EVE Search - [Proposal] change to aggression timer

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Proposal] change to aggression timer - all in or all out

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Pian Shu Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Quantum Star Alliance	Posted - 2009.06.08 19:01:00 - [1] There is a problem with station docking mechanics which results in a very common phrase "docking games". The problem is that for a capital ship, battleship or other well tanked ship it is very common that even if they aggress, they can de-aggress and still have plenty of time to dock. This makes it safe for these ships to wait by a station, aggress any target that comes into range, and have an "out" if things get too hot. I propose that if a ship aggresses, any aggression by or against that ship should extend the timer; the change here is that aggression against the ship extends the timer as well. So, if a carrier is sitting outside a station happily attacking any and all battleships which come in range, he should be prevented from docking (because he aggressed) as long as somebody is still shooting at him. It's too safe now; make it an all in or an all out situation. It's still opt-in, as the pilot has to aggress to start the timer. Please be clear that I don't advocate a pilot being prevented from docking because he is being aggressed; it is the combination of aggressing and subsequently being aggressed that should trigger this condition.
Kaito Haakkainen Caldari	Posted - 2009.06.08 19:23:00 - [2] Edited by: Kaito Haakkainen on 08/06/2009 19:24:33 [Double post]
Kaito Haakkainen Caldari	Posted - 2009.06.08 19:24:00 - [3] Just as soon as I can look out the station windows... or view the station as though I were flying it, which would likely be much easier to implement. On a separate topic, you need to make a second post to support your own idea... crazy as it is.
Pian Shu Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Quantum Star Alliance	Posted - 2009.06.08 19:35:00 - [4] Edited by: Pian Shu on 08/06/2009 19:37:18 Originally by: Kaito Haakkainen Just as soon as I can look out the station windows... or view the station as though I were flying it, which would likely be much easier to implement. On a separate topic, you need to make a second post to support your own idea... crazy as it is. I don't think you read the whole post. I don't think you should be prevented from redocking if you are attacked by a large camp upon undocking. I think you should be prevented from redocking if you undock, make an attack, and then attempt to redock. It's all hinged upon the pilot who performs an aggressive act -- if you don't, then no change from the current rules, you're free to dock. But, I'm all for knowing who's outside the station first -- that, however, is a separate topic that really has nothing to do with this topic. Edit: On a side note, I don't have to immediately post to support my post if I can count on someone to not read the original.
Drake Draconis Shadow Cadre	Posted - 2009.06.08 20:35:00 - [5] Originally by: Pian Shu Edited by: Pian Shu on 08/06/2009 19:37:18 Originally by: Kaito Haakkainen Just as soon as I can look out the station windows... or view the station as though I were flying it, which would likely be much easier to implement. On a separate topic, you need to make a second post to support your own idea... crazy as it is. I don't think you read the whole post. I don't think you should be prevented from redocking if you are attacked by a large camp upon undocking. I think you should be prevented from redocking if you undock, make an attack, and then attempt to redock. It's all hinged upon the pilot who performs an aggressive act -- if you don't, then no change from the current rules, you're free to dock. But, I'm all for knowing who's outside the station first -- that, however, is a separate topic that really has nothing to do with this topic. Edit: On a side note, I don't have to immediately post to support my post if I can count on someone to not read the original. I tend to agree...being the subject of said docking games... If your going to undock...and attack... you should be barred from redocking. Period. If you don't attack... well... still not so fun or nice but at least you didn't agress. Supported as its a bit of a quick fix. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= Dependable, Honorable, Intelligent, No-nonsense Vote Herschel Yamamoto for CSM!
Zenethalos Noir.	Posted - 2009.06.08 20:45:00 - [6]
Defy Meknought	Posted - 2009.06.08 20:56:00 - [7] .
Isaac Starstriker Solaris Operations	Posted - 2009.06.08 22:29:00 - [8] Hmm, I think that this should be implemented. Far too often is it just hit-and-run games. It should be when you attack, you either A: Warp away to run away or B: Fight it out and live/die. Current mechanics are pretty fubared on this. Support given. --Isaac Isaac's Haul*Mart - Closed
Terig Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Quantum Star Alliance	Posted - 2009.06.09 00:14:00 - [9]
Solomon XI The Estovakian Militia.	Posted - 2009.06.09 00:25:00 - [10] At first glance, this looks like a solid fix.
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.06.09 03:38:00 - [11] A firm "maybe", but I think it's worth bringing up to CCP.
Hesod Adee Dark-Rising	Posted - 2009.06.09 03:45:00 - [12]
Harotak THE FINAL STAND Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2009.06.09 03:46:00 - [13] Would just make having more people an even larger advantage.
Ivan Zhuk	Posted - 2009.06.09 05:16:00 - [14] I Я Ivan Zhuk And I approve this message
Razor Nyx	Posted - 2009.06.09 05:57:00 - [15] A definate yes
Xenophanes Colophon	Posted - 2009.06.09 07:03:00 - [16] Definitely. No station chief in his right mind would allow a ship that had begun a fight at his station to then dock within it. Make the ship run to avoid getting blown up.
Yakov Draken Minmatar Tides Of War	Posted - 2009.06.09 07:24:00 - [17] A common tactic is to bait with overwhelming force in reserve. The side baited have a chance to kill the bait and de-aggro/dockup at present. The change suggested would weight things heavily in the favor of the blob and in practice discourage combat. Another example would be you kill a ship solo in a BS on the station and as the fight is ending an intie warps in. It points you and you can't track it so you sit for 10 minutues while his gang comes to kill you. Increase the time taken to de-aggro fine but this proposal would be worse than the current situation. Not supported.
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.06.09 09:18:00 - [18] It's really broken with capitals, there is just no way to kill a carrier/dread in 60 seconds. I would support this or changing the timer based on ship size. But I am not sure if this would increase blobbing or not. People are able to kill something and de-aggress because of the aggression rule, but on the other hand people need to bring a blob to kill a BS in under 60s because of the same rule. Definitely supporting CCP re-looking at this mechanic. Nothing is more boring and unfun than lowsec docking games. Originally by: CCP Whisper So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup. Cry some more.
Kaito Haakkainen Caldari	Posted - 2009.06.09 10:28:00 - [19] Originally by: Pian Shu On a side note, I don't have to immediately post to support my post if I can count on someone to not read the original. Read the original, I simply feel that lack of intel from within station is a much more pressing concern that has a lot to do with this topic since it revolves around docking-games. Allow people to look outside and you can then have stations refuse everyone access if they're being aggressed, which to my mind is a better solution. Looking is free, you undock you opt in for PvP and the potential destruction of your ship.
Harotak THE FINAL STAND Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2009.06.09 12:34:00 - [20] Edited by: Harotak on 09/06/2009 12:36:29 The current 60 second timer for battleships and smaller is fine. Make a change for capital ships docking underfire if you want, but don't ruin the rest of the game just to nerf low-sec capital ship station games. Originally by: Vaal Erit but on the other hand people need to bring a blob to kill a BS in under 60s because of the same rule. Or you bring a small enough force that the battleship will fight you instead of just docking. Seriously, its child's play to kill battleships on stations. The only imbalance here is with remote reps not giving an aggro timer, but the proposal to change that just got approved by the CSM.
Doctor Penguin Amarr Heavy Influence Aggression.	Posted - 2009.06.09 15:10:00 - [21] Originally by: Yakov Draken A common tactic is to bait with overwhelming force in reserve. The side baited have a chance to kill the bait and de-aggro/dockup at present. The change suggested would weight things heavily in the favor of the blob and in practice discourage combat. Another example would be you kill a ship solo in a BS on the station and as the fight is ending an intie warps in. It points you and you can't track it so you sit for 10 minutues while his gang comes to kill you. Increase the time taken to de-aggro fine but this proposal would be worse than the current situation. Not supported. So you undock from the station, get baited in by a bait ship then get ganked by a gang? That's just you losing horribly. In that situation, it'd be relatively easy to keep spamming your D-scan, seeing the incoming interceptor and GTFO. Hence, the mechanics are already there to prevent this issue from nerfing solo-PVP. This would prevent PVP-lite (docking games) and allow quicker and more satisfying combat. Fully supported. (If you're going to agress without support in a hostile area on a station, you deserve to get ganked.)
Drake Draconis Minmatar Shadow Cadre	Posted - 2009.06.09 17:23:00 - [22] Again.... The point is simply this... if you intend to dock and to blow someone out of the sky then you should be prevented from redocking... end of story. Undocking to open fire and then to redock is nothing short of stupid and hiding behind a big rock. I think its wholly fair to penalize your redocking abilities when you decide to agress. It's different if you decide to pop out quickly for a peek and redock... thats not entirely nice but you didn't agress... that's the key. And just because its easy for you to blow someone up so quickly with a nice blob at your disposal doesn't mean it will be that easy for the next one... not everyone is made of money and last I checked... no one made any money on PVP'ing. Sorry for my terseness but honestly... this is so obvious its ridiculous.
maya ibuki2 THORN Syndicate Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.06.09 17:39:00 - [23] i like dis 0ok!
Yakov Draken Minmatar Tides Of War	Posted - 2009.06.09 20:36:00 - [24] Originally by: Doctor Penguin Originally by: Yakov Draken A common tactic is to bait with overwhelming force in reserve. The side baited have a chance to kill the bait and de-aggro/dockup at present. The change suggested would weight things heavily in the favor of the blob and in practice discourage combat. Increase the time taken to de-aggro fine but this proposal would be worse than the current situation. So you undock from the station, get baited in by a bait ship then get ganked by a gang? So we are sitting docked up and an enemy gang throws a tank and tackle BS out front of the station with the blob sitting next door. We know they are there, and have a lot more than us, so it now comes down to timing. We can undock, kill the BS, and then de-aggro and try to re-dock before we lose much. Maybe we succeed, maybe we fail, but either way its enough to make it worth a go. With this proposal we will stay docked as there is no way to escape the blob if they are any good at spreading points with their fast tackle ships. The point I'm making is that at present the option exists to take bait, knowing its bait, and get away with it. This makes baiting far more interesting. This proposal is a form of macho rule which in practice would simply discourage combat. It is also a massive boost for the blob and a huge knock on hit and run tactics making it a truly bad idea. I have no problem with changes to docking timers making it harder to de-aggress but the can't de-aggress idea would discourage combat.
Pian Shu Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse	Posted - 2009.06.09 21:38:00 - [25] Originally by: Yakov Draken This proposal is a form of macho rule which in practice would simply discourage combat. It is also a massive boost for the blob and a huge knock on hit and run tactics making it a truly bad idea. I have no problem with changes to docking timers making it harder to de-aggress but the can't de-aggress idea would discourage combat. The problem is that a change to a docking timer will only mean pilots employing these tactics will just fit a bigger buffer. This is a boost to small-scale combat within station ranges. I don't see how it could possibly boost blobs; a blob will have enough firepower to make the kill within the current aggression timer anyway. Aggressing and then docking is not "hit and run" it's "hit and make it impossible to hit back." There is a very big difference. Docking is a get out of jail free card. You can dock if you're warp scrambled. You can dock if you're in a bubble. Currently you can even dock if you've been naughty and firing at someone as long as you wait for a very short amount of time. The very same bait ship you talked about have a small chance to take out in time will probably just de-aggress and dock anyway (it's a bait ship, duh), so this change ensures you will get that kill and are then able to warp off before his buddies jump you. Among other problems, the current mechanics heavily penalize small ships attacking larger ships because the large ship pilot figures that if he can't make a quick kill, he can always de-aggress and dock -- and very often does so. I'm fine with a ship escaping; I'm just not fine with a ship deciding he's had enough and warp scramblers be damned he's going to dock. If you need an RP reason, then fine: in my mind, it's the station crew wiping the hands of the whole affair and saying, "You wanted a fight, you've got a fight; we're not interfering. Don't come whining to us when you've blown up." With the proposed mechanics, you can hit and run; you just can't hit and dock. This will result in more kills if possibly less combat. But what's the point of fighting if there's not going to be a kill?
Ninja Jones	Posted - 2009.06.09 21:39:00 - [26]
Kasi Kasai	Posted - 2009.06.09 21:46:00 - [27]
Grista	Posted - 2009.06.10 02:53:00 - [28] I think a better solution would be to standardize the docking radius of all stations and outposts. Get rid of the (mostly) minmatar stations that shoot you out outside of docking range. Change the Amarr factory and Caldari research outposts so undocking from them isn't suicidal. A good example of a "balanced" docking radius, I feel, is the Minmatar refinery outpost. It's possible to bump someone off of one, but it's not incredibly easy. Make all station models have a similar radius, and the problem is largely solved.
Zenethalos Minmatar Noir.	Posted - 2009.06.10 03:01:00 - [29] Originally by: Grista I think a better solution would be to standardize the docking radius of all stations and outposts. Get rid of the (mostly) minmatar stations that shoot you out outside of docking range. Change the Amarr factory and Caldari research outposts so undocking from them isn't suicidal. A good example of a "balanced" docking radius, I feel, is the Minmatar refinery outpost. It's possible to bump someone off of one, but it's not incredibly easy. Make all station models have a similar radius, and the problem is largely solved. This is an idea I can agree with. As it stands some stations are suicide, some have a 20km dock radius, and then we have the inbetweens. All stations should just be given the same docking radius. Do not make is suicide to undock, give them all say 2-2.5km dock bubble from undock and let pilot skills play more of a role.
Rajere No Trademark	Posted - 2009.06.10 03:44:00 - [30] Words cannot express how terrible this suggestion is. Honestly it's like 20% whine and 70% fail. What's ironic is there are already tactics & solutions available in game which completely counter people attempting to play station docking games. Even if you're too inept to adapt and discover the solutions on your own, all you really need to do is pay attention and learn from players who are less terrible than you, and you'll be able to kill the people playing docking games rather than QQ about it on the forums. The truth is, station games exist because the majority of you are too chicken s#@t to leave the safety of station undocks yourselves, leaving the rest of us no choice but to engage you on stations if we want to get any kind of fight out of you at all. Then you have the audacity to call us "station campers", etc. Oddly enough, my standard reply to this "Planet 1 @ 0km, whenever you manage to find your balls" is never really accepted, but at least I have the option to kill them on station when they start playing docking games. To summarize my objections to this ridiculous thread: If you don't like station games, don't engage people on stations. Pretty simple tbh.

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.