Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kelnarn Shaelingrath
|
Posted - 2011.02.27 23:01:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Kelnarn Shaelingrath on 27/02/2011 23:17:31 Edited by: Kelnarn Shaelingrath on 27/02/2011 23:14:16 Hello,
Proposal: There needs to be a fleet-wide aggression system in place in Incursion systems for fleets containing members of more than one corporation.
Here's why:
It seems to me that the normal game mechanics work just fine under normal circumstances, however, I've noticed an issue with incursions that should be addressed.
Under normal circumstances most fleets are comprised of people from the same corp when they are doing corp sponsored events or missions, so when one member of that fleet is aggressed, everyone in that fleet is considered to have been aggressed as well because of their corporate relationship.
The cause of the issue: Where the issue comes in is that you guys (CCP) have promoted the incursions under the auspice that it is to encourage people who aren't related (in game by corp or alliance ties) in any manner to work together to achieve the common goal of removing Sansha from an incurred system... That's where the kink in the armor comes into play... if one member of a fleet is being aggressed, other members of the fleet are sometimes stuck sitting there helpless to assist their friend/fleetmate, if someone comes and steals the mission item (IE civilians for example, or even the mothership's loot) then the fleet has no choice but to sit there helpless and do nothing about it while only one, or two people have the ability to retaliate. For example.. last night, a group of griefers used the mechanics of aggression to get a group of logistics pilots into an aggression situation, while the remaining 35 or 36 of us were powerless to engage them while they literally sat there unchallenged and killed our logis, also on a majority of the mom fights I've participated in, the wreck is white to me and some thief will steal the loot, but, they never turn red to me so I can at least attempt to defend and recover that which rightfully belongs to me and my fleet. I understand that thievery is a part of the dynamics of the game, but in almost EVERY other situation, gameplay allows us some form of retribution, or at least an avenue of retribution that we can pursue if we wish to, but, the incursions add another factor into the mix that for all intents and purposes negates each and every one of those options to all but a single player or two.
The Fix: I believe that a simple fix for this would be to simply allow anyone fleeted up in an incursion system to also gain aggression while fleeted together if fleeted at the time the aggression occurred and not including War Targets of other members.
Thanks for your time in this. Bill
|
Ilinx Agon
The NightClub Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
|
Posted - 2011.02.27 23:13:00 -
[2]
+1
|
Diredas
|
Posted - 2011.02.27 23:14:00 -
[3]
It should be noted, that Kelnarn is looking for the ability\option to help out fleetmates without getting concordokkened. It was a bit silly, we were sitting there for nearly an hour with 85% of the fleet unable to help the logistics chain defend against a mere four canes shooting at them, because none of us were in the same corp as any of the logi chain. If the canes blow us up as a result, that's not so bad. Yet being unable to attack or jam enemies assault fleet members is a bit, ridiculous.
We have enough hacs and bs to blow'em out of the sky, yet we're unable to do so, because of a glaring hole in concord roe mechanics.
|
Kelnarn Shaelingrath
|
Posted - 2011.02.27 23:16:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Diredas It should be noted, that Kelnarn is looking for the ability\option to help out fleetmates without getting concordokkened. It was a bit silly, we were sitting there for nearly an hour with 85% of the fleet unable to help the logistics chain defend against a mere four canes shooting at them, because none of us were in the same corp as any of the logi chain. If the canes blow us up as a result, that's not so bad. Yet being unable to attack or jam enemies assault fleet members is a bit, ridiculous.
We have enough hacs and bs to blow'em out of the sky, yet we're unable to do so, because of a glaring hole in concord roe mechanics.
+1
|
Mike Azariah
|
Posted - 2011.02.27 23:16:00 -
[5]
+1
kudos to suddenly ninjas for finding the hole in the mechanics and pointedly pointing it out to us
m
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.27 23:21:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Kelnarn Shaelingrath Under normal circumstances most fleets are comprised of people from the same corp when they are doing corp sponsored events or missions, so when one member of that fleet is aggressed, everyone in that fleet is considered to have been aggressed as well because of their corporate relationship.
What you talk about is one specific kind of aggression ù theft of corp-owned loot ù and it's a special case, not really something that's general enough to be called "normal circumstances."
Quote: a group of griefers used the mechanics of aggression to get a group of logistics pilots into an aggression situation, while the remaining 35 or 36 of us were powerless to engage them while they literally sat there unchallenged and killed our logis
This means the logi pilots did something stupid. What was it?
Also this. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Kelnarn Shaelingrath
|
Posted - 2011.02.27 23:23:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Mike Azariah +1
kudos to suddenly ninjas for finding the hole in the mechanics and pointedly pointing it out to us
m
Agreed, they had their game on and knew how to exploit it to their advantage, and I'll even give them props for it, but, I would have liked to have at least had the option to melt their ships if i had chosen to do so, and sadly, I did not have that option available to me...
:)
|
Lord Innocence
Gallente The Ditanian Fleet Excuses.
|
Posted - 2011.02.27 23:27:00 -
[8]
+1
support the Butterfly Effect
Lord
|
Diredas
|
Posted - 2011.02.27 23:28:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Diredas on 27/02/2011 23:29:11 In this case, the logistics squad was repping a logi that was an alt of one of the griefers who canflipped himself to throw all the logistics into a gcc chain. The griefer ships then started attacking the entire squad. DPS was unable to respond until a logi got shot that actually had a combat capable ship in range.
We're looking for the ability to respond to attacks against the fleet without getting concorded for doing so.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.27 23:41:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Diredas one of the griefers who canflipped himself to throw all the logistics into a gcc chain.
No. He simply transferred standard theft aggression, which is something rather different from GCC ù in fact, it's almost the exact opposite. It also has nothing to do with sharing corps.
The problem is that you're not familiar with the aggression mechanics, and the suggested solution won't actually solve your problems because you're not having the problems you think you're having (ehmmà yes, I think I got that one right ). The suggestion in the OP would actually have made the whole thing worse, since it would have meant that they could pick off the entire fleet, one ship at a time, and no-one would be able to do anything. Either that, or you're basically asking them to reinstate the lofty scam, but without even needing war targets to pull it off.
The problem is that your fleet was not aggressed. Quite the opposite: (parts) of your fleet were the aggressors and the (supposed) griefers were simply defending themselves from a mechanics perspective. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
|
gfldex
|
Posted - 2011.02.27 23:43:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Kelnarn Shaelingrath
Where the issue comes in is that you guys (CCP) have promoted the incursions under the auspice that it is to encourage people who aren't related (in game by corp or alliance ties) in any manner to work together to achieve the common goal of removing Sansha from an incurred system...
I would say the opposit is true. You are encouraged to form a corp that consists of more then you and your trusty alts. Ofc, that means you have to deal with wardecs. The reward of a mom fight should offset for that quite nicely.
Originally by: Kelnarn Shaelingrath
For example.. last night, a group of grievers used the mechanics of aggression to get a group of logistics pilots into an aggression situation, while the remaining 35 or 36 of us were powerless to engage them while they literally sat there unchallenged and killed our logis, also on a majority of the mom fights I've participated in, the wreck is white to me and some thief will steal the loot, but, they never turn red to me so I can at least attempt to defend and recover that which rightfully belongs to me and my fleet.
They are not griefers but competitors of your space ship operation. This is EVE not happy happy lala land. If you really want to start name calling you can name them exploiters. It seams that repper cycles are not interrupted by can flagging the same way they are interruped by a global flagging.
That needs fixing but is unrelated to you other points that can all be solved by forming a proper corp. If you want the benefits from join a player corp you will have and should have to live with the consequences.
Given that you call proper EVE players griefers it's no wonder that you miss another point. If you shoot the loot thief or if anybody is repping you while you shoot the thief, he will have a back flagging. That means you and anybody who got the back flagging will have to go dock and wait 16 minutes to have that timer go away. If you don't you will lose a ship sooner or later to somebody who knows the game mechanics better then you.
|
Diredas
|
Posted - 2011.02.27 23:49:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Diredas on 27/02/2011 23:53:46
Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 27/02/2011 23:51:54
Originally by: Diredas The problem is that your fleet was not aggressed. Quite the opposite: (parts) of your fleet were the aggressors and the (supposed) griefers were simply defending themselves from a mechanics perspective.
It should be noted, that the alt was NOT in his corp. He was on another account that looted the can. I'm not sure if it make a difference, but it seems a significant detail.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 00:11:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Diredas It should be noted, that the alt was NOT in his corp. He was on another account that looted the can. I'm not sure if it make a difference, but it seems a significant detail.
Yes, that's what made the whole thing work:
Saboteur A steals from Opponent-corp B, and thus becomes the aggressor.Opponent-corp B therefore gains legal rights to defend their property from Saboteur A and any individuals who aids him in his theft.Throught the logi chain, your Fleet Members C, D, and E also become flagged as aggressors towards Corp B, because they're aiding in the theft of items from that corp.Corp B therefore gains legal rights to defend their property from Fleet Members C, D, and E as well. At no point does Corp B "attack" your fleet, as far as the game is concerned. The attackers in this case are Saboteur A, and Fleet Members C, D, and E. Corp B are the defenders in this situation.
With the proposed solution, nothing would have changed on your end, but since Corp B were the target of the attack from a game-mechanics perspective, they would have been able to call in help from Corps F, G and H, who were idling in the background in the same fleet as Corp B. With that backup on the defenders' side, your logi ships would have died even faster. Not ideal, and probably not the solution you're looking forà
If the solution is to be interpreted that the response-aggression towards C, D and E should be transferred to the rest of the fleet, then we'd have a situation where aggro flagging is no longer even bound to support activities so we get that old GCC-cascade mechanic back: if the fleet as a whole inherits the aggro flagging of any one member, then one member might gain a GCC which is then inherited by the rest of the fleet. In other words: one saboteur triggers CONCORD, and that gets the whole fleet CONCORDed because they get the same flagging in order to be able to defend themselves. Not ideal either, and most certainly not the solution you're looking forà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Diredas
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 00:26:00 -
[14]
Agreed, not the solution we are looking for. I understand how the mechanic worked that allowed them to do what they did. We thankfully only lost two logi, but it was a pain.
Ideally, we'd like the opportunity to participate in defending fleetmates under attack without getting concorded, in this situation. I think we're trying to propose a fleet agression mechanic that allows for common defence without concord interference. A seperation of concord interference over aggression mechanisms, which I'm still trying to contemplate the implementation of.
|
insulubria
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 01:42:00 -
[15]
Edited by: insulubria on 28/02/2011 01:42:28 do you guys not know the definition of a lofty scam?
I told my fleet no can looting or wardec'ed members from day one for this very purpose
if a can is sitting in a site and someone loots it, then the logis get flagged without warning
just like the lofty, a wt was invited to the gang after it was made to evade the warning you are fleeting a person at war
but now fleeting w/ a person at war no longer flags you.
and now see see pee is going to figure out how to leave can flagging out of logi chains, probably by the same means of no more concordoken
so the one person who loots a wreck convienently placed in xyz incursion site on purpose cant flag all the logis in his fleet, on purpose.
its like lofty and should be removed.
but this is EVE after all. incursions are more isk/hour than anything in the game and its in hi-sec
if there was SOME RISK then ohnoes?
|
Arden Elenduil
Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 08:16:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Arden Elenduil on 28/02/2011 08:22:38 u mad bros? legal and intended use of game mechanics
CCP already changed how GCC affects RR just for you guys because you started crying about having your fleets concordokkened. They are not going to adjust this. Mostly because of the fact that what you propose, would mean that a specific region of space has different rules applied to it than normal space. This is a bit contradictory to what you'd think of a game, let alone the complete hassle it would be to implement it.
Also, it has the potential of being abused to hell and back.
|
Mar Lee
An Army of None
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 08:47:00 -
[17]
Is there a popup warning that alerts you when you begin to remote repair someone who has aggro to a player corporation?
If not, shouldn't there be?
|
Arden Elenduil
Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 09:01:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Arden Elenduil on 28/02/2011 09:01:37 there is
to be precise, it's a message that you always get, stating that any aggro that the player you want to RR will transfer over to you
|
Sebulous
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 09:30:00 -
[19]
As my esteemed collegue has pointed out, CCP has done a lot for you guys in the recent pass, much of which has had some detrimental effects to our profession and made it a bit more challenging, but which also makes it that much more entertaining for us.
Much of what you propose will not work. You can't have an easy fix for this. You get warned, its up to you to make sure who you can trust, and contrary to what you believe, there are many many ways you could of helped you mates. The fact that you don't know how or are unwilling to, is none of our concern and we should not be blamed for it. Even if something was put in place, it would take all of 1 hour for our lab techs to find a way around it.
SANSHA WILL REIGN AGAIN!!!!
|
JordanParey
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 10:20:00 -
[20]
Things like this make my heart get this strange warm and fuzzy feeling, instead of the cold, stony feeling I usually get.
|
|
Cyberin
Misfit Toys Clockwork Pineapple
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 11:11:00 -
[21]
-1000, request denied
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 12:28:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Venkul Mul on 28/02/2011 12:33:15
Originally by: Arden Elenduil
CCP already changed how GCC affects RR just for you guys because you started crying about having your fleets concordokkened.
And they will probably plug this loop hole the same way.
Originally by: Arden Elenduil
legal and intended use of game mechanics
Legal? Yes Intended? Probably not.
CCP has decided they want PUGs in EVE, this kind of activity disrupt them, so the more you use this kind of loophole the more probably it will be plugged.
So it is to you to decide what you want to do: - use it as much as possible as long as it work and increase exponentially the risk of a change in mechanics; - use it sparingly and hope it will not "disturb" CCP projects enough to make them change the mechanics.
I have little doubts on what will be your corp and similar corps choice, but know what will be the risk of that choice.
Originally by: Sebulous As my esteemed collegue has pointed out, CCP has done a lot for you guys in the recent pass, much of which has had some detrimental effects to our profession and made it a bit more challenging, but which also makes it that much more entertaining for us.
Much of what you propose will not work. You can't have an easy fix for this. You get warned, its up to you to make sure who you can trust, and contrary to what you believe, there are many many ways you could of helped you mates. The fact that you don't know how or are unwilling to, is none of our concern and we should not be blamed for it. Even if something was put in place, it would take all of 1 hour for our lab techs to find a way around it.
At least you will have a lot of fun trying to find a way to circumvent it again. SANSHA WILL REIGN AGAIN!!!!
CCP will use exactly the same solution they used for the Concordokken tactic.
When your plant get the criminal flag all modules remotely aiding him will be stopped and the user will get a warning when they try to restart them.
|
Kelnarn Shaelingrath
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 13:08:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Arden Elenduil Edited by: Arden Elenduil on 28/02/2011 08:22:38 u mad bros? legal and intended use of game mechanics
CCP already changed how GCC affects RR just for you guys because you started crying about having your fleets concordokkened. They are not going to adjust this. Mostly because of the fact that what you propose, would mean that a specific region of space has different rules applied to it than normal space. This is a bit contradictory to what you'd think of a game, let alone the complete hassle it would be to implement it.
Also, it has the potential of being abused to hell and back.
no, I'm not mad in the least.. in fact, if you read one of my previous postings, I gave you props for it.. I just wanted the chance to send your boys home in their pods and that chance was not afforded to me because of the very same "game mechanics"
|
Arden Elenduil
Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 13:22:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Arden Elenduil on 28/02/2011 13:22:30
Originally by: Venkul Mul
CCP will use exactly the same solution they used for the Concordokken tactic.
No they won't. If they did, they'd outright kill gang warfare in lowsec.
Besides, this gives you a reason to be a bit careful about who you trust in Eve, isn't that what this game is all about? Eve is a harsh place, deal with it. If you can't, WoW's that way ->
|
Ydyp Ieva
Caldari Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 14:16:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Arden Elenduil Edited by: Arden Elenduil on 28/02/2011 13:22:30
Originally by: Venkul Mul
CCP will use exactly the same solution they used for the Concordokken tactic.
No they won't. If they did, they'd outright kill gang warfare in lowsec.
Besides, this gives you a reason to be a bit careful about who you trust in Eve, isn't that what this game is all about? Eve is a harsh place, deal with it. If you can't, WoW's that way ->
The fix they added for GCC is only in hisec, doesn't influence lowsec. And as far as I know you can still turn the reppers on afterwards with the warning popup and still get concordokken.
And the chances are pretty high CCP will fix this, as there isn't a way to defend yourself against it in the lines of current mechanics. The easiest way is to stop the criminal flagging spread, just like they did with the GCC-flag. ---------------------------------- None of yet! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 14:33:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Venkul Mul Legal? Yes Intended? Probably not.
Of course it's intended. How else are you supposed to deal with neutral reps?
Quote: When your plant get the criminal flag all modules remotely aiding him will be stopped and the user will get a warning when they try to restart them.
The reason they gave for the solution they went for when it came to GCC was that "there is no reason to ever remote support someone with a GCC in highsec" and setting aside for a moment that this isn't strictly true to begin with, that reason does not work for standard criminal flagging. Instead, it becomes an annoyance for properly set-up fleets.
àI also have a sneaking suspicion that such a solution would open up for a couple of interesting rapid-fire exploits. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
insulubria
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 14:44:00 -
[27]
Well like man, that's like,
just your opinion man.
srly, you state what ccp will and wont do and come out butthurt hard, lovin it.
ccp didnt want people at war shooting people not at war with no warning other than trusting a gang member.
So too bad for you buddy.
because thats exactly whats happening now.
either it be a tactical can theif
or a war target that made it into fleet
SAME THING MR SMARTY PANTS :D
omg pirate tears are so epic.
ironic I told my corp mates never to let this happen to them, and it hasnt, and to try it on someone in incursions, and maybe they will before ccp changes it, maybe they wont.
meh
wardec'ed players still fleet up and people still take them.
so your argument is invalid, you still have a way to grief, it'll just be when someone clicks yet on a pop-up dialog :)
|
Ohh Yeah
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 15:18:00 -
[28]
hi did we do something?
|
n00n3r
Caldari Malicious Destruction
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 21:18:00 -
[29]
Edited by: n00n3r on 28/02/2011 21:17:58 Sounds to me like yet another reason to join an Incursion corp. If you fly with people you know all the time, this stuff won't happen.
But, just like the MOM fleet groups that complain of the ninja looters; you guys are providing easy targets by running with people that you don't know. _____________________________________________
Interested in Incursions? Check out our recruitment thread here: Link |
Rav102
|
Posted - 2011.03.02 17:09:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Rav102 on 02/03/2011 17:15:56
Originally by: n00n3r Edited by: n00n3r on 28/02/2011 21:17:58 Sounds to me like yet another reason to join an Incursion corp. If you fly with people you know all the time, this stuff won't happen.
But, just like the MOM fleet groups that complain of the ninja looters; you guys are providing easy targets by running with people that you don't know.
That's actually a semi-invalid* argument if you read the premise that CCP put forth in their design for incursions in the first place. Not to mention that not only are there unknowns in corps as well as out of corps, but there's also the fact that most people aren't simply going to drop their current or favorite corp just to join another corp for the perceived "safety" in doing so.
The fact is that CCP has allowed and even promoted (with these incursions and their "idea" behind them for group efforts with unknown players) situations for the leeches who prey on others to have an even greater opportunity to do so, but then CCP took almost all the salt off of the table.
*Edit: That should not have read "That's actually an invalid argument" because, some folks would be willing to make those changes.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |