Well, you don’t have to be reading this thread, so just stop reading and your problem is solved.
I’m not asking for an exception to the rules. I’m asking that the rules be changed.
No, we don’t need any of those things. In fact, as a developer, I can tell you I hate those pre-package proposals from customers, they come with some built in customer expectation that they are a “set” when in fact we [developers] may take any all or none.
All of this has been discussed a million times before, the devs don’t need it written up for them.
It is not the design, it is the schedule.
2 Likes
Well, where would you propose we discuss such a thing?
If only there was some forum where we could have a civil discussion, and fine tune such things.
Also, I believe my propose is well tuned. Its simple, its elegant, is solve a problem and helps a ton of people while really hurting no one.
Oh, and it hurts me to see people cry and fight against changes that don’t hurt them.
=-=-=-=
All I see here from nay sayers is, “I don’t want Eve to change!”
I see no logical argument how this change would hurt anyone.
I’ve made several arguments on how it would help a lot of people.
1 Like
2 Likes
I thought there must be a thread for suggestions and feedback, there used to be. I did a search even and couldn’t find it. I can’t even find it still without using your link. Thank you!
So, when CCP decided to mark anyone visiting L3+ abyssal sites as “Suspicious” on exit - what crime did they commit exactly? Precedent has already been set, CCP has successfully tested and can easily implement the simple change.
Because in this case Gallente FW player is already flagged as an enemy and is free to fire upon without repercussions. “Neutral” should have no business near military facility in the middle of warzone and thus has to be flagged.
I’m not sure why some forum regulars are so against a proposed change that might increase number of PvP engagements in FW instead of warping off if you see a neutral on short dscan in FW plex because SS might drop too low. Argumentation against is also weak: pointing mostly against person proposing the change and picking at the words instead of providing a solid and sound reason against or pointing at the problems that might arise (there are none). Pathetic.
1 Like
Changed in a way that generates a special snowflake exception for your one specific case while maintaining the current rules for everyone else.
1 Like
It’s a precedent, but it’s a bad one that only exists because CCP made the even worse decision to add instanced PvE to the game. The ONLY reason it’s at all justifiable is that the instances need some level of inherent PvP risk so you can’t effortlessly farm the best content from your 100% safe private farming site. Expanding this to other areas of the game would be a significant mistake.
Because in this case Gallente FW player is already flagged as an enemy and is free to fire upon without repercussions. “Neutral” should have no business near military facility in the middle of warzone and thus has to be flagged.
But they aren’t flagged to everyone! You’re seriously making the argument that, in the eyes of CONCORD, visiting a military site as a neutral is worse than being in that same site as a member of the enemy militia. That is utter nonsense. If neutrals are going to be flagged for trespassing then militia ships need to be flagged for trespassing any time they go to a site not owned by their faction.
I’m not sure why some forum regulars are so against a proposed change that might increase number of PvP engagements in FW instead of warping off if you see a neutral on short dscan in FW plex because SS might drop too low.
Because it creates a special snowflake exception for people who are too afraid of PvP consequences. And it creates the precedent that if you whine and cry enough about how there are consequences to PvP choices CCP will remove them. What’s next, letting freighter pilots report a potential gank threat as “suspicious behavior” so they can preemptively engage without CONCORD punishment? After all, those freighter pilots probably don’t want to lose sec status either, so why shouldn’t they be entitled to the same sec-hit-free preemptive strike that FW players are demanding?
1 Like
I’m actually not against flagging everyone who isnt part of militia that the FW plex belongs to. But in that case it might be a deterrent for PvP because of early/perfect local intel - you wont even need to use dscan anymore when doing defensive plexes, on the other hand when someone from opposing militia goes suspect then they are most likely entered the plex - time to hunt (but since FW plex will appear as celestial beacon for everyone when activated - it is already kind of a thing).
This in a nutshell.
For people who REALLY LIKE PvP and are not just farming for LP, the neutral fights are some of the best. It would be boring without.
1 Like
Your wording bugs me. They’re not locked out of Highsec.
It’s actually trivial for FactionWarriors to be in Highsec.
When I can do it as -10, then every FWarrior can do it as well,
especially because the Navies are much less of a threat than the police.
Maybe you should throw them at me
and I’ll teach them how to survive in highsec space.
The issue with newbros is not the navy but their security status and therefore faction police. Being locked out of Caldari and Amarr high sec is not a problem, being locked out of all high sec too fast because drop in sec status is the problem.
Yeah we know all the tricks for camping a Trade Hub : using drones on grid, aggro the navy with a single rattlesnake drone which we repair, warping on grid to make the navy slow-boat.
The point is we want to teach them pvp, not how to best gank in high sec.
Newbros have already a lot infos to learn and honestly they are still discovering the game. Below -5 you become a free target for everyone.
Would be nice for newbros to run events in high sec or do arcs since they still don’t have alts. They also don’t have haulers alts or driver alts so even buying a frigate is something they can’t do.
Once you have your alts set up, you don’t care being -10
Ah, I thought you were solely talking about their faction standing.
Still, my point stands. They’re really easy to deal with. If you need someone to teach them how to survive and fight as -10 in highsec space, then seriously just send them to me.
Are you telling me it’s not an exploit to do the same with the police?
Because I always thought it was. Anything else just makes no sense.
I’m also wondering how you are allowed to do this,
when it’s clearly just abusing the primitive NPCs.
That’s hopefully only unintentionally insulting.
It’s not about ganking. It’s about survival and learning how to fight people as -10.
Ganking is easy in comparison. Actually forcing people off grid or back into the station,
as -10, is a completely different matter.
Sure.
Just trying to help improving the game for some people.
I know and there are noble high sec pvp corps.
It’s just our newbros have a lot of learn : we could teach them high sec, null sec and WH but at first since we are low sec so we teach them to survive low sec.
Introducing suspect timer/disabling crime-watch in plexes is just a way to delay the inevitable while they train alts. They will end up with -10 sooner or later just with gate fights and citadel timers.
That’s all : a delay so they have time to take it step by step.
Once they are able to gain their LP without dying like flees in plexes and have alts, if they wish to fight in high sec or wherever, that’s their decision and people in alliance will teach them.
Short answer: no.
Long answer: a suspect flag is given to a player for doing something that negatively impacts another player. Property theft, aggressive actions, etc. all generate suspect flags. The act of jumping through a FW gate is not aggressive in and of itself, so flagging anyone for using a gate, whether they’re in FW or not, isn’t self-consistent with how suspect flags are use.
-1. I can sympathize with the desire to keep Faction Warfare more self-contained, but this isn’t the way to do it.
No they would shout both of you, because one is an enemy and the other not associated with unclear intent. The metaphor does work anyhow because there discussion is about the view from a third party-- (the UN?) not the one who owns the base.
I agree.
I also agree with the others that have stated security status is probably the biggest deterrent to good PVP and FW participants. Even if you love PVP as faction warfare member, having to spend hours a week grinding battleship rats (not pvp) to make up for shooting neutrals that come into the plexes is a huge distraction and not the best for the game.
2 Likes
Why are alts required?
That sounds like a seriously flawed approach to playing the game.
1 Like