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

Valari Nala Zena
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2011.03.05 20:34:00 - [121]
 

Doesn't matter what you think is right or wrong, it's a game...
This game is maintained by CCP.
You play this game, by the rules CCP provided.

So, CCP's rules is the 'law'.

Currently anyone could openly state they are flipping cans to kill logi's.
Currently no reports is going to get them banned for doing this.

In other words, officially, it's not an exploit, until CCP decides and publicly announces otherwise.

Originally by: CCP rules

1. EXPLOITS

An immediate permanent ban of an account may result if:

* a. Investigation shows that a player has employed the use of an exploit tactic despite a public announcement being made to alert players they will be banned for using it.




De Guantanamo
Posted - 2011.03.05 20:41:00 - [122]
 

Originally by: Gavascon
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.


This is eve.

If its not written down as letter of law, its not wrong. Get over it or go back to WoW.

Seriously, you are really dumb. And a whiner.

Gavascon
Posted - 2011.03.05 21:02:00 - [123]
 

Originally by: De Guantanamo
Originally by: Gavascon
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.


This is eve.

If its not written down as letter of law, its not wrong. Get over it or go back to WoW.

Seriously, you are really dumb. And a whiner.



is this supposed to be an insult? if so, you'll have to do much better.

Kelnarn Shaelingrath
Caldari
River-Rats in space
The Ditanian Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.05 21:03:00 - [124]
 

Originally by: Centri Sixx
Originally by: JordanParey
Edited by: JordanParey on 05/03/2011 11:17:25
I don't have anything to contribute (snipped ignorance)


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.


Well, thank you.. I sat here considering telling Jordan that he should have simply typed "I don't have anything to contribute" and still left some doubt as to whether he even "got it" or not instead of making his utterly ignorant statement and proving without a doubt he doesn't have a clue...

I am happy to see that a few of the people posting here actually gets it...

and for those of you who don't understand those props^^^, someday maybe you will...

+1




Kelon Darklight
Posted - 2011.03.05 21:47:00 - [125]
 

We are not saying this is an exploit under current rules, HOWEVER it makes it diffcult for fleets to accept new public members because they could potetinally get 600 million (2-3 logis being standard for a vanguard) or up to 15 for the mothership fight, quite literally 2 billion+ popped. All we want is a pop up warning so our logis can save themselves and not lose logis for a tatic that is very, very diffcult to guard againist. We have resorted to kicking people from fleets if they pick up stuff when in fleet, and banning entire corps from joining our fleets from actions one memeber have taken. (though for said corps it is useally a planned op)

Example: One guy left his corp for 20 minutes, arggoed our logis via picking up a can drop, and rejoined his corp as soon as they got aggro. (this is true by the way, check employment history of Carcusian, that 20 minute gap is him aggroing logis)

XXSketchxx
Gallente
Remote Soviet Industries
Posted - 2011.03.05 22:17:00 - [126]
 

Originally by: Kelon Darklight
We are not saying this is an exploit under current rules,


you may not be but some of these idiots are

just read the op and some of gava's posts

Kelon Darklight
Posted - 2011.03.05 22:44:00 - [127]
 

Yes, and Tippia saying the logis have defenses is almost laughable..... they useally carry armour repair bots and not combat bots and they can possibly rep chain until DT, but otherwise there is nothing they can do. Espically because they are targeting our logis, they proably will be neut heavy so they can cap out a logi chain. Espically if this happens in a site, we can lose additional ships, not including the logis due to sudden stop of logistics going to said ship. All i want is a pop-up so they can make a choice wheter to rep or not. I am not going to argue if this is a valid game mechanic, but this is the first time large groups of random people in high sec in large numbers have made fleets like this. I am not suprised by a loophole that allowed this to be prefectly honest, but all we are asking is a fix so we dont have to take extreme measures like asking 20 questiosns and checking corp history and the corps inside like we were going to recuit them for a corp. Confused

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.03.05 23:02:00 - [128]
 

Originally by: Kelon Darklight
Yes, and Tippia saying the logis have defenses is almost laughable.
They have defences: each other. Depending on how the fleet is set up, they can also bring a few more on the fun, but that requires the gankers to make a couple of mistakes. The logis can also choose not run with unknowns…

Are these things 100% certain to save you? No, but nothing is (nor should it be). But even so, flat-out denying that they exist is just another demonstration of not being familiar with the mechanics and options available.
Quote:
All i want is a pop-up so they can make a choice wheter to rep or not.
…and that's fine.

The problem is when people argue for changes because they feel they lost due to glitches (because they aren't familiar with the mechanics) or when they propose solutions that make things worse (because they aren't familiar with the mechanics) or when they claim there is nothing they can do in the current state of affairs (because … mechanics, or because they don't consider all the options). That's all I'm saying.

Argue for that rather small change, but do it base on correct information, and if you (well, perhaps not you, Kelon, in particular) want to argue for some other, larger change, consider what side-effects it will have.

Kelon Darklight
Posted - 2011.03.05 23:12:00 - [129]
 

I did mention the rep chain (aka all the logis repping each other) but theres not a whole lot they can do againist people who are setup to take them out. In fact the people who useally do this are Suddenly Ninjas (kudos for figuring out the tatic, though obbviously a clone of the Concord trick) and they know the rules very well, so they arevery unlikely to make a mistake in who they are attacking. And yes, i agree if any changes should be made, it should be only a pop-up, and not a change in aggro rules. (My feeling on this is that changing the aggro rules at this date and time would be counter-productive and more than likely have new holes that would be needing pacthing for something that most of the time works fairly well)

And to be frank, this tatic has been in decline as the fleets get to know trustworthy pilots to join in their fleets, which makes it much harder for this to work as it becomes harder and harder for them to get alts in. (anyone who helps in logi killing is permantly blacklisted by our fcs, wheter they flipped the can or shot at them)

Markus Reese
Caldari
New Eden Weekly Sentinel
Posted - 2011.03.06 01:27:00 - [130]
 

One middle point of the argument of exploit/game mechanic is that I view it as an overlooked mechanic. I doubt it is something ccp want just in the fact so many other mechanics are counter to it. Also is not something one can simply adapt to.

If we want to go fluff, we can look at it this way. All ships are tied into concord which is what allows flagging, etc. Now it simply would be silly that concord would not have a simple warning saying that this pilot is flagged to others?

Lorael Simatari
Posted - 2011.03.06 01:50:00 - [131]
 

Guys tell me what one can do once an individual is suddenly locked, tackled and under fire as a result from these mechanics. This scenario is what's happening out there. all the fleet members can do is stand and watch, if they provide logi assistance the flagging spreads to that pilot also. in turn providing more targets for the aggressive fleet. Its smart use of the mechanics I know, almost technical suicide without knowing it. Fleet members under that situation can just warp out and maybe regroup. reducing losses and so forth, wait for the aggression timer to tick by and eventually leave the equation entirely. Even if people do know of the mechanics they still have no warning sign that they have effectively flagged themselves to an aggressive fleet. what people have tried to talk about in this pointless thread is communicate a method of prevention. Certain individuals have contributed nothing but pointed out ignorance of other posters, and as a result they believe these posters shouldn't have a voice here. I may be wrong in my description above but that is no reason to point out my ignorance and give no example of the correct relevant knowledge, if there is any that is. I see five pages to this thread and we are still on square one, congratulations griefers.


Mikkaras
Amarr
Wreckage Reclamation Enforcement Consortium
Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
Posted - 2011.03.06 02:25:00 - [132]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Kelon Darklight
Yes, and Tippia saying the logis have defenses is almost laughable.
They have defences: each other. Depending on how the fleet is set up, they can also bring a few more on the fun, but that requires the gankers to make a couple of mistakes.

How, exactly, are 2-5 logistics ships going to survive being attacked by a gank fleet, while Sansha's units continue to pound on them...?

And what "mistakes" would allow the fleet to defend their logi ships? I can't think of anything except having a logi ship that had other corpmates in the fleet that would allow even *some* fleet members to assist them, and only after *that particular* logistics ship was fired on.

Originally by: Tippia
Quote:
All i want is a pop-up so they can make a choice wheter to rep or not.
…and that's fine.


I'm glad to hear you say that. Until now it seemed like you were dancing around avoiding the point people were trying to make, focusing only on the terminology.

Originally by: Tippia
The problem is when people argue for changes because they feel they lost due to glitches (because they aren't familiar with the mechanics) or when they propose solutions that make things worse (because they aren't familiar with the mechanics) or when they claim there is nothing they can do in the current state of affairs (because … mechanics, or because they don't consider all the options). That's all I'm saying.

For what it's worth, I see your point, and I *partially* agree, but I prefer to look at it this way:
Glitch... Bug... Exploit... Problem. The common thread here is "this is bad and should not work this way". Try to understand the message behind the words, instead of not seeing the forest for the trees. Laughing

Perhaps some people don't understand the aggression mechanics - but claiming that everyone who wants this changed simply doesn't understand how it works, as you *seemed* to be claiming quite a number of times, doesn't help at all, and is more likely to raise tempers.

Mikkaras
Amarr
Wreckage Reclamation Enforcement Consortium
Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
Posted - 2011.03.06 02:51:00 - [133]
 

The primary concern is this:

You have no way of knowing if another person has an aggression flag.

This is a problem because you have no way of knowing whether repairing them is (A) safe or (B) may get you killed. 99% of the time it's A. But if the person calling for repairs happens to be someone with malign intentions, then it will instead get your ship blown up.

Again, in case B, you have no way of knowing in advance. Because you have no warning, you unintentionally commit aggression simply by doing your job properly. Thus, there is no defense against this "creative" griefing tactic.

As with the GCC concorded-logistics-chain griefing tactic (before that was changed), the targeted logistics ships cannot avoid falling into the trap - except by never joining a public fleet and never inviting anyone they don't already know and trust. For content where one of its goals is to get people from diverse sources working together in fleets, this is a significant problem.

Just because this isn't an exploit does not mean that it isn't a problem, or that it shouldn't be changed to provide warning when an action would cause an aggression flag. Other cases of actions that will get you flagged give you a warning and an option to abort the action. In this case it does not. Even "consistency" would be a sufficient argument for making it do so, and in this case the argument is even stronger, because the lack of consistency allows other people get you killed at will, with no risk of return fire from your unarmed ships.


I'd like to make an additional suggestion. One which would make no change to the game mechanics, and would only provide more information to players.

"Blinky-yellow."

Similar to "blinky-red", which signifies that the pilot has committed aggression against you or your corp and can be freely fired upon, "blinky-yellow" would show the other members of that individual's fleet that the pilot had committed aggression against *some other player or corporation*, and thus they cannot be assisted without inheriting the aggression flag. If you attempt to assist them, you then receive a warning popup such as has been already suggested, and if you click "yes", you inherit the aggression flag.

(The stupid useless annoying aggression flags against NPCs should not cause anyone to appear blinky-yellow. Only aggression against players and player corporations.)

Aeo IV
Amarr
Xomic OmniCorporation
Posted - 2011.03.06 04:27:00 - [134]
 

Originally by: Tippia

Bypasses normal game mechanics — no. So not an exploit.
Utilizing a bug in the game — no. So not an exploit.
Allowing [somone] to take advantage of other players without them having any means of preventing it whatsoever — no. So not an exploit.


The bypassed "normal game mechanic" in case is the lack of warning that the pilot they're about to assist is flagged. In other cases, such as if a pilot is war decced, the game does provide a warning.

While it's true that ignorance of these mechanics can lead people to be taken advantage of, having logistics watch loot history and broadcast history is impractical at best, since you can't drag the two history subtabs into two separate windows.

Further more, even though we are well aware of how the mechanics work, with regards to cans, and we make sure all members of the fleet know not to loot anything, not cans, not wrecks, etc, this does not provide a defence against griefers who have placed alts (or even alt-corporation mains) into our fleet and take cans to get aggression from the griefers who dropped the can, and call for RR.

Is it an exploit? No. Despite what my compatriots may think, it's not exactly an exploit by definition. It is, however, a game mechanic that could be better implemented (such as with a warning).


Centri Sixx
Posted - 2011.03.06 13:43:00 - [135]
 

Quote:
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.


But they do things to make it beyond corps. Creating a system-wide Incursion channel for one: if they were solely meant to be tackled only by corps, there's no need to pass intel along or coordinate. It's similar to FW in concept-both corp allied and solo players can band together in fleets.

This is limited to hi-sec, of course. No concord changes things. Still, hi-sec needs more social connections and more trans-corp interaction. EVE needed a pugging mechanic just so people can mix with others outside of their corp to do stuff: in hi-sec this works well.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.03.06 14:34:00 - [136]
 

Originally by: Aeo IV
The bypassed "normal game mechanic" in case is the lack of warning that the pilot they're about to assist is flagged. In other cases, such as if a pilot is war decced, the game does provide a warning.
No, the lack of a warning is the normal game mechanic. Yes, for consistency's sake, there should perhaps be one for this as well, but that doesn't mean that it's not normal behaviour in this case, nor that anything is being bypassed or that there is an exploit at work.
Quote:
Is it an exploit? No. Despite what my compatriots may think, it's not exactly an exploit by definition. It is, however, a game mechanic that could be better implemented (such as with a warning).
And I don't think anyone is arguing that — the argument is that people call it an exploit when it's just normal game behaviour.
Originally by: Centri Sixx
But they do things to make it beyond corps. Creating a system-wide Incursion channel for one: if they were solely meant to be tackled only by corps, there's no need to pass intel along or coordinate. It's similar to FW in concept-both corp allied and solo players can band together in fleets.
…as long as they've chosen to join the FW milita corps — a corp explicitly for this purpose (or make corp of their own and have that one join the FW).

And the incursion channel is no different than having an alliance channel among different corps: you are there for the same thing and need to coordinate, even if you're in different corps. Once you're in those fleets, the competition is on, so if you want to argue that it serves no purpose between corps, it also serves no purpose between PUGs for exactly the same reasons. Conversely, if it serves a purpose for the PUGs, it serves the exact same purpose for the corps involved.
Quote:
Still, hi-sec needs more social connections and more trans-corp interaction. EVE needed a pugging mechanic just so people can mix with others outside of their corp to do stuff
Why do they need to mix? I could understand the argument that PUGs are needed to make people band together, but why is one needed so that existing bands will be split apart? Confused

Gavascon
Posted - 2011.03.06 17:11:00 - [137]
 

from Tippia

Quote:
And the incursion channel is no different than having an alliance channel among different corps: you are there for the same thing and need to coordinate, even if you're in different corps. Once you're in those fleets, the competition is on, so if you want to argue that it serves no purpose between corps, it also serves no purpose between PUGs for exactly the same reasons. Conversely, if it serves a purpose for the PUGs, it serves the exact same purpose for the corps involved.


i just love the way you speak from both sides of your mouth.

the whole concept of incursion is for people to band together to fight a common enemy.
this means FLEETING WITH PEOPLE YOU DON'T KNOW.

FC's take the a chance that whoever is picked up from the incursion channel are HONEST.

since SOME ARE NOT HONEST then we go full circle to the problem at hand.

Finally you are beginning to see the light - between running long posts and pontificating your ungodly knowledge of the game.

1 of 2 things MUST BE CHANGED.

1) a pop up warning added to maintain consistency with other warning pop ups. this way logistic pilots CAN MAKE A CHOICE or BE MADE AWARE they are about to rep someone who has been criminally flagged for stealing.

2) ccp removes the handcuffs from FC's and allows ENTIRE FLEETS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES against greifer attackers - not just some members within the fleet.




XXSketchxx
Gallente
Remote Soviet Industries
Posted - 2011.03.06 17:19:00 - [138]
 

Originally by: Gavascon
from Tippia

Quote:
And the incursion channel is no different than having an alliance channel among different corps: you are there for the same thing and need to coordinate, even if you're in different corps. Once you're in those fleets, the competition is on, so if you want to argue that it serves no purpose between corps, it also serves no purpose between PUGs for exactly the same reasons. Conversely, if it serves a purpose for the PUGs, it serves the exact same purpose for the corps involved.


i just love the way you speak from both sides of your mouth.

the whole concept of incursion is for people to band together to fight a common enemy.
this means FLEETING WITH PEOPLE YOU DON'T KNOW.

FC's take the a chance that whoever is picked up from the incursion channel are HONEST.

since SOME ARE NOT HONEST then we go full circle to the problem at hand.

Finally you are beginning to see the light - between running long posts and pontificating your ungodly knowledge of the game.

1 of 2 things MUST BE CHANGED.

1) a pop up warning added to maintain consistency with other warning pop ups. this way logistic pilots CAN MAKE A CHOICE or BE MADE AWARE they are about to rep someone who has been criminally flagged for stealing.

2) ccp removes the handcuffs from FC's and allows ENTIRE FLEETS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES against greifer attackers - not just some members within the fleet.






good lord you are stupid

read the damn op

the op was saying people using the existing mechanic were exploiting logistic pilots...exploiting...using a glitch, a bug

Tippia has only argued this point...I don't even think she cares all that much about this issue, except to point out that there is no exploit at play...you and your idiot fellow incursion runners are just so focused that you refuse to see this

Yes, it would be nice if there was a pop up warning message or the fleet got aggro on the thief. However the current game mechanics are not such; there is no exploit here. People are only using game mechanics to their benefit and your loss.

The point is, op created this thread attempting to identify some glitch or exploit. There is none. Just some mechanics you whiners don't like.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.03.06 17:35:00 - [139]
 

Originally by: Gavascon
the whole concept of incursion is for people to band together to fight a common enemy. This means FLEETING WITH PEOPLE YOU DON'T KNOW.
No it doesn't.
Quote:
Finally you are beginning to see the light
"Finally"? You haven't actually read any of what I've written, have you? Crying or Very sad

Kelon Darklight
Posted - 2011.03.06 17:44:00 - [140]
 

This isnt so much a bug as a overlooked mechanic. Up til now, fleets this size in hi sec w/ people you dont know where extremely rare(no point in fleets this size, not even doing level 5s). Now not only has it become more common, everyone knows EXACTLY where to go to get into fleets. All we want is our logis not to die due to something that is extremely hard to prevent(not impossible, but hard), and I believe CCP will fix it... once they figure out how to code it in and that will take some time (I encourage ccp to fix it properly and not mess up the pacth). AS stated before, its a low risk tatic to griefers, that can kill alot of ships and we like our logis a chance to say no to dru- i mean repping thiefs.

Gavascon
Posted - 2011.03.06 18:15:00 - [141]
 

Edited by: Gavascon on 06/03/2011 21:44:57
Edited by: Gavascon on 06/03/2011 21:34:05
Quote:
the op was saying people using the existing mechanic were exploiting logistic pilots...exploiting...using a glitch, a bug



i am very well aware of the OP posting and his claims.

despite the use (or misuse) of terms (which everyone seems to want to pick apart to no end) his overall concept remains the same. so much so, that the vast majority of people who have posted agree with him.

i have NOT lost 1 basi during an incursion from grabbing an aggro timer because someone looted or stole. i think the last time i lost a basi during PvP was in null sec almost 1 year ago.

as for stealing i've clearly stated be my guest. take what you want from the wrecks but don't put me in a bad situation without my knowledge or consent.
today, in fact, we came across a dramiel wreck in a vanguard site. it dropped 1x gist ab and 1x gist shield booster. there was some discussion about how to get them out without endangering the logistics or anyone else in the fleet and who might be willing to take the aggro timer and drop fleet for 15 minutes.

i have not whined about anything - i have consistently said a pop up needs to be added with a "yes/no" response. i have consistently stated that selecting "yes" means you get what comes to you.

i have saluted those that came up with the tactics employed and have stated how clever it was and clearly stated how i saw the beauty in it. but that doesn't mean i have to agree.

maybe you should return to my prior postings and READ

TharOkha
Posted - 2011.03.07 15:02:00 - [142]
 

Edited by: TharOkha on 07/03/2011 15:04:13
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Gavascon
the whole concept of incursion is for people to band together to fight a common enemy. This means FLEETING WITH PEOPLE YOU DON'T KNOW.
No it doesn't.

Yes it does Rolling Eyes

XXSketchxx
Gallente
Remote Soviet Industries
Posted - 2011.03.07 15:08:00 - [143]
 

Originally by: TharOkha
Edited by: TharOkha on 07/03/2011 15:04:13
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Gavascon
the whole concept of incursion is for people to band together to fight a common enemy. This means FLEETING WITH PEOPLE YOU DON'T KNOW.
No it doesn't.

Yes it does Rolling Eyes


No it doesn't.

Whats to stop you from forming a corporation of like minded individuals to run these sites? Or even to band with friends you have outside of your corp.

Yes I am aware that CCP stated that Incursions are designed to encourage random people to band together, but lets be honest, the most effective fleets will be the ones that have worked together before, have team cohesion and a good leader.

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.03.07 15:18:00 - [144]
 

Originally by: XXSketchxx
Originally by: TharOkha
Edited by: TharOkha on 07/03/2011 15:04:13
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Gavascon
the whole concept of incursion is for people to band together to fight a common enemy. This means FLEETING WITH PEOPLE YOU DON'T KNOW.
No it doesn't.

Yes it does Rolling Eyes


No it doesn't.

Whats to stop you from forming a corporation of like minded individuals to run these sites? Or even to band with friends you have outside of your corp.

Yes I am aware that CCP stated that Incursions are designed to encourage random people to band together, but lets be honest, the most effective fleets will be the ones that have worked together before, have team cohesion and a good leader.


And let's also be honest - trust in Eve is a precious commodity. If you give it away at random, it will be abused and you will get ganked.

XXSketchxx
Gallente
Remote Soviet Industries
Posted - 2011.03.07 15:42:00 - [145]
 

Originally by: De'Veldrin


And let's also be honest - trust in Eve is a precious commodity. If you give it away at random, it will be abused and you will get ganked.


Something most of these guys are apparently learning the hard way.

Gavjack Bunk
Gallente
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.03.07 16:46:00 - [146]
 

Originally by: XXSketchxx
Originally by: De'Veldrin


And let's also be honest - trust in Eve is a precious commodity. If you give it away at random, it will be abused and you will get ganked.


Something most of these guys are apparently failing to learn the hard way.


I'm in your post, fixing your mistrakes.

Gavascon
Posted - 2011.03.07 16:57:00 - [147]
 

Quote:
No it doesn't.

Whats to stop you from forming a corporation of like minded individuals to run these sites? Or even to band with friends you have outside of your corp.

Yes I am aware that CCP stated that Incursions are designed to encourage random people to band together, but lets be honest, the most effective fleets will be the ones that have worked together before, have team cohesion and a good leader


this is a GREAT posting!

1) there are a few corps which have been created for the purpose of doing incursions.
2) yes - the most effective fleets are the ones which have worked together.

however - as with many corps (or groups who have banded together to do incursions) there may NOT be enough people available to fulfill some of the sites' fleet number requirements. in which case, a source is needed to fill in the gaps.

to fill in the gaps - the incursion channel is used to find people.
so a double-edged sword is created. a) if someone is taken from the incursion channel a chance is taken by the FC. 2) trust is implied - until proven otherwise (like he steals/loots).

for whatever this is worth - in order to meet new people one must take a chance. sometimes you get lucky and find a great pilot. other times you get unlucky and find a rotten apple. but one never knows what you get until the first step is taken.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.03.07 17:48:00 - [148]
 

Originally by: Gavascon
however - as with many corps (or groups who have banded together to do incursions) there may NOT be enough people available to fulfill some of the sites' fleet number requirements. in which case, a source is needed to fill in the gaps.
Yes, but that doesn't mean you have to run them with people you don't know. If your numbers as a single corp are too low, combine fleets with another corp that you know, and if they do something stupid in spite of previous experiences, wardec the bastards. The incursion channel retains its role: to ask for help — you just reject corps you are not familiar with.

The incursion channel is also an excellent tool to avoid exactly these problems: communicate with other corps/fleets about which pilots have proven themselves untrustworthy. Set up proper standings lists and make use of them. It's an arena for information exchange so use it to exchange information.

Even within a single fleet, you can create subdivisions that does not cause these problems: each wing provides its own logistics, and the fleet is just an organisational tool.
Quote:
for whatever this is worth - in order to meet new people one must take a chance.
Fair enough, but those chances are quite easy to take without inviting disaster. Give untried talents roles that give them little to no chance to screw you over.

Gavascon
Posted - 2011.03.07 18:03:00 - [149]
 

Quote:
Quote:
for whatever this is worth - in order to meet new people one must take a chance.
Fair enough, but those chances are quite easy to take without inviting disaster. Give untried talents roles that give them little to no chance to screw you over.


give untried talents roles that give them little or no chance to screw you over?

come on man - think.

whatever role is provided doesn't assure a thing.

1) give them a damage dealing role - they can steal/loot. then logi's grab aggro. back to square one

2) give them logistics role - they can steal/loot. now only the logi's grab aggro. back to square one.

we actually had a "newcomer" join us in a basi. even when told NOT to steal they took 3 different types of t2 drones and 1x arbi cruise launcher from a wreck inside the site (was there when we arrived). we all docked for 15 minutes. booted the new basi pilot and he vanished.

one can only hope that someone doesn't loot/steal. but reality says there's no way to control someone else's actions. even when told.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.03.07 18:19:00 - [150]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 07/03/2011 18:24:51
Originally by: Gavascon
give untried talents roles that give them little or no chance to screw you over?
come on man - think.
whatever role is provided doesn't assure a thing.
1) give them a damage dealing role - they can steal/loot. then logi's grab aggro. back to square one
…in other words, don't give them a role that requires them to be supported by logis.
Quote:
2) give them logistics role - they can steal/loot. now only the logi's grab aggro. back to square one.
…in other words, don't use them in fleets where the logis can't support themselves.

Or, put another way: start small.

edit: The issue here doesn't seem to be PUGs, but rather impatience. Now, I'll grant you that this may indeed come with the territory: if you want to get the rewards, you have to get them now, before someone else nicks them — not in a week when you've vetted your new talents. But again, start small — they might not be able to help today, but get someone on it and test them in smaller sites, and in a week, you'll have more people at your disposal…


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