These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

EXPLOIT: Wardecs, remote repairs and limited engagement timer
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Zilero
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2013-02-23 17:34:18 UTC
NEONOVUS wrote:
So what good is corp logi for in hisec?
As apparently using them as back up for suspect/bounty hunting is a no go in any populated space.


Its quite obvious - CCP do not think hisec warfare should in any way be viable when the mechanics work like this.
Nex apparatu5
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#22 - 2013-02-23 17:34:40 UTC
Zilero wrote:
Adriel Malakai wrote:
Zilero wrote:
No, first time no drones was out with auto aggro and hence we had no idea why someone would do it (other than: LOL, stupid)

Second time drones were out with auto aggro and the "LOL, stupid" was reversed Shocked.


Having your drones on aggressive is a choice you made regarding your settings. Couple that with your choice to deploy drones and you have yourself in this situation. It is no different that you having them out and set to aggressive and a WT legally shooting you, causing you to get a weapons timer so you can't dock.

These aren't exploits, these are the logical consequences of your choices. If you don't like the consequences, then don't make those choices. Either way, don't come whining on the forum when it's your own fault.


I have no problem with turning drone aggro off now I know this is possible - my gripe is why its possible to start with and in this instance it being an obvious exploit of game mechanics (that I doubt was intended, but hey who knows how CCP thinks).


Still not an exploit
Celeritas 5k
Connoisseurs of Candid Coitus
#23 - 2013-02-23 17:37:39 UTC
Zilero wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
You being dumb is not an exploit.


Keep trolling, its entertaining.


He's not trolling, he's speaking the truth.
Zilero
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2013-02-23 17:37:40 UTC
Nex apparatu5 wrote:
Zilero wrote:
Adriel Malakai wrote:
Zilero wrote:
No, first time no drones was out with auto aggro and hence we had no idea why someone would do it (other than: LOL, stupid)

Second time drones were out with auto aggro and the "LOL, stupid" was reversed Shocked.


Having your drones on aggressive is a choice you made regarding your settings. Couple that with your choice to deploy drones and you have yourself in this situation. It is no different that you having them out and set to aggressive and a WT legally shooting you, causing you to get a weapons timer so you can't dock.

These aren't exploits, these are the logical consequences of your choices. If you don't like the consequences, then don't make those choices. Either way, don't come whining on the forum when it's your own fault.


I have no problem with turning drone aggro off now I know this is possible - my gripe is why its possible to start with and in this instance it being an obvious exploit of game mechanics (that I doubt was intended, but hey who knows how CCP thinks).


Still not an exploit


In the end we'll have to see what CCP says.
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#25 - 2013-02-23 17:40:50 UTC
Zilero wrote:
NEONOVUS wrote:
So what good is corp logi for in hisec?
As apparently using them as back up for suspect/bounty hunting is a no go in any populated space.


Its quite obvious - CCP do not think hisec warfare should in any way be viable when the mechanics work like this.


No, HS warfare is completely doable without gaining any sort of suspect flags, if your pilots are disciplined enough to not gain additional flags when they don't need to. What Crimewatch 2.0 does enforce is that you cannot engage people and have your reps be invulnerable. If you want to shoot the undesirable who went suspect, then you have to either do it without reps, or accept that your reps can be attacked for helping you.

If you're even remotely capable, reps going suspect is not a problem and can be handled trivially.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#26 - 2013-02-23 17:41:27 UTC
Zilero wrote:


In the end we'll have to see what CCP says.


Around here we all call it emergent gameplay. This is not an exploit just another tactic.
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#27 - 2013-02-23 17:41:41 UTC
Zilero wrote:

In the end we'll have to see what CCP says.


Yes we will. And your sorry backside will ragequit and go back to World of Warcraft. Everything you have said points to it being your fault and participating in the process. I don't see why an entire game has to be rewritten around idiots.
Nex apparatu5
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#28 - 2013-02-23 17:41:57 UTC
Zilero wrote:
Nex apparatu5 wrote:
Zilero wrote:
Adriel Malakai wrote:
Zilero wrote:
No, first time no drones was out with auto aggro and hence we had no idea why someone would do it (other than: LOL, stupid)

Second time drones were out with auto aggro and the "LOL, stupid" was reversed Shocked.


Having your drones on aggressive is a choice you made regarding your settings. Couple that with your choice to deploy drones and you have yourself in this situation. It is no different that you having them out and set to aggressive and a WT legally shooting you, causing you to get a weapons timer so you can't dock.

These aren't exploits, these are the logical consequences of your choices. If you don't like the consequences, then don't make those choices. Either way, don't come whining on the forum when it's your own fault.


I have no problem with turning drone aggro off now I know this is possible - my gripe is why its possible to start with and in this instance it being an obvious exploit of game mechanics (that I doubt was intended, but hey who knows how CCP thinks).


Still not an exploit


In the end we'll have to see what CCP says.


CCP says that if you shoot a non-wartarget, you get a limited engagement flag. You shot a non-wartarget. I'm failing to see a disconnect.
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#29 - 2013-02-23 17:42:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Adriel Malakai
Zilero wrote:
In the end we'll have to see what CCP says.


They'll say that it's working as intended, assuming any of them actually have a thorough enough understanding of the mechanics to follow what happened.

Frankly, the thing I find most displeasing about this situation is that you're in Whores in space, who do some amazing work killing JFs. It's a shame they have such incompetent, whining downies such as yourself dragging their reputable name into the realms of idiocy.
Zilero
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2013-02-23 17:43:41 UTC
The difference here being it was a deliberate action caused by said wartargets.

I guess nobody can see that so I'll just shut up now Big smile.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#31 - 2013-02-23 17:43:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
So:

1) You have a weapon set to automatically attack anyone who shoots you
2) Someone shoots you
3) Your weapon automatically attacks them
4) You gain the appropriate timer for having attacked a person you're not at war with
5) You get incredibly butthurt about it.

Exactly what part of this is the part that shouldn't happen?
Nex apparatu5
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#32 - 2013-02-23 17:44:42 UTC
Zilero wrote:
The difference here being it was a deliberate action caused by said wartargets.

I guess nobody can see that so I'll just shut up now Big smile.


The enemy set your drones to aggressive?
Zilero
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2013-02-23 17:46:06 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
So:

1) You have a weapon set to automatically attack anyone who shoots you
2) Someone shoots you
3) Your weapon automatically attacks them
4) You gain the appropriate timer for having attacked a person you're not at war with
5) You get incredibly butthurt about it.

Exactly what part of this is the part that shouldn't happen?


The part where wartargets and "someone" worked together.

Either remove hisec or fix **** like this :P.
Ginger Barbarella
#34 - 2013-02-23 17:50:06 UTC
Tempted to do the whole "lrn2eve" thing, but this one is just too easy.

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#35 - 2013-02-23 17:51:00 UTC
Zilero wrote:
The difference here being it was a deliberate action caused by said wartargets.



That relied upon you lot to react in a certain way to work. Its a viable tactic that has a counter.
Zilero
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2013-02-23 17:53:46 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Zilero wrote:
The difference here being it was a deliberate action caused by said wartargets.



That relied upon you lot to react in a certain way to work. Its a viable tactic that has a counter.


Yup, I agree - viable tactic (apparently), I will personally consider it an exploit of a flawed game mechanic, others may do as they choose.

Of course its simple to adapt to these kinda tactics Big smile.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#37 - 2013-02-23 17:56:57 UTC
It doesn't really matter if you personally consider something an exploit because your opinion is irrelevant to everyone else in the game.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#38 - 2013-02-23 17:57:29 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Zilero wrote:


Yup, I agree - viable tactic (apparently), I will personally consider it an exploit of a flawed game mechanic, others may do as they choose.

Of course its simple to adapt to these kinda tactics Big smile.


The bears think that suicide ganking is an expolit, dispite the fact that it relies upon the target doing something daft like putting 500 mil in an untanked badger and auto piloting.

You look just as daft as those bears right now insisting this is some sort of exploit.
Zilero
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2013-02-23 17:58:52 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Zilero wrote:


Yup, I agree - viable tactic (apparently), I will personally consider it an exploit of a flawed game mechanic, others may do as they choose.

Of course its simple to adapt to these kinda tactics Big smile.


The bears think that suicide ganking is an expolit, dispite the fact that it relies upon the target doing something daft like putting 500 mil in an untanked barge and auto piloting.

You look just as daft as those bears right now insisting this is some sort of exploit.


Don't really care if I look daft - I'm already mentally unstable Shocked.
NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#40 - 2013-02-23 18:06:11 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Zilero wrote:


Yup, I agree - viable tactic (apparently), I will personally consider it an exploit of a flawed game mechanic, others may do as they choose.

Of course its simple to adapt to these kinda tactics Big smile.


The bears think that suicide ganking is an expolit, dispite the fact that it relies upon the target doing something daft like putting 500 mil in an untanked badger and auto piloting.

You look just as daft as those bears right now insisting this is some sort of exploit.

I use a Mammoth not a badger.

Please dont run a search on me.


But really I am curious under what circumstances is corp logi free to act in hisec?