Issues, Workarounds & Localization

Because looting a wreck isn't the same as attacking an asset of the mission runner, which is specifically what the drones are attempting to protect. It's the same as attacking the mission runners ship outright except that will get you concorded, whereas shooting a mobile structure will not, by design

they should attack too, provided they are on agressive

No, nobody forced you to set drones to aggressive. I'd be fine with changing the default to passive, sure. But beyond that you shouldn't get any handouts.

I just returned to this game, and I didn't know about the drone aggression setting until someone mentioned the MTU problem to me. I checked my drones and noticed they were set to aggressive by default. My drones were most definitely FORCED to aggressive, because that is the default, and I had no say in the matter until I discovered that I could change it. I also noticed my brand new alt was defaulted to aggressive drones as well. Granted, they aren't forced to STAY in that posture, which I believe is what you meant by not being forced. But the initial state very much is forced.

I've always hated how stupidly my drones would blunder about without my direction in the past, and I only use them in passive mode now, I love passive mode. None of this MTU ganking business actually affects me directly, however, I did immediately realize how poorly thought out the combination of the new mobile units and the default aggressive behavior of drones could be once I was informed.

The largest problem is that a new or inexperienced pilot has no idea what danger awaits them if they use aggressive drones. Aggressive drones should indicate to the pilot that their drones will attack another player without their direct intervention. The safety switch is a great--already existing--mechanic for this. Drones set to aggressive should yellow your safety, greening it up again should make them passive. It's an easy fix and generally follows the spirit of the safety switch.

Lastly, you mention handouts... Being able to initiate a fight and bypassing the normal criminal action repurcussions in high sec is very much a handout too. One that I fully support if the mechanics supporting this were more transparent. The safety switch is an excellent way to let inexperienced pilots know that their activity could have dangerous consequences. The aggressive drone/mobile device mechanic should not be giving tear collectors free killmail handouts simply because the system is hidden behind a few unpolished design choices. It is bad form, fairly lame, and it does look an awful lot like a bug.

If you yellow up your safety to use aggressive drones and afk mission, mine, whatever... expect to shed some tears. My problem is NOT that it can happen, it is that it is currently happening in a way that is unintuitive, hidden within sketchy interaction mechanics, and without any clear indicators or warnings. It is an unfinished design and currently flawed.

Nobody has claimed that, because it would be false. Drones set to aggressive do not automatically attack suspects. They automatically attack anyone who has aggressed you or something belonging to you. This has probably happened many times before, with people who are stupid enough to shoot a player's wrecks or drones. The difference there is that such an action was criminal and they would always get blown up, so the carebear was never at any risk from the LE that was created.


It is NOT a bug, it's consistent with how one would expect aggressive drones to behave. That's how they've always behaved.


No, there's no special case. Drones have to be out and set to aggressive.

Enough with the speculation, read this same thread and it's already been answered.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4048843#post4048843

To answer the first point. you say they've "always behaved" this way. So tell me an example of drones auto-aggressing a suspect that did not shoot one of the new deployables. You bring up the fact it 'happens but concord blows them up before the player is is trouble'....except thats not the same thing. That is a criminal flag for an illegal activity. This is dealing with a suspect flag for NOT illegal activity.



As to the second point, yes, this is a special case, because up until the release of these new 'mobile deployables' there has not been a way to aggress a player without concord getting involved. The drones react b/c they see the deployable as an extension of the player. So when it gets shot at, (which the shooting is as intended and working just fine), the drones think the player has been shot at and react. That is the bug, the drones seeing the deployable as the player. There is no other item that the player might 'own' with which someone can flag themselves 'suspect' that will automatically draw said player into an unintended LE. That is the special case. It only works with this one NEW type of item, and only when drones are on aggressive and only when they are currently in 'fighting' mode against npc's. That's alot of "only"s for it to not be a special case.

And PS, there have been plenty of ppl (maybe not in this particular thread) who have claimed "hundreds of kills because of this mechanic", but they then are VERY adamant that drones have always auto-aggressed all suspects. Period. (This is a very common thing to see claimed in any online discussion i have had about this matter.) To which i ask, then why is it neccesary to shoot the MTU's in order to get the LE? I have yet to hear any response to this.

PPS: There have been enough 'replies to petitions' posted that have Dev's labeling this as a bug to sufficiently say its very likely labeled a bug internally. Yes, Mittens posted that article and claimed it was not a bug...it doesn't help alot of ppl think this has something to do with the 'safety' setting, which it does not. But Mittens (dare i say it) is not a Dev, and not even CSM, (correct?), and as such, i will take the word from Dev's over his. Only CCP knows 100% if this mehcanic was intentional or not. And as of yet, there has been no official word from them. Just alot of speculation and "i heard so-and-so say such-and-such."

Personally, in my petition CCP may have implied it would be best if i did not use this bug, but they were VERY cryptic in their response to my (since i have a warning on my account), will i get banned retroactively, like the first warning was retroactive after the public announcement?

Meant to post this at the time, got side tracked and a recent thread reminded me.

Kudos for posting the findings, many wouldn't have, especially arguing the side you did.

/doffs cap.

Remember that time a Senior GM said telling people that you are your alt is bannable & anyone running ISboxer is botting? Turns out he was wrong. One of the great things to come out of this interesting new way of killing mission runners is a lot of them have started to adapt which is really great to see, for once.

If CCP is really reimbursing ships for this I'd urge them to revisit every other clever use of game mechanics that have resulted in people dying despite them having no clue that they could even be attacked.
I remember killing many tens of people, including one of the first marauders by using the lofty scam, maybe you should start there, hell, why not just give everyone some free SP and ships, I'm sure we've all had a loss of a ship despite never knowing the mechanic was in place and was possible, have you replaced the ships belonging to people who got concorded by giving logi to someone who then got concorded? Hell, why not reimburse everyone who'd been podded when limited engagments were first introduced, despite there being no CCP confirmation of this being possible and it being unprecedented and completely new in terms of hisec PvP.

See, reimbursing ships because of a clever manipulation of strange new game mechanics leading to the destruction of people's ships is a very, very stupid thing to do, you never did it before, why start now? 'Muh subscriptions'?