These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New Griefing: MTU Thieves
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nadia Gallen
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#61 - 2014-01-04 23:45:34 UTC
Nerf Burger wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Nerf Burger wrote:
Nadia Gallen wrote:
So from what I am reading, is that you want a dev to look into the code why players are dumb and set their drones on agressive if they are handling a MTU in a mission site, instead of controlling them manually. Do I understand your complaint correctly ?


Do you really think those people who lost their ships due to this abuse of mechanics were necessarily dumb? Are you really that stupid? It is clearly an exploit with the drone AI. Unless you are a ridiculous person who cannot be taken seriously, you would be in favor of bug fixes, not telling mission runners they have to adapt to exploits.


Yes, I do think they're dumb. When new mechanics are being introduced we spend time on the test server fleshing things out before the changes are implemented on Tranquility. I spend most of my time in nullsec, yet I know more about highsec aggression than the people who live in highsec 100% of the time. Unironically this mechanic that you call an exploit was picked up on the test server & documented, yet it made it to Tranquility.


when was the introduction to these "new mechanics", genius?

I guess i shouldn't even try to debate these typically non-sensible goons that come equipped with a herd mentality. Anyone worth a damn will tell you this is an exploit of the drone AI. Of course you will never get sociopathic grief monkey to admit that. Yours and others plight to label this as a new and exciting intended game play mechanic is a laughably pathetic attempt. And you realize you are going to look like an idiot once CCP fixes this thing too, right? Have you no shame at all mr goon?


Since you seem to judge people from where which alliance/corp they are from.. Then I'm sorry, you seem to be from a NPC corp, and can only be a trolling alt, who know very little about how these things work in the grander scheme of things, and therefore you argument is invalid.

Stuff like this IS being run on the test server, it is being tested as the fine gentleman mentioned. EVE got a steep learning curve, I'm sure people will either learn to adapt or die in a fire committing the same mistakes over and over again.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#62 - 2014-01-05 01:16:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Mallak Azaria
Nerf Burger wrote:
when was the introduction to these "new mechanics", genius?

I guess i shouldn't even try to debate these typically non-sensible goons that come equipped with a herd mentality. Anyone worth a damn will tell you this is an exploit of the drone AI. Of course you will never get sociopathic grief monkey to admit that. Yours and others plight to label this as a new and exciting intended game play mechanic is a laughably pathetic attempt. And you realize you are going to look like an idiot once CCP fixes this thing too, right? Have you no shame at all mr goon?


Rubicon. It seems I have made this person upset. The truth hurts.

CCP are pretty quick to declare a tactic an exploit if they deem it to be, so lets do a little comparing on that. With Rubicon came warp changes, which basically made smaller ships warp faster & bigger ships warp slower. An enterprising person scanned down a supercap & started bumping it when it was in emergency warp. As the supercap pilot could not do anything to stop himself from dying due to e-warp mechanics, CCP declared it an exploit less than a day later.

With Rubicon came new Mobile structures. Some enterprising people used mission runner laziness & stupidity with a tactic that had been pretty well documented on Sisi & were able to kill several mission runners with it. All reimbursement requests have been denied, CCP has not stated that this is an exploit.

Armed with these facts, I have little doubt that you are just really lazy & refuse to take the simple precautions required to avoid this happening to you.

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.
Nerf Burger
Doomheim
#63 - 2014-01-05 02:39:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Nerf Burger
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Nerf Burger wrote:
when was the introduction to these "new mechanics", genius?

I guess i shouldn't even try to debate these typically non-sensible goons that come equipped with a herd mentality. Anyone worth a damn will tell you this is an exploit of the drone AI. Of course you will never get sociopathic grief monkey to admit that. Yours and others plight to label this as a new and exciting intended game play mechanic is a laughably pathetic attempt. And you realize you are going to look like an idiot once CCP fixes this thing too, right? Have you no shame at all mr goon?


Rubicon. It seems I have made this person upset. The truth hurts.

CCP are pretty quick to declare a tactic an exploit if they deem it to be, so lets do a little comparing on that. With Rubicon came warp changes, which basically made smaller ships warp faster & bigger ships warp slower. An enterprising person scanned down a supercap & started bumping it when it was in emergency warp. As the supercap pilot could not do anything to stop himself from dying due to e-warp mechanics, CCP declared it an exploit less than a day later.

With Rubicon came new Mobile structures. Some enterprising people used mission runner laziness & stupidity with a tactic that had been pretty well documented on Sisi & were able to kill several mission runners with it. All reimbursement requests have been denied, CCP has not stated that this is an exploit.

Armed with these facts, I have little doubt that you are just really lazy & refuse to take the simple precautions required to avoid this happening to you.


Just because you have one or two examples of them GMs ignoring the issue, doesn't mean it isn't an exploit. People have been reimbursed for this as well. If this was intended, they would have warned people and people would not have been reimbursed. If this was intended, then drones would aggro a pirate when they attacked a MTU and not only when the drones were engaged with NPCs first. It is clearly a bug in the AI and being exploited. It goes against the spirit of safety setting and devs have said that drones should never auto aggro a suspect or criminal due to drones being set to aggressive. You can claim that the mission runners were lazy and stupid for not knowing about this bug, but that really only makes you look stupid.

These things don't become a problem until more people start doing them. CCP must have some lazy programmers to only be fixing this with reimbursements. Maybe they want to lose a few subscribers first.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#64 - 2014-01-05 03:58:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Mallak Azaria
Nerf Burger wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Nerf Burger wrote:
when was the introduction to these "new mechanics", genius?

I guess i shouldn't even try to debate these typically non-sensible goons that come equipped with a herd mentality. Anyone worth a damn will tell you this is an exploit of the drone AI. Of course you will never get sociopathic grief monkey to admit that. Yours and others plight to label this as a new and exciting intended game play mechanic is a laughably pathetic attempt. And you realize you are going to look like an idiot once CCP fixes this thing too, right? Have you no shame at all mr goon?


Rubicon. It seems I have made this person upset. The truth hurts.

CCP are pretty quick to declare a tactic an exploit if they deem it to be, so lets do a little comparing on that. With Rubicon came warp changes, which basically made smaller ships warp faster & bigger ships warp slower. An enterprising person scanned down a supercap & started bumping it when it was in emergency warp. As the supercap pilot could not do anything to stop himself from dying due to e-warp mechanics, CCP declared it an exploit less than a day later.

With Rubicon came new Mobile structures. Some enterprising people used mission runner laziness & stupidity with a tactic that had been pretty well documented on Sisi & were able to kill several mission runners with it. All reimbursement requests have been denied, CCP has not stated that this is an exploit.

Armed with these facts, I have little doubt that you are just really lazy & refuse to take the simple precautions required to avoid this happening to you.


Just because you have one or two examples of them GMs ignoring the issue, doesn't mean it isn't an exploit. People have been reimbursed for this as well. If this was intended, they would have warned people and people would not have been reimbursed. If this was intended, then drones would aggro a pirate when they attacked a MTU and not only when the drones were engaged with NPCs first. It is clearly a bug in the AI and being exploited. It goes against the spirit of safety setting and devs have said that drones should never auto aggro a suspect or criminal due to drones being set to aggressive. You can claim that the mission runners were lazy and stupid for not knowing about this bug, but that really only makes you look stupid.

These things don't become a problem until more people start doing them. CCP must have some lazy programmers to only be fixing this with reimbursements. Maybe they want to lose a few subscribers first.


I have more than one or two examples of CCP quickly declaring something an exploit or not, you can find these all over the forums & thoroughly documented by players in each case. CCP aren't well known for warning players about the consequences of new mechanics, although the stated intention of mobile structures was 'the first step in giving more control to the players & less to NPC's, aswell as opening up more pvp opportunities'. It doesn't go against the spirit of the safety settings as they are only there to stop you from doing things that will give you suspect or GCC.

If I am wrong about this, it is something that I will have to accept regardless of not liking it & that doesn't make me stupid no matter how much you stamp your feet about it. It will however be another case of CCP pandering to the people that choose to be victims.

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.
HK -56
Doomheim
#65 - 2014-01-05 06:39:06 UTC
Lugalbandak wrote:
HK -56 wrote:
This just happened to my Raven tonight, and I've petitioned it for reimbursed (although with the special kind of ******* only CCP can be, I'm not expecting to get anything). As if drones in missions weren't miserable enough to use.

I'm actually surprised more people aren't talking about this; it may technically not be a glitch but it is clearly against the spirit of the Safety Settings. I understand pvp is omnipresent in EVE, but for CCP to allow this 'backdoor' griefing is just nonsense. This backdoor should not be the isk drain to counter the MTU isk faucet.

Glad the other pilot had the thrill of a ship kill, but this mechanic is absolutely in error.


no its not , and your lying about your reimbursment prolly

afcourse Agr. drones gonna attack a suspect , dotn set them on agr. you silly afker, also try shooting a suspect with green safety it works , so wy not drones? set them passive if you dont want to defend your mission


Wow, thank you for that brilliant display of critical thinking. I hope you will comprehend my retort:

Firstly, I'm not an "afker" - not sure how a Raven could be used AFK unless I was doing level 3 missions with 5 medium drones and gave zero fucks about efficiency. Secondly, I have no reason to lie about a reimbursement - It is my understanding that you cannot post CCP GM correspondence, so you can mull over this: http://postimg.org/image/61l9tn3nl/ and this: http://postimg.org/image/o2ca4wgvz/

Good day.
Shaotuk
Sin City Enterprises
#66 - 2014-01-05 08:00:51 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Dosnix
Mallak Azaria wrote:
I have more than one or two examples of CCP quickly declaring something an exploit or not, you can find these all over the forums & thoroughly documented by players in each case.


As well as CCP waiting before declaring an exploit... It goes both ways.

Quote:
If I am wrong about this, it is something that I will have to accept regardless of not liking it & that doesn't make me stupid no matter how much you stamp your feet about it. It will however be another case of CCP pandering to the people that choose to be victims.


*snip*

Edit: Personal attacks fixed
ISD Dosnix
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#67 - 2014-01-05 08:21:49 UTC
Shaotuk wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
I have more than one or two examples of CCP quickly declaring something an exploit or not, you can find these all over the forums & thoroughly documented by players in each case.


As well as CCP waiting before declaring an exploit... It goes both ways.

Quote:
If I am wrong about this, it is something that I will have to accept regardless of not liking it & that doesn't make me stupid no matter how much you stamp your feet about it. It will however be another case of CCP pandering to the people that choose to be victims.


What makes you stupid is the fact you are ignoring the specifics of what is occurring and sticking to your ill-conceived opinion that CCP intended this aggression mechanic.


Nice contradiction. I'm well aware of the specifics.

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.
Sniper Wolf18
Aggressive Diplomacy
#68 - 2014-01-07 01:31:51 UTC
I've tried to replicate the 'Drones auto-engaging if set to aggressive' mechanic and it simply is not working. Using my alt to test I had her in fleet with me (She was still suspect flagged by it), even after removing her from my fleet and having her re-aggress the drones would still not attack her. I tried having my drones engage a target to see if the drones need to be in 'attack mode' to go for an aggressor; still nothing. Has this been stealth-nerfed? Am I doinitwrong?
Dirk Massive
D.O.O.M.
#69 - 2014-01-09 12:05:01 UTC
This is becoming a very common tactic. Seeing much more of it the more it gets talked about here on the forums it seems. Miners using MTU's, and mission runners alike are being pestered by these high sec pirates at an alarming rate now it seems. Nobody ever said Eve was easy. And even more so Eve can seem brutal to carebears who want nothing to do with PVP. When playing Eve one must pay attention to what they are doing, and keep up with folks like these pirates who are creatively getting around game mechanics to achieve their goal. They are after all fed off all your tears, stop making it so easy for them, and they will soon get bored, and find more entertaining ways to amuse themselves.

**Bringing WAR and TERROR to a system near you.... **
dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#70 - 2014-01-09 12:27:26 UTC
Dirk Massive wrote:
And even more so Eve can seem brutal to carebears who want nothing to do with PVP.


If you don't want to pvp, you are paying the wrong game.

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.
Dirk Massive
D.O.O.M.
#71 - 2014-01-09 12:38:45 UTC
dexington wrote:
Dirk Massive wrote:
And even more so Eve can seem brutal to carebears who want nothing to do with PVP.


If you don't want to pvp, you are paying the wrong game.

Exactly. Eve is one of the most pure pvp games in existence, with just enough carebearing thrown in to keep the games economy going. When playing Eve one is NEVER SAFE. NEVER!

**Bringing WAR and TERROR to a system near you.... **
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#72 - 2014-01-09 13:27:10 UTC
Dirk Massive wrote:
dexington wrote:
Dirk Massive wrote:
And even more so Eve can seem brutal to carebears who want nothing to do with PVP.


If you don't want to pvp, you are paying the wrong game.

Exactly. Eve is one of the most pure pvp games in existence, with just enough carebearing thrown in to keep the games economy going. When playing Eve one is NEVER SAFE. NEVER!


This is not true. I'm perfectly safe inside my cozy captains quarters P
Charlie Jacobson
#73 - 2014-01-09 15:43:51 UTC
IIshira wrote:
Dirk Massive wrote:
dexington wrote:
Dirk Massive wrote:
And even more so Eve can seem brutal to carebears who want nothing to do with PVP.


If you don't want to pvp, you are paying the wrong game.

Exactly. Eve is one of the most pure pvp games in existence, with just enough carebearing thrown in to keep the games economy going. When playing Eve one is NEVER SAFE. NEVER!


This is not true. I'm perfectly safe inside my cozy captains quarters P


At least until they introduce stabbing in stations! Twisted

I support James 315 and the New Order of Highsec
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#74 - 2014-01-09 17:02:51 UTC
Charlie Jacobson wrote:
IIshira wrote:
Dirk Massive wrote:
dexington wrote:
Dirk Massive wrote:
And even more so Eve can seem brutal to carebears who want nothing to do with PVP.


If you don't want to pvp, you are paying the wrong game.

Exactly. Eve is one of the most pure pvp games in existence, with just enough carebearing thrown in to keep the games economy going. When playing Eve one is NEVER SAFE. NEVER!


This is not true. I'm perfectly safe inside my cozy captains quarters P


At least until they introduce stabbing in stations! Twisted


True! I hope if they do it's just as cutthroat as Eve
Tarsas Phage
Sniggerdly
#75 - 2014-01-09 17:18:42 UTC
All this debate and outrage when the fix for this (from a missioner's POV) is a single freakin' options button.
Ginger Barbarella
#76 - 2014-01-09 17:32:23 UTC
Tarsas Phage wrote:
All this debate and outrage when the fix for this (from a missioner's POV) is a single freakin' options button.


Or, as I've said before, one could simple use a Noctis with more FASTER tractors and more HIGHER SUCCESS RATE salvagers.

Oh, and I really love reading about high sec miners using the MTU to store their jetcan ores, and get pissed when aggressed or popped. Good stuff! Lol

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
logic principle3
Doomheim
#77 - 2014-01-09 17:36:25 UTC
Drones; PASSIVE

Get into a decent ship and not an overtanked passive shield tank with 400DPS. In a good ship drone DPS doesnt matter so much, and you only use them for things that get around your tracking.

Another solution is to sit in a mission in a boat designed to destroy frigates and cruisers in pvp... Then let the "griefers" do what they want, its their loss.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#78 - 2014-01-10 16:49:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Tarsas Phage wrote:
All this debate and outrage when the fix for this (from a missioner's POV) is a single freakin' options button.


Except it's not.

Passive drones. Tell drones to assist (NOT guard) player #2.

Player #2 opens fire.

Drones assist.

Target pops.

Player #2 ceases fire.

Drones? Well, those "passive" little drones continue blapping all over the place.




The "fix" is simply to consider MTU and drones mutually exclusive, until such time as every little nuance is worked out.
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#79 - 2014-01-10 22:18:58 UTC
I have a few questions for the good of everyone since this has been going on for a while.

1. Has anyone working for CCP called this an exploit or made any comment. If so please link.

2. Has CCP reimbursed ships for this. I've seen people say yes they have and no they haven't.

3. Are pilots still falling for this leaving their drones on aggressive/ assist or is it becoming hard to find an easy victim?


Just trying to keep things to specifics because all the emotional parts don't really help pilots get smart.
HK -56
Doomheim
#80 - 2014-01-11 22:17:42 UTC  |  Edited by: HK -56
IIshira wrote:
I have a few questions for the good of everyone since this has been going on for a while.

1. Has anyone working for CCP called this an exploit or made any comment. If so please link.

2. Has CCP reimbursed ships for this. I've seen people say yes they have and no they haven't.

3. Are pilots still falling for this leaving their drones on aggressive/ assist or is it becoming hard to find an easy victim?


Just trying to keep things to specifics because all the emotional parts don't really help pilots get smart.


1. I don't think any public announcement has been made.

2. Yes, my Raven was reimbursed.

3. I imagine most people are still leaving drones on aggressive, but they are quick to scoop them if a hostile shows up. But that's only the people that are already aware of this issue.