Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Somealt Ofmine
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 15:39:00 -
[1]
Instead of the currently proposed nerfs to suicide ganking, why not just let players join Concord?
Crimial Flag Makes Gankers Fair Game to Concord Members
Have the NPC Concord scramble more slowly, and make them possible (though difficult) to evade. Players who join concord would get instant kill rights (no podding) on criminally flagged players. That would include both gankers and "flippers".
Collecting Loot from Ganked Wrecks Flags You.
Your buddy in the hauler can try to snatch and run, but that will flag him just like stealing from any can. Concord players could blast him.
Ganked Players can Collect Their Loot Without Getting Flagged
Concord players secure the area until the ganked player can return and collect what's left of his stuff.
Concord Pays Automatic Bounties
These would be based on the ship type of the criminal. BS at the top, frig at the bottom, just like rat bounties.
This would do a couple of things. It would give combat pilots another progression path (I'm going to write about progression paths in another post) after mission running other than pirating, FW, and 0.0. It would also put a lot more risk in being a high-sec criminal without turning Empire into "Hello Kitty Carebear Island". It might even make empire fun. Imagine that.
|
Lucy'Lastic
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 16:43:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Somealt Ofmine
Crimial Flag Makes Gankers Fair Game to Concord Members
Have the NPC Concord scramble more slowly, and make them possible (though difficult) to evade. Players who join concord would get instant kill rights (no podding) on criminally flagged players. That would include both gankers and "flippers".
Make it possible for 'gankers' to evade Concord.OK.
Lets you kill 'Flippers'. Not OK.
I assume you mean suicide gankers.
|
Somealt Ofmine
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 16:52:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Lucy'Lastic
Make it possible for 'gankers' to evade Concord.OK.
Lets you kill 'Flippers'. Not OK.
I assume you mean suicide gankers.
There really wouldn't be "suicide gankers" anymore, cause it wouldn't necessarily be suicide. It would just be really risky, especially if there were lots of "Cops" around.
And why not let a "Law Enforcement" player kill a "flipper"? It's a criminal activity. If you're going to do "crime", better make sure there are no "Cops" around, or at least make sure you have enough backup that you figure you can kill them and get away.
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 17:19:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Somealt Ofmine
Originally by: Lucy'Lastic
Make it possible for 'gankers' to evade Concord.OK.
Lets you kill 'Flippers'. Not OK.
I assume you mean suicide gankers.
There really wouldn't be "suicide gankers" anymore, cause it wouldn't necessarily be suicide. It would just be really risky, especially if there were lots of "Cops" around.
And why not let a "Law Enforcement" player kill a "flipper"? It's a criminal activity. If you're going to do "crime", better make sure there are no "Cops" around, or at least make sure you have enough backup that you figure you can kill them and get away.
Because it's not a serious enough crime to warrant losing your ship.
|
Somealt Ofmine
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 17:39:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires
Because it's not a serious enough crime to warrant losing your ship.
No? What happens to the newb miner who tries to take their stuff back? I'm guessing they're about to lose their ship.
Pretty hypocritical to say that the flipper shouldn't be at the same risk. If it's "not serious enough to warrant losing your ship" it shouldn't flag you at all. Should just incur a minor sec status hit.
|
Vision Threads
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 17:48:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Vision Threads on 15/08/2008 17:49:59
Holy crap I would totally join concord and just cruise around doing highsec pvp vs anyone who is flagged or who has a very low sec status. It would be just like being in a faction navy, except your enemy faction are people who are flagged or have low sec status. Awesome.
Edit: And I could go into lowsec too and kill pirates without getting a sec hit or activating gate guns. So awesome. Screw the bounty hunter crap. I want THIS.
|
Gabriel Darkefyre
Minmatar Crystal Ship
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 17:56:00 -
[7]
Not supported.
Not because I don't like the Idea, but because this idea hasn't really been thought through thoroughly before being posted. I assume that you've basically just thrown your thoughts down without thinking through all the Repercussions of what your idea would do to large portions of the EVE Playerbase with this one (Hit Pirates Hard) and also with your other idea that you've proposed (Effectively completely eliminate Mission Running as a Playstyle) as it's obvious that you haven't consulted anyone else on these ideas by how rough they are.
For such a major change in the games direction that you're proposing you'd need to have hammered all the flaws out of them on the F&I board at least by taking in what other players have to say about your ideas and using their feedback to eliminate the bits that would be a terrible idea. Only then should it be brought to this board in fine detail as to what your proposal actually is.
Having said that, I seriously doubt that you're going to get much support for these proposed changes, no matter how much polish is applied as should they go through, then the game we'd be playing just wouldn't be EVE anymore.
|
Somealt Ofmine
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 18:08:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre Not supported.
Not because I don't like the Idea, but because this idea hasn't really been thought through thoroughly before being posted.
Hmmm... I read the section description and I didn't see anything about going through the house select sub-committee before bring an idea to the floor.
What I've posted here are just alternatives to all of the "move L4s to low sec" proposals I've seen, which I think is an awful idea. If you do that, you might just as well get rid of them. You're not going to see 180 players running missions in a .3 system on a saturday night. At least my proposals give players who don't want to pirate or move to 0.0 a way to make money that's actually viable.
Running missions in low sec isn't, but those proposing that they be moved there know that. They're just looking for more juicy gank-targets.
|
faltzswher
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 18:23:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre
Repercussions of what your idea would do to large portions of the EVE Playerbase with this one (Hit Pirates Hard)).
Not really If someone is globably flagged they are already a target for everyone anyway. In hi-sec the uber concord of doom just kill you before anyone else does. having players involved would open up the chance to beat concord If concord players go into low sec and shoot blinky pirates they are just like nomral people only they get paid to do it (and thats a bad thing how).
Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre
and also with your other idea that you've proposed (Effectively completely eliminate Mission Running as a Playstyle).
Yes because me doing my non-illegal activties in my lovely missions need to fear concord.
Its an idea that needs work and alot of trail and error but the one area it will have major issue which you somehow failed to point out is factional warfare Minmatar shot a concord station after all .
On the thinking it out side to make sure concord dosn't go over board simple say concord players can only collect bounites in 0.1's or above. And simple standing requiements prevent everyone from joining from day one.
|
Gabriel Darkefyre
Minmatar Crystal Ship
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 18:30:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Gabriel Darkefyre on 15/08/2008 18:31:07
Originally by: Somealt Ofmine
Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre Not supported.
Not because I don't like the Idea, but because this idea hasn't really been thought through thoroughly before being posted.
Hmmm... I read the section description and I didn't see anything about going through the house select sub-committee before bring an idea to the floor.
Did you read the description for the other forums as well? Especially in light of the Dev Blog on the upcoming changes to the forums?
This Forum
Current Description - To raise topics for the attention of the Council of Stellar Management and further election discussions.
New Description - A platform for players to bring topics to the attention of the Council of Stellar Management.
Features and Ideas Discussion Forum
Current Description - Share your game-related features and ideas with the Developers and the rest of the community.
New Description - Get feedback on your game-related ideas and suggestions from our developers and the rest of the community.
-----
So, if you want feedback on your ideas for game-related changes which of the two, by their descriptions, do you think is more appropriate? A forum for feedback or a forum for bringing a completed idea to the attention of the CSM with a view to getting them to present that idea to CCP?
|
|
Somealt Ofmine
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 18:37:00 -
[11]
Originally by: faltzswher
Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre
Repercussions of what your idea would do to large portions of the EVE Playerbase with this one (Hit Pirates Hard)).
Not really If someone is globably flagged they are already a target for everyone anyway. In hi-sec the uber concord of doom just kill you before anyone else does. having players involved would open up the chance to beat concord If concord players go into low sec and shoot blinky pirates they are just like nomral people only they get paid to do it (and thats a bad thing how).
I would certainly achieve the "get more players to go to low-sec objective. It's just that they'd be PvP fit when they go, and looking to make some money while kicking some ass. Perhaps that's not the "boost low sec" that some have in mind.
Would be really great to see half the mission runners in Motsu say "screw this, did you see the bounties that Concord pays? Where do I buy a warp scrambler?" And then see them head for Rancer.
|
Somealt Ofmine
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 18:43:00 -
[12]
Quote:
So, if you want feedback on your ideas for game-related changes which of the two, by their descriptions, do you think is more appropriate? A forum for feedback or a forum for bringing a completed idea to the attention of the CSM with a view to getting them to present that idea to CCP?
Looks to me like they overlap each other 100%, except for the fact that this forum is for ANY idea that you'd like the CSM to consider, and the F&I forum is for features discussions specifically. Nothing there about the F&I forum being like a sub-committee for hashing out ideas before presenting them to the high-and-mighty.
It could be that way. You could make it so that ideas in the F&I forum need a certain number of "thumbs up" before coming here. Ain't that way though. I see lots of ideas posted here that were never posted in the F&I. I see some of my ideas posted here that I did post in the F&I without attribution. I just figured I'd cut out the middle man.
|
Somealt Ofmine
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 19:49:00 -
[13]
I was thinking about this and it seems to me that with this in the game, moving L4s to low-sec might be viable.
In a typical low-sec system you'd have the mission runners and miners, the pirates looking to gank or ransom them, and the Concord "Cops" looking to gank the pirates for the bounties.
It might just make low-sec secure enough that the mission runners would go, but still provide plenty of PvP with ships that are actually fit for PvP doing most of the fighting.
The problem with traditional "anti-pirating" is that you go broke. The pirates just plain have more income potential than you do. This would balance that some, and make "anti-pirating" a viable alternative.
|
Drake Draconis
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 20:46:00 -
[14]
/signed I think this would actually balance the game out nicely in high security. Suddenly the players now have the ability to enforce the law.
Reliance on AI has its limitations.
But only if this effects high security.
Kinda pointless for it to spread to areas where CONCORD doesn't patrol.
|
Gabriel Darkefyre
Minmatar Crystal Ship
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 23:19:00 -
[15]
Originally by: faltzswher
Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre
Repercussions of what your idea would do to large portions of the EVE Playerbase with this one (Hit Pirates Hard)).
Not really If someone is globably flagged they are already a target for everyone anyway. In hi-sec the uber concord of doom just kill you before anyone else does. having players involved would open up the chance to beat concord If concord players go into low sec and shoot blinky pirates they are just like nomral people only they get paid to do it (and thats a bad thing how).
It's not, however it does open up a Can of Worms by giving a GCC to anyone taking from a can that doesn't belong to them. For example, I'm in a mining op with a Non-Corp Fleetmate, he's Mining and I'm Hauling for him (Let's say for sake of arguement that he's an Alt of one of my Corp members. I arrive in belt next to his Jetcan with 1 Unit of Ore in it, he drops his Hold into the can and I immediately take the dropped ore into my Hauler's Hold (that way dealing with a large proportion of the risk associated with Mining Via Jetcan). At this point, I'm flagged as Hostile as I've just taken stuff from his can. He doesn't care as we plan to split the Ore once the Op is complete, I'm just taking it back to station.
However, under his idea, I'm now flagged with a GCC and so a Valid target for anyone. I've never flown under a GCC so I don't know what restrictions it places you under (Sentry Gun Fire? Can't Dock?) but the most pressing of these would be that I can now be shot at with no repercussions by anyone simply for playing my part in a legitimate mining operation.
Oh, and I mistyped in my other post, meant to say Miners, not Pirates. This would actually make Pirates lives a lot easier.
Quote:
Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre
and also with your other idea that you've proposed (Effectively completely eliminate Mission Running as a Playstyle).
Yes because me doing my non-illegal activties in my lovely missions need to fear concord.
Sorry, we seem to have crossed wires. This Idea was the one I was on about when I said it eliminates Mission Running as a Profession. Basically he advocates the complete removal of Lvl 4 & 5 Missions and Capping people at a Maximum of 100 Lvl 3 Missions over the entire course of their EVE Career.
|
Gabriel Darkefyre
Minmatar Crystal Ship
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 23:28:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Somealt Ofmine
Quote:
So, if you want feedback on your ideas for game-related changes which of the two, by their descriptions, do you think is more appropriate? A forum for feedback or a forum for bringing a completed idea to the attention of the CSM with a view to getting them to present that idea to CCP?
Looks to me like they overlap each other 100%, except for the fact that this forum is for ANY idea that you'd like the CSM to consider, and the F&I forum is for features discussions specifically. Nothing there about the F&I forum being like a sub-committee for hashing out ideas before presenting them to the high-and-mighty.
It could be that way. You could make it so that ideas in the F&I forum need a certain number of "thumbs up" before coming here. Ain't that way though. I see lots of ideas posted here that were never posted in the F&I. I see some of my ideas posted here that I did post in the F&I without attribution. I just figured I'd cut out the middle man.
Understandable, unfortunately with the lines being so blurred between the two forums it does make it difficult to know sometimes whether an idea would be better suited here or in F&I. The Forums could definately use a lot more organisation. Ideally you'd want to post an Idea for discussion on F&I, then provide a thread here for people to indicate whether they think the idea is strong enough to warrent going into game. So basically, for the two threads, they'd post here if they supported or post on the F&I discussion Thread if they were opposed while providing constructive feedback on how to improve the idea.
However, That's a completely seperate issue, which I believe already has at least two seperate threads on this forum.
|
Somealt Ofmine
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 23:52:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 15/08/2008 23:54:22 Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 15/08/2008 23:53:25
Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre
It's not, however it does open up a Can of Worms by giving a GCC to anyone taking from a can that doesn't belong to them. For example, I'm in a mining op with a Non-Corp Fleetmate, he's Mining and I'm Hauling for him (Let's say for sake of arguement that he's an Alt of one of my Corp members). I arrive in belt next to his Jetcan with 1 Unit of Ore in it, he drops his Hold into the can and I immediately take the dropped ore into my Hauler's Hold (that way dealing with a large proportion of the risk associated with Mining Via Jetcan). At this point, I'm flagged as Hostile as I've just taken stuff from his can. He doesn't care as we plan to split the Ore once the Op is complete, I'm just taking it back to station.
However, under his idea, I'm now flagged with a GCC and so a Valid target for anyone. I've never flown under a GCC so I don't know what restrictions it places you under (Sentry Gun Fire? Can't Dock?) but the most pressing of these would be that I can now be shot at with no repercussions by anyone simply for playing my part in a legitimate mining operation.
Not exactly. Yes, getting aggression flagged for taking from a JC that was out-of-corp but in-fleet would have to be fixed (it really should be fixed anyway). But stealing wouldn't give you a GCC and make you a target for anyone under my proposal. I would only turn you "flashy red" to those players who signed up to be "law enforcement" by joining Concord. It would probably be on the same timer as the standard agression timer (15 minutes). If you can steal and evade law enforcement till the timer ran out, you're clear.
Stealing wouldn't cause the NPC Concord to scramble (same as now) it would just flag you to Concord players. Ganking someone in high sec would both flag you and cause the NPC Concord to scramble (same as now). Difference would be that the NPC Concord would be slower to arrive and possible to evade, and would really only serve as back-up to Concord players.
Players who were GCC flagged would be legitmate targets for Concord players anywhere they are "flashy red" of course. They are to everyone now and would continue to be. The only difference is that players who join Concord and choose "Law Enforcement" as a career collect Concord bounties for killing them.
It's just a progression path to entice mission grinders to move beyond L4s and derive their income from PvP, rather than PvE.
It might, as I said above, provide a nice rebalancing of low-sec so that it became attractive for PvEers to go there again. You'd have some Cops there, and not just Robbers.
|
DiamondEdges
Black Lotus Foundation Damned Pirates
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 03:36:00 -
[18]
ug no....
This rates right up there with an idea I heard today wich went something like " just don't allow people to target other players in high sec "
It is kinda lame to have yourself ganked in this way in high sec, but there needs to be a proper way of getting all you high sec noobs out to low sec and 0.0.. if yer too comfy in high sec then eve in general fails. All in all we need MORE people comming OUT of high sec , not keeping you all basking in the glory of an idea that you are untocuhable while not in low sec or 0.0 aside from war decs wich npc corporation members already have.
|
Somealt Ofmine
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 14:07:00 -
[19]
Originally by: DiamondEdges ug no....
This rates right up there with an idea I heard today wich went something like " just don't allow people to target other players in high sec "
It is kinda lame to have yourself ganked in this way in high sec, but there needs to be a proper way of getting all you high sec noobs out to low sec and 0.0.. if yer too comfy in high sec then eve in general fails. All in all we need MORE people comming OUT of high sec , not keeping you all basking in the glory of an idea that you are untocuhable while not in low sec or 0.0 aside from war decs wich npc corporation members already have.
It's proposed as an alternative to the suicide gank nerf that the devs have already outlined. Compared to that it would make PvP in Empire more common, not less, and it might even revitalize low-sec to some degree.
|
Drake Draconis
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 19:02:00 -
[20]
Originally by: DiamondEdges ug no....
This rates right up there with an idea I heard today wich went something like " just don't allow people to target other players in high sec "
It is kinda lame to have yourself ganked in this way in high sec, but there needs to be a proper way of getting all you high sec noobs out to low sec and 0.0.. if yer too comfy in high sec then eve in general fails. All in all we need MORE people comming OUT of high sec , not keeping you all basking in the glory of an idea that you are untocuhable while not in low sec or 0.0 aside from war decs wich npc corporation members already have.
awwww.... he want's more noobs to kill
X O D
Thats exactly what keeps them in high security!
Some people don't even last as long as a month to play this game..... and they won't stay there forever.... you can't make big bucks in high sec... everyone knows that!
|
|
Karentaki
Gallente Fighting While Intoxicated
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 20:55:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Drake Draconis you can't make big bucks in high sec... everyone knows that!
Never heard of L4 missions I see ============= RE: The suicide nerf
Originally by: agent apple I believe I can safely speak for many of us when I say,
Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW
|
Drake Draconis
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 22:46:00 -
[22]
Pfft... Level 4 missions do get you some good cash yes.
But the really good stuff is out in 0.0 space.
: O )
|
Mahandra Hunter
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 23:22:00 -
[23]
Great idea in principle. However, I think the right to be a Licensed Concord Deputy (or whatever) needs to be earned.
So, in Caldari space, a very high standing with at least 3 Caldari corps AND a very high sec status would make you an LCD in Caldari Hi sec space, with the right to attack any negative sec status ship (and any ship that has behaved in any way deemed criminal). That way prats would have to be as careful in hi-sec space as the rest of us do in lo-sec.
Personally I would add the right to join the aggressed side in a wardec, to provide some support for smaller industrial corps against griefers, since the lazy good-for-nothings who masquerade as GMs in this game won't.
For balance I would have very severe sec status and standing hits for LCDs who hit the wrong (ie innocent) target.
It would almost be like hi-sec prats would have to earn there livelihoods, which at the moment they do not.
|
Ethaet
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.08.17 10:03:00 -
[24]
My troll was equipped with the following: 6x Failpost Idea I 1x Alt 1x Caldari
1x 'Hypnos' Irony Meter 3x Carebear Invulnerability Field 1x Large "YOUR" All-Caps Booster 1x Large Lowsec Extender II
3x Flame Control System II 1x Damage Control Apology Post 1x Flagging Expander II -------------------------------------------------------------- Seriously, we need some kind of separation between the post and signature. There you go. Now that wasn't so hard |
Aiden Bismuth
Die Boeremag
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 06:15:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre I assume that you've basically just thrown your thoughts down without thinking through all the Repercussions of what your idea would do to large portions of the EVE Playerbase with this one (Hit Pirates Hard),...
I support this idea.
But, as a CONCORD deputy, you should operate under the same rules as AI CONCORD. Obviously then you couldn't operate in 0.4 and lower, gates into those systems would deny you access.
As previously posted, you should have a high standing with your races NPCs, and high sec status. You should automatically be aggro'ed to any player breaking CONCORD rules, as long as you are a CONCORD deputy.
AB
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |