These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Issues, Workarounds & Localization

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Warning : Mobile Tractor Unit

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kate stark
#81 - 2013-12-22 11:51:15 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
A couple ice miners used an Orca to swap to a couple of AFs, Kitsune and a Crow when one of there buddies in a mission had their MTU attacked by a player.

and that is the player driven content we need more of. Unfortunately the game provides very little reason to provide it.

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.
Kate stark
#82 - 2013-12-22 11:52:33 UTC
Xercodo wrote:
I would consider it a bug on the basis that drones shouldn't be attacking anyone when aggressive unless they attack me directly.

Also if they are set to guard another fleet member. The drones are guarding me when aggressive, not my assets.

I say this as a person that uses combat drones pretty rarely now as most cases my Paladin can one shot them or snipe them after MJD'ing out. Just in case anyone had the idea I was a butthurt rattlesnake pilot or something.


they did attack you, the MTU is yours.

the difference is, if some one attacks the person you are guarding, the limited engagement is between those two players and not you hence the drones lack of action.

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.
Magna Mortem
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2013-12-22 11:53:02 UTC
Kate stark wrote:
Magna Mortem wrote:
Kate stark wrote:
dunno, *maybe* this topic since you keep posting in the thread.
I'm not sure he knows either, so I thought I'll ask. Of course I do keep posting, they keep doing it too. :) I have five more minutes of time to kill!

"lol just trolling, lol" is not really saving much face when people know that you're mad.
I'm not trolling. I had no idea this would escalate so easily. I still consider it as a bug and I still believe that it'll get declared an exploit and get patched. If not, then I'll use it too, but considering the masses of people who will start doing this, I really don't see how that won't happen. Aaaand i'm off. o7
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#84 - 2013-12-22 11:54:02 UTC
Xercodo wrote:
I would consider it a bug on the basis that drones shouldn't be attacking anyone when aggressive unless they attack me directly.


That is the definition of defensive.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#85 - 2013-12-22 11:54:19 UTC
One can argue and troll over "bug, exploit or intended mechanic" semantics all you want, reality is that it's outright silly for someone set to "green" entering a limited engagement while not actively having chosen to do so. The whole "well don't set to aggressive then" is a similar fallacy as "afk cloakers are no threat" bullshit.

It's obviously an oversight by CCP because they don't really do any sort of combat. pvp or QA.
Kate stark
#86 - 2013-12-22 11:54:56 UTC
Magna Mortem wrote:
Kate stark wrote:
Magna Mortem wrote:
Kate stark wrote:
dunno, *maybe* this topic since you keep posting in the thread.
I'm not sure he knows either, so I thought I'll ask. Of course I do keep posting, they keep doing it too. :) I have five more minutes of time to kill!

"lol just trolling, lol" is not really saving much face when people know that you're mad.
I'm not trolling. I had no idea this would escalate so easily. I still consider it as a bug and I still believe that it'll get declared an exploit and get patched. If not, then I'll use it too, but considering the masses of people who will start doing this, I really don't see how that won't happen. Aaaand i'm off. o7


i wouldn't call it an exploit. I'd call it unintended behaviour at best. And to be honest, i think it adds something to the game so i doubt CCP will bother "fixing" it.

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#87 - 2013-12-22 11:58:08 UTC
"I set my drones to be aggressive and they were aggressive. CCP please fix this." - AFK Mission Runner
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#88 - 2013-12-22 11:59:14 UTC
Kate stark wrote:
Magna Mortem wrote:
Kate stark wrote:
Magna Mortem wrote:
Kate stark wrote:
dunno, *maybe* this topic since you keep posting in the thread.
I'm not sure he knows either, so I thought I'll ask. Of course I do keep posting, they keep doing it too. :) I have five more minutes of time to kill!

"lol just trolling, lol" is not really saving much face when people know that you're mad.
I'm not trolling. I had no idea this would escalate so easily. I still consider it as a bug and I still believe that it'll get declared an exploit and get patched. If not, then I'll use it too, but considering the masses of people who will start doing this, I really don't see how that won't happen. Aaaand i'm off. o7


i wouldn't call it an exploit. I'd call it unintended behaviour at best. And to be honest, i think it adds something to the game so i doubt CCP will bother "fixing" it.


There is nothing to fix.
Kate stark
#89 - 2013-12-22 11:59:58 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
There is nothing to fix.


i agree.

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#90 - 2013-12-22 12:00:02 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
One can argue and troll over "bug, exploit or intended mechanic" semantics all you want, reality is that it's outright silly for someone set to "green" entering a limited engagement while not actively having chosen to do so. The whole "well don't set to aggressive then" is a similar fallacy as "afk cloakers are no threat" bullshit.

It's obviously an oversight by CCP because they don't really do any sort of combat. pvp or QA.

I will give you a Nyx if you show me where an AFK cloaker killed someone.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#91 - 2013-12-22 12:04:26 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
One can argue and troll over "bug, exploit or intended mechanic" semantics all you want, reality is that it's outright silly for someone set to "green" entering a limited engagement while not actively having chosen to do so. The whole "well don't set to aggressive then" is a similar fallacy as "afk cloakers are no threat" bullshit.

It's obviously an oversight by CCP because they don't really do any sort of combat. pvp or QA.

I will give you a Nyx if you show me where an AFK cloaker killed someone.


Can I have an Aeon if I figure out how to do it?

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#92 - 2013-12-22 12:10:53 UTC
I really wouldn't be surprised if there's actually a way. and either nobody's figured it out yet or someone has and has been inconspicuous enough not to get noticed.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Haygrove
Doomheim
#93 - 2013-12-22 12:11:33 UTC
Mobile Tractor Units (MTU's) are one of the few things in this game that require no skill at all to use, and are very profitable... if you are careful. That this happens to mission runners without some warning is unfortunate for some, but also can serve as a wake up call that no bonus in Eve Online comes without some measure of risk. Really though, some sort of announcement should go out from the Dev/GMs on this as so far these units have been hailed as skill-less free ISK makers, when in reality they have risks just like anything else in this game.

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#94 - 2013-12-22 12:13:56 UTC
It's relatively easy to avoid if you're paying attention, pull your drones in when a member of the mission inspectorate visits.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#95 - 2013-12-22 12:14:06 UTC
Magna Mortem wrote:
Kate stark wrote:
Magna Mortem wrote:
Kate stark wrote:
dunno, *maybe* this topic since you keep posting in the thread.
I'm not sure he knows either, so I thought I'll ask. Of course I do keep posting, they keep doing it too. :) I have five more minutes of time to kill!

"lol just trolling, lol" is not really saving much face when people know that you're mad.
I'm not trolling. I had no idea this would escalate so easily. I still consider it as a bug and I still believe that it'll get declared an exploit and get patched. If not, then I'll use it too, but considering the masses of people who will start doing this, I really don't see how that won't happen. Aaaand i'm off. o7


Its not a bug, its simply the logical extension of the existing rules, and the rules surrounding deployables.

As a very dedicated droneboat pilot (who has near perfect skills for a mach, yet missioned in a domi), I think its also perfectly acceptable. Why does a golem point (with 75m3 unbonused drones) have them on aggressive for anyway. if that pilot doesn't direct them, then they will likely expend themselves on targets they can barely or not break the tank for.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#96 - 2013-12-22 12:21:30 UTC
ElQuirko wrote:
But if you really need the "bug" described:
Despite the fact that the safety system prevents going suspect or criminal and does not prevent combat, the idea that another capsuleer can force a limited engagement without going criminal themselves is not in keeping with how the safeties mechanics work. If you shoot another person's wreck you get concordokkened - why is it that this situation is any different?

Because the convenience of personal mobile structures is that the convenience comes at the cost of increased exposure — they are very explicitly and deliberately not something that triggers CONCORD. And no, the safeties have absolutely nothing to do with keeping you out of limited engagements. In fact, they too are explicitly and deliberately excluded from what safeties control.

And no, you can't force anyone to engage with you. You can only trick them. The solution to that is to not be tricked. There is no bug.

Magna Mortem wrote:
The drones should never agress with green safety, but they do.

Sure they should. The safeties are only there to keep you away from S- and C-flags. That is all. Again, no bug.

All of these behaviours are as intended and as described. There is no bug, no exploit, not even any kind of undocumented feature (for once) since all of this has been described in detail in the various devblogs that deal with the mechanics involved. Don't want your drones to take aggressive actions against legitimate targets? Then don't tell them to.
Mizhir
Devara Biotech
#97 - 2013-12-22 12:24:01 UTC
♥ Marlona Sky

This is brilliant

❤️️💛💚💙💜
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#98 - 2013-12-22 12:25:54 UTC
Mizhir wrote:
♥ Marlona Sky

This is brilliant

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#99 - 2013-12-22 12:27:16 UTC
CCP wants more PvP in High-Sec so they're doing it by forcing people to shoot mobile tractor beams deployed by people that use drones as a weapon system thereby tricking them into combat.

Yup, makes perfect sense to me. Roll

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#100 - 2013-12-22 12:30:54 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
CCP wants more PvP in High-Sec so they're doing it by forcing people to shoot mobile tractor beams deployed by people that use drones as a weapon system thereby tricking them into combat.

Forced
— adj.

1. the most misapplied word in the EVE vocabulary.
2. does not mean what you think it means.