| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Malthros Zenobia
   |
Posted - 2006.01.23 00:49:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: eLLioTT wave
All because they accidently shot me or sent the wrong drone at me or smartbombed too close or something really minor.
People who use smartbombs in Empire need to get CONCORDDOKKENED out of principle.
Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu
I'm probably one of the biggest Bush fanboys in Eve...
This is like, Darth Vader, can't-reach-climax-without-killing-a-puppy evil.
|
Lord Artemis
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 01:14:00 -
[32]
It would be a really nice idea to click on and off for alliance tournaments and training. It would have the same consequences as AFK travel with "prefer shorter" vs. "prefer safer"
it would have a few of the low brow players a lil cranky for a while but if you can train monkeys to fly... i think the benefits and usefulness of such an option outweigh the dangers.
___________________________
Aegis Militia Diplomatic Relations Officer
C.E.O. of SHOD
|
eLLioTT wave
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 02:22:00 -
[33]
Thanks for the positive responses.
Do you think it would be best implemented as an option in settings (like auto target back:) or as a dialog that appears each time? for example when you receive a gang invite there is an option to allow damage or not.
Also do you like the idea of a small green tick for gang members who are enabled and a small red cross for ones who aren't? |
Lord Artemis
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 02:44:00 -
[34]
Originally by: eLLioTT wave
Thanks for the positive responses.
Do you think it would be best implemented as an option in settings (like auto target back:) or as a dialog that appears each time? for example when you receive a gang invite there is an option to allow damage or not.
Also do you like the idea of a small green tick for gang members who are enabled and a small red cross for ones who aren't?
for the love of god, if it is added ingame please make it an option that is NOT a pop up, nothing worse than waiting for the instance to come up at the wrong time to decide on things like that. i.e. the aggression warning during some pvp 
___________________________
Aegis Militia Diplomatic Relations Officer
C.E.O. of SHOD
|
eLLioTT wave
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 06:53:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Lord Artemis
Originally by: eLLioTT wave
Thanks for the positive responses.
Do you think it would be best implemented as an option in settings (like auto target back:) or as a dialog that appears each time? for example when you receive a gang invite there is an option to allow damage or not.
Also do you like the idea of a small green tick for gang members who are enabled and a small red cross for ones who aren't?
for the love of god, if it is added ingame please make it an option that is NOT a pop up, nothing worse than waiting for the instance to come up at the wrong time to decide on things like that. i.e. the aggression warning during some pvp
I meant as a tickbox on the gang invite window. You know? the one that already pops up when you get invited to gang. eg "Varone has invited you to join a gang" above yes or no options have a tick box "allow damage from gang" or something like that |
Gierling
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 08:13:00 -
[36]
IMHO COncord should respond proportionately according to the severity of the actions, Not killing you till you've killed a ship, but first fining you(10k isk for every point of damage done) and then jamming you and finally destroying you if you destroy another ship.
*snip* That's not very appropriate. - Teblin |
eLLioTT wave
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 12:44:00 -
[37]
You have an excellent point. Concord are supposed to be the police. If you tail gate someone on the highway do the police turn up with a tank and blow your car away? noooo
They should just turn up and target jam you, maybe a fine as well? Insta popping people isn't "proportionate response" |
Flyyn
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 13:14:00 -
[38]
No its not a good idea...really it aint. SB's should not be used in empire/gang/or corp ops. Logistics ships should'nt have guns, thats not their job.
And if you and your buddies were in the same corp, well concord would of laughed like the rest of us, and not spanked ya.
Why do you want CCP to correct for your buddies inability to fight their ships proper?
|
Butter Dog
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 13:23:00 -
[39]
I very much like the idea of a proportional response from CONCORD, which fits the crime. Good one.
I also like your original post Elliot, regarding the gang damage thing. Its a good idea. Aside from the combat aspect, it seems silly to have to use can flagging when you want to test out a setup with someone outside your corp.
|
Godar Marak
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 13:27:00 -
[40]
Originally by: eLLioTT wave
PLEASE CCP! for the sake of my friends who keep losing ships for minor mistakes!
Mistakes......YOUR mistakes.
|
Melkor Bloodaxe
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 14:13:00 -
[41]
It's not the fact that they accidentally hit eachother and get killed that way. It's about accidentally hitting eachother and get ripped by CONCORD, and that's wrong. If you gang-up you should be able to legally hit eachother, no matter what system you're in.
(you should be more carefull picking your friends)
So: allow damage from gang-mates option is a good idea.
|
Ralus
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 14:36:00 -
[42]
I have a spare high slot on my ship that I sometimes fit a shield xfer array on, I've never yet been caught out but i know one of these days i'm going to activate a launcher on a rat thats still showing on my overview but has actually been killed and i'll have fired at a gang mate by mistace.
If everyone doesn't like the idea of allowing friendly fire how about another option, right click the portrit of a targetted ship and an option to define that as a "friendly lock" appeares, when enebled you cannot activate any offensive modules on it, that would work without having to alter the rules of concord
|
mogwai
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 14:58:00 -
[43]
I for one like your idea eLLioTT 
It would make life a lot easier for inter-corp pvp testing without having to war-dec and drag every member into it.
............................................
It isnt a bug, it's a new feature |
Helplessandlost
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 16:03:00 -
[44]
Way back you could shoot gang members but as with most things that are inherently helpful people found a way to exploit it and were using it to kill the not so learned to game mechanics.
I agree with the "limited" Concord response idea I.E. fine for accidently hitting another and total obliteration on ship destruction. As soon as agression happens Concord responds as it does now and if the individual does not stop or has blown up another ship he also gets destroyed.
Check us out
|
Nasica
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 16:20:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Nasica on 23/01/2006 16:20:29
Originally by: Ralus
I have a spare high slot on my ship that I sometimes fit a shield xfer array on, I've never yet been caught out but i know one of these days i'm going to activate a launcher on a rat thats still showing on my overview but has actually been killed and i'll have fired at a gang mate by mistace.
If everyone doesn't like the idea of allowing friendly fire how about another option, right click the portrit of a targetted ship and an option to define that as a "friendly lock" appeares, when enebled you cannot activate any offensive modules on it, that would work without having to alter the rules of concord
I dont really like the idea of the OP to much, but this idea is great, i really like this idea. Simple and effective.
Nasica
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 16:25:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Avon on 23/01/2006 16:26:08
Why don't you each jettison a can and all steal from each other?
Then you'll all be flagged and Concord will leave you alone (until the timer runs out).
Added: or are you all in NPC corps? If so, you know what you should do..
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Thomus
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 16:26:00 -
[47]
You mean you can't shoot gang members?
|
Lan Malkier
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 16:35:00 -
[48]
1) I like the idea in principle. There are lots of situations where shooting gangmates is useful (tournaments and testing being the two already mentioned). And to the person who said go to low sec, that sort of defeats the point as for a tournament you don't want the results being upset by random pirates interferring and for testing the whole point is to work out viable setups to take into low sec.
2) Yes griefing newbies would be possible, but if the option is (a) clearly displayed on the gang invite and (b) off by default then it would have to a complete retard who didn't understand what was going on.
3) The only criticism I have with the original post is the wording. I hope by "turn gang damage on/off" you meant "turn criminal flagging/concord response on/off". You're gang mates should always be able to turn on you but if you haven't consented to waive your police protection then concord should become involved and take them out.
4) The trouble is a gradiated response is that you could easily have a bs group shooting a target and then bring in a frig to make the kill once the bs have taken it down to nothing. The bs live and only the frig dies.
The other option is to penalise all involved in a kill if a kill is made. Trouble is you're then back to the original problem. You attack someone by mistake, someone else kills them and you're now an accessory to the crime and killed by concord.
|
Germain
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 17:09:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Ralus
I have a spare high slot on my ship that I sometimes fit a shield xfer array on, I've never yet been caught out but i know one of these days i'm going to activate a launcher on a rat thats still showing on my overview but has actually been killed and i'll have fired at a gang mate by mistace.
If everyone doesn't like the idea of allowing friendly fire how about another option, right click the portrit of a targetted ship and an option to define that as a "friendly lock" appeares, when enebled you cannot activate any offensive modules on it, that would work without having to alter the rules of concord
THATS THE WAY TO DO IT. really brilliant. i use a hauler in a friendly corp to move loot for missions and also to repair ships in space. he is my alt and in another corp. i am working him upto command ships so i can repair and target as the same time. i also run mulit corp outings with friends. and this friendly right click option is fantasic.
yes please CCP.
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 17:16:00 -
[50]
Slowly we move along the path towards consensual PvP...
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Ravenal
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 17:29:00 -
[51]
Originally by: eLLioTT wave
4 fully fitted battleships destroyed in the last week!
All because they accidently shot me or sent the wrong drone at me or smartbombed too close or something really minor.
ALL of them would have been avoided by the following very simple, fully effective solution.
In options create a new option "Enable damage from gang members" unticked by default, a big warning all over it if you want, but we need the option.
When this option is ticked gang members show up with the normal purple square in overview but now with a gree tick box in the corner. When it is not ticked a red cross in the corner.
This avoids any traps, greifing ect.
lol... srry, but what happened to a friend of mine is much funnier and more serious than any of this...
he was innocently helping out a gangmember, remote repairing his armor when this gang member decided to activate his sensor dampener on my friend. Causing the bugger who activated the sensor dampener to become criminally flagged in yulai = concordokkened... AND effectively flagging my friend as the criminals "aid"... and getting him concordokkened too!!!
now.. how can the victim also be the criminal?
.
-Fate is what you make of it.
-Make your own fate using T2 items produced by The Fated
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 17:43:00 -
[52]
"Slowly we move along the path towards consensual PvP..."
As long as it's addition to non-consensual PvP instead of replacement, nothing wrong about it really. Like you said, it's already made possible through the can flagging, so all it really does is removal of the unnecessary work-around part. ^^;
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 17:48:00 -
[53]
Originally by: j0sephine
"Slowly we move along the path towards consensual PvP..."
As long as it's addition to non-consensual PvP instead of replacement, nothing wrong about it really. Like you said, it's already made possible through the can flagging, so all it really does is removal of the unnecessary work-around part. ^^;
I agree with you, I was more commenting on the general feeling of the thread than the specific issue.
I'd just put gangs back how they were without all this yes/no permission for individuals.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 18:54:00 -
[54]
Originally by: HippoKing
both of these have a warning. it goes something like this:
1. "click yes to this box and you will die. we suggest you click no"
2. "click yes to this box and you may die. we suggest you click no"
simple enough?
There is a problem in that if you heal a ship you have to press yes on that message.
If you shield drone someone the warning message pops up about concord. You press yes nothing happens via concord but you shield drones work. Only now the message is deactivated as you pressed yes, so if you hit the wrong button due to lag and active the weapon or muddle up your combat drone target with your shield drone target concord blow you up with no message.
_________________________________________________
Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you. |
eLLioTT wave
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 19:02:00 -
[55]
Thanks guys for all your great ideas and responses.
Some really good ideas coming out of this.
Hopefully Devs read and comment now :) |
Tiuwaz
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 19:09:00 -
[56]
there is no cure for stupidity
even if CCP changes the game mechanic to accomodate to your friends, i am sure they'll find a way around it and die in another stupid way
and yes i've been concordokkened aswell, and it was me being either stupid/drunk or sleep deprived
those 3 still get me killed on a regular basis 
Originally by: Oveur
****! Lets nerf it!
To the nerfmobile!
|
0August0
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 20:37:00 -
[57]
Originally by: eLLioTT wave
You have an excellent point. Concord are supposed to be the police. If you tail gate someone on the highway do the police turn up with a tank and blow your car away? noooo
They should just turn up and target jam you, maybe a fine as well? Insta popping people isn't "proportionate response"
Few cars on the highway have a full complement of blasters and rails installed.
Regards,
August
Soldier of the Gooch |
Tiuwaz
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 20:50:00 -
[58]
Originally by: 0August0
Originally by: eLLioTT wave
You have an excellent point. Concord are supposed to be the police. If you tail gate someone on the highway do the police turn up with a tank and blow your car away? noooo
They should just turn up and target jam you, maybe a fine as well? Insta popping people isn't "proportionate response"
Few cars on the highway have a full complement of blasters and rails installed.
speak for your car
Originally by: Oveur
****! Lets nerf it!
To the nerfmobile!
|
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 21:17:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Pottsey
Originally by: HippoKing
both of these have a warning. it goes something like this:
1. "click yes to this box and you will die. we suggest you click no"
2. "click yes to this box and you may die. we suggest you click no"
simple enough?
There is a problem in that if you heal a ship you have to press yes on that message.
If you shield drone someone the warning message pops up about concord. You press yes nothing happens via concord but you shield drones work. Only now the message is deactivated as you pressed yes, so if you hit the wrong button due to lag and active the weapon or muddle up your combat drone target with your shield drone target concord blow you up with no message.
eeek, bugged 
never used those drones...
|
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 21:22:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Avon
Slowly we move along the path towards consensual PvP...
you should be looking here
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |