Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Winters Chill
Amarr RAJUN Recruit Camp Chilled Steel Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 16:29:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Professor Tarantula
As far as i know he could tie his own shoes. Not sure what sent you in that direction.
Einstein said himself that there were errors in his work which would be completed someday.
Apparently this allows a multitude of idiots to shout down rational thought.
I think I love you.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 18:18:00 -
[62]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 12/01/2011 18:19:13 I will have no part in this whole thing until the game gets fixed.I just lost a kronos because I gave someone rr and he shot me.Edit:In a fleet.
Yeah and there are many other reasons that Im too lazy to get in to such as npc's being too hard,no reward really,griefers etc. I tested it on the test server and its nothing to get exited over,more so after such a long wait.I cant even remember the last time I logged in lol.I think some one will be getting my stuff soon.
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 18:39:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Dar Manic There is a fundamental conflict in Eve with the concept of 'cooperation' between random players: Eve allows (even encourages?) the crappiest behaviors in humans and now they are asking strangers to work together to get rid of a common enemy. Actively develop sh*tty players then ask others to trust them? If it weren't the game designers who came up with this, I would give 10/10 for this scam!!
I believe this will be an opportunity for the lowest of scum to work their magic within the rules of the game. The wise will just move to another area.
QFT. Just look at Incursion as content for the griefers. Stay away from it, and you'll be fine. Well, kindasorta.
Grief a PVP'er. Run a mission today! |
Jacob Holland
Gallente Weyland-Vulcan Industries
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 19:10:00 -
[64]
Originally by: stoicfaux
So low-sec incursions will have: <snip> d) the guy in the covert ops who will ninja the BPC *if* anyone actually gets around to fighting the sansha.
Almost certainly...
Originally by: stoicfaux
Hig-sec incursions will have: <Snip> f) the two dozen guys in covert ops ships trying to ninja the bpc.
0.0 Space Incursions: <Snip> b) Someone's alt ninjas the BPC <Snip>
There probably will be people hanging around to ninja BPCs... but as the BPCs only drop in lowsec they'll be the idiots. --
Originally by: cordy
Respect to IAC .Your one of the few people who truly deserve to own and live in the space you are in.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 20:47:00 -
[65]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 I will have no part in this whole thing until the game gets fixed.I just lost a kronos because I gave someone rr and he shot me.
Working as intended; nothing to be fixed. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Major MouseTrap
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 20:53:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Major MouseTrap on 12/01/2011 20:53:04 well let's try here seeing CCP locked my post for a duplicate for the record there is no other post that asked my question to CCP and still refused to answer a simple question Dear CCP the part 3 of incursion hasn't even been release yet, and there alot of complaints over the game mechanics of it if the averge player can see the problem's why can't you CCP.Please read the following quote: Originally by: stoicfaux -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by: stoicfaux on 12/01/2011 14:43:46
Originally by: Malcanis --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes indeed, PvE should always be safe and predictable and everyone who competes should be given a prize for turning up and no-one loses because it's happy sunshine day in funland where everyone is special!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stop being condescending for a minute and ask yourself: What's the goal of the PvE based Incursion expansion? Who are the target audience? Are they trying to draw new players in? Are they trying to lure carebears over to the darkside? Is CCP trying to encourage grouping and/or corp organization in order to make subs more sticky? Is it to foster a sense of community between Eve players?
The Incursion feature list is contradictory. We have a "public" event where everyone in the system is highly encouraged to participate (due to penalties to bounties and resists,) yet the rewards are only for the winning fleet which discourages public participation. (You don't even get bounties for killing Incursion ships.)
Public participation is encouraged, yet the RR and war dec aggression mechanics discourage public participation by making pick up fleets a bad idea.
The NPCs put out so much DPS and use so much scram/web/drain/etc., that even small Sansha groups will overwhelm lowbie or inexperienced players.
CCP is adding PvE content yet discourages the PvE crowd from participating. Only one fleet can win, so the only reason for the PvE crowd to stick around is to kill off the incursion faster in order to get back to regular PvE. (Is it good if players are rushing to finish new content in order to get back to the old content?)
Right now, Incursions seems to be targeted at highly organized, highly experienced players with good skills and resources who already know how to spider tank in a fleet, and who are the biggest fish/fleet in whatever pond the Sansha show up in.
If that was the desired target audience, then I would say that CCP succeeded. If Incursions was supposed to reach anyone else, then CCP went out of their way to shoot themselves in the foot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally by: stoicfaux -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Incursion checklist: 1. New PvE content. Check. 2. PvE content that encourages public participation and cooperation. Check. 3. Hyper-competitive "winning fleet takes all" reward. Check. 4. If too many people participate in a public event, the rewards are reduced. Check. 5. BPC reward can be ninja'd. Check. 6. Concord aggression mechanics can be abused to grief pick-up fleets. Check. 7. War decs can be abused to grief pick-up fleets. Check. 8. PvE fittings will be at a disadvantage in PvE content. Check. 9. NPC abilities are way out of whack compared to what PC capsuleers can do. Check. 10. PvE incursion content makes current PvE content (lower bounties, reduced resists, etc..) less fun. Check. 11. Players who don't have the time, inclination, skills, and/or ships/resources can either sit in station or view the scenery while jumping from gate to gate with their stuff to a new system. Check. 12. ???? 13. Incursion expansion is successful!
Seriously, is there a dev named MyMedsStoppedWorking on the payroll at CC
|
Major Snitch
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 21:05:00 -
[67]
how Dare you ask CCP a direct question and expect a answer.....even tho everyone in eve online have been asking about the problems with game mechanic's of incursion ..... (forum ban him) wait i to have been asking too and i am the same guy second thought ..........I love you CCP i for one welcome are CCP Overlords ......
|
000Hunter000
Gallente Missiles 'R' Us
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 21:36:00 -
[68]
Shame that thats the state of eve these days... people thinking up ways how they can grief other players in the new expansion... pathetic ________________________________________________
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 21:52:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 I will have no part in this whole thing until the game gets fixed.I just lost a kronos because I gave someone rr and he shot me.
Working as intended; nothing to be fixed.
Says you..now watch them fix it because they will either have to or the whole thing will be a flop.At least in high sec.No one is going to join a random fleet after getting popped because of some stupid guy shooting stuff hes shouldnt be.Nor will they go in there with anything more than cheap little ships which will be no fun I can tell you now.You'll be gone in less than a min.Wanna bet?
In any case it will be nice to see your foot in your mouth.
0/10 btw because I know you can do better.
|
stoicfaux
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 21:57:00 -
[70]
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HeIIfire11 I will have no part in this whole thing until the game gets fixed.I just lost a kronos because I gave someone rr and he shot me.
Working as intended; nothing to be fixed.
Says you..now watch them fix it because they will either have to or the whole thing will be a flop. 0/10 btw because I know you can do better.
I read that as Tippia being funny/sarcastic. "Working as intended" == "still not fixed and no plans on doing so even though it will bork a major expansion."
----- "Are you a sociopathic paranoid schizophrenic with accounting skills? We have the game for you! -- Eve, the game of Alts, Economics, Machiavelli, and PvP"
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 22:04:00 -
[71]
Edited by: Tippia on 12/01/2011 22:04:47
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Says you..now watch them fix it
Fix what? What's not working as it should?
You were providing aid to someone with a GCC, which gives you a GCC as well, per the rules. Would you really like them to remove that and buff highsec piracy? Or do you want to see the return of the lofty, thus buffing highsec piracy? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
SkinSin
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 22:14:00 -
[72]
Something I posted in a nother thread:
"There are also other concerns that CCP have simply not answered. Such as:
- Their statements that people in pods will not be rewarded. I understand the main reason for this, but what happens if I am part of the winning fleet, but my ship gets destroyed shortly before the site is completed, leaving me in my pod?
- Why bother having a requirement to fleeting up when there are so many ways to grief people while doing so?
- Why restrict reward to the "winning fleet" and when their original statement was that everyone that takes part will be rewarded?
- Do constellation wide dampening effects take place immediately? or do they phase in over a period of time? Are there any warnings about it? If not, I can see a number of miners/missioners/couriers who are mid operation getting extremely narked.
- The incursions are said to be random, but is there anything to stop a particular location being hit 10 times in a row by the random dice?"
I expect that CCP will ignore all questions and queries put to them regarding incursions, and I don't expect any answers to any of these queries. Despite having asked them a couple of times now).
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 23:10:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Alyth [ Hoepfully they won't also sort targets alphabetically and primary me first all the time (CCP THIS IS NOT A SUGGESTION PLEASE DO NOT MAKE THEM DO THIS!)
Nice Idea, I support A->Z sorting for NPC targets. signed: Venkul
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 23:22:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Luminos
Originally by: stoicfaux What's the goal of the PvE based Incursion expansion? Who are the target audience? Are they trying to draw new players in? Are they trying to lure carebears over to the darkside? Is CCP trying to encourage grouping and/or corp organization in order to make subs more sticky? Is it to foster a sense of community between Eve players?
In order: Raiding Guilds*, Raiding Guilds*, No, No, Yes, Yes-ish. (*You can call them "Raiding Corps" if you like, but I've seen this type of content before and every other MMO on the planet beat you to naming it ) Originally by: stoicfaux The Incursion feature list is contradictory. We have a "public" event where everyone in the system is highly encouraged to participate (due to penalties to bounties and resists,) yet the rewards are only for the winning fleet which discourages public participation. (You don't even get bounties for killing Incursion ships.)
Public participation is encouraged, yet the RR and war dec aggression mechanics discourage public participation by making pick up fleets a bad idea.
Untrue. Public participation is strictly prohibited for this content. This content is aimed squarely at... Originally by: stoicfaux ...highly organized, highly experienced players with good skills and resources who already know how to spider tank in a fleet, and who are the biggest fish/fleet in whatever pond the Sansha show up in.
If that was the desired target audience, then I would say that CCP succeeded. If Incursions was supposed to reach anyone else, then CCP went out of their way to shoot themselves in the foot.
As I was saying earlier though, the rewards involved for this don't appear to be any better than chaining highsec L4s. So I'm not sure how exactly this stuff is supposed to draw three dozen of the type of people who enjoy raid content all into the same place, especially considering 'the place' is apparently lowsec.
So essentially it is aimed to: 1) people currently living in WH space and that wouldn't bother; 2) 0.0 corps that will remove the disturbance from their systems; 3) Raiders guilds that will want to go for the big prize (the supercarrier BPC) but that before getting there will need to hack and slash all the people in the ancillary locations.
The only really interested audience would be 3 and they will develop the fastest system to get to the boss fight and leave all the rest alone.
Something don't sum well for a feature that theoretically sould be aimed to a large audience.
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 00:30:00 -
[75]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 13/01/2011 00:33:10
Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 12/01/2011 22:04:47
Originally by: HeIIfire11 Says you..now watch them fix it
Fix what? What's not working as it should?
You were providing aid to someone with a GCC, which gives you a GCC as well, per the rules. Would you really like them to remove that and buff highsec piracy? Or do you want to see the return of the lofty, thus buffing highsec piracy?
I was not providing aid to someone with a gcc,he got his gcc while I was aiding him and we both got popped without warning.Well he got the pop up I guess but that did me no good.As I started to rep him it was all good.
So Im in a fleet and cry for rr then I shoot a wreck...profit!
That needs to be fixed.A warning needs to go out to the people giving rr ands give em a chance to pull back and let the idiot get concorded by himself.
|
Jaina Sunspot
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 00:39:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Tippia Fix what? What's not working as it should?
RR and the ease it can be used against you in this new PVE which is the big feature in this expantion,
Originally by: Tippia
You were providing aid to someone with a GCC, which gives you a GCC as well, per the rules.
No aid is provided till the exact moment in the cycle in which HP rises. Yet there is no aid given while cycling yet it is wrongly considered aid.
Originally by: Tippia
Would you really like them to remove that and buff highsec piracy? Or do you want to see the return of the lofty, thus buffing highsec piracy?
Yes an option to have RR auto shut down in presence of a GCC would be great. Turn offable in Low Sec and in High it blacks out the RR. There is no downside to this whatsoever.
|
Ryhss
Caldari QuanNet Evolved
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 02:08:00 -
[77]
Is CCP trying to make Incursion fail too?
|
Aunty Nora
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 02:26:00 -
[78]
Originally by: 000Hunter000 Shame that thats the state of eve these days... people thinking up ways how they can grief other players in the new expansion... pathetic
Eve has been like this since day one m8, your the pathetic one, try hello kitty island instead.
|
Luminos
Durid is 4 Fite
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 02:26:00 -
[79]
Originally by: SkinSin - Their statements that people in pods will not be rewarded. I understand the main reason for this, but what happens if I am part of the winning fleet, but my ship gets destroyed shortly before the site is completed, leaving me in my pod?
- Why bother having a requirement to fleeting up when there are so many ways to grief people while doing so?
- Why restrict reward to the "winning fleet" and when their original statement was that everyone that takes part will be rewarded?
The answer to these three is likely "Everybody there should be in the same Corp." Combined with my previous statement that this is designed for people who are bored of soloing L5s. So not only is solo reward not really the point, once you get the hang of it you shouldn't be losing ships either. Such is the way of raid progression. Originally by: Venkul Mul Something don't sum well for a feature that theoretically sould be aimed to a large audience.
Sure it's aimed at a large audience. A large audience of people with T2 fitted battleships, 40m SP and in a 70+ strong Corp.
Who are in lowsec.
Originally by: stoicfaux f) the two dozen guys in covert ops ships trying to ninja the bpc.
I expect Large Proton Smartbombs will be a pre-req for anybody doing an incursion in lowsec. ______
I feel as though I could do anything. For example, stab this cheese knife into the Self-Taught Man's eye. |
Aunty Nora
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 02:35:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Luminos
Originally by: SkinSin - Their statements that people in pods will not be rewarded. I understand the main reason for this, but what happens if I am part of the winning fleet, but my ship gets destroyed shortly before the site is completed, leaving me in my pod?
- Why bother having a requirement to fleeting up when there are so many ways to grief people while doing so?
- Why restrict reward to the "winning fleet" and when their original statement was that everyone that takes part will be rewarded?
The answer to these three is likely "Everybody there should be in the same Corp." Combined with my previous statement that this is designed for people who are bored of soloing L5s. So not only is solo reward not really the point, once you get the hang of it you shouldn't be losing ships either. Such is the way of raid progression. Originally by: Venkul Mul Something don't sum well for a feature that theoretically sould be aimed to a large audience.
Sure it's aimed at a large audience. A large audience of people with T2 fitted battleships, 40m SP and in a 70+ strong Corp.
Who are in lowsec.
Originally by: stoicfaux f) the two dozen guys in covert ops ships trying to ninja the bpc.
I expect Large Proton Smartbombs will be a pre-req for anybody doing an incursion in lowsec.
FOBTW with your whiney attitude, or find some people to play with, you dont need 40m SP, dont even bother ****ing posting when you blatantly know so little about the subject matter.
|
|
Luminos
Durid is 4 Fite
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 02:51:00 -
[81]
FOBTW? If even google can't figure out what your made up acronym is, you're doing it wrong.
PS: What crawled up your ass and died? ______
I feel as though I could do anything. For example, stab this cheese knife into the Self-Taught Man's eye. |
Olleybear
Minmatar I R' Carebear
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 03:08:00 -
[82]
Dont know what people are up in arms about with the possibiliy of remote rep and someone GCC the entire group for the lolz.
Sure, in the very beginning some people will invite a person they dont know for an incursion and the entire group gets concorded. However, once it becomes common knowledge like, 'Dont go to low sec because you will die!!!', it wont happen often anymore.
As for complaints about incursions being group content only, there are tons of corps out there that really do have more than one person in them. Because incursions are not just a low-sec thing, like say lvl 5 missions, all those high-sec PVE corps will have content they will be willing to do. This means CCP didnt waste their time coding stuff that hardly anyone does.
Now, I'm already wondering when the calls for nerfing high-sec isk earning will start again and the begging that ccp move all incursions, in addition to lvl 4 missions, into low sec only because carebears in high-sec make too much isk.
|
Dusty Warrior
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 03:22:00 -
[83]
I'm gonna buy an extra case of popcorn and pepsi. Ship spinning for 3 days at a time will give me chance to clean and organize me stuff.
|
n00n3r
Caldari Malicious Destruction
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 05:21:00 -
[84]
Edited by: n00n3r on 13/01/2011 05:22:24 Edited by: n00n3r on 13/01/2011 05:21:35 I don't know where you are getting the idea that 40m sp characters are required. We have a couple pilots in our fleet that are below 10m SP and they are contributing just fine.
The only skill points that are really required are in the Teamwork & Coordination skills
*edited for a grammar mistake. (twice) /facepalm
|
Luminos
Durid is 4 Fite
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 05:32:00 -
[85]
Originally by: n00n3r I don't know where you are getting the idea that 40m sp characters are required.
You also don't need a 70 person corp, but nobody has decided to call me out on that. ______
I feel as though I could do anything. For example, stab this cheese knife into the Self-Taught Man's eye. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 07:34:00 -
[86]
Originally by: HeIIfire11 I was not providing aid to someone with a gcc,he got his gcc while I was aiding him
àthus you were providing aid to someone with a GCC, which gets you a GCC. This is there to reduce the capabillities of pirates in highsec. What is not working as intended?
Quote: A warning needs to go out to the people giving rr ands give em a chance to pull back and let the idiot get concorded by himself.
Well, see, that why I was asking: the fix you want to see has nothing to do with what you say needs fixing. In fact, what you're suggesting isn't a fix ù it's as an addition to the GCC protection.
Originally by: Jaina Sunspot RR and the ease it can be used against you in this new PVE which is the big feature in this expantion,
Same problem here: what's wrong with RR and why does it need to be changed all of a sudden? HeIIfire11 actually managed to explain what the problem is, and it's not remote repairsà
Quote: No aid is provided till the exact moment in the cycle in which HP rises.
Irrelevant. You're running a remote aid module on someone with a GCC, thus you're aiding him, thus you're up for a GCC as well.
Quote: Yes an option to have RR auto shut down in presence of a GCC would be great.
Again, same solution, but not to the "problem" of remote reps.
The reason I'm being contrary here is because whenever you say "fix it!" you have to be very very clear about what "it" is or you won't actually solve the problem you want solved. Again, there is nothing wrong with remote reps. There is nothing wrong with GCCs being propagated along support structures. Your entire issue is with how GCCs are handed out and how this is sometimes done only after the criminal has been warned, and sometimes not. You want it to always warn, no matter what the source and circumstances of that GCC.
Do you see the difference between this and the rather diffuse "solve it" you're stating? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Jaina Sunspot
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 08:39:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Tippia
Same problem here: what's wrong with RR and why does it need to be changed all of a sudden? HeIIfire11 actually managed to explain what the problem is, and it's not remote repairsà
Say what you will doesn't change the fact that this could very well be a major issue with this expansion.
Originally by: Tippia Irrelevant. You're running a remote aid module on someone with a GCC, thus you're aiding him, thus you're up for a GCC as well.
As per the current rule system yes, which is why I am bringing this up. No aid is given, a module is active at the time of the insident with no way to shut it down as per the pilots desire. This made more difficult by it considered Aid despite what the module has infact acomplished to aid them.
There is a very real contradiction of terms when considering the word Aid.
Originally by: Tippia Again, same solution, but not to the "problem" of remote reps.
Of Remote Reps and how they interact with the current GCC system, infact remote Mods in general.
Originally by: Tippia
The reason I'm being contrary here is because whenever you say "fix it!" you have to be very very clear about what "it" is or you won't actually solve the problem you want solved. Again, there is nothing wrong with remote reps. There is nothing wrong with GCCs being propagated along support structures. Your entire issue is with how GCCs are handed out and how this is sometimes done only after the criminal has been warned, and sometimes not. You want it to always warn, no matter what the source and circumstances of that GCC.
Do you see the difference between this and the rather diffuse "solve it" you're stating?
Yes which is why I suggested what I did, blacking the cycle so the pilot has the choice to reactivate is a solution to what I see as an issue. Having a switch to turn of an Auto Shutdowm sequence allows for people to repair others with a GCC as well.
If you do not find "the problem/s" in question an issue then that is no problem. I find it a potential issue and believe it will shut down pugging at the least and make it hard to be accepted into established corps. I will of course reserve judgement until the expansion is released.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 09:48:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Jaina Sunspot Say what you will doesn't change the fact that this could very well be a major issue with this expansion.
Only if people choose not to organise themselves, and the solution to that problem is for people to organise themselves.
Quote: If you do not find "the problem/s" in question an issue then that is no problem. I find it a potential issue and believe it will shut down pugging at the least and make it hard to be accepted into established corps. I will of course reserve judgement until the expansion is released.
What I'm finding is that people don't actually consider what the root problem is and that they want to "fix" consequences of that problem rather than the problem itself. The problem with this is that those perceived issues can (and often do) have other causes as well, and you don't want to solve those because they are actually doing exactly what they're supposed to do. So when you hear vague suggestions about problems and solutions in this thread ù "fix" fleets, "fix" RR, "fix" GCC ù they are all looking to solve consequences that are there for very good reasons. Fixing any of those would entail boosting highsec (and lowsec) piracy, and somehow I don't think that's the intent of the suggestionsà
At any rate, these suggestions all miss the root problem: that for some actions, you get a GCC warning popup asking you if actually want the GCC or not, whereas for others you don't. Touching anything else will have rather nasty side-effects (and even touching that one could cause some irritation unless you bring back the "never ask again" checkbox on the GCC warning dialogue). Some of the proposed solutions actually hint at what this root problem is, but it is not what's being said with the "fix X" statements.
And that is my whole point: the problems people have quoted are not problems and are working as intended. What they actually want is an addition and expansion of existing mechanics to cover a wider array of circumstances, not a "fix" to something that isn't working as it should. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 10:48:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Tippia
At any rate, these suggestions all miss the root problem: that for some actions, you get a GCC warning popup asking you if actually want the GCC or not, whereas for others you don't. Touching anything else will have rather nasty side-effects (and even touching that one could cause some irritation unless you bring back the "never ask again" checkbox on the GCC warning dialogue). Some of the proposed solutions actually hint at what this root problem is, but it is not what's being said with the "fix X" statements.
Part of the problem is that the pop up will do nothing as the cycle is under way and CONCORD will come.
What is needed is a immediate cut-off for the helping modules as soon as the other guy reply "yes, I will fire on X" or as soon as he fire on x if he has disabled the warning.
Probably there is a problem with the processing of the orders by the server.
To make it work it should go in this order:
You want to fire -> Yes -> Cut-off of helping modules -> effect of the helping modules stop (so that the guy firing don't benefit from them when firing) -> guy fire -> CONCORD
The possible problem with that is that with the server working a 1 tick per second it could be a "long" process (2-4 seconds), generating problems in other situations (like gatecamps).
|
Jaina Sunspot
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 11:04:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Tippia Only if people choose not to organise themselves, and the solution to that problem is for people to organise themselves.
Creating a system distrustful of new blood. This will effect newer players both to the game and the corp from entering into the content. The Risk of a massive breakdown of Logistics combined with tackle will wreck the entire fleet, there is something there to be paranoid about and having this develope into cliques is bad all around.
Originally by: Tippia
At any rate, these suggestions all miss the root problem: that for some actions, you get a GCC warning popup asking you if actually want the GCC or not, whereas for others you don't. Touching anything else will have rather nasty side-effects (and even touching that one could cause some irritation unless you bring back the "never ask again" checkbox on the GCC warning dialogue). Some of the proposed solutions actually hint at what this root problem is, but it is not what's being said with the "fix X" statements.
It is a problem but with this new expansion it comes to a forefront as the heavy involvement of Logistics. Before that this was never an issue because the enemy has never been a strictly regulated fleet in a spcific context where a breakdown such as this could lead to heavy loses so quickly.
It is not suprising a localized fix is what most are suggesting instead of questioning the direct aggro/GCC mechanics.
Originally by: Tippia
And that is my whole point: the problems people have quoted are not problems and are working as intended. What they actually want is an addition and expansion of existing mechanics to cover a wider array of circumstances, not a "fix" to something that isn't working as it should.
And I do not blame them, situations has changed from the players point of veiw with this logi heavy expansion.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |