These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

EXPLOIT: Wardecs, remote repairs and limited engagement timer
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jules Wolfpack
Infinite Singularity.
#41 - 2013-02-23 18:11:15 UTC
Zilero wrote:


Of course its simple to adapt to these kinda tactics Big smile.


Now if only you would have started with this line of reasoning before posting, you could have saved yourself a bit of typing.
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#42 - 2013-02-23 18:21:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Adriel Malakai
NEONOVUS wrote:
But really I am curious under what circumstances is corp logi free to act in hisec?


If the corp/alliance in question is at war, then in-corp/alliance logi is allowed to rep a fellow member when they have a PVP flag, without going suspect. In practice, this means that you can rep your fellow members against war targets or fellow members without going suspect. If the person being repped has a Suspect flag, a Criminal flag, or a Limited Engagement flag, repping them will result in the logistics going suspect.

This contrasts to neutral RR, which will also go suspect when repping a player who is both at war and has a PVP flag (from being engaged by or with either corp mates or a valid war target).
Jill Xelitras
Xeltec services
#43 - 2013-02-23 18:33:46 UTC
Zilero wrote:

Its quite obvious - CCP do not think hisec warfare should in any way be viable when the mechanics work like this.


Absolutely right ! I therefore propose:

1) remove all pvp from high-sec.

2) remove all high-sec.

... ok that wasn't 100% serious, since noobs need some highsec place to start in.

Maybe disallow combat ships able to wield anything bigger than medium turrets and heavy missile launchers in high-sec. Now, that would drive people to low-sec Twisted .

Don't anger the forum gods.

ISD Buldath:

> I Saw, I came, I Frowned, I locked, I posted, and I left.
Zilero
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2013-02-23 18:37:30 UTC
Jill Xelitras wrote:
Zilero wrote:

Its quite obvious - CCP do not think hisec warfare should in any way be viable when the mechanics work like this.


Absolutely right ! I therefore propose:

1) remove all pvp from high-sec.

2) remove all high-sec.

... ok that wasn't 100% serious, since noobs need some highsec place to start in.

Maybe disallow combat ships able to wield anything bigger than medium turrets and heavy missile launchers in high-sec. Now, that would drive people to low-sec Twisted .



I fully agree with this Pirate
Zilero
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2013-02-23 18:38:42 UTC
Jules Wolfpack wrote:
Zilero wrote:


Of course its simple to adapt to these kinda tactics Big smile.


Now if only you would have started with this line of reasoning before posting, you could have saved yourself a bit of typing.


I already knew how to counter it before posting. I still think the mechanic should be changed, but hey - I got enough -10 alts that I can abuse this myself.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#46 - 2013-02-23 18:42:03 UTC
NEONOVUS wrote:



But really I am curious under what circumstances is corp logi free to act in hisec?


Whenever it wants to.
Wodensun
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#47 - 2013-02-23 18:52:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Wodensun
Zilero wrote:
Feledain wrote:
Zilero wrote:

2. That someone gets concorded and if anyone on your side shoots and/or scrams or in other ways attack this guy you get a limited engagement timer .


Just dont shoot back?

Concord takes care of these fast enough.


Show me where on the "auto aggro" drone setting I have the possibility to avoid attacking a criminal shooting me?

Oh, I don't - ergo: Auto aggro drone settings coupled with suicide shooting + limited engagement timer = exploit.


Utter bullshit.. learn what a exploit is before mouth breathing.

You don't have to shoot the GCCer.
You don't have to set drones to auto agro.

/thread.

Do not give me likes them 101 likes arent a accident...
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#48 - 2013-02-23 19:07:41 UTC
You guys just made my day by declaring war on us. I look forward to our week together! Big smile
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#49 - 2013-02-23 19:11:32 UTC
Zilero wrote:
This was done deliberately twice in the last 30 minutes when engaging wartargets.

And you fell for it both times?

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#50 - 2013-02-23 19:36:33 UTC
Adriel Malakai wrote:
Zilero wrote:
This was done deliberately twice in the last 30 minutes when engaging wartargets.

Do the math.

Getting a flag where you can not be remote repped for shooting a criminal is a wrong mechanic and open for abuse.


Again, this is a problem with your pilots being dumb, not with the mechanics. No one is forcing you to shoot the dude going GCC. No one is forcing you to get that LE timer. Your own choices to get on a mail are having an adverse impact on your ability to engage your war targets.

Don't be an killwhore, and it won't be a problem. Otherwise, learn to deal with suspect reps - it's really not that difficult.

EDIT: To add to this, I don't think they can disable this even if they tried, as the LE is the mechanic that allows you to legally engage the criminals in the first place. Crimewatch 2.0 has some goofy ways of handling things, I agree, but the reality is that it is your own choices and/or incompetence that is making this a problem for you. And, more importantly, suspect reps are pretty much a non-issue anywhere that is not a major trade hub.

Actually the last is not quite true. Someone who has a criminal flag can be freely attacked by anyone already. He can also freely attack back with no further consequences, and can freely attack anyone giving RR without any further consequences. Its not clear why any of this should set a limited engagement flag.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#51 - 2013-02-23 21:30:31 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Actually the last is not quite true. Someone who has a criminal flag can be freely attacked by anyone already. He can also freely attack back with no further consequences, and can freely attack anyone giving RR without any further consequences. Its not clear why any of this should set a limited engagement flag.

It all relies on LE flagging, which replaced the old aggression system and all its screwiness.

Without the LE, suspects and criminals would not be able to return fire.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#52 - 2013-02-23 23:09:33 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
Actually the last is not quite true. Someone who has a criminal flag can be freely attacked by anyone already. He can also freely attack back with no further consequences, and can freely attack anyone giving RR without any further consequences. Its not clear why any of this should set a limited engagement flag.

It all relies on LE flagging, which replaced the old aggression system and all its screwiness.

Without the LE, suspects and criminals would not be able to return fire.


LE is still a flawed mechanic. It's better than the old system, but still screwy.
If the LE target can be engaged Legally (I.E. Suspect/War Target/GCC) by the logistics, then they shouldn't go suspect for repping someone, but become part of the LE.

This means the Logistics has consequences which are THE SAME as if they had shot at the LE Target.

Where as currently the consequences are WORSE than if they had attacked the target.

This isn't about 'no consequences' but about standardising consequences across the board.
Yes, it does mean the LE's spread. Which is supposedly one of the issues in the old system. But they spread globaly at that point, everyone involved can shoot at everyone, rather than a tangled web, you just have two sides to the fight all of whom have the same LE's (assuming targets are legal to each other)
If the Logistics couldn't shoot the LE target, then they go suspect just like now, since..... they would go suspect, or worse even GCC if they shot the target. Personally I have no issue if the flip side is repping someone in an LE made you go GCC if you couldn't shoot the target. It should be counted the same as if you shot at the target in the first place. Regardless of which way around it is.
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts.
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#53 - 2013-02-24 00:57:19 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
LE is still a flawed mechanic. It's better than the old system, but still screwy.
If the LE target can be engaged Legally (I.E. Suspect/War Target/GCC) by the logistics, then they shouldn't go suspect for repping someone, but become part of the LE.

This means the Logistics has consequences which are THE SAME as if they had shot at the LE Target.

Where as currently the consequences are WORSE than if they had attacked the target.


Did you read any of the devblogs/forum threads/rants prior to retribution? People b*tched about neutral reps, so they got the heavy hammer in the engagement timers.

As it currently stands, logi going suspect instead of gaining an LE is what they specifically intended to occur.

Member of the Pink Pony Killboard Padding Alliance
Feledain
Elmsfeuer
#54 - 2013-02-24 04:14:03 UTC
On a second thought... seems to be a problem with the drone AI, maybe they should not attack if it results in a limited engagement while on green.

The safety was on green, right?
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#55 - 2013-02-24 04:22:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
Actually the last is not quite true. Someone who has a criminal flag can be freely attacked by anyone already. He can also freely attack back with no further consequences, and can freely attack anyone giving RR without any further consequences. Its not clear why any of this should set a limited engagement flag.

It all relies on LE flagging, which replaced the old aggression system and all its screwiness.

Without the LE, suspects and criminals would not be able to return fire.

I agree an LE flag is needed for engaging suspects. But Criminals? They got seconds before CONCORD kills them. During that time they can shoot ANYONE and it makes no difference as to what happens to them.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Tysinger
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#56 - 2013-02-24 04:53:22 UTC
Hello, my name is Tysinger. I am looking forward to long walks on the beach with all of you.
Maybe even go further? mmmmmmm
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#57 - 2013-02-24 04:58:12 UTC
Feledain wrote:
On a second thought... seems to be a problem with the drone AI, maybe they should not attack if it results in a limited engagement while on green.

The safety was on green, right?


Green just restricts you from committing actions that make you go suspect or criminal. It's completely legal to shoot criminals and suspects, and you can do so while set green.
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#58 - 2013-02-24 05:54:58 UTC
Came to the thread looking for an interesting new exploit, found only pilot incomptence and tears over inability to properly pilot a ship. If you have your drones on aggressive during wardecs, YOU DESERVE TO DIE. If you shoot GCCs/suspects during wardecs, YOU DESERVE TO DIE. If you are relying on RR to save you from wartargets, and your enemies outsmart you:

YOU DESERVE TO DIE.

(Dieing = losing ship and getting podded, for those of you who don't understand the difference between a comment on eve, and RL suicide comments.)
NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#59 - 2013-02-24 14:17:48 UTC
Tysinger wrote:
Hello, my name is Tysinger. I am looking forward to long walks on the beach with all of you.
Maybe even go further? mmmmmmm

Wrong thread dude.
Besides all the beaches near me are on fire or will be when my ClF3 arrives.
I wanted to make them all glass in time for the summer.
Zilero
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2013-02-24 17:12:13 UTC
Feledain wrote:
On a second thought... seems to be a problem with the drone AI, maybe they should not attack if it results in a limited engagement while on green.

The safety was on green, right?


Safety was green yes.