Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Toshiro GreyHawk
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 11:07:00 -
[151]
Originally by: Red Raider
Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk 11) The biggest whiners in all online games are ALWAYS the sniveling cowards who like to pick on people weaker than they are and - THEN - blame the victim instead of at least taking pride in being the criminals they are. If they had any pride they'd be taking on equals instead of bullying new players and war deccing weaker corporations "because they were insulted".
I agree and don't. When things are going their way the hardcore gamers only play defense on the forums which is easy because all they have to say is "prove it". The normal happy casual gamers will never visit the forums because what goes on there is not worth their time. Then there is those like me that have a job that says "when shit is really bad in the world your working" so I spend a lot of time on the forums at work because I can't play at work.
Just kick players out of the safe NPC corps and put them into some kind of war dec or pvp corp so that they can be killed and you solve a hell of a lot of problems.
But they aren't going to do that any more than they are going to make Factional Warfare mandatory.
For me ... I came here from Planetside where it was nothing but Factional Warfare. There was no mining or manufacturing or trading. It was a pure unadulterated shooter. And when I read that EVE was going to have Factional Warfare - the all out conflgrations that went on across the PS Servers 7/24 were what I expected.
What I got was Corporate Squabbling.
OK ... so I adjusted.
I personally would LOVE it if we went to the type of mandatory, all out Factional Warfare that I expected when I came here - but that isn't going to happen either.
*shrug*
|
Night Tripper
Es and Whizz
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 11:12:00 -
[152]
Originally by: Farrqua
You would not have coped it with to long. Maybe what several months?
It was to stimulate PvP game play and feed the Bears.
Players were *****ing about the fact they had to spend a week or more just to replace the one they lost.
N00bs were leaving. 0.0 was failing. It was not very fun for the casual gamer that could not spend 23/7 to put together enough funds to get them back on the field. Time to isk ratio was upside down. The EvE economy was sucking ass.
Was a lot harder to make ISK then, than is it today, which is why I think insurance should be dynamic.
Originally by: Farrqua
The problem is that everyone is trying to link some RL analogies to game play. Who f'n cares. Is a god damned video game. If you want RL, go to work, pay the bills, mow the lawn and kick your dog.
Yes, but the line has to be drawn somewhere, and that line will naturally move over time as the game develops and the community too.
Originally by: Farrqua
Do we have the economy where we need it to ween our selves off of the "insurance" pacifier?
What is the prostective long term effect? How will it effect PvP?
And who is qualified to determine that?
I agree with you here, these are all important questions to be asked, before such a bold move was taken.
|
Toshiro GreyHawk
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 11:18:00 -
[153]
Originally by: Ki An Some nice circular logic has been added to this thread since I left. "There is a problem since this thread exists." Yeah right...
As always - wrong.
The thread is proof that a problem is perceived to exist by a lot of people. You just don't happen to agree with them.
They all happen to think there's a problem - specifically because Jihad Swarm created one.
Before Jihad Swarm - you did NOT have all these miners worried about Suicide Gankers.
Now you do.
(And the sentences are separated to emphasize a point).
We'll now see if you get a response.
For one thing - I'll tell you that CCP does have something to do with CSM. They are taking notice of it, they publicized it's meeting and they posted the minutes.
If you can get a CCP representative to state that they went through all that trouble to publicize something they've no real interest in supporting, thus undercutting CSM completely ... that would be very interesting.
Yeah. One way or the other ... I'd like to hear about that too.
We'll see if we do.
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 11:50:00 -
[154]
Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
As always - wrong.
The thread is proof that a problem is perceived to exist by a lot of people. You just don't happen to agree with them.
For ****'s sake, try to use your head for once before responding. Just because some people believe there to be a problem that does not mean there actually is one. That was my point. I'm not surprised you missed it. Eve isn't a democracy. Just because there appears to be a lot of Empire miners and mission runners who never actually plays the full game that are whining in this and other threads, that doesn't mean CCP has to do something about it. After all, the people whining are the same people who refuse to take any protective measures and insist on flying their multi-billion isk ships while watching ****ing Desperate House Wifes. Seriously, do you want the game balanced by those people? I don't. I think they're ****ing embarrasingly stupid.
Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
They all happen to think there's a problem - specifically because Jihad Swarm created one.
So? I'd say a bunch of them believe in elves and trolls too. That doesn't mean those exist.
Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
Before Jihad Swarm - you did NOT have all these miners worried about Suicide Gankers.
Are you new or something? The whines about suicide ganking has existed as long as suicide ganking itself. JihadSwarm had nothing to do with it.
Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
(And the sentences are separated to emphasize a point).
It's pretty annoying. Just saying.
Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
For one thing - I'll tell you that CCP does have something to do with CSM. They are taking notice of it, they publicized it's meeting and they posted the minutes.
CCP arranged for the CSM to be set up. They have no influence over what stupid ideas the CSM might put forward. You will notice that CCP doesn't have to do a thing the CSM says.
Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
If you can get a CCP representative to state that they went through all that trouble to publicize something they've no real interest in supporting, thus undercutting CSM completely ... that would be very interesting.
Nice strawman.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Toshiro GreyHawk
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 12:30:00 -
[155]
Originally by: Ki An ...
[Snip to cut out the same old blathering]
Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
If you can get a CCP representative to state that they went through all that trouble to publicize something they've no real interest in supporting, thus undercutting CSM completely ... that would be very interesting.
Nice strawman.
Ha! Ha! Yeah. At first I was gonna say BS (I mean ... you wrote it so it's probably was) but ... then I looked at it and ... yeah that is what I intended to do. Of course - I made it fairly obvious. It's not like I was trying to fool anyone. The point being that you are asking a CCP rep to publicly state that they were just BSing us about supporting CSM - which - yeah, I really would just LOVE to see in print. That would be funny as hell. Good Luck with that.
Now ... I've emphasized the parts that would lead us (those who disagree with you) to believe that CCP had something to do with this and erased those comments specifically attributed to CSM reps:
Originally by: CCP Wrangler CCP realized that even though they do not plan to remove suicide ganking completely, today's suicide gank mechanics are too biased in the ganker's favor, and they have set up a task force to look into suicide ganking and crime and punishment in general.
For the short term, they plan to increase the security hit for crime in high-sec space and make sure that all ship kills will be counted as kills, with the matching sec hit, for everyone that participated. CCP also considers influencing the sec hit penalty based on the security status of the victim.
Mid term, the plans are to look into suicide ganking and the insurance payout, once they have made sure that new players are not impacted by this too much and have extra security in place so that accidents should not be punished.
In the long term, they plan to have criminal records for players, with the appropriate consequences. Tradable killrights are also on the table, to let players deal with criminals instead of just CONCORD being responsible for security.
...
Now here is, I assume the point of your assertion that Wrangler was stepping away from the statement:
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Originally by: Vaal Erit Please, CCP Wrangler, explain to all of the players here how it is too biased for the ganker. For a topic that got so little support from the playerbase I do not think you are getting the correct information on this subject.
As stated above, I did not write this, I just posted it. You'll have to ask the CSM.
To me - this sounds non-commital (as in "I've got a lot of things to do and am not going to take the time to give you an answer". Note the smilely with the sun glasses.
Now - not surprisingly - YOU have leaped to the conclusion that CCP doesn't support this - when Wrangler didn't say that. The fact of the matter is - he refused to comment - which could mean anything ... and thus means nothing.
But the statements written by CSM are very specific as to what CCP is going to do. Are they lying? They aren't mincing words up there. They are specifically stating CCP is going to do this and CCP is going to do that.
*shrug*
Anyway, we'll see what happens ... but we probably aren't going to see for several months as it will take them that long to get the code done and most of the developers I've seen don't really tell you what they are really going to do until they are ready to release the code.
THEY make up their minds.
THEY code it.
WE get to live with it.
Ah! The server's are back up! Toodles!
|
Ranis Kirahn
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 12:35:00 -
[156]
I definately support the idea of consequences for actions. Sec-hit on a slide based on the system sec status seems an excellent idea.
"Look, we told you it was dangerous and we can't be everywhere."
Tradeable killrights would definately be awesome, especially in conjunction with other ideas such as involving mercenaries in wardecs. It would allow for a serious market in that area.
Sec-status hit based on sec status of victim is also an idea I support and its simply realistic. If you attack a citizen in good standing it is likely to be a worse offense than if you attack the Dread Pirate Roberts.
As for game balance, that is a discussion that I have to gracefully bow out of, I won't pretend to have done nearly enough research. |
Sir SmellyFart
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 14:59:00 -
[157]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Caiman Graystock Simple. Stop insurance pay outs
Fixed that for you.
Yup, kill off insurance. Works for me!
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 17:18:00 -
[158]
I watched a hauler get suicided in Jita last night. T1 ship, outside the station where 65%+ of all good change hands.
I convo'd the person out of curiosity. The mammoth has plain vanilla T1 expanders on it and was carrying construction parts. Total loss of ship and ALL fittings, cargo, etc: less than 10 million ISK. The suiciding ship was a Raven, it didn't even bother to scan first.
Combined with the attempt on me while I was flying an AF carrying 8 million in Datacores (which failed, btw), that alone tells me that something is seriously borked in the system.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Not it isn't, people should be encouraged to get out in low sec space, but never forced to do so.
|
Karando
Random Goods
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 18:26:00 -
[159]
Edited by: Karando on 12/07/2008 18:26:39
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Eva (CSM Ankhesentapemkah) reacted to this
I knew that **** would have some really bad ideas for EVE. Go play "The Movies" and ask the devs to create a Drive-Around-With-Cars-So-It-Looks-Extra-Idiotic-Addon. Oh and don't forget to tell them to remove the trees so you can't crash.
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 18:29:00 -
[160]
Originally by: Karando
Oh and don't forget to tell them to remove the trees so you can't crash.
Speaking of which, maybe we should add follow-through to ammo so that when you shoot someone in the undock port of a station and miss, the station guns respond as if you had shot the station (which you should have done).
Actually making suiciding cost the ganker something is not the same thing as training wheels.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Not it isn't, people should be encouraged to get out in low sec space, but never forced to do so.
|
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 20:05:00 -
[161]
Originally by: ElanMorin6
Originally by: Windjammer Fortunately CCP disagrees with your assesment and is on course to make the necessary changes. Just think of it.......some day a Hulk or Mackinaw might not have to worry too much about mining in a 0.7 system with ice.
You are suggesting reward without risk, a proposition which completely destroys the foundations EVE was built on. Exhumer pilots must not be allowed to profit in guarenteed safety - the end result will be all the legitimate players getting driven out of the economy by isk resellers macro'ing huge fleets of mackinaws.
I am not suggesting anything. I am stating there is not enough risk to suicide gankers relative to their reward. When these changes are implemented it will not make 0.7 sec or any other high sec a place of "guaranteed safety". EVE has no such place, nor should it. Want to suicide a Hulk or Mackinaw in high sec? Want to have that fun? Pay for it, griefer.
Before your "jihad"swarm and before ice was removed from 0.8 sec space, there were fleets of Mackinaw that were destroyed in 0.8. All it took was a single Raven with high racks stuffed with smart bombs. One raven could take out 4 or more Mackinaw before being hit by Concord. The reward for such a deed was high, but so was the price paid by the suicider. And you know what? I didn't hear one complaint against it. In fact I saw people (miners too) wanting to fund such people in their effort because when Mackinaw grouped like that allowed the slow moving Raven to manuever in place like that, it was almost always macroers who were being killed and everyone liked that.
Originally by: ElanMorin6 The reality is that current game mechanics support numerous methods of protecting yourself already. Jihadists like myself are easily avoided and/or defeated using the existing game mechanics. If it was up to me, the only change that would be made is a 50-100% increase in freighter HP, but I fully expect insurance to be disconinued at some point.
The problem with that particular solution though is that it will only encourage me.
The reality is that current game mechanics make it impossible for a solo miner in lower high sec (0.5 to 0.7) to protect themselves or even run in any practical fashion from a solo suicider. That's what makes it so much fun for you griefers. Attacking someone who can't fight back or avoid you. That and the fact you do not pay a price for destroying a T2 ship.
I'm pleased you'll be encouraged.I really am. Knowing you're paying a higher price will bring a glow to my heart. Let's just see how much more we can encourage you.
Windjammer
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 20:17:00 -
[162]
Originally by: Ki An Some nice circular logic has been added to this thread since I left. "There is a problem since this thread exists." Yeah right...
Anyway, I'm gonna ask you, Wrangler, again to please get whomever in CCP that has agreed that there is a problem with suicide gankings to this thread. If, as you say, CCP has nothing to do with this thread, and it's all CSM, please say so before a lot of people get their hopes up for nothing.
Tell me.....in that reality you live in......are there unicorns? Space unicorns? The original post of this thread could not be clearer. CCP has set up a task force. They have identified short term, mid term and long term goals and spelled out clearly what these goals are. You're living in a fantasy world if you think this isn't a done deal.
Kindest regards to a troubled soul, Windjammer
P.S. Yeah......a lot of smiley's today. Can't help it. I'm just in a good mood. Must be all this rat whining. Nothing like a good whine from a rat to put me in a good mood.
|
Xornicon Altair
Woopatang The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 20:40:00 -
[163]
While not directly doing anything to the gankers, perhaps some focus should be placed on the victims of high sec gankings? I was thinking something along the lines of CONCORD ships mounting remote repair systems for shields and armor so that when they arrive, they can immediately begin to assist the victim's ship and still attack the agressors.
I realize that the Ganker solution to this will be to bring more ships, but, then as they bring more ships, more concord will show up and remote repair the victim(s). This still makes high sec gankings possible, but the larger ships with more hitpoints would not die so quickly, and might even stand a chance of survival.
The Red Skull: http://www.eve-syndicate.com/index.php |
ElanMorin6
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 20:58:00 -
[164]
Edited by: ElanMorin6 on 12/07/2008 20:59:20
Originally by: Windjammer I am not suggesting anything. I am stating there is not enough risk to suicide gankers relative to their reward. When these changes are implemented it will not make 0.7 sec or any other high sec a place of "guaranteed safety". EVE has no such place, nor should it. Want to suicide a Hulk or Mackinaw in high sec? Want to have that fun? Pay for it, griefer.
DonÆt worry, isk isnÆt something IÆve had to worry about in a while. The problem is that there needs to be some kind of balance here. Isk/sec-status are just functions of /played, so the real question is how long should I have to play to recover from one suicide gank? If that number gets to high, suicide ganking grinds to a halt, a result that doesnÆt actually benefit anyone (macros will drive down your profits, and they are the bulk of the jihadÆs victims).
Quote: The reality is that current game mechanics make it impossible for a solo miner in lower high sec (0.5 to 0.7) to protect themselves or even run in any practical fashion from a solo suicider
This could not be more false. It is trivial to avoid 99% of highsec suicide attacks. Nothing I do approaches even 5% of the speed or sophistication with which roaming gangs attack in nullsec, and yet thousands of players manage to rat/mine in 0.0 systems every day without getting ganked. Just because you and the thousands of highsec miners like you donÆt understand the first thing about how to avoid hostile players doesnÆt mean itÆs impossible to defend yourself.
AFK mining is not, and shouldnÆt be, a supported playstyle. If you are sitting at your computer and paying attention I am easy to avoid. If youÆre just checking your hulk once every half-hour to warp to the station and empty your cargohold, you really should be a sitting duck out there in that ice belt. If youÆre willing to take that risk, fine û just donÆt complain about how evil and unbalanced suicide ganking is when youÆve taken absolutely zero precautions to protect your ship.
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 22:44:00 -
[165]
Originally by: Windjammer Tell me.....in that reality you live in......are there unicorns? Space unicorns? The original post of this thread could not be clearer. CCP has set up a task force. They have identified short term, mid term and long term goals and spelled out clearly what these goals are. You're living in a fantasy world if you think this isn't a done deal.
Kindest regards to a troubled soul, Windjammer
P.S. Yeah......a lot of smiley's today. Can't help it. I'm just in a good mood. Must be all this rat whining. Nothing like a good whine from a rat to put me in a good mood.
lol
CCP has told the CSM they are setting up a task force to see if there's a problem, and if there is, how to resolve it. That does NOT mean all the suggestions, or any of them for that matter, in the OP are going to come through. It just means CCP is taking a look.
I have now several times asked the devs mentioned in the OP as realising suicide ganking is too easy to come in this thread and explain why they feel that way. The only response has been from Wrangler (not directly to my request) where he quite clearly distanced himself from what was written in the OP. I'm interpreting this as CCP not really knowing how to deal with this one, and I don't blame them. If they cave in to the whines and change suicide ganking too much, they are setting a precedent that the game is shrugging its hardcore mantle and opting for a more fluffy main stream angle. This is a dangerous move.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Miasia
Konstrukteure der Zukunft United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 00:04:00 -
[166]
I support this topic.
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 05:27:00 -
[167]
Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
2) Real Life is a touch stone that works very well in keeping games from becoming unbalanced. Reality is inherently balanced. You don't want things to realistic or the game would turn into work - but people who say that reality has no bearing on a computer game are just ignorant.
3) An example of this is Lloyds of London - which provides insurance to such as ships sailing in harms way and has done so for hundreds of years. The problem with insurance in this game is that it doesn't mimic real life practices closely enough. If it did it would solve a lot of problems. See my earlier post on this for more details.
Dude, come on. The "Real Life" example is so utterly lame when used with insurance or anything else ingame. This is a video game if you haven't noticed. If you want to use the real life analogy, maybe .1% of all ships in EVE would ever get insurance. Insurance was put in the game for one reason and one reason only - to lessen the death penalty. It was created back when isk was hard to get and everyone flew T1 ships. Maybe a change in insurance is neccessary, but it should not be only applied to people that suicide. Insurance is an entirely separate issue as well as EVE being anywhere near real life. --
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Galan Amarias
Amarr The Drekla Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 07:26:00 -
[168]
Yea gods this made me sad.
Tell you what, if you want to look at insurance, then how about also looking at the log for user input from the gankee. Say if the target is on autopilot and hasn't moved the mouse or bothered to speak to anyone then they are clearly afk and do not deserve any special protection.
Or since everyone is soo concerned about Concord behaving like actual police, how about they fine the pilot for not being at the helm and revoke their license to fly freighters in high sec. They could run into something and dammage it.
I do like the notion of tradeable killrights.
-Galan
Anything less is going to make the ISK sellers day.
The answer to empire ganking |
Galan Amarias
Amarr The Drekla Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 07:46:00 -
[169]
Just one more real quick.
Risk vs Reward.
The risk and reward of suicide ganking are both set by the gankee. The gankee decides what will be in their cargo. They can choose to move billions in a T1 industrial afk or they can load a few hundred million, or even billions into a heavily tanked ship and fly paranoid with a scout.
Freighters can't fit a tank, but they come with a pretty decent one. You need several battleships to kill one and any reasonable scout will spot those BS long before the freighter should be engaged. Using webbers to instawarp the freighter is also a darn good idea.
Provide me just one example where an alert pilot with a scout got ganked? Just one.
Otherwise follow the link on my sig. It's direct from CCP and it's how they feel about playing the game AFK.
No one should ever be rewarded or offered additional npc protection because they can't be bothered to play the game.
-Galan
The answer to empire ganking |
Commander Lurch
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 10:05:00 -
[170]
Ive been Ganked on many occasions and lost millions. I may be mad but I think it's fun - adds a bit of spice to life (shame you can't right it off as a tax loss). Ganking has been a part of the game as long as I've been playing it, in the same way that piracy has always been a part in mercantile trade on the high seas. When a corpmate got suicide ganked after AFK'ing to the Jita/Perimeter gate and leaving his Badger there with a billion worth of cargo sitting in it I mentioned that perhaps it was his own fault - he agreed. BUT, if it's got to the point where people are being ganked outside a station in a 1.0 system then thats like Blackbeard sailing up the Thames and attacking the merchant ships moored in London. I know it's only a game but c'mon people it does erode the believability side of things. The other point is that noobs need somewhere to learn the ropes - I know I did. This game is partly based on Elite. In that game you had a "hi-sec" and if you were a security risk you spent the whole time around a "hi-sec" station with a police escort. So, my dear pirates, be thankful for the freedoms you have.
|
|
Lena A
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 11:19:00 -
[171]
Supported
|
Vash Fusition
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 11:21:00 -
[172]
Supported
|
Anig Browl
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 04:21:00 -
[173]
Originally by: Nareshna
On the other side, players should be aware of their environment, carrying 800 m worth of datacore and flying afk or autopilot is just an invitation to be ganked.
I hardly ever post on the forums as I'd rather just play, but I'd like to offer 2 cents on this.
I agree completely that flying an industrial into 0.0 with no plan is asking for trouble. On the other hand, there's a variety of gank situations which happen (particularly to new players) which are deeply annoying, put people off the game, and which are sometimes not very realistic insofar as nobody would tolerate such a situation.
A few random examples from my younger days...
1. You're doing your first trading run in a lowsec system. You fly in a shuttle, case it out. Looks OK. You go back and get your main ship, fly in, check it out aain, make it to port, and pick up your cargo. You undock, and someone blows you away with a single cruise missile while you're still reaching for the warp control. Huh?!
2. You go (NPC) ratting in 0.0 for the first time, feeling very brave. After a nailbiting struggle, you finally destroy your first battleship - Victory! What a sense of accomplishment, until you get blobbed by 10 ships while you're still bruised and bleeding.
3. Gate campers. Enough said.
Someone suggested above that security grading should mean something, rather than just being highsec and lowsec and having different NPCs. I tend to agree, and thought it worked the same way as that person did at first. It's well-balanced for a single player game, but as a solo rather than a team player, I just give the lowsec systems a big pass right now because it doesn't seem worth exploring in search of juicier NPCs unless you're flying anything smaller than a battleship (I exaggerate, but you get the idea).
Some brief suggestions: 1. yes, lose insurance if Concord kills you. This is realistic.
2. even in 0.0, some radius around gates and stations (eg 5km) should have a risk of causing Concord or faction ships to appear. Stations and gates are the economic infrastructure of Eve. No society allows its infrastructure to be degraded. In the real world, we have real crime where ships or trucks are 'ganked' by criminals. But it doesn't usually happen right outside ports or at freeway intersections, it happens in remote places.
3. players: don't leave it all up to CCP. When you get ganked and you know you're doomed, self-destruct and deny the gankers their spoils. That cuts their LULz short faster than anything else. But I would like Eve not to tell gankers I am SDing, let them find out the hard way (just as I did when I got ganked).
|
Galan Amarias
Amarr The Drekla Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 06:00:00 -
[174]
Originally by: Anig Browl
I hardly ever post on the forums as I'd rather just play, but I'd like to offer 2 cents on this.
Please read before you throw your two cents in. This is about high sec and your examples are all low and nul sec.
Originally by: Anig Browl
1. totally off topic
Originally by: Anig Browl
2. Again totally off topic
Quote:
3. Gate campers. Enough said.
Also totally off topic and no, not enough said but that's a whole different ball of wax.
Originally by: Anig Browl
Some brief suggestions: 1. yes, lose insurance if Concord kills you. This is realistic.
Realism has nothing to do with this argument. The insurance hits on Concord death will not stop the suiciding of multi-billion isk haulers. It will hurt new players who don't yet understand the sec status of systems and want to blast someone.
Originally by: Anig Browl
2. even in 0.0, some radius around gates and stations (eg 5km) should have a risk of causing Concord or faction ships to appear. Stations and gates are the economic infrastructure of Eve. No society allows its infrastructure to be degraded. In the real world, we have real crime where ships or trucks are 'ganked' by criminals. But it doesn't usually happen right outside ports or at freeway intersections, it happens in remote places.
Again Real World analogies fail. Also off topic.
In the real world someone who just blew up a truck would not watch the police destroy their car and then have to stand on the street corner. They would be hauled into custody and tried asuming they weren't killed fighting the police at the scene.
Of course in the real world the police often fail to get their man, they do not have superweapons and they can be killed by return fire.
Concord and Insurance have no real world paralells. They are game mechanics one designed to offer retribution for crime in high sec and the other designed to ofset the cost of pew pew.
Originally by: Anig Browl
3. players: don't leave it all up to CCP. When you get ganked and you know you're doomed, self-destruct and deny the gankers their spoils. That cuts their LULz short faster than anything else. But I would like Eve not to tell gankers I am SDing, let them find out the hard way (just as I did when I got ganked).
Your first sentence here is the only part I completely agree with. Sadly you didn't follow up with, get a scout fly smart and warp to zero.
It takes two minutes to complete a self destruct. The action will all be over by then. Unless you want to pod yourself after the gank.
-Galan
p.s. If you would like to argue about any of the above please start a thread in GD, this is about suicide ganking in empire and you are totally off topic.
The answer to empire ganking |
Stormwind Bloodfeather
Minmatar Sogdian Traders Inc
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 08:52:00 -
[175]
Bounty Hunting...
Requirements to become a Bounty Hunter:
Standings with the Bounty hunting corporation "Blah Blah Inc" of 2.0 or better to even speak to a Bounty Agent.
Have a scannable list of locally placed bounties available or an option to name the bountied player you intend to kill.
REGISTER your intent to hunt this pilot, flagging you BOTH as KOS to one another (red flashy to one another).
If your killed by your bountied target you must re-register your intent to kill said pilot, but now with a 20k isk re-registration fee, this fee scales up each time you return after failing to kill your intended target until it reaches a balance with the Bountied players bounty, at which point you will no longer be able to register to hunt said player.
Bounty hunters and their targets are IMMUNE from sec status hits for attacking and/or killing one another until the bounty is either collected, or the bounty hunter unregisters their intent to kill a bountied player.
There are no KILL RIGHTS generated by a bounty hunter killing a bountied player. i.e. the bountied player does not have a 24 hr period were he/she/it can go hunt down and kill the bounty hunter that killed them. (may need to be tweaked some)
The reverse of this is also true, the Bounty hunter does not get kill rights if killed by the bountied player, rather they must re-register their intent to kill the bountied player (see above).
Corporations of Bounty hunters can register intent to kill a bountied player for a nominal fee. at which point every member of the corporation becomes KOS to the bountied player (this may need some standings tweaking etc to register intent to collect...)
This doesn't address suicide ganking but it does at least open and make viable the profession of the Bounty hunter.
Stormwind
In EVE, your only friend is your ship and it's weapons. All others are the enemy! |
Jim Raynor
Caldari Shinra
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 09:13:00 -
[176]
uhm just have concord instantly jam you or something and be done with it. why even waste time on something such as this, just pull a "ultima online" guards! type thing, might as well, you die anyways. just make it quicker. ------ I'll make a sig later. |
Ralara
Caldari Vivicide
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 09:40:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Jim Raynor uhm just have concord instantly jam you or something and be done with it. why even waste time on something such as this, just pull a "ultima online" guards! type thing, might as well, you die anyways. just make it quicker.
They already do insta jam, web, scramble and energy neut you and your drones. --
|
Gordonh
PROGENITOR CORPORATION Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 10:07:00 -
[178]
Originally by: Belmarduk Edited by: Belmarduk on 11/07/2008 05:52:04
Originally by: Caiman Graystock
Simple. Stop insurance pay outs for ships destroyed by concord.
Yep - Simple fix.Thats as it should be - OTHERWISE leave it as it is. THIS IS EVE !
With a slight change, shift the insurance payouts to the gankee instead. If the gank ships aren't insured the gankee gets the default payment. Also if you make a mistake and shoot a friend that's in a different corp he can return your insurance back to you.
This system wouldn't change any of the real mechanics of suicide ganking, it would just shift the risk/reward a bit.
|
Belmarduk
Amarr de Prieure Four Elements
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 14:06:00 -
[179]
FOR CHRIST SAKE
Where is the problem?
1. There is and SHOULD BE NO 100% safe place in Eve ! - Go play Wow if you dont like it !
2. There should be NO INSURANCE PAY-OUT for ships killed by concord - Simple solution.
Risk vs Reward !!
Just for the record: I DONT suicide gank (except Macro Miners) and I as such DONT like suicide gankers BUT this is Eve !!!!!
NO INSURANCE-PAYOUT FOR SHIPS KILLED BY CONCORD - Problem solved ! CCP Please give us casual players a Skill-Queue !
|
Red Raider
Airbourne Demons
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 18:00:00 -
[180]
Edited by: Red Raider on 14/07/2008 18:01:08
Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
Originally by: Red Raider I agree and don't. When things are going their way the hardcore gamers only play defense on the forums which is easy because all they have to say is "prove it". The normal happy casual gamers will never visit the forums because what goes on there is not worth their time. Then there is those like me that have a job that says "when shit is really bad in the world your working" so I spend a lot of time on the forums at work because I can't play at work.
Just kick players out of the safe NPC corps and put them into some kind of war dec or pvp corp so that they can be killed and you solve a hell of a lot of problems.
But they aren't going to do that any more than they are going to make Factional Warfare mandatory.
For me ... I came here from Planetside where it was nothing but Factional Warfare. There was no mining or manufacturing or trading. It was a pure unadulterated shooter. And when I read that EVE was going to have Factional Warfare - the all out conflgrations that went on across the PS Servers 7/24 were what I expected.
What I got was Corporate Squabbling.
OK ... so I adjusted.
I personally would LOVE it if we went to the type of mandatory, all out Factional Warfare that I expected when I came here - but that isn't going to happen either.
*shrug*
I don't think you understand what I am talking about. They are not going to force people to go into low sec and shoot other people. By forcing them into a PVP NPC corp they reduce their ability to travel freely in high sec, raise the risk of being ganked legally anywhere, and give them good reason to join player corps which can then be war dec'ed where as right now you cant compete with some AFK macro miners setting in Caldari Provisions.
If they would pull the guards away from the gates and put them at the stations then militia's could roam around in high sec attacking the opposing militia's logistics but the stations themselves would be safe unless the militia's were feeling brave enough to take down those tough NPC fleets and PVP at the same time. Then the militia's could legally camp stations and entire high sec systems while players would be either forced to move into a player corp or risk being hunted. This would also allow for smuggling as long as the customs agents and stuff are not much like the instagank Concord gods. Honestly I don't know if they are my only run in with them was in a frig a long time ago and I got instantly popped but was surrounded by BS's so didn't surprise me. If you made their damage per ship realistic though people could tank just long enough to get the goods into the station if they warped to zero and fitted for tanking and fast running.
A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |