Crime & Punishment

Suggestion: Now that you can't interact with the MTU just gank them. Gank them and then thank them in local for changing the MTU mechanics. Then gank another one. Go run some missions or whatever to recoup your sec status and do it again. Then do it again. If the bears clearly don't want teh MTU aggro option available - give them the alternative.

There are 2 sides to this. Two weeks ago the bears were whining and the MTU aggro jockeys were gloating about the mechanic and telling the bears to adapt. This week the bears are gloating and the MTU jockeys are whining. It's time for the MTU jockeys to take some of their prescription and adapt. GANK THEM. GANK THEM ALL.

Scan them down in mission and gank them. If they MJD then warp to safety - sit on their mission gate. When they jump through a system gate - there should be 10 tornados waiting. If you guys really want to pop them.... just do it. Don't tell bears to adapt one week and then cry 'cuz mechanix sux' the next. They are there for the taking.

Please don't agree with me. I feel smarter when you are on the other side.

There is a locked thread in Features & Ideas that would have given you what you desire: the opportunity for multiple death at the hands of high sec carebears

I posted the idea, but can't claim ownership of it since it was the result of a conversation in another thread.

Link is in my sig for anyone brave enough to wade into all the thread crapping lol.

I love it when things like that happen, or when I'm about to gank a miner and they come up with a countermeasure I had not anticipated and leave with their ship intact.

I think we're also still waiting on an official CCP response to this. (Waits for cut and paste response)

And this is the best that a CCP representative can come up with? Really?

There is, it's called the entire universe.
I'd love to see people try and PvP with bots, they'd get slaughtered.

If the entire universe is dedicated to pvp, why not just get rid of non-pvp activities entirely? We can all buy extra plex to finance our warring - now there's a business model to make EA proud.

Get rid of security standings too, and let people camp outside newbie stations with T3s. All the 5-10 year old players can have fun shooting each other while those of us who don't have 50m skillpoints and ISK built up over a few years spend 3 months training skills and brushing up on our station trading.

Not all PvP involves shooting other ships ... don't forget the Market ... so "brushing up on station trading" is a valid strategy. Imagine the feels your rivals will get when they realize that all the ISK they just spent refitting those ships you destroyed went to the person who destroyed them because that player was smart enough to seed their home/staging system with ships, rigs and modules they would need to restock.

Independent of whether this should have been "fixed" (the mechanic was very bug like but it certainly created content), the fix CCP chose actually had very undesirable side effects, namely preventing people from getting aggression timers and limited engagements because of aggressive drones when their ships are attacked. The stupid and lazy are now favoured more than they were before Rubicon, there are no longer sec status loss free pod kills against most players and docking, jumping, refitting etc. are all allowed in situations where they would previously have been automatically prevented by a weapons timer caused by drone retaliation against an attack. Whether drones should retaliate if you attack a deployable or not (probably not), they certainly should retaliate against an attack on your ship regardless of whether this will initiate a limited engagement.

Some vital information before I continue: drone retaliation against deployable structure attacks only occurred when the drones are already fighting a target and that target disappears. Mostly this means a rat but suiciding a rookie ship to give them a target worked too.

An incident gave me a clue as to the nature of the underlying bug. I was scouting for someone shooting mission runners' MTUs when the mechanic was new and poorly understood and a raven didn't engage. Pretty standard. The interesting thing was about ten minutes later the raven died to rats and he got the killmail despite having never attacked the ship itself. So an attack on a deployable is considered an attack on a player at some level and qualified him to receive the killmail even though it was a pve loss.

If I were to guess, EVE's code might have logic something like this (please excuse horrible pseudocode mixing Python, C++ and English with curly brackets because I can't work out how to retain indentation):

# Called when an aggressive module is activated
Ship::on_aggress(object):
{
# Is player owned, not an NPC ship or structure
if object.owner != None: object.owner.killers.append(self)

# Is a ship and is not vacant
if object.pilot != None:
{
for drone in object.drones:
{
if drone.target == None: drone.select_target()
}
}
}

Drone::lost_target():
{
self.select_target()
}

Drone::select_target():
{
if not self.aggressive: return
self.target = sorted(self.owner.killers, by distance)[0]
}

CCP "fixed" this issue by adding an additional check to select_target() in this pseudocode to not initialise an LE, but the correct fix is to change "if object.owner != None" at the top of Ship::on_aggress to "if object.pilot != None".