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 : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : last (16)

Author Topic

Tim OSSman
Posted - 2009.07.27 00:21:00 - [181]
 

Originally by: The PitBoss
If you the had skills you wouldn't need to rely on 5 alt accounts Laughing



"Posts while sitting on a trade hub undock with 9 other guys waiting for a newly purchased maller to pop out"

"Leans back"

Sythyss
Posted - 2009.07.27 00:41:00 - [182]
 

Edited by: Sythyss on 27/07/2009 00:41:42
Originally by: The PitBoss
Edited by: The PitBoss on 26/07/2009 23:13:00

Originally by: Tortugan
... Yap Yap Yap ...


I was waiting for one of the KINGS of RRing for cheap kills to open his yap ...

No Offense but you said it yourself:

Originally by: Private Chat
[ 2009.07.12 08:39:46 ] The PitBoss > any particular reason your helping that douche bag?
[ 2009.07.12 08:43:29 ] Tortugan > Don't mean to sound like a douche- but I'm looking for pew- and seems like RRing a losing battle is the way to find it around here :)
[ 2009.07.12 08:43:49 ] The PitBoss > till they fix the mechanic
[ 2009.07.12 08:44:25 ] Tortugan > Even then- it'll just get sneakier tbh


This is the EXACT reason why I brought up this ISSUE ...

Stop hiding behind the facade that its going to kill small gangs ... If you the had skills you wouldn't need to rely on 5 alt accounts Laughing




the exact reason? helping a completely outnumbered fleet is cheap? tort saying even if CCP decide it's cheap that people will find a way around? what does this have to do with anything? since the mechanics stand how they are atm, I wouldn't go betting CCP is on your side. why don't you come up with some actual reasons against his argument. If YOUR alliance had any skills, you wouldn't have to rely on a 1:10 battle.

Mashashige
Minmatar
Eternal Perseverance
Hellstrome Alliance
Posted - 2009.07.27 08:49:00 - [183]
 

You flamers keep on missing the issue - does privateer gank and grief noobs and carebears? they do. Is that ok - yes, cause wardeccing in empire is a feature of the game.

Having said that, whether being a blob ganker is ok or not, and where you wanna polish that e-honor plate and hang it over the fireplace, is your issue, and is NOT relevent to the issue at hand - namely, remote repping having NO REAL CONSEQUENCES at all.

IMO, if you jump into a fight, you should be (game mechanics wise) equal to everyone else - and if people actively attacking/activating offensive mods on others are not allowed to dock up, people activating RR on someone should be in the same situation. Its not about removing remote reppage or increasing the power of blob or whatever other spins you try in order to divert attention from the point - its about equal and fair battlefield (game mechanics wise) to everyone. If the PLAYERS choose to blob, remote rep, grief, or whatever, its up to them - and it is as intended in eve.

Sythyss
Posted - 2009.07.27 10:31:00 - [184]
 

Originally by: Mashashige
You flamers keep on missing the issue - does privateer gank and grief noobs and carebears? they do. Is that ok - yes, cause wardeccing in empire is a feature of the game.

Having said that, whether being a blob ganker is ok or not, and where you wanna polish that e-honor plate and hang it over the fireplace, is your issue, and is NOT relevent to the issue at hand - namely, remote repping having NO REAL CONSEQUENCES at all.

IMO, if you jump into a fight, you should be (game mechanics wise) equal to everyone else - and if people actively attacking/activating offensive mods on others are not allowed to dock up, people activating RR on someone should be in the same situation. Its not about removing remote reppage or increasing the power of blob or whatever other spins you try in order to divert attention from the point - its about equal and fair battlefield (game mechanics wise) to everyone. If the PLAYERS choose to blob, remote rep, grief, or whatever, its up to them - and it is as intended in eve.



I think the reason that so many people support this, is because, on the surface, it seems like a totally reasonable argument. Sure, everyone entering battle should be forced to commit, right? but people aren't taking an in-depth view on the situation. Why don't you people take a moment, read the previous posts, and actually provide reasons as to how the points brought up are invalid. You guys just don't know how to pvp are just ****ed that you can't win outnumbered fights, tbh >.>

Mashashige
Minmatar
Eternal Perseverance
Hellstrome Alliance
Posted - 2009.07.27 11:06:00 - [185]
 

Originally by: Sythyss
Originally by: Mashashige
Stuff


Stuff


being a lowsec pirate in a corp of about 10 active members max usually means Im outnumbered, either by other pvpers, anti pies, FW, big alliances, etc. So I know how to fight outnumbered, and I usually do so. As for no not addressing the issues raised by other posts - its because no issues were raise. Saying "omg we need remote reps to deal with blobs/griefers" just shows how unimaginative and generally ****ty you are in the game.

The point raised in the OP was that neutral alts (that could be 40-50k off on some stations), are repping, and then if engaged can dock up and the 15min timer, and then do the same **** again. That rep, even for 10-20seconds might seem minor, but it could sway a battle from losing to winning or getting away. And I'm not *****ing about the hulk that got away due to remote reppege, or the privateer blob that misses kills - Im talking about pretty equal situations, in which one party can gain a large benefit with very little to no risk. Even ****ing falcons are in more danger than remote rep alts. Eve is all about risk vs rewards - you can make more isk in 0.0, but its more dangerous (well trade is most profitble, but thats besides the point), etc. In this case, there is a major reward in RR neuts and no tradeoff whatsoever - unless said neut is stupid or got bumped off station/gate.

As for dealing with wardecs in empire, breaking the concept of the game is not a solution to it - try hiring merc, paying the wardeccers, leaving the corp, or maybe, just maybe - fight back.

Mash

P.S
Putting a 3 line post that has no relevant info other than a flame and saying "people dont look at things indepth" is bad bad posting - if you wanna troll, learn from the goons in CAOD first.

BloodSoaked Goddess
Amarr
Ministry of War
Posted - 2009.07.27 23:05:00 - [186]
 


I found it completely IRONIC that Privateer Alliance would be moaning about neutral remote reps when they are as guilty as their targets for this if not more so...

Four neutral remote reps in a fight today where they already outnumbered us and had the upper hand but the fear of losing a ship caused them to bring out the neutral reppers for the gank vs fight..

You are a hypocrite Pitboss and the rest of your alliance are as full of fail as the people you accuse.

Fix your own internal pvp'rs before you try and fix the rest of eve!!


BloodSoaked Goddess
Amarr
Ministry of War
Posted - 2009.07.28 06:29:00 - [187]
 


Pitty Pitty Pitty

Are you ok?

When we decided to leave Private Carebears we were encouraged to war dec you when we left by your current members, some of which even begged us to, so that they would get some decent fights.

There is no need for you to bust a boiler ring sweetheart. The people that joined TFS did so because they flew with us every day anyway and well quite frankly, they were the only decent pilots Privs could muster and wanted to be in a corp that knew what they were doing.

There's really no need to get all emo ragey my dear. We provide the pvp private carebears pays over a bil for each week at no cost to you and you are whinning about the influx of targets that will actually fight you?Rolling Eyes

an internet
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.07.28 06:32:00 - [188]
 

Supported

Ferocious FeAr
THE FINAL STAND
Everto Rex Regis
Posted - 2009.07.28 07:17:00 - [189]
 

Edited by: Ferocious FeAr on 28/07/2009 07:23:38
If we supposedly didn't have any "big hitters" than how does a 25 man gang run from my 8 man BS gang? How does an entire alliance (your alliance) take 30mins to formulate a strategy on how they are going to attack my battle hauler gang that was meant to get you guys to actually undock from jita. It must feel comforting to see comments such as "**** that, I'm not getting killed by a badger." I don't believe that lousy pilots can instill that type of fear on anyone without commanding some type of respect in terms of skill. We're doing something right, unless what's been happening the past week has been a complete mirage. Granted, we were in your alliance for 2 months. I personally never wanted my corp to join, but at the time it was the best choice we had for pvp. Am I grateful? Of course, I'd be a scumbag if I said no. Am I happy I'm no longer in it? I'm sure you know the answer to that one.

You made this thread about neutral remote reps but your alliance is widely using the tactic. Want to help put a stop to it? Enforce a rule against its use within your alliance. Sure, you no longer can fight fire with fire, but there are other ways that you can legitimately counter these tactics. You really need to chill out on bashing my corp, you do not have the slightest clue what we had to go through to get to where we are.

Azamat Bogatov
Amarr
Imperial Academy

Posted - 2009.07.28 09:38:00 - [190]
 


Tortugan
Internal Anarchy
WE FORM VOLTRON
Posted - 2009.07.28 10:00:00 - [191]
 

Edited by: Tortugan on 28/07/2009 10:07:33
The reason changing this mechanic would be a bad idea is because it would make it significantly harder to combat enemy fleets of a larger size, and make people less likely to fight at all- which is never a good thing.

Specifically, it will just mean that the bigger blob will be station camping the smaller group, and the smaller group will have no chance of breaking the camp until it breaks up itself. I'm not saying that a small gang should be able to go after a large fleet, however if the large fleet doesn't have their sh*t together and work as a team to keep their squishier ships alive, then hell yes, they deserve to die.

On the other hand, your base argument is that remote rep is currently overpowered, which is a much more reasonable argument than the one that a major mechanic in Eve should be changed because you lost a couple ships to be people who know what they're doing. Should people agree with your argument, then you could argue that RR needs a nerf- which is again, a reasonable argument.

The problem is the proposed solution- it just wouldn't help things. If you want to nerf remote rep, why not talk about a boost in fitting requirements? A nerf to range? Or some similar rebalance.

Make a coherent argument as to why anything should be changed, and you'll find people are a lot more responsive. So far all I've heard is 'lol u pussies used neutral RR when we blobbed u on station and managed to kill a couple of us. clrly you fail at life, and we should change a major game mechanic 2 benefit mah griefin' alliance. Also, b**ches aint sh*t.' Am I missing any of your major points? Laughing

irion felpamy
Minmatar
Assisted Genocide
Unprovoked Aggression
Posted - 2009.07.28 13:08:00 - [192]
 

Originally by: Tortugan
Edited by: Tortugan on 28/07/2009 10:07:33
The reason changing this mechanic would be a bad idea is because it would make it significantly harder to combat enemy fleets of a larger size, and make people less likely to fight at all- which is never a good thing.

Specifically, it will just mean that the bigger blob will be station camping the smaller group, and the smaller group will have no chance of breaking the camp until it breaks up itself. I'm not saying that a small gang should be able to go after a large fleet, however if the large fleet doesn't have their sh*t together and work as a team to keep their squishier ships alive, then hell yes, they deserve to die.

On the other hand, your base argument is that remote rep is currently overpowered, which is a much more reasonable argument than the one that a major mechanic in Eve should be changed because you lost a couple ships to be people who know what they're doing. Should people agree with your argument, then you could argue that RR needs a nerf- which is again, a reasonable argument.

The problem is the proposed solution- it just wouldn't help things. If you want to nerf remote rep, why not talk about a boost in fitting requirements? A nerf to range? Or some similar rebalance.

Make a coherent argument as to why anything should be changed, and you'll find people are a lot more responsive. So far all I've heard is 'lol u pussies used neutral RR when we blobbed u on station and managed to kill a couple of us. clrly you fail at life, and we should change a major game mechanic 2 benefit mah griefin' alliance. Also, b**ches aint sh*t.' Am I missing any of your major points? Laughing


Did you even read the OP? this is a aggro mechanics issue not a RR power one. RR should give you the agression counter same as attacking. This is a problem everywhere its just more prevalent in empire station games.

Kailen Thorn
Caldari
Serenity Prime
Cascade Probable
Posted - 2009.07.28 13:34:00 - [193]
 

Originally by: Ferocious FeAr
Edited by: Ferocious FeAr on 28/07/2009 07:23:38

You made this thread about neutral remote reps but your alliance is widely using the tactic. Want to help put a stop to it? Enforce a rule against its use within your alliance. Sure, you no longer can fight fire with fire, but there are other ways that you can legitimately counter these tactics. You really need to chill out on bashing my corp, you do not have the slightest clue what we had to go through to get to where we are.


We use this tactic because others do, we want to change the mechanics so it provides a fairer fight, sure if the enemy fleet brings remote reps, then thats fine, but so long as they cannot dock,repair and return within 30 seconds. thats what the topic is about. Theres no point shooting ourselves in the foot by stopping our own remote rep, because then it automatically puts us at a disadvantage.

And i dont mean to be picky, but to be fair BSG did start this, and was really asking for it.

Kailen Thorn
Caldari
Serenity Prime
Cascade Probable
Posted - 2009.07.28 13:44:00 - [194]
 

Originally by: BloodSoaked Goddess

I found it completely IRONIC that Privateer Alliance would be moaning about neutral remote reps when they are as guilty as their targets for this if not more so...

Four neutral remote reps in a fight today where they already outnumbered us and had the upper hand but the fear of losing a ship caused them to bring out the neutral reppers for the gank vs fight..

You are a hypocrite Pitboss and the rest of your alliance are as full of fail as the people you accuse.

Fix your own internal pvp'rs before you try and fix the rest of eve!!




So wait... are you wanting a change to this mechanic or not? Please stick on topic as this is for either supporting the claim to give aggression to remote repairs or for looking at why it shouldn't. Your post was just a plain bash against us. As said before, why should we shoot ourselves in the foot by not abusing a mechanic which everyone seems to abuse. And your great fleet set ups, would have had a remote rep or two, and so u could have abused the mechanic as well.

Pitboss is only one man, and atm in control of a corp with 166 members. He is not on all the time and therefore has no control over who does and doesn't use remote reps. That figure count is only for his corp, the alliance holds even more people which he is not in-charge with, so your asking a train to fly here... If someone does not want to loose a ship, then he will remote rep, and what really can he do about it?

From my experience with BSG, in that fight i am guessing you either lost a ship, or something didnt go right for you. Since the last ship u lost at jita, you took one hell of a rage, cause u engaged without confirmed support... and lost. Tho to be fair, u did calm down after a while, and apologized, which is always good.

Please try to keep on topic. start a flame topic elsewhere and we shall have our monkeys get on the problem as soon as we teach them to read.

BloodSoaked Goddess
Amarr
Ministry of War
Posted - 2009.07.28 13:53:00 - [195]
 

Originally by: Kailen Thorn

We use this tactic because others do, we want to change the mechanics so it provides a fairer fight, sure if the enemy fleet brings remote reps, then thats fine, but so long as they cannot dock,repair and return within 30 seconds. thats what the topic is about. Theres no point shooting ourselves in the foot by stopping our own remote rep, because then it automatically puts us at a disadvantage.

And i dont mean to be picky, but to be fair BSG did start this, and was really asking for it.


Ok two things here.

1. TFS wasnt using neutral remote reps and your in corp/alliance pilots already outnumbered us. That makes you as guilty of abusing the game mechanic as the next bloke.
2. I pointed the above out as hypocrisy because it is, that wasnt an open license to personally attack me as a woman. That from Pitboss just goes to show his general disrespect for women and his obvious issues regarding women in general. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the debate over neutral repping.

The fact that Pitboss and the Privateer alt commenting below him needed to throw themselves in the gutter with personal attacks on an out of game level goes to show the type of mentality, immaturity and general lack of integrity Privateer Alliance is full of. As much as Pitboss would like to think he is widely respected in this game and on the forums, I think he just pretty much lost respect with a great deal of people in one emo raging "omg a woman has pee'd on my game experience and shown my alliance up for the hypocrites we really are" statement.

Kailen Thorn
Caldari
Serenity Prime
Cascade Probable
Posted - 2009.07.28 15:33:00 - [196]
 

Originally by: BloodSoaked Goddess
Originally by: Kailen Thorn
Originally by: Tortugan
Edited by: Tortugan on 28/07/2009 05:00:44
Pit- I'm surprised such an honorable, reputable player would lower yourself to the level of degrading women :)



It shouldn't matter if she is a woman or not, the character is attacking our corp and therefore prompts a response, in which to show her differently.


This isnt the IGS forum sweetheart. Wizards and fairies are that way ----->

The facts remain that Privateers used 4 neutral remote reps to win a fight they could have won without the neutrals (well on paper atleast) I did not lose a ship in that fight so there blows that theory out of the water.

The point here is this "Lead by example" If you want people to fully support an idea, don't go abusing the very thing you are trying to get rid of and expect people to take you seriously.




You know i had to go and find what IGS was... and i really dont see the resemblance between my comment of u attacking us and wizards and fairies... do u play the right game?

Well thats what theory's are there for, possibilities yet to be proved wrong.

yes... we used 4 remote reps... so what is the problem. when we fight people use them on us, so we are allowed to use them on other people. And i thought u would have known, 0 casualties are better than 1+ so it was smart of them to ensure they had some back up.

And no there is no lead by example, this is a game, if u lead by example, u only reduce the chance of you winning. The only way to get this changed if more and more people abuse this... then it will be changed.

I ned to ask, is this like a subtle attempt at weakening our fleets? you cry because we use RR and then u hope for us to stop, which then, u bring in your own RR? Theres an other theory u can 'blow out of the water'

Kailen Thorn
Caldari
Serenity Prime
Cascade Probable
Posted - 2009.07.28 15:52:00 - [197]
 

Originally by: BloodSoaked Goddess
Originally by: Kailen Thorn

We use this tactic because others do, we want to change the mechanics so it provides a fairer fight, sure if the enemy fleet brings remote reps, then thats fine, but so long as they cannot dock,repair and return within 30 seconds. thats what the topic is about. Theres no point shooting ourselves in the foot by stopping our own remote rep, because then it automatically puts us at a disadvantage.

And i dont mean to be picky, but to be fair BSG did start this, and was really asking for it.


Ok two things here.

1. TFS wasnt using neutral remote reps and your in corp/alliance pilots already outnumbered us. That makes you as guilty of abusing the game mechanic as the next bloke.
yep, and your fleet commander at the time is quite silly not to ask if someone would throw some on to ensure if something goes wrong u can have extra survivability, again this thread is NOT about using remote reps, it about he AGGRESSION COUNTDOWN FOR STATION HUMPING remote repairers

2. I pointed the above out as hypocrisy because it is, that wasnt an open license to personally attack me as a woman. That from Pitboss just goes to show his general disrespect for women and his obvious issues regarding women in general. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the debate over neutral repping.
You attacked our allaince, and dont expect to be attacked back? what world are u living in. Its his general disrespect for you i would say, cause u have lost all respect i had for you before this. And this has everything to do with remote repping, read the title of the topic


The fact that Pitboss and the Privateer alt commenting below him needed to throw themselves in the gutter with personal attacks
Please do point out my personal attacks on you? i would like to know, the only one i see which needs to be twisted to see it, is commenting on your anger issues. and thats your own problem, you went into that fight and didnt come out. We had nothing to do with it

on an out of game level
If i do see correctly, you came out of game, onto the forums FIRST to attack us, we are only defending our patch

goes to show the type of mentality, immaturity and general lack of integrity Privateer Alliance is full of
OH OH Oh my, look everyone, personal attacks on not only me and PB, but the entire privateer alliance. I smell raggggeee. You need to through yourself now into the gutter for personal attacks on a number of players, you dont know. You can really only talk for a percent of the people in privateers, since half of them keep to themselves... i wonder why???.

As much as Pitboss would like to think he is widely respected in this game and on the forums, I think he just pretty much lost respect with a great deal of people in one emo raging "omg a woman has pee'd on my game experience and shown my alliance up for the hypocrites we really are" statement.
there is no hypocritical statements going on, can you not understand, we are NOT saying dont use RR, we are saying GIVE THEM AGGRESSION COUNTDOWN, the same way attacking does...

Tortugan
Internal Anarchy
WE FORM VOLTRON
Posted - 2009.07.28 18:53:00 - [198]
 

Kailen- just post from PB :) Unless you guys went to the same School of Caps Lock, it's pretty obvious that Kailen's your alt :P

Also- any comments on my argument that this would kill the ability to fight against blobs?

Quote:
Specifically, it will just mean that the bigger blob will be station camping the smaller group, and the smaller group will have no chance of breaking the camp until it breaks up itself. I'm not saying that a small gang should be able to go after a large fleet, however if the large fleet doesn't have their sh*t together and work as a team to keep their squishier ships alive, then hell yes, they deserve to die.

Kailen Thorn
Caldari
Serenity Prime
Cascade Probable
Posted - 2009.07.28 19:11:00 - [199]
 

Originally by: Tortugan
Kailen- just post from PB :) Unless you guys went to the same School of Caps Lock, it's pretty obvious that Kailen's your alt :P

Also- any comments on my argument that this would kill the ability to fight against blobs?

Quote:
Specifically, it will just mean that the bigger blob will be station camping the smaller group, and the smaller group will have no chance of breaking the camp until it breaks up itself. I'm not saying that a small gang should be able to go after a large fleet, however if the large fleet doesn't have their sh*t together and work as a team to keep their squishier ships alive, then hell yes, they deserve to die.



I am not a PB alt, and my caps were only to high light that this discussion is about the aggression countdown, not remote repairing itself.

As to your thoughts on the blobs, i would say theres both a yes and no answer. Not everyone wants to use remote reps, so i would say they would be limited in fleets, with only one or two people using them. so the smaller fleet needs to concentrate fire and use ECM to disrupt the larger fleets main dps'ers. But generally the larger fleet would win just due to superior numbers.

the absence of the aggression countdown would greatly help the smaller fleet, but it is not fair from the larger fleets side. A 290K tanked ship with reps will survive for a good while before needing to re-dock. So while the larger fleet concentrates dps on that repper, it just re-docks, and repairs, only for them to have to do it again. And any good repper will have ECCM. so its wasting a lot of the fighting time for the larger fleet, just for the smaller fleet to get some lucky kills, when the larger fleet has to concentrate on a heavily defended target.

So yes, this nerf would cause people to become more inventive when it comes to dealing with larger blobs, but i dont think it would kill it off, it would just remove the easy way out. you still have ECM and other methods of disrupting larger fleets

CCP Zymurgist


Gallente
C C P
Posted - 2009.07.28 19:42:00 - [200]
 

Hey guys, Lets keep on topic. Thread cleaned of off-topic and trolling.

Keitoshi Yamada
Caldari
Sephray Industries
Serenitas Solutus
Posted - 2009.07.28 20:32:00 - [201]
 

Alright, so, if this is the only way 'small' fleets can kill 'large' blobs, maybe the issue isn't that this shouldn't be fixed, because it's obvious that it does.

The fact of the matter is, a new way for small fleets to combat large fleets needs to be proposed.

As I said before, you can't be neutral and help someone in a fight, that puts you on a side.

IRL, if someone were to bring painkillers to a fist fight, that person would become part of the fight.

Instead of all of this trolling and whining about people fixing an exploit that's 'the only way' for small blobs to beat big blobs, then the issue isn't that the exploit doesn't need to be fixed, something else needs to be done.

Exploits != tactics.

It's like saying pre-nano nerf, using nanos was a tactic. No, it was an exploit that, if not taken advantage of, would've made your ship useless at the time.

Tortugan
Internal Anarchy
WE FORM VOLTRON
Posted - 2009.07.28 20:34:00 - [202]
 

Originally by: Kailen Thorn
Originally by: Tortugan
Kailen- just post from PB :) Unless you guys went to the same School of Caps Lock, it's pretty obvious that Kailen's your alt :P

Also- any comments on my argument that this would kill the ability to fight against blobs?

Quote:
Specifically, it will just mean that the bigger blob will be station camping the smaller group, and the smaller group will have no chance of breaking the camp until it breaks up itself. I'm not saying that a small gang should be able to go after a large fleet, however if the large fleet doesn't have their sh*t together and work as a team to keep their squishier ships alive, then hell yes, they deserve to die.



I am not a PB alt, and my caps were only to high light that this discussion is about the aggression countdown, not remote repairing itself.

As to your thoughts on the blobs, i would say theres both a yes and no answer. Not everyone wants to use remote reps, so i would say they would be limited in fleets, with only one or two people using them. so the smaller fleet needs to concentrate fire and use ECM to disrupt the larger fleets main dps'ers. But generally the larger fleet would win just due to superior numbers.

the absence of the aggression countdown would greatly help the smaller fleet, but it is not fair from the larger fleets side. A 290K tanked ship with reps will survive for a good while before needing to re-dock. So while the larger fleet concentrates dps on that repper, it just re-docks, and repairs, only for them to have to do it again. And any good repper will have ECCM. so its wasting a lot of the fighting time for the larger fleet, just for the smaller fleet to get some lucky kills, when the larger fleet has to concentrate on a heavily defended target.

So yes, this nerf would cause people to become more inventive when it comes to dealing with larger blobs, but i dont think it would kill it off, it would just remove the easy way out. you still have ECM and other methods of disrupting larger fleets


To be honest, it's not hard to counter RR as is. Hell- probably 10 of my last 15 kills have been people who brought it neutral remote reppers- and that's really not an exaggeration. As you said- the counters to RR are primarily DPS and ECM- both of which are highly effective when used correctly. A lot of it is knowing your enemy- and in most cases, if you have a blob of gank ships, you should be able to outdps remote reps- unless the people you're fighting bring their own blob of logistics. Hell- my most recent kill had 2 logistics alts repping him, and was tanked for gallente- and just 2 of us still managed to pop him before he could redock (not to mention, he had a pretty nasty active tank on the thing- probably around 900 dps tank without RR). It's possible- it just forces a bit more creativity in your fleet composition.

Kailen Thorn
Caldari
Serenity Prime
Cascade Probable
Posted - 2009.07.28 20:52:00 - [203]
 

yes to both of the top two fights. When repping, it brings you into the fight and puts you on to a side. So let this continue, but give the reppers an aggression countdown, so they stay in the fight.

i am perfectly fine with people repping, i just dont like reppers being able to instadock, repair and come out again in a matter of 30 seconds, while the main targets own tank has held and he can continue his repping work.

thats what this topic is about, its not about criticizing [spelling?], or abusing the reppers for wanting to get into a fight, its about keeping them in the fight so they can pay for their decision, either with death or a pat on the back, depending on who wins

Keitoshi Yamada
Caldari
Sephray Industries
Serenitas Solutus
Posted - 2009.07.28 21:37:00 - [204]
 

Originally by: Kailen Thorn
yes to both of the top two fights. When repping, it brings you into the fight and puts you on to a side. So let this continue, but give the reppers an aggression countdown, so they stay in the fight.

i am perfectly fine with people repping, i just dont like reppers being able to instadock, repair and come out again in a matter of 30 seconds, while the main targets own tank has held and he can continue his repping work.

thats what this topic is about, its not about criticizing [spelling?], or abusing the reppers for wanting to get into a fight, its about keeping them in the fight so they can pay for their decision, either with death or a pat on the back, depending on who wins


Exactly this.

Neutral means not picking sides.
Repping someone means picking that person's side.


The only way at all to justify no aggression is if there was some super lame forced mechanic that split your rep to every ship in range, allowing the one without the neut repper on their side to just move in range to steal some of the rep... But how lame/unrealistic would /that/ be.

Current mechanic is illogical.

Awesome Possum
Original Sin.
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
Posted - 2009.07.28 21:56:00 - [205]
 

Originally by: Keitoshi Yamada
Neutral means not picking sides.
Repping someone means picking that person's side.


/facepalm

And repping means the opposing force has the right to engage the repper.

It means the repper is no longer neutral because he is RED on your overview.

However, the repper has NOT committed an aggressive act, therefore he is able to dock at will.

You could always..... not fight on a station.

Keitoshi Yamada
Caldari
Sephray Industries
Serenitas Solutus
Posted - 2009.07.28 22:08:00 - [206]
 

Edited by: Keitoshi Yamada on 28/07/2009 22:09:00
Edited by: Keitoshi Yamada on 28/07/2009 22:08:38
Originally by: Awesome Possum
Originally by: Keitoshi Yamada
Neutral means not picking sides.
Repping someone means picking that person's side.


/facepalm

And repping means the opposing force has the right to engage the repper.

It means the repper is no longer neutral because he is RED on your overview.

However, the repper has NOT committed an aggressive act, therefore he is able to dock at will.

You could always..... not fight on a station.


It is still, very much so, indirect aggression.

You're helping someone else aggress a target better than they could without your help.

Just as everyone /against/ this proposal says, "EVE is a dangerous place. Get over it..." ... EVE /is/ a dangerous place, that means it's dangerous for logistics aswell. For every action there is a consequence. So far Logistics near stations don't have any real consequences, and are invulnerable to attack due to insta-docking for free. There is no reason being outside a station should be a 'safespot' for anyone.

If you want safety, don't undock. Camping the dock to help a buddy then docking once you take damage is an exploit, not a tactic.

Trinity Nova
Amarr
Unaccompanied Souls
Posted - 2009.07.28 23:26:00 - [207]
 

1. Does the combatant gain an advantage by having a neutral perform remote repping? I would say yes. The aggressor is being boosted and will be harder to kill.

2. Should the remote repper be considered a neutral once they start to support a ship that is actively engaged? I think it's safe to say that if you are an active participant then you are not neutral.

3. If you're an active participant and therefore no longer a neutral should there be a consequence? CCP you decide.

Somewhere in a war torn land (rl):

Enemy combatants are engaging one of my squads and intend to kill as many of my men as possible. Out of the corner of my eye I see two adult males that appear to be resupplying class V (ammo) to the enemy. I call the squad leader that is closest to the suspected resupply effort and ask him to confirm what they are doing. He informs me that the men I've identified as conducting the resupply are in fact delivering ammo to the enemy soldiers. The men I've identified are not armed and have not engaged my soldiers, but since they are actively supporting enemy soldiers they are no longer neutral.

For those that do not understand why I've declared them hostile: Without ammo the enemy soldiers are no longer a threat, or not as much of a threat. By eliminating their source of ammo I can win the engagement or improve my chances of winning the engagement. Killing the two males that are resupplying them with ammo seems to be a logical and acceptable course of action.


Loki Farseer
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.07.28 23:41:00 - [208]
 

Pitboss... sad man sad. I had told myself I couldn't be bothered to post in this crap... but I just can't help it.ugh

Since you've been around so long (5+ years) you should remember when it was adapt or die... with the other alternative being STFU in EVE.

Now it's the above 2 with an overwhelming addition of Emo whine on the forums for change.

A little back-story for those just joining:

4-6 of us shut down the Privateer Alliance in Jita for basically 2 weeks (honestly when you re-dec'd us for another week I almost pi$$ed myself laughing). You're rant is we had neutral RR and RR is overpowered etc. Dude seriously if you can't figure out how to defeat 4-6 (generally less) of us with 1-2 RR guys helping... you're doing it wrong and need to emo rage quit now (can I have your stuffs and put it to proper use)Laughing

RR isn't broken. ANYONE CAN DO IT. It's cheap, it's effective, it's about the only counter to blobs/huge station camps since Nano and ECM took a hit. You shouldn't be rallying support to get RR changed you should be figuring out how a small group could put that much hurt on your alliance with so little effort.

Neutral RR is the same as a non-neutral RR. Same rules etc, same limitations. Only difference is that the 1st time or maybe 2 (if you're REALLY not paying attention) you can suprise someone. Pitboss... Me doing 50+ Kills in just those 2 weeks to your Alliance isn't an RR's suprised us, it's a you fail. We had the same group the same guys etc... nothing changed. We fight against RR on a daily basis. It's simple to counter (if you know what you're doing) and I'd be glad to help you guys out with a remedial class on... watching who reps who, what they fit, what they use, and COUNTER IT.Rolling Eyes One size does NOT fit all and 1 tactic sure as H3ll doesn't always work (except RR against you guys apparently).

Let me give you a little taste of what will happen if they add an aggression counter to RR like you are whining about (since I doubt you've thought that far ahead). Stabs Pitboss... LOTSA STABS. Sit there RR, align out, warp. Rinse and repeat (and no you guys don't use HIC's for crap so don't even use that argument).. BTW, you can warp out and back as fast or faster then docking and undocking @ Jita 4-4... we've tested. You'll still fail, you'll still whine and all people will have to do is change a couple of mods and tactics a bit. TBH I could care less if you succeed in nerfing RR/adding an aggro timer since I'll just change what I do again.

OMG FALCONS ARE WTF PWN..., OMG NANO IS WTF PWN, OMG WTF RR IS WTF PWN... Whiners need to whine.. Whining about a tactic because you are too dumb to counter it is sad. But it's the way eve is going. All Hail the Age of Emo Whiners Expansion. Rolling Eyes

Loki Farseer
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.07.28 23:52:00 - [209]
 

Also clarification for RR etc in Highsec:

1. If you help a person in any way that is being attacked or at war you are automatically flagged to those People/Corps?Alliances.

This can be RR (Remote Rep) Energy Transfer, Tracking Links, Logi Drones, Sensor Link's... anything that helps that ship. Once that happens you are fair game to be shot and killed by anyone that was fighting the guy you helped (ie you are a valid target).

Being Neutral only helps you as I said above the 1st or (if the privateers 2nd through 50th time) to suprise your enemy. All the same rules etc then apply.

Discuss

Trinity Nova
Amarr
Unaccompanied Souls
Posted - 2009.07.29 01:32:00 - [210]
 

Edited by: Trinity Nova on 29/07/2009 01:35:20
Blah, blah, yada, yada, everyone look at me I'm a tactical genius, blah, blah.

He's asking for a simple agression timer, what's the big deal?

If you are allowed to shoot at the remote repper, which I assume means he is a valid target that can be legally engaged, then why not also penalize him with the aggression timer?

So you can't run away or dock up, that's the price you pay. Stop whining about your dual boxed rr alt getting nerfed when in fact it's not a nerf, it's a "bug" that needs to be fixed.

Oh and stop using rr gangs as a crutch, learn to pvp or go play with yourself (you thought I was going to say go play WoW).










Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : 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