These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Christopher AET
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#141 - 2013-09-24 09:35:06 UTC
Before the warning it was a mechanic. Now it is an exploit. We used it before but will not again now it bas been decreed against. I don't see why it's being made into such an issue.

I drain ducks of their moisture for sustenance.
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#142 - 2013-09-24 11:26:51 UTC
Ragnen Delent wrote:
A tactic that employs a loophole in how POS shields handle drones in order to implement, and one which no other weapon system is able to go around. Would you be ok with people deploying sentry drones outside a station and then docking up, with the drones still capable of firing??


It depends on the mechanic employed to do that (have your drones continue fighting while you were docked)
. As long as I can do the very same thing, I honestly don't have a problem with it, but you'd have to navigate that 60 second weapons timer lockout.

See, I think the loophole is not in the drones continuing to function, but in being able to exit the combat area by simply entering the POS shield. There is really no way to block someone from doing that, whereas jump gates, stations, and even wormholes have mechanics to hinder someone from entering and exiting combat at will. There are even mechanics to prevent me from warping and jumping away from a fight. Hell, there are EVEN mechanics to keep me from just flying away at sub-warp speed, but yet a POS allows a player to decide when to become invulnerable.

Maybe a potential compromise to fix the exploit would be to lock players out of POSes if they have a weapons timer.

Christopher AET wrote:
Before the warning it was a mechanic. Now it is an exploit. We used it before but will not again now it bas been decreed against. I don't see why it's being made into such an issue.


No one is saying to continue to use the exploit. I don't even think anyone is saying it was a bad decision to rule it AS an exploit, at least until it can be looked at further. I'm certainly not saying that. But, players would be up in arms if some miner petitioned to have suicide ganking ruled an exploit, or someone got scammed and petitioned to have scamming ruled an exploit, or someone got baited and petitioned to have baiting ruled an exploit, or someone got bumped and petitioned to have bumping ruled an exploit . . . and the victim/petitioner actually got their way. What's the difference between those situations and this one?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#143 - 2013-09-24 11:41:41 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Maybe a potential compromise to fix the exploit would be to lock players out of POSes if they have a weapons timer.
Why is a compromise needed?

Quote:
No one is saying to continue to use the exploit. I don't even think anyone is saying it was a bad decision to rule it AS an exploit, at least until it can be looked at further. I'm certainly not saying that. But, players would be up in arms if some miner petitioned to have suicide ganking ruled an exploit, or someone got scammed and petitioned to have scamming ruled an exploit, or someone got baited and petitioned to have baiting ruled an exploit, or someone got bumped and petitioned to have bumping ruled an exploit . . . and the victim/petitioner actually got their way. What's the difference between those situations and this one?
One uses bugs to do things that aren't supposed to be possible and the other does not. In fact, the other is specifically designed, implemented, and actively maintained to be possible.

You're also making an inequitable comparison. Ganking and scams are general activities and can't really be exploits to begin with since there's nothing mechanical about them. If you want to use them in your comparison, the other side of the equation needs to be equally broad: they're not exploits, but neither is ship-to-ship combat. Conversely, if you want to compare the use of drones through POS shields, you have to compare that particular mechanic against specific ganking and scamming mechanics, and guess what? There are plenty of exploits to be found in that area as well.

Suicide ganking without losing your ship: exploit.
Courier-contract scams using undeliverable items: exploit.

So the difference is that you're suggesting that entire play styles be ruled “exploits” rather than what an exploit actually is: the use of bugs to circumvent intended game mechanics. People would be up in arms because arbitrarily removing large chunks of game content is a bad thing; people are not up in arms about this because specifically removing the exploitation of bugs is a good thing. Or… well… the exploiters are up in arms, but they don't have a leg to stand on so no-one cares about their weak rationalisations.
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#144 - 2013-09-24 14:16:26 UTC
Tippia wrote:

Courier-contract scams using undeliverable items: exploit.



Sorry to butt in, I'm curious as to what you mean by this?

I'm presuming you don't mean courier contracts to player owned stations. I haven't come across any items which can be put into a courier contract but can't be delivered.

User of 'Bumblefck's Luscious & Luminous Mustachio Wax'
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#145 - 2013-09-24 14:25:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Sorry to butt in, I'm curious as to what you mean by this?

I'm presuming you don't mean courier contracts to player owned stations. I haven't come across any items which can be put into a courier contract but can't be delivered.

No, this was some kind of exploit where the items in the contract were simply (supposedly) impossible — stacks of unstackable items and the like — which caused the game to go wonky when it tried to check whether or not the correct item(s) had been delivered or not. I think it was mainly courier contracts, since you got stuck with the items until the contract expired and you forfeited the collateral, which made for an easy-to-execute scam.

So it was not a case of “you could conceivably complete it with the right character” but rather “the contract is bugged and the game refuses to count it as completed”.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#146 - 2013-09-24 14:27:37 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:

Very good, but now what do you mean by "in combat". Is it when I'm shooting you? Is it when you're shooting me? Is it when I am intending to shoot you? Is it when you are attempting to shoot me? How about if I was cloaked, and slow boating to you from 251km out and it was theoretically impossible for you to lock me? I would technically be assaulting your position while it was theoretically impossible for you to fire upon me, times 2, because I was also cloaked. How about if I was remote repairing your opponent from outside your locking range? Would I be required to move into your locking range before I could activate my RR modules? What about boosting? Do I have to be within 250km of the enemy before I can run ganglinks? In range of all of them or how many of them? What if there was one further away but cloaked? What about if I was within 250km but off grid? What about if the opponent(s) were jammed by ECM or dampened out and were theoretically incapable of locking me? Is attacking them an exploit until the jams fail or the dampeners are no longer effective?



The difference between those and being behind a POS shield is the enemy has no way to ever shoot you behind the POS shield unless they siege it. There are way to counter ECM, dampener, cloaking and range. There is no counter to POS shields beside destroying it. People are not supposed to be required to do a structure bash to be able to hit you while you can hit them all the time. Thats why something going around this mecanic (being able to shoot someone who would have to do a structure bash to have a chance at shooting you) was deemed an exploit because CCP belives your ship should be at risk while getting involve in one way or another in combat.

If you can influence combat, others should have a way to make scrap metal out of your ship.
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#147 - 2013-09-24 14:44:49 UTC
Thanks for the answer.

User of 'Bumblefck's Luscious & Luminous Mustachio Wax'
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#148 - 2013-09-24 15:24:13 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:


I've never played around the POS mechanic so it was a legit question. Is the titan shootable when his tip is outside?



Only from a very slight angle afaik.

In short, the tip does not expose the hull, as it "should".

Ships in eve online are just spheres or something like that



So are POS shields...

I know you've seen the bubble meme... use that for a model if you need to =)

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
#149 - 2013-09-24 15:31:31 UTC
Ragnen Delent wrote:
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
You say "workaround". I say "meta-tactic", a tactic for employing a tactic, and they didn't even have to log out to do it.


A tactic that employs a loophole in how POS shields handle drones in order to implement, and one which no other weapon system is able to go around. Would you be ok with people deploying sentry drones outside a station and then docking up, with the drones still capable of firing??



When I can destroy the station I would assume the station had guns. I would also assume you mean that the station would eject everyone docked up once the station went into RF mode right? Or are we keeping the 2 separate?

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.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#150 - 2013-09-24 15:38:56 UTC
stations should be destructable so we can burn down everything because boat got bored

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
#151 - 2013-09-24 15:40:36 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:

Very good, but now what do you mean by "in combat". Is it when I'm shooting you? Is it when you're shooting me? Is it when I am intending to shoot you? Is it when you are attempting to shoot me? How about if I was cloaked, and slow boating to you from 251km out and it was theoretically impossible for you to lock me? I would technically be assaulting your position while it was theoretically impossible for you to fire upon me, times 2, because I was also cloaked. How about if I was remote repairing your opponent from outside your locking range? Would I be required to move into your locking range before I could activate my RR modules? What about boosting? Do I have to be within 250km of the enemy before I can run ganglinks? In range of all of them or how many of them? What if there was one further away but cloaked? What about if I was within 250km but off grid? What about if the opponent(s) were jammed by ECM or dampened out and were theoretically incapable of locking me? Is attacking them an exploit until the jams fail or the dampeners are no longer effective?



The difference between those and being behind a POS shield is the enemy has no way to ever shoot you behind the POS shield unless they siege it. There are way to counter ECM, dampener, cloaking and range. There is no counter to POS shields beside destroying it. People are not supposed to be required to do a structure bash to be able to hit you while you can hit them all the time. Thats why something going around this mecanic (being able to shoot someone who would have to do a structure bash to have a chance at shooting you) was deemed an exploit because CCP belives your ship should be at risk while getting involve in one way or another in combat.

If you can influence combat, others should have a way to make scrap metal out of your ship.



So what you're saying is.. is that once the drones are dead, that ship is meaningless except to add to lag.

Because once that player cannot influence combat, he isn't given combat any sort of direct influence.

The flip side, is that the attackers are not being forced to stay there.

Now I understand the exploit is there and we are not arguing that (atleast I am not) but since we are "waiting" for a mechanics work around (CCP's words) we all will definitely see a debate on what should or should not be allowed or changed.

Funny thing is, is that the timer for entering a pos is the closest thing to a fix when you have those who are comparing a pos to a station, and are affiliated with the same people who have been clamoring for pos changes for quite some time.

Be careful of what you ask for is my advice.

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
#152 - 2013-09-24 15:42:22 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
stations should be destructable so we can burn down everything because boat got bored



I agree.

Sandbox.

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.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#153 - 2013-09-24 15:56:16 UTC
aggression mechanics for pos, you heard it here first

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 ?
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#154 - 2013-09-24 15:57:56 UTC
Christopher AET wrote:
Before the warning it was a mechanic. Now it is an exploit. We used it before but will not again now it bas been decreed against. I don't see why it's being made into such an issue.


"guys I don't understand why an exploit that allows me to engage in combat from the inside of a pos shield is being deemed an exploit someone explain"

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#155 - 2013-09-24 16:08:33 UTC
Andski wrote:
Christopher AET wrote:
Before the warning it was a mechanic. Now it is an exploit. We used it before but will not again now it bas been decreed against. I don't see why it's being made into such an issue.


"guys I don't understand why an exploit that allows me to engage in combat from the inside of a pos shield is being deemed an exploit someone explain"


People said the same thing (omg,why is it suddenly a bug!!!!11) about lvl 5s in high sec when ccp finally fixed a bug that (like this one) had been around for way too long.

Moral of the story, CCP fix your game sooner.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#156 - 2013-09-24 16:23:01 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
aggression mechanics for pos, you heard it here first



No, YOU heard it here first!

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.
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#157 - 2013-09-24 16:36:16 UTC
Tippia wrote:
1.Why is a compromise needed?

2.One uses bugs to do things that aren't supposed to be possible and the other does not. In fact, the other is specifically designed, implemented, and actively maintained to be possible.

3.You're also making an inequitable comparison. Ganking and scams are general activities and can't really be exploits to begin with since there's nothing mechanical about them. If you want to use them in your comparison, the other side of the equation needs to be equally broad: they're not exploits, but neither is ship-to-ship combat. Conversely, if you want to compare the use of drones through POS shields, you have to compare that particular mechanic against specific ganking and scamming mechanics, and guess what? There are plenty of exploits to be found in that area as well.

Suicide ganking without losing your ship: exploit.
Courier-contract scams using undeliverable items: exploit.

4.So the difference is that you're suggesting that entire play styles be ruled “exploits” rather than what an exploit actually is: the use of bugs to circumvent intended game mechanics. People would be up in arms because arbitrarily removing large chunks of game content is a bad thing; people are not up in arms about this because specifically removing the exploitation of bugs is a good thing. Or… well… the exploiters are up in arms, but they don't have a leg to stand on so no-one cares about their weak rationalisations.


1.Where did I declare that a compromise was necessary? I described a potential fix as a compromise. The reason it would be a compromise is that drones would still function exactly the same way, but the exploit shouldn't be possible anymore.

2.How do you know what is supposed to be possible? Are you an official spokeperson for CCP? Why do you keep calling the exploit a "bug"? Did you review the code and speak with the software architect to determine that there was indeed a logic error? What I would say is that there seems to be an unexpected (and maybe undesirable) synergy between EVE's drone program-modules and it's POS program-modules. To me, a "bug" would be something more along the lines of the drones being able to fire from within the POS shield.
The "bug" you are describing actually sounds like it is the product of a robust set of functions, capable of handling even a very special case. The POS functions are not interfering with the drone functions, and vice versa. That's generally how you want a program to work.

3.I did not make a specific comparison between the drone/POS shield exploit and a particular instance of a scam, suicide gank, bait&gank, or bumping scenario because I was not making a specific comparison. If you want a specific example, try this one: the Margin Trading scam.

4.Where did I suggest ruling out an entire play style? I didn't, but have fun arguing with that straw man you're building. I hope he puts up a good fight.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#158 - 2013-09-24 16:44:16 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:

1.Where did I declare that a compromise was necessary? I described a potential fix as a compromise. The reason it would be a compromise is that drones would still function exactly the same way, but the exploit shouldn't be possible anymore.

2.How do you know what is supposed to be possible? Are you an official spokeperson for CCP? Why do you keep calling the exploit a "bug"? Did you review the code and speak with the software architect to determine that there was indeed a logic error? What I would say is that there seems to be an unexpected (and maybe undesirable) synergy between EVE's drone program-modules and it's POS program-modules. To me, a "bug" would be something more along the lines of the drones being able to fire from within the POS shield.
The "bug" you are describing actually sounds like it is the product of a robust set of functions, capable of handling even a very special case. The POS functions are not interfering with the drone functions, and vice versa. That's generally how you want a program to work.

3.I did not make a specific comparison between the drone/POS shield exploit and a particular instance of a scam, suicide gank, bait&gank, or bumping scenario because I was not making a specific comparison. If you want a specific example, try this one: the Margin Trading scam.

4.Where did I suggest ruling out an entire play style? I didn't, but have fun arguing with that straw man you're building. I hope he puts up a good fight.


This is one of those loony backlash posts where a poster display the fact that he's not mature enough to even realize why he was wrong in the 1st place. It move into surreal 'The definition of "IS"' territory with all that crap about asking Tippia if she knew what a bug is and whether or not she worked for CCP.......

A single second of self reflection would reveal to you the utter incorrectness of the comparison you tried to make between an obvious exploit and things that are not exploits like ganking a freighter. But like most of you who hide on internet forums behind anonymous (and in EVE's case, NPC corp) screen names, you aren't interested in the truth, only in winning some silly argument.

All you are succeeding in doing is convincing your fellow players that you are bonkers in the head.
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#159 - 2013-09-24 16:57:21 UTC
While I don't disagree with the particulars of this decision, the fact that this thread became a goon CTA is fairly amusing.

For whatever reason that I can't personally fathom, these mechanics always change after someone was beaten. Badly.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#160 - 2013-09-24 16:58:34 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Where did I declare that a compromise was necessary? I described a potential fix as a compromise.
…and the question is why a compromise is needed?
Drones aren't working properly since they break a very simple rule that all weapon systems are supposed to follow. The correct approach to this problem is not some kind of compromise, but to fix the issue. The fix is to make drones behave like all other weapon systems. They're not supposed to still function the same way — that's why it's an exploit to make them work that way.

Quote:
How do you know what is supposed to be possible?
Because they've told us. That's what this exploit is all about. It's what the fleet boosting change is all about. It's the basic and defining functionality of all similar aspects of the game — any combination of not being exposed to your enemy and the enemy being exposed to you work out the same. This is not rocket surgery. It's very very very simple.

Stop me if you've heard this before: if you want to use your ships weapon (or support) systems in a fight, that ship should be exposed to the fight and not be stowed away safely where it can't be touched. This can be inferred by every single mechanic that involves the use of weapon and support systems from a stowed-away position… every one except drone use through POS shields, which has been declared an exploit until that aberration is fixed.

Quote:
Why do you keep calling the exploit a "bug"?
I don't. I call the bug a bug and call exploiting that bug an exploit. Because that's what they are, respectively.

Quote:
I did not make a specific comparison between the drone/POS shield exploit and a particular instance of a scam, suicide gank, bait&gank, or bumping scenario because I was not making a specific comparison. If you want a specific example, try this one: the Margin Trading scam.
You asked what the difference is between wiping out entire playstyles and wiping out the exploitation of a bug.

The margin trading scam is not an exploit, by the way, since all mechanics involved are working exactly as intended. The scam actually works exactly the same without the skill and relies entirely on the mark's failure to check the market data he has at his disposal.
Quote:
Where did I suggest ruling out an entire play style?
Here:

“But, players would be up in arms if some miner petitioned to have suicide ganking ruled an exploit, or someone got scammed and petitioned to have scamming ruled an exploit, or someone got baited and petitioned to have baiting ruled an exploit, or someone got bumped and petitioned to have bumping ruled an exploit . . . and the victim/petitioner actually got their way.”

Chalking up ganks and baiting as exploits means wiping out playstyles. You are not talking about mechanics, but about whole sets of tactics. That is not what's going on here. Declaring the misuse of this bug as an exploit means that one specific mechanic isn't working as intended: drones are not being abandoned or returning to orbit if you pass into a POS shield. Until that bug is fixed, exploiting that bug to be in a fight without exposing yourself to that fight is… drumroll… an exploit.

Likewise, any misuse of bugs in the mechanics that govern ganks and baits would also be exploits, e.g. being able to evade CONCORD or somehow projecting different ships and fittings that what you're actually using.