These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The state of Highsec

Author
Black Pedro
Mine.
#41 - 2015-09-25 10:43:39 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Actually I wouldn't mind criminals not being able to doc in NPC stations but allowed to dock in a POS. Then the gankers would need to be in a player corp, have assets in space and be vulnerable to wardecs. This would really give any industry corp a means by which to retaliate if they so wished.

I agree that these new structures could open some interesting gameplay like that. Problem with your idea is that the new structures will allow anyone to dock. Criminals will be able to use structures put up by third parties as well as ones installed by their alts/associates meaning it may not always be clear who to wardec. But since docking can be restricted as well it could open up some interesting game play where some station owners allow criminals and some do not. So perhaps down the road, when we have an ecosystem of player stations, it might be feasible to lock gankers out of NPC stations but you still have the problem that is where their stuff ends up if the citadel is taken down or destroyed so I am guessing it will never happen.

But these new structures are going to be a real boon for gankers it looks like. They will serve as unassailable staging posts with this new docking/undocking invulnerability - no more risk on the undock. Gone are the days of setting up insta-docking and undocking bookmarks. They also eliminate the need for a dedicated Orca alt. They can be placed in systems without stations eliminating the only real vulnerability window for a -10 ganker which is taking a gate, and can easily be taken down in the event of a wardec. And depending how people choose to set them up you can just use another corp's citadel and not even worry about catching a wardec: it will be interesting to see how people set them up.

They will also simplify logistics for ganking organizations who can use them to dispense ganking ships across New Eden by using private markets. Every ganker can set one up with an alt corp and share them with the greater collective meaning it will be impossible or at least expensive to wardec them all. But I guess there will be some in-space vulnerabilities now which could drive some fights.

All-in-all though, It's a good time to be a ganker.

Zhaceera Armerarram
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2015-09-25 10:54:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Zhaceera Armerarram
Misquoting CCP and adding own conclusions without clearly implying so is like a full time ocupation of some people here.

The "Amarr" Logic. God exists, and you gotta prove it does not. LoL

Now what is really the kicker of the non-sense here is what is called "Fatalist Prophets".

You see, arguments are concepts that stand by the idea. That does not involve you telling people what people will do.

When you say "This wont work because people will do this or that" you are not actually arguing anything. For that to classify as an argument you need a irresistible force as parte of the argument to imply the condition. Or already observable fact.

But some people just has a "this wont work because of people, simply" argument for everything.

If you notice how stupid it is, if you follow that logic, there is no reason to do anything, because anything you do can fail because of people, for everything you do for a community is for the people in that community, and they are the ultimate measure of success.

But luckly I have done my PI and have a huge stock of "forum blocks" to give those. LOL

Edit:
It is wonderful when you start to hide posts from people who uses the dogma. You start to see some interesting posts in the forum, because the tons of simplistic "dogmatic" "eve is mine" "play as I want you to" kind of posts vanish. It takes hideing just 6 people to start seeing the change.

In regard to hisec, you just need to block people who misunderstand what pvp is, and that they are not zulu warlocks to know what people will do and what people should like or dislike. Then, you see that there are some really cool ideas, even about ganking and crime.

"If justice is not for everyone, it is for no one."

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2015-09-25 11:13:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
Black Pedro wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Actually I wouldn't mind criminals not being able to doc in NPC stations but allowed to dock in a POS. Then the gankers would need to be in a player corp, have assets in space and be vulnerable to wardecs. This would really give any industry corp a means by which to retaliate if they so wished.

I agree that these new structures could open some interesting gameplay like that. Problem with your idea is that the new structures will allow anyone to dock. Criminals will be able to use structures put up by third parties as well as ones installed by their alts/associates meaning it may not always be clear who to wardec. But since docking can be restricted as well it could open up some interesting game play where some station owners allow criminals and some do not. So perhaps down the road, when we have an ecosystem of player stations, it might be feasible to lock gankers out of NPC stations but you still have the problem that is where their stuff ends up if the citadel is taken down or destroyed so I am guessing it will never happen.

But these new structures are going to be a real boon for gankers it looks like. They will serve as unassailable staging posts with this new docking/undocking invulnerability - no more risk on the undock. Gone are the days of setting up insta-docking and undocking bookmarks. They also eliminate the need for a dedicated Orca alt. They can be placed in systems without stations eliminating the only real vulnerability window for a -10 ganker which is taking a gate, and can easily be taken down in the event of a wardec. And depending how people choose to set them up you can just use another corp's citadel and not even worry about catching a wardec: it will be interesting to see how people set them up.

They will also simplify logistics for ganking organizations who can use them to dispense ganking ships across New Eden by using private markets. Every ganker can set one up with an alt corp and share them with the greater collective meaning it will be impossible or at least expensive to wardec them all. But I guess there will be some in-space vulnerabilities now which could drive some fights.

All-in-all though, It's a good time to be a ganker.



The structures won't be able to be torn down before a wardec kicks in I think but this will need to be considered. Even without gankers being locked out of NPC stations they will all move over to these structures anyway in the above scenario for the simplicity they offer. This will all need balancing very carefully since as discussed elsewhere an XL station may well be unassailable in hisec without a reasonably sized alliance.

Since these structures won't need rigs fitted etc just to operate as a staging post and no longer need fuel to operate then the pirates only need to pay the initial outlay and have a gunnery alt sat on the guns for vulnerability defence.

This could actually make for some great ganker/pirate/white knight gameplay but it could also be a horrible fustercluck if it isn't balanced right.

In terms of where would the stuff in the station go I'd suggest there are two cases for loot handling:

a) the safety mechanic of the magical loot fairy's. This would be required for stations to be feasable as trading posts and outposts otherwise nobody will use them. Would be appropriate for hisec (with maybe good standings to limit it) , losec and null stations.

b) situations where NPC's aren't available/won't touch you with a bargepole i.e. pirates in hisec and stations in WH's. In this case the personal hangar is in effect a warp enabled cloaked container. On destruction of the station it launches away to a random point which is logged as any planetary launch is. This allows pilots to still recover their stuff but takes more effort and risk as befits their living space/sec status choice. It also makes sense lorewise :)
Black Pedro
Mine.
#44 - 2015-09-25 12:09:17 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
The structures won't be able to be torn down before a wardec kicks in I think but this will need to be considered. Even without gankers being locked out of NPC stations they will all move over to these structures anyway in the above scenario for the simplicity they offer. This will all need balancing very carefully since as discussed elsewhere an XL station may well be unassailable in hisec without a reasonably sized alliance.

Since these structures won't need rigs fitted etc just to operate as a staging post and no longer need fuel to operate then the pirates only need to pay the initial outlay and have a gunnery alt sat on the guns for vulnerability defence.

This could actually make for some great ganker/pirate/white knight gameplay but it could also be a horrible fustercluck if it isn't balanced right.)
No, it was pretty clear from the blogs you can scoop a citadel at anytime. Of course the design is clearly in flux, but the original blog said that if undamaged they can be scooped whenever you'd like but that will immediately start a one vulnerability window after which it can be scooped. Plenty of time during the 24h run up to a war to pull in your staging posts. You would lose your rigs, but as you pointed out you don't need any rigs for a mere staging post.

It highlights a fundamental problem for carebears: almost every safety mechanic they propose and/or get put into the game can also be used by those that wish them harm. Safety for them equals safety for the pirates too.

Still, I agree with you that if these structures are implemented correctly they could generate tons of fun content, not just between gankers and anti-gankers, but even between the law-abiding citizens of highsec themselves. They hold much promise to revitalize the game.

So OP, let's see how these structures play out and then you can try again in a year or two your proposal to get your opponents banned from highsec.
Philip Ogtaulmolfi
We are not bad. Just unlucky
#45 - 2015-09-25 12:20:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Philip Ogtaulmolfi
If you want to incentivize people to leave High Sec, just forbid ganking and wardecs. The high sec carebears will stay, whatever you do, but perhaps you will get a few of the HS gankers to grow a pair and move where people shoots back.

But it is not significant. As Pedro said in another thread, there s only a few of them.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#46 - 2015-09-25 12:31:14 UTC
Make highsec interesting again...

Remove sec status completely from the game. No more criminals. Just players.
Double the time it takes for Concord to react across the board.
????
Profit.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2015-09-25 12:57:06 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
No, it was pretty clear from the blogs you can scoop a citadel at anytime. Of course the design is clearly in flux, but the original blog said that if undamaged they can be scooped whenever you'd like but that will immediately start a one vulnerability window after which it can be scooped. Plenty of time during the 24h run up to a war to pull in your staging posts. You would lose your rigs, but as you pointed out you don't need any rigs for a mere staging post.
...


True, I still have it in my head there is a 24 hr cooldown but it looks like that is on anchoring (this really needs proper clarification from the devs). Personally I think the cooldown should be prior to unanchoring rather than anchoring so that wardecs mean you will have a structure in space when it starts no matter what.
Ecrir Twy'Lar
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2015-09-25 13:50:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Ecrir Twy'Lar
Black Pedro wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
The structures won't be able to be torn down before a wardec kicks in I think but this will need to be considered. Even without gankers being locked out of NPC stations they will all move over to these structures anyway in the above scenario for the simplicity they offer. This will all need balancing very carefully since as discussed elsewhere an XL station may well be unassailable in hisec without a reasonably sized alliance.

Since these structures won't need rigs fitted etc just to operate as a staging post and no longer need fuel to operate then the pirates only need to pay the initial outlay and have a gunnery alt sat on the guns for vulnerability defence.

This could actually make for some great ganker/pirate/white knight gameplay but it could also be a horrible fustercluck if it isn't balanced right.)
No, it was pretty clear from the blogs you can scoop a citadel at anytime. Of course the design is clearly in flux, but the original blog said that if undamaged they can be scooped whenever you'd like but that will immediately start a one vulnerability window after which it can be scooped. Plenty of time during the 24h run up to a war to pull in your staging posts. You would lose your rigs, but as you pointed out you don't need any rigs for a mere staging post.

It highlights a fundamental problem for carebears: almost every safety mechanic they propose and/or get put into the game can also be used by those that wish them harm. Safety for them equals safety for the pirates too.

Still, I agree with you that if these structures are implemented correctly they could generate tons of fun content, not just between gankers and anti-gankers, but even between the law-abiding citizens of highsec themselves. They hold much promise to revitalize the game.

So OP, let's see how these structures play out and then you can try again in a year or two your proposal to get your opponents banned from highsec.


With the current system a POS can be removed before a war has started. Seems to me that it would be better to allow the owner to remove it than grind it down. Does anyone actually like that?

Btw, I know reading comprehension isn't what it used to be. But if you bothered to read what I wrote you might understand that I am NOT trying to remove gankers from highsec. My intention is to make it more of a cat and mouse game where they actually have to evade other players rather than just dock up in the sanctuary of a highsec station.
Ecrir Twy'Lar
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2015-09-25 13:56:31 UTC
Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote:
If you want to incentivize people to leave High Sec, just forbid ganking and wardecs. The high sec carebears will stay, whatever you do, but perhaps you will get a few of the HS gankers to grow a pair and move where people shoots back.

But it is not significant. As Pedro said in another thread, there s only a few of them.


I don't want ganking removed. Not sure where you got that idea.
Ecrir Twy'Lar
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2015-09-25 14:00:10 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
No, it was pretty clear from the blogs you can scoop a citadel at anytime. Of course the design is clearly in flux, but the original blog said that if undamaged they can be scooped whenever you'd like but that will immediately start a one vulnerability window after which it can be scooped. Plenty of time during the 24h run up to a war to pull in your staging posts. You would lose your rigs, but as you pointed out you don't need any rigs for a mere staging post.
...


True, I still have it in my head there is a 24 hr cooldown but it looks like that is on anchoring (this really needs proper clarification from the devs). Personally I think the cooldown should be prior to unanchoring rather than anchoring so that wardecs mean you will have a structure in space when it starts no matter what.


Why would it be different than it is now? If you get wardec'd, you can remove your POS before the war starts. I find it hard to believe that the new citadels will be easier to destroy than current POS. I don't know why anyone would want to do that when the option to just move in is there. If you want to just destroy someone's valuable stuff, there has to be much more fun options out there. lol
Black Pedro
Mine.
#51 - 2015-09-25 14:21:01 UTC
Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote:

Btw, I know reading comprehension isn't what it used to be. But if you bothered to read what I wrote you might understand that I am NOT trying to remove gankers from highsec. My intention is to make it more of a cat and mouse game where they actually have to evade other players rather than just dock up in the sanctuary of a highsec station.
Your proposal is literally to prevent gankers from docking or logging out in a highsec system. How is that not trying to remove them from highsec?

I think you need to think your proposal through just a little. I appreciate that might not be your intention, but the obvious consequence of such a change is that there would be less gankers in highsec.

Your proposal would just mean they would dock up in lowsec instead of highsec, and then fly their empty pod in when the criminal timer was up to meet their Orca alt to get a new ship just before the next gank. And even if your "cat" caught the likely empty pod, the gankers lose nothing.

It would do nothing to make the game better or drive conflict, just slightly more tedious for current criminals, and more difficult for aspiring criminals to get into the business. If such a proposal has any hope, it must require gankers to use structures or something else so that they are vulnerable to retaliation.
Ecrir Twy'Lar
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2015-09-25 15:31:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Ecrir Twy'Lar
Black Pedro wrote:
Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote:

Btw, I know reading comprehension isn't what it used to be. But if you bothered to read what I wrote you might understand that I am NOT trying to remove gankers from highsec. My intention is to make it more of a cat and mouse game where they actually have to evade other players rather than just dock up in the sanctuary of a highsec station.
Your proposal is literally to prevent gankers from docking or logging out in a highsec system. How is that not trying to remove them from highsec?

I think you need to think your proposal through just a little. I appreciate that might not be your intention, but the obvious consequence of such a change is that there would be less gankers in highsec.

Your proposal would just mean they would dock up in lowsec instead of highsec, and then fly their empty pod in when the criminal timer was up to meet their Orca alt to get a new ship just before the next gank. And even if your "cat" caught the likely empty pod, the gankers lose nothing.

It would do nothing to make the game better or drive conflict, just slightly more tedious for current criminals, and more difficult for aspiring criminals to get into the business. If such a proposal has any hope, it must require gankers to use structures or something else so that they are vulnerable to retaliation.


Now these are some good points. Don't want to force the use of orca or bowhead. I don't know that forcing them to use structures is right either. My point wasn't about retaliation. It was about the fun of trying to chase/hunt them. Maybe if there was a way they would benefit by not docking up instead of stopping them from docking up? My initial idea was to get rid of the concord mechanic, but prevent them from docking and making them trackable for a time period to make players hunt them instead of Concord. But then I imagined them forming large fleets and all hell breaking loose. LOL

Btw, I have podded a ganker before and he had around 20m in implants.
Zhaceera Armerarram
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#53 - 2015-09-25 16:23:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Zhaceera Armerarram
All the hisec drama from a chunk of the players is based on flawed premisses:

- Not CCP, not logic, nor observation shows that people like to be in non-stop conflicts. Logic and observation even dictates that the more the people play per session, the less prone they are to ratio conflict above anything else ingame. (Which means people who only like conflict usually play for a short while, do some fight, log off, and complain about people who have either more time or willingness to make longer sessions not combat drvien). That can be easly verified by the fact that no matter how much Devs stir conflicts, people in the big political schemes of EVE tend to achieve equilibrium. The very own efforts from CCP to incentivate conflict comes from that acessment.

- As stated before, it was said by CCP in a post that the line on the sand is draw among other places, in that the only way to avoid wars altogether is to remain in a NPC corp. Which is always misquoted as that being the "most" they can do, but actually, if that wasnt the intention, they would have no reason to make that so. So there is a way that CCP allows people to not go to war. Sacrifice the "wonders" of player run corps in exchange for a tax that is the charge of your "protection". Allied to the scheme of sec status it clear states a message: This is the model the game persues until changed.

- As you have non combative people who lives pratically 100% of the time, sometimes 6 or 7 hours daily in Uedama, Sivala, just for the thrill of being there. There are people who logs and stays in 1.0 status for hours, activelly, talking, doing stuff and whatever, who you can safely assume likes the gameplay they are entrenched into. So still flawed premisse that everyone seeks to go to places where things get messy.

So you can clearly see that there are sections of the playerbase that interact in different levels, and altho some do not part take in armed fight, they are no less responsible for paying subs or farming isk for plex sellers than anyone else, and therefore, by any standards, entitled to their space under the rules in place.

If for some reason CCP had, or will have, considered any of those franchised players undesireable, they would have had taken measures to eliminate their niches. The fact that they didnt, and instead, clearly made the lines well drawn, is that you have to understand that those players have their voices listened as anyone else.

And there is a clear message that different gameplays overlap but they are not intended for those different areas. You ssek the industrial path, you can get the EVE version of cap level never leaving the hisec, and that has nothing to do with the state of other places, as these players would rather play another game if forced to change their desired gameplay.

There are mercs and other fighters who enjoy the percs of hisec, and they also can evolve without leaving hisec. Probably eliminating their niche would make them leave rather than move to a gameplay they would not want.

And as I said before, it is non-sense to say what people would do without providing a reason for believing so, and there it is:
We know people likes, supports and tolerate different things. There are people who cant tolerate the idea of paying for someone else's joy in a game. There are people who cant tolerate paying to be forced to what they dont want to. There are people who cant tolerate be without rules or rules that are not enforced ideally.

That I dont say taking my example, because being a good Matari, I endure the changes to make what I have what I like. So I really dont care what happens elsewhere as long as my slice of heaven can still be just that. Wont say how long so people dont get all cheesy, but at least for 2 years that have been a good deal for me here.

I stopped playing tons of games, and so did many people I know, and thousands of Youtubers, Redditers, Bloggers in General, because of the toleration level, not the like level.

That is the main thing that lacks in the sense people make from numbers and statements. People dont leave games they play for 5, 6 months or more because they suddenly did something they dont like. There must be something they dont tolerate. If there wasnt the level of attachment to the game, they would have left much earlier.

So that is the reason why changes must take into account the gameplay people do and gameplay people tolerate, all of them.

The main reason for aknowledging everyone is that, for the most part, in the sandbox, everyone else gives the part of gameplay a given person likes. You may not be aware of that, but directly or indirectly, the guy who dont like combat, and stays in his hisec very protected part of eve, contributes to the possibility of you having your high octane borderline lowsec pvp fest.

So think better about what other people may like or want, because removing that may affect you and you wont like it. And CCP indulging those selfish accessment would endup displeasing you and them, leaving CCP with neither.

CCP knows that, and when you dont, you usually endup unheard, and think that is stupidity from devs, but it is not.

"If justice is not for everyone, it is for no one."

Ecrir Twy'Lar
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2015-09-25 16:34:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Ecrir Twy'Lar
How about this:

Due to increased criminal activity, Concord has made the decision to move most assets to higher security space. This will lower response times in systems with security levels of .7 and higher. However Concord will now only respond in .5 and .6 security systems in extreme situations (See below). To help manage criminal activities in systems with .5 and .6 security levels, Concord is enlisting the help of capsuleers.

When an attack occurs in a .5 or .6 system Concord immediately launches a drone to the site and places a beacon on the criminals hull. This beacon will transmit coordinates to all nearby capsuleers who can then warp to and engage the criminal. If any criminal attempts to dock at any station or leave the system while this beacon is active (Maybe 15-60 minutes?), they will be immediately disabled and shot on sight. If any two or more beacons come in close proximity to each other, the beacons will escalate and Concord ships will respond.

This would give criminals the possibility of not losing their ship in exchange for the opportunity for other pilots to engage them for a period of time. This also gives highsec miners a safer location to mine if they stick to .7 security systems and above. But, if they want more profit, they can take the risk and mine in .5 and .6 systems. To be honest, this would be quite a nerf to miners. So maybe belts in .5 and .6 systems should get a buff. The reason I would prevent criminals from being in close proximity to each other is because I think they would fly more capable ships if they know they have a fighting chance to keep them. If they are allowed to form ganking fleets with no Concord response... Well I think it would no longer be high security space. As it is, this may actually be TOO much of a buff to criminals. But what do you all think?

*Edit*
or... Could limit these rules to .5 security systems only.

Maybe the beacon could put a few second cooldown on the criminals warp drive and there could be a new criminal skill that would reduce the cooldown. Haha

Actually.. with this system, I may want to be a criminal.
Zhaceera Armerarram
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#55 - 2015-09-25 17:13:12 UTC
The Caldared States style politic logic again ?

"We will be cutting quarters and diminishing the effectiveness of something in order to make it better.
So, we will allow criminals to do their activities in more borderline zones to justify the excuse that criminality is rising in order to make people think we are actually better in what we are doing worse.
But it does not matter, because we already educated people on how to interpret numbers so they wont know how it works, and the few who does, we call conspiracy teorists, or plain old, terrorists."

While promising competitive times and lots of challenge, effectivelly just downgrading the quality of life for everyone, which will only be marginally tolerable to the masses who already live in difficult situations, while just taking the 13th bean from the plates of those who entrenches in the top side.

Dont really know if that works in a place where people can just "run away" tho.

"If justice is not for everyone, it is for no one."

Ecrir Twy'Lar
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2015-09-25 17:40:09 UTC
Zhaceera Armerarram wrote:
The Caldared States style politic logic again ?

"We will be cutting quarters and diminishing the effectiveness of something in order to make it better.
So, we will allow criminals to do their activities in more borderline zones to justify the excuse that criminality is rising in order to make people think we are actually better in what we are doing worse.
But it does not matter, because we already educated people on how to interpret numbers so they wont know how it works, and the few who does, we call conspiracy teorists, or plain old, terrorists."

While promising competitive times and lots of challenge, effectivelly just downgrading the quality of life for everyone, which will only be marginally tolerable to the masses who already live in difficult situations, while just taking the 13th bean from the plates of those who entrenches in the top side.

Dont really know if that works in a place where people can just "run away" tho.


So you like the idea, right?
Ecrir Twy'Lar
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2015-09-25 18:16:59 UTC
Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote:
How about this:

Due to increased criminal activity, Concord has made the decision to move most assets to higher security space. This will lower response times in systems with security levels of .7 and higher. However Concord will now only respond in .5 and .6 security systems in extreme situations (See below). To help manage criminal activities in systems with .5 and .6 security levels, Concord is enlisting the help of capsuleers.

When an attack occurs in a .5 or .6 system Concord immediately launches a drone to the site and places a beacon on the criminals hull. This beacon will transmit coordinates to all nearby capsuleers who can then warp to and engage the criminal. If any criminal attempts to dock at any station or leave the system while this beacon is active (Maybe 15-60 minutes?), they will be immediately disabled and shot on sight. If any two or more beacons come in close proximity to each other, the beacons will escalate and Concord ships will respond.

This would give criminals the possibility of not losing their ship in exchange for the opportunity for other pilots to engage them for a period of time. This also gives highsec miners a safer location to mine if they stick to .7 security systems and above. But, if they want more profit, they can take the risk and mine in .5 and .6 systems. To be honest, this would be quite a nerf to miners. So maybe belts in .5 and .6 systems should get a buff. The reason I would prevent criminals from being in close proximity to each other is because I think they would fly more capable ships if they know they have a fighting chance to keep them. If they are allowed to form ganking fleets with no Concord response... Well I think it would no longer be high security space. As it is, this may actually be TOO much of a buff to criminals. But what do you all think?

*Edit*
or... Could limit these rules to .5 security systems only.

Maybe the beacon could put a few second cooldown on the criminals warp drive and there could be a new criminal skill that would reduce the cooldown. Haha

Actually.. with this system, I may want to be a criminal.



If I don't get too many holes poked in this one, I may update my original post.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#58 - 2015-09-25 18:23:26 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:

See, this is a fair and balanced idea.


No it's not. Just like yours, it's a selfish demand to handcuff the player freedom of people you don't like.

"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.

Zhaceera Armerarram
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#59 - 2015-09-25 18:56:46 UTC
Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote:
Zhaceera Armerarram wrote:
The Caldared States style politic logic again ?

"We will be cutting quarters and diminishing the effectiveness of something in order to make it better.
So, we will allow criminals to do their activities in more borderline zones to justify the excuse that criminality is rising in order to make people think we are actually better in what we are doing worse.
But it does not matter, because we already educated people on how to interpret numbers so they wont know how it works, and the few who does, we call conspiracy teorists, or plain old, terrorists."

While promising competitive times and lots of challenge, effectivelly just downgrading the quality of life for everyone, which will only be marginally tolerable to the masses who already live in difficult situations, while just taking the 13th bean from the plates of those who entrenches in the top side.

Dont really know if that works in a place where people can just "run away" tho.


So you like the idea, right?


Ofc not. I am South Matarian, I hate Caldared States ideas. LOL

"If justice is not for everyone, it is for no one."

Mag's
Azn Empire
#60 - 2015-09-25 19:35:35 UTC
So can the OP explain what problem he is trying to fix? I'm not seeing it.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.