| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Leon Saandghar
Gallente
Bionesis Technologies
Electus Matari
   |
Posted - 2009.12.10 21:21:00 -
[241]
Supported
|
Tozmeister
Digital Fury Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.12.10 22:30:00 -
[242]
Edited by: Tozmeister on 10/12/2009 22:30:36
 Originally by: Leon Saandghar
Supported
Not if you don't tick the support idea/discussion box you haven't
Edit=typo
+++????+++Out of Cheese Error. Redo From Start+++ |
Vladimir Ilych
Gradient
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 18:43:00 -
[243]
Support the OP suggestion(s) to amend the discussed mechanic.
|
Radon Kadar
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 21:34:00 -
[244]
Support
|
Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Gradient
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 21:59:00 -
[245]
My bug report has been assigned to a defect.
The bug being that allied factions do not get standings, which results in no repercussions, not that NPCs don't shoot.
This means that this issue is officially classified as a bug, and not intended game design.
|
No Mauk'Ob
Minmatar
Murientor Tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 23:20:00 -
[246]
Edited by: No Mauk''Ob on 11/12/2009 23:23:41
My bug report that enemy militia from cross-opposed militia are not taking fire has been attached to a defect as well.
|
Darius Shakor
Minmatar
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
|
Posted - 2009.12.13 12:22:00 -
[247]
Would be interesting to get an official comment on this now.
If so then using it will be an exploit until it is fixed.
|
Tiberius Abraxus
Crowded Igloo
|
Posted - 2009.12.14 10:01:00 -
[248]
For the love of all that is good please fix FW starting with the proposed changes.
|
Marin Baator
Murientor Tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.14 18:29:00 -
[249]
Supported
FW needs a lot of love from CCP, but this would be a good start
|
Veshta Yoshida
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.14 19:09:00 -
[250]
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
My bug report has been assigned to a defect.
The bug being that allied factions do not get standings, which results in no repercussions, not that NPCs don't shoot.
This means that this issue is officially classified as a bug, and not intended game design.
Anything that is reproduced by the BH is labelled a defect, essentially just means the report has been validated and continues up the chain (at least that is how I understand the system).
If the standings not transferring is unintended game design, why have they brushed off all comments about it the past (almost) 2 years?
On a positive note, it means they have started working on fixing our worn-down home which is a good thing indeed .. fingers crossed for a massive revamp of the system and not just patch jobs to shut people up.
|
Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Gradient
|
Posted - 2009.12.14 19:30:00 -
[251]
Originally by: Veshta Yoshida
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
My bug report has been assigned to a defect.
The bug being that allied factions do not get standings, which results in no repercussions, not that NPCs don't shoot.
This means that this issue is officially classified as a bug, and not intended game design.
Anything that is reproduced by the BH is labelled a defect, essentially just means the report has been validated and continues up the chain (at least that is how I understand the system).
The usual reply is "this is by design, if you think it is bad design, please post to the features and ideas discussion forum" - if it's a bug, it's not by design.
Quote:
If the standings not transferring is unintended game design, why have they brushed off all comments about it the past (almost) 2 years?
Because the bug is not that standings avoid being shot at by NPCs, but that you can avoid the standing loss for capturing complexes by being in an allied militia. Very different things :-)
I just petitioned someone for using this, and got a standard "thank you for bringing this to our attention, we'll look into it and take the appropriate action" reply - not the "this is not an exploit bla bla" reply they usually do.
|
Gwenol Velsa
Minmatar
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.14 22:22:00 -
[252]
Arkady, can you reply to This Thread. Damar Rocarion wants to know if this has been attached to a defect and what the defect number is.
|
Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Gradient
|
Posted - 2009.12.14 22:56:00 -
[253]
Done - to repost the relevant part from there to this thread:
The definition of an "exploit" is as follows:
Quote:
You may not exploit any bug in EVE Online to gain an unfair advantage over other players. You may not communicate the existence of any exploitable bug to others directly or through a public forum. Bugs should be reported through the bug reporting tool on our website.
(Technically, we all violated the TOS because we explained the bug in various threads ;-))
I'm afraid we will not see a big news post about this being an exploit. Only very few bugs whose abuse is considered an exploit get so much attention. Hence, please do petition the abuse of this bug whenever you see it (feel free to point to the bug number above).
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.12.15 13:06:00 -
[254]
The "bug" has a very easy fix. Add the opposed allied militia to a pilots standings sheet.
That is as far as I know/understand the only reason why there is no standings penalty incurred when capturing for the aligned side ..
You see the same on a corporate level where the corporate standing (the average of employees) can be manipulated by making sure the employees have had no contact (ie. no standings entry) with a given NPC corp.
|
Alkeena
Gallente
Dynamic Solutions
|
Posted - 2009.12.15 13:30:00 -
[255]
With respect to your bug report:
It appears that the defect is simply that pilots plexing for 'off' factions aren't receiving the standings boosts that normally accompany plexing. As such, they can stay immune to NPC aggro indefinitely by hiding behind their high standings towards the plex rats. It seems that the likely fix CCP would pursue would be simply to provide the faction bonuses to off factions so you can only cap a couple plexes before the local NPCs start shooting you again. Obviously that addresses the defect, but does little to address the issue people here seem to be concerned with...
In the system proposed above, in which the only thing stopping high standing characters from plexing with impunity are the eventual standings adjustment there still exists a significant loophole which would still permit the behavior that spawned the initial complaint. In short, the same folks that are willing to alt grind plexes with high standings characters are also likely to be quite willing to use the same alts to grind the timer down to ~1 sec before leaving the plex to start another whilst a standard plexing character comes in to finish the initial plex take the standings hit/bonus. So really, such a change only represents a minor cut in plexing efficiency (you could have 4 high standings alt plexers + 1 standings mule plus a bit more warping about vs the 5 plexers the same person/corp might run now) while still leaving the door open for the same types of abuse.
Naturally, many people wouldn't consider it worth the effort. Clearly there are at least a few pilots who do consider it worthwhile or we wouldn't have this complaint in the first place.
TL;DR: Bug fix for plexing standings boost/hit makes the plex grinding that folks are railing against harder, not impossible. Keep pushing for a mechanics change if you're not happy with the current state of plexing.
|
Janiae
Thukk U
|
Posted - 2009.12.15 14:12:00 -
[256]
Supported
|
Andreus LeHane
Gallente
Mixed Metaphor
|
Posted - 2009.12.15 18:29:00 -
[257]
Originally by: Gwenol Velsa
Arkady, can you reply to This Thread. Damar Rocarion wants to know if this has been attached to a defect and what the defect number is.
Well of course he is. He and his legion of alts are all well known for using it, and if it's a bug (and therefore an exploit), he will need to do a truly legendary amount of ass-covering.
-----
|
Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Gradient
|
Posted - 2009.12.15 20:51:00 -
[258]
Just (finally!) received a response to my petition.
No, using "off-militia members" is not an exploit.
There, CCP said it. I had a rather lengthy discussion with the GM. Nothing to be done. Customer Support (the guys answering petitions) have no influence on this, they need some dev to tell them what is and what is not an exploit.
PERVS, enjoy the "creative use of game mechanics" you found (and I mean that in the best possible sense).
It would be great if this complete mess that is FW could be fixed at some point. This is getting from the silly to the grotesque.
|
Alkeena
Dynamic Solutions
|
Posted - 2009.12.15 22:32:00 -
[259]
I apparently neglected to support this with my last post.
|
Darius Shakor
Minmatar
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 10:07:00 -
[260]
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
Just (finally!) received a response to my petition.
No, using "off-militia members" is not an exploit.
There, CCP said it. I had a rather lengthy discussion with the GM. Nothing to be done. Customer Support (the guys answering petitions) have no influence on this, they need some dev to tell them what is and what is not an exploit.
PERVS, enjoy the "creative use of game mechanics" you found (and I mean that in the best possible sense).
It would be great if this complete mess that is FW could be fixed at some point. This is getting from the silly to the grotesque.
Dev comment would be nice but ultimately we all know this forum section is here to direct comment to the CSM reps.
So first I would like to see what one of them has to say by calling them out for comment. Do any of you intend to re-address this with CCP to seek a fix and declare the current use of this flawed design an exploit until the fix graces TQ?
|
Insa Rexion
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 18:31:00 -
[261]
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
Just (finally!) received a response to my petition.
No, using "off-militia members" is not an exploit.
There, CCP said it. I had a rather lengthy discussion with the GM. Nothing to be done. Customer Support (the guys answering petitions) have no influence on this, they need some dev to tell them what is and what is not an exploit.
PERVS, enjoy the "creative use of game mechanics" you found (and I mean that in the best possible sense).
It would be great if this complete mess that is FW could be fixed at some point. This is getting from the silly to the grotesque.
*puts tin foil hat on*
It's almost as if CCP want both FW fronts ruined so they can wait for enough ppl to leave in disgust and quietly close it due to "lack of player participation"
--------------------------------------------
well mannered ****ole |
Gwenol Velsa
Minmatar
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 20:52:00 -
[262]
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
Just (finally!) received a response to my petition.
No, using "off-militia members" is not an exploit.
There, CCP said it. I had a rather lengthy discussion with the GM. Nothing to be done. Customer Support (the guys answering petitions) have no influence on this, they need some dev to tell them what is and what is not an exploit.
PERVS, enjoy the "creative use of game mechanics" you found (and I mean that in the best possible sense).
It would be great if this complete mess that is FW could be fixed at some point. This is getting from the silly to the grotesque.
Don't quit Arkady.
I petitioned yesterday as well for a public announcement of this issue. the GM said there was nothing to be done as well, he couldn't confirm or deny the existence of bug #88013 as its forbidden to disclose internal communications and they can't make a public announcement as this would lead to widespread abuse of the bug  . I pointed out the existence of several threads and these 2 Assembly Hall petitions as the bug being in the public domain. He said, nothing he could do, he's only customer services.
Escalated to a Senior GM, awaiting further developments...
|
Captain Pompous
Is Right Even When He's Wrong So Deal With It
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 23:32:00 -
[263]
Not supported, keep this feature in the game to generate new and exciting strategic outcomes
---
Even though you might disagree with what I say, that doesn't automatically make me a troll. |
Sharp Feather
POS Builder Inc.
Silent Requiem
|
Posted - 2009.12.17 02:06:00 -
[264]
|
Furb Killer
|
Posted - 2009.12.17 18:52:00 -
[265]
One step in the right direction, but in reality plexing in FW needs to be completely redone. Because while this would remove the ability to use this for offensive plexing, it is still possible for defensive plexing, and not only that but also easier since then the npcs actually attack the other side.
|
Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Gradient
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 16:05:00 -
[266]
Yes. NPCs also make most "good fights" impossible - single hostile cruiser defending a major? Can't bring something that can take on a cruiser, you need a useful "blob" (at least one frigate for aggro), so you can kill the cruiser before the NPCs do too much damage. Even though that allows for very nice "single malediction defends plex against overwhelming enemies" situations (respect Vaarun!), NPCs are bad in general for pvp.
My preferred solution would be to get rid of NPCs alltogether, but add some kind of minigame to plexing so it takes a while to capture it, to avoid excessive afk alt usage.
If you want a "minimum size" for plexes ("you need a BC in fleet to capture a major!"), make it so that only that size can actually do the minigame.
Complexes should be PvP challenges. Someone saying "HAH! Here I am, throw me out!" - not something you do ideally unnoticed by the enemy.
|
Droog 1
Black Rise Inbreds
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 18:12:00 -
[267]
Originally by: Insa Rexion
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
Just (finally!) received a response to my petition.
No, using "off-militia members" is not an exploit.
There, CCP said it. I had a rather lengthy discussion with the GM. Nothing to be done. Customer Support (the guys answering petitions) have no influence on this, they need some dev to tell them what is and what is not an exploit.
PERVS, enjoy the "creative use of game mechanics" you found (and I mean that in the best possible sense).
It would be great if this complete mess that is FW could be fixed at some point. This is getting from the silly to the grotesque.
*puts tin foil hat on*
It's almost as if CCP want both FW fronts ruined so they can wait for enough ppl to leave in disgust and quietly close it due to "lack of player participation"
*also puts her tinfoil hat on*
CCP have stated on several occasions that FW should be a temporary playstyle and an introduction to pvp for new players before they head to 0.0. Making it 'good' or 'better' will severely impact CCPs vision of what we should all be doing in their sandbox. |
Faraelle Brightman
Moira.
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 19:58:00 -
[268]
It's the sandbox. There should be no "should be doing".
If it's been exploited by people on all sides, shame on them; those I know to be otherwise decent, don't do it again, mmkay? *cof*Val*cof*.
Oh, and fix it.
-----------------------
"Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies."
~CSM Prop: [url="http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threa |
Gourdo
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 15:37:00 -
[269]
I do not have the time to read this entire thread but I agree there are many issues with FW that need fixed. I personally believe there is one thing that they can do to fix a lot of the standing issues which can be very simple to do.
Make the Militia basically a NPC Alliance. And have it so that regardless of the enemy standings (which ever side they are on) Faction fleet trigger or how ever you want to word it.
Example: Gallente FW pilot enters Amarr highsec has high Amarr standings and does not get attacked by Faction navy (current mechanics. But if the make the Militia more like a Allaince and have navy respond to all war targets then the above would be that pilot enters the as before but this time gets attacked by faction navy.
But of course then he would just warp off and log off and the Faction navy will stop going after the pilot and the pilot would just re-log and have freedom from being attacked by the faction navy since under the current mechanics the navy does not respond to war targets logging into a system only entering the system. This is as by design not a bug or exploit and supported by the GMs' (direct representatives of CCP)
By making the Militias' more of a alliance and making it so that the NPC navy attack all wt regardless of the targets standings it would solve many of the standing issues with both the plexs and pilots entering enemy high sec systems where they have high standing and not being attacked. It would also help with the plexing standing issue.
Also by doing this it would make the individual corps that are in FW be more part of the militia in general by allowing other militia pilots and corps to support them while they are being war dec'ed by the big alliances. It would make it so that if a none FW corp/ alliance wants to war dec a FW corp they would have to war dec the militia as a alliance (the faction navy not getting involved in such matters). This would also allow other members of the militia to support thier comrades in arms. Which in my opinion should be possable but is not under current mech of the game. The militia would not be able to claim any sov since they would be a NPC alliance.
The other option to the wardecing issue would be to make it so a FW pilot being killed weather in a wardec or not give a faction hit to the pilot(s) killing the fw pilot.
That is all for now 2 year old keeps trying to climb in my lap to play with the computer and she is stinky so i have to go for now.
|
Gourdo
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.01.07 11:32:00 -
[270]
friendly bump
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |