These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Neut reppers in high sec - should that be outlawed?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Spy 21
Doomheim
#1 - 2012-03-11 15:37:28 UTC
Yes I have seen the numerous ***** threads regarding high sec remote reppers but I just can't get enough of this topic.

Here is the question:

Do you think this practice should warrant a concord response or not?

Next question:

Do you think that CCP will ever do that?

Logically it should. The remote repper is jumping into a fight without the benefit of agro... this draws a concord response when guns are used, it should be the same for RR modules. And, it's hard to argue it's not its a d**k move ... but then again so is suicide ganking (which CCP fixed sufficiently by removing insurance) ...

Flame on Johnny...


Obfuscation for the WIN on page 3...
Asudem
Black Spear.
#2 - 2012-03-11 15:44:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Asudem
If Logis repair a criminal - such as suicide gankers -, you get concorded. If you shoot at a criminal and he got RR, its the same as if you would face a WT that gains RR. If you repair WTs, you can kill the logis. You can play the same dirty game, or just use some Falcons to break their RR. I dont think that there is anything that have to be changed. It works just as intended, I guess.

*EDIT*
Changed the first sentense.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#3 - 2012-03-11 15:52:04 UTC
Spy 21 wrote:
Yes I have seen the numerous ***** threads regarding high sec remote reppers but I just can't get enough of this topic.

Here is the question:

Do you think this practice should warrant a concord response or not?


Yes

Quote:
Next question:

Do you think that CCP will ever do that?


No
Spy 21
Doomheim
#4 - 2012-03-11 15:52:16 UTC
Agree that it's working as intended...
I just think that intention should be changed because it lacks logic.

If I jump into a high sec fight using my guns I get concorded... if I use my remote repair modules, I don't.
That's the disconnect I'm focused on.



Obfuscation for the WIN on page 3...
Asudem
Black Spear.
#5 - 2012-03-11 15:57:39 UTC
If use TPs, ECM ect on an enemy, you as logi will get concorded as well. At least as long as your opponent isnt red. Thats just HSec. I know it sucks, I have to swollow the same bitter medicine while Im fighting ninjas or so, but thats how eve works.
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2012-03-11 16:45:57 UTC
Pro-tip: GTFO out of highsec.

Problem solved.

Pro-tip: Don't fight on station, dock up and wait out aggression, then warp off. No one is forcing you to fight on the enemies terms, cause thats just making you look like a ******* ****** setting yourself up for a loss.

Problem solved.

Pro-tip: If you are wardeced and they got a neutrol rep, drop corp and leave.

Problem solved.

There are quite a few ways to solve the issue already, you don't need CCP to fix your problem because you already have options. Don't like them, then just STFU and lose like an idiot because you are some hardcore masochist
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#7 - 2012-03-11 18:47:16 UTC
Spy 21 wrote:
Yes I have seen the numerous ***** threads regarding high sec remote reppers but I just can't get enough of this topic.

Here is the question:

Do you think this practice should warrant a concord response or not?

Next question:

Do you think that CCP will ever do that?

Logically it should. The remote repper is jumping into a fight without the benefit of agro... this draws a concord response when guns are used, it should be the same for RR modules. And, it's hard to argue it's not its a d**k move ... but then again so is suicide ganking (which CCP fixed sufficiently by removing insurance) ...

Flame on Johnny...




Wouldn't this make incursions physically impossible to run in highsec? Not that I'm complaining or anything, it'd be funny to see the lossmails, but yeah.
Asudem
Black Spear.
#8 - 2012-03-12 00:38:45 UTC
bump