These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Outside Corp Logi ship assistnace concordable

Author
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#81 - 2013-04-24 09:47:03 UTC
Super spikinator wrote:
The Reaper J wrote:
Z GTC wrote:
I do not think Concord should get involved unless the Logi attempted to repair someone carrying out a criminal act. In which case Concord would already be arriving . "what if it was on accident?" People have those RED, YELLOW, and GREEN safety settings for a reason, use them.

Logistics are there to be the "Healer" role in EVE.

In a Duel a logistic should not be able to even lock onto the involved parties, or at the very least not initiate their reps. If this is able to be done it should be regarded as a bug and be fixed. A Duel is a specialized combat between two parties. Not two parties and whoever else feels like it.

In Open combat that is designated as "Suspect", Repairing a Suspect target should flag the one doing the repairs as suspect and free to kill as well.

Why should a Logistic Ship be killed by concord if the target they are repairing is not seen as Criminal?


Logistics ships are to be killed by concord for repping ships not in their corp or alliance. That's what i said. That should be regarded as a concordable offence. If those logi are in their corp or alliance, then there is no problem. When you got logi outside your corp then they should be shot if they rep anyone in any way that is NOT in their corp or if they are NOT in the same corp or alliance of the one they are repping. VERY SIMPLE.


not so subtle nerf casual incursions groups thread.



He doesn't want them nerfed, he wants them outright removed. Not just casual groups either, literally any incursion group that isn't from a single corp. I think it's safe to say he really hasn't got a clue about how the game actually works.
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#82 - 2013-04-24 13:41:24 UTC
The Reaper J wrote:
Then if its for casuals. Make all of High in to low sec. There is not point to high security space. Firstly, retribution is a redundant term, as there is no way to take retribution on any player in an NPC corp without being concorded, you cannot war dec them, and they refuse duels. Therefore hi sec is not needed. Convert all of hi sec into null sec of low sec. That way everyone will get a taste of the violence and mayhem in the game, CCP need to change some of their "advertising" as well. The game is all about thieves, mayhem, war, gankers, destruction of players and also trying to chase away players. That should all be advertised to make the advertising correct. But then again, that won't be done, as it is a business and would not attract players if it was advertised specifically that players get chased away. LOL.

There are so many ways to earn isk. YAY, and in every area of earning isk there are thieves, gankers, and pratts. So, to make it better for everyone, and fair for everyone, make the entire game null sec. High sec is not really needed as the same thing that happens in null sec happens in high sec, NO POINT TO HIGH SEC.

If you want ot get a taste for the game and its violence, i would say lile all of you do to me. If you don't like the entire game being null sec, then leave.


Heheheh ... you are getting hurt over this, aren't you? I mean, the idea that you were outplayed really does bother you?

Do you have problems making friends and getting them to join you? Not a single on of your friends has an alt that they'll train to RR, do they?

I mean, I'm anti-social, but even I got people I trust to fit and show up when I need them. That ain't including my alts.

But you? Ooh ... you seem to be having a problem with that. Yeah, this is personal for you. You're crying for the world to burn, because it doesn't quite work like you wish it would. Save those tears. I have a feeling that if you keep playing, you're going to need more of them.

Maybe if you filed a petition AND sent a letter to CCP they will finally hear you. I mean, they're losing SO MANY SUBSCRIPTIONS, and it seems you're the only one who sees it! It's just logical, no? Who in their right mind likes it to be this HARD?!?

Ooh, buddy.

I wonder: how many people have you said you would physically kick their ass in evemails and chat channels? Guys who get this worked up, usually they let their composure slip now and again and start making DIAF threats and wanting to go into peoples real life homes and hurt them with blunt ... or sharp ... objects.



On a side note, CCP does advertise the 'cold, harsh universe'. They do advertise the thievery and lying. Hehehe ... they advertise all that.

EvE is about freedom. Freedom to take from others if you can, or protect others. If you can.

If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?

The Reaper J
Kings.Guard.
#83 - 2013-04-24 20:45:04 UTC  |  Edited by: The Reaper J
Ruze wrote:
The Reaper J wrote:
Then if its for casuals. Make all of High in to low sec. There is not point to high security space. Firstly, retribution is a redundant term, as there is no way to take retribution on any player in an NPC corp without being concorded, you cannot war dec them, and they refuse duels. Therefore hi sec is not needed. Convert all of hi sec into null sec of low sec. That way everyone will get a taste of the violence and mayhem in the game, CCP need to change some of their "advertising" as well. The game is all about thieves, mayhem, war, gankers, destruction of players and also trying to chase away players. That should all be advertised to make the advertising correct. But then again, that won't be done, as it is a business and would not attract players if it was advertised specifically that players get chased away. LOL.

There are so many ways to earn isk. YAY, and in every area of earning isk there are thieves, gankers, and pratts. So, to make it better for everyone, and fair for everyone, make the entire game null sec. High sec is not really needed as the same thing that happens in null sec happens in high sec, NO POINT TO HIGH SEC.

If you want ot get a taste for the game and its violence, i would say lile all of you do to me. If you don't like the entire game being null sec, then leave.


Heheheh ... you are getting hurt over this, aren't you? I mean, the idea that you were outplayed really does bother you?

Do you have problems making friends and getting them to join you? Not a single on of your friends has an alt that they'll train to RR, do they?

I mean, I'm anti-social, but even I got people I trust to fit and show up when I need them. That ain't including my alts.

But you? Ooh ... you seem to be having a problem with that. Yeah, this is personal for you. You're crying for the world to burn, because it doesn't quite work like you wish it would. Save those tears. I have a feeling that if you keep playing, you're going to need more of them.

Maybe if you filed a petition AND sent a letter to CCP they will finally hear you. I mean, they're losing SO MANY SUBSCRIPTIONS, and it seems you're the only one who sees it! It's just logical, no? Who in their right mind likes it to be this HARD?!?

Ooh, buddy.

I wonder: how many people have you said you would physically kick their ass in evemails and chat channels? Guys who get this worked up, usually they let their composure slip now and again and start making DIAF threats and wanting to go into peoples real life homes and hurt them with blunt ... or sharp ... objects.



On a side note, CCP does advertise the 'cold, harsh universe'. They do advertise the thievery and lying. Hehehe ... they advertise all that.

EvE is about freedom. Freedom to take from others if you can, or protect others. If you can.

Man you can spout a lot of bull****. What real life violence are you talking about? You couldn't throw yourself off a chair even if someone showed you how to. For starters, you have no idea who or what i am, or what i am capable of. Arrogant fools always make that same mistake. I was not talking about real life violence. Sounds more like that's the type of thing you would do, going into people homes and being violent, seeing that you are the one spouting it.
No one can make any comment on this forum without someone b***hing like little girls, because they don't like someones opinion or suggestions. Maybe you should go buy a life. Seems like you lot need one.

Interesting as well about your bio. You state that you know there is a God, and that you are not him. You sure as hell act like you think you are him in some of what you spout. So I would guess you got some kind of God complex, and you b**ch about me, what about all the EULA rules being broken by big alliances? OMG, there are so many of them being broken, I wonder who is scratching whose back in eve, or outside eve. The things that happen in big alliances, you cannot tell me you do not know any of that.
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#84 - 2013-04-24 21:31:46 UTC
The Reaper J wrote:

Man you can spout a lot of bull****. What real life violence are you talking about? You couldn't throw yourself off a chair even if someone showed you how to. For starters, you have no idea who or what i am, or what i am capable of. Arrogant fools always make that same mistake. I was not talking about real life violence. Sounds more like that's the type of thing you would do, going into people homes and being violent, seeing that you are the one spouting it.
No one can make any comment on this forum without someone b***hing like little girls, because they don't like someones opinion or suggestions. Maybe you should go buy a life. Seems like you lot need one.

Interesting as well about your bio. You state that you know there is a God, and that you are not him. You sure as hell act like you think you are him in some of what you spout. So I would guess you got some kind of God complex, and you b**ch about me, what about all the EULA rules being broken by big alliances? OMG, there are so many of them being broken, I wonder who is scratching whose back in eve, or outside eve. The things that happen in big alliances, you cannot tell me you do not know any of that.


Hey, I'm not the one who came to the forums complaining because of a perfectly legitimate tactic in the game. Sure, underhanded and sneaky. And you know, maybe they could do something to slow it down a bit. But your own demeanor has set yourself up for failure. Far too wrapped up in this, with the depressing 'woe is me, guess I'll just join the enemy' nonsense.

Sure, people break the EULA. I'm just trusting that it's punished when it happens. I only know of a few players who might possibly be above a good perma-ban, and only one of those do I think has gotten away with it. But while RMT is a bad business, nothing is worse than someone threatening violence.

Cause here in the states, that gets you prison time. Four years where I'm from. Prison. All they'd need to do is prove you did it. And CCP could help that along. And you know what the police would do if you bought iskies with dollars? They'd ask you what isk is.

Just giving you a warning, hoping you see the difference. Step back. You or your buddies or whatever got teamed up on. Team up back. Set them up. Have some neutral friends waiting nearby to gank the repper when he goes suspect. Seriously, be calm.

Sure, posting your ideas on a forum is your prerogative. And generally, picking on you and expressing derision for those ideas is ours. Most forum trolls and warriors are just having fun anyhow, no matter the target. But when your being offered help and you get that worked up?

Just a warning sign is all.

If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?

Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#85 - 2013-04-24 21:59:43 UTC
The Reaper J wrote:
what about all the EULA rules being broken by big alliances? OMG, there are so many of them being broken, I wonder who is scratching whose back in eve, or outside eve. The things that happen in big alliances, you cannot tell me you do not know any of that.



List three, with proof. I bet you a fully fit rifter that you can't.
Smith Yuletide
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2013-04-25 03:19:42 UTC
I think the scale of his idea is too large. Think outside of the box a bit more and if you change the letters 'corp' into 'fleet' this idea becomes a lot more managable.



Make members of a fleet share limited engagements on suspects, if one person in the fleet fires on the suspect the fleet gets the limited engagement timer.



Modify the duel system, make normal duels restricted to the two combatants, then create 'Duel Fleet' & 'Duel Corp' buttons that work the same way as my above system. If a third party tries to join the conflict or a fleet is trying to add a member, force an accept from both involved parties. If it is not a conscensus then that player will be required tag up to get involved (red or yellow I don't really care).


During a corp war extend 'fleet' to corp and alliance and replace the word suspect with 'war target'.



This is the ultimate compromise on both ends. It doesnt have to be exactly this but hopefully you get the idea.
The Reaper J
Kings.Guard.
#87 - 2013-04-25 05:31:32 UTC
Ruze wrote:
The Reaper J wrote:

Man you can spout a lot of bull****. What real life violence are you talking about? You couldn't throw yourself off a chair even if someone showed you how to. For starters, you have no idea who or what i am, or what i am capable of. Arrogant fools always make that same mistake. I was not talking about real life violence. Sounds more like that's the type of thing you would do, going into people homes and being violent, seeing that you are the one spouting it.
No one can make any comment on this forum without someone b***hing like little girls, because they don't like someones opinion or suggestions. Maybe you should go buy a life. Seems like you lot need one.

Interesting as well about your bio. You state that you know there is a God, and that you are not him. You sure as hell act like you think you are him in some of what you spout. So I would guess you got some kind of God complex, and you b**ch about me, what about all the EULA rules being broken by big alliances? OMG, there are so many of them being broken, I wonder who is scratching whose back in eve, or outside eve. The things that happen in big alliances, you cannot tell me you do not know any of that.


Hey, I'm not the one who came to the forums complaining because of a perfectly legitimate tactic in the game. Sure, underhanded and sneaky. And you know, maybe they could do something to slow it down a bit. But your own demeanor has set yourself up for failure. Far too wrapped up in this, with the depressing 'woe is me, guess I'll just join the enemy' nonsense.

Sure, people break the EULA. I'm just trusting that it's punished when it happens. I only know of a few players who might possibly be above a good perma-ban, and only one of those do I think has gotten away with it. But while RMT is a bad business, nothing is worse than someone threatening violence.

Cause here in the states, that gets you prison time. Four years where I'm from. Prison. All they'd need to do is prove you did it. And CCP could help that along. And you know what the police would do if you bought iskies with dollars? They'd ask you what isk is.

Just giving you a warning, hoping you see the difference. Step back. You or your buddies or whatever got teamed up on. Team up back. Set them up. Have some neutral friends waiting nearby to gank the repper when he goes suspect. Seriously, be calm.

Sure, posting your ideas on a forum is your prerogative. And generally, picking on you and expressing derision for those ideas is ours. Most forum trolls and warriors are just having fun anyhow, no matter the target. But when your being offered help and you get that worked up?

Just a warning sign is all.



Firstly, I have only been offered help once, and thankful that person did offer their help. I respect him for having the balls to offer his help. And for your information, I did not threaten with violence, I merely stated that you don't know me or what i am capable of. Same way that i do not know you.

And when it comes to CCP, i was talking about business. Not violence. But if you misunderstood some of what i said, then this should clear it up. As i said, i respect him for offering help, and respect those who deserve respect and have earned it. Respect and trust or anything along those lines is not thrown around like small change, its earned, and as i said, for the one that has helped, i respect him for having the balls to do so.

Honestly, i have not idea why you mentioned the US law. Not only do i know some of the US laws, but i do not live there. It seems like you cannot **** on a tree or you would get locked up for indecency over there. I talk business and game, not go to someone to beat them up. Seriously, like i am going fly over there to do something that damn stupid.

You probably find that those that break the rules and don't get banned are probably friends with CCP staff, or even are CCP staff with their personal accounts. That would make so many things way unfair for everyone, including pirates, terrorists, mercs, players, everyone in general, as they have the inside information, whereas none of us do. They would know all the game weaknesses and strengths. But hey, i guess saying anything about that is just a waste of time.
The Reaper J
Kings.Guard.
#88 - 2013-04-25 05:33:06 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
The Reaper J wrote:
what about all the EULA rules being broken by big alliances? OMG, there are so many of them being broken, I wonder who is scratching whose back in eve, or outside eve. The things that happen in big alliances, you cannot tell me you do not know any of that.



List three, with proof. I bet you a fully fit rifter that you can't.


Oh please, i would not even bother with a rifter.
The Reaper J
Kings.Guard.
#89 - 2013-04-25 05:40:58 UTC  |  Edited by: The Reaper J
Smith Yuletide wrote:
I think the scale of his idea is too large. Think outside of the box a bit more and if you change the letters 'corp' into 'fleet' this idea becomes a lot more managable.



Make members of a fleet share limited engagements on suspects, if one person in the fleet fires on the suspect the fleet gets the limited engagement timer.



Modify the duel system, make normal duels restricted to the two combatants, then create 'Duel Fleet' & 'Duel Corp' buttons that work the same way as my above system. If a third party tries to join the conflict or a fleet is trying to add a member, force an accept from both involved parties. If it is not a conscensus then that player will be required tag up to get involved (red or yellow I don't really care).


During a corp war extend 'fleet' to corp and alliance and replace the word suspect with 'war target'.



This is the ultimate compromise on both ends. It doesnt have to be exactly this but hopefully you get the idea.


Thank you, someone willing to discuss the actual idea with me. That sounds like it can be more manageable yes. But If a single player is not in fleet, but is then invited to fleet after the person has engaged, does he also automatically get the engagement timer?

Also, i know neutral RR's are used for incursions, is there no way to separate the possibility of incursion runs with a rule, that if you are in a incursion system, neutral RR's can be used, but if a RR interferes in a another person battle, those get concorded if they not in an incursion system. This is the ideas i have been trying to put across and discuss. I am not trying to remove RR's just trying to look at the fact that CCP can add a rule in that neutral RR's cannot interfere in another person battle if they are not in the same corp. But if they are in an incursion system they can still perform that task. That's kind of the direction i was looking at.
So basically, if the RR which is in fleet but not in the same corp goes suspect, then the player they are RR'ing will go suspect as well allowing anyone else to attack all of them. That's sounds about right, but then if those logi's are not in the same corp and not in fleet and remote repping, then they should be concorded. That also should be added in.

Which means that in the case of a war dec and its only one person, then the person that is using the neutral remote reppers would make himself open to fire at (suspect) if he used neutral remote reppers not in his corp, but still in fleet with him. Now that sounds like a plan.

I also fully agree with the you on the duel system, it should be completely locked down to only the 2 parties involved and no neutral RR's should be allowed to rep, otherwise they get concorded for interference.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#90 - 2013-04-25 17:43:55 UTC
The Reaper J wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
The Reaper J wrote:
what about all the EULA rules being broken by big alliances? OMG, there are so many of them being broken, I wonder who is scratching whose back in eve, or outside eve. The things that happen in big alliances, you cannot tell me you do not know any of that.



List three, with proof. I bet you a fully fit rifter that you can't.


Oh please, i would not even bother with a rifter.


so u dnt even know one huh?

u talk about spouting bull ****, but can u back up any of ur *facts*?

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#91 - 2013-04-25 17:48:56 UTC
The Reaper J wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
The Reaper J wrote:
what about all the EULA rules being broken by big alliances? OMG, there are so many of them being broken, I wonder who is scratching whose back in eve, or outside eve. The things that happen in big alliances, you cannot tell me you do not know any of that.



List three, with proof. I bet you a fully fit rifter that you can't.


Oh please, i would not even bother with a rifter.



Okay, so don't take the rifter. I still want you to list three, with proof. Back up your claims, or don't bother making them.
Smith Yuletide
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#92 - 2013-04-26 00:08:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Smith Yuletide
Please try to stay on topic so we can have some meaningful discussion. Take any off-topic issues into private messages or just go duel at twenty paces.

TheReaperJ wrote:
But If a single player is not in fleet, but is then invited to fleet after the person has engaged, does he also automatically get the engagement timer?


In the case of fighting a suspect I think that would be logical, during a duel/corp war it should require concensus as I suggested before or they have to get a pretty tag for doing so.

In regards to neutral RR's in incursions, they should be fine unless they try to muck up a duel or corp war. This is a new system with the old system still in place (where it is needed).

Anyone else has any improvements to these ideas? Thoughts perchance?
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#93 - 2013-04-26 00:32:17 UTC
Smith Yuletide wrote:
Please try to stay on topic so we can have some meaningful discussion. Take any off-topic issues into private messages or just go duel at twenty paces.

TheReaperJ wrote:
But If a single player is not in fleet, but is then invited to fleet after the person has engaged, does he also automatically get the engagement timer?


In the case of fighting a suspect I think that would be logical, during a duel/corp war it should require concensus as I suggested before or they have to get a pretty tag for doing so.

In regards to neutral RR's in incursions, they should be fine unless they try to muck up a duel or corp war. This is a new system with the old system still in place (where it is needed).

Anyone else has any improvements to these ideas? Thoughts perchance?


If we duel, don't expect me to not have a remote rep after this post.

But to the point, this is why we're arguing that the current system works. The individual doing the remote repping is already suspect flagged. Not only is he capable of being shot by either party who are at war, but also by anyone else. He has committed a criminal act, which any self-respecting upholder of the peace is welcome to punish him for.

You could add a workaround by allowing those in fleet, and in corp, to remote rep the individual. I would also hope that alliance mates would be on that list. But your upping the level of punishment for that offense.

It's essentially applying the death penalty for being the getaway driver in a gas station robbery. Sure, if the gunman shot the clerk and you drove him off, your ass is grass. But lethal injection?

I mean, I would possibly agree to increasing the hit to sec. As well, I don't feel that players in NPC corps should be allowed to do many things, remote repping is one of them. If you want to participate and get involved, you need to be able to be held accountable. Thus, rep all you want, but be prepared to be decced for it.

That still leaves punishment in the hands of players, not all-powerful NPC's.

If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?

Smith Yuletide
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#94 - 2013-04-26 05:27:20 UTC
Ruze wrote:

You could add a workaround by allowing those in fleet, and in corp, to remote rep the individual. I would also hope that alliance mates would be on that list. But your upping the level of punishment for that offense.

It's essentially applying the death penalty for being the getaway driver in a gas station robbery. Sure, if the gunman shot the clerk and you drove him off, your ass is grass. But lethal injection?

I mean, I would possibly agree to increasing the hit to sec. As well, I don't feel that players in NPC corps should be allowed to do many things, remote repping is one of them. If you want to participate and get involved, you need to be able to be held accountable. Thus, rep all you want, but be prepared to be decced for it.

That still leaves punishment in the hands of players, not all-powerful NPC's.


I never stated the tag would be red, I would prefer yellow. I am simply suggesting a more fluid version of what we have already with advanced dueling options. I would have made a seperate thread but this is close enough.

Lets build a system that would work regardless of the tag colour (since thats the one thing everyone disagrees upon).
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#95 - 2013-04-26 05:30:02 UTC
Smith Yuletide wrote:
Ruze wrote:

You could add a workaround by allowing those in fleet, and in corp, to remote rep the individual. I would also hope that alliance mates would be on that list. But your upping the level of punishment for that offense.

It's essentially applying the death penalty for being the getaway driver in a gas station robbery. Sure, if the gunman shot the clerk and you drove him off, your ass is grass. But lethal injection?

I mean, I would possibly agree to increasing the hit to sec. As well, I don't feel that players in NPC corps should be allowed to do many things, remote repping is one of them. If you want to participate and get involved, you need to be able to be held accountable. Thus, rep all you want, but be prepared to be decced for it.

That still leaves punishment in the hands of players, not all-powerful NPC's.


I never stated the tag would be red, I would prefer yellow. I am simply suggesting a more fluid version of what we have already with advanced dueling options. I would have made a seperate thread but this is close enough.

Lets build a system that would work regardless of the tag colour (since thats the one thing everyone disagrees upon).


That's more from the Op, I feel. He wants concord to blast the remote rep out of existence. I think that they are vulnerable enough just being suspects.

That said, I will reiterate that ceasing those in NPC corps from being able to do so would be fine by me. I think that NPC corp players might even be unable to change out of green light safeties.

If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?

The Reaper J
Kings.Guard.
#96 - 2013-04-26 06:27:57 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
The Reaper J wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
The Reaper J wrote:
what about all the EULA rules being broken by big alliances? OMG, there are so many of them being broken, I wonder who is scratching whose back in eve, or outside eve. The things that happen in big alliances, you cannot tell me you do not know any of that.



List three, with proof. I bet you a fully fit rifter that you can't.


Oh please, i would not even bother with a rifter.



Okay, so don't take the rifter. I still want you to list three, with proof. Back up your claims, or don't bother making them.


No point to it. It will get swept under the carpet like a few other complaints regarding this i sent via petition to CCP. So there is no point to saying anything, and I am not going to get baited by you.
The Reaper J
Kings.Guard.
#97 - 2013-04-26 06:38:52 UTC
Ruze wrote:
Smith Yuletide wrote:
Please try to stay on topic so we can have some meaningful discussion. Take any off-topic issues into private messages or just go duel at twenty paces.

TheReaperJ wrote:
But If a single player is not in fleet, but is then invited to fleet after the person has engaged, does he also automatically get the engagement timer?


In the case of fighting a suspect I think that would be logical, during a duel/corp war it should require concensus as I suggested before or they have to get a pretty tag for doing so.

In regards to neutral RR's in incursions, they should be fine unless they try to muck up a duel or corp war. This is a new system with the old system still in place (where it is needed).

Anyone else has any improvements to these ideas? Thoughts perchance?


If we duel, don't expect me to not have a remote rep after this post.

But to the point, this is why we're arguing that the current system works. The individual doing the remote repping is already suspect flagged. Not only is he capable of being shot by either party who are at war, but also by anyone else. He has committed a criminal act, which any self-respecting upholder of the peace is welcome to punish him for.

You could add a workaround by allowing those in fleet, and in corp, to remote rep the individual. I would also hope that alliance mates would be on that list. But your upping the level of punishment for that offense.

It's essentially applying the death penalty for being the getaway driver in a gas station robbery. Sure, if the gunman shot the clerk and you drove him off, your ass is grass. But lethal injection?

I mean, I would possibly agree to increasing the hit to sec. As well, I don't feel that players in NPC corps should be allowed to do many things, remote repping is one of them. If you want to participate and get involved, you need to be able to be held accountable. Thus, rep all you want, but be prepared to be decced for it.

That still leaves punishment in the hands of players, not all-powerful NPC's.


Granted some of that sounds logical. What some of the problem entails, is that no one cares about suspect flags. I have seen so many suspect flags flying around, and from what i have seen, maybe 2 out of every 10 suspect flags get blown up, and that's only if they are hanging around a trading hub. Other than that, i don't see anyone caring about suspect flags except on guys i met. That was pretty much it. Therefore, how can it be left in the hands of the players if most of them don't seem to care about it. That is why i suggested that neutral RR's that interfere in any wars between corps or alliances, or duels get concorded. That way, the punishment would be dealt for interference in battles that are not theirs, granted the idea of dec'ing a neutral RR is good, but how? If they are in NPC's then that is not possible. This is also why i suggested that interference from a logi in a duel or war between corps or alliances be concorded. Logi within that corp or within that alliance, yes, they are open to assist in anything their corp or alliance is in. They are meant to be healers for ships, yes, that i understand, but not used to interfere in someone else's battle/duel.
The Reaper J
Kings.Guard.
#98 - 2013-04-26 06:46:19 UTC  |  Edited by: The Reaper J
Ruze wrote:
Smith Yuletide wrote:
Ruze wrote:

You could add a workaround by allowing those in fleet, and in corp, to remote rep the individual. I would also hope that alliance mates would be on that list. But your upping the level of punishment for that offense.

It's essentially applying the death penalty for being the getaway driver in a gas station robbery. Sure, if the gunman shot the clerk and you drove him off, your ass is grass. But lethal injection?

I mean, I would possibly agree to increasing the hit to sec. As well, I don't feel that players in NPC corps should be allowed to do many things, remote repping is one of them. If you want to participate and get involved, you need to be able to be held accountable. Thus, rep all you want, but be prepared to be decced for it.

That still leaves punishment in the hands of players, not all-powerful NPC's.


I never stated the tag would be red, I would prefer yellow. I am simply suggesting a more fluid version of what we have already with advanced dueling options. I would have made a seperate thread but this is close enough.

Lets build a system that would work regardless of the tag colour (since thats the one thing everyone disagrees upon).


That's more from the Op, I feel. He wants concord to blast the remote rep out of existence. I think that they are vulnerable enough just being suspects.

That said, I will reiterate that ceasing those in NPC corps from being able to do so would be fine by me. I think that NPC corp players might even be unable to change out of green light safeties.


Ok, that sounds more like it. Yes, players in NPC's cannot assist in corp or alliance wars, or duels. As they cannot be punished, due to NPC's not war dec'able. Therefore i do agree that that could work, but i am sure they will find another way to work around that. If any players from NPC's try to assist or interfere in wars between corps, or alliances, then yes, they should be either concorded, or a rule put in place that prevents them from doing so and will not be permitted to go out of green to assist with RR while they are in an NPC. Unless, they are assisting a fellow member in the same NPC.

I would like to say thank you to Ruze and Smith Yuletide for this to be discussed properly the way it should be discussed. It is appreciated.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#99 - 2013-04-26 08:05:35 UTC
The Reaper J wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
The Reaper J wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
The Reaper J wrote:
what about all the EULA rules being broken by big alliances? OMG, there are so many of them being broken, I wonder who is scratching whose back in eve, or outside eve. The things that happen in big alliances, you cannot tell me you do not know any of that.



List three, with proof. I bet you a fully fit rifter that you can't.


Oh please, i would not even bother with a rifter.



Okay, so don't take the rifter. I still want you to list three, with proof. Back up your claims, or don't bother making them.


No point to it. It will get swept under the carpet like a few other complaints regarding this i sent via petition to CCP. So there is no point to saying anything, and I am not going to get baited by you.



So, stop making claims you can't back up.
seth Hendar
I love you miners
#100 - 2013-04-26 08:46:01 UTC  |  Edited by: seth Hendar
Danika Princip wrote:
Z GTC wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
Z GTC wrote:
This game is Pay-To-Win. The more alts you have and the better characters you have and the better fit ships you have mean EVERYTHING.


"Pay-to-Win" I don't think it means what you think it means.

Whoever has the most real life money can buy the best characters and best ships. Now obviously it is still an MMO so it's not like you can "win" or even take on Everyone else yourself. But you can still use your alts to turn the tide of hi sec small grouped skirmishes.

Pay-To-Win is a term used to describe people who spend hundreds, thousands, or even more to further themselves in games faster then the normal player. In some games this allows you to be the top dog. In EVE corporations and alliances are the ruling factor so a single player cannot rule everyone but it still stands. You can pay tons of RL money to advance yourself really high in this game.



And then you can still get your **** ruined by a day one newbie in a slasher.

exactly, did i already said that this is WHY i love eve?