Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 30 40 .. 44 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 81 post(s) |
Lucas Quaan
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:17:00 -
[511] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Lucas Quaan wrote:Not reading 23 pages, but is the first chart correct in that hitting illegal targets in 0.0 (like there are any others) with smartbomb/ECM burst does not give a pvp flag? And what about being hit by those modules? Heh, a slight troll by CCP. Think about it: who exactly is not a legal target in 0.0? Yeah, but it's listed for targeted modules so knowing the arbitrariness of some game mechanics I thought it best to ask. Never assume incompetence where malice would be so much more fun. :) |
Matt Grav
Wrath of the Pea
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:18:00 -
[512] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Matt Grav wrote:I'm still looking for the answer to this ^ One would think that you'd only get one sec hit per engagement, and that an GǣengagementGǥ is defined as Gǣas long as you have that PvP flagGǥGǪ but I'm only guessing. That's interesting. The suspect flag is global, so as long as I do not get into a LE with someone, then nothing is tracking the engagement . So if they warp off grid and then return and attack again we may well find that they take another sec hit + gate guns.
Otherwise a pirate could pick up the suspect flag in a belt and then freely attack anyone at a gate without taking further sec hit or gate guns.
That's the way that I read no A-B flagging outside of LE anyway.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9746
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:19:00 -
[513] - Quote
Lucas Quaan wrote:Yeah, but it's listed for targeted modules so knowing the arbitrariness of some game mechanics I thought it best to ask. Never assume incompetence where malice would be so much more fun. :) Nolnah's razor?
Matt Grav wrote:That's interesting. The suspect flag is global, so as long as I do not get into a LE with someone, then nothing is tracking the engagement . So if they warp off grid and then return and attack again we may well find that they take another sec hit + gate guns.
Otherwise a pirate could pick up the suspect flag in a belt and then freely attack anyone at a gate without taking further sec hit or gate guns.
That's the way that I read no A-B flagging outside of LE anyway. Yes, I can't quite see how it would fit into the current system as described, since only LEs set up any kind of relationship and it's not certain that one will exist, but it seems like a reasonable limitation. After all, there must be some kind of tracking going on so you don't get a sec drop for every shot you fire, or even for every module activation. Exactly what mechanism or timer they'll use as a basis isn't particularly relevant on the scale of things, but it would be nice to knowGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
129
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:20:00 -
[514] - Quote
I have a question about sentry gun aggression and sec status hits. According to the blog, if I attack a neutral pilot while on grid with sentry guns, I will take a sec status hit and the sentries will start shooting me. If I then warp off, the sentries will immediately forget about my wicked ways and will let me be until I do something bad again. The blog also states that when you attack and kill a player ship, you only get a single, front-loaded sec status hit. What then happens if, having aggressed a neutral in sight of the sentries and then warped off grid, I come back and start shooting the neutral again. What happens in terms of sentry aggression and sec status in that case?
a) I take an additional sec status hit, sentries start shooting me again b) I take no additional sec status hit, sentries start shooting me again c) I take no additional sec status hit, sentries ignore me d) I take an additional sec status hit, sentries ignore me
I assume it's (b), but am not sure. |
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:32:00 -
[515] - Quote
Jarin Arenos wrote:Look, I'm not saying that you can't make highsec missions more challenging or whatever. But like the 20% HML nerf + tracking damped missiles, this is too much at once. All we're asking is at least some sort of consideration from CCP in this process. A little communication and assurance that they've at least looked at the issue and this isn't just lousy oversight.
Why? If you are high sec, no risk player it should be impossible for you to earn enough ISK to PLEX your account every month.
IF you are only weekend warrior, you shouldn't be able get all your equipment from a single PLEX purchase either.
This fits well with the CCP goal is to sell more PLEX by lowering the ISK value of PLEX. Ultimately this means decent full-time PVP players will all be able to PLEX their accounts every month while less serious part-time or high sec players foot the bill.
How it works: Initially by reducing mission income, more hi sec people will need to buy PLEX with RL cash rather than ISK. The reduced demand for PLEX on ISK market will lower the ISK value of PLEX...meaning those rich folk converting RL cash to ISK via PLEX will also need to buy more PLEX to reach ISK target goals. A new equilibrium price will eventually be established at lower level as low sec and null sec PVPers start buying more PLEX and stop paying RL cash. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
952
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:34:00 -
[516] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Tippia wrote:@-áCCP Masterplan
In regards to the T3 SP loss situation, could you care to comment on the thinking and on the possibility (or downsides) of a solution to that change in mechanics. I made a short remark on it earlier but it was kind of buried in a different post.
Right now, you list GÇ£WeaponsGÇ¥-flagging as causing a 60-second inability to dock, jump, abandon ship (by ejecting or storing the ship), and board ships (be it in space or from a corp hangar) unless it's done from a capsule. This is to remove the whole GÇ£ship-swapping to avoid destructionGÇ¥, I presume, and the capsule exception is hidden behind the rule that makes it impossible to enter a capsule without being destroyed?
What if you adjusted the weapons-flagging rules so that: -+ It does not have that capsule exception: in other words, you cannot board ships while you have a weapons flag, period. -+ You are allowed to eject from (but not store) a ship while weapon-flagged. -+ Ejecting resets your weapon flag timer to the full 60 seconds. -+ Getting blown up clears your weapon flag timer to 0.
As far as I can see, this would maintain the ban on ship-swapping: you can't swap ships mid-battle GÇö yes, you can eject, but it will take 60 seconds for your weapons flag to clear out, and before that, you're not allowed to board a new ship. Have fun orbiting ye olde Orca in a pod for a minute while everyone around you is allowed to shoot you. If you are destroyed, you can board a new shipGǪ but then, that was possible under the suggested rule set as well and you have to lose a ship to get there, so this is no different than what you're proposing. If you are destroyed, you can also (almost) immediately jump through a gate or dock up, but those are still restricted by the session timer that triggers on destruction so the exploitation potential from those (re)added abilities should be minimal. Finally, this means you once again can get out of your T3 to save your SP, but you have all the weapons-flag restrictions for the next 60 seconds so the only possible thing to do is warp off and hope for the best.
Is there anything I've missed in this that would go against what your goals are? Are there any obvious loop-holes? When you've ejected from your expensive gatecamp ship, what's to stop a conveniently-placed alt-orca scooping it and insta-jumping to highsec, where it will be untouchable?
a scooping timer. add the timer to the orca where the exploit actually happens a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
44
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:35:00 -
[517] - Quote
Udonor wrote:Jarin Arenos wrote:Look, I'm not saying that you can't make highsec missions more challenging or whatever. But like the 20% HML nerf + tracking damped missiles, this is too much at once. All we're asking is at least some sort of consideration from CCP in this process. A little communication and assurance that they've at least looked at the issue and this isn't just lousy oversight. Why? If you are high sec, no risk player it should be impossible for you to earn enough ISK to PLEX your account every month. IF you are only weekend warrior, you shouldn't be able get all your equipment from a single PLEX purchase either. This fits well with the CCP goal is to sell more PLEX by lowering the ISK value of PLEX. Ultimately this means decent full-time PVP players will all be able to PLEX their accounts every month while less serious part-time or high sec players foot the bill. How it works: Initially by reducing mission income, more hi sec people will need to buy PLEX with RL cash rather than ISK. The reduced demand for PLEX on ISK market will lower the ISK value of PLEX...meaning those rich folk converting RL cash to ISK via PLEX will also need to buy more PLEX to reach ISK target goals. A new equilibrium price will eventually be established at lower level as low sec and null sec PVPers start buying more PLEX and stop paying RL cash. Okay first, I don't PLEX, I just pay my monthly fee and play the game. Second... that rambling mess is... probably a bit of a stretch. Seriously, man, with that avatar, I'd be careful about throwing around conspiracy theories, or you might have some nice DEA men dropping in. |
Swidgen
Republic University Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:37:00 -
[518] - Quote
CCP Explorer wrote:EVE is not a simple game, but at least there will now be charts describing how it behaves! Please make sure the GMs are aware of these charts, how things are supposed to work, and that all these flags and timers are Logged. You're doing a re-design of a huge part of the game. "The Logs Show Nothing" will no longer be an acceptable excuse
Also, wardecs. Since war targets are always legal to shoot at, what flags will combat trigger and for how long? The Charts Show Nothing. The word "wardec" doesn't even appear on them. Will parties at war still be able to employ neutral remote-reppers without any consequences? |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
952
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:45:00 -
[519] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote: Also, am I right in reading that if I attack someone in space in low sec and don't pod them, there might not be any sentry guns involved at all, if it doesn't happen at a gate? I might have read wrong, and I'm way too lazy to check other people's posts to see if they answer my question.
This is correct. No more having to sit in a safespot for 15 minutes after shooting someone in a lowsec belt/FW plex. thats awesome! a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Mike deVoid
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
19
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 23:06:00 -
[520] - Quote
Sec Status and mobility
Can you comment on the rumour that suspect-flag behaviour (i.e. low-sec PVP ) will only lower your sec status to -4.99 and will not lock you out of highsec?
Can you comment on the rumours that Highsec sec status faction navy aggro is being changed to a flat -5 value for all systems and that you are ditching the current sliding scale that exists?
Can you comment on the rumour that faction navy NPC aggro will only apply to sec status and completely ignore faction standings?
|
|
Kano Takada
Interkosmos
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 23:16:00 -
[521] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: This is not just oddly intentional, it is very intentional. If we didn't want to penalise T3 death, we simply wouldn't have the skillpoint-loss mechanic in the first place
I really don't get why losing an 800mil ship is not enough of a penalization. Also, what is the point of ejecting if you can't do it when there is an emergency. Isn't that what an "escape pod" is for? Perhaps you should just make T3s not have this penalty, their cost is already huge, losing them is already penalty enough when you pop.
Ahahahahaha
If you cant afford to lose it then dont fly it.
And escape pod is to save your 'clone' not your skillpoints, which at max is like a 4day train. |
WickedBlade
North Star Trading Co
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 23:34:00 -
[522] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:T RAYRAY wrote:Regarding the eject discussion, please ensure that it is only the Weapon flag that prevents eject. If the PVP flag prevents eject it will be used the grief people caught at belts by perma-pointing a ship until downtime, the pointed pilot could not eject but would be bound to the ship even while logged off until DT kicks off the tackler. Confirming that ONLY the Weapon flag will impose restrictions on ejecting.
I like everything in this blog except the changes to ejecting. There are more reasons to eject then just to save your SP while flying a T3 & this prevents all of them. Bad change IMHO. |
Tsukinosuke
Id Est
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 23:37:00 -
[523] - Quote
Kano Takada wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: This is not just oddly intentional, it is very intentional. If we didn't want to penalise T3 death, we simply wouldn't have the skillpoint-loss mechanic in the first place
I really don't get why losing an 800mil ship is not enough of a penalization. Also, what is the point of ejecting if you can't do it when there is an emergency. Isn't that what an "escape pod" is for? Perhaps you should just make T3s not have this penalty, their cost is already huge, losing them is already penalty enough when you pop. Ahahahahaha If you cant afford to lose it then dont fly it. And escape pod is to save your 'clone' not your skillpoints, which at max is like a 4day train.
unnecessary copy-paste old EvE motto with ridiculous comment.. if you are using a clone to save your skill points and have to upgrade it, how could you talk like this nonsense? Actually, random skill remove is ridiculous as much as you.. Tranining frozen for a period of time should be enough if there must be a punishment of choosing a new Tech ship to fly.. |
DJ Xaphod
Eve Radio Corporation
16
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 23:37:00 -
[524] - Quote
I do think that the Limited Engagements would benefit greatly from further exploration; I think any system that is based entirely on a relationship between one character and another will suffer from being far too simplistic considering the mechanics of combat in Eve.
To go from the example in the blog: B is a suspect or criminal. A attacks B. C then helps A out with cap or shields or whatever. C is now suspect flagged and can be shot by D-Z.
This doesn't seem to be very evenly balanced to me, and in my opinion what would make more sense would just be to add C to the limited engagement.
I understand that this would likely be more complex to code, but in this instance I feel the necessity warrants this additional complexity.
One of the main benefits of this system is that it gives more people the ability to dip their toes into PVP, but in this particular instance you're essentially requiring pirate-hunters to eschew the benefits of logistics, and I think that's a mistake. -áGëí>Gëí Radio, Bringing Music to the Masses. http://eve-radio.com I play Rock & Metal Thursday Nights 2200 GameTime Sunday Evenings 1800 GameTime |
Alx Warlord
Security Task Force
172
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 23:40:00 -
[525] - Quote
Kano Takada wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: This is not just oddly intentional, it is very intentional. If we didn't want to penalise T3 death, we simply wouldn't have the skillpoint-loss mechanic in the first place
I really don't get why losing an 800mil ship is not enough of a penalization. Also, what is the point of ejecting if you can't do it when there is an emergency. Isn't that what an "escape pod" is for? Perhaps you should just make T3s not have this penalty, their cost is already huge, losing them is already penalty enough when you pop. Ahahahahaha If you cant afford to lose it then dont fly it. And escape pod is to save your 'clone' not your skillpoints, which at max is like a 4day train.
I just hope that in the NEXT expansion that will be industry oriented, ships get less expensive and thy fix the POS system ( something like this post on my signature would be good.... would reflect on ship prices drop and more pvp) [Discussion] - New POS system ( Construction Block Built - Starbasecraft) <<< Please CCP read this! |
Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
98
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 23:42:00 -
[526] - Quote
What I don't understand is this:
Why is it illegal to board a new ship for 60 seconds with a weapons timer?
Suppose a ninja in a frigate is attacked by a mission runner.
Ninja is able to survive the new NPC AI - and no outside help arrives for the mission runner.
Ninja is capable of holding the mission runner - but not breaking the tank. (a common situation)
Boarding a new ship (with more DPS) is key to breaking the mission runner. What happens to the bait ship is largely unimportant.
Lets go pre-Orca oldschool: Suppose an alt brings a Typhoon to the mission space, and ejects. Under CW 2.0, the ninja is not allowed to board the Typhoon. Why is this?
Even in the context of Crimewatch, this restriction makes no sense.
-Ninja's bait ship isn't leaving the field of battle or evading the consequences of combat. (locked = not scoopable) -His Typhoon clearly isn't going anywhere until the battle is over. -There is no 'hiding and escaping' going on, just bringing more firepower to the table to kill the carebear.
Its a simple matter of the carebear starting a fight that didn't end up being the fight intended.
Yet, for some reason - its now illegal.
I see a lot of smokescreens about T3's and 'evading consequences with Orcas.' But none of this justifies arbitrarily preventing a player from boarding a new ship for 60 seconds.
But it seems that this is really about completely defanging ninjas (those who bait mission runners into shooting.)
Because forcing a ninja to turn off his guns for 60 seconds before being allowed to bring more DPS to the fight - well, the mission runner is going to dock up.
Is this really about providing consequences for 'criminals'? Or really - just coddling carebears?
|
MisterAl tt1
Pretenders Inc W-Space
11
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 23:43:00 -
[527] - Quote
/me is emiting some long sentences containing mostly swearing...
"Stealing from a container will expose you to potential attacks from all players (but not from sentry guns). " - CCP is effectively killing the ninja-looters? I have come in this game stealing peoples loot and I don't see why the hell newbies cannot do that? Say "chao" to on of the player-invented newbie profession. A sandbox is such a sandbox, right?
And now, the top of the pie! The cherry! "It is possible to be prevented from switching ships or ejecting (whilst in space) by your actions" ""This is not just oddly intentional, it is very intentional. If we didn't want to penalise T3 death, we simply wouldn't have the skillpoint-loss mechanic in the first place" First CCP claims "Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line.", then nerfs HMLs, now this. Are you crazy there??? With all this each and any T3 will be worthless ships at high price. I do live in wormholes as I see this as the only sane environment in EVE to live, I fly T3 cos I like them and I find it nice to fly ships that are actully produced by my corporation, not to pay some nullsec blobers for each and every ship.
That IS a challange to eject in the right moment, so that your ship is not taken by the winning party. That is a chance to get a free T3 when catching one and, people, have you ever been in WH? Everyone flies T3 here and I bet many have this idea "I will eject in time".
With all these "innovations" you are killing wormholes! Noone would need T3 in numbers they are produced now. Prices go low, T3 reservers go down the toilet, people escape wormholes since the best ships to fly there (at least now) go beyond the floor. Do you know guys in WH also like to PVP? Do you know how difficult it is to find PVP here? You want WH-pvpers to be left in the middle of a scorched desert? Or are you clearing up for octopus0like farmers with a bunch of capitals who log in here just to farm?
Sorry for bla-bla-bla post, I'm seriously angry.
I have to seriously consider canceling accounts with all such "changes". And no, you won't have my shinies.
/me is emiting some long sentences containing mostly swearing... |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
586
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 23:51:00 -
[528] - Quote
DJ Xaphod wrote:I do think that the Limited Engagements would benefit greatly from further exploration; I think any system that is based entirely on a relationship between one character and another will suffer from being far too simplistic considering the mechanics of combat in Eve.
To go from the example in the blog: B is a suspect or criminal. A attacks B. C then helps A out with cap or shields or whatever. C is now suspect flagged and can be shot by D-Z.
This doesn't seem to be very evenly balanced to me, and in my opinion what would make more sense would just be to add C to the limited engagement.
I understand that this would likely be more complex to code, but in this instance I feel the necessity warrants this additional complexity.
One of the main benefits of this system is that it gives more people the ability to dip their toes into PVP, but in this particular instance you're essentially requiring pirate-hunters to eschew the benefits of logistics, and I think that's a mistake.
No..... Your method encourages the use of logistics... and I think this new system is about discouraging the use of logistics (which is used too much by risk-adverse pewpewers as is!!).
If the pirates bring along logi, and that logi reps the pirate, then it can ALSO be shot by D-Z... so both teams are on the same foot, except logistics (especially in highsec), is suddenly much more risky to use!!!
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
587
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 23:56:00 -
[529] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:What I don't understand is this:
Why is it illegal to board a new ship for 60 seconds with a weapons timer?
Suppose a ninja in a frigate is attacked by a mission runner.
Ninja is able to survive the new NPC AI - and no outside help arrives for the mission runner.
Ninja is capable of holding the mission runner - but not breaking the tank. (a common situation)
Boarding a new ship (with more DPS) is key to breaking the mission runner. What happens to the bait ship is largely unimportant.
Lets go pre-Orca oldschool: Suppose an alt brings a Typhoon to the mission space, and ejects. Under CW 2.0, the ninja is not allowed to board the Typhoon. Why is this?
Even in the context of Crimewatch, this restriction makes no sense.
-Ninja's bait ship isn't leaving the field of battle or evading the consequences of combat. (locked = not scoopable) -His Typhoon clearly isn't going anywhere until the battle is over. -There is no 'hiding and escaping' going on, just bringing more firepower to the table to kill the carebear.
Its a simple matter of the carebear starting a fight that didn't end up being the fight intended.
Yet, for some reason - its now illegal.
I see a lot of smokescreens about T3's and 'evading consequences with Orcas.' But none of this justifies arbitrarily preventing a player from boarding a new ship for 60 seconds.
But it seems that this is really about completely defanging ninjas (those who bait mission runners into shooting.)
Because forcing a ninja to turn off his guns for 60 seconds before being allowed to bring more DPS to the fight - well, the mission runner is going to dock up.
Is this really about providing consequences for 'criminals'? Or really - just coddling carebears?
Interesting point.... Although I consider this a small sacrifice to prevent people from evading t3 skill loss and evading ship losses using orca's & carriers. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
587
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:00:00 -
[530] - Quote
MisterAl tt1 wrote:/me is emiting some long sentences containing mostly swearing...
"Stealing from a container will expose you to potential attacks from all players (but not from sentry guns). " - CCP is effectively killing the ninja-looters? I have come in this game stealing peoples loot and I don't see why the hell newbies cannot do that? Say "chao" to on of the player-invented newbie profession. A sandbox is such a sandbox, right?
And now, the top of the pie! The cherry! "It is possible to be prevented from switching ships or ejecting (whilst in space) by your actions" ""This is not just oddly intentional, it is very intentional. If we didn't want to penalise T3 death, we simply wouldn't have the skillpoint-loss mechanic in the first place" First CCP claims "Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line.", then nerfs HMLs, now this. Are you crazy there??? With all this each and any T3 will be worthless ships at high price. I do live in wormholes as I see this as the only sane environment in EVE to live, I fly T3 cos I like them and I find it nice to fly ships that are actully produced by my corporation, not to pay some nullsec blobers for each and every ship.
That IS a challange to eject in the right moment, so that your ship is not taken by the winning party. That is a chance to get a free T3 when catching one and, people, have you ever been in WH? Everyone flies T3 here and I bet many have this idea "I will eject in time".
With all these "innovations" you are killing wormholes! Noone would need T3 in numbers they are produced now. Prices go low, T3 reservers go down the toilet, people escape wormholes since the best ships to fly there (at least now) go beyond the floor. Do you know guys in WH also like to PVP? Do you know how difficult it is to find PVP here? You want WH-pvpers to be left in the middle of a scorched desert? Or are you clearing up for octopus0like farmers with a bunch of capitals who log in here just to farm?
Sorry for bla-bla-bla post, I'm seriously angry.
I have to seriously consider canceling accounts with all such "changes". And no, you won't have my shinies.
/me is emiting some long sentences containing mostly swearing...
Your statement is ridiculous...
You're threatening to quit because CCP won't let you eject from a ship to evade SP loss when your specifically flying a ship that has the penalty of SP loss when you lose it?? And do you really think the changes to HML's, which are no longer going to be effected by TD's, and can be enhanced by TC's and TE's are going to hurt the t3 market.... get real...
And quick FYI.... You can still eject from that t3 and save your SP.... simply don't shoot your aggressors and you wont have the Weapons Flag, which means you can eject all you like!!!! |
|
Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
315
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:04:00 -
[531] - Quote
Swidgen wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:EVE is not a simple game, but at least there will now be charts describing how it behaves! Please make sure the GMs are aware of these charts, how things are supposed to work, and that all these flags and timers are Logged. You're doing a re-design of a huge part of the game. "The Logs Show Nothing" will no longer be an acceptable excuse Also, wardecs. Since war targets are always legal to shoot at, what flags will combat trigger and for how long? The Charts Show Nothing. The word "wardec" doesn't even appear on them. Will parties at war still be able to employ neutral remote-reppers without any consequences?
If I understood it correctly shooting a war target is like shooting a legal target and gets you into a Limited Engagement with him so any 3rd party remote effects would make the 3rd party a suspect. |
MisterAl tt1
Pretenders Inc W-Space
11
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:11:00 -
[532] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Your statement is ridiculous...
You're threatening to quit because CCP won't let you eject from a ship to evade SP loss when your specifically flying a ship that has the penalty of SP loss when you lose it?? And do you really think the changes to HML's, which are no longer going to be effected by TD's, and can be enhanced by TC's and TE's are going to hurt the t3 market.... get real...
And quick FYI.... You can still eject from that t3 and save your SP.... simply don't shoot your aggressors and you wont have the Weapons Flag, which means you can eject all you like!!!!
*edit* and stealing from a can makes you engageable by all players... which in no way inhibits or prevents you from doing it.... you just have to be smarter about it...
Go live in WH for a year and then tell me stories. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
320
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:11:00 -
[533] - Quote
I understand you are trying to fix the orca swap trick in both highsec and on gates, but the way you have it implemented is rather ham-fistedand breaks a bunch of other things, like ejected from a ship before a sabre bubbles you |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
587
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:13:00 -
[534] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:Swidgen wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:EVE is not a simple game, but at least there will now be charts describing how it behaves! Please make sure the GMs are aware of these charts, how things are supposed to work, and that all these flags and timers are Logged. You're doing a re-design of a huge part of the game. "The Logs Show Nothing" will no longer be an acceptable excuse Also, wardecs. Since war targets are always legal to shoot at, what flags will combat trigger and for how long? The Charts Show Nothing. The word "wardec" doesn't even appear on them. Will parties at war still be able to employ neutral remote-reppers without any consequences? If I understood it correctly shooting a war target is like shooting a legal target and gets you into a Limited Engagement with him so any 3rd party remote effects would make the 3rd party a suspect.
Actually, Limited Engagements only occur when a player attacks a GLOBALLY flagged character...
So, LE's are not applicable to legal engagments....
In truth, this dev blog completely omitted what happens in LEGAL fighting (ie. from war decs, killrights, corp mates), and more importantly, how flags will be delegated to Neutral parties that provide assistance in these fights.
^^ This needs to be addressed!!!!! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9748
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:21:00 -
[535] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:Why is it illegal to board a new ship for 60 seconds with a weapons timer? Because the ability to do so is being abused to unduly protect against ship losses and to stay in a fight that has long since been lost.
Have a look in any of the more heavily travelled (and camped) lowsec pockets and you'll quickly see the extent of the problem. It has nothing to do with protecting highsec carebears and everything to do with removing undue protection from people who want the best offence without the risk and costs that come with it. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
588
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:25:00 -
[536] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:I understand you are trying to fix the orca swap trick in both highsec and on gates, but the way you have it implemented is rather ham-fistedand breaks a bunch of other things, like ejected from a ship before a sabre bubbles you
Perhaps the self destruct timer should be reduced to a few seconds....
Essentially, the pros and cons of preventing ejecting:
Pro: --- T3 Skill losses will become much more common place (as was INTENDED). --- You can't save ships by scooping them into an orca/carrier hangar bay... --- People can't eject from a ship to potentially avoid embarrassing losses.
Cons: --- In nullsec, people sometimes hold your ship in place and bring in a dictor to get your pod.... you typically can't prevent this by eject/warping... (although more pod losses are a pro IMO). --- If people typically can't eject from their ship, capturing ships will become much less common (I've caught many ships because of this tactic, including freighters and BS's... I'll miss them). --- People can't switch ships to "bait'n'switch" a mission runner that was successfully baited into aggressing when they shouldn't have...
What are we missing??? In my opinion, those pros outweigh those cons! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9749
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:27:00 -
[537] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:What are we missing??? In my opinion, those pros outweigh those cons! GǪand with the idea of lock-to-prevent scoop, and revised W-flagging rules to go with it, some of those cons would be gone anyway.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Ulair Memmet
Infinite Covenant Tribal Band
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:31:00 -
[538] - Quote
Changes look very good to me, but i something bothers me:
Quote:Weapons Flag: This flag is activated by using offensive modules against another player (or simply by activating certain non-targeted weapons such as smartbombs).
Does this mean, when i'm sitting 10km away from the gate and (for whatever reason) activate my smartbomb/ECM-Burst without hitting anything, will i still get a Weapons Flag (=> will not be able to jump for 1 minute)? The activation itself is triggering the flag? This sounds kinda illogical to me. |
Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
315
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:34:00 -
[539] - Quote
Ulair Memmet wrote:Changes look very good to me, but i something bothers me: Quote:Weapons Flag: This flag is activated by using offensive modules against another player (or simply by activating certain non-targeted weapons such as smartbombs). Does this mean, when i'm sitting 10km away from the gate and (for whatever reason) activate my smartbomb/ECM-Burst without hitting anything, will i still get a Weapons Flag (=> will not be able to jump for 1 minute)? The activation itself is triggering the flag? This sounds kinda illogical to me.
Yes that is correct, you get weapons but not pvp flag. Kinda makes sense because you (in most cases) were obviously trying to do something. |
Ulair Memmet
Infinite Covenant Tribal Band
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:39:00 -
[540] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:Ulair Memmet wrote:Changes look very good to me, but i something bothers me: Quote:Weapons Flag: This flag is activated by using offensive modules against another player (or simply by activating certain non-targeted weapons such as smartbombs). Does this mean, when i'm sitting 10km away from the gate and (for whatever reason) activate my smartbomb/ECM-Burst without hitting anything, will i still get a Weapons Flag (=> will not be able to jump for 1 minute)? The activation itself is triggering the flag? This sounds kinda illogical to me. Yes that is correct, you get weapons but not pvp flag. Kinda makes sense because you (in most cases) were obviously trying to do something.
But i didn't |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 30 40 .. 44 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |