open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Disable ship swaps at hangar while under aggro
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6

Author Topic

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2011.07.10 19:42:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: Toovhon

Keep failing to admit you got yourself killed through your own stupidity. You had several chances to avoid your destruction, and then to avoid being mocked here. But you didn't take a single one of them. As I said - this thread is hilarious :-D


Awww look, another lame attempt at attacking the messenger and not the message. Thanks for the bump.


Toovhon
Posted - 2011.07.10 20:30:00 - [62]
 

Originally by: Adunh Slavy
Originally by: Toovhon

Keep failing to admit you got yourself killed through your own stupidity. You had several chances to avoid your destruction, and then to avoid being mocked here. But you didn't take a single one of them. As I said - this thread is hilarious :-D


Awww look, another lame attempt at attacking the messenger and not the message. Thanks for the bump.




Your message is that you should be protected from being stupid. No thanks. Your stupidity is too funny :-)

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.07.10 21:13:00 - [63]
 

Edited by: Kaelie Onren on 10/07/2011 21:17:20

Originally by: Adunh Slavy
Originally by: Kaelie Onren

<The "I am not doing what I am doing." essay>



LOL. You can play the innocent little lamb game someplace else. If it bugs you that I don't take crap on forums and throw it right back, then feel free to ignore me. Other wise deal with it.

Since you've nothing to add to the topic, you can now be cited as a hypocrite.

Thanks for playing.


Actually, I'm quite satisfied at having you prove my point exactly! :)
(which was, incidentally if you missed it, if you didn't come across so angry and looking to 'punch' back at any response you may have gotten more supports to this thread.)

j1tabug IWINIWINIWIN
Posted - 2011.07.11 12:42:00 - [64]
 

My darling you still appear to be mad at your own inability's.

Have you found the help i told you about yet or would you like us to come to you it would only cost us a few mill a week to teach your entire corp how to play eve.

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2011.07.11 16:20:00 - [65]
 


The issue is the break in the design philosophy of committing to a fight that a ship hangar on an orca provides. The proposal is that when a player is red boxed, they can not swap to another ship directly from the hangar. They could eject, and leave the ship in space and deal with the 30 second session timer.

The detractors of the thread continue to wish to make the thread about me and not about the issue. When starting the thread, I knew what sort of crap would be headed my way, and that is exactly what has occurred. The detractors act as if this behavior of theirs is unexpected.

It is a common pattern on these forums. Someone recognizes something in the game is a bit off, they give their feelings about it on the forums, and those that make use of the imbalance attack the messenger with noises like "carebear", "crymore" and various other sorts of insults. Their goal is to maintain the imbalance, to silence the messenger. Those who have been around for a while have seen this pattern repeated time and time again, from NOS ECM Domi, to pre nano-nerf right on up through the old doomsday device.

An imbalance exists in the design, the detractors want to keep it - that is the meaning of their words, nothing more or less.

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2011.07.11 16:56:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: Kaelie Onren

Actually, I'm quite satisfied at having you prove my point exactly! :)
(which was, incidentally if you missed it, if you didn't come across so angry and looking to 'punch' back at any response you may have gotten more supports to this thread.)


If you predict the sun will rise tomorrow, will you also expect to get paid?

Often people don't outwardly support threads like these because they don't want to be called names by the self appointed pillars of what is and isn't "Eve". That is why those self appointed aholes behave as they do, to silence the message and scare off support. It wouldn't matter of I replied in kind or not.

My initial post in this thread, the P.S. shows I was and remain quite aware of how this would go. I for one find it fun to cuss back at them and watch them get all worked up and make their empty threats, even got evemail of veiled threats from them. It's all rather amusing.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2011.07.11 16:59:00 - [67]
 

^^ And there's an equally predictable pattern of people getting blown up, thru their own gross stupidity, who then immediately post to have the other guy's tactic nerfed, instead of spending a few moments in self-reflection on what they did wrong.

And you, manfriend, did plenty wrong: you blindly engaged a can-flipper, not using your brain, thinking it might have been a bait. You suddenly saw an Orca warp in -- you didn't warp out. You saw the guy change ships -- you didn't warp out. You died. Those are the facts. You had ample time to get to safety; yet, for some bizarre reason, you chose to hang around. And then you died (but we already covered that).

And then you go post on the forum, saying you want the other guy nerfed. I don't think so.

And no, for the umptiest time, he didn't evade any consequences. He enaged you in combat: remember the part where you died at his hands? Now, if you could actually dock up inside an Orca, you might have had a point; but you can't: he was still forced to face you in battle; and he did. And you died. Live with that.

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2011.07.11 17:46:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: Ranka Mei

<it's the messenger's fault essay>



Oh so original, again attacking the messenger. Thanks for contributing to the typical fallacy. Again, read the first post, altering the subject doesn't not absolve you of your stupidity - the mechanic allows people to escape consequences regardless of this particular instance.

Oh, and so you don't feel left out, "**** off".

Have a nice day.

Skex Relbore
Gallente
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
Posted - 2011.07.11 18:13:00 - [69]
 

Let me see if I get this right...

You are mad that after you shipped up to kill his vigil he then shipped up to kill your crow?

This is so typical. The ones who cry the most always seem to be the ones who are mad someone managed to turn the tables on them after they thought they were the ones who turned said table.


This is not a gentlemen's dueling society here. This is simulated warfare including piracy and terrorism. Expecting others to follow your E-Bushido is going to send you down a path of misery and rage, You should go ahead and go back to WOW now and save yourself some grief.

But you won't which is great because you'll provide the rest of us with more entertainment.

Rented
Posted - 2011.07.11 19:18:00 - [70]
 

Edited by: Rented on 11/07/2011 20:04:44
Orcas used in this manner are no different from zero risk logistics, at least with logistics they get flagged to you. You can make all the 'EVE isn't fair, look at nullsec, wowz there are fleets in this game' comparisons you like, but in every other instance of direct combat assistance in this game, you atleast have the option of shooting the help. That and obviously this isn't a problem in nullsec so the abundance of nullsec comparisons don't particularly apply, hurr durr.

I find people defending the use of orcas in this way under the guise of keeping EVE hardcore to be the height of irony. You would seriously propose that preserving what amounts to no-risk logistics available anywhere in highsec even remotely resembles anything but extreme risk-aversion, or to be even remotely similar to the hardcore nature of EVE? Pathetic.

That granted, this OP seems kinda emo so I suppose I can't blame the trolling.

Originally by: Ranka Mei
Now, if you could actually dock up inside an Orca, you might have had a point; but you can't: he was still forced to face you in battle; and he did. And you died. Live with that.


Yes you can, and you don't even have to wait 60 seconds either, or do you seriously see a difference between docking to escape destruction and switching to a shuttle that will most likely get away(not that you'd care if you lost it anyways). Orcas are even better than being within docking range of a station, you can change ships several times mid-fight(you can fit 4 Lokis in there you know), you can 100% escape the fight mid-fight(swap to shuttle and leave), and the 60 second aggression countdown doesn't apply to orcas nor will they get flagged like every other form of logistics.

You're free to do whatever you want with an orca by your side, the only limit is the 30 second session change timer which is pretty trivial, unless you're a complete idiot but that applies literally everywhere. Immune to losing your ship? No problem, swap out of the fight at any time. You want instant full-hp-restore logistics? No problem, you can fit 4 Lokis in here easy. You want your logistics to be protected by concord? No problem, it is.



YES- I've had this tactic used against me.
NO- I didn't lose anything, I won the fight, they ran.
YES- They should've lost their orca for losing the fight so badly, unfortunately due to a certain risk-averse mechanic I was unable to destroy their orca as I would've done if it were flagged just like every other direct combat assistance mechanic in the game.

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2011.07.11 20:42:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: Rented
That granted, this OP seems kinda emo so I suppose I can't blame the trolling.



LOL, it's not emo, it called drawing in the flies.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2011.07.11 20:52:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: Rented
I find people defending the use of orcas in this way under the guise of keeping EVE hardcore to be the height of irony. You would seriously propose that preserving what amounts to no-risk logistics available anywhere in highsec even remotely resembles anything but extreme risk-aversion, or to be even remotely similar to the hardcore nature of EVE? Pathetic.

Everyone knows better than to blindly engage a can-flipper. And why? Because there is NO WAY of telling what is coming to you. You can have 10 of his corp buddies hotdrop on your arse to 0 in an instant. And that, indeed, is part of what EVE is. Your argument that you can at least shoot the help is moot: you think his Crow would have survived an onslaught like that?

And my main point was not that EVE is hardcore, really; rather I pointed out the 'softcore' nature of his predicament to him: he had ample opportunities and time to warp out; he didn't. Soon thereafter he died.

Quote:
You're free to do whatever you want with an orca by your side, the only limit is the 30 second session change timer which is pretty trivial, unless you're a complete idiot but that applies literally everywhere. Immune to losing your ship? No problem, swap out of the fight at any time. You want instant full-hp-restore logistics? No problem, you can fit 4 Lokis in here easy. You want your logistics to be protected by concord? No problem, it is.

Orca itself is not providing aggression-logistics (even though it feels like it) ; not directly, at least. Thus, Orca itself should never be flagged. I can see a certain logic in not being able to use Orca maintenance bay while under player aggro. But I'd like to stress that I am, at heart, against this risk-aversion proposal: calling in help troops, whether they be corp buddies, or forces being cyno-ed in (obviously not applicable to highsec), or alts coming to lend assistance in an Orca, these are all things that can happen to you when you engage someone you 'think' is alone. If you don't want to take the chance, then don't.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.07.11 21:04:00 - [73]
 

Easy. Just like RR transfers aggro, using a ship fitting/hangar should also transfer aggro (to the orca in this case). I don't have a problem with people using alts. Alts shouldn't be able to participate in a conflict, consequence free though.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2011.07.11 21:14:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: Bagehi
Easy. Just like RR transfers aggro, using a ship fitting/hangar should also transfer aggro (to the orca in this case). I don't have a problem with people using alts. Alts shouldn't be able to participate in a conflict, consequence free though.

Are you seriously suggesting to extend aggro to ships that not themselves take place in ANY aggressive action? Doesn't compute. And could be abused as well (to get someone's Orca blown up: either on purpose or by accident).

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.07.11 21:24:00 - [75]
 

Edited by: Bagehi on 11/07/2011 21:26:02
Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: Bagehi
Easy. Just like RR transfers aggro, using a ship fitting/hangar should also transfer aggro (to the orca in this case). I don't have a problem with people using alts. Alts shouldn't be able to participate in a conflict, consequence free though.

Are you seriously suggesting to extend aggro to ships that not themselves take place in ANY aggressive action? Doesn't compute. And could be abused as well (to get someone's Orca blown up: either on purpose or by accident).

Interfering in a fight by providing a different ship or fitting is most definitely an aggressive action. If someone handed a fighter a gun in a knife fight, I don't think anyone would have a problem accepting that as an aggressive action. You don't accidentally join a fleet, accidentally turn on "allow access" then accidentally situate your ship where a fight is going on. The "not aggression!" is the exact same argument that had been used against transferring aggro to an RR ship. Give me a situation where this could be abused where the ship hangar pilot isn't either complicit or completely stupid to the point of deserving to get blown up and I'll accept your point.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2011.07.11 21:40:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Bagehi

Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: Bagehi
Easy. Just like RR transfers aggro, using a ship fitting/hangar should also transfer aggro (to the orca in this case). I don't have a problem with people using alts. Alts shouldn't be able to participate in a conflict, consequence free though.

Are you seriously suggesting to extend aggro to ships that not themselves take place in ANY aggressive action? Doesn't compute. And could be abused as well (to get someone's Orca blown up: either on purpose or by accident).

Interfering in a fight by providing a different ship or fitting is most definitely an aggressive action. If someone handed a fighter a gun in a knife fight, I don't think anyone would have a problem accepting that as an aggressive action. You don't accidentally join a fleet, accidentally turn on "allow access" then accidentally situate your ship where a fight is going on. The "not aggression!" is the exact same argument that had been used against transferring aggro to an RR ship. Give me a situation where this could be abused where the ship hangar pilot isn't either complicit or completely stupid to the point of deserving to get blown up and I'll accept your point.


RR-ing a ship that's engaged in aggression obviously, and rightfully so, transfers aggro to the person's ship doing the RR. This, however, is a completely different sutuation: the Orca is not itself in any way, shape or form, lending support to a ship engaged in aggression. All it really does is make its ship maintenance bay available to fleet members: that's all. What that fleet members do with their ship is no longer the Orca pilot's concern.

To debunk your gun/knife example, yes, what indeed if someone was in a knife-fight, ran into a nearby gun store and came out guns blazing, would you now transfer legal 'aggro' to the store owner?

This thread is getting crazier by the minute. :)

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2011.07.11 22:08:00 - [77]
 

Originally by: Ranka Mei

RR-ing a ship that's engaged in aggression obviously, and rightfully so, transfers aggro to the person's ship doing the RR. This, however, is a completely different sutuation: the Orca is not itself in any way, shape or form, lending support to a ship engaged in aggression. All it really does is make its ship maintenance bay available to fleet members: that's all. What that fleet members do with their ship is no longer the Orca pilot's concern.



But it is giving support, a safe hiding place for that ship. Docking and jumping gates also give that support, but at the cost of a session change and in some cases the 30 second aggression timer. No such costs are imposed upon the pilot doing the ship swap in this instance or in the hypothetical case of a pilot docking the ship and sitting there in a pod - ship now perfectly safe and protected by Concord while in the Orca's hangar.

Originally by: Ranka Mei

To debunk your gun/knife example, yes, what indeed if someone was in a knife-fight, ran into a nearby gun store and came out guns blazing, would you now transfer legal 'aggro' to the store owner?

This thread is getting crazier by the minute. :)


No analogy is perfect, to stretch one is fallacious. Of course in your stretch, you forget to mention if the gun store owner willing participated. How convenient.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2011.07.11 22:25:00 - [78]
 

Originally by: Adunh Slavy

But it is giving support, a safe hiding place for that ship. Docking and jumping gates also give that support, but at the cost of a session change and in some cases the 30 second aggression timer. No such costs are imposed upon the pilot doing the ship swap in this instance or in the hypothetical case of a pilot docking the ship and sitting there in a pod - ship now perfectly safe and protected by Concord while in the Orca's hangar.

You know, crazy as it sounds, I think I'm going to support your proposal. :) LOL.

No, seriously. Extending aggro to the Orca in the case where one of the ships it had in its maintenance bay commits an aggressive act, I think that's going too far. But I can see how it's reasonable one should not be allowed to dock up in one while under player aggro.

Rented
Posted - 2011.07.11 22:45:00 - [79]
 

Edited by: Rented on 11/07/2011 22:49:32
Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: Adunh Slavy

But it is giving support, a safe hiding place for that ship. Docking and jumping gates also give that support, but at the cost of a session change and in some cases the 30 second aggression timer. No such costs are imposed upon the pilot doing the ship swap in this instance or in the hypothetical case of a pilot docking the ship and sitting there in a pod - ship now perfectly safe and protected by Concord while in the Orca's hangar.

You know, crazy as it sounds, I think I'm going to support your proposal. :) LOL.

No, seriously. Extending aggro to the Orca in the case where one of the ships it had in its maintenance bay commits an aggressive act, I think that's going too far. But I can see how it's reasonable one should not be allowed to dock up in one while under player aggro.


O_o that was a suprise turnaround.

Personally I just find it rather ridiculous how orcas have become mobile personal stations that completely ignore aggression mechanics making them usable in-combat.



PS- Adunh, The aggression timer is 60 seconds.

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2011.07.11 22:49:00 - [80]
 

Originally by: Ranka Mei

You know, crazy as it sounds, I think I'm going to support your proposal. :) LOL.



Thanks.

Originally by: Ranka Mei

No, seriously. Extending aggro to the Orca in the case where one of the ships it had in its maintenance bay commits an aggressive act, I think that's going too far. But I can see how it's reasonable one should not be allowed to dock up in one while under player aggro.


The extension of aggro does sound a bit too far, and also could lead to some griefs and exploits that may not be desirable, I can imagine a few.

Toovhon
Posted - 2011.07.12 01:16:00 - [81]
 

Originally by: Adunh Slavy
I dimiss every uncomfortable truth that I'm the one who ****ed up. I refuse to deal with my situation. Instead I choose to whinge like a little *****.


Yes, yes. You're right, everyone else is wrong. The other player should have stayed in his weaker ship and let you shoot him, instead of closing the astoundingly obvious trap on your stupid arse :-D

Toovhon
Posted - 2011.07.12 01:21:00 - [82]
 

Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: Adunh Slavy

But it is giving support, a safe hiding place for that ship. Docking and jumping gates also give that support, but at the cost of a session change and in some cases the 30 second aggression timer. No such costs are imposed upon the pilot doing the ship swap in this instance or in the hypothetical case of a pilot docking the ship and sitting there in a pod - ship now perfectly safe and protected by Concord while in the Orca's hangar.

You know, crazy as it sounds, I think I'm going to support your proposal. :) LOL.

No, seriously. Extending aggro to the Orca in the case where one of the ships it had in its maintenance bay commits an aggressive act, I think that's going too far. But I can see how it's reasonable one should not be allowed to dock up in one while under player aggro.


I don't recall NPC stations gaining aggro when people dock there. You can SEE the Orca just as easily. You know what the possibilities are. If you don't like them, GTFO.

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2011.07.12 02:02:00 - [83]
 

Originally by: Toovhon

Yes, yes. You're right, everyone else is wrong. The other player should have stayed in his weaker ship and let you shoot him, instead of closing the astoundingly obvious trap on your stupid arse :-D


*yawn* you need some new material. At least someone previous was willing to try the go back to wow line. You just keep repeating the same stupid crap. I suppose that's easier than facing up to the imbalance that exists.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2011.07.12 02:17:00 - [84]
 

Originally by: Toovhon
Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: Adunh Slavy

But it is giving support, a safe hiding place for that ship. Docking and jumping gates also give that support, but at the cost of a session change and in some cases the 30 second aggression timer. No such costs are imposed upon the pilot doing the ship swap in this instance or in the hypothetical case of a pilot docking the ship and sitting there in a pod - ship now perfectly safe and protected by Concord while in the Orca's hangar.

You know, crazy as it sounds, I think I'm going to support your proposal. :) LOL.

No, seriously. Extending aggro to the Orca in the case where one of the ships it had in its maintenance bay commits an aggressive act, I think that's going too far. But I can see how it's reasonable one should not be allowed to dock up in one while under player aggro.

I don't recall NPC stations gaining aggro when people dock there. You can SEE the Orca just as easily. You know what the possibilities are. If you don't like them, GTFO.

And that is why NPC stations don't draw aggro when people dock there. :) But you cannot escape therein to avoid the consequences of your aggression, either (at least not immediately). So, under aggro rule, one shouldn't be able to find refuge in an Orca for the duration, either.

I agree the OP had plenty of time to get away. But, ultimately, I realized that his decision to stay had nothing to do with the issue he brought up. If you can't dock inside a station, you shouldn't be allowed to dock inside an Orca, either. That logic is hard to subvert.

Besides, an Orca is like a locally spawn super-station, in that you you can just 'hug' it and play docking games with it, even when you're webbed and scrambled to death... or, not to death, is the point, rather. :)

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2011.07.12 02:24:00 - [85]
 

Originally by: Adunh Slavy

the design philosophy of committing to a fight


Uhh, what philosophy again?

Whoever told you that is an idiot, this game revolves around NOT committing to the fight while making your idiot victim commit to it.

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2011.07.12 02:34:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: Toovhon

I don't recall NPC stations gaining aggro when people dock there. You can SEE the Orca just as easily. You know what the possibilities are. If you don't like them, GTFO.



An NPC station or a gate is a passive entity, they are not player controlled, they make no choices. An orca pilot does make choices, as does the player who chooses to use this tactic. The tactic creates an imbalance that allows someone to escape the consequences of their actions.

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2011.07.12 02:55:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: Adunh Slavy

the design philosophy of committing to a fight


Uhh, what philosophy again?

Whoever told you that is an idiot, this game revolves around NOT committing to the fight while making your idiot victim commit to it.


Yeah, ya think so huh? Tell it to the devs then.

http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=427

Here I'll help,

"Another reason has to do with game mechanic and can be summed up to pretty much the same argument as when warp core stabilizers where balanced. When going into a fight we want people to commit to a fight. That means when you go into a fight you are risking your ship or ships, not just warping in on anything and if you can't handle it you just warp off."

So so stabs should be changed back to the old way, nano-nerf should be undone too I take it? I'm sure CCP devs appreciate you calling them idiots.

That thing in your mouth? It's called a foot.

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2011.07.12 03:48:00 - [88]
 

Edited by: Omara Otawan on 12/07/2011 03:49:38
Originally by: Adunh Slavy

"Another reason has to do with game mechanic and can be summed up to pretty much the same argument as when warp core stabilizers where balanced. When going into a fight we want people to commit to a fight. That means when you go into a fight you are risking your ship or ships, not just warping in on anything and if you can't handle it you just warp off."


Do you even understand what he is saying? Since you obviously dont, I'd like to encourage you to review what the nano-nerf was actually about. It would probably help to read all the assorted dev blogs on that topic too.

Hint: It was not about removing kite tactics from the game. It was about removing the ability to deal damage while at the same time completely avoiding incoming damage. The ability to 'just warp off' if you cant take something did remain completely untouched FYI.

Yes, thats a foot. Its so deep in your mouth its almost in your stomach. Rolling Eyes


Edit: And no, as someone who uses mainly nanoships, I'd very much like to keep that buff, erm, I mean 'nerf'. Laughing

Toovhon
Posted - 2011.07.12 04:57:00 - [89]
 

Originally by: Adunh Slavy
Originally by: Toovhon

I don't recall NPC stations gaining aggro when people dock there. You can SEE the Orca just as easily. You know what the possibilities are. If you don't like them, GTFO.



An NPC station or a gate is a passive entity, they are not player controlled, they make no choices. An orca pilot does make choices, as does the player who chooses to use this tactic. The tactic creates an imbalance that allows someone to escape the consequences of their actions.


Well I wouldn't want to be the Orca pilot who gets screwed over by his corpmate in that situation.

Toovhon
Posted - 2011.07.12 04:59:00 - [90]
 

Originally by: Adunh Slavy
Originally by: Toovhon

Yes, yes. You're right, everyone else is wrong. The other player should have stayed in his weaker ship and let you shoot him, instead of closing the astoundingly obvious trap on your stupid arse :-D


*yawn* you need some new material. At least someone previous was willing to try the go back to wow line. You just keep repeating the same stupid crap. I suppose that's easier than facing up to the imbalance that exists.


Continue to gloss over that you screwed up and it's your fault you died. Whatever you do, never deal with reality.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6

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