These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

PCO griefing in FW. CCP confirmed intended mechanics

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tammarr
#61 - 2011-12-20 00:44:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Tammarr
CCP Nullarbor wrote:


Transferring ownership after a POCO has been put into reinforce for example is still valid and while this does allow owners to force an aggressor who they are at war with to take a security hit they will still be able to decide before hand if they want to do this and not unknowingly engage an owner they are not at war with.


Great... we can decide beforehand if we want to go gcc as we return to the poco of a corp we wardeced to find it in new alt corp hands.
We place a new wardec on the alt corp, get the pleasure of shooting it from 100% to reinf again. Comeback next day to finish it what will we find? That its been transfered to a new or old alt corp we are no longer at war with.

You fix the sudden standing hits, it dosent take away the problem with the poco hoping.
No. People that RP 'No GCC Ever because its against the law!' or FW people that will receive WTF standing hits and unable to fight an enemy because they gone gcc and cant remote rep etc eachother? People that play it by the books by using wardecs should not have to sit back and watch things hop around freely in an neverending tail of wardecs.
No its not the security hit iam arguing against or the rpers pov or even fw peoples pov. Its the principle that the mechanic as you intend it is broken. GCC means your a lawbreaker and you should NOT have to be that to perform an action against an enemy.

Do away with gcc or make it mean nothing! if going GCC is required in order to accomplish a task in the game it shouldnt come with the downfalls currently associated with it. Patchwork Fixes Aint Fixes when the Mechanic remains broken.

Edit
The simplest soloution for the 'Valid reasons to transfer':

TransferPocoScript:

If(MyCorp.InFactionalWarfare==Yes )
If PocoToTransfer.IsDamageD or isReinforced
Return "No you cannot transfer a damage or reinf poco while in factional warfare, ride the storm out chicken"

Elseif(MyCorp.InFactionalWarfare==No)
If Poco.TransferToCorp is InList(MyCorp.AtWarWithWho)
return "Yes, you can transfer poco to a corp your currently at war with, nevermind decshields thats a separate and hard cracked issue"
else
return "No, you cant sadly transfer the poco to that corp since its not one your at war with"

That would in essence, with littleish coding make it so that you cant transfer a poco around madly. You can give it as tribute to a corp/alliance your at war with, long as your not in fw(because then you transfer it to militia alt corp :P).

That or a 36hr transfer timer when at war could be simple things to sort the problem =)

Thanks. Peace and Good Night Iceland.
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#62 - 2011-12-20 01:27:46 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Nullarbor
Tammarr wrote:
Patchwork Fixes Aint Fixes when the Mechanic remains broken


I agree and the concept of moving assets or characters between corporations at war is not limited to customs offices. So rather than make an exception here the whole system should be reviewed instead. A special case for customs offices would be both patchwork and inconsistent.

There is also value in allowing players to arrange an amicable transfer after having been put into reinforce.

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
RougeOperator
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#63 - 2011-12-20 03:18:33 UTC
Tammarr wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:


Transferring ownership after a POCO has been put into reinforce for example is still valid and while this does allow owners to force an aggressor who they are at war with to take a security hit they will still be able to decide before hand if they want to do this and not unknowingly engage an owner they are not at war with.


Great... we can decide beforehand if we want to go gcc as we return to the poco of a corp we wardeced to find it in new alt corp hands.
We place a new wardec on the alt corp, get the pleasure of shooting it from 100% to reinf again. Comeback next day to finish it what will we find? That its been transfered to a new or old alt corp we are no longer at war with.

You fix the sudden standing hits, it dosent take away the problem with the poco hoping.
No. People that RP 'No GCC Ever because its against the law!' or FW people that will receive WTF standing hits and unable to fight an enemy because they gone gcc and cant remote rep etc eachother? People that play it by the books by using wardecs should not have to sit back and watch things hop around freely in an neverending tail of wardecs.
No its not the security hit iam arguing against or the rpers pov or even fw peoples pov. Its the principle that the mechanic as you intend it is broken. GCC means your a lawbreaker and you should NOT have to be that to perform an action against an enemy.

Do away with gcc or make it mean nothing! if going GCC is required in order to accomplish a task in the game it shouldnt come with the downfalls currently associated with it. Patchwork Fixes Aint Fixes when the Mechanic remains broken.

Edit
The simplest soloution for the 'Valid reasons to transfer':

TransferPocoScript:

If(MyCorp.InFactionalWarfare==Yes )
If PocoToTransfer.IsDamageD or isReinforced
Return "No you cannot transfer a damage or reinf poco while in factional warfare, ride the storm out chicken"

Elseif(MyCorp.InFactionalWarfare==No)
If Poco.TransferToCorp is InList(MyCorp.AtWarWithWho)
return "Yes, you can transfer poco to a corp your currently at war with, nevermind decshields thats a separate and hard cracked issue"
else
return "No, you cant sadly transfer the poco to that corp since its not one your at war with"

That would in essence, with littleish coding make it so that you cant transfer a poco around madly. You can give it as tribute to a corp/alliance your at war with, long as your not in fw(because then you transfer it to militia alt corp :P).

That or a 36hr transfer timer when at war could be simple things to sort the problem =)

Thanks. Peace and Good Night Iceland.



I think I will but with a quote to the points made here. I agree with.

**Space wizards are real, they can make 10058 votes vanish. "and for a moment i hurd 10k goons cry out, then silence" **
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#64 - 2011-12-20 14:27:11 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
I agree and the concept of moving assets or characters between corporations at war is not limited to customs offices. So rather than make an exception here the whole system should be reviewed instead. A special case for customs offices would be both patchwork and inconsistent.

There is also value in allowing players to arrange an amicable transfer after having been put into reinforce.

Very good points. Especially the latter, as it's entirely possible that a PCO location is the entire objective of a war and the transfer of it could put an end to a costly war.

Since you're this involved in this thread, I'll just ask this here: what's the chance we can get this level of dev interaction on larger issues in the future, such as the much-needed reworking of wardec mechanics, faction warfare, and bounties? Obviously your presence here is doing a lot to calm the hype and reassure players that things are going to be fixed in a meaningful way. I'd love to see that extended to other, larger projects.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#65 - 2011-12-20 14:30:09 UTC
Tammarr wrote:
That would in essence, with littleish coding make it so that you cant transfer a poco around madly. You can give it as tribute to a corp/alliance your at war with, long as your not in fw(because then you transfer it to militia alt corp :P).


Make alt corp, wardec yourself, transfer. Hell, maintain a mutual wardec between several alt corps and you can juggle it.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
#66 - 2011-12-20 14:52:10 UTC  |  Edited by: IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Jack Dant wrote:
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
Addressing the obvious alt corp, alt T3 boosters and alt spying will go a long way to improving FW

Welcome to EVE, sir.


Thank you, sir. Do continue to make condescending post from a character that is younger than FW itself.

Just because it is so common for people to use neutral alts doesn't mean they should be able to put them in your militia. Imagine if you wardecced someone and they could easily and quickly put alts inside your corp without any skill and that you took large standing hits from engaging them.

Spying is a valid profession and a lot of this game is knowing the value of someones trust, and how you can make it so that it is not worth the amount of effort required from a hostile to infiltrate compared to the gains they would make from doing so. FW completely ignores this balance by making it so easy to join the entry level militia, which leads to the 2-tier system of the 'FW alliance' and the rest of the corps. The standing and aggression mechanics need a fix at the very minimum.


In response to the transfer of ownership as at end goal of the war since when is that in the spirit of eve? Given that we are seeing more and more inflation it seems silly to want less structures destroyed. This game needs more ISK sinks, not fewer (INB4 someone thinks I mean ship destruction and insurance..). If you want ownership of the PCO its as simple as killing it and replacing your own one, just like POS (In my opinion outposts should be this way as well but that comes with the issues of people inside).
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#67 - 2011-12-20 15:11:25 UTC
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
In response to the transfer of ownership as at end goal of the war since when is that in the spirit of eve? Given that we are seeing more and more inflation it seems silly to want less structures destroyed. This game needs more ISK sinks, not fewer (INB4 someone thinks I mean ship destruction and insurance..). If you want ownership of the PCO its as simple as killing it and replacing your own one, just like POS (In my opinion outposts should be this way as well but that comes with the issues of people inside).

Destroying a PCO is not a significant isk sink. No isk are removed from the game, only minerals, which are essentially infinite.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
DeBingJos
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#68 - 2011-12-20 15:14:00 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
In response to the transfer of ownership as at end goal of the war since when is that in the spirit of eve? Given that we are seeing more and more inflation it seems silly to want less structures destroyed. This game needs more ISK sinks, not fewer (INB4 someone thinks I mean ship destruction and insurance..). If you want ownership of the PCO its as simple as killing it and replacing your own one, just like POS (In my opinion outposts should be this way as well but that comes with the issues of people inside).

Destroying a PCO is not a significant isk sink. No isk are removed from the game, only minerals, which are essentially infinite.



In order to build a PCO you need a blueprint. Part of the cost of the blueprint is isk.

Agreed, not that much isk, but its still a sink.

Ungi maðurinn þekkir reglurnar, en gamli maðurinn þekkir undantekningarnar. The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions.

IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
#69 - 2011-12-20 15:16:34 UTC  |  Edited by: IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
In response to the transfer of ownership as at end goal of the war since when is that in the spirit of eve? Given that we are seeing more and more inflation it seems silly to want less structures destroyed. This game needs more ISK sinks, not fewer (INB4 someone thinks I mean ship destruction and insurance..). If you want ownership of the PCO its as simple as killing it and replacing your own one, just like POS (In my opinion outposts should be this way as well but that comes with the issues of people inside).

Destroying a PCO is not a significant isk sink. No isk are removed from the game, only minerals, which are essentially infinite.


LP store ISK cost and taxes, granted a fairly minimal ISK sink, but its there. Also mean less minerals earning their expected value through the insurance system. I still feel that losses in eve should hurt far more than they do. I don't want to tend toward we both size up our fleets, decide whos is better then just exchange the asset in question without anything blowing up.

edit - DeBingJos got there first
Axl Borlara
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#70 - 2011-12-20 17:35:13 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:

I keep hearing faction warfare being mentioned in the planning for 2012


I saw it mentioned as a feature of Crucible too, and look what happened there. Roll

Having more Devs post more frequently in the forums is great, but it needs to be backed up by actions as well.
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#71 - 2011-12-20 18:24:18 UTC
Overall Dev response has gone down a lot since immediately after they did the about-face. Good thing is that they seem to want to comment in the "important" threads rather than all the fluff threads like they did in the spam frenzy in the weeks prior (and just after) to Crutch going live.

Don't pay any attention to promises of FW being addressed, they haven't even gotten around to bailing their own Dev out of the Russian prison he has been stuck in since summer .. you know the Dev who was to give us the FW blog when he returned as an "We are sorry for blue-balling you at FanFest", the reparation blog as it were.

My guess is that now that they have had a long hard look at the back-log they have realised why the stuff was put there in the first place .. it will take :effort: to solve most of it and they are busy reading up on how one survives on eight hours sleep with binge drinking restricted to weekends.