|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
RubyPorto
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1492
|
Posted - 2012.05.13 04:07:00 -
[1] - Quote
Tippia wrote:NickyYo wrote:Where in the ship description does it say ship can be used to dump ships in space for players to use.. Ship Maintenance Bay Capacity 400000 m3 GǪnow, where does it say that it's not supposed to work for pirates? Quote:The ships core functionality is to provide bonuses and store ore. GǪand ships, and to transport equipment for various uses and to support those ships with refitting facilities. Quote:Is the Orca a miniature carrier? Pretty much, yes. Well, apart from providing command bonuses instead of logi support.
So it's a miniature Titan (ofc the two bits of Titan functionality that nobody used, but...) Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1662
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 21:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
Fiddler Hays wrote:bongsmoke wrote:Implying Implications wrote:Dumping ships into space for people to board is not an exploit. Agreed I dont like griefers, nor the bs ways of raping people, but orca isnt the problem. Just make Concord pod kill any pirates(red sec stat) as if it was a ship. End of issue Absolutely. Why isn't CCP taking consequences in hi-sec to a logical conclusion? I always hear that CONCORD gives consequences not protection. And yet criminals can waltz into hi-sec in a pod with no consequences. If CONCORD starts podding criminals you will still have miners being ganked. But not from the same toon(s) indefinitely.
As soon as someone in a pod shoots you, CONCORD will start podding. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1662
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 21:38:00 -
[3] - Quote
Fiddler Hays wrote:Tippia wrote:Fiddler Hays wrote:Why isn't CCP taking consequences in hi-sec to a logical conclusion? I always hear that CONCORD gives consequences not protection. And yet criminals can waltz into hi-sec in a pod with no consequences. That's because the criminals have already suffered the consequences. That's how they became criminals. Now they're no longer CONCORD's problem. The logical conclusion was reached ages ago. And if that was the case why does CCP restrict criminals from entering certain sections of hi-sec? If as you said the criminal has paid his price, why restrict him at all? They have done their time. Of course that is never the case with criminal acts in RL and shouldn't be here. You want to commit a crime. Fine. But don't tell me you paid the price so you can waltz right back in to do it again. You should be restricted to the jail (low-sec) with the other criminals and have CONCORD enforce the consequences of your actions.
CCP Restricts nobody from going anywhere.
Faction Navies restrict SHIPS flown by Criminals from entering their space. As soon as you get illegally shot by a Pod, CONCORD and the Faction Navies will start shooting pods.
Anyway, anyone can shoot a criminal's pod. If you want to keep criminals pods out of your space, shoot them or hire someone to shoot them. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1662
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 22:19:00 -
[4] - Quote
Fiddler Hays wrote:Quote:CCP Restricts nobody from going anywhere.
Faction Navies restrict SHIPS flown by Criminals from entering their space. As soon as you get illegally shot by a Pod, CONCORD and the Faction Navies will start shooting pods.
Anyway, anyone can shoot a criminal's pod. If you want to keep criminals pods out of your space, shoot them or hire someone to shoot them. And yet this is not my space as in 0.0 it is NPC controlled space. In 0.0 you keep the un-welcomed out by the cohesion of your alliance. There is no such thing in hi-sec. Except CONCORD. And I understand CCP not wanting to restrict anyone, but it would seem to me that they will need to revisit that idea. In many ways the criminal ship restriction is preventing you from fully utilizing an area already. Along with being a hole to exploit for other activities. And having CONCORD pod you does not restrict you from entering that area. It just gives you consequences for doing so. That were incurred by your actions.
Cohesive alliances are a player organized thing. You're a player; go organize an alliance that keeps criminals out of a certain system.
CONCORD provides consequences for Gankers, they do not provide protection. CONCORD has never provided protection.
What restriction? Faction Navies just start shooting you (they're even kind enough to web you first). That's not a restriction, that's PvE content.
CONCORD destroys ships that commit illegal acts. When a pod kills you, then you can complain about CONCORD not podding. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1662
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 22:27:00 -
[5] - Quote
Fiddler Hays wrote:Tippia wrote:Fiddler Hays wrote:And I understand CCP not wanting to restrict anyone, but it would seem to me that they will need to revisit that idea. Why? Because I don't believe CCPs concept of hi-sec is working. Eve Online is a harsh games. Hard to learn. CCP has said hi-sec is safer. Not safe. Safer. There will be consequences if some one breaks a hi-sec law. And yet the consequences for criminals are underwhelming. With the current setup, this is what CCP is telling me. 1. If someone drives into your peaceful neighbor, blows up your car and shoots you in the head we will take his car and send him on his way. 2. If someone pays this person to drive into your neighborhood, blows up your car and shoots you in the head we will take his car and send him on this way. 3. If we see this person again we will watch him until his does that all over again before we take his car..again. I think there would be a bit more outrage in the real world. Questions like: Um. Why are you letting him into our neighborhood again when you know that they are just going to put a bullet in someones head? I don't mind the actions so much as the consequences attached to them.
The faction police start shooting his car as soon as it shows up.
Again, CONCORD provides consequences to specific acts of illegal aggression. Always has. There is no thought Police in EvE. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1662
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 22:52:00 -
[6] - Quote
Fiddler Hays wrote: How is it thought police when you have a security status based on your own actions? When the rap sheet on a criminal gets to a certain length you can't talk fast enough to avoid punishment. They know you. The APB is out.
Correct. That's why the faction police start shooting you at -5 sec. CONCORD is the emergency response Police. They punish specific acts of aggression per design.
NPCs don't pod. If the police started podding, shouldn't the pirates start as well? That'll go over well. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1663
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 23:36:00 -
[7] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Xython wrote:Roisin Saoirse wrote:This whole issue can be solved by simply setting up your overview filters correctly. Keep an eye on Local, then when you see a red or flashy enter the system, decide on the spot whether to risk continuing to mine or to warp out. I really don't understand why anything needs to change? Because people want to be able to make billions of ISK AFK or Botting, and gosh darnit, those mean ol' griefers disagree. With Artillery. Artillery and small blasters. Luv2Shoot ! Luv2Shoot !
Luv2Shoot! Luv2TearMine! Luv2Win! Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1663
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 00:42:00 -
[8] - Quote
Fiddler Hays wrote:
I think the boggle is i find your posts on this issue to be very narrow. Shallow? Trite? I feel something is not is as intend with regards to hi-sec. You seem to feel the opposite and point to some lack of effort on my part to conform. I dissagree. Good day to you.
CCP has repeatedly stated that Player Run Events are great and that Suicide Ganking is a valid game mechanic.
How is something in regards to HAG and HS not working as intended? Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1663
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 01:00:00 -
[9] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Fiddler Hays wrote:I think the boggle is i find your posts on this issue to be very narrow. Shallow? Trite? I feel something is not is as intend with regards to hi-sec. You seem to feel the opposite and point to some lack of effort on my part to conform. I dissagree. Good day to you. CCP has repeatedly stated that Player Run Events are great and that Suicide Ganking is a valid game mechanic. How is something in regards to HAG and HS not working as intended? You're not supposed to die in highsec ~~~~
That's right. I forgot. Miners are special snowflakes and need to be handled with the care and tenderness that fine china deserves.
I forgot myself. Nerf Suicide Ganking indeed. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1664
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 01:16:00 -
[10] - Quote
Henry Haphorn wrote:NickyYo wrote:SlapNuts wrote:NickyYo wrote:Want to kill Burn Jita and Hulkageddon? It's simple!! Fix the Orca so it cannot jettison ships in space for -10 status pirates to jump into from their pods.. This has got me thinking, you can easily fix this exploit BUT do you want to? WHo said this is an exploit? I did! Orca is meant for mining not killing miners.. Ignorant poster is ignorant for willingly ignoring the fact that the orca is not a mining ship. It's an industrial command ship meant to assist in a variety of roles. It is even capable of combat against battlecruisers when fitted and piloted properly.
Also, so far as I know, No Orca has ever been used in a suicide gank. Their alpha/dps is atrocious for their price.
I really hope someone proves me wrong. I will laugh mightily. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1665
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 01:51:00 -
[11] - Quote
Fiddler Hays wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Fiddler Hays wrote:
I think the boggle is i find your posts on this issue to be very narrow. Shallow? Trite? I feel something is not is as intend with regards to hi-sec. You seem to feel the opposite and point to some lack of effort on my part to conform. I dissagree. Good day to you.
CCP has repeatedly stated that Player Run Events are great and that Suicide Ganking is a valid game mechanic. How is something in regards to HAG and HS not working as intended? Never said I had an issue with ganking in hi-sec. Never said I had an issue with Player Run Events. If I had to say what seems wrong, it would be how security status is handled. You say we have our consequences as CONCORD will deal with any aggressive act once it happens. Thus, a person can be any security status and travel in hi-sec. However, you ignore the whole reason CCP put ship restrictions on outlaws/criminals in hi-sec in the first place. To keep them out of a ship that could do harm. So that being said, if CCP would just fix it so that you can never get into a ship in hi-sec if your security status says you shouldn't that would be more in line with their previous changes. No need to be podded by CONCORD.
Nope. CCP has not put any restrictions on ships in HS. They only made the Police chase ebil criminals because that has a cool bit of realism. Also realistic is being able to run away from the police.
And there is no existing mechanic that bars anyone from boarding a ship that they can fly ('cept that ship being targeted). Adding such a mechanic is ridiculous. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1666
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 02:20:00 -
[12] - Quote
Fiddler Hays wrote:Quote:Nope. CCP has not put any restrictions on ships in HS. They only made the Police chase ebil criminals because that has a cool bit of realism. Also realistic is being able to run away from the police. And yet avoiding CONCORD's consequences is a banning offense. Not sure I'm buying that.
Consequences. Not Restrictions. Anyway, if people are avoiding (not mitigating, avoiding) CONCORD's consequences for aggression, petition it; they'll get banned.
Quote:Quote:And there is no existing mechanic that bars anyone from boarding a ship that they can fly ('cept that ship being targeted). Adding such a mechanic is ridiculous. There wasn't an existing mechanic to prevent you from tanking CONCORD at one point and yet CCP had to do that as well. And with that I think we are at a agree to disagree point. I can see where someone involved in PvP would not want to get locked out of a ship in hi-sec because of their security status. But I don't agree that that fits with what CCP has done in the past with hi-sec. In my opinion, it is inconsistent to shoot on site a ship of an outlaw/criminal and yet let them pass when there are means for them to equip after passing CONCORD. I know you disagree.
CCP in the past has made sure that there are consequences for aggression in HS. The original CONCORD buff was because CCP hadn't thought of that method of tanking when they started.
CCP has been very clear that Suicide Ganking, even at -10 is valid gameplay. If you're using the "CCP's changes to HS" argument, you will lose.
The insurance nerf was as much a nerf to suicide ganks as it was a way to reduce insurance as an isk faucet (hence the buff to ganking that occurred at the same time in the form of dessy buffs and the nado).
You're not evading CONCORD by flying a ship in HS (and you can just fly into HS from Low, you don't have to pod in), you're evading the Faction Police, which are intentionally weaker because the people they attack have not done something illegal yet. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1666
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 02:28:00 -
[13] - Quote
Jayrendo Karr wrote:A ship containing a ship that was used to gank should be destroyed by concord for being an accoplace to the crime.
Oooh, new way to grief mining corps. Join, ask their orca toon to bring your mining frig out to the belt -> get CONCORDED -> Orca Dies
Glad to know you're thinking the consequences through. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1685
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 12:38:00 -
[14] - Quote
Roisin Saoirse wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Jayrendo Karr wrote:A ship containing a ship that was used to gank should be destroyed by concord for being an accoplace to the crime. Oooh, new way to grief mining corps. Join, ask their orca toon to bring your mining frig out to the belt -> get CONCORDED -> Orca Dies Glad to know you're thinking the consequences through. Maybe he's really trying to sneakily buff ganking and this is his cunning plan.
Possible, but I think stupid is more likely.
@Jayrendo, if you're looking for a stealth buff to HS awoxing, I love the plan. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1685
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 13:00:00 -
[15] - Quote
NickyYo wrote:Guys, concord, highsec, ganking blah blah, is fine!! it is what makes eve -> eve.
We are not saying remove all ganking or ship storage in the orca in highsec, we are saying revert ganking back to how it was for 7 years prior, where if you had -10 sec you had to gate camp in low sec and not continue to gank in highsec by exploiting the orcas ship bay.
Now with goons inifite hulkageddon announcement, i see this fix coming very, very soon!
The Orca came out in 2008, EvE started in 2003. From 2003 to 2005, Carriers were buildable in HS, giving the same ship pooping capabilities Orcas have.
There was about a 3 year span where there were no new ships with SMAs being built in HS, and those 3 years ended 4 years ago.
So you're saying revert to how it ~kinda~ was for three years out of Eve's 9 year history?
I think CONCORD was tankable for about that long, so why not revert to that as well? Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1741
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 13:53:00 -
[16] - Quote
NickyYo wrote:sweetrock wrote:This is not an exploit just a game mechanic. A game mechanic which i actualy think is fair. Afterall all this QQ about miners wanting sp's back for wasted sp, and that indy skills cant merge over to pvp. This is a example of a ideal way to use your old mineing orca Maybee so, but this is eve and tuff! Alliances like goons and old greifer corps never had this problem back in the day, see my point? Game rules need to change over time to cater for the new, back in the day new was the new.
Why do they need to change in ways that cater to those who want to make Isk AFK? Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1741
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 14:09:00 -
[17] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:If they can't eject the ships from an orca, they'll fly them to the location with an alt and eject/board. It would be a minor logistical change and have no effect on ganking at all. Also, this would have far-reaching effects that you aren't thinking about. Typical for any thread making anti-ganking suggestions.
Please be a troll?
Look at OP's face. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
|
|
|