| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Arkady Sadik
Gradient
Electus Matari
   |
Posted - 2008.07.27 15:49:00 -
[1]
Ok, so I was watching a member of the Amarr militia capturing a Matari complex (unrestricted). The Minmatar NPC ships sat around him and didn't do anything. Someone (not in the Minmatar militia) came in, tried to stop him from capturing, and got shot down by the Minmatar NPCs. At some point, the complex was taken, and the guy left the plex happily.
A quick check revealed that he had a Republic standing of 5.77. Enough not to have the NPCs shoot him.
Ok, I thought, a clear bug - it's great that non-FW people are not shot by the NPCs, but there's a bug in the implementation, it should check for hostile militia first, and in that case, shoot in any case. So I filed a bug report about it (ID 60498), and got the following reply:
 Quote:
// Thank you for your report. This is by design. Enemy NPCs will trust you as long as you maintain a certain level of standings with them. This trust will not last forever, if you abuse it though.
// BH Osmotic
So. Uh. Seriously?
"Hi guys, I'm at war with you, and I'm now destabilizing this system and if you don't stop me, my friends in the Amarr navy will kick you out or enslave you. But I did some missions for you a while ago, don't shoot me, k?"
"Ok."
Could someone please explain to me what the reasoning for this design was, if that's the intended behavior?
|
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Minmatar
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 17:18:00 -
[2]
You must have gotten a standard reply, that is totally borked. Of course it should check hostile militia first, and shoot regardless of standings...
--
Help us defend the Republic; join Gradient today. |
Arkady Sadik
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 13:01:00 -
[3]
Quote:
// Thank you for your update. As already stated, this is by design. If you have an issue with the design, the best place to direct that would be the forums.
So, here I am.
I have an issue with this design.
Could someone please elaborate to me what this is about?
If the thinking is that gaining ranks will give faction standing, and thus reduce standing with the opposite faction - well, fun, the player then can just fail a few missions for the 24th to reduce his standings below the dangerous threshold again.
If the thinking is that the NPCs aren't meant to stop hostiles from taking a plex - why have them there at all? You can distract them with a single frigate, so two frigs can easily take a major plex alone. Now you can just use a special FW alt to take plexes without any interference from the NPCs at all. Why not just remove them?
|
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 13:54:00 -
[4]
The main reason for adding NPCs to the capture sites was to give people something to do while they captured hostile sites, if no players turn up to defend it. They also serve a secondary function as aids to defending players, to swing things a little in their favor. The capture sites are not PvE objectives and the NPCs are not supposed or required to defend the sites all by themselves.
It should also be noted that in general naval ships are issued extremely strict Rules of Engagement by their commanders when it comes to capsuleers, and it's acknowledged that these will result in situations where a clearly trusted capsuleer is working against the navy's interests and as a result of RoE naval forces in the area are not empowered to intervene. Frankly, I'd imagine most naval officers are fine with this as engaging capsuleer forces generally isn't a good career move, in the sense that dead men rarely get promoted.
|
|
Arkady Sadik
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 14:13:00 -
[5]
Heh.
Thanks for the IC explanation. That actually helps the most. :-)
|
Maverick Ice
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 17:21:00 -
[6]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
The main reason for adding NPCs to the capture sites was to give people something to do while they captured hostile sites, if no players turn up to defend it. They also serve a secondary function as aids to defending players, to swing things a little in their favor. The capture sites are not PvE objectives and the NPCs are not supposed or required to defend the sites all by themselves.
It should also be noted that in general naval ships are issued extremely strict Rules of Engagement by their commanders when it comes to capsuleers, and it's acknowledged that these will result in situations where a clearly trusted capsuleer is working against the navy's interests and as a result of RoE naval forces in the area are not empowered to intervene. Frankly, I'd imagine most naval officers are fine with this as engaging capsuleer forces generally isn't a good career move, in the sense that dead men rarely get promoted.
Dumbest thing I think I have heard in a long time.
So, it's really like this...
Crewman: "Captain, we have a ship approaching our position."
Captain: "Wait, he did nice things for us before we were at war with him, let him be"
Crewman: "Sir, he is attemtping to take control of this system from us."
Captain: "Don't make me tell you twice, he's a really nice guy, damn it."
Crewman: "Yes sir!. Um, Captain, we have another ship approaching our position."
Captain: "Open fire on that new ship"
Crewman: "Sir, he is in our militia!"
Zzzzzaaaaappppp!
Captain: "Anyone else want to question my authority?", puts away blaster, "Blow that new ship off the grid!"
|
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Minmatar
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 17:24:00 -
[7]
For the record that no one is likely to ever read again, I still think it's bizarre, IC and OOC.
But thanks for the quick explanation, anyway. At the very least it gives me one more reason to call the Rep Fleet nasty names. 
--
Help us defend the Republic; join Gradient today. |
Lilly Gilbrath
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 18:54:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Lilly Gilbrath on 28/07/2008 18:54:15
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
The main reason for adding NPCs to the capture sites was to give people something to do while they captured hostile sites, if no players turn up to defend it. They also serve a secondary function as aids to defending players, to swing things a little in their favor. The capture sites are not PvE objectives and the NPCs are not supposed or required to defend the sites all by themselves.
It should also be noted that in general naval ships are issued extremely strict Rules of Engagement by their commanders when it comes to capsuleers, and it's acknowledged that these will result in situations where a clearly trusted capsuleer is working against the navy's interests and as a result of RoE naval forces in the area are not empowered to intervene. Frankly, I'd imagine most naval officers are fine with this as engaging capsuleer forces generally isn't a good career move, in the sense that dead men rarely get promoted.
Translation:
Yea, we screwed that up a little, but we don't really feel like fixing it now, so live with it.
|
Jufi Wekior
Arachnid Logistics
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 06:55:00 -
[9]
ok, so all a capsuleer has to do is work up standings for opposing factions to have the npc's leave him alone, despite any other official proclamations from the capsuleer, like a pretty clear "I kiel yoo" blinky red?
(nice IC explanation but it still stinks  )
|
Stormwind Bloodfeather
Minmatar
Sogdian Traders Inc
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 13:30:00 -
[10]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
The main reason for adding NPCs to the capture sites was to give people something to do while they captured hostile sites, if no players turn up to defend it. They also serve a secondary function as aids to defending players, to swing things a little in their favor. The capture sites are not PvE objectives and the NPCs are not supposed or required to defend the sites all by themselves.
It should also be noted that in general naval ships are issued extremely strict Rules of Engagement by their commanders when it comes to capsuleers, and it's acknowledged that these will result in situations where a clearly trusted capsuleer is working against the navy's interests and as a result of RoE naval forces in the area are not empowered to intervene. Frankly, I'd imagine most naval officers are fine with this as engaging capsuleer forces generally isn't a good career move, in the sense that dead men rarely get promoted.
That is the singularly most idiotic reply for a failed game mechanic I have ever seen, and I thought I had seem some doozies from Sony regarding Everquest.
Ok so effectively you have just stated.. "Heres a sweet exploit!"
Alright guys, before you join the militia go run cosmos missions for the enemy and gain lotsa standing and we will be able to wtf-pwn all THEIR militia because THEIR NAVY won't touch us if we have good standing with THEIR faction.
Dude are you guys REALLY that stupid? You can't see how this opens up a HUGE CAN OF FAIL for FW game mechanics?
Storm
In EVE, your only friend is your ship and it's weapons. All others are the enemy! |
|
|
Neth'Rae
Gallente
Decorum Inc
Tygris Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 13:34:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Stormwind Bloodfeather
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
The main reason for adding NPCs to the capture sites was to give people something to do while they captured hostile sites, if no players turn up to defend it. They also serve a secondary function as aids to defending players, to swing things a little in their favor. The capture sites are not PvE objectives and the NPCs are not supposed or required to defend the sites all by themselves.
It should also be noted that in general naval ships are issued extremely strict Rules of Engagement by their commanders when it comes to capsuleers, and it's acknowledged that these will result in situations where a clearly trusted capsuleer is working against the navy's interests and as a result of RoE naval forces in the area are not empowered to intervene. Frankly, I'd imagine most naval officers are fine with this as engaging capsuleer forces generally isn't a good career move, in the sense that dead men rarely get promoted.
That is the singularly most idiotic reply for a failed game mechanic I have ever seen, and I thought I had seem some doozies from Sony regarding Everquest.
Ok so effectively you have just stated.. "Heres a sweet exploit!"
Alright guys, before you join the militia go run cosmos missions for the enemy and gain lotsa standing and we will be able to wtf-pwn all THEIR militia because THEIR NAVY won't touch us if we have good standing with THEIR faction.
Dude are you guys REALLY that stupid? You can't see how this opens up a HUGE CAN OF FAIL for FW game mechanics?
Storm
Yeah because npc ships matter so much..
Request signatures at EVE-GFX |
Stormwind Bloodfeather
Minmatar
Sogdian Traders Inc
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 13:44:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Neth'Rae
Yeah because npc ships matter so much..
No they don't matter that much because everyone has figured ways to neutralize them, like this as an example. But let me state something...
reality check incoming....
The United States goes to War with Russia, but a few of our Large cargo Ships have done hauling for the Russians, and the captains are well liked by the Russian Navy. Russia is about as likely to allow a ship flying US colors into it's waters without attacking and sinking it immediatley, as we would be if the reverse was true. It's WAR. In War, you have no friends from the opposing nation, they are your enemy, period. Especially if their in your territory trying to capture YOUR stuff.
end reality check.
Basically, CCP screwed the pooch by allowing someone to Declare war on a faction but still be "buddy buddy" with them. Singularly idiotic.
Storm
In EVE, your only friend is your ship and it's weapons. All others are the enemy! |
Jaketh Ivanes
Amarr
Imperial Servants
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 14:04:00 -
[13]
Yes, it doesn't really make sense that a capsuleer can be ignored by it's opposing faction.
Easy solution would be to reset standing with the opposing militia when you join. So if I have a standing og 10 to Gallente and join the 24th, my standing will be set to 0 for Gallente. So I can still regret but have to put in a lot of work to get it up again or I can stick by my choise and make the Gallente really mad at me.
|
Neth'Rae
Gallente
Decorum Inc
Tygris Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 14:09:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Stormwind Bloodfeather
Originally by: Neth'Rae
Yeah because npc ships matter so much..
No they don't matter that much because everyone has figured ways to neutralize them, like this as an example. But let me state something...
reality check incoming....
The United States goes to War with Russia, but a few of our Large cargo Ships have done hauling for the Russians, and the captains are well liked by the Russian Navy. Russia is about as likely to allow a ship flying US colors into it's waters without attacking and sinking it immediatley, as we would be if the reverse was true. It's WAR. In War, you have no friends from the opposing nation, they are your enemy, period. Especially if their in your territory trying to capture YOUR stuff.
end reality check.
Basically, CCP screwed the pooch by allowing someone to Declare war on a faction but still be "buddy buddy" with them. Singularly idiotic.
Storm
If people cba to get high standings from a faction and then joining the oposite militia sure why not, it will take them forever to get the standings and then just a couple of captures to lose it..
Alot of wasted time for a minimal advantage..
Request signatures at EVE-GFX |
Vengal Seyhan
Sten Industries
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 14:29:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Stormwind Bloodfeather
Ok so effectively you have just stated.. "Heres a sweet exploit!"
Alright guys, before you join the militia go run cosmos missions for the enemy and gain lotsa standing and we will be able to wtf-pwn all THEIR militia because THEIR NAVY won't touch us if we have good standing with THEIR faction.
Dude are you guys REALLY that stupid? You can't see how this opens up a HUGE CAN OF FAIL for FW game mechanics?
Storm
I wonder if it's just Navy Rats in complexes, or if it extends to Navy Rats guarding gates in highsec... if it's universal, now that opens up a hell of a lot of potential of running rampant amongst the poorly prepared noobs in highsec.
At least you could do it once (per character)... and once is all you need for lolz and popcorn, really.
And hey, it's not as if it's hard to get standings up - another account grinding L4 missions and sharing rewards does it relatively quickly.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 16:20:00 -
[16]
no what he was trying to say was eve is about PvP not PvE and in no way were those NPCs at the complex meant to help defend the site so deal with it.
Originally by: Dapanman1
Terrible idea, you're an idiot
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 16:50:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Jufi Wekior
ok, so all a capsuleer has to do is work up standings for opposing factions to have the npc's leave him alone, despite any other official proclamations from the capsuleer, like a pretty clear "I kiel yoo" blinky red?
(nice IC explanation but it still stinks )
Right, so if 1 have 5+ standing with the gallente faction, join the Caldari militia, never do a mission or a complex for the militia but instead hunt Gallente militia ships in high sec the Gallente navy will leave me alone?
Or it work only in the complex?
|
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 17:06:00 -
[18]
The question was about capture sites and the answer was about capture sites. The "friend or foe" mechanics being discussed here are restricted in scope to NPCs created in deadspace areas only and have no bearing whatsoever on other NPCs, including factional Police, Customs or Navy NPCs found elsewhere in solar systems.
|
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 18:15:00 -
[19]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
The question was about capture sites and the answer was about capture sites. The "friend or foe" mechanics being discussed here are restricted in scope to NPCs created in deadspace areas only and have no bearing whatsoever on other NPCs, including factional Police, Customs or Navy NPCs found elsewhere in solar systems.
Good, TY for the clarification.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |