EVE Search - WTF IS THIS ??!?!?!?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

WTF IS THIS ??!?!?!?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Hllaxiu	Posted - 2005.06.14 01:22:00 - [31] Originally by: Joshua Calvert Originally by: Hllaxiu Originally by: Joshua Calvert If someone is flagged they have a flashing red reticule around their ship icon both inspace and on the Overview. Thanks, I needed the good laugh. :) I haven't seen that work since exodus - and its not due to a lack of low security combat.
Plague Black	Posted - 2005.06.14 07:52:00 - [32] Originally by: Joshua Calvert If someone is flagged they have a flashing red reticule around their ship icon both inspace and on the Overview. Are you at war with this Stain corporation? If so, anyone ganged with them or remote boosting them should be flagged in the way I've mentioned above. This means you can freely attack them but they cannot attack you until you have initiated aggression towards him. I believe you can paraphrase a GM's reply but you aren't allowed to directly quote them. Does not work! We saw the guy being booster by neutral scorp in YULAI and I engaged the guy and got scorched by DED sentry guns. The battle went on and it took 3 minutes for a small bs fleet to kil a maller!!! I petitioned and didn't get my ship back becouse GM could see nothing in the logfiles (he didn't see that maller was boosted or that maller took damage from 3 bs for over 3 minutes). So I'm empty-handed and will reconsider fighting anyone in empire when neutrals are around. Imagine 5 neutral bs boosting a single ship. That ship could tank whatever he wants, maybe even concord. Can I say EXPLOIT without this thread beaing locked?
Eyeshadow	Posted - 2005.06.14 08:58:00 - [33] Originally by: Joshua Calvert If someone is flagged they have a flashing red reticule around their ship icon both inspace and on the Overview. Are you at war with this Stain corporation? If so, anyone ganged with them or remote boosting them should be flagged in the way I've mentioned above. This means you can freely attack them but they cannot attack you until you have initiated aggression towards him. I believe you can paraphrase a GM's reply but you aren't allowed to directly quote them. aye josh, visible criminal flagging was removed with Exodus and has yet to be reinstated. I wish it would get replaced Also, remote boosting a war target SHOULD make him flagged to the other corp, otherwise people will start running around boosting any1 who is at war with people as they are invulnerable to any repurcussions If GMs disagree with that, they are WRONG If this is a bug then ships should be replaced All i know is, if you boost someone, u are flagged for 15mins to that persons enemies. A damn warning box pops up when u try to do it! Forums: Sharks - MC
Nicholai Pestot	Posted - 2005.06.14 09:11:00 - [34] I agree its a cheep tactic, but i can see the logic to it. You are paying Concord to look the other way when attacking a certain corp/alliance.As far as they are concerned, no illegal action is taking place so flagging does not even come into the question (as flaggin is just concord acknowledging the commiting of a crime). However, attacking someone you are not bribing concord to ignore....bad idea. Ill re-state that i consider it cheep...but i also consider using alt scouts cheep and its likely the most vocal people in this thread have used those at one time or another. I have supped the milk of human kindness, and discovered i am lactose intolerant
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2005.06.14 09:13:00 - [35] Originally by: Hllaxiu Originally by: Joshua Calvert Originally by: Hllaxiu Originally by: Joshua Calvert If someone is flagged they have a flashing red reticule around their ship icon both inspace and on the Overview. Thanks, I needed the good laugh. :) I haven't seen that work since exodus - and its not due to a lack of low security combat. Hmmm, I did not know that. I guess I know what to do with my alt now. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Plague Black	Posted - 2005.06.14 09:36:00 - [36] Originally by: Nicholai Pestot Ill re-state that i consider it cheep...but i also consider using alt scouts cheep and its likely the most vocal people in this thread have used those at one time or another. R u saying 4s r d cheaters like most of EVE population?!? Watch your mouth Nicholai, we have declared wars for less Stain needs to cheat against us just to score some kills, and even that doesn't save them from getting anihilated.
Saucy Minx	Posted - 2005.06.14 11:34:00 - [37] Edited by: Saucy Minx on 14/06/2005 11:34:13
Nicholai Pestot	Posted - 2005.06.14 11:36:00 - [38] Originally by: Plague Black R u saying 4s r d cheaters like most of EVE population?!? Well, possibly your english is poor, but i said CHEEP, not CHEATER. Its not cheating because its within the game mechanics, but using alt scouts is, IMO, twising game mechanics and removing another potential use for new players in bog standard friggies.Its just one of the things I wont do, even if it puts me at a disadvantage.But this isnt what the discussion is about. And by all means declair war, we were considering doing so soon ourself for some amusement. This way we get it for free (if its fun enough we might even make it mutual ). If your hoping to hurt stain by doing so, im afraid we are not a stain 'hidden industrial corp'..we just happen to have 3 ex-stain members I have supped the milk of human kindness, and discovered i am lactose intolerant
Nyphur	Posted - 2005.06.14 12:33:00 - [39] I had a really hard time reading that post of yours but I think I understand what's going on. Basically, you attacked someone you were at war with. Instead of firing back, he was getting remote boosted, which would criminally flag him to concord IF the person he boosted was criminally flagged. However, since the war is legitimate and he wasn't firing on you, he wasn't criminally flagged. It's all perfectly legitimate.
Malken	Posted - 2005.06.14 13:10:00 - [40] actually i think we found out that Tover is a alt of Subzerodamage and not shifu. and yes it should be deemed a exploit as the flagging system isnt working as intended and these guys are exploiting that fact. if you shoot Tover while he is boosting your target you will get pwnd by concord. that is not the way the flagging system are supposed to work. they have been doing that for a couple of months now and i assume that a severe penalty is put on the owner of the Tover account and any account that is affiliated in the exploit as it would be on any user that exploits to this extent.
Marija Andreevna	Posted - 2005.06.14 13:41:00 - [41] Edited by: Marija Andreevna on 14/06/2005 13:41:01
Fearless Sheep	Posted - 2005.06.14 13:49:00 - [42] Originally by: Nyphur I had a really hard time reading that post of yours but I think I understand what's going on. Basically, you attacked someone you were at war with. Instead of firing back, he was getting remote boosted, which would criminally flag him to concord IF the person he boosted was criminally flagged. However, since the war is legitimate and he wasn't firing on you, he wasn't criminally flagged. It's all perfectly legitimate. Actually, Shifu fired at me, so u dont have point here
Arkazzul	Posted - 2005.06.14 14:07:00 - [43] nyphur u r missin some details there. shifu in maller fired on sheep, sheep tanked while other arived (raven,tempest,scorp) and it took alot to take down that maller since tover was boosting him. so lemme show u situation a bit more simple corp A attacks corp B, corp B shows up with more force, corp A stops shooting in hope of dock, and pilots from corp B see that TOVER from his scorp is boosting Corp A pilot, after that we remember that gm said in earlier petition that u can attack him if you see sign of remote boost. but our frig pilot got wasted by concord since tover wasnt war flaged to us. and in petition gm said we can attack him, but we got wasted. in petition to refund ship he said he has no proof of remote boosting and cant refund. its okay we lost frig, stain showed their 1337 fighting skill, and gm's still didnt fix anything since this could be really big problem in empire wars from now on... p.s. expect to see one bs tanking 5
Stanis	Posted - 2005.06.14 17:59:00 - [44] Edited by: Stanis on 14/06/2005 17:59:24 Originally by: Malken actually i think we found out that Tover is a alt of Subzerodamage and not shifu. and yes it should be deemed a exploit as the flagging system isnt working as intended and these guys are exploiting that fact. if you shoot Tover while he is boosting your target you will get pwnd by concord. that is not the way the flagging system are supposed to work. they have been doing that for a couple of months now and i assume that a severe penalty is put on the owner of the Tover account and any account that is affiliated in the exploit as it would be on any user that exploits to this extent. Malken said everything. This is the exact thing they are doing. Some of my corp mates are getting realy stressed by this fact as we lost ships to this abuse for the 3rd time. The first time a Thorax tanke Cyclone, Ishkur and Thrasher for a long time and eventualy he killed the Thrasher and the Iskur (wich I was flying btw). I pettioned the GMs and they said that the Scorp was indeed boosting the Thorax (wich was flown by Subzerodamage), and that it clearly see that in the logs. What I dont understand is, how could a Maller tank 3 BSs for 3 minutes without some help? And why doesnt it show in the logs, when this is surely 100% true... Here we have two different ppl (from different corps) stating that Xenobytes are using this exploit in the game for some time, and still there is no action taken by the GMs? Not even to chek it, or just answer to questions in this topic? Could a moderator tell me what to do to attract some GM's attention to this topic? Should I make a pettion in which I will refer them to this topic? I always had a very good communications with the GMs and I think about the pettion system in the most positive way. It never failed me and in my POV it the best customer support in all MMO games I played 'till now. It would be a damn shame that this goes unnoticed, especialy now when a lot of ppl know about this over the forums...imagine what will happen to EMPIRE wars in a few months or less.
Ronin Woman	Posted - 2005.06.14 20:14:00 - [45] Originally by: Plague Black Originally by: Nicholai Pestot Ill re-state that i consider it cheep...but i also consider using alt scouts cheep and its likely the most vocal people in this thread have used those at one time or another. R u saying 4s r d cheaters like most of EVE population?!? Watch your mouth Nicholai, we have declared wars for less Stain needs to cheat against us just to score some kills, and even that doesn't save them from getting anihilated. Take it easy there! Try some anger managment!! You might not get so many negative answers as a result.
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2005.06.14 20:22:00 - [46] Originally by: Nyphur I had a really hard time reading that post of yours but I think I understand what's going on. Basically, you attacked someone you were at war with. Instead of firing back, he was getting remote boosted, which would criminally flag him to concord IF the person he boosted was criminally flagged. However, since the war is legitimate and he wasn't firing on you, he wasn't criminally flagged. It's all perfectly legitimate. Not really. They are probably abusing the fact they are not in one gang and as such not war targets by proxy, as the scorp guy would be if he were in gang with the guy doing the shooting. Corp A is at war with B, A shoots B, B gets boosted by C. The flagging system (which works or is intended to work the same for criminal flagging as for war target flagging), should now make C a valid war target to A. But it does not. Imo, a GM ashould pay these guys a visit and tell them to stop it, and a hotfix should be applied to fix remote boosting outside of a gang to make someone a valid war target like they should be. There is no question as to wether this was intended to be possible, or is in the spirit of the game (it is not), so a direct warning or temp ban would not be out of place either if this indeed has been going on for longer. Now, let's get a GM to post in here on it. I think the issue warrants some clarification. _______________________________________________ Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues.
BabeLove	Posted - 2005.06.14 20:41:00 - [47] The only way to make the GMs react to that tactic would be to use it way out of proportion, like more than 15 neutral bs boosting a single one, but that single one would kill every and all ships that come to the gate in yulai, with over 15 bs boosting a single ship, that ship would be invulnerable, even to concord and sentries once hundreds of complaits come their way, GMs will react
Corvus Dove	Posted - 2005.06.14 20:50:00 - [48] Originally by: BabeLove The only way to make the GMs react to that tactic would be to use it way out of proportion, like more than 15 neutral bs boosting a single one, but that single one would kill every and all ships that come to the gate in yulai, with over 15 bs boosting a single ship, that ship would be invulnerable, even to concord and sentries once hundreds of complaits come their way, GMs will react That sounds really familiar......hmm...where have we seen this happen before? Due to a prior incident, the devs have already deemed that not losing your ship to Concord is an exploit. Considering the aggro timer, I would say this means you must lose your ship within 15 minutes of your act of aggression. Not sure what the rule is if you keep tanking for longer but continually refresh the flag by killing people. I'd ask a GM before doing something silly, but I'd assume that you have to die within 15 minutes of your first act of aggression. "You Griefer!!!" = "You Doodyhead!!!"
Plague Black	Posted - 2005.06.15 08:12:00 - [49] Edited by: Plague Black on 15/06/2005 08:12:40 Originally by: Ronin Woman Originally by: Plague Black Originally by: Nicholai Pestot Ill re-state that i consider it cheep...but i also consider using alt scouts cheep and its likely the most vocal people in this thread have used those at one time or another. R u saying 4s r d cheaters like most of EVE population?!? Watch your mouth Nicholai, we have declared wars for less Stain needs to cheat against us just to score some kills, and even that doesn't save them from getting anihilated. Take it easy there! Try some anger managment!! You might not get so many negative answers as a result. Hummmm... It's called roleplaying... If I attacked every pilot who insulted me I would have to kill all of my corpmates Why are you so edgy? Are you hiding your feeling towards me, a real caldari macho killah, unlike those gallente men you go out with, or dried up amar old farts. Back to topic: Tover is still in his scorp in front of DED most of the time, waiting for someone to belive CCP words. But Stain ppl learned ther lesson, they do not come out any more when we are around, Tover or no Tover around
Vizant	Posted - 2005.06.15 15:37:00 - [50] Originally by: Malken actually i think we found out that Tover is a alt of Subzerodamage and not shifu. and yes it should be deemed a exploit as the flagging system isnt working as intended and these guys are exploiting that fact. if you shoot Tover while he is boosting your target you will get pwnd by concord. that is not the way the flagging system are supposed to work. they have been doing that for a couple of months now and i assume that a severe penalty is put on the owner of the Tover account and any account that is affiliated in the exploit as it would be on any user that exploits to this extent. Signed. And thay USE that EXPLOIT yestrday again, SO GM what is all about you leave this ppl to exploit game mechanic only at thay can be HIGH at STAIN killboard. Think about 10 Neutral BS bost some fleet war KOS, there is no chance against tham. Ignoring exploiters, you ignore your bank acc.
justplease	Posted - 2005.06.15 16:23:00 - [51] Edited by: justplease on 15/06/2005 16:23:28 how you wanna know he knows about this unfair advantage? only if he'd know about it and would use it on purpose (which is REALLY hard to proove) it would be a exploit... otherwise it's just a _BUG_
Arkazzul	Posted - 2005.06.15 19:54:00 - [52] Originally by: justplease Edited by: justplease on 15/06/2005 16:23:28 how you wanna know he knows about this unfair advantage? only if he'd know about it and would use it on purpose (which is REALLY hard to proove) it would be a exploit... otherwise it's just a _BUG_ why posting with alt shifu ?
Nyphur	Posted - 2005.06.15 20:03:00 - [53] Edited by: Nyphur on 15/06/2005 20:05:06 The flagging system only makes TOVER a target to someone if he is shieldboosting shifu and shifu fires on someone. SO shifu did fire on you, and this wasn't a legitmate circumstance. Perhaps we need a repeat of the Yulai incident before CCP will do anything about this. I agree that the system is flawed and he should be flagged as a target for aiding someone you were at war with, but that's not how it works right now. The part I like is how you got the message saying you were committing a criminal act and you ignored it and decided you knew better than the game, fired and got killed.
Sathanis LeFleur	Posted - 2005.06.15 20:04:00 - [54] The answer is rather simple.. if you are "boosting" someone you must be either 1: a Corp Member 2: a Gang Member Being able to randomly "boost" someone not affiliated with you is another "Oops! didn't think of that" on CCP's side. It should be rectified ASAP.. being protected by concord and boosting your GankerM8's in 1.0 space is lameness to the Nth degree. Is there a Dev looking into this problem? if so please respond and let us know what CCP's official stance on this is? Thanks
Nyphur	Posted - 2005.06.15 20:10:00 - [55] Originally by: Sathanis LeFleur Being able to randomly "boost" someone not affiliated with you is another "Oops! didn't think of that" on CCP's side. It should be rectified ASAP.. being protected by concord and boosting your GankerM8's in 1.0 space is lameness to the Nth degree. Actually, it's not only lame, it's also a permanantly bannable offence. Remember the Yulai Incident? It was announced after that incident that anyone using remote boosting to keep a ship alive in 1.0 under sentry fire would be banned on the spot, permanantly. I know this wasn't under sentry fire but if it weren't for the war, it would have been. It's the same exact situation with a war declaration thrown in for variety, but I think it should still be covered under the announcement made about the Yulai Incident. At very least, a temporary ban or a warning to cease activities should be issued.
TraderGriz	Posted - 2005.06.16 15:05:00 - [56] Edited by: TraderGriz on 16/06/2005 15:06:15 Edited by: TraderGriz on 16/06/2005 15:06:03 the new thread on Empire is Safe.. CCP now says it is an exploit officially! Xenobytes should now to be banned according to CCP.
Stanis	Posted - 2005.06.16 16:02:00 - [57] ? in better english pls? :P
Grizwold	Posted - 2005.06.16 16:34:00 - [58] I believe he meant this thread: "Empire Space Declared Safe - thanks CCP" in General Discussion It was locked and CCP declared that the methods that Xenobytes had used were an exploit and bannable. He managed to get a GM to answer his thread while this thread was ignored:
lakosta	Posted - 2005.06.16 16:48:00 - [59] And here is link for those of you lazy enought to search for it :D http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=191334
Stanis	Posted - 2005.06.16 18:45:00 - [60] THX mate \o.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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