Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Squirrrel
Squirrrel Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 17:58:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Squirrrel on 11/06/2008 17:59:00
Originally by: CCP Casqade To clear this up...
I don't mean to sound flippant, but please make sure it makes sense before you post definitive answers, it's just getting confusing.
Originally by: CCP Casqade
But when: Player B shoots player A -> Player C will now be flagged to Player B and aggression is allowed. - This is because now player C is actively helping A survive the attack! - Note that Player B is not flagged to Player C; So if he shoots C, there will be a global Criminal Flag.
Huh? B is NOT flagged to C, if he shoots C (who was repping A and therefore assisting) he gets GCC? "- This is because now player C is actively helping A survive the attack!"
Originally by: CCP Casqade
Player B starts shooting player C - Player C may shoot back to defend himself.
He was getting a GCC in the last bit you wrote!
Originally by: CCP Casqade
I hope this clears things up a bit.
Not for the first time in this thread... not really!
|
Simimski
Vanguard Of Fallen Angels
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 19:00:00 -
[32]
Er.... eh?
|
Lt Angus
Wicked Crew
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 19:11:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Squirrrel Edited by: Squirrrel on 11/06/2008 17:59:00
Originally by: CCP Casqade To clear this up...
I don't mean to sound flippant, but please make sure it makes sense before you post definitive answers, it's just getting confusing.
Originally by: CCP Casqade
But when: Player B shoots player A -> Player C will now be flagged to Player B and aggression is allowed. - This is because now player C is actively helping A survive the attack! - Note that Player B is not flagged to Player C; So if he shoots C, there will be a global Criminal Flag.
Huh? B is NOT flagged to C, if he shoots C (who was repping A and therefore assisting) he gets GCC? "- This is because now player C is actively helping A survive the attack!"
Originally by: CCP Casqade
Player B starts shooting player C - Player C may shoot back to defend himself.
He was getting a GCC in the last bit you wrote!
Originally by: CCP Casqade
I hope this clears things up a bit.
Not for the first time in this thread... not really!
its very clear, and has not changed in this patch |
Simimski
Vanguard Of Fallen Angels
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 19:29:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Lt Angus
its very clear, and has not changed in this patch
don't get it.
Too many a's, b's and c's - and stuff happening that contradicts itself.
If it's that simple, how come CCP are making a bit of a hash of explaning it?
You explain it please.
|
Lt Angus
Wicked Crew
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 19:31:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Lt Angus on 11/06/2008 19:32:02
Originally by: Simimski
Originally by: Lt Angus
its very clear, and has not changed in this patch
don't get it.
Too many a's, b's and c's - and stuff happening that contradicts itself.
If it's that simple, how come CCP are making a bit of a hash of explaning it?
You explain it please.
in the event that you are helping his wartarget he can attack you but you can only attack in self defence, same as being an outlaw
Shhhh, Im hunting Badgers |
|
CCP Casqade
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 19:34:00 -
[36]
Originally by: MailDeadDrop
Originally by: CCP Casqade
But when: Player B shoots player A -> Player C will now be flagged to Player B and aggression is allowed. - This is because now player C is actively helping A survive the attack! - Note that Player B is not flagged to Player C; So if he shoots C, there will be a global Criminal Flag.
Almost completely correct (and very clear). But I think there is a problem where I underlined. The antecedent to that "he" is "Player C". He cannot shoot himself. I think you meant to write "he (C) shoots B".
MDD
No, He is B. But I can see where it gets confusing. "Note that Player B is not flagged to Player C" as in "Player C does not see Player B as "flashing red"".
I'll correct that.
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf So you have no idea how many of those ships in the area you are going to be facing until you open fire on the bait?
So one could set-up say...
1: Several RR BS ganged with a fourth bait ship who is in a militia. 2: Park at a gate. 3: Wait for some poor sap to engage. 4: ???? 5: Laugh, collect loot, and salvage.
You can even use a nice cheap ship as bait and then should something unpleasant turn up, and the bait can't escape, you only lose one cheap ship since the enemy can't engage the rest of the gang.
This is how it worked before this expansion too. We have not changed the how the aggression flagging works.
Originally by: gfldex How about gang assist mods?
That works. There is a test server you can try out more theories on.
Quote: While you guys (CCP) are screwing around with flagging, it would be a very appropriate time to fix the bull**** logistics flagging.
You seem angry. It is not broken at the moment, so your suggestion should go in Features and Ideas discussion forum.
Anyway. I'm not sure it is that simple to explain without drawing a picture. I invite you to connect to the Test server Singularity and try this out for yourself if it is still confusing.
And let me point out, we have not changed a thing, except you are no longer able to shoot people that are in a fleet with your war targets. That is it.
|
|
Simimski
Vanguard Of Fallen Angels
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 19:45:00 -
[37]
Still makes little sense the way you CCP guys are explaining it:
- Note that Player B is not "flashing red" to Player C; So if he shoots C, there will be a global Criminal Flag. (B is not flashing red to C - if B shoots C he gets GCC.)
However next line states:
Player B starts shooting player C - Player C may shoot back to defend himself.
So either B CAN or CAN'T shoot C. Either he gets a GCC or he doesn't and C can shoot him back.
It's not your phrasing that's wrong, it's your B's and C's by the looks of it.
If you wrote it out such that:
- Note that Player B is not "flashing red" to Player C; So if C shoots B (as someone pointed out previously), there will be a global Criminal Flag. (The repper cannot yet begin to shoot his repped mates wartarget until he aggresses him for assisting.)
Player B starts shooting player C - Player C may shoot back to defend himself.
As expected. As soon as he shoots C, C then sees B as flashy also.
|
Surreptitious
Privateers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 19:47:00 -
[38]
Imagine 10 ships sitting on a gate.
Imagine just one of those 10 ships is a valid Gal EA soldier.
Imagine not one of my 9 buddies assists the Gal EA soldier so none are flagged.
Imagine a Cal EA soldier comes along and sees my Gal EA buddy there. The Cal EA guy sees just one hostile ship so they decide to fire on him and the instant they do we all start remote repping my Gal EA buddy. Because we assisted my Gal EA buddy we can now fire on the Cal EA guy.
In 1 second he went from 1 enemy to 10 enemies and can now be insta baked.
Wil the above tactic work? If so I must get to work exploiting this ASAP.
Syrup
PS If the above tactic does work the current system sucks and is incredibly short sighted. Piracy just moved to high-sec in a very legit way it seems.
|
Ki Tarra
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 19:49:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Ki Tarra on 11/06/2008 19:56:58
Originally by: CCP Casqade
Originally by: Ki Tarra No. Anyone who attacks the bait ship can also attack anyone who is rep'ing the bait ship.
It is the remote rep'ers that cannot attack until they are individually attacked.
This is correct.
If this summary is correct, then you need to correct your original example.
The line "if he shoots C, there will be a global Criminal Flag" would need to read "if he [Player C] shoots B, there will be a global Criminal Flag" for the above to be correct. Originally by: CCP Casqade
Originally by: MailDeadDrop
Originally by: CCP Casqade
But when: Player B shoots player A -> Player C will now be flagged to Player B and aggression is allowed. - This is because now player C is actively helping A survive the attack! - Note that Player B is not flagged to Player C; So if he shoots C, there will be a global Criminal Flag.
Almost completely correct (and very clear). But I think there is a problem where I underlined. The antecedent to that "he" is "Player C". He cannot shoot himself. I think you meant to write "he (C) shoots B".
MDD
No, He is B. But I can see where it gets confusing. "Note that Player B is not flagged to Player C" as in "Player C does not see Player B as "flashing red"".
Player B shoots player A -> Player C will now be flagged to Player B and aggression is allowed. - This is because now player C is actively helping A survive the attack! - Note that Player B is not flagged to Player C;
Therefore: - If Player B shoots Player C, Player B will not have global Criminal Flag. - If Player C shoots Player B, Player C will have global Criminal Flag.
Your example says "if he [Player B] shoots [Player] C, there will be a global Criminal Flag," when obviously that would prevent the attacker [Player B] from also attacking the rep'er [Player C], giving the situation where a bait ship can be setup in high sec where those repairing the bait ship retain CONCORD protection.
This is the same flaw that CCP Navigator had in his example.
|
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 22:02:00 -
[40]
Originally by: CCP Casqade But when: Player B shoots player A -> Player C will now be flagged to Player B and aggression is allowed. - This is because now player C is actively helping A survive the attack! - Note that Player B is not flagged to Player C; So if he shoots C, there will be a global Criminal Flag.
Originally by: MailDeadDrop I think there is a problem where I underlined. The antecedent to that "he" is "Player C". He cannot shoot himself. I think you meant to write "he (C) shoots B".
Originally by: CCP Casqade No, He is B. But I can see where it gets confusing. "Note that Player B is not flagged to Player C" as in "Player C does not see Player B as "flashing red"".
So to elaborate on your writing:
Quote: Combatant B shoots combatant A -> Logistics C will now be flagged (i.e. appear flashy red) to combatant B and aggression is allowed (i.e. B can shoot C). - This is because now logistics C is actively helping combatant A survive the attack (from combatant B)! - Note that combatant B is not flagged to logistics C (i.e. C does not see B as flashy red); so if he (combatant B) shoots logistics C, combatant B will receive a global criminal flag (and suffer CONCORD sanction if this happens in highsec).
Eh? If it is actually implemented the way you wrote then I suggest that it is seriously broken, as it makes no sense for combatant B to receive CONCORD sanction for firing on logistics C when logistics C is flagged to combatant B. I think it more likely that you mis-wrote (as I earlier suggested), and in fact the last line should read:
Quote: Note that combatant B is not flagged to logistics C (i.e. C does not see B as flashy red); so if he (logistics C) shoots combatant B, logistics C will receive a global criminal flag (and suffer CONCORD sanction if this happens in highsec).
This makes sense: combatant B has done nothing hostile towards logistics C, therefore logistics C has no basis for attacking combatant B.
Originally by: Surreptitious Imagine 10 ships sitting on a gate. Imagine just one of those 10 ships is a valid Gal EA soldier. Imagine not one of my 9 buddies assists the Gal EA soldier so none are flagged. Imagine a Cal EA soldier comes along and sees my Gal EA buddy there. The Cal EA guy sees just one hostile ship so they decide to fire on him and the instant they do we all start remote repping my Gal EA buddy. Because we assisted my Gal EA buddy we can now fire on the Cal EA guy. In 1 second he went from 1 enemy to 10 enemies and can now be insta baked. Wil the above tactic work? If so I must get to work exploiting this ASAP.
Surreptitious, what I underlined is what I believe is not true. Because the 9 are repping the Gallente militia member, the Caldari militia member's overview will now have 10 red flashies. But unless/until the Caldari fires upon one of the 9 remote repper ships, they cannot fire on the Caldari without receiving a global criminal flag. Even then, only the ships that the Caldari fires upon will be permitted to engage. So for example, assume the Caldari is very powerful. He can kill the Gallente, then engage *one* of the 9 reppers and kill it, then engage *another* of the remaining 8 reppers, and so on.
MDD
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |