open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Before you whine, read this:
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 ... : last (11)

Author Topic

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.26 00:59:00 - [121]
 

Originally by: Darius Brinn
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Darius Brinn
The topic at hand, however, is how ganking in High security has a far too high reward/price ratio, and how Concord/insurance NPC are extremely lenient towards crime under their noses, while people benefiting from it immensely constantly post "EVE is hard and cold"...


You're still approaching this from the wrong standpoint, ie: that there is something inherently wrong with PvP in hi-sec.

There isn't.

As for saying that the consequences are "too lenient"... well look at this this way. Take 0.0 as the baseline - that's reasonable, considering 75% of the map is 0.0. Look at all the not-blues who fly around in empire without even considering shooting each other. Including large numbers of perfectly competent PvPers, by the way.

The available evidence suggests that Concord is actually more than powerful enough to reduce combat to a minute percentage of what it would be in similarly populated 0.0 (or even lo-sec) space.

Let me reiterate: You're still approaching this from the wrong standpoint, ie: that there is something inherently wrong with PvP in hi-sec.

All the available evidence suggest that PvP in hi-sec is perfectly acceptable, but that if you aggress, you will lose your ship and take a sec hit.

Rather than conclude that these consequences are "too lenient", it is much more reasonable to conclude that your expectations of safety in hi-sec are too high.


You are approaching it from the wrong standpoint. It's not a matter of safety. It's a matter of consequences, as I have already claimed. Wanna blow me up cause you can? Fine. Do it. I want nothing. But why should you get insurance payouts for your crime? Why should you get your crime written off your file after some ratting? And why are you allowed to steal from the destroyed ship in front of Concord?

Consequences. Not prevention, or safety. Just consequences and logical reactions from the police.



I don't know how to make this any more explicit: if you present an easy and profitable (or just amusing) target, you will be attacked.

There is every evidence that this is how the game designers intended the game to be. I'm not sure where you're deriving your assumptions from, but in hi-sec, you WILL lose your ship and you WILL take a sec hit. It is simply untrue to say that there are no consequences when there manifestly are. Again you refuse to admit that the consequences are there, but simply aren't enough to make hi-sec as safe as you assume it ought to be.

What you seemingly utterly fail to understand is that attacking someone is or at least should be a consequence in and of itself. The game is simply not designed to accommodate people who refuse to defend, protect or avenge themselves. I don't know how this can be, since CCP have made every effort to make this as plain as possible, and also have carefully included multiple mechanisms to allow us all to do so. (I freely concede that more could be done here, including tradeable kill rights)

If mining can be profitably conducted in 0.0 space, with no sec hits, no gate guns, no criminal countdowns, and above all no CONCORD, then how in the name of all things logical can it not be profitable in hi-sec, which gives the miners all those advantages?

Of course the answer is obvious: people mistakenly assume that those advantages can replace successfully playing the game, rather than assisting it.


Rawr Cristina
Caldari
Naqam
Posted - 2008.03.26 01:39:00 - [122]
 

Originally by: Darius Brinn
You are approaching it from the wrong standpoint. It's not a matter of safety. It's a matter of consequences, as I have already claimed.


For someone who's only been playing the game for such a short period of time, you sure are open about how you think it could be improved.

EVE takes a long time to 'get' for a lot of people. I had strong feelings that certain things were overpowered/underpowered when I started too but as I experienced EVE more I opened my mind up a bit and actually managed to get by.

I would suggest you learn the game a bit more before you come to the forums spouting your thoughts on how you think it should be.

Daelin Blackleaf
White Rose Society
Posted - 2008.03.26 01:54:00 - [123]
 

I thought this was going to be another of those irony oozing whines about whines, but the OP's post was actually very good.

People need to learn the difference between a whiner, and someone whose opinion differs from theirs. The former probably won't be here long after their "I'm quitting EVE" post though some do hang around, the latter are what make the game and the forums interesting.

I've come back from three major losses in my time, though I never felt the need to create a thread about it. I got rid of my original character when I quit EVE due to real life difficulties, I lost a 1.2b fit CNR to a ganksquad, and I lost more ISK in a certain market investment than I even now feel comfortable talking about (/me mumbles something about stuff not being on the patch notes or SiSi before hitting TQ).

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.03.26 02:51:00 - [124]
 

Edited by: Ki An on 26/03/2008 03:00:52
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Darius Brinn

Are you able to read properly yourself? Leaving my keys in my car and having it unlocked and stolen IS specifically covered by my policy. Do you even own a car and an insurance over it? Your imagination is quite vivid, unlike your knowledge of pretty common commercial transactions.

Car insurance in the UK will certainly not pay in the senario presented.
Maybe that is part of the issue - some people understand personal responsibilty, whilst others expect someone else to constantly hold their hand?


Edit: Come to think of it, I think they would actually pay out, but the premium would be MUCH higher.

However, if I took my car to Baghdad (equivalent of High Sec, low-sec being Afghanistan) they wouldn't pay me a dime.

Malbolge
Posted - 2008.03.26 03:21:00 - [125]
 

Edited by: Malbolge on 26/03/2008 03:47:03
Edited by: Malbolge on 26/03/2008 03:44:12
Originally by: Malcanis
It is simply untrue to say that there are no consequences when there manifestly are. Again you refuse to admit that the consequences are there, but simply aren't enough to make hi-sec as safe as you assume it ought to be.


Of course there are consequences. Just enough to protect the gankers but not enough to protect the miners because of the nature of the ships each flies.

In case you are inclined to read this as a complaint that miners are unsafe, that is not the point at all.

Originally by: Malcanis
What you seemingly utterly fail to understand is that attacking someone is or at least should be a consequence in and of itself. The game is simply not designed to accommodate people who refuse to defend, protect or avenge themselves.


What do you think CONCORD is for? If everybody could defend, protect, and avenge themself sufficiently to provide consequences for attacking them, CONCORD would be unnecessary.

Edit: your point is that CONCORD is an aid and not a shield and that you have to contribute to your own deterrence. Fair enough, but you are being argued with because the consequences miners can contribute on their own plus the additional consequences CONCORD provides to make up for miner combat deficiencies are currently not enough.

Originally by: Malcanis
I don't know how this can be, since CCP have made every effort to make this as plain as possible, and also have carefully included multiple mechanisms to allow us all to do so. (I freely concede that more could be done here, including tradeable kill rights)


Kill rights: Yes, goons are terribly afraid of the damage miners with 40k skillpoints in gunnery and missiles could do to their expensive, poorly insurable T2 ships. Rolling Eyes

Mercs: Ha.

You want miners to feed the monster, not deter or avenge themselves upon it.

Originally by: Malcanis
If mining can be profitably conducted in 0.0 space, with no sec hits, no gate guns, no criminal countdowns, and above all no CONCORD, then how in the name of all things logical can it not be profitable in hi-sec, which gives the miners all those advantages?


How in the name of all things logical can you ignore the fact that 0.0 and high sec have different asteroid distributions?

Anyway, you are missing the entire point, which is that people don't want to play whack-a-mole when they always have to be the mole and the people with the hammer get a slap on the wrist for doing it.

mahj
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.03.26 07:48:00 - [126]
 

Edited by: mahj on 26/03/2008 07:54:57
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Darius Brinn

Are you able to read properly yourself? Leaving my keys in my car and having it unlocked and stolen IS specifically covered by my policy. Do you even own a car and an insurance over it? Your imagination is quite vivid, unlike your knowledge of pretty common commercial transactions.

Car insurance in the UK will certainly not pay in the senario presented.
Maybe that is part of the issue - some people understand personal responsibilty, whilst others expect someone else to constantly hold their hand?

nullNot only will insurance pay in this scenario but there is a cop show about cops leaving cars running door open and keys showing, trying to bait theives into taking the plunge, Maybe you dont know right from wrong!!!;IE it is wrong to stealRolling Eyes
In some countries they will chop off yr hands for theft
in china they just shoot you in the head and harvest yr organs. hows that for a dose of reality

Victor Forge
Amarr
Posted - 2008.03.26 08:24:00 - [127]
 

Originally by: Malcanis


You're still approaching this from the wrong standpoint, ie: that there is something inherently wrong with PvP in hi-sec.

There isn't.

As for saying that the consequences are "too lenient"... well look at this this way. Take 0.0 as the baseline - that's reasonable, considering 75% of the map is 0.0. Look at all the not-blues who fly around in empire without even considering shooting each other. Including large numbers of perfectly competent PvPers, by the way.

The available evidence suggests that Concord is actually more than powerful enough to reduce combat to a minute percentage of what it would be in similarly populated 0.0 (or even lo-sec) space.

Let me reiterate: You're still approaching this from the wrong standpoint, ie: that there is something inherently wrong with PvP in hi-sec.

All the available evidence suggest that PvP in hi-sec is perfectly acceptable, but that if you aggress, you will lose your ship and take a sec hit.

Rather than conclude that these consequences are "too lenient", it is much more reasonable to conclude that your expectations of safety in hi-sec are too high.


Your reply "There isn´t" regarding if pvp in high-sec is wrong, is a personal opinion shared by some, but not shared by others. If someone feels it wrong it is wrong to them.

And as you pointed out 75% of the map is 0.0. Good, then there is plenty of space for PvPers to play around with, even if PvP was removed entirely in both High-sec and Low-sec.

It is just too bad that EvE online encouraging alts so much or we could have votes regarding things like PvP in high-sec. I don´t think anyone will disagree that 0.0 should be the free-for all "go there if you dare" , the ultimate PvP area. And that low-sec should be risky, testing the water area before taking the plunge into 0.0.

However regarding High-sec, why shouldn´t there be a place even for players that doesn´t like PvP? The PvPers has most of the map, 75%, according to you. Then surely the PvEers can have the tiny 25% that is left.

Right or wrong with PvP in high-sec? You will have to ask the players about that, CCP can say it is right, but in business world the saying is "customer is always right" and we are the customers. And I think EvE could attract much more players if the tiny 25% of the map was safer than it is today.

Oh, and remove local and alts. It makes it too easy to spot enemies in low-sec and 0.0, we don´t want that, "EvE is a cold harsh place" after all. And it is, and is supposed to be for those in low-sec and 0.0. And it will still be, with no pvp in high-sec.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.26 09:22:00 - [128]
 

Originally by: Rawr Cristina

For someone who's only been playing the game for such a short period of time, you sure are open about how you think it could be improved.


Do I need to have been playing for a year before realizing that criminals getting insurance payments and stealing rights over corpses...is wrong?

Originally by: Rawr Cristina
EVE takes a long time to 'get' for a lot of people. I had strong feelings that certain things were overpowered/underpowered when I started too but as I experienced EVE more I opened my mind up a bit and actually managed to get by.


EVE takes a long time to MASTER. I got EVE the very instant I was left alone in my Velator in the middle of an asteroid field. I got EVE when I first traded successfully, when I killed a rat, when I aligned in fear of a PvPer showing up. I need not an ounce more of experience to realize that High security pirates get extraordinary compensations from NPC entities that should actually reject them: police and insurance companies.

Originally by: Rawr Cristina
I would suggest you learn the game a bit more before you come to the forums spouting your thoughts on how you think it should be.


No. My account is exactly as valuable as yours. My opinion is exactly as valuable as yours. And to throw a reasonable opinion of gankers, insurance and Concord I don't need to learn to pilot a Titan. I've been here for two months, reading and playing. More than enough to spot the basics.

Whatever you KNOW or whatever you think you ARE, you are certainly NOT noticeably more knowledgeable than me in the topic at hand. I might not know what the hell is a cynosural field or the scrambling range of a certain module, but I don't need to know that to talk about logical design flaws that affect us all.

So no, I'm not waiting nor bowing to the thoughts of the likes of you merely because you picked the game before.

Concord'ed ships should receive ZERO insurance ISK. Looting (not Salvaging) yellow wrecks in High Security HAS to be a Concordable offence.

Avon
Caldari
Versatech Co.
Raiden.
Posted - 2008.03.26 09:22:00 - [129]
 

Originally by: Victor Forge

However regarding High-sec, why shouldn´t there be a place even for players that doesn´t like PvP? The PvPers has most of the map, 75%, according to you. Then surely the PvEers can have the tiny 25% that is left.

The problem is that no-one in Eve lives in a bubble.
If you have a safe area to make money then people will use it to fund dangerous activities. They will supply their combat forces in the knowledge that their logistical and industrial infrastructure is secure - not through their efforts, but enforced by game mechanics. Every step on the path towards that safety net weakens the risk vs reward dynamic.
The reason it must be possible to attack any player, anywhere, anytime, is that their are already overpowered mechanics in place to protect individuals.
The inability to target NPC corps, and the ability for players to stay in them indefinately, makes suicide ganking a required game mechanic. It is an unfortunate consequence of the NPC corp safety net, but many would agree that they would rather keep suicide ganks than lose NPC corps.

The problem with this arguement, and many like it, is that it tends to be the "ganker side vs the "carebear" side, which will ultimately always lead to the "no-u" method of discussion.

If you step back and view the game mechanic as a whole it is immediately clear that suicide ganking is a pragmatic balance to NPC corps, like it or not.

So, where to go?

I have no problem with making invididual ships more defensible against one-off attacks, such as my ablative shield/armour suggestion, because whilst it would deter and prevent most suicide attacks it does not make the player immunte from a concerted and determined effort to kill them.

The other option would be to look at the whole NPC corp concept, which is another subject I have previously broached, but I feel falls out of the scope of this thread.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.26 09:30:00 - [130]
 

Oh, and while you ignore the rest of the (more experienced)users sharing my opinion, you directly address me and basically tell me to bugger off "'cause you're a noob and still haven't understood the game".

Sorry, not happening.

Avon
Caldari
Versatech Co.
Raiden.
Posted - 2008.03.26 09:33:00 - [131]
 

Edited by: Avon on 26/03/2008 09:34:05
Originally by: Darius Brinn

Concord'ed ships should receive ZERO insurance ISK. Looting (not Salvaging) yellow wrecks in High Security HAS to be a Concordable offence.


Removing insurance on Concord killed ship only raises the break-even point on suicide ganks, whilst punishing anyone who makes a genuine mistake (which tend to happen with mission runners a lot if their posts are anything to go by).

Looting wrecks should certainly *never* be a Concordable offence. The looter is flagged and open to destruction, so get destroying. It is not up to the game mechanics to do your work for you.
Ironically this is the most annoying thing you argue for.
When can flagging was proposed I was against it and I argued it would be used to grief people by flipping their cans, or used to bait people in to fights, and ultimately lead to people calling for more help - concord protecting loot cans.

Did I call that one or what?

CCP provide the tools - it is up to you to use them.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.26 09:54:00 - [132]
 

Originally by: Avon
Removing insurance on Concord killed ship only raises the break-even point on suicide ganks, whilst punishing anyone who makes a genuine mistake (which tend to happen with mission runners a lot if their posts are anything to go by)..


But...we want our EVE cold and harsh, right? A punishable mistake, I can take. A system where high security gankers get money back for comitting crimes is what does not make any sense at all.

If I target Concord my mistake and got blown up, it's my problem. I accept it. Just as if I fire a gun accidentally at a NYPD officer. But the situation here is completely different. It's criminals being compensated for comitting crimes. It's unrealistic, and it's wrong.

Originally by: Avon
Looting wrecks should certainly *never* be a Concordable offence. The looter is flagged and open to destruction, so get destroying. It is not up to the game mechanics to do your work for you.


Ridiculous. Caught thieves should be allowed to keep your wallet? Looting the legitimate posessions of another player in front of the police should be Concordable.

Originally by: Avon
Ironically this is the most annoying thing you argue for.
When can flagging was proposed I was against it and I argued it would be used to grief people by flipping their cans, or used to bait people in to fights, and ultimately lead to people calling for more help - concord protecting loot cans..


Again, ridiculous. Whatever I jettison is THRASH. Jetcan mining is a certain trick that can be put to good use, but jetcans are considered thrash. I don't endorse the protection of jetcans at all. BUT the ship you just destroyed is not a jetcan. It's a crime scene, with a victim and valuables. Valuables that the killer/thief is allowed to keep.

Avon
Caldari
Versatech Co.
Raiden.
Posted - 2008.03.26 10:02:00 - [133]
 

Darius, I'm afraid that we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
Your vision of Eve is one of NPC hand holding, and mine is one of player driven content - they are incompatible.

Roen Dunaer
Posted - 2008.03.26 10:05:00 - [134]
 

Originally by: Vikarion
Edited by: Vikarion on 25/03/2008 08:18:40
Every setback in this game offers you the chance to come back better, stronger, and smarter than before, while having fun. You may derive great enjoyment from piloting a hulk, but who says you can't enjoy the journey getting there again? I recently went back to running level 1 and 2 missions, and it was still fun. There are always new challenges, new fittings, new ways to do things that can give them a new twist of flavor while you climb your way back to the top.

Perhaps one of the greatest features of EvE is that it's never really over, for anyone.



2 quotes came to mind when I read this post.

The first represents the OP:
"It is wise to keep in mind that neither success nor failure is ever final."
Roger Babson

The second represents the majority of the people for whom this post was intended:
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
Bertrand Russell

mudders
Minmatar
Insidious Existence
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2008.03.26 10:16:00 - [135]
 

Yeh its a cold, hard, unforgiving world.

and those who are the coldest, hardest and most unforgiving are the ones that reap the benefits.

Seems very balanced to me.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.26 10:43:00 - [136]
 

Originally by: Avon
Darius, I'm afraid that we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
Your vision of Eve is one of NPC hand holding, and mine is one of player driven content - they are incompatible.


Listen, NPC driven world is not what I want. Nor completely player driven anarchy. Why? Because the anarchy would be FAKE. Pirates would be able to destroy "civilians" (industrials and miners), but there and then anarchy ends. Markets, station services and manufacturers are still organized for the pirates' needs and comfort.

It's not real, player driven anarchy. It's merely "we wanna shoot civilians without interference". Of course. With alts, unidentified buy&sell orders, and insurance companies.

You DON'T want player driven systems. Just want to get rid of the police, to be able to shoot undisturbed.

There is NO player driven order in EVE. Alliances get and loose territory, oh yes. But once docked, pirates are safe. They can buy from their enemies, etc. The system is ordered, safe and ripe for them to blast civilians and return to their comfy hideout. So where's the player drive in here? In that we make ships and modules? Yeah, right. Want TRUE, pure, unadulterated PvP? Then remove alts completely, and improve the settings in sell orders. I want to refuse to sell anything to low sec status people, and particular users that have ****ed me off.

Oh, wait. No. You can blow me up with all your combat SP, but I cannot choose who do I sell my battleships or ammo with all my industrial SPs.

There is no real PvP in EVE either. Just free pew pew for those who decided to become combat pilots. There is just a NPC system that benefits those who commit random acts of violence.

High Sec gankers? Give me a break. They live in a pink, cushioned and NPC protected world.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.26 10:45:00 - [137]
 

Originally by: mudders
Yeh its a cold, hard, unforgiving world.

and those who are the coldest, hardest and most unforgiving are the ones that reap the benefits.

Seems very balanced to me.


Oh, yes. Very cold and ruthless, insuring a ship and getting NPC money after comitting a crime. Very cold for you, being allowed to keep the valuables you killed a civilian for.

It's not cold and ruthless for everyone. It's soft and easy for crybaby gankers.

Fiorenza
Posted - 2008.03.26 11:48:00 - [138]
 

Simply abolishing insurance payments for Concorded ships wouldn’t rebalance EVE. People with negative security ratings should have rewards on their heads and the rewards should come out of their wallet or their corp’s. If their wallet goes negative they can earn their way back in their noob frigate.

That would actually increase pvp because it would give a real incentive for pirate hunting.

And of course they should be fair game in secure space.

Stop wrapping crims in cotton wool – EVE is meant to be a cold, hard place.

Avon
Caldari
Versatech Co.
Raiden.
Posted - 2008.03.26 12:00:00 - [139]
 

Originally by: Darius Brinn

Oh, yes. Very cold and ruthless, insuring a ship and getting NPC money after comitting a crime. Very cold for you, being allowed to keep the valuables you killed a civilian for.

It's not cold and ruthless for everyone. It's soft and easy for crybaby gankers.


Well, if you think it is unrealistic, how about Concord take much longer to respond, and can be evaded, they take a long time to investigate, they only solve a small %age of cases, and then don't manage to secure prosecutions on all of those?

In exchange, we remove insurance payouts for the odd person who Concord actually gun down?

Would that be better?
Or would you miss your 20 second vengence, and the chance it may save you?

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.26 12:02:00 - [140]
 

Originally by: Malbolge

Missing the central argument of my post



Let me say this again, in nice bold letters:

What you seemingly utterly fail to understand is that attacking someone is or at least should be a consequence in and of itself. The game is simply not designed to accommodate people who refuse to defend, protect or avenge themselves

If you're not prepared to fight, and you're not prepared to accept the consequences of not fighting, then go play another game. EvE is the wrong one for you.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.26 12:08:00 - [141]
 

Originally by: Fiorenza
Simply abolishing insurance payments for Concorded ships wouldn’t rebalance EVE. People with negative security ratings should have rewards on their heads and the rewards should come out of their wallet or their corp’s. If their wallet goes negative they can earn their way back in their noob frigate.

That would actually increase pvp because it would give a real incentive for pirate hunting.

And of course they should be fair game in secure space.

Stop wrapping crims in cotton wool – EVE is meant to be a cold, hard place.



Exactly. But the insurance thing is a good start. Stop overprotecting high sec gankers.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.03.26 12:17:00 - [142]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 26/03/2008 12:21:41
Originally by: Vanessa Vasquez
Now, this is for all of you gankers and grievers out there, from me, a little carebear.



But, er, carebears are whining 99% of the time Laughing

"I got suicide ganked, ohnoz"
"Low-sec is death, ohnoz"
"Pirates have it easy, ohnoz"

I mean, seriously.

You either hack it or you don't. Besides, RTFM if you believe you should be, like, 100% safe in high-sec or that suicide ganking should be discouraged by making insurance unpayable.

It's the high-sec carebears who make ganking cheap, anyway. If minerals/ships weren't that cheap, people would lose a bit more ISK suiciding.

Originally by: mahj

Not only will insurance pay in this scenario



No it won't. Not here in any case. Insurance is void unless I can present the car keys. I know it's the same in many countries.

Basically, if I left the car keys in, I assisted the thief is the legal justification for not getting insurance coverage in the case.

Avon
Caldari
Versatech Co.
Raiden.
Posted - 2008.03.26 12:17:00 - [143]
 

Edited by: Avon on 26/03/2008 12:17:32
Originally by: Darius Brinn
Stop overprotecting high sec gankers.

Oh, if overprotection is you concern maybe we should eliminate NPC corp war-dec protection, and make suicide ganking almost impossible, as it would no longer be needed?

You could just declare war on the people you want to kill, rather than them being immune to that particular mechanic.

That would be much fairer, right?

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.26 12:17:00 - [144]
 

Originally by: Avon

Well, if you think it is unrealistic, how about Concord take much longer to respond, and can be evaded, they take a long time to investigate, they only solve a small %age of cases, and then don't manage to secure prosecutions on all of those?

In exchange, we remove insurance payouts for the odd person who Concord actually gun down?

Would that be better?
Or would you miss your 20 second vengence, and the chance it may save you?


Small % of cases my ass, mate. Still, if negative sec status was permanent (no ratting it up) and there was no alts, I WOULD accept a Concord that could be avoided.

As soon as a neg sec pirate warps in High security, he should be clear game for all border Concord ships and players alike, and at the same time Concord are not effectively unbeatable and unavoidable. Ultra-cruel realism for everyone.

Do you think I wouldn't accept? Think again. It would only improve. But let's go even further, I propose: no alts. No anonymous sell/buy orders. No ratting solution for serial killers to kill again.

As I have said in all these posts, I don't want EVE less harsh or ruthless. I just want it equally hard for everyone. High sec gankers get a special sissy treatment.

EVE should be hard. If you choose to be a criminal, it's not. If you choose another career path, you're screwed. Carebears? High sec gankers are the real carebears.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.03.26 12:24:00 - [145]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 26/03/2008 12:26:14
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 26/03/2008 12:23:54
Originally by: Darius Brinn

As soon as a neg sec pirate warps in High security, he should be clear game for all border Concord ships and players alike, and at the same time Concord are not effectively unbeatable and unavoidable. Ultra-cruel realism for everyone.



Yay, something that'd make my life easier. Please do this. Instalocking faction navies, permajamming unbeatable concord and crap like that (in addition to being free game to everyone and sentries automagically shooting you too for no good reason) are all just absurd and necessitate the usage of alts.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.26 12:24:00 - [146]
 

Originally by: Avon
Oh, if overprotection is you concern maybe we should eliminate NPC corp war-dec protection, and make suicide ganking almost impossible, as it would no longer be needed?

You could just declare war on the people you want to kill, rather than them being immune to that particular mechanic.

That would be much fairer, right?


As long as the ganker faces the consequences I have proposed, it is. Of course, NPC corps should get their own NPC fighters, present in their facilities. That would be much fairer, yes.

Want to kill somebody? Do it. Want to pay the price? Go ahead and blow me up in front of the police. But for the love of God, don't get a 0,01 ISK from a NPC corp. Don't be allowed to keep the wallet you just stole (loot the victim) in front of the cops. DON'T BE ALLOWED TO BECOME COP-FRIENDLY by PvE'ing rats, Mr. PvPer.

You want to be a murderous criminal? Be it.
What YOU want is to be NPC corp, Concord and Customs friendly...UNTIL you decide to pull the trigger first.

That's a big NO. Criminals stay criminals. Insurance companies don't give a cent to criminals that blow the insured property while comitting a felony. Except in EVE. The cops keep a file on known criminals...except in EVE.

Curiously, how PvE (ratting, etc) is always the solution for oh-so-proud High sec ganking PvPers.


Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.26 12:24:00 - [147]
 

Originally by: Darius Brinn
Originally by: Avon

Well, if you think it is unrealistic, how about Concord take much longer to respond, and can be evaded, they take a long time to investigate, they only solve a small %age of cases, and then don't manage to secure prosecutions on all of those?

In exchange, we remove insurance payouts for the odd person who Concord actually gun down?

Would that be better?
Or would you miss your 20 second vengence, and the chance it may save you?


Small % of cases my ass, mate. Still, if negative sec status was permanent (no ratting it up) and there was no alts, I WOULD accept a Concord that could be avoided.

As soon as a neg sec pirate warps in High security, he should be clear game for all border Concord ships and players alike, and at the same time Concord are not effectively unbeatable and unavoidable. Ultra-cruel realism for everyone.

Do you think I wouldn't accept? Think again. It would only improve. But let's go even further, I propose: no alts. No anonymous sell/buy orders. No ratting solution for serial killers to kill again.

As I have said in all these posts, I don't want EVE less harsh or ruthless. I just want it equally hard for everyone. High sec gankers get a special sissy treatment.

EVE should be hard. If you choose to be a criminal, it's not. If you choose another career path, you're screwed. Carebears? High sec gankers are the real carebears.


If you want EvE to be as hardcore as all that, why should NPCs protect you?

Zenlike Calm
Freelancer Union
Unaffiliated
Posted - 2008.03.26 12:27:00 - [148]
 

Originally by: Avon
Oh, if overprotection is you concern maybe we should eliminate NPC corp war-dec protection

The only problem I would have with that is that it would entail genuinely new players arriving in the game and potentially being ganked the first time they logged in. A fair reflection of what can happen in the game, yes, but not exactly welcoming.

I've always wondered what it would be like if the NPC corps were permanently at war with their listed competitors or factional enemies. Alternatively, what it would be like if the various faction Navy ships at all the Empire gates targeted and shot at players whose NPC corp was affiliated with 'the enemy'. It would certainly cramp the playstyle of those who stay in NPC corps for the duration of their time in EVE, and would certainly be easy to reconcile with the backstory given a few tweaks here and there.

Anyway, just rambling. Wink

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.26 12:29:00 - [149]
 

Originally by: Malcanis

If you want EvE to be as hardcore as all that, why should NPCs protect you?


It's a necessity, as not all players have the same means, or started the game at the same time.

Again, I don't want Concord to PROTECT me. Concord, as you pirates say, DOES NOT PROTECT. It simply does not punish hard enough.

Pirates in EVE kill and loot. Then they kill a few rats, change their jackets and come to Empire for a bit of shopping and scanning future victims.

Our point is...we don't EVE lighter, or different. Just want high security gankers to pay the right price.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.03.26 12:30:00 - [150]
 

Originally by: Darius Brinn

Insurance companies don't give a cent to criminals that blow the insured property while comitting a felony. Except in EVE.



Insurance companies won't insure a tank going to the front line. Except in EvE.

Yes, I'm talking about people who rat in belts/do missions.

"Hello. I'm going to fit machinegun on my car and go to Iraq. Will you insure my car?"
"LOL."

So insurance is either for high-sec haulers only (I mean, seriously, going to a warzone such as low-sec should invalidate your insurance) and nobody else at all OR high-sec gankers rightfully get insurance.


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 ... : last (11)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only