These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Recent changes to ships with Ship Maintenance Arrays

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aessaya
Independent treasure hunters
#101 - 2011-09-13 03:31:49 UTC
Aamrr wrote:
I still don't see why you didn't go with the simpler solution:

When a pilot with an aggression timer attempts to access the orca's ship hangar, the Orca pilot should receive a prompt warning them that they will receive aggression for assisting if this action is allowed. If they allow the pilot to access the hangar, slap the Orca pilot with the aggression as well.

Not really any different than applying remote reps, tbh.


This is exactly what boggles my mind, tbh.

Pod Amarr wrote:
Barakkus wrote:
lolz, people might actually have to fight the fight they pick now in highsec.


This Now fix the station and neutral RR



I don't see anything wrong with neutral RR. Remote assisting someone with aggression flags transfers those flags onto the assisting person. Simple. War target or otherwise flagged person shoots you, gets assist from a neutral person, the person gets same flags as the person he is assisting, now there's nothing stopping you from kicking their asses as well. Problems? But then again, let's not derail the thread.

Ah, you seek meaning? Then listen to the music, not the song.
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#102 - 2011-09-13 04:49:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Herr Wilkus
Aessaya wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with neutral RR. Remote assisting someone with aggression flags transfers those flags onto the assisting person. Simple. War target or otherwise flagged person shoots you, gets assist from a neutral person, the person gets same flags as the person he is assisting, now there's nothing stopping you from kicking their asses as well. Problems? But then again, let's not derail the thread.


The issue with neutral RR isn't the flags.
The complaint, I believe, is that RRing ships are allowed to rep, then dock up instantly without a timer, making the flags somewhat meaningless.

Personally, I think that ships should be prohibited from docking/jumping if they are warp scrambled/disrupted/webbed - IMO, it would fix station games.

EDIT: Throw in ship-swapping there too. If warp jammed, no docking with Orcas either.
Kaeda Maxwell
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#103 - 2011-09-13 06:56:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaeda Maxwell
Aessaya wrote:
Aamrr wrote:
I still don't see why you didn't go with the simpler solution:

When a pilot with an aggression timer attempts to access the orca's ship hangar, the Orca pilot should receive a prompt warning them that they will receive aggression for assisting if this action is allowed. If they allow the pilot to access the hangar, slap the Orca pilot with the aggression as well.

Not really any different than applying remote reps, tbh.


This is exactly what boggles my mind, tbh.



And it's exactly why I think CCP is just out to make hi-sec ganking harder, because think for one second if timers transferred to the Orca who else would be risking Orca's?
Indeed miners dealing with can flippers. Can flippers would be quite happy with these agressed Orca's...

Furthermore having aggression transfer to the Orca wouldn't affect ninja's that much, most ninja's ship scan their targets and let me tell you the odds of a mission runner having a point are slim, between no point to point the Orca and the option to fit ecm/cloaks it would mostly just hinder the ability to fit a full rack of skirmish links to the Orca at the the bonus of possibly having the missioner shoot at the Orca getting it out and coming back with a second gank ship...

Between breaking my convenience (I can still use the Orca like I did before just involves more clicks) or adding a timer to my Orca for ninja purposes I'd have preferred if CCP had gone for the option of transferring the aggression timer to the Orca if you use the SMB while agressed. It would make more sense and affect all professions equally and thus be fairer.
Aamrr
#104 - 2011-09-13 07:03:27 UTC
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:
[quote=Aessaya][quote=Aamrr]Between breaking my convenience (I can still use the Orca like I did before just involves more clicks) or adding a timer to my Orca for ninja purposes I'd have preferred if CCP had gone for the option of transferring the aggression timer to the Orca if you use the SMB while agressed. It would make more sense and affect all professions equally and thus be fairer.


I'd certainly support this. Big smile

Then again, I still think there should be a warning when you're going to rep a target that currently has an aggression timer (such as from can flipping). Presently, the logistics has no way of knowing whether they'll get aggression from doing it until they've actually done it.
Barbie D0ll
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#105 - 2011-09-13 07:11:09 UTC
Aamrr wrote:
Then again, I still think there should be a warning when you're going to rep a target that currently has an aggression timer (such as from can flipping). Presently, the logistics has no way of knowing whether they'll get aggression from doing it until they've actually done it.


I wonder when CCP will get around to fixing this [strikeout]exploit[/strikeout] loophole
Aamrr
#106 - 2011-09-13 07:21:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Aamrr
And on the subject of remote assistance and docking games...This isn't just a subject of out-of-corporation logistics. It's relevant to any nullsec station docking games as well. The thing is, you can't just slap an aggression timer on a logistics pilot that reps someone with a timer. Here's why:

A gang must be able to withdraw from a fight. Presently, if a battleship shoots something, they can cease fire and still run their local tank modules while they wait out their aggression. They can shoot something and receive remote reps while they wait out their aggression. And when the timer is done, the gang (logistics included) can safely dock or use the jump gate. The important part here is that you can still tank while the timers tick down -- you just can't undertake offensive action.

Now suppose that remote assistance incurred an aggression timer in the normal sense. The logistics pilot would receive an aggression timer for repping an aggressed pilot. This timer would quickly spread to the entire logistics chain via their capacitor transfer modules. If these incurred aggression in the normal sense, then these timers would be continually refreshed and the gang would not be able to withdraw without stopping their tanks for a full 60 seconds. I shouldn't have to explain why that isn't a survivable option.

Suppose, on the other hand, that remote assistance didn't give you a fresh timer, but rather gave you a timer equal to that of the pilot you're assisting. That is, repping a pilot that hasn't shot anyone for 10 seconds would give you a 50 second timer. This timer would still spread among the logistics gang -- but it wouldn't be refreshed every time a module cycled.

If the timers worked as I described, where you inherited the target's timer, the logistics gang would be able to dock or jump out at precisely 60 seconds from their gang's last combat action -- which prevents logistics pilots from being able to dock up immediately, as described, but also allows the gang as a whole to cease offensive action and still withdraw effectively.

This seems to be the most reasonable compromise to the complaints of remote assistance, from hisec to nullsec.
Barbie D0ll
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#107 - 2011-09-13 07:24:44 UTC
Aamrr wrote:
And on the subject of remote assistance and docking games...This isn't just a subject of out-of-corporation logistics. It's relevant to any nullsec station docking games as well. The thing is, you can't just slap an aggression timer on a logistics pilot that reps someone with a timer. Here's why:

A gang must be able to withdraw from a fight. Presently, if a battleship shoots something, they can cease fire and still run their local tank modules while they wait out their aggression. They can shoot something and receive remote reps while they wait out their aggression. And when the timer is done, the gang (logistics included) can safely dock or use the jump gate. The important part here is that you can still tank while the timers tick down -- you just can't undertake offensive action.

Now suppose that remote assistance incurred an aggression timer in the normal sense. The logistics pilot would receive an aggression timer for repping an aggressed pilot. This timer would quickly spread to the entire logistics chain via their capacitor transfer modules. If these incurred aggression in the normal sense, then these timers would be continually refreshed and the gang would not be able to withdraw without stopping their tanks for a full 60 seconds. I shouldn't have to explain why that isn't a survivable option.

Suppose, on the other hand, that remote assistance didn't give you a fresh timer, but rather gave you a timer equal to that of the pilot you're assisting. That is, repping a pilot that hasn't shot anyone for 10 seconds would give you a 50 second timer. This timer would still spread among the logistics gang -- but it wouldn't be refreshed every time a module cycled.

If the timers worked as I described, where you inherited the target's timer, the logistics gang would be able to dock or jump out at precisely 60 seconds from their gang's last combat action -- which prevents logistics pilots from being able to dock up immediately, as described, but also allows the gang as a whole to cease offensive action and still withdraw effectively.

This seems to be the most reasonable compromise to the complaints of remote assistance, from hisec to nullsec.


that should work
Aamrr
#108 - 2011-09-13 07:34:53 UTC
I could make a petition on the assembly hall to that effect. Do you think it would be well-received?
Barbie D0ll
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#109 - 2011-09-13 07:36:13 UTC
Aamrr wrote:
I could make a petition on the assembly hall to that effect. Do you think it would be well-received?

i believe so
Aamrr
#110 - 2011-09-13 07:52:08 UTC
Alright. I've posted my proposal. Here's hoping that it gets some positive responses.

The proposal can be found here.
Kitanga
Lowsec Border Marshals
#111 - 2011-09-13 15:41:28 UTC
park your orca inside a Worm Hole on said system where you are doing your highsec shenanigans.
Solomar Espersei
Quality Assurance
#112 - 2011-09-13 16:25:20 UTC
GM Haggis wrote:
...A method of using ships with Ship Maintenance Arrays in order to avoid combat was recently patched out...


If it's the "avoid combat part" can we do something about mission runners and their blingy ships who shoot and then dock up? Carebears avoiding combats that they start is all well and good I guess.

Quality Assurance Recruiting intrepid explorers and BlOps/Cov Ops combat enthusiasts
Bladewise
Hellokitty's Online Adventure
The Conference
#113 - 2011-09-13 16:54:41 UTC
No docking while pointed IMO. C'mon CCP, are you just hugging carebear nuttsack or are you listening to the entire community? Regardless of what pea-brained mission runners say, we do not want WoW in space, all the people who do will be jumping ship to World of Star Wars soon anyways.
Aamrr
#114 - 2011-09-13 17:02:00 UTC
*shrugs* If a person has successfully waited out the 60 second aggression timer without taking hostile action, I think they've earned the right to jump or dock. You know, subject to the change I proposed earlier regarding remote assistance.

That said, the 60 second timer might need to be adjusted for certain ship classes (capital ships come to mind), but the idea is sound at least in the core concept.
Noot Khorhar
1st Mining and Industrial Logistics Foundation
#115 - 2011-09-13 17:38:24 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:


Believe it or not, blowing up multi-million and billion ISK ships is good for the game. Without ninja activity, those PVE boats have as much chance in dying in a LVL 4.....as I do making the US National Hockey team.



this. we are ccps active isk sink which they weakend now
Aamrr
#116 - 2011-09-13 17:43:47 UTC
Actually, you're an isk faucet. When a ship blows up, isk enters the economy through the insurance system, even if the ship is itself not insured (you always get the base 40% payout). Now, you're an asset sink, which is something quite different entirely, but you're certainly not an isk sink.

Basically, you're adding isk to the economy and removing things for people to buy -- both of which have an inflationary effect.
Solomar Espersei
Quality Assurance
#117 - 2011-09-13 18:53:04 UTC
Aamrr wrote:
Actually, you're an isk faucet. When a ship blows up, isk enters the economy through the insurance system, even if the ship is itself not insured (you always get the base 40% payout).


You might want to consider the faction BS and marauders that we hunt. It's those kills that we're after.

"HerpDerp the Mission Bear buys Navy Raven then blings it out with something like 1 Bil in faction mods. In a moment of rage, he shoots ninja who then destroys 80-90% or more of the value of the hull when he is able to get a point & DPS ship on him. In the ensuing explosion, 500 mil of the faction mods are destroyed."

That's about 1 Bil taken out of the economy each time we shoot a bling bear. CCP obviously wants to protect the bears so less of that ISK will be leaving the economy, but by God we'll keep trying. ;)

Aamrr wrote:
*shrugs* If a person has successfully waited out the 60 second aggression timer without taking hostile action, I think they've earned the right to jump or dock.

Dude, they're USUALLY aligned when they shoot so off they go and if not, well, you've got this ridiculous SMA nerf bat to deal with so they wait for you to warp away, then warp to station, wait a few seconds, then dock up.

So in essence, CCP's stated reason for nerfing the SMA NOW allows Mission Runners "to avoid combat" where before ninjas were using it to escalate the hostilities, often against multiple combatants.

Quality Assurance Recruiting intrepid explorers and BlOps/Cov Ops combat enthusiasts
Aamrr
#118 - 2011-09-13 19:01:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Aamrr
No, that's about 1 billion isk in assets that have been removed from the economy. More isk is present after your activities than was present before. There's just fewer actual assets present in the game. Which is precisely what I said.

Fewer goods, more currency. Inflationary effect.

As to the pilots firing at you while they're aligned...life as a ninja must be tough. God, I think I'm almost shedding a tear for you. Wow, you guys are good at this...
Bladewise
Hellokitty's Online Adventure
The Conference
#119 - 2011-09-13 21:06:55 UTC
They just nerfed scanning again.
Karah Serrigan
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#120 - 2011-09-13 22:28:26 UTC
Pleniers wrote:
Since the workaround as already been posted, I wanted only to confirm (well, a careber on a mega confirmed it really) it works with no bigger problem, so Orca is still the same option to ninja.

Just a small note. Remeber to jetisson the crap you salvage/loot from your tackle ship BEFORE entering the PVP ship Big smile

I lost my precious tackle ship because when I was about to scoop it I got a "Hell no, you got crap on cargo hold" notification.

Tks CCP for making me click about 6 more times, taking a whole lot of 3 seconds more to make the exchange. P



Month Kills ISK (B) Losses ISK (B) Efficiency
September, 2011 24 1.89 18 0.83 69.54%
August, 2011 289 46.50 70 2.60 94.71%
July, 2011 191 25.43 69 2.33 91.60%

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=10629281
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=10629198
PvP so hard when you cant scoop your shiny t3 :(