These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Sentries Outside POS Shield Exploit
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Revman Zim
Infinite Point
The Initiative.
#21 - 2013-09-21 15:24:50 UTC
The only reason this is called an "exploit:" by anyone in the CFC is because they didn't do it first.

If they would have used this tactic it would be touted as "working as intended".
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#22 - 2013-09-21 15:29:18 UTC
Tippia wrote:
. . .or more accurately, directly with its drones, since those are its primary weapon system. If you want to do damage, you have to be on the field and exposed to enemy fire. Really simple.


indirectly

Do you realize that drones are their own little spaceships, with hitpoints, targeting ranges, sensor strengths, AI, etc.? If you'll notice, 1400mm projectile turrets don't have a an orbiting velocity or max targets attribute. They're different and they clearly function differently. That's not an accident (but apparently it is now an exploit).

Domanique Altares wrote:
Yeah, POS batteries are worse than sentry drones. In the literal sense. Absent a POS gunner to control them, they choose targets at random, switch targets at random, have horrible tracking, and are generally very ineffective. This is why the most irritating and defensible POS setups include far more ECM/EWAR than they do guns. A POS with just POS guns to defend it isn't going to be defended for long.

This 'exploit' as it exists allows anyone who can pilot a ship to become a POS gunner. The POS can be built with absolutely dickish amounts of scram/point/web, and no guns, because it relies on the drone capacity of the ships inside it. Drop an SMA and a few cans of drones, and all you have to do is occasionally poke your nose out of the bubble and refresh your DPS. Build these ships in absurd fashion; highs and mids full of drone mods, and suddenly you have sentry range to rival large POS artillery, with the lock time and target selection of the boosted drone bunnies controlling them.


So, to summarize, it sounds like you are saying that a POS cannot effectively defend itself and that with a large amount of preparation, teamwork, planning, etc. a group of determined players are a better defense, and that when the POS configuration is set up to complement that fleet's composition, attacking it can be difficult. Working as intended?

Alavaria Fera wrote:
So this is like our version of afk mining, except you are literally invulnerable


Some very experienced and knowledgeable members of your coalition (some may have even been your corpmates) have already informed myself and everyone in General Discussion that POSes are, indeed, not invulnerable. You should ask them about it.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#23 - 2013-09-21 15:39:01 UTC
well **** it looks like CCP disagrees with you and your impotent ranting won't accomplish anything

oh well

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#24 - 2013-09-21 15:39:17 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Working as intended?


Obviously not, since CCP has termed it an exploit.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#25 - 2013-09-21 15:40:28 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Do you realize that drones are their own little spaceships, with hitpoints, targeting ranges, sensor strengths, AI, etc.?
Do you realise that this doesn't matter? They're the Domi's weapon system — the thing the Domi uses to hurt other ships. If you want your ship and its weapons to be part of the fight, they have to be part of the fight. This means being exposed to return fire.

Very simple.

If you want to hide inside a POS and be part of the fight, just use the POS guns — that's their entire purpose, and at that point, your ship is entirely irrelevant, which is how it should be.

Quote:
They're different and they clearly function differently. That's not an accident (but apparently it is now an exploit).
No, drones working differently than turrets is no more an exploit than missiles working differently than turrets do. Your ship taking part in a fight without being exposed to that fight is an exploit, though.
Rengerel en Distel
#26 - 2013-09-21 15:42:40 UTC
CCP changed the rules, pretty simple. They do that on occasion when they want to. Not much you can do about it whining on the forums. Have everyone in your alliance quit because of the change, and state that in the little box, and perhaps they might look at it again.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#27 - 2013-09-21 16:06:28 UTC
Just FYI dear readers, this same guy supports making tackle random.

Some people don't like the possibility of losing ships.

.
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#28 - 2013-09-21 16:18:16 UTC
This cake looks delicious...

I want to eat it.

But if I eat it...I will not have the cake.

Dilemma.

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#29 - 2013-09-21 16:25:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Mayhaw Morgan
Domanique Altares wrote:
Obviously not, since CCP has termed it an exploit.


It seemed like a preliminary ruling while they figure out what it is and what they should do about it. Maybe you should go back and look at what that ruling was. From the wording I saw and given your response, I don't think it says what you think it says.

Tippia wrote:
If you want your ship and its weapons to be part of the fight, they have to be part of the fight. This means being exposed to return fire.
...
our ship taking part in a fight without being exposed to that fight is an exploit,


Do you realize that you can target and destroy drones that are able to target and destroy you? If something is shooting you, shoot it back. That's not complicated.
If something was shooting you that you couldn't shoot back, then I'd see the problem.
...
You'll notice in a previous post I mentioned that drones are THEIR OWN little spaceships. THOSE are what would be taking part in the fight, not my Dominix.

Rengerel en Distel wrote:
Have everyone in your alliance quit because of the change, and state that in the little box,


Is that what the Goons do? I would almost call that cheating and exploitative and even abusive . . . but this is EVE, so I'll just call it meta-gamey.
I would certainly not quit this great game over one little detail (or even a hundred LITTLE details).
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#30 - 2013-09-21 16:29:25 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Do you realize that you can target and destroy drones that are able to target and destroy you?
You realise that the drones are not the ship?

If you want your ship and its weapons to be part in a fight, they have to be part of the fight. This means being exposed to return fire. Still very simple.

Quote:
You'll notice in a previous post I mentioned that drones are THEIR OWN little spaceships.
You'll notice that this is irrelevant. It is also pretty much incorrect. Your Dominix is part of the fight because that's what the drone weapon system is attached to. No domi = no drones. So, again, if you want your ship and its weapons to be part in a fight, they have to be part of the fight. This means being exposed to return fire.
baltec1
Bat Country
The Initiative.
#31 - 2013-09-21 16:52:47 UTC
Revman Zim wrote:
The only reason this is called an "exploit:" by anyone in the CFC is because they didn't do it first.

If they would have used this tactic it would be touted as "working as intended".


We thought it was already classed as an exploit.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#32 - 2013-09-21 17:05:21 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Do you realize that you can target and destroy drones that are able to target and destroy you? If something is shooting you, shoot it back. That's not complicated.
If something was shooting you that you couldn't shoot back, then I'd see the problem.


it's pretty clear where you're suffering a disconnect so i'll just help you out here: if you have your drones out and they're engaging something, you are taking part in the fight as much as your drones are

it goes against everything in this game when all you put at risk while engaging in fleet combat is a flight of sentry drones

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#33 - 2013-09-21 17:07:30 UTC
Revman Zim wrote:
The only reason this is called an "exploit:" by anyone in the CFC is because they didn't do it first.

If they would have used this tactic it would be touted as "working as intended".


wow go tell that to CCP IA i'm sure you're onto something!

oh wait you're not and you're just crying over CCP taking away your worthless alliance's risk-free pos defense tactics

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#34 - 2013-09-21 17:10:15 UTC
the ~second to none~ guys are seriously more upset over this than the worthless hisec pubbies when CCP took away their ability to blitz 3/10s with T3s

then again there isn't much of a difference between the two groups lmao

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#35 - 2013-09-21 17:16:59 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:
Obviously not, since CCP has termed it an exploit.


It seemed like a preliminary ruling while they figure out what it is and what they should do about it. Maybe you should go back and look at what that ruling was. From the wording I saw and given your response, I don't think it says what you think it says.


I know exactly what it says, and so do you, or you wouldn't be in here bawwwing about how someone declared your funtime activity to be an exploit.

CCP doesn't want the drone bandwidth of your ship inside a POS forcefield to be made available to a ship outside of it via the assist/guard functionality. It's pretty clearly spelled out. Until such a time as they patch said broken functionality from the system, the use of it is a petitionable exploit.
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#36 - 2013-09-21 17:40:07 UTC
Tippia wrote:
If you want your ship and its weapons to be part in a fight, they have to be part of the fight. This means being exposed to return fire.


But, I don't want my ships or my weapons to be exposed. I want to kill people and take their stuff in perfect safety. My being exposed is what YOU want.

Tippia wrote:
You'll notice that [drones being separate spaceship-like objects] is irrelevant. It is also pretty much incorrect. Your Dominix is part of the fight because that's what the drone weapon system is attached to.


I noticed that it is entirely irrelevant since even ships inside POS shields can be destroyed. You just have to take down the totally-not-invincible POS first.
However, drones, once deployed, are NOT attached to the ship that deployed them, except maybe in a metaphorical sense, and if you ask around, you will probably find that it is many a capsuleer's pet peeve that drones do function semi-autonomously, often getting their dumb little selves killed in action for no good reason and aggroing stuff that doesn't need aggroed.

Andski wrote:
it goes against everything in this game when all you put at risk while engaging in fleet combat is a flight of sentry drones . . .


. . . and the ship outside the POS that they are assisting and the logistics and other ships that are also assisting him and the POS itself and potentially all the ships within the forcefield and basically anything else that is actually taking part in the fight. POSes mitigate the risk of being destroyed. They certainly don't eliminate the risk of being destroyed. amirite?

If you think POSes and reinforcement timers are not in the spirit of the game and should be nerfed, Andski, just say so.

Domanique Altares wrote:
CCP doesn't want the drone bandwidth of your ship inside a POS forcefield to be made available to a ship outside of it via the assist/guard functionality.


I think I know what you want that to say. I don't think you know what it actually says, but for 10 billion ISK, I'll tell you.

Disclaimer: I am not a representative of the State War Academy corporation, nor is it implied that my views reflect or represent the State War Academy or the Caldari State. The views expressed in this post are solely those of Mayhaw Morgan and are subject to change at any time and without warning.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#37 - 2013-09-21 17:48:18 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:


I think I know what you want that to say. I don't think you know what it actually says, but for 10 billion ISK, I'll tell you.



It says exactly what I want it to say, because I said it; the fact that I have superior reading comprehension isn't worth 10 billion ISK.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#38 - 2013-09-21 17:50:36 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Do you realize that drones are their own little spaceships, with hitpoints, targeting ranges, sensor strengths, AI, etc.?
Do you realise that this doesn't matter? They're the Domi's weapon system — the thing the Domi uses to hurt other ships. If you want your ship and its weapons to be part of the fight, they have to be part of the fight. This means being exposed to return fire.

Very simple.

If you want to hide inside a POS and be part of the fight, just use the POS guns — that's their entire purpose, and at that point, your ship is entirely irrelevant, which is how it should be.

Quote:
They're different and they clearly function differently. That's not an accident (but apparently it is now an exploit).
No, drones working differently than turrets is no more an exploit than missiles working differently than turrets do. Your ship taking part in a fight without being exposed to that fight is an exploit, though.



Minus the fact drones don't take cpu, powergrid, have ammo, or fit in a highslot and will auto attack things...

Yep, apart from THAT they are no different.

Except they are.

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.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#39 - 2013-09-21 18:25:53 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:

Minus the fact drones don't take cpu, powergrid, have ammo, or fit in a highslot and will auto attack things...

Yep, apart from THAT they are no different.

Except they are.


Indeed. They consume drone bay and bandwidth. These are the fitting restrictions on drones. Like every other weapon system, they have fitting requirements, drawbacks, and tradeoffs.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#40 - 2013-09-21 18:28:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
Minus the fact drones don't take cpu, powergrid, have ammo, or fit in a highslot and will auto attack things...
…none of which matters since they're still the Domi's weapon system, and if you want that Domi and its weapons to be part of the fight, they have to be… you know… part of the fight. This means being exposed to return-fire.