Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Grumpy Owly
373
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:23:00 -
[421] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: Why should CCP make changes that cater to this specific player subset, instead of making changes that will bring in more pvper/griefer/sociopath subscriptions?
Short memory:
New high alpha tier 3 BC's anyone? Improvements to dessies?
Seems there are significant tools balancing out other various features. So it seems there is a mixed element of support with features as a result. So no you can't say nothing goes in the favour of this mindset or playstyle. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Kazacy
BACKFIRE Squad S O L A R I S
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:27:00 -
[422] - Quote
Funny thing is not long time ago alot of carebears cried: remove insurance for suicide gankers, in this way we don't have anymore suicide kills and voila, after the removal of insurance my impression is we have more suicide kills than ever. What i mean to say is for every action a reaction will follow and crimewatch imo force alot of players to sucide gank more than ever because in the end this will be the last form of pvp in hisec. After this i bet carebears will cry one more time and finally they will have something like no pvp in hisec and maybe eve will became something like the X series, a single player game and and everyone will say: hey why should i pay the sub for this MMO when i can buy a single player game and play without any monthly fee [:=d When i signed for eve i was poded in my first or second day of eve in lowsec, oh boy i was angry on all pirates so i joined an antipirate corporation in lowsec (we was a bunch of carebears with some balls that's all). One day i read in a pirate bio something like this Antipirates are pirates with messiah complex It was eye opening for me and soon after this i became myself a pirate/griefer whatever you wanna call. So in the end pls CCP MAKE HISEC A PERFECTLY SAFE ZONE AND ALSO PLEASE MOVE IT ON ANOTHER SERVER (a fluffy furry and pinky one if it's possible). No need anymore for stupid crimewatch and so on
Thx for reading my rant
P.S. i wanna thank you here for the guy who poded me first time in eve because in this way i was forced to learn alot about the game. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
409
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:38:00 -
[423] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: Well that's kind of their fault, isn't it? They have the tools, but don't utilize them. You can hardly blame the people taking advantage of that fact. Also, the MMO player and the "relax for an hour with some friends" demographics never really had any significant overlap.
The old "if you don't play it the way I do, you're wrong." gambit. They are taking advantage of things that you are not, so you're wrong too.
Destiny Corrupted wrote: Why should CCP make changes that cater to this specific player subset, instead of making changes that will bring in more pvper/griefer/sociopath subscriptions?
How do you know it won't? You are concluding it won't - if random players can pop a suspect, they will, and this will deter pvpers, griefers and the odd sociopath.
Now those who will pop a suspect are engaging in PVP, so they are pvpers. One down. According to the loose use of the word grief on these forums, they are interrupting someone else's game play, so they are greifing the griefers. Two down. We already know that anyone playing this game is a little crazy to play internet space ships, though perhaps not a sociopath. Ok, so you get sociopath. You can have them. (I seriously doubt real sociopath will waste their time with internet spaceships when real people are closer at hand.)
|
Ximen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:39:00 -
[424] - Quote
"back when i was playing"
Of all the awkward **** i just listened to in the gap fillers tonight.. you let slip that little gem.
Every dev I've seen on eve-tv ever was precisely the type of person I expected based on their posts. Instantly i was on their side, and understood their POV. They were people I unquestionably gave my approval to.
Greyscale, now I have personal experience in why noone thinks you have a clue what you're on about. You instilled absolutely zero confidence in what you are doing with this game.. and yet you're looking after a core component of the game mechanics.
Then you drop this little gem.. "i dont drink". Very respectable. Also nice way to distance yourself from the majority of the core players (and the other devs). It sure explains the inexusable awkwardness that was yourself in front of the camera.
Congrats, you've just managed to undo any confidence i built up from crucible. |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1125
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:48:00 -
[425] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: 2. Why do you feel that there needs to be a penalty involved with being flagged as a suspect? Why is ships blowing up a bad thing? You implemented your "safety off" - they know what the consequences are. This is notably how other games handle PVP flagging. Its why its called "PVP flagging".
If you're doing something mildly "illegal" (as defined by the very loose and approximate code of morality that the mechanics are trying to suggest), my default position is that there should be some mild negative consequences for that action. If aggressing someone with a suspect flag is always a statistically dumb move, we may as well just make all those actions legal and be done with it.
The mild negative consequence is that ANYONE can shoot you (at the risk of becoming PVP flagged themselves). Do that on the Jita undock and get volleyed by 200 people. The escalation over the old mechanics would be both good and bad, and there should be no problem with high sec belts turning into mass graves over a flipped can.
I also find it amusing that you're willing to justify that being unable to defend yourself when PVP flagged is a "mild negative consequence".
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Tauren Tom
Order of the Silver Dragons Eternal Evocations
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:13:00 -
[426] - Quote
VIGILANTISM!
Anywhere else this would get you arrested and thrown in jail... Naga stole my bike!
Talos, the official Pizza Wedge of the Gallente Federation. |
cadermerin
d o o m
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:31:00 -
[427] - Quote
prolix travail wrote: Can you tell me, us (those who think this way) what you are doing with the sandbox of new eden, will the ability to pvp wherever and whenever be protected? or are you going to eventually dictate where it's allowed to happen?
+1
carebears have got the wrong idea about EvE, you should not be able to do anything peacfully. When you log in you're accepting that other people will try to kill you and take your stuff. If that isnt the game you want to play then find another.
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
409
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:31:00 -
[428] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: The mild negative consequence is that ANYONE can shoot you (at the risk of becoming PVP flagged themselves). Do that on the Jita undock and get volleyed by 200 people. The escalation over the old mechanics would be both good and bad, and there should be no problem with high sec belts turning into mass graves over a flipped can.
I also find it amusing that you're willing to justify that being unable to defend yourself when PVP flagged is a "mild negative consequence".
-Liang
Grayscale wrote: What we're actually considering right now, based on player suggestions, is to formalize the concept of a "limited engagement", which is effectively needed for both wardecs and some kind of duelling system, and carry that across to here too. To whit, anyone who engages a suspect becomes part of a "limited engagement" with the suspect on one side and all their aggressors on the other side, and any further interference by anyone else in that engagement gets a suspect flag.
Ref. Post #328 |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3365
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:33:00 -
[429] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Terminal Insanity wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Can-flipping as-is will be impossible once the safeties are added. People should be able to choose to do dumb things, but they should also have the information they need to figure out that the thing they're doing is dumb.
Duelling we're planning to support with an explicit mechanic rather than the current hacky workaround.
They do have that right to do stupid things. And in space, when you do something stupid, it gets you killed. That is how you learn. How about you protect me when i approach a cyno dominix with my webbing loki and cant get away in time? i mean, if i was smart i'd have stayed out of point range, but hey i'm dumb and i need you to hold my hand through it. Seriously though, carebear gets canflipped and gets a POPUP WARNING EXPLAINING EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN when he steals it back. If he chooses to ignore it the first time, that's his own fault and he receives his lesson. If he refuses to listen to it time and time again, that's his own stupidity getting him killed. You are talking about carebears and consequences while crying that it will be more difficult for you to to pursue the risk and consequence free high sec griefing you currently enjoy.
let me explain it for you since you're slow:
this creates risk-free PvP "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Grumpy Owly
373
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:42:00 -
[430] - Quote
Tauren Tom wrote:VIGILANTISM!
Anywhere else this would get you arrested and thrown in jail...
Are you advocating that criminals should be thrown in jail then?
Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1125
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 17:00:00 -
[431] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: The mild negative consequence is that ANYONE can shoot you (at the risk of becoming PVP flagged themselves). Do that on the Jita undock and get volleyed by 200 people. The escalation over the old mechanics would be both good and bad, and there should be no problem with high sec belts turning into mass graves over a flipped can.
I also find it amusing that you're willing to justify that being unable to defend yourself when PVP flagged is a "mild negative consequence".
-Liang
Grayscale wrote: What we're actually considering right now, based on player suggestions, is to formalize the concept of a "limited engagement", which is effectively needed for both wardecs and some kind of duelling system, and carry that across to here too. To whit, anyone who engages a suspect becomes part of a "limited engagement" with the suspect on one side and all their aggressors on the other side, and any further interference by anyone else in that engagement gets a suspect flag.
Ref. Post #328
I'm well aware of what they are considering now. I'm responding to his assertion that PVP flagging should carry a mild negative consequence and that one example of a mild negative consequence is being unable to defend yourself on the pain of being Concorded.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Harotak
Malicious Destruction War Against the Manifest
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 17:58:00 -
[432] - Quote
As someone who enjoys fighting can baiters and gaining aggression through remote repairing people, I'm not at all upset with this change if it cures the instant dock neutral remote repair plague and a robust dueling mechanic is implemented.
My thoughts on the dueling mechanic:
1. The duel partipants should be in the same fleet 2. Anyone who remote assists a duel participant should go straight to criminal flag instead of just getting flagged a suspect. Even this might not be strong enough since in a duel between high-value faction fit ships for instance, its nothing to lose something like a tech-1 basic support cruiser to quickly rep up your friend. It might be necessary to simply make it impossible to remote assist someone in a duel. 3. When in a duel you should "no-clip" through all ships that are not participating in the duel in order to avoid neutral bumping from machariels and such. 4. To avoid mid-fight re-supply, picking up any floating cargo, even something you or your corp mates dropped, should flag you as a suspect. |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
471
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 18:29:00 -
[433] - Quote
Kazacy wrote: P.S. i wanna thank you here for the guy who poded me first time in eve because in this way i was forced to learn alot about the game.
Even those of us that joined to be bad guys (I joined EVE to be a pirate, scammer and corpthief) learned these hard lessons early on. I learned for example that it's bad to steal from just about everyone, if I don't have means to defend myself. Stealing from 200 angry russians might have you permacamped in a station.. oops.
That kind of consequences was what I mentioned above. There should always be means for younger players to learn there is consequences, and that EVE is dangerous. Taking that away, will take away from the learning experience, and in fact in the long run those players might end up being very frustrated after X time that "all this time I played this game, and it turned out it's dangerous! How would I know?" etc. shiptoastin' liek a baws |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
409
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 18:42:00 -
[434] - Quote
Misanth wrote:That kind of consequences was what I mentioned above. There should always be means for younger players to learn there is consequences, and that EVE is dangerous. Taking that away, will take away from the learning experience, and in fact in the long run those players might end up being very frustrated after X time that "all this time I played this game, and it turned out it's dangerous! How would I know?" etc.
They'll know because sooner or later they're going to try and do something and get the saftey warning and wonder what the heck it is. They're going to ask someone in corp, on forums, in help, and they're going to get a lesson. The brave ones will try it, the bear like ones will shrug and go back to whatever they were doing. |
Liam Mirren
348
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 19:19:00 -
[435] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Misanth wrote:That kind of consequences was what I mentioned above. There should always be means for younger players to learn there is consequences, and that EVE is dangerous. Taking that away, will take away from the learning experience, and in fact in the long run those players might end up being very frustrated after X time that "all this time I played this game, and it turned out it's dangerous! How would I know?" etc. They'll know because sooner or later they're going to try and do something and get the saftey warning and wonder what the heck it is. They're going to ask someone in corp, on forums, in help, and they're going to get a lesson. The brave ones will try it, the bear like ones will shrug and go back to whatever they were doing.
They already get a warning message if they do something that gets you flagged, so what you're advocating is already in place.
Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
409
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 19:26:00 -
[436] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote: They already get a warning message if they do something that gets you flagged, so what you're advocating is already in place.
Not really, since they can click ignore/cancel and uncheck the box right then and there as things are now. Noobie presented with a dialog box they may not understand.
This new system means they can't do the action at all until they enable it deliberately. There is no "do it anyway" button on the message. |
baltec1
854
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 19:30:00 -
[437] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Liam Mirren wrote: They already get a warning message if they do something that gets you flagged, so what you're advocating is already in place.
Not really, since they can click ignore/cancel and uncheck the box right then and there as things are now. Noobie presented with a dialog box they may not understand. This new system means they can't do the action at all until they enable it deliberately. There is no "do it anyway" button on the message.
What not to understand about the current message that pops up? |
equincu ocha
The Tuskers
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 19:49:00 -
[438] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Velicia Tuoro wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: Any news on the return of Flashy Flashy
This was asked in the questions section. CCP Greyscale admitted it was his request to remove that. It was down to them not being a threat in high sec. (unless they are going to gank...) It didn't seem like they were going to add it back. The exact reasoning was that flashy people are people who can legally kill you, and a -10 is probably a threat (and thus red background) but is not free to agress (therefore not flashy).
If flashy people are people that can kill me, then why isn't my overview permaflashy Why can't you just reword it to 'flashy people are people who you can legally kill' and give us outlaws our flashy red status again
Flashy Red had been synonymous with pirate/outlaw for such long that it has been ingrained in the EVE vernacular, so much so that even players that weren't around before the great pirate nerf refer to us as flashy red In lowsec gangs/fleets it's common to hear scouts and FC's calling targets flashy or nonflashy, not because of war target status but to inform us if we will be taking sentry fire or not
It may not seem like it's a big deal that us lowly pirates get back to our former glory, and you know what... it's not, it's just a little thing that a few of us would like back (some of us became a pirates so we could be flashy red) Baby seal walked into a club |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
409
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 19:52:00 -
[439] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: What not to understand about the current message that pops up?
Ask someone new. |
Liam Mirren
348
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 20:19:00 -
[440] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Liam Mirren wrote: They already get a warning message if they do something that gets you flagged, so what you're advocating is already in place.
Not really, since they can click ignore/cancel and uncheck the box right then and there as things are now. Noobie presented with a dialog box they may not understand. This new system means they can't do the action at all until they enable it deliberately. There is no "do it anyway" button on the message.
"WARNING, IF YOU CLICK YES THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE YOU'LL BE ****** SIDEWAYS. DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE? YES/NO"
How fcking difficult is it? Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
|
Revajin
15 Minute Outliers Novus Dominatum
38
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 20:36:00 -
[441] - Quote
Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight. If you steal from a can now you are considered a criminal and anyone can attack you rather than just the can owner?
Why are can flippers mad about this? |
Taihbea
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 20:38:00 -
[442] - Quote
Mutnin wrote:Velicia Tuoro wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: 1. Player A takes Player B's can 2. Players C-Z are now able to aggress Player A, who can only retaliate
That is how I interpreted it. That's a pretty stupid move by CCP if this is the case. While I agree with the logistics need to be given aggression and "should" show up on KMs, but can flipping giving aggro to all is certainly not needed. However would be funny to see all the loot stealing ***** @ jita 4-4 getting popped by the dozen. Assuming it carried over to wrecks as well. Overall sounds like CCP dumbing down the game once again. Yes yes. Flipping some defenseless noob can is so pro and hardcore. Wtf are you on? This is AWESOME news. |
Diva Ex Machina
Son's of The Hammer The Methodical Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 20:43:00 -
[443] - Quote
Revajin wrote:Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight. If you steal from a can now you are considered a criminal and anyone can attack you rather than just the can owner?
Why are can flippers mad about this?
From what I understand the rage is against the idea that the can flippers won't be able to fight back against anyone who attacks them and that shooting someone who attacks you after you flip them will result in a sec status hit. |
Harrigan VonStudly
The Generic Pirate Corporation Fusion.
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 20:46:00 -
[444] - Quote
Taihbea wrote:Mutnin wrote:Velicia Tuoro wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: 1. Player A takes Player B's can 2. Players C-Z are now able to aggress Player A, who can only retaliate
That is how I interpreted it. That's a pretty stupid move by CCP if this is the case. While I agree with the logistics need to be given aggression and "should" show up on KMs, but can flipping giving aggro to all is certainly not needed. However would be funny to see all the loot stealing ***** @ jita 4-4 getting popped by the dozen. Assuming it carried over to wrecks as well. Overall sounds like CCP dumbing down the game once again. Yes yes. Flipping some defenseless noob can is so pro and hardcore. Wtf are you on? This is AWESOME news.
IF player A gets ganked on the Jita 4-4 undock and his freighter drops billions in loot and I steal some why should I be shootable by every player on the undock? Furthermore, it was hinted at that I would not be allowed to shoot back if shot at.
You should read the thread more. It goes way deeper than flipping noobs. |
Garmon
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
187
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:05:00 -
[445] - Quote
Harrigan VonStudly wrote:
IF player A gets ganked on the Jita 4-4 undock and his freighter drops billions in loot and I steal some why should I be shootable by every player on the undock?
Probably because of this thing called risk vs reward, maybe Check out GARMONATION 9 right now! Check out our site for PVP videos, guides and audio commentaries: www.EVEisEASY.com
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1129
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:08:00 -
[446] - Quote
Revajin wrote:Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight. If you steal from a can now you are considered a criminal and anyone can attack you rather than just the can owner?
Why are can flippers mad about this?
Because Greyscale's initial position was people shoot the can flipper, he can't shoot back or he'll be concorded. :)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
E man Industries
SeaChell Productions
249
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:10:00 -
[447] - Quote
EvE is not safe nor should it be.
Wardecks on no consenting corps are good! Sucha wardeck got me out of missioning and into pvp because we formed up to defend ourselves...I said i want more of that and moved out to 0.0
I might still be running missions if i had nto been wardecked.
Also can flipping....other than doing it in noob systems what is the problem?
Need more-ádecent content a casual player can access in a 1-2h play period that is actually fun and contributes to long term personal and corp goals. This applies to PvE and PvP. |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1129
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:10:00 -
[448] - Quote
Garmon wrote:Harrigan VonStudly wrote:
IF player A gets ganked on the Jita 4-4 undock and his freighter drops billions in loot and I steal some why should I be shootable by every player on the undock?
Probably because of this thing called risk vs reward, maybe
I'm fine with being shot at by anyone that wants to shoot at me (I'm -10 after all...) but I would appreciate being able to shoot back without being Concorded. As for my personal preference, I'd say that the right solution is to have high sec PVP flags. You are either flagged for PVP or you are not. Taking any PVP action (from can baiting to shooting someone that's PVP flagged) flags you for PVP.
Yes, that might mean that high sec belts become blood baths as corps, alliances, and friends escalate over a can flip... but why is this a bad thing?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Brom MkLeith
Epsilon Inc STORM.
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:22:00 -
[449] - Quote
Karl Planck wrote:Pak Narhoo wrote:Just know it's still on paper. Nothing hard, nothing coded. Can go anyway from here.
Like a good point: friendly can flipping to have a 1 on 1 fight is out the window with these presumed changes.
nope, just fleet up and meet at a safe
Thanks for pointing this one out. I was worried about "friendly" duels disappearing.
|
Harrigan VonStudly
The Generic Pirate Corporation Fusion.
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:26:00 -
[450] - Quote
Garmon wrote:Harrigan VonStudly wrote:
IF player A gets ganked on the Jita 4-4 undock and his freighter drops billions in loot and I steal some why should I be shootable by every player on the undock?
Probably because of this thing called risk vs reward, maybe
I completely agree Garmon. The "mention" by CCP that as a 'suspect' you can not return fire if fired upon is sort of a bad idea imo. I probably should have added that earlier. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |