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) |
Istyn
Tactical Knightmare
89
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:52:00 -
[121] - Quote
I have a question regarding these two slides, if you don't mind, CCP Greyscale:
http://i.imgur.com/I1dGd.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/PEAUZ.jpg
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you gain the suspect flag by say, can flipping someone - if they then shoot you and you defend yourself and blow them up, you then gain a sec hit? That seems a bit odd considering all of space can shoot you - thereby you're either guaranteed to lose a ship or a buttload of sec. The 'all of space can shoot you' bit isn't so bad, leading to more risk on the side of the griefer, but when they gain a sec hit for defending themselves, likely against an overwhelming force, it seems a bit one-sided.
Seems like this would completely destroy the whole ninja salvager gameplay as well as numerous other griefer playstyles.
|
Toshiroma McDiesel
Lupus Draconis Dragehund
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:52:00 -
[122] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Evei Shard wrote:There have been plenty of comments in various threads about how miners need to protect themselves. How miners need to have an alt sit and protect them in low and null. People were pretty hard ass about all that. Now CCP hints at possibly making that a reality in high-sec, and the tears are a deluge. You realise that miners can and fairly often do already do that in highsec, right? Oh wait, you're in an NPC corp so you wouldn't know that you get aggression to the entire corp when stealing. They also aren't reducing the number of situations in which concord responds at all, I don't even know where you're getting that from.
I think what the person you are responding to was talking about something you see in all miner/ganker threads, the idea that you "have someone else there to gank the ganker before/after they gank you". Which in high sec, really doesn't work out well if you do the math, you lose miner and the White Knight, (concord takes him as well as the ganker,) makeing it a double kill for the ganker.
This now makes this a viable option, you kill the miner, his muscle can now get revenge without losing his ship. Think of it as a 15 min transfer of Kill-Rights. The Valdspar is Holy, it must be allowed to float free. Free of lesser rocks that try to clutter it's Holy Path though the Heavens. |
Borun Tal
Border Zone Combat
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:58:00 -
[123] - 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.
Ganking is perfectly OK, but vigilantism isn't? Part of me would love to hear your logic on this, but then it'll be a black hole, I suspect. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
379
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:00:00 -
[124] - Quote
When someone suicide ganks a miner they get a GCC timer and can be shot by everyone in system without penalty already. |
Borun Tal
Border Zone Combat
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:02:00 -
[125] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown 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. I want to clarify here: when I'm racing another explorer in a Gurista Scout Outpost and he pops the tower, will I be able to steal the loot from the can at the risk of him engaging me? Because if you break that mechanic, you've taken away something that was JUST FINE. At the risk of him, and everyone else, for the length of the timer, engaging you. Pretty much like Low-sec. Concord won't give a damn. As long as you turn off the safety that stops you stealing. That's the 'misdemeanors' level, which would suspect flag you. 'Felony' level stuff has concord. Basically, if it'd currently flag you for aggression to another player, it flags you for all. If it would get Concord after you, it still will
On a related note, I hope the broken fleet salvage mechanic is fixed before this is implemented, if at all. For example, I'm often fleeted with an alt to do salvage behind me, and if said salvager docks or leaves grid, then returns to continue clean-up, suddenly that alt is a criminal. Clearly a broken mechanic. |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
605
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:25:00 -
[126] - Quote
Lawl at all the neutral RR alt tears.
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
316
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:29:00 -
[127] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote: Rant
Perhaps you've misunderstood. Turn the saftey off, and continue as normal. It just won't be a pop up. Instead you have to go into the esc menu and turn it off. No more anoying AppGlobal Modal Windows - This is a good thing. I hope you're right, mate. No sarcasm, I'm dead-serious here: I hope this is indeed, as you say, and I'm hugely misinterpreting this... But the cynic in me insists otherwise, and it's being very insistent atm, if you get my drift. Not least of all because of all the carebear crying we've been seeing 'round these parts for...oooh, let's say the last 8-10 months. It would seem--again, I pray that I am wrong--that they've built up momentum. This will prove EVE's undoing if CCP takes what they want to its logical end-point.
Having been there, I can confirm that it is planned as a one off toggle, per safety. They specifically want to avoid the click through because people don't read them.
FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Evei Shard
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
78
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:34:00 -
[128] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Evei Shard wrote:There have been plenty of comments in various threads about how miners need to protect themselves. How miners need to have an alt sit and protect them in low and null. People were pretty hard ass about all that. Now CCP hints at possibly making that a reality in high-sec, and the tears are a deluge. You realise that miners can and fairly often do already do that in highsec, right? Oh wait, you're in an NPC corp so you wouldn't know that you get aggression to the entire corp when stealing.
I don't hide the fact that I'm a forum alt. I'll be sure to send you a special notice, if that changes, to avoid confusion.
The mechanics are in place already for a corp, but this opens it up to anyone, corp or not.
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
They also aren't reducing the number of situations in which concord responds at all, I don't even know where you're getting that from.
The following potential changes were listed by the OP:
New "suspect" flag - Minor crimes. Anyone can shoot you without penalty. - Flipping a can for example - Shooting someone makes you a suspect (I think) - Anyone assisting a suspect becomes a suspect - Not sure if gate guns will attack a suspect. Undecided yet.
Criminal Flag - Is like current GCC - Killing someone makes you a criminal - Some sort of buff/tweak for concord? Insta-death, rather than ships - Appear to have not considered high sec delays due to system security status. - Considering warp scram ray, then death ray in x secs afterwards.
Perhaps you are a hardcore industrialist, but current mechanics cause Concord to show up even if you just shoot someone. The potential changes, taken at face value, would change that to Concord only showing up when you kill someone.
Profit favors the prepared |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
316
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:40:00 -
[129] - Quote
Shooting someone gives a gcc, like normal. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
894
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:43:00 -
[130] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:I don't give a flying **** about WoW: I just know that this is dividing the sandbox along explicit lines whilst, apparently, eliminating options, which is not what a sandbox is supposed to be
Teaching noobs how to work in the sandbox starting with a revamped NPE, instead of just giving them a mining gun, a civi gun, and teaching them how to shoot red crosses or rocks with nothing about mechanics, is how you build a good, long-term EVE player who "gets it."
You don't even point something looking like an argument, you just rabble some sort of brainless rabble everyone around is tired of, and these changes are there to make you finally "get it".
If things are turning this way to make high sec safer, who the focking hell you think pushed way to far the abuse of game mechanics? - once again, your choice always brings back consequences, one day or another and maybe later but not never.
What I'm not getting in some of these new mechanics, probably because available info atm is very light, how are they going to make high sec a better place for starting players and the occasional industrial whatsoever players that choose to stay in high sec after these changes. Different, yes, better I'm not sure at all but I'm missing information.
|
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
390
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:44:00 -
[131] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote: But the cynic in me insists otherwise, and it's being very insistent atm, if you get my drift. Not least of all because of all the carebear crying we've been seeing 'round these parts for...oooh, let's say the last 8-10 months. It would seem--again, I pray that I am wrong--that they've built up momentum.
I understand your doubts, but I don't think they'd nerf danger that much. Honestly, I don't think that many "carebears" want to be perfectly safe either. They just want a fighting chance versus being ganked. Ganked PVP isn't much fun, even as the ganker. Sooner or later it gets boring for all involved. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
179
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:54:00 -
[132] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote:once again, your choice always brings back consequences
Where's the consequences for killing faction aligned NPCs? If EVE really took consequences for actions seriously players wouldn't need to play the system to shoot at others in Empire space, the system would support such actions.
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
391
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:55:00 -
[133] - Quote
Xorv wrote:Tanya Powers wrote:once again, your choice always brings back consequences
Where's the consequences for killing faction aligned NPCs? If EVE really took consequences for actions seriously players wouldn't need to play the system to shoot at others in Empire space, the system would support such actions.
Go pop a customs agent, see what happens. Make sure to get in really close when you do it. |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1113
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:59:00 -
[134] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Yeah, that's a dumb I made on the slide. Assistance will cause you to inherit the assistee's timer, with the current amount of time they have left on it. If you're only assisting and not shooting, it'll always be the case that you'll deagress on the same second as the person you're giving assistance to.
Thanks for the answer. That's probably an acceptable solution, as long as you fix all the other places that Logis get ****** for being Logis. For instance, taking a GCC and/or faction standings hit for repping a pirate without aggression. :)
-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
|
Myxx
Blacklight Incorporated Broken Chains Alliance
499
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 23:07:00 -
[135] - Quote
If highsec becomes safer, they need to tone rewards waaaaaaaaaaaay down, ESPECIALLY for missions and incursions.
and, in my opinion, this is going the wrong way as of current. Highsec is already a bit too safe, and there are a number of strings that should be cut. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 23:14:00 -
[136] - Quote
People who are complaining about not being able to canflip...they can easily add a way of asking someone to fight you 1 on 1.
They don't have to leave in the complicated stealing makes this able to shoot that but not this but concord will shoot that if it isnt gone in 3 seconds or repping this crap that it currently is.
They want to fix the complexity of the current setup, not stop people from having PvP in hisec, thus they won't refuse to add this sort of feature. Perhaps the agreement would be like "you two can shoot each other but no one can intervene or do anything to help without getting concorded during the duration of this fight".
If either person warped off, the fight declaration would automatically be void. It would have to be a mutual agreement thing, just like can flipping sort of is currently. Also sort of reduces the "gank a noob cause they dont know about agression" thing.
Then again that could be taken advantage of but who knows. |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
456
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 23:37:00 -
[137] - Quote
I just watched the replay HD stream on crimewatch. Everything sounds really good. I'm sold on it. It sounds like code wise they are going for a modular system, so whatever you rage about could theoretically be addressed if it's not stupid. I like everything they talked about. CCP Greyscale made perfect sense. The new system is going to rock if they can just fix the wardec system! Nice work CCP!
|
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
104
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 23:47:00 -
[138] - Quote
Very mixed bag here.
The neutral RR change is welcome and long overdue.
The 'loads of info' killmails are welcome and long overdue.
The 'show all timers' is welcome and long overdue.
The felony/misdemeanor idea is dumb. The sec status change is dumb. The buying sec status with tags idea is dumb.
Instead of the dumb ones, make it possible to configure your overview so that all people you can legally shoot show up on it and all people you can't shoot don't.
It's like they brainstormed ideas and then didn't filter the dumb ones out. |
Endeavour Starfleet
707
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 23:52:00 -
[139] - Quote
Except it is not a dumb idea. It is about time for me to WTFpwn can flippers harassing miners. |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
456
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 00:04:00 -
[140] - Quote
AkJon Ferguson wrote:The felony/misdemeanor idea is dumb. The sec status change is dumb. The buying sec status with tags idea is dumb.
Instead of the dumb ones, make it possible to configure your overview so that all people you can legally shoot show up on it and all people you can't shoot don't.
It's like they brainstormed ideas and then didn't filter the dumb ones out. Why is the buying sec w/ tags dumb? Why not monetize it... I mean it's like anything else in the game. If someone wants to grind for me I'm willing to pay... and I'm sure they will be glad to get paid. The grinding is happening so what's the problem? The sec status change is required for everything else to work, and if there is some element not working they will be able to adjust it (which they cannot do now) so I don't see the problem there either. What is dumb about it?
|
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
396
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 00:10:00 -
[141] - Quote
AkJon Ferguson wrote: The felony/misdemeanor idea is dumb. The sec status change is dumb. The buying sec status with tags idea is dumb.
Have to disagree. The suspect flag will create new opportunity for players, (and things CCP can do in the future), it'll stream line the convoluted situation we have now, and it'll provide more PVP opportunities. CCP could then code in player run smuggling and player run enforcement against smuggling.
Sec status changes, sound pretty cool, player run game of cops and robbers in low sec, something that has been missing for a long time. No longer will +'s be at the disadvantage of not being able to shoot first with out other wise taking a penalty. This very likely will allow non-pirate players to become territorial in low sec with out having to turn into pirates them selves. Such things are the first steps to the long forgotten idea of Viceroy.
The tag idea could be a very good way to reduce the ISK flow into the game by dropping a new and useful item. Hopefully CCP is smart enough to see this. They could start dropping more tags from pirates, each level of rank having more or less value. Just officer and commander tags is a bad idea, it should be more common tags so that all player level, from noobs to vets can participate in this market.
If the tags are an equivalent to the current sec status gain value of shooting the rat in question, then the overall value of the tags will be above, but not below, the time value, plus 15 minutes, expressed in ISK, that it would take to shoot those rats. The 15 minute wait between sec gains in the current situation is what will carry the value of the tags. A more widely held market like this will create more availability, but not impact the overall value, and penalty, of the current situation. Just officer and commander tags will create a funky, low availability and overly sporadic market. |
Qvar Dar'Zanar
EVE University Ivy League
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 00:11:00 -
[142] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:People who are complaining about not being able to canflip...they can easily add a way of asking someone to fight you 1 on 1.
They don't have to leave in the complicated stealing makes this able to shoot that but not this but concord will shoot that if it isnt gone in 3 seconds or repping this crap that it currently is.
They want to fix the complexity of the current setup, not stop people from having PvP in hisec, thus they won't refuse to add this sort of feature. Perhaps the agreement would be like "you two can shoot each other but no one can intervene or do anything to help without getting concorded during the duration of this fight".
If either person warped off, the fight declaration would automatically be void. It would have to be a mutual agreement thing, just like can flipping sort of is currently. Also sort of reduces the "gank a noob cause they dont know about agression" thing.
Then again that could be taken advantage of but who knows.
This.
Add duel system please. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
162
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 00:20:00 -
[143] - Quote
Since I'm not getting improved Bountyhunting and transferable killrights (put it in your backlog plx) , what about cans and wrecks in low and null being free for all?
The website lists salvaging as a profession which is actually not really true since you can't tractor the wrecks from the battles you scan down or follow follow since they are yellow to you and therefore can't use the greatness of your noctis (would also solve the sentry guns firing at canflippers 'problem') |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
458
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 00:38:00 -
[144] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:Since I'm not getting improved Bountyhunting and transferable killrights (put it in your backlog plx) , what about cans and wrecks in low and null being free for all?
The website lists salvaging as a profession which is actually not really true since you can't tractor the wrecks from the battles you scan down or follow follow since they are yellow to you and therefore can't use the greatness of your noctis (would also solve the sentry guns firing at canflippers 'problem') I understand now. You're just doing it wrong. All the pirates I've trained start out as ninja looters and salvagers. The Noctis is a poor choice for a ninja looter/salvager. I think it's roll is to follow friendly fleets around missions and the like to clean up after them. In that roll it does very well. If you are going to steal stuff it behooves one to travel light and fast. Destroyers and interdictors are ideal. Yah you can't tractor stuff in BECAUSE IT'S NOT YOURS (YET)! You can if you are in a friendly gang or if people are disowning their wrecks... but stealing shouldn't be risk free. I'm aready tossing around ways to turn that mechanic around and get aggression from carebears in their hero fit battleships. That's some nice loot. Now there will be more opportunities in piracy too...
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5734
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 00:40:00 -
[145] - Quote
There are two main issues with this rework that some of us who sat in on the roundtable have been able to observe:
1. The inability to fight back, which basically makes the whole GÇ£suspectGÇ¥ flag completely redundant in highsec. This could be fixed by using the duelling contract system that was discussed during the panel, which would allow for some kind of escalation of the conflict without necessarily having everything be a complete dichotomous situation where you either have no semi-legal attacks ever; and everyone fighting everyone do to how quickly it would escalate of suspect flags were handed out as liberally as suggested.
2. This change needs to happen in combination with a bounty hunting and/or GÇ£vigilanteGÇ£ status implementation, creating a particular class of players who can act on these new state flags without requiring a return of the old player-to-player aggression system and the mess it creates.
The whole issue with this new system is the edge cases, which could simply be built out of the mechanics, but on the other hand, it's those edge cases that make some of the aggression GÇ£danceGÇ¥ so interesting.
Also, we'll have to wait until Saturday and see what the new wardec system has in store for us GÇö some of the issues that are created by the criminal flagging refactoring could potentially be solved that way. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
397
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 00:48:00 -
[146] - Quote
Tippia wrote:1. The inability to fight back, which basically makes the whole GÇ£suspectGÇ¥ flag completely redundant in highsec. This could be fixed by using the duelling contract system that was discussed during the panel, which would allow for some kind of escalation of the conflict without necessarily having everything be a complete dichotomous situation where you either have no semi-legal attacks ever; and everyone fighting everyone do to how quickly it would escalate of suspect flags were handed out as liberally as suggested.
Could you rephrase that? Those of us not there don't have all the details so I am not sure I understand what you wrote.
If a player is flagged suspect, to everyone presumably from the way I heard it, and someone shoots a suspect, then the suspect can shoot back. Does the suspect shooting player also become suspect or just get aggro with the initial suspect? |
T'san Manaan
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 00:57:00 -
[147] - Quote
Sounds like all around good changes. keep up the good thinking CCP! |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
162
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:02:00 -
[148] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Gilbaron wrote:Since I'm not getting improved Bountyhunting and transferable killrights (put it in your backlog plx) , what about cans and wrecks in low and null being free for all?
The website lists salvaging as a profession which is actually not really true since you can't tractor the wrecks from the battles you scan down or follow follow since they are yellow to you and therefore can't use the greatness of your noctis (would also solve the sentry guns firing at canflippers 'problem') I understand now. You're just doing it wrong. All the pirates I've trained start out as ninja looters and salvagers. The Noctis is a poor choice for a ninja looter/salvager. I think it's roll is to follow friendly fleets around missions and the like to clean up after them. In that roll it does very well. If you are going to steal stuff it behooves one to travel light and fast. Destroyers and interdictors are ideal. Yah you can't tractor stuff in BECAUSE IT'S NOT YOURS (YET)! You can if you are in a friendly gang or if people are disowning their wrecks... but stealing shouldn't be risk free. I'm aready tossing around ways to turn that mechanic around and get aggression from carebears in their hero fit battleships. That's some nice loot. Now there will be more opportunities in piracy too...
I wasn't talking about highsec
I was talking about regions where Noone (really) cares when you kill someone which also have a mechanic in place to somehow protect people's 'property' |
Terazul
The Scope Gallente Federation
28
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:03:00 -
[149] - Quote
Tippia wrote: 2. This change needs to happen in combination with a bounty hunting and/or GÇ£vigilanteGÇ£ status implementation, creating a particular class of players who can act on these new state flags without requiring a return of the old player-to-player aggression system and the mess it creates.
Yesssss, I really want to see bounty hunting actually become a legitimate playstyle. Combine this with the CSM-proposed changes to the bounty system and I could see it becoming a real profession, hopefully alongside smuggling and other sci-fi spaceship standbys. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5734
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:10:00 -
[150] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Could you rephrase that? Those of us not there don't have all the details so I am not sure I understand what you wrote.
If a player is flagged suspect, to everyone presumably from the way I heard it, and someone shoots a suspect, then the suspect can shoot back. Does the suspect shooting player also become suspect or just get aggro with the initial suspect? No. The whole concept of this refactoring is to get rid of player-to-player flagging and all the various interdependent timers that this causes. Instead, you will have a flag that is completely independent from everyone else. Thus we have the GÇ£suspectGÇ¥ and GÇ£felonGÇ¥ flags instead: both are global flags tied exclusively to you. They change the rules for how other people are allowed to interact with you. Period. They do not change the rules for you in any way.
This means that if you steal from a can, you get flagged GÇ£suspsectGÇ¥ andGǪ nothing more. End of story. You are now a suspect and a free-for-all target. You cannot do anything you couldn't do before, including shooting people. Since you are now a legal target, attacking you does not create any flags for the attacker GÇö they do not become suspects or felons; they are not legal targets for anyone, including you. You cannot fight back, because you would be attacking GÇ£innocentGÇ£ targets and upgrade yourself to GÇ£felonGÇ£ status and get death-rayed (or however the new CONCORD implementation will work). Essentially, being a suspect is the same as a GCC, without the CONCORD intervention GÇö you are, quite simply, dead without any recourse (aside from staying the hell away from other players). So: people will never ever get themselves flagged suspect unless they know with 100% certainty that they will dock up instantly afterwards, or that they can instawarp away to safety.
The alternative, strictly using this system, would be that anyone who attacks a suspect becomes a suspect. This creates a massive escalation problem: I steal your can (everyone can shoot me); you shoot me for my isolence (now everyone can shoot you); my backstabbing bastard buddies warp in because we successfully baited you and they shoot you, now everyone can shoot them. Suddenly, we have 20 free-for-all targets in the system just because I took your loot. No-one will come out of this alive and salvage prices will be reaching an all-time low from the massive increase in availability from all those wrecks.
In an attempt to contain this and still allow for voluntary player-to-player combat, there was talk about a duelling system: you (or your fleet / corp / whatever) ask the other guy(s) for a duel, they accept, and you duke it out. Anyone who interferes becomes a suspect and a free-for-all target (so there goes the neutral reps). Again, the idea is to not have this massive mess of person-to-person flags and inheritance of who can attack whom for whatever obscure reason GÇö instead, you have two predefined groups that are free to blap each other to pieces and no escalation or inheritance can take place (all you can do is trigger a GÇ£suspectGÇ¥ flag for yourself).
One idea that was floated was to combine the two in order to provide some kind of middle-ground for the suspect and let him defend himself: I steal your can, and become a suspect. Anyone (including you) who attacks me, implicitly signs one of these duel contracts. If either one of us tries to bring in remote support, they'll flag themselves as suspects (so they won't come help youGǪ), and as longs as I can whittle down people who come to GÇ£supportGÇ¥ you by shooting me, I can stay alive. This will create a whole slew of new problems that we haven't fully thought out, but it at least gets rid of the whole GÇ£suspect = deadGÇ¥ issue. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
|
|
|
|
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 |