These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Don't let Mission Runners 'Decline' Low-Security Missions.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Skill Training Online
Doomheim
#1 - 2013-07-10 23:13:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Skill Training Online
I heard about this exploit and it almost made me vomit.

The current mission system allows exploiters to base out in a 0.5 system to maximize their mission rewards
(the rewards are increased due to the risk of getting low-sec missions)

rather than factoring the additional risk, people exploit by declining any missions that take them into low-security space.

Of course the poor-state of low-security mechanics would need to be re-worked.


The Gate:
Permanently tanking sentry guns is trivial so establishing permanent high scan resolution 80km infinite point camps can be done with month old characters.

The Mission:
With proper skills and probing implants It is possible to get warp-able hits at 32 AU probes, this has become incredibly easy with the new mid-slot modules,

What I'd like to see CCP do:
Remove all ISK gained from the exploiters.
Add E-War to gate guns (ECM, Damps, Disruption, Neutralizer)
Require probes to be at 1AU or less before a warp-able hit is possible.

The fact that low-security space is broken, doesn't mean we should allow people to exploit the game.

Thank You Obama!
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2013-07-10 23:14:55 UTC
Skill Training Online wrote:
I heard about this exploit and it almost made me vomit.]

Oh my. Have you filed a petition against these dirty cheating scoundrels yet?

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
John DaiSho
LowKey Ops
Snuffed Out
#3 - 2013-07-10 23:15:45 UTC
Meh...I just dont feel like feeding trolls today, sorry
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#4 - 2013-07-10 23:16:42 UTC
Lol Humour.
Dain Highwind
La Isla del Mono
#5 - 2013-07-10 23:19:52 UTC
Wait who is exploiting? the campers or the mission runners?
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#6 - 2013-07-10 23:24:16 UTC
Look! Another "exploit" poast in GD!

I'll just hand this out now.

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2013-07-10 23:28:51 UTC
Skill Training Online wrote:
I heard about this exploit and it almost made me vomit.

The current mission system allows exploiters to base out in a 0.5 system to maximize their mission rewards
(the rewards are increased due to the risk of getting low-sec missions)


And the OP doesn't list the consequence for declining such missions, a big minus to standings. Which is one of the reasons to run missions in the first place. Roll

0/10.

_"In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." _ ~George Orwell
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#8 - 2013-07-10 23:29:51 UTC
Bored player who shoots everything that moves wants other players arbitrarily forced into his overview. News at 11.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#9 - 2013-07-10 23:31:48 UTC
I guess EXPLOIT is the forum buzz word of the week.

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
Pesky LaRue
Mercatoris
#10 - 2013-07-10 23:33:52 UTC
The OP's anger made me really, really horny. I know it's wrong, but hope it never stops.
rofflesausage
State War Academy
Caldari State
#11 - 2013-07-10 23:35:41 UTC
Skill Training Online wrote:
I heard about this exploit and it almost made me vomit.


10/10
Klymer
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#12 - 2013-07-11 00:02:21 UTC
yeah CCP needs to improve the exploit so that it actually does induce vomiting. Perhaps adding camera shake when declining a mission would do it.
stoicfaux
#13 - 2013-07-11 00:11:54 UTC
I've changed diapers with more content.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Setaceous
Nexus Prima
#14 - 2013-07-11 00:22:51 UTC
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:
I guess EXPLOIT is the forum buzz word of the week.

That's totally exploiting what I was going to say.
stoicfaux
#15 - 2013-07-11 00:24:27 UTC
Setaceous wrote:
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:
I guess EXPLOIT is the forum buzz word of the week.

That's totally exploiting what I was going to say.

Petition it.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Xercodo
Cruor Angelicus
#16 - 2013-07-11 00:25:55 UTC
It's only an exploit when they do something that was unintended by the game mechanics.

The Drake is a Lie
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#17 - 2013-07-11 00:27:09 UTC
Sucks to be the exploited
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Six Six Six
Doomheim
#18 - 2013-07-11 00:36:21 UTC
Hmm... you can't be serious.

Of all the complaints lately this must be scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

If this keeps up it'll be hardly even worth reading GD.
Setaceous
Nexus Prima
#19 - 2013-07-11 00:39:22 UTC
Six Six Six wrote:
Hmm... you can't be serious.

Of all the complaints lately this must be scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

If this keeps up it'll be hardly even worth reading GD.

The most important thing I learned many years ago, was that GD on any forum is simply a more structured off-topic forum and should never be taken seriously.
Joelleaveek
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2013-07-11 00:59:10 UTC
+1 this serious exploit is killing the game! I find it morally disgusting that all all missions don't force people into lowsec! I propose that if you even think about clicking on an agent in station services then you automatically are undocked and autopilot to the nearest lowsec system . These clear exploits make me sick to the fiber of my being and must be stopped immediately.

FYI, agent pay is determined only by level and the truesec of the system the agent is located in, not the system in which the mission is set (could be a good change btw) I don't know why i'm explaining this though, since clearly a troll.
123Next pageLast page