These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

To benefit the EVE community at large,

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Solomar Espersei
Quality Assurance
#61 - 2011-11-10 19:44:27 UTC
Motion to formally refer to this as the Slimy Worm Nerf from this point forward. Is there a second?

Quality Assurance Recruiting intrepid explorers and BlOps/Cov Ops combat enthusiasts
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#62 - 2011-11-10 20:21:08 UTC
Seconded.
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
#63 - 2011-11-10 23:40:07 UTC
Thirded

Stop the spamming, not the scamming!
Soi Mala
Whacky Waving Inflatable Flailing Arm Tubemen
#64 - 2011-11-11 00:10:41 UTC
AkJon Ferguson wrote:

Clearly I understand the issue better than you.

AkJon Ferguson wrote:

This latest change overwhelmingly applies to people you are about to start repping


CCP wrote:
If a pilot is remote repairing, or otherwise assisting, another pilot who commits a criminal act then the repair module will now disengage.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#65 - 2011-11-11 00:30:44 UTC
Zowie Powers wrote:

Here's a point you will fail to understand. OP likes hard games with dire consequences for even the smallest mistake.
Eve used to be that game.

This confuses me. You say you want a hard game with consequences, but complain when a mechanic makes people work a bit more for a gank? I don't understand the obsession with one sided gameplay. If the game is to be devoid of trust, why do people complain about solo players running missions or mining all day, or people staying in NPC corps forever?
Azahni Vah'nos
Vah'nos Family
#66 - 2011-11-11 00:42:04 UTC
So what CCP has really done is stop people from Carebear Griefing. Now there may actually be some risk involved if they want to gank others. Roll

Nex (Cash Shop) / Aurum - removing sand from the sandbox since Incarna. Currently the only use for aurum is to buy virtual items in the in-game store, but Cockerill expects to expand its uses in the future.

Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#67 - 2011-11-11 00:45:37 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Zowie Powers wrote:

Here's a point you will fail to understand. OP likes hard games with dire consequences for even the smallest mistake.
Eve used to be that game.

This confuses me. You say you want a hard game with consequences, but complain when a mechanic makes people work a bit more for a gank? I don't understand the obsession with one sided gameplay. If the game is to be devoid of trust, why do people complain about solo players running missions or mining all day, or people staying in NPC corps forever?


to understand it ..

they want hard game with severe consequences not for them but for "their" targets. Which is actually synonym to easy game for them.

But honestly this brings nothing new. Its just long lasted oversight which has been fixed.
Caellach Marellus
Stormcrows
#68 - 2011-11-11 06:15:22 UTC
People are confusing the term criminal in this case. This isn't reference to GCC and Concordokken, that was fixed a while ago.

This is for people who commit criminal acts such as cantheft and repping them puts you at aggression with the corp they stole from.

Incursion fleets are currently getting baited and destroyed with no way to detect by people stealing from a can set up for them by a griefer corp, and then joining the Incursion fleet and calling for reps before the 15 minute timer has expired on their aggresion for theft. Everyone who then starts repping will spidertank the aggression timer, giving the gank fleet a whole bunch of targets to jump on and have the first shot without fear of being Concordokkened over it.

CCP is removing (or reducing) the risk of Meta-griefing with this, some idiot can ignore the warning and choose to rep anyway.

When your gut instincts tell you something is wrong, trust them. When your heart tells you something is right, ignore it, check with your brain first. Accept nothing, challenge everything.
Zowie Powers
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2011-11-11 09:30:54 UTC
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Zowie Powers wrote:

Here's a point you will fail to understand. OP likes hard games with dire consequences for even the smallest mistake.
Eve used to be that game.

This confuses me. You say you want a hard game with consequences, but complain when a mechanic makes people work a bit more for a gank? I don't understand the obsession with one sided gameplay. If the game is to be devoid of trust, why do people complain about solo players running missions or mining all day, or people staying in NPC corps forever?


to understand it ..

they want hard game with severe consequences not for them but for "their" targets. Which is actually synonym to easy game for them.

But honestly this brings nothing new. Its just long lasted oversight which has been fixed.


It's gratifying to know I pre-empted these terrible replies by starting "Here's a point you will fail to understand." And sure enough, like trustworthy ickle biddle bears, you completely fail to understand.

But don't let ignorance get in the way of a sense of superiority. Don't ever stop knowing you are always right.

ATX: The best of the rest.
Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#70 - 2011-11-11 09:44:12 UTC
good change is good.

thankee ccp.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961

EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody

  • Qolde
GM Homonoia
Game Master Retirement Home
#71 - 2011-11-11 10:18:16 UTC  |  Edited by: GM Homonoia
Soi Mala wrote:
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
GJ CCP If I'm in hi-sec, I'm entitled to know if the action I'm about to take will give someone else the right to shoot at me or not.

The change has nothing to do with GCC (which was fixed,) it has to do with can-flippers. It has nothing to do with logi being concordokken, it has to do with Slimy Worm.

tl;dr If you are in high-sec and someone you are about to rr can legally be shot at by anybody, you are given the option to not rep them (because if you do rr them, whoever can legally shoot them can now legally shoot you.)

Now if CCP would just nerf vanguard payouts about 20% then we'd be set.


Yet another one misunderstanding the issue. It is nothing to do with who you are going to rep, but the people you are already repping.


^ This.

1. Player A is repping player B
2. Player B steals from his friend player C
3. Player C gains aggression rights towards player A without player A receiving a warning, being informed or given the option to step out
4. Player C gets a risk free kill

In short, we fully endorse people blowing up space ships, but you should always have control over whether you receive an aggression flag or not. This is why can flipping is ok, but why we plugged this particular hole; there was no warning, defense or precautions you could take to combat this tactic, except by not participating in a huge feature of the game.

Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master
Zowie Powers
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#72 - 2011-11-11 12:43:07 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
but you should always have control over whether you receive an aggression flag or not.


When they came for the CONCORD yo-yoers I stayed silent because I wasn't a CONCORD yo-yoer.
When they came for the wardeccers, I stayed silent because I wasn't a wardeccer.
When they came for the Incursion gankers, I stayed silent because I wasn't an Incursion ganker.

When they come for lowsec, there will be nobody left to speak out for me.

ATX: The best of the rest.
GM Homonoia
Game Master Retirement Home
#73 - 2011-11-11 12:54:27 UTC
Zowie Powers wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
but you should always have control over whether you receive an aggression flag or not.


When they came for the CONCORD yo-yoers I stayed silent because I wasn't a CONCORD yo-yoer.
When they came for the wardeccers, I stayed silent because I wasn't a wardeccer.
When they came for the Incursion gankers, I stayed silent because I wasn't an Incursion ganker.

When they come for lowsec, there will be nobody left to speak out for me.


Let me clarify that part of my statement. I am specifically talking about the flags that you receive when you are the one committing a crime or being aggressive. You should be aware of these and they should be triggered by conscious and willful action.

Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#74 - 2011-11-11 13:00:14 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
Zowie Powers wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
but you should always have control over whether you receive an aggression flag or not.


When they came for the CONCORD yo-yoers I stayed silent because I wasn't a CONCORD yo-yoer.
When they came for the wardeccers, I stayed silent because I wasn't a wardeccer.
When they came for the Incursion gankers, I stayed silent because I wasn't an Incursion ganker.

When they come for lowsec, there will be nobody left to speak out for me.


Let me clarify that part of my statement. I am specifically talking about the flags that you receive when you are the one committing a crime or being aggressive. You should be aware of these and they should be triggered by conscious and willful action.


But but, they want to kill others by using "holes" in the mechanics. You cant take it away from them, its not fair Ugh
Zowie Powers
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#75 - 2011-11-11 13:09:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Zowie Powers
GM Homonoia wrote:
Zowie Powers wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
but you should always have control over whether you receive an aggression flag or not.


When they came for the CONCORD yo-yoers I stayed silent because I wasn't a CONCORD yo-yoer.
When they came for the wardeccers, I stayed silent because I wasn't a wardeccer.
When they came for the Incursion gankers, I stayed silent because I wasn't an Incursion ganker.

When they come for lowsec, there will be nobody left to speak out for me.


Let me clarify that part of my statement. I am specifically talking about the flags that you receive when you are the one committing a crime or being aggressive. You should be aware of these and they should be triggered by conscious and willful action.


So I can autopilot through lowsec in your vision of the future? After all, I'm not conscious or wilfully aggressive or criminal.
Consciously assisting another pilot carries a risk, consciously talking in local carries a risk, where does it end?

ATX: The best of the rest.
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#76 - 2011-11-11 13:17:47 UTC
Zowie Powers wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
Zowie Powers wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
but you should always have control over whether you receive an aggression flag or not.


When they came for the CONCORD yo-yoers I stayed silent because I wasn't a CONCORD yo-yoer.
When they came for the wardeccers, I stayed silent because I wasn't a wardeccer.
When they came for the Incursion gankers, I stayed silent because I wasn't an Incursion ganker.

When they come for lowsec, there will be nobody left to speak out for me.


Let me clarify that part of my statement. I am specifically talking about the flags that you receive when you are the one committing a crime or being aggressive. You should be aware of these and they should be triggered by conscious and willful action.


So I can autopilot through lowsec in your vision of the future? After all, I'm not conscious or wilfully aggressive or criminal.
Consciously assisting another pilot carries a risk, consciously talking in local carries a risk, where does it end?

I'd tell you to HTFU, but you've already admitted in another thread that you shouldn't have to Roll. So instead, keep crying and whining about having to work for your reward.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
GM Homonoia
Game Master Retirement Home
#77 - 2011-11-11 13:23:24 UTC  |  Edited by: GM Homonoia
Zowie Powers wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
Zowie Powers wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
but you should always have control over whether you receive an aggression flag or not.


When they came for the CONCORD yo-yoers I stayed silent because I wasn't a CONCORD yo-yoer.
When they came for the wardeccers, I stayed silent because I wasn't a wardeccer.
When they came for the Incursion gankers, I stayed silent because I wasn't an Incursion ganker.

When they come for lowsec, there will be nobody left to speak out for me.


Let me clarify that part of my statement. I am specifically talking about the flags that you receive when you are the one committing a crime or being aggressive. You should be aware of these and they should be triggered by conscious and willful action.


So I can autopilot through lowsec in your vision of the future? After all, I'm not conscious or wilfully aggressive or criminal.
Consciously assisting another pilot carries a risk, consciously talking in local carries a risk, where does it end?


We are talking about high security space here. If that was not already heavily implied I shall state it outright here.

As for assisting other pilots. This is an MMO and we want to maximize human interaction. Unnecessary paranoia is not exactly useful for that principle. Backstabbing, blackmail, theft, betrayal and all other forms of villainy are all encouraged and a valid part of the game. However, the rules that govern these should be clear to all. And in case of Incursions, their value includes the possibility for pickup groups and meeting new people; leaving that particular loophole into our rules set would negate that bit of beneficial (to the community) game play.

Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master
Zowie Powers
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#78 - 2011-11-11 13:27:02 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
Zowie Powers wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
Zowie Powers wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
but you should always have control over whether you receive an aggression flag or not.


When they came for the CONCORD yo-yoers I stayed silent because I wasn't a CONCORD yo-yoer.
When they came for the wardeccers, I stayed silent because I wasn't a wardeccer.
When they came for the Incursion gankers, I stayed silent because I wasn't an Incursion ganker.

When they come for lowsec, there will be nobody left to speak out for me.


Let me clarify that part of my statement. I am specifically talking about the flags that you receive when you are the one committing a crime or being aggressive. You should be aware of these and they should be triggered by conscious and willful action.


So I can autopilot through lowsec in your vision of the future? After all, I'm not conscious or wilfully aggressive or criminal.
Consciously assisting another pilot carries a risk, consciously talking in local carries a risk, where does it end?


We are talking about high security space here. If that was not already heavily implied I shall state it outright here.


So where does it end?
Will it be an exploit to fund somebody else who picks on Incursion runners? Because, obviously, the incursion runner has no means of knowing about it, or avoiding it. And that does appear to be CCP's prevalent interpretation of logic here.

In-Corp ganking going to be NuCCP's next target?
Because Energy Core Systems are doing a roaring trade awoxing, if they can get ISD to report on it AND find a way to include Incursion runners in on their party, are you going to step in on that too?

Again, where will it end?

ATX: The best of the rest.
Zowie Powers
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2011-11-11 13:28:34 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Zowie Powers wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
Zowie Powers wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
but you should always have control over whether you receive an aggression flag or not.


When they came for the CONCORD yo-yoers I stayed silent because I wasn't a CONCORD yo-yoer.
When they came for the wardeccers, I stayed silent because I wasn't a wardeccer.
When they came for the Incursion gankers, I stayed silent because I wasn't an Incursion ganker.

When they come for lowsec, there will be nobody left to speak out for me.


Let me clarify that part of my statement. I am specifically talking about the flags that you receive when you are the one committing a crime or being aggressive. You should be aware of these and they should be triggered by conscious and willful action.


So I can autopilot through lowsec in your vision of the future? After all, I'm not conscious or wilfully aggressive or criminal.
Consciously assisting another pilot carries a risk, consciously talking in local carries a risk, where does it end?

I'd tell you to HTFU, but you've already admitted in another thread that you shouldn't have to Roll. So instead, keep crying and whining about having to work for your reward.


I embarrassed you into silence once easily enough already, why continue to try and test me? It's like batting off flies.

ATX: The best of the rest.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#80 - 2011-11-11 13:30:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Is this the thread I already replied to or thee second one or the third one?

Edit:

Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
There should be a change for war decs. If you a logistics pilot confirms they want to rep someone then they get the same kill rights as the side they are repairing.
So the enemies can kill them for as long as the war lasts and they can attack the enemy for the war. Them being shot will not create aggression or kill rights for their corp or alliance toward the enemies.

You stick your nose in and you get fully involved.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.