EVE Search - Neutrals In Wars

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Neutrals In Wars

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Gabriel Rike Channel 4 News Team	Posted - 2008.10.05 04:15:00 - [1] Edited by: Gabriel Rike on 05/10/2008 04:16:48 Neutrals should not be allowed to interfere in wars. End of story, if you want your neutral alt to be able to rep you without the ability to be poped in advance, too bad. Sounds like a borderline exploit if I ever heard one. How can it be legal for a neutral alt to sit there in a RR BS repping the war target all the while not being able to be attacked till after they have interfered? I cant follow a person around in a log ship and remote rep the rats they are camping as its a griefing tactic as well as an exploit. Concord responds when I do that. So how is it allowed for 1 corp, for example, to leave an alliance, war dec an industrial / mission runner corp (a.k.a. carebears) at a cheaper cost while there whole unoffical alliance remote reps them without being able to be touched till after the fact. Yes they can be attacked once they interfere, however its still griefing. Even if its not on a carebear corp, I cant engage the log ship sitting outside the station that I know is one of their alts/friends till after he has buffed the enemy bs tank by 300dps margin from 70km out and I am double webbed scrammed and jammed. yeah that sounds fair. If they want to make a unblanced war and greif a small corp of carebears fine let them, but let the carebears actually strike the important targets first. For example to add effect. If you saw 4 Falcons arrive in a fight with a group of other shit, would you wait till the falcons engage to attack them? NO. Softer more valuable targets are obviously a priority and there by attacked first, this means the enemy has to cover them and use them wisely. As is they are at no risk till its too late to matter. They are violating a legal sanctioned war by interfering in war efforts and should be concorded like they committed a hostile act to a player they werenÆt at war with. After all thatÆs exactly what they are doing.
Dirk Magnum Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2008.10.05 04:33:00 - [2] As long as neutrals who remote rep get flagged to the war targets of the person being repped, I think assisting people at war is fine. Hell, I'd even support flagging the whole corp of the person who activates the remote rep to the war targets of the guy who gets repped. But remote assistance consequence-free would be seriously lame.
Strill	Posted - 2008.10.05 04:44:00 - [3] Edited by: Strill on 05/10/2008 04:55:22 I agree. It's stupid of CCP to think that logistics ships are any less important than DPS ships. There should be no exceptions made for them, or if there is an exception, its penalties should be very steep at the least. 15 minutes of aggro time and 2? minutes of undockable time is nowhere near enough. Actually, I don't think the 15 minute aggro timer is enough for anything in the game. You should get 15 minutes where you can't dock, and 30 minutes where you're vulnerable to being attacked by the people you aggressed once you get an aggro timer.
Kenaida Tetsuo	Posted - 2008.10.05 04:49:00 - [4] Just wardec the nuetral corp.
Kenaida Tetsuo	Posted - 2008.10.05 04:49:00 - [5] Just another exploit that is part of the game
Strill	Posted - 2008.10.05 04:53:00 - [6] Edited by: Strill on 05/10/2008 04:53:06 Originally by: Kenaida Tetsuo Just wardec the nuetral corp. Did you think that through? Corp A splits from its alliance to get a cheap wardec on Corp B. They have their former alliance members accompany them with logistics ships. Corp B now has the PAY to wardec Corp A's former alliance?! So the end result is that the aggressors not only get a cheap wardec to start, but they force their target to PAY for the wardec THEY WANTED in the first place!
Dirk Magnum Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2008.10.05 04:56:00 - [7] I really don't think that assisting people at war should be viewed as an exploit, as long as there are potentially severe consequences for it.
Strill	Posted - 2008.10.05 04:59:00 - [8] Originally by: Dirk Magnum I really don't think that assisting people at war should be viewed as an exploit, as long as there are potentially severe consequences for it. But the thing is it completely circumvents having to pay CONCORD for a wardec, and not only that, but it lets you instantly jump in and out of the war whenever you want. So it's actually BETTER than a wardec.
Dirk Magnum Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2008.10.05 05:07:00 - [9] It may need some tweaking. For instance, the only beneficial actions you could perform for people at war would be bumping and remote repping, and repping would result in having your whole corp flagged to the people at war with the guy you repped. In turn, you'd only be able to fire on other peoples' war targets if they attacked you first.
Zeba Minmatar Pator Tech School	Posted - 2008.10.05 05:08:00 - [10] Notify: You are attempting to remote repair a player currently at war with xyz corp. If you continue with this action you will immediately be flagged as a valid war target for xyz corp for the next 7 days or until the war dec expires whichever happens first. Continue? Make it so CCP. inappropriate signature. ~WeatherMan
Gabriel Rike Channel 4 News Team	Posted - 2008.10.05 05:12:00 - [11] Edited by: Gabriel Rike on 05/10/2008 05:13:17 Originally by: Gabriel Rike Even if its not on a carebear corp, I cant engage the log ship sitting outside the station that I know is one of their alts/friends till after he has buffed the enemy bs tank by 300dps margin from 70km out and I am double webbed scrammed and jammed. yeah that sounds fair. [/quote Originally by: Strill Originally by: Dirk Magnum I really don't think that assisting people at war should be viewed as an exploit, as long as there are potentially severe consequences for it. But the thing is it completely circumvents having to pay CONCORD for a wardec, and not only that, but it lets you instantly jump in and out of the war whenever you want. So it's actually BETTER than a wardec. How severe is it if he starts the repping and gets flashed once he is perfectly safe and my corp gets wipped because 12 neutrals all started rr then War Targets after we are all pinned down and engaged? we die, he goes to a ss waits 1 minute, dock and laughs. After 15 minutes undocks and can do it again and we have to sit there and look at him knowing what he is about to do once the WT's BS undocks, but we have to sit there and wait. "They are violating a legal sanctioned war by interfering in war efforts and should be concorded like they committed a hostile act to a player they werenÆt at war with. After all thatÆs exactly what they are doing."
Gabriel Rike Channel 4 News Team	Posted - 2008.10.05 05:18:00 - [12] Originally by: Zeba Notify: You are attempting to remote repair a player currently at war with xyz corp. If you continue with this action you will immediately be flagged as a valid war target for xyz corp for the next 7 days or until the war dec expires whichever happens first. Continue? Make it so CCP. That would work, flag there corp for a war dec time frame, now we can freely engage them first if we want. or at the very least we know there is actually 20 wt's in system outside the station and not 8. problem, the interfering corp is unable to afford the wardec, but are war decing, this makes an easy exploit for cheap wars and things like Privateer Alliance Greifing reaches a all new high.
Zeba Minmatar Pator Tech School	Posted - 2008.10.05 05:21:00 - [13] Edited by: Zeba on 05/10/2008 05:22:49 Originally by: Gabriel Rike problem, the interfering corp is unable to afford the wardec, but are war decing, this makes an easy exploit for cheap wars and things like Privateer Alliance Greifing reaches a all new high. Added a bit to make it unwise to try to interfere with a war dec. And it wouldn't be a corp wide hit just to the person who tried to rr someone. inappropriate signature. ~WeatherMan
Mihailo Great Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.05 05:25:00 - [14] I am in this business of empire wars, and I will agree with this carebear that neutral interferers should be flagged for 30min, not the current 15, and the docking prevention aggro timer should be like 5 minutes.
Gabriel Rike Channel 4 News Team	Posted - 2008.10.05 05:38:00 - [15] Yeah I saw the part about you added about they may not be able to interfere for that duration, but not sure that would stop it, they would still get to interfer for the whole battle which could utterly destroy a small corp that stood a fighting chance vs the 'larger' one in the fight that was there, possibly loosing most there assests in 1 battle that otherwise would have been a good fight. now the neutrals that didnt aggress pick up all the loot from the dead bodies salvage it untouchable and dock. corp A looses everything in 1 fight while the Griefing corp B gains what they wanted, and easy grief. "They are violating a legal sanctioned war by interfering in war efforts and should be concorded like they committed a hostile act to a player they werenÆt at war with. After all thatÆs exactly what they are doing." I still stand by that statement I made earlier and I feel the only real way to solve this would be to concord the neutral that interfered. This would benifit both aggressors who have there victims interfere like the PA guy mentioned as the neutral carebear that jumped in would die leaving a wrerck behind for them to loot. and it would prevent the griefing scenario from happening as it would kill the remote repping guy on the first cycle taking him out of that battle as well. I havent seen a case where the 12 logs all got 1 cycle in and it changed the battle, its they all get a whole battles worth of cycles while we sit there pinned down unable to stop them while there immortal friends take there time killing us. Same could likely be said from the aggressor side like in the PA guys case as well. Allowing it to stay would be like saying my neutral Blasterthron is allowed to shoot you for the rest of this battle, but its ok, he is now flagged to you.....
Zeba Minmatar Pator Tech School	Posted - 2008.10.05 05:45:00 - [16] KK. I'm totaly fine with them getting Concordokken like someone who reps a rat though this would have minimal effect in low sec. inappropriate signature. ~WeatherMan
Gabriel Rike Channel 4 News Team	Posted - 2008.10.05 06:02:00 - [17] Edited by: Gabriel Rike on 05/10/2008 06:03:53 Originally by: Zeba KK. I'm totaly fine with them getting Concordokken like someone who reps a rat though this would have minimal effect in low sec. I agree 100%. And who war decs if both side live in low sec?[ <--edit to this I realized after that was a dumb question but am leaving it in to show good form] And even still if a high sec war bled over to low sec the 'concording' is resulting from a crim act....which would mean gate guns in low sec on a log ship = dead as well. So I think a better way for me to put it wouldnt be a concorded response but a criminal flagged response (concord/gate guns/station guns/crim flag to everyone/sec hit)
Khraunus Amarr Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.10.05 06:14:00 - [18] Edited by: Khraunus on 05/10/2008 06:14:54 Agreed. I've worked hard to catch WTs off gaurd and to make sure they have no backup ready to jump in before only to watch as 5-6 nuetrals warp right on top of them while i'm webbed and scrammed and start repping. The real biter is that there is no indication that the WTs had these allies to begin with. Something needs to be done about remote reps and WTs.
Kage Psychodin Caldari The Empire Nation Worlds End Consortium	Posted - 2008.10.05 06:17:00 - [19] A simple docking timer for aggression would be fine that lasts the regular docking aggression timer would be fine. Nothing else really is needed, just a chance to break their tank like anyone else. Another one bites the dust.
TheG2 Gallente Dirty Rotten Scoundrels	Posted - 2008.10.05 06:23:00 - [20] I'm currently involved in a war against a corp (Whiskey Pete Dry Cleaning Services [WPDS]) that does nothing but run Neutral remote rep. It hasn't been too much of a problem adapting knowing how they fight, but it's a rather lame tactic. It's getting rather annoying when the game relies on you having alts than anything else. I believe something needs to be changed, for instance, you remote repping is criminal unless you are in that persons gang (and they would be active war targets due to that). It would prevent some forms of griefing.
Marie Duvolle The Scope	Posted - 2008.10.05 06:31:00 - [21] Well, have your corpmembers jam, scramble and kill the remote repper? Don't stir the hornet's nest
Antoine SaintJust Gallente The Society for Creative Euthanasia	Posted - 2008.10.05 06:44:00 - [22] There's no neutrals in war. Only targets of opportunity.
Zurrar Gallente Universal Exports FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.10.05 06:46:00 - [23] always been an issue, and now with the change of gangs, someone can have a neut in a bc LOADED with links, and get the bonus' with out the bc being in harms way....
Demitria Fernir Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.10.05 06:56:00 - [24] Edited by: Demitria Fernir on 05/10/2008 06:58:27 When you remote-repair someone in war, you get flagged to their WT. that's good enough like it is. hell they even give you the warning. also, for bc bonuses: can't do anything about it, gang is a neutral thing, and TBH if your WT can get someone out of the war in the gang boosting attributes with link then the other people can also. 10100110010100101010011010100101001100101110101001 I will Conquer My Signature Somewhere in the future 10100110010100101010011010100101001100101110101001
Strill	Posted - 2008.10.05 07:36:00 - [25] Edited by: Strill on 05/10/2008 07:46:22 Originally by: Marie Duvolle Well, have your corpmembers jam, scramble and kill the remote repper? And while we're at it let's just bring in a titan and doomsday them for good measure. I'm getting tired of responding to people without even half a brain. If your side has so many resources that they can jam, scramble, and kill all the remote reppers and still beat the rest of the enemy forces, then your opponents obviously made a terrible mistake. And if they lost because of a mistake, the whole situation is a moot point. This post is about not being able to tell how much of your enemy's forces are hiding as remote repping irregulars, and the ways that this mechanic exploited for a tactical advantage with no real downsides. Why should people who haven't payed for a wardec get all the benefits of a wardec with almost none of the downsides? Furthermore, why should they be able to disguise themselves as non-hostiles? Originally by: Antoine SaintJust There's no neutrals in war. Only targets of opportunity. If you had listened to anything that's been posted here you'd know why that's not applicable.
Del Soliara	Posted - 2008.10.05 12:28:00 - [26] Meh, so find the the person (in low sec)that has done the neutral repping and take the security hit. Wipe his ship and pod him. It only takes a day to recover that security status. Keep a list of those who do this and remove them with every opportunity. Get out of Empire space and grow a spine. Yes, low sec is dangerous, but you can live there and make a profit. Pirates come, gank them with your mates and fill your kill board. They cry about being blobbed, tough. If you get too many pirates in system, stay docked and let them whine while you watch a movie, spend time with your significant other/kids/dog/cat/blow-up thingy or whatever.
Gabriel Rike Channel 4 News Team	Posted - 2008.10.05 15:22:00 - [27] Edited by: Gabriel Rike on 05/10/2008 15:26:17 right, so your answer to this exploit is "grow a spine" and dont go in empire? If your enemy war decs you just dont undock and watch a movie? Your an idiot and dont seem to have actually read what you said or this post, go troll somewhere else. Also "go find the person in low sec"? your as much an idiot for that statement as well, how am I going to undock when the griefer corp has me camped into a station with 8 WT's and 12 Neutrals waiting to rep them? oh right fight my way out with the ship I will use to "kill them in low sec"? oh right gl with that. you obviously didnt read the example of when a corp leave an alliance and the alliance remains neutral and remote reps the corp that war dec'd you think I am going to take a small corp being griefed and go hunt down what there whole alliance plus the war targets? You obviously havent "grown a spine" and went into high sec when at war, you seem to watch movies all day.
Gabriel Rike Channel 4 News Team	Posted - 2008.10.05 15:36:00 - [28] Originally by: Demitria Fernir Edited by: Demitria Fernir on 05/10/2008 06:58:27 When you remote-repair someone in war, you get flagged to their WT. that's good enough like it is. hell they even give you the warning. if you really honestly think thats enough, you must be one of the tools who use this tactic regularly and fully know its an exploit and are just being an ass trying to justify using the exploit. You get flagged to the little new guy in his noob ship trying to rat too while you remote rep a rat he is fighting in a BS... oh wait that was an exploit and deamed a hostile act against another person resulting in concord...... and its a perfectly legit game mechanic tactic to gank someone in high sec and black ops cyno you self to low sec to avoid concord, I mean you go flashy to the person right?....oh wait thats also an exploit that will be punished.... If you really believe what you said you obviously dont understand what griefing is. The point is they dont make them go flashy till I am fully pinned down ecm'd or what ever to engage them. and if they are using remote repping battleships yeah lets go ahead and add another gank fitted domi to there dps ranks by engaging him to stop him from remote repping the guys that actually paid to be at war with us. oh wait we cant break the war targets tank because of all the neutrals remote repping them, and if we attack one of the remote reppers they not only still have an unbreakable tank since they will simply remote rep him now, but they have more dps. Understand? Now yeah if they war dec'd us with them they would still be there with the unbreakable tank, but then we would know there was 30 of them and not 5 or what ever wacked out numbers they have. and we would (as some one else mentioned) "sit in the staion and watch movies"
TheG2 Gallente Dirty Rotten Scoundrels	Posted - 2008.10.05 15:37:00 - [29] "Go to lowsec" is not the answer, most corps won't go to low sec and thats why you had to wardec them in the first place. Remote repping becomes a problem when the remote rep ships (a party not even involved in the war) play as large a part as the people involved in the war. If I can't remote rep rats because it negatively affects another player, why should I be able to remote rep neutrals. There isn't any logic for this. It should be punishable unless the neutral joins the gang. THEN he can rep and it would make for a fairer system.
Gabriel Rike Channel 4 News Team	Posted - 2008.10.05 15:54:00 - [30] Edited by: Gabriel Rike on 05/10/2008 15:58:02 Originally by: TheG2 "Go to lowsec" is not the answer, most corps won't go to low sec and thats why you had to wardec them in the first place. Remote repping becomes a problem when the remote rep ships (a party not even involved in the war) play as large a part as the people involved in the war. If I can't remote rep rats because it negatively affects another player, why should I be able to remote rep neutrals. There isn't any logic for this. It should be punishable unless the neutral joins the gang. THEN he can rep and it would make for a fairer system. I agree that that should be the case with targets at war. since it would be unfair to say in low sec and 0.0 you cant bring you log ship in or what ever ship with rr and help out a blue friend. but when in low sec or high sec and a target is at war they should have to be in the gang or get a crim flag. (I didnt include remote repping neutrals from 0.0 as sure give them a crim flag too but really that is nothing more than flashy in 0.0 lol) But not to say that any time a neutral remote reps its a crim act, or no more neutrals helping neutral friends in missions and times like above, only if the target is at war. Still give the pop up warning then there is no neutrals inviting a neutral to help them getting the neutral crim flagged without knowing it. but yeah you get the point. Now if they join the gang then yeah it should be allowed, but they gain a wt status to us if they do so it still removes that bit, though I think they might still just wait till the fight starts then join the gang, then leave after the battle. Its because of that I think the status should stick for a good while after they leave a wt gang.

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.