Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
1088
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 17:43:00 -
[31] - Quote
So:
1) You have a weapon set to automatically attack anyone who shoots you 2) Someone shoots you 3) Your weapon automatically attacks them 4) You gain the appropriate timer for having attacked a person you're not at war with 5) You get incredibly butthurt about it.
Exactly what part of this is the part that shouldn't happen? |
Nex apparatu5
Friendship is Podding Test Alliance Please Ignore
461
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 17:44:00 -
[32] - Quote
Zilero wrote:The difference here being it was a deliberate action caused by said wartargets. I guess nobody can see that so I'll just shut up now .
The enemy set your drones to aggressive? |
Zilero
The Littlest Hobos Whores in space
46
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 17:46:00 -
[33] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:So:
1) You have a weapon set to automatically attack anyone who shoots you 2) Someone shoots you 3) Your weapon automatically attacks them 4) You gain the appropriate timer for having attacked a person you're not at war with 5) You get incredibly butthurt about it.
Exactly what part of this is the part that shouldn't happen?
The part where wartargets and "someone" worked together.
Either remove hisec or fix **** like this :P. |
Ginger Barbarella
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1179
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 17:50:00 -
[34] - Quote
Tempted to do the whole "lrn2eve" thing, but this one is just too easy. "Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." -á --- Sorlac |
baltec1
Bat Country
5394
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 17:51:00 -
[35] - Quote
Zilero wrote:The difference here being it was a deliberate action caused by said wartargets.
That relied upon you lot to react in a certain way to work. Its a viable tactic that has a counter. |
Zilero
The Littlest Hobos Whores in space
46
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 17:53:00 -
[36] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Zilero wrote:The difference here being it was a deliberate action caused by said wartargets.
That relied upon you lot to react in a certain way to work. Its a viable tactic that has a counter.
Yup, I agree - viable tactic (apparently), I will personally consider it an exploit of a flawed game mechanic, others may do as they choose.
Of course its simple to adapt to these kinda tactics . |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
1088
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 17:56:00 -
[37] - Quote
It doesn't really matter if you personally consider something an exploit because your opinion is irrelevant to everyone else in the game. |
baltec1
Bat Country
5394
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 17:57:00 -
[38] - Quote
Zilero wrote:Yup, I agree - viable tactic (apparently), I will personally consider it an exploit of a flawed game mechanic, others may do as they choose. Of course its simple to adapt to these kinda tactics .
The bears think that suicide ganking is an expolit, dispite the fact that it relies upon the target doing something daft like putting 500 mil in an untanked badger and auto piloting.
You look just as daft as those bears right now insisting this is some sort of exploit. |
Zilero
The Littlest Hobos Whores in space
46
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 17:58:00 -
[39] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Zilero wrote:Yup, I agree - viable tactic (apparently), I will personally consider it an exploit of a flawed game mechanic, others may do as they choose. Of course its simple to adapt to these kinda tactics . The bears think that suicide ganking is an expolit, dispite the fact that it relies upon the target doing something daft like putting 500 mil in an untanked barge and auto piloting. You look just as daft as those bears right now insisting this is some sort of exploit.
Don't really care if I look daft - I'm already mentally unstable . |
NEONOVUS
Saablast Followers
386
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 18:06:00 -
[40] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Zilero wrote:Yup, I agree - viable tactic (apparently), I will personally consider it an exploit of a flawed game mechanic, others may do as they choose. Of course its simple to adapt to these kinda tactics . The bears think that suicide ganking is an expolit, dispite the fact that it relies upon the target doing something daft like putting 500 mil in an untanked badger and auto piloting. You look just as daft as those bears right now insisting this is some sort of exploit. I use a Mammoth not a badger.
Please dont run a search on me.
But really I am curious under what circumstances is corp logi free to act in hisec? |
|
Jules Wolfpack
Infinite Singularity.
8
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 18:11:00 -
[41] - Quote
Zilero wrote:Of course its simple to adapt to these kinda tactics .
Now if only you would have started with this line of reasoning before posting, you could have saved yourself a bit of typing.
|
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
265
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 18:21:00 -
[42] - Quote
NEONOVUS wrote:But really I am curious under what circumstances is corp logi free to act in hisec?
If the corp/alliance in question is at war, then in-corp/alliance logi is allowed to rep a fellow member when they have a PVP flag, without going suspect. In practice, this means that you can rep your fellow members against war targets or fellow members without going suspect. If the person being repped has a Suspect flag, a Criminal flag, or a Limited Engagement flag, repping them will result in the logistics going suspect.
This contrasts to neutral RR, which will also go suspect when repping a player who is both at war and has a PVP flag (from being engaged by or with either corp mates or a valid war target). |
Jill Xelitras
Xeltec services Russian International Allegiance
75
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 18:33:00 -
[43] - Quote
Zilero wrote: Its quite obvious - CCP do not think hisec warfare should in any way be viable when the mechanics work like this.
Absolutely right ! I therefore propose:
1) remove all pvp from high-sec.
2) remove all high-sec.
... ok that wasn't 100% serious, since noobs need some highsec place to start in.
Maybe disallow combat ships able to wield anything bigger than medium turrets and heavy missile launchers in high-sec. Now, that would drive people to low-sec .
EVE Racing (currently on hold) |
Zilero
The Littlest Hobos Whores in space
46
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 18:37:00 -
[44] - Quote
Jill Xelitras wrote:Zilero wrote: Its quite obvious - CCP do not think hisec warfare should in any way be viable when the mechanics work like this.
Absolutely right ! I therefore propose: 1) remove all pvp from high-sec. 2) remove all high-sec. ... ok that wasn't 100% serious, since noobs need some highsec place to start in. Maybe disallow combat ships able to wield anything bigger than medium turrets and heavy missile launchers in high-sec. Now, that would drive people to low-sec .
I fully agree with this |
Zilero
The Littlest Hobos Whores in space
46
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 18:38:00 -
[45] - Quote
Jules Wolfpack wrote:Zilero wrote:Of course its simple to adapt to these kinda tactics . Now if only you would have started with this line of reasoning before posting, you could have saved yourself a bit of typing.
I already knew how to counter it before posting. I still think the mechanic should be changed, but hey - I got enough -10 alts that I can abuse this myself. |
baltec1
Bat Country
5395
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 18:42:00 -
[46] - Quote
NEONOVUS wrote:
But really I am curious under what circumstances is corp logi free to act in hisec?
Whenever it wants to. |
Wodensun
ZeroSec
55
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 18:52:00 -
[47] - Quote
Zilero wrote:Feledain wrote:Zilero wrote: 2. That someone gets concorded and if anyone on your side shoots and/or scrams or in other ways attack this guy you get a limited engagement timer .
Just dont shoot back? Concord takes care of these fast enough. Show me where on the "auto aggro" drone setting I have the possibility to avoid attacking a criminal shooting me? Oh, I don't - ergo: Auto aggro drone settings coupled with suicide shooting + limited engagement timer = exploit.
Utter bullshit.. learn what a exploit is before mouth breathing.
You don't have to shoot the GCCer. You don't have to set drones to auto agro.
/thread. |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
265
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 19:07:00 -
[48] - Quote
You guys just made my day by declaring war on us. I look forward to our week together! |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
2879
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 19:11:00 -
[49] - Quote
Zilero wrote:This was done deliberately twice in the last 30 minutes when engaging wartargets. And you fell for it both times? Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
1634
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 19:36:00 -
[50] - Quote
Adriel Malakai wrote:Zilero wrote:This was done deliberately twice in the last 30 minutes when engaging wartargets.
Do the math.
Getting a flag where you can not be remote repped for shooting a criminal is a wrong mechanic and open for abuse. Again, this is a problem with your pilots being dumb, not with the mechanics. No one is forcing you to shoot the dude going GCC. No one is forcing you to get that LE timer. Your own choices to get on a mail are having an adverse impact on your ability to engage your war targets. Don't be an killwhore, and it won't be a problem. Otherwise, learn to deal with suspect reps - it's really not that difficult. EDIT: To add to this, I don't think they can disable this even if they tried, as the LE is the mechanic that allows you to legally engage the criminals in the first place. Crimewatch 2.0 has some goofy ways of handling things, I agree, but the reality is that it is your own choices and/or incompetence that is making this a problem for you. And, more importantly, suspect reps are pretty much a non-issue anywhere that is not a major trade hub. Actually the last is not quite true. Someone who has a criminal flag can be freely attacked by anyone already. He can also freely attack back with no further consequences, and can freely attack anyone giving RR without any further consequences. Its not clear why any of this should set a limited engagement flag. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
2881
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 21:30:00 -
[51] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Actually the last is not quite true. Someone who has a criminal flag can be freely attacked by anyone already. He can also freely attack back with no further consequences, and can freely attack anyone giving RR without any further consequences. Its not clear why any of this should set a limited engagement flag. It all relies on LE flagging, which replaced the old aggression system and all its screwiness.
Without the LE, suspects and criminals would not be able to return fire. Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
155
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 23:09:00 -
[52] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:Actually the last is not quite true. Someone who has a criminal flag can be freely attacked by anyone already. He can also freely attack back with no further consequences, and can freely attack anyone giving RR without any further consequences. Its not clear why any of this should set a limited engagement flag. It all relies on LE flagging, which replaced the old aggression system and all its screwiness. Without the LE, suspects and criminals would not be able to return fire.
LE is still a flawed mechanic. It's better than the old system, but still screwy. If the LE target can be engaged Legally (I.E. Suspect/War Target/GCC) by the logistics, then they shouldn't go suspect for repping someone, but become part of the LE.
This means the Logistics has consequences which are THE SAME as if they had shot at the LE Target.
Where as currently the consequences are WORSE than if they had attacked the target.
This isn't about 'no consequences' but about standardising consequences across the board. Yes, it does mean the LE's spread. Which is supposedly one of the issues in the old system. But they spread globaly at that point, everyone involved can shoot at everyone, rather than a tangled web, you just have two sides to the fight all of whom have the same LE's (assuming targets are legal to each other) If the Logistics couldn't shoot the LE target, then they go suspect just like now, since..... they would go suspect, or worse even GCC if they shot the target. Personally I have no issue if the flip side is repping someone in an LE made you go GCC if you couldn't shoot the target. It should be counted the same as if you shot at the target in the first place. Regardless of which way around it is. |
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts. Break-A-Wish Foundation
599
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 00:57:00 -
[53] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:LE is still a flawed mechanic. It's better than the old system, but still screwy. If the LE target can be engaged Legally (I.E. Suspect/War Target/GCC) by the logistics, then they shouldn't go suspect for repping someone, but become part of the LE.
This means the Logistics has consequences which are THE SAME as if they had shot at the LE Target.
Where as currently the consequences are WORSE than if they had attacked the target.
Did you read any of the devblogs/forum threads/rants prior to retribution? People b*tched about neutral reps, so they got the heavy hammer in the engagement timers.
As it currently stands, logi going suspect instead of gaining an LE is what they specifically intended to occur. I'm Denzel Washington. |
Feledain
Rorqual Industry Empire Monkey Circus
27
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 04:14:00 -
[54] - Quote
On a second thought... seems to be a problem with the drone AI, maybe they should not attack if it results in a limited engagement while on green.
The safety was on green, right? |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
1635
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 04:22:00 -
[55] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:Actually the last is not quite true. Someone who has a criminal flag can be freely attacked by anyone already. He can also freely attack back with no further consequences, and can freely attack anyone giving RR without any further consequences. Its not clear why any of this should set a limited engagement flag. It all relies on LE flagging, which replaced the old aggression system and all its screwiness. Without the LE, suspects and criminals would not be able to return fire. I agree its needed for suspects. But Criminals? They got seconds before CONCORD kills them. During that time they can shoot ANYONE and it makes no difference as to what happens to them. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Tysinger
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
50
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 04:53:00 -
[56] - Quote
Hello, my name is Tysinger. I am looking forward to long walks on the beach with all of you. Maybe even go further? mmmmmmm |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
275
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 04:58:00 -
[57] - Quote
Feledain wrote:On a second thought... seems to be a problem with the drone AI, maybe they should not attack if it results in a limited engagement while on green.
The safety was on green, right?
Green just restricts you from committing actions that make you go suspect or criminal. It's completely legal to shoot criminals and suspects, and you can do so while set green. |
Arronicus
Vintas Industries Mistakes Were Made.
272
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 05:54:00 -
[58] - Quote
Came to the thread looking for an interesting new exploit, found only pilot incomptence and tears over inability to properly pilot a ship. If you have your drones on aggressive during wardecs, YOU DESERVE TO DIE. If you shoot GCCs/suspects during wardecs, YOU DESERVE TO DIE. If you are relying on RR to save you from wartargets, and your enemies outsmart you:
YOU DESERVE TO DIE.
(Dieing = losing ship and getting podded, for those of you who don't understand the difference between a comment on eve, and RL suicide comments.) |
NEONOVUS
Saablast Followers
387
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 14:17:00 -
[59] - Quote
Tysinger wrote:Hello, my name is Tysinger. I am looking forward to long walks on the beach with all of you. Maybe even go further? mmmmmmm Wrong thread dude. Besides all the beaches near me are on fire or will be when my ClF3 arrives. I wanted to make them all glass in time for the summer. |
Zilero
The Littlest Hobos Whores in space
46
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 17:12:00 -
[60] - Quote
Feledain wrote:On a second thought... seems to be a problem with the drone AI, maybe they should not attack if it results in a limited engagement while on green.
The safety was on green, right?
Safety was green yes. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |