| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Othnark
   |
Posted - 2003.08.27 08:52:00 -
[31]
 Quote:
Othnark, I shut that warning off when it poped up against the training drone.
I too turned that warning off halfway through the tutorial. My point is, I understood from that warning that firing on things is dangerous. And you can be damn sure i put my noob ship at risk before my cruiser.
Quote:
So, we should just deal with it? Should we just deal with the Sensor Boosters CTD'ing us also? Or heck don't forget the Cap Neutralizer CTD'ing us also, I guess I should just live with it right? Like I have been for the past 6 wks.
I didnt say you should deal with bugs. Bugs are annoying as hell and should be fixed yesterday. Here the so-called problem isnt a game bug. Slowly but surely the "buyer beware" aspect of Eve is being squashed out.... thats too bad I think.
There are plenty of ways to find out what the rule is for firing on someone. There are no ways for me to find out where i may or may not take a security hit. Currently "its part of the game" to figure it out. Well let everything be "part of the game" then.
-Othnark
|
McWatt
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 08:55:00 -
[32]
Quote:
The REAL problem (casting aisde ShockandAwe's low underhanded tactics) lies in the fact we have had no real and proper explanation of the rules of engagement.
joshua for once even got a point here.
doc and info policy of ccp suck.
but as always, he misses the main issue:
the REAL problem is, that concord was tailored to handle the (few) ueber pirates.
now ueber concord uses insta lock, scamble, web and multi bs firepower to******anything in seconds.
combined with the bad documentation of the rules of engagement and multiple bugs this is a recipe for disaster.
i d like to thank ShockandAwe for pointing this out to some more players. keep on going.
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 09:01:00 -
[33]
Quote:
Quote:
The REAL problem (casting aisde ShockandAwe's low underhanded tactics) lies in the fact we have had no real and proper explanation of the rules of engagement.
joshua for once even got a point here.
doc and info policy of ccp suck.
but as always, he misses the main issue:
the REAL problem is, that concord was tailored to handle the (few) ueber pirates.
now ueber concord uses insta lock, scamble, web and multi bs firepower to******anything in seconds.
combined with the bad documentation of the rules of engagement and multiple bugs this is a recipe for disaster.
i d like to thank ShockandAwe for pointing this out to some more players. keep on going.
CONCORD wouldn't need to insta-lock innocents if the rules of engagement were more widely known but I see your (and Jash's) point regarding a mistake being punished to extremes.
Perhaps CONCORD should respond with just as much force but should give at least 20 seconds to "get out of dodge"?
This combined with more awareness of current rules might allow for mistakes.
I refuse to believe ShockAndAwe is doing this to "highlight" current confusions with rules of engagement - he is always hanging around that gate with at least one Industrial from TJM corporation.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
XeQtR
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 09:06:00 -
[34]
"When is a carebear a carebear?
When he posts like Joshua."
When is Molly quitting EVE?
Apparently never. 
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 09:08:00 -
[35]
Edited by: j0sephine on 27/08/2003 09:09:21
"Two words:
Patch Notes.
It is all in there. Anyone who patches software without reading the notes deserves to get blown into itty bits."
... You are welcome to show where exactly the subject of security status and -5.0 rule is dealt with in the patch notes. (to make it quicker, it isn't; for that matter many quite important things like the factions being partially enabled in the latest 'official' build are nowhere to be found in the patch notes)
But speaking of the patch notes:
"1183
Sentry guns (..) will now broadcast a warning message like the police do."
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 09:46:00 -
[36]
Just a few things from the patch notes:
Patch 1077 - 1105
New Features / Configuration Changes and Bug Fixes
NPCs
Stargate and station sentry guns in systems with 0.45 or higher security level now attack players who come within range and have -5 (or lower) security status.
Sentry guns around stations now attack people within range who lose or recently lost standing from the corporation that owns them or the faction that the owning corporation belongs to.
Sentry guns around stargates now attack people within range who lose or recently lost standing from the corporation that owns them or the faction that owns the solarsystem.
Build 1077
Improvements, 1058 - 1077
In Space
If a player loses security status within range of certain sentry guns then they will attack that player at the earliest opportunity
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
StealthNet
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 10:00:00 -
[37]
Edited by: StealthNet on 27/08/2003 10:02:38
xploiter, no. Griefer, hmm... yes, if he knows what he is doing (which is prolly the case).
As someone already mentioned, the problem are the rules of engagement: those are messy, confusing and not clear enough (they keep somewhat changing too).
Since gold, I remember that it changed once or twice. And I keep saying this: there is no point in creating a whole new PvP system while other games out there have successful and tested systems in place. The KISS rule is a must here.
1. if someone open fire, the victim can fire back in X minutes, no matter what the attacker do or where he goes (jumping or logging off will not reset his condition of attacker). If the attacker fires back within the X minutes, the timer is reset and start counting again.
2. gang member must be treated as one entity, so if you attack someone, any victim's gang member can attack back (see rule number 1)
3. any neg sec rating + bounty = hunted everywhere you go (any1 can open fire without getting cops after)
4. -5 or worse sec rating = hunted everywhere you go (see 4)
5. most important: make the rules available where every1 can read them.
Cops response:
1. immediate, to any attack in 1.0 sec space;
2. add 7 seconds to cops delay to every .1 less sec space: so if you are in a .6 sec space, cops will show in 35 seconds; if you are in a .3 sec space, cops will show in 49 seconds.
3. from .1 sec and down, no cop response.
Sec hit:
1. no sec hit of any kind in non empire space.
_______________________________________________
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 10:03:00 -
[38]
Edited by: j0sephine on 27/08/2003 10:03:50
"Just a few things from the patch notes:"
... *sighs* the notes you quote translate to:
if your security rating is less than -5 and you try to enter safe space, you die. If you screw up with some company near their sentry guns, you die. if you do something unlawful near the sentry guns, you die.
None of them says, "attacking 'wanted' players with security rating above -5 in empire space is unlawful thing (see sentry guns, doing unlawful things nearby)"
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 10:13:00 -
[39]
Quote:
None of them says, "attacking 'wanted' players with security rating above -5 in empire space is unlawful thing
You get that warning the first time you try to shoot anyone - it is an ingame warning even more obvious than reading the patch notes.
If you don't know shooting at people is a crime then you must play with your eyes closed.
It is quite possible to have a bounty and a +sec rating, would you still think it is ok to shoot those players?
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Oosel
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 10:25:00 -
[40]
i was there last night when the guy lost his mega what was more cruel was the guys who he had come to help ie the indies and such who were there all running for the gate because of shocks tactics then all descended on his stuff that was left once concord had left his ship in bits unless of course these guys were the ones in league with shockandawe....in all fairness to shock he isnt firing on anyone he is just there
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 10:28:00 -
[41]
"You get that warning the first time you try to shoot anyone - it is an ingame warning even more obvious than reading the patch notes."
You get the warning that shooting people with security rating above -5 in empire space is unlawful thing resulting in security drop? Then it must be new, the warning i got the first time i shot at the combat drone was about unspecified consequences of my actions, and worded in manner so vague it was bordering on being pointless.
"If you don't know shooting at people is a crime then you must play with your eyes closed."
* unless their security rating is below -5,
* unless you are in uncontrolled 0.0 space,
* but not always because security level indicator can play tricks on you (see: Molly),
* and number of other conditions,
* clauses,
* and exceptions.
... besides, we've strayed quite far from the original point which was how everything is in the patch notes, non?.. :s
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 10:32:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Avon on 27/08/2003 10:32:44
Quote:
besides, we've strayed quite far from the original point which was how everything is in the patch notes, non?
No, I think the original point was about exploiting.
If people are too dumb to check what they can do they deserve to die - and they certainly shouldn't be in BS's if they don't even know the basics.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 10:40:00 -
[43]
"No, I think the original point was about exploiting."
Of Josh, i think it was actually about not being given enough clearly worded info on the game rules of engagement; i meant your original point though... ("Two words: Patch Notes." etc.) Sorry, should've made it more obvious indeed.
|
High Priestess
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 10:44:00 -
[44]
I think the pirates (PC) are to blame for this. All those people early on who podded players for no reason, attacked newbies in 1.0 space and generally griefed everyone while using exploited devices and modules. CCP nerfed the game so much because of them it's now nothing like it was probably meant to be. This is basically an economic game anyway not PvP yet its run like more and more like a guild battle type game now then ever. Its schewed too much toward solo player combat and not toward big corp wars like we were promised. Players that do stuff like this are no better then Tank podding newbies in 1.0 space because they have a -10. rating and arent killed by Concord. They're bored kids who have nothing better to do then try and ruin it for everyone else.
Yes Im a carebear too and proud of it.
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 11:01:00 -
[45]
The EULA clearly state that game content can change and that it is the players responsibility to keep themselves up-to-date.
You agree to the EULA to play, you abide by those rules.
The rules of engagement are EXPLICITLY stated on this website, and the implimentation of the steps that brought them about are in the patch notes.
There is no excuse for not knowing them.
People cry because they want their hand held and don't want to be responsible for their actions. Basically they are unable to come to terms with their mistakes and want to blame anything other than their own ignorance.
Taking advantage of, or 'exploiting', peoples ignorance is perfectly acceptable, if they can't be bothered to help themselves why should anyone care what happens to them?
OK, it is sad to lose a BS because you were ignorant of the rules and someone took advantage of that, but who's fault is it really?
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Georg
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 11:09:00 -
[46]
Ram them! Not an offensive action and unfortunately doesn't cause any damage but it is fun to see their ships tumbling in space. And they don't seem to like it up 'em (UK people'll get the reference).
Incidentally, at least he's got a proper name. Over the weekend I ran into a player calling himself 'serpentis patroller' doing the same trick: thankfully I was armed only with mining lasers and didn't engage before it dawned that a) the system was 0.8 so no gate pirates and b) he wasn't no cross. He'd also dropped several containers of crap around the gate which I hoovered up for a useable amount of Plag. actually. There were a couple of corpses floating in the area too probably down to him. I basically hounded him until he either logged, warped or jumped. Then reported him as there is a specific GM policy about calling oneself an NPC name (Why is there no name filter for these obvious abuses: he didn't even have to misspell it?).
|
Saladin
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 11:40:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Saladin on 27/08/2003 11:40:11
Well I think that poor documentation is a problem with EVE, not just for this issue but many others. I bought 4 giant secure containers yesterday (at 152k each) and only discovered afterwards that they were bugged and were not 'secure'.
I don't see why people have to bring pirate vs. carebear into this discussion. Why would someone be against improving the documentation, and making information more readily available to people?
I work for a software company myself and whenever times get tough, guess who gets hit with layoffs first? Thats right, the documenation guys. While I don't know the financial status of CCP, they might be doing the same thing
---------------------------
(c) Copyright Saladin, 2005.
Any editing of this post by a third party will be in violation United States Internet Copyright law 46525 of 2003. |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 11:46:00 -
[48]
Quote:
"No, I think the original point was about exploiting."
Of Josh, i think it was actually about not being given enough clearly worded info on the game rules of engagement; i meant your original point though... ("Two words: Patch Notes." etc.) Sorry, should've made it more obvious indeed.
j0sephine, it's unfortunate that some people see the word "exploit" and become fixated upon it.
Nice to see you're not one of them 
All I want are clearly laid out rules specifying the rules of engagement as they currently stand.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Aenedor
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 11:58:00 -
[49]
Quote:
Othnark, I shut that warning off when it poped up against the training drone.
I didn't and won't. I would hate to accidently shoot another player when I didn't mean too take a securtity rating hit and a destroyed ship.
It can be annoying when it pops up but it only takes 1 second to click OK, so no biggie.
"are you a winner or a whiner?" |
Aenedor
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 12:00:00 -
[50]
Quote:
I think the pirates (PC) are to blame for this. All those people early on who podded players for no reason, attacked newbies in 1.0 space and generally griefed everyone while using exploited devices and modules. CCP nerfed the game so much because of them it's now nothing like it was probably meant to be. This is basically an economic game anyway not PvP yet its run like more and more like a guild battle type game now then ever. Its schewed too much toward solo player combat and not toward big corp wars like we were promised. Players that do stuff like this are no better then Tank podding newbies in 1.0 space because they have a -10. rating and arent killed by Concord. They're bored kids who have nothing better to do then try and ruin it for everyone else.
Yes Im a carebear too and proud of it.
EH?????
This is a PVP game, perhaps you should stick to EnB or SWG.
"are you a winner or a whiner?" |
Avon
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 12:00:00 -
[51]
Quote:
All I want are clearly laid out rules specifying the rules of engagement as they currently stand.
But as has been pointed out these are already available.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 12:00:00 -
[52]
Quote:
Quote:
Othnark, I shut that warning off when it poped up against the training drone.
I didn't and won't. I would hate to accidently shoot another player when I didn't mean too take a securtity rating hit and a destroyed ship.
It can be annoying when it pops up but it only takes 1 second to click OK, so no biggie.
Problem is, that second is the difference between jamming him or being jammed, getting that first volley, or loading up your tac shields.
1 second can be a life saver.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Serge
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 12:05:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Serge on 27/08/2003 12:05:30
Quote:
But as has been pointed out these are already available.
Where?
***********************************************
... "we suddenly have a good 2 dozen Chicken Littles running about proclaiming tha |
Asmodia
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 12:09:00 -
[54]
Quote:
*****Cat had 300 Million ISK in her wallet, dropped 250k Isogen and 4 x Partiall Cargo Hull Expander I as I shot her in 1.0. Others were similar. Considered a noob? Holy ****. How much would him make not a noob?
yes, Molly. they r n00bs. We were in Sanchas Nation and 7 n00bs in Battleships tried to get our 3 Blackbirds. They tried it for hours. One of them was Tank CEO. the rest were in 'The Collective'. We doesnt used our Weps , because we want NOT to be Noobibashers like u !!! 
------------------------------------------------
CEO of Spectre Syndicate - Curse Alliance
------------------------------------------------ |
Endyl
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 12:17:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Endyl on 27/08/2003 12:17:46
I think simply that the way it should work is that if the stripe near the ship icon displays red, you can shoot, if not, then you can not shoot.
If that doesn't work that way, then it's wrong.
EDIT: ah but the icon disapear once you target... something is flawed... :)
|
SISQO
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 12:30:00 -
[56]
Edited by: SISQO on 27/08/2003 12:34:15
Its NOT an exploit, cheap tactic yes, but perfectly legitimate. The blames lies with CCP for lack of information and BAD game mechanics.
Anyone with a bounty on them should be free kill. It takes a god damn while to drop your sec, or raise your sec nowadays, so if your got negative sec your a criminal. Don't even bother saying there are some good people with negative sec, negative sec baddies far outweight those accidental good guys, 100 to 1.
If CCP removed all these lame ANTI-PVP fixes, this game would actually see some excitement where more people would be fighting, which means more ships lost, which also means more ships being bought. Carebears being happy that their ships sales are going up, fighters happy that they can actually kill something.
If we reverted back to all Beta 6 rules, this game would be so much more enjoyable then this EvE: Sims Online that it currently is.
I'm just waiting for the day where everyone's grandmas, sons, uncles, daddys, nephews, cousins, brother has a ******* BS, to be truly sure this game has gone to **** ever since the end of beta.
|
Scragg
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 13:48:00 -
[57]
I bet those three pilots know about the law in Empire Space now.
Scragg, Tyrell Corporation
Vice-Director Military Operations |
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 13:49:00 -
[58]
Shockandawe isn't doing anything wrong.
This is CCP's fault for having ridiculous sentry guns at every gate 
Seriously though, CCP needs to spell out, IN THE TUTORIAL which people you can and can not shoot safely.
I think its a mistake to show NPC pirates with a 'wanted' sign and nothing else on them. It makes players think anyone with a 'wanted' sign is open game.
I think all pirates should have 'wanted' and 'sec level -5.0' on them :P That might help the new players.
Or heck, add a mission where there's a whole field of drones with varying sec levels and you shoot only the correct ones.
OR you could follow the plan of never shooting at someone smaller than you in high sec space unless he shoots first.
|
Jericho
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 14:00:00 -
[59]
HOLY SHIAT MOLLY... you are still around? I thought you quit, then came back and got your name, then quit again... now your back.
How can anything you say be taken seriously?
|
Singha Miasong
|
Posted - 2003.08.27 14:10:00 -
[60]
Can they just ban Molly and her negitive atitude. Is it worth the time and effort to read her post, no. People like Molly get fired, banned, kicked out, for their mouth, and total disregard to the rest of the population.
BAN MOLLY, from the forums, so something constructive can be worked on, instead of her "i hate you all because you're carebears and will ruin the game for anyone I want too" attitude. Now go away molly, leave eve for the people that bought it to play as an RPG, vs your idea of "griefer madness"
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |