open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Remove concording for RR
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

AtheistOfFail
AoF Lottery Services
Posted - 2011.01.23 08:44:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Horizonist
Originally by: klyeme
Change it so they just jam RRers instead of killing them. No GCC, dock or warp to unjam.


THIS


QFT! Go ahead CCP. Make a decent change to the game.

AterraX
Caldari
Posted - 2011.01.23 08:50:00 - [32]
 

Not supported...(Neutral)RR are one of the biggest "exploits" currently ingame...make anyone ading a flagged (even neutral RR's) criminel or criminal NPC go *pouf* instead

Goose99
Posted - 2011.01.23 15:13:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: AterraX
Not supported...(Neutral)RR are one of the biggest "exploits" currently ingame...make anyone ading a flagged (even neutral RR's) criminel or criminal NPC go *pouf* instead


Neutral RR don't get concorded to begin with. Changing it to concord them will break the game, as you will then be able to get rr concorded without even getting yourself concorded. People like you need to use your brain more, and open your mouth less.Rolling Eyes

Mamba Lev
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2011.01.23 17:10:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: Mamba Lev on 23/01/2011 17:10:53
Supported, the way it gets implemented will be open to abuse as CCP don't really have a clue.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2011.01.23 17:24:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Gallians
At some point, you could tank concord with RR. But I agree, fleets of people not in the same corp with RR will become death traps if this is not changed.

Supported.

Agreed.

Cassus Temon
Aliastra

Posted - 2011.01.23 17:48:00 - [36]
 

Edited by: Cassus Temon on 23/01/2011 17:50:12
Originally by: Horizonist
Originally by: klyeme
Change it so they just jam RRers instead of killing them. No GCC, dock or warp to unjam.


THIS


This could be carried over to all non-aggression, defensive maneuver's in my opinion; such as Tracking link's, player assisting EWAR. This, Provided aggression counters are set, and they become targets capable of being attacked; but not Criminal targets to be Concorded, I see it as a possible solution. The reason for this, is Wardeccing fleets, with non-fleet, non-Corp/Alliance RR/EWAR assist; which will then be leveraged to advantage in a given situation, without the potential of being Concorded. Direct aggression EWAR, would then be considered potential for Concord; but on the 'sent home' level, without ship destruction. This way, players could assist other individuals, without directly being involved; without being Concorded for their efforts, and losing there ships.

Destructive Aggression, should be Concordable; not that which simply assists an attacking or defending ship. Concord should break up the fight, and destroy the original attacking party; not destroy everything on site, with exception to the guy being ganked, or the Industrial wartarget being obliterated. Chances are, he's not going to survive anyway. If the target is the subject of a WarDec; they should be able to receive assistance. This might save the Wardec mechanism to some degree; where, as it stands, it's a free-for-all griefing mechanism.

/supported

Goose99
Posted - 2011.01.24 16:30:00 - [37]
 

Incursions coming tomorrow. With bigger sites requiring 60 ppl due to reward curve, we may be seeing public fleets forming and subsequently chain-concorded from rr.Laughing

Gavjack Bunk
Gallente
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.01.24 17:18:00 - [38]
 

Ok, perhaps, but can we PLEASE enjoy a few dozen tearful threads first?

Daedalus II
Helios Research
Posted - 2011.01.25 12:19:00 - [39]
 

Bumping this to top for all emoragequit incursion RR pilots to see and support.

Goose99
Posted - 2011.01.25 21:07:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Gavjack Bunk
Ok, perhaps, but can we PLEASE enjoy a few dozen tearful threads first?


Looks like you got your wish. Unforunately CCP is reimbursing RR concord losses. Oh well. In any case, me and probably everyone else on Sisi saw this coming from a mile away. Everyone except CCP. This thread has been around for quite a while... I wonder if they even noticed it.Rolling Eyes

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.01.26 00:35:00 - [41]
 

Removing aggression transfer for RRing someone with a criminal countdown (global or not) is a bigger issue.

It is still needed to prevent neutrals from repping people at war without the ability for the attacking party to retaliate on the helper.

However, I hear CCP is working on a fix for the particular issue of people dropping from fleet in Incursion, which would solve that issue.

Aessoroz
Nohbdy.
Posted - 2011.01.26 01:49:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Removing aggression transfer for RRing someone with a criminal countdown (global or not) is a bigger issue.

It is still needed to prevent neutrals from repping people at war without the ability for the attacking party to retaliate on the helper.

However, I hear CCP is working on a fix for the particular issue of people dropping from fleet in Incursion, which would solve that issue.


No it won't, if you are in fleet and are being repped, just shoot the nearest asteriod or object or yellow wreck to trigger CONCORDOKKEN.

Cassus Temon
Aliastra
Posted - 2011.01.26 01:52:00 - [43]
 

I'll reiterate. Make them aggressors, and capable of being attacked; as this is the only sensible solution. This will also help wardec's, and both sides of the wardeccing process; in that, neutrals will be able to become involved without Concord intervention. Wars will cease to be small-scale griefing drama's; and become real engagements, with unpredictable elements. Let's face it: Right now, with maybe a few exceptions; the only real wars, happen in Nullsec.

This, would be good. It should also be applied to all EWAR related forms of assistance; making these fair game, on both sides of the coin.

Swynet
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.01.26 02:41:00 - [44]
 

Has neutral you have nothing to do in their business, find or create your own fleet.
If you are in fleet then you have nothing to worry or care about remote neutrals coming in, they have nothing to do in there so let them blow in silence?





Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.01.26 03:47:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 26/01/2011 03:47:59
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Removing aggression transfer for RRing someone with a criminal countdown (global or not) is a bigger issue.


Obviously you've never been the logistics pilot when two pirate/FW fleets clash under the watchful eye of gate guns. I don't need a GCC or faction standings hits for repping flashy pilots.

-Liang

Ed: Also, I don't want any of the crap about my RR disabling when someone takes a GCC or whatever. But, I agree the topic should be addressed in some way.

WitchKingOfAgamar
Posted - 2011.01.26 05:51:00 - [46]
 

Do not support.

Be more careful who you fly with. If you are driving around, and the passenger in your car shoots some guy on the street, the police will be after BOTH of you.

Gavjack Bunk
Gallente
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.01.26 10:31:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Goose99
Looks like you got your wish.

Shocked This rarely happens.

Originally by: Goose99
Unforunately CCP is reimbursing RR concord losses.

Shocked jesuschristmotherofgodccpwtfareyouthinking?

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2011.01.26 10:45:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
It is still needed to prevent neutrals from repping people at war without the ability for the attacking party to retaliate on the helper.


Aggression transfer is not the issue.

People dropping fleet is not the issue.

The issue is that people who are being remote repped (or remote anything) are able to make a decision to invoke CONCORD without asking permission from the people they will get CONCORDed.

A solution might be to prevent people making that choice when they are being remote-anythinged. That is, where the warning dialog would normally pop up, just assume they said "no" and prevent that module being activated.

This is entirely independent of the "I rep my friend's tower, now his war targets can shoot me" issue.

The issue here, in a nutshell, is A reps B, B commits a criminal act against A, CONCORD kills B and then A because A inherited Bs criminal flag. Since this is EVE Online, not "The Day The Earth Stood Still Online", this kind of punishment for unintended criminal acts should not be able to happen.

Its Over 9000
Posted - 2011.02.04 08:32:00 - [49]
 

LOW SEC!

Gavjack Bunk
Gallente
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.02.04 12:42:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: klyeme
Change it so they just jam RRers instead of killing them. No GCC, dock or warp to unjam.


This would lead to a problem in lowsec, with spider tanking around gate guns going unpunished.


Pages: 1 [2]

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