|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 81 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9711
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:40:00 -
[1] - Quote
Seems good. Limited engagements making it in is especially nice since it solves a whole slew of problems and might work as a platform for future mechanism that do the same thing. That said, I'd also like to see the clarification someone else mentioned above: does this GÇ£interfere with an LEGÇ¥ extend to wardecs as well?
My only slight eye-raise is that you've managed to create a reward scheme for PvP
CCP GingerDude wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:There is no character-to-character flagging any more.. I'm going to miss debugging the implicit cyclic graph of engagements so much ;( I think you might be lying to yourself hereGǪ
Unforgiven Storm wrote:1 - Ejection should be allowed even with any timer, Im thinking t3 ships, Im thinking saving my pod while everybody is looking at my ship - I used this tecnique before and should be legal, I can't remember any reason not to allow it. Why this was changed? To plug the GÇ£switch ships to avoid destructionGÇ¥ tactic? But yes, the session timer efter an ejection might be enough to dissuade it GÇö you'd still have 20s of sitting still in a pod before you can get a new ship, which should make it a less than ideal tacticGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9711
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:46:00 -
[2] - Quote
Goonspiracy wrote:Are you seriously giving ratters 15 min "keep their ships in space" aggression timers? Do you not see anything wrong with this? This is a very simple question Fit a cloak? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9711
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:05:00 -
[3] - Quote
Goonspiracy wrote:Tippia wrote:Goonspiracy wrote:Are you seriously giving ratters 15 min "keep their ships in space" aggression timers? Do you not see anything wrong with this? This is a very simple question Fit a cloak? That's a brilliant way to defend your logged out ship No, it's a brilliant way to defend your ship wile you wait for it to be safe to log out.
DJ FunkyBacon wrote:There really needs to be a way for 2 players to engage in a LE without the whole of eve getting involved. Read under GÇ£Next time, from Five-0...GÇ¥ GÇö it looks like it's coming, and I would boldly guess that it will build on the LE mechanics. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9711
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:15:00 -
[4] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:This 15 minute NPC timer means death for any ratter who has an internet outage. You can't balance a game around the assumption that people have awful ISPs because that only ever opens the door for new and fun exploits. If you have an outage, do what you would normally do: get back online ASAP. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9711
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:22:00 -
[5] - Quote
TheBlueMonkey wrote:So you're killing off ninja salvaging and can flipping as a professions how is that not dumbing things down? Ninja salvaging isn't touched in any way, and can flipping gets a nice two-way increase in stakes GÇö as the flipper, you are now a free-for-all target, but if he manages to fall for it and steal things back, then so is he.
GǪnow the safety system, on the other handGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9711
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:49:00 -
[6] - Quote
Odin Shadow wrote:when running a mission, you are scrammed. ccp have one of the network issue that have happened of late, so you D/C and cant reconnect. you ship just sits there and dies now? If it does now, it will in the future, only for a longer time. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9719
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:41:00 -
[7] - Quote
Salpad wrote:I just want to know how long those flags last. You seem to want some types to last 15 minutes. That's fine, but what about the rest? What others are you thinking of?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9723
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:07:00 -
[8] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:Player A now gets a suspect flag. 1. Do gate guns open fire? (Y/N?) No. Theft does not incur a sec status loss, and therefore doesn't trigger the sentries.
Quote:Now, suppose Player B ('vigilante') attacks Player A. 2. Player A is allowed to shoot back without penalty, correct? (pretty sure the answer is yes....) Does this create some kind of strange 'one-on-one' flag which is exactly what Crimewatch was supposed to eliminate? Yes, it creates a limited engagement, which is a single connection between the two that gets around the CW1.0 mess by being non-transferable.
Quote:Now, suppose Player C comes along, doesn't want to engage the suspect, but RR's Player B, the vigilante. 3. Is Player A, (suspect) still allowed to engage the remote repairer (C)? Or is the RRing player allowed to participate in PVP while still under Concord protection? (ie PVP without risk) Anyone aiding A will be committing the crime of aiding a suspect and will become a suspect. Anyone aiding B will be committing the crime of butting in on a LE and will become a suspect. As such, there is no need for this whole GÇ£keeping track of who shot who and when and where and whyGÇ¥.
In this case, player C will be a free-for-all target GÇö A can engage him at will without further repercussions just like everyone else in the universe.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9723
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:12:00 -
[9] - Quote
Kmelx wrote:Bottom line is if they commit a crime in low sec and jump to high sec concord should blap them for it, the same as they do now, it shouldn't be a possible survival strategy for pirates to run away and hide in high sec. People commiting criminal acts in low security space shouldn't be able to run and hide in supposedly high sec space, its completley backwards. They can't run and hide in highsec any more than they can in lowsec, and even so, didn't that sound a bit backwards to you? GÇ£High sec spaceGÇ¥ sounds exactly like where you would go to run and hide.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9726
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:39:00 -
[10] - Quote
@-áCCP Masterplan
In regards to the T3 SP loss situation, could you care to comment on the thinking and on the possibility (or downsides) of a solution to that change in mechanics. I made a short remark on it earlier but it was kind of buried in a different post.
Right now, you list GÇ£WeaponsGÇ¥-flagging as causing a 60-second inability to dock, jump, abandon ship (by ejecting or storing the ship), and board ships (be it in space or from a corp hangar) unless it's done from a capsule. This is to remove the whole GÇ£ship-swapping to avoid destructionGÇ¥, I presume, and the capsule exception is hidden behind the rule that makes it impossible to enter a capsule without being destroyed?
What if you adjusted the weapons-flagging rules so that: -+ It does not have that capsule exception: in other words, you cannot board ships while you have a weapons flag, period. -+ You are allowed to eject from (but not store) a ship while weapon-flagged. -+ Ejecting resets your weapon flag timer to the full 60 seconds. -+ Getting blown up clears your weapon flag timer to 0.
As far as I can see, this would maintain the ban on ship-swapping: you can't swap ships mid-battle GÇö yes, you can eject, but it will take 60 seconds for your weapons flag to clear out, and before that, you're not allowed to board a new ship. Have fun orbiting ye olde Orca in a pod for a minute while everyone around you is allowed to shoot you. If you are destroyed, you can board a new shipGǪ but then, that was possible under the suggested rule set as well and you have to lose a ship to get there, so this is no different than what you're proposing. If you are destroyed, you can also (almost) immediately jump through a gate or dock up, but those are still restricted by the session timer that triggers on destruction so the exploitation potential from those (re)added abilities should be minimal. Finally, this means you once again can get out of your T3 to save your SP, but you have all the weapons-flag restrictions for the next 60 seconds so the only possible thing to do is warp off and hope for the best.
Is there anything I've missed in this that would go against what your goals are? Are there any obvious loop-holes? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9728
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:00:00 -
[11] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:When you've ejected from your expensive gatecamp ship, what's to stop a conveniently-placed alt-orca scooping it and insta-jumping to highsec, where it will be untouchable? Good point. Darn.
GǪunless you want to go the evil route and somehow transfer the flags to the actual ship and then onto anyone who tries to scoop it. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9730
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:19:00 -
[12] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Which is something we thought about, but want to avoid. Having to track flags per character and flags per item, and then deal with merging/splitting those is going to lead to even more bugs and exploits. I kind of suspected as much. It's the whole interim period where something is sitting in space without a pilot that is the clincher, I suppose.
If it was just a matter of storing the ship, the old idea treating the Orca pilot as if he were a logi or other remote support ship could be resurrected, but I guess that middle step is annoyingGǪ
Oh well, it's not like T3s could stand being toned down a bit anyway. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9731
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:31:00 -
[13] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:It should be made such that if the ship is targeted it cant be scooped by the orca, not that "you can't eject just because". HmmGǪ there's already a similar rule for entering ships IIRC, so maybe that would be a way around it?
If the mechanics are (kind of) already there, it could conceivably be combined with my idea for weapons-flagging adjustments.
Tbh, I have no idea why I'm trying to save T3 SP as much, since that's really the only goal for that suggestion, but hey GÇö puzzles are fun. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9732
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:40:00 -
[14] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:This proposal doesn't just eliminate freighter ganking for profit (you can't loot the wrecks anymore without being engaged by lookie-lous), it also breaks (lol) high-sec war mechanics, too. You can't loot the field if you clear it and hold it now, because again lookie-lous will engage you for taking the loots. If they were legal targets, you can legally loot them. Since they're WTs, no-one will be allowed to attack you. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9734
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:49:00 -
[15] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Hmm... so if a ganker attempts but fails to gank a miner, the miner can no longer loot the ganker's wreck? (as in, he would get a global S flag) The miner will get kill rights and the ganker will be criminal-flagged. Either way, he's now a legal target and therefore taking stuff from him is no longer an illegal action. Loot away. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9734
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:00:00 -
[16] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:Not as good as you think.
If you eject from your ship, presumably your ship will be locked. Which means it cannot be scooped by anyone but the owner. And the Orca Alt is not 'the owner'.
So the answer to Masterplans question is: the fact that your ship is locked by a hostile. Are you talking about right now or about being a possible solution? I'll admit that I haven't tried it myself, but from what I've seen from various camps, it never seemed like it was a problem right nowGǪ
GǪbut if it is, then as mentioned previously, yes, that's the answer.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9734
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:03:00 -
[17] - Quote
Jarin Arenos wrote:So glad that you're blessed with an internet connection that never dies when you're in the middle of doing something. The rest of us aren't so lucky. 60 seconds was usually plenty to stop people from using it as an "oshit" escape button. 15 minutes is cruel and unusual. No. 60 seconds isn't enough, which is why the full 15 minutes were instituted. Hell, for some, not even the 15 minutes were enough.
Now you have the same timer as everyone else. vOv. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9738
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:11:00 -
[18] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:This NPC timer plus the drone killing AI, plus the 20% across the board damage nerf to heavy missiles is just another nail in the coffin for high sec income. Good thing, then, that the income will be largely untouched. Heavy missiles aren't particularly important to highsec income and the problem of making the GÇ£drone-killing AIGÇ¥ not kill drones was solved three years ago.
Claire Raynor wrote:This will be MASSIVLY exploited by griefers. So I'm in a fleet - we all open fire on someone because they are a legal target. One of the fleet members gets damaged during the fight so I rep them because we are a Typhoon Spider gang. "Assisting someone who is engaged in an LE will cause the assistor to receive a Suspect flag." And bingo - I get shot at by everyone because now I'm suspect flagged - So is every other member of the spider tank - because we all assisted someone engaged in LE?
Or did I get this wrong? The new safety system will keep you safe. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9739
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:30:00 -
[19] - Quote
Claire Raynor wrote:Sorry?? New Safety system? Or were you trying to be Smart? No, I'm talking about the new safety system that will be presented in detail in an upcoming dev blog. It's a system where you can pre-set your answers to various conditions and warning windows to ensure that you never do something that flags you in a way that you want (or, at the other end of the spectrum, that you are not bothered by warning popups when you really really need for your guns to fire right this millisecond).
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:I really, really want to know what happens here:
Carebear A in in Corp A Carebear B is in Corp B.
Corp A and Corp B are at war: Player A engages Player B legally in highsec. Player C reps player B.
Since there are no global flags generated for Player B (he's not a criminal, suspect, nor outlaw), then there is no Limited Engagement flag. As such, Player C does NOT receive a suspect flag for Repping player B. From what we've been told before, wardecs will be treated much the same as LEs, only with more participants. Corpers A and B can freely shoot each other without triggering any global flags, and they can rep each other without issues as well.
If player C comes along and reps a war target in a war he's not a part of himself, he becomes a suspect. Nothing seems to suggest that they've changed this, but yes, a clarification would be nice. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9741
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:41:00 -
[20] - Quote
Matt Grav wrote:I'm still looking for the answer to this ^ One would think that you'd only get one sec hit per engagement, and that an GÇ£engagementGÇ¥ is defined as GÇ£as long as you have that PvP flagGÇ¥GǪ but I'm only guessing. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9741
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:49:00 -
[21] - Quote
Matt Grav wrote:I'm not so worried about the sec hit, it's more whether or not the gate guns will fire once the returning suspect opens fire on me again. Sure, but since one triggers the other, it amounts to much the same thing, so the limitations of one sound like they would affect the other.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9743
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:56:00 -
[22] - Quote
Koghrun Amman wrote:Not sure if this has already come up.
Scenario: Player A is in 0.0 with Player B. Player A shoots at B at a gate. B does not return fire. Player B has a PVP timer, but no weapon timer, and can jump freely to safety after taking a single salvo. Player A cannot jump until his weapon timer expires (15 minutes after his weapon counters). The W-timer is only 60 seconds. The scenario you describes in no different than we currently have. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9746
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:19:00 -
[23] - Quote
Lucas Quaan wrote:Yeah, but it's listed for targeted modules so knowing the arbitrariness of some game mechanics I thought it best to ask. Never assume incompetence where malice would be so much more fun. :) Nolnah's razor?
Matt Grav wrote:That's interesting. The suspect flag is global, so as long as I do not get into a LE with someone, then nothing is tracking the engagement . So if they warp off grid and then return and attack again we may well find that they take another sec hit + gate guns.
Otherwise a pirate could pick up the suspect flag in a belt and then freely attack anyone at a gate without taking further sec hit or gate guns.
That's the way that I read no A-B flagging outside of LE anyway. Yes, I can't quite see how it would fit into the current system as described, since only LEs set up any kind of relationship and it's not certain that one will exist, but it seems like a reasonable limitation. After all, there must be some kind of tracking going on so you don't get a sec drop for every shot you fire, or even for every module activation. Exactly what mechanism or timer they'll use as a basis isn't particularly relevant on the scale of things, but it would be nice to knowGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9748
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:21:00 -
[24] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:Why is it illegal to board a new ship for 60 seconds with a weapons timer? Because the ability to do so is being abused to unduly protect against ship losses and to stay in a fight that has long since been lost.
Have a look in any of the more heavily travelled (and camped) lowsec pockets and you'll quickly see the extent of the problem. It has nothing to do with protecting highsec carebears and everything to do with removing undue protection from people who want the best offence without the risk and costs that come with it. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9749
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:27:00 -
[25] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:What are we missing??? In my opinion, those pros outweigh those cons! GǪand with the idea of lock-to-prevent scoop, and revised W-flagging rules to go with it, some of those cons would be gone anyway.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9749
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:57:00 -
[26] - Quote
Ulair Memmet wrote:Nalha Saldana wrote:Yes that is correct, you get weapons but not pvp flag. Kinda makes sense because you (in most cases) were obviously trying to do something. But i didn't GǪand you're also not really punished for it. You're just given a bit of time to think things over and calm down. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9754
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 02:16:00 -
[27] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Ok, can-flipping question here.... When you incur your Suspect flag, does it retro-actively affect every can/wreck you have in space? Or does it only affect cans/wrecks that are jettisoned AFTER you get the flag? By the sounds of it, it will will be retroactive, yes. A can is a can is a can, and I seriously doubt that they're going to individually track each and every one of them GÇö they'll just look at your current flagging and see if you're a legal target or not. If at any point in time you are, your cans are free game at that point in time as well.
The new trick will lie in making people pick up cans they don't own, thereby S-flagging themselves so you can shoot them. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9754
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 02:35:00 -
[28] - Quote
Cpt Gobla wrote:Just one question,
Having either a PvP or PvE flag and crashing does your ship still warp off? Yes. The only change they've mentioned so far is that they're separating the flags into coherent units rather than have everything fall under a single flag with tons of special rules and exceptions, and that the PvE flag actually has some effects (viz. making you stay in space). The rest is pretty much business as usual: you e-warp off if you can; after the timer runs out (if you're not a pile of debris at that point), the ship disappears. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9763
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 15:33:00 -
[29] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Proddy Scun wrote:Suspect flag for assistance to good guy is foul idea. You do not get a suspect flag for helping the good guy. You get a weapons flag (and depending upon the situation a PvP flag). Yes you do. Helping the good guy (who is flagged as engaged in an LE) means you're butting in on the LE, and flags you as suspect. Helping the bad guy (who is flagged as suspect) means you're aiding and abetting, and flags you as suspect.
If you want to help the good guy, attack the bad guy.
Quote:Quote:Why not just copy the flags from the ship assisted? That's basically what they are doing. Not in the case of LEs. They copy weapons and PvP flags for most assist acts, yes, but for trying to interfere with an on-going conflict, they also hand out brand new flags.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9765
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 19:50:00 -
[30] - Quote
Misanth wrote:* I disagree tho that anything needs to be more 'simple' in EVE, this game has always been and should be advanced. Plus, by adding the 'suspect' flag you made something more complicated under the explanation you wanted things more 'simple'. Why can't you just say you disliked the low sec lag from constant sec updates and this was your solution? There's simple and there's simple. What they're doing is removing convoluted mechanics in favour of complex ones. This is indeed a simplification since it goes for the GÇ£easy to learn, hard to masterGÇ¥ goal rather than GÇ£memorise these fifty-eleven exceptions to what should be a very straight-forward ruleGÇ¥.
The S-flag (and indeed, all the flags) simplify matters because they provide clear and concise categories of actions and consequences with no overlap in functionality or rule set. A numerical increase in the number of flags does not mean it's more complicated since it removes the actual complication of not having clear distinctions between what flags do what.
Quote:- a) make it easier for poor, inexperienced and lazy players to survive, this is hands down a PvP nerf, no matter how you put it. How big it is, noone knows, but it's for fact a nerf. Making gameplay more approachable is not, GÇ£for factGÇ¥ a nerf.
Quote:- b) once again you make HUGE ICONS that blot out the sun. I'm already annoyed at the massive local name, travel route etc. The graphics itself is not an issue, but why the hell do you have to make everything MASSIVE in size? EhGǪ travel route was massively shrunk by the new display, and the reason to make these ones large is obvious: because they are life-and-death timers that you want to be able to spot and process out of the corner of your eye. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9766
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 00:04:00 -
[31] - Quote
Fortuna Cournot wrote:one of the best changes ever.
but i hope the "eject"/"switch ship" rules are removed. I can't see the benefit. What you are addressing with it? A habit people have picked up in lowsec where they use Orcas to save ships (and SP) they should by all rights have lost. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9768
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 00:33:00 -
[32] - Quote
Fortuna Cournot wrote:Please tell me more, because i'm still to lazy to understand it... why does the Orca saves them ? You're in your well-planned camp and suddenly things go south. Your pimped T3 is two pips away from destruction and a loss of one of your lvl V skills. So you store your stratcruiser in the nearby Orca, which instantly jumps through the gate into highsec (where the attackers can't go, both because they have aggression timers and maybe also because they're currently under GCC and would get CONCORDed), and since they were locked onto your ship, the pod you're in is free to just warp off.
End result: you are free to commit a bajillion-ISK, auto-SP losing ship into a fight without any risk of losing either it or your SP. If they try to go after the Orca, they take GCC and sentry fire (and the Orca just jumps through and saves itself while you warp off).
Quote:Wouldn't it be better to flag the Orca for giving landing permission ? That would be a good idea as well (not just Gǣinstead ofGǥ), but they don't want to try to copy flags like that at this stage because it risks opening up for new nasty ideasGǪ
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9769
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 04:08:00 -
[33] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:Still doesn't explain why boarding a new ship is prohibited, or why ejecting from a ship is prohibited. GǪaside from explaining the scenario (and any variations thereov) they want to avoid.
It's not just the Orca they're going after, so fixing that problem doesn't solve anything. It's the problem of saving your ship when you have already lost it. You can still eject and enter ships GÇö you just have to deaggress to do so (and with some of the tweaks suggested earlier in the thread, it might even be possible let GTFO-ejections back in). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9770
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 04:59:00 -
[34] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:Your scenario was the 'stuff the dying T3 into an Orca than escape to highsec' trick. Yes, got that. But it all relies on Orcas. I fail to see how you can replicate the scenario you described without the Orca/carrier. And that's just the point: remove the Orca and some other way will be found to replicate it, so GÇ£fixingGÇ¥ the Orca doesn't solve anything. Instead, they're going after the mechanic that's actually problematic: the ability to get a new ship out of [wherever] in the middle of a fight or to whisk one away when it's lost.
The ejection/boarding restrictions take care of all cases without having to code each and every one of them and adding more and more code as new variations are found. It takes care of the actual problem rather than uselessly trying to chase all unique and specific instances of it.
Quote:Saying that 'you can still switch ships, you just have to de-agress for 60 seconds' is a poor suggestion, because in the profession of mission runner baiting, allowing the target 60 seconds to warp off means 'goodbye CNR'. Your target has docked up. Tough. So figure out a way to bait him without shooting him until you've had the chance to change ships. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9770
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 07:00:00 -
[35] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:I just said, "I fail to see how it can be replicated without the Orca" GǪand that's fine, but it's also just you and just right now. The Orca is not the problem so fixing it is pretty meaningless. Sure, you could also fix the Orca, but that would be for different reasons (e.g. extending the notion of GǣsupportGǥ).
The problem is obtaining and hiding ships when you shouldn't. That is what's being fixed, and it's being fixed at the root rather than treating one specific incarnation of it. You'll notice that the exact same rules also affect corp hangars at POSes, in carriers, and in any other guise they may appear, as well as stations and other dockables in whatever form those may appear GÇö now and in the future. When they invent new ways of storing and delivering ships, those will automatically also be covered because they have chosen to go for the root cause rather than the symptoms. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9770
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 07:39:00 -
[36] - Quote
Cerulean Ice wrote:How does any change to crimewatch and flagging affect the amount of firepower (and thus isk) required to destroy a hauler? Quick answer: it doesn't. There will be zero change to what it takes to gank a hauler and have it be profitable. No extra costs, no extra losses. Gate guns will shoot you in both the new and old system. Concord will show up in highsec in both the new and old system. The only real difference between new and old? Your sec status won't drop below -5 unless you break some eggs. The difference is that there is a higher chance of not getting the loot and that the most direct method means a second halving of the expected drop rate (on top of additional costs to get it).
Granted, proper prep and technique should be able to improve those odds massively, but stillGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9770
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 07:55:00 -
[37] - Quote
Cerulean Ice wrote:I don't see it. You pop freighter; you use your own freighter to take the loot; your freighter is now free-for-all and gets popped. Each pop halves the expected loot drop, so instead of -+ it is now -+ (and needs to pay for the lost freighter as well).
Compare this to the current situation where the only menace to that freighter is a guy who's sitting in a pod. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9770
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 08:06:00 -
[38] - Quote
Cerulean Ice wrote:So the freighter has to align before he loots now. As I said, it should be the standard anyway. If you align for station, with the loot window and your cargo open, and the station selected, it's a simple two click procedure to be in the safety of warp immediately. Select all the loot, drag the loot into your cargo, click warp to station. Safe. No risk to the freighter. Sure, but as described, that procedure takes a minute and a half, giving scavengers ample time to pick the juicy bits (after which you can try to shoot them, obviously, but that once again halves the expected drop). Freighters aren't exactly drive-by superstars.
So the actual solution requires a bit more finesseGǪ. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9770
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 08:54:00 -
[39] - Quote
Katarina Reid wrote:Since when can freighters loot? Since roughly forever, but only from freighter wrecks.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9772
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 17:02:00 -
[40] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:]Uh, What did I just say? You didn't even read my post, did you? Yes I did. How about you give me the same courtesy.
Quote:I said 'fixing Maintenence Bays'. That affects every ship with one, Orcas - and all 'future' Orcas. GǪand still doesn't address the actual problem, but rather treats the symptoms. Fixing the fringe case does nothing to sort out the problem they're seeing, whereas getting rid of the problem itself does, and it covers all current and future incarnation of that problem regardless of the method used. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9774
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 00:26:00 -
[41] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:Why do you think 'boarding' a ship while in combat is a problem that requires fixing? You'll have to ask CCP that, but it seems rather clear that they think that if you engage in combat in a ship, you should commit to the battle with that ship.
Quote:Yet it has not escaped me that you are completely unable to explain how. What has escaped you is that GÇ£howGÇ¥ is irrelevant. They're removing the ability to reship by putting a block on the actions required to do so, and then the exact hows GÇö past, present, and future GÇö no longer matter. Instead of waiting for people to find new ways, and then removing them, and people finding newer ways still, and then removing those as well, they short-circuit the whole arms race by going after the source of the problem. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9774
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 01:36:00 -
[42] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:Perhaps you've forgotten the stated rationale for the original Orca nerf. "Escaping the consequences of initiating combat". GǪand this clears up all such problems without stupidly and needlessly chasing specific instances of it.
Quote:Guess what we have here is simply 'mission creep'. Mission runners were still dying, highsec still not safe enough GǪexcept that the problem mainly resides in lowsec, so your guess makes no sense.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9774
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 06:57:00 -
[43] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:Except you just said what happens in low sec was the 'symptom' of the problem, not the 'real' problem. Mission runner baiting is exclusively in highsec and is massively impacted by this change. Not really. Mission runner baiting isn't affected in the slightest by the ship-swapping rule because there's no reason to get the W-flag that prohibits it.
Quote:The lowsec Orca escape trick can be easily fixed with a Ship Maintenence Bay adjustment, without doing something as stupid as preventing ejecting, or essentially destroying the profession of mission runner baiting. GǪexcept that you're back to treating the symptom, not the problem GÇö viz. ship swapping in the middle of combat. This change takes care of that in all its forms. Trying to limit it to certain expressions will only lead to new ones popping up, which will then have to be patched away as well, and the only reason to be against it is the vain hope that the exploit du jour will be left open for a while.
Quote:Its a simple case of the 'cure' being far worse than the disease. Seeing as how the cure is actually very good GÇö largely because it attacks the generic issue rather than hopelessly chase individual expressions of it GÇö and seeing as how the disease GÇö ships not being lost when they ought to be, and people not committing to the fight they chose to engage in GÇö is very bad, no. If anything, it's a case of GÇ£please only patch this one thing rather than fix the problem so I can keep abusing it in new waysGÇ¥.
Put another way: why should they try to predict and specifically code out every last variation of this tactic when they can just ensure that all of them (including ones that don't even exist yet) are gone at the same time? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9848
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 20:34:00 -
[44] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Our current thinking on this is something like:
Assisting your own corp mates* in a Limited Engagement is always legally allowed (it won't be punished per se, but you'll still inherit any W/P/S/C flags they have)
But this is still something we're discussing * Excluding NPC corps, and assisting Outlaws in high-sec This really isn't a good idea since it brings those invulnerable logis back stronger than ever. At least before, you could try to chase logis away GÇö neutral or not GÇö but this just makes them plain untouchable and you can pile on as many as you like to make the LE participant untouchable as well.
Really, if you're in a corp, they can just bring more guns and active disruption to the party GÇö ECM will work wonders and will enter the newcomer in an LE of his own, with all the personal risk that entails (minus GÇ£because of FalconGÇ¥).
I can understand your unwillingness to copy LEs, but really, that's a much smaller headache than adding untouchable ships to the fight. So really: disallow them too (giving them the same S-flags as everyone else) or start thinking up ways of copying LE flagsGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
|
|
|