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

Xynthiar
Gallente
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.11.20 20:43:00 - [421]
 

Definitely supported :)

Deandra Walran
Posted - 2010.11.20 21:23:00 - [422]
 

While I would prefer that CONCORD destroy any remote repper from an NPC corp (I doubt that it would be feasable) or not fleeted with one of the fighting parties, I can support this change.


The PitBoss
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
The 0rphanage
Posted - 2011.01.23 01:56:00 - [423]
 

Time for a flare up Wink


Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.02.01 00:32:00 - [424]
 


Arden Elenduil
Minmatar
The League of Extraordinary Mentlegen

Posted - 2011.02.01 08:36:00 - [425]
 

Supported as well, though personally I would also suggest increasing the redock timer from 1 minute to 2 in some cases.

Basically combat support actions such as RR, remote sensor boosting, etc... will give you the standard 1 minute redock timer.
Shooting however, saddles you with an increased one, making deagressing quite a bit harder.

Skex Relbore
Gallente
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
Posted - 2011.02.01 16:17:00 - [426]
 

Too many unrelated ramifications to such a change.

And I say this having been on the receiving end of this tactic far more often than the giving side.

Not supported.

Repping is not an aggressive action which is why it doesn't force a session timer for docking/jumping. And it shouldn't.

As far as neutral RR goes the only difference is when you can engage the RR. Hell it's not like it's even a big surprise if you see a bunch of logi's sitting on undock you might as well just assume they are neutral RR and have them pre-targeted for when they go flashy so you can drive them off, neut or jam them.

In the end it doesn't matter if you can kill the logi just whether you drive them off the field or remove them from the fight so you can finish off your main target.

Simple solutions usually aren't. If you think the solution to any problem is simple then the odds are you just haven't considered it enough.



The PitBoss
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
The 0rphanage
Posted - 2011.02.02 20:43:00 - [427]
 

Edited by: The PitBoss on 02/02/2011 20:44:03


Originally by: Skex Relbore
Simple solutions usually aren't. If you think the solution to any problem is simple then the odds are you just haven't considered it enough.


Why should I do a DEVs job?

I've simply pointed out a perceived problem ... suggested ... REPEAT ... suggested a fix ... they are the one who need to come up with a fix.

They've already voted to do something about the problem ... they just have to get off their collective asses and do something about it ...

BUT I guess walking in station is still a priority Wink


MNagy
Posted - 2011.02.02 20:47:00 - [428]
 

Supported.

MNagy
Posted - 2011.02.02 20:50:00 - [429]
 

and with the support checkbox checked this time!

Skex Relbore
Gallente
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
Posted - 2011.02.03 15:59:00 - [430]
 

Originally by: The PitBoss
Edited by: The PitBoss on 02/02/2011 20:44:03


Originally by: Skex Relbore
Simple solutions usually aren't. If you think the solution to any problem is simple then the odds are you just haven't considered it enough.


Why should I do a DEVs job?

I've simply pointed out a perceived problem ... suggested ... REPEAT ... suggested a fix ... they are the one who need to come up with a fix.

They've already voted to do something about the problem ... they just have to get off their collective asses and do something about it ...

BUT I guess walking in station is still a priority Wink




Multiple people have explained the flaws in your idea here in this thread. Hopefully the Developers will read the arguments against as well as all the lemmings who are supporting your proposal.

You on the other hand are so focused on your playstyle that you never even thought to consider the ramifications for others.

The way RR works today adds a level of complexity to the game allowing for the use of more creative tactics than simply overwhelming the enemy with superior firepower.

Once again the only difference between neutral RR and in corp RR is when you can engage them. Surprise isn't even really a factor since as I mentioned before if you see a logistics ship on grid if isn't your neutral RR it's probably your opponents. Plan accordingly and pre-target them so you can use the appropriate counter when they go flashy.

Yes RR can change the outcome of a battle. That's kind of the friggin point of it's existence. It's why people bother training logistics skills in the first place. And one of the ways it changes the outcome of a battle is it allows one to mitigate losses to a superior force during a withdrawal.

A large part of why it works is that RR doesn't cause aggression meaning that when what ever ship the RR is repping deaggresses and docks up the Logistics ship can follow imediately.

A good logistics pilot has already invested significant isk and time to gain that ability. your proposed change would diminish the value of that investment with no compensation in return.

The mechanic is working as intended and can be countered so...

How is it said again?

Oh yeah... HTFU or GBTWOW.

The PitBoss
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
The 0rphanage
Posted - 2011.02.05 02:52:00 - [431]
 

Originally by: Skex Relbore
How is it said again?

Oh yeah... HTFU or GBTWOW.


Cute .. you and your girlfriends have a secret handshake too ?


Tiger's Spirit
Caldari
Posted - 2011.02.05 10:24:00 - [432]
 

Supported

Hun Jakuza
We Are So Troubled Everyone Runs Screaming
Posted - 2011.02.05 10:25:00 - [433]
 

+1

Skex Relbore
Gallente
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
Posted - 2011.02.06 03:48:00 - [434]
 

Originally by: The PitBoss
Originally by: Skex Relbore
How is it said again?

Oh yeah... HTFU or GBTWOW.


Cute .. you and your girlfriends have a secret handshake too ?




Way to show that you actually have no answers to any of the criticisms of your "idea".


Kwisat Haderach
Minmatar
ReallyPissedOff
Guinea Pigs
Posted - 2011.02.06 04:46:00 - [435]
 

supported

The PitBoss
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
The 0rphanage
Posted - 2011.02.06 08:17:00 - [436]
 

Originally by: Skex Relbore
Way to show that you actually have no answers to any of the criticisms of your "idea".




ALL of your criticism, as you call it ... have been brought up in the previous 14 pages which you OBVIOUSLY haven't read ... AND have been addressed ... BUT somehow you assume that gaping hole in your head can spout it out better than those who have brought up those issues before ...

NOTE: In the previous 14 pages .. it was stated ... the CSM voted to bring the issue to CCP ... they brought the ISSUE to ccp ... CCP said yes there seems to be a problem and we will take a closer look at it ...

SAID discussion has been long over for months ... we eagerly await CCP's 'look at it' ... the bump to the thread was a friendly reminder to CCP the issue hasn't gone away

so in short .. your 'criticisms' have been heard before and noted .. AND the issue still passed and went to CCP .. so you can rest better ...

So in the future .. PLEASE try to read a thread in its entirety BEFORE you put in your 2 cents where its already been given (by numerous others) ... save your money ... there's a recession out there Wink


Shandir
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe

Posted - 2011.02.07 12:30:00 - [437]
 

Supported, and I would go a step further and give an increased timer for RR ships.
Not to mention we need a rebalance of agression timers in general - they're lethal for small, fast ships and often irrelevant for big slow ships. Should bigger, slower, and more powerful ships have an advantage in disengaging from a fight?

Non-WT RR should give a 2 minute no-dock, no-jump aggression timer. Or should just flag them as a WT for the duration of the war.

Samillian
Posted - 2011.02.08 11:36:00 - [438]
 


DanMck
Amarr
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.02.08 13:40:00 - [439]
 

Edited by: DanMck on 08/02/2011 13:42:35
Edited by: DanMck on 08/02/2011 13:40:14
alot of newer players (and old) start with pvp via high sec wars.

if the first impression they get is 2-3 netural alts repping war targets then they will just get ****ed off and give up.

silly mechanic - good idea. but i would like it to go a step further and get neuts unable to rep a war target in high sec at all , but this is step in the right direction.

lets get proper fun pvp in high sec YARRRR!!

+ 1

Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild
General Tso's Alliance
Posted - 2011.02.08 20:00:00 - [440]
 

I've replied in here before, and I was more or less trolling, but seeing this thread come back makes me want to throw out my solution:

Instead of an aggression timer, which is just going to make it so there is a clusterf*ck of logi triangles RR'ing indefinitely more than there currently is, just have it so you can't (without dying) RR someone NOT in your alliance/corp. Leave the option on the table, and have them get Concordokken'd if they hit the "Yes I'm sure I want to get ass-ploded." Then we can have suicide gankers AND suicide reppers (lol). I don't like the idea of not having a choice.

As far as defending this point: what about the oft-mentioned scenario where a guy infiltrates a corp, warps into the corp's group level 4, and starts massacring the fleet while being RR'd by neutral logi ships. In this case, the logi ships won't even be flagged as committing a crime.

I'm cool with a combo of the two ideas, 2 minute aggression or something for remote buff as well as not allowing to RR people not in your alliance.

I'm curious as to the stats of logi pilots being in noob corps or single man corps.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.02.08 20:27:00 - [441]
 

Needs to apply to all remote assistance (ECCM, SeBo, RR, Tracking and Energy Trans.).

Needs to exclude gate jumping.

Reason is that a jumper can be caught and molested on the other side whereas a docker cannot. Of the two, the docker is by far the most frequently abused in high/low and I assume null as well.

Were jumping to be included then "legitimate" roaming fleets will be pretty hard hit regardless of location, essentially either making RR extinct or make it so heavy as to make any non-blob action pointless.

gunnar aztek
Gallente
Posted - 2011.02.14 10:35:00 - [442]
 


Dima Che
Posted - 2011.03.01 10:02:00 - [443]
 


FellRaven
Minmatar
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.21 15:36:00 - [444]
 

I should start by saying that I regard neutral remote repping as an exploit and believe that it should incur the wraith of Concord something I think most posters here would disagree with.

So if the Neutral remote repper is flagged with an aggression timer against a ship in a corp he is not at war with what will happen?

Awesome Possum
Original Sin.
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
Posted - 2011.03.21 21:03:00 - [445]
 

Originally by: The PitBoss

ALL of your criticism, as you call it ... have been brought up in the previous 14 pages which you OBVIOUSLY haven't read ... AND have been addressed


Sorry PitBoss, I'm one of those of the opinion that those "criticisms" you claim were addressed were either insufficiently addressed or criticized and/or countered themselves.

I still find nothing wrong with current RR as it stands in game, changing it will do nothing to help current high sec wardec mechanics.

still not supported.

Soul Raven
Caldari
Rogue Souls

Posted - 2011.03.29 10:10:00 - [446]
 

I am of the opinion that any kind of boosting whether it be armour, shield, eccm etc etc should be classed as an act of aggression.

If people want to boost ships, then they should be in the same gang/corp/alliance what ever.

The primary use case for using a neutral to boost is to give the booster an element of immunity, and for this reason it is simply trying to push the game mechanics beyond what was intended in my opinion. I cannot see any use case where you would need to have a neutral boost you, where you could not do this with a gang/corp or alliance member other than trying to exploit the mechanics of boosting.

So I support this, but actually think this does not go far enough, and I would prefer to see it classed as an act of aggression!

Miso Hawnee
Posted - 2011.04.04 07:41:00 - [447]
 

Bad idea, this would have too many negative side effects. Having logi flagged for repping on a gate or cap transfering each other would make the ships alot less useful in real war. (Null)

Get a falcon alt, or find a friend with a scorpion.

Falcon > Guardian

Aloe Cloveris
The Greater Goon
Posted - 2011.04.04 19:57:00 - [448]
 

Highsec neutral support no-aggro docking games is just silly.

Granted, when I fly logi in a gang I most certainly do hug the gate and jump through once I start taking fire. Because I can. I don't approve of this game mechanic, but I'm certainly not going to stay on field and lose the hull on principle.

Alexander Archon
Posted - 2011.04.18 19:25:00 - [449]
 

Support

Virtue Maulerant
Posted - 2011.04.22 22:38:00 - [450]
 

Ridiculous mechanic.


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