These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#161 - 2013-09-24 17:05:00 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
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.


Once all the drones are burned, he should make his way to the POS shield to protect himself like like ships that run out of ammo have to go find a way to get more. The fact that you can't have a direct influence on combat does not make shooting you an exploit. It only means the rule of "undocking = PvP on" is being applied to you as it should no matter what fits you are running.

The system is "If you can shoot people, they can shoot you", not "If you can't shoot people, they can't shoot you".

If any mecanics makes you invulnerable, then you should not be able to have any effect on combat.
Katrina Oniseki
Oniseki-Raata Internal Watch
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#162 - 2013-09-24 17:35:47 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"


Reading comprehension is hard.

Katrina Oniseki
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#163 - 2013-09-24 17:36:10 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Once all the drones are burned, he should make his way to the POS shield to protect himself like like ships that run out of ammo have to go find a way to get more. The fact that you can't have a direct influence on combat does not make shooting you an exploit. It only means the rule of "undocking = PvP on" is being applied to you as it should no matter what fits you are running.

The system is "If you can shoot people, they can shoot you", not "If you can't shoot people, they can't shoot you".

If any mecanics makes you invulnerable, then you should not be able to have any effect on combat.


Why should the drone boat pilot have to make his way back to the shield once he is rendered combat ineffective? Is it because the burden is on him not to get shot, rather than on his opponent having to make sure there is "reciprocity"? Sounds good to me, but somebody should tell whoever it was that was standing outside that POS getting shot, unable to EFFECTIVELY return fire.

Also, I think you are confused about the circumstance. NOBODY was firing from wtihin the POS shield. SENTRY DRONES were firing at targets from OUTSIDE the POS shield at the direction of a target caller who was also OUTSIDE the POS shield. Nothing that was INVULNERABLE was engaging in combat.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#164 - 2013-09-24 17:40:32 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Also, I think you are confused about the circumstance. NOBODY was firing from wtihin the POS shield. SENTRY DRONES were firing at targets from OUTSIDE the POS shield at the direction of a target caller who was also OUTSIDE the POS shield. Nothing that was INVULNERABLE was engaging in combat.


Would the same amount of damage be on the field if the Ishtars weren't on grid?

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.
#165 - 2013-09-24 17:40:46 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:


Also, I think you are confused about the circumstance. NOBODY was firing from wtihin the POS shield. SENTRY DRONES were firing at targets from OUTSIDE the POS shield at the direction of a target caller who was also OUTSIDE the POS shield. Nothing that was INVULNERABLE was engaging in combat.


So it would be ok if I launched drones, assigned them to someone shooting you, then docked in a station and went to go take a poo?

The drones inside the pos shield relied on ships inside the shield being online. For an online ship to be able to have some kind of combat effect on another player's ship, that ship SHOULD be vulnerable to attack.

Why is this concept so hard for you?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#166 - 2013-09-24 17:41:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Why should the drone boat pilot have to make his way back to the shield once he is rendered combat ineffective?
For the same reason every other ship “has to” do the same when they run out of ammo.

Quote:
Also, I think you are confused about the circumstance. NOBODY was firing from wtihin the POS shield. SENTRY DRONES were firing at targets from OUTSIDE the POS shield at the direction of a target caller who was also OUTSIDE the POS shield.
No-one is confused about the circumstances. You're just refusing to see the sentry drones as a weapon system like every other. So yes, the ship is using its weapons from within the POS shield. No matter how much you want to, you can't separate the ship from the drones. No ship = no drones.

Quote:
Nothing that was INVULNERABLE was engaging in combat.
…except for the drone ship. You know, the ship that is supposed to be exposed to return-fire if it wants to use its weapon systems in combat?
Utremi Fasolasi
La Dolce Vita
#167 - 2013-09-24 18:26:00 UTC
"It's my POS and I'll drone sploit if I want to
sploit if I want to, sploit if I want to
You would sploit too if Goons were coming for you...!"
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#168 - 2013-09-24 18:43:50 UTC
Andski wrote:
Would the same amount of damage be on the field if the Ishtars weren't on grid?


No. (That was easy.)

Jenn aSide wrote:
The drones [outside] the pos shield relied on ships inside the shield being online. For an online ship to be able to have some kind of combat effect on another player's ship, that ship SHOULD be vulnerable to attack.


Are POS gunners vulnerable to attack or do you have to incapacitate the guns themselves (just like the sentry drones) or siege the POS to get at the gunner (just like the drone ships)?

Tippia wrote:
For the same reason every other ship “has to” do the same when they run out of ammo.


Tippia wrote:
You're just refusing to see the sentry drones as a weapon system like every other.


Do you see an inconsistency there? I will judge drones by the same standards as I judge 1400mm Artillery when I can mount 8 Warden II's onto my Tornado's high slots and when I can deploy 5 1400mm Artillery into space from my drone bay and have them engage the Gurista battleship that is jamming me in a mission.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#169 - 2013-09-24 18:47:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Are POS gunners vulnerable to attack or do you have to incapacitate the guns themselves (just like the sentry drones) or siege the POS to get at the gunner (just like the drone ships)?
POS gunners are “flying” the POS, and have trained specifically for that purpose. That POS is indeed exposed to return-fire when its weapon systems are used in combat. Your ship is utterly irrelevant at that point, which is why it doesn't need to be exposed to return-fire — after all, it's not using its weapon (or support) systems.

Quote:
Do you see an inconsistency there?
No. They're both weapon systems. They both have to be resupplied every now and then.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#170 - 2013-09-24 20:36:15 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:


Once all the drones are burned, he should make his way to the POS shield to protect himself like like ships that run out of ammo have to go find a way to get more. The fact that you can't have a direct influence on combat does not make shooting you an exploit. It only means the rule of "undocking = PvP on" is being applied to you as it should no matter what fits you are running.

The system is "If you can shoot people, they can shoot you", not "If you can't shoot people, they can't shoot you".

If any mecanics makes you invulnerable, then you should not be able to have any effect on combat.



This is where I start to disagree. For one, PVP is when you login. Not undock. That's just ship violence.

The second, is that there is more to do in a fleet/combat environment than just shoot.

Meta matters.

Support matters.

There are modules specifically designed to take you out of a fight and not be able to do damage.

In turn, the pos shields do this on the other side of the coin. You are not hiding in an invulerable station. You have attackers at the pos, to smash the pos. That is not being changed. If the force is there to kill you, and you are hiding while applying damage, those attackers are stupid for not being able to draw you off a better (strategic) position and make you fight under their terms.

This is where I see it as crying, because the pos is being used as an excuse. No one is being forced to fight at that pos, and it is possible to draw the fight outwards off of range to allow the pos to remain as a refilling station, but not a "base". This is not capture the flag afterall.

I get CCP deemed it an exploit, and so it is. They also deemed bumping an exploit. However, they chose to allow it in regards to emergent gameplay.

Again, CCP's rules.

But, the difference is, is we are not arguing about CCP and their rules, what we are arguing, is why that rule is terrible. We just know we are not going to be able to change it. So we try to influence the "mechanical fix" that CCP promised.

It almost looks like someone is intentionally trying to trip and fall so they can sue for damages.

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
#171 - 2013-09-24 20:38:00 UTC
Andski wrote:
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Also, I think you are confused about the circumstance. NOBODY was firing from wtihin the POS shield. SENTRY DRONES were firing at targets from OUTSIDE the POS shield at the direction of a target caller who was also OUTSIDE the POS shield. Nothing that was INVULNERABLE was engaging in combat.


Would the same amount of damage be on the field if the IshtarsPOS weren't on grid?

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
#172 - 2013-09-24 20:39:01 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:


Also, I think you are confused about the circumstance. NOBODY was firing from wtihin the POS shield. SENTRY DRONES were firing at targets from OUTSIDE the POS shield at the direction of a target caller who was also OUTSIDE the POS shield. Nothing that was INVULNERABLE was engaging in combat.


So it would be ok if I launched drones, assigned them to someone shooting you, then docked in a station and went to go take a poo?

The drones inside the pos shield relied on ships inside the shield being online. For an online ship to be able to have some kind of combat effect on another player's ship, that ship SHOULD be vulnerable to attack.

Why is this concept so hard for you?



Can you change assist/guard targets or access other modules while docked up?

Or would that be too irrelevant?

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
#173 - 2013-09-24 20:40:45 UTC
Tippia wrote:


Quote:
Nothing that was INVULNERABLE was engaging in combat.
…except for the drone ship. You know, the ship that is supposed to be exposed to return-fire if it wants to use its weapon systems in combat?



And if the drone ship wanted to apply its damage to a target of its own choosing, it would have to.

Since that pilot was not determining the target to receive its' dps as it cannot target while inside the shields, this requirement was met.

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
#174 - 2013-09-24 20:40:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
They also deemed bumping an exploit.
Where and when did this happen?

Quote:
But, the difference is, is we are not arguing about CCP and their rules, what we are arguing, is why that rule is terrible.
I haven't seen much in the way of argument towards that end. All I've seen is “drones should let me not be around” which is a pretty awful reason. Have I missed anything?

Why should drones not work under the same principle of reciprocity as all other weapon (and support) systems?

Quote:
And if the drone ship wanted to apply its damage to a target of its own choosing, it would have to.
Since that pilot was not determining the target to receive its' dps as it cannot target while inside the shields, this requirement was met.
…but the ship is still employing its weapon systems in the fight, and should therefore obviously be exposed to return-fire. If you want to hide from the return-fire, your weapons should obviously no longer do anything.

Again, the notion that ship and drones are somehow separate is completely false. No ship = no drones. If you want some kind of separate and autonomous weapon system, you should start looking at the Anchoring skill.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#175 - 2013-09-24 20:53:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
They also deemed bumping an exploit.
Where and when did this happen?


When a GM specifically said "we did not intend for this to happen but we will allow it anyways".

Quote:
I haven't seen much in the way of argument towards that end. All I've seen is “drones should let me not be around” which is a pretty awful reason. Have I missed anything?

Why should drones not work under the same principle of reciprocity as all other weapon (and support) systems?


That's what drone assist does doesn't it? Relinquish control.

Quote:
…but the ship is still employing its weapon systems in the fight, and should therefore obviously be exposed to return-fire. If you want to hide from the return-fire, your weapons should obviously no longer do anything.


Again, the notion that ship and drones are somehow separate is completely false. No ship = no drones. If you want some kind of separate and autonomous weapon system, you should start looking at the Anchoring skill.


And the ship controlling those drones are being subject to return fire. If the ship hiding wants to apply it's control to participants in the battle, it still has to leave the safety of the pos 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.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#176 - 2013-09-24 20:56:30 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
When a GM specifically said "we did not intend for this to happen but we will allow it anyways".
…so it was actually never deemed an exploit. Ok.

Quote:
That's what drone assist does doesn't it? Relinquish control.
It doesn't remove your ship as a participant in the fight, no. So that ship should still be exposed to return-fire.

Quote:
And the ship controlling those drones are being subject to return fire.
But the ship employing its weapon system is not, when it should be.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#177 - 2013-09-24 20:57:51 UTC
The ship using those drones as a weapon is being exposed to return fire. That's what drone assist does.

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
#178 - 2013-09-24 20:59:54 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
The ship using those drones as a weapon is
…hidden in the POS. Without that ship, there would be no drones. It is using its weapon systems to engage in combat and should obviously be exposed to return-fire.

Again, why should drones not work under the same principle of reciprocity as all other weapon (and support) systems?
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#179 - 2013-09-24 21:02:35 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
The ship using those drones as a weapon is
…hidden in the POS. Without that ship, there would be no drones. It is using its weapon systems to engage in combat and should obviously be exposed to return-fire.

Again, why should drones not work under the same principle of reciprocity as all other weapon (and support) systems?



Again, don't butcher my quotes.

When you assign your drones to another ship, you are in effect giving your weapons to that other ship to use.

That ship using your drones is exposed to return gun fire.

Your requirements are met in regards to reciprocity. The drone bunny has control, can be fired upon, and the drones can be killed.

Sorry you don't like the adaptation, but arguing does not change the mechanic whether you like it or not.

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
#180 - 2013-09-24 21:05:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
Again, don't butcher my quotes.
Don't be wrong.

Quote:
When you assign your drones to another ship
…the drones are still yours. They still receive their bonuses from your ship. They're still your ship's weapon system. If you want to employ your ship's weapon (or support) systems in combat, that ship should be exposed to return fire rather than stowed away safely. Killing the assisted ship does not kill the ship that provides the firepower any more than killing the fast tackler gets rid of the 1400s on the nearby Tornado.

Quote:
Sorry you don't like the adaptation, but arguing does not change the mechanic whether you like it or not.
So why are you trying to? Those are the intended mechanics and that's why circumventing them with drones is an exploit.