Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |

Soi Mala
Whacky Waving Inflatable Flailing Arm Tubemen
63
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:34:00 -
[31] - Quote
Denidil wrote: elite fleets
Denidil wrote: carebears are not the worst bears
Denidil wrote: act like you're all "elite pvp"
Denidil wrote: you're not interested in good pvp - you're just after ganking people who don't know how to fight you back so you can pad your killboard
Denidil wrote: grow some ******* stones and go attack DRF or Goons&Friends
Denidil The graduates Morsus Mihi
I particularly liked the one about good pvp. |

MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
57
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:57:00 -
[32] - Quote
Zowie Powers wrote:Why should people who want to kill people harden up?
What is it with you PVP elitists that think only your targets should have to toughen up? Why don't you swallow some of your own crap for once and HTFU? |

Samillian
Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:03:00 -
[33] - Quote
Zowie Powers wrote:Why should people who want to kill people harden up? No Incursion runner was ever expected to harden up. It's incursion runners turn to harden up.
But they can't. They won't.
And CCP agree they shouldn't have to, therein lies the problem. One demographic of the "larger community" has been preselected to never harden up under any circumstances.
Incursion running is now even more imbalanced than ever before and CCP are showing no sign of appreciating what they're even doing.
I've no problem with you trying to kill whoever you want, anytime and anywhere you want in EvE....ever.
My problem is that when a remote repping alt/hireling stick there nose into a fight they can't be touched. If I had my way anyone remote repping a war target would themselves become a viable war target if not for the duration of the war then at least until the next downtime.
Interfere in a fight and become a target, simple as that.
|

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1378
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:11:00 -
[34] - Quote
I'll repeat the question here as well: what's the actual change? None of what's said there is new. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Buruk Utama
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
46
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:18:00 -
[35] - Quote
Tippia wrote:I'll repeat the question here as well: what's the actual change? None of what's said there is new.
The only change is forcing the rr to accept a hostility flag which shoudl prevent them from insta docking. Which means the gate baiters will need different tactic or probably lose some logi ships |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
166
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:19:00 -
[36] - Quote
Buruk Utama wrote:Tippia wrote:I'll repeat the question here as well: what's the actual change? None of what's said there is new. The only change is forcing the rr to accept a hostility flag which shoudl prevent them from insta docking. Which means the gate baiters will need different tactic or probably lose some logi ships
hmm, put that way it actually makes the change sound good.
OH IM SO CONFUSED RIGHT NOW |

Caellach Marellus
Nephtys Ventures inc
128
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:23:00 -
[37] - Quote
Pretty sure it's a case of if you're neutral RRing someone who engages in a criminal act (theft etc) your reppers will deactivate and you won't become a valid target to the corp the Thief stole from.
Should you try to rep them you'll get a warning that they've an aggression timer due to criminal action.
Stops baitships metagriefing in incursion fleets. |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
166
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:25:00 -
[38] - Quote
i understood the point about it throwing a spanner into the plans of incursion gankers, but if this also means that neautral RR on station cant dock instantly, then i'll gladly accept the change. |

Vrykolakasis
Trinity Operations Aurora Irae
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:25:00 -
[39] - Quote
Confirming that incursions do make an annoyingly large amount of isk vs other highsec play, but I also think this change is good. I would personally like to see incursions happen with this much payout or more, but at a much less consistent, predictable rate.
Hopefully that's not too-far off topic. |

Ptraci
3 R Corporation
86
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:27:00 -
[40] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:
OH IM SO CONFUSED RIGHT NOW
Go shoot at the statue for a few hours and everything will be clearer. |
|

Caellach Marellus
Nephtys Ventures inc
128
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:28:00 -
[41] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:i understood the point about it throwing a spanner into the plans of incursion gankers, but if this also means that neautral RR on station cant dock instantly, then i'll gladly accept the change.
Not sure that's the case, yet. All this change does is warn a neutral RR that they're going to be repping someone with an aggression flag. |

luZk
Jaegerkorpset
31
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:48:00 -
[42] - Quote
This makes perfect sence to me, good job CCP! |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1381
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:03:00 -
[43] - Quote
Buruk Utama wrote:The only change is forcing the rr to accept a hostility flag which shoudl prevent them from insta docking. Which means the gate baiters will need different tactic or probably lose some logi ships That would indeed be a change, but the announcement does not actually mention any such alteration GÇö only that criminal flagging will be inherited, which is nothing new. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Cipher Jones
108
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:08:00 -
[44] - Quote
Zowie Powers wrote:a small change has been made to game mechanics in regarding criminal flags and-áhow they are inherited in high security space. If a pilot-áis remote repairing, or otherwise assisting, another pilot who commits a criminal act then the repair module will now disengage. In order to continue repairs the module will need to be restarted and a message will appear warning of the criminal flag and possible consequences.
To benefit the EVE community at large,
That's a bit of a ******* stretch don't you think CCP? I mean, I know your interpretation of this rings true, but if you apply it instead to the current community, it's just another kick in the bollocks.
Incursions are already milking so much isk normal game play can't compete, and now you give them even more.... as if you hadn't made enough to concessions to lazy casuals already.
Its a kick in the bullocks to dumb cunts, not the community at large.
See what happens when fat neckbeards try to ride little ponies? The ponies die. |

EZ Windy
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:09:00 -
[45] - Quote
Awesome news! As in real life, just driving the getaway car will nonetheless get you time inside ... Guilty, pay the price!
|

Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
32
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:13:00 -
[46] - Quote
Oh dear. So many misinterpretations of the change. I'll try to make it clear:
Before this change you could get someone to rep you, and while they were repping you, you could cause a global criminal flag which they would inherit, and they would get no warning. Basically there was nothing the logistics pilot could to to prevent concordokken.
Now, if you cause global criminal flag, the logistics pilot's reppers will auto-disengage, and if the logistics pilot tries to re-engage them he'll get a warning pop-up.
OP is crying because he/she can no longer use concord as his/her personal carebear ganking pet.
If you have any further inqueries or require any further assistance, please don't hesitate to post again.
Fille Have you noticed how some ships are actually blue? Weird isn't it? |

Kern Hotha
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:21:00 -
[47] - Quote
I never heard of Concord being involved. Logistic pilots were inheriting the flag from a can flipper in their fleet then getting blown up by the corporation with the aggression. Players were taking advantage of a poor game mechanic to score risk-free kills. We sometimes call that an 'exploit'. I hope the update removed it. |

Krios Ahzek
Juvenis Iratus
80
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:22:00 -
[48] - Quote
How can anyone be against this change? I mean, it's ok if you liked to stealthily 3 vs 1 a guy outside of a station when he thought he was getting a 1 vs 1, but trolling against the change on the forums? Now everyone knows you're a horrible player.
Deal with it, seriously. I have no tears to cry. |

Raendel
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:23:00 -
[49] - Quote
Quote:lazy casuals already.
Posting to confirm that someone in University who works 2 jobs and has a family is "lazy". I am for sale. Message me. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1383
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:30:00 -
[50] - Quote
EZ Windy wrote:Awesome news!
What news? Nothing new was said.
Fille Balle wrote: Before this change you could get someone to rep you, and while they were repping you, you could cause a global criminal flag which they would inherit, and they would get no warning. Basically there was nothing the logistics pilot could to to prevent concordokken.
No, it has worked like that for quite some time now. It was changed shortly after Incursion. Nothing of what is mentioned in that note is new.
Yes, there are many misinterpretations of this mechanic. Thinking that, as presented, it is being changed is one of them.
Krios Ahzek wrote:How can anyone be against this change? No, the question is GÇ£what is the change that people think they (or someobe else) is against?" GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
|

Kern Hotha
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:32:00 -
[51] - Quote
We never got a warning when performing an action on a guy who flipped a can and had a countdown. Why is this so hard to understand? |

Zowie Powers
Hole in the wall
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:35:00 -
[52] - Quote
Fille Balle wrote:Oh dear. So many misinterpretations of the change. I'll try to make it clear:
Before this change you could get someone to rep you, and while they were repping you, you could cause a global criminal flag which they would inherit, and they would get no warning. Basically there was nothing the logistics pilot could to to prevent concordokken.
Now, if you cause global criminal flag, the logistics pilot's reppers will auto-disengage, and if the logistics pilot tries to re-engage them he'll get a warning pop-up.
OP is crying because he/she can no longer use concord as his/her personal carebear ganking pet.
If you have any further inqueries or require any further assistance, please don't hesitate to post again.
Fille
OP has never actually done it, nor planned to. Oh look you're very clever. Oh wait.
Here's a point you will fail to understand. OP likes hard games with dire consequences for even the smallest mistake. Eve used to be that game.
Now you, and all the other little girls can miss the point entirely and say something irrelevant that you think sounds clever. Well go on then... don't hold back now. |

Cunane Jeran
51
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:51:00 -
[53] - Quote
I'm not a fan of this, not by a long shot, but at the same time I have to admit, it's a solid change.
|

luZk
Jaegerkorpset
31
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:56:00 -
[54] - Quote
The problem is that concord was used as a high sec doomsday. You would plant a spy in a corp and call for remote reps in a figth, then you would insta the whole logistic chain with concord. Can we at least agree this is'nt what concord was intended as? |

Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
920
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 18:03:00 -
[55] - Quote
Raendel wrote:Quote:lazy casuals already. Posting to confirm that someone in University who works 2 jobs and has a family is "lazy". Why would you start popping out kids when you're still in school and so poor you have to work two jobs?
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |

Velicitia
Open Designs
82
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 18:11:00 -
[56] - Quote
wait ... this was changed WAAAAAAY back in Incursions after people figured out they could get the RR chains concorded...
there's nothing that would stop you from repping someone after they get the GCC if you choose to restart the reppers... |

Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
33
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 18:27:00 -
[57] - Quote
Zowie Powers wrote:OP has never actually done it, nor planned to. Oh look you're very clever. Oh wait.
Here's a point you will fail to understand. OP likes hard games with dire consequences for even the smallest mistake. Eve used to be that game.
Now you, and all the other little girls can miss the point entirely and say something irrelevant that you think sounds clever. Well go on then... don't hold back now.
You sound very upset? Do you need a hug? Have you noticed how some ships are actually blue? Weird isn't it? |

AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 18:41:00 -
[58] - Quote
GJ CCP If I'm in hi-sec, I'm entitled to know if the action I'm about to take will give someone else the right to shoot at me or not.
The change has nothing to do with GCC (which was fixed,) it has to do with can-flippers. It has nothing to do with logi being concordokken, it has to do with Slimy Worm.
tl;dr If you are in high-sec and someone you are about to rr can legally be shot at by anybody, you are given the option to not rep them (because if you do rr them, whoever can legally shoot them can now legally shoot you.)
Now if CCP would just nerf vanguard payouts about 20% then we'd be set. |

AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 18:48:00 -
[59] - Quote
Actually 'legally shot at by anybody' is an overbid, I should have said 'legally shot at by anybody other than a corpmate.' (since non-npc corpies can shoot each other but neutral rr doesn't get an aggression flag in that case.) |

Soi Mala
Whacky Waving Inflatable Flailing Arm Tubemen
63
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 19:05:00 -
[60] - Quote
AkJon Ferguson wrote:GJ CCP If I'm in hi-sec, I'm entitled to know if the action I'm about to take will give someone else the right to shoot at me or not.
The change has nothing to do with GCC (which was fixed,) it has to do with can-flippers. It has nothing to do with logi being concordokken, it has to do with Slimy Worm.
tl;dr If you are in high-sec and someone you are about to rr can legally be shot at by anybody, you are given the option to not rep them (because if you do rr them, whoever can legally shoot them can now legally shoot you.)
Now if CCP would just nerf vanguard payouts about 20% then we'd be set.
Yet another one misunderstanding the issue. It is nothing to do with who you are going to rep, but the people you are already repping. People complaining that there is nothing you can do if someone decides to flag whilst you are repping them, here's a novel idea - STOP TRUSTING COMPLETE STRANGERS. There is literally no other facet of eve that requires you to trust strangers, so why should incursion farming be any different?
These ganks were a constant reminder that you shouldn't trust anybody and everybody, because a well placed spy, or a character with a little forward planning CAN get you blown up. Is that not the nature of eve?
If you were in lowsec would you fleet up with the same bunch of randoms? No? Why not? Because they might shoot you? Well, CCP has always stated that nowhere should be safe, not even highsec. If you are willing to let your guard down enough to not only fleet them, but to fly with them in your pimp fittings, and trust them enough to remote rep/be repped by them, then you deserve to face some kind of retribution.
But no you're totally right, highsec should be totally safe, and you should be allowed to farm incursions unmolested all day, because that takes skills, planning, dedication, and is in no way akin to the way that these awful cowardly people have been farming you idiots for the last 6 months.
Bottom line, is if you're going to put yourself in dangerous situations and rely on complete strangers to keep you alive, you deserve to be shot in the face. If you want a place where noone can hurt you no matter how many aggression mechanics you choose to ignore, then perhaps you should play something else. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |