Yes - just saw that. My guess is ship hijacking not confirmed!
- Status
Yes - just saw that. My guess is ship hijacking not confirmed!
Yeah just heard that also...seems that the modes are going to have to be taken into account on these ideas...weird, huh!
- - - Updated - - -
Also...the the clipper that just killed me outside the station...thanks! Was worth the money not to have to fly home again!
Well that would certainly help out the bounty hunters...at least they would be able to track their prey everywhere! They couldn't kill the player..but at least they won't waste their time looking for them.
Which them makes me wonder if someone goes to a Private group...and the bounty hunter is able to follow them there...would they be able to be kicked out if PVP is prohibited? Seems like a lot of trouble being asked for with those items.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
That is quite startling - I missed that bit (the stream failed a few times for me).
Strictly speaking, the player who had the tracking device clagged on to their hull would have entered a Private Group if a player was able to follow them (or, somehow, their Solo instance was morphed into a Private Group) in the event that they had done something in Open that warranted the attentions of another player tracking them.
Possibly a consequence of destroying players - being able to be tracked into whichever mode the player may have selected - the only way not to be found is not to play at all....
I think it was really a hypothetical - though they did say they want to get pirates and boubty hunters playing together more or something..
ETA - Sandro also did say they want to make high sec safer and anarchies more dangerous so maybe there is hope yet on that front..
Last edited:
If it was a consequence of just killing players...there is probably an issue...as there is supposed to be no difference between players and NPC's...and since all of us can carry bounties from 'normal' gameplay...this seems to be problematic...a player can be pulled OUT of solo to be made to PVP when they do not desire it? <shrug> Really want to see the hows and whys of this new idea.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
There's a fundamental difference between players and NPCs - only players are members of the Pilot's Federation - that's why we have a different scanner indicator to NPCs....
If the Pilot's Federation deem that any member who destroys another member is then subject to sanctions of some kind (and the player doing the destroying was aware of the sanctions and also committed the act in Open play) then it seems reasonable enough - it probably satisfy the "but players with bounties for destroying players can hide away in Solo" lobby group.
More variation between them would definitely work!
I was thinking about this problem and realized that crime in games is economically similar to wages in real life. Both are 'sticky' rather than a fluid commodity.
It is very difficult to get people to take a wage cut...and similarly, it is difficult to remove safety/justice from a game once it is put in. For roughly the same reasons. No one wants to move to a place of insecurity. So the only logical way to increase security is with extremely small increments...so that the desire to permit crime can be preserved...since if they move to far in the way of security...it would be very difficult to try to backstep to a more insecure level...people would quit on both sides of the issue...the criminals would leave because it wouldn't be worth the effort on the increase...then players would leave feeling the changes would work against them on the way back down.
In this instance, the devs would likely err on the side of crime...rather than security.
- - - Updated - - -
There's a fundamental difference between players and NPCs - only players are members of the Pilot's Federation - that's why we have a different scanner indicator to NPCs....
If the Pilot's Federation deem that any member who destroys another member is then subject to sanctions of some kind (and the player doing the destroying was aware of the sanctions and also committed the act in Open play) then it seems reasonable enough - it probably satisfy the "but players with bounties for destroying players can hide away in Solo" lobby group.
So we can now accept there are reasons to pull people out of Solo to be shot in the face? Cool!
Wasn't the original proposal to make it impossible for a player with a PF bounty to switch modes?
Indeed it was.
<shrug> I dunno. Seems a better idea than some tracker that lets people get pulled out of Solo against their will....between being locked or being pulled I would prefer locked...of coures the tracker means that someone would have to be close enough to you to get it to lock onto you ship to start with...so, maybe not so bad?
Ship theft would be impossible... Any of you ever tried to ride two pushbikes home?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
In particular cases, such as this one, I (me personally) could accept that if a player in Open were to gain a bounty for destroying another player then the player with the bounty should not be able to evade player bounty hunters by playing in a different mode. The player who gained the bounty would have already demonstrated that they *can* play in Open.
Ship theft would be impossible... Any of you ever tried to ride two pushbikes home?
You ride one and string the other round your shoulders
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Everytime I look, the thread is 3 pages longer. I'll start here.
I would be glad in a way that the player has finally chosen to INTERACT and not combat log or disappear to solo.
Failing any other POSITIVE action being productive, I would self destruct and take us both out. BOOM.
I'm probably rank 1 now as I haven't logged in for about 3 weeks.
It takes 1-2 hours undermining in a wing to get to LEVEL 4 and that's all I bother with anyway.
Last edited:
You know that doesn't actually work? Self destructing whilst sitting on top of another ship would be even less effective than launching a brace of missiles up their tail pipe from point blank range!
- Status