Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Faceless Lady
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 02:33:00 -
[1] - Quote
(moved from general discussion)
Hi-sec is not hi-sec when gankers can pop you with impunity. Concord is worthles in these matters. Nor is there a court system in EVE to collect damages from the offender.
The insurance nerf means nothing to someone with deep pockets. There has to be a more painful deterent.
But what?
Answer: Capital Punishment + Account based fine+ No killmail.
1. Concord will not just destroy your ship but also pod you.
2. EVE has account based limits in place (for example, training only one character at a time). Since criminals like to hide behind such limits and imposing fines on a toon with empty pockets is pointless, there should be an account based isk fine imposed equal to the insurance payoff to the vicitim, if not more.
3. Denial of killmail. HI-sec ganking should not give the crminal bragging rights. Deny killmails for all illegal hi-sec ganking.
These three ideas, if implemented will give hi-sec gankers something to think about. It may not eliminate it, but it will reduce it. |
Botleten
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
258
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 02:42:00 -
[2] - Quote
look at that bitter gank victim |
Umega
Solis Mensa
71
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 02:47:00 -
[3] - Quote
Faceless Lady wrote:(moved from general discussion)
Hi-sec is not hi-sec when gankers can pop you with impunity. Concord is worthles in these matters. Nor is there a court system in EVE to collect damages from the offender.
The insurance nerf means nothing to someone with deep pockets. There has to be a more painful deterent.
But what?
Answer: Capital Punishment + Account based fine+ No killmail.
1. concord will not just destroy your ship but also pod you.
2. EVE has account based limits in place (for example, training only one character at a time). Since criminals like to hide behind such limits and imposing fines on a toon with empty pockets is pointless , there should be an account based isk fine imposed equal to the insurance payoff to the vicitim, if not more.
3. Denial of killmail. HI-sec ganking should not give the crminal bragging rights. Deny killmails for all illegal hi-sec ganking.
These three ideas, if implemented will give hi-sec gankers something to think about. It may not eliminate it, but it will reduce it.
You are under the false assumption that you should have virtual immunity in highsec. It is called.. HIGH security.. security is high, but not flawless. It is currently working as intended.. otherwise they'd have made CONCORD faster.. or simply made it impossible for people to shoot anyone in highsec without being red by one of the varies means ingame.
1 - This won't make a difference. At all. Alts, jump clones.. irrelevent idea and waste of time. If anything.. those ganking with a high SP toon with plants will jump in a clone, and go on a 24 hour crazy binge of ganking until can jump back into implant clone.
2 - No one should pay for someone else's stupidity. Plenty of tools to avoid, and defend against ganks. No one should pay to protect someone else they wish to harm in this particular style of game. This in turn could be used to exploit others.. then who is really the 'griefers'?
3 - Won't make a difference. Tough to give kill rights without a certified KM tho, I'd wager. You know.. since you want this game to reflect reality and give the ganked the ability to take to court and sue the offender for lost ship/items apparently.. also really tough to prove to the court what you lost without the paperwork indicating what. And most ppl don't consider a gank KM a real kill, in the sense of a combat fight. It simply is a gank.. and most reasonable ppl recognize this. The only ganks I brag about are hulk BOTS I've popped, because I am that adamant about killing BOTS.. anything else on my toons that is ganked is simply a gank.
Try again with some more logic.. while realizing what game you're playing and how it all works. Everybody Verse Everybody. Maybe instead of completely changing the philsophy of a game around to cater to you, you should find a game that already caters to you with its core philsophy already in place to fit your style of gaming. |
xarjin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 02:50:00 -
[4] - Quote
I'm motivated to toss my hat in the ring and add that the OP's comments could have legitimate merits for game mechanics.
high sec dwellers face severe consequences for wandering into nullsec regions (currently delve as an example), destroying something valuable something or killing and podding a major alliance member or asset however the reverse scenario as the OP pointed out is pretty much imbalanced game mechanics.
If someone from highsec went out to any large nullsec alliance sov controlled territory and started ganking the npc repercussions would me minimal or non existant based on current game mechanics however the alliance which controls sov would likely eradicate your pod at the first sighting anywhere in the universe.
If you follow I hope you can see how the "impunity" the OP mentioned in definitely not singular but a duality that could be enhanced upon to add new game dynamics to eve universe criminals. repercussions should be omnipotent in all areas of eve space null to highsec possibly excluding empire sov controlled lowsec where concord currently does not reside.
Facing imminent threat of loosing your ship and a security standing or contact standing demerit in highsec is more cosmetic than an effective deterrent. if you were a highsec dweller decided to go on a roam in delve and shoot up any pos or outpost you came across the repercussions would certainly not be met with impunity from the controlling alliance. I've been playing eve for nearly 4 years and have always been curious how this could be overlooked as potential for adding a new paradigm for the game's pvp mechanics. |
Ai Shun
205
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 02:51:00 -
[5] - Quote
Faceless Lady wrote:Hi-sec is not hi-sec when gankers can pop you with impunity. Concord is worthles in these matters. Nor is there a court system in EVE to collect damages from the offender.
Almost correct. Highsec is high security. It is not 100% safe; the only place you are 100% safe is in a station. This is why CCP warns you not to fly something you cannot afford.
The rest of it? Well, that is why you need to learn to avoid them, to use the tools you have to stay safe and so forth.
There are no PvE servers or safe zones in EVE; nor should there be. This is EVE. |
Ursula LeGuinn
100
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 02:53:00 -
[6] - Quote
Faceless Lady wrote:Hi-sec is not hi-sec
Sure it is. Exhumers, T1 industrials, freighters, any relatively slow ship traveling alone, and so on can travel and operate in highsec in relative peace most of the time and in most situations. It's not called "one hundred percent security" space GÇö it's called "high security" space.
Faceless Lady wrote:when gankers can pop you with impunity.
They cannot. Nullsec is the only area of the game in which this is true.
Faceless Lady wrote:Concord is worthles in these matters.
CONCORD only seems useless when gankers correctly calculate that they can pin you down and kill you before CONCORD can kill them. The very fact that CONCORD must be planned for and carefully worked around is testament to the fact that they're far from worthless.
Faceless Lady wrote:Nor is there a court system in EVE to collect damages from the offender.
There certainly isn't.
[quote=Faceless Lady]The insurance nerf means nothing to someone with deep pockets.
Ganking properly is a very cheap profession/hobby.
CONT'D --> "The EVE forums are intended to provide a warm, friendly atmosphere for the EVE community."-áGÇö-áEVElopedia |
Ursula LeGuinn
100
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 02:53:00 -
[7] - Quote
<-- CONT'D
Faceless Lady wrote:There has to be a more painful deterent.
Why?
Faceless Lady wrote:Answer: Capital Punishment + Account based fine+ No killmail.
This is ludicrous and I'll stop responding now, because you won't be playing EVE much longer with that attitude. "The EVE forums are intended to provide a warm, friendly atmosphere for the EVE community."-áGÇö-áEVElopedia |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
159
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 02:58:00 -
[8] - Quote
Empty clones and keeping isk on an alt account.
Next suggestion? |
Faceless Lady
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 03:07:00 -
[9] - Quote
xarjin wrote:I'm motivated to toss my hat in the ring and add that the OP's comments could have legitimate merits for game mechanics.
high sec dwellers face severe consequences for wandering into nullsec regions (currently delve as an example), destroying something valuable or killing and podding a major alliance member or asset however the reverse scenario as the OP pointed out is pretty much imbalanced game mechanics.
If someone from highsec went out to any large nullsec alliance sov controlled territory and started ganking the npc repercussions would me minimal or non existant based on current game mechanics however the alliance which controls sov would likely eradicate your pod at the first sighting anywhere in the universe.
If you follow I hope you can see how the "impunity" the OP mentioned in definitely not singular but a duality that could be enhanced upon to add new game dynamics to eve universe affecting global criminals.
Repercussions should be omnipotent in all areas of eve space null to highsec possibly excluding empire sov controlled lowsec where concord currently does not reside.
Facing imminent threat of loosing your ship and a security standing or contact standing demerit in highsec is more cosmetic than an effective deterrent. if you were a highsec dweller decided to go on a roam in delve and shoot up any pos or outpost you came across the repercussions would certainly not be met with impunity from the controlling alliance. I've been playing eve for nearly 4 years and have always been curious how this could be overlooked as potential for adding a new paradigm for the game's pvp mechanics.
My point exactly. Very well stated. |
Serge Bastana
GWA Corp
55
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 03:25:00 -
[10] - Quote
Faceless Lady wrote:xarjin wrote:I'm motivated to toss my hat in the ring and add that the OP's comments could have legitimate merits for game mechanics.
high sec dwellers face severe consequences for wandering into nullsec regions (currently delve as an example), destroying something valuable or killing and podding a major alliance member or asset however the reverse scenario as the OP pointed out is pretty much imbalanced game mechanics.
If someone from highsec went out to any large nullsec alliance sov controlled territory and started ganking the npc repercussions would me minimal or non existant based on current game mechanics however the alliance which controls sov would likely eradicate your pod at the first sighting anywhere in the universe.
If you follow I hope you can see how the "impunity" the OP mentioned in definitely not singular but a duality that could be enhanced upon to add new game dynamics to eve universe affecting global criminals.
Repercussions should be omnipotent in all areas of eve space null to highsec possibly excluding empire sov controlled lowsec where concord currently does not reside.
Facing imminent threat of loosing your ship and a security standing or contact standing demerit in highsec is more cosmetic than an effective deterrent. if you were a highsec dweller decided to go on a roam in delve and shoot up any pos or outpost you came across the repercussions would certainly not be met with impunity from the controlling alliance. I've been playing eve for nearly 4 years and have always been curious how this could be overlooked as potential for adding a new paradigm for the game's pvp mechanics. My point exactly. Very well stated.
Both so wrong but you'll never listen to anything anybody says because it doesn't suit you. You realise you look like entitled brats who stamp their little feet when their balloon pops. |
|
xarjin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 03:48:00 -
[11] - Quote
"Both so wrong"
How is it "wrong" to openly discuss game design potential that could offer permanent highsec dwellers a level playing field with nullsec alliances.
"but you'll never listen to anything anybody says because it doesn't suit you."
what doesn't suit me is that the silent majority of eve players have become accustomed to pvp game mechanics imbalance that offers preference to nullsec alliances that have no repercussions for undertaking what really amounts to military conquest of high sec npc alliance controlled space.
If you have anything to add feel free to offer something constructive other than the usual rhyme everyone in eve seems to have in the last 8 years that it's fine and "it's eve" which does nothing to address evolution of new game design potential.
npc dwellers have no other choice but to enjoy the side effects of nullsec conquest and most could not do anything to offer challenge in return hence the imbalance of game mechanics
Now if npc corp members could participate in sov warfare that would indeed be an interesting "evolution" to the game's mechanics. While we do have faction warfare that has really done nothing to address these long standing issues.
"You realise you look like entitled brats who stamp their little feet when their balloon pops."
I realise your likely a director of a nullsec alliance that feels entitled to roam highsec and do what pleases you with little repercussions. if I were to fly out to your alliance controlled space and start what would most likely be a short rampage of destruction feeling entitled to do so it wouldn't be met with a free pass to leave with my assets. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
541
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 04:00:00 -
[12] - Quote
Problems I have with your proposal:
1) Its High sec, as in higher than low... which it is.
2) Account based fines? Really? That is ridiculous, especially because what the gankers are doing is only illegal for Concord, CCP doesn't care (actually encourages it). And this would also take the mechanic outside of the game (crossing characters). Why not have it so that Goons come to your home when you gank someone... just as stupid.
3) No NPC should ever pod. Pod killing can have real life effect (time). And if Concord can pod, then why not every single NPC in the game, especially pirates. Bad idea.
Now I will agree that some things should be done... IMO, but not this. This is too much. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
159
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 04:00:00 -
[13] - Quote
xarjin wrote:"Both so wrong"
How is it "wrong" to openly discuss game design potential that could offer permanent highsec dwellers a level playing field with nullsec alliances.
"but you'll never listen to anything anybody says because it doesn't suit you."
what doesn't suit me is that the silent majority of eve players have become accustomed to pvp game mechanics imbalance that offers preference to nullsec alliances that have no repercussions for undertaking what really amounts to military conquest of high sec npc alliance controlled space.
If you have anything to add feel free to offer something constructive other than the usual rhyme everyone in eve seems to have in the last 8 years that it's fine and "it's eve" which does nothing to address evolution of new game design potential.
npc dwellers have no other choice but to enjoy the side effects of nullsec conquest and most could not do anything to offer challenge in return hence the imbalance of game mechanics
Now if npc corp members could participate in sov warfare that would indeed be an interesting "evolution" to the game's mechanics. While we do have faction warfare that has really done nothing to address these long standing issues.
"You realise you look like entitled brats who stamp their little feet when their balloon pops."
I realise your likely a director of a nullsec alliance that feels entitled to roam highsec and do what pleases you with little repercussions. if I were to fly out to your alliance controlled space and start what would most likely be a short rampage of destruction feeling entitled to do so it wouldn't be met with a free pass to leave with my assets.
What point are you actually trying to make here?
|
ACE McFACE
Acetech Systems
560
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 04:26:00 -
[14] - Quote
Quote:These three ideas, if implemented will give hi-sec gankers something to think about. It may not eliminate it, but it will reduce it. You're under the impression ganking needs to be eliminated Real men wear goggles and a Navy shirt! |
LeHarfang
Intersteller Masons Wonder Kids
25
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 04:28:00 -
[15] - Quote
High sec would be boring without ganks lol. |
Umega
Solis Mensa
72
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 07:10:00 -
[16] - Quote
xarjin wrote:"Both so wrong"
How is it "wrong" to openly discuss game design potential that could offer permanent highsec dwellers a level playing field with nullsec alliances.
"but you'll never listen to anything anybody says because it doesn't suit you."
what doesn't suit me is that the silent majority of eve players have become accustomed to pvp game mechanics imbalance that offers preference to nullsec alliances that have no repercussions for undertaking what really amounts to military conquest of high sec npc alliance controlled space.
If you have anything to add feel free to offer something constructive other than the usual rhyme everyone in eve seems to have in the last 8 years that it's fine and "it's eve" which does nothing to address evolution of new game design potential.
npc dwellers have no other choice but to enjoy the side effects of nullsec conquest and most could not do anything to offer challenge in return hence the imbalance of game mechanics
Now if npc corp members could participate in sov warfare that would indeed be an interesting "evolution" to the game's mechanics. While we do have faction warfare that has really done nothing to address these long standing issues.
"You realise you look like entitled brats who stamp their little feet when their balloon pops."
I realise your likely a director of a nullsec alliance that feels entitled to roam highsec and do what pleases you with little repercussions. if I were to fly out to your alliance controlled space and start what would most likely be a short rampage of destruction feeling entitled to do so it wouldn't be met with a free pass to leave with my assets.
Sorry, socialism child. You are Wrong. Here's a neat idea you should try on for size, it's called.. Deal With It.
Explain to me, and everybody why you believe that you should have a level playing field with nullsec alliances?
The 'silent majority' of EVE players. Wow. I suppose it is tough to speak when a voice doesn't even exist. When the majority of the forum posts lean towards EVE should remain, and be a wild landscape with 'unfair' advantages, nonconsent actions, and effects rippling across players that are undirectly hit by something going on over there in the sandbox. Maybe.. it should, idk.. sink in that when the majority of posts lean that way, that is infact the majority opinion in EVE. I too can fabricate a mythical 'majority' too.. you know, since you want things fair. Good for me.. good for you.
If you have something to add other than 'well everything should be fair. It should be a flat, boring landscape with no peaks for anyone to climb and no goals to be had, cause everyone is entitled to the same thing simply by paying their sub. Remove T2 BPOs and s-caps cause noobs don't start with them and we need to be fair for everyone. Infact.. in order for my brilliant plan of equality to actually be legit, everyone can only have one skill and only fly rookie ships.. so it is fair for the noobs starting..' BLAH BLAH same ole **** that doesn't even really make sense ultimately. So do you have something to add that is, you know.. constructive?
You do realize.. this game is designed so that nullsec does impact high. With the main hub by a large margin in high.. highsec does infact, effect null to a great deal. Butterfly effect thingie.. actions by some are supposed to ripple through the galaxy and be felt by others. And if someone has the power to make such a huge ripple in the galaxy.. you know what? Good for them.. they earned it. And I think you're a jealous lil ***** that can't cope with that notion.. do you want to weild that kind of power, that kind of force to do such things? Here's an idea.. go get it yourself and instead of bitching for it, or whining to having everything flattened and 'fair' so you can an excuse to be a lazy ass that doesn't strive for and get it yourself.
NPC dwellers can kiss my ass and I'll make them love it. Explain why ppl hiding in an NPC corp should be entitled to just the same as those that take the leap out of NPC corps to go get more? Please do explain your philosphy on this.
If you flew out to a nullsec alliance to ruffle their feathers.. they'd hand you your ass and you know it. That's why you're bitching here. See the difference? Ass handed to ingame.. broken ass now squeaks here for change. You could spend your time growing in strength, building your own army to gain space, control it and grow some more to hit some alliance in the face that you seem to dislike so much for no reason.. OTHER THAN.. they have more than you.
Guess what.
They earned it themselves.
Are you too flawed that you will never ever achieve such strength? Do you doubt yourself too much, and require the 'government' to give you the proper aid to achieve what others have done are their own?
Explain why you feel you are entitled to what others have earned on their own?
|
Bearilian
Man Eating Bears
78
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 11:42:00 -
[17] - Quote
I say that they should not give a KM for a hi sec ganked target. thats about all i agree with you on. mainly because a kill mail is not used for anything much more than bragging rights.
maybe, if there are reacurring infractions, then a player can have a target put on their head by concord. so the next time they gank, their pod is at risk..
|
Serge Bastana
GWA Corp
56
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 12:24:00 -
[18] - Quote
xarjin wrote:"Both so wrong"
How is it "wrong" to openly discuss game design potential that could offer permanent highsec dwellers a level playing field with nullsec alliances.
"but you'll never listen to anything anybody says because it doesn't suit you."
what doesn't suit me is that the silent majority of eve players have become accustomed to pvp game mechanics imbalance that offers preference to nullsec alliances that have no repercussions for undertaking what really amounts to military conquest of high sec npc alliance controlled space.
If you have anything to add feel free to offer something constructive other than the usual rhyme everyone in eve seems to have in the last 8 years that it's fine and "it's eve" which does nothing to address evolution of new game design potential.
npc dwellers have no other choice but to enjoy the side effects of nullsec conquest and most could not do anything to offer challenge in return hence the imbalance of game mechanics
Now if npc corp members could participate in sov warfare that would indeed be an interesting "evolution" to the game's mechanics. While we do have faction warfare that has really done nothing to address these long standing issues.
"You realise you look like entitled brats who stamp their little feet when their balloon pops."
I realise your likely a director of a nullsec alliance that feels entitled to roam highsec and do what pleases you with little repercussions. if I were to fly out to your alliance controlled space and start what would most likely be a short rampage of destruction feeling entitled to do so it wouldn't be met with a free pass to leave with my assets.
Point a: I was referring to your attitude that high sec should be completely safe. High sec is safer, not 100% safe. There are ways to prevent being ganked, which you can find out by searching the forums or on google. NPC corps are there to hold characters that aren't part of player corps, you have limitations and that's as it should be since you're protected from war decs. They won't allow NPC corps to partake in anything like sov warfare simply because that should remain in the hands of players who are in their own corps and alliance, otherwise everybody might as well remain in NPC corps, there would be no incentive to every leave.
If you want to do more in the game all I can suggest is get out of your cosy NPC corp and into a player corp, which can potentially offer you more than you will ever get in the NPC corps. The 11% tax you pay on mission rewards protects you from war decs, but in a player corp any tax you pay can be used to pay for a POS tower, ships, all sorts. In an NPC corp you're denied those shared resources for good reason since CCP is encouraging players to get out and try the game beyond the safety of the NPC corps.
Point b: I'm not running a null sec alliance, I created my own corp just a few months into the game after leaving a large pvp corp as I wanted to do my own thing with a few friends. We've slowly built it up and are new taking in new players to help them learn about the game, experience different aspects and find the ones they enjoy most. Not only will they help the corp but the corp will help them, can you say the same of the NPC corps? |
Shazzam Vokanavom
Hedion University Amarr Empire
14
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 12:37:00 -
[19] - Quote
Anything that promotes further difficulty to ganking in high sec I agree with in prinicpal.
The imbalance afforded here is ridiculous.
There is no and hasnt been a working bounty system for ages. Other mechanics work in their favour, as per the mentioned war dec prinicipals, gankers can maniuplate the corporation systems too easily for reprisal.
Emphasis in this game seems to be it should be a risk/reward process. Yet the rewards for attacking soft targets with relative impunity does not reflect this model.
Gankers have it too easy. Make it harder, but don't eliminate it. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1778
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 14:04:00 -
[20] - Quote
Why should gankers be punished beyond ship loss through game mechanics? andski for csm7~ |
|
Honnete Du Decimer
20
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 14:19:00 -
[21] - Quote
Andski wrote:Why should gankers be punished beyond ship loss through game mechanics?
When 5M ISK ships can kill 200M ISK ships. PMS |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
4620
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 14:20:00 -
[22] - Quote
Faceless Lady wrote:Hi-sec is not hi-sec when gankers can pop you with impunity. Good thing that they can't, then. Gankers attacking people comes with a wide selection of punitive measures that separate highsec from low and nullsec.
Quote:The insurance nerf means nothing to someone with deep pockets. There has to be a more painful deterent. Why?
Quote:1. Concord will not just destroy your ship but also pod you. No. NPCs don't pod GÇö that's a privilege reserved for the players. You offer no reason why this should change.
Quote:2. EVE has account based limits in place (for example, training only one character at a time). Since criminals like to hide behind such limits and imposing fines on a toon with empty pockets is pointless, there should be an account based isk fine imposed equal to the insurance payoff to the vicitim, if not more. There already is a cost to ganking people, and it already affects the account holder. You offer no reason why more fines is needed.
Quote:3. Denial of killmail. HI-sec ganking should not give the crminal bragging rights. Why not?
Your key problem (aside from your ideas being quite awful) is that you fail to explain why on earth such measures are needed when highsec is already insanely safe (and, if anything, needs to be made much less safe so people get rid of their entitlement issues and their false sense of security). If highsec space was actually dangerous, mechanics-wise, people would learn defensive tactics that would keep them more safe than they currently are (unless they were stupid, in which case a swift death is rather appropriate).
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¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
4620
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 14:20:00 -
[23] - Quote
Honnete Du Decimer wrote:Andski wrote:Why should gankers be punished beyond ship loss through game mechanics? When 5M ISK ships can kill 200M ISK ships. So what? Bigger isn't better. Welcome to balance.
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¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1778
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 14:23:00 -
[24] - Quote
Honnete Du Decimer wrote:Andski wrote:Why should gankers be punished beyond ship loss through game mechanics? When 5M ISK ships can kill 200M ISK ships.
You seem to think that the cost of your ship is relevant to anything.
Guess what, it's not. That 5 million ISK destroyer killed you because you decided that your Hulk doesn't need a tank. andski for csm7~ |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
159
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 14:53:00 -
[25] - Quote
Honnete Du Decimer wrote:Andski wrote:Why should gankers be punished beyond ship loss through game mechanics? When 5M ISK ships can kill 200M ISK ships.
Wow. If you want to make EVE 'fair', why on earth would you want to make it impossible for a cheap ship to kill a more expensive one?
There are PLENTY of ways to avoid getting ganked. It isn't the fault of game mechanics that you people just aren't using them. |
Ursula LeGuinn
101
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 15:02:00 -
[26] - Quote
The other day, I was docked in Jita flying a BR fit exclusively for fast, medium-volume, medium-value cargo transportation in highsec; it had two T1 warp speed rigs (for a total of 13 AU/sec), no MWD (replaced with a T2 shield tank), and a DCII in one of the lows.
I was debating undocking to my insta with cargo worth about as much as the ship itself (that would be ~210m total, including the ship). After a few moments, I decided that while I would probably be safe (particularly in an agile BR with an insta), I wasn't willing to risk the BR itself on that cargo. So, I ferried the cargo out of Jita piecemeal in a cheap courier frigate.
This game needs that GÇö the inability to just herpa derp anywhere you please without any risk. Yes, even in highsec. "The EVE forums are intended to provide a warm, friendly atmosphere for the EVE community."-áGÇö-áEVElopedia |
Grumpy Owly
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
132
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 15:30:00 -
[27] - Quote
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:Anything that promotes further difficulty to ganking in high sec I agree with in prinicpal.
The imbalance afforded here is ridiculous.
There is no and hasnt been a working bounty system for ages. Other mechanics work in their favour, as per the mentioned war dec prinicipals, gankers can maniuplate the corporation systems too easily for reprisal.
Emphasis in this game seems to be it should be a risk/reward process. Yet the rewards for attacking soft targets with relative impunity does not reflect this model.
Gankers have it too easy. Make it harder, but don't eliminate it.
+ 1
"All griefers are lazy cowards with the current climate of broken player policing systems." |
Velicitia
Open Designs
465
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 15:42:00 -
[28] - Quote
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:Anything that promotes further difficulty to ganking in high sec I agree with in prinicpal. Gankers have it too easy. Make it harder, but don't eliminate it.
Seems what you're looking for is already in the game. Use the below as necessary.
Damage Control II
[50|100|200|400|800|1600]mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates [Small|Medium|Large|Capital] Armour Repairer II* [Small|Medium|Large|Capital] Remote Armour Repairer II* Adaptive Nano Plating II Kinetic Plating II Reactive Plating II Reflective Plating II Regenerative Plating II Thermic Plating II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Kinetic Membrane II Energized Reactive Membrane II Energized Reflective Membrane II Energized Regenerative Membrane II Energized Thermic Membrane II Armour EM Hardener II Armour Explosive Hardener II Armour Kinetic Hardener II Armour Thermic Hardener II [Small|Medium|Large] Anti-EM Pump [Small|Medium|Large] Anti-Explosive Pump [Small|Medium|Large] Anti-Kinetic Pump [Small|Medium|Large] Anti-Thermic Pump [Small|Medium|Large] Auxiliary Nano Pump [Small|Medium|Large] Nanobot Accelerator [Small|Medium|Large] Repair Augmentor [Small|Medium|Large] Trimark Armour Pump
[Small|Medium|Large|X-Large|Capital] Shield Booster II* [Micro|Small|Medium|Large] Shield Extender II [Micro|Small|Medium|Large|Capital] Shield Transporter II* Shield Boost Amplifier II Ballistic Deflection Field II Explosion Dampening Field II Heat Dissipation Field II Photon Scattering Field II Explosion Dampening Amplifier II Heat Dissipation Amplifier II Kinetic Deflection Amplifier II Magnetic Scattering Amplifier II Shield Flux Coil II Shield Power Relay II Shield Recharger II [Small|Medium|Large] Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer [Small|Medium|Large] Anti-Explosive Screen Reinforcer [Small|Medium|Large] Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer [Small|Medium|Large] Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer [Small|Medium|Large] Core Defence Capacitor Safeguard [Small|Medium|Large] Core Defence Charge Economizer [Small|Medium|Large] Core Defence Field Extender [Small|Medium|Large] Core Defence Field Purger [Small|Medium|Large] Core Defence Operational Solidifier
*Note -- Cap modules are T1 Meta0 or Meta2 only. |
Ursula LeGuinn
101
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 16:19:00 -
[29] - Quote
Velicitia wrote:Seems what you're looking for is already in the game. Use the below as necessary.
Not to mention staying aligned for warp, keeping an eye on local and utilizing d-scan. Intel tools will still go a long way toward preventing a gank in highsec. OP, I'd be interested to know which ships ganked you, what you were flying and where. "The EVE forums are intended to provide a warm, friendly atmosphere for the EVE community."-áGÇö-áEVElopedia |
Honnete Du Decimer
21
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 16:28:00 -
[30] - Quote
It funny. Topic like this is get many argue but if so many feel strong for two side it usually are problem. Developer need look for compromise. PMS |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |