Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jalequin
StarHunt
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 16:19:00 -
[1] - Quote
During yesterdays' mining I was mining along side an Orca who was in a different fleet. Moments into this session I was ganked. When I was engaged, as usual the ganker glowed the criminal flag and triggered Concord.
I noticed that when my aggressive drones responded into shooting him, we were flagged into a Limited Engagement; now, this did not stop Concord from poping him, but it prevented the non-hostile Orca from repping my shield. Because I was in 'legal' out-of-fleet engagement with the ganker, the orca would have also been flagged into a Limited Engagement with the ganker. The Limited Engage would then last well into minutes after Concord pops the ganker ship.
Proposition: Disable the Limited Engagement flag if shooting a Concord-triggered criminal. Allow ganking victims to be freely repped by neutral players without the risk of being engaged vs the ganker. The hot tub is cool now, but they poisoned it. Then they started clapping for the mad cow until someone sold him. When they died, they had him stuffed -like that water buffalo, stuffed-. |
Drake Doe
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
25
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 16:25:00 -
[2] - Quote
I disagree, providing logistics is a bit like using tracking disruptors against said ganker. |
Jalequin
StarHunt
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 16:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
Understand that the ganker is approaching the victim with evil intentions in high-sec. His aggression already triggered Concord. Why should any response from the victim, or other bystanders trigger a Limited Engage with the ganker that would last minutes after the gank? Allow the public to provide support for the victim.
Drake Doe wrote:I disagree, providing logistics is a bit like using tracking disruptors against said ganker.
The hot tub is cool now, but they poisoned it. Then they started clapping for the mad cow until someone sold him. When they died, they had him stuffed -like that water buffalo, stuffed-. |
Parsival
Metafarmers
5
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 16:44:00 -
[4] - Quote
No.
Because engaging in PvP with absolute immunity via a game mechanic is wrong, and Remote Repping someone in that situation is PvP. |
Jalequin
StarHunt
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 16:54:00 -
[5] - Quote
Parsival wrote:No.
Because engaging in PvP with absolute immunity via a game mechanic is wrong, and Remote Repping someone in that situation is PvP. But in this situation it is (to Concord standards) an illegal PvP engagement. The ganker is individually flagged as a threat . Players nearby should be allowed to provide support for the victim while Concord arrives. Note that I'm not advocating that everynone allowed to shoot the ganker without consequence, but rather to use support modules on the victim. The hot tub is cool now, but they poisoned it. Then they started clapping for the mad cow until someone sold him. When they died, they had him stuffed -like that water buffalo, stuffed-. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
1622
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 16:57:00 -
[6] - Quote
Parsival wrote:No.
Because engaging in PvP with absolute immunity via a game mechanic is wrong, and Remote Repping someone in that situation is PvP. The ones doing the RR would not have absolute immunity. They would have exactly the same vulnerability as the gank victim to exactly the same form of attack: Suicide gank.
The suicide gankers keep saying the victims should be bringing help to fend off the gank, that the reason ganking works is because they are using cooperative game play against someone doing solo game play. OK, so put your rules support where your mouth is. Make it easier for aid to be given to victims.
Supported. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Arduemont
Tempest Legion Corcoran State
1230
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 16:58:00 -
[7] - Quote
Jalequin wrote:Parsival wrote:No.
Because engaging in PvP with absolute immunity via a game mechanic is wrong, and Remote Repping someone in that situation is PvP. But in this situation it is (to Concord standards) an illegal PvP engagement. The ganker is individually flagged as a threat . Players nearby should be allowed to provide support for the victim while Concord arrives. Note that I'm not advocating that everynone allowed to shoot the ganker without consequence, but rather to use support modules on the victim.
They can easily provide support. The guy is going to die anyway. Do you think he could somehow take the Orca aswell? Just dock the Orca up afterwards until the limited engagement ends. Is it really that much of a hardship to save a fellow player?
Having said all of the above, the chap posting before me has it about right really. Suicide ganking is no effort risk free PvP, god forbid someone might be able to do something about it.
Frankly though, it's a non issue for the reason I stated initially. Just rep them. Who cares about the limited engagement? He can't tackle you in his pod. "In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." |
Rroff
The Xenodus Initiative. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
208
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 17:01:00 -
[8] - Quote
Its actually quite hilarious - seen so many people lose logis over the last couple of weeks because they didn't realise it now works like that. |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
396
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 17:05:00 -
[9] - Quote
I agree, its a dumb mechanic.
Concord is coming to assist the person, but if anyone else assists them, then concord decides they can go F themselves?
I fully support maintaining the Concord protection of anyone that assists a victim that concord itself will assist.
If the gankers don't like it, then they can get some tornados, and gank the orca before ganking the mining barge. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
1623
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 17:16:00 -
[10] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:Jalequin wrote:Parsival wrote:No.
Because engaging in PvP with absolute immunity via a game mechanic is wrong, and Remote Repping someone in that situation is PvP. But in this situation it is (to Concord standards) an illegal PvP engagement. The ganker is individually flagged as a threat . Players nearby should be allowed to provide support for the victim while Concord arrives. Note that I'm not advocating that everynone allowed to shoot the ganker without consequence, but rather to use support modules on the victim. They can easily provide support. The guy is going to die anyway. Do you think he could somehow take the Orca aswell? ........ No, but anyone else around could. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
|
Arduemont
Tempest Legion Corcoran State
1231
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 17:18:00 -
[11] - Quote
Also, right... You wouldn't have this problem if you didn't have your drones set to auto assist. Having your drone on auto assist is a really stupid thing for a miner to do. "In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." |
Arduemont
Tempest Legion Corcoran State
1231
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 17:21:00 -
[12] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Arduemont wrote:
They can easily provide support. The guy is going to die anyway. Do you think he could somehow take the Orca aswell? ........
No, but anyone else around could.
In which case there is a mistake in the OP.
Quote:the orca would have also been flagged into a Limited Engagement with the ganker
It wouldn't be a limited engagement, they would just become a suspect. If this is true, as you say, then it definately needs fixing. It's just retarted that they should enter into being a suspect for aiding someone against someone with a criminal flag. Although you still wouldn't have this problem if you didn't have your drone on auto assist. "In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." |
Drake Doe
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
25
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 17:24:00 -
[13] - Quote
Jalequin wrote:Drake Doe wrote:I disagree, providing logistics is a bit like using tracking disruptors against said ganker. Understand that the ganker is approaching the victim with evil intentions in high-sec. His aggression already triggered Concord. Why should any response from the victim, or other bystanders trigger a Limited Engage with the ganker that would last minutes after the gank? Allow the public to provide support for the victim. The cause of the battle should be what determines if repping would have risks or not. During the 3-19 seconds while Concord is comming, the public should be allowed to save the victim without any flagging penalty. Again, repping directly effects the outcome of the gank and therefore should be penalized |
Arduemont
Tempest Legion Corcoran State
1232
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 17:30:00 -
[14] - Quote
Drake Doe wrote:Jalequin wrote:Drake Doe wrote:I disagree, providing logistics is a bit like using tracking disruptors against said ganker. Understand that the ganker is approaching the victim with evil intentions in high-sec. His aggression already triggered Concord. Why should any response from the victim, or other bystanders trigger a Limited Engage with the ganker that would last minutes after the gank? Allow the public to provide support for the victim. The cause of the battle should be what determines if repping would have risks or not. During the 3-19 seconds while Concord is comming, the public should be allowed to save the victim without any flagging penalty. Again, repping directly effects the outcome of the gank and therefore should be penalized
I personally wouldn't mind if it caused a limited engagement, but it seems it causes a suspect flag, which is just ridiculous.
"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." |
Drake Doe
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
25
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 17:41:00 -
[15] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:Drake Doe wrote:Jalequin wrote:Drake Doe wrote:I disagree, providing logistics is a bit like using tracking disruptors against said ganker. Understand that the ganker is approaching the victim with evil intentions in high-sec. His aggression already triggered Concord. Why should any response from the victim, or other bystanders trigger a Limited Engage with the ganker that would last minutes after the gank? Allow the public to provide support for the victim. The cause of the battle should be what determines if repping would have risks or not. During the 3-19 seconds while Concord is comming, the public should be allowed to save the victim without any flagging penalty. Again, repping directly effects the outcome of the gank and therefore should be penalized I personally wouldn't mind if it caused a limited engagement, but it seems it causes a suspect flag, which is just ridiculous. To me using outside help validates this, it's similar to having a small gang on standby while claiming for the battle to be 1v1. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Unclaimed.
1335
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 17:59:00 -
[16] - Quote
Sooo... if a logi type, (be it orca or any boat equipped with repping ability), needs to rep someone, it is important that they first attempt DPS against the target that is causing their allies harm.
For the orca, I am thinking have it carry a couple of drones, and have them 'defend mode' the ships it would want to rep. (Send 1 drone to each, this is a token item used only to open that goofy engagement) Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
1624
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 18:13:00 -
[17] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:Arduemont wrote:
They can easily provide support. The guy is going to die anyway. Do you think he could somehow take the Orca aswell? ........
No, but anyone else around could. In which case there is a mistake in the OP. Quote:the orca would have also been flagged into a Limited Engagement with the ganker It wouldn't be a limited engagement, they would just become a suspect. If this is true, as you say, then it definately needs fixing. It's just retarted that they should enter into being a suspect for aiding someone against someone with a criminal flag. Although you still wouldn't have this problem if you didn't have your drone on auto assist. You can also keep from having the Orca get a suspect flag by keeping the safety on green. But that is not the issue. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
27
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 19:47:00 -
[18] - Quote
the problem is not in flagging but in miner's drones that werent retracted on aggro. Should miner retract/scoop his drones and not engage in combat - Orca pilot would have aided without any problems. |
sabre906
Old Spice Syndicate Sailors of the Sacred Spice
764
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 19:58:00 -
[19] - Quote
+1
Despite what the trolls want to believe, this is an oversight, and not intentional move by CCP to give you aggro for firing back upon GCC trigger. CCP has already stated that you won't get aggro for firing back upon GCC trigger (go read notes), yet you do, indicating it being an oversight.
Petition it. You may actually get your hulk reimbursed by claiming the RRs would've save it (which it wouldn't). Standings Improvement Service https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=19454 |
Parsival
Metafarmers
6
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 07:54:00 -
[20] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:Suicide ganking is no effort risk free PvP, god forbid someone might be able to do something about it.
Risk free? The ganker is guaranteed to lose his ship (potentially without getting the kill anyway), they take a big sec status hit, they give their target a free shot for the next month through kill rights and using the OP's logic they suffer the awful penalty of having to dock for fear of being shot at because of criminal flag.... oh the horror
|
|
Karig'Ano Keikira
State War Academy Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 11:44:00 -
[21] - Quote
If i understood it correctly, it goes like this: -> B (miner) is attacked by A (ganker) => A gets criminal flag; as result, being a criminal, A can now be shot by everyone and concord is on its way to pop him; everyone who shoots A will not get suspect flag or criminal flag -> at this moment, C (orca) assists A by repairing him and gets suspect flag? <--* -> however if C (orca) attacks A (say by drones), he gets no suspect flag *: imo, this makes no sense at all and if it is true, it is either totally unintuitive weird mechanic (and new Crimewatch is supposed to get rid of these), bug or an oversight :( |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
12953
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 12:45:00 -
[22] - Quote
No.
Remote Reps are far too powerful to be allowed in that way, and it will be exploited to no end. Getting rid of their penalty-free use was one of the best things that ever happened to the game.
Your entire problem was that your drones aggressed GÇö that's what you need to fix.
Karig'Ano Keikira wrote:If i understood it correctly, it goes like this: -> B (miner) is attacked by A (ganker) => A gets criminal flag; as result, being a criminal, A can now be shot by everyone and concord is on its way to pop him; everyone who shoots A will not get suspect flag or criminal flag
-> at this moment, C (orca) assists A by repairing him and gets suspect flag? <--* -> however if C (orca) attacks A (say by drones), he gets no suspect flag No.
Your starred line is incorrect.
What happens is -> at this moment, B daftly decides to attack A, triggering a limited engagement. -> C (Orca), then assists B, thereby getting a suspect flag for interfering with that limited engagement (had C assisted A, he would have gotten a criminal flag instead). Had he attacked A, he too would have started a (separate) limited engagement. Vote Malcanis for CSM8. |
Alice Saki
Suddenly Spaced Out Suddenly Spaceships.
30962
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 12:49:00 -
[23] - Quote
I agree with OP, I'm all for ganking but it seems fair a Neutral would help out someone in distress without penalty. I lack any Moral Fiber :D PvP Pilots Click Below ^_^ https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207115&find=unread |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6942
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 13:13:00 -
[24] - Quote
nope ~*a proud belligerent undesirable*~ TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
14156
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 13:15:00 -
[25] - Quote
NO. The issue here, was his drones attacking the ganker.
Vote Malcanis for CSM 8 |
GreenSeed
229
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 13:15:00 -
[26] - Quote
there's nothing wrong with the way it is now, just don't have drones out and you can get all the reps you want. you can even have a logistics ships perma repping you.... oh and mine in a skiff. (never hurts to mention that) |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6942
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 13:15:00 -
[27] - Quote
This is exactly the type of nonsense that made the previous iteration of crimewatch so wretched. Shoot your main with a disposable alt, use RR risk-free while wartargets are shooting your main and... yeah, "get thee hence" ~*a proud belligerent undesirable*~ TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6942
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 13:17:00 -
[28] - Quote
I mean I realize that most hiseccers can't stand the thought of being shot without penalty while engaging in PvP in every sense of the word but that doesn't mean that CCP needs to cater to your risk-averse playstyle ~*a proud belligerent undesirable*~ TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Jalequin
StarHunt
5
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 13:40:00 -
[29] - Quote
Since some of you are blaming the drones for the engagement flag then, an alternative for this would be to set automatic drone retaliation a suspect level action (orange safety).
Ergo: If your drones are set to aggressive before being ganked, and your safety is green, the drones will not engage the ganker; hence not triggering the Limited Engage flag and freely allow remote repping. For the drones to attack the ganker, safety would need to be orange.
As the current system stands, if the victim retaliates in any way then he is locked into a 1v1 and anyone who provites repping will be flagged a suspect. Don't punish the victim.
P.S *Simply 'not having drones out aggressive' is not an option. Please don't make mining even more tediously boring than it already is by forcing us to stare waiting for rats to spawn. The hot tub is cool now, but they poisoned it. Then they started clapping for the mad cow until someone sold him. When they died, they had him stuffed -like that water buffalo, stuffed-. |
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
992
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 13:45:00 -
[30] - Quote
Jalequin wrote:During yesterdays' mining I was mining along side an Orca who was in a different fleet. Moments into this session I was ganked. When I was engaged, as usual the ganker glowed the criminal flag and triggered Concord.
I noticed that when my aggressive drones responded into shooting him, I was flagged into a Limited Engagement; now, this did not stop Concord from poping him, but it prevented the non-hostile Orca from repping my shield. Because my drones' response triggered a 'legal' 1v1 engagement with the ganker, the orca would have also been flagged into a Limited Engagement /Suspect with the ganker if he had decided to provide me with shield rep.
The Limited Engage for both the victim and Orca would then last well into minutes after Concord pops the ganker ship; effectively forcing the Orca to dock for the duration of the 5-minute engagement countdown -the Orca is being punished for attempting to save me from what is (by Concord standards) an illegal PvP event.
Proposition: Disable the Limited Engagement flag if the victim is defending himself against a Concord-triggered criminal. Allow ganking victims to be freely repped by neutral players without the risk of being engaged vs the ganker nor to the gankers' fleet, or receive any form of flagging.
No, don't be stupid. Invulnerable neutral RR is bullshit.
If you don't want to get flagged then don't sit with drones out that are set to aggressive. Simple. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |