These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

pushing for harder punishment on hi sec gankers

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Hannibal Crusoe
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#201 - 2014-07-29 22:38:21 UTC
EVE is not a game for everyone. The harsh nature of it sets it apart from other games. I disagree with any notion to change that core aspect of EVE. It is not from an entitled mindset, but from the personal desire to have this game available.
I have had some RL friends that have tried EVE out and did not care for it for various reasons . I have no desire for the game to change into a risk free social site just to have them here.
I find it hard to understand the connection some have to complete strangers that drives them to advocate for them, for the benefit of a third party ie.(we need to change EVE for potential players that might not fit in so CCP can keep EVE alive.)

Ride a white mare in the footsteps of dawn
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#202 - 2014-07-29 22:40:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
NIFTYGetAtMe wrote:
The Faction Police are terrible at what they're supposed to do. Think of it this way. If a known mass murderer (a -5.0 outlaw) walks into a room full of local police (faction navy) and fbi that were already on location from a previous incident (concord) and shouts "here I am and this is what I did!", do you really think the fbi is just gonna sit there?
Terrible analogy, until they actually open fire they have committed no crime. All previous crimes are effectively spent convictions due to the fact they have already been punished.

The Faction Navy chase them for being known criminals/undesirable elements, Concord punish them when they actually commit a crime.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
NIFTYGetAtMe
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#203 - 2014-07-29 22:45:12 UTC
Christopher Mabata wrote:
NIFTYGetAtMe wrote:
You are opposed to every single thing that is suggested. Every move CPP makes, you oppose it. Every time someone suggests something, you oppose it. How arrogant will you be when your precious griefer haven has it's servers shut down due to lack of income?


You sound like the typical gank victim right about now. THese are NOT valid plans to improve the game what-so-ever all your pushing is the dsame "Make high sec 110% Safe" so we can be away from the keyboard playing a game.

Whats the Point of PLAYING and Understanding there is RISK to PLAYING when your not actually at your keyboard to PLAY? And there is no RISK because of CONCORD holding your hand 24/7. How does that improve the game in any way?

Im not saying we need to kill all the miners or stupid people, Im saying take the safety labels off and let the problem sort itself out.

Eve is at its roots a Dog-Eat-Dog game, the smarter, stronger, craftier, and well prepared you are the better you do. Nobody will get any of that if theres a security force letting them play AFK all day.

In no way was it ever suggested by me or anyone else that High-Sec needs to be 100% safe, CONCORD was never supposed to be there 24/7, risk was never meant to be eliminated. The ONLY thing the last few pages are about was CONCORD dropped from a previous gank would engage -5.0 outlaws on sight. They would not call reinforcements, they would not pursue, they would shoot. The -5.0 outlaw would not spawn the CONCORD ships, he would simply decloak in front of them and get wasted.

*-5.0 was never suggested before, but I now feel the need to associate a number to the "particularly low sec status" requirement for CONCORD to engage on sight, as many people still can't seem to grasp that it doesn't mean every single criminal.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#204 - 2014-07-29 22:52:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
NIFTYGetAtMe wrote:

In no way was it ever suggested by me or anyone else that High-Sec needs to be 100% safe, CONCORD was never supposed to be there 24/7, risk was never meant to be eliminated. The ONLY thing the last few pages are about was CONCORD dropped from a previous gank would engage -5.0 outlaws on sight. They would not call reinforcements, they would not pursue, they would shoot. The -5.0 outlaw would not spawn the CONCORD ships, he would simply decloak in front of them and get wasted.

*-5.0 was never suggested before, but I now feel the need to associate a number to the "particularly low sec status" requirement for CONCORD to engage on sight, as many people still can't seem to grasp that it doesn't mean every single criminal.

You've obviously never heard of pulling Concord, most gankers worth their salt will make sure that Concord are not present at, or at least 150KM away from, the site that they're planning to gank in.

I suggest that you learn the current mechanics before spouting off with any more terrible ideas.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
NIFTYGetAtMe
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#205 - 2014-07-29 22:55:53 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
NIFTYGetAtMe wrote:

In no way was it ever suggested by me or anyone else that High-Sec needs to be 100% safe, CONCORD was never supposed to be there 24/7, risk was never meant to be eliminated. The ONLY thing the last few pages are about was CONCORD dropped from a previous gank would engage -5.0 outlaws on sight. They would not call reinforcements, they would not pursue, they would shoot. The -5.0 outlaw would not spawn the CONCORD ships, he would simply decloak in front of them and get wasted.

*-5.0 was never suggested before, but I now feel the need to associate a number to the "particularly low sec status" requirement for CONCORD to engage on sight, as many people still can't seem to grasp that it doesn't mean every single criminal.

You've obviously never heard of pulling Concord, most gankers worth their salt will make sure that Concord are not present at the site they're planning to gank in.

I suggest that you learn the current mechanics before spouting off with any more terrible ideas.

Yet within my constraints, gankers worth their salt are in no way hindered. If they already make sure there is no CONCORD, how would shoot -5.0's on sight CONCORD change anything? They still get to do what they do, and the idiots that don't check first get blasted. So how exactly is that a terrible idea?
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#206 - 2014-07-29 22:58:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
NIFTYGetAtMe wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
NIFTYGetAtMe wrote:

In no way was it ever suggested by me or anyone else that High-Sec needs to be 100% safe, CONCORD was never supposed to be there 24/7, risk was never meant to be eliminated. The ONLY thing the last few pages are about was CONCORD dropped from a previous gank would engage -5.0 outlaws on sight. They would not call reinforcements, they would not pursue, they would shoot. The -5.0 outlaw would not spawn the CONCORD ships, he would simply decloak in front of them and get wasted.

*-5.0 was never suggested before, but I now feel the need to associate a number to the "particularly low sec status" requirement for CONCORD to engage on sight, as many people still can't seem to grasp that it doesn't mean every single criminal.

You've obviously never heard of pulling Concord, most gankers worth their salt will make sure that Concord are not present at the site they're planning to gank in.

I suggest that you learn the current mechanics before spouting off with any more terrible ideas.

Yet within my constraints, gankers worth their salt are in no way hindered. If they already make sure there is no CONCORD, how would shoot -5.0's on sight CONCORD change anything? They still get to do what they do, and the idiots that don't check first get blasted. So how exactly is that a terrible idea?
Because Concord tend to hang around on gates, which are the point of entry to a system, any ganker entering the system via that gate will be instapwned by them thus hindering them.

The current mechanics are fine, if you're paying attention and not doing anything stupid it's absolutely trivial to avoid getting ganked.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
NIFTYGetAtMe
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#207 - 2014-07-29 23:00:01 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
NIFTYGetAtMe wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
NIFTYGetAtMe wrote:

In no way was it ever suggested by me or anyone else that High-Sec needs to be 100% safe, CONCORD was never supposed to be there 24/7, risk was never meant to be eliminated. The ONLY thing the last few pages are about was CONCORD dropped from a previous gank would engage -5.0 outlaws on sight. They would not call reinforcements, they would not pursue, they would shoot. The -5.0 outlaw would not spawn the CONCORD ships, he would simply decloak in front of them and get wasted.

*-5.0 was never suggested before, but I now feel the need to associate a number to the "particularly low sec status" requirement for CONCORD to engage on sight, as many people still can't seem to grasp that it doesn't mean every single criminal.

You've obviously never heard of pulling Concord, most gankers worth their salt will make sure that Concord are not present at the site they're planning to gank in.

I suggest that you learn the current mechanics before spouting off with any more terrible ideas.

Yet within my constraints, gankers worth their salt are in no way hindered. If they already make sure there is no CONCORD, how would shoot -5.0's on sight CONCORD change anything? They still get to do what they do, and the idiots that don't check first get blasted. So how exactly is that a terrible idea?
Because Concord tend to hang around on gates, which are the point of entry to a system, any ganker entering the system via that gate will be instapwned by them thus hindering them.

I thought you said gankers worth their salt check to make sure there is no concord?
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#208 - 2014-07-29 23:07:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
NIFTYGetAtMe wrote:

I thought you said gankers worth their salt check to make sure there is no concord?


I wrote:
They already do check for Concord in the belts, it's part of the process for setting up a gank.


Read it again, then try to understand what I actually said.

If Concord are present on gates and automagically attack people below a certain sec status when they enter a system then that system becomes for all intents and purposes a risk free area, an instance if you will, for everything except wardecs, because Concord avoidance is a bannable offence.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Christopher Mabata
Northern Accounts and Systems
#209 - 2014-07-29 23:07:22 UTC
Dude

CONCORD has 0 Reason to shoot someone because of their sec status
Sec Status makes you a Criminal, but it does not mean you have commited a crime at that moment worth repercussions
Under YOUR IDEA If your just traveling and your -5.1 and you have the misfortune of jumping into concord in .5 in a Leopard
( which will avoid fac pol every time and poses no threat)
You would instead be insta tackled, barred from jumping out, Nueted, jammed, and killed and left in your pod usually to die to someone else.

In that moment what was your crime? NOTHING
SO under the current mechanics CONCORD sees this and lets you pass because your not guilty in that moment
They may get you later
But NOT Then

Seriously learn the mechanic, stop spraying this nonsense and find a productive way to enhance the game rather than trying to nerf a mechanic that is balanced and working as intended

CONCORD IS RETRIBUTION NOT PROTECTION

♣ Small Gang PVP, Large Fleet PVP, Black Ops, Incursions, Trade, and Industry ♣ 70% Lethal / 30% Super-Snuggly / 110% No idea what im doing ♣

This Message Brought to you by a sweet and sour bittervet
NIFTYGetAtMe
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#210 - 2014-07-29 23:08:09 UTC  |  Edited by: NIFTYGetAtMe
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
NIFTYGetAtMe wrote:

I thought you said gankers worth their salt check to make sure there is no concord?


I wrote:
They already do check for Concord in the belts, it's part of the process for setting up a gank.


Read it again, then try to understand what I actually said.

If Concord are present on gates and automagically attack people below a certain sec status when they entered a system then that system becomes for all intents and purposes a risk free instance for everything except wardecs, because Concord avoidance is a bannable offence.

So HTFU and scout the gates before you gank. If there's CONCORD there, tough luck kid, go somewhere else.
Also that's not what you said. It's also not even what you edited your post to say.
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#211 - 2014-07-29 23:12:57 UTC
NIFTYGetAtMe wrote:
How arrogant will you be when your precious griefer haven has it's servers shut down due to lack of income?


Stealth "I'm unsubbing because I'm not getting my way!"

You don't deserve to play EVE anyway. Bye.

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
Christopher Mabata
Northern Accounts and Systems
#212 - 2014-07-29 23:13:12 UTC
NIFTYGetAtMe wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
NIFTYGetAtMe wrote:

I thought you said gankers worth their salt check to make sure there is no concord?


I wrote:
They already do check for Concord in the belts, it's part of the process for setting up a gank.


Read it again, then try to understand what I actually said.

If Concord are present on gates and automagically attack people below a certain sec status when they entered a system then that system becomes for all intents and purposes a risk free instance for everything except wardecs, because Concord avoidance is a bannable offence.

So HTFU and scout the gates before you gank. If there's CONCORD there, tough luck kid, go somewhere else.
Also that's not what you said. It's also not even what you edited your post to say.


That is the definition of make high sec 100% safe, CONCORD are on every gate Mate even if its the little ones in the cool frigates theres at least 1 of them ( except MAYBE .5 and .6 Systems ), your locking people out of high sec to protect your precious miners or whathaveyou not improving the game.

Why cant you see that?

♣ Small Gang PVP, Large Fleet PVP, Black Ops, Incursions, Trade, and Industry ♣ 70% Lethal / 30% Super-Snuggly / 110% No idea what im doing ♣

This Message Brought to you by a sweet and sour bittervet
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#213 - 2014-07-29 23:19:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
NIFTYGetAtMe wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
NIFTYGetAtMe wrote:

I thought you said gankers worth their salt check to make sure there is no concord?


I wrote:
They already do check for Concord in the belts, it's part of the process for setting up a gank.


Read it again, then try to understand what I actually said.

If Concord are present on gates and automagically attack people below a certain sec status when they entered a system then that system becomes for all intents and purposes a risk free instance for everything except wardecs, because Concord avoidance is a bannable offence.

So HTFU and scout the gates before you gank. If there's CONCORD there, tough luck kid, go somewhere else.
How about we leave the mechanics alone, mechanics which are fine and working as intended by CCP, instead of asking CCP to change them to suit you and your ilk.

Quote:
Also that's not what you said. It's also not even what you edited your post to say.
Actually yes it is, here's a link to the post for your convenience. You will notice that the linked post is actually unedited, the fact that it lacks the words "Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein", next to the little report post flag, is a bit of a give-away.

Edit ~ Doh, I see what you're getting at, I assumed you meant the above linked post, not this one, yes I feel like an arse which still doesn't change the fact that your idea is terrible for the reasons outlined below.

It's physically impossible to pull Concord if you're not already in system, what you're proposing would actually prevent anybody from pulling Concord because they can't even get in to the system, let alone gank in it.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#214 - 2014-07-29 23:27:52 UTC
Besides, any miners worth their salt fly aligned, watch local and don't die anyway.

We shouldn't help the rest of them, in fact, we should actively propose mechanics to eliminate their way of life! Hooray for cognitive dissonance!

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Gallowmere Rorschach
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#215 - 2014-07-29 23:29:08 UTC
NIFTYGetAtMe wrote:

So HTFU and scout the gates before you gank. If there's CONCORD there, tough luck kid, go somewhere else.

Not gonna lie...this was pretty predictable...and mildly amusing.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#216 - 2014-07-29 23:34:43 UTC
Christopher Mabata wrote:

Why cant you see that?


He can.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#217 - 2014-07-30 01:51:40 UTC
Gallowmere Rorschach wrote:
NIFTYGetAtMe wrote:

So HTFU and scout the gates before you gank. If there's CONCORD there, tough luck kid, go somewhere else.

Not gonna lie...this was pretty predictable...and mildly amusing.

It is actually. Of course you can crash a gate camp. You can't do the same to concord.

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!
Omar Alharazaad
New Eden Tech Support
#218 - 2014-07-30 09:51:49 UTC
NIFTYGetAtMe wrote:
I only agree with a couple things in this thread. On grid CONCORD should absolutely agress criminals below a certain sec status, CONCORD response/kill time should be decreased and criminals below a certain sec status should not be able to dock at race controlled staions in high-sec; for example, Caldari Stations in Jita. Ganking should still be a part of the game and criminals, no matter their sec status, should still be allowed in high-sec and should still be a free target for anyone.



The reason you're getting so much resistance against these ideas is because they are bad. Actually, they're not just bad, they're offensive to many of the denizens of New Eden, and flat out heretical to those who truly believe in HTFU.

I'd suggest stepping down from the soapbox, taking the pants off your head, and repenting wholeheartedly for embracing such nonsense.

Who knows, it might even save your virtual life. It surely won't save the life of the next bear I murder in response to this inane tripe.

Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#219 - 2014-07-30 13:40:21 UTC

The Ganking Avoidance Bible

Ignorance of the laws of HTFU, is not a defense.

F

Would you like to know more?
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
New Eden Tech Support
#220 - 2014-07-30 21:08:09 UTC
I have this nagging feeling that, somehow, our logic and reasoning has fallen on deaf ears. This makes me sad.

The question, "Why did you start playing Eve?" comes to mind.

Thank me later :D