Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Arthmandar Valikari
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 04:48:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Arthmandar Valikari on 20/01/2008 04:48:31 So, earlier this week I was the target of some minor ore thievery (my own fault for continuing to solo mine when a known pirate was in system). That's fine and good, I guess. Not my favorite game mechanic... but that's how it goes.
A corpmate this evening, however, while looting a mission run jointly in a gang, was concordokken'd for shooting at a j-can with drugs (so others wouldn't loot it) that was apparently created by someone else in the gang.
It strikes me as fairly stupid that it is illegal to *shoot* at another person's can, thereby depriving both parties of the contents, but merely stealing those contents to pop it (with the same effect) will simply provide an aggro timer.
I don't usually whine, but this doesn't even make the remotest hint of sense. Why not make both offenses have the same consequence? If one of the two has to be concordokkenable, stealing makes more sense, because it is the greater crime (in one case, neither party is enriched, but in the other, one party makes money directly at the expense of the other).
This isn't really a whine against either game mechanic; it's simply a request that this be looked at, because it is kind of ridiculous as it is. I recognize the role of ore thief in the game, I suppose; so probably the better fix is to make popping someone else's can an aggro timer thing, the same as if the contents were stolen... but I'm cool with ore thieving becoming concordokkenable, in that I mine quite a bit. :)
Edit: changed topic to avoid picky forum filter. :) |
Dirk Magnum
Spearhead Endeavors
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 04:58:00 -
[2]
Getting concordokkend for looting someone else's can would be a really bad game mechanic.
I can see the logic in punishing can shooting more harshly than just giving the guy a criminal flag however. Imagine every jet can mining op constantly being besieged by guys with stealth bombers, who decloak, blow up the can, and cloak again before getting targeted.
|
Vaal Erit
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 05:01:00 -
[3]
Shooting something is a far more hostile act than stealing and the punishments scale accordingly.
Being CONCORDED and being flagged are WAY different consequences.
LTGM = Learn The Game Mechanics before posting, aka RTFM noob.
|
Richard Phallus
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 05:06:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Vaal Erit ... aka RTFM noob.
Since when does eve have accurate documentation. --
|
Arthmandar Valikari
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 05:07:00 -
[5]
Quote: Getting concordokkend for looting someone else's can would be a really bad game mechanic.
Why? I don't doubt there are reasons, but you didn't mention any... out-of-corp hauling or something?
Your stealth bomber example is a good one. Concordokkening should remain the consequence as is for the reason you described.
The rules are mostly okay, but I don't think they are remotely appropriate for gangs and fleets, which can be assumed in my mind to be working together for a common goal, and therefore treating the property as common seems okay to me. Plus, it still seems to me like stealing the contents is a bigger deal than simply destroying. If the lesser offense is worthy of flaming hot death, why not the greater?
To sum up, two issues:
1. Concord rules need to be relaxed for pilots interacting who are in the same fleet with respect to cans / loot / etc.
2. Stealing is worse than destroying. If destroying is worthy of insta-death, stealing should be too, if we want any semblance of logical coherence in condord's actions |
Arthmandar Valikari
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 05:09:00 -
[6]
Quote: Being CONCORDED and being flagged are WAY different consequences.
LTGM = Learn The Game Mechanics before posting, aka RTFM noob.
Must... bite... flamebait...
I described two actual game events, as witnessed by myself... how is this not an accurate portrayal of game mechanics?
If you disagree with my proposed modifications to game mechanics because they're not current game mechanics... uh... the manual ain't gonna help. |
Richard Phallus
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 05:10:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Arthmandar Valikari Why? I don't doubt there are reasons, but you didn't mention any... out-of-corp hauling or something?
If shooting the can is ok for anyone to do, with only flagging even, someone can fly into a mission/belt and pop every wreck before even a dedicated looter could get to it. With the flip mechanic the person at least has to win a race to 1500m first. --
|
Franga
NQX Innovations
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 05:13:00 -
[8]
DEAL WITH IT!
Was he in the same corp or just in the same gang? If it was just the same gang, there are ample warnings about this mechanic everywhere. Far out ... biggest whinges about the same things over and over again. You know how to read, right?
If not, maybe you should go here ... click me! Might be more to your liking.
Originally by: Rachel Vend ... with 100% reliability in most cases ...
General Aesthetics Changes Thread |
Dirk Magnum
Spearhead Endeavors
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 05:20:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 20/01/2008 05:20:26
Originally by: Arthmandar Valikari Why? I don't doubt there are reasons, but you didn't mention any... out-of-corp hauling or something?
Because many people leave at least some loot behind from practically every wreck they generate. This stuff would just sit out in space until the wreck or can despawns if people risked Concord by picking it up. That stuff may not have been needed by the guy who killed the rat, but some passerby may find something useful in there.
Also the third party hauling issue you raised.
Most of all though it's just the principal of the thing. Not being able to steal anyone's stuff is just that much more sand being taken out of the box.
|
Arthmandar Valikari
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 05:31:00 -
[10]
Some more good points. I see that we disagree about whether the sand in question has value or not, but that's fair, and I appreciate your respectful thoughtful responses.
Any thoughts about fixing the mechanics between pilots in the same fleet? I could "DEAL WITH IT" but I don't know why I should desire to do so.
Most of this comes from the fact that a friend lost a ship he valued, and really for no good reason. It's the established game mechanic, and there are reasons it is there, but it doesn't mean to me that it's the ideal way (hence me starting this thread in the first place). |
|
F'nog
Amarr Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 05:57:00 -
[11]
I'll paraphrase here:
"The Rules: They may be arbitrary and silly, but God help you if you break them."
There's really nothing more that I can add. It may not make sense to you, but to someone it does. For everything else, there's petitions.
Originally by: Kazuma Saruwatari
F'nog for Amarr Emperor. Nuff said
|
Siigari Kitawa
Gallente The Aduro Protocol The Fifth Race
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 08:23:00 -
[12]
Hi,
Everything you do in EVE can be spelled out for you when and as you do it.
For example, when you attempt to steal from a can, CONCORD states that you may be criminally flagged to that player and/or corporation, etc.
EVE has great documentation. _________________ Burn. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 08:31:00 -
[13]
OP translation : being in a gang with somebody should carry the same benefits and drawbacks as being in the same corp.
1|2|3|4|5. |
F'nog
Amarr Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 08:36:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Akita T OP translation : being in a gang with somebody should carry the same benefits and drawbacks as being in the same corp.
That's quite the two-edged sword. As one's benefits could be another's drawbacks.
Originally by: Kazuma Saruwatari
F'nog for Amarr Emperor. Nuff said
|
Amarria Black
Clan Anthraxx
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 08:52:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Siigari Kitawa Hi,
Everything you do in EVE can be spelled out for you when and as you do it.
For example, when you attempt to steal from a can, CONCORD states that you may be criminally flagged to that player and/or corporation, etc.
EVE has great documentation.
Sure, learning that stove = hot by sticking your hand on it is effective, but most of us prefer to learn about negative things in such a manner that we never have to actually do them in the first place. You shouldn't have to learn about the rules of criminal flagging / CONCORD response by way of one dialog box at the absolute last possible second.
EVE has the single worst documentation of any game of its depth and popularity, period.
I'd go to the doctor if I were you, as it appears you've contracted a particularly nasty case of fanboi.
/derail IIRC, wasn't there some discussion about an official EVE wiki a few months back? What ever happened to that? Having a manual would be nice, even if it is about four years late. /end derail
Originally by: Frug Your reputation has been entirely redeemed in my eyes. I now want your babies.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 08:52:00 -
[16]
Be careful who you gang with
1|2|3|4|5. |
Frug
Zenithal Harvest
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 09:31:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Frug on 20/01/2008 09:33:57 So I should be able to warp to 100km of your mining ship, shoot your can with a few cruises, and warp away laughing because someone thought concord should let me shoot cans.
Quote: Sure, learning that stove = hot by sticking your hand on it is effective, but most of us prefer to learn about negative things in such a manner that we never have to actually do them in the first place. You shouldn't have to learn about the rules of criminal flagging / CONCORD response by way of one dialog box at the absolute last possible second.
EVE has the single worst documentation of any game of its depth and popularity, period.
I'd go to the doctor if I were you, as it appears you've contracted a particularly nasty case of fanboi.
Second time in as many weeks that I actually agree with Amarria
- - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles |
Ilea Celentay
Veiled Justice
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 10:08:00 -
[18]
Shooting and stealing are different crimes.
Having CONCORD kill for stealing doesn't work because the loot/ore can is your to protect or not as you choose, not for CONCORD.
Therefore, to have them the same you would say have them both flag the player - now that's bad because "pirate wanna-bes" will simply pop the miners can for kicks, not profit, nor any other means then simply to harass players, that couldn't be called harassment, due to the player that lost the loo/ore being able to retaliate.
So taking into account there can only be two punishments for the two actions, they have to have different punishments, it makes a lot less sense for them to be the same.
However, bad look to your friend that lost his ship - (where was his warning?). As pointed out, its not nice when things are learned the hard way - but, I think you would be pushed to find anyone in Eve that has not learned something in that fashion.
Faction Ship Info || Rig Factory |
Leandro Salazar
Aeon Industries
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 10:16:00 -
[19]
Tbh being in the same gang really should have the same effects as being in the same corp. I think it even used to be like that in the past until people started exploiting it by shooting gangmembers, at which point CCP took steps to *protect* gang members from each other. By now there are other gang exploits that are seemingly condoned if not encouraged by CCP, so this feature that you can get yourself concordokkened by interacting with gangmembers not in your corp and their stuffs only hurts players but doesn't really benefit anyone anymore. So why not get rid of it?
There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Scorpion There is no 'e' in Caldari There is no makeup in rogue drones |
Valan
The Fated Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 10:22:00 -
[20]
Jet can mining was unintended but CCP let it slide.
The aggro timer was put in on the request of miners.
If you're talking about removing broken mechanics lets remove the first one. Jet can mining. /start sig I love old characters that post 'I've beeen playing the game four years' when I know their account has been sold on. /end sig |
|
Siigari Kitawa
Gallente The Aduro Protocol The Fifth Race
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 10:32:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Amarria Black EVE has the single worst documentation of any game of its depth and popularity, period.
EVE is not a game, it is an experience.
You see the warning once, you can disable it permanently. Therefore it is an on-the-fly tutorial.
Sure there is documentation on paper laying around somewhere, but if you take the moment to read the ingame pop-up, you are sure to understand EXACTLY what will happen. _________________ Burn. |
Kasriel
Caldari Vengeance 8 Interceptors
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 10:36:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Arthmandar Valikari
2. Stealing is worse than destroying. If destroying is worthy of insta-death, stealing should be too, if we want any semblance of logical coherence in condord's actions
how in any possible reality out there is stealing something worse than blowing it up? compare it to ooh i dunno the difference between stealing a car and blowing it up, see where i'm going?
as somebody has already said, jetcan mining is how most miners get along how does it even sound plausable that somebody in a t1 frigate should be able to just warp through gates and pop miner after miners jet can?
think your logic through next time.
although i do agree that concord rules could do with a little relaxing with gang mechanics and loot etc should go to "gang" not the person who fired the last shot w/e ----------
Theres a wonderful world out there..
lets hope it doesn't hit this one |
Tzar'rim
Minmatar Reckless Corsairs
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 10:55:00 -
[23]
The simple reason is that if stealing would get your concordokened then the owner of the can would have full immunity and would be able to do stuff without putting in extra effort to secure his assets.
That's just not in the spirit of EVE.
|
Conrad Rock
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 11:18:00 -
[24]
What is preferable, letting someone steal your jetcan and you get rights on him, or letting him shoot your jetcans with impunity?
If you think jetcan ore thievery is bad, boy oh boy you have no idea how much fun and easier it would be to grief people by just blowing up their cans.
Might even help with keeping mineral prices high
|
Shevar
Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 11:23:00 -
[25]
Back in the days cans didn't invoke concordoken, but then the miners whined day and night that people where popping their cans for fun. --- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs |
Ris Dnalor
Minmatar Ama-gi
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 11:33:00 -
[26]
welcome to the forums. this is a tame day.
that being said. I understand where you are coming from in that blowing things up is a random act of violence whereas thieving is stealing for the self-profit. I get that. However, if you take part of my stuff vs. blowing up all of my stuff, I would be more upset if you blew up all my stuff. Also it's much easier to blow up my stuff, than to approach and take my stuff. easier in that it requires less time. so the deterrent needs to be stronger to keep ppl from going willy nilly destroying everything.
not that you're wrong. Just that there's another point of view from which you can look at the issue. If you look at it from more of a playability perspective rather than a moral one, the problems are evident. This is not to say that there is not a better solution, but rather to say that there was a reason why it was done this way.
-- No love for the Matari |
Poreuomai
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 11:42:00 -
[27]
Why do people respond to "I think the rules should change" with "learn the rules" ?
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG Atrum Tempestas Foedus
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 11:59:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Laboratus on 20/01/2008 12:00:04 Nerf, no "balance" concord. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Tzar'rim
Minmatar Reckless Corsairs
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 12:02:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Poreuomai Why do people respond to "I think the rules should change" with "learn the rules" ?
Because most of the time the people who want changes want them because they dislike having to put effort into using/learning certain aspects. whereas other people feel that said aspects are very vital/basic to EVE.
|
Tzar'rim
Minmatar Reckless Corsairs
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 12:13:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Tzar''rim on 20/01/2008 12:13:28 Actually no.
Things in EVE take effort. Effort to learn, to find out, to make work, to protect your assets, to make sure you're as safe as possible.
Lots of people hate putting in effort, they don't like having to think of making their own goals, dislike having to take their time to travel around, they want instant full gratification and get the Uber Sword of Ultimate Doom at level 1 please.
Most other MMO's cater for such players, EVE does not. Then when players from other MMO's come to EVE there's a bit of a clash; there's no easy highlighted goals, no max lvl, no max tier armor. And they actually have to WORK TOGETHER, wth they were so used to lvling to 70 solo in all quietness. They have to put in effort to learn, understand, survive and secure their assets, which they aren't used to or simply dislike.
EVE is EVE, don't change it.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |