| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Synapse Archae
   |
Posted - 2003.07.30 22:46:00 -
[1]
When one player makes an agressive act against another in empire space, the second player takes no security loss for fighting back, correct?
However, if you are for example in a gang, and an external (non gang, non corp) player attacks a gang member in your presence or otherwise, are you equally allowed to begin agression against the external without fear of reprisal?
This could be exploited in a rather nasty manner by allowing a pirate to destroy a player ship even if that player is escorted by any number of corporate or gang members, so long as he makes them all aware thatthey will take a security hit for going after him without taking a day or two to declare war.
If this is currently how agression works, then I suggest that it be modified immediately so that corps and gangs may defend their own players from attack, without wondering if they will be chased by the police.
---------------------------------------------
[/IMG]http://millerfam.org/eve/synapse_logo.jpg[/IMG]
Everyone deserves a chance to live.
My job is to make sure they get it. |
Terack
|
Posted - 2003.07.31 00:05:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Terack on 31/07/2003 00:06:26
Agreed, just today a member of my corp was attacked by an outsider during a mining op. When "other members" chased the offender to a station and opened fire they took a security hit and were promptly dispatched by sentry guns.
Even if it's only a 15 minute window, a corporation should have the right to defend it's own! Isn't that one of the reasons for joining a corp in the first place?(safety in numbers)
An attack on one should be treated as an attack on the whole!
|
Synapse Archae
|
Posted - 2003.07.31 19:40:00 -
[3]
bump
---------------------------------------------
[/IMG]http://millerfam.org/eve/synapse_logo.jpg[/IMG]
Everyone deserves a chance to live.
My job is to make sure they get it. |
Darsk'hul
|
Posted - 2003.08.01 06:56:00 -
[4]
bump too |
Dianabolic
|
Posted - 2003.08.01 11:21:00 -
[5]
It does seem a bit silly that corp mates, especially, can not come to the aid of each other.
|
Ramar
|
Posted - 2003.08.01 11:34:00 -
[6]
I would like to throw this into the mix too.
Lets say you are in a roid belt with another non corp/gang member. Then a pirate comes along and attacks the other guy. You should beable to attack the pirate to defend that person without having to form a gang with them. And you will not take a sec rating hit. Like a good citizen allowance. That would allow people to band together quickly against any aggrssor.
It can work on a timer like once the first person attacks, you can attack them within... say.... 30 seconds of their primary attack or their last shot. Afterall, if the pirate succeeds, what is to say you are not next? The way it works at the moment, you would have to be attacked first. This way you can begin a pre-emptive assault on them in the interest of your safety. and also to defend a fellow miner. |
Synapse Archae
|
Posted - 2003.08.01 14:52:00 -
[7]
bump
This really badly needs to be in... badly enough that I'm willing to keep bumping it. :)
---------------------------------------------
[/IMG]http://millerfam.org/eve/synapse_logo.jpg[/IMG]
Everyone deserves a chance to live.
My job is to make sure they get it. |
Terack
|
Posted - 2003.08.01 20:11:00 -
[8]
Has anyone tried submitting this as a bug report??
|
Entity
|
Posted - 2003.08.02 02:26:00 -
[9]
Agreed. Attack 1 concord member and you get all on your butt and I dont see THEM taking any sec hit or being ganked by the police (themselves) for doing so, so why can't we defend our own people, 's pretty stupid if you ask me...
 |
Ramar
|
Posted - 2003.08.02 11:20:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Ramar on 02/08/2003 11:22:21
Now that the idea has been put forward, I will not rest untill the development team state their intentions.
Come on CCP, you have been slated a lot lately for not appearing to be interested in our ideas. I for one do not belive that, however, now is your chance to prove that wrong and make some kind of comment about the idea and if it might be implimented some time in the future.
You can't deny that the current system is inadequate because it is. I was not around in beta but I am surprised that this issue was not raised and sorted out before the game went to the stores. |
Darius Shakor
|
Posted - 2003.08.03 13:06:00 -
[11]
All in favour? I agree with Ramar, what is the official stance? |
Terack
|
Posted - 2003.08.05 16:56:00 -
[12]
still bumping
|
Bad Harlequin
|
Posted - 2003.08.05 17:06:00 -
[13]
Hi guys. You're right, and you aren't being ignored; this is known. Gang members are *supposed* to share aggro flag status. It's b0rked. Surprise!
Since various devs are returning and slogging thru their backlog, i expect this will be addressed soon, as long as we keep it on the radar this time.
So i guess what i'm saying is,
BUMP 
You are in a maze of twisty little asteroids, all alike. |
Cro Ramel
|
Posted - 2003.08.05 18:09:00 -
[14]
Hypothetical Situation: *heh*
Three pirates sitting at a gate are ganged to together. In comes an upstart with the desire to run a blockade. Pirate A fires, pirates B and C do not. Upstart returns fire at no security status hit because it was self defense. Now the pirate gang was been attacked Pirates B and C should be able to open fire with no security status hit because the upstart fired upon their gang member? Or should pirates B and C lose security status because a member of their gang initiated the aggression? Food for thought, Cro out...
"If it sounds like a bad idea, it is."
|
Princeton
|
Posted - 2003.08.05 18:20:00 -
[15]
Cro - Yes, they should take security hit. They were ganged with the agressor. If your ganged with non-agressor, No you should not take security hit.
----------------------------------------------
"The empires of the future are the empires of the mind."
Sir Winston Churchill, 1874 - 1965 |
Cro Ramel
|
Posted - 2003.08.05 18:27:00 -
[16]
I don't know about pirates B and C taking a security hit for pirate A's actions. It might seem justifiable until true griefers abuse it by having you join their gang then shooting as many people as possible to quickly make you lose security status. Be funny to see Pirate A make Pirates B and C lose security status by firing on Pirates B and C. (Well for Pirate A anyway)
As for having free reign to fire on someone defending themselves I don't believe the rest of the gang should be able to shoot without consequence. Hence the difficulties CCP is having with this issue most likely.
"If it sounds like a bad idea, it is."
|
Terack
|
Posted - 2003.08.06 02:40:00 -
[17]
You "choose" to join a gang! So if you join a gang with some idiot who's gonna go around shooting people with the intent on lowering your security status, then you had better re-think you alliances!
|
EaglesFire
|
Posted - 2003.08.06 03:36:00 -
[18]
You should be able to shoot back, if your gang member is attacked. This was taken out in Beta, when they took out most of the Gang options. Too buggy I guess. Hopefully this will come back soon.
"Knowledge is power, and the uninformed SHALL be punished!"
|
Elseix
|
Posted - 2003.08.06 07:12:00 -
[19]
makes sense to me...
Make it so!
|
Ramar
|
Posted - 2003.08.06 11:12:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Ramar on 06/08/2003 11:13:41
Heres the way I think gang sec ratings should be handled in that situation.
If gang member A attacks first, then obviously the other person can attack gang member A without taking a hit to the rating. He can also attack gang members B and C without a sec rating hit as they are in the gang.
Gang members B and C should not take a sec rating hit unless they join in the attack. This happens even if they are attacked first by the person who A shot at.
If they do not want a rating hit, then they can simply get out of the way or leave the gang. If they have intent to attack, then they should take a rating hit when they do.
Think of it as a police caution system. An accomplice attacks someone, then his fellow gang members are on caution. if they open fire on that same person, then they take a hit no matter who shot first.
That sounds fair to me. and it can stop greifers from trying to trick noobs into joining gangs so they can wreck their ratings for them. |
Ramar
|
Posted - 2003.08.06 11:16:00 -
[21]
Also, if a gang is attacked first it works the opposite way around. As has been said, you can defend a gang member if they are attacked without taking a sec rating hit as long as none of your gang members shot first. therefore it counts as an attack on the gang not the individual. |
Terack
|
Posted - 2003.08.07 03:03:00 -
[22]
and another bump!
|
Cro Ramel
|
Posted - 2003.08.07 05:07:00 -
[23]
Alright Ramar you got the master plan, keep up the good work. Cro out!
"If it sounds like a bad idea, it is."
|
Jojin
|
Posted - 2003.08.07 07:26:00 -
[24]
Must play devils advocate hereā
If a gang member or corporate member is attacked, their associates should not be able to respond with force in Empire Controlled space without taking a security hit and the subsequent reaction of Concorde.
While the pretense of defending a member may seem noble, it is still not just cause for use of force. The only difference between casual individual and a gang/corporate member is a relation is stated prior to the act of aggression. Statement of close ties to an individual does not give one the right to take matters into their own hands.
Only the defender (the one who the aggressor has attacked) has the right to use force against the aggressor for defense. Allowing other individuals to take action would encourage mob interaction. This could then result in ensuing chaos as more individuals come into the conflict on the side of one party or another. Such large scale destruction is should not be tolerated or encouraged in Empire Controlled Space.
The proper action in such situation would be to aid the defender by offering support. Use shield transfer devices, targeting assistance devices, energy transfer devices or other such aid devices. Concorde will arrive to deal with the aggressor.
Outside of Empire Controlled space, blow the attacker to hell.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |