These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Remove the Limited Engagement if shooting criminals, allow risk-free Remote Repping of victims
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jalequin
Jalequin Corporation
#1 - 2013-02-20 16:19:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Jalequin
During yesterdays' mining I was mining along side an Orca who was in a different fleet. Moments into this session I was ganked.
When I was engaged, as usual the ganker glowed the criminal flag and triggered Concord.

I noticed that when my aggressive drones responded into shooting him, I was flagged into a Limited Engagement; now, this did not stop Concord from poping him, but it prevented the non-hostile Orca from repping my shield. Because my drones' response triggered a 'legal' 1v1 engagement with the ganker, the orca would have been flagged a suspect if he had decided to provide me with shield rep.

The Limited Engage/Suspect for both the victim and Orca would then last well into minutes after Concord pops the ganker ship; effectively forcing the Orca to dock for the duration of the 5-minute engagement countdown -the Orca is being punished for attempting to save me from what is (by Concord standards) an illegal PvP event.



Proposition:
Disable the Limited Engagement flag if the victim is defending himself against a Concord-triggered criminal. Allow ganking victims to be freely repped by neutral players without the risk of being engaged vs the ganker nor to the gankers' fleet, or receive any form of flagging.

Mass Tests Videos: http://j.mp/14PE0uz - June 14th http://j.mp/10Db6ry - May 16th http://j.mp/19uIPJM - April 11th
Drake Doe
88Th Tax Haven
#2 - 2013-02-20 16:25:07 UTC
I disagree, providing logistics is a bit like using tracking disruptors against said ganker.

"The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! pops more corn" ---Evernub--
Jalequin
Jalequin Corporation
#3 - 2013-02-20 16:29:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Jalequin
Drake Doe wrote:
I disagree, providing logistics is a bit like using tracking disruptors against said ganker.

Understand that the ganker is approaching the victim with evil intentions in high-sec. His aggression already triggered Concord. Why should any response from the victim, or other bystanders trigger a Limited Engage with the ganker that would last minutes after the gank? Allow the public to provide support for the victim.

The cause of the battle should be what determines if repping would have risks or not. During the 3-19 seconds while Concord is comming, the public should be allowed to save the victim without any flagging penalty.

Mass Tests Videos: http://j.mp/14PE0uz - June 14th http://j.mp/10Db6ry - May 16th http://j.mp/19uIPJM - April 11th
Parsival
The Avalon Foundation
#4 - 2013-02-20 16:44:18 UTC
No.

Because engaging in PvP with absolute immunity via a game mechanic is wrong, and Remote Repping someone in that situation is PvP.
Jalequin
Jalequin Corporation
#5 - 2013-02-20 16:54:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Jalequin
Parsival wrote:
No.

Because engaging in PvP with absolute immunity via a game mechanic is wrong, and Remote Repping someone in that situation is PvP.

But in this situation it is (to Concord standards) an illegal PvP engagement. The ganker is individually flagged as a threat . Players nearby should be allowed to provide support for the victim while Concord arrives.
Note that I'm not advocating that everyone be allowed to shoot the ganker without consequence, but rather to use support modules on the victim.

Mass Tests Videos: http://j.mp/14PE0uz - June 14th http://j.mp/10Db6ry - May 16th http://j.mp/19uIPJM - April 11th
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#6 - 2013-02-20 16:57:34 UTC
Parsival wrote:
No.

Because engaging in PvP with absolute immunity via a game mechanic is wrong, and Remote Repping someone in that situation is PvP.

The ones doing the RR would not have absolute immunity. They would have exactly the same vulnerability as the gank victim to exactly the same form of attack: Suicide gank.

The suicide gankers keep saying the victims should be bringing help to fend off the gank, that the reason ganking works is because they are using cooperative game play against someone doing solo game play. OK, so put your rules support where your mouth is. Make it easier for aid to be given to victims.

Supported.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#7 - 2013-02-20 16:58:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Arduemont
Jalequin wrote:
Parsival wrote:
No.

Because engaging in PvP with absolute immunity via a game mechanic is wrong, and Remote Repping someone in that situation is PvP.

But in this situation it is (to Concord standards) an illegal PvP engagement. The ganker is individually flagged as a threat . Players nearby should be allowed to provide support for the victim while Concord arrives.
Note that I'm not advocating that everynone allowed to shoot the ganker without consequence, but rather to use support modules on the victim.


They can easily provide support. The guy is going to die anyway. Do you think he could somehow take the Orca aswell? Just dock the Orca up afterwards until the limited engagement ends. Is it really that much of a hardship to save a fellow player?

Having said all of the above, the chap posting before me has it about right really. Suicide ganking is no effort risk free PvP, god forbid someone might be able to do something about it.

Frankly though, it's a non issue for the reason I stated initially. Just rep them. Who cares about the limited engagement? He can't tackle you in his pod.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#8 - 2013-02-20 17:01:20 UTC
Its actually quite hilarious - seen so many people lose logis over the last couple of weeks because they didn't realise it now works like that.
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2013-02-20 17:05:55 UTC
I agree, its a dumb mechanic.

Concord is coming to assist the person, but if anyone else assists them, then concord decides they can go F themselves?

I fully support maintaining the Concord protection of anyone that assists a victim that concord itself will assist.

If the gankers don't like it, then they can get some tornados, and gank the orca before ganking the mining barge.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#10 - 2013-02-20 17:16:04 UTC
Arduemont wrote:
Jalequin wrote:
Parsival wrote:
No.

Because engaging in PvP with absolute immunity via a game mechanic is wrong, and Remote Repping someone in that situation is PvP.

But in this situation it is (to Concord standards) an illegal PvP engagement. The ganker is individually flagged as a threat . Players nearby should be allowed to provide support for the victim while Concord arrives.
Note that I'm not advocating that everynone allowed to shoot the ganker without consequence, but rather to use support modules on the victim.


They can easily provide support. The guy is going to die anyway. Do you think he could somehow take the Orca aswell? ........

No, but anyone else around could.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#11 - 2013-02-20 17:18:43 UTC
Also, right... You wouldn't have this problem if you didn't have your drones set to auto assist. Having your drone on auto assist is a really stupid thing for a miner to do.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#12 - 2013-02-20 17:21:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Arduemont
Vincent Athena wrote:
Arduemont wrote:


They can easily provide support. The guy is going to die anyway. Do you think he could somehow take the Orca aswell? ........

No, but anyone else around could.


In which case there is a mistake in the OP.

Quote:
the orca would have also been flagged into a Limited Engagement with the ganker


It wouldn't be a limited engagement, they would just become a suspect. If this is true, as you say, then it definately needs fixing. It's just retarted that they should enter into being a suspect for aiding someone against someone with a criminal flag. Although you still wouldn't have this problem if you didn't have your drone on auto assist.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
Drake Doe
88Th Tax Haven
#13 - 2013-02-20 17:24:40 UTC
Jalequin wrote:
Drake Doe wrote:
I disagree, providing logistics is a bit like using tracking disruptors against said ganker.

Understand that the ganker is approaching the victim with evil intentions in high-sec. His aggression already triggered Concord. Why should any response from the victim, or other bystanders trigger a Limited Engage with the ganker that would last minutes after the gank? Allow the public to provide support for the victim.

The cause of the battle should be what determines if repping would have risks or not. During the 3-19 seconds while Concord is comming, the public should be allowed to save the victim without any flagging penalty.

Again, repping directly effects the outcome of the gank and therefore should be penalized

"The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! pops more corn" ---Evernub--
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#14 - 2013-02-20 17:30:50 UTC
Drake Doe wrote:
Jalequin wrote:
Drake Doe wrote:
I disagree, providing logistics is a bit like using tracking disruptors against said ganker.

Understand that the ganker is approaching the victim with evil intentions in high-sec. His aggression already triggered Concord. Why should any response from the victim, or other bystanders trigger a Limited Engage with the ganker that would last minutes after the gank? Allow the public to provide support for the victim.

The cause of the battle should be what determines if repping would have risks or not. During the 3-19 seconds while Concord is comming, the public should be allowed to save the victim without any flagging penalty.

Again, repping directly effects the outcome of the gank and therefore should be penalized


I personally wouldn't mind if it caused a limited engagement, but it seems it causes a suspect flag, which is just ridiculous.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
Drake Doe
88Th Tax Haven
#15 - 2013-02-20 17:41:44 UTC
Arduemont wrote:
Drake Doe wrote:
Jalequin wrote:
Drake Doe wrote:
I disagree, providing logistics is a bit like using tracking disruptors against said ganker.

Understand that the ganker is approaching the victim with evil intentions in high-sec. His aggression already triggered Concord. Why should any response from the victim, or other bystanders trigger a Limited Engage with the ganker that would last minutes after the gank? Allow the public to provide support for the victim.

The cause of the battle should be what determines if repping would have risks or not. During the 3-19 seconds while Concord is comming, the public should be allowed to save the victim without any flagging penalty.

Again, repping directly effects the outcome of the gank and therefore should be penalized


I personally wouldn't mind if it caused a limited engagement, but it seems it causes a suspect flag, which is just ridiculous.

To me using outside help validates this, it's similar to having a small gang on standby while claiming for the battle to be 1v1.

"The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! pops more corn" ---Evernub--
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#16 - 2013-02-20 17:59:48 UTC
Sooo... if a logi type, (be it orca or any boat equipped with repping ability), needs to rep someone, it is important that they first attempt DPS against the target that is causing their allies harm.

For the orca, I am thinking have it carry a couple of drones, and have them 'defend mode' the ships it would want to rep.
(Send 1 drone to each, this is a token item used only to open that goofy engagement)

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#17 - 2013-02-20 18:13:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
Arduemont wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
Arduemont wrote:


They can easily provide support. The guy is going to die anyway. Do you think he could somehow take the Orca aswell? ........

No, but anyone else around could.


In which case there is a mistake in the OP.

Quote:
the orca would have also been flagged into a Limited Engagement with the ganker


It wouldn't be a limited engagement, they would just become a suspect. If this is true, as you say, then it definately needs fixing. It's just retarted that they should enter into being a suspect for aiding someone against someone with a criminal flag. Although you still wouldn't have this problem if you didn't have your drone on auto assist.

You do have a point. The OP is not complaining that everyone can shoot the Orca, but that the Orca has to go hide for the time the flag takes to expire, just because he came to the aid of a victim of a crime. If the ganker can re-ship before the orca gets to warp, its a free kill.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#18 - 2013-02-20 19:47:55 UTC
the problem is not in flagging but in miner's drones that werent retracted on aggro. Should miner retract/scoop his drones and not engage in combat - Orca pilot would have aided without any problems.

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2013-02-20 19:58:25 UTC
+1

Despite what the trolls want to believe, this is an oversight, and not intentional move by CCP to give you aggro for firing back upon GCC trigger. CCP has already stated that you won't get aggro for firing back upon GCC trigger (go read notes), yet you do, indicating it being an oversight.

Petition it. You may actually get your hulk reimbursed by claiming the RRs would've save it (which it wouldn't).
Parsival
The Avalon Foundation
#20 - 2013-02-21 07:54:26 UTC
Arduemont wrote:
Suicide ganking is no effort risk free PvP, god forbid someone might be able to do something about it.


Risk free? The ganker is guaranteed to lose his ship (potentially without getting the kill anyway), they take a big sec status hit, they give their target a free shot for the next month through kill rights and using the OP's logic they suffer the awful penalty of having to dock for fear of being shot at because of criminal flag.... oh the horror Roll
123Next pageLast page