These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Fleet Member Lockon

First post
Author
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#141 - 2013-08-09 22:48:49 UTC
Harry Forever wrote:
Tyrton wrote:
Harry Forever wrote:
Tialano Utrigas wrote:
If someone starts shooting friendlies, you simply kick them from fleet and primary them.

Every meaningful fleet has logi which need to lock someone to repair them.

If your corp is full of morons like that, I suggest you leave the corp (or the game)


then they simply make an exception for logi stuff

its not a corp thing, it would make it easier for solo and new players to randomly fleetup



right i can put three 595's in my highs on my schimy or 2 auto cannons and a missile launcher the game will no that you are targeted by a logi ........ no exploit in this at allTwisted


you think a programmer can not exclude the autocannon and missiles? god you people here...

Why *should* they? All these exclusions and exceptions you're asking for are sloppy, bad design - Wasteful of developer time and CPU cycles.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#142 - 2013-08-10 01:06:06 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
OK so I only read the OP and basically, we could see this is a "switch option". If I am talking to my friends on the phone, I don't have to tell them where I am.

So what's being asked for here is a option to prevent giving your location - to anybody.


And what could be wrong with that? What with OGB (and the abuse thereof) you'd think people would want this - to be able to totally protect their untanked off grid command ship.

And we all know how people who fully exploit mechanics to their advantage are never ashamed to ask for more, right?

Don't stare down at your feet. You know who you are.


While there is nothing wrong with what the OP suggest, I will already predict, not having read the thread that he's getting the usual troll responses. I also predict that half of them are from people whose very killboards rely on what the OP is describing. I'm sure there will be the usual sprinkling of people beholden to "the system" as well, having once might have been someone who would have wanted such a feature, but then having been emotionally hurt from being ganked, coped with it by becoming a douchebag too.

Hence a lot of douchebag responses that I have not read yet.

I'll get around to it, if I feel like wasting time.

You should read the responses on a comment before responding. The response is this:
This is an addition which would add another level of safety, and thus remove a portion of the game mechanics that make EVE the game that is is. EVE is based on the idea that building trust is incredibly important. Other MMOs will allow you to be able to team instantly with random strangers and have a fun party time, but that's not the way EVE works. With EVE, you need to build and destroy relationships, always with the understanding that things are not always as they seem. That level of meta gameplay is what makes EVE unique, and detracting from that would be going against all of the work that has gone into EVE since it's creation.

The OP is suggesting this idea because it fulfils his immediate need, without any thought on how it affects the whole game. This is understandable, as he is very new to the game. What people get frustrated with is that once they disagree with his posts, he throws around insults and abuse blocking people left right and centre. This leads to situations like me. I will automatically respond to Harry's posts more aggressively that most others as I know the responses I'm likely to receive if I poke any holes in his ideas. I'm sure a lot of the others feel the same.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Black Panpher
CastleKickers
Rote Kapelle
#143 - 2013-08-10 01:21:59 UTC
Solstice Project wrote:
Because fleets let people shoot eachother legally...

Another quality thread by our great forum warrior Hairy Forever!


Because all PVP happens in high sex.
Nice self ownage!
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#144 - 2013-08-10 01:42:30 UTC
Harry Forever wrote:
lockon to fleet members should be removable by the fleetcommander
after leaving fleet there should be a 1-5 minute timer, where you are not able to lockon to old fleetmembers either


Wow, that's an AWESOME IDEA!!!

Now I can start up a fleet and jump in a logi. I'll get some "bro's" in the fleet and take them out to aggress some "targets". Then I can disable fleet member targeting and rep the targets, becoming an invulnerable logistics ship regardless of the system's security status, corp affiliation or suspect timer! You're brilliant!

Harry Forever wrote:

this would assure more random people team up, good for the game, bad for douchebags... win win

Wait, what?

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38

SKINE DMZ
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#145 - 2013-08-10 01:42:33 UTC
Common sense is high in this thread

I disagree

Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#146 - 2013-08-10 02:01:53 UTC
Harry Forever wrote:

I already mentioned that the logi stuff could be excluded, thats not hard to program

Are you serious? Like really?

You want every offensive module / drone cycle to check not just the target's current fleet association, but also fleet membership history (or time down a flag to check against for every fleet they recently joined/left)?

This would obviously not have any negative repercussions on server performance with 4500 people and 20 fleets in system. Nope. None whatsoever. Roll

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38

Harry Forever
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#147 - 2013-08-10 06:16:06 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Harry Forever wrote:
lockon to fleet members should be removable by the fleetcommander
after leaving fleet there should be a 1-5 minute timer, where you are not able to lockon to old fleetmembers either


Wow, that's an AWESOME IDEA!!!

Now I can start up a fleet and jump in a logi. I'll get some "bro's" in the fleet and take them out to aggress some "targets". Then I can disable fleet member targeting and rep the targets, becoming an invulnerable logistics ship regardless of the system's security status, corp affiliation or suspect timer! You're brilliant!

Harry Forever wrote:

this would assure more random people team up, good for the game, bad for douchebags... win win

Wait, what?


we already mentioned that the logi stuff could be excluded, don't be so pigheaded... whats wrong with you people, you get stuck too often, stay flexible in your minds, this is rediculous

you only get not targetable by your own fleetmembers when you leave fleet
SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#148 - 2013-08-10 06:49:23 UTC
I think the weirdest logic here is that anyone would want to team up with a bunch of random nerds when they can just play with their friends.

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#149 - 2013-08-10 07:37:23 UTC
SmilingVagrant wrote:
I think the weirdest logic here is that anyone would want to team up with a bunch of random nerds when they can just play with their friends.



That would be assuming they have friends.....

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#150 - 2013-08-10 07:52:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
if you don't want to get screwed by people in your fleet, stay in highsec and leave lowsec/0.0 to those with a stronger backbone

stop demanding that CCP make sweeping changes to the game to accommodate you

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Joepopo
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#151 - 2013-08-10 10:39:26 UTC
Ahh a new thread by harry the clown. May we have the killmail that generated this post?
Harry Forever
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#152 - 2013-08-10 10:46:59 UTC
SmilingVagrant wrote:
I think the weirdest logic here is that anyone would want to team up with a bunch of random nerds when they can just play with their friends.



you just don't understand what a true random is... you are too attached to your "friends"

Harry Forever
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#153 - 2013-08-10 10:50:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Harry Forever
Andski wrote:
if you don't want to get screwed by people in your fleet, stay in highsec and leave lowsec/0.0 to those with a stronger backbone

stop demanding that CCP make sweeping changes to the game to accommodate you


just get over it, I can demand what i want... not everybody likes your playstyle, that is supported by CCP at the moment... those changes would bring lots of other people, because its easier to get into the game

they can decide, want to grow, some changes have to be made to attract the randoms, good for you as well, more fleets out there who fight... not sure why you guys are so eagerly against that

you as well see the game way too static, this is a developing thing and things will change, its not chess... just adapt to the changes and get flexible, I do not have anything about the advantages big alliances have in the game, they just need to focus on some other stuff as well
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#154 - 2013-08-10 11:19:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Harry Forever wrote:
Andski wrote:
if you don't want to get screwed by people in your fleet, stay in highsec and leave lowsec/0.0 to those with a stronger backbone

stop demanding that CCP make sweeping changes to the game to accommodate you


just get over it, I can demand what i want... not everybody likes your playstyle, that is supported by CCP at the moment... those changes would bring lots of other people, because its easier to get into the game

they can decide, want to grow, some changes have to be made to attract the randoms, good for you as well, more fleets out there who fight... not sure why you guys are so eagerly against that

you as well see the game way too static, this is a developing thing and things will change, its not chess... just adapt to the changes and get flexible, I do not have anything about the advantages big alliances have in the game, they just need to focus on some other stuff as well

You are right, you can demand what you want. That doesn't make it any less stupid though. So expect to continue blocking 99% of the community for disagreeing with you. Personally I love watching you post thread after thread of dumb, badly thought out ideas then crying when you get bashed for it.

Oh, and have you thought maybe you aren't being too flexible yourself? You want everything to be available to you as an individual, so the individual playstyle is king. This is an MMO mate, other people play and it's designed to be better by making friends and playing together. Maybe if you didn't make a fool of yourself daily you'd have more friends to play with.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

SmokinDank
Horizon Research Group
#155 - 2013-08-10 11:23:54 UTC
Seems to me Eve has enough timers and flags and safeties and whatnot. We don't need any more rules and restrictions on what can be done, enough already!

this harry chap suggests 'getting over' that he is demanding things. I think he needs to get over people disagreeing with him and have a better response to a discussion than simply blocking people.

...

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#156 - 2013-08-10 11:26:51 UTC
SmokinDank wrote:
Seems to me Eve has enough timers and flags and safeties and whatnot. We don't need any more rules and restrictions on what can be done, enough already!

this harry chap suggests 'getting over' that he is demanding things. I think he needs to get over people disagreeing with him and have a better response to a discussion than simply blocking people.


See, I think he needs to get over more than that. First of all, he needs to get over his bullshit expectations of EVE, and accept it for what it is.

I think he needs to get over himself. And he definitely needs to get over his entitlement mindset.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Lugalbandak
Doomheim
#157 - 2013-08-10 11:32:56 UTC
You guys dont fly enough drakes

The police horse is the only animal in the world that haz his male genitals on his back

Rhivre
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
#158 - 2013-08-10 12:01:53 UTC
I am wondering if the "King of High Sec" is going to relocate to save his subject from being exploded by the vicious ebil goonies during the interdiction to come, or whether he will remain shooting industrials and cynos in his bomber (Although, admittedly, at the moment, he is getting exploded more than industrials)
Templar Knightsbane
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#159 - 2013-08-10 12:05:28 UTC
Oooohhh now i understand this thread!!!

Harry doesn't want you to not be able to lock onto people in the fleet, he wants you to be able to not lock onto people NOT in the fleet!!!

I'm glad i cleared that up. Harry is genius!
Gawain Edmond
Khanid Bureau of Industry
#160 - 2013-08-10 12:19:01 UTC
wow terrible idea got to 8 pages and still in the wrong forum! i'ma go see if someone will move it