These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New Griefing: MTU Thieves
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#41 - 2014-01-03 17:40:09 UTC
Cookie wrote:
The thing i don't really get is, why can people destroy other peoples stuff without war declaration ?
When i shoot drones of other people, will i get concorded ?
When i shoot other peoples hi-sec pos without wardec, what will concord do ?
What happens when an anchored can is shot at ?

(i had a loooong break, so forgive my lack of knowledge on that mechanics)


The mechanic was intended.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Cookie
Snakeoil Industries Ltd.
#42 - 2014-01-03 18:10:20 UTC
I'm just trying to find a clear line within the mechanics of aggression/flagging since i missed the last few years of changes.
I don't mind someone wasting his time when i'm doing a mission to try and get aggro from me, it's just confusing me which stuff belonging to other people i can shoot, and which i can't.
If my thirst for knowledge is totally misplaced here, point me into the right direction pls.
Etro Vaille
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2014-01-03 19:09:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Etro Vaille
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Shaotuk wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
This thread is amazing. Mission runners freely admiting that adapting to new circumstances is too hard.


Ahem... Slowcats...


I guess you haven't heard about Omegafleet or Waterboarding yet.


God I love the Waterboarding concept...definitely more torture than griefing...lol
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#44 - 2014-01-03 20:31:21 UTC
Cookie wrote:
I'm just trying to find a clear line within the mechanics of aggression/flagging since i missed the last few years of changes.
I don't mind someone wasting his time when i'm doing a mission to try and get aggro from me, it's just confusing me which stuff belonging to other people i can shoot, and which i can't.
If my thirst for knowledge is totally misplaced here, point me into the right direction pls.


Patch notes & dev blogs are your friend.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Cookie
Snakeoil Industries Ltd.
#45 - 2014-01-03 20:56:15 UTC
afk, reading 4 years of patchnotes Ugh
Nerf Burger
Doomheim
#46 - 2014-01-03 21:51:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Nerf Burger
It is clearly an exploit. Tricking the drone AI into attacking a player.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0x8a3qiX6I

its funny watching all the grief monkeys do all that heavy mental gymnastics trying to say this is somehow fair gameplay.
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#47 - 2014-01-03 22:22:51 UTC
Nerf Burger wrote:
It is clearly an exploit. Tricking the drone AI into attacking a player.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0x8a3qiX6I


Clearly. I'm sure CCP is collecting data as we speak for this atrocity! Think of the innocent lives lost on these ships. These criminals must be punished!
Nerf Burger
Doomheim
#48 - 2014-01-03 22:33:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Nerf Burger
IIshira wrote:
Nerf Burger wrote:
It is clearly an exploit. Tricking the drone AI into attacking a player.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0x8a3qiX6I


Clearly. I'm sure CCP is collecting data as we speak for this atrocity! Think of the innocent lives lost on these ships. These criminals must be punished!



These things only become a problem for CCP once more people start doing it. Look how long it took them to fix miner ganking and can flipping. Besides, why should these "pirates", who are probable sociopaths, be so easily rewarded? I want to play a game where douche bag activity has realistic and fair consequences.
Nerf Burger
Doomheim
#49 - 2014-01-03 22:42:37 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Current thread in...actually it was moved TO issues/workarounds subforum as well as anecdotal reimbursements suggest all is not working as CCP intended.

The behaviour of the drones in this particular case is inconsistent i.e. that they now engage on a (certain) suspect level action - that's new. Likely a side effect of something that would 'usually' draw a criminal action - just these mobile units are exempt from that 'criminal' rule.

"Safety" switches have nothing to do with this, the drone owners aren't going yellow. It's a third party baiting drone AI to engage without criminal action, thus precipitating a limited engagement - hitherto this was something completely beyond the realms of possibility (at least in more recent times, I'm sure some recall drone stupidity quickly patched but my point remains).

Something that major I would expect in dev blogs, which is why it feels unintended to me - the other thread simply adds weight to that belief.

I may be wrong, just...intuition/past experience of major game changers like this at play here


Nailed it. It is clearly an exploit, and the fact that this was being promoted as a "new and exciting gameplay feature" by certain CSMs who only care about things that effect them proves the worthlessness of their election.
Paranoid Loyd
#50 - 2014-01-03 22:54:41 UTC
Nerf Burger wrote:
I want to play a game where douche bag activity has realistic and fair consequences.


Then go play something else FFS, we are sick of your incessant whining.

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#51 - 2014-01-04 01:03:13 UTC
Nerf Burger wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Current thread in...actually it was moved TO issues/workarounds subforum as well as anecdotal reimbursements suggest all is not working as CCP intended.

The behaviour of the drones in this particular case is inconsistent i.e. that they now engage on a (certain) suspect level action - that's new. Likely a side effect of something that would 'usually' draw a criminal action - just these mobile units are exempt from that 'criminal' rule.

"Safety" switches have nothing to do with this, the drone owners aren't going yellow. It's a third party baiting drone AI to engage without criminal action, thus precipitating a limited engagement - hitherto this was something completely beyond the realms of possibility (at least in more recent times, I'm sure some recall drone stupidity quickly patched but my point remains).

Something that major I would expect in dev blogs, which is why it feels unintended to me - the other thread simply adds weight to that belief.

I may be wrong, just...intuition/past experience of major game changers like this at play here


Nailed it. It is clearly an exploit, and the fact that this was being promoted as a "new and exciting gameplay feature" by certain CSMs who only care about things that effect them proves the worthlessness of their election.


The major hole in that entire argument is the fact that drones set to agressive are protecting the asset belonging to the player, which is how drones actually work when set to agressive. This particular mechanic has been consistant for several years.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Nerf Burger
Doomheim
#52 - 2014-01-04 01:20:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Nerf Burger
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Nerf Burger wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Current thread in...actually it was moved TO issues/workarounds subforum as well as anecdotal reimbursements suggest all is not working as CCP intended.

The behaviour of the drones in this particular case is inconsistent i.e. that they now engage on a (certain) suspect level action - that's new. Likely a side effect of something that would 'usually' draw a criminal action - just these mobile units are exempt from that 'criminal' rule.

"Safety" switches have nothing to do with this, the drone owners aren't going yellow. It's a third party baiting drone AI to engage without criminal action, thus precipitating a limited engagement - hitherto this was something completely beyond the realms of possibility (at least in more recent times, I'm sure some recall drone stupidity quickly patched but my point remains).

Something that major I would expect in dev blogs, which is why it feels unintended to me - the other thread simply adds weight to that belief.

I may be wrong, just...intuition/past experience of major game changers like this at play here


Nailed it. It is clearly an exploit, and the fact that this was being promoted as a "new and exciting gameplay feature" by certain CSMs who only care about things that effect them proves the worthlessness of their election.


The major hole in that entire argument is the fact that drones set to agressive are protecting the asset belonging to the player, which is how drones actually work when set to agressive. This particular mechanic has been consistant for several years.



It doesn't work like you say, only when the drones are engaged with npcs will they attack the aggressor of the MTU. It is clearly an exploit of the drone AI.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#53 - 2014-01-04 02:31:23 UTC
Nerf Burger wrote:
It doesn't work like you say, only when the drones are engaged with npcs will they attack the aggressor of the MTU. It is clearly an exploit of the drone AI.


Or perhaps the drones not engaging the player when not in combat with NPC's is a minor oversight by CCP. Judging by the amount of denied reimbursement requests, I'm going to side with the latter.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Lugalbandak
Funky Shuttle Service
Burn the Boats
#54 - 2014-01-04 12:49:25 UTC
HK -56 wrote:
This just happened to my Raven tonight, and I've petitioned it for reimbursed (although with the special kind of ******* only CCP can be, I'm not expecting to get anything). As if drones in missions weren't miserable enough to use.

I'm actually surprised more people aren't talking about this; it may technically not be a glitch but it is clearly against the spirit of the Safety Settings. I understand pvp is omnipresent in EVE, but for CCP to allow this 'backdoor' griefing is just nonsense. This backdoor should not be the isk drain to counter the MTU isk faucet.

Glad the other pilot had the thrill of a ship kill, but this mechanic is absolutely in error.


no its not , and your lying about your reimbursment prolly

afcourse Agr. drones gonna attack a suspect , dotn set them on agr. you silly afker, also try shooting a suspect with green safety it works , so wy not drones? set them passive if you dont want to defend your mission

The police horse is the only animal in the world that haz his male genitals on his back
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#55 - 2014-01-04 14:12:27 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Nerf Burger wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Current thread in...actually it was moved TO issues/workarounds subforum as well as anecdotal reimbursements suggest all is not working as CCP intended.

The behaviour of the drones in this particular case is inconsistent i.e. that they now engage on a (certain) suspect level action - that's new. Likely a side effect of something that would 'usually' draw a criminal action - just these mobile units are exempt from that 'criminal' rule.

"Safety" switches have nothing to do with this, the drone owners aren't going yellow. It's a third party baiting drone AI to engage without criminal action, thus precipitating a limited engagement - hitherto this was something completely beyond the realms of possibility (at least in more recent times, I'm sure some recall drone stupidity quickly patched but my point remains).

Something that major I would expect in dev blogs, which is why it feels unintended to me - the other thread simply adds weight to that belief.

I may be wrong, just...intuition/past experience of major game changers like this at play here


Nailed it. It is clearly an exploit, and the fact that this was being promoted as a "new and exciting gameplay feature" by certain CSMs who only care about things that effect them proves the worthlessness of their election.


The major hole in that entire argument is the fact that drones set to agressive are protecting the asset belonging to the player, which is how drones actually work when set to agressive. This particular mechanic has been consistant for several years.


No, it is inconsistent behaviour all round, introduced by aggression only garnering a suspect flag.

I don't think it's an exploit - I think it's just unforeseen accident. If they'd intended this exact effect they would have mentioned it - it's too big a mechanic change, IMO, to not. Furthermore if it was intended, I would expect a dev would have said so - especially given the long thread in the issues forum.

It's hardly an 'AFK' issue either, aggressive drones are a valid and sound counter to ewar.
Nadia Gallen
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#56 - 2014-01-04 14:34:37 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Nerf Burger wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Current thread in...actually it was moved TO issues/workarounds subforum as well as anecdotal reimbursements suggest all is not working as CCP intended.

The behaviour of the drones in this particular case is inconsistent i.e. that they now engage on a (certain) suspect level action - that's new. Likely a side effect of something that would 'usually' draw a criminal action - just these mobile units are exempt from that 'criminal' rule.

"Safety" switches have nothing to do with this, the drone owners aren't going yellow. It's a third party baiting drone AI to engage without criminal action, thus precipitating a limited engagement - hitherto this was something completely beyond the realms of possibility (at least in more recent times, I'm sure some recall drone stupidity quickly patched but my point remains).

Something that major I would expect in dev blogs, which is why it feels unintended to me - the other thread simply adds weight to that belief.

I may be wrong, just...intuition/past experience of major game changers like this at play here


Nailed it. It is clearly an exploit, and the fact that this was being promoted as a "new and exciting gameplay feature" by certain CSMs who only care about things that effect them proves the worthlessness of their election.


The major hole in that entire argument is the fact that drones set to agressive are protecting the asset belonging to the player, which is how drones actually work when set to agressive. This particular mechanic has been consistant for several years.


No, it is inconsistent behaviour all round, introduced by aggression only garnering a suspect flag.

I don't think it's an exploit - I think it's just unforeseen accident. If they'd intended this exact effect they would have mentioned it - it's too big a mechanic change, IMO, to not. Furthermore if it was intended, I would expect a dev would have said so - especially given the long thread in the issues forum.

It's hardly an 'AFK' issue either, aggressive drones are a valid and sound counter to ewar.


So from what I am reading, is that you want a dev to look into the code why players are dumb and set their drones on agressive if they are handling a MTU in a mission site, instead of controlling them manually. Do I understand your complaint correctly ?
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#57 - 2014-01-04 14:52:31 UTC
Whoever said I was complaining?

Your insinuation that people being caught out by a new, poorly documented mechanic are somehow 'dumb', however suggests there is no merit in continuing engagement with you.
Nerf Burger
Doomheim
#58 - 2014-01-04 19:12:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Nerf Burger
Nadia Gallen wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Nerf Burger wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Current thread in...actually it was moved TO issues/workarounds subforum as well as anecdotal reimbursements suggest all is not working as CCP intended.

The behaviour of the drones in this particular case is inconsistent i.e. that they now engage on a (certain) suspect level action - that's new. Likely a side effect of something that would 'usually' draw a criminal action - just these mobile units are exempt from that 'criminal' rule.

"Safety" switches have nothing to do with this, the drone owners aren't going yellow. It's a third party baiting drone AI to engage without criminal action, thus precipitating a limited engagement - hitherto this was something completely beyond the realms of possibility (at least in more recent times, I'm sure some recall drone stupidity quickly patched but my point remains).

Something that major I would expect in dev blogs, which is why it feels unintended to me - the other thread simply adds weight to that belief.

I may be wrong, just...intuition/past experience of major game changers like this at play here


Nailed it. It is clearly an exploit, and the fact that this was being promoted as a "new and exciting gameplay feature" by certain CSMs who only care about things that effect them proves the worthlessness of their election.


The major hole in that entire argument is the fact that drones set to agressive are protecting the asset belonging to the player, which is how drones actually work when set to agressive. This particular mechanic has been consistant for several years.


No, it is inconsistent behaviour all round, introduced by aggression only garnering a suspect flag.

I don't think it's an exploit - I think it's just unforeseen accident. If they'd intended this exact effect they would have mentioned it - it's too big a mechanic change, IMO, to not. Furthermore if it was intended, I would expect a dev would have said so - especially given the long thread in the issues forum.

It's hardly an 'AFK' issue either, aggressive drones are a valid and sound counter to ewar.


So from what I am reading, is that you want a dev to look into the code why players are dumb and set their drones on agressive if they are handling a MTU in a mission site, instead of controlling them manually. Do I understand your complaint correctly ?


Do you really think those people who lost their ships due to this abuse of mechanics were necessarily dumb? Are you really that stupid? It is clearly an exploit with the drone AI. Unless you are a ridiculous person who cannot be taken seriously, you would be in favor of bug fixes, not telling mission runners they have to adapt to exploits.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#59 - 2014-01-04 19:27:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Mallak Azaria
Nerf Burger wrote:
Nadia Gallen wrote:
So from what I am reading, is that you want a dev to look into the code why players are dumb and set their drones on agressive if they are handling a MTU in a mission site, instead of controlling them manually. Do I understand your complaint correctly ?


Do you really think those people who lost their ships due to this abuse of mechanics were necessarily dumb? Are you really that stupid? It is clearly an exploit with the drone AI. Unless you are a ridiculous person who cannot be taken seriously, you would be in favor of bug fixes, not telling mission runners they have to adapt to exploits.


Yes, I do think they're dumb. When new mechanics are being introduced we spend time on the test server fleshing things out before the changes are implemented on Tranquility. I spend most of my time in nullsec, yet I know more about highsec aggression than the people who live in highsec 100% of the time. Unironically this mechanic that you call an exploit was picked up on the test server & documented, yet it made it to Tranquility.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Nerf Burger
Doomheim
#60 - 2014-01-04 19:42:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Nerf Burger
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Nerf Burger wrote:
Nadia Gallen wrote:
So from what I am reading, is that you want a dev to look into the code why players are dumb and set their drones on agressive if they are handling a MTU in a mission site, instead of controlling them manually. Do I understand your complaint correctly ?


Do you really think those people who lost their ships due to this abuse of mechanics were necessarily dumb? Are you really that stupid? It is clearly an exploit with the drone AI. Unless you are a ridiculous person who cannot be taken seriously, you would be in favor of bug fixes, not telling mission runners they have to adapt to exploits.


Yes, I do think they're dumb. When new mechanics are being introduced we spend time on the test server fleshing things out before the changes are implemented on Tranquility. I spend most of my time in nullsec, yet I know more about highsec aggression than the people who live in highsec 100% of the time. Unironically this mechanic that you call an exploit was picked up on the test server & documented, yet it made it to Tranquility.


when was the introduction to these "new mechanics", genius?

I guess i shouldn't even try to debate these typically non-sensible goons that come equipped with a herd mentality. Anyone worth a damn will tell you this is an exploit of the drone AI. Of course you will never get sociopathic grief monkey to admit that. Yours and others plight to label this as a new and exciting intended game play mechanic is a laughably pathetic attempt. And you realize you are going to look like an idiot once CCP fixes this thing too, right? Have you no shame at all mr goon?