Issues, Workarounds & Localization

It seems this is broken, as it leads to players engaging suspects without ever deciding to.

There have been reports of players getting reimbursed for their losses due to this apparent bug. But no official word. If you are infact reimbursing players, that means you have made the decision as to how to classify this occurrence. Why keep your customer base in the dark.

CCP, please chime in on this. Intended or Not. There are plenty of us who would love to use this, but are currently worried that doing so might be a ban worth 'exploit' as there has been no OFFICIAL response from a Dev regarding this.

I'm not asking for this to be ruled in either specific direction. (that is a whole debate going on in several threads) I just want to know what the ruling is!

Sooo, A high profile greifer claims its not an exploit...so i guess its settled then. Without official word from the Developers themselves.

To counter that, i have spoken with 3 pilots within the last two days who very recently fell victim to this, and have been reimbursed.

Unfortunately, right now its just a He-said-She-said argument.

To also make my point more clear that it could very well be internally considered an 'exploit'....here is an example from last year. (?)

How long did it take CCP to fix the Remote Rep of a third party mechanic when they overhauled crimewatch? So far as nearly the entire public was concerned after months of no word from CCP, rep'ing a 3rd party, who was not actively shooting their guns (or other offensive modules) and not drawing a flag was working as intended. Until CCP finally decided to put an end to it.

Its not about AFK, it is an instantaneous thing, the instant the MTU is shot, the drones go straight for the shooter. At the keyboard or not, essentially, most of the time the mission runner doesn't see the 'suspect' flag, it just goes straight from neutral to Limited Engagement.

(it happened to my brother while we were running some missions, very much not afk, we got out due to combination of either a fail multiboxer or successful jam, still not sure which one)

And you are implying that the Highsec mission population is a small minority?

I just want to hear it from the horse's mouth, so if it is legit, i can go about not-exploiting it. As i already have a 'warning' for engaging in something, that was previously considered legit by the community for MONTHS, (w/o official word from CCP during that whole time) that CCP decided to finally chime in on...now i have a warning on my record.

I simply want to know b/c if i happen to fall on the wrong side of the fence again, it will be a ban this time.

This post is not here for an argument, it is here to get a CCP response. Yes, or No. Simple as that.

Now, if you want to debate, go into said GD threads and debate, but not here.

It's been answered but not directly on these forums.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4048843#post4048843

Advise file a petition if you lose a ship this way. FYI they were on vacation.

Again, this is not the thread meant for argument of this, this is the thread asking for official comment. If you feel the need to troll either side, please do so in the already numerous threads devoted to it.

I'm surprised you didn't mention the other popular 'solution'....don't use drones...yeah, that makes all those drone boat mission ships just a whole pile of awesomesauce. If you are going to troll, do it proper, and in the appropriate threads thank you.

Aggressive or not, why should you be allowed to accidentally flag yourself for aggressionj even when your cimewatch is set green?

This makes drones a weapon system with a crimewatch exception, unlike all other weapons, and that should be fixed, since it IS a weapon system, and it SHOULD prevent aggression against another player if you are set to green.

That's not actually good enough to be sure.

I'd read of this, but hadnt had a chance to confirm until today but the following is also true.

Passive drones. Tell drones to assist (NOT guard) player #2.

Player #2 opens fire.

Drones assist.

Target pops.

Player #2 ceases fire.

Drones? Well, those "passive" little drones continue blapping all over the place.




The "fix" is simply to consider MTU and drones mutually exclusive, until such time as every little nuance is worked out.

All you ppl and crimewatch!! Its not about crimewatch. Period. Drones did not auto-agress any other form of suspect before the new deployable structures. Simple as that. Its the fact the new structures provide a loophole in aggression against a player + concord response. As covered before, the safety setting is only to prevent you from putting yourself into lower level of status (suspect/criminal), it DOES NOT prevent one from engaging in pvp with anyone who currently has those flags. This is the only part of this whole debacle that is "working as intended".

Yes, it is 'consistent with behavior of aggressive drones', when someone shoots your ship, they retaliate. However, in HS that is usually done through a criminal act, and concord blaps the offender anyways. The MTU thing is a loophole in the system allowing someone to technically aggress a players "ship" without the criminal status. That is likely why it is being considered a bug.

If aggressive drones auto-aggressed "all suspects all the time" like alot of the supporters for this claim, then the other pilots in the mission would also get pulled it by 'accident'. That is not the case.

And i did put in a petition, but after not getting any response for over a week i put of this thread.

In the end i was told the same thing, but was told to 'avoid using' this bug.

And since my current warning was for using a tactic that, at the time, was considered by the public (for several months) to be "working as intended", however, 2 weeks after i used it the once, CCP made a public announcement and retroactively gave me a warning.

So, i would advise anyone using this to stop, b/c even if they haven't announced it yet, they can, and likely will still dole out punishments retroactively if there is a petition from the 'victim' involved.

--off topic---
Yes, really, actually, i have never had any petition of my dozens every answered within 3 days i think was the quickest.