| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
53
   |
Posted - 2011.12.17 23:01:00 -
[1] - Quote
Whilst shooting WT PCOs that has just left RF the WTs swapped ownership to a neutral corp causing fleet to take sec hits and GCC for all PCOs that were destroyed
Hoping CCP will reply and confirm whether or not this is an exploit, it seems something that should have been spotted during testing.
If this is not an exploit and you are unable to defeat a hostile fleet you outnumber 3:1 on caps then you can feel free to troll your enemies by swapping ownership. |
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Angry Mustellid
53
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 14:00:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:I'll start by saying that this isn't a bug, it sounds like everything is functioning ok.
However I will raise this with the team to see if this is valid gameplay or if this is considered an exploit and report back here.
FW players here is how to make a hostile fleet take a standing hit, security status loss and GCC if they want to destroy your structures
I'm a little confused as to how something can be both an intended game mechanic and an exploit. I will take this to mean, we can't think of how to fix this so lets just pretend everything is ok.
1. Set up PCO and use as normal, ideally in hostile space to gain maximum attention
2. Set up an alt corp in the hostile miltia (you probably already have one or two spare anyway)
3. Wait for the eve mail saying the PCO has been reinforced
4. When the hostile fleet start shooting it at after RF ends you swap ownership to the hostile militia corp and watch them all (including logi because CCP still haven't fixed that bug) take a large standing hit, security status loss and GCC.
You can either do this early on in the fight and give them the option to disengage or try and do it last minute, the WT red star remains on the targeted item so they probably won't notice in time.
5. Rinse and repeat untill hostile players start running out of standings.
6. ????
7. Profit and laugh at CCP's complete ineptitude at game design and continued neglect for FW |
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Angry Mustellid
53
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 14:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
Pak Narhoo wrote:^^ Talk about jumping to conclusions. Let me give you a hint: CCP Nullarbor wrote:
However I will raise this with the team to see if this is valid gameplay or if this is considered an exploit and report back here.
Well I don't see how intended game mechanics can be an exploit.
Definition: An exploit is a software program that takes advantage of a bug, defect or glitch in another software program so that it executes in a way that the original writer did not intend. Usually this is done for malicious purposes.
I don't think you can exploit something if that is its intended function. |
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Angry Mustellid
54
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 12:57:00 -
[4] - Quote
This is just another new system added to the game that shows how aged FW mechanics are. The game is constantly evolving but FW remains largely unchanged since its inception several years ago.
FW really deserves a big feature in an upcoming expansion, to be honest you could probably market the whole thing as new because it has received such little attention I doubt many new players are even aware it exists. |
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Angry Mustellid
56
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 17:23:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Ok so an update on this, we are going to deny transferring ownership while the customs office is being attacked using the normal 15 min cool down on aggression. The real problem here is that players can be tricked into taking a security status hit or entering into combat outside of a wardec without realizing it.
Transferring ownership after a POCO has been put into reinforce for example is still valid and while this does allow owners to force an aggressor who they are at war with to take a security hit they will still be able to decide before hand if they want to do this and not unknowingly engage an owner they are not at war with.
I have hassled people today so that we can get this onto TQ this week but that will ultimately depend on QA checking it so fingers crossed.
Thank you very much.
If the above poster can't work out how you can profit from this I don't think there is anything that I can say that will help him. |
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Angry Mustellid
56
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 19:42:00 -
[6] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Not as part of this fix but I keep hearing faction warfare being mentioned in the planning for 2012, which I am quite excited about having flown in the militia myself for a while before joining CCP. So hopefully the issues with standings and alt corps messing with FW business can be reviewed soon(tm).
I am very glad to hear this.
Addressing the obvious alt corp, alt T3 boosters and alt spying will go a long way to improving FW
The other key area is meaningful occupancy, and PCOs go some way towards this. I would like to see a system where occupancy in some way dictate who can place PCOs in the FW regions or at least gives the occupiers of the system kill rights on PCO in their space. |
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Angry Mustellid
59
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 14:52:00 -
[7] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:Addressing the obvious alt corp, alt T3 boosters and alt spying will go a long way to improving FW Welcome to EVE, sir.
Thank you, sir. At least use a character older than the kali 4 patch when you say that to avoid being laughed at.
Just because it is so common for people to use neutral alts doesn't mean they should be able to put them in your militia. Imagine if you wardecced someone and they could easily and quickly put alts inside your corp without any skill and that you took large standing hits from engaging them.
Spying is a valid profession and a lot of this game is knowing the value of someones trust, and how you can make it so that it is not worth the amount of effort required from a hostile to infiltrate compared to the gains they would make from doing so. FW completely ignores this balance by making it so easy to join the entry level militia, which leads to the 2-tier system of the 'FW alliance' and the rest of the corps. The standing and aggression mechanics need a fix at the very minimum.
In response to the transfer of ownership as at end goal of the war since when is that in the spirit of eve? Given that we are seeing more and more inflation it seems silly to want less structures destroyed. This game needs more ISK sinks, not fewer (INB4 someone thinks I mean ship destruction and insurance..). If you want ownership of the PCO its as simple as killing it and replacing your own one, just like POS (In my opinion outposts should be this way as well but that comes with the issues of people inside).
|
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Angry Mustellid
59
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 15:16:00 -
[8] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:In response to the transfer of ownership as at end goal of the war since when is that in the spirit of eve? Given that we are seeing more and more inflation it seems silly to want less structures destroyed. This game needs more ISK sinks, not fewer (INB4 someone thinks I mean ship destruction and insurance..). If you want ownership of the PCO its as simple as killing it and replacing your own one, just like POS (In my opinion outposts should be this way as well but that comes with the issues of people inside). Destroying a PCO is not a significant isk sink. No isk are removed from the game, only minerals, which are essentially infinite.
LP store ISK cost and taxes, granted a fairly minimal ISK sink, but its there. Also mean less minerals earning their expected value through the insurance system. I still feel that losses in eve should hurt far more than they do. I don't want to tend toward we both size up our fleets, decide whos is better then just exchange the asset in question without anything blowing up.
edit - DeBingJos got there first |
| |
|