So typical for your kind.
what kind is that?
You actually don’t know how it works
what is ‘it’?
right now
This is where you an I agree. Since 2006, there have been many iterations of these mechanics, how could one reasonable keep up with all the changes? I mean, it’s CONCORD that warp scrambles and the Navy that webs, right? Or did I get that backwards too?
Its a kind that is zealously engaging in discussions about ganking, claiming how is ganking bad for the game, unbalanced, too easy, too profitable and whatsnot and that then throws a ridiculous suggestions of how would it be better. Yet their real goal is to remove ganking from the game not to make it any more balanced or whatever.
A nasty and dishonest kind of players that only think of themselves.
Mechanics of the highsec suicide ganking and security status? What else.
You know it would be nice if you guys actually learned how the mechanics works before suggesting a supposed “fix”. Then it often happens, like in your case, that they are suggesting something that doesn’t differ from what we have now, or even they are suggesting something that CCP, in their foolishness, already nerfed. Then you guys look like fools.
I never said ganking was bad, or unbalanced, or easy, or too profitable, so my post must fall into the category of ‘whatsnot’.
You know it would be nice if you guys actually learned how the mechanics works before suggesting a supposed “fix”. Then it often happens, like in your case, that they are suggesting something that doesn’t differ from what we have now, or even they are suggesting something that CCP, in their foolishness, already nerfed. Then you guys look like fools.
I’ve read a lot on mechanics. If I waited until I knew everything about everything in EvE before making a post, I would never post at all. In addition, because I posted, I learned new perspectives, gained a better understanding of old perspectives, and learned more about current mechanics.
Looking ‘foolish’ has always been to my benefit.
That’s a very good start.
I would say the next step is to implement it and gain personal experience. If you ever want to get into some high sec shenanigans and play around with these mechanics and timers let me know.
And I’m taking about suicide ganking.
Things like MTU hunting, ninja salvaging and looting and baiting players.
I suppose I may as well. Have you got a crew in the US TZ?
Yes, me.
The bulk of R1FTA is european time zones.
Darth and marta are -10 cause they do a bunch of low sec piracy.
But I might be able to get Jameson involved.
As an example of this, I fight in lowsec and I rarely ever kill pods there yet I live perpetually in negative sec status.
Verified by Zkill,
Pleasantly surprised!
Take a like.
But I do have a question. You give Altara a rough time over station bashing, yet on the first page shows 2 stations you were involved in bashing.
Why?
Spectre were doing them. To be clear though I don’t have problems with fighting over stations, what I have an issue with is people who farm undefended structures then pretend it’s amazing PvP.
Generally I’ll only show up to a structure fight if we can pretty much guarantee a strong opposition. The ahbazon fights have been pretty crazy, especially those latest ones. There are fights we’ve had on the structures there we’ve lost too so those obviously won’t show on the kb as a structure kill.
As I’ve tried to tell you, this is simply not true:
I went from 5.0 to 0.0 without ever having a criminal timer. I think I had my first criminal timer once I was already below -2.0.
I appreciate that you’re willing to put your opinions out there, and are open to correction.
You may not think it reasonable, because of some self-imposed inhibition you have. I don’t care if it’s rooted in morality, game mechanics, or mentality: at the end of the day it is inhibiting you from making use of all game mechanics available to you.
There are other players out there who have no such inhibitions. The “Achilles heel” to your argument is, in turn, you can always befriend (whether by social force/charisma, or cold hard ISK) those folks to carry out your will as necessary. You get to keep your inhibitions for your day to day playstyle.
The problem is people keep demanding “more” along two dimensions: 1) Cost and 2) Skipping sandbox engagement.
Yes, it actually costs to hire mercenaries to satisfy your revenge. Which is fair, as it actualy cost the gankers in the first place to do the gank (time and ships destroyed by CONCORD). They may have made a profit, but that is chalked up to their skill and planning. Too many people looking for nice packaged “in-game recourses brought to you by CCP” (whether kill rights, etc) basically are doing it to avoid having to pay any cost whatsoever to satisfy their idea of revenge, without needing any skill nor planning. Getting paid for their killrights gets this exactly the backwards and wrong way: the victim gets paid for being too weak to get revenge themselves and refusing to hire mercenaries.
But, that’s not all. The bigger problem is reflected in your repeat proposals, which is wanting a shiny CCP-provided mechanic to “engage the sandbox” for you. This problem, tied with your personal inhibition of actions, means you neither:
This self-defeatest attitude should be appropriately rewarded (IMO: very little) in a cold harsh universe.
Let’s be honest,
There really isn’t “amazing” pvp in this game.
Playing up a kill as “epic” is kinda silly.
Fun is another thing.
Can I has ur stuffs?
Yeah true, but at least taking a fight with an active opponent adds an element of risk.
Yes, that is very true.
But as a high sec troublemaker, I can say this, I’ve baited a few mission runners who, couldn’t defend themselves properly, and I thought I had the kill in the bag when one of their buddies show up and showed me who was boss.
Now granted that’s not the same as a gank as ganks have to happen quickly for 2 reasons. 1) get the kill before CONCORD shows up and 2) their buddies.
Even for us, the rule, you have no idea who is watching you still applies.
It doesn’t get more asymmetrically absurd than me having 10 seconds in which to gank…while the gankee gets 28 days ( quarter of a million times longer ) in which to exercise a kill right.
Oh but there is when I’m doing it…especially if it annoys anti PvP people.
Well, there is that!
As I’ve tried to tell you, this is simply not true
On second thought, I recall incurring standing loss by attacking POCOs in low sec. I know better.
You may not think it reasonable
making use of all game mechanics available to you.
When I use the term ‘reasonable’ please interpret that as “I believe a majority of players and/or developers can be persuaded by this viewpoint.”
I do believe you are wrong and that, using your logic of ‘use all mechanics available’, only two true versions of “highsec” can exist, with what we currently have being a perversion. Let’s approach this like a math equation. I will begin by making a few statements:
If I have the same tools available as my criminal adversary, then we might be able to say that both sides of the equation are equal:
gank pvp = gank pvp
And like an equation, we’ll substitute ‘gank’ for ‘non-consensual’ (the way you would sub m/s² in for acceleration):
non-consensual pvp = non-consensual pvp
What I argue is that this describes lowsec, nullsec, wormholes; every other region of space where you would naturally look to exercise all pvp options available. This, in turn, leaves two “true” options for highsec: No highsec, or a highsec where ganking is prohibited. If no one is allowed to gank, then we all have the same options available to us. I think both of these outcomes are bad.
What I was trying to accomplish with my initial proposal was extend the lifetime of meaningful defense against someone I had a kill right on. By increasing the stakes for my criminal adversary, I may be more motivated to leverage pvp options to address the issue. If I am expected to fight ganks with ganks, then I may as well live in any other region of space.
The obvious counter to my proposal’s intent, as has been said repeatedly: Players will always want more, and more, and more
please critique
Being a criminal in EVE is a temporary condition. It is temporary because EVE is a video game, and not real life. Creating permanent consequences for in-game actions would amount to fundamentally flawed game design, as people would try to subvert such consequences through exploitative means, or maybe even stop playing entirely.
So, on the condition that criminality is temporary, the onus is on you to prove why the “lifetime of meaningful defense against someone you had a kill right on” needs to be extended. Can you prove mathematically that the current lifetime is insufficient, and needs to be increased so as to make the system more balanced? Before the merits of your proposal are considered, you first must define a need for the solution, and considering how stacked the system already is against criminals in EVE, you have your work cut out for you.