Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Berke Negri
Caldari RPS holdings
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 16:05:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Jack Dant
Originally by: CCP Soundwave We are looking into this issue right now.
So after the hundred threads on how this would ruin incursions, you are only looking into it after the incursions hit?
Never stop complaining. Never surrender. Not even in the face of requested changes.
|
Grimpak
Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 16:07:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Berke Negri
Originally by: Jack Dant
Originally by: CCP Soundwave We are looking into this issue right now.
So after the hundred threads on how this would ruin incursions, you are only looking into it after the incursions hit?
Never stop complaining. Never surrender. Not even in the face of requested changes.
or, I dunno, form a fleet with friends/corpmates only?
I mean, these incursions are not meant to be run by like a gang of a gazillion people, aren't they? ---
Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.
ain't that right. |
Daedalus II
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 16:11:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Burseg Sardaukar
Imagine a smartbombing typhoon being RR'd by 15+ Exequrors in a belt he normally wouldn't have enough time to kill all the Mackinaws he wanted. Should those Exequrors be immune?
IMO the easiest way is just to stop all remote effects on a target that gets a GCC. If you really really want to get concorded you can start your repper on him again after that, but you will get a warning if you do (and have warnings turned on).
|
flapie 2
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 16:12:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Daedalus II
If we see it like this; in how many other MMOs are the healers punished by death for offering to help? Doesn't seem like much of an incentive to cooperation in my eyes.
Lets take our most favorite *cough*cough* game as example WoW, iff you are the healer in a group and that group attacks for example a city gaurd (bit silly example i know). And you keep healing them even tho its a lost cause, they will eventually kill you 2 cause of a machanic called agro. Better yet you dont even have to heal to get killed when some one in that group does something stupid. For as far as i know most MMORPG work that way since your a 'Group'.
Tho i get the point your making i think its silly aswell, but its been like that for a while now, and happend befor aswell just on a smaller scale like the suicide ganks used to.
|
Cailais
Amarr Ukomi Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 16:15:00 -
[35]
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: Daedalus II What is really needed is for CCP to do something about the RR aggression mechanic. As long as aggression transfers to the RR ship it is as you say; you can not join an unknown fleet.
The only safe way to play with unknowns is to not use RR on them; the pilot in an RR ship risks his whole ship on the premise the one he's repairing is not a jerk or idiot. Given that 95% of the eve population seems to be jerks or idiots that is a pretty risky gamble.
And without any RR what so ever, any PUG fleet will be DOA. With a better RR aggression mechanic you can still not be sure you're not in a fleet full of players who only look for themselves, but you can at least know that they can't get you concorded any second.
If we see it like this; in how many other MMOs are the healers punished by death for offering to help? Doesn't seem like much of an incentive to cooperation in my eyes.
We are looking into this issue right now.
/me facepalms.
C.
the hydrostatic capsule blog
|
Jack Dant
Minmatar The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 16:19:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Daedalus II IMO the easiest way is just to stop all remote effects on a target that gets a GCC. If you really really want to get concorded you can start your repper on him again after that, but you will get a warning if you do (and have warnings turned on).
This would work if they restrict it to highsec (in the same way as the concord dialog you can't turn off). Otherwise it makes RR in lowsec even weirder than it already is.
|
Karl Planck
WIcked Bad Ultra Killers
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 16:20:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Karl Planck on 25/01/2011 16:24:08 Although this would result in more pew in incursion systems, removing Concord from system under an incursion would fix the problem. Large fleets are meant to handle pvp pressure from would be gankers. Attempting GCC wouldn't kill the group. To make the sites hard RR is necessary.
Problem: No concord means pvp in high sec. But w/e, put sansha on the gate and who cares. My 2 cents
*Edit: btw, wth is concord doing in high sec incursions anyway. If you can draw a few hundred concord (with infinite death lasers) from GCC'ing a RR train, where is the concord support in sites and on gate ><. one of the larger logical disconnects in the recent updates. -------------------------------------------------
Don't debate with morons. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience. |
Gareth Ultari
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 16:22:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Zaknussem
Originally by: Jack Dant
Originally by: CCP Soundwave We are looking into this issue right now.
So after the hundred threads on how this would ruin incursions, you are only looking into it after the incursions hit?
This.
unbelievable. had been reported for months. corporate incompetence at its highest.
|
bukchoi
Gallente Junkyard Doggs
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 16:23:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Karl Planck Although this would result in more pew in incursion systems, removing Concord from system under an incursion would fix the problem. Large fleets are meant to handle pvp pressure from would be gankers. Attempting GCC wouldn't kill the group. To make the sites hard RR is necessary.
Problem: No concord means pvp in high sec. But w/e, put sansha on the gate and who cares. My 2 cents
low sec rules in incursion high sec? the cry-factor will rise i like it. (am here to cause tears and destruction)
|
Daedalus II
Helios Research
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 16:28:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Jack Dant
Originally by: Daedalus II IMO the easiest way is just to stop all remote effects on a target that gets a GCC. If you really really want to get concorded you can start your repper on him again after that, but you will get a warning if you do (and have warnings turned on).
This would work if they restrict it to highsec (in the same way as the concord dialog you can't turn off). Otherwise it makes RR in lowsec even weirder than it already is.
Agreed.
___________ Interested in incursions? Join Helios Research! http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1446170http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=14461 |
|
Indeterminacy
THORN Syndicate Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 16:28:00 -
[41]
I'm not really seeing a problem here. When you join a fleet you are more or less signing a social contract which carries with it quite a bit of trust (implied or otherwise). If someone breaks that trust - hilarious consequences ensue.
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 16:28:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Grimpak
Originally by: Berke Negri
Originally by: Jack Dant
Originally by: CCP Soundwave We are looking into this issue right now.
So after the hundred threads on how this would ruin incursions, you are only looking into it after the incursions hit?
Never stop complaining. Never surrender. Not even in the face of requested changes.
or, I dunno, form a fleet with friends/corpmates only?
I mean, these incursions are not meant to be run by like a gang of a gazillion people, aren't they?
That's a workaround to an existing problem, not a solution to the problem. The basic problem is you can get CONCORDED even when you had no intention of giving aid to anyone guilty of a criminal act. It is a reasonable request to give people the ability to choose to not give such aid and avoid getting punished for the criminal actions of someone else.
Even after this gets fixed you can still get screwed by random people and be encouraged to fleet with people you know, but this obvious shortcoming of the current system would no longer be an obstacle to fleeting with a PUG. It would also allow and encourage people to work more in teams even outside corporations, which to me seems like a good thing to encourage in an MMO.
|
Megan Maynard
Minmatar Out of Order
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 16:31:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Karl Planck Edited by: Karl Planck on 25/01/2011 16:24:08 Although this would result in more pew in incursion systems, removing Concord from system under an incursion would fix the problem. Large fleets are meant to handle pvp pressure from would be gankers. Attempting GCC wouldn't kill the group. To make the sites hard RR is necessary.
Problem: No concord means pvp in high sec. But w/e, put sansha on the gate and who cares. My 2 cents
*Edit: btw, wth is concord doing in high sec incursions anyway. If you can draw a few hundred concord (with infinite death lasers) from GCC'ing a RR train, where is the concord support in sites and on gate ><. one of the larger logical disconnects in the recent updates.
THIS 100%. Concord have no buisness in systems that are being invaded. It makes zero RP sense, it makes zero gameplay sense, and CCP is making the same f%$(*#&$ mistake they made with FW. (Keeping current system mechanics for something that doesn't work with current system mechanics)
This is the same **** as 0.0 alliances having no control over their systems and FW where taking a system does JACK ****.
Fix this crap, this is why your patches have sucked hard core lately. Grow a PAIR!
Originally by: F'nog
Originally by: Stareatthesun No no no ... Polaris is where CCP keeps the death star that will destroy eve when the servers shut down.
Thankfully I've got Interceptors trained to V. S |
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 16:31:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Gareth Ultari
Originally by: Zaknussem
Originally by: Jack Dant
Originally by: CCP Soundwave We are looking into this issue right now.
So after the hundred threads on how this would ruin incursions, you are only looking into it after the incursions hit?
This.
unbelievable. had been reported for months. corporate incompetence at its highest.
Hm.. this would be a new speed record for tackling a balancing issue.. Incursions could be tested on Sisi first time around Christmas I think and had promptly pointed out to be broken for PUG fleets.. so 1 month? Whhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!
Get rid of Rooms with Doors - Shortrange Jumpdrives for everybody! |
Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 16:35:00 -
[45]
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: Daedalus II What is really needed is for CCP to do something about the RR aggression mechanic. As long as aggression transfers to the RR ship it is as you say; you can not join an unknown fleet.
The only safe way to play with unknowns is to not use RR on them; the pilot in an RR ship risks his whole ship on the premise the one he's repairing is not a jerk or idiot. Given that 95% of the eve population seems to be jerks or idiots that is a pretty risky gamble.
And without any RR what so ever, any PUG fleet will be DOA. With a better RR aggression mechanic you can still not be sure you're not in a fleet full of players who only look for themselves, but you can at least know that they can't get you concorded any second.
If we see it like this; in how many other MMOs are the healers punished by death for offering to help? Doesn't seem like much of an incentive to cooperation in my eyes.
We are looking into this issue right now.
While you're looking at that code how about making it so that neutral RR confers the same COMBAT timer (the 60 sec jump/dock thing) that the recipient already has (or none at all - as it is currently - if they have none). Thx!
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 16:37:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Megan Maynard
Originally by: Karl Planck Although this would result in more pew in incursion systems, removing Concord from system under an incursion would fix the problem. Large fleets are meant to handle pvp pressure from would be gankers. Attempting GCC wouldn't kill the group. To make the sites hard RR is necessary.
Problem: No concord means pvp in high sec. But w/e, put sansha on the gate and who cares. My 2 cents
*Edit: btw, wth is concord doing in high sec incursions anyway. If you can draw a few hundred concord (with infinite death lasers) from GCC'ing a RR train, where is the concord support in sites and on gate ><. one of the larger logical disconnects in the recent updates
THIS 100%. Concord have no buisness in systems that are being invaded. It makes zero RP sense, it makes zero gameplay sense, and CCP is making the same f%$(*#&$ mistake they made with FW. (Keeping current system mechanics for something that doesn't work with current system mechanics)
This is the same **** as 0.0 alliances having no control over their systems and FW where taking a system does JACK ****.
Fix this crap, this is why your patches have sucked hard core lately. Grow a PAIR!
First let's see how these Incursions are being handled in low sec.. then in about 6 months CCP might draw conclusions from it and might incorporate a feature like that into the next big thing.
You don't want those carebears being catched by a two-front war with new rules (plain vanilla PvE fits don't work any more) straight away, do you? On one side the Sansha and on the other side the Pirates.
Get rid of Rooms with Doors - Shortrange Jumpdrives for everybody! |
Barakkus
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 16:39:00 -
[47]
All they need to do is stop the cycle on reppers when the person they are repping gets a GCC and pop up the concord warning window for the repping pilot.
How to implement that and not break a whole bunch of other **** is the problem. I'm sure it's not going to be easy to get that coded. - - [SERVICE] Corp Standings For POS anchoring
|
Mashie Saldana
Minmatar Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 16:48:00 -
[48]
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: Daedalus II What is really needed is for CCP to do something about the RR aggression mechanic. As long as aggression transfers to the RR ship it is as you say; you can not join an unknown fleet.
The only safe way to play with unknowns is to not use RR on them; the pilot in an RR ship risks his whole ship on the premise the one he's repairing is not a jerk or idiot. Given that 95% of the eve population seems to be jerks or idiots that is a pretty risky gamble.
And without any RR what so ever, any PUG fleet will be DOA. With a better RR aggression mechanic you can still not be sure you're not in a fleet full of players who only look for themselves, but you can at least know that they can't get you concorded any second.
If we see it like this; in how many other MMOs are the healers punished by death for offering to help? Doesn't seem like much of an incentive to cooperation in my eyes.
We are looking into this issue right now.
Does this mean you actually might fix the other ancient issue by mistake then where you get GCC for repping an outlaw even if they don't have GCC to start with?
|
Seklyko
East Oursulaert Fleecers
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 16:49:00 -
[49]
It's really very very funny how this issue is a complete and utter surprise to CCP. Not in their wildest imagination would they dream of the possibility of players taking advantage of questionable game rules to mess up things for others. This has undoubtably taken CCP by shock and jawdropping surprise. ---
Signature goes here |
Grimpak
Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 16:54:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Grimpak on 25/01/2011 16:54:45
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
Originally by: Grimpak or, I dunno, form a fleet with friends/corpmates only?
I mean, these incursions are not meant to be run by like a gang of a gazillion people, aren't they?
That's a workaround to an existing problem, not a solution to the problem. The basic problem is you can get CONCORDED even when you had no intention of giving aid to anyone guilty of a criminal act. It is a reasonable request to give people the ability to choose to not give such aid and avoid getting punished for the criminal actions of someone else.
Even after this gets fixed you can still get screwed by random people and be encouraged to fleet with people you know, but this obvious shortcoming of the current system would no longer be an obstacle to fleeting with a PUG. It would also allow and encourage people to work more in teams even outside corporations, which to me seems like a good thing to encourage in an MMO.
the problem here is that you invite people that you don't know.
since when has EVE evolved into a game where one can trust somebody? ---
Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.
ain't that right. |
|
Alexandra Delarge
The Korova
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 17:01:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Ayieka I love how everyone thinks up how to use this new event to screw as many people over as possible.
I love how the players take action against a reported faulty game mechanic and force CCP to change their flawed system. |
Pr1ncess Alia
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 17:04:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Daedalus II
Originally by: Jack Dant
Originally by: CCP Soundwave We are looking into this issue right now.
So after the hundred threads on how this would ruin incursions, you are only looking into it after the incursions hit?
Well we knew nothing would happen until people actually started dying in droves due to this I'm just happy they're looking at it, not a second too soon.
A forum post isn't a fix.
Let's not forget how long faction warfare people complained about RR mechanics.
Remember FW?
--- Players are losing faith and loyalty in CCP due previous expansions not living up to player expectations. The CSM and CCP agreed that expectation management can be improved |
bukchoi
Gallente Junkyard Doggs
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 17:07:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Seklyko It's really very very funny how this issue is a complete and utter surprise to CCP. Not in their wildest imagination would they dream of the possibility of players taking advantage of questionable game rules to mess up things for others. This has undoubtably taken CCP by shock and jawdropping surprise.
it seems the sanshas have not only invaded eve players but also the eve developers
|
Ovella
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 17:11:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Tres Farmer You don't want those carebears being catched by a two-front war with new rules (plain vanilla PvE fits don't work any more) straight away, do you? On one side the Sansha and on the other side the Pirates.
What? You telling that people should actually pity carebears? In EVE? |
Takseen
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 17:36:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Burseg Sardaukar
Originally by: Takseen Would it be that big a problem to just not have RRing someone incur the wrath of Concord?
The aggressor is going to die to Concord anyway, what difference does it make if someone else was unwittingly repairing him at the time?
Imagine a smartbombing typhoon being RR'd by 15+ Exequrors in a belt he normally wouldn't have enough time to kill all the Mackinaws he wanted. Should those Exequrors be immune?
I was under the impression that gaining agro from Concord resulted in being instagibbed, and no amount of RR would slow that down. If it does have an impact, couldn't they just increase Concord's alpha damage to a ludicrous amount?
|
Jupix
Minmatar MuroBBS United
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 17:40:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Whitehound full of players who look only after themselves or, worse, after your misfortune.
That's pretty much the nature of the EVE playerbase condensed into a single sentence.
|
Leon Mustapha
Amarr V I R I I Phalanx Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 17:45:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Whitehound
It is now officially raining carebear wrecks.
It was as if a million voices cried out and were suddenly silenced.
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 17:49:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Seklyko It's really very very funny how this issue is a complete and utter surprise to CCP. Not in their wildest imagination would they dream of the possibility of players taking advantage of questionable game rules to mess up things for others. This has undoubtably taken CCP by shock and jawdropping surprise.
This change has been planned for a good while. The fact that we haven't had the time to put it in doesn't mean we didn't know about it. We're not seeing "droves of people" being blown up as a consequence of this mechanic.
Trust is a factor in all parts of EVEs gameplay. Incursions are no different, all interaction comes with a risk.
|
|
Centri Sixx
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 17:49:00 -
[59]
The real problem is that EVE players have been so conditioned to grief carebears that it prevents the pugging style of gameplay Incursions ideally were supposed to bring. You can't ask players to work together in any meaningful form outside of corp/alliance because of it.
CCP doesn't care because it's obvious incursions were designed to destroy as many expensive ships as possible as well as gimp the economic and logstical output of an area rather than be fun. This is why you have a relatively high barrier to entry in terms of ships and numbers needed.
So it's a double hit. Lack of trust + high entry and participation cost. Time will tell I guess.
|
Vincent Athena
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 17:55:00 -
[60]
First, what does GCC stand for?
Next: Given the present mechanic, if I RR Fred, who is a different corp than me, and Fred shoots me, do I get condorded (along with Fred)?
I like the idea that what should happen is concord breaks my target lock on Fred, and if I try to resume RR, I get a warning first.
On making incursion sites low sec: There are many of us who do not wish to do PvE in low sec, period. If incursion areas became low sec, we simply would not do them. CCP wants new content to be as inclusive of players as possible, so we should have incursions in high sec, even though it has its immersion breaking issues.
Understand this: There is Nothing you can do to force people who want to play in high sec to move to low sec! If all of eve became low sec, they would quit and play a different game, and then you still could not shoot them!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |