| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
TheG2
Gallente
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
   |
Posted - 2008.10.05 16:37:00 -
[31]
If attempting to repair a member of a war without a gang:
"Due to Concord's War tracking ID's implanted on this ship, the remote repairing device you are attempting to use is unable to gain a lock. Please join a fleet with the person you are attempting to repair in order to get the tracking ID."
Handles the roleplay aspect, and puts remote repairing in line with the rest of the game.
|
Antoine SaintJust
Gallente
The Society for Creative Euthanasia
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 16:40:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: Strill
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.
But of course not, and i was fully conscious of it. You must learn to love the pure beauty of a random post, Strill.
|
Tarquin Ophelia
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 17:23:00 -
[33]
I fully agree with the OP and with TheG2. My former corp was warring with another corp. We were camping a high sec, waiting for them to jump in and engage. Or we would jump in and engage them. Due to the presence of neutral remote reppers for the enemy, there was little probability we would break the primary's tank even with alpha strike capabilities. We numbered around a dozen, they had 5. Their remote repping buddies outnumbered both our gangs together. How can this not be illegal ? We didn't war dec the reppers, whom represented multiple corporations. Are we seriously expected to war dec another 8 corps just to have a fair fight with the original one ? I think not. BTW, we war decced a high security space war declaring corp. They don't live in low sec. They use this tactic as their basic strategy to win fights, and then smack talk when we choose not to jump into them. Kinda funny, really.
|
Lisento Slaven
Amarr
The Drekla Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 17:52:00 -
[34]
Here is a progression of events I would be in favor of as a compromise:
Neutral assists war target
Neutral becomes a valid war target for minimum of X days
Neutral can NOT fire unless fired on first
Think of it as kill-rights? The moment a neutral assists a war target, the warring corp has the right to kill that target for X amount of days. That target can not fire on them until fired on first.
What would the drawbacks to this solution be? The consequences of helping a warring side would be much more severe in this scenario. Not only that, but only people truly devoted to assisting the war effort would be willing to interfere in this way.
Counter points to suggestion?
---
Put in space whales!
|
Monkey Saturday
Unknown Soldiers
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 18:01:00 -
[35]
Huh, strange. Whenever a war target is getting remote rep from a neutral guardian alt they tend to get out-dps'ed anyways, what with DRONES ON GUARDIAN being yelled in vent and all.
Why is remote repping neutral alts bad again? If they're getting multiple rep cycles off on your target you're doing something wrong 
Thanks for the Maulus BPO nerf! :D |
juduzz
Amarr
Atomic Battle Penguins
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 18:55:00 -
[36]
MAke it so it flags them for the duration of the war or just dont allow it ( but needs a pop up warning) but definately not flag the hwhole corp to open to be explioted.
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 22:08:00 -
[37]
All I think's really needed is stopping logistics that have 'flagged' by repping someone, from docking/jumping immediately.
--
Crane needs more grid
249km locking? |
Baldour Ngarr
Interwarp Plexus
Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 22:18:00 -
[38]
OKaay ...
PLayer A attacks target B.
Player C, neutral to A, remote-reps target B.
Someone explain why whether B is an NPC or another player, would make any difference at all to this being an exploit. In the interest of consistency surely everyone has to admit there's something wrong here?
________________________________________________
"I tried strip mining, but I lost, and it's cold flying around in space naked." |
Vabjekf
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 22:19:00 -
[39]
Make it so it flags them for the duration of the war AND the next time they war dec someone they have to retroactively pay whatever they would have had to if they deced the corp that they were automatically flagged for.
|
Taedrin
Gallente
Celestial Ascension
Tenth Legion
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 22:47:00 -
[40]
Originally by: James Lyrus
All I think's really needed is stopping logistics that have 'flagged' by repping someone, from docking/jumping immediately.
This.
No need for even more convoluted aggression rules. Seriously, getting automatically wardecced (at no cost, mind you) just because I RR'd a friend? That sounds a little too extreme. What if you run a mission with a friend who is at war and RR to help him tank the rats? What if a corp is a part of a militia and they are out in a RR BS gang in a militia gang?
|
Vabjekf
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 22:53:00 -
[41]
I spoke too quickly.
The efficient way to handle this problem is to remove remote everything from the game. Its a stupid idea in the first place, and will delightfully change all kinds of stuff ^_^
|
Kage Psychodin
Caldari
The Empire Nation
Worlds End Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 04:10:00 -
[42]
Now you are just trolling, vab. Remote assisting is actually pretty required, when you know, you're in a capital ship and six or seven battleships decide to fire on you, and you have two battleships to assist you. (and exceptionally off topic. the both of us.)
Another one bites the dust. |
Hroya
Gallente
StrikerCorp
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 04:27:00 -
[43]
So how can you tell if these "neutrals" are in a fleet with the WT's prior to the actuall fight then ? Once you are able to find out they are allowed to rep because they joined in a fleet it is a tiny bit to late to avoid certain losses on your part.
That is if one of the suggestions here would get implemented.
In my opinion it should be the same as with npc's. rep them and concord comes whooping your butt.
"Thank you for flying Crash Medic Airlines. Feel free to fill out our customer satisfaction form. Your remains will be send to a designated station. Have a nice day. =Concord Demolition Team=
-------------------------------
We are not all in the same box.
-------------------------------
|
Vabjekf
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 04:33:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Kage Psychodin
Now you are just trolling, vab. Remote assisting is actually pretty required, when you know, you're in a capital ship and six or seven battleships decide to fire on you, and you have two battleships to assist you. (and exceptionally off topic. the both of us.)
Good, that would fix the capital ship infestation.
|
Kage Psychodin
Caldari
The Empire Nation
Worlds End Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 05:31:00 -
[45]
Yes, because paying 4 billion+ and investing nearly 6 months worth of character skills for a ship that's only marginally tougher than a cheap easily remade, repurchased, refitted and fully insured battle is really fair. (sorry for the derail, But I just have to say this.)
Another one bites the dust. |
Vabjekf
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 05:57:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Kage Psychodin
Yes, because paying 4 billion+ and investing nearly 6 months worth of character skills for a ship that's only marginally tougher than a cheap easily remade, repurchased, refitted and fully insured battle is really fair. (sorry for the derail, But I just have to say this.)
Yes. Capital ships should be for PR, not effectiveness.
|
Kuolematon
Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 06:58:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Dirk Magnum
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.
I once accidently remote repped NPC. CONCORD didn't like that 
"The Amarr are the tanking and ganking floating rods of goldcrap"
|
Malcanis
RuffRyders
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 08:28:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Lisento Slaven
Here is a progression of events I would be in favor of as a compromise:
Neutral assists war target
Neutral becomes a valid war target for minimum of X days
Neutral can NOT fire unless fired on first
Think of it as kill-rights? The moment a neutral assists a war target, the warring corp has the right to kill that target for X amount of days. That target can not fire on them until fired on first.
What would the drawbacks to this solution be? The consequences of helping a warring side would be much more severe in this scenario. Not only that, but only people truly devoted to assisting the war effort would be willing to interfere in this way.
Counter points to suggestion?
I was going to suggest this but then I realised it would be very easy to exploit to get mass free wardecs.
|
Malcanis
RuffRyders
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 08:30:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Vabjekf
I spoke too quickly.
The efficient way to handle this problem is to remove remote everything from the game. Its a stupid idea in the first place, and will delightfully change all kinds of stuff ^_^
Will horribly remove all kinds of stuff, in fact.
|
Kazuma Saruwatari
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 09:40:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Dirk Magnum
remote assistance consequence-free would be seriously lame.
/seconded.
Seriously, this is so easy a fix, even the morons who exploit it exploit it because its so easy.
-
|
gfldex
Evolution
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 10:13:00 -
[51]
Edited by: gfldex on 06/10/2008 10:13:55
Originally by: Dirk Magnum
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.
So all I have to do is to get an alt into a corp that can do some basic remote repping and I can make the whole corp a target that can't even help each other?
That would even be better then jet can flagging! \o/
--
There are countless games in the world. There are at least as many ppl that dont like one or more rules of said games. That never stopped smart game designers from creating good games.
|
Gabriel Rike
Channel 4 News Team
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 15:49:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Taedrin
Originally by: James Lyrus
All I think's really needed is stopping logistics that have 'flagged' by repping someone, from docking/jumping immediately.
This.
No need for even more convoluted aggression rules. Seriously, getting automatically wardecced (at no cost, mind you) just because I RR'd a friend? That sounds a little too extreme. What if you run a mission with a friend who is at war and RR to help him tank the rats? What if a corp is a part of a militia and they are out in a RR BS gang in a militia gang?
its not "convoluted" concord blows your ass up. Very simple. The auto wardec is however too much and still doesnt discourage neutrals from interfereing and is too exploitable for free wardecs. Longer aggression timers with no docking solves nothing other than after griefing the enemy they have to sit outside and laugh for 15 minutes more....
If you run a mission along with a guy who is war decd you should know he is at war, its your friends fault if he doesnt tell you and you go boom. Blame that on him. If you say "oh thats not fair that I cant mission run while he is at war, yes it is. Many other people get locked into stations or unable to do there isk makers while at war.
If your both in the same militia, your both at war and on the same team.....you wont get blown up. ever notice that your both working for the same militia. Its different than shooting a 'neutral' friendly militia, your not hindering him your helping him and he is on your side, thats perfectly fine. Your both together hindering the common enemy. a Neutral getting involved in a private war may both be 'hindering the enemy' but they are not both at war together with them. If they both want to be, then they should both war dec.
The point is not to make it a hostile action for neutrals to remote rep anyone outside there corp/alliance, its to prevent them from doing it to targets that are in a valid war.
Solution. CONCORDOKKEN!
|
Nexa Necis
The Really Awesome Players
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 18:59:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Nexa Necis on 06/10/2008 19:00:06
Back in the day, people would get a ship like an Ishkur, great resists, great damage and people in a battleship would be very likely to agress it. Meanwhile the Ishkur pilot would get 2 or 3 friends in remote rep ships to sit nearby, many times these friends were in a different corp.
Then once the Ishkur flipped your can and you fired or you took their bait can, you were basically done for unless you had endless cap, which 2 years ago, most people didn't have. Their friends would rep them and not get flagged to you or your corp so you had no way to kill them.
I like the fact that the remote support people get flagged, however, I wish the flagging would be considered a hostile act and prevent docking immediately.
The new tactic seems to be, get you to agress one of them, their friend remote reps you in something small like a Osprey, you figure, I can kill that Osprey and then focus back on the Raven, right? Wrong. The Osprey docks the second you fire on him, and he undocks 30 seconds later in his uber torp Raven and fries your hiney before you can deagress.
I have no problem with remote repping, I just wish it was considered a hostile act to prevent insta-docking or insta-jumping.
On a side note, you wouldn't be talking about the Trust Coalition, would you?
|
TheG2
Gallente
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 21:42:00 -
[54]
Bringing this up again because it is ruining what could be decent fights due to lame tactics.
There is no way to predict the odds of a battle when your enemies can hide themselves right in front of you.
For instance: 5 war targets in local, 5 of your corp in system as well. Battle starts, 4 neutral ships begin to remote rep your war targets. Sure we could shoot the war targets, but in a "5 on 5" battle you're tanking your war targets, on top of trying to take down their remote repairers; who you can't engage, count, or touch until they engage, and if they get locked, all they need do is dock up and undock again with no consequences.
Wars in empire are already broken enough (you know, the place where they are supposed to be useful).
|
Del Narveux
Dukes of Hazard
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 21:46:00 -
[55]
Empire wars are shitty, unfortunately its a fact of life. Anything they did to fix something like this, would just lead to 10 new ways to grief people.
_________________
[IMAGE REMOVED]
-- aka Cpt Bogus --
Is that my torped sig cloaking your base?
|
Bluetippedflyer
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 22:46:00 -
[56]
Originally by: James Lyrus
All I think's really needed is stopping logistics that have 'flagged' by repping someone, from docking/jumping immediately.
Here you go, Now this is a good idea
|
Roberto Edwardo
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 23:01:00 -
[57]
Why don't you just change the remote repper and his entire corp to horrible standings, then they will stick out in local. Sure you might get caught off gaurd the first couple of times, but eventually you should have everyone set to bad standings. Now that you see who all the 'true' war targets are, adjust your blob size accordingly.
|
Karyyana
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 23:39:00 -
[58]
Lots of Neutral reppers are in the NPC corps, btw.
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Alternative Realities
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 00:10:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 07/10/2008 00:13:05
Neutrals shouldn't be allowed to remote repair/boost/etc. someone with an active PvP (against non-NPC corp) aggression timer.
The warring corporation has paid for the war. The neutrals haven't. So they should have no right to participate in a fight.
___________________________________
Balance is power, guard hide it well
"Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam" |
Lynk BearMayhem
Hounds Of War
R-I-P
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 00:37:00 -
[60]
I think that any neutral corporation or alliance that participates in a war should cause that entire corporation or alliance to be charged for a war dec, and that alliance or corp then should be at war for the week. Only seems fair, if they want to join in the fun in empire, they should be charged. After all, the charge is suppose to be the deterrent to keeping people from randomly war dec'ing and grieving empire corporations and alliances.
Seems to me that this is just an exploit to avoid paying the price to play.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire" - Sir Winston Churchill |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |