Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
254
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 16:33:00 -
[31] - Quote
It's not a bug, in the same way joining a corp in space next to one of that corp's war targets is not a bug. That, however, is classed as an exploit (but rarely enforced). What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644 |
oldbutfeelingyoung
VIRTUAL EMPIRE VANGUARD Vanguard Ascendants
38
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 16:57:00 -
[32] - Quote
another thread with an CCP response ,strange |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
113
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 17:02:00 -
[33] - Quote
Rixiu wrote:Sounds simple enough to fix, in order for it to be transferred it has to be at 100% health and most defiantly not in post-reinforced mode.
I can see valid reasons for people wanting to transfer ownership after it has been put into reinforce so instead we might just guard against transferring when it has been attacked recently.
But like I said, I'm not giving any answers just yet because it is a Sunday and I need to talk with a few people first. CCP Nullarbor | Exotic Dancer |
|
Tammarr
Trident RMBK
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 17:12:00 -
[34] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Rixiu wrote:Sounds simple enough to fix, in order for it to be transferred it has to be at 100% health and most defiantly not in post-reinforced mode. I can see valid reasons for people wanting to transfer ownership after it has been put into reinforce so instead we might just guard against transferring when it has been attacked recently. But like I said, I'm not giving any answers just yet because it is a Sunday and I need to talk with a few people first.
...Valid reason being to save their poco without a fight. Forcing the aggressor to wait 48 hours for their new wardec for the corp the poco got transfered to? Coming back to shooting a 100% health poco that can be transfered again to a new corp that needs a new wardec? That you can shoot things in for instance lowsec and take gcc does not mean it should be required to beat wardec dodging.
I would like to see a single valid reason posted that Trumphs the wardec dodging effect it will be used for. ...this means that once a wardec gets delivered to you the: you have 24hours till its open season; you cannot simply transfer a poco away from the corp receiving the wardec. If you can transfer a poco after a 24hr notice been delivered no poco will ever fall to people playing the game by the books and using the wardec system because they do not want to go GCC be it for RP reasons or be it for FW reasons. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
740
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 17:58:00 -
[35] - 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.
You can't call this an exploit. It's an oversight. There was a failure to determine all the potential ripple effects these structures would introduce.
Well, now the ripples are reaching the shore. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Morganta
Peripheral Madness The Midget Mafia
556
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 18:07:00 -
[36] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote: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. You can't call this an exploit. It's an oversight. There was a failure to determine all the potential ripple effects these structures would introduce. Well, now the ripples are reaching the shore.
quite
not so much a bug or exploit as an unintended consequence, so DEV post is accurate
and a valid transfer might involve forcing a corp to turn over the POCOs to the attacking corp as part of terms of surrender.
really, do you want to shot POCOs for a week to clear a system or have them all become yours because the owner wants to get back to business?
anyhow its a possible scenario
The American public's reaction to the change was poor and the new cola was a major marketing failure. The subsequent reintroduction of Coke's original formula, re-branded as "Coca-Cola Classic", resulted in a significant gain in sales, leading to speculation that the introduction of the New Coke formula was just a marketing ploy |
RougeOperator
Autocannons Anonymous
98
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 21:08:00 -
[37] - Quote
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:Whilst shooting WT PCOs that had 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. If they had been even more cunning they would have changed it to a FW corp forcing us to take standing hits as well.
CCP post in this thread now confirms intended game design, so here is the helpful guide to decreasing hostile standings and security status. Remember all you need is to get one pilot -5 and their logi chain will GCC during normal combat so these security losses do matter.
Apparently although intended mechanics this may somehow still be an exploit so until we have further confirmation use this guide at your own risk.
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
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
Yup you can basically force all the people shooting your PCO to lose tons of standings. We even talked about it in corp about how it might be possible to set up a chain of alts to swap possession of the PCO with to cause players to lose standings with Faction War Corps and NPC corps etc. Depending on hos the aggression works.
This is def a huge over site.
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators Chubby Chuppers Chubba Chups
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 22:15:00 -
[38] - Quote
Groan. Seriously CCP sit down and sort this sort of cack out, and start with War Decs, theve been egging CCPs face for four years now.
SKUNK |
Asthariye
Angry Mustellid
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 22:44:00 -
[39] - Quote
If you intend to keep the possibility of switching ownership while it's under attack, then in my opinion you absolutely *must* prioritise fixing of the FW standings loss bug. It's been with us for more than a year anyway which is Not Good, and with this mechanic it has become extremely exploitable as noted above. |
RougeOperator
Autocannons Anonymous
98
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 23:45:00 -
[40] - Quote
Asthariye wrote:If you intend to keep the possibility of switching ownership while it's under attack, then in my opinion you absolutely *must* prioritise fixing of the FW standings loss bug. It's been with us for more than a year anyway which is Not Good, and with this mechanic it has become extremely exploitable as noted above.
this is like that bug amped up to 10.
And they said that bug was an exploit.
All you have to do is line up like 15 corps or factions that the opposing party has good standings with and BAM nuke all their standings by using alts to change ownership left and right.
Yeah there is no way this is AS INTENDED.
They should at least have to be 25% shields to be able to transfer ownership |
|
DeBingJos
T.R.I.A.D
151
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 11:24:00 -
[41] - Quote
This topic needs a bump.
Also: Sn!pa Fix FW ! |
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Angry Mustellid
54
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 12:57:00 -
[42] - 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. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
459
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 15:54:00 -
[43] - Quote
Rixiu wrote:Sounds simple enough to fix, in order for it to be transferred it has to be at 100% health and most defiantly not in post-reinforced mode.
Or only allow ownership to change hands during downtime via the contract system (which would allow for payments, items in exchange, time limits, etc).
|
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
138
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 15:58:00 -
[44] - Quote
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
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
I am finding hard to grasp the idea of profit from it. By effectively removing any opposition, therefore no more fights, and they are probably scarce now. There is actually no profit in it, except removing your fun from game. But suit yourself.
I mean people who would use this mechanics got no right to cry about FW changes, because they are the one responsible. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
115
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 17:20:00 -
[45] - Quote
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. CCP Nullarbor | Exotic Dancer |
|
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Angry Mustellid
56
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 17:23:00 -
[46] - 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. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
417
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 17:26:00 -
[47] - 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. If this is valid gameplay, then why do I have a warning for changing corps in space? They're changing the status of a target on grid in a way that players don't know the result of their actions. The game is, in fact, telling them it's okay to shoot a target. A lot of us were told we'd be banned for doing this, and now you say it's "functioning ok"? Why, because it's a structure and not a player?
Pick one, CCP. Either it's valid to change corps in space in a way that people are not fully aware of the status of everything, or it's not.
edit: yay for logic prevailing. Also, i should have read the last page before replying. Still, my response to the initial dev response stands. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
417
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 17:28:00 -
[48] - 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.
So can we infer then that if someone keeps the PCO under fire for the duration of it being reinforced, that they can prevent it changing hands?
(note: I'm far from expert on the mechanics of reinforced mode) |
Spurty
D00M. Northern Coalition.
72
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 17:29:00 -
[49] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Pick one, CCP. Either it's valid to change corps in space in a way that people are not fully aware of the status of everything, or it's not.
edit: yay for logic prevailing. Also, i should have read the last page before replying. Still, my response to the initial dev response stands.
Have you had your fill of raping children yet?
- YES - NO
Pick one!
Its complex. Plans are afoot. Stop being a goof ---- CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. The Lostboys
182
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 17:39:00 -
[50] - Quote
CCP: another way to implement the change would be to say the POCO can only change hands when it is at 100% shields or in reinforced. Doing it that way means you only need to add a test to see if a transfer is legal, rather than adding a aggression timer to the structure and a test for legal transfer. May be easier to do the code change. 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. |
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
579
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 17:44:00 -
[51] - Quote
POCO ownership should be broadcast to all people in the grid while also automatically dropping all current target locks on the POCO. There should also be a hefty cooldown between POCO ownership changes, minimum 1 hour. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Contributor_name:Akita_T#Contributions_link_collection |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
115
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 17:47:00 -
[52] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: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. So can we infer then that if someone keeps the PCO under fire for the duration of it being reinforced, that they can prevent it changing hands? (note: I'm far from expert on the mechanics of reinforced mode)
Not during shield reinforcement because you cannot target it to aggress it. However you could in theory keep attacking it with a tiny amount of damage before it reaches reinforcement just to prevent a transfer, but I wouldn't want to wait around AFK to see what the owner thinks about that. CCP Nullarbor | Exotic Dancer |
|
Asthariye
Angry Mustellid
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 17:57:00 -
[53] - Quote
Thank you for this, Nullarbor. That will help a lot.
Any comment of the additional problems this causes in militia regarding the faction standings loss bug alluded to several times above? The inability to switch ownership while it's actively under fire will go some way towards remedying the effect of that but ultimately the bug, and thus the problem, still exists - even if a militiamember chooses to take the GCC he still has the additional problem of having to take and petition the standings loss. Is anyone even aware of this (regularly petitioned and reported) bug, is there a fix coming? |
Soi Mala
Whacky Waving Inflatable Flailing Arm Tubemen
99
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 18:13:00 -
[54] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: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. So can we infer then that if someone keeps the PCO under fire for the duration of it being reinforced, that they can prevent it changing hands? (note: I'm far from expert on the mechanics of reinforced mode) Not during shield reinforcement because you cannot target it to aggress it.
How about area of effect weapons?
Also:
CCP Nullarbor wrote: that will ultimately depend on QA checking it
LOL good one
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
115
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 18:15:00 -
[55] - Quote
Asthariye wrote:Thank you for this, Nullarbor. That will help a lot.
Any comment on the additional problems this causes in militia regarding the faction standings loss bug alluded to several times above? The inability to switch ownership while it's actively under fire will go some way towards remedying the effect of that but ultimately the bug, and thus the problem, still exists - even if a militiamember chooses to take the GCC he still has the additional problem of having to take and petition the standings loss. Is anyone even aware of this (regularly petitioned and reported) bug, is there a fix coming?
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). CCP Nullarbor | Exotic Dancer |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
115
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 18:21:00 -
[56] - Quote
Soi Mala wrote:How about area of effect weapons?
Customs offices are not affected by smart bombs or bubbles etc CCP Nullarbor | Exotic Dancer |
|
Graelyn
Amarrian Retribution
88
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 18:46:00 -
[57] - Quote
Continued Dev presence on these forums is deeply appreciated. + Cardinal Graelyn + Owner/Operator, "The Summit"
|
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Angry Mustellid
56
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 19:42:00 -
[58] - 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. |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
256
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 20:17:00 -
[59] - Quote
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. What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644 |
Dorian Wylde
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
68
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 20:30:00 -
[60] - Quote
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote: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.
Checking to see if something is an exploit does not mean that something is an exploit. It means he is CHECKING. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |