| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Alternative Realities
   |
Posted - 2008.10.07 00:58:00 -
[61]
 Originally by: Lynk BearMayhem
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
Far too exploitable.
One should always be responsible for his own actions alone. Others shouldn't be made responsible, or otherwise that's exploitable.
___________________________________
Balance is power, guard hide it well
"Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam" |
Gabriel Rike
Channel 4 News Team
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 03:50:00 -
[62]
I am glad that so many prople, on both sides can agree that it is an exploit and shouldnt be able to be done.
I am dissapointed however there are enough thick headed (intentionally or not) that think its either ok as is, or something like a docking timer will be enough. More than likely however the only people that think anything short of a CONCORDOKKEN are likely the cause of the problem....the people doing it.
in all honestly I still dont see (and understand many do agree) concord intervention is really the most obvious, best, and easiest to impliment fix for this problem.
Though I think we need to see more people who do believe that voicing there aggreement and maybe when this post gets large enough ccp might see the light and fix this problem.
|
Pathos Etredes
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 04:16:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Pathos Etredes on 07/10/2008 04:21:56
I gotta agree on this... It's one thing when you have been war decced for over a month, and trying to get these people off of their favorite stations they like to hug, without having neutral parties coming in to RR them.
After all, it's not the neutral parties war at all. They have neither payed the required fees to Concord to partake in these "sanctioned corporate conflicts". As such, yes, they should be Concorded for interfering in something that is none of their Corporations business. If they want to participate in a conflict, because they feel they have something at stake, then go ahead and go through the proper channels and fill out Concord's paperwork and pay up the iskies.
Otherwise... Mind you your own business.
EDIT: Of course this is my own personal opinion, and in no way reflects the opinions of others from my Corporation or leadership.
|
Strill
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 10:29:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Strill on 07/10/2008 10:29:42
The main problem I see here is that if corps A and B are at war and a neutral is remote repping someone from corp A (because they're ratting or something). Someone from corp b can warp in, attack the Corp A member, and cause the neutral to be instantly Concorded.
IMO the problem is that CCP never added a mechanism to give someone fair warning that what they're doing has suddenly become illegal. So there'd have to be a 15 second or so timer to allow the neutral to deactivate his remote reppers.
|
TheG2
Gallente
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 21:10:00 -
[65]
Bumping this back up because its a serious concern for many players and I personally would like to chance a dev response.
|
Blastil
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 21:28:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Zurrar
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....
Carebears whine when the gang-wardec grief was going on, now they whine when it ISN"T going on. I suggest we just ban everyone who hasn't gone below -1.0 once in their life. This would resolve all of EVE's Problems, and reduce lag.
|
Nexa Necis
The Really Awesome Players
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 21:38:00 -
[67]
I honestly don't think the devs will disable neutral remote support nor will they have Concord act when a groupmate assists another groupmate.
I can see the logic though where people say if you rep a rat you get Concorded, but remember, you're not ganged with the rat. 
I can see them making it to where the remote assistant is not just flagged but given an actual hostile act/aggression timer to avoid insta-docking or insta-jumping through a gate.
As it is right now, there is almost no real risk involved for the remote repper pilot and they get to perform an action that basically turns the tide in a battle and get away instantly.
I was killing an Abaddon 1vs1 in my Domi on a gate and his neutral friend repped him up. It was enough to where I lost and if I did agress the remote repping, trimarked-plated Apoc with T2 mega pulses, I would've died even quicker. Even if there was a chance I could kill his Apoc, he could've just jumped right on through the gate into safety.
I don't think it's an exploit really. I think it's more of a balance issue.
I mean if you're going to say joining/quitting a corp to score a kill is an exploit because the person has no real chance to know that you're going to surprise them in that fashion, then this is something similar, where you have no clue who, what, when or where it could happen and when it does happen, you wont be able to do anything about it because you're dead.
CCP should have it be where a remote support act is the same as firing weapons. Both actions have the same end result, it causes someone to die.
|
TheG2
Gallente
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 22:18:00 -
[68]
I agree with the above poster, CONCORD action is too harsh for remote repairing, I think a happy medium would be if they required someone to be in a gang in order to remote repair someone, the problem would solve itself as the gang member is then a valid target.
|
Nexa Necis
The Really Awesome Players
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 22:32:00 -
[69]
Originally by: TheG2
I agree with the above poster, CONCORD action is too harsh for remote repairing, I think a happy medium would be if they required someone to be in a gang in order to remote repair someone, the problem would solve itself as the gang member is then a valid target.
They are required to be in a gang, otherwise then Concord would step in. Also, they are no longer valid targets since the "Lofty Scam" was fixed a while ago.
Get with the times brotha!
|
TheG2
Gallente
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 00:07:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Nexa Necis
Originally by: TheG2
I agree with the above poster, CONCORD action is too harsh for remote repairing, I think a happy medium would be if they required someone to be in a gang in order to remote repair someone, the problem would solve itself as the gang member is then a valid target.
They are required to be in a gang, otherwise then Concord would step in. Also, they are no longer valid targets since the "Lofty Scam" was fixed a while ago.
Get with the times brotha!
As far as I'm aware, they aren't required to be in a gang in order to remote repair.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |