| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Al Drevika
   |
Posted - 2009.01.02 05:11:00 -
[1]
A sec status of -10 means nothing, other than the inconvenience of having to fly into Jita in a pod and jump into the ship your friend just dropped for you.
Apparently, EVE only allows Concord to scan a pilot's sec status when they come through the gate. Once they are in, they can jump into a ship and Concord won't notice their presence.
Is it me, or is this just dumb, and a loophole that needs to be closed? Hey, if you want to suicide gank me, that's fine, but the security hit you take needs to actually MEAN SOMETHING to you.
|
Evelgrivion
Ignatium.
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 05:14:00 -
[2]
You're right; people with -10 shouldn't have to bother with the pod part, and be allowed to go anywhere they want - without any protection from Concord.
Sound fair to you? 
|
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar
MasterBlasters Inc.
CORPVS DELICTI
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 05:15:00 -
[3]
Is it lonely up there on that pedestal?
----------------------
Putting the sensual in nonconsensual |
Khemul Zula
Amarr
Keisen Trade League
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 05:15:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Khemul Zula on 02/01/2009 05:16:21
It works fine.
Adapt or die.
Go back to WoW carebear.
<insert other generic flame>
 Originally by: Evelgrivion
You're right; people with -10 shouldn't have to bother with the pod part, and be allowed to go anywhere they want - without any protection from Concord.
Sound fair to you?
Signed.
This thread is now about why this should be implemented.
------
I can picture in my mind a world without war,
a world without hate.
And I can picture us attacking that world,
because they'd never expect it. |
Mannheim Wolf
Caldari
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 05:31:00 -
[5]
Being a flashy myself, I would have to say the system is quite limiting as it is.
Plus its the faction navies you're having an issue with, Concord only spawns for GCC.
---
Always outnumbered.
Most likely outgunned.
Never outsmarted.
~Wolf |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 05:31:00 -
[6]
If the penalties are so nothing then why is barely anyone -10.0?
--
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
|
Al Drevika
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 05:52:00 -
[7]
Limiting? Please.
You have -10 sec with Concord. You freely pop in through the gate in your pod. Concord waves at you and asks if you're having a nice day. You jump into a ship your high-standing alt brought in for you, probably a ship you built from a BPO and have insured for more than you have into it. Find a juicy target, gank it. Alt picks up the cargo. Collect insurance on the ship Concord shot up such that CCP is actually *paying* you to do this. Wash, rinse, repeat.
And you can go back to nullsec and rat to get your standing back (but why bother, -10 really doesn't mean anything since Concord won't shoot pods).
Please, please tell me what is soooo limiting. I would love to hear it. The system is so slanted towards PvPers it's not even funny. Just change the rules to let any of us "carebears" to shoot low standing ships and pods without Concord intervention (since we're doing the job they fail to do). The howls of "unfair" would be music to my ears, and I would drink pie tears until I could drink no more.
|
An Anarchyyt
Gallente
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 05:54:00 -
[8]
ANGRY TEXT IN CAPITAL LETTERS THIS IS A SERIOUS POST I AM INTELLIGENT DO WHAT I SAY.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Larkonis Trassler
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 05:57:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Al Drevika
Just change the rules to let any of us "carebears" to shoot low standing ships and pods without Concord intervention (since we're doing the job they fail to do). The howls of "unfair" would be music to my ears, and I would drink pie tears until I could drink no more.
You can
Calm Your Passion |
Khemul Zula
Amarr
Keisen Trade League
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 06:05:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler
Originally by: Al Drevika
Just change the rules to let any of us "carebears" to shoot low standing ships and pods without Concord intervention (since we're doing the job they fail to do). The howls of "unfair" would be music to my ears, and I would drink pie tears until I could drink no more.
You can
Quiet you! Don't let him in on the secret. 
------
I can picture in my mind a world without war,
a world without hate.
And I can picture us attacking that world,
because they'd never expect it. |
Al Drevika
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 06:07:00 -
[11]
Of course, that's assuming the chicken wouldn't run away. The idea of allowing a -10 status pod to dock at a station in high sec is pretty silly, too.
|
Falcon Troy
Caldari
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 06:08:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Falcon Troy on 02/01/2009 06:10:00
Originally by: Al Drevika
Limiting? Please.
You have -10 sec with Concord. You freely pop in through the gate in your pod. Concord waves at you and asks if you're having a nice day. You jump into a ship your high-standing alt brought in for you, probably a ship you built from a BPO and have insured for more than you have into it. Find a juicy target, gank it. Alt picks up the cargo. Collect insurance on the ship Concord shot up such that CCP is actually *paying* you to do this. Wash, rinse, repeat.
And you can go back to nullsec and rat to get your standing back (but why bother, -10 really doesn't mean anything since Concord won't shoot pods).
Please, please tell me what is soooo limiting. I would love to hear it. The system is so slanted towards PvPers it's not even funny. Just change the rules to let any of us "carebears" to shoot low standing ships and pods without Concord intervention (since we're doing the job they fail to do). The howls of "unfair" would be music to my ears, and I would drink pie tears until I could drink no more.
Makes sense.
Ironically easy to slip through the cracks as an outlaw in hisec. However, this issue ties all to closely with the ridiculousness of alts...and thats a whole other problem all together.
_____________
Hai. |
Drik Drevani
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 06:19:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Drik Drevani on 02/01/2009 06:24:09
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler
You can
Liar. Can't pod. Blowing up the ship isn't enough.
|
Chaos Breeze
Low Sec Liberators
Chubby Chuppers Chubba Chups
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 06:20:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Chaos Breeze on 02/01/2009 06:20:37
concord dont care about sec status, navy does though and they are already a pain
|
Al Drevika
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 06:22:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Falcon Troy
Ironically easy to slip through the cracks as an outlaw in hisec. However, this issue ties all to closely with the ridiculousness of alts...and thats a whole other problem all together.
If its not alts, it would be corp mates, no difference. Alts just make the inevitable easier. The point is that outlaws should have to pay the price of being locked out of highsec, period. I don't care if they have an alt to buy stuff for them and ship it into lowsec/nullsec. That's fine by me. But once they have a sec status of -5 or below, they should be blasted at the gates, even if they're in a pod (in a pod, all the better, lose those implants). That's the whole point of the OP.
|
Falcon Troy
Caldari
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 06:28:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Al Drevika
Originally by: Falcon Troy
Ironically easy to slip through the cracks as an outlaw in hisec. However, this issue ties all to closely with the ridiculousness of alts...and thats a whole other problem all together.
If its not alts, it would be corp mates, no difference. Alts just make the inevitable easier. The point is that outlaws should have to pay the price of being locked out of highsec, period. I don't care if they have an alt to buy stuff for them and ship it into lowsec/nullsec. That's fine by me. But once they have a sec status of -5 or below, they should be blasted at the gates, even if they're in a pod (in a pod, all the better, lose those implants). That's the whole point of the OP.
I never said the problem had an easy solution (or one a all) but that doesn't negate the existence of it.
_____________
Hai. |
Al Drevika
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 06:37:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Falcon Troy
I never said the problem had an easy solution (or one a all) but that doesn't negate the existence of it.
There's actually a number of good suggestions. But CCP has to decide to quit slanting the system in favor of PVPers, first. Some I've heard include:
- No insurance payout for ships destroyed by Concord actions (stop financing SGing)
- Allow PKs on -5 sec status and below by anyone
- Make taking or destroying player wrecks/loot in high sec a Concord offense (drive down the sec status of the looting alts).
- Have gate/station sentry guns open fire on pods
These are all easily rationalized concepts. We're not asking for protections (like insuring our cargoes), just to level the playing field and make low sec standing actually meaningful. That's all.
|
Artemis Rose
Sileo In Pacis
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 06:42:00 -
[18]
As soon as NPCs start players podding left and right, should CONCORD stop outlaw pods from entering high sec.
Try it, buddy. Tell me how limited being -10.0 is to your EVE career before you get butthurt about suicide ganking.
***
Currently Playing: Trolls from Outer Space
Current Equipment: VISAcard chain mail, +2 Amulet of Epic Whine, Self Banstick +2
WTB: +666 E-peen killboard stats |
Khemul Zula
Amarr
Keisen Trade League
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 06:42:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Al Drevika
There's actually a number of good suggestions. But CCP has to decide to quit slanting the system in favor of PVPers, first. Some I've heard include:
Yes, because so many of the changes they have implemented so far have slanted the system in favor of PVPers. 
------
I can picture in my mind a world without war,
a world without hate.
And I can picture us attacking that world,
because they'd never expect it. |
Evelgrivion
Ignatium.
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 06:44:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Al Drevika
Originally by: Falcon Troy
I never said the problem had an easy solution (or one a all) but that doesn't negate the existence of it.
There's actually a number of good suggestions. But CCP has to decide to quit slanting the system in favor of PVPers, first. Some I've heard include:
- No insurance payout for ships destroyed by Concord actions (stop financing SGing)
- Allow PKs on -5 sec status and below by anyone
- Make taking or destroying player wrecks/loot in high sec a Concord offense (drive down the sec status of the looting alts).
- Have gate/station sentry guns open fire on pods
These are all easily rationalized concepts. We're not asking for protections (like insuring our cargoes), just to level the playing field and make low sec standing actually meaningful. That's all.
