These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Drone assist "Exploit"

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#21 - 2013-09-21 13:24:56 UTC
Never thought we would get a whine post on this fix.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#22 - 2013-09-21 13:27:23 UTC
Me of Course wrote:
this is not true and must be re-looked at, this decision has only come because CCP has shown bias towards a certain group of players..


lmao

you should email CCP IA so they can laugh at you too

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
bloodknight2
Revenu.Quebec
#23 - 2013-09-21 13:48:33 UTC
So OP thinks it is ok to have one single guy controlling 200+ drones while the rest of his fleet is hiding in a pos because we can shoot the drones (i wonder how long my absolution takes to lock a sentry) or shoot the uber tanked ship controlling them all?
Prince Kobol
#24 - 2013-09-21 13:48:40 UTC
Me of Course wrote:
ok, as most people have found out, it seems that CCP have decided to deem assisting drones while the ship is within a POS's force field and exploit as there is "No risk to the users ship at all"

Drone "Exploit" Warning

this is not true and must be re-looked at, this decision has only come because CCP has shown bias towards a certain group of players.

the point i am trying to make here is that CCP made a rash decision on this matter without looking at this properly.


  • Drones are the only weapon system which are vulnerable to being destroyed without targeting the player's ship making them vulnerable.
  • There must be a ship outside the shields for the drones to be assisted to in order to them to engage
  • POS gunners can also sit inside a pos shield's while not being targeted why is this any different?


the fact that this decision came so quickly after an engagement between two nullsec entity's (one side using this so called "exploit") only proves that CCP is taking sides with one group as this is nothing more then a defence strategy, yet there are still players ships being exposed to the hostiles.


Please cry more
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#25 - 2013-09-21 14:07:02 UTC
Me of Course wrote:
I want my exploit cake, and to eat it, too.


We got it, OP.
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#26 - 2013-09-21 14:24:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Eram Fidard
What a complete joke of a thread.

Name one other situation in-game where you can apply DPS, go AFK, and be 100% safe*


*100% safe actually means 99.9999999% safe, as I suppose you run the risk of somebody figuring out the password and bowling you out of the POS while you're cooking a four-course dinner. Roll

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#27 - 2013-09-21 15:02:51 UTC
Andski wrote:
Me of Course wrote:
this is not true and must be re-looked at, this decision has only come because CCP has shown bias towards a certain group of players..

lmao

you should email CCP IA so they can laugh at you too

heh

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2013-09-21 15:31:38 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
well im trying not to get all "goons are at fault here", your the one who assumed i was blaming goons for this, just stating this first.


Really?

Quote:
CCP has shown bias towards a certain group of players.


Quote:
CCP is taking sides with one group


Yeah, I can read between the lines, thanks.

The rest of your argument fails to counter a simple question. Why should you be able to apply dps without putting your ship at risk on the field?

Additionally, this also takes care of the "assign fighters while in pos shield" exploit as well, and about time.



Confirming you should also have your titan fully commit outside of the shields to use the bridge function as well.

The pos shields should be all powerful and block EVERYTHING yay!

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2013-09-21 15:53:20 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Shooting drones won't do you much good if the entire fleet can be inside the POS shield right next to a hangar array. They can, at that point, release a functionally infinite number of drones which makes destroying said drones a less than viable counter to say the least.

Really, where's the flaw in CCP's logic here?

The ships assisting the drones aren't at any risk, the ship they are assisted to can just be Target Painting targets from the other side of the POS from where the attackers are and can easily have enough remote assistance to make it nearly impossible to kill.

POS guns on the other hand can't be replaced in-combat once disabled, only repaired which is risky, and there's a finite amount of them that can be deployed at a single POS at one time. Plus POS gunning is an intended mechanic where as drone assisting from within a POS shield is not, as CCP have just made clear by declaring this an exploit.



Except they have to leave the shields to do so.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2013-09-21 15:54:22 UTC
Yabba Addict wrote:
Assist mechanic sucks ccp, get rid of it



Yea and take away the falcon and blackbird too. They suck as well.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#31 - 2013-09-21 15:58:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Of course my comments are based on the fact that it's really funny when you take into consideration that the whole "issue" that "finally" got resolved, was due to the fact this was in defense, not offense.

As an offensive measure of setting drones to assist there's no issue.

But once a blob gets repelled with inferior numbers, all hell breaks loose.

Good times.

Since pos in general need a revamp... just get rid of them all together. Obviously CCP can't handle them correctly.

That way, everyone can be on the same page with their crying.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#32 - 2013-09-21 16:03:02 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Of course my comments are based on the fact that it's really funny when you take into consideration that the whole "issue" that "finally" got resolved, was due to the fact this was in defense, not offense.

As an offensive measure of setting drones to assist there's no issue.
Sure it is. The exploit makes no distinction between defensive and offensive use of assists.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#33 - 2013-09-21 16:04:05 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Yabba Addict wrote:
Assist mechanic sucks ccp, get rid of it



Yea and take away the falcon and blackbird too. They suck as well.


Had no idea one guy could control 200 falcons flown by other people.

Its a silly mechanic.
Me of Course
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#34 - 2013-09-21 16:11:00 UTC
Budan Kado wrote:
Me of Course wrote:
ok, as most people have found out, it seems that CCP have decided to deem assisting drones while the ship is within a POS's force field and exploit as there is "No risk to the users ship at all"

Drone "Exploit" Warning

this is not true and must be re-looked at, this decision has only come because CCP has shown bias towards a certain group of players.

the point i am trying to make here is that CCP made a rash decision on this matter without looking at this properly.


  • Drones are the only weapon system which are vulnerable to being destroyed without targeting the player's ship making them vulnerable.
  • There must be a ship outside the shields for the drones to be assisted to in order to them to engage
  • POS gunners can also sit inside a pos shield's while not being targeted why is this any different?


the fact that this decision came so quickly after an engagement between two nullsec entity's (one side using this so called "exploit") only proves that CCP is taking sides with one group as this is nothing more then a defence strategy, yet there are still players ships being exposed to the hostiles.






to everyone else in this thread, this is a nulli crapunda poster crying about getting a warning about using an exploit and getting caught and he thinks CCP are favoring BL for reporting them. This also will come back around to the doomportal, which isnt an exploit, unlike sitting in a pos shield with your drones outside of it.

to the OP, your alliance sucks, you guys should evac before you get reset by ncdot.



well first things first, lets see how fast CCP looks at other "exploits" before they decide to implement something to fix it, it normally takes months for them to respond, yet when something is used against someone from either the CFC or their "allies" its classified as an exploit in under a week. and then most of the posters here are part of the CFC (meh just shows how many forum warriors they are)


and your kinda missing the point. the weapons system is still exposed, there is no difference between this and pos gunning, as in both cases the player is within the shields, only difference is that one requires a person to be outside the shields and one doesn't. that's all

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=268764&find=unread <<< Skin's for ships COMON, YOU KNOW YOU WANT IT!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#35 - 2013-09-21 16:21:33 UTC
Me of Course wrote:
well first things first, lets see how fast CCP looks at other "exploits" before they decide to implement something to fix it, it normally takes months for them to respond, yet when something is used against someone from either the CFC or their "allies" its classified as an exploit in under a week. and then most of the posters here are part of the CFC (meh just shows how many forum warriors they are)
Do you have any actual examples of this?

Quote:
and your kinda missing the point. the weapons system is still exposed, there is no difference between this and pos gunning, as in both cases the player is within the shields, only difference is that one requires a person to be outside the shields and one doesn't. that's all
The difference is that in one case, you're using your ship, even though it's not exposed to the combat you're taking part in, whereas in the other case, you're using the POS, which is exposed to the combat you're taking part in.

If you want to employ your ship's weapons in battle, that ship is supposed to be exposed to return-fire, not stowed away safely where it can't be attacked. Tit for tat and all that.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#36 - 2013-09-21 16:22:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Yabba Addict wrote:
Assist mechanic sucks ccp, get rid of it



Yea and take away the falcon and blackbird too. They suck as well.


Had no idea one guy could control 200 falcons flown by other people.

Its a silly mechanic.



So it's a matter of amount then?

So if I can control 150 pilots' worth of drones it's ok?

Again, the exploit is not drone assist, sorry you do not like the meta. It's using drone assist while within a pos shield (which I think it should disconnect the drones if you go inside the shield, but assist is fine).

But yes, falcons and blackbirds are indeed silly and should be removed. I'm glad you agree to that silly mechanic.(unless you mean having a FC is silly?)

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#37 - 2013-09-21 16:24:22 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Of course my comments are based on the fact that it's really funny when you take into consideration that the whole "issue" that "finally" got resolved, was due to the fact this was in defense, not offense.

As an offensive measure of setting drones to assist there's no issue.
Sure it is. The exploit makes no distinction between defensive and offensive use of assists.



Please explain where you would offensively use a pos. Unless you mean with maybe a carrier using fighters since fighters can warp?

Or we just talking about a specific kind of drone? You will have to be a bit more specific.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#38 - 2013-09-21 16:27:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Tippia wrote:


If you want to employ your ship's weapons in battle, that ship is supposed to be exposed to return-fire, not stowed away safely where it can't be attacked. Tit for tat and all that.



To use a Tippia's level of literal verbage... the drones are outside of the shields. The drones can be attacked.

But yes, if you want to use your weapons, you need to be outside of the shield. As of now, that is still possible and not changed.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2013-09-21 16:28:04 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:

So it's a matter of amount then?

So if I can control 150 pilots' worth of drones it's ok?


The number doesn't matter. Drone assist is the only one mechanic that let's me control another ship's offensive weapon system, for everything else (ECM, TD, TP, warp disruptors/scramblers, guns, launchers,....) I need to personally target the enemy ship.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#40 - 2013-09-21 16:32:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

So it's a matter of amount then?

So if I can control 150 pilots' worth of drones it's ok?


The number doesn't matter. Drone assist is the only one mechanic that let's me control another ship's offensive weapon system, for everything else (ECM, TD, TP, warp disruptors/scramblers, guns, launchers,....) I need to personally target the enemy ship.



Interesting. You've been able to use ECM drones to assist.

I've never seen that work before. (I missread).

But you did not use the weapons offensive weapon system. You used the drones. And not even that since you cannot control them. The pilot who deployed them does that. They only assist you. You do not decide whether they orbit or guard or warp back to their owner.

As far as you are concerned, you do not have a say over my drones that I assist to you. I still maintain control.

The issue which people seem to not focus on, is that you should not be able to control your drones across the pos shield, which I agree with.

I just think you guys who cry about the assist function are butthurt by it. And that conclusion came from the fact you made no mention whatsoever about pos shields being used, which is what the exploit is about.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.