| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Arthur Black
SoE Roughriders
0
   |
Posted - 2011.09.12 22:14:00 -
[1] - Quote
TL;DR; Members of NPC corporations should not be able to activate remote* modules on anyone outside their own corporation. NPC militia corporations needs further considerations.
There's been many threads on the topic of neutral logistics and what could be done to address the problem. Mostly focusing on aggression timers. As far as I can tell, no solution has come of it that wouldn't break the usefulness of logistics completely in one situation or another. Still, it must be possible to take some sort of first step towards solving the issue.
My suggestion would be to remove the "neutral" part.
My experience is mostly based on high-sec warfare where ~80% of neutral logistics I've encountered are in NPC corporations and therefore cannot be declared war upon.
Hence, I suggest that pilots in NPC corporations cannot activate remote repair modules on anyone outside their own corporation. Following this line of thought to it's logical conclusion, members of NPC corporations should not be able to activate anything "remote*" on anyone outside their own corporation.
Forcing neutral logistics pilots over to player-based corporation would at least make it possible to declare war on them, thereby achieving first strike capability. It would also greatly reduce their current risk-free environment and introduce at least a chance of them getting shot at. Which I believe is how it should be if you decide to take part in a war.
It's my hope that doing so could lead to the rise of logistics based services, much as we have mercenaries today. Or a combination of the two.
One thorny issue needs to be solved though; the NPC militia corporations. These are effectively already at war. Still, they cannot get a "free pass" so to speak, or neutral logistics pilots would simply join those corporations and we'd be back where we are today.
I admit that I don't have a solution for it, but two ideas; 1) Members of NPC militia corporations can only activate remote* modules on members of their own or allied militia or 2) open up NPC militia corporations for war declarations.
|
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
15
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 00:36:00 -
[2] - Quote
Because it takes :effort: to put you neutral logi into a one-man corp, right? And on the other hand, people who chose to stay in NPC corps are not allowed to fly logis in, say, incursions? |
Metal Icarus
xHELLonEARTHx
Rookie Empire
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 00:51:00 -
[3] - Quote
I agree with OP, but I would go further and say that neut logistics that engage in healing a war participant will become a war target for that corp. For further punishment for helping, maybe the corp be comes a target for a few hours.
Having said that, make war like in null where all who are there engagable, but in high sec have it limited to everyone that gets involved and let the bystanders be safe.
Fleet mechanics would be the separating factor in deciding who engaged/assisted whom. |
Aamrr
HnL Enterprise
8
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 07:50:00 -
[4] - Quote
I'm not opposed to further changes specific to hisec, but I do have a counter-proposal which you can find here.
I think it should adequately address most complaints with "risk-free" logistics assistance, without neutering the ability of an RR-gang to withdraw from combat. See if you like it and whether you feel any further changes are warranted. |
Soldarius
Peek-A-Boo Bombers
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 08:54:00 -
[5] - Quote
Metal Icarus wrote:I agree with OP, but I would go further and say that neut logistics that engage in healing a war participant will become a war target for that corp. For further punishment for helping, maybe the corp be comes a target for a few hours.
Having said that, make war like in null where all who are there engagable, but in high sec have it limited to everyone that gets involved and let the bystanders be safe.
Fleet mechanics would be the separating factor in deciding who engaged/assisted whom.
I know ships that remote rep another ship that is criminally flagged to you and your corp (looters for example) gain the same aggro timer as the person they are assisting. Is it not the same with war targets? If so, just shoot him. Or jam it. Or damp it. Or bring your own. Tactics. Try some.
|
Aamrr
HnL Enterprise
11
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 09:13:00 -
[6] - Quote
I believe the complaint is that they can dock up and wait out the 15 minute timer, then move around freely after the timer is finished. War targets don't have the luxury of moving about without watching local, etc. I suppose the question here is whether 15 minutes is a significant enough inconvenience. I'd imagine quite a few people would like that timer increased.
It's also a concern entirely irrelevant to lowsec or nulsec combat, so I really could care less. Screw around with hisec mechanics all you like, just please don't ruin lowsec/nullsec combat trying to fix issues relevant only to CONCORD protection. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
145
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 09:26:00 -
[7] - Quote
A simpler change would be this. When someone who is in a neutral corp attempts to activate a repper on someone who is involved in a wardec, a pop up message appears, along the lines of:
"Pilot Spoo is involved in a war with Corp Foo. This war will last at least until [remaining time on current war dec]. If you rep Spoo, you will be a valid war target to all members of Corp Foo until the war finishes. Do you wish to proceed?"
If you rep war targets, you lose your neutral status and become a war target. No more risk-free repping. People will still be able to use the NPC logi alts to create an ambush - for one fight in each war. After that, any alts involved will show as WTs.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal made on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players. |
Aamrr
HnL Enterprise
11
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 09:36:00 -
[8] - Quote
I wouldn't have any objection to that change. I don't really care enough to support it, but I don't see anything wrong with it, either. |
Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
170
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 11:52:00 -
[9] - Quote
Aamrr wrote:I wouldn't have any objection to that change. I don't really care enough to support it, but I don't see anything wrong with it, either.
While everyone (including CCP) agrees that those mechanics are f'ed up and need to be altered/clarified/etc., there's a big issue that the part of the code this is in (called Crimewatch) is a huge mess that really needs to be redone because everytime CCP changes something to it, something unforeseen on the side breaks.
Soo, the bad part is that this particular change (it's been asked by the CSM 3 times I believe, CSM 2, 3 and 5) probably won't make it soon. But the good side is, Crimewatch's getting closer and closer on the horizon as other things get solved. I believe our good friends of Team Gridlock have their eyes kinda set on it as it's also a cause for degraded performance in lowsec and highsec and one of the reason killmails are frequently borked and the reason we don't have pod killmails that show implants, to name a few things.
Member of CSM 2, 3, 4 and 5. Vice-Chairman of CSM 6 |
Shingorash
Heroes.
Merciless.
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 12:00:00 -
[10] - Quote
This would get my vote.
Problem is this only applies to high sec. It is a problem in low sec as well. |
|
|
Amun Khonsu
Royal Order of Security Specialists
2
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 12:09:00 -
[11] - Quote
As frustrating as it can be, I dont think you can limit who uses their logistics on who.
It opens a can of worms to do this. Example, the same NPC corp logi wishes to use the logi to rep the same player corp person in an incusion but cant due to this change?
When fighting you just have to expect that the opponent will use every advatage he has against you.
Fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. |
Shingorash
Heroes.
Merciless.
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 12:35:00 -
[12] - Quote
I'm sure they could make reps work in Incursion sites and not outside them. Much the same as you used to be able to use afterburners in some deadspace areas and not MWD's.
It's a similar concept. |
Shingorash
Heroes.
Merciless.
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 12:35:00 -
[13] - Quote
Double post - apparantly I got ganked! |
Zagam
Incompertus INC
Fatal Ascension
73
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 13:38:00 -
[14] - Quote
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:Aamrr wrote:I wouldn't have any objection to that change. I don't really care enough to support it, but I don't see anything wrong with it, either. While everyone (including CCP) agrees that those mechanics are f'ed up and need to be altered/clarified/etc., there's a big issue that the part of the code this is in (called Crimewatch) is a huge mess that really needs to be redone because everytime CCP changes something to it, something unforeseen on the side breaks. Soo, the bad part is that this particular change (it's been asked by the CSM 3 times I believe, CSM 2, 3 and 5) probably won't make it soon. But the good side is, Crimewatch's getting closer and closer on the horizon as other things get solved. I believe our good friends of Team Gridlock have their eyes kinda set on it as it's also a cause for degraded performance in lowsec and highsec and one of the reason killmails are frequently borked and the reason we don't have pod killmails that show implants, to name a few things.
Glad its at least on the radar within CCP (I knew it was on the radar with CSM).
It sounds like the section of code is one of those that has been so heavily modified (and probably lacks some notes) that its nigh impossible to follow from a logical standpoint. From what little coding I've done, I know that you have two options:
1. Try to sort through it, which can take weeks/months depending on the complexity.
2. Redesign it from the ground up. Figure out what the current code does, what you want it to do, and start over.
#2 usually takes less time, and is MUCH more efficient than #1. Which is why the project has likely been shelved for the time being.
|
Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
174
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 14:15:00 -
[15] - Quote
Zagam wrote:Meissa Anunthiel wrote:Aamrr wrote:I wouldn't have any objection to that change. I don't really care enough to support it, but I don't see anything wrong with it, either. While everyone (including CCP) agrees that those mechanics are f'ed up and need to be altered/clarified/etc., there's a big issue that the part of the code this is in (called Crimewatch) is a huge mess that really needs to be redone because everytime CCP changes something to it, something unforeseen on the side breaks. Soo, the bad part is that this particular change (it's been asked by the CSM 3 times I believe, CSM 2, 3 and 5) probably won't make it soon. But the good side is, Crimewatch's getting closer and closer on the horizon as other things get solved. I believe our good friends of Team Gridlock have their eyes kinda set on it as it's also a cause for degraded performance in lowsec and highsec and one of the reason killmails are frequently borked and the reason we don't have pod killmails that show implants, to name a few things. Glad its at least on the radar within CCP (I knew it was on the radar with CSM). It sounds like the section of code is one of those that has been so heavily modified (and probably lacks some notes) that its nigh impossible to follow from a logical standpoint. From what little coding I've done, I know that you have two options: 1. Try to sort through it, which can take weeks/months depending on the complexity. 2. Redesign it from the ground up. Figure out what the current code does, what you want it to do, and start over. #2 usually takes less time, and is MUCH more efficient than #1. Which is why the project has likely been shelved for the time being.
quoth CCP Greyscale here:
Quote:
>> Honestly, it's because both design- and code-wise, our system for dealing with criminals and flagging (called Crimewatch) is mainly made up of bandaids at this point. Exhaustively documenting all its functionality and then redesigning/recoding it from scratch is on our to-do list, because it's becoming harder and harder to fix problems with it without breaking something else.
PS: sorry for doubleposting, just figured you'd appreciate getting CCP's own words and not just mine.
Member of CSM 2, 3, 4 and 5. Vice-Chairman of CSM 6 |
Amun Khonsu
Royal Order of Security Specialists
2
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 18:15:00 -
[16] - Quote
Shingorash wrote:I'm sure they could make reps work in Incursion sites and not outside them. Much the same as you used to be able to use afterburners in some deadspace areas and not MWD's.
It's a similar concept.
Of course they can, my point being it doesnt make sense.
Fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. |
Arthur Black
SoE Roughriders
2
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 12:40:00 -
[17] - Quote
Glad to see it's on people's radar. It means some sort of change will be forthcoming, even if it will take some time.
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
Because it takes :effort: to put you neutral logi into a one-man corp, right?
One-man corporations are fine. They can be declared war upon.
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
And on the other hand, people who chose to stay in NPC corps are not allowed to fly logis in, say, incursions?
Sure they are, to rep up others in the same NPC corporation. Or as you suggested, get into a one-man corporation. Or join another corporation altogether.
Metal Icarus and Malcanis wrote:
[Make them valid WTs]
While I like the idea on a general basis, you cannot get NPC corporations involved in wars. And I foresee tracking the WT status of individual pilots would make for convoluted code and slow game mechanics.
Shingorash wrote:
Problem is this only applies to high sec. It is a problem in low sec as well.
Why would this not apply to low sec? You can still then actually declare war on them.
|
Aamrr
HnL Enterprise
24
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 13:27:00 -
[18] - Quote
The medicine you're proposing seems worse than the disease it's supposed to solve. An appropriate tweak to remote-assistance aggression mechanics seems all that's necessary to fix this. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |