally by: Ridley Tree
Oh and as it stands right now. A smart mission runner is untouchable. I ran missions in Venal for a bit to get my Gurista Corp standings positive for RP reasons. I escaped multiple gate camps and station camps without issue and managed to watch my scanner well enough to avoid being discovered in my missions. Why mission runners want more safety just makes me go .
Recon Ships. They can cloak, you can't see them in scan, all griefers use those. You should know that since you are an expert in not *dying* during missions. So you would be easy prey to any griefer if you were missioning in low sec.
A smart missioner if he followed your plan would have a miserable death the first time he tried. A smart misson runner will stay in highsec or do a plex under protection.
Its funny how these low sec players think they are good at pvp. pvp is in 0.0, ganking noobs is in low sec.
Recon Ships can't cloak their probes 
/edit/ And I direct you to the Ridley Tree Productions Video Vault. There you can find a holo-vid entitled 'Rabbits in Mito, A Summary.' You will see me and my friendly corp not only ganking mission runners in low-sec, but busting and destroying 0.0 gate camps.
----
The Ridley Tree Productions Vault of Videos |
MehTheTrader
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 02:19:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Ridley Tree
Edited by: Ridley Tree on 08/06/2007 01:57:23
Edited by: Ridley Tree on 08/06/2007 01:56:37
Originally by: MehTheTrader
Edited by: MehTheTrader on 08/06/2007 01:44:16
Originally by: Ridley Tree
Oh and as it stands right now. A smart mission runner is untouchable. I ran missions in Venal for a bit to get my Gurista Corp standings positive for RP reasons. I escaped multiple gate camps and station camps without issue and managed to watch my scanner well enough to avoid being discovered in my missions. Why mission runners want more safety just makes me go .
Recon Ships. They can cloak, you can't see them in scan, all griefers use those. You should know that since you are an expert in not *dying* during missions. So you would be easy prey to any griefer if you were missioning in low sec.
A smart missioner if he followed your plan would have a miserable death the first time he tried. A smart misson runner will stay in highsec or do a plex under protection.
Its funny how these low sec players think they are good at pvp. pvp is in 0.0, ganking noobs is in low sec.
Recon Ships can't cloak their probes
/edit/ And I direct you to the Ridley Tree Productions Video Vault. There you can find a holo-vid entitled 'Rabbits in Mito, A Summary.' You will see me and my friendly corp not only ganking mission runners in low-sec, but busting and destroying 0.0 gate camps.
You uncloak for one second to a launch probe.... please don't tell me you can really notice that.
|
Ridley Tree
The Black Rabbits
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 02:20:00 -
[95]
Originally by: MehTheTrader
You uncloak for one second to a launch probe.... please don't tell me you can really notice that.
Sometimes yes.
But you can always see their probe 
----
The Ridley Tree Productions Vault of Videos |
Qaed
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 02:22:00 -
[96]
Quote:
Yeah I'd say I'm a predator.
You misunderstood my point. You're a player in EVE, the people you prey on are players in EVE. The individual should determine the success rate against other players, not the environment.
Quote:
Yeah it won't. And thats fine. People will keep on running missions/mining/ratting. I'll keep on preying on them. That will get me more isk so I can buy more stuff so I can keep on preying on people in new and exciting ways.
Hopefully you do, because I don't see much excitement in engaging other players who have 20 NPC's targetting them.
Quote:
We kinda do. Gate guns. Anti-pirates. Mercs. Carebear Bait tactics. Pirates prey on other players. Our risks are only as dangerous as the people we prey on. Its up to you to be a threat to us because no one else in the game is. And its up to us to minimize those threats by picking our targets carefully.
Those are general threats, and everyone faces them. When a player jumps into an instance and is fighting NPC's, they are facing a specific threat. There is no risk to a pirate jumping in after him, and there either should be or the player running missions in low-sec should be getting massive rewards for success.
|
Ridley Tree
The Black Rabbits
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 02:34:00 -
[97]
Edited by: Ridley Tree on 08/06/2007 02:33:24
Originally by: Qaed
You misunderstood my point. You're a player in EVE, the people you prey on are players in EVE. The individual should determine the success rate against other players, not the environment.
That would be the situation if we all got together in say, an Arena, and agreed to 1 on 1 matches. We don't. Instead we go about our business in a world where people are free to attack us whenever they wish. Therefor the intelligent player uses the environment to his advantage. For instance If I wait to attack a Raven only until after he has gotten aggro from 20 NPCs and I know that my Myrmidon, with the assistance of the NPCs (hell probably without) will be able to break his tank with ease... why would I not chose to engage him at his weakest?
Quote:
Hopefully you do, because I don't see much excitement in engaging other players who have 20 NPC's targetting them.
I don't see much excitement in shooting 20 NPCs for isk when I can shoot another player for more isk. To each his own eh?
Quote:
Those are general threats, and everyone faces them. When a player jumps into an instance and is fighting NPC's, they are facing a specific threat. There is no risk to a pirate jumping in after him, and there either should be or the player running missions in low-sec should be getting massive rewards for success.
Those risks still exist when I jump in. In particular the 'bait' risk. A risk that a PVE player doesn't face.
But more importantly why should the Pirate be facing more risk for his actions in these circumstances? He is punished for them. No hi-sec entrance. Being shot by stations and gate guns after committing a hostile action etc... The risk to me is that of other players. If I manage those risks in such a way that they are negligible then I'm playing smart.
In terms of the instance, as I said. I'm there to help NPCs. They've got no reason to shoot me. I've chosen to engage when risk to myself is minimal. I've done the smart thing. The person I've managed to nab has done the foolish thing and not watched their scanner. Simple.
----
The Ridley Tree Productions Vault of Videos |
Ridley Tree
The Black Rabbits
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 02:37:00 -
[98]
Its also worth pointing out that I am quite simply the only risk the mission runner faces. Missions can be run on autopilot and no one worth their salt is at any risk from the NPCs. The only risk to the mission runner is other players. The only risk to the pirate is other players. Somehow that seems fair to me.
----
The Ridley Tree Productions Vault of Videos |
MehTheTrader
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 02:43:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Ridley Tree
Its also worth pointing out that I am quite simply the only risk the mission runner faces. Missions can be run on autopilot and no one worth their salt is at any risk from the NPCs. The only risk to the mission runner is other players. The only risk to the pirate is other players. Somehow that seems fair to me.
Im actually not a mission runner, thought it may look like it  . But risk/reward is really bad on lvl4's. Thats a 1bil isk ship, doubt anyone is crazy enough to risk that, for low rewards.
|
Dannek
Llama F5 and Associates
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 03:16:00 -
[100]
To Pirates suggesting everything is fine and dandy while you sharpen your daggers: Go fight some L5 mobs and have one of your Pirate friends warp in and attack you. See if you have a chance.
I don't think there's anything unreasonable about suggesting that rats split their attention between PCs. They attack the mission owner on sight, why would they hold their fire for a new interloper?
The risk to the pirate should not only be in attacking the player, but having to deal with the situation that the player is in.
I think of it as an environmental hazard. To not apply the detriment to both parties involved is what would be unfair.
--------------------------------------------------------
Working towards my own personal Dreadnought, one ISK at a time. |
Qaed
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 03:17:00 -
[101]
Quote:
But more importantly why should the Pirate be facing more risk for his actions in these circumstances?
You're not. As a matter of fact, you're not facing any realistic risk here unless for some reason the mission-runner is packing a scrambler, and then the risk is miniscule. That's the problem.
Quote:
He is punished for them. No hi-sec entrance. Being shot by stations and gate guns after committing a hostile action etc...
Why would a pirate even go to hi-sec? The only pirating to be done is of the suicide kind, and alts are better to buy and transport gear.
Being shot at after hostile action happens to everyone, not just pirates.
Quote:
The risk to me is that of other players. If I manage those risks in such a way that they are negligible then I'm playing smart.
As I said, there's no risk in jumping into someone else's mission. The only risk you face is being caught by other players who aren't engaged in a mission. That's not a disadvantage though like having to fight pirates while running a mission.
|
Ridley Tree
The Black Rabbits
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 03:26:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Qaed
Quote:
But more importantly why should the Pirate be facing more risk for his actions in these circumstances?
You're not. As a matter of fact, you're not facing any realistic risk here unless for some reason the mission-runner is packing a scrambler, and then the risk is miniscule. That's the problem.
The risk I face is the action of the other player. That he has handicapped himself by his setup and lack of situational awareness is his problem, not mine.
Quote:
Why would a pirate even go to hi-sec? The only pirating to be done is of the suicide kind, and alts are better to buy and transport gear.
Ease of travel? Moving my corp requires the use of freighter alts and jumping carriers to move rigged ships around. Generally takes a good deal of logistics to get anywhere. Moving a hi-sec corp around is 'alright guys, fly your ships over here within the next month.' There is also that fact that gate-guns don't protect you when you get shot at.
Quote:
Being shot at after hostile action happens to everyone, not just pirates.
Not when you're shooting a pirate it doesn't.
Quote:
As I said, there's no risk in jumping into someone else's mission. The only risk you face is being caught by other players who aren't engaged in a mission. That's not a disadvantage though like having to fight pirates while running a mission.
Right so the problem here is that you can be engaged on while you are doing something that puts you at a disadvantage if someone comes to shoot you  . See what I said above. The pirate is doing the smart and intelligent thing by using the environment and the situation to his advantage. A smart mission runner won't get caught. A bad one will be.
----
The Ridley Tree Productions Vault of Videos |
Vladtsun Raide
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 03:31:00 -
[103]
Make pirates attackable anywhere, anytime, even when docked in stations. That is much more realistic. Let them face realistic representations of what it's like to be a "predator". If you're a "pirate" then civilization - aka stations - should offer you no succor. In real life, pirates get hunted everywhere, including every port they run to.
That - and increasing the size of the rare element asteroids - will bring peeps out to low sec. Right now there's not much point to mining rare mins when killing the rats that will plague you are a faster source of money than the asteroids that last half a mining cycle.
|
Ridley Tree
The Black Rabbits
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 03:37:00 -
[104]
Edited by: Ridley Tree on 08/06/2007 03:36:21
Originally by: Vladtsun Raide
Make pirates attackable anywhere, anytime, even when docked in stations. That is much more realistic. Let them face realistic representations of what it's like to be a "predator". If you're a "pirate" then civilization - aka stations - should offer you no succor. In real life, pirates get hunted everywhere, including every port they run to.
Pirates are attackable anywhere, anytime. Except when docked in stations. And really if you think we should be attackable while in station you're off your rocker.
Also in real life Pirate had plenty of safe havens and in the 'lower security' areas (such as the Colonies and the Caribbean) there were a great many famous ports of call that were friendly to pirates. Pirates were also able to ally themselves as 'privateers' of the various nations and thusly had free access to those ports. In addition in the world of EVE corporations exist in such a manner separate from the nations and separate from the police. Fed Mart and Lai Dai don't care if I shoot you.
Quote:
That - and increasing the size of the rare element asteroids - will bring peeps out to low sec. Right now there's not much point to mining rare mins when killing the rats that will plague you are a faster source of money than the asteroids that last half a mining cycle.
True enough.
----
The Ridley Tree Productions Vault of Videos |
Chelone
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 04:29:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Ridley Tree
The risk I face is the action of the other player. That he has handicapped himself by his setup and lack of situational awareness is his problem, not mine.
That's your most delusional statement yet! You're on a roll!
We are being told, friends, that a mission runner who is not in an all-out PvP setup has "handicapped himself." That is PROFOUNDLY stupid.
Originally by: Ridley Tree
Moving my corp requires the use of freighter alts and jumping carriers to move rigged ships around. Generally takes a good deal of logistics to get anywhere.
(sound of world's smallest violin...)
|
Hectaire Glade
Forum Jockey
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 05:02:00 -
[106]
Edited by: Hectaire Glade on 08/06/2007 05:01:53
Ridley, Thanks for relieving yourself all over the thread, the whole point of my original post was to create discussion, you've done a very thorough job of trying to extinguish that discussion with your very singular point of view.
Surely as someone who 'preys' on non-pirate players in low sec you would welcome something which would increase the quantity of 'victims' available to you? If this brings 20 more people to your local system, one or two of them are going to be making the occasional mistake which will allow you to use your uberl33tskillz to kill them while under fire from 750-1000 DPS NPC spawn who you are 'helping' because its 'roleplay'.
|
Ridley Tree
The Black Rabbits
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 05:07:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Chelone
That's your most delusional statement yet! You're on a roll!
We are being told, friends, that a mission runner who is not in an all-out PvP setup has "handicapped himself." That is PROFOUNDLY stupid.
He's taking on a spawn of 20 npcs in a public area where I can attack him. Therefor he's handicapped. There ya go... If he's not smart enough to look out and around for me coming to get him via scanner, there ya go.
Quote:
(sound of world's smallest violin...)
And thats why I don't make threads complaing about it, I just point it out as one of the handicaps of being a pirate.
----
The Ridley Tree Productions Vault of Videos |
Ridley Tree
The Black Rabbits
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 05:09:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Hectaire Glade
Edited by: Hectaire Glade on 08/06/2007 05:01:53
Ridley, Thanks for relieving yourself all over the thread, the whole point of my original post was to create discussion, you've done a very thorough job of trying to extinguish that discussion with your very singular point of view.
Surely as someone who 'preys' on non-pirate players in low sec you would welcome something which would increase the quantity of 'victims' available to you? If this brings 20 more people to your local system, one or two of them are going to be making the occasional mistake which will allow you to use your uberl33tskillz to kill them while under fire from 750-1000 DPS NPC spawn who you are 'helping' because its 'roleplay'.
You're weolcome. 
In my opinion low-sec is fine. There are plenty of mission spots out there and plenty of traffic into it. If people become invulnerable in their missions and outside stations and coming through gates via stabs then all my targets will dry up. Maybe you can see why I don't like your proposal.
----
The Ridley Tree Productions Vault of Videos |
FarScape III
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 05:44:00 -
[109]
Originally by: mazzilliu
it would be more fun if rewards were increased, rather then if it were safer
Then the pirates might as well do the missions and forget the ganking :)
The missions should be for FUN and Coop and the thrill of running from a pirate.
Not here is your billion isk a mission thank you and come again.
A Minmater City... Cool!
My Stats :) |
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 06:04:00 -
[110]
Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 08/06/2007 06:07:38
Getting really tired of everyone saying low sec is just peachy. The constant whine of pirates to "just adapt" or "learn to deal with it" is just dumb.
The FACT is low sec is totally borked and anyone with an ounce of sense can see it. 0.0 is safer and more profitable. Hi sec is safer and more profitable. Why the f--k does ANYONE think low sec makes sense as it is today? Just open your freaking map in game and look at the population distribution. Want to call 95% of EVE players idiots who just do not see the gem that low sec really is?
Low sec needs fixing. Badly. A HUGE area of EVE is generally unsused because game mechanics make it silly for anyone to bother. If you cannot see that you are blind and I am shocked CCP has let it be.
We can argue over the finer points of what fixes might be in order but to say no fix is needed and everyone who doesn't deal with low sec is naive is simplistic in the extreme. The game could be HUGELY better with getting low sec sorted out.
So whatever your angle or opinoin on the deal try to look at the bigger picture. I and others have posted on ideas for changes to low sec that would bean improvement without nerfing anyone (pirates or carebears). Options exist.
If you think the status quo is swell you are seriously blind or so caught up in your own world as to entirely miss the point.
|
Ridley Tree
The Black Rabbits
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 06:42:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
The FACT is low sec is totally borked and anyone with an ounce of sense can see it. 0.0 is safer and more profitable.
If you keep secure control over your space. Just ask D2 how safe it has been for them lately.
Quote:
Hi sec is safer and more profitable. Why the f--k does ANYONE think low sec makes sense as it is today? Just open your freaking map in game and look at the population distribution. Want to call 95% of EVE players idiots who just do not see the gem that low sec really is?
I'm calling the people who can't stay alive in low-sec bad players not willing to take the precautions necessary. This isn't to say that low-sec is a gem or that it is better than hi-sec or 0.0. Because frankly it isn't. It is however livable. People who think it needs to be made safer are idiots.
Quote:
Low sec needs fixing. Badly. A HUGE area of EVE is generally unsused because game mechanics make it silly for anyone to bother. If you cannot see that you are blind and I am shocked CCP has let it be.
We can argue over the finer points of what fixes might be in order but to say no fix is needed and everyone who doesn't deal with low sec is naive is simplistic in the extreme. The game could be HUGELY better with getting low sec sorted out.
Yes EVE could be much better getting low-sec sorted out. The OP's 'solution' as it were however is a bunch of bull**** and I'm calling it out for what it is.
Quote:
If you think the status quo is swell you are seriously blind or so caught up in your own world as to entirely miss the point.
The Status Quo is a whole lot better than the proposed solution of the OP. And since this thread is about the OP's solution (and not yours or mine) I'm not arguing for other changes in favor over his.
----
The Ridley Tree Productions Vault of Videos |
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 07:15:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Ridley Tree
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
The FACT is low sec is totally borked and anyone with an ounce of sense can see it. 0.0 is safer and more profitable.
If you keep secure control over your space. Just ask D2 how safe it has been for them lately.
0.0 space certainly can turn ugly but by and large it is "safer" than low sec. I do not think this is in dispute.
Quote:
I'm calling the people who can't stay alive in low-sec bad players not willing to take the precautions necessary. This isn't to say that low-sec is a gem or that it is better than hi-sec or 0.0. Because frankly it isn't. It is however livable. People who think it needs to be made safer are idiots.
It is not about "bad" players. It is about the mechanics making low sec really not worth the hassle. Can people live in low sec? Sure. But why bother really? They'd be better off hanging near anywhere else (0.0 or hi sec).
Again look at the in-game map. Do you REALLY think of the 150,000+ players in EVE that they are ALL a bunch of weenies who won't risk low sec? Is it just possible that they have made an considered decision that tells them low sec is NOT worth the hassle?
Quote:
Yes EVE could be much better getting low-sec sorted out. The OP's 'solution' as it were however is a bunch of bull**** and I'm calling it out for what it is.
Fine...you disagree with the OP's solution. That's cool. I have made alternate solutions and no one has commented. My solutions are ones that are similar to the OP but vary a bit to allow for issues others have brought up. No nerf to pirates, no nerf to mission runners...yet all seem hell bent on ignoring honestly given suggestions and wailing on the OP.
To me the forums are a place for discussion of ideas and opinoins. I would hope it is a venue for hashing out thoughts and (hopefully) CCP will read some of this and take it into consideration (maybe not but one can hope).
Quote:
The Status Quo is a whole lot better than the proposed solution of the OP. And since this thread is about the OP's solution (and not yours or mine) I'm not arguing for other changes in favor over his.
As mentioned above the OP's solution may be deficient. That does not mean the issue he is trying to address is non-existant. There can be a kernel of a good idea in there (I think there is) that with some modification could be a great idea. Yet when all people can do is dump on someone's idea I do not think EVE or the community is well served.
Bottom line - Is Low Sec as envisioned? I do not think so but of course I am not a dev.
Could low sec use some tweaking? I think the answer to this is a near universal "yes".
|
Chelone
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 07:48:00 -
[113]
Originally by: FarScape III
The missions should be for FUN and Coop and the thrill of running from a pirate.
"Missions shouldn't be for money! They should be for the FUN and THRILL of running from pirates!"
I can't believe the arguments keep getting stupider, but somehow they do!
|
Ridley Tree
The Black Rabbits
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 08:01:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
It is not about "bad" players. It is about the mechanics making low sec really not worth the hassle. Can people live in low sec? Sure. But why bother really? They'd be better off hanging near anywhere else (0.0 or hi sec).
Like I said. I'm calling the people who can't stay alive in low-sec bad players or are just not willing to take the necessary precautions. I'm making no comment about the people who choose to stay in Hi-sec.
Quote:
Fine...you disagree with the OP's solution. That's cool. I have made alternate solutions and no one has commented. My solutions are ones that are similar to the OP but vary a bit to allow for issues others have brought up. No nerf to pirates, no nerf to mission runners...yet all seem hell bent on ignoring honestly given suggestions and wailing on the OP.
Great go make another (one of dozens) thread about your solution to low-sec. Maybe people who then respond to your point in your thread about it rather than de-railing this one eh?
----
The Ridley Tree Productions Vault of Videos |
Hectaire Glade
Forum Jockey
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 08:58:00 -
[115]
Ridley, did you win the thread yet? Can the rest of us get back to having a reasonable, mature discussion?
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |