EVE Search - keeping ppl perma aggored - an intended game mechanic, as it seems!!!!

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

keeping ppl perma aggored - an intended game mechanic, as it seems!!!!

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Feilamya Minmatar Against all Rules SOUL CARTEL	Posted - 2008.01.12 02:46:00 - [61] Edited by: Feilamya on 12/01/2008 02:47:18 Does it also work with abandoned shuttles and noob ships? I found Shrike's Impairor. Bookmarks for sale. Convo me for prices -- My wishlist to CCP: If it's not broken, don't break it. If it's broken, don't **** it up completely.
salakhar Gallente North Face Force	Posted - 2008.01.12 17:09:00 - [62] Originally by: Chavu I would petition that, salakhar. You should get your ship back, might take a few responses, though. Have you tested abandoning drones? That should work if you abandon drones then wait 15 mins then log. You could always leave system or kill your own drones but I've been deep in enemy space before and that's not always possible. these drones dont any more appear on the drone overview (not even in distant space)making it impossible to do f_u_c_k all with em
Valan The Fated Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.01.12 17:58:00 - [63] Originally by: Ursula LeGuinn The developers did not actually intend for either of those game mechanics to be used in that way ù in fact, I believe jetcans used to be white upon jettisoning, way back in the day. But people started using them to mine (unintended), the devs decided to label snatching such mining cans as stealing eventually, and here we are today, with pirates using can-flipping to try to force PvP (metagaming, IMO). Just to take it a step further back jet can mining wasn't intended either and is metagaming. Thats why stealing is allowed but for risk vs rewards purposes flagging was introduced pretty much on care bear request so they could fight back. You can't complain about one type of metagaming and then do another. /start sig I love old characters that post 'I've beeen playing the game four years' when I know their account has been sold on. /end sig
salakhar Gallente North Face Force	Posted - 2008.01.13 05:33:00 - [64] dev reply here needed pls.
Retsil Evad Caldari The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.01.13 05:57:00 - [65] Edited by: Retsil Evad on 13/01/2008 05:58:05 Originally by: Pew Pewk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming It's definately metagaming. From a computer game point: any tactic in a computer or video game that uses one or more features of that game that lie outside the intended gameplay use, or exploit errors in programming structures. Until the devs or GM's of this game say that a particular technique, such as the recently banned black ops BS exploit to avoid Concord, is outside intended game mechanics then it IS NOT outside intended game mechanics and therefore not metagaming. Quote: From a roleplaying perspective: is a term often used to describe players' use of assumed characteristics of the game. In particular, metagaming often refers to having a character act on knowledge that only the player has access to (such as tricking a medusa to stare at a mirror when the character has never even heard of medusas and should not be aware of their petrifying stare) [i] Bumping and can flipping are well known techniques of Eve Online and therefore do not fall into the definition you quote above. Quote: As long as CCP consider RP a part of EVE and as long as they call this a MMORPG I see at least two reasons to call can-flipping for metagaming. However, doesn't mean that canflipping is or should be a bannable offense. After all, cheeze tactics is part of EVE. RA and BoB wouldn't have gotten where they were without using cheezy tactics in the first place, not to mention most of the PvPers in this game. It is still metagaming tho. So what you are saying, then, is that most PVPers are cheats? No wonder you are hiding behind an alt. I think that there would be more than one group liing up to take a pot shot at you. ============== Office use ONLY ============== BRING BACK EVE TV!!!!!!!
Liathus Firebane Gallente Celestial Janissaries Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.13 06:18:00 - [66] I would personally pod anyone in my corp that did this, it is obviously unintended for this to cause aggro, not to mention a lame grief technique. You get 15min of aggro after a fight, thats it, deal with it. A Dev seriously needs to deem this an exploit immediately, but then again, us drone users are used to being screwed.
Liathus Firebane Gallente Celestial Janissaries Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.13 15:16:00 - [67] This one really does need a dev response. Still waiting.
Ilea Celentay Veiled Justice	Posted - 2008.01.13 15:26:00 - [68] Originally by: Ursula LeGuinn The developers did not actually intend for either of those game mechanics to be used in that way ù in fact, I believe jetcans used to be white upon jettisoning, way back in the day. But people started using them to mine (unintended), the devs decided to label snatching such mining cans as stealing eventually, and here we are today, with pirates using can-flipping to try to force PvP (metagaming, IMO). I don't see how flipping a can is forcing them into PvP. As pointed out, jet can mining itself was not in tendered, and as also pointed out it was more the miners that wanted the flagging to allow them to protect their ore. It's the miners that choose weather to attack or not, unfortunately for them, they fail to do the bare minimum of intel gathering before they jump out the station in their most powerful PvE ship, and inevitably get beaten by a better more experienced opponent. But again, they choose to do that, they choose to fight, and therefore, if they loose, its their own doing. Faction Ship Info \|\| Rig Factory
Bish Ounen Gallente Omni-Core Freedom Fighters Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2008.01.13 16:56:00 - [69] Originally by: Ilea Celentay Originally by: Ursula LeGuinn The developers did not actually intend for either of those game mechanics to be used in that way ù in fact, I believe jetcans used to be white upon jettisoning, way back in the day. But people started using them to mine (unintended), the devs decided to label snatching such mining cans as stealing eventually, and here we are today, with pirates using can-flipping to try to force PvP (metagaming, IMO). I don't see how flipping a can is forcing them into PvP. As pointed out, jet can mining itself was not in tendered, and as also pointed out it was more the miners that wanted the flagging to allow them to protect their ore. It's the miners that choose weather to attack or not, unfortunately for them, they fail to do the bare minimum of intel gathering before they jump out the station in their most powerful PvE ship, and inevitably get beaten by a better more experienced opponent. But again, they choose to do that, they choose to fight, and therefore, if they loose, its their own doing. You missed the point of the thread. Can-Flipping was simply used by some to explian a "metagaming" function that was later incorporated into proper gameplay. the problem here is not can-flipping, or anything to do directly with mining. the problem is with Abandoned drones being used to cause Aggro for a user even after their on-screen aggro timer has run out. the op had it used against him and lost a ship due to it. This is reminds me very much of the exploit used against Cyvok that cost him a Titan. (first titan ever killed, was killed using a now removed exploit that caused an aggro timer reset without the players involvement.) It's a lame exploitation, particularly since the people having it done against them have NO IDEA it's happening. They basically get an invisible aggro timer that is under the control of other players hunting them. So if you EVER leave a drone for ANY reason, including your own loss of ship, then your enemies can basically keep you aggroed until the next downtime. All they need is someone in a frigate to sit near the abandoned drones and take a single pot-shot at them every 14 minutes. It completely INVALIDATES the "15 minutes agrro timer" function and all the PVP rules that work with that function. It's unfair, lame, exploitative, and we NEED A CCP RESPONSE on this deeming it an exploit.
Feilamya	Posted - 2008.01.13 18:28:00 - [70] Originally by: Ursula LeGuinn Originally by: PhantomVyper How on Earth do you think that can flipping and bumping is metagaming?! Because when looking at these situations from the characters' perspectives (from a loose role playing point of view, if you will), the whole process is a bit illogical and nonsensical. The developers did not actually intend for either of those game mechanics to be used in that way ù in fact, I believe jetcans used to be white upon jettisoning, way back in the day. But people started using them to mine (unintended), the devs decided to label snatching such mining cans as stealing eventually, and here we are today, with pirates using can-flipping to try to force PvP (metagaming, IMO). It's metagaming because half the time, the pirate isn't even there to actually steal the ore. He's in fact there to annoy the miners and force PvP, if they will take the bait. As for bumping... well. The reason people take no collision damage in EVE is fairly obvious. But logging into an alt and smacking someone over and over (causing the pinballing / flubber-ship effect) to prevent them from aligning for warp is pure metagaming. I'm quite sure it was never really intended, and while the person who discovered bumping to begin with was clever, it doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint. You (and others in this thread) are confusing three things here: roleplaying, realism and "what the devs intended". While these three different things are different and have to be considered separately (something you don't do), they have one thing in common: They have nothing to do with the rules of the game, except that they can be used as a rough guideline for designing these rules - which is not your job, so stfu. Bumping, can flipping, keeping characters perma-aggro'd are all within the rules. You don't have to like it, and you are allowed to whine about it, and you have my gratz when CCP changes these things (even though I don't agree), but until then stop that crap about metagaming, "roleplaying" and what you think the devs may have intended. If you want a game where every possible move and tactic is predictable, intended and approved by the devs, then Tic Tac Toe is the right choice for you. And if you want realism, step out of the door and enjoy RL. Just give me your stuff first. As for the term "metagaming", whatever Wikipedia may say about it, I believe it has been invented by game devs who are too lazy/greedy to fix the bugs and design flaws in their games and therefore hope that players will play their game in the way it was intended. There was no metagaming before there were computer games. At least I never heard someone ask if it was realistic, from a loose role playing perspective, that Rooks move faster than Knights and whether Queens were intended to be so overpowered. Then again, this could be because I don't troll Chess forums (yet).
Ilea Celentay Veiled Justice	Posted - 2008.01.13 19:33:00 - [71] Originally by: Bish Ounen Stuffs... Would this not limit the agro to the drown owner and the pilot shooting it? I do agree this shouldn't be the case at all. But I thought it best to make it clear. It would only be the pilot shooting the drone, assuming all the other agro timed out. Its not in-avoidable. Its annoying, and obviously rather lame of the would be attacker. But least if its known you can be assured that there would only be one attacker that could maintain the agro. Therefore, until it is fixed, to which I would believe it would be, (as like the wreck shooting you mentioned), either don't leave drones out, or, be careful if you did. It would be nice to have a clear indication to those that have agro against you, or agro you have against others. Faction Ship Info \|\| Rig Factory
salakhar Gallente North Face Force	Posted - 2008.01.15 05:45:00 - [72] really need a dev reply here pls! i ll bump this till i get a reply or till devs will have to reply cause of too many petitions! cheers,
salakhar Gallente North Face Force	Posted - 2008.01.15 19:21:00 - [73] pleeeeease ....
Liathus Firebane Gallente Celestial Janissaries Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.16 00:33:00 - [74] Been days and still no reply on this one... If shooting wrecks was an exploit and fixed this should be as well, either that or make turrets and missile launchers leave shell casings behind that can be shot for aggression.
jdok Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.16 00:40:00 - [75] couldn't you just leave the system if you are really worried about it? I'm preeetty sure a session change would cancel out this aggro ___________________________
TheSystem Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.01.16 01:00:00 - [76] C'mon Devs
Robert0288 Caldari g guild	Posted - 2008.01.16 01:30:00 - [77] Originally by: Ursula LeGuinn Originally by: PhantomVyper How on Earth do you think that can flipping and bumping is metagaming?! Because when looking at these situations from the characters' perspectives (from a loose role playing point of view, if you will), the whole process is a bit illogical and nonsensical. The developers did not actually intend for either of those game mechanics to be used in that way ù in fact, I believe jetcans used to be white upon jettisoning, way back in the day. But people started using them to mine (unintended), the devs decided to label snatching such mining cans as stealing eventually, and here we are today, with pirates using can-flipping to try to force PvP (metagaming, IMO). It's metagaming because half the time, the pirate isn't even there to actually steal the ore. He's in fact there to annoy the miners and force PvP, if they will take the bait. As for bumping... well. The reason people take no collision damage in EVE is fairly obvious. But logging into an alt and smacking someone over and over (causing the pinballing / flubber-ship effect) to prevent them from aligning for warp is pure metagaming. I'm quite sure it was never really intended, and while the person who discovered bumping to begin with was clever, it doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint. 1)Look at it this way, back in the day people discovered jet can mining, (yay for miners?lol) anyways within game mechanics they found a way to excell their profession. 2)People who stole ore see a potential source of income, as CCP stated back then jet can mining isn't against the game mechanics yadda yadda, so people got semi-**ed (lots and lots of thread about so called exploits using jet can to mine into and then use hauler to pull mins) 3)People then discovered, if they can use haulers to take mins, why can't I? So then ore thiefs came into existance (yay for ore theifs?lol) 4)Miners are now going ape**, because there a dozens and dozens of people stealing ore from their cans and there isn't anything they can do about it. 5)As a response CCP catered to the miners by letting anyone who steals from a jet can open to relatiation by the miner and their corp, so thats why you now see protected mining ops in high sec. 6)ore theifs and now pvp'ers adapted to the new game mechanics introduced by CCP by now moving from stealing ore to flipping cans for pvp action. All is within game mechanics and you can see a progression of learning within the different groups. B/w bumping is awsome, I mean how else are you going to kill staition campers?
Robert0288 Caldari g guild	Posted - 2008.01.16 01:30:00 - [78] Edited by: Robert0288 on 16/01/2008 01:32:02 double post
Malthros Zenobia The Cold Wind Foundation	Posted - 2008.01.16 03:45:00 - [79] Originally by: Angry Alt Edited by: Angry Alt on 10/01/2008 15:24:00 Originally by: Pew Pewk As long as CCP consider RP a part of EVE and as long as they call this a MMORPG I see at least two reasons to call can-flipping for metagaming. EVE is a MMOG, not a MMORPG. No, EVE is a MMORPG. People seem to think that to be RPing you have to develop a specific personality for your character and assume that personality when playing, to be RPing. The simple fact of the matter is that such belief is wrong. Unless you have cybernetic implants and fly a spaceship via a pod in real life, you're RPing to some extent in EVE. Be you an empire loyalist, Pirate , Rank and file soldier , or Veldaholic, you're RPing. You have assumed the role of a capsuleer, a unique and powerful person in the EVE cluster. The choice you make is just how in depth you will interact as that character. Originally by: Ginger (pharaphrase) There is no RP, only EVE. You do not pick to RP or not RP, you only decide just how involved and in depth you with be with your EVE character's persona. As for being on topic, I think Can-flipping is an unexpected, but accepted result of CCP giving players a means of blasting ore thieves. If you want to mine in highsec, use multiple secure cans and can flipping becomes a non-issue. Or mine in a hulk with cargo expanders, and you can just use a can as a medium to transfer directly to the indy (or carry it yourself). Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS	Posted - 2008.01.16 03:48:00 - [80] dont logoffski?
7shining7one7 Quafe Paladins	Posted - 2008.01.16 04:00:00 - [81] doesn't abandoning the drones cause this exploit to be rendered useless, or am i missing something. offcourse it's not the coolest exploit but it is a logoffski counter at any rate. i'd appreciate feedback on if abandoning the drones counters this thx o/
Malthros Zenobia The Cold Wind Foundation	Posted - 2008.01.16 04:44:00 - [82] Originally by: Montague Zooma Originally by: Angry Alt Originally by: Jowen Datloran Maybe you should read line two of the EULA: And maybe you should read this or this or this, perhaps this or even this. EVE is and always has been called a MMOG (or as CCP says MMPOG) by CCP. A. I'd say a legal or quasi-legal document like the EULA trumps PR releases. B. MMORPG is a subset of MMOG. All MMORPGs are MMOGs, but not all MMOGs are MMORPGs. So the fact that CCP has used both terms to describe Eve tells me the game is a MMOG and, more specifically, a MMORPG. C. Why the hell is this worth arguing about, anyway? Montague, just point them to the title of this link. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2008.01.16 07:46:00 - [83] Originally by: Zephyr Rengate I think engaging a wreck also resets the timer giving you 15 more mins of fun. Shooting at wrecks to extend aggro time is a bannable exploit. This exploit is known for at least half a year and when it got known on the boards some senior GM stated that shooting wrecks to extend the aggro timer is an exploit which can lead to a ban if abused. So be careful with that
Duke Val'Doom The Watchers Society	Posted - 2008.01.16 09:51:00 - [84] Originally by: Turin So its okay that a Kestrel or Interceptor can knock my carrier or dread around like its made from paper? Please. Use your head. Seems like they would be able to fix this easily by using the ships mass as a calculation, since all ships already have mass in the description. A small ship should just bounce off the larger ship, just like a small boat would bounce off a larger boat in the water. (Assuming they were made of rubber and the larger boat didn't just smash the smaller one.) _____________________________________________ I Survived Bootini and all they gave me was this stupid forum post
Garia666 Amarr T.H.U.G L.I.F.E Mercenary Services	Posted - 2008.01.16 09:53:00 - [85] cool didnt knew this one ^^ thanks for sharing ->My Vids<-
Liathus Firebane Gallente Celestial Janissaries Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.16 14:44:00 - [86] Originally by: Gnulpie Originally by: Zephyr Rengate I think engaging a wreck also resets the timer giving you 15 more mins of fun. Shooting at wrecks to extend aggro time is a bannable exploit. This exploit is known for at least half a year and when it got known on the boards some senior GM stated that shooting wrecks to extend the aggro timer is an exploit which can lead to a ban if abused. So be careful with that [IMAGE REMOVED] Exactly what I'm getting at, how is shooting at drones left behind any different then shooting at wrecks, It needs to be addressed. And to the people that keep bringing up can flipping, get your own thread!
salakhar Gallente North Face Force	Posted - 2008.01.17 05:28:00 - [87] still waiting here for a dev reply!~~~~ cheers,
Marcus TheMartin Gallente Tuxedo.	Posted - 2008.01.17 05:33:00 - [88] Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton dont logoffski?
salakhar Gallente North Face Force	Posted - 2008.01.18 12:06:00 - [89] still waiting for a dev reply here! thanks
Trask Kilraen The Older Gamers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.01.18 12:28:00 - [90] Originally by: Ursula LeGuinn As for bumping... well. The reason people take no collision damage in EVE is fairly obvious. But logging into an alt and smacking someone over and over (causing the pinballing / flubber-ship effect) to prevent them from aligning for warp is pure metagaming. I'm quite sure it was never really intended, and while the person who discovered bumping to begin with was clever, it doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint. Ya really want a reason? Ok, here's one I'm making up on the spot. All ships are fitted with strong anti-collision fields which only interact with other such fields, which is they don't work to stop projectiles, missles etc. They act like giant, very powerful bumpers, but since the field is distributed around the ship, the energy of the impulse is evenly applied to the ship, so no damage is taken from such a collision. The field coupling is such that the repulsive force gets stronger and stronger (almost infinitely strong) as the objects get closer and closer together. There... satisfied? P.S. - I do think maintaining aggro by shooting drones is a bit lame though. ------------------------------------------

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.