Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
|
GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
479
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 18:04:00 -
[211] - Quote
Yes, that is still correct. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|
Paul Clancy
Korpu no Byakko Tower of Dark Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 18:07:00 -
[212] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Yes, that is still correct.
Please while we're at it, answer two more (final) questions of my edited post? Logintraps and container spam? |
Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
277
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 18:24:00 -
[213] - Quote
Henry Haphorn wrote:Regardless, Concord can still be lured away using the tried, tested, and effective method known to many as shown below.
1. Orca Alt warps to safespot and dumps fully-fitted gank ships into space. 2. -10 ganker hops into one of the ships and warps out to bookmarked target. 3. -10 ganker kills target and loses his ship to Concord. 4. -10 ganker warps back. 5. Repeat from step 2.
As soon as you board a ship with a GCC, Concord will move away from the belt to chase you in your safespot. When they see that you left the safespot they will warp again and chase you down.
But I have a very important question to the GM:
Based on the wording of the community bulletin, does this mean that it's perfectly ok to do the steps I mentioned above because the GCC was acquired in that once specific grid on the belt? Either way, Concord will chase the gank as soon as a ship is boarded in space.
EDIT:
Another question, does boarding a ship with an outlaw status incur only the attention of the Faction Navy or does that include Concord? ...before ganking a target.
I'm still waiting for my answer. After all, I'm risking one of my alts' sec status just to become an outlaw. Welcome to Eve Online. Don't expect people to be nice to you. |
Red Frog Rufen
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 18:26:00 -
[214] - Quote
yeah, this game wrap in bubble everything in high sec., because :
- you can't gank a freighter anymore.. oh wait! - you can't kill indus/miners anymore.. oh wait! - you can't wardec a corp anymore.. oh wait they're fixing that!
numbers of pilot online.are back to pre-incarna, my guess it's the game is pretty healthy. |
Memrox
Memrox Corp
28
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 18:33:00 -
[215] - Quote
GM Homonoia, tell Hilmar this, you start removing stuff like this your removing the soul of EVE.
GG and goodbye if you do. |
JD Rocketfeller
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 18:38:00 -
[216] - Quote
Memrox wrote:GM Homonoia, tell Hilmar this, you start removing stuff like this your removing the soul of EVE.
GG and goodbye if you do. Good riddance, no one wants your exploiting behind in the game anyway. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1240
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 18:40:00 -
[217] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:We adjusted the wording slightly to make it less ambiguous. See the full text here: http://community.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=4972&tid=1I also have to restate that we value the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. Also avoiding CONCORD in any way is simply not allowed, attempts to find loopholes in the wording will not fly.
I find it odd that we need to be "reminded" of a new rule, as if we've seen it before. Poor choice of words in my opinion.
I also think this is a bandaid that could have been better solved with a patch to adapt Concord to the tactic rather than a rule banning it. You guys stripped all the wardec rules and continue to allow highsec warfare to be utterly ruined by obvious exploits of game mechanics under the pretense that it was too much to enforce, yet you're okay with adding new rules to prevent this. It's rather disheartening. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Katja Faith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 18:41:00 -
[218] - Quote
Memrox wrote:GM Homonoia, tell Hilmar this, you start removing stuff like this your removing the soul of EVE.
GG and goodbye if you do.
Oooh, another failquitter!! Awesome. :)
Good riddance, don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya! |
Pamela Podpopper
University of Caille Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 18:43:00 -
[219] - Quote
JD Rocketfeller wrote:Memrox wrote:GM Homonoia, tell Hilmar this, you start removing stuff like this your removing the soul of EVE.
GG and goodbye if you do. Good riddance, no one wants your exploiting behind in the game anyway.
especially whiny brown nosing bears like *someone*
|
Subdolus Venator
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 18:50:00 -
[220] - Quote
Well, damn. So much for "Cops in Spaaaaace..!" I was looking forward to some hair-raising hot pursuits, and tales thereof.
Poopies.
|
|
Subdolus Venator
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 18:55:00 -
[221] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:I also think this is a bandaid that could have been better solved with a patch to adapt Concord to the tactic rather than a rule banning it. Hear hear! Simply changing the GCC in hi-sec to 'lasts until the criminal is hunted down and grease-spotted' should've been fine. And it would likely have produced some truly epic hot-pursuits - the kind which get written-up in blogs and industry news. Publicity-generating events, yanno?
I think CCP has missed a bet here.
EVE is EVE - Feaces will eventuate. |
Lady Ayeipsia
Morskoj Industries
58
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 19:15:00 -
[222] - Quote
Subdolus Venator wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:I also think this is a bandaid that could have been better solved with a patch to adapt Concord to the tactic rather than a rule banning it. Hear hear! Simply changing the GCC in hi-sec to 'lasts until the criminal is hunted down and grease-spotted' should've been fine. And it would likely have produced some truly epic hot-pursuits - the kind which get written-up in blogs and industry news. Publicity-generating events, yanno? I think CCP has missed a bet here.
Didn't they say thus would be patched out? Sorry it doesn't make good media entertainment. Still,it's been deemed an exploit, there is a patch coming that will prevent this, and the mean time, if done it can be petitioned.
Also, the idea that you want a rush patch related to concord worries me. Ccp decent at coding and qa testing, but are far from perfect. Any rushed patch may work... But could also cause concord to attack anyone for any act of aggression or worse... Kill your .ini file.
In otherwords, give ccp time to do the patch right so there's less chance of problems. |
Subdolus Venator
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 19:21:00 -
[223] - Quote
Fine. Roll it with Inferno - Which isn't all that far down the road.
As to why is doesn't make good entertainment - that's a failure of marketting imagination. CCP rolls out plenty of breathless sexy adverts - why not make more of 'em based on actual fights? Spam 'em in front of other vids in YouTube, like every other swinging **** does these days. Put some longer ones in theaters in front of the movies. Hell, if there can be WOW adverts on TV, why not EVE, too? A little (suitably sexed-up) live drama ought to sell fairly well. EVE is EVE - Feaces will eventuate. |
Pamela Podpopper
University of Caille Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 19:23:00 -
[224] - Quote
Subdolus Venator wrote:Fine. Roll it with Inferno - Which isn't all that far down the road.
As to why is doesn't make good entertainment - that's a failure of marketting imagination. CCP rolls out plenty of breathless sexy adverts - why not make more of 'em based on actual fights? Spam 'em in front of other vids in YouTube, like every other swinging **** does these days. Put some longer ones in theaters in front of the movies. Hell, if there can be WOW adverts on TV, why not EVE, too? A little (suitably sexed-up) live drama ought to sell fairly well.
Eve Online would make a lame trailer... hey lookit that rifter orbit whee look at the afterburner, hey awesome HUD look at the mindless zombie bears melt veldspar rocks [end of trailer]
...the essence of excitment folks
|
Tarendar
Sparkle Pony Inc Twilight Military Industrial Complex Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 19:27:00 -
[225] - Quote
Speaking as a dedicated carebear, one that makes regular runs from Jita to Rens in a hauler... this ruling makes me haz a sad. I approve of having to worry about hauling a few hundred million isk worth of crap halfway across the empire. I like the idea that escorting your hauler with the hundreds of millions of isk is maybe a wise idea. And if somebody comes up with a way to make freighters be not completely invulnerable.. awesome. If they can't afford to lose them, they shouldn't be flying them.
|
Hayaishi
Aperture Harmonics K162
67
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 19:31:00 -
[226] - Quote
The people here are so mad. But really, you had your chance, you had a nice new toy, but now it's time to let it all go, and go back to killing multi-billion ISK freighters the ordinary way. Which, I believe, costs a tiny fraction of the profit made. |
Subdolus Venator
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 19:40:00 -
[227] - Quote
Pamela Podpopper wrote:Subdolus Venator wrote:Fine. Roll it with Inferno - Which isn't all that far down the road.
As to why is doesn't make good entertainment - that's a failure of marketting imagination. CCP rolls out plenty of breathless sexy adverts - why not make more of 'em based on actual fights? Spam 'em in front of other vids in YouTube, like every other swinging **** does these days. Put some longer ones in theaters in front of the movies. Hell, if there can be WOW adverts on TV, why not EVE, too? A little (suitably sexed-up) live drama ought to sell fairly well. Eve Online would make a lame trailer... hey lookit that rifter orbit whee look at the afterburner, hey awesome HUD look at the mindless zombie bears melt veldspar rocks [end of trailer] ...the essence of excitment folks :: shakes head :: Serious failure of marketing imagination.
Take something like this: http://youtu.be/ejX0Rym0NZw
And stage it around actual fights. Get players' permission to use their likeness and names - make the connection between the game and the player explicit. They've half-way done it a couple times, only it requires in-game knowledge to make the connections. Make the connection obvious to the outsiders.
Besides - Who doesn't love a good hot-pursuit vid? EVE is EVE - Feaces will eventuate. |
lSoSol
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 19:43:00 -
[228] - Quote
Tarendar wrote:Speaking as a dedicated carebear, one that makes regular runs from Jita to Rens in a hauler... this ruling makes me haz a sad. I approve of having to worry about hauling a few hundred million isk worth of crap halfway across the empire. I like the idea that escorting your hauler with the hundreds of millions of isk is maybe a wise idea. And if somebody comes up with a way to make freighters be not completely invulnerable.. awesome. If they can't afford to lose them, they shouldn't be flying them.
I too agree there needs to be some risk. I accept I may get ganked every time I undock. I accept if I haul >100m in a T1 industrial I'm an idiot.
However, it is a question of balance.
Freighters are not invulnerable. If you want to gank my 1bil freighter, fleet up a bil worth of ships. |
Jonatan Reed
Momentary Lapse of Reason. STR8NGE BREW
62
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 20:07:00 -
[229] - Quote
lSoSol wrote:Tarendar wrote:Speaking as a dedicated carebear, one that makes regular runs from Jita to Rens in a hauler... this ruling makes me haz a sad. I approve of having to worry about hauling a few hundred million isk worth of crap halfway across the empire. I like the idea that escorting your hauler with the hundreds of millions of isk is maybe a wise idea. And if somebody comes up with a way to make freighters be not completely invulnerable.. awesome. If they can't afford to lose them, they shouldn't be flying them.
I too agree there needs to be some risk. I accept I may get ganked every time I undock. I accept if I haul >100m in a T1 industrial I'm an idiot. However, it is a question of balance. Freighters are not invulnerable. If you want to gank my 1bil freighter, fleet up a bil worth of ships.
nah, I'll stick to using 7 tornados. |
Ubiquitous Forum Alt
35
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 20:10:00 -
[230] - Quote
Tarsas Phage wrote:54a wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:CCP DEV #1 - "How do we encourage more PVP in nulsec and losec?" CCP DEV #2 - "By removing it from hisec" CCP DEV #1 - "Brilliant!" If shooting an afk freighter with a boomerang tornado is your idea of PVP that is pretty sad tbh.... Get off the worn out "what is real pvp" high horse. I swear, it's the equivalent of of being a dull-brained knuckledragger and spouting "no u!" when trying to formulate a comeback to something said. It does not matter where you are in Eve - your ship is vulnerable when in space. PERIOD. Boomeranging a freighter certainly takes far more piloting skill and a perfect sense of timing than autopiloting your spacecows day in and day out. I swear, Jin Fel is a bot if you ask me.
Look at the corp.
Look at the ship type he mentioned.
Maybe he has a vested interest in this matter?
But he sure as **** isn't an actual PvPer....
Way to fall into his trap and overlook the true depths of his bias though. I don't log in - I don't need to. My very existence griefs people. They see my name, and they instinctively fill with rage and indignation. Deny it all you want - but if you didn't care, you wouldn't have posted, would you? |
|
Hirokinai
Lowsec Static
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 20:15:00 -
[231] - Quote
Well this was all fun and enlightening. If you expected this to last, that was kind of silly. I love mah pvp and blowing up hulks and freighters as much as the next guy, but this was so batently imbalanced it was heatscratching.
Yes, the inventor came up with an ingenious way of killing things with relatively low risk/reward margins. Yes it was fun for a few days. However the imbalance it creates is blatently obvious. CCP gave freighters a shitton of hp for a reason, and that was to make them extremely difficult to kill in highsec, and i'm PRETTY sure being able to solo a freighter outside of wardecs etc. is not something that is "working as intended".
It definitely would affect the overall health of the game, and start making freighters obsolete. You can only escort so many freighters, and you definitely cannot escort freighter alts in NPC corps. Alot of people are very short-sighted. They dont see beyond the "halp, i wants to be space outlaw pewpew all things make monay", but dont realize that if you took away a huge chunk of freighter industry, their pew pew is going to start being impossible to fund. CCP definitely cares more about the overall health of the game, while trying to please as many as they can, but they can't hit ALL the marks, especially if one of those marks creates an unintended imbalance.
I applaud the inventor of the tornado boomerang and admire his genious. But despite this, the argument that "this takes skill" is rather silly in light of the fact that it still works around one of the rules CCP intended. Its like saying con-artists/white-collar criminals/etc. should be allowed because they're amazingly smart and what they do takes a whole lot of skill.
In the end, big props to the creator of this little workaround, very good work on your solo/duo freighter kills. However, CCP made the obvious and probably the correct choice in this matter. They can't please everyone, especially if doing so would destroy the overall health of their game.
In the meantime, enjoy the game, and take heart at the fact that CCP lS trying. They didn't have to abandon a project (incarna) they'd been devoted to for years, issue formal apologies, and do a complete 360 turnaround and focus on making this game better because their players were screaming at them to do so. Yeah they ****** up, but they owned up to their mistakes and are at the very least trying.
Thank you for reading my wall of text. Fly safe! |
Tikera Tissant
24
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 20:23:00 -
[232] - Quote
Katarina Reid wrote: That is bs tbh. As long as in die in the end there is no exploit.
1. Fit a nano tornado ship. 2. Using alt to bump a freighter. 3. Spending 2-3 minutes boomeranging the freighter, spend 15 minutes boomeranging around to avoid concord. 4. Ship does not die. 5. Repeat until board.
So... exploit.
On the other hand:
1. Fit tornado ship. 2. Using alt to bump a freighter. 3. Shoot freighter until tornado dies. 4. Jump to alt orca, get another tornado. 5. Jump to victim 6. Repeat 3 to 5 until victim is dead. 5. Repeat until board.
That is not an exploit and always has been part of the game and fine by everyone.
The basic idea I guess is that ganking a freighter in high sec (not pvp from wardec, but plain ganking), should also cost enough to not make it possible with a freaking cataclyst if you spend enough time to shoot and warp... Hell, you can do it with a freakin ibis |
Istyn
Tactical Knightmare
97
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 20:36:00 -
[233] - Quote
You can no longer board a ship while you have a GCC timer so the second scenario is impossible. |
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
508
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 20:39:00 -
[234] - Quote
To every Butthurt crying about it, do you know why CONCORD exists for a reason?
Its to limit asshat behavior. All destruction all the time just cannot last.
You belive your way is the right way, so what happens if all of EVE is like nullsec with highrisk (like I don't know, 5k active subs of yeasteryears ? ). Player A loses his expensive ship, you jerk off to the killmail, Player A finally gets enough isk for another ship which is just crap fit, undocks...and BOOM! Thats right. You win everytime, eventually. Eventually, Player A tires of losing everything, he quits cause his time just isn't worth it anymore and CCP loses a subscription while you get blue ball syndrom from your enjoyment.
Recap:
1. EVE has high risk 2. You blow up a guy, this hasn't changed. 3. Eventually human behavior kicks in, one player tires of it because he cannot advance anywhere himself while losing it all the time. 4. ??? 5. PROFIT-LESS!!! CCP loses a customer.
Highsec hasn't changed much, you can still shoot people on site. You just get more repercussions and everytime you find loopholes, CCP slaps it down, but it still does not change....either you or the other guy undock, both can still die.
FFS, get over yourself already. You want highrisk, GTFO of highsec. You cannot spout high risk while blowing up the other guy, YOU need risk to yourself because even the wolf preying on sheep has to deal with the hunter (<-- AKA phrase is complete circle, EVERYONE IS AT RISK not just your sheep). High risk isn't Mission Bear dying to Low Risk Mr. No Talent Flipping Cans hoping the Active Tank fires back, because thats just stupid for him against Passive Buffer faster firing short range guns...EVERYTIME you will win! No risk to yourself, because you know the odds. Derp, who didn't know that but the Darwin tards firing back.
And evading CONCORD does not mean increasing the time spent avoiding them by warping around (cause, in warp...THEY CAN'T SHOOT YOU AND HAVE TRAVEL TIME TO RESPOND which means EXPLOIT!), you get 1 action and they respond to pop you in the nose. FFS, who else didn't think that was an idiot and just ripe for dealing with the issue. |
Tikera Tissant
24
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 20:53:00 -
[235] - Quote
Istyn wrote:You can no longer board a ship while you have a GCC timer so the second scenario is impossible.
Oh yeah I forgot about that. Oh noes
But tbh people have to agree that the single tornado ganking an NPC corped 180K+ ehp ship, i a bit ridiculous, even if you can do it. Same as using war dec alliance to avoid wars etc. |
Red Frog Rufen
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 21:23:00 -
[236] - Quote
Katarina Reid wrote: That is bs tbh. As long as in die in the end there is no exploit. Concords job is to kill u in the end if u warp and kill others its ok as long as u die in the end. if u want to change concords job thats up to up. Dont pretend it was its job all along and we are doing something out of the rules. Can we target and kill other targets on same grid with no warping? Is concords job now to makesure u stay in the same place and only kill 1 target per gank. Im sure i heard concords job was to kill your ship if u gank to provide consequences not to makesure u die on grid or before u kill someone else.
btw, the exploit was also using another ship, without consequence, to bump the freighter.
|
Psychotic Monk
The Skunkworks
199
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 21:28:00 -
[237] - Quote
Red Frog Rufen wrote:
btw, the exploit was also using another ship, without consequence, to bump the freighter.
Nerf bumping! |
Garven Dreis
Count With Teddy Mercenaries Stay Calm Don't Panic
22
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 21:43:00 -
[238] - Quote
This is truly a sad day for piracy.
EDIT:
Aqriue wrote:To every Butthurt crying about it, do you know why CONCORD exists for a reason? Its to limit asshat behavior. All destruction all the time just cannot last. You belive your way is the right way, so what happens if all of EVE is like nullsec with highrisk (like I don't know, 5k active subs of yeasteryears ? ). Player A loses his expensive ship, you jerk off to the killmail, Player A finally gets enough isk for another ship which is just crap fit, undocks...and BOOM! Thats right. You win everytime, eventually. Eventually, Player A tires of losing everything, he quits cause his time just isn't worth it anymore and CCP loses a subscription while you get blue ball syndrom from your enjoyment. Recap: 1. EVE has high risk 2. You blow up a guy, this hasn't changed. 3. Eventually human behavior kicks in, one player tires of it because he cannot advance anywhere himself while losing it all the time. 4. ??? 5. PROFIT-LESS!!! CCP loses a customer. Highsec hasn't changed much, you can still shoot people on site. You just get more repercussions and everytime you find loopholes, CCP slaps it down, but it still does not change....either you or the other guy undock, both can still die. FFS, get over yourself already. You want highrisk, GTFO of highsec. You cannot spout high risk while blowing up the other guy, YOU need risk to yourself because even the wolf preying on sheep has to deal with the hunter (<-- AKA phrase is complete circle, EVERYONE IS AT RISK not just your sheep). High risk isn't Mission Bear dying to Low Risk Mr. No Talent Flipping Cans hoping the Active Tank fires back, because thats just stupid for him against Passive Buffer faster firing short range guns...EVERYTIME you will win! No risk to yourself, because you know the odds. Derp, who didn't know that but the Darwin tards firing back. And evading CONCORD does not mean increasing the time spent avoiding them by warping around (cause, in warp...THEY CAN'T SHOOT YOU AND HAVE TRAVEL TIME TO RESPOND which means EXPLOIT!), you get 1 action and they respond to pop you in the nose. FFS, who else didn't think that was an idiot and just ripe for dealing with the issue.
So many tears, please demonstrate on this model where the Tornado touched you. In Manticore we Trust |
Psychotic Monk
The Skunkworks
199
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 21:48:00 -
[239] - Quote
It's not actually the boomerang nerf that saddens me. We knew that was coming and once we saw what it could do to a freighter it was pretty clear that there were applications to it that shouldn't be allowed.
What saddens me is the spirit of the law vs. letter of the law thing. What that says to me is that if a GM (who I'm told aren't allowed to grief) decides he doesn't like the cut of your jib, any attempt at cleverness on your part is bannable. Emergent gameplay be damned. |
Pisov viet
Kaesong Kosmonauts Test Friends Please Ignore
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 22:11:00 -
[240] - Quote
I'm a bit unsure, is it still legit to click on buttons while in highsec? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |