open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [ISSUE] Neutral/ALT Remote Repping & Aggression
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 : last (16)

Author Topic

Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
Moar Tears
Posted - 2010.06.29 03:17:00 - [361]
 

I do not believe that this is a broken mechanic.

If you are fighting on a station, a logistics ship takes an entire 60 seconds to come back out of the station at minimum after being forced to dock. When he undocks, you know exactly where he will be, and he has to either wait out his session timer (a further 30 seconds) or brave your damage right on top of him when he becomes lockable right away. If he wants to come out in a fighting ship after gaining your aggro, that's a full 90 seconds.

If you are fighting on a gate, you can force a logistics ship through the gate into the arms of anyone waiting on the other side. If they want to come back, they will not only take 60 seconds minimum to do so, but they will be off the gate and thus able to be tackled on their return.

I would support the change under ONE condition: friendly assists must not always give you a 60 second gate/dock timer. There should only be a 60 second gate/dock timer if an assisting action makes you aggressed to someone new (such as a neutral logistics becoming blinky to the assistee's war targets). Thus, war target logistics should be able to remote rep corp or alliance mates all they want and jump at any time. And thus, if a neutral logistics began repping someone at war, they would gain a 60 second gate/dock timer at the first rep cycle, but after 60 seconds they would be free to dock or jump at will, even if they were still repping.

tl;dr The current mechanic is OK; A change would be ok too as long as repping does not always prevent you from jumping/docking.

Leneerra
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe

Posted - 2010.06.29 16:32:00 - [362]
 

Simply add the normal agression timer to all support actions

Remote repair, Remote shield boost, Cap transfer, Remote sensor boosting, Remote ECCM, Tracking link, Gang Mods

Supported

FarSeeker etFils
Posted - 2010.07.01 03:27:00 - [363]
 

Supported 100 percent!

Mr SmartGuy
Posted - 2010.07.01 05:18:00 - [364]
 

Originally by: Iam Widdershins
I do not believe that this is a broken mechanic.

If you are fighting on a station, a logistics ship takes an entire 60 seconds to come back out of the station at minimum after being forced to dock. When he undocks, you know exactly where he will be, and he has to either wait out his session timer (a further 30 seconds) or brave your damage right on top of him when he becomes lockable right away. If he wants to come out in a fighting ship after gaining your aggro, that's a full 90 seconds.

If you are fighting on a gate, you can force a logistics ship through the gate into the arms of anyone waiting on the other side. If they want to come back, they will not only take 60 seconds minimum to do so, but they will be off the gate and thus able to be tackled on their return.

I would support the change under ONE condition: friendly assists must not always give you a 60 second gate/dock timer. There should only be a 60 second gate/dock timer if an assisting action makes you aggressed to someone new (such as a neutral logistics becoming blinky to the assistee's war targets). Thus, war target logistics should be able to remote rep corp or alliance mates all they want and jump at any time. And thus, if a neutral logistics began repping someone at war, they would gain a 60 second gate/dock timer at the first rep cycle, but after 60 seconds they would be free to dock or jump at will, even if they were still repping.

tl;dr The current mechanic is OK; A change would be ok too as long as repping does not always prevent you from jumping/docking.


Mhm... interesting... alliance coalitions don't exist, right? And this would in no way affect 0.0 warfare, right?

Not supported.

Felix Esperium
Lysergic Distortions Research and Development
Posted - 2010.07.01 07:39:00 - [365]
 

Originally by: Leneerra
Simply add the normal agression timer to all support actions

Remote repair, Remote shield boost, Cap transfer, Remote sensor boosting, Remote ECCM, Tracking link, Gang Mods

Supported

Dardol
Posted - 2010.07.02 20:26:00 - [366]
 

Edited by: Dardol on 02/07/2010 20:45:31
Edited by: Dardol on 02/07/2010 20:39:18
supported

While i support it, I didn't check the box because I think that by making it an aggressive act you impair mission runners, since I don't think there will be a way ccp can recognize whether they are repping you while being attacked by an npc or a player.

Cheers!

Epegi Givo
Amarr
Department of Redundancy Dpt.

Posted - 2010.07.03 03:14:00 - [367]
 

If there is one thing that I hate beyond measure, it is when a neutral remote reps someone, resulting in me losing the fight.

The least that could happen is if I were allowed to kill the neutral remote repairer.

Supported beyond 100%

Azzail
Posted - 2010.07.03 16:52:00 - [368]
 

Remote Repping is no offensiv or aggressiv action so why should it get aggro timer thats like saying a commandship pilot whos just there to give bonus to fleet and does not enter the fight must get aggro timer as well.

Plain stupid -> not supported.

LordInvisible
Gallente
Nova Ardour
Posted - 2010.07.03 17:45:00 - [369]
 

I too would like to see this "problem" fixed, but on the other hand, i'm using my logistics purely when i get blobed. So before u implement something like that, fix blobs.

Also, i heard falcons are still good tools against logistics..

LordInvisible
Gallente
Nova Ardour
Posted - 2010.07.03 19:14:00 - [370]
 

Edited by: LordInvisible on 03/07/2010 19:42:05
Originally by: Azzail
Remote Repping is no offensiv or aggressiv action so why should it get aggro timer thats like saying a commandship pilot whos just there to give bonus to fleet and does not enter the fight must get aggro timer as well.

Plain stupid -> not supported.


U are getting it wrong. RRer should get same aggression timers as RRed.
Example: Player A Shoots player B. Player C reps player A. Player A cannot dock until it stops shooting + 1 minute. In that second, that player C repped player A, he gets same agression timer. If he did one cycle of repping, that mean 1 minute of no docking/jumping. If he is still repping that means no docking/jumping until he is repping player that has 1minute docking/jumping session timer.
If player C reps Player B, and player B didnt shoot back, then Player C doenst get any timers..

Will Hardy
Posted - 2010.08.20 16:27:00 - [371]
 

Supported

Sub Nor'Mal
Posted - 2010.08.20 17:44:00 - [372]
 

No support, not broken.

You need to adjust your tactics to meet the new reality.

Bronya Boga
Amarr
Posted - 2010.08.21 00:31:00 - [373]
 

supported

Slimy Worm
The Skunkworks
Posted - 2010.08.21 04:37:00 - [374]
 

Originally by: Fille Balle
Suggested fix that is already implemented:

1. stop pvp'ing in empire


Because highsec should be a safe happyland where everyone gets candy, holds hands, and sings together.

tl;dr: gb2wowkthxbai

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.08.25 21:41:00 - [375]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 25/08/2010 21:56:22
Anyone who's not supporting this topic is either pussies in PVP that are way to scared to PVP without 4368048765497 neutral RR alts behind your ass that can just instadock if it doesn't go your way.

When someone starts a war that are between 2 corps / alliances, then that war is ONLY between them and no one else.

But if some neutral RR alts want to help some of those 2 corps'es / alliances, then that neutral RR alts is going in between those 2 corps'es / alliances and are going into their business / war and need to get punished for it.

Simply because the war between the 2 corps / alliances is something that the neutral RR alt shouldn't have anything to do with because he's not a part of those 2 corps'es / alliances.

So this topic is 100% supported.

EDIT: The RR mechanics doesn't really need to be changed in 0.0 space though. Because as things are there when it's about RRing, it's pretty good as it is now.

Neutral RR alts in empire with no risks is the real problem here.

John Caffeine
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2010.08.25 21:57:00 - [376]
 

Not supported; it's bad enough flying logis already, getting aggro for repping too would just be plain retarted. If neutral alts upset you stop camping Jita and go to NPC 0.0 or something, and camp stations there instead.

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.08.25 22:25:00 - [377]
 

Originally by: John Caffeine
Not supported; it's bad enough flying logis already, getting aggro for repping too would just be plain retarted. If neutral alts upset you stop camping Jita and go to NPC 0.0 or something, and camp stations there instead.

Do you even know what an empire war decing corp is all about?

Mangala Solaris
Caldari
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
Posted - 2010.08.26 14:25:00 - [378]
 

Supporting

333psycho333
Posted - 2010.09.14 04:01:00 - [379]
 

supported

Bo Tosh
Posted - 2010.09.14 10:08:00 - [380]
 

Supported

Lord Wilding
EdgeGamers

Posted - 2010.09.14 10:48:00 - [381]
 

Originally by: Sub Nor'Mal
No support, not broken.

You need to adjust your tactics to meet the new reality.

Having had to deal with this a few times, I have my own opinions. This should have never been a "reality". It's risk is minimal ("OH GOD IT'S TARGETING ME" /DOCKDOCKDOCKDOCKDOCKDOCK) with the reward being extremely high ("LOL LOOK AT MY 6K SHIELD TANK ON MY SLEIPNIR"). Yeah, it's that dumb, trust me. It's a broken and abused mechanic that I am surprised CCP hasn't completely fixed. If CCP didn't think it was even remotely broken, they would not have bothered adding timers to RR'ers a year or so ago.

Originally by: John Caffeine
Not supported; it's bad enough flying logis already, getting aggro for repping too would just be plain retarted. If neutral alts upset you stop camping Jita and go to NPC 0.0 or something, and camp stations there instead.

Yes, because there are absolutely no mercs operating in high sec for 0.0 alliances, obviously. /sarcasmemopandaface

There was nothing more painful than getting a contract only to get counter-contracted and have the biggest out of corp RR slugfest you have ever seen.

Us> OK GUYS, THEY HAVE 12 OUT OF CORP RR'ERS. DO WE STILL HAVE OUR 5 OUT OF CORP GUARDIANS AND 6 OUT OF CORP OINEROS ON STANDBY?
Them> WE'RE UNDOCKING 15 MORE LOGIS MIDFIGHT, LOL GLHF
Us> FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

There is a lot of PvP that happens in highsec. There would be even more fun PvP if CCP could find a way to fix mechanics like docking wars and out of corp RR. Even the large 0.0 alliances have to deal with potential high sec problems due to always being war dec'd by other alliances/mercs.

debbie harrio
Posted - 2010.09.14 12:10:00 - [382]
 

Originally by: Iam Widdershins


tl;dr The current mechanic is OK; A change would be ok too as long as repping does not always prevent you from jumping/docking.


Of course you are going to say that, it is the only way your alliance gets kills.


There is an easier way than all this baloney to fix this broken mechanic.

Repping should not aggress the logistics pilot, jumping through a gate is a valid tactic for us 0.0 pilots if it goes pear shaped.

To rep someone in the first place, you have to be in the same fleet, not in fleet, no reps can be given.

All members of that fleet acquire the same status as the war target, once they join the fleet they are also war targets.

problem solved.

Ned Black
Posted - 2010.09.14 13:35:00 - [383]
 

Supported.

Personally I think neutral repping should be there with a couple of difference from the current way.

First off, repping an agressed target should incurr an aggression timer... and...

repping an agressed target should incurr a one way personal wardec meaning that anyone in the opposing corp get a week where the repper is free game but the other corp is still as untouchable as before.

With this scenario neutral reppers would still occurr, but after that they would not be safe flying around. It should in effect work as a war dec meaning that during this time the opposing force can kill them as many times as they like.

If the repper reps again during this personal wardec then the wardec is prolonged. The personal wardec is not connected to the original. So if the war ends the very next day the personal wardec is still in affect for a week.

Lord Wilding
EdgeGamers
Posted - 2010.09.14 19:38:00 - [384]
 

Originally by: debbie harrio
Originally by: Iam Widdershins

All members of that fleet acquire the same status as the war target, once they join the fleet they are also war targets.

problem solved.

This is actually how it used to work. Then it got nerfed after apparently enough chinese farmers got sick of getting invited to a fleet and promptly ganked once they arrived at a level 4 mission. I think the preemptive discussions of FW before it was implemented also had something to do with it getting swung at by the nerf bat.

Lemmy Kravitz
Minmatar
Rebirth.
Posted - 2010.09.14 22:58:00 - [385]
 

supported

count sporkula
Posted - 2010.09.15 08:41:00 - [386]
 

Edited by: count sporkula on 15/09/2010 08:44:28
yes. needs to be fixed. it is kinda like 3rd party pvp. only without most of the problems

and that's coming from a non-pvpr

Srialia
Misfit Toys

Posted - 2010.09.15 19:55:00 - [387]
 

Neutral reppers are fine, but their immunity to session timers is not. Supported.

iWhoopU
Posted - 2010.09.20 10:27:00 - [388]
 

Supported 100%

But this fix should pave the road to more fixes, like cancelling a war without consequences.

example: If I fight someone in RL, I must have an issue with him.
If he wants to end the fight by just stopping and walking away, he has a problem.
Therefor there must be some kind of payment- or ransomproposal to the opposing corp.
Opposing corp would have to concurr or negotiate further in order to resolve the matter, which will
result in less 'empty' wardecs.

Glyken Touchon
Gallente
Independent Alchemists
Posted - 2010.09.20 17:35:00 - [389]
 

supported

zcar300
Gallente
Posted - 2010.09.20 20:49:00 - [390]
 

Supported.


Pages: first : previous : ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 : last (16)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only