These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Current rules?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
ACE McFACE
Dirt 'n' Glitter
Local Is Primary
#21 - 2011-11-14 21:19:43 UTC  |  Edited by: ACE McFACE
Pvlogiwhodidntknowwhatwashappening is not PvP
Pvrandommackgank is not PvP

Therefore, there are no PvP nerfs

Just to clarifiy, I am not some crying miner who just lost his mack

Now, more than ever, we need a dislike button.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#22 - 2011-11-14 21:20:47 UTC
Terminal Insanity wrote:
Yeah im not looking for an explaination of the aggression mechanics, i just wasnt aware this was changed.

CCP really needs to stop completely ******* their PVP players over.


This does not mess over the PvP player who does not use cowardly OOC remote assistance.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#23 - 2011-11-14 21:24:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Terminal Insanity
Vincent Athena wrote:
Terminal Insanity wrote:
Yeah im not looking for an explaination of the aggression mechanics, i just wasnt aware this was changed.

CCP really needs to stop completely ******* their PVP players over.


This does not mess over the PvP player who does not use cowardly OOC remote assistance.


ACE McFACE wrote:
Pvlogiwhodidntknowwhatwashappening is not PvP
Pvrandommackgank is not PvP

Therefore, there are no PvP nerfs

Just to clarifiy, I am not some crying miner who just lost his mack



Idiots. Painfully predictable.

Terminal Insanity wrote:
I guess the fact i wanted to take advantage of this 'feature' automatically makes me a bad/immoral/whatever person, so many will just completely ignore the point of my post because of that.

"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
Takseen
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2011-11-14 21:25:27 UTC
OP is correct, the post didn't mention that the change also affected aggression timers. The other replies are also correct, no one has much sympathy for those affected by this change.
Astrid Stjerna
Sebiestor Tribe
#25 - 2011-11-14 21:26:50 UTC
Terminal Insanity wrote:
The patchnotes fail to state the severity of the change

Quote:
To benefit the EVE community at large, a small change has been made to game mechanics in regarding criminal flags and how they are inherited in high security space. If a pilot is remote repairing, or otherwise assisting, another pilot who commits a criminal act then the repair module will now disengage.


Aggression timers are NOT criminal timers. Aggression is NOT a criminal action and does NOT result in CONCORD like a Criminal action would.

Regardless of your (or my) opinion of the change, the fact remains that this change was made with virtually no notice to the eve community. And even for the few who read the patchnotes, we were mislead.


Wht more 'notice' do you want? They've posted in a thread on the forums (one that's been up for several days now, by the way). CCP isn't trying to sneak anything by us, they didn't spring it on us before telling us about it, and theyv'e given fair notice that the change is coming.

Besides, saying you were 'mislead' due to an error of interpretation is just silly.

I can't get rid of my darn signature!  Oh, wait....
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#26 - 2011-11-14 21:28:34 UTC
Astrid Stjerna wrote:

Wht more 'notice' do you want? They've posted in a thread on the forums (one that's been up for several days now, by the way). CCP isn't trying to sneak anything by us, they didn't spring it on us before telling us about it, and theyv'e given fair notice that the change is coming.



Plus, you get a pop up box in the game. You all read your pop up boxes, right?
Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#27 - 2011-11-14 21:37:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Terminal Insanity
Astrid Stjerna wrote:
Wht more 'notice' do you want? They've posted in a thread on the forums (one that's been up for several days now, by the way). CCP isn't trying to sneak anything by us, they didn't spring it on us before telling us about it, and theyv'e given fair notice that the change is coming.

Besides, saying you were 'mislead' due to an error of interpretation is just silly.


Well, i think i read more devblogs / news posts / forum threads then most (not as much as some, though). And when i read this change, i assumed it effected only actions that would result in concord, because they said CRIMINAL ACTIONS.

Its not in my interpertation of the rules, its the fact that CRIMINAL ACTIONS have always resulted in CONCORD and these rule changes state that it only effects CRIMINAL ACTION timers, which made sense. I know a lot of Incursion kiddies have been dying because of cap chains and concord / Criminal timers.

The statement released by CCP clearly states it is CRIMINAL timers that were changed.
However, they did not just change criminal timers, but ALL aggression timers. There is a major difference.

I didnt even want to make this thread this serious, but holy ****. Ignoring the fact i'm an evil monster rapist murderer for a moment, Did CCP not slip up a little here and not clearly state the change?

"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
Astrid Stjerna
Sebiestor Tribe
#28 - 2011-11-14 22:09:11 UTC
Terminal Insanity wrote:


I didnt even want to make this thread this serious, but holy ****. Ignoring the fact i'm an evil monster rapist murderer for a moment, Did CCP not slip up a little here and not clearly state the change?


They did clearly state the change: using a remote-repper tags you with a GCC. Last I checked, to get a GCC, you have to aggress someone, either through gunfire or by looting their jetcan.

They didn't explicitly state that all agression mechanics were being changed, because current agression mechanics link GCC with aggressive acts.

I can't get rid of my darn signature!  Oh, wait....
Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#29 - 2011-11-14 22:12:28 UTC
Astrid Stjerna wrote:
Terminal Insanity wrote:


I didnt even want to make this thread this serious, but holy ****. Ignoring the fact i'm an evil monster rapist murderer for a moment, Did CCP not slip up a little here and not clearly state the change?


They did clearly state the change: using a remote-repper tags you with a GCC. Last I checked, to get a GCC, you have to aggress someone, either through gunfire or by looting their jetcan.

They didn't explicitly state that all agression mechanics were being changed, because current agression mechanics link GCC with aggressive acts.


No, GCC is not from stealing a Can. GCC = Concord reaction.

Aggression timers are from stealing jetcans, or shooting a can thief. THESE ARE NOT CRIMINAL TIMERS.

"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
Jack All'Trade
Doomheim
#30 - 2011-11-14 22:19:51 UTC
Terminal Insanity wrote:
boo hoo

stop bitching already and post your fail-gank loss mail so we can laugh at you.
David Rivard
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#31 - 2011-11-14 22:22:21 UTC
ACE McFACE wrote:
Pvlogiwhodidntknowwhatwashappening is not PvP
Pvrandommackgank is not PvP

Therefore, there are no PvP nerfs

Just to clarifiy, I am not some crying miner who just lost his mack

If you're undocked, you're PVPing. Anyone who thinks otherwise is playing the wrong game.
Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#32 - 2011-11-14 22:24:46 UTC
Jack All'Trade wrote:
Terminal Insanity wrote:
boo hoo

stop bitching already and post your fail-gank loss mail so we can laugh at you.

As stated above, i didnt lose one. All the recent pvp-related nerfs or 'changes' have caused me to be paranoid, and i actually double checked this before repping my alt with my scimitar

"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
Astrid Stjerna
Sebiestor Tribe
#33 - 2011-11-14 22:36:39 UTC
Terminal Insanity wrote:

Aggression timers are from stealing jetcans, or shooting a can thief. THESE ARE NOT CRIMINAL TIMERS.


YOU DON'T NEED TO SHOUT.

*Ahem*

Nor do I, for that matter.

As I stated, the GCC is linked to agressive action. I was incorrect about how a GCC is applied, but it is still applied if someone takes aggressive actions in CONCORD-controlled space.

It would be illogical to apply the new mechanics to just a GCC -- it would be two different rules for what is essentially one mechanic.

Now, I'm going to walk away from this discussion, and I hope I can go without getting dragged back into another pointless semantic argument.

I can't get rid of my darn signature!  Oh, wait....
Feligast
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2011-11-14 22:41:38 UTC
Terminal Insanity wrote:
I didnt even want to make this thread this serious, but holy ****. Ignoring the fact i'm an evil monster rapist murderer for a moment, Did CCP not slip up a little here and not clearly state the change?


So stipulated. Now the better question: so what?
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#35 - 2011-11-14 22:51:51 UTC
The change pops up a warning if you are repping someone and they get a criminal flag while you are repping them, and your reps deactivate.

That is the only change.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Rico Minali
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2011-11-14 22:57:15 UTC
It isnt a nerf if it is a change to make a mechanic make more sense. No one is stopping a neut from RRing you, it just means that now there is real risk in doing so. Being hisec gankers you liek teher to be more risk yes? You should be happy, there is now more risk for everyone.

Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.
Mistress Lilu
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#37 - 2011-11-14 23:02:49 UTC
I do not think this messes with pvp, sorry to burst your bubble.
I think you are one of those players that engages a player than brings out your other toon with a carrier to rep. I remember you doing this in GW, and when a fleet would come you would run like a little boy..Now rep with your carrier, I hope you get it blown up.Looser.
Vigdis Thorisdottir
Doomheim
#38 - 2011-11-15 00:45:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Vigdis Thorisdottir
This is a *good* change for PVP. Don't look at this as a nerf or any such thing.

This change results in more risk, and will likely result in more good fights.

Unless you're the risk-averse whiner type of pvper, who's idea of a "good fight" is to wardec a noob industrial corp and play docking games all day.
ACE McFACE
Dirt 'n' Glitter
Local Is Primary
#39 - 2011-11-15 09:30:50 UTC  |  Edited by: ACE McFACE
Terminal Insanity wrote:

ACE McFACE wrote:
Pvlogiwhodidntknowwhatwashappening is not PvP
Pvrandommackgank is not PvP

Therefore, there are no PvP nerfs

Just to clarifiy, I am not some crying miner who just lost his mack



Idiots. Painfully predictable.


Why? Because I don't agree with you?

Now, more than ever, we need a dislike button.
Tian Garsk
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#40 - 2011-11-15 09:38:39 UTC
Terminal Insanity wrote:
AlleyKat wrote:
erm...yes there was:

Quote:

Game mechanics change to be applied during downtime on Thursday, November 10

A part of the next client update will feature a change to aggression mechanics in high security space.

To benefit the EVE community at large, a small change has been made to game mechanics regarding criminal flags and how they are inherited in high security space. If a pilot is remote repairing, or otherwise assisting, another pilot who commits a criminal act then the repair module will now disengage. In order to continue repairs the module will need to be restarted and a message will appear warning of the criminal flag and possible consequences.



Let me underline the important parts for you, and then let me change the notice to reflect the ACTUAL changes that occurred. You will see the difference then hopefully.

WHAT IT CURRENTLY SAYS:
Quote:

Game mechanics change to be applied during downtime on Thursday, November 10

A part of the next client update will feature a change to aggression mechanics in high security space.

To benefit the EVE community at large, a small change has been made to game mechanics regarding criminal flags and how they are inherited in high security space. If a pilot is remote repairing, or otherwise assisting, another pilot who commits a criminal act then the repair module will now disengage. In order to continue repairs the module will need to be restarted and a message will appear warning of the criminal flag and possible consequences.

This implys it only effects timers that would result in CONCORD actions being taken against your ship.


WHAT IT SHOULD HAVE SAID:
Quote:

Game mechanics change to be applied during downtime on Thursday, November 10

A part of the next client update will feature a change to aggression mechanics in high security space.

To benefit the EVE community at large, a major change has been made to game mechanics regarding aggression flags and how they are inherited in high security space. If a pilot is remote repairing, or otherwise assisting, another pilot who engages in an aggressive act then the repair module will now disengage. In order to continue repairs the module will need to be restarted and a message will appear warning of the aggression flag and possible consequences.

Note how these simple changes now accurately reflect the true rule changes.



Who gives a crap, they fixed a loophole that allowed moronic dicktards to help people lolwin at pvp with no fear of being attacked. Bloody good job.
Previous page123Next page