EVE Search - Not being able to jump after attacked

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Not being able to jump after attacked

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Smokey Bacon	Posted - 2003.08.14 16:51:00 - [1] Please explain why it is not possible to use a jump gate for mearly defending myself. Here is what happened -I warp to gate, omw to gate i am attacked, I return fire (important part is RETURN fire not open fire first). Then try to jump to safty and denied the right to jump and get podded by 5 aggressors loosing over 20mill isk equipment and clone. If this is not changed you will see your player base DROP rapidly.
Daesdemona	Posted - 2003.08.14 16:52:00 - [2] Chill Out smokey. ----------------------------------------------- Bart: "Do you even have a job any more?" Homer: "I think its obvious that I Don't" -----------------------------------------------
Lianhaun	Posted - 2003.08.14 16:54:00 - [3] if you read the patchnotes you would have known about it. I think its a way to deal with all the people warping away, before concord comes when they attack eachother. This is not a hijack
TekRa	Posted - 2003.08.14 16:54:00 - [4] AfAIK if you don't return fire, and just run, you would be allowed to jump, but since you fired back, you we're engaged in a hostile act and we're prevented from jumping (and docking). > With the lights out it's less dangerous.
Smokey Bacon	Posted - 2003.08.14 16:55:00 - [5] so i am attacked by hostiles and i am not allowd to run because i defended myself that is **** up **
Indesin	Posted - 2003.08.14 16:56:00 - [6] You got slapped. Now you can either return the slap, or run away like a lil' *****. You chose to return the slap. Now finish what you started. That is how it works. The new system works great, forces players to finish what they started. If you are attacked, then return fire... but you realize then that 'Oh no, I am out gunned' ... well boo-hoo too late my friend, put up your dukes cause it's go time.
Dust Puppy	Posted - 2003.08.14 16:57:00 - [7] Edited by: Dust Puppy on 14/08/2003 16:57:43 Why did you shoot back? Did you think that you could kill the attacker? edit: to late __________ Capacitor research
TekRa	Posted - 2003.08.14 16:57:00 - [8] Quote: get podded by 5 aggressors Why would you try to fight a loosing battle? just get the hell outta there. Well, I would anyway. > With the lights out it's less dangerous.
agrizla	Posted - 2003.08.14 16:58:00 - [9] Edited by: agrizla on 14/08/2003 16:59:55 I'd tend to agree. I was under the impression that (certainly on one of the builds) it was the person initiating combat who was blocked from the gate/station? In addition I bet you can't even use ECM to make it to the gate as that is now classed as "aggressive". Hmmm......... Edit - then again it ought to actually make PvP worthwhile
Ubiq	Posted - 2003.08.14 16:58:00 - [10] HA HA
Smokey Bacon	Posted - 2003.08.14 16:59:00 - [11] so lets setup a senario i am peacfully moving towards a gate then i am engaged by hostiles that i know i can take and as soon as i have engaged 10 more warp in and the trap is set. what incentive is ther for me (actually not me but anybody to fight back).
Dust Puppy	Posted - 2003.08.14 17:00:00 - [12] I think that it should work that way but the ECM is hostile act so that would be a problem. I think that it's only fair that you can jam him to get out of his lock __________ Capacitor research
Daesdemona	Posted - 2003.08.14 17:01:00 - [13] There is a discussion about this in patch notes... The setting of these traps seems to be a known tactic on Chaos ----------------------------------------------- Bart: "Do you even have a job any more?" Homer: "I think its obvious that I Don't" -----------------------------------------------
Dust Puppy	Posted - 2003.08.14 17:01:00 - [14] Quote: so lets setup a senario i am peacfully moving towards a gate then i am engaged by hostiles that i know i can take and as soon as i have engaged 10 more warp in and the trap is set. what incentive is ther for me (actually not me but anybody to fight back). well executed trap. __________ Capacitor research
Indesin	Posted - 2003.08.14 17:01:00 - [15] Quote: i am engaged by hostiles that i know i can take and as soon as i have engaged 10 more warp in and the trap is set. Oh I guess they would call that 'Strategy'.
TekRa	Posted - 2003.08.14 17:01:00 - [16] Quote: so lets setup a senario i am peacfully moving towards a gate then i am engaged by hostiles that i know i can take and as soon as i have engaged 10 more warp in and the trap is set. what incentive is ther for me (actually not me but anybody to fight back). just warp elsewhere, wait for the 60second timer to expire, then carry on merrily... > With the lights out it's less dangerous.
Klydor	Posted - 2003.08.14 17:03:00 - [17] Edited by: Klydor on 14/08/2003 17:06:02 What was the point in returning fire anyway? If you cannot beat them and intend to warp away then doing a few shield points in dmg won't get you anything. So really there was no reason to return fire, you should have just jumped and then you would be safe and they couldn't chance you. Only return fire when you think you can beat the opponent. If it turns out your going to lose then warp away rather than jump. However just returning fire while heading to a gate is a little pointless. Think before you act and read patch notes so you are aware of changes which have been discussed and posted on the forums. As for your last note, that would just be a well executed trap. Using the hostile reaction of gates to sucker you in. It means people will now consider their actions before podding every newbie that flys by in an ibis. Because just maybe that newbie is the bait to trap you in a system and have you hunted from planet to planet. Also when warp signiture tracking comes in things are really going to hot up on the PvP front. Good change imho.
Dragon Emperor	Posted - 2003.08.14 17:13:00 - [18] Quote: Edited by: Klydor on 14/08/2003 17:06:02 What was the point in returning fire anyway? If you cannot beat them and intend to warp away then doing a few shield points in dmg won't get you anything. So really there was no reason to return fire, you should have just jumped and then you would be safe and they couldn't chance you. Only return fire when you think you can beat the opponent. If it turns out your going to lose then warp away rather than jump. However just returning fire while heading to a gate is a little pointless. Think before you act and read patch notes so you are aware of changes which have been discussed and posted on the forums. As for your last note, that would just be a well executed trap. Using the hostile reaction of gates to sucker you in. It means people will now consider their actions before podding every newbie that flys by in an ibis. Because just maybe that newbie is the bait to trap you in a system and have you hunted from planet to planet. Also when warp signiture tracking comes in things are really going to hot up on the PvP front. Good change imho. no, the new system does favor to camper, nobody else, if it's somebody trying to setup a trap to camper, camper always has the option to warp away to the middle of nowhere. It's not like camper can't warp away when he see a superior force warping in......
nails	Posted - 2003.08.14 17:15:00 - [19] just this time you can send some ECM ahead to warp jam them before the fleet warps in. they will no longer be able to jump away. ------------------ http://ota-corps.otaku.jp -- Anime l33t level
Grimmacker	Posted - 2003.08.14 17:22:00 - [20] Retarded...All I can muster to say at this point, u might as well self-destruct your ship. Why would the pirates(Aggressors) have the advantage in this situation? No the guys that started shooting should have the penalty imposed. If you were being shot with a paintball gun and you had one yourself would u not return fire to cover your escape? Same instance in war, would you not give return fire while your escaping?
Cao Cao	Posted - 2003.08.14 17:27:00 - [21] Boo hoo HOO. Cry more noob. This is a much-needed change, combat might actually take strategy now. Cao Cao - You are not your ship -
drunkenmaster	Posted - 2003.08.14 17:29:00 - [22] Quote: Retarded...All I can muster to say at this point, u might as well self-destruct your ship. Why would the pirates(Aggressors) have the advantage in this situation? No the guys that started shooting should have the penalty imposed. If you were being shot with a paintball gun and you had one yourself would u not return fire to cover your escape? Same instance in war, would you not give return fire while your escaping? the original attackers do get the penalty. but they weren't trying to jump, so it made no difference. .
KhaelOfAnubis	Posted - 2003.08.14 17:47:00 - [23] "so lets setup a senario i am peacfully moving towards a gate then i am engaged by hostiles that i know i can take and as soon as i have engaged 10 more warp in and the trap is set. what incentive is ther for me (actually not me but anybody to fight back)." the 10 ships that just came out of warp will take time to lock, if you unlock the first ship and begging to run u will be allowed to dock or jump within seconds after unlocking.
Daesdemona	Posted - 2003.08.14 17:48:00 - [24] Quote: Boo hoo HOO. Cry more noob. This is a much-needed change, combat might actually take strategy now. Cao Cao - You are not your ship - 5 Mils to he who brings me his corpse(s) ----------------------------------------------- Bart: "Do you even have a job any more?" Homer: "I think its obvious that I Don't" -----------------------------------------------
agrizla	Posted - 2003.08.14 18:21:00 - [25] He'll be using an alt to post anyway - his sort always do.
Daesdemona	Posted - 2003.08.14 18:27:00 - [26] Its ok, I'd rather keep my 5 mil :) ----------------------------------------------- Bart: "Do you even have a job any more?" Homer: "I think its obvious that I Don't" -----------------------------------------------
annoing	Posted - 2003.08.14 18:31:00 - [27] Just wondering -- Does this apply to npc pirates who guard gates as well and attack all that try to pass? if you fire back are you locked from warping? what about the newish players who have their first frigate, get attacked by 2500k gate pirates , fire back, get stuck etc etc. And i think its a 5min delay not 60secs to jump. Just wondering, no need to flame my stupidity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Inquisition Long live the Inquisition Long live the Emperor Long live Amarr! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
IZON	Posted - 2003.08.14 18:40:00 - [28] Does the lock apply to all gates in the system, or just the one you were approaching? "...master! there's a guy in the south village called IZON, he is a Ninja!"
scam artist	Posted - 2003.08.14 19:13:00 - [29] sounds like another up for the pirates hey so basicaly u cant even return fire now this game just keeps getting better and better these boards need a search engine
Die Harpie	Posted - 2003.08.14 19:38:00 - [30] Oh hello, You should not be penalized for self-defense, that is just wrong. The party who is attacked should be allowed to return fire in a attempt at defense while trying to reach safety. The party who initiates the attack should be the only one who is not able to jump. The argument that they started it and they won't want to jump is bunk, if they are starting to lose they will want to escape, it's what a smart pirate would do. This only allows for the party who is attacked to warp jam the attacker and have the tables turn. This could work both ways for and against the pirates if the one who is attacked is properly armed for it (jammers, scramblers, etc), or if they are are in a group who send a scout ahead of them and then follows with the big guns behind. Pirates could quickly find themselves the victims now. Liken this to attacks against you in empire space. You are free to return fire on the attacker without CONCORD attacking you. If the gate nerfing were applied to that, you might not return fire becuase CONCORD would attack you, the victim, as well as the aggressor. This is another case of the nerf bat swinging a little to hard again. CONCORD went a little over the top again. Just trying to see the benefits on both sides as well as the drawbacks. Either way, the person who started the agressive acts should be the one punished. Totally crap filled, Die Harpie "I don't like food anymore!"
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2003.08.14 19:49:00 - [31] Nowhere does it say you have to fire back if fired upon. Sure, you're pretty much **** if you are unlucky enough to get webbed or warp-jammed, but if its Tank CEO running the blockade you can pretty much afk by it. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!**
Cyrus Troy	Posted - 2003.08.14 19:57:00 - [32] Edited by: Cyrus Troy on 14/08/2003 20:07:02 What is crap, are people crying about this new change. Why return fire if you can't win?!? The illustration of ground forces returning fire to perform a tactical retreat doesnÆt apply at all in this world. The enemy ships have shields, and the way combat is setup, thatÆs all that a weeker ship will damage. You canÆt slow down the enemy by returning fire. In a 1 on 1 battle between a cruiser and a battleship, the cruiser should just RETREAT!! The Devs had to listen till their ears were bleeding about pirates using their ECM, and that act wasnÆt a ôact of aggressionö. SO THEY FIXED IT!!! Now the other half are going to ***** about the fact that the devs listened and make their ears bleed all over again. JESUS, MARY and JOSEPH! shut your PIE holes!
StealthNet	Posted - 2003.08.14 19:57:00 - [33] You warp in. The gate is being camped. you will get locked, scrambled, webbied and jammed (no more mwd out of warp at full speed). you won't have any problems with the gate locking you out of jumping, because you will not make it. And yeah, in the remote possibility that you do, you cannot fire back anything. The campers have advantage: 1. locking 2. jamming So, send a bait ? What is a bait good for, if the camper can jam it and warp anywhere in the system ? _______________________________________________
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2003.08.14 20:01:00 - [34] Edited by: Joshua Calvert on 14/08/2003 20:02:31 Pretty good points. Hmmmm. What we need to do is make warp-jamming non-stacking (obviously, warp core stabilizers become non-stacking too) and introduce an anti-webifying module. This means that even if a pirate has a level 2 warp-jammer he has to get to within 7.5km of you to do it. ECCM is completely useless atm though. Especially since sensor dampeners are very popular forms of elec warfare at the moment and none of the appropriate counter measures can nullify sensor dampeners completely. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Gafton	Posted - 2003.08.14 20:03:00 - [35] This patch pleases the majority of the player base. CCP knows they cant please all the whiny morons on the boards so they go for the majority. For gate/station camping this is indeed an improvement over the last patch. To original poster: It's not wise to neglect reading the patch notes, as errors in judgement usually occur from lack of knowledge. Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead.
Callas	Posted - 2003.08.14 20:08:00 - [36] Quote: I'd tend to agree. I was under the impression that (certainly on one of the builds) it was the person initiating combat who was blocked from the gate/station? My impression as well. If returning fire means you are classed as engaging in a hostile act and so are barred from jumping and docking, CCP has REALLY ****** up. -- Callas
Callas	Posted - 2003.08.14 20:10:00 - [37] Quote: What was the point in returning fire anyway? If you cannot beat them and intend to warp away then doing a few shield points in dmg won't get you anything. I am boggling at the number of people who have argued this point. The fact is, returning fire is NOT an aggressive act. Whether or not it's effectual is utterly utterly UTTERLY irrelevent. It should NOT lead to gate/dock blocking. -- Callas
Callas	Posted - 2003.08.14 20:11:00 - [38] Quote: Boo hoo HOO. Cry more noob. This is a much-needed change, combat might actually take strategy now. Low IQ Post Of The Week Award. -- Callas
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2003.08.14 20:11:00 - [39] Bah, Carebears had it too easy since the patch before last. Now it is the Rise of the Pirates until the next patch. It's, like, instant-patch-karma. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Hiro Protagonist	Posted - 2003.08.14 20:13:00 - [40] Quote: What we need to do is make warp-jamming non-stacking (obviously, warp core stabilizers become non-stacking too) and introduce an anti-webifying module. The decision about how many stabilizers and jammers to outfit is part of coming up with a good pirate/anti-pirate strategy. Why simplify things? In regards to anti-webifying module - MWD seems to be it. Webifyers might need to be tuned down a bit though, it seems like there should be some level of parity.
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2003.08.14 20:15:00 - [41] Quote: Quote: What we need to do is make warp-jamming non-stacking (obviously, warp core stabilizers become non-stacking too) and introduce an anti-webifying module. The decision about how many stabilizers and jammers to outfit is part of coming up with a good pirate/anti-pirate strategy. Why simplify things? In regards to anti-webifying module - MWD seems to be it. Webifyers might need to be tuned down a bit though, it seems like there should be some level of parity. Give me a solution to freeing yourself from a flock of pirates all warp-jamming in concert then, smarty pants. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Hiro Protagonist	Posted - 2003.08.14 20:20:00 - [42] Quote: Give me a solution to freeing yourself from a flock of pirates all warp-jamming in concert then, smarty pants. Solution: Check your galactic before trying to go through that particular system. P.S. Please keep your eyes off my pants. Not interested.
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2003.08.14 20:22:00 - [43] I believe checking your route WAS mentioned in one of my previous posts. I was asking for a module-based solution though. As for your pants - did you get them cut-price from a Jovian? LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Hiro Protagonist	Posted - 2003.08.14 20:26:00 - [44] Quote: I believe checking your route WAS mentioned in one of my previous posts. I was asking for a module-based solution though. Ahh, that wasn't clear to me from your post. I don't think there is a module-based solution. I think I disagree with the fundamental premise though - I don't think that a single ship should always have a way to get out of any situation. Quote: As for your pants - did you get them cut-price from a Jovian? Hell yeah, there's a Jovian Salvation Army store in Venal, isn't there one in Stain? I'm not paying full price, the markup is too high because nobody has the BP.
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2003.08.14 20:28:00 - [45] No Oxfam in Eve? I'll have to shake a can outside of stations then. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Fusco T	Posted - 2003.08.14 20:36:00 - [46] This patch sux the big one. Nothing but a bunch of pirate love. I hear one more pirate whine about how hard it is to lead the pirate life and I'm gonna puke smelly sardine intestine all over them.
Gan Howorth	Posted - 2003.08.14 20:38:00 - [47] Well its all a bag o'crud. Firing back will prevent you jumping...even though the patch notes say: INITIATOR of combat. So ECM is also offensive (don't get me wrong, understandable in certain circumstances) but due to this "error"* you can't use ECM to blockade run, even if you are simply defending against being shot at. I bet this is a***** up and CCP will issue a further patch to alter the game behaviour to match the patch notes: Initiator gets gate blocked only.
Freddy Krueger	Posted - 2003.08.14 20:40:00 - [48] What a load of *******s. Gate camping noncing bastard pirates have had it far too easy for far too long. So, you get attacked approaching a gate, you lob off a couple of cruise & torpedoes in self defence & rush for gate. You reckon it is "correct" that the defender cannot then jump through gate, hogwash. It's bad enough that you cannot now activate AB nor MWD on way to gate, & have to wait untill "warp active" leaves screen. Do these noncing gate campers want it all their own way? It'll be fine I suppose when the majority of the player base decides enough is enough & cancels subscribtion, then the gate campers can waste their time camping a gate that no one is ever going to go through.
Eilora Wingshy	Posted - 2003.08.14 21:25:00 - [49] How come no-one looks at it from the other way? All I hear is either, "Just don't return fire!" and "Why can't I return fire!". Now for the sake of argument, I stand with the first, if your'e travelling from point A to point C, via point B, which happen to contain pirates, arnt't you still interested in going to point C? Wasn't that the reason you ever crossed point B? And now that there is a very unobtrusive way to achive this (that is, avoid being gatelocked), what makes it so hard to keep away from the guns? But hey, let's look at it from the other side. What if only the initiator is gateblocked? So now you can safely return fire, then jump. All fine and well, -but- that is when we are talking about the standard venture like above (moving from point A to point C). Why do you think this happened in the first place? Was it so that pirates(P) that camp a gate was able to jump away at a moments notice when a strikeforce(SF) -aimed- for those pirates shows up. I believe it was. Now what if this SF shows up, the P now have 2 options, fire and be gatelocked, jump and most likely get away. Here is where it get's interesting, if they do decide to attack, they still have the advantage of early locks, I they decide to jump, ok so they get away, but that's nothing new really. Now they have only a very short time to decide which to go for, dally to long and their early lock advantage is gone should they decide to fight, while if some stay and fight while some bail, they pirates will be split in two and further weakned. Now for my main point, what if the ones fired upon could bail at their leasure? Let's imagine this scenario, there are 4 P blocking a gate, a SF of 6 ships warp to the gate to take them out. Now the P have must in a matter of seconds decide if they can take on the new threat or not before loosing any advantage they have in a fight. So they see that they can probably take a BS, or two if they play their cards right. So they lock on to the chosen targets, and wait. The SF locks as soon as possible, and unleashes hell upon the P, which in turn focuses all their fire on a single target. This target will most likely go down in flames rather quickly. And here's the twist, the P can still jump, at -anytime- they so choose to. When they are taking to heavy dmg, they can leave, without the SF is able to follow. Now my friends, if anything is helping out the P, such a setup would be the one. If your'e gateblocked the second you use your guns, then finally a SF might be able to catch the P, if they can entice them to fight. But at least, it wont give the P the added immunity of not even being chased. Put's on asbest coat, raises flame shield, prepares watercannon and braces for impact -------------------------------------------------------------- My opinions are my own and not those of my corp I don't suffer from insanity, I revel in it. If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be research.
Arondos	Posted - 2003.08.14 22:15:00 - [50] From the patch notes. It doesn't say initiates combat... "If you have recently initiated aggression against someone, then stargates and stations will refuse to allow you to jump and dock respectively. Once aggression has ceased between the two parties for approximately 60 seconds, usage will be allowed again." Initiating aggression doesn't mean fire first. Returning fire would be an act of aggression and you can't jump. You shoot me = act of aggression. I shoot back = act of aggression. I don't shoot back = no act of aggression. Like it or not that's what the rules are. Basically I think the intent is to make it so if you choose to start a fight actually have to finish it. Life isn't fair and neither is Eve. Get over it.

Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.