| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Traveler
   |
Posted - 2003.07.31 18:06:00 -
[1]
Empire owned sentry guns are now none-jammable.
Fixed a possible cause of the modules being found unexpectedly offline when logging a character in, while in a station.
Aggression system now notes the corp war status when the aggression begins and continues to use that state throughout the life of that aggression.
Mines can be attacked and destroyed freely without any aggression based repercussions.
Landmarks are now visible in map and have a description in the info windown. Some are illustrated.
Gallente battleship skill wasn't giving bonus for gallente battleships after level 1 in the skill. This is fixed and the bonuses will now stack per level.
Use of ECM Burst modules is now an offensive action.
Use of ECM modules is now an offensive action.
Added Shield Hardener to list of modules that can be used while warping.
Traveler
Polaris Bug Hunter Lead |
Bad Harlequin
|
Posted - 2003.07.31 18:20:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Bad Harlequin on 31/07/2003 18:20:48
 Quote:
Empire owned sentry guns are now none-jammable.
FYI, everything else on that list is good. Nice job.
However, I am disturbed by the increasing use of "magic." Magic police, magic sentry guns...
i don't care about "realism" one whit. But it's kind of atmosphere-breaking (and somewhat worrisome) when 'law' is enforced only when resorting to magic, like infinite inertia-less police or, now, mystically unjammable sentry guns.
Wouldn't it suffice to make it an ungodly high sensor rating, something that say only 2 Ravens going full on would be able to jam? Improbable is fine. Nigh-impossible is a challenge. Mystically invulnerable is a mood-breaker 
You are in a maze of twisty little asteroids, all alike. |
Terrell
|
Posted - 2003.07.31 18:34:00 -
[3]
I've got to agree here. You should be able to jam the guns, should be near impossible and should require more then a single individual to accomplish. Also why was ecm made to be a hostile action? Just curious.
-----
We take care of our own. |
NeoMorph
|
Posted - 2003.07.31 18:44:00 -
[4]
I still think that if cops see a npc rat attack you they should behave like they do PC rats attacking.. they should attempt to jam the rats and defend you.
-------------------------------------------
<Stavros> the first motor bike i ever rode
<Stavros> was a honda gold wing
<Ak-Gara> hah
<Stavros> |
Elaron
|
Posted - 2003.07.31 19:07:00 -
[5]
Quote:
Use of ECM Burst modules is now an offensive action.
Use of ECM modules is now an offensive action.
This will add another layer of difficulty to blockade running. In order to pass a blockade using electronic warfare, a pilot will have to wait until the blockaders have initiated their own offensive equipment; be it guns or their own EW equipment. This hands the initiative in the encounter firmly to the blockaders, making it that less likely that the runner will be able to get to the gate.
Elaron
CEO E.S.M.C.
It is never too late to correct the mistakes of the past. |
Bad Harlequin
|
Posted - 2003.07.31 19:14:00 -
[6]
good point. Locking someone is not a hostile action; breaking their lock on you is? That's some kind of weird privacy protection act in reverse....
You are in a maze of twisty little asteroids, all alike. |
NeoMorph
|
Posted - 2003.07.31 19:34:00 -
[7]
Crap... that's true isnt it...
Once more a nice hole appears in CCP's foot 
It's basically making it impossible for pilots to protect themselves going thru blockades.
-------------------------------------------
<Stavros> the first motor bike i ever rode
<Stavros> was a honda gold wing
<Ak-Gara> hah
<Stavros> |
DREAMWORKS
|
Posted - 2003.07.31 19:42:00 -
[8]
The idea is that more ships blow up and create a larger demand on the market..
__________________________
http://www.nin.com/visuals/thtf_hi.html |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2003.07.31 19:49:00 -
[9]
... Why not just make the targetting offensive action, have the Concord blow up every miner in the secure space for locking on their precious 'roids and be done with it....
|
Jarjar
|
Posted - 2003.07.31 19:55:00 -
[10]
Quote:
The idea is that more ships blow up and create a larger demand on the market..
Also, more people will get ****ed off and stop playing.
I'm not one of them myself, no matter if my shiny battleship blows up, but I do understand why some of them quit. |
Mark A
|
Posted - 2003.07.31 20:18:00 -
[11]
There's a procarious differentiation between ECM and ECCM. For instance sensor dampers can be used for both, so should they be offensive or not? Also what about cap neutralizers which have been used a lot in empire space recently.
____________________________________
|
Jojin
|
Posted - 2003.07.31 20:27:00 -
[12]
While you receive notice someone has locked-on to your vessel, all of the action is taking place on the opposite vessel. In a sense, it is only your vessels sensors saying to you, "Hey look, that guy is pointing a Gun or device at us."
Sending out controlled interference (using ECM) to prevent sensors for operating correctly is a direct effect action against another party.
|
Redundancy
|
Posted - 2003.07.31 20:36:00 -
[13]
I would personally say that anything that breaks a lock isn't offensive. Anything that prevents someone from getting a lock on you, is.
Redundancy |
Elaron
|
Posted - 2003.07.31 20:49:00 -
[14]
I can see passive targetters getting even more milage after this. I know that if I wanted to run a blockade using EW, I would want to prevent the blockaders from locking on to me in the first place, to prevent any windows of fire. With a passive targetter, you wouldn't even know if you were being targetted until the first jammer activates.
Elaron
CEO E.S.M.C.
It is never too late to correct the mistakes of the past. |
Stem
|
Posted - 2003.07.31 20:58:00 -
[15]
"Use of ECM Burst modules is now an offensive action"
"Use of ECM modules is now an offensive action"
OK.. Who is the lamer at CCP that thought this one up.. Trying to protect yourself from somebody is now considered an offensive action?
Do they even understand the play mechanics of there own game anymore.
I'm getting a little tired of CCP making up new rules all the time, it's a little late for changing things now. You made some huge mistake with the game at the beginning of live. Admit it, live with it and move on.. I have.
|
Gauguin
|
Posted - 2003.07.31 21:02:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Gauguin on 31/07/2003 21:05:01
Quote:
While you receive notice someone has locked-on to your vessel, all of the action is taking place on the opposite vessel. In a sense, it is only your vessels sensors saying to you, "Hey look, that guy is pointing a Gun or device at us."
Well, since we have passive targeting modules as separate devices, it could be inferred that an active lock is a 'direct effect action'. The fact that your ships systems detect a lock indicates that this it true.
Quote:
Sending out controlled interference (using ECM) to prevent sensors for operating correctly is a direct effect action against another party.
We don't really know what tech is used for ECM. It could be the change in some 'field' surrounding your ship that makes it more difficult for the opposing ship to lock you. It could be anything.
An idea was discussed some time ago at great length that proposed a system which would define an *active lock* as a hostile action, but without any security or other penalties associated with a hostile action. The only drawback for initiating the active lock would be that the other ship would be free to retaliate in any manner without any security related consequences.
|
NeoMorph
|
Posted - 2003.07.31 21:52:00 -
[17]
Quote:
I would personally say that anything that breaks a lock isn't offensive. Anything that prevents someone from getting a lock on you, is.
Now THAT I fully agree with... if they do that then I would be quite happy.
It would also make logical sense. Thanks for clearing that up Redundancy.
-------------------------------------------
<Stavros> the first motor bike i ever rode
<Stavros> was a honda gold wing
<Ak-Gara> hah
<Stavros> |
The Reverend
|
Posted - 2003.07.31 21:58:00 -
[18]
*Chuckles* too funny, keep it up CCP, nice to see a nerf not aimed at a pirate for a change.
m0ovie links |
Karif
|
Posted - 2003.08.01 08:36:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Karif on 01/08/2003 08:36:56
For those complaining about sentry guns breaking immersion because they're unjammable:
1) Are you forgetting that these are deployed around stations and stargates instead of actually having weapon systems mounted on them?
2) Ever compare the size of a battleship to the size of a station?
3) Who do you think would have bigger, harder-hitting guns?
4) Who do you think has a bigger reactor core to power such things?
5) Do you really want to push CCP into adding in station/jumpgate based weapons arrays that would cut a battleship to pieces in a matter of seconds and have a goodly 40-50km range all for the sake of reality, or just admit that Sentry Guns are linked to the stations/jumpgates sensor arrays that are vastly superior to mere ship arrays?
I'm thinking the latter is probably easier, no? 
As for ECM being flagged as an offensive action:
1) Griefing exploit fixed by this.
2) Means if you target jam you stick around to find out if that innocent looking Indy full of cargo was actually just an innocent looking indy full of cargo and the pilot was actually negotiating or an Badger Mk2/Mammoth packing a host of ECM/ECCM/Warp Jammers to lock you down long enough for their friends to arrive and convert your ships back to the space dust they were derived from and the pilot is just buying time for his mates to warp to his location?
This just means you might take a shot or two before you can target jam them. Might want to invest in a point defense system to take out any Cruise Missiles or Torpedoes they might have sent your way.
Or hey, here's a novel idea - BRING AN ESCORT. Shipping a few million in robotics? Have a few EW Ships kitted to provide the cover so you and they can get through a blockade with minimal risk...
[Edit for typos.]
===============================
Deception + Information + Skill |
Chai N'Dorr
|
Posted - 2003.08.01 10:45:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Chai N'Dorr on 01/08/2003 10:46:27
Excuse me..? Using Electronic COUNTER Measures is now an offensive act?
Hello, if I see pirates at the gate whom I know are pirates but just haven't targetted me yet (or are using passive targeters), I want to be able to use my ECM before they lock me, not after...
ECCM, that I can understand... this move... bad one :(
|
Discorporation
|
Posted - 2003.08.01 10:57:00 -
[21]
I would imagine that boosting your sensors doesn't count as an offensive action.
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|
Gauguin
|
Posted - 2003.08.01 16:01:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Gauguin on 01/08/2003 16:02:42
Quote:
I would imagine that boosting your sensors doesn't count as an offensive action.
How does that help an indy that is being targeted by pirates and can't jam for fear of reprisals from the authorities for being offensive? That's the real issue here.
|
Bad Harlequin
|
Posted - 2003.08.01 16:21:00 -
[23]
we're still in the locking-is-not-hostile paradigm. You can lock them right back, you know; especially since they cannot stop you from doing so without it being a hostile act ^_^.
As soon as someone hits ECM, tho, it's a furball.
Worried the other person will ECM you first anyway? So carry ECCM and use it. The *act* of them using ECM will still mark them as hostile, with the added bonus that it will *fail.* So not only Passive Targeters but ECCMs should come into more use now, especially those rare lowslot ones that +3...
You are in a maze of twisty little asteroids, all alike. |
Gauguin
|
Posted - 2003.08.01 16:40:00 -
[24]
I'm talking from a perspective of someone who's just trying to make it through the pirate-camped gate. What help is it to me to be the first to initiate a lock on a pirate if I'm in an indy? Trying to break a pirate's lock on me in this situation would be my last resort, but in the new system this action becomes my death sentence.
Taking the ability to jam away from the pacifist plays into the hands of aggressors.
I'm not making a judgment here, just stating my take on this situation.
Now, if the *first active lock* initiation was made to be the flag for consequence-free retaliation, be it ECM or weapon use, and if the gates used the same flag for a pass/no-pass decisioną
|
Discorporation
|
Posted - 2003.08.01 17:31:00 -
[25]
Lock != offensive action.
If he's trigger-happy, thats his mistake.
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|
Silver Striker
|
Posted - 2003.08.01 17:32:00 -
[26]
Jamming someone has to be an offensive action. All the examples being given are Industrial Pilots driving into pirates. How about just giving the pirates all your money and self destructing your ship instead? You could not pick a worse ship to try and bust a blockade than an industrial. The fact that it was so easy to do with a mwd was a problem that needed to be fixed.
Blockades were a joke before as you could just run for the gate and jump before they could do almost any damage. With the changes, blockades actually become effective, ie ppl will have the time to lock and shred a ship coming in instead of barely locking him as he jumps.
This is good for all, but the days of solo indi pilots cruising safely through blockades are over.
Get some escorts :)
That's fantastic, really, but we need more COW BELL!!!! |
Lijah Reaper
|
Posted - 2003.08.01 17:40:00 -
[27]
First of all, I'd like to say that these changelogs are very helpful to the patch reviewers. They really help people test the right things, or at least give people a better idea of whats coming down the pipe.
Regarding ECM as an offensive action: I find this acceptable unless you are target locked by another player. I assume that shows up as "Orange" in the threat window, so when that happens it should be acceptable to try to jam that person without consequence. Once you are no longer locked you should be able to continue ECM for a while without consequence.
I think this goes with what Redundancy said regarding ECM.
Regarding making empire sentry guns invulnerable to jamming: Why not just make them almost impervious? IE: Sensor strength of 30. Empire space should be very safe but not completely so, if some pirates really work hard at it.
Basically, I like the changes to this patch, in addition to 1136.
|
Bad Harlequin
|
Posted - 2003.08.01 17:54:00 -
[28]
Gauguin, i still don't get it. He locks you, you can't use ECM. He fires one shot, you can and break his lock. If you're flying something that can't survive one shot as you run to a gate, it may be time to upgrade... 
You are in a maze of twisty little asteroids, all alike. |
Gauguin
|
Posted - 2003.08.01 18:38:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Gauguin on 01/08/2003 18:43:32
Edited by: Gauguin on 01/08/2003 18:40:10
Bad Harlequin (may I call you Bad?  ), let me try and clarify what I'm trying to say.
Example: I'm in an indy (or any other ship for that matter) trying to run through a blockade. A blockading pirate initiates a lock on me. My ship's systems react and lock him back. Since my single purpose is to make it to the gate without a fight I try to throw off the pirate's lock with ECM before he has a chance to webify me (for instance). At this point the pirate hasn't done anything to me except locking me (maybe his lock speed is lower then mine, or he's just waiting it out, whatever), but my action of using ECM prevents me from escaping through the gate because ECM is now considered "hostile".
In my opinion a much fairer system would have the one who first initiated lock accept all the negative consequences that may follow.
|
Johnson McCrae
|
Posted - 2003.08.01 22:16:00 -
[30]
Quote:
Use of ECM Burst modules is now an offensive action.
Use of ECM modules is now an offensive action.
Ok, anybody see a problem with this? If using ECM is offensive, then somebody has to get their head examined.
ECM is usually a DEFENSIVE act. With this idiotic setting, if somebody has locked onto you and is firing, and you ECM him to break that lock, YOU loose sec. The logic does not hold.
Also, if your on the defensive (he fired first), and you ECM him, and your in space where concord shows up (and has to smack him), YOU now have them after you.
It ain't over till the fat lady falls on ya!
[ 2004.10.09 02:50:23 ] (combat) Your 425mm Compressed Coil Gun I perfectly strikes Guardian Sentry, wrecking for 747.3 damage.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |