| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Raith Dresden
   |
Posted - 2008.11.10 05:13:00 -
[1]
Ok, I know this has happened to everyone at some point. Gun's are hot and you miss click the target, lock the gate and successfully warp scram it. Up until recently I never saw any residual effect.
Just recently I was looking at my sec log and noticed 4 instances of -1.5% sec loss each for gate aggro. All my cases are in PF-346 which is 0.0 and has no sentries guns, billboards, or stations. I know some people have petitioned and got a good response about it being a mistake. Their sec status was restored.
I have a petition in and I am not getting a favorable response to restore my sec. I am not posting to complain about the GM response. Rather I am trying to see if this is a widespread problem and get some official response so that everyone know's how the system is supposed to work.
Personally I've only known 0.0 to be non-empire and thus there is no sec impact for any actions.
Regards,
Raith
|
Tiirae
The New Era
HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 05:31:00 -
[2]
This has been the case for a while now, at least since EA was released. Working as intended AFAIK. I never even considered a petition.
|
Ami Nia
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 05:42:00 -
[3]
Are you absolutely sure those happened in PF-346 ?
In some 0.0 systems you do get sec losses, but you should not get them in PF-346.
 Originally by: CCP Mitnal
So we can 1 v 1 with Garmon.
|
Derek Medrana
Minmatar
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 05:56:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Derek Medrana on 10/11/2008 05:56:45
Some 0.0 systems even have gate guns. npc faction controlled space usually has bleed-over from empire 'rules'. pf-346 is npc faction control (serpentis) and if there are gate guns on the gate then it will have some empire "qualities". (discovered this hard way awhile back in outer ring. (ore controlled.)
|
Plastered
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 14:13:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Plastered on 10/11/2008 14:14:12
|
Raith Dresden
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 14:14:00 -
[6]
Yes, I am 100% sure this was in PF-346 since that is what the sec details show. I can understand the systems which have sentries, etc. PF does not have a single sentry or station, etc. Just curious why som GM's say no sec hit in 0.0 and then rollback loss but there is no clear statement on the matter since it may not be applied consistently.
|
|
CCP Atropos
C C P
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 14:17:00 -
[7]
CONCORD owns the gates. I filed a petition on this, way back in 2004, because I also did not understand this. But, as I said, the gates are nominally CONCORD property, and you're being aggressive against it. As such, you take a hit to your CONCORD standing, which just happens to be your security status.
|
|
Shu'Kam
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 14:24:00 -
[8]
Originally by: CCP Atropos
CONCORD owns the gates. I filed a petition on this, way back in 2004, because I also did not understand this. But, as I said, the gates are nominally CONCORD property, and you're being aggressive against it. As such, you take a hit to your CONCORD standing, which just happens to be your security status.
really.....concord owns all gates in eve??? does not make any sense.
concord owns the pirate smuggler gates?
|
Gieron
Middleton and Mercer LLP
Sylph Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 14:41:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Shu'Kam
concord owns the pirate smuggler gates?
Actually, that makes sense. CONCORD seized them from the smugglers after they were detected.
|
Lana Lanee
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 14:41:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Shu'Kam
Originally by: CCP Atropos
CONCORD owns the gates. I filed a petition on this, way back in 2004, because I also did not understand this. But, as I said, the gates are nominally CONCORD property, and you're being aggressive against it. As such, you take a hit to your CONCORD standing, which just happens to be your security status.
really.....concord owns all gates in eve??? does not make any sense.
concord owns the pirate smuggler gates?
the police need to make a living too...in fact they only kill noobs and that's not really profitable..
|
|
|
Kulmid
The Bastards
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 14:45:00 -
[11]
Originally by: CCP Atropos
CONCORD owns the gates. I filed a petition on this, way back in 2004, because I also did not understand this. But, as I said, the gates are nominally CONCORD property, and you're being aggressive against it. As such, you take a hit to your CONCORD standing, which just happens to be your security status.
So then how come when I'm in a CONCORD owned system in empire, with a GCC, I am unable to use the gates due to "CONCORD owning these gates" but yet I can use any other gate under GCC.
You would think CCP would have added things like, "Amarr", "CCP", "Microwarpdrive", etc. to their forum dictionary.
|
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 14:50:00 -
[12]
Originally by: CCP Atropos
CONCORD owns the gates. I filed a petition on this, way back in 2004, because I also did not understand this. But, as I said, the gates are nominally CONCORD property, and you're being aggressive against it. As such, you take a hit to your CONCORD standing, which just happens to be your security status.
I've locked and accidently scrambled gates alot of times. Was a while since the last time, probably closer to a year now, but I never took a sec hit from doing so.
|
sg3s
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 14:57:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Misanth
Originally by: CCP Atropos
CONCORD owns the gates. I filed a petition on this, way back in 2004, because I also did not understand this. But, as I said, the gates are nominally CONCORD property, and you're being aggressive against it. As such, you take a hit to your CONCORD standing, which just happens to be your security status.
I've locked and accidently scrambled gates alot of times. Was a while since the last time, probably closer to a year now, but I never took a sec hit from doing so.
Some gates are faulty and don't always report back to their owners porperly? :o
It's about time I put something sensible in here, but I couldn't really come up with something so you'l have to do with this. Are you like really bored, or did you not notice this is my sig? |
Anonymous Troll
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 14:59:00 -
[14]
Originally by: CCP Atropos
CONCORD owns the gates. I filed a petition on this, way back in 2004, because I also did not understand this. But, as I said, the gates are nominally CONCORD property, and you're being aggressive against it. As such, you take a hit to your CONCORD standing, which just happens to be your security status.
Another instance which shall be quoted on SHC. Don't be a nub, PF- is 0.0 and there should be NO SECURITY STATUS HITS WHAT-SO-EVER in 0.0.
|
Tzar'rim
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 15:11:00 -
[15]
Lots of people set their fighters to attack gates so they were ready when needed, those never got a sec drop.
|
Faife
Noctiscion
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 16:21:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Anonymous Troll
Edited by: Anonymous Troll on 10/11/2008 15:10:04
Originally by: CCP Atropos
CONCORD owns the gates. I filed a petition on this, way back in 2004, because I also did not understand this. But, as I said, the gates are nominally CONCORD property, and you're being aggressive against it. As such, you take a hit to your CONCORD standing, which just happens to be your security status.
PF- is 0.0 and there should be NO SECURITY STATUS HITS WHAT-SO-EVER in 0.0.
you tell those devs how their game works!
--
Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal |
Bronson Hughes
ADVANCED Combat and Engineering
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 16:34:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Anonymous Troll
Edited by: Anonymous Troll on 10/11/2008 15:10:04
Originally by: CCP Atropos
CONCORD owns the gates. I filed a petition on this, way back in 2004, because I also did not understand this. But, as I said, the gates are nominally CONCORD property, and you're being aggressive against it. As such, you take a hit to your CONCORD standing, which just happens to be your security status.
PF- is 0.0 and there should be NO SECURITY STATUS HITS WHAT-SO-EVER in 0.0.
Whenever you aggress any NPC, you take a standings hit with that faction and/or corp depending on the situation. If you happen to aggress something owned by CONCORD, you take a security status hit because your security status is nothing more than your standings with CONCORD.
--------------------
"I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne |
Cat Molina
Minmatar
Psychotic Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 17:05:00 -
[18]
IIRC, in NPC 0.0 space, you cannot shoot stations or gates without taking a sec hit. NPC 0.0 is different than standard 0.0.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |