EVE Search - Sticky:Dev blog: Introducing the new and improved Crimewatch

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:Dev blog: Introducing the new and improved Crimewatch

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 44 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 81 post(s)
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 595	Posted - 2012.10.05 06:56:00 - [601] - Quote Vladimir Norkoff wrote: Iam Widdershins wrote: Just have a hauler right there in fleet or whatever to whoosh the goods away as soon as they appear if you really want them. Meh. A single hauler load is hardly worth stealing. You want an entire can-full to flip, which is multiple hauler loads. You want to have taken enough of their time, that they and their entire corp will come gunning for you. You can easily steal a hauler load of ore with this new system if that is all you are after. Just cruise around cloaked, bookmark cans, swap to a hauler, warp to can, loot and warp off. But that's not the point. Miners won't care. A hauler load is just a few minutes of mining time lost. That's not worth risking their ship over. But if you take a half-hour, or an hour, of their work. Then they get pissed. And that's when they get their combat ships. And that IS the point. This new system (if the Suspect flag is retro-active) eliminates that. Can/wreck flipping just becomes an "Open PvP Flag - On" button, with no real meaning or context. You can only take what you can fit into your cargo, and that really ain't much in the overall scheme of things. Nobody is going to care. And in the end it will reduce another form of player interaction (albeit rather violent interaction). And that is not a good thing. Things that promote conflict on the other hand are good. Conflict is what drives this game. We both know why you'd flip the can of ore... to get a fight... and, frankly, the suspect flag mechanics make it a LOT easier to get a fight.... Flip a can, and anyone in the area can shoot you.... now "good Samaritan" type players can patrol belts and try to gank suspects, which will probably create some good and fun fights for you. Sure, if you lose ownership of a can, you no longer get attack rights when they take the loot back... but so what... getting fights in highsec should be much easier, as EVERYONE can shoot you...
Lumifragger Ghentenaar Antwerpse Kerels R O G U E 0	Posted - 2012.10.05 07:01:00 - [602] - Quote Warde Guildencrantz wrote: CCP Masterplan wrote: This is not just oddly intentional, it is very intentional. If we didn't want to penalise T3 death, we simply wouldn't have the skillpoint-loss mechanic in the first place I really don't get why losing an 800mil ship is not enough of a penalization. Also, what is the point of ejecting if you can't do it when there is an emergency. Isn't that what an "escape pod" is for? Perhaps you should just make T3s not have this penalty, their cost is already huge, losing them is already penalty enough when you pop. Don't fly what you can't afford. And sorry you can no longer only fly RMT faction tengus anymore
Drago Misharie Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse 0	Posted - 2012.10.05 07:03:00 - [603] - Quote Sounds great, but the not letting your ship leave space due to NPC is a problem with the current system. I have lost many ships because I am in a mission area, belt, or site and my ship is just unable to warp due to debris. If this behavior of leaving space doesn't change, at least something should be done about the debris so ships that aren't pointed can warp regardless upon log-off.
Proddy Scun Renfield Inc 1	Posted - 2012.10.05 07:07:00 - [604] - Quote Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Proddy Scun wrote: Hmmm...my overall impression is that CrimeWatch 2 has very little to do with controlling crime -- and a WHOLE lot to do with FORCING PVP encounters to a decisive conclusion if I understand correctly. #1 Once an aggressor shoots a target ship that target can no longer duck back into a station regardless of whether its a legal target or not. So you are also warp jammed -- you better have the superior combat ship. Hmmm..can pirate T1 BCs tank station guns long enough to kill Mackinaws and Hulks once redocking is no longer an option for mining pilots? Will CCP make station guns destructible again to encourage this sort of engagement? Didn't I see a blog where CCP said intensified PVP conflict was its main overall improvement goal for EVE as whole and hi sec in particular over the next year or so? Something about raising combat losses to where T2 ships would become far less common once more. #2 Haulers can no longer escape ambushes by jumping gates. Mainly affects freighters and Orcas. Other haulers can simply warp away from GCC attackers which now have front-loaded warp disable. Although being unable to dock at stations will keep especially valuable cargoes vulnerable to additional attackers for 60 seconds. NEGATIVE ASPECTS: Mining players who do escape combat encounters are prohibited from switching ships and returning as part of intruder response group. This heavily favors the aggressor groups in sparsely populated null or wh space. However, this does logically follow a physics module which says weapons firing and impacts create dangerous high energy charges on the exterior of both involved ships. What are you talking about..... 1.) If you don't aggress someone, nor provide remote assistance to someone that's aggressing someone, you won't get a weapons flag, meaning you can dock, jump, warp (assuming your not scrammed), or whatever... So, those macks and hulks can redock just fine... unless they do something really stupid... 2.) See point 1.... and think about it... Go re-read the dev blog and get a clue.... Good point I was reading the stuff on the PVP flag line instead of weapons flag line in the chart. Thought I had read somewhere above that the weapons flag did that too. Still it would an interesting way to push up the conflicts without distorting the behaviors rules...just make it a consequence of physics for both parties.
ArmyOfMe Probable Cause. 113	Posted - 2012.10.05 07:08:00 - [605] - 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? make it so that targeted ships cant be scooped? Would fix the problem as sentrys target everything with a gcc Suleiman Shouaa> And you still think you're taking risks? NightmareX> I do. I take risks every day. But i do whatever i can to make sure i'm not ending up in a loss.
Proddy Scun Renfield Inc 1	Posted - 2012.10.05 07:15:00 - [606] - Quote Lumifragger Ghentenaar wrote: Warde Guildencrantz wrote: CCP Masterplan wrote: This is not just oddly intentional, it is very intentional. If we didn't want to penalise T3 death, we simply wouldn't have the skillpoint-loss mechanic in the first place I really don't get why losing an 800mil ship is not enough of a penalization. Also, what is the point of ejecting if you can't do it when there is an emergency. Isn't that what an "escape pod" is for? Perhaps you should just make T3s not have this penalty, their cost is already huge, losing them is already penalty enough when you pop. Don't fly what you can't afford. And sorry you can no longer only fly RMT faction tengus anymore T3 are fairly expensive for new players who are not converting RL cash to ISK by selling PLEX. But they really aren't that expensive for serious players who either been around or who are willing to drop a little RL cash to boost things along. I'd bet most players who have played regularly for 2-3 years and belong to a decent corp or alliance have an income of at least 1-2B ISK per month. If they don't PLEX an extra account or two then they can spend it on T3. If you lose 10-12 Tengu per year...you are probably doing something wrong or your corp/alliance should be gaining enough territory and loot to reimburse you for being a key hard core player.
Lev Arturis Dark-Rising 9	Posted - 2012.10.05 07:16:00 - [607] - Quote Drago Misharie wrote: Sounds great, but the not letting your ship leave space due to NPC is a problem with the current system. I have lost many ships because I am in a mission area, belt, or site and my ship is just unable to warp due to debris. If this behavior of leaving space doesn't change, at least something should be done about the debris so ships that aren't pointed can warp regardless upon log-off. ....stuck petition and a GM is your friend in that case.
Cerulean Ice Repercussus RAZOR Alliance 30	Posted - 2012.10.05 07:22:00 - [608] - Quote CCP Masterplan wrote: Logistics on killmails will not be happening in this release, sorry. Logi don't need to be on killmails. We're better than that. CCP Masterplan wrote: Gate guns will always be on the side of the innocent party. If a pair of -10s or suspects start fighting on a gate, the guns will happily ignore them, since neither is innocent. But there are no innocents in EVE... CCP Masterplan wrote: Jeas Imerius wrote: I like how this sounds so far! I have an idea of how the new 1v1 system could work though.. Call it Dueling: Right click players portrait or ship and click 'Challenge player to Duel' (must be in a ship and in space). A window pops up were both parties either accept or decline. 'Insert Name has challenged you to a Duel, do you wish to defend your honor?' If both accept, a 10 second timer begins during which time both players assume their positions (take 10 paces). After the countdown they are free to fire on each other without incurring any flags. Once a ship is destroyed the duel is over. Stop reading my email! Will players in the same corporation still be able to shoot each other? Back in my uni days, we shot each other for practice :3
Proddy Scun Renfield Inc 1	Posted - 2012.10.05 07:31:00 - [609] - Quote Cerulean Ice wrote: CCP Masterplan wrote: Logistics on killmails will not be happening in this release, sorry. Logi don't need to be on killmails. We're better than that. CCP Masterplan wrote: Gate guns will always be on the side of the innocent party. If a pair of -10s or suspects start fighting on a gate, the guns will happily ignore them, since neither is innocent. But there are no innocents in EVE... CCP Masterplan wrote: Jeas Imerius wrote: I like how this sounds so far! I have an idea of how the new 1v1 system could work though.. Call it Dueling: Right click players portrait or ship and click 'Challenge player to Duel' (must be in a ship and in space). A window pops up were both parties either accept or decline. 'Insert Name has challenged you to a Duel, do you wish to defend your honor?' If both accept, a 10 second timer begins during which time both players assume their positions (take 10 paces). After the countdown they are free to fire on each other without incurring any flags. Once a ship is destroyed the duel is over. Stop reading my email! Will players in the same corporation still be able to shoot each other? Back in my uni days, we shot each other for practice :3 Did not read anything about changing corp ships to illegal targets. I think illegal targets remain the same unless they gain a flag that makes them legal. However CrimeWatch flags are not the only way to become legal target -- WarDec system and corp membership are there too.
Rek Seven Probe Patrol Project Wildfire 441	Posted - 2012.10.05 07:36:00 - [610] - Quote I like these proposed changes but I'm not to clear on the whole ejection thing... Let's say you are in null sec or w-space doing a pve site and you get jumped and tackled by someone. You then spot a HIC and a small fleet on d-scan and you decide that you can't win the fight so it's better to save your pod and eject. Are we still going to be able to do this? Am I right in thinking that because you have been shooting NPC's and maybe the player in an attempt to get away, you won't be able to eject from your ship for 60 seconds? All those tengu pilots that get jumped in a sleeper site are really going to feel it when they loose their ship, skill points and their pod... I don't thing all players should be punished just because some people are using the ejection mechanic to exploit the game. They see me trolling, they hating...
Proddy Scun Renfield Inc 1	Posted - 2012.10.05 07:45:00 - [611] - Quote ArmyOfMe wrote: 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? make it so that targeted ships cant be scooped? Would fix the problem as sentrys target everything with a gcc Hee hee I have seen a lot of low sec gate camps where they used masses of cheaper ships over "expensive, quality" ships. However, why not tag ship as well as pilot with GCC and treat scooping as any other assistance? ....make GCC flagging of ship permanent and save overhead of timers on GCC ships. Pilot pods aren't attacked anyway so its really GCC on ships that counts for destruction. Any property used during GCC is lost would be very similar to public laws in real world. So now that alt-flown Orca has the GCC too. And it cannot jump gate. Or if system lags in preventing that Orca from jumping gate - the Orca just jumped from frying pan (sentry guns alone) to fire (sentry guns of other side plus CONCORD etc) LOL - that way you can remove restriction on switching ships. Every ship you board as GCC pilot is another ship tagged with GCC. Could be humorous too.
Vaerah Vahrokha Vahrokh Consulting 1924	Posted - 2012.10.05 07:52:00 - [612] - Quote Warde Guildencrantz wrote: CCP Masterplan wrote: This is not just oddly intentional, it is very intentional. If we didn't want to penalise T3 death, we simply wouldn't have the skillpoint-loss mechanic in the first place I really don't get why losing an 800mil ship is not enough of a penalization. Also, what is the point of ejecting if you can't do it when there is an emergency. Isn't that what an "escape pod" is for? Perhaps you should just make T3s not have this penalty, their cost is already huge, losing them is already penalty enough when you pop. 800M is a cost, exactly like flying another 1B ship costs, well, 1B. The additional penalty is an attached string for being allowed to fly an overpowered hull that gave you advantages - enough to outclass T2 specialized ships with a generalist ship. Auditing \| Collateral holding and insurance \| Consulting \| PLEX for Good Charity Twitter channel
Solstice Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 1782	Posted - 2012.10.05 07:53:00 - [613] - Quote Jarin Arenos wrote: Solstice Project wrote: Jarin Arenos wrote: Quote: can i have your stuff when you leave You failed 3rd grade reading comprehension, didn't you? I never said I intended to quit over this. I never even said that people were likely to quit. I was calling Abdiel there an [insult redacted] for saying that the game would be better off if it lost 3/4 of its player base. That's true, but the mission runners simply won't leave .......... My point is that those highsec players that you hate so much fund the continued development of this game. Look at the statistics on users-by-security some time. And even THAT doesn't tell the story, because a huge chunk of null is financed via PLEX from highsec characters. And you are one of those plenty people who ignore that this statistic is only a momentarily snapshot and also isn't about PLAYERS (aka users, as you say) but only looks at characters. You're also ignoring that plenty of these characters are nullsec alts or alts from PvPers to fund themselves. My fault, tbh, because i didn't distinguish between carebears and players who actually matter. Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire
Proddy Scun Renfield Inc 1	Posted - 2012.10.05 08:08:00 - [614] - Quote Vladimir Norkoff wrote: Iam Widdershins wrote: Just have a hauler right there in fleet or whatever to whoosh the goods away as soon as they appear if you really want them. Meh. A single hauler load is hardly worth stealing. You want an entire can-full to flip, which is multiple hauler loads. You want to have taken enough of their time, that they and their entire corp will come gunning for you. You can easily steal a hauler load of ore with this new system if that is all you are after. Just cruise around cloaked, bookmark cans, swap to a hauler, warp to can, loot and warp off. But that's not the point. Miners won't care. A hauler load is just a few minutes of mining time lost. That's not worth risking their ship over. But if you take a half-hour, or an hour, of their work. Then they get pissed. And that's when they get their combat ships. And that IS the point. This new system (if the Suspect flag is retro-active) eliminates that. Can/wreck flipping just becomes an "Open PvP Flag - On" button, with no real meaning or context. You can only take what you can fit into your cargo, and that really ain't much in the overall scheme of things. Nobody is going to care. And in the end it will reduce another form of player interaction (albeit rather violent interaction). And that is not a good thing. Things that promote conflict on the other hand are good. Conflict is what drives this game. Hmmm...jetcan 27500m3 Rigged Iteron V 38000+ m3 I can steal a whole jetcan if nobody is guarding it. LOL - I have had entire cans flipped and stolen them back from under the nose of the can flipper (risky if one of you gets timing wrong). If you just want to cost them time...I think you can still flip their jetcan and then shoot it destroying the load. Or is it only your own wrecks? Been so long since I intentionally destroyed my own loot cans. But I can remember seeing people do that in mission sites and complexes to keep ninjas from getting loot years ago.
Tusko Hopkins HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded 10	Posted - 2012.10.05 08:27:00 - [615] - Quote A quick question: lets say I take my Tornado and gank a hauler in high-sec. Several flags fly off and I end up getting C-flagged and CONCORD comes in to screw me up. Unlike earlier I cannot warp off and get killed at a distant location either. Sooner or later CONCORD comes out vicorious and I end up in a pod. Do I understand the rules correctly that the flags I received are passed on my pod? With a C flag on my pod, will I be a sitting duck for 15 minutes, unable to warp or jump the gate being a legal target to anyone? Does this mean a 99.9% probabilitity to get podded upon a highsec gank as well? Or I don't need to worry about the C flag anyways because CONCORD is going to get me?
Iam Widdershins Project Nemesis 738	Posted - 2012.10.05 08:27:00 - [616] - Quote Vladimir Norkoff wrote: Iam Widdershins wrote: Just have a hauler right there in fleet or whatever to whoosh the goods away as soon as they appear if you really want them. Meh. A single hauler load is hardly worth stealing. You want an entire can-full to flip, which is multiple hauler loads. You want to have taken enough of their time, that they and their entire corp will come gunning for you. You can easily steal a hauler load of ore with this new system if that is all you are after. Just cruise around cloaked, bookmark cans, swap to a hauler, warp to can, loot and warp off. But that's not the point. Miners won't care. A hauler load is just a few minutes of mining time lost. That's not worth risking their ship over. But if you take a half-hour, or an hour, of their work. Then they get pissed. And that's when they get their combat ships. And that IS the point. This new system (if the Suspect flag is retro-active) eliminates that. Can/wreck flipping just becomes an "Open PvP Flag - On" button, with no real meaning or context. You can only take what you can fit into your cargo, and that really ain't much in the overall scheme of things. Nobody is going to care. And in the end it will reduce another form of player interaction (albeit rather violent interaction). And that is not a good thing. Things that promote conflict on the other hand are good. Conflict is what drives this game. Then just flip the can into your can and shoot it. I don't care. I was just suggesting a way to make it so they can't get their ore back; be creative. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Vladimir Norkoff Income Redistribution Service 65	Posted - 2012.10.05 08:30:00 - [617] - Quote Gizznitt Malikite wrote: We both know why you'd flip the can of ore... to get a fight... and, frankly, the suspect flag mechanics make it a LOT easier to get a fight.... Flip a can, and anyone in the area can shoot you.... now "good Samaritan" type players can patrol belts and try to gank suspects, which will probably create some good and fun fights for you. Sure, if you lose ownership of a can, you no longer get attack rights when they take the loot back... but so what... getting fights in highsec should be much easier, as EVERYONE can shoot you... I think you are seriously overestimating the denizens of hi-sec. The vast majority will avoid confrontation unless they have a personal stake in the matter. There may be a few who jump into fights, but that will generally only happen like it does in most other EvE PvP.... when they know they have an overwhelming superiority. All this system seems to do is, like I said before, flip an "Open PvP Flag" to the on-posiiton. It just mindless flying around waiting to get shot at. There is no context or meaning to the fight. There is nothing to fight over or defend. It's just pointless arena PvP. That's not game-driving conflict. That's just shooting each other. And that doesn't make for good gameplay. Don't get me wrong. I like that the Suspect flag makes you open game. It makes sense. It's good for alliance ops with mixed corps. It allows solo miners to shout for help in local. But if I can't take something of substantial worth from the victim, they won't bother to take on the risk of combat. Thus, there will never be meaningful conflict. Iam Widdershins wrote: Then just flip the can into your can and shoot it. I don't care. I was just suggesting a way to make it so they can't get their ore back; be creative. LOL that's just a d1ck maneuver! And yeah you can pull off theivery with a second person. But that's just kind of lame. You either need to do it by dual-boxing (which makes a lame pastime even lamer), or try to convince somebody to tag along to steal a few million ISK of ore so they can watch you get into a fight (good luck with that).
Daedra Blue Atomic Biohazard 24	Posted - 2012.10.05 08:37:00 - [618] - Quote Hello, I've read trough the changes and i personally think this is a great change in the right direction. One thing i find problematic is like most people pointed out the eject interdiction. I personally do not see any reason a eject interdiction should exist under any circumstance. Eject idea/principle/mechanic. It is considered as a unpredictable mechanism triggered by a player to aid in damage mitigation, in our case a player can eject at any time to save his pod(implats)/(T3 skillpoints). By this idea the eject function should be usable under any circumstances. The mechanic is at the player side ejection is a personal action nobody can prevent you you have the buttons. Why interdict ejection? I see no proper reasons to do it but i can think of something remotely plausible like trying to keep people committed but i think your are forcing overcommitment. Why not have interdicted ejection? Well first because its the players decision and it should not be take away. It prevents people from fighting back until they think they can't win because once you fight back you can't run. Fights will be a black and white thing. People either decide to fight and die horribly if they can't make it or they instantly eject and run. (It might lead to more ships captured but this will be a gain for pirates only and will make T3 highly unpopular in PvP if that is what your target is. Workaround/Justification I understand the principle of keeping people committed to a fight but why not let fights get fought and make it interesting because people should be able to chose if they want to risk the pod and fight till the end or see that they can't win and save what they can. In each case the ship is lost but further mitigation is in the hands of the player giving depth of skill a room to grow. And its great for people to earn experience while not having to sacrifice everything. I can see an alternative by witch one you have weapon aggro times if you eject from a ship you cannot jump into another ship. To prevent people from hopping in and out of ships while in combat so do not prevent ejection prevent jumping into ships. This mechanic should not apply to people who sit till the end in the ship, they should be able to instantly hop in another ship if they are in a pod because of ship destruction but if they ejected from the ship while in combat they should be unable to jump in another ship for as long as the weapon timer lasts. This mechanic would fix the existing mechanic and allow for skill depth to develop and also save the T3 mechanic of skillloss without removing the benefit of interdiction wacky maneuvers in pvp. T3 skillloss mechanic should be player preventable if you are skilled enough and odds are in your favor. Even like that i could not understand the condemnation of every other ship to pod kill to force a pretty shady mechanic onto players.
SunTsu Rae Legio VIII Augusta The Ancients. 1	Posted - 2012.10.05 08:39:00 - [619] - Quote I have not gone through all of the posts here , so if I repeat something , forgive me. I have an Idea that can help the mutual PvP. Use a similar function to forming a fleet. Once the player drops the "fleet" a timer counts down , for lets say 15 seconds, that continues the allowable rounds or ordinance to hit you. It also should break the lock of the "fleet" on the one who dropped out. thus preventing issues and allowing the "warning" notices to post and be recognized as such. Yes, I still see ganking occuring, " oh bring in your shiny new Nightmare to test against me " , " sorry to see you dropped mutual PvP , oh btw I know you're in structure , heres a blob of thrashers for ya. " SunTsu Rae Ensuring Rights, Recognition, and Remembrance. (Gulf War 1991) [url]http://www.vfw.org[/url]
Proddy Scun Renfield Inc 1	Posted - 2012.10.05 08:42:00 - [620] - Quote Tusko Hopkins wrote: A quick question: lets say I take my Tornado and gank a hauler in high-sec. Several flags fly off and I end up getting C-flagged and CONCORD comes in to screw me up. Unlike earlier I cannot warp off and get killed at a distant location either. Sooner or later CONCORD comes out vicorious and I end up in a pod. Do I understand the rules correctly that the flags I received are passed on my pod? With a C flag on my pod, will I be a sitting duck for 15 minutes, unable to warp or jump the gate being a legal target to anyone? Does this mean a 99.9% probabilitity to get podded upon a highsec gank as well? Or I don't need to worry about the C flag anyways because CONCORD is going to get me? really I saw no change for after your ship is destroyed by CONCORD. As any ganker knows only gank wearing a JC with implants you don't mind losing too badly. As now while in pod you are not legal target for anyone and are not restricted from docking or any other activity pods can do. As now being in pod will not lose the flags. They are there in case should you board another ship. Under current system, you can already dock in pod and leave station in new ship with timer still going and get blown up immediately by station guns. Now it is true that a pod is much easier to kill than ship. So yes some unscrupulous players might take advantage -- similar to your taking advantage of essential unarmed miner. I hope you don't have a bounty or didn't **** off that miner with combat ship in system off too bad.
xvart ARK-CORP En Garde 0	Posted - 2012.10.05 08:53:00 - [621] - Quote What is the deal with corp hangars, why the hate. This is a high/low sec fix and only interferes with null, most of this junk should have the if (secstatus < 1) return; at the start. Why am I restricted from using my pos the way I want, station fine gate no issue, but not my pos. If you supply and maintain it for free then go for it, but you don't so leave it alone. Don't care about high sec/low sec game stuff but the additional rules for null are just dumb. I can see it now, Ok guys reship to bombers -> warp to pos-> go have coffee, **** talk to wife-> oh great now after 60 seconds intended to stop morons playing station games in high sec I can finally board my bomber-> warp back, oh look they left because after 60 seconds they can jump... nice one break null even more.
Rek Seven Probe Patrol Project Wildfire 441	Posted - 2012.10.05 08:54:00 - [622] - Quote Daedra Blue wrote: T3 skillloss mechanic should be player preventable if you are skilled enough and odds are in your favor. Even like that i could not understand the condemnation of every other ship to pod kill to force a pretty shady mechanic onto players. No it shouldn't. Loosing skill points is a risk you take when flying a T3. That said, i agree that we should be able to eject whenever we want. They see me trolling, they hating...
Securis Unus Public Intoxication 0	Posted - 2012.10.05 08:57:00 - [623] - Quote https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=156804&find=unread So was this never a bug and just a precursor to this new system? If not what do you do when it happens in the new system as it won't allow you to eject in the new system?
Cerulean Ice Repercussus RAZOR Alliance 30	Posted - 2012.10.05 08:57:00 - [624] - Quote Echoing some other comments, I'd like to know why ejecting from a ship is being restricted by the W flag. Can you explain the reason for this, CCP? Part of it is making sure T3 losses have a skill point loss, I'm sure, but how does it impact the rest of the ships?
SunTsu Rae Legio VIII Augusta The Ancients. 1	Posted - 2012.10.05 09:02:00 - [625] - Quote Hint to CCP , drop the non-eject clause . . . . . SunTsu Rae Ensuring Rights, Recognition, and Remembrance. (Gulf War 1991) [url]http://www.vfw.org[/url]
TheBlueMonkey Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 178	Posted - 2012.10.05 09:04:00 - [626] - Quote SunTsu Rae wrote: Hint to CCP , drop the non-eject clause . . . . . but retraining the same skills everytime you lose a ship is fun
Angarchanin Monkey Attack Squad Goonswarm Federation 29	Posted - 2012.10.05 09:09:00 - [627] - Quote not enough "Weapons Flag - not to get under the field POS for 15 minutes after receiving the flag" for all levels of security
SunTsu Rae Legio VIII Augusta The Ancients. 1	Posted - 2012.10.05 09:10:00 - [628] - Quote Another Hint , Crimewatch items should be non-operative in Null/WH space. The wait to reship after aggression would be obnoxious to those defending. I agree the timers should not reset if activated in High/Low Sec. , but in Null/WH they should be nothing but background noise. SunTsu Rae Ensuring Rights, Recognition, and Remembrance. (Gulf War 1991) [url]http://www.vfw.org[/url]
Lemming Alpha1dash1 Lemmings Online 10	Posted - 2012.10.05 09:12:00 - [629] - Quote Current Crimewatch: I have the Dumb Improved Crimewatch FTW Limited Engagements in Hisec makes sense thanks for that.
Solstice Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 1782	Posted - 2012.10.05 09:15:00 - [630] - Quote TheBlueMonkey wrote: SunTsu Rae wrote: Hint to CCP , drop the non-eject clause . . . . . but retraining the same skills everytime you lose a ship is fun Consequences ... damn ! Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 44 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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