These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
#81 - 2014-01-26 10:24:30 UTC
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.




Safety settings only stop you from flagging, not shooting a flagged suspect.
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
#82 - 2014-01-26 10:40:31 UTC
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) No, no CCP employee has posted or otherwise communicated that it is an exploit.

2) Possibly, especially during the early confusion. There are plenty of public denials though, and I haven't seen a single confirmed. CCP does not "take back" reimbursements given in error.


However the tactic has certainly not seen any punishment for its use, which is basically a clear ticket to go have fun since it's been going a while now. **** like the triple web exploit are clear exploits, this is just another shortcut in mechanics. Plenty of those aren't exploiits.

3) Yes.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#83 - 2014-01-26 14:43:08 UTC
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
Decaneos wrote:
Its because if your running drones and they attack a MTU the drones will aggress the player thus putting you into " Consentual" PVP even if you didn't mean to.

Now that's interesting...


And also considered an exploit.
And yes, I have a GM's response to confirm that.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#84 - 2014-01-26 16:04:29 UTC
ahahaha what

how is someone supposed to know if your drones are on passive or aggressive when they agress the mtu

you're full of it
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#85 - 2014-01-26 18:04:37 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
ahahaha what

how is someone supposed to know if your drones are on passive or aggressive when they agress the mtu

you're full of it

Anyone aggressing an MTU is in completely aware of the repercussions, if they get drone aggro and use that to kill a mission runner then they are using a exploit. if they don't get drone aggro then they will know the drones were on passive.

Makes sense to me and anyone else that thinks about it for more than one minute. There needs to be a change to invading mission space anyways. It's not like people scan down mission runners to see how well they shoot red dots, if they are scanning down a mission runner it's because they want to interfere with that mission and possibly profit.

In the real world it would be probable cause, and probable cause should get you a suspect timer no if's, ands, or buts.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#86 - 2014-01-26 18:34:30 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
ahahaha what

how is someone supposed to know if your drones are on passive or aggressive when they agress the mtu

you're full of it

Anyone aggressing an MTU is in completely aware of the repercussions, if they get drone aggro and use that to kill a mission runner then they are using a exploit. if they don't get drone aggro then they will know the drones were on passive.

Makes sense to me and anyone else that thinks about it for more than one minute. There needs to be a change to invading mission space anyways. It's not like people scan down mission runners to see how well they shoot red dots, if they are scanning down a mission runner it's because they want to interfere with that mission and possibly profit.

In the real world it would be probable cause, and probable cause should get you a suspect timer no if's, ands, or buts.

i am just a simple mtu cleaner, why are you aggressing me brave marauder pilot

i had better defend myself
dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#87 - 2014-01-26 19:10:52 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
There needs to be a change to invading mission space anyways.


Change?, what needs to be changed?

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#88 - 2014-01-26 19:16:53 UTC
dexington wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
There needs to be a change to invading mission space anyways.


Change?, what needs to be changed?

This is being discussed in several threads, but the idea I like the most is if your not in a fleet with the owner of the mission you get a suspect flag as soon as you activate a gate, or enter a mission area without fleet invite.

I mean really if your playing EVE as the 'Bad Guy' then Own It and take it like a man (or fairly rough woman) no need to hide behind favoured game mechanics. We all know who you are. Anyways getting the suspect flag is more a badge of honour than a impending ship explosion for those guys, so own it and be a the brave 'Bad Guy' you paid to be.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#89 - 2014-01-26 19:40:34 UTC  |  Edited by: IIshira
Goldiiee wrote:
dexington wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
There needs to be a change to invading mission space anyways.


Change?, what needs to be changed?

This is being discussed in several threads, but the idea I like the most is if your not in a fleet with the owner of the mission you get a suspect flag as soon as you activate a gate, or enter a mission area without fleet invite.

I mean really if your playing EVE as the 'Bad Guy' then Own It and take it like a man (or fairly rough woman) no need to hide behind favoured game mechanics. We all know who you are. Anyways getting the suspect flag is more a badge of honour than a impending ship explosion for those guys, so own it and be a the brave 'Bad Guy' you paid to be.


Great idea except one thing. These people actually try to get in an engagement. They're not trying to avoid one like the mission runner
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#90 - 2014-01-26 19:48:19 UTC
IIshira wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
dexington wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
There needs to be a change to invading mission space anyways.


Change?, what needs to be changed?

This is being discussed in several threads, but the idea I like the most is if your not in a fleet with the owner of the mission you get a suspect flag as soon as you activate a gate, or enter a mission area without fleet invite.

I mean really if your playing EVE as the 'Bad Guy' then Own It and take it like a man (or fairly rough woman) no need to hide behind favoured game mechanics. We all know who you are. Anyways getting the suspect flag is more a badge of honour than a impending ship explosion for those guys, so own it and be a the brave 'Bad Guy' you paid to be.


Great idea except one thing. These people actually try to get in an engagement. They're not trying to avoid one like the mission runner

If I am understanding you correctly, then you are thinking Mission runners don't ever try to get into an engagement. I would say your right about half of it; Mission runners don't try to get into an engagement in a mission fit ship. But I know many 'Carebears' that spend their hard earned ISK getting into all kinds of PVP content, just not in a mission boat.

This becomes blatantly obvious any time the 'Carebears' ask for a buff to ships for PVE. the cries of outrage from the PVP-only guys can be heard in Dante's Third Ring. After all they don't want to spend more ISK to forcibly take Carebear ISK that's floating around in space. I mean that would mean they would have to engage in the PVE content of EVE, and we can't have that.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#91 - 2014-01-26 20:01:13 UTC
Park an alt beside the mission boat in anything that is not a cookie cutter/obvious mission boat....suddenly it's like 28 Days Later™ in your site.
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#92 - 2014-01-26 20:20:02 UTC
No I'm not saying mission runners don't engage PVP ships. Of course they do or there wouldn't be so many on lossmails. I was just saying allowing the mission runner to engage won't help since pilots that invade others missions want this so they can get the kill.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#93 - 2014-01-26 20:23:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
IIshira wrote:
No I'm not saying mission runners don't engage PVP ships. Of course they do or there wouldn't be so many on lossmails. I was just saying allowing the mission runner to engage won't help since pilots that invade others missions want this so they can get the EASY kill.


Fixed.

As I say, park something nasty beside a mission boat and...../tumbleweed.

You know, a curse or something.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#94 - 2014-01-26 20:27:54 UTC
IIshira wrote:
No I'm not saying mission runners don't engage PVP ships. Of course they do or there wouldn't be so many on lossmails. I was just saying allowing the mission runner to engage won't help since pilots that invade others missions want this so they can get the kill.

Ah I misunderstood, but I still think not giving the prospective ganker time to get at optimal, or up to speed would give the Mission owner enough of an advantage to make a difference in the standard 'get your **** and get out' meta that is available currently.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#95 - 2014-01-26 20:31:20 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
I mean really if your playing EVE as the 'Bad Guy' then Own It and take it like a man (or fairly rough woman) no need to hide behind favoured game mechanics. We all know who you are. Anyways getting the suspect flag is more a badge of honour than a impending ship explosion for those guys, so own it and be a the brave 'Bad Guy' you paid to be.

'favoured' game mechanics

you'll find everyone in highsec operates under the same rules

you're asking that someone be placed under a suspect flag for being somewhere you don't like
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#96 - 2014-01-26 20:31:53 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
IIshira wrote:
No I'm not saying mission runners don't engage PVP ships. Of course they do or there wouldn't be so many on lossmails. I was just saying allowing the mission runner to engage won't help since pilots that invade others missions want this so they can get the EASY kill.


Fixed.

As I say, park something nasty beside a mission boat and...../tumbleweed.

You know, a curse or something.

True.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#97 - 2014-01-26 20:37:41 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
I mean really if your playing EVE as the 'Bad Guy' then Own It and take it like a man (or fairly rough woman) no need to hide behind favoured game mechanics. We all know who you are. Anyways getting the suspect flag is more a badge of honour than a impending ship explosion for those guys, so own it and be a the brave 'Bad Guy' you paid to be.

'favoured' game mechanics

you'll find everyone in highsec operates under the same rules

you're asking that someone be placed under a suspect flag for being somewhere you don't like

No, I'm stating that intentions are in need of a Suspect flag. If you want to get in the site, get in the fleet. otherwise your looking to rid someone of their hard earned ISK with your stolen ISK, so your intentions are clear your suspect status should be clear as well.

In congruence with the rest of the exploration content, when you scan down a Serpentis, Angel, Gurista, Sansha ... site in high sec do the rats in there wait till you steal something or shoot something to aggress; No they don't, because even this AI is smart enough to know your up to no good. The same should apply to any other site you scan down and invade.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#98 - 2014-01-26 20:39:30 UTC
i'm here to rid highsec of unlawful pirate groups

is that a problem
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#99 - 2014-01-26 20:45:33 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
i'm here to rid highsec of unlawful pirate groups

is that a problem

No that's not a problem at all. But just like in society if you operate on the wrong side of the law you are not entitled to their protection. So a person choosing to play on the Pirate side should be flashy yellow whenever they do anything that is outside the parameters everyone else is willing to work in.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#100 - 2014-01-26 20:50:11 UTC
that already happens

you can't demand someone turn suspect because - gasp - they interact with what you're doing