| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Syn Fatelyng
Redanni
63
   |
Posted - 2013.01.02 19:20:00 -
[31] - Quote
This entire thread has felt like a collaboration of the "Best YouTube Comments in EVE Online". |
Brewlar Kuvakei
Adeptio Gloriae
Nightshade Equilibrium
176
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 19:27:00 -
[32] - Quote
Kithran wrote:Jack Miton wrote:why WOULD it be an exploit? Um perhaps because CCP made a change to prevent people holding open sites back in Crucible - http://community.eveonline.com/updates/patchnotes.asp?newpatchlogID=3219Specifically they made a change to prevent cloaked ships keeping a site open to prevent it despawning. Now in this case they people holding the sites open are simply using day-old characters in noob ships. It is perfectly possible to have a few ships to gank said alt, who then simply gets a new noob ship and repeats the process, assuming he doesn't just sit there in his pod - afterall what does it matter if a day old alt gets podded? Turning your question on its head why WOULDN'T it be an exploit?
Because it was not an exploit when farmers kept the sites running open pre Crucible so how can it be when some one keeps a dead site up post?
Incursions do not belong in high sec anyway as stated by the CSM and the majority of the player base on numerous occasions. Incursions should be a low/null sec affair or at the very least kept in high sec while dropping the system sec status while incursion occurs. After all Concord is overwhelmed except from their ability to ignore 200 Sansha rats to kill my one catalyst?
Kugutsumen - My signature insures that my post is always read by an ISD or Dev, does yours? |
Ahvram
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
58
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 19:42:00 -
[33] - Quote
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:Kithran wrote:Jack Miton wrote:why WOULD it be an exploit? Um perhaps because CCP made a change to prevent people holding open sites back in Crucible - http://community.eveonline.com/updates/patchnotes.asp?newpatchlogID=3219Specifically they made a change to prevent cloaked ships keeping a site open to prevent it despawning. Now in this case they people holding the sites open are simply using day-old characters in noob ships. It is perfectly possible to have a few ships to gank said alt, who then simply gets a new noob ship and repeats the process, assuming he doesn't just sit there in his pod - afterall what does it matter if a day old alt gets podded? Turning your question on its head why WOULDN'T it be an exploit? Because it was not an exploit when farmers kept the sites running open pre Crucible so how can it be when some one keeps a dead site up post? Incursions do not belong in high sec anyway as stated by the CSM and the majority of the player base on numerous occasions. Incursions should be a low/null sec affair or at the very least kept in high sec while dropping the system sec status while incursion occurs. After all Concord is overwhelmed except from their ability to ignore 200 Sansha rats to kill my one catalyst?
Right so pirates could run rampant and incursions fleets would stop running completely. Its not possible to handle a room full of incursion rats and a 10+ man fleet of ganker pirates jumping on top of you. Why do you think almost no one runs low sec incursions. I love unrealist people who want easy kills so they come up with absurd ideas like this one. |
Ember Klahan
Procyon Resources
Honey Badger Coalition
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 19:45:00 -
[34] - Quote
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:
Incursions do not belong in high sec anyway as stated by the CSM and the majority of the player base on numerous occasions. Incursions should be a low/null sec affair or at the very least kept in high sec while dropping the system sec status while incursion occurs. After all Concord is overwhelmed except from their ability to ignore 200 Sansha rats to kill my one catalyst?
Out of curiosity, please link your sources. I don't know about the CSM as I certainly haven't read all the minutes, but wherever the majority of the player base said that - even once - I'd love to see it.
I do think low and null incursions could use some serious buffing in the reward area, though. A 25% increase in reward per site, or applying the original incursion mechanics (or something functionally similar) to low/null sites would add a lot of appeal. |
Ember Klahan
Procyon Resources
Honey Badger Coalition
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 19:50:00 -
[35] - Quote
Ahvram wrote:
Right so pirates could run rampant and incursions fleets would stop running completely. Its not possible to handle a room full of incursion rats and a 10+ man fleet of ganker pirates jumping on top of you. Why do you think almost no one runs low sec incursions. I love unrealist people who want easy kills so they come up with absurd ideas like this one.
Please read your post back to yourself out loud. |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis
R.E.P.O.
109
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 20:02:00 -
[36] - Quote
I would say the ability to avoid any and all repercussions for an action you take would fall under exploit.
Things that are not actual repercussions: Your fresh and free alt in a noobship being blown up.
Your fresh and free alt being podded. |
Mathrin
Synthetic Solution
Synthetic Systems
52
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 20:14:00 -
[37] - Quote
What part of gank them are you having problems with. 2 kestrels could do the job I'm sure. Pod them out. Site despawns go to next site and repeat |
Fango Mango
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
73
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 20:23:00 -
[38] - Quote
Why does the OP think it is an "exploit" for someone to keep sites open longer than they were originally intended so that incursion runners can't farm, but its not an "exploit" for incursion runner to keep incursions open longer than they were originally intended so that they can farm more?
That guy just came up with a mechanic to defeat the incursion runners after the incursion runners came up with a mechanic to defeat CCPs intent for incursions.
Why is this pissing anyone off? You should congratulate him for his novel idea and come up with your own mechanic to defeat his playstyle . . .
I dunno maybe a 1 day old thrasher alt with some warp disruptors to catch his noob ship before it can warp into the plex?
-FM
|
Ginger Barbarella
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
1050
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 21:23:00 -
[39] - Quote
Working as intended. Move along.
"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." -á --- Sorlac |
goldiiee
Superior Ratio
High Sec Dropouts
143
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 22:48:00 -
[40] - Quote
The change in the mechanic to Low and Nul complexes was done to prevent a cloaked ship from interfering with sites de-spawning, as a cloaked ship is essentially invincible. The Mechanics were changed in order to prevent this GÇÿexploitGÇÖ.
The same cannot be said for high sec, a cloak is not necessary to make a ship invincible, all you need is a noob and the desire to disrupt a community. Essentially this is the same GÇÿexploitGÇÖ with the exception of the cloak, in high sec Concord eliminates the ganker for the noob and punishes the gank with a standings hit. Explaining this in more detail is a waste of time and Brain Cells anyone with a 5th grade education can see that this is an exploit and arguing it isnGÇÖt is an obvious Troll.
Brewlar Kuvakei:
All sites in EVE are farmed, be it for materials or bounties. Leaving an Incursion up to farm it is no different than mining a belt to depletion, or salvaging a mission before turning it in, the GÇÿfarming is not an intended designGÇÖ is another argument from Trolls or self deluded individuals that seem to maintain their gameplay through the constant sale of PLEXGÇÖs.
BTW all ISK in eve is created from bounties or mission pay (I include Incursions in this category) to the best of my knowledge this includes the ISK you get for a PLEX, so anything you own in eve is due to the efforts of a Mission runner. For those to thick to understand this; without the ISK from bounties/Mission pay there would be no way to buy anything in eve with no way to exchange merchandise except direct trade (A wholly unacceptable idea).
Mathrin:
As an Incursion runner I can assure you that there are considerably less High sec carebears in fleets than Nul sec ISK earners. At any point and time there are at least 20 alts available to gank the site holder without losing a step, the question is why should we? As it is a waste of a ship and a waste of an Alt as it will be useless for Highsec in any effective way after the standings hit.
The alternative of paying him is the only option left. So before setting any more incompetent thoughts to text think, Would you pay a day old Toon 10million ISK to allow you to play the game?
DoesnGÇÖt matter where you play Low, High, or Nul this would be considered griefing, but in Low or Nul we would just pop him with no hesitation.
TLDR: The fact that one toon has the ability to deny others access to a game feature at no risk to himself and at no perceptible loss to himself is an exploit and it is griefing. Any argument to the contrary is just Trolling.
Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
Rip Minner
ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
86
|
Posted - 2013.01.03 01:01:00 -
[41] - Quote
Ya that's total BS.
Anybody saying day old alt''s in high sec doing this is not an exploit is a idiot.
And CCP needs to higher better GM's.
I on the other hand would just play his game and make trial account after trail account and keep civilan blastering him up.
Edit: Though I have no ideal how they would fix that in high sec with game mechanics as they are. Best solution is to train there GM's better. |
Kara Books
Deal with IT.
306
|
Posted - 2013.01.03 03:56:00 -
[42] - Quote
Im pretty sure the last remaining handful of people doing incursions will stop entertaining themselves in very short order if CCP doesn't step in, if they don't then I guess that's what more people want to keep happening then not.
If this happened during the Incursion expansion, then I bet you anything in the world that CCP would IMMEDIATELY had fixed it back then.
Find more support, have 50+ people post their distaste and make sure they all petition, because its not going to stop unless you can convince CCP your right and their wrong, right now its the other way around. |
Ember Klahan
Procyon Resources
Honey Badger Coalition
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.03 18:21:00 -
[43] - Quote
goldiiee wrote:
TLDR: The fact that one toon has the ability to deny others access to a game feature at no risk to himself and at no perceptible loss to himself is an exploit and it is griefing. Any argument to the contrary is just Trolling.
This is an OK argument (except I think you meant one person; one toon would just be able to hold open one site). I'm still completely unconvinced that this is an exploit, and I think it's using the current game mechanic to profit - not greifing - but it is pretty reasonable, given the simplicity and accuracy with which you explained the problem, to say it is a broken mechanic.
The question is - how can it (and can it) be fixed? Make it so sites always despawn once completed, regardless of the ship type in the site? This disrupts the currently-functional low/null mechanic, although there are good arguments for doing it. Cause noobships and pods to be unable to hold open sites? This is a partial solution, for sure: the ships have to be purchased and in some cases moved to the target location, and they aren't free. In reality, though, it's really easy to move a bunch of frigates, and the cost of t1 frigates is functionally pretty much as free as noobships. Cause sites to automatically despawn once completed, but only in highsec, or in incursions? I don't know if that would be an easy change or a really hard change, and it would need to be discussed pretty heavily before being put into effect. The worst option, in my mind, is for CCP to say "it's an exploit, don't do it", start banning people who do, and not change the mechanic in any way.
Thoughts? |
Vengeance Thirst
Sons Of Decebal
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.03 18:48:00 -
[44] - Quote
Mathrin wrote:What part of gank them are you having problems with. 2 kestrels could do the job I'm sure. Pod them out. Site despawns go to next site and repeat
Have you ever ganked someone in empire? They use noob ships. To gank them you need use frigates minimum. Basically they get free ships. You don't. And on top of it you can only do it that many times before concord doesn't let you in high anymore, as you need to kill the pods to.
This is totally unacceptable and I say again if CCP GM's think this is valid tactic and fair play than they should just resign and find a job that doesn't require to think more than a drunken monkey.
|
Ember Klahan
Procyon Resources
Honey Badger Coalition
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.03 19:29:00 -
[45] - Quote
Vengeance Thirst wrote:
Have you ever ganked someone in empire? They use noob ships. To gank them you need use frigates minimum. Basically they get free ships. You don't. And on top of it you can only do it that many times before concord doesn't let you in high anymore, as you need to kill the pods to.
This is incorrect. You can move around in high security no matter your security status. |
Jacob Rider
Rifterlings
Damu'Khonde
16
|
Posted - 2013.01.03 20:27:00 -
[46] - Quote
Ember Klahan wrote:This is incorrect. You can move around in high security no matter your security status.
You know exactly what he meant. Sure you can move around, but if you want to stay and actually do something in space, you are not allowed to after you kill a few pods. |
Kara Books
Deal with IT.
310
|
Posted - 2013.01.03 21:09:00 -
[47] - Quote
Jacob Rider wrote:Ember Klahan wrote:This is incorrect. You can move around in high security no matter your security status. You know exactly what he meant. Sure you can move around, but if you want to stay and actually do something in space, you are not allowed to after you kill a few pods.
Exploiting sec status mechanics to boot |
Batelle
Aliastra
106
|
Posted - 2013.01.03 21:22:00 -
[48] - Quote
sure, you can suicide his ship, and it only takes a day to train an alt to do so, but he could just as easily be holding those sites open in brick-tanked prophecies. With this strategy a handful of people could eliminate hisec incursions indefinitely.
Anyone saying this can be realistically countered has taken HTFU a bit too literally, with plenty of incursion-runner-disdain thrown in.
[url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=65340[/url] |
goldiiee
Superior Ratio
High Sec Dropouts
146
|
Posted - 2013.01.03 21:42:00 -
[49] - Quote
Ember Klahan
A simple change would be to have the sites de-spawn or allow another to spawn when the fleet gets paid. DidnGÇÖt take very long to come up with that idea so I am sure I am not the first to think of it. As I donGÇÖt have any knowledge of the coding involved nor do I have an understanding of why they wouldnGÇÖt have incorporated it into the original coding in the first place, I can only assume that is used to manage the number of active sites up at any given time.
Currently Incursion sites donGÇÖt pay any fleet member in a Pod or a Noob ship so you would think the sites would also not be capable of being held by those same ship types, go figure. As the mechanic is being used by someone that wishes to invest nothing while extorting a sizeable sum, it makes for a perfect scam (Zero investment and no risk) My only surprise comes from it not happening sooner. I would say the site should only be held by a ship appropriate to the difficulty of the site but in reality if the sites were being held by a hero tanked Damnation it would just as effective as it being held by a Noob ship, Site spawn mechanics are the limiting factor here.
As ganking him seems to be the standard troll I feel compelled to point out that anyone with an alt unconcerned with sec status, has that alt parked in Nul or low with its own niche. And bringing it into high sec to gank noobs is an extreme waste of SP, akin to ganking miners for a pittance.
Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
Kara Books
Deal with IT.
310
|
Posted - 2013.01.03 22:49:00 -
[50] - Quote
I usto do heavy incursions, Iv seen countless noob ship warp in attempts at all points and stages of the fighting, but not once has this site despawn delema actually acured in any shape or form.
Perhaps something was broken during the re-balancing of incursions at some point and time. |
goldiiee
Superior Ratio
High Sec Dropouts
146
|
Posted - 2013.01.03 22:54:00 -
[51] - Quote
I know we saw a little bit in VG sites when a local was salvaging sites after we completed them, I think the spawn rate on HQ's is so slow that the same effect has a noticeable delay. Combined with the lack of adequate sites for the growing community has presented this latest oportunity for extortion
Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
Ember Klahan
Procyon Resources
Honey Badger Coalition
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.04 00:08:00 -
[52] - Quote
Kara Books wrote:Jacob Rider wrote:Ember Klahan wrote:This is incorrect. You can move around in high security no matter your security status. You know exactly what he meant. Sure you can move around, but if you want to stay and actually do something in space, you are not allowed to after you kill a few pods. Exploiting sec status mechanics to boot
Well, not everyone knows that you are in fact able to function in hisec with low security status - and that extends beyond moving around. One of the things you CAN do without undue difficulty is gank, particularly noobships. And as far as moving through hisec with low security status being an exploit... that's... well I don't have much of a response to that, it's pretty ridiculous. |
Vengeance Thirst
Sons Of Decebal
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 07:03:00 -
[53] - Quote
Still no response from GM's after asking for escalation of the petition to higher GM's.
I'm starting to think that CCP slowly turned into this fat guy who's cash keeps coming in every month, without caring how that cash is been made or if the ones that work for him actually do their job.
CCP Check you'r GM's they're not doing their jobs.
And no I will not accept a excuse like "well we have so many petitions going on..." as it's been almost a week now since the request. |
lolfesterbling
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 12:45:00 -
[54] - Quote
U mad bro?!?!?!?
U seem mad ?!?!?!?
Ya your mad.......... |
Lipbite
Express Hauler
555
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 12:53:00 -
[55] - Quote
Making trillions on FW mechanics using billions as investment was an exploit - and this investments-less activity is not? Surely GM wasn't the brightest person around - petition more. Otherwise whole incursions activity will come to an end in a week when people switch their useless "power of two" for-sale-in-the-future alts from sitting in stations to sitting in incursion sites. |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
348
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 14:49:00 -
[56] - Quote
Lets see:
Risk to the guy holding sites open: 0
This alone tells you it is a broken mechanic
It is not working as intended, as CCP did not make incursions just to have zero sites spawn.
Ganking is not viable, due to the fact that they are noob ships, and they thus have an endless supply of ships to keep the site open
Preventing cloaked ships from holding a site open didn't mean that CCP approves of non-cloaked ships holding a site open - its just a question of how do you determine when someone is legitimately in the site, or holding it open? This wasn't just about incursions, but anomalies and such... players may be in there salvaging, hacking, etc, even after the rats are dead.
For incursions, CCP could implement a simple fix:
#1) Gates do not allow Noobships through - meaning that repeated ganking could open the sites when the local supply of frigates is exhausted, and at least results in financial loss for the guy holding sites open.
#2) NPCs rats periodically as in the asteroid belts, which will kill noobships
|
Mistah Ewedynao
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
338
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 15:56:00 -
[57] - Quote
I have had a GM tell me that 23/7 camping of plexs wasn't an exploit either, BUT that has now been changed by new probing only for plexs mechanic. Some GM's have a strange way of looking at what is fun in the game....
Sounds like griefing, of course CCP seems to think griefing for profit isn't griefing. 
Well has this guy made a profit? Tell me no one payed this jerk....
If not, it is just griefing, plain and simple.
 I'd just take my whole fleet and go blitz L4's or something for awhile. Screw that griefer.
Oh... and Bounties, LOTS of bounties.
Nerf Goons
Nuke em from orbit....it's tthe only way to be sure. |
Dzajic
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 16:09:00 -
[58] - Quote
What happens with bounties when he biomasses that noob alt and makes a new one. And how much of a bounty pay out do you get a for a free noobship anyway? Should be zero?
Broken mechanic is broken. Easiest solution is have sites despawn after completion. If you don't want to to affect other stuff then make it so only for high sec Incursion sites. There, done fixed.
Because using in game tools it can't be fought against. Anyone has infinite supply of noob alts and noob ships and blank pods. Otoh, even T1 fit Thrashers and Catalysts cost money, and sec status hit from podding is much greater issue. Congratulations, your ganking alt is now outlaw. Yes you can work around it, but consider that plex blocker only has to awaken in station and undock in instantly provided free noobship and warp to the gate of the site again. |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
350
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 16:36:00 -
[59] - Quote
Its not impossible to get around, one can load up and orca with frigs/thrashers, bookmark each site as you finish them (or leave a scout on the gate to see which ones a noob ship shows up at), and basically spend 1 thrasher per site, which on HQs isn't much,
one just needs to bring along an alt with already terrible sec status.
However... this is easily counters by MOAR ALTs....
There is nothing to stop us from having to gank 2 noobships + pods in each site... or 4, or 8... or 16... all at no cost to the griefer.
All he needs to do is spam more alts with 0 additional SP.
From what I can see, nobody has paid him, they have ganked him... enabling the fleet to run for a few more sites, but that doesn't mean that this is not a BS griefing tactic.
The mechanics are not "working as intended"
There is zero risk for the griefer.
There is no viable way to counter it.
If it is just this *one guy* with the ability to run only a limited number of alts, then others can work around it... but if CCP says this is ok and valid, and 2 or 3, or 10 guys start doing it... CCP might as well remove incursion content altogether. |
CharonOfStyx
12Monkeys-Clan
Semper Fidelis Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 16:36:00 -
[60] - Quote
That's a bad joke by CCP. There are pissed off enough people and just because a player. And maybe CCP wants a clearer sign than just a couple of notes of protest. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |