| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Blue Mantis
   |
Posted - 2008.02.12 20:26:00 -
[1]
My short funny story: i was in fleet with a friend on a mission. Unfortunately (and that is the key) we were former corp mates. I showed him the use of a smartbomb on rats when he approached me from behind and i didn't notice. Well, CONCORD came up and wrecked me (the funny part, i was in my caldari raven navy issue). First i thought of a bug but on my petition i was told that it's rule.
Now i don't know if i'm the only fool this happened to but to prevent other players from this fate i would like to state some thoughts. It's ok that CONCORD watches smartbomb actions, especially on gates and other public places, but who expects CONCORD in a mission when in fleet mode with friends (i suppose only non hostile players join a fleet)?
Just an idea: a lot of fleets consist of players not in the same corp (where you can shoot each other), so why not keep CONCORD out of fleet internal action. If this is too general, create a menue option to choose "independent fleet" mode. If all members activate them CONCORD stays out of business no matter what happens and which corp the players are in.
The second part: i got 43million insurance payback, ok, i wasn't insured. But who the hell insures a faction ship worth half billion on a base price of 100million? Not to mention equipment, which can't be insured at all. So another idea: make the insurance base price reasonable for high price ships to get out a decent percentage of its worth. How to calculate? Just use a average sell price over a long period of time (from contracts).
Hands OFF from smartbombs my friends
|
Dianeces
Minmatar
Repo Industries
|
Posted - 2008.02.12 20:29:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Blue Mantis
My short funny story: i was in fleet with a friend on a mission. Unfortunately (and that is the key) we were former corp mates. I showed him the use of a smartbomb on rats when he approached me from behind and i didn't notice. Well, CONCORD came up and wrecked me (the funny part, i was in my caldari raven navy issue). First i thought of a bug but on my petition i was told that it's rule.
Now i don't know if i'm the only fool this happened to but to prevent other players from this fate i would like to state some thoughts. It's ok that CONCORD watches smartbomb actions, especially on gates and other public places, but who expects CONCORD in a mission when in fleet mode with friends (i suppose only non hostile players join a fleet)?
Just an idea: a lot of fleets consist of players not in the same corp (where you can shoot each other), so why not keep CONCORD out of fleet internal action. If this is too general, create a menue option to choose "independent fleet" mode. If all members activate them CONCORD stays out of business no matter what happens and which corp the players are in.
The second part: i got 43million insurance payback, ok, i wasn't insured. But who the hell insures a faction ship worth half billion on a base price of 100million? Not to mention equipment, which can't be insured at all. So another idea: make the insurance base price reasonable for high price ships to get out a decent percentage of its worth. How to calculate? Just use a average sell price over a long period of time (from contracts).
Hands OFF from smartbombs my friends
You don't want this. I will leave it to someone who wouldn't take advantage of it were it implemented to explain why. Also, insurance is calculated based on the mineral value of the ship, so that's not likely to change either.
|
Dianeces
Minmatar
Repo Industries
|
Posted - 2008.02.12 20:30:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Dianeces on 12/02/2008 20:45:39
Doublepost because my ISP fails.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.12 20:38:00 -
[4]
In the far past it Concord would not show up if people in a gang shot each other.
The effect was that a lot of unsuspecting players lost their ships to high sec gankers.
So the current system was implemented.
Enemies can be in the same gang, common trick to circumvent the warning about warring member in a gang, the player at war is added after the dupe in ganged.
|
Blue Mantis
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 08:20:00 -
[5]
Thanks for your replies.
To use the same amount of materials for a faction ship with much higher values in shields, armor and structure seems not to be logical anyways - this could be changed easily, but the fact the materials are same as standard bs explains the low base price.
What an evil world it was in the past, lurking innocent gamers into a fleet and kill them  . So i am a victim of circumstances (or changed game mechanics) and learned the rules the hard way. If somebody fears abuse of fleet internal activities - the griefing of people in high sec can be petitioned too, and i think CCP has an eye on such ppl. The rules should protect players from been killed when they are innocent , not to limit game tactics (no matter how abnormal they might be).
...and DONT touch smartbombs 
|
Duuna Morhphite
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 13:38:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Duuna Morhphite on 13/02/2008 13:39:58
Edited by: Duuna Morhphite on 13/02/2008 13:39:31
Originally by: Venkul Mul
In the far past it Concord would not show up if people in a gang shot each other.
The effect was that a lot of unsuspecting players lost their ships to high sec gankers.
So the current system was implemented.
Enemies can be in the same gang, common trick to circumvent the warning about warring member in a gang, the player at war is added after the dupe in ganged.
This system is so flawed its almost funny.
Point number 1:
If you gang up with a total stranger, in Eve you have (had) to be careful. Oh Em Gee, we better change it. It's not like 90% of everything else in EVE is a live (die) and learn experience.
Point number 2:
If you were not careful and run into some baddie and get blown up, you lost a frig, big deal. And you learned a lesson about Eve. The way it should be. OH EM GEEEEE WE BETTER CHANGE IT FOR THE WOWBEARS!
Point number 3:
Old characters (old friends, like OP) does some lvl 4 missions together in high sec for the laugh of it, accidentally theres a AoE damage and you loose your 500 million ISK PWNmobile. It's working as intended.
Closing argument:
...aaaaand as the system is now it can be used for much more griefing since people can gang up while wardecced and still pwn noobs.
Sometimes the inconsistency in the game rules in Eve ****es me off.
_____________
The alt |
Luthair StoneDog
Gallente
Turbulent Subversion
|
Posted - 2008.02.14 13:39:00 -
[7]
Just be grateful it's not how it was right after the introduction of CONCORD protection... where missiles hit (and damaged) whatever happened to get in the way on their journey to the intended target.
Shooting a rat in high sec? Friend drifts in front of you on his orbit? CONCORD WEELL DESTRROOYY YOUUU!!
|
nemississ
eXceed Inc.
eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.02.16 08:53:00 -
[8]
Edited by: nemississ on 16/02/2008 08:54:47
Somthing that just hit me is personally have noticed how annoying this rule can be at times. BUT it is non the less somthing necisary even though there are ways around it. Now mabe an idea to help solve this issue why not add a gang status system.
Two options would be available
1 unsecure
2 secure
or whatever you would like to call it a secure gang would have the ability to shoot each other without concord interferance and a unsecure gang would be the current system. If you just meet somone and you are running missions with them and they try to make the gang a secure gang and you accept and then they gank you... its your own fault for accepting. Now it if your with people you trust and they want to go secure to keep from hitting each other with smartbombs ect. Then thats alright and or you want to shoot each other for fun then you can secure the gang.
This would eliminate at least some friendly kills not all as there will be situation where unsecure gangs run into each other with SB's on but still it give us the ability to shoot each other or eliminate the possibility of having our CNR poped by a random SB while with friends.
Note all gang aka "fleet" members would need to accept the change in some way before it happens.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |