open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Incursion Can Flipper GLITCH
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9

Author Topic

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.03.03 15:57:00 - [91]
 

Edited by: De''Veldrin on 03/03/2011 15:57:34
Originally by: TharOkha

Seriously. All of you who are againist this are from large null alliances and corporations (exept Carebear hisec PVP aliance "Tears extraction")


Funny, according to Dotlan, my alliance doesn't hold any nullsec systems at all. We don't even have 200 members, so I wouldn't call us particularly large either. And please, please have a good long look at my killboard stats and then tell me I'm some kind of hardcore PvPer. I dare you to make yourself look like an even bigger fool than you already appear to be.

Originally by: Tippia

Quote:
Yea, i understand this "dont fly with someone who you dont know" but we are talking about incursions, the Public fleets.
"Doctor, it hurts when I drive nails into my thigh."

"New warning sign on all nails: Warning, may cause pain if driven into flesh." It's nice to see the modern "I'm a victim" mentality pervading the game sphere. It reaffirms my misanthropic tendencies.

TharOkha
Posted - 2011.03.03 16:27:00 - [92]
 

Edited by: TharOkha on 03/03/2011 16:29:25
Edited by: TharOkha on 03/03/2011 16:27:43
"Doctor, it hurts when I drive nails into my thigh." Riddiculous example, ill give you better

You and your girl are walking on the street, suddenly you see a drowing main in the river, your girl (logi) help him when suddenly a group of gangsters shows up and beat your girl (because that drowing man stealed from the gang) If you want to defend her (fleet member), the police (concord) apear and say "dont help her or we will shoot you". Litle does the police (and you) know that that drowing man and the gang are the same group, just expoliting a loophole in law. And from now on, you and the police just looking at that gang beating your girl to death.

Yea, yea "game mechanics". Laughing

edit: (btw, sorry for my english, its not my mother language)

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.03.03 16:38:00 - [93]
 

Originally by: TharOkha
"Doctor, it hurts when I drive nails into my thigh." Riddiculous example,
Why is it ridiculous when that's exactly what you're doing?

Gavjack Bunk
Gallente
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.03.03 16:43:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: TharOkha

-or (much better solution Twisted Evil) whole fleet aggresion, so we, the whole fleet, can fight back, when some "hardcore PVP carebears" shooting our logis using this exploit.



YES! DO THIS. SERIOUSLY.
You think you're dying now. Do this and your whole fleet will die.

The fact that you even suggest this as a solution compounds the issue that you clearly have absolutely no idea what is happening in this game and thus why you are the least qualified to decide for others what this game needs.

But as is pointed out by so many, so often, CCP actually agree with you. Not in words, but by actions. Which is precisely why they will never implement your idea, because you used to be able to use gang mechanics to cause death upon people who refuse to take responsibility for their own safety, and die they did.

Is it possible for you to even understand? I see a lot of people trying really hard to enlighten you, but you're doing a real bang up job of resisting it. Perhaps you're too busy "Man i laugh so hard".

Stop laughing. Start thinking.

XXSketchxx
Gallente
Remote Soviet Industries
Posted - 2011.03.03 16:54:00 - [95]
 

Originally by: TharOkha
Originally by: Hardcore PVPers
...noooo, dont take our easy targets from us......

Man i laugh so hard Laughing. We just demand
-warning sign for logis "you are about to repair flagged criminal"
-or (much better solution Twisted Evil) whole fleet aggresion, so we, the whole fleet, can fight back, when some "hardcore PVP carebears" shooting our logis using this exploit.

Seriously. All of you who are againist this are from large null alliances and corporations (exept Carebear hisec PVP aliance "Tears extraction"), but i dont understand why, why are you aggainist this, when its purely exploit in game mechanics. Yea, i understand this "dont fly with someone who you dont know" but we are talking about incursions, the Public fleets.


Paranoid much?

Or just plain stupid?

I'm in my own corp with a bunch of alts and 2 RL friends. I think the last time I actually shot another ship was >6 months ago.

But feel free to keep on making baseless assumptions that make you look like a moron.

Gavascon
Posted - 2011.03.03 18:38:00 - [96]
 

Edited by: Gavascon on 03/03/2011 18:38:52
my hat is off to those of you who have taken time to devise simple methods to obtain cheap kills.

fact: incursions sites require logistics. the number of logistic ships will increase as fleet size increases.

tactic #1: become member of fleet - request reps from logistics - then shoot a drone or another ship. hmmm, said person now becomes global criminal. concord appears - destroys said criminal and all ships assisting him (the entire logistics squad).

result: people stop flying logistics because they don't want to lose ships to concord
result 2: no logistics? no way to do an incursion.
people stop doing incursions - ccp pulls them.

that's not cool. so - ccp protects the logistics. GOOD JOB CCP.


tactic #2: since we cannot pop GCC timer anymore let's use stealing as a means of getting logistic ships killed.

result: people won't rep others or fly logistic ships
result 2: no logistics? no fleets to complete incursions.
no incursion fleets? ccp pulls incursions.

am i crying? no - i see the "beauty" in it.
is it the right thing to do? no, i don't think it is.

if the goal is get ccp to pull incursions from the game - then i think you're all wasting your time. incursions are here to stay.

as for tears? eve isn't safe after undocking. so - live with the risk.
however, eve is full of choices. it's NOT a bad idea for ccp to provide a simple pop up warning to a logistics pilot. after all, pop up warnings do appear for stealing, aggression in the absence of a war dec (ganking) or repping a war target.


Centri Sixx
Posted - 2011.03.03 18:54:00 - [97]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Edited by: Tippia on 03/03/2011 14:57:02
Originally by: Centri Sixx
You already have mechanics to gank people in incursions. They are called wardecs. I'm getting a bit annoyed at the constant reliance on gaming aggro systems done by pvp carebears in order to get cheap kills, and the attempts to always put risk on the people that actually try to do things in the game.
The problem is that all those aggro systems are there for very good reasons. Yes, "carebears" who are not familiar with these mechanics will get themselves killed in new and interesting ways, but that's just how it is — you live and learn. Well… you learn… well… some learn, others just whine a lot.

Anyway… The reason people rely on these systems is because they have to, because there are numerous ways to avoid the more formal means of killing someone. Just because there are some… let's call them unsavoury … uses of the same mechanics does not mean the mechanics themselves are at fault. Sure, if there was no wardec immunity; if it was an exploit to jump corps; if there were personal wardecs; if there were no increasing costs for multiple decs; hell… if CONCORD wasn't an enforced death sentence, then people wouldn't have to rely on these mechanics to get at their legitimate targets, nor would there be any "illegitimate" uses of the mechanics against unsuspecting victims (mainly because the mechanics wouldn't be there to begin with since there would be nothing for them to solve).

Put another way: as long as there are ways of protecting yourself from violence, there must be ways of circumventing those protections, and as long as there are ways of circumventing them, people will use those ways to get to "innocent" targets. The only solution would be to remove all forms of protection, but guess what: then the exact same innocent targets would be even more screwed. As it is, these targets have their means of protecting themselves and if they just learn about the mechanics used to circumvent those protections, they can take measures to drastically reduce their exposure to those tactics as well.

Claiming that these tactics — which, again, are working exactly as intended, and for very good reasons — are "exploits" or "glitches" only serves to perpetuate their status as unknowing, unsuspecting, and above all ignorantly self-induced victims.
Originally by: Gavjack Bunk
Originally by: Arden Elenduil
If there's anyone griefing the carebears using this mechanic, it's us ^^
So you're here to make sure nobody else gets to vicariously enjoy the tears? Bastards.
That would be such a beautiful case of meta-(meta-)griefing that it almost brings tears to my eyes. Laughing


This is an argument that really deserves its own post, as people need to argue about PvP on a meta level like this. However I'll bite.

You have to weight the need for self-protection versus the effort needed. For a logi, it sounds like currently they have to keep a running tab on every single pilot's CC stastus before choosing to commit to repair. This sounds to me like a lot of effort when done in an incursion, and required of that playstyle in general.

If the effort becomes too high, the player will not participate over making the necessary adaptation. Mining in lowsec solo, for example: there is so many self-protection actions you need to do that many players throw up their hands and quit.

My worry is that logi pilots specifically will be less likely to maintain the self-protection due to the effort involved that they start to quit incursion in numbers enough to make it untenable. It was the same way with spider concordokken. You can argue players should have chosen self-protection over a mechanics change then. The problem is that enough people would just say to hell with it and let incursions run their course.

This is because the "innocents" have more to lose than the gankers. The "innocents" want to do a fulfilling PvE experience.

Kelnarn Shaelingrath
Caldari
River-Rats in space
The Ditanian Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.04 03:34:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: TharOkha
Edited by: TharOkha on 03/03/2011 16:29:25
Edited by: TharOkha on 03/03/2011 16:27:43
"Doctor, it hurts when I drive nails into my thigh." Riddiculous example, ill give you better

You and your girl are walking on the street, suddenly you see a drowing main in the river, your girl (logi) help him when suddenly a group of gangsters shows up and beat your girl (because that drowing man stealed from the gang) If you want to defend her (fleet member), the police (concord) apear and say "dont help her or we will shoot you". Litle does the police (and you) know that that drowing man and the gang are the same group, just expoliting a loophole in law. And from now on, you and the police just looking at that gang beating your girl to death.

Yea, yea "game mechanics". Laughing

edit: (btw, sorry for my english, its not my mother language)


your english is just fine for the portrayal of your thought..

+1, and +1 for making a damn nice point...
I couldn't have said it better myself...
o7


Mikkaras
Amarr
Wreckage Reclamation Enforcement Consortium
Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
Posted - 2011.03.04 07:07:00 - [99]
 

Edited by: Mikkaras on 04/03/2011 07:59:37
The issue is that logistics pilots have no way of knowing whether repairing a target will cause them to inherit an aggression flag.

(Repping a war target, and the associated popup warning, is not 'inheriting' an aggression flag in the sense I'm using the word - there's no timed flag on the target; If the repper clicks 'yes', they get a shiny brand-new flag rather than duplicating an existing flag.)

Unless an aggression flag gives YOU the right to fire on a target, that aggression flag is completely undetectable to you.

If you provide remote assistance to an aggression flagged target you automatically inherit the flag without getting any warning or opportunity to choose whether or not you wish to make yourself vulnerable.

An entire group of logistics can quickly inherit the flag, even if they're all oneiros or scimitars. Basilisks and guardians can also pass along flags to their cap buddies even if those individuals didn't directly repair the target. This is just like the way that a GCC flag could be spread to get an entire logistics team concorded.

Griefing by getting into a fleet just to get their logistics concorded has been eliminated. Until then, it was a "valid game mechanic". Since it served no purpose other than griefing, it was changed.

It is still possible to grief by getting character A into a fleet, stealing from a non-fleeted character B, calling for repairs, and then having character B's corp members warp in and attack the now vulnerable logistics ships who had neither warning that they were about to become vulnerable to attack nor the option of choosing not to make themselves vulnerable. (You can even perform the theft several minutes before warping to the incursion site, so there's no suspicious neutral ship and yellow can popping up to tip off the fleet to be wary of griefing attempts.)

Aggression flags are a useful game mechanic in a number of situations. No one wants them to be removed or expects their rules to be altered. However, an appropriate anti-griefing measure would be to provide a popup warning when someone to whom you are providing remote assistance has become flagged. (And as usual, this would have a "do not show this again" checkbox so that those who frequently act as neutral reppers for warring corps won't have to whine and cry about being spammed with extra popups, and if that box was checked, there would be no functional difference from current behavior.)

Originally by: Tippia
Quote:
because "the logistics pilots are completely unaware that they are flagging themselves". period Rolling Eyes
Only if they are ignorant to the game mechanics. If not, they are very well aware of this behaviour.
Originally by: Katdoral
The issue is not whether they are aware of the game mechanics.
Yes it is. This is standard aggression transference that any logi pilot should know about. Nothing new. Nothing odd. Nothing unintended.

If a remote support pilot is caught by surprise by this, it's because he didn't understand what he was doing and the mechanics involved.

It's not a question of "surprised by game mechanic". We know that aggression flags transfer. The problem is that there is no way for public fleets to avoid becoming flagged by this griefing tactic, even when they understand the mechanics involved:
Originally by: Gavascon
aside from the loot history - there is NO WAY for ANY logistics pilot to know who has been criminally flagged due to stealing until the agression timer appears. at which point, it's too late for the logi pilot and all his cap buddies.


Again: Currently, you *cannot know* who is flagged toward others. If you rep someone, and he *is* flagged, you get no warning and no choice.

If such warnings already existed, Tippia's claims would be 100% accurate.
They do not, so Tippia is at least partially incorrect, misinformed, or refuses to address the actual issue (or has an interest in keeping it as easy as possible to grief public fleets).

Valari Nala Zena
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2011.03.04 11:27:00 - [100]
 

People are just asking for a notification for a crime they don't know are about to commit...
It kinda sounds fair to me, just saying...

Gavjack Bunk
Gallente
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.03.04 11:46:00 - [101]
 

Originally by: Valari Nala Zena
People are just asking for a notification for a crime they don't know are about to commit...
It kinda sounds fair to me, just saying...


Taking away all the other warnings sounds equally fair to me.

Valari Nala Zena
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2011.03.04 12:25:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: Gavjack Bunk
Originally by: Valari Nala Zena
People are just asking for a notification for a crime they don't know are about to commit...
It kinda sounds fair to me, just saying...


Taking away all the other warnings sounds equally fair to me.


I don't disagree with that.
If they remove them all, then thats fine with me.

But, CCP always made notifications if there is a chance people don't know they are about to commit a crime.
This is a similar case, so adding it would be consistent.

Gavascon
Posted - 2011.03.04 14:54:00 - [103]
 

Originally by: Gavjack Bunk
Originally by: Valari Nala Zena
People are just asking for a notification for a crime they don't know are about to commit...
It kinda sounds fair to me, just saying...


Taking away all the other warnings sounds equally fair to me.



you CAN take them all away - when they pop up click the box "don't show this again".

but - i expected this moronic comment from you

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.03.04 14:59:00 - [104]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 04/03/2011 15:02:58
Originally by: Mikkaras
It's not a question of "surprised by game mechanic". We know that aggression flags transfer.
That's actually a pretty large part of it because it's precisely that surprise and not knowing about aggression transfer that make people call this an "exploit" or "glitch" when it is in fact neither. That, or just plain old dishonesty.

Some people in this thread are trying to use that ignorance of the game mechanics (feigned or otherwise) as an argument for why they should change the game mechanics. Who knows why — maybe they don't feel they have a good case for a change unless they can claim it's a bug. The thing is: if you want to see a change in the game mechanics, ask for a change in the game mechanics. Do not ask for a bugfix because there is no bug; there is no exploit; there is no glitch.

…and if you want to change the game mechanics, you need to explore what this actually does to the game, not just in this particular case but in the general case. How will the rules come into play in other kinds of fleets and in other situations? What options do you open up to players and how will they use them? Yes, it's much harder to do than to just yell "onoz, 'sploit!! fix teh bugz!" but that's no excuse — ignorance of mechanics is not a good basis for changes to those very same mechanics.
Quote:
If such warnings already existed, Tippia's claims would be 100% accurate.
No, I'm pretty much 100% accurate regardless: unless they are unfamiliar with the game mechanics, they will know that this happens, and they will understand that no glitches or exploits are in play.
Quote:
refuses to address the actual issue
Depends what "the actual issue" is. If you read through my posts, you'll notice that I only ever talk about one thing. Maybe I'm being to subtle about it, but you'd think that people would get it once I've said it outright for four pages…

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.03.04 18:09:00 - [105]
 

Originally by: Tippia
<snip for brevity>


You have a lot more patience that I do, Tippia. I'm reading these new posts, and face-palming at the stubbornness.

Gavascon
Posted - 2011.03.04 21:42:00 - [106]
 

Edited by: Gavascon on 04/03/2011 22:03:31
Edited by: Gavascon on 04/03/2011 21:49:21
Edited by: Gavascon on 04/03/2011 21:48:41
Edited by: Gavascon on 04/03/2011 21:44:11
wasn't going to say this - but now i am.

exploit is NOT the right word.

exploitation is.

wikipedia defines EXPLOITATION as:

Taking something off a person or a group that rightfully belongs to them
Short-changing people in trade
Directly or indirectly forcing somebody to work
Using somebody against his will, or without his consent or knowledge
Imposing an arbitrary differential treatment of people to the advantage of some and the disadvantage of others (as in ascriptive discrimination)
Using somebody to buy/provide things for you and never paying them back.

so - stealing from a can/wreck to have logistics grab aggression timers IS AN EXPLOIT(ATION). since the logistics pilots do NOT receive a warning, grab aggro timers without their knowledge or consent and places them in a position against their will.


Desirsar
Posted - 2011.03.05 01:50:00 - [107]
 

Ugh, this thread is painful.

It's not a glitch. It's not an exploit.

The change suggested in the original post, on its own merit, irrespective of being or not being an exploit, is a good idea for consistency. (The later suggestion of removing all flagging warning messages is for the same reason.) Pick one, CCP, and let's get this over with.

De Guantanamo
Posted - 2011.03.05 02:32:00 - [108]
 

Originally by: Gavascon
Edited by: Gavascon on 04/03/2011 22:03:31
Edited by: Gavascon on 04/03/2011 21:49:21
Edited by: Gavascon on 04/03/2011 21:48:41
Edited by: Gavascon on 04/03/2011 21:44:11
wasn't going to say this - but now i am.

exploit is NOT the right word.

exploitation is.

wikipedia defines EXPLOITATION as:

Taking something off a person or a group that rightfully belongs to them
Short-changing people in trade
Directly or indirectly forcing somebody to work
Using somebody against his will, or without his consent or knowledge
Imposing an arbitrary differential treatment of people to the advantage of some and the disadvantage of others (as in ascriptive discrimination)
Using somebody to buy/provide things for you and never paying them back.

so - stealing from a can/wreck to have logistics grab aggression timers IS AN EXPLOIT(ATION). since the logistics pilots do NOT receive a warning, grab aggro timers without their knowledge or consent and places them in a position against their will.




notsureifserious.jpg

Lorael Simatari
Posted - 2011.03.05 05:26:00 - [109]
 

The total point to this is lost, its become purely an argument between high and low sec dwellers who have different viewpoints in the game. why should there be a change? Regardless of peoples view points and words and phrases being chucked onto the table like glitches, taking advantage of ones knowledge and so forth. why do you guys believe that no changes should be made? constructive conversation between both high and low sec people is lacking here. The people for the changes to be made have put forward an argument that to me sounds fair enough, while all the people against the idea just pushed forward the concept that peopl have no grasp on the games mechanics at all. That is not a reason why we should keep the things as they are. Its just purely an insult to the people who have lost their ships already. Call people soft and tell them to HTFU but that is no reason to justify anyone's actions taking advantage of the mechanics in question.

Just a few questions.

Why do you people think there should be no changes? No insults to individuals or groups of people and that includes the care bear population.

If you think the Bear population are arrogant of the so called mechanics, then maybe you could enlighten the people on the forum's telling them why they should accept things as they are. All you have done is just got under their skin, frustrating people with directionless arguments with little justification.

Put forward a constructive rebuttal and maybe you might actually end up convincing many of us that things should stay as they are. At this point in time your doing yourselves wrong here since you have created a mountain out of what effectively should be an ants nest.

noldevin
Posted - 2011.03.05 08:02:00 - [110]
 

/signed

While this is NOT an exploit per se, I do believe that logistics pilots should be given a warning message. No other elements should be changed, as I do like to indulge in the occasional grief as well and can understand where griefers are coming from.

While, as Tipia states, it is possible to know or not know the game mechanics, it is currently NOT possible to know when you are about to repair someone who has aggression. Besides the fact that the means are simply not there, being in charge of keeping a large fleet alive is simply too hectic to have to double check everyone against some sort of log before repping. Even if you could/did check, they could always create aggro in between cycles. This is where the unexpected and unfair elements come into play.

If the warning message is implemented, you can still potentially trick people who are careless (they might assume its a wardec notice or have the warnings hidden).

JordanParey
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
Posted - 2011.03.05 11:17:00 - [111]
 

Edited by: JordanParey on 05/03/2011 11:17:25
I don't have anything to contribute to this ridiculous thread other tha:

(drumroll...)



(wait for it...)

(wait for it..)

Laughing

It's not that hard to stop this from happening, just think..trust..spaceships..who do you fly with?

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.03.05 13:59:00 - [112]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 05/03/2011 14:01:55
Originally by: Lorael Simatari
The total point to this is lost, its become purely an argument between high and low sec dwellers who have different viewpoints in the game. why should there be a change? Regardless of peoples view points and words and phrases being chucked onto the table like glitches, taking advantage of ones knowledge and so forth. why do you guys believe that no changes should be made? constructive conversation between both high and low sec people is lacking here. The people for the changes to be made have put forward an argument that to me sounds fair enough, while all the people against the idea just pushed forward the concept that peopl have no grasp on the games mechanics at all. That is not a reason why we should keep the things as they are.
A couple of things:
No, there is no argument between high and lowsec dwellers.
No, there is no real difference in viewpoints.

Asking "why should there be no change" is nonsensical because it's those who want to see a change that need to put forth an argument for the change. What seems to be lost is the fact that no-one is arguing against a change — the "against" argument is against the notion that there's a glitch or exploit involved, and that any kind of change based on that incorrect notion will be just as incorrect. People are also arguing against the notion that there currently is no way to counter this funny little tactic.

The way to fix bugs is different from the way to change mechanics, and picking the wrong route will only make things worse (as shown by many of the deeply flawed suggestions made). Saying that people have no grasp on mechanics is constructive because you need to understand those mechanics before you can effectively discuss any change to them or to add new mechanics in (roughly) the same area. Not being able to come up with a working alternative to the current state of affairs is pretty much the ultimate reason for letting things stay as they are, but again, as you'll note: no-one is really arguing against a change, but against deeply flawed suggestions that are based on the same ignorance of game mechanics that created the problem to begin with.

So yes, the point has been lost and you're asking rather irrelevant questions based on the wrong assumptions.

Valari Nala Zena
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2011.03.05 14:27:00 - [113]
 

Edited by: Valari Nala Zena on 05/03/2011 14:29:13
For using an exploit, you will get a warning or a ban.

You are not going to get warned or banned for using this technique.

Since well, it's not an exploit.

Gavascon
Posted - 2011.03.05 16:30:00 - [114]
 

Originally by: Valari Nala Zena
Edited by: Valari Nala Zena on 05/03/2011 14:29:13
For using an exploit, you will get a warning or a ban.

You are not going to get warned or banned for using this technique.

Since well, it's not an exploit.



let me see if i understand this correctly -

it's not an exploitation because currently there isn't any mechanism in place to WARN any logistics pilot that he is about to rep someone who is criminally flagged for stealing?

hmmm, seems to me a similar circumstance existed for logistics pilots when they got concorded by repping people who AT FIRST hadn't done anything wrong. after receiving reps this person aggressed another ship and popped GCC (global criminal). CCP saw something wrong with that and did something about it. it was obviously a gross MISUSE of game mechanics.

stealing from cans and looting wrecks makes fleet members criminally flagged for that action. when said pilot requests reps the logistics pilots - are in essence - aiding a criminal and get flagged as well. this puts them in a bad position without their knowledge or consent- meaning logistic pilots can now be aggressed by the person who was stolen from and his entire corp. this appears to be a twist on the GCC event and is also a gross misuse of game mechanics.

just because an action isn't listed as an exploit doesn't mean it isn't an exploit. it just means that CCP hasn't taken any action to correct, or amend, the abuse.

CCP please do something in this area to protect logistics pilots!

De Guantanamo
Posted - 2011.03.05 18:03:00 - [115]
 

Originally by: Gavascon
Originally by: Valari Nala Zena
Edited by: Valari Nala Zena on 05/03/2011 14:29:13
For using an exploit, you will get a warning or a ban.

You are not going to get warned or banned for using this technique.

Since well, it's not an exploit.



let me see if i understand this correctly -

it's not an exploitation because currently there isn't any mechanism in place to WARN any logistics pilot that he is about to rep someone who is criminally flagged for stealing?

hmmm, seems to me a similar circumstance existed for logistics pilots when they got concorded by repping people who AT FIRST hadn't done anything wrong. after receiving reps this person aggressed another ship and popped GCC (global criminal). CCP saw something wrong with that and did something about it. it was obviously a gross MISUSE of game mechanics.

stealing from cans and looting wrecks makes fleet members criminally flagged for that action. when said pilot requests reps the logistics pilots - are in essence - aiding a criminal and get flagged as well. this puts them in a bad position without their knowledge or consent- meaning logistic pilots can now be aggressed by the person who was stolen from and his entire corp. this appears to be a twist on the GCC event and is also a gross misuse of game mechanics.

just because an action isn't listed as an exploit doesn't mean it isn't an exploit. it just means that CCP hasn't taken any action to correct, or amend, the abuse.

CCP please do something in this area to protect logistics pilots!


He meant that if it were an exploit, the people using said exploit would get a warning (via mail or something) or just straight up ban.

Exploits are determined by CCP. Not whiners who don't like game mechanics

God you are dumb.

Centri Sixx
Posted - 2011.03.05 18:43:00 - [116]
 

Originally by: JordanParey
Edited by: JordanParey on 05/03/2011 11:17:25
I don't have anything to contribute to this ridiculous thread other tha:

(drumroll...)



(wait for it...)

(wait for it..)

Laughing

It's not that hard to stop this from happening, just think..trust..spaceships..who do you fly with?


The point of incursions was to be a way for players to get together and fight in groups outside of corps, because the incursions have system wide effects. It's to break up the whole "you do nothing outside of your corp, guild, or alliance" mentality that makes other MMOs silent and boring.

EVE has plenty of adversarial interaction, but that really contributes to the whole "crapsack world" most people think EVE is, and the lack of trust that comes from it. This, and to a point incarna, is meant to rebuild positive interactions with others.

Hopefully, this will provide some connectedness to the game and overcome the whole "everyone is an enemy, circle the wagons" mentality corp balkanization brings. If not, and they keep the same griefing and metagaming potential, EVE is just going to be a lot of people half-afking in allsec and a few people wondering why it's so hard to get anything going, pvp or what.

Gavascon
Posted - 2011.03.05 18:47:00 - [117]
 

Edited by: Gavascon on 05/03/2011 19:04:48
Edited by: Gavascon on 05/03/2011 19:01:42
Edited by: Gavascon on 05/03/2011 18:53:56
1) i'm not crying or whining.
2) i'm certainly not dumb
3) what i quoted in prior posting is one of the most feeble lines of logic i've ever read.
which basically says "well - if i don't get warned then it's ok" - which means the person has no sense of right or wrong. unless, he gets caught or is told what he is about to do is wrong. better yet, it means the person cannot think for themselves and needs to be told "you are about to do something wrong" in the form of a warning.

as i stated - just because ccp hasn't classified the result to logi's as an exploit - or by providing a warning not to rep a fleet member who has been criminally flagged for stealing - doesn't mean the logistics pilot isn't being exploited.

instead of being a "letter of the law" person - meaning if it isn't in writing it doesn't exist (ignorance) or ok - maybe it's best to be a "spirit of the law" person who takes into consideration the possibility that something is being abused and needs to be put in writing.

that said - under normal pvp conditions - the losing fleet retreats (or is completely destroyed) the winning fleet loots the field then leaves. it's their right to do so as victors. if there is any additional fighting then ALL ARE RED.
however - incursions aren't normal pvp situations. fleets are comprised of pilots from many different corps (that's what ccp intended and it's working). after sites are completed those that have left wrecks (which were left behind by a failed fleet attempt at the site) are looted while the owners of said wrecks still linger in the incursion area. thus putting logistics at risk unnecessarilty. in the case of incursions - only SOME OF THE FLEET becomes red. the rest are NOT and cannot engage to protect their aggressed fleetmates without concord intervention.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.03.05 19:04:00 - [118]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 05/03/2011 19:16:03
Originally by: Centri Sixx
The point of incursions was to be a way for players to get together and fight in groups
So far so good.
Quote:
outside of corps,
Really? Based on what?
Quote:
because the incursions have system wide effects.
That doesn't really preclude them from being corp pursuits — it only means that people (should) have more incentives to group up and get rid of them. It doesn't say that they shouldn't form corps to do so.

You could just as well see it as a means to entice people into banding together in corps and go hunt the darned things.
Originally by: Gavascon
as i stated - just because ccp hasn't classified the result to logi's as an exploit - or by providing a warning not to rep a fleet member who has been criminally flagged for stealing - doesn't mean the logistics pilot isn't being exploited.
They're not being exploited — they put themselves into logistics ship out of their own free will, and no-one can make use of their services without their say. They are being targeted, which is something rather different.

Look, the sooner you drop the whole "exploit*.*" line of thinking, the sooner you'll be able to formulate an argument that's not based on misdirection, misinformation, and general misunderstandings of the ruleset, not to mention one that's not blinded by emotion. The more you have of those, the less your suggestions will be taken seriously.

Gavascon
Posted - 2011.03.05 19:33:00 - [119]
 

you know what? i'm going to change gears.

we don't need warnings. what we need is a change to the high sec fleet mechanics.

as it stands - if 1 person in fleet steals only that person becomes flashy red.
logistics become flashy red when they rep him.

let the person and corp of the looted wreck/can aggress.
when they do - ccp should remove the handcuffs from the other fleet members so they can defend their fleetmates without concord intervention.

then we'll see how fast you greifers vanish into the shadows like roaches when the lights are turned on.
many of the people i fleet with are experienced FC's with an abundance of PvP experience. they'd love nothing more then begin shooting
anyone that aggresses their fleet members.

Red Woodson
Estrale Frontiers
Posted - 2011.03.05 20:23:00 - [120]
 

Originally by: Tippia
....

If you want to repair someone with aggression flagging = you get flagged.
Getting flagged for aiding aggressors = expected behaviour.
Expected behaviour = working as intended.
Working as intended = not exploit.
........



I think what the ones arguing that this is an 'exploit' are saying is that you skipped a couple steps there tippia.

If you want to repair someone with aggression flagging = you get choice
If you choose to repair them anyway = you get flagged
Getting flagged for aiding aggressors = expected behavior.
expected behavior = working as intended
working as intended = not an exploit

They argue this is how it works for other kinds of flagging, such as war targets and GCC, and therefore should be for can flipping as well. And since it isn't, it is a 'broken/unintended game mechanic', and using it an 'exploit'

Of course, they tend to do so in a rather poor manner. As to whether they are right or wrong, only CCP can say. IE, did ccp intend to leave this flagging without pop-up, or was it an oversight when they added pop-ups in the first place, or changed the gcc and remote support mechanics.

Personally, I think i'd have gone with a post asking ccp if it was intended or an oversight.

Also, I really, really have to laugh at the people that want to allow the fleet to shoot at the guys shooting the logis. Either they are 'griefer' trolls trying to get more options to 'make creative use' of flagging mechanics, or they are really ignorant of how resourceful such 'griefers' are.


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9

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