| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
The Silent One's
96
   |
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:18:00 -
[1] - Quote
with all of the pvp nerfs im not sure exactly how this game works anymore.
Have they nerfed the ability to remoterep people who are aggressed, and then immediatly dock? Or can you still do that?
I've asked around in-game and get mixed answers |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
309
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:20:00 -
[2] - Quote
basically if you remote rep somone shooting somone else pretend you just shot that person as well.
|
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
The Silent One's
96
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:21:00 -
[3] - Quote
When did they change this? |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
309
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:23:00 -
[4] - Quote
last weeks patch. This includes all remotes
|
Solstice Project
Cult of Personality
120
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:23:00 -
[5] - Quote
Exactly.
Pilots A,B,C.
A shoots B,
C reps A,
C has to stop repping,
C will get informed that he gets flagged if he wants to rep A again and if so,
C gets flagged so he can be shot by B.
Works with a D that reps B too, just the other way round.
Easy, hu ? XD |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
The Silent One's
96
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:26:00 -
[6] - Quote
Yeah im not looking for an explaination of the aggression mechanics, i just wasnt aware this was changed.
CCP really needs to stop completely ******* their PVP players over. There was no notice on the website of this change, and this is a -major gameplay change- with virtually no notice. |
proxwar
Klaatu Technologies
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:28:00 -
[7] - Quote
Solstice Project wrote:
Exactly.
Pilots A,B,C.
A shoots B,
C reps A,
C has to stop repping,
C will get informed that he gets flagged if he wants to rep A again and if so,
C gets flagged so he can be shot by B.
Works with a D that reps B too, just the other way round.
Easy, hu ? XD
I think he means
A shoots B
C reps A
C has to stop repping,
C will be informed he'll be flagged if he reps A again
C reps A again, get flagged
Would C still be able to run and insta dock with agression as they always have, or do they get the aggression timer to stop them repping and running with no concequence? |
Astrid Stjerna
Teraa Matar
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:29:00 -
[8] - Quote
Terminal Insanity wrote:with all of the pvp nerfs im not sure exactly how this game works anymore.
Have they nerfed the ability to remoterep people who are aggressed, and then immediatly dock? Or can you still do that?
I've asked around in-game and get mixed answers
If you remote-rep someone who's in combat, you'll get a warning box and then you'll inherit their agression countdowns. AFAIK, you still have to wait out the timer, even if you choose to dock. |
Reeno Coleman
74
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:29:00 -
[9] - Quote
wait. you call remote-repping pirates then hiding your ass in a station PVP?
ok then, i guess you got screwed over. sorry. |
AlleyKat
The Unwanted.
41
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:35:00 -
[10] - Quote
Terminal Insanity wrote:Yeah im not looking for an explanation of the aggression mechanics, i just wasn't aware this was changed.
CCP really needs to stop completely ******* their PVP players over. There was no notice on the website of this change, and this is a -major game play change- with virtually no notice.
erm...yes there was:
Quote:
10/11/2011
Game mechanics change to be applied during downtime on Thursday, November 10
A part of the next client update will feature a change to aggression mechanics in high security space.
To benefit the EVE community at large, a small change has been made to game mechanics regarding criminal flags and how they are inherited in high security space. If a pilot is 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.
That was front page headline news - go to www.eveonline.com
GÇ£You go into combat, and itGÇÖs NOT going to be WagnerGǪindustrial techno or really hard drum and bassGÇ¥
Reynir Hardarson, founding member of CCP Games, 2002. |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
The Silent One's
96
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:35:00 -
[11] - Quote
The patchnotes fail to state the severity of the change
Quote:To benefit the EVE community at large, a small change has been made to game mechanics in regarding criminal flags and how they are inherited in high security space. If a pilot is remote repairing, or otherwise assisting, another pilot who commits a criminal act then the repair module will now disengage.
Aggression timers are NOT criminal timers. Aggression is NOT a criminal action and does NOT result in CONCORD like a Criminal action would. |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
57
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:42:00 -
[12] - Quote
Terminal Insanity wrote:When did they change this?
they didint it always worked that way.
Only thing which changed is that you get that awesome warning which you switch off anyway.
|
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
The Silent One's
96
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:42:00 -
[13] - Quote
AlleyKat wrote:erm...yes there was: Quote:
Game mechanics change to be applied during downtime on Thursday, November 10
A part of the next client update will feature a change to aggression mechanics in high security space.
To benefit the EVE community at large, a small change has been made to game mechanics regarding criminal flags and how they are inherited in high security space. If a pilot is 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.
Let me underline the important parts for you, and then let me change the notice to reflect the ACTUAL changes that occurred. You will see the difference then hopefully.
WHAT IT CURRENTLY SAYS:
Quote:
Game mechanics change to be applied during downtime on Thursday, November 10
A part of the next client update will feature a change to aggression mechanics in high security space.
To benefit the EVE community at large, a small change has been made to game mechanics regarding criminal flags and how they are inherited in high security space. If a pilot is 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.
This implys it only effects timers that would result in CONCORD actions being taken against your ship.
WHAT IT SHOULD HAVE SAID:
Quote:
Game mechanics change to be applied during downtime on Thursday, November 10
A part of the next client update will feature a change to aggression mechanics in high security space.
To benefit the EVE community at large, a major change has been made to game mechanics regarding aggression flags and how they are inherited in high security space. If a pilot is remote repairing, or otherwise assisting, another pilot who engages in an aggressive 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 aggression flag and possible consequences.
Note how these simple changes now accurately reflect the true rule changes. |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
57
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:56:00 -
[14] - Quote
No, sucht mechanics involving CONCORD has been changed long time ago, right after Incursions.
And as far as i can tell, sharing timers doesnt work either way, or at least thats what i read here and there. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
136
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:57:00 -
[15] - Quote
These are the only changes I know of:
Patch notes for Incursion 1.2, released February 15, 2011
wrote:NPC's
* It is no longer possible to lose a ship to CONCORD by only using logistic modules (like remote armor repairer, shield transporter, energy transfer array, ...) or logistic drones. They cannot be activated in high-sec on targets with Global Criminal Countdown (GCC) or outlaws and they will be deactivated if the target gets GCC while being assisted.
http://www.eveonline.com/updates/patchnotes.asp?newpatchlogID=2886
Patch notes for Incarna 1.1.3 wrote:Client Update #2
To be released November 10, 2011
* To benefit the EVE community at large, a small change has been made to game mechanics in regarding criminal flags and how they are inherited in high security space. If a pilot is 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.
http://www.eveonline.com/updates/patchnotes.asp
I believe the latter to be referring to an outlaw flag. |
Written Word
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
119
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:59:00 -
[16] - Quote
There is no PvP worth caring about in highsec |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
57
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 21:02:00 -
[17] - Quote
Written Word wrote:There is no PvP worth caring about in highsec
well mercenaries "griefing" an noob corp to get payment alternatively offer the protection to such 
It works, my first few months were affected by it, we actually scrapped some **** and payed two bil / not at once but 
or the fun RvB i heard.
|
Famble
Three's a Crowd
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 21:04:00 -
[18] - Quote
Regardless of whether you like the change or not, how can anyone in their right mind not see the logic behind it?
It makes perfect sense! If person A is shooting person B and person C decides to help then person C is now part of the conflict. Common sense demands this.
Real world analogies have a way of failing to translate to Eve but I'll try:
If person A is escaping the bank he just robbed from person B and person C is driving the getaway car how would person C not be guilty of a crime? |
Lord Wiggin
Furian Necromongers
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 21:13:00 -
[19] - Quote
LOL, seriously, did everyone know about this change but you? 
And it should have been in the game all along, why should you be able to get a perfectly safe rep anywhere... |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
The Silent One's
98
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 21:13:00 -
[20] - Quote
Famble wrote:Regardless of whether you like the change or not, how can anyone in their right mind not see the logic behind it?
It makes perfect sense! If person A is shooting person B and person C decides to help then person C is now part of the conflict. Common sense demands this.
Real world analogies have a way of failing to translate to Eve but I'll try:
If person A is escaping the bank he just robbed from person B and person C is driving the getaway car how would person C not be guilty of a crime?
And i do agree, it does make sense.
My problem isnt with the new rule, its that they changed it without any real notice.
Luckily, all of the recent PVP nerfs have made me so pessimistic that i actually assumed they probably ****** with it, and asked around before repping my aggressed alt, so i didn't lose my scimitar |
ACE McFACE
Acetech Systems
79
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 21:19:00 -
[21] - Quote
Pvlogiwhodidntknowwhatwashappening is not PvP
Pvrandommackgank is not PvP
Therefore, there are no PvP nerfs
Just to clarifiy, I am not some crying miner who just lost his mack
Real men wear goggles and a Navy shirt! |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
The Lostboys
140
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 21:20:00 -
[22] - Quote
Terminal Insanity wrote:Yeah im not looking for an explaination of the aggression mechanics, i just wasnt aware this was changed.
CCP really needs to stop completely ******* their PVP players over.
This does not mess over the PvP player who does not use cowardly OOC remote assistance.
CCP employees should never proclaim a feature to be awesome. Only subscribers should.
Subscribers can never answer a question posed to CCP. Only CCP can. |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
The Silent One's
98
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 21:24:00 -
[23] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Terminal Insanity wrote:Yeah im not looking for an explaination of the aggression mechanics, i just wasnt aware this was changed.
CCP really needs to stop completely ******* their PVP players over. This does not mess over the PvP player who does not use cowardly OOC remote assistance.
ACE McFACE wrote:Pvlogiwhodidntknowwhatwashappening is not PvP
Pvrandommackgank is not PvP
Therefore, there are no PvP nerfs
Just to clarifiy, I am not some crying miner who just lost his mack
Idiots. Painfully predictable.
Terminal Insanity wrote:I guess the fact i wanted to take advantage of this 'feature' automatically makes me a bad/immoral/whatever person, so many will just completely ignore the point of my post because of that. |
Takseen
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 21:25:00 -
[24] - Quote
OP is correct, the post didn't mention that the change also affected aggression timers. The other replies are also correct, no one has much sympathy for those affected by this change. |
Astrid Stjerna
Teraa Matar
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 21:26:00 -
[25] - Quote
Terminal Insanity wrote:The patchnotes fail to state the severity of the change Quote:To benefit the EVE community at large, a small change has been made to game mechanics in regarding criminal flags and how they are inherited in high security space. If a pilot is remote repairing, or otherwise assisting, another pilot who commits a criminal act then the repair module will now disengage. Aggression timers are NOT criminal timers. Aggression is NOT a criminal action and does NOT result in CONCORD like a Criminal action would. Regardless of your (or my) opinion of the change, the fact remains that this change was made with virtually no notice to the eve community. And even for the few who read the patchnotes, we were mislead.
Wht more 'notice' do you want? They've posted in a thread on the forums (one that's been up for several days now, by the way). CCP isn't trying to sneak anything by us, they didn't spring it on us before telling us about it, and theyv'e given fair notice that the change is coming.
Besides, saying you were 'mislead' due to an error of interpretation is just silly. |
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
135
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 21:28:00 -
[26] - Quote
Astrid Stjerna wrote:
Wht more 'notice' do you want? They've posted in a thread on the forums (one that's been up for several days now, by the way). CCP isn't trying to sneak anything by us, they didn't spring it on us before telling us about it, and theyv'e given fair notice that the change is coming.
Plus, you get a pop up box in the game. You all read your pop up boxes, right? |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
The Silent One's
98
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 21:37:00 -
[27] - Quote
Astrid Stjerna wrote:Wht more 'notice' do you want? They've posted in a thread on the forums (one that's been up for several days now, by the way). CCP isn't trying to sneak anything by us, they didn't spring it on us before telling us about it, and theyv'e given fair notice that the change is coming.
Besides, saying you were 'mislead' due to an error of interpretation is just silly.
Well, i think i read more devblogs / news posts / forum threads then most (not as much as some, though). And when i read this change, i assumed it effected only actions that would result in concord, because they said CRIMINAL ACTIONS.
Its not in my interpertation of the rules, its the fact that CRIMINAL ACTIONS have always resulted in CONCORD and these rule changes state that it only effects CRIMINAL ACTION timers, which made sense. I know a lot of Incursion kiddies have been dying because of cap chains and concord / Criminal timers.
The statement released by CCP clearly states it is CRIMINAL timers that were changed.
However, they did not just change criminal timers, but ALL aggression timers. There is a major difference.
I didnt even want to make this thread this serious, but holy ****. Ignoring the fact i'm an evil monster rapist murderer for a moment, Did CCP not slip up a little here and not clearly state the change? |
Astrid Stjerna
Teraa Matar
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 22:09:00 -
[28] - Quote
Terminal Insanity wrote:
I didnt even want to make this thread this serious, but holy ****. Ignoring the fact i'm an evil monster rapist murderer for a moment, Did CCP not slip up a little here and not clearly state the change?
They did clearly state the change: using a remote-repper tags you with a GCC. Last I checked, to get a GCC, you have to aggress someone, either through gunfire or by looting their jetcan.
They didn't explicitly state that all agression mechanics were being changed, because current agression mechanics link GCC with aggressive acts. |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
The Silent One's
98
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 22:12:00 -
[29] - Quote
Astrid Stjerna wrote:Terminal Insanity wrote:
I didnt even want to make this thread this serious, but holy ****. Ignoring the fact i'm an evil monster rapist murderer for a moment, Did CCP not slip up a little here and not clearly state the change?
They did clearly state the change: using a remote-repper tags you with a GCC. Last I checked, to get a GCC, you have to aggress someone, either through gunfire or by looting their jetcan. They didn't explicitly state that all agression mechanics were being changed, because current agression mechanics link GCC with aggressive acts.
No, GCC is not from stealing a Can. GCC = Concord reaction.
Aggression timers are from stealing jetcans, or shooting a can thief. THESE ARE NOT CRIMINAL TIMERS. |
Jack All'Trade
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 22:19:00 -
[30] - Quote
Terminal Insanity wrote:boo hoo
stop bitching already and post your fail-gank loss mail so we can laugh at you. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |