These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

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

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2013-01-08 23:03:38 UTC
Adriel Malakai wrote:
You cannot dec a singular corp within an alliance, only the alliance as a whole.

Got it. Well in that case, suspect immunity plainly should extend to alliance as well as corp. No two ways about it.

EvE is supposed to suck.  Wait . . . what was the question?
Rengerel en Distel
#42 - 2013-01-08 23:16:02 UTC
I believe if the logi start by using an offensive mod on the target, they can then RR their alliance mate, but not positive. Since the flags would all be aligned correctly, they shouldn't get a suspect flag.

But yeah, one fix breaking another is pretty :CCP: these days.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#43 - 2013-01-08 23:16:39 UTC
Adriel Malakai wrote:
I meant that I'm not sure how it affects fights between the militias, not decs that happen to be between FW corps/alliances.




...what Adriel said. Don't listen to Ash. Twisted

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#44 - 2013-01-08 23:19:38 UTC
I have talked to CCP about this and been informed that friendly developer should be on the way to make a post that will bring everyone up to speed.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#45 - 2013-01-08 23:21:34 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I have talked to CCP about this and been informed that friendly developer should be on the way to make a post that will bring everyone up to speed.


Awesome - thanks!
Ashterothi
The Order of Thelemic Ascension
The Invited
#46 - 2013-01-08 23:22:54 UTC
Well we often have decs on major groups that we fly with and more or less ignore them because they are normally irreverent.

Watch me live for all your Empyrean news and analysis!

Pewty McPew
EVE Corporation 2357451
#47 - 2013-01-08 23:23:31 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I have talked to CCP about this and been informed that friendly developer should be on the way to make a post that will bring everyone up to speed.


<---- Me holds breath.......
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts.
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#48 - 2013-01-08 23:24:01 UTC
Adriel Malakai wrote:
Otherwise, alliances are useless, and people should just merge corps.


Oh god, I have to be in the same corp as you, Vimsy, and Tysinger now? I already feel violated...

Member of the Pink Pony Killboard Padding Alliance
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#49 - 2013-01-08 23:31:29 UTC
Posting to let you know I'm well aware of this. The change was not in the patchnotes because it was related to an exploit which I'm not going to get in to a discussion about on here (and isn't quite as the OP states)

I am going to be adjusting the War+Suspect+Assistance rule so that it considers intra-alliance assistance as legal in the same way that it currently treats intra-corp assistance, since corps in an alliance will always share the same set of war targets.

Also note that for the purposes of this rule, FW militias/corps/alliances are not considered to be 'at war' just by being enlisted (notwithstanding that they might be in a regular war with another corp/alliance of course, in which case the original rule will take effect)

"This one time, on patch day..."

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#50 - 2013-01-08 23:33:40 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Posting to let you know I'm well aware of this. The change was not in the patchnotes because it was related to an exploit which I'm not going to get in to a discussion about on here (and isn't quite as the OP states)

I am going to be adjusting the War+Suspect+Assistance rule so that it considers intra-alliance assistance as legal in the same way that it currently treats intra-corp assistance, since corps in an alliance will always share the same set of war targets.

Also note that for the purposes of this rule, FW militias/corps/alliances are not considered to be 'at war' just by being enlisted (notwithstanding that they might be in a regular war with another corp/alliance of course, in which case the original rule will take effect)


Thank you very much for the response.

As far as FW goes, that means that as long as a FW entity is not in a war dec, they can receive neutral RR without it being a valid target to their FW opponents, correct?
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#51 - 2013-01-08 23:34:57 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Posting to let you know I'm well aware of this. The change was not in the patchnotes because it was related to an exploit which I'm not going to get in to a discussion about on here (and isn't quite as the OP states)

I am going to be adjusting the War+Suspect+Assistance rule so that it considers intra-alliance assistance as legal in the same way that it currently treats intra-corp assistance, since corps in an alliance will always share the same set of war targets.

Also note that for the purposes of this rule, FW militias/corps/alliances are not considered to be 'at war' just by being enlisted (notwithstanding that they might be in a regular war with another corp/alliance of course, in which case the original rule will take effect)


Many thanks for the prompt reply, and for considering the various groups this affects. Glad to hear an adjustment is on the way.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#52 - 2013-01-08 23:35:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Adriel Malakai wrote:
As far as FW goes, that means that as long as a FW entity is not in a war dec, they can receive neutral RR without it being a valid target to their FW opponents, correct?


Well, a remote rep recipient that is in FW is ALWAYS a valid target to FW opponents. But Masterplan is confirming that we will NOT be a suspect to everyone else in lowsec at the same time, which was the issue this potentially created.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#53 - 2013-01-08 23:39:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
This is why designing a system that is intentionally massively oversimplified that has a huge impact on a a wide range of different circumstances is a bad idea.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#54 - 2013-01-09 00:04:08 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
This is why designing a system that is intentionally massively oversimplified that has a huge impact on a a wide range of different circumstances is a bad idea.

just because its simple it does not mean that it can't have bugs. the bug is now fixed so what are you complaining about?

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#55 - 2013-01-09 00:08:05 UTC
The Retribution-instituted crimewatch mechanics seem so damn convoluted that they are ripe for exploitation and clearly open to misunderstanding no matter how many devblogs are published.

There has to be a clearer and more user-friendly way to design and implement this stuff.

+++++++ I have never shed a tear for a fellow EVE player until now. Mark “Seleene” Heard's Blog Honoring Sean "Vile Rat" Smith.
Zilero
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2013-01-09 01:08:48 UTC
So now that this is fixed (or going to be...), when will you get a docking timer when you acquire a suspect flag?
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#57 - 2013-01-09 01:24:40 UTC
Presumably never since that wasn't an something anyone ever said would happen.
Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#58 - 2013-01-09 01:43:12 UTC
YAY NEUTRAL RR JUST GOT BONED!

boo a minor glitch was had, YAY they fixed it.


and exploit? i really wish you guys would share the exploit details after they're fixed. because it's interesting from a software engineering standpoint.

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#59 - 2013-01-09 02:02:11 UTC
I was crossing the street next to this thread and nearly got hit by a waaaaaaaaaaaambulance.

Look, Neutral RR or anything is cheating as far as I am concerned, and if t was OK, then everybody claiming to be a leet PVPer would be doing it.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#60 - 2013-01-09 02:07:49 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
I was crossing the street next to this thread and nearly got hit by a waaaaaaaaaaaambulance.

Look, Neutral RR or anything is cheating as far as I am concerned, and if t was OK, then everybody claiming to be a leet PVPer would be doing it.



You realize this thread was made to point out the problems of not being able to use in-alliance logi, right?