These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Remove sec status hit in FW plexes for FW pilots
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#81 - 2013-02-22 23:08:01 UTC
lets generalize the problem:

crimewatch assumes that the party who engages first is committing the crime and reacts with a security penalty. The point of this thread is that entering a FW plex can be already seen already as a crime, since there no incentive at all for a neutral to enter a plex.

is this unique to FW? Probably not. But i don't know any often visited lowsec areas which pop up in your overview and basically tell you "please fight me, i am here for the next 20minutes".

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
2manno Asp
Death By Design
#82 - 2013-02-22 23:08:45 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Please enlighten us, how does sandbox apply here?


it doensn't. i shouldn't have to tell you that. you are tiringly slow.
2manno Asp
Death By Design
#83 - 2013-02-22 23:10:30 UTC
Mag's wrote:
2manno Asp wrote:


this post is one of those options.
No. Your OP seeks to get a special amendment to the rules. That isn't an option.


now rules don't change? ROFL!!!!

that's it mags not responding anymore, you're a waste of time. just stop posting, you've got no point and no common sense.
Ak'athra J'ador
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#84 - 2013-02-22 23:13:07 UTC
^^ what he said 1000x.

mags you've made yourself out to be an idiot that just throws up posts for the sake of argument.

shoo fly. shoo.
Jacob Vyvourant
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2013-02-22 23:19:04 UTC
Thinking about joining FW based on reccomendations, and read thru this thread. Have to say the OP make sense.

I don't understand why this couldn't/wouldn't change? Why woulnd't devs respond to common sense?

Not that I understand it all completey, but some people are just saying they want things to stay the way they are... that's not really a reason, that's an opinion.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#86 - 2013-02-23 00:39:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
2manno Asp wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Please enlighten us, how does sandbox apply here?


it doensn't. i shouldn't have to tell you that. you are tiringly slow.
Of course it applies. Just not how you would like. Guess what, that's what happens in a sandbox. Blink

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#87 - 2013-02-23 00:40:09 UTC
2manno Asp wrote:
Mag's wrote:
2manno Asp wrote:


this post is one of those options.
No. Your OP seeks to get a special amendment to the rules. That isn't an option.


now rules don't change? ROFL!!!!

that's it mags not responding anymore, you're a waste of time. just stop posting, you've got no point and no common sense.
I never said they did or should. You're the one asking for a change to the rules here, I thought you knew that already?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#88 - 2013-02-23 00:46:41 UTC
Ak'athra J'ador wrote:
^^ what he said 1000x.

mags you've made yourself out to be an idiot that just throws up posts for the sake of argument.

shoo fly. shoo.
Nah, I'll stay thanks. Blink

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Ak'athra J'ador
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#89 - 2013-02-23 01:13:04 UTC
Mag's wrote:
2manno Asp wrote:
Mag's wrote:
2manno Asp wrote:


this post is one of those options.
No. Your OP seeks to get a special amendment to the rules. That isn't an option.


now rules don't change? ROFL!!!!

that's it mags not responding anymore, you're a waste of time. just stop posting, you've got no point and no common sense.
I never said they did or should. You're the one asking for a change to the rules here, I thought you knew that already?


sigh, comprehension failure again mags.

he basically asked if you thought rules changed or not, as you painted this 'special request' to the rules as a non-option (as if rules don't change every ******* patch, or you have the authority to even make such a statement).

to which you reply, you never said they did or should.

ofc you didn't idiot, because they do. we can read. and no one asked you that.

seriously dude. go make nonsense somewhere else.

no, serioulsy.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#90 - 2013-02-23 01:29:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Ak'athra J'ador wrote:


sigh, comprehension failure again mags.

he basically asked if you thought rules changed or not, as you painted this 'special request' to the rules as a non-option (as if rules don't change every ******* patch, or you have the authority to even make such a statement).

to which you reply, you never said they did or should.

ofc you didn't idiot, because they do. we can read. and no one asked you that.

seriously dude. go make nonsense somewhere else.

no, serioulsy.
You really need to read and comprehend what people say, before jumping on that bandwagon. You've already played the irony card, let's not repeat it.

The rules in this regard, have been very constant throughout Eve's life. Crimewatch, was merely a way of cleaning up lots of old code and quirks in the system. If anything with the new crimewatch, it increased peoples chances are getting shot. It also removed the whole neutral logi situation in high sec. So rather than allowing people to avoid aggression mechanics, they are actively closing loopholes to stop them.

I know full well rules change, it just so happens they haven't changed in regards to shooting neutrals. His word games don't interest me one bit. The error was in his assumptions. But thanks anyway.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Alexandra Vyvourant
State War Academy
Caldari State
#91 - 2013-02-23 03:44:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexandra Vyvourant
wait. wut? is this guy for real? someone points out a silly mistake he made and he cries copycat?

and who's playing word games?
Shi Xia
Killing With Kindness
#92 - 2013-02-23 11:52:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Shi Xia
Mag's wrote:
Something, something, something, something completely inane, and unproductive to the idea of enlightening conversation.


It's like watching a dog chasing it's tail and wondering if it will ever tire.

I still think making the deadspace beacons not visible to anyone other than a FW player would reduce this problem greatly, most gangs and the odd soloist can't be bothered with probing plexers/mission runners out.

However, I still agree that by a neutral entering a plex (or as the OP illustrated--a WAR ZONE) the neutral person entering said area should be immediately deemed "AT WAR", thus rending the issue of security standings nullified for at least a short period of time. The other simple solution, as someone else suggested, would be to have the neutral person entering the plex incur a suspect timer upon activating the gate.

Frankly, I don't see the problem with the latter. If you're not in FW and are entering the plex to obviously have a shoot out, you're most likely not too worried about sec status hits, or suspect timers. Why should it matter if you become suspect or not? It seems to me thus far that those here who oppose this idea are just looking for a reason to get all puffy and red like an angry sore. As of now I see no valid opposing arguments, only "Whaaaa we don't like you and your ideas, and change is bad--so deal with it!".


Addendum: From someone's post earlier in the thread; http://ashraine-eve.blogspot.com/2013/01/warzones.html
Ak'athra J'ador
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#93 - 2013-02-23 20:39:10 UTC
Alexandra Vyvourant wrote:
wait. wut? is this guy for real? someone points out a silly mistake he made and he cries copycat?

and who's playing word games?


it wasn't a silly mistake, it was his actual statment. he meant it lol.

even more pathetic are the alts he's using to 'like' his awful posts. who would like something so stupid other than himself.

there's the irony card again. lawl.
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#94 - 2013-02-23 21:23:48 UTC
Kuro Bon wrote:
I agree with the op. Either give neutrals a suspect flag for entering a FW plex, or ban them from entering.

..and novice plexes should be t1 non faction non pirate hulls only.

FW is supposed to be more accessible pvp, and instead it's turned into duck and run LP farming.


/thread
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#95 - 2013-02-23 21:33:06 UTC
Jacob Vyvourant wrote:
Thinking about joining FW based on reccomendations, and read thru this thread. Have to say the OP make sense.

I don't understand why this couldn't/wouldn't change? Why woulnd't devs respond to common sense?

Not that I understand it all completey, but some people are just saying they want things to stay the way they are... that's not really a reason, that's an opinion.


Devs rarely respond to anything that would make less ships go boom. CCP makes money when your ships die and will not fix anything that'll make the faction police hate you and make your ship go boom. In adition, farming sec status makes you play more and further increases the chances of your ship going boom.

If you want to see CCP purposely derail player wants, look at the CSM notes. We've been BEGGING for a POS remake for YEARS nw and CCP always changes the subject because ''It'd only make a small minority of players happy'' without realizing more people would use POSes if they weren't such a pain in the butt to fuel. Hell, I've been petitioning for one-way-deposit fuel bays for so long now I'm bordering on making a macro to do it.

That's just the way CCP rolls.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#96 - 2013-02-23 21:47:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Ak'athra J'ador wrote:
Alexandra Vyvourant wrote:
wait. wut? is this guy for real? someone points out a silly mistake he made and he cries copycat?

and who's playing word games?


it wasn't a silly mistake, it was his actual statment. he meant it lol.

even more pathetic are the alts he's using to 'like' his awful posts. who would like something so stupid other than himself.

there's the irony card again. lawl.
That made me laugh so much, I gave you a like. Lol

Please, continue. Big smile

Edit: Oh yea, is this the point I should claim Alexandra Vyvourant is your alt? Lol
Classic.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
2manno Asp
Death By Design
#97 - 2013-02-23 23:02:36 UTC  |  Edited by: 2manno Asp
Scuzzy Logic wrote:
Devs rarely respond to anything that would make less ships go boom. CCP makes money when your ships die and will not fix anything that'll make the faction police hate you and make your ship go boom. In adition, farming sec status makes you play more and further increases the chances of your ship going boom.

If you want to see CCP purposely derail player wants, look at the CSM notes. We've been BEGGING for a POS remake for YEARS nw and CCP always changes the subject because ''It'd only make a small minority of players happy'' without realizing more people would use POSes if they weren't such a pain in the butt to fuel. Hell, I've been petitioning for one-way-deposit fuel bays for so long now I'm bordering on making a macro to do it.

That's just the way CCP rolls.


hmmm... but don't you think more FW pilots would shoot alts if the sec status wasn't an issue? i don't think it matters to nuetrals...
Groggolog
Blades of Liberty
#98 - 2013-02-24 18:30:12 UTC
i don't know why you are all whining about this. in my experience, as a -10 pirate that loves to bash FW people, 90 percent of you run as soon as i get in the plex anyway. people who are regularly engaging first will drop to -5 and below, and allow you to engage first from then on. everybody who doesn't do it regularly shouldnt be a problem for you.

all you people talking about warzone and such, from personal experience, most of FW treat it as a way to make money, not pvp.
Groggolog
Blades of Liberty
#99 - 2013-02-24 18:34:05 UTC
also, to whoever that idiot was that suggested FW plexes not have to be scanned for FW people but have to be scanned for neutrals, really now? should we turn FW space into highsec. you already have nearly 0 risk in those plexes, something tries to come in that you dont want to fight, well youve got 30 seconds of warning to warp out. anyone getting caught in FW plexes either wanted the pvp, or was afk. all making less neutrals going in will do is make it more of an ISK farming afk game, and less explosions.
2manno Asp
Death By Design
#100 - 2013-02-24 19:45:36 UTC  |  Edited by: 2manno Asp
Groggolog wrote:
i don't know why you are all whining about this. in my experience, as a -10 pirate that loves to bash FW people, 90 percent of you run as soon as i get in the plex anyway. people who are regularly engaging first will drop to -5 and below, and allow you to engage first from then on. everybody who doesn't do it regularly shouldnt be a problem for you.

all you people talking about warzone and such, from personal experience, most of FW treat it as a way to make money, not pvp.


Whining.... hmmm... is this where I tell you to stop crying about a post in the Features & Ideas Disscussion board? That's like watching porn and comlaining about nudity.

The point isn't that some nuets will drop to -5. Anyone can be a pirate, just as anyone can rat their sec status out of being a pirate to rinse and repeat.

The point is that new nuetrals come in all the time, and becoming a pirate shouldn't be synonymous with FW. What's the point in having to warp out of a FW plex just to avoid becoming a pirate, or waiting to get scrammed and webbed 1st?

It's a FW warzone. If someone enters, they should be prepared to get shot by the respective militias without criminal reprecussion.

PS - come to the Hed area. We'll be glad to help drop that fictitious 90% number of yours.