| 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 |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
The Silent One's
96
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:21:00 -
[2] - Quote
When did they change this? |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
The Silent One's
96
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:26:00 -
[3] - 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. |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
The Silent One's
96
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:35:00 -
[4] - 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. |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
The Silent One's
96
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:42:00 -
[5] - 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. |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
The Silent One's
98
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 21:13:00 -
[6] - 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 |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
The Silent One's
98
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 21:24:00 -
[7] - 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. |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
The Silent One's
98
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 21:37:00 -
[8] - 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? |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
The Silent One's
98
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 22:12:00 -
[9] - 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. |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
The Silent One's
98
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 22:24:00 -
[10] - Quote
Jack All'Trade wrote:Terminal Insanity wrote:boo hoo stop bitching already and post your fail-gank loss mail so we can laugh at you.
As stated above, i didnt lose one. All the recent pvp-related nerfs or 'changes' have caused me to be paranoid, and i actually double checked this before repping my alt with my scimitar |
| |
|