| Author |
Topic |
Havohej
Du'uma Fiisi Integrated Astrometrics
|
Posted - 2009.06.12 11:40:00 - [ 121]
Do it. |
ITTigerClawIK
Amarr
Galactic Rangers
Galactic-Rangers |
Posted - 2009.06.12 12:12:00 - [ 122]
This is something that needs a serius looking into, int he currant war that i am in at the moment its beena common tactic by our enemies to feild RR domi's with pure tank setups and RR so they can attempt to take us on, even if we try and kill the RR when we cant break the original targets tank, the RR can dock up without any risk to themselfs as they may still dock and jump and we would still have the aggro count down to contend with, if one RR's a war target they should have the same consequenses as any other person even if it is not technicaly an "agressive" act and still have a timer before they can dock also.
|
Karentaki
Gallente
Oberon Incorporated
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.06.12 22:58:00 - [ 123]
Supported. |
shat ghost
Caldari
Abelian Group
|
Posted - 2009.06.13 19:24:00 - [ 124]
YES |
Tortugan
Internal Anarchy
WE FORM VOLTRON |
Posted - 2009.06.16 07:38:00 - [ 125]
I'll addend my previous reply with:
IF this type of change is to be considered, it will need a HUGE amount of thought before implementation, as it would change one of the fundamental mechanics of the game- CCP will really need to step up to the plate where they haven't in the past- this is a BIG change, and needs to be thoroughly thought through. |
Verone
Gallente
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 14:31:00 - [ 126]
Couldn't agree more, people shouldn't be able to hide behind NPC corps.
|
Nikotine
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 11:04:00 - [ 127]
Supported |
Sasha Nakajima
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 11:42:00 - [ 128]
gogogogogo! |
cybergurl
Caldari
Heaven's Army
Fidelas Constans |
Posted - 2009.07.10 18:55:00 - [ 129]
absolutly supported 100%, its just wrong that neutrals get in on wars that ppl have paid good isk for |
Jaror
Caldari
Interfector INC.
Fade 2 Black
|
Posted - 2009.07.10 19:19:00 - [ 130]
Agreed 100% with pit boss
Read all the comments and the only people who seem to oppose are the people who dont wanna lose there Alt reppers - just find that funny - if you dont wanna lose your alt repper dont interfear with the wars with him LOL |
RedSplat
|
Posted - 2009.07.10 20:11:00 - [ 131]
|
ChinaWillGrowLarger
Narwhals and Bacon
|
Posted - 2009.07.10 20:14:00 - [ 132]
Here is an alt. Supporting for the second time. If this enrages you, spare a thought for all the people ****blocked by exploitative neutral RR ALTS. |
yani dumyat
Minmatar
Pixie Cats
|
Posted - 2009.07.10 23:07:00 - [ 133]
Edited by: yani dumyat on 10/07/2009 23:12:21OP's suggestion fails to prevent neutral assistance while massively nerfing rr BS gangs, all the people who have wondered why a privateer might suggest such a thing should look a little harder at the OP's suggestion. In empire it's easy enough to put the neutral alt on the other side of the station or have them warp between safes to ensure that the extra danger from having an agro timer is minimal, however if you've got some idiots camping you into station and undock some RR BS's to force them off the station you now have added risk because you can not RR if you decide to deagress and dock. In simple terms this is a buff to the privateers and a nerf to station huggers, logistics ships and RR BS gangs. @ the OP: Getting a buff to station camping by hijacking popular sentiment about neutral RR is truly devious, you should go into politics with a mind like that. Supported because the number of people who've given a thumbs up without thinking makes this thread the troll of the year.  |
The PitBoss
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
The 0rphanage |
Posted - 2009.07.11 07:56:00 - [ 134]
Edited by: The PitBoss on 11/07/2009 08:05:44Edited by: The PitBoss on 11/07/2009 08:03:48 Originally by: yani dumyat
@ the OP: Getting a buff to station camping by hijacking popular sentiment about neutral RR is truly devious, you should go into politics with a mind like that. Supported because the number of people who've given a thumbs up without thinking makes this thread the troll of the year.
Yes hijacking popular sentiment was my ultimate goal  But wait ... Sentiment didn't become popular until the subject was brought up and voted on ... so now we're in a sort of time loop according you you. But I like your argument ... making the issue about who brought it up ... NOT what the game mechanic lacks ... |
Aria Selenis
Minmatar
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters
Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2009.07.11 09:29:00 - [ 135]
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2009.07.11 11:06:00 - [ 136]
woohoo! |
yani dumyat
Minmatar
Pixie Cats
|
Posted - 2009.07.11 11:41:00 - [ 137]
Originally by: The PitBoss
But I like your argument ... making the issue about who brought it up ... NOT what the game mechanic lacks ..
But i like your reply ... failing to have a sense of humour ... and ingoring everything i said about the mechanic .. Originally by: yani dumyat
In empire it's easy enough to put the neutral alt on the other side of the station or have them warp between safes to ensure that the extra danger from having an agro timer is minimal, however if you've got some idiots camping you into station and undock some RR BS's to force them off the station you now have added risk because you can not RR if you decide to deagress and dock.
Adding an agression timer will.... - not prevent neutral RR - make RR BS's unable to rep each other if they want to jump / dock - prevent null / low sec logistics cruisers from jumping when they are inevitably primaried Adding aggression mechanics to remote buff modules has far more consequences outside of empire than inside it. You are never going to get rid of neutral alts altering fights in high sec because any mechanic that can be used by mission runners to provide remote assistance is going to be used by empire war deckers. Originally by: Jaror
Agreed 100% with pit boss
Read all the comments and the only people who seem to oppose are the people who dont wanna lose there Alt reppers - just find that funny - if you dont wanna lose your alt repper dont interfear with the wars with him LOL
No, most of the people who oppose this are aware of the wider consequences and understand that the small nerf to neutral RR in empire that is being suggested would result in a much bigger nerf elsewhere. FYI i've never used a neutral RR alt but if the situation arose then i'd have no hesitation in doing so and don't see how the proposed mechanic would stop me. |
The PitBoss
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
The 0rphanage |
Posted - 2009.07.11 12:27:00 - [ 138]
Originally by: yani dumyat
Adding an agression timer will....
- not prevent neutral RR
It probably won't BUT it will make you think twice about sticking your nose into a fight that is NOT yours ... who wants to run the risk of losing a ship if they have to wait to dock LIKE EVERYONE ELSE DOES Quote:
- make RR BS's unable to rep each other if they want to jump / dock
Maybe its time we look into the WHOLE RR BS thing ... Just like they made Cloaking Devices ... MAYBE RR modules SHOULD be ship specific and hard to kit on anything BUT a logistics ship -or- Impractical to use on ANYTHING BUT a logistics ship. Perfect example for this would be: Why did the alliance tourny ban their use in the last tourny? They realized it drags pvp out AND is potentially the 'I WIN' button. Quote:
- prevent null / low sec logistics cruisers from jumping when they are inevitably primaried
Why should they get a free pass ... get off the gate just like the ECM pilot does ... the logistics is a ranged ship. Ask ANY ECM pilot ... using the ship on a gate is asking for a kick in the mouth. Quote:
Adding aggression mechanics to remote buff modules has far more consequences outside of empire than inside it.
But I thought 0.0 was supposed to be the land of milk and honey? Quote:
You are never going to get rid of neutral alts altering fights in high sec because any mechanic that can be used by mission runners to provide remote assistance is going to be used by empire war deckers.
Once again you're making it an issue of who suggested the fix ... Quote:
FYI i've never used a neutral RR alt but if the situation arose then i'd have no hesitation in doing so and don't see how the proposed mechanic would stop me.
I have NEVER used a neutral RR alt either ... and the proposed mechanic would make me think twice about using RR if I had to wait JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE to redock or jump if I had aggression for trying to turn the tide of a battle ... |
yani dumyat
Minmatar
Pixie Cats
|
Posted - 2009.07.11 14:15:00 - [ 139]
So you agree with me that the proposal will not prevent neutral RR in empire but will affect RR BS gangs and logistics? Originally by: The PitBoss
Maybe its time we look into the WHOLE RR BS thing ... Just like they made Cloaking Devices ... MAYBE RR modules SHOULD be ship specific and hard to kit on anything BUT a logistics ship -or- Impractical to use on ANYTHING BUT a logistics ship.
This is very much the point i'm making, the issue is far more complex than simply adding aggression timers to remote buff modules. If you actually do understand this then why is there no mention of it in the OP? Originally by: The PitBoss
Why should they get a free pass ... get off the gate just like the ECM pilot does ... the logistics is a ranged ship.
Ask ANY ECM pilot ... using the ship on a gate is asking for a kick in the mouth.
Thank you for pointing out the exact tactic that will be used by empire RR alts to make your suggested fix pointless. If the RR alt in question doesn't have the skills to fly a dedicated logistics ship then use a buffer fit T1 logistics and simply let it die then the alt can dock up and grab a new ship for a few pennies. Those are just two possible tactics but i'm sure there's plenty more ways to make your suggested fix utterly and totally irrelevant. Originally by: The PitBoss
Quote:
You are never going to get rid of neutral alts altering fights in high sec because any mechanic that can be used by mission runners to provide remote assistance is going to be used by empire war deckers.
Once again you're making it an issue of who suggested the fix ...
Once again you've taken this personally instead of looking at the mechanic i was highlighting. The server has no way to distinguish between a mission runner applying remote rep to their friends and a war decker applying remote rep to their friends which is a very significant fact when trying to think of alternative ways to prevent neutral RR. I know that your your OP doesn't affect mission runners but it doesn't affect neutral RR much either because it's mainly a nerf to RR BS gangs. Any suggestion that makes remote repping neutrals a criminal offense will hurt mission runners and any suggestion that involves adding an aggression timer fails to solve the problem of neutral RR. Catch 22. |
The PitBoss
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
The 0rphanage |
Posted - 2009.07.11 15:09:00 - [ 140]
Originally by: yani dumyat
So you agree with me that the proposal will not prevent neutral RR in empire but will affect RR BS gangs and logistics?
ABSOLUTELY NOT Originally by: yani dumyat
Originally by: The PitBoss
Why should they get a free pass ... get off the gate just like the ECM pilot does ... the logistics is a ranged ship.
Ask ANY ECM pilot ... using the ship on a gate is asking for a kick in the mouth.
Thank you for pointing out the exact tactic that will be used by empire RR alts to make your suggested fix pointless. If the RR alt in question doesn't have the skills to fly a dedicated logistics ship then use a buffer fit T1 logistics and simply let it die then the alt can dock up and grab a new ship for a few pennies.
Those are just two possible tactics but i'm sure there's plenty more ways to make your suggested fix utterly and totally irrelevant.
Zombie disposable RR ... while THEORETICALLY possible .. get real .. who's going to do that ... Thats like saying I have a throw away falcon for my station camping As for making Logistics work at range ... I fail to see how that is a work around to a fix? It will put a neutral RR at WAY more risk of losing his ship than he is right now hugging a station ... a fast tackler will catch him with his pants down ... Quote:
Any suggestion that makes remote repping neutrals a criminal offense will hurt mission runners and any suggestion that involves adding an aggression timer fails to solve the problem of neutral RR. Catch 22.
Exactly how will this hurt a mission runner ... examples please |
yani dumyat
Minmatar
Pixie Cats
|
Posted - 2009.07.11 16:00:00 - [ 141]
|
Lee Dalton
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion |
Posted - 2009.07.12 09:54:00 - [ 142]
Originally by: yani dumyat
Adding an agression timer will....
- not prevent neutral RR
- make RR BS's unable to rep each other if they want to jump / dock
- prevent null / low sec logistics cruisers from jumping when they are inevitably primaried
Adding aggression mechanics to remote buff modules has far more consequences outside of empire than inside it.
#1 Agreed that it will not prevent neutral RR, that is not the purpose of the proposed change. Rather, it means that neutral RR has *consequences*, i.e. you cannot just jump/dock/undock etc with impunity - after you start repping and involve yourself in a fight, it commits you for a time. #2 I see no problem with RR BS gangs needing to wait out an aggro timer before jumping. #3 Stay far out from the fights and aligned to a SS? Originally by: yani dumyat
Thank you for pointing out the exact tactic that will be used by empire RR alts to make your suggested fix pointless. If the RR alt in question doesn't have the skills to fly a dedicated logistics ship then use a buffer fit T1 logistics and simply let it die then the alt can dock up and grab a new ship for a few pennies.
That's fine, a T1 logistics will instapop if any good BS pilot shot it - and not rep enough to meaningfully influence the fight. Originally by: yani dumyat
You are never going to get rid of neutral alts altering fights in high sec because any mechanic that can be used by mission runners to provide remote assistance is going to be used by empire war deckers.
Can you elaborate on this? How would people remote repping a friend in a mission be significantly harmed by not being able to dock/jumped for a minute? |
Franga
NQX Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.07.12 11:46:00 - [ 143]
Originally by: Ignition SemperFi
supported as long as its only docking and gate jumping aggression that comes into play.
just like if you rep someone with a GCC, the remote repper gets a gcc.
It shouldnt bring concord though if you rep someone, due to abuse, just the aggression timer
Articulated my thoughts precisely. Supported. |
yani dumyat
Minmatar
Pixie Cats
|
Posted - 2009.07.12 12:19:00 - [ 144]
Originally by: Lee Dalton
#2 I see no problem with RR BS gangs needing to wait out an aggro timer before jumping.
Irrespective of it being a problem or not, it is a massive change in game mechanics that needs looked at in it's own right and not something that can be blithely ignored as a minor consequence of nerfing neutral RR. 60 seconds is a long time if you're being pounded by an enemy fleet and have got no RR. Originally by: Lee Dalton
Can you elaborate on this? How would people remote repping a friend in a mission be significantly harmed by not being able to dock/jumped for a minute?
They won't be, i mentioned mission runners in the context of finding alternatives to the aggression timer solution. The problem is one of neutral RR being invulnerable so there may be a solution involving RR becoming an aggressive act unless you are in fleet or some other device however i've not managed to think of anything satisfactory that would cure the neutral RR problem without having knock on consequences elsewhere. I support the idea of removing the neutral RR 'i win' docking button but the exact mechanic and consequences need more thought. |
Trinity Nova
Amarr
Unaccompanied Souls
|
Posted - 2009.07.12 16:36:00 - [ 145]
Edited by: Trinity Nova on 13/07/2009 02:24:14Edited by: Trinity Nova on 12/07/2009 21:37:15 Originally by: yani dumyat
Irrespective of it being a problem or not, it is a massive change in game mechanics that needs looked at in it's own right and not something that can be blithely ignored as a minor consequence of nerfing neutral RR. 60 seconds is a long time if you're being pounded by an enemy fleet and have got no RR.
How is it a massive change? It wouldn't be a new change, as far as I can tell aggro flagging has been around for a long time. The only thing "massive" about it is now it applies to players who are providing rr support whereas before it didn't. The effects are well understood, everyone needs to adjust accordingly. I'm thinking you have a fleet of rr alts that you don't want nerfed. |
No Beard
The Polite Society
|
Posted - 2009.07.18 11:23:00 - [ 146]
Supported, but I suspect this will be one of those long running things that CCP never resolve or even explain, along with the bugged address book not updating as it should when people log on/off. |
Terra Mikael
Horizon Dynamics |
Posted - 2009.07.18 18:03:00 - [ 147]
Aggression timers are for acts of aggression.
Should be pretty obvious. |
Shuckstar
Gallente
Hauling hogs
Swine Aviation Labs
|
Posted - 2009.07.18 20:01:00 - [ 148]
Originally by: Ignition SemperFi
supported as long as its only docking and gate jumping aggression that comes into play.
just like if you rep someone with a GCC, the remote repper gets a gcc.
It shouldnt bring concord though if you rep someone, due to abuse, just the aggression timer
Agreeing with Semper. |
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2009.07.19 06:33:00 - [ 149]
|
khazid
Privateers
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.19 17:42:00 - [ 150]
/sign |
All Channels
Assembly Hall
