Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
DEATHsyphon
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2008.11.17 02:15:00 -
[301]
Edited by: DEATHsyphon on 17/11/2008 02:15:42
Originally by: The PitBoss MY SUGGESTED FIXES
1. The wreck looter gets FLAGGED to the original pilot ... AND everyone on the kill mail.
2. The wreck looter gets FLAGGED to the original pilot ... AND to the person who 'Layed the final blow'
NOTABLE POINTS
1. BEFORE there were wrecks ... when you killed a Player Character's ship ... there were can drops ... IF you looted from them ... you were FLAGGED.
2. IF you kill a NPC and someone loots that wreck ... They become FLAGGED to you.
3. In cases happening against myself ... OVER 90% of the offenders were in NPC corps ... KNOWING I would have no recourse against them (ie. war dec)
Seeing this quote does make me change my mind on the matter I skimmed through the thread and didn't see this until now but a change like that would be a good one and fair to both the killer and the killed. -------------------- I'm not not going to pod you! |
Odessima
The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2008.11.17 04:04:00 -
[302]
Edited by: Odessima on 17/11/2008 04:05:17 Edited by: Odessima on 17/11/2008 04:05:03 The problem I see with the whole situation is the fact that, if the thief was in a non npc corp their corp could be war decced and you could take action against them without concord assisting them by shooting you. I would say that these pilots who no doubt have alts in player corps are actually hiding behind the fact that you cant War Dec NPC corps. It is really more of a High Sec issue because of that, Low security doesnt have Concord roaming about willing to pod you for looting the wreck of a legitamate fight. |
Ignition SemperFi
Private Nuisance
|
Posted - 2008.11.17 08:40:00 -
[303]
the fact alone that PVP wreck and NPC wrecks aggro different are enough to warrant change imo.
Just like NPC wrecks... anyone can salvage. But the l00t belongs to those who killed him. I would say it should be aggrod to the person who laid the final blow. It at least gives the l00t theives a chance, since in of itself can be considered a "profession" albeit not high on the totem pole of people's views.
Still this needs fixed/changed |
Political Prisoner
Amarr Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 22:14:00 -
[304]
Edited by: Political Prisoner on 10/12/2008 22:20:03
Quote: 2. 0101-01-0030 Wreck Flagging in PVP Jade Constantine explained that in high-sec wars, it often happens that 3rd parties steal loot from a conflict site. These players then only get flagged to the owner of the wreck, but not the person that killed the ship. Since the owner is not in a position to do anything about the theft. He proposed to set wrecks to dual ownership, so that both the killer and victim have rights to it, and anyone stealing gets flagged to both parties.
CCP Greyscale answered he believes that dual ownership is not easily implemented technically and that this game mechanic was discussed internally and found working as intended. CCP is also not convinced that changes to these mechanics will benefit gameplay.
Jade Constantine replied that he believed that dual ownership would lead to more opportunity for pvp as well as consequence to action in high-security space, and that he believed it is a bad idea that that loot theft is currently without consequence.
CCP Greyscale said that there is already consequence because the victim is allowed to shoot the thief.
CCP Hammer added that he feels CCP would be opening a can of worms if the system was changed to dual-ownership.
Dierdra Vaal and Tusko Hopkins noted that the owner of the wreck is usually in no position to deal out justice, and thus this constitutes no risk for the thief.
Omber Zombie suggested that instead of dual ownership, either the wreck could be flagged to the ownerÆs gang, who can then shoot thieves, or that it can be flagged to the killer for a limited time after which it reverts to the owner.
CCP Greyscale closed by saying that this issue needs further discussion within CCP and the CSM but that he currently did not see any compelling reasons that warrants immediate change.
INTERPRETATION
We at CCP have bettering things to do than tweek game mechanics ... here are a few of them.
1. We're too busy worrying about our real life money going down like a 2 week noob in a Battleship
2. Ambulation is taking 90% of our resources. We NEED MORE FLUFF to steal players from that NEW hello kitty MMO.
3. We're devising new ways to take your real life money ... can we say 120 day time codes
4. The final 10% of our resources is going to fixing LAG
5. Our puppets in the form of CSM need a rallying cause ... so we'll dangle the carrot in the form of this issue through the second term.
6. We're still trying to push all this left over quafe from that marketing fiasco.
7. We can't work cuz we're still laughing about the price of those ship models and how many we ACTUALLY unloaded.
8. ISD sabatoged our computers after we closed them down
9. Our day traders are busy buying up NERF stock
10. We're losing workers to WOW and just dont have the man power to tweek our own game.
FEEL FREE TO ADD MORE
Respectfully,
Political Prisoner
|
Rhaegor Stormborn
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 01:38:00 -
[305]
|
Finawin
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 02:11:00 -
[306]
I agree entirely.
|
Miyamoto Uroki
Katsu Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 13:42:00 -
[307]
True, so annoying if some ninja-looting bastard is stealing your hard earned loot.
Let me kill that bugger if he thinks it's a good idea to benefit from others work.
|
Grigo
M. Corp Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 13:56:00 -
[308]
Originally by: Dav Varan No.
Grow a pair and PVP in low sec / null sec rather than high sec suicide ganking then you can shoot anyone who goes for the loot.
Concord should not support suicide gankers.
yeah i suport this :) |
JVol
Amarr The IMorral MAjority
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 19:52:00 -
[309]
Now with the SEVERE penatlys for ganking anyone in low sec or hi sec, poping a vulture who just stole your hard earned loot isnt really an option anymore. Its still a case of ZERO risk for huge rewards to loot thieves as the current 'owner' of the wreck is well... usually in a pod. So.. to make sure im perfectly clear, this IS NOT about hi/low sec ganking, its about WAR, and the victors spoils. This should be a no brainer for ccp to implement. Who gives a rats ass about walking in a feakin station?? This IS a pvp game, work on pvp stuff, not fluff
|
LoneRider
Minmatar Com-Star
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 20:22:00 -
[310]
Edited by: LoneRider on 11/12/2008 20:22:21 It should be like this by now (correct me if i'm wrong):
Suicide Ganker kills Industrial. Wreck is owned by victim. Corpmate from suicide gankers loot the wreck and get flagged for the victim's corp. Victim's corp mates kill looter.
Changing the System to dual ownership would mean:
Suicide Ganker kills industrial. Wreck is owned by suicide ganker as well as victim. suicide ganker's Corpmate may loot the wreck, will not get flagged, and will not get attackable for victim's corp. Defending their property would immediatelly flag the victim's corpmates and concord would kill them.
No, not really a good idea... needs changes concerning the victim / ganker thing.
|
|
JVol
Amarr The IMorral MAjority
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 20:33:00 -
[311]
Originally by: LoneRider Edited by: LoneRider on 11/12/2008 20:22:21 It should be like this by now (correct me if i'm wrong):
Suicide Ganker kills Industrial. Wreck is owned by victim. Corpmate from suicide gankers loot the wreck and get flagged for the victim's corp. Victim's corp mates kill looter.
Changing the System to dual ownership would mean:
Suicide Ganker kills industrial. Wreck is owned by suicide ganker as well as victim. suicide ganker's Corpmate may loot the wreck, will not get flagged, and will not get attackable for victim's corp. Defending their property would immediatelly flag the victim's corpmates and concord would kill them.
No, not really a good idea... needs changes concerning the victim / ganker thing.
This IS NOT about suicide ganking, its about WAR. Suicide Ganking has its 'regulations'and balance built into it, Huge sec hits and very fast concord responce. Keep on topic, again, this is about PVP, war, not high sec ganking. Whole different topic
|
LoneRider
Minmatar Com-Star
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 20:44:00 -
[312]
Originally by: JVol This IS NOT about suicide ganking, its about WAR. Suicide Ganking has its 'regulations'and balance built into it, Huge sec hits and very fast concord responce. Keep on topic, again, this is about PVP, war, not high sec ganking. Whole different topic
This is about a change in the game mechanics, and it WOULD have an impact on suicide gankers - no matter whether you want to hear it or not. You cannot fix it for war without having it affect the suicide gankers as well. So you keep thinking about the consequences outside your focus.
|
JVol
Amarr The IMorral MAjority
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 20:49:00 -
[313]
Originally by: LoneRider
Originally by: JVol This IS NOT about suicide ganking, its about WAR. Suicide Ganking has its 'regulations'and balance built into it, Huge sec hits and very fast concord responce. Keep on topic, again, this is about PVP, war, not high sec ganking. Whole different topic
This is about a change in the game mechanics, and it WOULD have an impact on suicide gankers - no matter whether you want to hear it or not. You cannot fix it for war without having it affect the suicide gankers as well. So you keep thinking about the consequences outside your focus.
I never suggested that the killers corp gets rights, just the killer.. So your suicide gank worries are not valid... killer would be in a pod, the 'deads'corpm8s could take vengance out on whoever takes loot in that case.. problem solved.. CCP, make it so.. GO!
|
LoneRider
Minmatar Com-Star
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 20:52:00 -
[314]
Edited by: LoneRider on 11/12/2008 20:54:45
Originally by: JVol I never suggested that the killers corp gets rights, just the killer.. So your suicide gank worries are not valid... killer would be in a pod, the 'deads'corpm8s could take vengance out on whoever takes loot in that case.. problem solved.. CCP, make it so.. GO!
OK, if it could be implemented like this, it would work. But "dual ownership" as mentioned in the starter post would mean that also corp mates would get "rights" - corp mates can have a look inside my cans without being flagged for anyone - And THAT would be a problem :)
|
JVol
Amarr The IMorral MAjority
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 20:57:00 -
[315]
Originally by: LoneRider
Originally by: JVol I never suggested that the killers corp gets rights, just the killer.. So your suicide gank worries are not valid... killer would be in a pod, the 'deads'corpm8s could take vengance out on whoever takes loot in that case.. problem solved.. CCP, make it so.. GO!
OK, if it could be implemented like this, it would work. But "dual ownership" as mentioned in the starter post would mean that also corp mates would get "rights" - corp mates can have a look inside my cans without being flagged for me - And THAT would be a problem :)
In any case it needs to be looked at, maybe if the 'killer' took a sec hit to make the kill, duel ownership wont apply.. If the killer killed you without taking a sec hit, war dec, or 0.0 youd get duel ownership. We have all killed targets in 0.0 to have vultures snag loot then jump the gate back into hi sec and laugh, how kool would it be to follow then in and have 15 min to kill their punk ass's?
|
LoneRider
Minmatar Com-Star
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 21:04:00 -
[316]
Originally by: JVol In any case it needs to be looked at, maybe if the 'killer' took a sec hit to make the kill, duel ownership wont apply.. If the killer killed you without taking a sec hit, war dec, or 0.0 youd get duel ownership. We have all killed targets in 0.0 to have vultures snag loot then jump the gate back into hi sec and laugh, how kool would it be to follow then in and have 15 min to kill their punk ass's?
Now that sounds like a deal :) With the sec. hit check it would be possible to make it effect only war and 0.0 - this way I would support it ;)
|
Axel Vindislaga
|
Posted - 2008.12.12 13:50:00 -
[317]
The whole concept of wreck ownerships should be trashed. Its rediculous. It really is and is a sad indictment on EVE ONLINE.
If you MUST have wreck ownership only the original owner should have any rights to the wreck and then only in high sec.
Alliances no matter how bloated with themselves should be reminded that they are just roaming gangs of pirates. The Original topic poster is trying to sound badass with the Corp name and alliance name and is crying about wreck rights... and stamping foot and demanding that game mechanics allow him to get revenge on a WHOLE CORP for a single players sweet Ninja abilities. I'd have thought the "hard core" PVP scene the most accepting of a lack of rules regarding this issue. Comon evolve become really badass and figure a way to stop the slavager
|
Axel Vindislaga
|
Posted - 2008.12.12 13:59:00 -
[318]
I don not support the concept of wreck ownership as the above post appears to indicate. I support the discussion and then removal of wreck ownership.
|
The PitBoss
Caldari Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.12 21:40:00 -
[319]
Edited by: The PitBoss on 12/12/2008 21:42:44
Originally by: Axel Vindislaga The Original topic poster is trying to sound badass with the Corp name and alliance name
FIRST ... I'm trying to sound bad ass? AWESOME ...
Originally by: Axel Foley and is crying about wreck rights...
Crying ... NO ... Frustrated ... YES
Originally by: Axel Rose ... and stamping foot and demanding that game mechanics allow him to get revenge on a WHOLE CORP for a single players sweet Ninja abilities.
Demanding ... NO ... Requesting ... YES
Did you actually take the time to read the OP ... it has NOTHING to do about revenge on a whole corp ... its about being held accountable for your actions ... BTW there are no 'sweet' abilities to ninja .. ANY FOOL (as you obviously have shown) can hop in a rookie ship and leach off of someonelse's productivity.
Originally by: Axel Car I'd have thought the "hard core" PVP scene the most accepting of a lack of rules regarding this issue.
WRONG ... the 'hard-core' pvp'ers are the ones with the MOST cause to gripe ... because NOOB douche bags like yourself assume no risk and reap rewards from pvp in empire.
Originally by: Axel Badass Comon evolve become really badass and figure a way to stop the slavager
BADASS is obviously your word of the week ... and i'm not trying to stop salvagers ... I'm trying to stop loot thieves ... BIG DIFFERENCE
BTW: Thanks for voting thumbs up on the thread ... Dumb-Ass
Thank-You,
The Pitboss
Signatures by: Kalen Vox |
Tchell Dahhn
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 14:34:00 -
[320]
Originally by: The PitBoss BADASS is obviously your word of the week ... and i'm not trying to stop salvagers ... I'm trying to stop loot thieves ... BIG DIFFERENCE
Thank you for clearing that up PitBoss - I know more than a significant number of people have voted for your idea thinking it was against Ninja Salvagers, without actually reading the post itself.
I've cast my vote in your favour, and am planning on running for CSM III, in which case I hope to make your idea a reality. IMHO, it's one of the 'really broken' things in the game.
We're Recruiting! |
|
Raist Varis
Sensus Numinis The Black Isle
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 17:06:00 -
[321]
Signed.
|
Darwin's Market
|
Posted - 2008.12.16 03:45:00 -
[322]
Lonerider, SHUT UP.
|
Shikagi Sitami
|
Posted - 2008.12.16 04:03:00 -
[323]
Edited by: Shikagi Sitami on 16/12/2008 04:03:13 Agreed. When I pop a fool and some two day old clown comes along and so much as opens the wreck he should immediately flag (and there needs to be a lagtime before he even sees what's in the can. Current mechanics have them flagging twenty seconds after they've hit warp!) to everyone involved in the fight (victor and vanquished!) and their respective corps/alliances.
Right now the system is just plain broken.
|
Asuri Kinnes
Caldari Adhocracy Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.12.16 06:43:00 -
[324]
Nope
- property doesn't belong to someone different until it actually changes hands.
- Until someone ELSE takes possesion, it is STILL the property of the original owner.
AK Honor is that which you do when no one else is looking.
Ethics, Honor and Respect. Without the first two, you can't buy the last one...
|
The PitBoss
Caldari Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.16 21:49:00 -
[325]
Originally by: Tchell Dahhn
Originally by: The PitBoss BADASS is obviously your word of the week ... and i'm not trying to stop salvagers ... I'm trying to stop loot thieves ... BIG DIFFERENCE
Thank you for clearing that up PitBoss - I know more than a significant number of people have voted for your idea thinking it was against Ninja Salvagers, without actually reading the post itself.
I've cast my vote in your favour, and am planning on running for CSM III, in which case I hope to make your idea a reality. IMHO, it's one of the 'really broken' things in the game.
If this is added to your platform when running for CSM III ... you will get my vote and help in your campaign run
Thank-You,
The Pitboss
Signatures by: Kalen Vox |
Axel Vindislaga
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 12:27:00 -
[326]
I refered to these "Thieves" as "Salvagers" to show them in a different light. And the WHOLE POINT OF STEALING is that there is a HIGH REWARD for LOW RISK. *shakes head disbelivingly* Thats why people don't like it. Should Ore thievery cause a rule rewrite? My corp simply blew the ore thieves away when we had trouble with them. Also you whole idea rests on the "LAID FINAL BLOW" Idea. This is open to abuse aswell. A player can then zap an almost dead target milliseconds before your final salvo hits home. THEN WHAT EH? In the end its twisted scrap in space. Its anybodies to take unless they can defend the kill. Watch the discovery channel and see how nature works the rules. NO RULES. I have an idea. Make a FRIEND. Get the Friend to loot the wreck while you guard it. You have a brain you have options. IMMVO There should concord protection if you are destroyed in high sec space. Protection of YOUR Wreck if you some how come to Grief. New professions need encouragement. I see nothing more noble or grand about blasting an enemy to pieces than I do in "salvaging". Its all a game man. I think its funny that they get your loot and your goat.
|
Tchell Dahhn
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 16:49:00 -
[327]
Originally by: The PitBoss If this is added to your platform when running for CSM III ... you will get my vote and help in your campaign run
It shall be there, and I appreciate your vote. Tell your friends.
We're Recruiting! |
Daemonspirit
Minmatar Redhawk Tribal Trust
|
Posted - 2008.12.18 04:59:00 -
[328]
Originally by: Asuri Kinnes Nope
- property doesn't belong to someone different until it actually changes hands. - Until someone ELSE takes possesion, it is STILL the property of the original owner. AK
^-^ This.
No support, defend what you've destroyed or loose it. ôEveryone has a right to be stupid; some people just abuse the privilege.ö |
JVol
Amarr The IMorral MAjority
|
Posted - 2008.12.18 07:05:00 -
[329]
Originally by: Daemonspirit
Originally by: Asuri Kinnes Nope
- property doesn't belong to someone different until it actually changes hands. - Until someone ELSE takes possesion, it is STILL the property of the original owner. AK
^-^ This.
No support, defend what you've destroyed or loose it.
You guys just dont get it do you? You CANT defend it because when vultures steal they arent flagged to you. They are flagged to the guys you just killed... THAT arent there anyways, or I wouldnt be worring about loot cause I'd still have war targets shooting me. Our option would to be to get concorded trying to kill them ?? They risk nothing, thats the problem. CCp needs to regognize the war targets loot is mine, not the first person to get to (unles his flashy red ass can get away from me).
|
Axel Vindislaga
|
Posted - 2008.12.18 16:34:00 -
[330]
"ps... IT"S NOT PIRACY IF THERE IS A WAR!"
This eloquent statement is the tiny thread that needs only to be plucked in order to unravel the entire argument in support of this idea.
I refute thusly.
"If it is war then profiteering is of no consequence."
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |