Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vengeance Thirst
Sons Of Decebal
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 11:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hi
We recently has a guy black mailing us for isk by using 4 alts to keep incursion sites open in high sec stopin other sites to respawn.
I wouls like to know how is this not a exploit. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
710
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 12:00:00 -
[2] - Quote
Quote:welcome to eve. here is a rubik's cube, now go fuck yourself.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Tauranon
Weeesearch
96
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 14:47:00 -
[3] - Quote
Vengeance Thirst wrote:Hi
We recently has a guy black mailing us for isk by using 4 alts to keep incursion sites open in high sec stopin other sites to respawn.
I wouls like to know how is this not a exploit.
(Faild copy paste)
I would like to know how it its not a exploit, seen the GM telling me as response to my petition that it its ok for him to do so.
I thought the use of game mechanics in any other way that what they are intended to is illegal. And yes he did private convo us and told us in local that we need to pay him or he will stay there blocking the respawns.
Thank you.
Amongst 10 bears you don't have 3 with destroyer flying alts that can gank his alts |
Jack Miton
Aperture Harmonics K162
1196
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 15:06:00 -
[4] - Quote
why WOULD it be an exploit? |
Kithran
32
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 15:30:00 -
[5] - Quote
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=3219
Specifically 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? |
Vengeance Thirst
Sons Of Decebal
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 17:51:00 -
[6] - Quote
My main char is a 5 year old nul sec pvper so yes First thing i thought was to kill him but he would just get another noob ship.
Not to mention doing that in high would damage my chars more than him.
It should be an exploit because it is abusing a game mechanic.
He is using a game mechanic in a way it was not intended to. Simple as that.
|
Solus Starstrike
Voices of Anatole
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 18:05:00 -
[7] - Quote
http://support.eveonline.com/Pages/KB/Article.aspx?id=336
If he is ransoming then by what that states he is doing it for profit and is fine. Just blow em up |
Kithran
33
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 20:02:00 -
[8] - Quote
No its not as you can't 'just blow em up' - they are simply alts in noob ships. To blow them up you have to spend isk and lose sec status while they just sit in their pod and still hold the site open. You pod them you lose even more isk and sec status and they just get another free noob ship for no cost.
Also by your argument using cloaked ships to hold sites open would be fine - yet CCP disagreed with you. |
Solus Starstrike
Voices of Anatole
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 20:22:00 -
[9] - Quote
Vengeance Thirst wrote:
I would like to know how it its not a exploit, seen the GM telling me as response to my petition that it its ok for him to do so.
apparently a gm did say it was ok. Eve is sand box If a bully comes and takes all your toys, you punch him back. Dont complain that you may get a few scrapes in the fight. |
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
619
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 20:24:00 -
[10] - 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?
You answered your own question, CCP changed the rules so that cloaked ships can't hold open a gate.
Furthermore;
Quote:Also by your argument using cloaked ships to hold sites open would be fine - yet CCP disagreed with you.
Now CCP is disagreeing with YOU and now YOU are pissed. CCPs stance is that cloaked ships are not allowed to hold open a gate and uncloaked ships are.
It is 100% not an exploit as the issue has been adressed and rectified by the developers.
And there is no excuse for tears whatsoever with the new bounty system. 10 people making 100+ mil an hour cant be arsed to put out some bounties? Fuckin pathetic.
From: Tommas De'Wins To: Cipher Jones Dude :) I got massives Basi hahahahahahaha |
|
Kithran
34
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 20:51:00 -
[11] - Quote
Cipher Jones 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? You answered your own question, CCP changed the rules so that cloaked ships can't hold open a gate. Furthermore; Quote:Also by your argument using cloaked ships to hold sites open would be fine - yet CCP disagreed with you. Now CCP is disagreeing with YOU and now YOU are pissed. CCPs stance is that cloaked ships are not allowed to hold open a gate and uncloaked ships are. It is 100% not an exploit as the issue has been adressed and rectified by the developers. And there is no excuse for tears whatsoever with the new bounty system. 10 people making 100+ mil an hour cant be arsed to put out some bounties? Fuckin pathetic.
You seem unable to follow the logic, allow me to spell it out for you:
CCP have already said that it is not ok to hold a site open perpetually in a way that cannot be countered (by using a cloaked ship).
I am saying that it is equally not possible to counter people using multiple day old alts in noob ships to hold sites open thus this practice should also be disallowed.
As for suggesting bounties you obviously don't know how bounties work - you could put a billion credit bounty on these alts, it doesn't let you attack them without concord blowing you away and it isn't going to encourage anyone else to attack them - they are flying noob ships so the bounty payout is nothing.
People responding with things like just punch him back seem to be just seem to be using the old 'its a sandbox' argument - well if its a sandbox and (to use an equally old arguement) there should be no reward without risk you seem to be missing the fact the people doing this HAVE NO RISK - they pay nothing for their ships or for their clones.
|
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
621
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 21:09:00 -
[12] - Quote
And what I am saying is your idea was considered and rejected. Logic and all. From: Tommas De'Wins To: Cipher Jones Dude :) I got massives Basi hahahahahahaha |
Kithran
35
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 21:31:00 -
[13] - Quote
Cipher Jones wrote:And what I am saying is your idea was considered and rejected. Logic and all.
I see nothing saying that my idea has been considered beyond a gm response of working as intended.
Unless you are claiming GMs have never been known to make a mistake that hardly considers proof - how do you even know GMs were aware of the precedent I have cited? |
Solus Starstrike
Voices of Anatole
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 21:53:00 -
[14] - Quote
Its funny, By reading this thread you can see the two diffrent main mind sets of eve players. The ones who accept the game for what it is ( a harsh and brutal environment ) and thrive in said environment , And those that believe ccp Should fix all their problems for them, and perfer to avoid confrontation.
From what i have read the person isnt cloaked and is a easy target. You are incursion runners isk shouldn't be a issue nor should numbers to achieve a successful gank. The only thing that is stopping you from fixing the situation is you, and until a dev steps in and takes a stand on it thats the best advice i can give ya. |
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
621
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 21:54:00 -
[15] - Quote
Kithran wrote:Cipher Jones wrote:And what I am saying is your idea was considered and rejected. Logic and all. I see nothing saying that my idea has been considered beyond a gm response of working as intended. Unless you are claiming GMs have never been known to make a mistake that hardly considers proof - how do you even know GMs were aware of the precedent I have cited?
I mean the devs had to decide how they wanted the mechanic to function whenever they made the balance change. From: Tommas De'Wins To: Cipher Jones Dude :) I got massives Basi hahahahahahaha |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
1000
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 22:21:00 -
[16] - Quote
Regardless of the mechanic (which personally I think is S**ty, but also part of the game), where is the huge problem?
I'm not an expert at incursions and their spawns (whether they are system to system vs constellation wide). But this guy is only mucking up 4 correct? So ignore him. Move a system over and continue. He can't camp them forever (downtime will see to that) at which time the sites will end, and everyone gets their payout correct?
When I have run incursions I have seen more than 4 sites in a system at a given time, so he can't be locking up all of the sites.
Do that a few days and there is a good likelihood he will find some other community to annoy. |
Vengeance Thirst
Sons Of Decebal
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 22:45:00 -
[17] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote:Regardless of the mechanic (which personally I think is S**ty, but also part of the game), where is the huge problem?
I'm not an expert at incursions and their spawns (whether they are system to system vs constellation wide). But this guy is only mucking up 4 correct? So ignore him. Move a system over and continue. He can't camp them forever (downtime will see to that) at which time the sites will end, and everyone gets their payout correct?
When I have run incursions I have seen more than 4 sites in a system at a given time, so he can't be locking up all of the sites.
Do that a few days and there is a good likelihood he will find some other community to annoy.
In a hq system there is 4 normal sited and 1 boss site that you need to complete to close the incursion and the lp payment.
Although it is constellation wide every system has a different level of difficulty (hq highest and best pay).
Moving around other systems to make lower level less pay sites its fine but that is not the issue.
Issue is simple. Someone is abusing game mechanics in a way it was not intended to make profit and stop others from enjoying the game.
If it was null sec this was not a problem as he'd be killed by now. Problem is this is not nullsec this is highsec and we can't go around killing noob ships and pods every 5min the time it would take him to get in a new noob ship and come back.
I got 3 accounts all up and running i can make other things for isk so its not huge issue for me but its a matter of fair play, something that the gm's apparently don't know about. |
Jack Miton
Aperture Harmonics K162
1197
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 22:47:00 -
[18] - 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?
you dont need to cloak to do this so your argument is irrelevant |
Herr Ronin
42 LVL's of Infinity SQUEE.
296
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 23:51:00 -
[19] - Quote
Vengeance Thirst wrote:Hi
We recently has a guy black mailing us for isk by using 4 alts to keep incursion sites open in high sec stopin other sites to respawn.
I wouls like to know how is this not a exploit.
(Faild copy paste)
I would like to know how it its not a exploit, seen the GM telling me as response to my petition that it its ok for him to do so.
I thought the use of game mechanics in any other way that what they are intended to is illegal. And yes he did private convo us and told us in local that we need to pay him or he will stay there blocking the respawns.
Thank you.
*Get's Popcorn* |
Tauranon
Weeesearch
97
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 00:10:00 -
[20] - Quote
Kithran wrote:
Also by your argument using cloaked ships to hold sites open would be fine - yet CCP disagreed with you.
There is no (practical) mechanism for locating a cloaked ship anywhere on a grid, hence they are not allowed to prevent despawns. |
|
Ember Klahan
Procyon Resources Honey Badger Coalition
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 01:11:00 -
[21] - Quote
It is almost free to gank noobships and pods, and -10 sec status will not stop you from doing so.
For future reference, a rule of thumb on exploits is that if it *can* be done using game mechanics it is very, very likely not an exploit. Examples of not-exploits include:
-People doing more damage in incursion sites than competing fleets, thus "winning" the payout. -People shooting at you in high security space, even if you didn't shoot at them. -People destroying your ship in high security space, even if you haven't met them before. -People pod-killing you in high security space, even if you were friends with their mother. -People holding open PvE sites with cheap decloaked ships. -People attempting to profit from the aforementioned action. -People running PvE sites.
Examples of exploits are: -People holding open PvE sites with cheap cloaked ships. -People suicide ganking, successfully or unsuccessfully, in hisec without losing their ship. -People winning incursion sites by doing less damage than the competing fleet. -People causing NPCs to pod you. -People shooting you and bypassing your shields and armor. -People using the EVE Online client to steal your hamster.
You'll note that, with the exception of the last example (and the only ways you could do that with the client are ways that could also be accomplished using basically any chat client or other communication method), the non-exploits are possible and the exploits are impossible, within game mechanics. |
amurder Hakomairos
Fellowship Of Lost Souls Rebel Alliance of New Eden
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 03:55:00 -
[22] - Quote
So just make yourself a day old alt and fly ur noobship to the site and kill them with your civilian autocannon. |
Kithran
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 07:49:00 -
[23] - Quote
Solus Starstrike wrote:Its funny, By reading this thread you can see the two diffrent main mind sets of eve players. The ones who accept the game for what it is ( a harsh and brutal environment ) and thrive in said environment , And those that believe ccp Should fix all their problems for them, and perfer to avoid confrontation.
From what i have read the person isnt cloaked and is a easy target. You are incursion runners isk shouldn't be a issue nor should numbers to achieve a successful gank. The only thing that is stopping you from fixing the situation is you, and until a dev steps in and takes a stand on it thats the best advice i can give ya.
You miss the point - I'm saying the problem is they are able to do this AT NO RISK.
The issue isn't in ganking them - its being done left, right and centre - the issue is because they are day old alts they are back in the matter of minutes.
So tell me - how is this 'harsh and brutal' to them? |
Kithran
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 07:53:00 -
[24] - Quote
Ember Klahan wrote:It is almost free to gank noobships and pods, and -10 sec status will not stop you from doing so.
For future reference, a rule of thumb on exploits is that if it *can* be done using game mechanics it is very, very likely not an exploit. Examples of not-exploits include:
-People doing more damage in incursion sites than competing fleets, thus "winning" the payout. -People shooting at you in high security space, even if you didn't shoot at them. -People destroying your ship in high security space, even if you haven't met them before. -People pod-killing you in high security space, even if you were friends with their mother. -People holding open PvE sites with cheap decloaked ships. -People attempting to profit from the aforementioned action. -People running PvE sites.
Examples of exploits are: -People holding open PvE sites with cheap cloaked ships. -People suicide ganking, successfully or unsuccessfully, in hisec without losing their ship. -People winning incursion sites by doing less damage than the competing fleet. -People causing NPCs to pod you. -People shooting you and bypassing your shields and armor. -People using the EVE Online client to steal your hamster.
You'll note that, with the exception of the last example (and the only ways you could do that with the client are ways that could also be accomplished using basically any chat client or other communication method), the non-exploits are possible and the exploits are impossible, within game mechanics.
And your first example in the exploit list was in the not-exploit list until CCP looked at it and decided it was an exploit and changed game mechanics.
Now I know how hard it is to properly search these forums but I feel pretty confident you'd find threads saying 'people are holding sites opened with cloaked alts, this is an exploit, problem etc' prior to that change. How is this different?
|
Kithran
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 07:54:00 -
[25] - Quote
Herr Ronin wrote:Vengeance Thirst wrote:Hi
We recently has a guy black mailing us for isk by using 4 alts to keep incursion sites open in high sec stopin other sites to respawn.
I wouls like to know how is this not a exploit.
(Faild copy paste)
I would like to know how it its not a exploit, seen the GM telling me as response to my petition that it its ok for him to do so.
I thought the use of game mechanics in any other way that what they are intended to is illegal. And yes he did private convo us and told us in local that we need to pay him or he will stay there blocking the respawns.
Thank you. Is This A TVP Member - Checklist:Current OP has no clue about game mechanic's - CheckCurrent OP makes it known to the world he has a problem - CheckCurrent OP lacks some common sense and change to a different site, Vanguard, Assault etc - CheckCurrent OP is sick of griefers stealing "there" sites - CheckConclusion - TVP pilot need attentionOk, silliness aside for a moment, know i can understand why people are doing this and they have been doing this for a very long time, ask yourself why they re doing it? It is rather simple, to make you cry and make it known to the world that you are indeed crying, good job on that regard! You need to understand that there is still "Mechanics" in this game that is indeed "broken", I can write you a healthy list, but the fact still stands that you need to understand that people will abuse these Mechanics, Nobody will get banned or told off, due to CCP have got bigger problems on there plate, I understand that this annoying you but please you some brain cells and maybe downgrade to a Assault, Vanguard etc, it isn't that hard. I really cannot see a problem here, but indeed you lack the information judging by you contacting a GM, It is indeed a Game Mechanic and he is doing nothing wrong what so ever, am afraid you just need to bring your portable tear bucket for the times ahead! No but really, I think you can handle this problem if you give it some thought.
A totally irrelevant post adding nothing.
Oh and ISN are also being hit by this, and complaining about this ;)
|
Mexan Caderu
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 11:48:00 -
[26] - Quote
Vengeance Thirst wrote:Hi
We recently has a guy black mailing us for isk by using 4 alts to keep incursion sites open in high sec stopin other sites to respawn.
Yesterday my ganking alt was a bit unprepared, but today I have hauled for him a few dozen ships n' fittings for him.
Related ..why the heck killing pods gives such a big negative .. ? Only killed 2 pods and a ship yesterday and hes down to -3.3 sec ... Seems a bit too steep |
Ember Klahan
Procyon Resources Honey Badger Coalition
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 16:17:00 -
[27] - Quote
Kithran wrote:
And your first example in the exploit list was in the not-exploit list until CCP looked at it and decided it was an exploit and changed game mechanics.
Now I know how hard it is to properly search these forums but I feel pretty confident you'd find threads saying 'people are holding sites opened with cloaked alts, this is an exploit, problem etc' prior to that change. How is this different?
Correct and incorrect. There is no difference, but neither is an example of exploitation. Holding open sites in a cloaked ship was never an exploit intrinsically, it just became so once it became impossible within mechanics. CCP didn't decide it was an exploit, they decided they didn't like the mechanic, and changed it. They actively chose not to change the mechanic to include decloaked ships. Saying that players are exploiting in either case is incorrect; saying that you have issue with the game mechanic as-is is correct, partially. Since the mechanic has already been reviewed, it is very unlikely it will change.
Let's do a hyptothetical example: because of something CCP decides to do with the game, CONCORD disappears, or there is a way within game mechanics to escape it. People take advantage of this and suicide gank without the suicide. Other people become angry and start whining that it is an exploit. Other players attempt to explain to them that it is not an exploit, as it is allowed within game mechanics. Eventually CCP decides that, while not an exploit, they don't like the mechanic as-is and return CONCORD to it's current state. People no longer can get away from CONCORD, but continue to suicide gank. If other players started whining that the suicide gankers were exploiting, they would still be wrong, and we'd be in pretty much the same situation we are in now.
Basically, the thread is pointless because the mechanic has already been reviewed, but belongs in the features and ideas forum instead of here. |
Ahvram
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
58
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 17:25:00 -
[28] - Quote
Here is the issue. We blow his newb ship up and he sits there in a pod. We pop the pod and another newb ship warps in when we kill that one the original newb ship we just killed is back again.. It is not possile to break the hold on the sites as this person or persons just continues to warp in newb ships to hold open the site. You cannot gank them to open the site as they just bring another pilot in while the original popped pilot runs for another newb ship.
Why is it some 2 day old alts can stop hundreds of players from using a system with NO risk. There is absolutely no counter to this tactic. |
lolfesterbling
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 18:17:00 -
[29] - Quote
Ahvram wrote: Also I spoke to a player who's Alt has been trying to keep this person off the sites. The players holding sites open have filed multiple petitions about being griefed by the player trying to gank these newb ship and the alt was issued a temp ban for griefing. This person is exploiting the system and CCP at this point and something needs to be done.
I call horse **** cause i am the one who has been holding the sites open and neither you or anyone else has talked to me . In any way but local trash talk. And also No petitions have been filed about yall trying to get me . Get at me bro, and also on that note failing to ganke a noob ship and pod with 4 catalysts is sooo fail .But anywho i liove how you imake up **** to try to prove your point and remember. For 10 mil a site you can have your lovely hq's |
Ahvram
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
58
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 18:57:00 -
[30] - Quote
lolfesterbling wrote:Ahvram wrote: Also I spoke to a player who's Alt has been trying to keep this person off the sites. The players holding sites open have filed multiple petitions about being griefed by the player trying to gank these newb ship and the alt was issued a temp ban for griefing. This person is exploiting the system and CCP at this point and something needs to be done.
I call horse **** cause i am the one who has been holding the sites open and neither you or anyone else has talked to me . In any way but local trash talk. And also No petitions have been filed about yall trying to get me . Get at me bro, and also on that note failing to ganke a noob ship and pod with 4 catalysts is sooo fail .But anywho i liove how you imake up **** to try to prove your point and remember. For 10 mil a site you can have your lovely hq's
Cool story bro but your full of it. Keep it up I cant wait for the ban hammer to smack you in the face. Honestly Im suprised the coward showed up in this thread. He isnt the only one doing this he is just a copy cat trying to be a cool guy. |
|
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. |
|
lolfesterbling
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 16:48:00 -
[61] - Quote
Verity Sovereign wrote:
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.
For the record i have made over 3 bil total with this and other similiar activites. IE.. preloading sites and ninjalooting
As for people paying for sites i have made 20 mil . not including the items dropped from the ganking ships |
Mistah Ewedynao
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
338
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 16:52:00 -
[62] - Quote
lolfesterbling wrote:Verity Sovereign wrote:
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.
For the record i have made over 3 bil total with this and other similiar activites. IE.. preloading sites and ninjalooting As for people paying for sites i have made 20 mil . not including the items dropped from the ganking ships
LOL...can we have a shopped screenie of your wallet to prove this.
What happened, you get tired of spamming scams in Jita? Nerf Goons
Nuke em from orbit....it's tthe only way to be sure. |
Orwyyn Darsha
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 17:03:00 -
[63] - Quote
Not sure why some of you are wasting your breath on extremely obvious trolls. Just state your problem, have a few people speak up and say the same thing, CCP will fix your problem.
CCP will fix this, there is no doubt. |
lolfesterbling
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 20:42:00 -
[64] - Quote
Mistah Ewedynao wrote:lolfesterbling wrote:Verity Sovereign wrote:
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.
For the record i have made over 3 bil total with this and other similiar activites. IE.. preloading sites and ninjalooting As for people paying for sites i have made 20 mil . not including the items dropped from the ganking ships LOL...can we have a shopped screenie of your wallet to prove this. What happened, you get tired of spamming scams in Jita?
And further on that point By holding the site open longer i was able to let a site with a battleship wreck despawn when it was to my advangtage and got 3 x rf gyros gista a-type thermic pith a-type em and a shadow serp 100mn microwarp. Along with the ammo.
Best so far was 2 months ago when 15 ships went boom got a officer web on that one |
Lipbite
Express Hauler
555
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 22:51:00 -
[65] - Quote
lolfesterbling wrote:i have made 20 mil
As expected - thread doesn't worth attention. Except for GM who made obvious mistake thinking this activity is profitable thus isn't pure griefing. |
goldiiee
Superior Ratio High Sec Dropouts
153
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 23:08:00 -
[66] - Quote
Well Festerbling you have certaintly got them incursion runners on the run. :D All of EVE is happy for you as you have obviously won EVE-Online you can now go and torment some other MMO, hope to see letters from you telling all of us how you have beaten those games as well. Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
350
|
Posted - 2013.01.06 01:27:00 -
[67] - Quote
lolfesterbling wrote:Mistah Ewedynao wrote:lolfesterbling wrote:Verity Sovereign wrote:
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.
For the record i have made over 3 bil total with this and other similiar activites. IE.. preloading sites and ninjalooting As for people paying for sites i have made 20 mil . not including the items dropped from the ganking ships LOL...can we have a shopped screenie of your wallet to prove this. What happened, you get tired of spamming scams in Jita? And further on that point By holding the site open longer i was able to let a site with a battleship wreck despawn when it was to my advangtage and got 3 x rf gyros gista a-type thermic pith a-type em and a shadow serp 100mn microwarp. Along with the ammo. Best so far was 2 months ago when 15 ships went boom got a officer web on that one
Pre-loading sites... meh, not a big deal
Ninja-looting - props to you, I respect this and have no objections. One can make 3 billion in one site looting momship kills if one is lucky and a shadow bomber BPC drops, or more commonly a nightmare BPC and some snasha faction mods. Pre-loading to try and get some ships killed so you can loot their stuff is fine by me.
Its this shutting down all incursion sites in a system that is complete BS.... and you've made all of 20 million? You're clearly not doing it for the profit, but to cause grief.
And it is BS, because there is no viable defense against it, unlike preloaded sites, or ninja looting (ie, don't get your ship blown up, and have people right on the momship before it dies, control when it dies by getting it to a tiny sliver of health, and then doing a fleet alpha strike, if that fails, try t shoot the looter when he turns flashy)
It entails no risk It entails no investment of in-game resources (surely, you did invest some of your time) It has no counter
Kudos to you for finding a new way to grief, but CCP should clearly fix this broken mechanic, this is clearly an exploit, and if CCP hands out some punishment to you, well, I wouldn't complain. |
Vengeance Thirst
Sons Of Decebal
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.06 03:28:00 -
[68] - Quote
lolfesterbling wrote:Verity Sovereign wrote:
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.
For the record i have made over 3 bil total with this and other similiar activites. IE.. preloading sites and ninjalooting As for people paying for sites i have made 20 mil . not including the items dropped from the ganking ships
So what you're saying is that you make allot more having incursions running working as intended than keeping them open. Meaning you are keeping them open for 2 reasons:
A) You do it for grief and/or B) You're a pore busyness man.
Still no real response from CCP.... |
Yimodo
Emphebion Emperium
19
|
Posted - 2013.01.06 07:02:00 -
[69] - Quote
Now I know, this guy reminds me of James 315 that is bumbing miners out of belt and lets them pay to mine in "his" systems. This guy is doing about the same.
But he got payed 20 mil untill now that means, 2 people payed him to get a site open. That isnt alot. I'm pretty happy with that, because as long as he gets paid he will stay because he can make more ISK. ISN - Incursion Shiny Network -á-á -á Public channel: ISN Secondary |
ORCACommander
Obsidian Firelance Technologies
18
|
Posted - 2013.01.06 19:26:00 -
[70] - Quote
Get this clasified as an Exploit and have it fixed CCP. This affects your bottom line as it is reducing demand for plexes. |
|
Solomunio Kzenig
East Khanid Trading Khanid Trade Syndicate
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.06 19:36:00 -
[71] - Quote
Batelle wrote: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.
This pretty much. |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
383
|
Posted - 2013.01.06 20:00:00 -
[72] - Quote
Tauranon wrote:Vengeance Thirst wrote:Hi
We recently has a guy black mailing us for isk by using 4 alts to keep incursion sites open in high sec stopin other sites to respawn.
I wouls like to know how is this not a exploit.
(Faild copy paste)
I would like to know how it its not a exploit, seen the GM telling me as response to my petition that it its ok for him to do so.
I thought the use of game mechanics in any other way that what they are intended to is illegal. And yes he did private convo us and told us in local that we need to pay him or he will stay there blocking the respawns.
Thank you. Amongst 10 bears you don't have 3 with destroyer flying alts that can gank his alts
you try it.. he holds the site with more than one rookie ship and new character... kill one and the other is still there.. while you chase him down - his killed rookie flies back in with his concord funded rookie ship. If it was one character no problem. the guys have many accounts. -á-á- remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not-á "afk" cloaking-á-
[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
383
|
Posted - 2013.01.06 20:04:00 -
[73] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:why WOULD it be an exploit?
duh... because it's uinintended abuse...
AHARM? really? is that you? Of all the people who are qualified to judge an exploit it's hilarious to think you would believe you are one. -á-á- remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not-á "afk" cloaking-á-
[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
Lipbite
Express Hauler
556
|
Posted - 2013.01.06 21:53:00 -
[74] - Quote
Checked TVP channel: no HQ fleet(s) during weekend due to this guy (just slowly running assault fleet because community doesn't like assaults). And it's not the first weekend like that afaik. Which means hundreds of pilots are out of business. Clearly CCP cannot realize what is good and bad for the game and players + also they cannot realize what is good and bad for their own wallet: most likely some people will unsubscribe if trend continue. Somehow clueless CCP stufff isn't news (monoclegeddon) but anyway could be nice if CCP's actually started to do their job to maintain the game's functionality in playable state and removed this 20mill worth "businessman" from the game along with his trial accounts.
Otherwise could be logical to return FW trillions to Goons who clearly acted withing game mechanics without breaking any rules - except common sense - just like in this case. Because if you want to ruin the game - I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be ruined for everyone instead of just couple communities. |
Vengeance Thirst
Sons Of Decebal
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 11:10:00 -
[75] - Quote
Stil no response from ccp....
Not even a ******** reply here like "we are looking into this matter" or "the logs don't show anything"....
The petition is open for a week + now and no real reply to it as why it is this considered fair play or what would be a valid tactic to approach this matter....
If this continues like this for another 15 days i'm gonna close 2 out of 3 accounts maybe all 3.
Not because i cant get the isk for the plexes in other ways but because CCP supports unfair game play and they'r GM's are not doing their jobs. Simple as that.
I'm starting to get the emo in me heating up.... |
Mexan Caderu
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 11:33:00 -
[76] - Quote
If keeping HS sites open is a valid tactic, then recycling ganking alts when their sec status becomes too low should also be a valid tactic to counter it. |
Yimodo
Emphebion Emperium
19
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 11:47:00 -
[77] - Quote
Responce from the GM about my petition:
Greetings,
I am afraid that this falls within legitimate game play. If a player wants to spend his time locking down an incursion site, that is entirely up to him and we cannot interfere with that. We apologize for the inconvenience and hope you understand.
With regards, GM Banana EVE Online Customer Support Team ISN - Incursion Shiny Network -á-á -á Public channel: ISN Secondary |
Vengeance Thirst
Sons Of Decebal
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 11:55:00 -
[78] - Quote
Yimodo wrote:Responce from the GM about my petition:
Greetings,
I am afraid that this falls within legitimate game play. If a player wants to spend his time locking down an incursion site, that is entirely up to him and we cannot interfere with that. We apologize for the inconvenience and hope you understand.
With regards, GM Banana EVE Online Customer Support Team
That is a automatic response.
Just Ask them to escalate the petition to higher gm level. |
lolfesterbling
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 15:18:00 -
[79] - Quote
*sings* The hills are alive with the sound of butthurt. |
Sir John Halsey
15
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 15:22:00 -
[80] - 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
Out of curiosity ... repeated killing of a char in a noob ship is not considered harassing? That guy can petition and get you banned for that ... isn't it?
|
|
Pseudo Random
The Scope Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:43:00 -
[81] - Quote
Cipher Jones wrote:*snip* And there is no excuse for tears whatsoever with the new bounty system. 10 people making 100+ mil an hour cant be arsed to put out some bounties? Fuckin pathetic.
The **** is a bounty going to do? Go read the Retribution patch notes again before you make stupid suggestions. |
Mistah Ewedynao
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
338
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 20:58:00 -
[82] - Quote
lolfesterbling wrote:*sings* The hills are alive with the sound of butthurt.
And he proves he is just a griefer with this brilliant post.
Nerf Goons
Nuke em from orbit....it's the only way to be sure. |
Mexan Caderu
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 06:27:00 -
[83] - Quote
Sir John Halsey wrote: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 Out of curiosity ... repeated killing of a noob char in a noob ship is not considered harassing? That guy can petition and get you banned for that ... isn't it?
Nop, only time when is actionable is when done in certain noob systems (that won't get incursions from the sanshas anyway). All the rest are fair game
The problem with the gank is the ganking alts reach deep negative sec fairly quickly, in a few ganks. Low SP alts will fail to gank in the few secs window available before the NPC's spawn on grid to munch your ship (even before the alts can fire a shot). One could bypass this by making a new alt when the sec status goes too deep down, but that (however) is bannable (CCP: trololol ?!?). |
Mina Sebiestar
Mactabilis Simplex Cursus
247
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 08:09:00 -
[84] - Quote
Bad mechanic,clueless GM,s and some drama.
"it put ore down in can or it gets the hose again"
Leeloo Dallas Multipass - "Big bada boom"
http://i.imgur.com/1N37t.jpg |
Manco 0110
Not Those Guys
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 13:27:00 -
[85] - Quote
It's not griefing since he has a reasonable expectation of profit. It's not an exploit either. Deal with it and stop whining. This is eve. |
Herr Ronin
Resurrection Ninjas.
298
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 13:36:00 -
[86] - Quote
God, are will still talking about this?
This is soo last year.. |
goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
159
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 14:04:00 -
[87] - Quote
Manco 0110 wrote:It's not griefing since he has a reasonable expectation of profit. It's not an exploit either. Deal with it and stop whining. This is eve.
A 'reasonable expectation of profit' implies a 'risk of loss' there is no risk of loss here so the argument of profit as a Mechanic is not valid, with no expectation of loss the only motivation for doing this, is not to make profit but simply to sit in his underwear looking at a computer screen while glorifying himself in his rule over this domain. Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
Sinq Arnolles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 14:45:00 -
[88] - Quote
We did gank them but they just came back with a new noobship before the site had a chance to despawn. It's pretty silly some alts with zero skills can shut down a whole incursion systems sites. |
Juwi Kotch
KOTCH Construction and Anchoring
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 15:29:00 -
[89] - Quote
Griefing EVE-style. You can be sure that any game mechanic will be exploited to grief other players for as low costs as possible. It is redicilous, that CCP accepts that a whole system which once was a major expansion theme can just be made useless for literally no cost by some 10 year olds laughing their behinds off. But, well, that's EVE. |
DSpite Culhach
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
49
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 17:42:00 -
[90] - Quote
The main issue is "predictability", simply compounded by idiots.
Static DED zones were changed because a small subset of people was camping them non stop, and I have read stories of organized "mafia" years back that used to camp the entry of the big lucrative ones - , kill anyone that arrived, and farmed the zones 23/7, paying players to sit inside a rent fee to do so, and if they tried asking for more, they would kick them out and hire a new person.
Places in this game keep getting moved to "you have to do some work to get started" to stop these people, I'd say eventually with Incursions something similar will be done, the spwan locations will move around and camping them will be impossible.
Give it time.
Found that article: http://serpentinelogic.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/the-story-behind-afk-complex-farming/ |
|
Indo Nira
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 18:57:00 -
[91] - Quote
i find it funny that incursion runners are crying about 10 mil. just freakin pay him and mind your business,..... how many people does an incursion fleet have? now divide the 10 mil by the number of people and you can stop crying |
Juwi Kotch
KOTCH Construction and Anchoring
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 19:56:00 -
[92] - Quote
Indo Nira wrote:i find it funny that incursion runners are crying about 10 mil. just freakin pay him and mind your business,..... how many people does an incursion fleet have? now divide the 10 mil by the number of people and you can stop crying I totally despise this mindset. But as the previous poster wrote, this will be changed sooner or later. I'm only wondering how long CCP always needs to stop such exploits and put exploiters back into place.
|
goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
160
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:07:00 -
[93] - Quote
Indo Nira wrote:i find it funny that incursion runners are crying about 10 mil. just freakin pay him and mind your business,..... how many people does an incursion fleet have? now divide the 10 mil by the number of people and you can stop crying We have been kicking this corpse for a few weeks now, but what the hell lets try this for an example:
You have been playing the game for a year you can fly a BC very well, and have the war wounds to prove it, CCP does a Patch that allows noobs to hop in a Noob ship and roast your BC with ease. Would you then pay the noob to keep him from destroying your ship? and what guarantees do you have, other than his word, that he will not blow up your ship as soon as you pay him? As he has already proven he is less than trustworthy in his demands in the first place, are you really daft enough to trust him now?
Your advanced training and expierience are of no use against him and all you hear from the masses is 'PAY HIM'. 10 mil will in no way break the bank but give him a taste of food and I am sure he will want the whole dinner plate before he is done.
Please, don't pretend to know anything about this subject and then profess to have a solution without actually thinking about consequences beyone the instant reward. Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
Mistah Ewedynao
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
340
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 04:02:00 -
[94] - Quote
Indo Nira wrote:I am L337 Null Sec Slave and I can't stand the fact that some of you can, as indivduals, join an ad hoc group and make some iskies in this game. I am stuck on this gate camp for another week!
There...much bettah. Nerf Goons
Nuke em from orbit....it's the only way to be sure. |
Samuel Wess
Happy Folks Happy Cartel
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 04:12:00 -
[95] - Quote
The only bad thing here is the ability to get a noob ship and undock every 5 seconds for free with a new character. I propose to make a 24 hour undock interdiction after geting poded :D this will solve it |
Mexan Caderu
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 06:48:00 -
[96] - Quote
Indo Nira wrote:i find it funny that incursion runners are crying about 10 mil. just freakin pay him and mind your business,..... how many people does an incursion fleet have? now divide the 10 mil by the number of people and you can stop crying
Okay, how about I make myself some alt accs and do the same noob camping, however I will require a payment of 1 bil to stand down...and better yet...train them for a T1 mining barge with near battleship HP, tank it to the teeth and also put a plug to most ganking attempts.
Surely the incursion runners make way more isk than that when all the fleets are up and running, they should raise the money themselves in just 1 fleet in less than 30 mins since a site is 40 ppl x 30 mils = 1.2 bils, how is that not reasonable vs disbanding and not running sites for hours on end?
...the number of people that need to stop crying and mind their own business...only 1 bil...etc...etc... Oh...looky at all these isk, lemme make another batch of acc's and pretend I'm a different person, wee...the isk rolling in!
how's them apples ?
|
Dzajic
85
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 11:06:00 -
[97] - Quote
You do know the whole "US government does not negotiate with terrorists" thing. Well its kinda like that. If Incursion groups started paying this guy... well everyone in eve has two free noob alts per account. You'd have every single site in every single incursions clogged with dozens of ibises every single one of them demanding their "meager" 10 mill to let the site despawn.
Can't happen, won't be allowed to happen. |
Sinq Arnolles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 20:50:00 -
[98] - Quote
New high sec incursion spawns.. HQ sites already blocked before the influence even gets below 95%. |
Cage Man
Evil Guinea Pigs
144
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 21:10:00 -
[99] - Quote
CCP should allow the war decking of pilots in a NPC corps. Or just do away with them all together. That will give you a way to deal with these type of things. Only other way is to keep rolling alts to keep ganking him.. OH wait.. you not supposed to do that. Sadly the HS sandbox is designed for bullies\griefers |
Slaveball Scumbucket
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 00:55:00 -
[100] - Quote
NO MORE EVE ONLINE FOR ANYBODY UNTIL I AM PLEASED UP. Thanks CCP I always dreamed of being the game master and now i can be. |
|
sureis
The Gold Club
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 01:04:00 -
[101] - Quote
Wait a minute... some noob character said if we give them 500 mils they will go away for the whole day. I want to give all the noobs 500 mills each every day. I am going back to hulm back to my roots with 4586238746 Biliion right nao. CCPs new ad ---> All first day characters have the free opportunity to prevent all highest level PVE play permanently. I'm gonna delete sureis and be a new noob right nao. Thanks for lettin me o/ |
Herr Ronin
Resurrection Ninjas.
298
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 01:09:00 -
[102] - Quote
sureis wrote:Wait a minute... some noob character said if we give them 500 mils they will go away for the whole day. I want to give all the noobs 500 mills each every day. I am going back to hulm back to my roots with 4586238746 Biliion right nao. CCPs new ad ---> All first day characters have the free opportunity to prevent all highest level PVE play permanently. I'm gonna delete sureis and be a new noob right nao. Thanks for lettin me o/
Can i haz your stuffz? ^^ |
Dex Sudaka
Galactic Accord Senate Accord Corporate Enterprise Syndicate
21
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:35:00 -
[103] - Quote
I don't see any DEV interested in this post; do they care? I need to know if I am to renew sub next month. How can it NOT be an exploit to use free ships, infinite supply of clones, concord sec rules and no isk to hold players from using a game feature. I never liked the idea of the free noobships anyways. That needs to be addressed.
|
goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
160
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:45:00 -
[104] - Quote
Dex Sudaka wrote:I don't see any DEV interested in this post; do they care? I need to know if I am to renew sub next month. How can it NOT be an exploit to use free ships, infinite supply of clones, concord sec rules and no isk to hold players from using a game feature. I never liked the idea of the free noobships anyways. That needs to be addressed.
+1
Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
Rolstra
Moo's Mudpit
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:46:00 -
[105] - Quote
goldiiee wrote:Dex Sudaka wrote:I don't see any DEV interested in this post; do they care? I need to know if I am to renew sub next month. How can it NOT be an exploit to use free ships, infinite supply of clones, concord sec rules and no isk to hold players from using a game feature. I never liked the idea of the free noobships anyways. That needs to be addressed.
+1 +2 |
Clutch G'oldman
High Sec Dropouts Holdings. High Sec Dropouts
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:46:00 -
[106] - Quote
Rolstra wrote:goldiiee wrote:Dex Sudaka wrote:I don't see any DEV interested in this post; do they care? I need to know if I am to renew sub next month. How can it NOT be an exploit to use free ships, infinite supply of clones, concord sec rules and no isk to hold players from using a game feature. I never liked the idea of the free noobships anyways. That needs to be addressed.
+1 +2 +3
|
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
1035
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:48:00 -
[107] - Quote
Dex Sudaka wrote:I don't see any DEV interested in this post; do they care? I need to know if I am to renew sub next month. How can it NOT be an exploit to use free ships, infinite supply of clones, concord sec rules and no isk to hold players from using a game feature. I never liked the idea of the free noobships anyways. That needs to be addressed.
Maybe if you want a Dev to respond it would be better to post in one of the forums they watch more closely. There are many threads created on these forums so many may get missed. But forums such as "Issues and workarounds" I am sure are monitored far more closely.
In game petition also seems a more appropriate way to get their attention. |
amurder Hakomairos
Fellowship Of Lost Souls Rebel Alliance of New Eden
17
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 00:45:00 -
[108] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote:Dex Sudaka wrote:I don't see any DEV interested in this post; do they care? I need to know if I am to renew sub next month. How can it NOT be an exploit to use free ships, infinite supply of clones, concord sec rules and no isk to hold players from using a game feature. I never liked the idea of the free noobships anyways. That needs to be addressed.
Maybe if you want a Dev to respond it would be better to post in one of the forums they watch more closely. There are many threads created on these forums so many may get missed. But forums such as "Issues and workarounds" I am sure are monitored far more closely. In game petition also seems a more appropriate way to get their attention.
yeah i never see any devs in this forum at all |
Makre
Heodener
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 04:36:00 -
[109] - Quote
goldiiee wrote: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.
/This Honestly its rather clear that this is wrong.. not in the same way 12 vs 1 is "wrong". Its wrong in the way that uses poor game mechanics without recourse to grief other players. This solution for now might be ip and bans, but the better solution is what ember said just make them spawn else where regardless, or require bc or greater to hold. |
FunGu Arsten
Alpha Strategy The Unthinkables
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 16:56:00 -
[110] - Quote
http://t.qkme.me/3sim8l.jpg |
|
Tim fromaccounting
Scorpius Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 17:02:00 -
[111] - Quote
the way i see it, CCP made incursion sites to be done and not having 1 day old chars keeping sites open and keeping other people from doing the sites
but i guess the needs of the one outweigh the 700-1000 ppl in the incursion constellation (trying) to do the sites |
Vengeance Thirst
Sons Of Decebal
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 17:08:00 -
[112] - Quote
Due to a lack of response from ccp as of now I am holding 2 sites open in assault system.
I will be leaving when I will be payd 2 million isk per pilot in a assault fleet or when ccp aknowledge this action as Illegao or changes game mechanics so sites respawn when mission is completed.
O7 |
Charadrass
Angry Germans Again
19
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 17:21:00 -
[113] - Quote
since ganking isnt helping because they just warp out of the station in a brand new rookieship.
ccp do something. if you dont wanna have the pilots in incursions just kill them as content. |
Mindy Holar
Jitex Inc. Catastrophic Uprising
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 17:28:00 -
[114] - Quote
Until CCP fix this broken game mechanic, of letting one person's trial accounts dictate rules 16 and 23 of their TOS, I think I'll start plexing and stop paying them cash every month.
Better yet, kill all but one mom, and have everyone you hold all the sites open, VG, AS, and let douchy mcdouchstein keep HQs. That way nobody gets what they paid for, since manipulating the enjoyment of a few hundred paid subscribers and a thousand others by abusing trial accounts, restricting game content is perfectly reasonable to CCP.
I've heard it suggested that maybe the site blocker is a dev? I hear they hate carebears making isk more than the nullragers.
So I'll vote w/ my money, sub it for a plex, help break tos-rule 16 by ruining all incursions for everybody while abusing the **** out of trial accounts, breaking tos-rule23, because CCP thinks it's legitimate gameplay.
Anyone have any ideas what to do with my extra 16 bucks every month? |
Pavel Sohaj
Gisre Ind.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 17:35:00 -
[115] - Quote
Wish i had that problem. For me this means probable reduction of my game accounts so thus also, I wont be paying my sub from the cash like last time I did.
I guess they dont need the real money, surely subs from the site-holder guy will make it up to them.
Sorry CCP while I have never really said a word against you, now I do. Letting this go on is really, really bad. |
Charadrass
Angry Germans Again
19
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 17:35:00 -
[116] - Quote
now theyre blocking assault sites too. nice ccp. doing nothing again.
maybe i should stop paying my 13 accounts. |
Johann Rascali
Crunchy Crunchy Peregrine Nation
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 17:47:00 -
[117] - Quote
Mindy Holar wrote:Until CCP fix this broken game mechanic, of letting one person's trial accounts dictate rules 16 and 23 of their TOS, I think I'll start plexing and stop paying them cash every month.
Better yet, kill all but one mom, make a bunch of trial accounts to hold all the sites open, VG, AS, and let douchy mcdouchstein keep HQs. That way nobody gets what they paid for, since manipulating the enjoyment of a few hundred paid subscribers and a thousand others by abusing trial accounts, restricting game content is perfectly reasonable to CCP.
I've heard it suggested that maybe the site blocker is a dev? I hear they hate carebears making isk more than the nullragers.
So I'll vote w/ my money, sub it for a plex, help break tos-rule 16 by ruining all incursions for everybody while abusing the **** out of trial accounts, breaking tos-rule23, because CCP thinks it's legitimate gameplay.
Anyone have any ideas what to do with my extra 16 bucks every month? Protip: CCP makes more money off whoever buys the PLEX to sell to you than they do if you pay monthly. They make even less if you buy extended subscriptions. |
Mittre Cobolas
Vengance Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 17:51:00 -
[118] - Quote
Both sides of the argument are valid however i think the point still stands.
If we look at this from the ganking perspective. i could make an alt that would be able to fly a destroyer and gank the noob ship. However this poses 2 problems First the site still takes 5 mins to despawn and by this time he could be back in the site holding it open.(if he has the alts medical station close by) Secondly CCP have stated that Making an account and trying to delete it with negative sec status is an Exploit and is bannable) My next point would be that If i did successfully gank him a couple of times my sec status would be so low that i would be killed myself by the faction police before i even got a chance to respond. Moving back to my earlier point if i then went to delete the character and make a new one to do the same thing i would be banned for exploitting a game mechanic
In all i feel this IS an exploit purely for the reason there is no sanctionable counter to it. like in null sec or even lowsec where you could pop the ship and not get concorded. if i want to do it here i have to pay CCP a ton of money for alts to just get to do the incursions i wanted to do in the first place. At least if ccp made it viable for us to kill him without getting concorded it may make it slightly more in line with the rest of the game mechanics.
Oh and on a side note if CCP won't open the isk making pottential again then they are going to find themselves losing players left right and center because they can't afford to fly the ships they want. |
Mindy Holar
Jitex Inc. Catastrophic Uprising
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:07:00 -
[119] - Quote
Johann Rascali wrote: Protip: CCP makes more money off whoever buys the PLEX to sell to you than they do if you pay monthly. They make even less if you buy extended subscriptions.
So buy from the guy selling a stack of them instead of the seller trying get rid of 1 or 2. In that case CCP got their money back when plex was 300 mill each. They don't need the money anymore, they have Dust to be their new cash cow... lol |
goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
160
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:28:00 -
[120] - Quote
amurder Hakomairos wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:Dex Sudaka wrote:I don't see any DEV interested in this post; do they care? I need to know if I am to renew sub next month. How can it NOT be an exploit to use free ships, infinite supply of clones, concord sec rules and no isk to hold players from using a game feature. I never liked the idea of the free noobships anyways. That needs to be addressed.
Maybe if you want a Dev to respond it would be better to post in one of the forums they watch more closely. There are many threads created on these forums so many may get missed. But forums such as "Issues and workarounds" I am sure are monitored far more closely. In game petition also seems a more appropriate way to get their attention. yeah i never see any devs in this forum at all So it is the opinion of the majority of posters in this forum that DEVGÇÖs (CCP) doesnGÇÖt read this forum or at least have taken no notice of this thread. I have also seen that the GMGÇÖs take no action on petitions concerning this, with the exception of automated responses: game mechanics, works as intended, get over it, and we donGÇÖt care.
So I am wondering if we should each start a thread with the same subject and give it a daily bump as per the forum rules.
anyone else think this might work? Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
|
Gizan
Hounds Of War WHY so Seri0Us
73
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:47:00 -
[121] - Quote
wrong forum section artard!
|
Angry Little Beaver
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:52:00 -
[122] - Quote
+ |
Abby Zor
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:55:00 -
[123] - Quote
lolfesterbling wrote:U mad bro?!?!?!?
U seem mad ?!?!?!?
Ya your mad..........
Seems you have competition dude.....
Nimbor > hold open every site and join in, while you reply on the forums to get it fixed
^ tvp channel, tvp fc |
Zor'katar
Matari Recreation
39
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:55:00 -
[124] - Quote
Anyone try running this by a CSM rep? They might just laugh, but it's worth a shot. If you can convince one that this is bad (I think there's a lot of good arguments in this thread), they might be able to get it looked at. (That's how the CSM system is *supposed* to work, isn't it?) |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
571
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:56:00 -
[125] - Quote
So why don't you guys just move over to the other Established incursion leaving the griefed open sites here? Forcing him to also keep those sites open too to prove to CCP its a problem? But knowing you shield geniuses you'll probably kill this incursion so only 1 is up giving him a much easier job
OUR LOGS SHOW NOTHING |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
571
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:58:00 -
[126] - Quote
Zor'katar wrote:Anyone try running this by a CSM rep? They might just laugh, but it's worth a shot. If you can convince one that this is bad (I think there's a lot of good arguments in this thread), they might be able to get it looked at. (That's how the CSM system is *supposed* to work, isn't it?)
Did you read what happened in the CSM notes after CCP Soundwave admitted he/CCP broke Incursions? They actually cheered it on CSM is against Incursions. CSM is for spacerich NULL/lo/WH alliances wehave no representation OUR LOGS SHOW NOTHING |
Abby Zor
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:59:00 -
[127] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:So why don't you guys just move over to the other Established incursion leaving the griefed open sites here? Forcing him to also keep those sites open too to prove to CCP its a problem? But knowing you shield geniuses you'll probably kill this incursion so only 1 is up giving him a much easier job
That would mean where end up in your armor inc doesnt it?
talk about genius here, fyi he tends to folow.... maby its an idea if he came to pester you gentelmen over there ands see what you post after that.... |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
571
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 19:03:00 -
[128] - Quote
Everyone start petitioning the sites under stuck since the sites are stuck open OUR LOGS SHOW NOTHING |
Gizan
Hounds Of War WHY so Seri0Us
73
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 19:05:00 -
[129] - Quote
^^ do that
|
Zor'katar
Matari Recreation
39
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 19:05:00 -
[130] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:Did you read what happened in the CSM notes after CCP Soundwave admitted he/CCP broke Incursions? They actually cheered it on CSM is against Incursions. CSM is for spacerich NULL/lo/WH alliances wehave no representation No. Got a link? |
|
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
572
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 19:36:00 -
[131] - Quote
Zor'katar wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:Did you read what happened in the CSM notes after CCP Soundwave admitted he/CCP broke Incursions? They actually cheered it on CSM is against Incursions. CSM is for spacerich NULL/lo/WH alliances wehave no representation No. Got a link?
http://community.eveonline.com/council/transcripts/2012/CSM_CCP_Meetings_May_June_2012.pdf pages 86/87 "The massive drop off of Vanguard sites was praised" OUR LOGS SHOW NOTHING |
Zor'katar
Matari Recreation
39
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 19:53:00 -
[132] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:http://community.eveonline.com/council/transcripts/2012/CSM_CCP_Meetings_May_June_2012.pdf pages 86/87 "The massive drop off of Vanguard sites was praised" Erm, it's worth noting that the rest of that sentence is "...since they were relatively risk-free ISK". A lot of people held that view at the time. I don't see anything in that text that screams "We hate Incursions."
But eh, I only occasionally dabble in Incursions, so I'll let you regulars handle it. Just wanted to make sure all avenues were being considered. |
Kroaky Oke
Old Spot PissPots Inc
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 20:04:00 -
[133] - Quote
ppl are saying that deleting a noob toon with a low sec status and re-rolling another is an exploit ..... why not just create a TRIAL account ... gank with that and then let the trial expire ?? thats not an exploit And before ppl reply with "1 trial wont be enough" a HQ site takes 40-50 pilots .... thats 40-50 trial toons .... it would only take 10 per site to eliminate this problem , even if you have to put those trial toons in cheap frigs Plus ccp might actualy notice that every day or so 40-50 trials are going flashy red then being dumped If ppl put as much effort into out-thinking this guy as they put into complaining , the problem would be solved by now |
goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
160
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 20:13:00 -
[134] - Quote
Kroaky Oke wrote:ppl are saying that deleting a noob toon with a low sec status and re-rolling another is an exploit ..... why not just create a TRIAL account ... gank with that and then let the trial expire ?? thats not an exploit And before ppl reply with "1 trial wont be enough" a HQ site takes 40-50 pilots .... thats 40-50 trial toons .... it would only take 10 per site to eliminate this problem , even if you have to put those trial toons in cheap frigs Plus ccp might actualy notice that every day or so 40-50 trials are going flashy red then being dumped If ppl put as much effort into out-thinking this guy as they put into complaining , the problem would be solved by now As the sitesGÇÖ mechanic requires them to be vacated for 5 minutes (guessing)to allow them to despawn it wouldnGÇÖt matter if we had 300 gank alts in system as soon as you think the site has been cleared of the pest and warp away he can simply warp in another and still hold the site.
THIS MECHANIC IS BROKEN AS THERE IS NO COUNTER TO IT.
Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
Ice-T
The Ruling Company
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 20:17:00 -
[135] - Quote
^ amen to that. |
goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
160
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 20:18:00 -
[136] - Quote
goldiiee wrote:Kroaky Oke wrote:ppl are saying that deleting a noob toon with a low sec status and re-rolling another is an exploit ..... why not just create a TRIAL account ... gank with that and then let the trial expire ?? thats not an exploit And before ppl reply with "1 trial wont be enough" a HQ site takes 40-50 pilots .... thats 40-50 trial toons .... it would only take 10 per site to eliminate this problem , even if you have to put those trial toons in cheap frigs Plus ccp might actualy notice that every day or so 40-50 trials are going flashy red then being dumped If ppl put as much effort into out-thinking this guy as they put into complaining , the problem would be solved by now As the sitesGÇÖ mechanic requires them to be vacated for 5 minutes (guessing)to allow them to despawn it wouldnGÇÖt matter if we had 300 gank alts in system as soon as you think the site has been cleared of the pest and warp away he can simply warp in another and still hold the site. THIS MECHANIC IS BROKEN AS THERE IS NO COUNTER TO IT. additional thought:
Simply changing the spawn trigger to despawn the site when it get paid out and allow others to spawn by that same trigger would alleviate the problem.
It should also be noted that it doesnGÇÖt require a noob ship this can be done by using a fully trained toon impossible to gank in highsec and be just as effective so again ganking them is Not an option.
Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
Lipbite
Express Hauler
585
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 05:10:00 -
[137] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:So why don't you guys just move over to the other Established incursion
Because HQ sites in high influence are barely playable (15-20% resists and damage drop).
P.S. Who cares about CSM? Let CCP and null alliances play their useless circlejerk meta-games. |
goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
160
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 05:51:00 -
[138] - Quote
Lipbite wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:So why don't you guys just move over to the other Established incursion Because HQ sites in high influence are barely playable (15-20% resists and damage drop) and moving to another incursion will take few more hours to grind influence to zero. I.e. in high influence HQ sites are as "profitable" as lvl4 missions making whole activity nearly pointless - not to mention 5+ ships pop series in TCRC sites in 50-100% influence. P.S. By caring about CSM you support them. Let CCP and null alliances play their useless circlejerk quasi democracy meta-game - alone.
Actually didn't move cause the idea of running 20 jumps to give the pinhead more LUL's was against everyones better judgement. Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
Pavel Sohaj
Gisre Ind.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 07:43:00 -
[139] - Quote
And someone like forgot to mention - he will simply follow. |
marVLs
95
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 18:55:00 -
[140] - Quote
Yup blocking sites should be fixed CCP |
|
Agent Type
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 23:05:00 -
[141] - Quote
Hah, joined a channel today looking to get into Incursions. Was quickly informed about this and that it was not possible at the moment. Yay. |
Yuri Wayfare
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
231
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 09:05:00 -
[142] - Quote
Looks like you got the short end of the stick. Pay the man. "Suddenly, trash pickers! HUNDREDS of winos going through your recyclables." -Piugattuk
Be careful what you wish for. |
sureis
The Gold Club
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 10:09:00 -
[143] - Quote
goldiiee wrote:Kroaky Oke wrote:ppl are saying that deleting a noob toon with a low sec status and re-rolling another is an exploit ..... why not just create a TRIAL account ... gank with that and then let the trial expire ?? thats not an exploit And before ppl reply with "1 trial wont be enough" a HQ site takes 40-50 pilots .... thats 40-50 trial toons .... it would only take 10 per site to eliminate this problem , even if you have to put those trial toons in cheap frigs Plus ccp might actualy notice that every day or so 40-50 trials are going flashy red then being dumped If ppl put as much effort into out-thinking this guy as they put into complaining , the problem would be solved by now As the sitesGÇÖ mechanic requires them to be vacated for 5 minutes (guessing)to allow them to despawn it wouldnGÇÖt matter if we had 300 gank alts in system as soon as you think the site has been cleared of the pest and warp away he can simply warp in another and still hold the site. THIS MECHANIC IS BROKEN AS THERE IS NO COUNTER TO IT.
Ah yes. Unpaid trial accounts vs. unpaid trial accounts to determine the game of 100 shiney pirate battleships. Obviously this is an important game mechanic. I think they should make a patch where any trial account in the whole incursion constellation freezes the HQ site and the HQ fleets have to search every system until they find the noobship and then gank it and spank it. There should be a new HQ site where you need a noobship in fleet and once the battletower goes down you have to pod the trial noob. Why didn't they think of this before? |
goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
164
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 14:54:00 -
[144] - Quote
sureis wrote:goldiiee wrote:Kroaky Oke wrote:ppl are saying that deleting a noob toon with a low sec status and re-rolling another is an exploit ..... why not just create a TRIAL account ... gank with that and then let the trial expire ?? thats not an exploit And before ppl reply with "1 trial wont be enough" a HQ site takes 40-50 pilots .... thats 40-50 trial toons .... it would only take 10 per site to eliminate this problem , even if you have to put those trial toons in cheap frigs Plus ccp might actualy notice that every day or so 40-50 trials are going flashy red then being dumped If ppl put as much effort into out-thinking this guy as they put into complaining , the problem would be solved by now As the sitesGÇÖ mechanic requires them to be vacated for 5 minutes (guessing)to allow them to despawn it wouldnGÇÖt matter if we had 300 gank alts in system as soon as you think the site has been cleared of the pest and warp away he can simply warp in another and still hold the site. THIS MECHANIC IS BROKEN AS THERE IS NO COUNTER TO IT. Ah yes. Unpaid trial accounts vs. unpaid trial accounts to determine the game of 100 shiney pirate battleships. Obviously this is an important game mechanic. I think they should make a patch where any trial account in the whole incursion constellation freezes the HQ site and the HQ fleets have to search every system until they find the noobship and then gank it and spank it. There should be a new HQ site where you need a noobship in fleet and once the battletower goes down you have to pod the trial noob. Why didn't they think of this before? Perhaps we can even add a feature with that, the noobs corpses can be stuck on the spike of nightmare as warning to others. Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
Bee Rad'z Dark
Space Technicians
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 17:19:00 -
[145] - Quote
Here is a possible solution if anyone is actually paying attention.
If the person holding up the site is griefing why not after the site is finished give him a 2 min warning before he is givin a suspect flag, seeing as though ransoming is considered a criminal activity in the real world.... Then make it to where pods cannot hold open a site. Thus enabling in highsec to gank him and not be able to hold the site open.
|
Agent Type
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 18:17:00 -
[146] - Quote
Is CCP aware of this issue? I haven't seen a response. I am still trying to do my first Incursion, but I am unable due to sites being held open by other players. |
Rip Minner
ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
87
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 21:40:00 -
[147] - Quote
This is some funny **** Is it a rock point a lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship point a lazer at it and profit. I dont see any problems here. |
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
139
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 00:49:00 -
[148] - Quote
CCP, these folks deserve an answer.
Whether it's an 'exploit' or simply a terrible game mechanic, fix it. Risk-free, nearly effortless, uncounterable griefing has no place in EVE. |
Rip Minner
ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
87
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 05:33:00 -
[149] - Quote
The day the newbie alts struck fear into hearts of Vets everywere at least in High sec. Is it a rock point a lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship point a lazer at it and profit. I dont see any problems here. |
Vengeance Thirst
Sons Of Decebal
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 11:39:00 -
[150] - Quote
Its more and more obvious that ccp is trying to nerf isk making through out eve.
The lack of response for this thread, the new ai ... in lvl4 missions?.... What ccp doesent seem to understand is that the less isk we make the lass acconts we have... the less accounts we have the less plexes are been bought to be sold to us.
So its either that or i really dont get what are they trying to do by supporting this illegality.
As i said before and so did everyone else here that has more understanding than a stick: What this guy is doing can not be viably countered. He is making isk at no cost for hes ships / mods. He is using a game mechanic not ment to be used in this way, and if we want to gank him we get penalty and isk loos.
This is a unbalanced game mechanic if I were to go for what ccp response was in the petition, when they said its all good. |
|
Vengeance Thirst
Sons Of Decebal
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 11:40:00 -
[151] - Quote
. |
Doddy
Dark-Rising
830
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 12:17:00 -
[152] - Quote
Run incursions in null or lo sec and you are free to kill him. |
Pavel Sohaj
Gisre Ind.
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 16:04:00 -
[153] - Quote
Thats truly smart answer. perhaps we should just head with a 100bil fleet down to Goon territory and do incursion there.
What other great idea you may have good sir? |
Tama Cardeen
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 16:45:00 -
[154] - Quote
I'm Tama I'm a anti-incursion alt trained for 1 week with 200k ehp I'll be dual armour repping with my friend afk all day now. :) enjoy no high sec incursions!
You can freely go do a low or null sec incursion and actually pvp for the right to make sick amounts of isk. |
goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
167
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 16:56:00 -
[155] - Quote
Tama Cardeen wrote:I'm Tama I'm a anti-incursion alt trained for 1 week with 200k ehp I'll be dual armour repping with my friend afk all day now. :) enjoy no high sec incursions!
You can freely go do a low or null sec incursion and actually pvp for the right to make sick amounts of isk. The mating call of the 'I don't have anyone to play with me' lows sec parrot Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
Tama Cardeen
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 16:58:00 -
[156] - Quote
goldiiee wrote:Tama Cardeen wrote:I'm Tama I'm a anti-incursion alt trained for 1 week with 200k ehp I'll be dual armour repping with my friend afk all day now. :) enjoy no high sec incursions!
You can freely go do a low or null sec incursion and actually pvp for the right to make sick amounts of isk. The mating call of the 'I don't have anyone to play with me' lows sec parrot
pfft I play eve 2 to 3 hours max every other day on my main, this char will be on the other 22 hrs per day that I'm at work or sleeping.
|
Kithran
42
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 18:54:00 -
[157] - Quote
Tama Cardeen wrote:goldiiee wrote:Tama Cardeen wrote:I'm Tama I'm a anti-incursion alt trained for 1 week with 200k ehp I'll be dual armour repping with my friend afk all day now. :) enjoy no high sec incursions!
You can freely go do a low or null sec incursion and actually pvp for the right to make sick amounts of isk. The mating call of the 'I don't have anyone to play with me' lows sec parrot pfft I play eve 2 to 3 hours max every other day on my main, this char will be on the other 22 hrs per day that I'm at work or sleeping.
I think you have just guaranteed that CCP will do something to deal with this issue - afterall it was people going afk in cloaked ships in null sec sites preventing them from despawning which led to them having to change the null sec exploration mechanics to prevent sites being held open permanently.
Oh and unless your 2 to 3 hours happen to fall over downtime congratulations on admitting botting - how else could you log back on when you are afk.... |
Tama Cardeen
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 19:34:00 -
[158] - Quote
Kithran wrote:Tama Cardeen wrote:goldiiee wrote:Tama Cardeen wrote:I'm Tama I'm a anti-incursion alt trained for 1 week with 200k ehp I'll be dual armour repping with my friend afk all day now. :) enjoy no high sec incursions!
You can freely go do a low or null sec incursion and actually pvp for the right to make sick amounts of isk. The mating call of the 'I don't have anyone to play with me' lows sec parrot pfft I play eve 2 to 3 hours max every other day on my main, this char will be on the other 22 hrs per day that I'm at work or sleeping. I think you have just guaranteed that CCP will do something to deal with this issue - afterall it was people going afk in cloaked ships in null sec sites preventing them from despawning which led to them having to change the null sec exploration mechanics to prevent sites being held open permanently. Oh and unless your 2 to 3 hours happen to fall over downtime congratulations on admitting botting - how else could you log back on when you are afk....
Why does CCP have to do something, the point in the cloak fix was that players were powerless which they no longer are due to fix.?High sec Afking is not a problem as you can simply war dec me (oh wait I'm in an NPC corp).
There is the fix which is long overdue. Make NPC corps war decable problem solved, go fix this issue ccp.
You could in the mean time sucide me but it's gonna be pretty expensive as this harbi is plated a fair amount :) |
goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
167
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 20:18:00 -
[159] - Quote
Tama Cardeen wrote:Kithran wrote:Tama Cardeen wrote:goldiiee wrote:Tama Cardeen wrote:I'm Tama I'm a anti-incursion alt trained for 1 week with 200k ehp I'll be dual armour repping with my friend afk all day now. :) enjoy no high sec incursions!
You can freely go do a low or null sec incursion and actually pvp for the right to make sick amounts of isk. The mating call of the 'I don't have anyone to play with me' lows sec parrot pfft I play eve 2 to 3 hours max every other day on my main, this char will be on the other 22 hrs per day that I'm at work or sleeping. I think you have just guaranteed that CCP will do something to deal with this issue - afterall it was people going afk in cloaked ships in null sec sites preventing them from despawning which led to them having to change the null sec exploration mechanics to prevent sites being held open permanently. Oh and unless your 2 to 3 hours happen to fall over downtime congratulations on admitting botting - how else could you log back on when you are afk.... Why does CCP have to do something, the point in the cloak fix was that players were powerless which they no longer are due to fix.?High sec Afking is not a problem as you can simply war dec me (oh wait I'm in an NPC corp). There is the fix which is long overdue. Make NPC corps war decable problem solved, go fix this issue ccp. You could in the mean time sucide me but it's gonna be pretty expensive as this harbi is plated a fair amount :) I am amazed yet again, low sec gets one set of rules but if high sec ask for the same set there is some profound yet mysterious reason why it should not. If low sec sites canGÇÖt be held by a toon GÇÿeveryone is powerless to stopGÇÖ, then why should high sec not be able to have the same rule considered for them?
As you are willing to park a bot AFK in high sec to prevent a site from spawning I can only assume you would have no problem with a reversal of the fix for cloaked ships holding sites.
Additionally I think it should be noted that current site squatting to date has been for monetary gain, whereas your example is done as pure GÇÿgriefGÇÖ (considering an AFK toon holding a site cannot be coerced through ISK to relinquish the site) therefore it is a violation of the EULA. Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
amurder Hakomairos
Fellowship Of Lost Souls Rebel Alliance of New Eden
17
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 20:24:00 -
[160] - Quote
Or they could change it so that player ships can't hold open a site when all the NPC ships are killed. Problem solved, go back to can baiting and suicide ganking. |
|
goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
167
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 20:27:00 -
[161] - Quote
This ^^ Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
Dzajic
90
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 01:50:00 -
[162] - Quote
That change could happen only and only if it applied only to Incursions. FW people would be up with torches and pitchforks if all sites despawned once completed.
But yes. It must be changed. Number of people doing it is increasing, and its a case of person using a free noob alt(s) with 0sp on it to block dozens and dozens of people form doing content. And it is absolutely free for the blocker to do it while getting him out is exercise in futility. Suicide Thrashers and Catalysts cost money, and podkilling devours sec status. And all the blocker has to do is wake up in station and bring another Ibis before the whatever is "timer that determines the site can despawn if no one was in it for x amount of time" timer long.
If you try to suicide him on the site your are helping him because you are then in the site and reseting the despawn timer. To nab noobships on the station you need even larger investment for each suicide boat. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
2904
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 06:15:00 -
[163] - Quote
I was told by a GM that holding sites open after completion was likely to result in a ban. At the time the GM resorted to resetting the sites while I was in them, in order to boot me out of the site. Holding sites open was originally a "salt the Earth" tactic we were using against ISN, who were persistently contesting the sites we were running despite the availability of other sites that they were perfectly capable of running.
At the time they spent an hour in local complaining that we were being childish.
So a hint: don't tell the GM that the site is being interdicted. Tell the GM that the site is bugged and isn't resetting properly. If you're lucky you'll get a noob GM who will dutifully reset the site for you.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Super spikinator
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 06:29:00 -
[164] - Quote
Vengeance Thirst wrote:Hi
We recently has a guy black mailing us for isk by using 4 alts to keep incursion sites open in high sec stopin other sites to respawn.
I wouls like to know how is this not a exploit.
(Faild copy paste)
I would like to know how it its not a exploit, seen the GM telling me as response to my petition that it its ok for him to do so.
I thought the use of game mechanics in any other way that what they are intended to is illegal. And yes he did private convo us and told us in local that we need to pay him or he will stay there blocking the respawns.
Thank you.
so he is holding 4 systems hostage? the horror. How about if you can't beat him you either pay the blackmail fee or move to one of the other 5000 or so systems that also may or may not have incursion sites so that you can farm your little carebear heart out? |
goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
168
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 06:37:00 -
[165] - Quote
Super spikinator wrote:Vengeance Thirst wrote:Hi
We recently has a guy black mailing us for isk by using 4 alts to keep incursion sites open in high sec stopin other sites to respawn.
I wouls like to know how is this not a exploit.
(Faild copy paste)
I would like to know how it its not a exploit, seen the GM telling me as response to my petition that it its ok for him to do so.
I thought the use of game mechanics in any other way that what they are intended to is illegal. And yes he did private convo us and told us in local that we need to pay him or he will stay there blocking the respawns.
Thank you. so he is holding 4 systems hostage? the horror. How about if you can't beat him you either pay the blackmail fee or move to one of the other 5000 or so systems that also may or may not have incursion sites so that you can farm your little carebear heart out? Wow at least try to be a little informed about a subject before posting a response. Incursions exist in a constellation, each constellation gets one system assigned for HQGÇÖs (Headquarters sites) one system sometimes two for AS (Assaults) and usually two or three for VGGÇÖs (Vanguards) so now that you know the simplest of facts concerning Incursions I am sure you will post some enlightened comment availing us all to your profound wisdom and experience concerning this problem.
If you don't know what you talking about, try to do the smart thing and read more than the first and last post. Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
141
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 08:54:00 -
[166] - Quote
While we wait for CCP to pay attention to its customers (some things never change ...) Just out of curiosity (forgive my ignorance and I'm sure someone's already thought of this) is it possible to complete a site without killing every last rat and if so wouldn't leaving a couple of rats at least avoid the problem of being able to do this in noobships? |
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
141
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 08:58:00 -
[167] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:I was told by a GM that holding sites open after completion was likely to result in a ban. At the time the GM resorted to resetting the sites while I was in them, in order to boot me out of the site. Holding sites open was originally a "salt the Earth" tactic we were using against ISN, who were persistently contesting the sites we were running despite the availability of other sites that they were perfectly capable of running.
At the time they spent an hour in local complaining that we were being childish.
Ummm. Because you were?
Competing for sites is in the spirit of EVE. Holding sites open with noobships (or any other ships for that matter) is not. CCP makes hi-sec VERY safe and relying on that safety to keep others from completing content is not in the spirit of the game whatsoever.
|
Dzajic
91
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 14:20:00 -
[168] - Quote
AkJon Ferguson wrote:While we wait for CCP to pay attention to its customers (some things never change ...) Just out of curiosity (forgive my ignorance and I'm sure someone's already thought of this) is it possible to complete a site without killing every last rat and if so wouldn't leaving a couple of rats at least avoid the problem of being able to do this in noobships?
In HQs not realy. Only TCRC maybe. In TPPH you have to kill everything, same in NRF. I think its only TCRC that some rats don't have to be killed. But I'm not certain of do they despawn much faster than site itself.
This is one of side offects of last years big bag of incursion nerfs, to prevent blitzing ccp made it so that in nearly every single site you have to kill everything.
And most important. I think you only need to sit on the acceleration gate to block the site from despawning (not 100% certain), and if you don't actually need to enter the site whether there are rats left is irrelevant. (I think acceleration gate counts as part of the site, again not 100% certain) |
Sinq Arnolles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 16:42:00 -
[169] - Quote
Yeah you only need to sit on the gate to hold it open.
No response from CCP yet and almost 10 pages..? |
Graham Nolen
Black Dog Tax Shelters
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 17:06:00 -
[170] - Quote
fix it ccp |
|
Dzajic
93
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 17:47:00 -
[171] - Quote
Most amusing are GM replies that go "post on forums so devs know about it". Troll GMs, troll CCP, troll EVE. |
Hakulu Ujjiar
Borealis Protection Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 20:19:00 -
[172] - Quote
CCP fix it. It is not broken because they can hold sites open, it is broken because we can't do a thing about it!
Suicide ganking is a good criminal mechanic. You can gank people carrying cargo, but the people carrying cargo can use tankier ships, fly with an escort, or whatever in response. Holding sites open is broken because if someone decides to do it, there is no response. They fly noob ships, so if we gank them, they immediately dock and undock, warping back to where they were. Ganking them isn't an option because it doesn't do a thing!
You fixed it when cloaked ships could hold sites open, when you couldn't stop ships from holding sites, so fix it again! |
DSpite Culhach
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
50
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 21:52:00 -
[173] - Quote
Hakulu Ujjiar wrote:CCP fix it. It is not broken because they can hold sites open, it is broken because we can't do a thing about it!
Suicide ganking is a good criminal mechanic. You can gank people carrying cargo, but the people carrying cargo can use tankier ships, fly with an escort, or whatever in response. Holding sites open is broken because if someone decides to do it, there is no response. They fly noob ships, so if we gank them, they immediately dock and undock, warping back to where they were. Ganking them isn't an option because it doesn't do a thing!
You fixed it when cloaked ships could hold sites open, when you couldn't stop ships from holding sites, so fix it again!
First line, ok. The rest? I don't think you're even close. All cargo/freighter ganks will be always carried out to assume maximum tank anyway, they just wont kill anything that has less then "X" ISK in cargo, and no escort can stop a gank, its all over in seconds, which shows there is a lot of things players can do little about, all because of klunky mechanics from the old days.
I don't find it logical that my name gets broadcast to everyone in system so they can come find me even though I'm cloaked, or that the only option you have when you arrive on the other side of a gate and see 20 Tornados is basically "I hope I can warp fast enough", cause instalock-alpha-death is the only other option. Funny no one suggests that the gates should warp us in a 1k-10k random bubble or similar, which would make much more sense.
A lot of people seem perfectly happy when EVE mechanics like swapping ships in Orca's (now closed) allowed them to make tons of ISK killing mission runners by twisting aggression mechanics, but when someone stops the ISK faucets it's the end of the world.
I really don't get it. I see tons of stuff like this happening constantly, but when It allows more killmails it's all fine.
|
Yimodo
Emphebion Emperium
19
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 15:09:00 -
[174] - Quote
Still no word from CCP? ISN - Incursion Shiny Network -á-á -á Public channel: ISN Secondary |
Annunaki soldier
Segmentum Solar Nulli Legio
61
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 15:14:00 -
[175] - Quote
Yimodo wrote:Still no word from CCP?
why you believe they will react that soon ? Maybe if we tell goons to get involved into high sec incursions they will fix it asap (sorry goonies couldnt resist the troll inside me ) Ride hard, live with passion-á |
Charadrass
Angry Germans Again
19
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 19:34:00 -
[176] - Quote
Quote:A lot of people seem perfectly happy when EVE mechanics like swapping ships in Orca's (now closed) allowed them to make tons of ISK killing mission runners by twisting aggression mechanics, but when someone stops the ISK faucets it's the end of the world.
They can block Sites if they wish to, but then CCP should bring in Mechanics that we can counter them. Because on every action in EvE you are able to counter it somehow. Siteblocking is on current terms one sided. A one day old character prevents a full skilled 8 years old character from flying and the old character can do nothing about it. how is that the sandbox eve is known for?
oh yeah. fly towards him and gank him. he simple spawns in the system again. jumps in his newbship fly to the next site. losing nothing.
the ganker loses standing so fix this ccp. bring in a possibility to counter them. |
Charadrass
Angry Germans Again
19
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 19:41:00 -
[177] - Quote
now i got it. sites should only respond to battleships. so only a pilot in a battleship will be able to hold up a site. |
Grenn Putubi
The SWAG Lab SWAG Co
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 19:46:00 -
[178] - Quote
I don't have a problem with someone camping a site as long as there's some meaningful way to combat them doing it. 1 person with a bunch of trial accounts should not be able to hamstring an entire community without risk.
At the very least I'd suggest adding rookie ships, pods, and shuttles to the list of ships that don't count toward a site respawning along with changing the respawn mechanics to not include the entry gate in the check for ships on grid.
This way there'd be some risk involved in camping a site. You'd have to buy a ship and actually enter a site to keep it from respawning. If other players were to get together to stop you from camping the site they wouldn't have to podkill you and take that sec status hit and they wouldn't face the extremely likely possibility of you being back on grid in under a minute as you simply undock in your new rookie ship and fly back to the site. They'd get on grid, gank you, concord would come blow them up, you'd still get your kill rights and they'd get the site to respawn...eventually. The risk/reward is still in your favor, but at least there's some sort of meaningful recourse for the incursion community if they wish to put forth the effort.
|
Hagbard Solaris
Omega Eternal
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 00:10:00 -
[179] - Quote
Dzajic wrote:That change could happen only and only if it applied only to Incursions. FW people would be up with torches and pitchforks if all sites despawned once completed.
There is, in my mind, a great difference between a FW site and an Incursion site. FW sites are governed by the faction warfare system, which is player driven on the part of both factions. Incursion sites, however, are capsuleers versus a madman named Sansha Kuvakei. I say madman because based on his behavior he is insane. I explained this viewpoint to CCP in a petition which I'd like to post here for consideration:
"CCP, I believe that Sansha Kuvakei is insane. He believes himself to be the savior of the universe, a clear Messionic complex. In each type of site, the fleets he uses are virtually identical in each site that spawns, which indicates an obsessive-compulsive disorder as well. The fact that he will throw site after site at us, allowing us to farm them, is perfectly in line with the insanity of a man who believes he knows the best way to do everything and believes that he cannot lose. What is not in line with his insanity is the ability of a single ship in a site preventing another site from spawning. Sansha Kuvakei will not let a fleet of capsuleers stop his operations in a system, evidenced by the way sites will respawn for days until either he withdraws his incursion by his own choice, or his mothership is destroyed preventing him from conducting further operations in that system. I do not believe that Sansha Kuvakei would allow a ship, or even a fleet of ships, in a completed site to stop him from spawning a new site in that system. I believe he would, in fact, ignore the fact that he "lost" the site owing to his meglomania and would spawn a new site on the same schedule regardless of what is left behind in a completed site. For this reason, I ask for a change in the mechanics of incursion site spawn. Once the site is completed and despawned, I ask that a new site spawn on the same schedule regardless of anything left behind in the old site. I believe this would better fit the behavior of the madman we know as Sansha Kuvakei."
Thoughts? |
goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
169
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 00:22:00 -
[180] - Quote
Hagbard Solaris I like your thinking. :) Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
|
Annunaki soldier
Segmentum Solar Nulli Legio
61
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 00:26:00 -
[181] - Quote
Lore and solving a problem ? Ye i like it Ride hard, live with passion-á |
goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
169
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 00:39:00 -
[182] - Quote
Hagbard Solaris wrote: "CCP, I believe that Sansha Kuvakei is insane. He believes himself to be the savior of the universe, a clear Messionic complex. In each type of site, the fleets he uses are virtually identical in each site that spawns, which indicates an obsessive-compulsive disorder as well. The fact that he will throw site after site at us, allowing us to farm them, is perfectly in line with the insanity of a man who believes he knows the best way to do everything and believes that he cannot lose. What is not in line with his insanity is the ability of a single ship in a site preventing another site from spawning. Sansha Kuvakei will not let a fleet of capsuleers stop his operations in a system, evidenced by the way sites will respawn for days until either he withdraws his incursion by his own choice, or his mothership is destroyed preventing him from conducting further operations in that system. I do not believe that Sansha Kuvakei would allow a ship, or even a fleet of ships, in a completed site to stop him from spawning a new site in that system. I believe he would, in fact, ignore the fact that he "lost" the site owing to his meglomania and would spawn a new site on the same schedule regardless of what is left behind in a completed site. For this reason, I ask for a change in the mechanics of incursion site spawn. Once the site is completed and despawned, I ask that a new site spawn on the same schedule regardless of anything left behind in the old site. I believe this would better fit the behavior of the madman we know as Sansha Kuvakei."
Thoughts?
I would expand on that to another full degree. As the Sansha are so determined I would expect the spawns to not be triggered at all just keep spawning like a never-ending blob as a matter of fact they could make it so intense that when say 100 sites have spawned in a system, the gates then start to be camped by Sansha even in high Sec.
If someone doesnGÇÖt stop them in time the system could be overrun and essentially surrendered to them. This would work really well in low sec where the pirates that keep calling for High Sec Nerfs would then have to figure out how to run their own Incursions or end up with the loss of their systems. Of course once the Sansha take a system they would most certainly disable the gates to hold their ground, and use these systems as staging point to further their cause. I could easily see the whole of low sec being converted to a Sansha wasteland, nowhere to dock unless you have Sansha standings, forfeiture of all property within the system to Sasha Kuvakei, forfeiture of all clones in the station as cannon fodder to his mighty war engine. With 20mil EHP gate camps at every turn, essentially holding entire systems, nay entire constellations hostage by merely parking on the gate, this is the end, prepare to fight for what is yours, or surrender and become an automaton of his empire.
OH sorry, forgot to take my meds, I am better now.
Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
142
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 01:40:00 -
[183] - Quote
I don't support using RP to petition flawed game design but I appreciate your creativity. |
Cruvas
Rules Of Acquisition Acquisition Of Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 01:43:00 -
[184] - Quote
+1 to this thread.
I would like to encourage CCP to just fix the D-Spawn timers to facilitate change that is accertable for all parties. For the players they can run the content to their hearts content. And the Guys that act with out impunity i.e. the noob ship gate campers can find some other game mechanic to exploit. |
Esna Pitoojee
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
172
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 03:13:00 -
[185] - Quote
+1 to this thread.
If "blockading" sites were an action that could be countered somehow, that'd be one thing. As it stands, however, there is no reasonably effective means of countering this kind of action. |
Solomunio Kzenig
East Khanid Trading Khanid Trade Syndicate
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 08:37:00 -
[186] - Quote
goldiiee wrote:Hagbard Solaris wrote: "CCP, I believe that Sansha Kuvakei is insane. He believes himself to be the savior of the universe, a clear Messionic complex. In each type of site, the fleets he uses are virtually identical in each site that spawns, which indicates an obsessive-compulsive disorder as well. The fact that he will throw site after site at us, allowing us to farm them, is perfectly in line with the insanity of a man who believes he knows the best way to do everything and believes that he cannot lose. What is not in line with his insanity is the ability of a single ship in a site preventing another site from spawning. Sansha Kuvakei will not let a fleet of capsuleers stop his operations in a system, evidenced by the way sites will respawn for days until either he withdraws his incursion by his own choice, or his mothership is destroyed preventing him from conducting further operations in that system. I do not believe that Sansha Kuvakei would allow a ship, or even a fleet of ships, in a completed site to stop him from spawning a new site in that system. I believe he would, in fact, ignore the fact that he "lost" the site owing to his meglomania and would spawn a new site on the same schedule regardless of what is left behind in a completed site. For this reason, I ask for a change in the mechanics of incursion site spawn. Once the site is completed and despawned, I ask that a new site spawn on the same schedule regardless of anything left behind in the old site. I believe this would better fit the behavior of the madman we know as Sansha Kuvakei."
Thoughts?
I would expand on that to another full degree. As the Sansha are so determined I would expect the spawns to not be triggered at all just keep spawning like a never-ending blob as a matter of fact they could make it so intense that when say 100 sites have spawned in a system, the gates then start to be camped by Sansha even in high Sec. If someone doesnGÇÖt stop them in time the system could be overrun and essentially surrendered to them. This would work really well in low sec where the pirates that keep calling for High Sec Nerfs would then have to figure out how to run their own Incursions or end up with the loss of their systems. Of course once the Sansha take a system they would most certainly disable the gates to hold their ground, and use these systems as staging point to further their cause. I could easily see the whole of low sec being converted to a Sansha wasteland, nowhere to dock unless you have Sansha standings, forfeiture of all property within the system to Sasha Kuvakei, forfeiture of all clones in the station as cannon fodder to his mighty war engine. With 20mil EHP gate camps at every turn, essentially holding entire systems, nay entire constellations hostage by merely parking on the gate, this is the end, prepare to fight for what is yours, or surrender and become an automaton of his empire. OH sorry, forgot to take my meds, I am better now.
The above suggestions would make Incursions Epic in my mind, a little bit too harsh prehaps but definately a PVE mechanic that would fit with what EVE is supposed to be.
In the meantime the Site Holders have moved down to Assault Sites also, 2 of the 3 Incursion sites types that are run (no one does Scouts) are now useless, way to go Gé¼Gé¼P with game fail mechanics. How do the Devs who worked on Incursisn feel about their work being rendered useless by crappy Game Mechanics? |
BulletMagnetMan
The Scope Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 10:31:00 -
[187] - Quote
+1 to this thread. Something needs to be done about this issue asap. It's just stupid that the site doesn't disappear once the objective is completed. |
Tarpedo
Incursionista
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 15:10:00 -
[188] - Quote
It's amazing how CCP 1) badly coded the game and 2) allow players to exploit CCP's weakness (lack of good programmers).
Your game is borken, CCP. Fix it and prohibit exploitation while you doing that - instead of strange excuses which lack common sense (to say it mild). |
Dzajic
99
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 15:15:00 -
[189] - Quote
What is this "HQ site" you speak off? I haven seen any since late December.
Mighty Ibis on trial account, conqueror and destruction of Sansha's incursions. |
APHRATTOS
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:25:00 -
[190] - Quote
up to 10 pages.....
Basically it is a bug being exploited.
Most mmo have group pve. Incursions seems to have been introduced into eve as a group pve feature.
If any mmo had a situation where no new instances could spawn because someone was stuck in a completed instance rational people would consider that to be a bug.
The trolling and counter trolling for lutz just confuses people it seems and people then think that things are something that they are not.
It is really very simple.
|
|
Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
394
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:57:00 -
[191] - Quote
http://community.eveonline.com/news/newsFromEve.asp?newsTitle=incursion-site-exploit-notification How the **** do you remove a signature? |
amurder Hakomairos
Fellowship Of Lost Souls Rebel Alliance of New Eden
18
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 18:17:00 -
[192] - Quote
Lyron-Baktos wrote:http://community.eveonline.com/news/newsFromEve.asp?newsTitle=incursion-site-exploit-notification
Sad that it took 17 days to arrive at the logical conclusion but at least we have arrived |
Vengeance Thirst
Sons Of Decebal
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 18:34:00 -
[193] - Quote
So it took 4 escalations of the petition and 10 pages on forums for CCP to come to a logical conclusion.
Well At least there is still hope.
Thank You ccp for this lovely game. We, the community of players that love this game so much, will keep an eye out for any other disturbance in the force for you while all we ask of you is Please don't brake it in a useless quest for money...
Until next time, I salute you for your decision and a awesome game.
o7 |
ORCACommander
Obsidian Firelance Technologies
18
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 18:37:00 -
[194] - Quote
I wonder with the timing of this coming just a day or two after i eve-mailed sreegs |
goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
171
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 18:38:00 -
[195] - Quote
Thanks for the attention to this detail CCP. Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
Ildryn
Xiloite
69
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 20:17:00 -
[196] - Quote
Now ban all the accounts that were doing it. |
Carlos Jaegar
Nulli-Secundus
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 21:24:00 -
[197] - Quote
Tama Cardeen wrote:goldiiee wrote:Tama Cardeen wrote:I'm Tama I'm a anti-incursion alt trained for 1 week with 200k ehp I'll be dual armour repping with my friend afk all day now. :) enjoy no high sec incursions!
You can freely go do a low or null sec incursion and actually pvp for the right to make sick amounts of isk. The mating call of the 'I don't have anyone to play with me' lows sec parrot pfft I play eve 2 to 3 hours max every other day on my main, this char will be on the other 22 hrs per day that I'm at work or sleeping. That's what you think...
|
marVLs
98
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 21:28:00 -
[198] - Quote
Bravo CCP |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6380
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 21:31:00 -
[199] - Quote
This is pretty pathetic handholding on the GM team's part. At least in nullsec you have to kill the day-old alt doing it. ~*a proud belligerent undesirable*~ TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Vince Snetterton
240
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 22:04:00 -
[200] - Quote
Andski wrote:This is pretty pathetic handholding on the GM team's part. At least in nullsec you have to kill the day-old alt doing it.
Best tears are goon tears. |
|
Tarpedo
Incursionista
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 22:06:00 -
[201] - Quote
Good job, CCP.
Andski wrote:This is pretty pathetic handholding on the GM team's part. At least in nullsec you have to kill the day-old alt doing it.
You've forgot - hi-sec isn't that safe as null and you can't operate normally with low security status + kill rights. And there were multiple podding attempts which didn't bring any results except for mentioned in previous sentence. |
Graham Nolen
Black Dog Tax Shelters
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 22:33:00 -
[202] - Quote
The site holders have been prodded multiple times but the issue is that it takes 5 min for a site to despawn and all of a min thirty for said site holder to get back in a new ibis |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6391
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 01:26:00 -
[203] - Quote
Tarpedo wrote:Good job, CCP. Andski wrote:This is pretty pathetic handholding on the GM team's part. At least in nullsec you have to kill the day-old alt doing it. You've forgot - hi-sec isn't that safe as null and you can't operate normally with low security status + kill rights. And there were multiple podding attempts which didn't bring any results except for mentioned in previous sentence.
Man, if only the same people complaining about undesired consequences of the new killrights system weren't the same ones demanding the new kill rights system
And if hisec isn't as safe as nullsec, why can't you just kill the guy camping the site, the same way we do in 0.0? Oh, because of the mechanics that make hisec safe. ~*a proud belligerent undesirable*~ TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
383
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 06:49:00 -
[204] - Quote
Andski wrote:And if hisec isn't as safe as nullsec, why can't you just kill the guy camping the site, the same way we do in 0.0? Oh, because of the mechanics that make hisec safe. Hence the reaction of CCP. It's their mechanics, after all |
Mistah Ewedynao
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
341
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 14:44:00 -
[205] - Quote
Andski wrote:This is pretty pathetic handholding on the GM team's part. At least in nullsec you have to kill the day-old alt doing it.
What is pathetic is the fact you are able to post in a thread you obviously have not read at all.
AND, by shiptoasting here are you confirming Goony involvement in yet another attempt to GRIEF high sec players? Nerf Goons
Nuke em from orbit....it's the only way to be sure. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6406
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 23:29:00 -
[206] - Quote
Mistah Ewedynao wrote:Andski wrote:This is pretty pathetic handholding on the GM team's part. At least in nullsec you have to kill the day-old alt doing it. What is pathetic is the fact you are able to post in a thread you obviously have not read at all. AND, by shiptoasting here are you confirming Goony involvement in yet another attempt to GRIEF high sec players?
We're not involved, I'm just seeing a pretty disturbing trend of CCP holding your hands because you can't be bothered (and probably don't know how) to do anything beyond zombie PvE ~*a proud belligerent undesirable*~ TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
1029
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 00:11:00 -
[207] - Quote
Andski wrote:Mistah Ewedynao wrote:Andski wrote:This is pretty pathetic handholding on the GM team's part. At least in nullsec you have to kill the day-old alt doing it. What is pathetic is the fact you are able to post in a thread you obviously have not read at all. AND, by shiptoasting here are you confirming Goony involvement in yet another attempt to GRIEF high sec players? We're not involved, I'm just seeing a pretty disturbing trend of CCP holding your hands because you can't be bothered (and probably don't know how) to do anything beyond zombie PvE
I thought it was more of a disturbing trend of CCP making a bandaid fix that you need to look up on a website, instead of putting in the :effort: to fix their site despawn mechanics. If all sites despawned (in terms of the code removing it from the list, not removing the items in the pocket) then it's not an issue anywhere in the game.
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
572
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 01:17:00 -
[208] - Quote
Anytime a high-sec PVPer discovers a way to mildly inconvenience the ISK-grinding horde, like clockwork:
First, shrill squeels of pain from carebears, via forums and petition. Second, rapid overcompensating CCP nerfs and exploit notices, ban threats. Highsec security is permanently ratched up another notch.
Rinse and repeat.
Whats sad?
PVPers generally aren't 'getting rich' doing this stuff - often taking a loss in terms of time and ISK. The carebears aren't even put into the red.....but even a 'marginal slowing down of the money train' is just too much pain for them to handle, leading to ridiculousness as crying about bumping mechanics. Bumping, for chrissake.
|
Ildryn
Xiloite
70
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 01:40:00 -
[209] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Anytime a high-sec PVPer discovers a way to mildly inconvenience the ISK-grinding horde, like clockwork:
First, shrill squeels of pain from carebears, via forums and petition. Second, rapid overcompensating CCP nerfs and exploit notices, ban threats. Highsec security is permanently ratched up another notch.
Rinse and repeat.
Whats sad?
PVPers generally aren't 'getting rich' doing this stuff - often taking a loss in terms of time and ISK. The carebears aren't even put into the red.....but even a 'marginal slowing down of the money train' is just too much pain for them to handle, leading to ridiculousness as crying about bumping mechanics. Bumping, for chrissake.
How much loss did those untrained 1 day old players take? I didnt know being 1 day old was worth that much. Please Herr Wilkus tell us how you made billions at one day old by playing your way. |
ORCACommander
Obsidian Firelance Technologies
18
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 05:10:00 -
[210] - Quote
what pvp this is player vs mechanic completely one sided. You have no idea how much pvp is financed by the isk grind. bounties and pay outs are are granted by the grind |
|
Aramatheia
European Nuthouse
94
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 06:35:00 -
[211] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Anytime a high-sec PVPer discovers a way to mildly inconvenience the ISK-grinding horde, like clockwork:
First, shrill squeels of pain from carebears, via forums and petition. Second, rapid overcompensating CCP nerfs and exploit notices, ban threats. Highsec security is permanently ratched up another notch.
Rinse and repeat.
Whats sad?
PVPers generally aren't 'getting rich' doing this stuff - often taking a loss in terms of time and ISK. The carebears aren't even put into the red.....but even a 'marginal slowing down of the money train' is just too much pain for them to handle, leading to ridiculousness as crying about bumping mechanics. Bumping, for chrissake.
unskilled 1-2 day alts = worthless rookie ships supplied free by ccp = well free duh Im waiting to see how much "time" and "isk" you had to sink into brand new 1-2 day alts flying freely given ships supplied by CCP. Please show me your wallet detailing losses of isk if you want credability. Nahh you dont want that you just want to run around saying your favorite lame ass catch phases like "carebear" and "crying"
Whats all this about zombies? seems to be a similar mob that are saying the exact same thing. The only thing that hasnt been said is "brainsssss". But they too seem to be absent if one is trying to say they spend isk on free ships and time on skill-less 1 day noobs.
Not saying CCP ultimately took the best path, but they took a viable path. Maybe they will find a way to code automatic despawns in future and can delete this little clause from the rules later? |
Tarpedo
Incursionista
16
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 10:22:00 -
[212] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:PVPers generally aren't 'getting rich' doing this stuff - often taking a loss in terms of time and ISK. The carebears aren't even put into the red.....but even a 'marginal slowing down of the money train' is just too much pain for them to handle, leading to ridiculousness as crying about bumping mechanics.
Somehow PvP players like to state they PvP for fun while PvE-centric players play for ISK. Not entirely true:
1) EVE PvP isn't even remotely fun compared to other games and
2) PvE in EVE is much more fun than in any other MMO game + HQ incursion fleets are *most* fun group PvE activity I've seen during my 16 years long MMO "career".
And believe me - you (and CCP) don't want EVE PvP to be actually fun and competitive (to other games) because in this case real "PvP sharks" who peacefully mine Sansha and asteroids, trade, do missions between 3-15 hours long PvP sessions in Planetside, WoW, WoT, Tera, Rift, Vanguard, LoL - they'll switch their focus onto null sovereignty structures, gate campers, ratters, pirates, faction warfare members - just to get those vanity PvP titles and rewards you may find ridiculous ("kill 10 supercaps, 20 POSes, 100 battleships - get bright blue t-shirt"). |
Brrzaa
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 10:32:00 -
[213] - Quote
Ah yes, the money and effort needed to get a noob alt(s) into HQ system and warp him to a gate of a site and leave him there. Well I guess if you are doing it on nubalts of your mains you are losing isk, isk you'd otherwise gain by AFK cloaking or ganking freighters in Niarja or camping those lowsec entry gates in sensor boosted T3s.
Dear "pro PVPers" as long as you consider everyone but yourselves brainless pray, don't be surprised if they kinda don't want to participate and willingly be griefed or ganked for your satisfaction. Already PVE content in EVE is done only by fools or masochists. "What a great game, pay $15/month and invest countless hours of effort to be someone's pray and victim, I'll recommend it to all my friends".
Do yourself a favor and google "predator pray balance". |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
572
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 11:56:00 -
[214] - Quote
I've never done this, but I applaud the people who do. Costs?
Well, PLEXing an account costs 500-600M ISK per month. So, we are looking at about 15-20M per day, per account for the noob char.
Also, if you use a noobship char in this way you can't use that account for anything else. And you can't go AFK, because a noobship could be suicide ganked, closing the mission.
So it costs in both ISK, time and opportunity to do something else.
And, as we all know from the barge threads - suicide ganking costs 'nothing' when gankers are doing it. Oh wait.......now suicide ganking is now 'too costly' a solution to this problem, when carebears are told to do it. Gee, It gets confusing, having different rules for different classes of players......
Also, it sounded like the 'extortionist' gave the OP an out. He wasn't griefing at all, as he offered to leave for a reasonable ISK payment.
Rather than pay, however, the OP chose to cry. CCP runs, as always, with a babybottle full of milk and an exploit notice.
|
Brrzaa
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 13:27:00 -
[215] - Quote
Just for the lolz I'll bite.
1. Every single player has exact same isk or $ cost for mainting his accounts. 2. Most of the site blockers were on trial accounts. Which are, you can guess, free!
3. Suicide ganking a shuttle or intie full of BPCs, plex or implants can pay for a dozen (whom am I kidding, hundreds) thrashers. Suicide ganking freighters pays well enough to be done in Ti3s all day long even after CONCORD insurance denial change. Suicide ganking a noobship gives you nothing. And more important, site blocker has time to reship and return to the site before site despawn timer expires.
So much effort. Have a dozen trial accounts minimzed and be alt tabbed doing something else, when you hear damage alarms from one of the you alt tab to it, wake up in station, undock another noobship and warp to bookmarked site. So much effort, so much isk spent. Surely comparable to gathering and keeping alive a fleet of 40 pirate BSes. |
Rhea Kuha
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 14:59:00 -
[216] - Quote
Brrzaa wrote:Just for the lolz I'll bite.
1. Every single player has exact same isk or $ cost for mainting his accounts. 2. Most of the site blockers were on trial accounts. Which are, you can guess, free!
3. Suicide ganking a shuttle or intie full of BPCs, plex or implants can pay for a dozen (whom am I kidding, hundreds) thrashers. Suicide ganking freighters pays well enough to be done in Ti3s all day long even after CONCORD insurance denial change. Suicide ganking a noobship gives you nothing. And more important, site blocker has time to reship and return to the site before site despawn timer expires.
So much effort. Have a dozen trial accounts minimzed and be alt tabbed doing something else, when you hear damage alarms from one of the you alt tab to it, wake up in station, undock another noobship and warp to bookmarked site. So much effort, so much isk spent. Surely comparable to gathering and keeping alive a fleet of 40 pirate BSes.
Just so you know I was one of the ones holding sites open and i can say not a single trial account was used to do this. You all only assumed i was using them. Every account was a active paid for account. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
572
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 18:28:00 -
[217] - Quote
Rhea Kuha wrote:Brrzaa wrote:Just for the lolz I'll bite.
1. Every single player has exact same isk or $ cost for mainting his accounts. 2. Most of the site blockers were on trial accounts. Which are, you can guess, free!
3. Suicide ganking a shuttle or intie full of BPCs, plex or implants can pay for a dozen (whom am I kidding, hundreds) thrashers. Suicide ganking freighters pays well enough to be done in Ti3s all day long even after CONCORD insurance denial change. Suicide ganking a noobship gives you nothing. And more important, site blocker has time to reship and return to the site before site despawn timer expires.
So much effort. Have a dozen trial accounts minimzed and be alt tabbed doing something else, when you hear damage alarms from one of the you alt tab to it, wake up in station, undock another noobship and warp to bookmarked site. So much effort, so much isk spent. Surely comparable to gathering and keeping alive a fleet of 40 pirate BSes. Just so you know I was one of the ones holding sites open and i can say not a single trial account was used to do this. You all only assumed i was using them. Every account was a active paid for account.
Aside from the fact that you can't run multiple trial accounts concurrently, as you can paid accounts. In other words, CCP does not allow players to "Alt-tabbing a dozen trial accounts" and the poster is talking out of their ass. The player could wait for the damage alarm, and return to the site, but that requires the player be alert and at the keyboard.
Also, ganking the noobship costs almost nothing (gee, T1 Thrashers are expensive) and can earn you ISK - by allowing you to grind more Incursion ISK. Perhaps the player could reship and return to the site. Of course, sometimes the BPC's don't drop. Ganking has its risks, correct?
And of course, you could always pay off the extortionist.....
I don't know what is more stupid, the OP - or CCP's lazy halfassed 'fix' - "hey guys, loitering in an incursion is now an exploit!"
So hanging out in an incursion is now a punishable offense. What a joke. Curious as to when CCP is going to hire mindreaders to determine the intent of the 'exploiter'.
|
Ildryn
Xiloite
70
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 19:37:00 -
[218] - Quote
Rhea Kuha wrote:
Just so you know I was one of the ones holding sites open and i can say not a single trial account was used to do this. You all only assumed i was using them. Every account was a active paid for account.
Rhea Kuha Security Status 0.0
Hedion University [HU] Member for 18 days
Really had a lot to lose didn't you. |
goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
171
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 20:31:00 -
[219] - Quote
So for 3 to 4 weeks this thread has been up and getting a pretty constant amount of chatter, the discussion has never waived from the Site Squating tactics and how it can be overcome. So Rhea Kuha In three weeks did you ever petition CCP to allow you to sit in sites and hold the community hostage? or did you know it was an exploit all along and just hopping it would get ignored long enough for you to enjoy your short lived rule? As your toon is almost exactly as old as the Issue I already know the answer. Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
148
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 20:51:00 -
[220] - Quote
Are people still whining that CCP won't let them break game mechanics?
....Yup. Awesome. |
|
Ammzi
Infinite Covenant Tribal Band
1296
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 11:03:00 -
[221] - Quote
Holy ****. Time to occupy some damn HQ sites! quote CCP Spitfire
"Hello Im Blue,"
|
Aramatheia
European Nuthouse
94
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 13:00:00 -
[222] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:I've never done this, but I applaud the people who do. Costs?
Well, PLEXing an account costs 500-600M ISK per month. So, we are looking at about 15-20M per day, per account for the noob char.
Also, if you use a noobship char in this way you can't use that account for anything else. And you can't go AFK, because a noobship could be suicide ganked, closing the mission.
So it costs in both ISK, time and opportunity to do something else.
And, as we all know from the barge threads - suicide ganking costs 'nothing' when gankers are doing it. Oh wait.......now suicide ganking is now 'too costly' a solution to this problem, when carebears are told to do it. Gee, It gets confusing, having different rules for different classes of players......
Also, it sounded like the 'extortionist' gave the OP an out. He wasn't griefing at all, as he offered to leave for a reasonable ISK payment.
Rather than pay, however, the OP chose to cry. CCP runs, as always, with a babybottle full of milk and an exploit notice.
a mining barge costs isk, the fittings cost isk, the capacity to fly a mining barge requires at minimum like 1 week of training time. Ganking a mining barge incurs noticable loss onto the victims, between a few to 100m+ isk.
a rookie ship costs nothing. its fittings cost nothing, the skill to fly it is lready given to every 0.00000000001 second old alt.
ganking the 2 are entirely unrelated, mining barge ganks are to **** off the miners and make them "cry". Ganking 0.000001 second old alts in free ships with free fittings makes the camper/griefer kiddie "lol" nothing more.
You suck hard at making comparisons |
goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
171
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 13:52:00 -
[223] - Quote
Ok let me try, I will take a mackinaw to a belt and sit there doing nothing, but for 15mil i will turn off the tank if someone wants to gank me they can have the chance for 15 mil. Trust me? Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
Dzajic
99
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 15:53:00 -
[224] - Quote
Virtual machines, IP maskers, running multiple trial accounts in parallel is possible and common occurrence. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 23:51:00 -
[225] - Quote
This whole thing is kind of amusing to me.
Lately I've been living in one of the constellations that's on the Incursion list, and I spent a week there during the last time it had one. As such, I've got a little firsthand experience with Incursions (more specifically with Incursion fleets) that makes the joke actually work. Here, I'll explain it:
An Incursion starts in Constellation X. The Incursion fleets move in, bringing their multibillion-ISK ships with them. So far everything is working as intended. However, rather than finishing the Incursion within a couple of days (we'll say that three days is reasonable, for the sake of argument), the Incursion fleets don't attempt the mom spawn until the very end, keeping the Incursion open for the whole week.
The effect? Miners, missioners, explorers et al, who live in that constellation and have their resources all set up in that area are denied the ability to participate in content. When they say anything about it to the Incursion fleets, they're told:
- "If we end the Incursion early, we lose ISK."
- "If it bothers you so much, then join an Incursion fleet and participate"
- "Try to gank us then. Otherwise HTFU and deal with it."
- "Pay us [insert amount of ISK] and we'll close the Incursion so you can go back to carebearing."
- "Go mission/mine somewhere else and stop crying that you can't do it here."
The last two items on that list are what really make the joke work, since that's what we've got going on here now with Incursion runners being denied the ability to do what they want where they want to do it and being told to either pay for the ability to continue as normal or go do it somewhere else.
TL;DR - Hisec Incursion fleets hold constellations hostage for their own profit and mock others who are "crying" about it, but when the roles are reversed Incursion runners prove they actually cry louder and harder than anyone else. Hilarious. |
Dzajic
99
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 02:28:00 -
[226] - Quote
Been there done that.
Remember last winter? CCP asked for advice, haters spoke. Incursions got nerfed in the ground. No one done them. Very minor buff, people trying to make some isk barely against all odds. |
Nadia Gallen
Advanced Engineering and Research Division
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 03:34:00 -
[227] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:This whole thing is kind of amusing to me. Lately I've been living in one of the constellations that's on the Incursion list, and I spent a week there during the last time it had one. As such, I've got a little firsthand experience with Incursions (more specifically with Incursion fleets) that makes the joke actually work. Here, I'll explain it: An Incursion starts in Constellation X. The Incursion fleets move in, bringing their multibillion-ISK ships with them. So far everything is working as intended. However, rather than finishing the Incursion within a couple of days (we'll say that three days is reasonable, for the sake of argument), the Incursion fleets don't attempt the mom spawn until the very end, keeping the Incursion open for the whole week.The effect? Miners, missioners, explorers et al, who live in that constellation and have their resources all set up in that area are denied the ability to participate in their regular content. Most people seem to hold their patience and remain understanding about it for a while, approximately those three days I arbitrarily mentioned before. Patience, naturally, only lasts so long however and someone inevitably speaks up. However, when anything is said to the Incursion fleets, that person is told:
- "If we end the Incursion early, we lose ISK."
- "If it bothers you so much, then join an Incursion fleet and participate"
- "Try to gank us then. Otherwise HTFU and deal with it."
- "Pay us [insert amount of ISK] and we'll close the Incursion so you can go back to carebearing."
- "Go mission/mine somewhere else and stop crying that you can't do it here."
The last two items on that list are what really make the joke work, since that's what we've got going on here now with Incursion runners being denied the ability to do what they want where they want to do it and being told to either pay for the ability to continue as normal or go do it somewhere else. TL;DR - Hisec Incursion fleets hold constellations hostage for their own profit and mock others who are "crying" about it, but when the roles are reversed and sites are held hostage, Incursion runners prove they actually cry louder and harder than anyone else. Hilarious.
Incursions are normally run from it is established in the journal to it is in withdrawl. And then the Mothership is attacked and destroyed and the incursion communities move on to battle the next one.
|
Tauranon
Weeesearch
103
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 05:44:00 -
[228] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
The last two items on that list are what really make the joke work, since that's what we've got going on here now with Incursion runners being denied the ability to do what they want where they want to do it and being told to either pay for the ability to continue as normal or go do it somewhere else.
GMs plainly didn't want to ban this, and IMO had the originator used a bricked battlecruiser (or for even more carebear hilarity a bricked skiff) then this event probably would not have come to pass.
Quote:
TL;DR - Hisec Incursion fleets hold constellations hostage for their own profit and mock others who are "crying" about it, but when the roles are reversed and sites are held hostage, Incursion runners prove they actually cry louder and harder than anyone else. Hilarious.
If the runners did not come and run the incursion - the incursion would last for its maximum amount of time, and the system penalties would be maximised at all times. Also if a group of carebears living in a system want the incursion gone, they can close it themselves, and IMO the runners make that easier, not harder, because they kill off the system penalties and the like.
|
Aramatheia
European Nuthouse
95
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 09:13:00 -
[229] - Quote
Tauranon wrote:[quote=Alvatore DiMarco] Quote:
TL;DR - Hisec Incursion fleets hold constellations hostage for their own profit and mock others who are "crying" about it, but when the roles are reversed and sites are held hostage, Incursion runners prove they actually cry louder and harder than anyone else. Hilarious.
If the runners did not come and run the incursion - the incursion would last for its maximum amount of time, and the system penalties would be maximised at all times. Also if a group of carebears living in a system want the incursion gone, they can close it themselves, and IMO the runners make that easier, not harder, because they kill off the system penalties and the like.
I was going to post that same thing! Also an extension of what you said, if the original inhabitors of a constellation really want the incursion to just go away they dont have to farm it like the mainstream community does, they can beat it till the mom spawns and kill the incursion all in less than a day. Might cause a bit of unhappyness with the main incursion runners but closing an incursion by spawning and killing the mom isnt breaking any rules or the spirit of the game! |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 09:51:00 -
[230] - Quote
Aramatheia wrote:
I was going to post that same thing! Also an extension of what you said, if the original inhabitors of a constellation really want the incursion to just go away they dont have to farm it like the mainstream community does, they can beat it till the mom spawns and kill the incursion all in less than a day. Might cause a bit of unhappyness with the main incursion runners but closing an incursion by spawning and killing the mom isnt breaking any rules or the spirit of the game!
Absolutely true, but that wasn't really the point I was making. |
|
Mexan Caderu
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 12:52:00 -
[231] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
the point I was making.
apples=oranges ? |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 15:44:00 -
[232] - Quote
Mexan Caderu wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
the point I was making.
apples=oranges ?
Not at all.
Missioners and miners are unable to do what they want to do and they cry about it. Incursioners mock them.
Incursioners are unable to do what they want to do and they cry about it.
Quote: If the runners did not come and run the incursion - the incursion would last for its maximum amount of time, and the system penalties would be maximised at all times. Also if a group of carebears living in a system want the incursion gone, they can close it themselves, and IMO the runners make that easier, not harder, because they kill off the system penalties and the like.
To be fair, incursions essentially do last the maximum amount of time (being farmed until the moment the incursion's going to despawn on its own is effectively the "maximum") and highsec incursion runners are carebears just like missioners and miners.
Also, during the Incursion of my current home constellation, there was a lot of talk about deliberately not letting system penalties fall below 90%. While I can't pretend to know why anyone would want the penalties high, apparently someone does. |
goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
171
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 16:29:00 -
[233] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Mexan Caderu wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
the point I was making.
apples=oranges ? Not at all. Missioners and miners are unable to do what they want to do and they cry about it. Incursioners mock them. Incursioners are unable to do what they want to do and they cry about it. Quote: If the runners did not come and run the incursion - the incursion would last for its maximum amount of time, and the system penalties would be maximised at all times. Also if a group of carebears living in a system want the incursion gone, they can close it themselves, and IMO the runners make that easier, not harder, because they kill off the system penalties and the like.
To be fair, incursions essentially do last the maximum amount of time (being farmed until the moment the incursion's going to despawn on its own is effectively the "maximum") and highsec incursion runners are carebears just like missioners and miners. Also, during the Incursion of my current home constellation, there was a lot of talk about deliberately not letting system penalties fall below 90%. While I can't pretend to know why anyone would want the penalties high, apparently someone does.
Over the last few months several different Incursion communities have gotten strong enough to 'Take down the Mom' this has resulted in most Incursions lasting 2 to 4 days before one group or another gets bored and completes the Mom site. Prior to this turn of events incursions were kept up till they went into withdrawl (the final stage before they despawn naturally). So yes though you are right about how they were run, I haven't seen one go into withdrawl in a few months now.
The attempt to keep the Incursion at 90% would be someone trying to keep the MOM from spawning so they could farm it, this tactic would have little to no chance of succeding as it would only take a hour to move the constelation controll to 100% and then end the incursion anyways.
I would add that the next time an Incursion pops up in your home system you could join in, if not with a ship then possiblly a supplier. Most Incursion Runners will go through a ridiculous amount of ammo (800 Mach will use 1mil ISK worth of Repubic Fleet EMP every 6 minutes) supplying that and drones (another throw away, or forgotten in space Item) should net you a decent income while the Incursion is in your nieghborhood. Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
ORCACommander
Obsidian Firelance Technologies
19
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 16:51:00 -
[234] - Quote
a good quarter of the incursion runners have low or null sec alts and this funds their habits or corporate ops. |
Dzajic
99
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 18:16:00 -
[235] - Quote
ORCACommander wrote:a good quarter of the incursion runners have low or null sec alts and this funds their habits or corporate ops.
And that must not be allowed. Only legal sources of income are tech, ganking freighters in niarja and jita scamming. |
Mellisa 'Pixie' Clarke
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 08:21:00 -
[236] - Quote
This has now been deemed as an exploit by CCP. So OP 1 > leet space pvprs 0. |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 15:35:00 -
[237] - Quote
Ember Klahan wrote: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?
a few minutes after the completion (how much to be defined), make some rats pop.
those rats will not drop loot, will not give SS nor bounty (this prevent any farming).
make them strong enought so a noob ship or poorly fitted T1 frig is not enought (or escalate, at first 1 frig, then 5, then cruisers etc...).
as for the loots / noctis, they will just require a light escort in the form of a BC to protect em and would probably be done looting before the reinforcement become too strong to handle |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6453
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 11:29:00 -
[238] - Quote
Tauranon wrote:If the runners did not come and run the incursion - the incursion would last for its maximum amount of time, and the system penalties would be maximised at all times. Also if a group of carebears living in a system want the incursion gone, they can close it themselves, and IMO the runners make that easier, not harder, because they kill off the system penalties and the like.
As if the runners don't already have agreements in place to, well, keep the incursion up for the maximum amount of time? ~*a proud belligerent undesirable*~ TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
391
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 11:49:00 -
[239] - Quote
Andski wrote:As if the runners don't already have agreements in place to, well, keep the incursion up for the maximum amount of time? They do, but people who find it convenient not to follow them obviously don't do that. As of late, incursions don't really live long. Even if they do, having Sansha influence minimized by running (as opposed to being at 100%) is kind of a big deal for residents (bar miners who still face belt Sansha). |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one page] |