Try actually playing the game from the PVP side of the fence before you suggest changes to the mechanics that would be this 'extreme' to put it nicely.
The degree to which these changes to against the spirit this game was founded on is absurd, and the sheer amount of care bear whine in it is extraordinary. Trying to pass it off as a non-protection request is a blatant lie, as instead of making it impossible for someone to make a living in high-sec space, you're proposing that you make it impossible for anyone with a low sec status to even BE in high-sec.
Please go play another MMO. I don't want PVP-phobics messing up this game more than it already has been for your sakes. 
|
Arcon Telf
Gallente
Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 06:56:00 -
[21]
A successful suicide gank is the result of a massive collaborative effort and near flawless teamwork. The logistics alone would make a mission runner's head spin. With respect, you have no idea what you're talking about.
I, for one, love Eve because CCP has made a game/world where ingenuity (sometimes guile), creativity, and determination are rewarded...if you are willing to take risks.
|
Karasuma Akane
Dirty Sexy Pilots
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 07:00:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Al Drevika
The system is so slanted towards PvPers it's not even funny.
You do realize that Eve is a PvP game, right?
----------
"annoyed trit bars can deliver quite an income"
Originally by: Richard Phallus
Originally by: Kyrial Tidolfas
damn spies.
Damn counter intelligence officers.
|
Chobham
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 07:22:00 -
[23]
l2wtzn00b
|
Davina Braben
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 07:25:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Al Drevika
A sec status of -10 means nothing, other than the inconvenience of having to fly into Jita in a pod and jump into the ship your friend just dropped for you.
Apparently, EVE only allows Concord to scan a pilot's sec status when they come through the gate. Once they are in, they can jump into a ship and Concord won't notice their presence.
Is it me, or is this just dumb, and a loophole that needs to be closed? Hey, if you want to suicide gank me, that's fine, but the security hit you take needs to actually MEAN SOMETHING to you.
CAN I HAVE YOUR STU... NEVERMIND, I'LL JUST GANK YOU FOR IT 
|
Falcon Troy
Caldari
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 07:26:00 -
[25]
I love how making the game even harsher has people screaming carebear whining. Mechanics like removing insurance for ships that are agressive has no bearing on keeping carebears safer. You want to get your ship blown up to kill carebears in hisec? Go for it, but it's absurd that you get your insrance payout, the ship's loot, the km, and the satisfaction of watching a carebear pod warp off.
_____________
Hai. |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations
BlackWater.
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 07:33:00 -
[26]
…so, basically, you're whining about not knowing that what you ask for already exists? Well… good news for you! 
No sig for me, thankyouverymuch. |
Larkonis Trassler
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 07:59:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Larkonis Trassler on 02/01/2009 08:02:34
Originally by: Al Drevika
There's actually a number of good suggestions. But CCP has to decide to quit slanting the system in favor of PVPers, first. Some I've heard include:
- No insurance payout for ships destroyed by Concord actions (stop financing SGing)
This was originally suggested but CCP went with the increased Concord response time to aid all the carebear noobs who pop wrecks in missions and stuff.
Quote:
- Allow PKs on -5 sec status and below by anyone
You can, even pods.
Quote:
- Make taking or destroying player wrecks/loot in high sec a Concord offense (drive down the sec status of the looting alts).
Lol
Quote:
- Have gate/station sentry guns open fire on pods
DIAF Seriously
Quote:
These are all easily rationalized concepts. We're not asking for protections (like insuring our cargoes), just to level the playing field and make low sec standing actually meaningful. That's all.
The playing field is level.
Don't AFK Haul
Lest you take a fool
Don't AFK Mine
You'll be fine
Fit a tank
Avoid the gank!
Calm Your Passion |
Scarlet Pimpdaddy
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 08:09:00 -
[28]
I have never suicide ganked before but reading your post I would really like to give it a try... on you.
|
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 08:16:00 -
[29]
Sign my petition for Concord to be able to pod -5.0 players. Come on CCP less pirates in highsec means less lag.
/sign
|
Cown
Caldari
Laughing Leprechauns Corporation
Lotto Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 08:19:00 -
[30]
Concord only interacts when a player does something illegal. A -10 character will not be engaged by Concord if he's not agressed. Only Navy Police will show up and they will scramble him. But since this game seems to have some fairness, the Navy NPC's have a locking time and furthermore, you are able to run from the Navies with stabs fitted (you'll need lots though). As soon as a -10 character agresses (attacks someone) he will be punished like everyone else in the game, by Concord. With the latest new patches the response time has actually doubled and the Concord frigs + cruisers will insta jam, web, neut you to death, while the battleships will pew pew for well over 30K damage.
I dont see any problems with the currently security system.
--------------------------------------------------
Welcome to my personal opinion, if you don't like it, i don't give a s***. :-) |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |