These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP time to fix the orca exploit
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#81 - 2012-05-30 22:02:46 UTC
Fiddler Hays wrote:
And I understand CCP not wanting to restrict anyone, but it would seem to me that they will need to revisit that idea.
Why?
Roisin Saoirse
Doomheim
#82 - 2012-05-30 22:04:25 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Roisin Saoirse wrote:
Killing a criminal's pod outside of wardec will earn you a visit from CONCORD btw.
No.

Interesting, I stand corrected.
Josef Djugashvilis
#83 - 2012-05-30 22:05:40 UTC
NickyYo wrote:
Want to kill Burn Jita and Hulkageddon?

IdeaIt's simple!! Fix the Orca so it cannot jettison ships in space for -10 status pirates to jump into from their pods..

This has got me thinking, you can easily fix this exploit BUT do you want to?
Do you want these events to take place and why?

And it amazes me how delusional people are, thinking they are making a difference in eve.. and can ransom CCP etc..
Above line mainly aimed at the goons..


HmmhHHHMMMmmmm...


Thought you quit?

This is not a signature.
Roisin Saoirse
Doomheim
#84 - 2012-05-30 22:07:37 UTC
Rath Kelbore wrote:
You realise I was making a ridiculous statement in order to make a point? Sorry if you missed it.

In that case, my apologies. It's been a long day. Big smile
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#85 - 2012-05-30 22:19:10 UTC
Fiddler Hays wrote:
Quote:
CCP Restricts nobody from going anywhere.

Faction Navies restrict SHIPS flown by Criminals from entering their space. As soon as you get illegally shot by a Pod, CONCORD and the Faction Navies will start shooting pods.

Anyway, anyone can shoot a criminal's pod. If you want to keep criminals pods out of your space, shoot them or hire someone to shoot them.



And yet this is not my space as in 0.0 it is NPC controlled space. In 0.0 you keep the un-welcomed out by the cohesion of your alliance. There is no such thing in hi-sec. Except CONCORD.

And I understand CCP not wanting to restrict anyone, but it would seem to me that they will need to revisit that idea. In many ways the criminal ship restriction is preventing you from fully utilizing an area already. Along with being a hole to exploit for other activities. And having CONCORD pod you does not restrict you from entering that area. It just gives you consequences for doing so. That were incurred by your actions.



Cohesive alliances are a player organized thing. You're a player; go organize an alliance that keeps criminals out of a certain system.

CONCORD provides consequences for Gankers, they do not provide protection. CONCORD has never provided protection.

What restriction? Faction Navies just start shooting you (they're even kind enough to web you first). That's not a restriction, that's PvE content.

CONCORD destroys ships that commit illegal acts. When a pod kills you, then you can complain about CONCORD not podding.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Fiddler Hays
Aerodyne Collective.
#86 - 2012-05-30 22:19:48 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Fiddler Hays wrote:
And I understand CCP not wanting to restrict anyone, but it would seem to me that they will need to revisit that idea.
Why?



Because I don't believe CCPs concept of hi-sec is working. Eve Online is a harsh games. Hard to learn. CCP has said hi-sec is safer. Not safe. Safer. There will be consequences if some one breaks a hi-sec law. And yet the consequences for criminals are underwhelming.

With the current setup, this is what CCP is telling me.


1. If someone drives into your peaceful neighbor, blows up your car and shoots you in the head we will take his car and send him on his way.

2. If someone pays this person to drive into your neighborhood, blows up your car and shoots you in the head we will take his car and send him on this way.

3. If we see this person again we will watch him until his does that all over again before we take his car..again.

I think there would be a bit more outrage in the real world. Questions like: Um. Why are you letting him into our neighborhood again when you know that they are just going to put a bullet in someones head?

I don't mind the actions so much as the consequences attached to them.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#87 - 2012-05-30 22:27:37 UTC
Fiddler Hays wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Fiddler Hays wrote:
And I understand CCP not wanting to restrict anyone, but it would seem to me that they will need to revisit that idea.
Why?



Because I don't believe CCPs concept of hi-sec is working. Eve Online is a harsh games. Hard to learn. CCP has said hi-sec is safer. Not safe. Safer. There will be consequences if some one breaks a hi-sec law. And yet the consequences for criminals are underwhelming.

With the current setup, this is what CCP is telling me.


1. If someone drives into your peaceful neighbor, blows up your car and shoots you in the head we will take his car and send him on his way.

2. If someone pays this person to drive into your neighborhood, blows up your car and shoots you in the head we will take his car and send him on this way.

3. If we see this person again we will watch him until his does that all over again before we take his car..again.

I think there would be a bit more outrage in the real world. Questions like: Um. Why are you letting him into our neighborhood again when you know that they are just going to put a bullet in someones head?

I don't mind the actions so much as the consequences attached to them.


The faction police start shooting his car as soon as it shows up.

Again, CONCORD provides consequences to specific acts of illegal aggression. Always has. There is no thought Police in EvE.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
#88 - 2012-05-30 22:35:40 UTC
YES Free Willy ..........


Tal

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#89 - 2012-05-30 22:40:43 UTC
Fiddler Hays wrote:
And yet the consequences for criminals are underwhelming.
Compared to what?

Quote:
With the current setup, this is what CCP is telling me. [silly RL comparisons]

I don't mind the actions so much as the consequences attached to them.
…and yet, they do pretty much exactly what they're intended to do. What CCP is telling you is that it's your job to ensure your own security, and they've given you the tools to do so. So why should CCP suddenly start to restrict where people can go when it's only happening because you're not doing your job? Why should other suffer because you're lazy?
Fiddler Hays
Aerodyne Collective.
#90 - 2012-05-30 22:45:21 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Fiddler Hays wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Fiddler Hays wrote:
And I understand CCP not wanting to restrict anyone, but it would seem to me that they will need to revisit that idea.
Why?



Because I don't believe CCPs concept of hi-sec is working. Eve Online is a harsh games. Hard to learn. CCP has said hi-sec is safer. Not safe. Safer. There will be consequences if some one breaks a hi-sec law. And yet the consequences for criminals are underwhelming.

With the current setup, this is what CCP is telling me.


1. If someone drives into your peaceful neighbor, blows up your car and shoots you in the head we will take his car and send him on his way.

2. If someone pays this person to drive into your neighborhood, blows up your car and shoots you in the head we will take his car and send him on this way.

3. If we see this person again we will watch him until his does that all over again before we take his car..again.

I think there would be a bit more outrage in the real world. Questions like: Um. Why are you letting him into our neighborhood again when you know that they are just going to put a bullet in someones head?

I don't mind the actions so much as the consequences attached to them.


The faction police start shooting his car as soon as it shows up.

Again, CONCORD provides consequences to specific acts of illegal aggression. Always has. There is no thought Police in EvE.



How is it thought police when you have a security status based on your own actions? When the rap sheet on a criminal gets to a certain length you can't talk fast enough to avoid punishment. They know you. The APB is out.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#91 - 2012-05-30 22:52:19 UTC
Fiddler Hays wrote:

How is it thought police when you have a security status based on your own actions? When the rap sheet on a criminal gets to a certain length you can't talk fast enough to avoid punishment. They know you. The APB is out.


Correct. That's why the faction police start shooting you at -5 sec. CONCORD is the emergency response Police. They punish specific acts of aggression per design.

NPCs don't pod. If the police started podding, shouldn't the pirates start as well? That'll go over well.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Fiddler Hays
Aerodyne Collective.
#92 - 2012-05-30 23:04:16 UTC
Quote:
What CCP is telling you is that it's your job to ensure your own security, and they've given you the tools to do so.


If that was the case why to we have CONCORD at all or restrict based on security? Maybe because some people are a little too good at using game mechanics? Don't know. But if there was no reason, CONCORD would not exist. Or be beefed to the point were it is impossible to beat them.

Quote:
So why should CCP suddenly start to restrict where people can go when it's only happening because you're not doing your job?


Why do you feel that criminals should be able to act with impunity in something that is supposed to be safer then low-sec or 0.0? And being able to fly around anywhere to commit another crime is acting with impunity whatever the consequence.

Quote:
Why should other suffer because you're lazy?


Ah the personal attack. Touche. We obviously have nothing more to talk about. Which was your intention in the first place.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#93 - 2012-05-30 23:12:56 UTC
Fiddler Hays wrote:
If that was the case why to we have CONCORD at all or restrict based on security?
There are no restrictions. CONCORD serves the purpose of making sure that aggression in highsec comes at a cost. They're not there to provide any kind of security — just an economic disincentive. If you want security, you have to arrange it for yourself.

Quote:
Why do you feel that criminals should be able to act with impunity in something that is supposed to be safer then low-sec or 0.0?
They aren't.

Quote:
Ah the personal attack.
Nope. It's just an abbreviation for you not wanting to do your part in creating your own security and wanting NPCs to do it for you. Would you like to call it “lethargic” instead? “Lax”? “Lackadaisical”? “Apathetic”? “Indifferent”?

…ok, indifferent doesn't work, since you obviously want someone to do it, as long as it's not you.
Roisin Saoirse
Doomheim
#94 - 2012-05-30 23:23:38 UTC
This whole issue can be solved by simply setting up your overview filters correctly. Keep an eye on Local, then when you see a red or flashy enter the system, decide on the spot whether to risk continuing to mine or to warp out. I really don't understand why anything needs to change?
Xython
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2012-05-30 23:29:28 UTC
Roisin Saoirse wrote:
This whole issue can be solved by simply setting up your overview filters correctly. Keep an eye on Local, then when you see a red or flashy enter the system, decide on the spot whether to risk continuing to mine or to warp out. I really don't understand why anything needs to change?


Because people want to be able to make billions of ISK AFK or Botting, and gosh darnit, those mean ol' griefers disagree. With Artillery.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#96 - 2012-05-30 23:34:25 UTC
Xython wrote:
Roisin Saoirse wrote:
This whole issue can be solved by simply setting up your overview filters correctly. Keep an eye on Local, then when you see a red or flashy enter the system, decide on the spot whether to risk continuing to mine or to warp out. I really don't understand why anything needs to change?

Because people want to be able to make billions of ISK AFK or Botting, and gosh darnit, those mean ol' griefers disagree. With Artillery.

Artillery and small blasters.

Luv2Shoot ! Luv2Shoot !

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#97 - 2012-05-30 23:36:09 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Xython wrote:
Roisin Saoirse wrote:
This whole issue can be solved by simply setting up your overview filters correctly. Keep an eye on Local, then when you see a red or flashy enter the system, decide on the spot whether to risk continuing to mine or to warp out. I really don't understand why anything needs to change?

Because people want to be able to make billions of ISK AFK or Botting, and gosh darnit, those mean ol' griefers disagree. With Artillery.

Artillery and small blasters.

Luv2Shoot ! Luv2Shoot !


Luv2Shoot! Luv2TearMine! Luv2Win!

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Fiddler Hays
Aerodyne Collective.
#98 - 2012-05-30 23:55:47 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Fiddler Hays wrote:
If that was the case why to we have CONCORD at all or restrict based on security?
There are no restrictions. CONCORD serves the purpose of making sure that aggression in highsec comes at a cost. They're not there to provide any kind of security — just an economic disincentive. If you want security, you have to arrange it for yourself.

Quote:
Why do you feel that criminals should be able to act with impunity in something that is supposed to be safer then low-sec or 0.0?
They aren't.

Quote:
Ah the personal attack.
Nope. It's just an abbreviation for you not wanting to do your part in creating your own security and wanting NPCs to do it for you. Would you like to call it “lethargic” instead? “Lax”? “Lackadaisical”? “Apathetic”? “Indifferent”?

…ok, indifferent doesn't work, since you obviously want someone to do it, as long fiddle it's not you.


I think the boggle is i find your posts on this issue to be very narrow. Shallow? Trite? I feel something is not is as intend with regards to hi-sec. You seem to feel the opposite and point to some lack of effort on my part to conform. I dissagree. Good day to you.
SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#99 - 2012-05-31 00:14:39 UTC
Fiddler Hays wrote:

I think the boggle is i find your posts on this issue to be very narrow. Shallow? Trite? I feel something is not is as intend with regards to hi-sec. You seem to feel the opposite and point to some lack of effort on my part to conform. I dissagree. Good day to you.



What is there to disagree about? A proper overview setup and the ship scanner would pretty much make you remarkably difficult to gank. Since you aren't using those tools you are either ignorant of them, stupid, or lazy. There isn't a whole lot of wiggle room here.

I mean the entire rub appears to be that you are unwilling to learn basic survival skills. I can't speak for your corp: But I know that mine makes effort to teach them via both video and live classes at times, and shockingly enough the newbie tutorial actually teaches some of this stuff now. So uh. What's your excuse? Didn't learn the skills, refuse to learn the skills, or just too lazy to put an effort into using the skills?

They are perfectly valid responses. I can barely be arsed to undock to do anything, so it's not like I'm judging you for being lazy. But I also don't demand that CCP reward me for lowering the station upkeep costs by mindlessly spinning my ship for hours creating electrical charge.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#100 - 2012-05-31 00:42:34 UTC
Fiddler Hays wrote:


I think the boggle is i find your posts on this issue to be very narrow. Shallow? Trite? I feel something is not is as intend with regards to hi-sec. You seem to feel the opposite and point to some lack of effort on my part to conform. I dissagree. Good day to you.



CCP has repeatedly stated that Player Run Events are great and that Suicide Ganking is a valid game mechanic.

How is something in regards to HAG and HS not working as intended?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon