Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Ghaylenty
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 22:41:00 -
[211]
situations like this in the past have always marked the beginning of a one way trip downhill for games. it sets the playerbase up to emotionally disconnect from the game, which is what currently holds all of the unhappy peoples interest. i actually fly amarr |
Slimy Worm
Cyan Wolf
|
Posted - 2010.08.15 04:18:00 -
[212]
Edited by: Slimy Worm on 15/08/2010 04:20:10
Originally by: Jack Dant To be completely fair to the GMs, the reason why he got reinbursed was that his original aggro timer was extended for an hour, presumably by shooting wrecks. I guess this is the first step towards extending aggro being declared an exploit.
Wreck shooting can only extend aggro for an additional 15 minutes and only during the initial 15 minutes. Since aggro kept flipping between 7 and 9 minutes after the original 15 minutes had expired, then the ninja did something else to extend aggro or else it was a bug.
Normally, when aggro is extended by shooting wrecks, it resets to 15 minutes and in this case it kept resetting to 9 minutes. The GM probably checked the logs and confirmed that the missionbear was attacked more than thirty minutes after the initial aggro began.
CCP has not reimbursed someone for losing a ship due to wrecks being shot as the OP claims.
|
Slimy Worm
Cyan Wolf
|
Posted - 2010.08.15 08:43:00 -
[213]
double-post
|
OneTimeAt BannedSpank
Amarr Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2010.08.15 11:07:00 -
[214]
Originally by: Slimy Worm EDIT: If I'm wrong and it's possible to extend aggro beyond one additional set of 15 minutes then forget everything I just typed.
OK
~ One million alts cant be wrong.
|
AterraX
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.08.15 11:17:00 -
[215]
Originally by: Marlona Sky Suddenly Ninja tears, best tears. I love it when care bears grief you guys.
This ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Fact of EVE forums: They will always come an anounomys alt-toon and question someones character... |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.08.15 12:51:00 -
[216]
Originally by: Slimy Worm EDIT: If I'm wrong and it's possible to extend aggro beyond one additional set of 15 minutes then forget everything I just typed.
Read this:
How to extend the 15-minute aggro on someone
It explains how to extend it up to 23 hours.
And this thread needs more ninja tears.
C'mon, ninjas. Cry some moar so CCP can finally patch this nonsense .
Grief a PVP'er. Run a mission today! |
Widemouth Deepthroat
|
Posted - 2010.08.15 14:11:00 -
[217]
I wonder if ratting RA nyx which had his aggression extended for over 5 hours and then popped by NC will get reimbursed since it is exactly the same as this.
|
K'racker
Minmatar Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2010.08.15 15:06:00 -
[218]
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1213121&page=2
CCP Gangleri Minmatar Posted - 2009.11.13 18:10:00 - [49] "We are aware of the issue of players extending the aggression between pilots by interacting with their wreck, this is being fixed."
2 weeks later dominion is released, and abandon feature is added. this may have been ccp's 'fix', but i confirmed what another poster already said in this thread: abandoning does not stop the aggro extension. i spent nearly an hour shooting/webbing/ecm'ing and remote eccm'ing a blued can, each time extending the aggro timer. note the non-aggressive module has same effect.
seem to me, clearly not an intended mechanic, abandoning does nothing, definately petitionable if you lose your ship to this *exploit*. thanks again to the op for bringing this to our, and hopefully ccp's, attention. carebear hugs for you !!
|
Dark 0verlord
Therapy. Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.08.15 15:36:00 -
[219]
Hmm well the kill is still on the kb so who cares if he got the ship back. Ninja tears truly are the sweetest.
|
Paul Clavet
Honorless Internet Jerks
|
Posted - 2010.08.15 17:35:00 -
[220]
Originally by: K'racker seem to me, clearly not an intended mechanic, abandoning does nothing, definately petitionable if you lose your ship to this *exploit*. thanks again to the op for bringing this to our, and hopefully ccp's, attention. carebear hugs for you !!
Reading comprehension. You no haz it.
The problem here is not the mechanic. The problem is that some (Senior!) GMs are calling it an "exploit", some are calling it "unintended functionality", and some are calling it simply "an unclear mechanic". If it is an exploit, SAY that it's an exploit, and we'll all move on! If it's NOT an exploit, then assure us that nobody else will get reimbursements for mechanics that are fine.
Most mission crashers, including myself, don't care one way or another how CCP rules on this, but it MUST be resolved. Having reimbursements to someone who ignored aggro undock warnings for something that GMs are currently NOT saying is an exploit is *unacceptable*. As others have said, it raises doubts about in what other circumstances CCP will reward losses from ignorance with replacement ships. ---- Blog: My Loot, Your Tears |
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.08.15 19:14:00 -
[221]
Originally by: Paul Clavet The problem here is not the mechanic. The problem is that some (Senior!) GMs are calling it an "exploit", some are calling it "unintended functionality", and some are calling it simply "an unclear mechanic". If it is an exploit, SAY that it's an exploit, and we'll all move on! If it's NOT an exploit, then assure us that nobody else will get reimbursements for mechanics that are fine.
I'll clear things up a bit for you. At the moment, and from what I have read, devs are not happy with the way this "mechanic" (aggro extension) is being used. It is on their to-do list and it will be resolved. In the mean time they are handling it on a case-by-case basis. We would all like to see a quick resolution to this issue. However and in the mean time, we'll just have to have some patience. We'll have to accept that ships will be reimbursed and all that "hard work" that ninjas put in killin' that PVE ship with their PVP ship may be in vein.
Quote: Most mission crashers, including myself, don't care one way or another how CCP rules on this, but it MUST be resolved. Having reimbursements to someone who ignored aggro undock warnings for something that GMs are currently NOT saying is an exploit is *unacceptable*. As others have said, it raises doubts about in what other circumstances CCP will reward losses from ignorance with replacement ships.
Paul Clavet,
The pilot in question did not ignore the aggro undock warning. Read his blog. He WAITED OVER 15 MINUTES to undock. The aggro timer is supposed to be that long, assuming the pilot does not continue to aggro.
I can see your dilemma, as you prey on pilots who experience the confusion of waiting out the 15 minute timer only to have someone else continue having it extended almost indefinitely to whatever time such person chooses to.
Have patience. This will be fixed. In the mean time you may continue to cry over you not being able to make others cry. Hopefully it will speed things up a bit.
Grief a PVP'er. Run a mission today! |
Guido Innocenti
|
Posted - 2010.08.15 23:17:00 -
[222]
Oh wow, this is golden, highsec griefer cries a river over a reimbursed cnr :D
These are clearly the best tears seen ever on the forums. Send me all isk and assets while you emorage quit please. Go play hello kitty world or something if you can't handle eve ;) I'm sure they'll make sure no one can make you butthurt again ;)
Dude get over it, it's only a game, and for crying out loud, stop crying over it :D
|
OneTimeAt BannedSpank
Amarr Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2010.08.16 00:24:00 -
[223]
Eve is too hard.
~ One million alts cant be wrong.
|
Mel Lifera
Gallente Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
|
Posted - 2010.08.16 02:27:00 -
[224]
Originally by: Paul Clavet
The problem here is not the mechanic. The problem is that some (Senior!) GMs are calling it an "exploit", some are calling it "unintended functionality", and some are calling it simply "an unclear mechanic". If it is an exploit, SAY that it's an exploit, and we'll all move on! If it's NOT an exploit, then assure us that nobody else will get reimbursements for mechanics that are fine.
Most mission crashers, including myself, don't care one way or another how CCP rules on this, but it MUST be resolved. Having reimbursements to someone who ignored aggro undock warnings for something that GMs are currently NOT saying is an exploit is *unacceptable*. As others have said, it raises doubts about in what other circumstances CCP will reward losses from ignorance with replacement ships.
Exactly this. We need CCP to show a "united front", as it were, on the question of whether this is an exploit or not - because right now, the answer seems to depend on which GM you ask, and that's not cool.
We use this mechanic of aggro extension often (confirming, though, that no member of Suddenly Ninjas would sit there and extend aggro for over an hour when there's plenty of bears to bait out there). So if it's going to be officially declared an exploit, we need to know it immediately so we don't individually get banned out of the blue one day for "consistently using exploits".
|
guska Cryotank
Gallente Void Angels Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.08.16 03:28:00 -
[225]
I can't seem to find it, but I thought there was a change to the extending aggro mechanics, that only allowed the aggro to be extended for 1 or 2 more 'cycles' (ie, up to 30 or 45min).
To be truly safe, all the MR has to do is sit and wait for 2+ hours for the ninja to get bored, or all his wrecks/cans to de-spawn.
Of course, if the ninja has a salvager handy (more than likely) then the MR could be waiting 4 hours, as AFAIK the 2 hour timer is reset when a wreck is salvaged and becomes a can.
Why am I writing 'tips' for mission runners? God knows, but I'm pretty sure that any MRs that read this will have been reading C+P anyway and know that when you shoot a ninja, bad things happen.
Originally by: One of many spanks I don't speak Chinese but if my picnic cutlery snapped I wouldn't expect the manufacturers to offer English support when my birthday party is RUINED.
|
K'racker
Minmatar Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2010.08.16 12:48:00 -
[226]
Originally by: Paul Clavet
Originally by: K'racker seem to me, clearly not an intended mechanic, abandoning does nothing, definately petitionable if you lose your ship to this *exploit*. thanks again to the op for bringing this to our, and hopefully ccp's, attention. carebear hugs for you !!
Reading comprehension. You no haz it.
The problem here is not the mechanic. The problem is that some (Senior!) GMs are calling it an "exploit", some are calling it "unintended functionality", and some are calling it simply "an unclear mechanic". If it is an exploit, SAY that it's an exploit, and we'll all move on! If it's NOT an exploit, then assure us that nobody else will get reimbursements for mechanics that are fine.
Most mission crashers, including myself, don't care one way or another how CCP rules on this, but it MUST be resolved. Having reimbursements to someone who ignored aggro undock warnings for something that GMs are currently NOT saying is an exploit is *unacceptable*. As others have said, it raises doubts about in what other circumstances CCP will reward losses from ignorance with replacement ships.
there's only one gm post linked in this thread, you can haz read it again. it was scheduled to be fixed. that means it's broken. nowhere is a gm quoted saying it's "unintended functionality", "unclear mechanic", or an "exploit". i bolded my quote, you can clearly see i'm giving an opinion when i call it an exploit. you can haz read it again, and stop making stuff up.
those posters who have 0.0 history, and in-game time enough to recall this being labelled an exploit, have stated so. there, such a mechanic can't simply be waited out. and there's a lot more isk at stake, when applied to undockable supercaps.
|
Kiritsubo
Ritual Suicide
|
Posted - 2010.08.16 13:03:00 -
[227]
Originally by: K'racker
those posters who have 0.0 history, and in-game time enough to recall this being labelled an exploit, have stated so. there, such a mechanic can't simply be waited out. and there's a lot more isk at stake, when applied to undockable supercaps.
So you can't point to specific evidence and we should take your word for it cause you are older? ...Mom? Is that you? Why did you leave us?
The Dev response you linked was in regards to ships not despawning after logoffski. It is not relevant to the topic at hand.
|
K'racker
Minmatar Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2010.08.16 13:15:00 -
[228]
Originally by: Kiritsubo
Originally by: K'racker
those posters who have 0.0 history, and in-game time enough to recall this being labelled an exploit, have stated so. there, such a mechanic can't simply be waited out. and there's a lot more isk at stake, when applied to undockable supercaps.
So you can't point to specific evidence and we should take your word for it cause you are older? ...Mom? Is that you? Why did you leave us?
The Dev response you linked was in regards to ships not despawning after logoffski. It is not relevant to the topic at hand.
don't think you read the correct link.
Originally by: K'racker http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1213121&page=2
CCP Gangleri Minmatar Posted - 2009.11.13 18:10:00 - [49] "We are aware of the issue of players extending the aggression between pilots by interacting with their wreck, this is being fixed."
bolded the relevant part for you.
|
Skippermonkey
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
|
Posted - 2010.08.16 16:11:00 -
[229]
Originally by: K'racker
Originally by: CCP Gangleri
Posted - 2009.11.13 18:10:00 "We are aware of the issue of players extending the aggression between pilots by interacting with their wreck, this is being fixed."
bolded the relevant part for you.
Oh no no no, i bolded, enlarged and made purple the relevant part FOR YOU
If it was important enough 'to be fixed' it would have happened already.
Originally by: CCP Capslock
OH GOD THE TESTING
|
Plainace
|
Posted - 2010.08.16 16:34:00 -
[230]
I love purple
|
|
Kiritsubo
Ritual Suicide
|
Posted - 2010.08.16 16:59:00 -
[231]
Originally by: Skippermonkey
Originally by: K'racker
Originally by: CCP Gangleri
Posted - 2009.11.13 18:10:00 "We are aware of the issue of players extending the aggression between pilots by interacting with their wreck, this is being fixed."
bolded the relevant part for you.
Oh no no no, i bolded, enlarged and made purple the relevant part FOR YOU
If it was important enough 'to be fixed' it would have happened already.
It hasn't been 18 months yet.
|
Misanth
Reaper Industries Asset Liberation Front.
|
Posted - 2010.08.16 17:09:00 -
[232]
Originally by: Plainace I love purple
Me too. Even better Deep. - I'd tell you why but then I'll have to kill you. And to kill you I'd have to log in. And to log in I'd have to stop browsing these forums. Both you and me knows that'll never happen. |
Paul Clavet
Honorless Internet Jerks
|
Posted - 2010.08.16 17:55:00 -
[233]
A GM told me "Current available information indicates that this is not as it should be, until we have more information we will not be announcing anything nor taking action against those making use of this."
Which is close to calling it a bug as I think CCP is going to get.
http://www.mylootyourtears.com/?p=852
My confidence in CCP's customer service has never been lower, but I guess we have our answer. ---- Blog: My Loot, Your Tears |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.08.16 18:44:00 -
[234]
Originally by: Paul Clavet A GM told me "Current available information indicates that this is not as it should be, until we have more information we will not be announcing anything nor taking action against those making use of this."
Which is close to calling it a bug as I think CCP is going to get.
http://www.mylootyourtears.com/?p=852
My confidence in CCP's customer service has never been lower, but I guess we have our answer.
Ok. I read that blog of yours. As much as I enjoy watching "tear collectors" choke on their own tears I have to tell you, you need to relax and take a breather, man.
It's going to be OK. They're going to fix this. In the mean time, they're not taking action against those using this "technique". If they reimburse victims of this technique then let it just be. Just because you're not pssing people off as much as you'd like to doesn't mean it's the end of the world. I'm sure you can find other ways to grief. It'll be OK, man.
Grief a PVP'er. Run a mission today! |
Scoundrelus
The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2010.08.16 19:08:00 -
[235]
I really can't stand people like the OP. If every single person I kill petitions and gets their ship back I couldn't care less, I have the modules I killed for and that's all I need. In my opinion people who complain about others getting their ship back are just haters. Go drink some Haterade and get back to your pseudo-pvp.
|
omgfreemoniez
|
Posted - 2010.08.16 20:55:00 -
[236]
Originally by: Scoundrelus I really can't stand people like the OP. If every single person I kill petitions and gets their ship back I couldn't care less, I have the modules I killed for and that's all I need. In my opinion people who complain about others getting their ship back are just haters. Go drink some Haterade and get back to your pseudo-pvp.
Wait, you kill people so you can have their modules? That's not normal. People normally kill so the people they kill can't have their modules. If the person gets their modules back there's no point.
|
Scoundrelus
The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2010.08.16 21:24:00 -
[237]
Originally by: omgfreemoniez
Originally by: Scoundrelus I really can't stand people like the OP. If every single person I kill petitions and gets their ship back I couldn't care less, I have the modules I killed for and that's all I need. In my opinion people who complain about others getting their ship back are just haters. Go drink some Haterade and get back to your pseudo-pvp.
Wait, you kill people so you can have their modules? That's not normal. People normally kill so the people they kill can't have their modules. If the person gets their modules back there's no point.
If this is sarcasm then I'm not really seeing your point. If not then you have some messed up views. Pirates make their money off modules/ransoms and frankly dwelling on what did or did not happens to your victims after you gank them is just plain pointless.
|
Barakkus
Caelestis Iudicium
|
Posted - 2010.08.16 21:47:00 -
[238]
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 The pilot in question did not ignore the aggro undock warning. Read his blog. He WAITED OVER 15 MINUTES to undock. The aggro timer is supposed to be that long, assuming the pilot does not continue to aggro.
Unless the warning is broken, he ignored the aggro warning.
Originally by: CCP Dropbear
rofl
edit: ah crap, dev account. Oh well, official rofl at you sir.
|
Itoli Erebus
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 05:53:00 -
[239]
I don't know what is more discouraging: the GM blasting through the established rules of the game and voiding risk vs. reward, or the horde of morons cheering at this blatant game-compromising move.
|
Xia Kairui
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 07:56:00 -
[240]
Originally by: Itoli Erebus I don't know what is more discouraging: the GM blasting through the established rules of the game and voiding risk vs. reward, or the horde of morons cheering at this blatant game-compromising move.
What is compromising the game here?
This could be a win-win situation. The ninja got a CNR kill mail, the CNR drops and 150M. The mission runner got his ship back and was satisfied with that situation. Everyone should be happy. Instead a lot of people whine because this incident did not frak up someone's game experience and want someone to suffer for no reason at all except for their personal enjoyment.
Isn't THAT the definition of griefing?
Sheesh.
IMO that's the main problem with EVE: that some people cannot stand the idea of someone else enjoying themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |