These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

CCP Aggression Settings Wrong?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Havegun Willtravel
Mobile Alcohol Processing Units
#21 - 2011-11-13 14:00:16 UTC
The funny thing about ' Neutral ' remote reps and boosts is that once you do it you're not exactly ' Neutral ' anymore are you Shocked

You chose to take a side and there are consequences to that, deal with it . HTFU.
Rico Minali
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2011-11-13 14:25:59 UTC
Mr R4nd0m wrote:
Rico Minali wrote:
Working as intended and working well... War is a ***** isnt it?


How is that working as intended? How can you be agressed to EVERY other alliance and corp the OTHER player is at war with? when you have not commited or assisted in any kills towards those OTHER alliances?


Because you are assisting a person that all those people are at war with. Exactly how it should be, now stop crying.

Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#23 - 2011-11-13 14:30:20 UTC
Rico Minali wrote:
Because you are assisting a person that all those people are at war with. Exactly how it should be, now stop crying.

It's not exactly how it should be. If he also inherited all the associated timers, it would be exactly how it should be… Twisted
Mashie Saldana
V0LTA
OnlyFleets.
#24 - 2011-11-13 14:51:09 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
In general, if you use any assistance module on a target, you receive ALL aggression flags that your target has for 15 minutes. Thus if your target is at war, you become subject to all the same wars.

Wasn't that how it used to work? Assist someone at war and all his enemies are all of a sudden your enemies?

How to win EVE
GM Homonoia
Game Master Retirement Home
#25 - 2011-11-13 15:04:10 UTC
Mashie Saldana wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
In general, if you use any assistance module on a target, you receive ALL aggression flags that your target has for 15 minutes. Thus if your target is at war, you become subject to all the same wars.

Wasn't that how it used to work? Assist someone at war and all his enemies are all of a sudden your enemies?


It has always worked like this. The only recent change was the fact that we turn off assistance modules (and provide a warning) when your target commits an act of aggression or crime while you are already assisting them. This is to prevent the following situation:

1. Player A joins fleet with player B
2. Player B asks player A to assist him
3. Player A starts assisting player B
4. Player B asks his friend, player C (who is not in player B's corp), to drop a can
5. Player B steals from his friend player C and receives a theft flag
6. Player A also receives the theft flag due to him assisting player B, but player A receives NO warning
7. Player C blows up player A and player A has no idea why

Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master
GAYNINJAS
The Filthy Few
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#26 - 2011-11-13 15:52:41 UTC  |  Edited by: GAYNINJAS
GM Homonoia wrote:
Mashie Saldana wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
In general, if you use any assistance module on a target, you receive ALL aggression flags that your target has for 15 minutes. Thus if your target is at war, you become subject to all the same wars.

Wasn't that how it used to work? Assist someone at war and all his enemies are all of a sudden your enemies?


It has always worked like this. The only recent change was the fact that we turn off assistance modules (and provide a warning) when your target commits an act of aggression or crime while you are already assisting them. This is to prevent the following situation:

1. Player A joins fleet with player B
2. Player B asks player A to assist him
3. Player A starts assisting player B
4. Player B asks his friend, player C (who is not in player B's corp), to drop a can
5. Player B steals from his friend player C and receives a theft flag
6. Player A also receives the theft flag due to him assisting player B, but player A receives NO warning
7. Player C blows up player A and player A has no idea why


This is all well and good for people who are incapable of paying attention (read incursion runners), but this change has introduced several problems that can end up being quite costly. For example:

1. Player A and player B are both in Guardians and have set up a cap chain.
2. Player C engages player D (WT, random aggression, etc).
3. Player B starts repairing player C.
4. Cap transfer from Player A to player B shuts off because player B has gained aggression, potentially causing Player C to explode, due to RR running out of cap (if player A doesn't notice, of course...not entirely unlikely if player A is an alt).

Clearly, there should be an option to turn off this warning and to prevent the modules from turning off for those of us who understand aggression. From my initial testing, it seems that having the warning for stealing from a can turned off does this, but there has been so much inconsistency in how long it takes for this warning to kick in and stop modules (the entire time the target is still receiving RR, mind you) that I have not been able to confirm this. Can a Dev/GM confirm whether this is true?
David Rivard
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#27 - 2011-11-13 16:53:31 UTC
GAYNINJAS wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
Mashie Saldana wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
In general, if you use any assistance module on a target, you receive ALL aggression flags that your target has for 15 minutes. Thus if your target is at war, you become subject to all the same wars.

Wasn't that how it used to work? Assist someone at war and all his enemies are all of a sudden your enemies?


It has always worked like this. The only recent change was the fact that we turn off assistance modules (and provide a warning) when your target commits an act of aggression or crime while you are already assisting them. This is to prevent the following situation:

1. Player A joins fleet with player B
2. Player B asks player A to assist him
3. Player A starts assisting player B
4. Player B asks his friend, player C (who is not in player B's corp), to drop a can
5. Player B steals from his friend player C and receives a theft flag
6. Player A also receives the theft flag due to him assisting player B, but player A receives NO warning
7. Player C blows up player A and player A has no idea why


This is all well and good for people who are incapable of paying attention (read incursion runners), but this change has introduced several problems that can end up being quite costly. For example:

1. Player A and player B are both in Guardians and have set up a cap chain.
2. Player C engages player D (WT, random aggression, etc).
3. Player B starts repairing player C.
4. Cap transfer from Player A to player B shuts off because player B has gained aggression, potentially causing Player C to explode, due to RR running out of cap (if player A doesn't notice, of course...not entirely unlikely if player A is an alt).

Clearly, there should be an option to turn off this warning and to prevent the modules from turning off for those of us who understand aggression. From my initial testing, it seems that having the warning for stealing from a can turned off does this, but there has been so much inconsistency in how long it takes for this warning to kick in and stop modules (the entire time the target is still receiving RR, mind you) that I have not been able to confirm this. Can a Dev/GM confirm whether this is true?


Very much this. I hate being spammed with those pop up messages. I understand fixing the exploit, but this is making the entire ship nigh on unusable. Just give me a checkbox to ignore it and I'll be happy.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#28 - 2011-11-13 17:10:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Well, at least when you turn off the warning you'll only have yourselves to blame instead of the game mechanics. Smile

Assuming they allow it to be turned off eventually, which they probably will for consistency.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
GAYNINJAS
The Filthy Few
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#29 - 2011-11-13 17:29:54 UTC  |  Edited by: GAYNINJAS
GAYNINJAS wrote:
From my initial testing, it seems that having the warning for stealing from a can turned off does this, but there has been so much inconsistency in how long it takes for this warning to kick in and stop modules (the entire time the target is still receiving RR, mind you) that I have not been able to confirm this. Can a Dev/GM confirm whether this is true?


I've done some further tests and confirmed that this is not the case - there is no way to disable this huge pain in the ass helpful warning. It would be greatly appreciated if the Devs could put in a check box allowing players to opt out of this warning, as well as the GCC RR warning, for our LS friends.
Commander Spurty
#30 - 2011-11-13 17:33:46 UTC
Move to null sec. All of this is moot there.

Sounds like a good change to me

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
GAYNINJAS
The Filthy Few
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#31 - 2011-11-13 17:40:03 UTC
Spurty wrote:
Move to null sec. All of this is moot there.

Sounds like a good change to me


While I'm not a huge fan of the change (as I think it's too forgiving), I can understand why the Devs would like to put such a warning in. I'm not naive enough to believe it will be removed now that it's in, so instead of debating the merits of the warning, I would simply like them to put in the ability to turn it off, as you can with every other warning in the game (except the similar warning when repping someone who goes GCC). That way you're still protecting the stupid without punishing those who can keep track of what's happening. If someone turns the warning off and dies because of aggression they picked up by RRing someone - it's their own fault.
Hwong Jian
Perkone
Caldari State
#32 - 2011-11-13 17:49:02 UTC
To the topic on the first page:

Let's put it in easily understood terms: NATO is at war with a nation. A platoon of soldiers from one NATO country are engaging a platoon of enemy soldiers. You begin assisting the enemy soldiers.

Your belief: Only the platoon of NATO soldiers should be able to shoot at you.

The way it is: NATO can shoot at you.

The reason: A war exists. You (through your actions) have chosen to aid one side in the war. You must now live with the consequences.

The 'feel better' EVE fact: In FW, neutral remote boosters/reps only become aggressed to you if you're actively shooting the person they're repping. Even if that person is a war target. Aggression transfer does not work properly in militias.

To the topic on the second page:

This is mostly an issue for people running multiple accounts. A person watching their screen should notice the warning and react quickly. And, if your ship could die because of someone missing 5 seconds worth of repping, perhaps you should remember the first rule of EVE: Don't fly what you can't afford to lose.
Takseen
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2011-11-13 18:06:08 UTC
GAYNINJAS wrote:


This is all well and good for people who are incapable of paying attention (read incursion runners), but this change has introduced several problems that can end up being quite costly. For example:

1. Player A and player B are both in Guardians and have set up a cap chain.
2. Player C engages player D (WT, random aggression, etc).
3. Player B starts repairing player C.
4. Cap transfer from Player A to player B shuts off because player B has gained aggression, potentially causing Player C to explode, due to RR running out of cap (if player A doesn't notice, of course...not entirely unlikely if player A is an alt).

Clearly, there should be an option to turn off this warning and to prevent the modules from turning off for those of us who understand aggression. From my initial testing, it seems that having the warning for stealing from a can turned off does this, but there has been so much inconsistency in how long it takes for this warning to kick in and stop modules (the entire time the target is still receiving RR, mind you) that I have not been able to confirm this. Can a Dev/GM confirm whether this is true?


When an incursion runner dies due to old aggression rules, he wasn't paying attention. When a pvper dies due to new aggression rules, you need a crutch to avoid it. Gotcha.
David Rivard
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2011-11-13 18:13:09 UTC
Takseen wrote:
GAYNINJAS wrote:


This is all well and good for people who are incapable of paying attention (read incursion runners), but this change has introduced several problems that can end up being quite costly. For example:

1. Player A and player B are both in Guardians and have set up a cap chain.
2. Player C engages player D (WT, random aggression, etc).
3. Player B starts repairing player C.
4. Cap transfer from Player A to player B shuts off because player B has gained aggression, potentially causing Player C to explode, due to RR running out of cap (if player A doesn't notice, of course...not entirely unlikely if player A is an alt).

Clearly, there should be an option to turn off this warning and to prevent the modules from turning off for those of us who understand aggression. From my initial testing, it seems that having the warning for stealing from a can turned off does this, but there has been so much inconsistency in how long it takes for this warning to kick in and stop modules (the entire time the target is still receiving RR, mind you) that I have not been able to confirm this. Can a Dev/GM confirm whether this is true?


When an incursion runner dies due to old aggression rules, he wasn't paying attention. When a pvper dies due to new aggression rules, you need a crutch to avoid it. Gotcha.


When an incursion runner gets a problem solved for them, CCP is on the ball. When everyone else gets a problem solved for them, CCP is out of touch. Gotcha.
Problem needs fixing. Sooner, rather than later. It's just like the CQ problem. I need an opt-in/out.
GAYNINJAS
The Filthy Few
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#35 - 2011-11-13 19:19:08 UTC
Takseen wrote:


When an incursion runner dies due to old aggression rules, he wasn't paying attention. When a pvper dies due to new aggression rules, you need a crutch to avoid it. Gotcha.


So it's not reasonable to try to reach a middle ground that is acceptable from both standpoints. Good to know.
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#36 - 2011-11-13 20:06:50 UTC
Should be a war target for the remainder of the war IMO. After all, you did commit a hostile act in a time of war.
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
#37 - 2011-11-13 20:10:57 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Rico Minali wrote:
Because you are assisting a person that all those people are at war with. Exactly how it should be, now stop crying.

It's not exactly how it should be. If he also inherited all the associated timers, it would be exactly how it should be… Twisted


I bet you're a marvelous co-worker.

I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore.
Soulpirate
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#38 - 2011-11-13 20:12:39 UTC
Mr R4nd0m wrote:
Rico Minali wrote:
Working as intended and working well... War is a ***** isnt it?


How is that working as intended? How can you be agressed to EVERY other alliance and corp the OTHER player is at war with? when you have not commited or assisted in any kills towards those OTHER alliances?

You boosted him, therefore you assisted.

You picked a side, deal with it.
Jita Alt666
#39 - 2011-11-13 20:19:51 UTC
MeestaPenni wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Rico Minali wrote:
Because you are assisting a person that all those people are at war with. Exactly how it should be, now stop crying.

It's not exactly how it should be. If he also inherited all the associated timers, it would be exactly how it should be… Twisted


I bet you're a marvelous co-worker.


Tippia would make a great District Attorney.
Foster Kincade
Legio Decima Gemina
#40 - 2011-11-13 20:41:57 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
Mashie Saldana wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
In general, if you use any assistance module on a target, you receive ALL aggression flags that your target has for 15 minutes. Thus if your target is at war, you become subject to all the same wars.

Wasn't that how it used to work? Assist someone at war and all his enemies are all of a sudden your enemies?


It has always worked like this. The only recent change was the fact that we turn off assistance modules (and provide a warning) when your target commits an act of aggression or crime while you are already assisting them. This is to prevent the following situation:

1. Player A joins fleet with player B
2. Player B asks player A to assist him
3. Player A starts assisting player B
4. Player B asks his friend, player C (who is not in player B's corp), to drop a can
5. Player B steals from his friend player C and receives a theft flag
6. Player A also receives the theft flag due to him assisting player B, but player A receives NO warning
7. Player C blows up player A and player A has no idea why


What about this scenario?

1 Player A and B both join an incursion fleet, both flying Logi and BOTH in an NPC corp.
2 Before joining fleet, player B repped player C in corp 1 and that corp is at war with corp 2 so player B now is aggressed against corp 2
3 Player B asks player A to send some cap to him for the cap chain.
4 As player B is aggressed to corp 2 (because he repped someone in corp 1), player A also inherits the aggression and everyone in corp 2 can now shoot player A.
5 highsec pvpbears decloak/warp in and pop player A (in his logi)

Firstly, is this possible with current aggression mechanics and will this scenario also cause the popup you are adding? Also to all the people saying "learn aggression mechanics noob", how could player A know this would happen? Player B is in an NPC corp.
Previous page123Next page