| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mara Devortex
   |
Posted - 2008.09.26 12:39:00 -
[1]
Having played Eve now on various accounts since 2005 i have had plenty of experience in both Empire and Null sec conflict and it occurs to me that there has been a very important and distinct difference betweeen the two. In Null sec Alliances can live up to there full potential and in High sec they cannot.To me this represents a huge imbalance in the game.In Null sec due to the abscence of concorde and gate sentries Different corps in Alliances are free to use modules on eachother that in Empire will either get you Concorded or leave you as a target for sentries..this leaves alliances open to various griefing corps in high sec that mercilessly exploit this imbalance.i feel it is high time that this be addressed in some way. Let Alliances in high sec have the same opportunity as there null sec brothers to live up to there potential.Remote repping for the win!! Up with remote sensor booosters!! Down with friendly aggro.
|
Blind Molechild
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 13:44:00 -
[2]
not supported. there are risks you take when you enter null sec, hence more rewarding. fine the way it is.
|
Farrqua
Minmatar
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 17:36:00 -
[3]
Mara, So are you saying that like 0.0 the repper/booster or what ever helping out is as targetable. What I mean is if you come in and rep you buddy in high sec are you now targetable?
|
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 18:04:00 -
[4]
No, what she is saying (I think) is that while pilots in a corp can use remote repping modules on each other reasonably safely, it's highly risky for members of an *alliance* to do so if they aren't in the same corp. The reason for this is lag combined with EVE's targeting interface.
Basically it works out like this. I'm in a fleet battle, and I'm shooting my war targets. Fair enough. Now my buddy starts getting aggro, so I target him and put a repper on him. Still no problem. My target dies, and I carefully select the new primary and start firing. No problem, so long as I'm careful not to click on my friend, right? Well, what usually happens next is that a huge lag spike hits just after you activate your weapons. The client delays activating your modules, and the new target is destroyed. Your interface automatically picks a new target and activates your weapons on the new target instead of the old one. Unfortunately, the new target it picked was your buddy.
Who is in your alliance, but not in your corp. Instant CONCORDing.
There is, to my knowledge, no way to prevent this from occuring. It doesn't matter how careful you are, if you have a friendly locked for RR or other aid when you activate weapons, you might end up fireing at the friendy. If the friendly is in your corp, it's ok, because firing on a corp member doesn't provoke CONCORD. It's ok in nullsec, since there is no CONCORD (unless your friend is really touchy about such things). But in high sec, it's instant and unavoidable death. And as I've stressed, there's no way to prevent it other than never using a logistics module.
It gets worse, by the way. Imagine, if you will, that you are in an RR circle, or something similar, when the above occurs. You get CONCORDed. Then the guy who's repping you gets CONCORDed for aiding a "criminal". Then the guy aiding him, and so on.
The solution is not necessarily to change the CONCORD rules, by the way. What needs to happen, in my opinion, is for the weapon activation to be linked to a specific target at the client the instant the button is clicked. That way, if lag hits, you get annoyed by the "you can't target that guy because he doesn't exist/is exploding" rather than losing your ship because of a poorly designed interface.
/supported
--
Becq Starforged
Ushra'Khan
The Flame of Freedom Burns On! |
Farrqua
Minmatar
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 19:47:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Farrqua on 26/09/2008 19:46:48
Becq, I understand what you are saying. I guess what Mara wrote threw me a bit and I was trying to grasp the point she was trying to make.
But she mentioned watching them die, so I assumed there were no war conditions and her alliance mate was involved in a suicide gank or can flipping incident where her mate might be in the same alliance but Mara is not involved in the aggression between the two parties.
I would like to see if there could be a little more clearer proposal before I vote one way or another. Even you said "I think".
|
Pithecanthropus
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 20:03:00 -
[6]
There needs to be a way people can lock targets separately... such as a "friendly" lock, and a "hostile" lock. Maybe have two icons to lock with, and alter some keyboard commands... ctrl+click = hostile lock... shift+ctrl+click = friendly lock.
Each lock will only accept certain mods activated on it.
---------------------------------
Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man. |
Farrqua
Minmatar
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 20:44:00 -
[7]
 Originally by: Pithecanthropus
There needs to be a way people can lock targets separately... such as a "friendly" lock, and a "hostile" lock. Maybe have two icons to lock with, and alter some keyboard commands... ctrl+click = hostile lock... shift+ctrl+click = friendly lock.
Each lock will only accept certain mods activated on it.
Why make it complicated? Just make the mods like Energy Transfer, Amour, Shield and Hull Reps and all other passive type stuff act like the ship cargo scanners. simple.
Only thing however if you are in a fight it would truly suck to have some one not even involved to start repping your opponent with out the ability to shoot the space priest.
|
Mara Devortex
|
Posted - 2008.09.27 04:54:00 -
[8]
Ok let me clarify..in the order of your replies..first and foremost this is not an attempt to change 0.0 mechanics..far from..its rather an attempt to introduce certain aspects heretofor unavailable in high sec due to certain limitations..For one currently it is considered an act of aggression for one member corp of an alliance to use certain logistics modules on another member corp of the same alliance..I only propose making this possible in time of war with in the narrow confines of said alliance..so im not talking widespread unregulated use.This would allow high sec alliances to realize there full potential in combat during times of war..hopefully that clarifies my meaning.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.09.27 10:02:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Farrqua
Originally by: Pithecanthropus
There needs to be a way people can lock targets separately... such as a "friendly" lock, and a "hostile" lock. Maybe have two icons to lock with, and alter some keyboard commands... ctrl+click = hostile lock... shift+ctrl+click = friendly lock.
Each lock will only accept certain mods activated on it.
Why make it complicated? Just make the mods like Energy Transfer, Amour, Shield and Hull Reps and all other passive type stuff act like the ship cargo scanners. simple.
Only thing however if you are in a fight it would truly suck to have some one not even involved to start repping your opponent with out the ability to shoot the space priest.
It was that way, but some "genius" used it as griefing tools, boosting rats in missions and complex so that the people doing them could not kill the NPC and would finally succumb to the rats.
As it was a clear exploit, as people could cause the death of a ship without any way to retaliate for the one losing the it CCP changed it.
To correct the problem will require some code change (in the alliance or gang features), probably not a simple change. The idea of the "friendly" lock could be a solution but it will depend on implementation, making remote rep, energy transfers ecc. non aggressive act will simply reintroduce the old exploit.
|
Mara Devortex
|
Posted - 2008.09.27 13:12:00 -
[10]
Well with all the code changes required for FW and all the other BIG DEAL stuff someone please tell me why such activities couldnt be applied to improving empire play..again by making the changes specifi..war time only..as it is in order to fix the game CCP effectively broke it..and btw ive seen more exploitation of the fact alliances cant effectively support themselves in Empire by small griefing corps..than i did of the aforementioned exploit..Disappointed
|
Darwin's Market
|
Posted - 2008.09.27 16:06:00 -
[11]
NOT SUPPORTED
Don't you think like this those empire corps who sepcialzie in empire warfare need an advantage over the nullsec inhabitants? Just like the nullsec inhabitants have station , jump bridge, pos, capital and what not advanatages over these corps?
Its' two different worlds. Big alliances are supposed to be weaker in empire. It's not their turf.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |