These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Today's RR (stealth) Bug Fix, and its consequences

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#1 - 2013-01-08 19:32:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Adriel Malakai
As the title says, CCP fixed a major bug with Crimewatch 2.0 today in a stealth patch.

The bug they fixed resulted when a neutral party remote assisted (ie Remote Sensor Booster, Projected ECCM, Cap/Armor/Shield Transfer, etc) a pilot who was at war and had a pvp timer. Now, according to the Retribution patch notes,

Quote:
Suspect acts:

-Assisting a non-corpmate who has a PVP flag and is in active a war.


the neutral party should go suspect. What was happening was Player A, who is both at war with and shooting Player B, has a Weapons flag and a PVP flag. Enter Player C, a neutral party who remote assists Player A, inheriting the weapons and pvp flags of Player A. In doing this, Player C did not gain a Suspect flag, and was thus not legally aggressable by either party. Obviously, this is a huge bug that took CCP more than a month to fix, but they finally fixed it (which is awesome).

The problem lies in how RR now works in relation to alliances. The system now works as the above quote says - assisting any non-corpmate with a PVP flag and is in an active war will result in a suspect flag. While this is obviously working as intended, the real problem is that it means that players who are in the same alliance, but different corps, cannot help each other without going suspect. For example:

Players A and B are at war.

1) Player A shoots Player B, gaining a PVP flag and a Weapons flag.
2) Player C is in Player A's corp, and starts remote assisting him, gaining Player A's PVP and Weapons flag.
3) Player D is in Player B's alliance, but not his corp, and starts remote assisting her, gaining Player B's PVP flag, as well as a Suspect flag.

This literally invalidates the point of an alliance in high sec PVP. CCP needs to extend the Suspect exemption to alliance members so that an alliance can actually fight together without everyone going suspect. Otherwise, alliances are useless, and people should just merge corps.

Possible to get a response from a game designer (namely Greyscale) as to why this is the case and/or they're going to change it?
Jake Patton
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2013-01-08 19:45:36 UTC
I found out this changed the hard way, barely made it out of the fight in one piece... Note to CCP: Make sure you add ALL the changes to the changelog.

I even think CCP should extend the Limited Engagement mechanics to neutral logistics. This will make it more or less how it used to be before Retribution. It just doesn't make sense that assisting a player in an active war makes you a legal target to everyone.
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#3 - 2013-01-08 19:50:18 UTC
Jake Patton wrote:
I found out this changed the hard way, barely made it out of the fight in one piece... Note to CCP: Make sure you add ALL the changes to the changelog.

I even think CCP should extend the Limited Engagement mechanics to neutral logistics. This will make it more or less how it used to be before Retribution. It just doesn't make sense that assisting a player in an active war makes you a legal target to everyone.


TBH, my problem is not with the neutral RR change. My problem is that you can't legally help an alliance mate. This is literally pants-on-head ********.
baltec1
Bat Country
The Initiative.
#4 - 2013-01-08 19:58:10 UTC
Given that if the corp is at war so too is the alliance so I dont see the issue here.
Jake Patton
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2013-01-08 20:01:49 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Given that if the corp is at war so too is the alliance so I dont see the issue here.

You can't assist alliance members anymore without going suspect, and you don't see the problem?
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#6 - 2013-01-08 20:02:06 UTC
WHAT?!??! Neutral logistics can be killed as promised?!??!? Surely this cannot be! We needed warning! To the forums! I am outraged that i cannot exploit this broken mechanic anymore!

http://memegenerator.net/instance/33068970

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#7 - 2013-01-08 20:03:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Adriel Malakai
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:
WHAT?!??! Neutral logistics can be killed as promised?!??!? Surely this cannot be! We needed warning! To the forums! I am outraged that i cannot exploit this broken mechanic anymore!

http://memegenerator.net/instance/33068970


I have no problem with neutral logi going suspect. My problem is with alliance mates going suspect.

Are you really too dense to see that not being able to do combined fleets is a problem?
Xercodo
Cruor Angelicus
#8 - 2013-01-08 20:03:49 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Given that if the corp is at war so too is the alliance so I dont see the issue here.


Thus Jake Patton's solution...

The problem is that EVERYONE can shoot the alliance mate now, not just the war targets involved.

The Drake is a Lie
baltec1
Bat Country
The Initiative.
#9 - 2013-01-08 20:06:18 UTC
Xercodo wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Given that if the corp is at war so too is the alliance so I dont see the issue here.


Thus Jake Patton's solution...

The problem is that EVERYONE can shoot the alliance mate now, not just the war targets involved.


Ah I see.

Well what are you waiting for? Go wage war on everyone!
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#10 - 2013-01-08 20:07:31 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Given that if the corp is at war so too is the alliance so I dont see the issue here.



High sec is the issue. How could you even not think about this one?!

Don't thank me. Lol

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Arec Bardwin
#11 - 2013-01-08 20:07:51 UTC
This matter is clearly too complicated to comprehend for some Lol
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#12 - 2013-01-08 20:13:44 UTC
I have mixed feelings about suspect flag on alliance mates. It has pros and cons.
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#13 - 2013-01-08 20:16:58 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
I have mixed feelings about suspect flag on alliance mates. It has pros and cons.


What pros are there exactly? The only areas this would affect are fights with war targets, and attacking corp members, which are the only situations where you can get a PVP flag without a limited engagement or a suspect flag. In both of the other situations, the logi goes suspect for interfering with a LE/helping a suspect. As far as war targets goes, it means that you cannot (legally) have an alliance fleet with logistics.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#14 - 2013-01-08 20:22:39 UTC
Adriel Malakai wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
I have mixed feelings about suspect flag on alliance mates. It has pros and cons.


What pros are there exactly? The only areas this would affect are fights with war targets, and attacking corp members, which are the only situations where you can get a PVP flag without a limited engagement or a suspect flag. In both of the other situations, the logi goes suspect for interfering with a LE/helping a suspect. As far as war targets goes, it means that you cannot (legally) have an alliance fleet with logistics.

Well for one a small corp could target over inflated alliances and potentially be able to engage them if they bring a blob with a massive logi back bone. Then again this depends on other random people actually engaging the logis.
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#15 - 2013-01-08 20:25:09 UTC
Designing entire game mechanics for a what if relating to a single possible situation that is not particularly likely is poor design.
Pewty McPew
EVE Corporation 2357451
#16 - 2013-01-08 20:27:04 UTC
Jake Patton wrote:
I even think CCP should extend the Limited Engagement mechanics to neutral logistics. This will make it more or less how it used to be before Retribution. It just doesn't make sense that assisting a player in an active war makes you a legal target to everyone.


Sure it does, consequences .........

Everyone that was used to using their neutral repping alts are now raging on the forums, their tears are delicious :)
Merouk Baas
#17 - 2013-01-08 20:30:20 UTC
Adriel Malakai wrote:
Player A and B are at war.

1) Player A shoots Player B, gaining a PVP flag and a Weapons flag.
2) Player C is in Player A's corp, and starts remote assisting him, gaining Player A's PVP and Weapons flag.
3) Player D is in Player B's alliance, but not his corp, and starts remote assisting her, gaining Player B's PVP flag, as well as a Suspect flag.



You're saying that:

Players A,C (same corp) are at war with players B,D (same alliance):

1. Player A is fighting player B.
2. Player C enters the fight against B by assisting player A.
3. Player D cannot enter the fight against A,C by assisting player B without gaining a suspect flag and being shot by everyone in local. Despite the fact that they're all in a war and fighting valid war targets.
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#18 - 2013-01-08 20:32:12 UTC
Pewty McPew wrote:
Jake Patton wrote:
I even think CCP should extend the Limited Engagement mechanics to neutral logistics. This will make it more or less how it used to be before Retribution. It just doesn't make sense that assisting a player in an active war makes you a legal target to everyone.


Sure it does, consequences .........

Everyone that was used to using their neutral repping alts are now raging on the forums, their tears are delicious :)


Not really. The only advantages of the logi being neutral were that you could use it to scout prior to aggressing it, and that the first engagement would catch people by surprise. Bringing it into the war has no real impact on me, as we'll continue using it the same way we always have.

Again, my problem is that this change prevents an alliance from working together to fight a war, not that neutral logi now properly gets flagged as suspect.
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#19 - 2013-01-08 20:32:44 UTC
Merouk Baas wrote:
Adriel Malakai wrote:
Player A and B are at war.

1) Player A shoots Player B, gaining a PVP flag and a Weapons flag.
2) Player C is in Player A's corp, and starts remote assisting him, gaining Player A's PVP and Weapons flag.
3) Player D is in Player B's alliance, but not his corp, and starts remote assisting her, gaining Player B's PVP flag, as well as a Suspect flag.



You're saying that:

Players A,C (same corp) are at war with players B,D (same alliance):

1. Player A is fighting player B.
2. Player C enters the fight against B by assisting player A.
3. Player D cannot enter the fight against A,C by assisting player B without gaining a suspect flag and being shot by everyone in local. Despite the fact that they're all in a war and fighting valid war targets.


Exactly this.
Potamus Jenkins
eXceed Inc.
Plucky Adventurers
#20 - 2013-01-08 20:35:11 UTC
theres some real intelligent people flocking here

the bug has nothing to do with "neutral" logistics.
123Next pageLast page