| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
catheleen
   |
Posted - 2008.05.15 09:03:00 -
[1]
Yes I know its a big no, no!
But if flying through 0.4 I am taken down in something like a Vulture full T2 passive tank which would typically last a few minutes at least, how come I loose the ship, can I make the assumption they lost ships too?
The reason I ask, it happened to me, fair enough, lick my wounds and move on, but it also happened last night to another toon, who said the sentries didn't fire at all?
No illegal cargo, no cargo at all actually, no war deck, happy hunting mission ship?
Is this an exploit or something that is worth petitioning?
Thanks
|
Tzar'rim
Universal Securities
|
Posted - 2008.05.15 09:13:00 -
[2]
1) get webbed so you won't be able to to make it to the gate any time quick.
2) get attacked by BS's and/or commandships means you'll go down quite fast.
3) ???
4) profit!!! (for them)
|
Estel Arador
Minmatar
AFK
|
Posted - 2008.05.15 09:17:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: catheleen
Is this an exploit or something that is worth petitioning?
No and no. If you were AFK and on autopilot, they had all the time of the world to destroy your ship. It's your own fault, please please please don't waste GMs time by petitioning it, they're busy enough as it is.
Skills Explained |
catheleen
|
Posted - 2008.05.15 09:18:00 -
[4]
Thanks for the prompt reply, essentially then some characters can treat 0.4 like 0.0, because of no Concorde intervention, or only ineffective Concorde intervention?
Sounds distinctly wrong to me 
|
Estel Arador
Minmatar
AFK
|
Posted - 2008.05.15 09:26:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Estel Arador on 15/05/2008 09:25:58
Originally by: catheleen
Thanks for the prompt reply, essentially then some characters can treat 0.4 like 0.0,
Not some characters but all characters can - and should!
Originally by: catheleen
because of no Concorde intervention, or only ineffective Concorde intervention?
In low sec (0.1-0.4) there is no Concord, only sentry guns which are quite ineffective against any medium-big ship with a tank.
Originally by: catheleen
Sounds distinctly wrong to me
They still lose security status and get flagged so they can be attacked back.
And if you think this is wrong, wait until you're in 'safe' high-security with a hauler filled with valuables and you get suicide-ganked...
Skills Explained |
catheleen
|
Posted - 2008.05.15 09:31:00 -
[6]
Thats great Estel! many thanks answered my question, I see your point, (Main toon goes straight to EveMon change skills to Torps).
|
Leora Nomen
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.05.15 09:53:00 -
[7]
wow autopiloting Vultures in low sec with T2 fits 
i should really get back to piracy in this game ....
Low sec is dangerous but not quite as much so as 0.0. For one thing you do not have sensor boosted interceptors sitting on gates. Those things lock extremely fast even on small targets. In low sec you can travel safely in a small and agile ship (well almost, sometimes you encounter smartbombing bs sitting on gates, but this is rare). For another, you go not end up in warp bubbles. As far as traveling in big ships is concerned, yes low sec is like 0.0 only with dockable stations. You can be tackled, webed, and pulverized at any gate or station.
guide to game time codes |
Joe Starbreaker
|
Posted - 2008.05.15 16:18:00 -
[8]
Can you really have done this twice? What were you thinking the second time?
----------------
[insert signature here] |
Modrak Vseth
Veto.
|
Posted - 2008.05.15 17:34:00 -
[9]
Originally by: catheleen
The reason I ask, it happened to me, fair enough, lick my wounds and move on, but it also happened last night to another toon, who said the sentries didn't fire at all?
It's more likely that the other person was under the mistaken impression that the sentries would instantly own the other pilots the way Concord does, which isn't the case. If you look at the killmails you'll probably see multiple sentry tankable ships (BC+ usually, possibly HACs and even T1 cruisers if remote repping was involved or if there's enough there to share the sentry fire).
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |