These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Sentries Outside POS Shield Exploit
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#181 - 2013-09-24 21:06:42 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Again, don't butcher my quotes.
Don't be wrong.


Stop. You do not get it. I do not care how wrong you think I am. Stop paraphrasing me.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#182 - 2013-09-24 21:08:39 UTC
Quote:
So why are you trying to? Those are the intended mechanics and that's why circumventing them with drones is an exploit.



I'm not. I understand how drone assist works. You obviously do not since you want to consider a drone a gun, not the semi ai controlled entity it is.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#183 - 2013-09-24 21:10:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
Stop.
No

Quote:
You do not get it.
Sure I do.
More than that, though, I get the fundamental principle that if you want to use your ship's weapon (or support) systems in a fight, that ship is supposed to be exposed to return-fire, not stowed away safely where it can't be touched.

Until the bug with drones and POS shields has been fixed so that they work like every other weapon system in this regard, it is only natural and right that circumventing this intended behaviour is deemed an exploit.

Quote:
I'm not. I understand how drone assist works.
If you think that assisting someone somehow makes the drones a weapon dependent on the assisting ship rather than the drone launcher, you definitely don't. If you think that I consider drones a gun, you don't understand that either.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#184 - 2013-09-24 21:11:09 UTC
I also understand the more strategic problem is the pos, not the drone assist. Especially in this case.

Drone assist as a mechanic is working as intended.

The pos shields are not. If the pos shields were not there, this would not be a problem.

Since I can understand that better than you, I think I will believe me more than you thinking a drone being another rocket/missile/laser/turret.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#185 - 2013-09-24 21:13:39 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Drone assist as a mechanic is working as intended.

The pos shields are not.
…and exploiting that bug is still… well… an exploit for all the obvious reasons.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#186 - 2013-09-24 21:15:07 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Stop.
No

Quote:
You do not get it.
Sure I do.
More than that, though, I get the fundamental principle that if you want to use your ship's weapon (or support) systems in a fight, that ship is supposed to be exposed to return-fire, not stowed away safely where it can't be touched.

Until the bug with drones and POS shields has been fixed so that they work like every other weapon system in this regard, it is only natural and right that circumventing this intended behaviour is deemed an exploit.

Quote:
I'm not. I understand how drone assist works.
If you think that assisting someone somehow makes the drones a weapon dependent on the assisting ship rather than the drone launcher, you definitely don't. If you think that I consider drones a gun, you don't understand that either.



So you confirm and agree that you wish to paraphrase and interrupt as opposed to having a discussion?

Cool. I will accept your defeat and move on.

When you want to have a discussion about it, we can continue.

Until then I do not wish to see this thread get locked from your trolling.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#187 - 2013-09-24 21:18:11 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
So you confirm and agree that you wish to paraphrase and interrupt as opposed to having a discussion?
There is no opposition between the two.
I'll interrupt you when you go off the rails so much that it's better to just correct you there and then rather than include all the incorrect bits.

Quote:
When you want to have a discussion about it, we can continue.
Can you present any actual arguments why why drones should not work under the same principle of reciprocity as all other weapon (and support) systems?
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#188 - 2013-09-24 21:37:11 UTC
Quote:
Can you present any actual arguments why why drones should not work under the same principle of reciprocity as all other weapon (and support) systems?



I did.

The ship controlling the drones (the drone bunny as it were) falls under those categories. That's the balance of drone assist as a mechanic. The ship who POSSESSES the drones do not fall under that category, because it is not actively participating in that combat.

POS guns and controlling them is a much more similar comparison to the mechanic since you do not have to own the POS in order to control its' guns. For the same reasons.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#189 - 2013-09-24 21:44:21 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
The ship controlling the drones (the drone bunny as it were) falls under those categories.
…except that they're not his drones; he provide no bonuses; he can be removed from the field and the drones are not gone as a weapon system because they are still the weapon system of the drone carrier — that's why it is the drone carrier. Until the drone carrier is killed, the drones are active and in working order.

Just because you kill the tackling frigate that makes sure your 1400s have a chance of hitting doesn't mean you are rid of the 1400s until you kill the ship that owns those weapons.

Quote:
POS guns and controlling them is a much more similar comparison to the mechanic since you do not have to own the POS in order to control its' guns.
…except that you have to go down a very specific training path in order to use these actually autonomous systems that work with or without someone controlling them. They are owned by no-one (except maybe the POS, and guess what? That owner is exposed to return-fire).
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#190 - 2013-09-24 21:45:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
But he still controls them. And can receive return fire.

Bonuses are irrelevant. That drone ship pilot cannot do anything else to be involved in combat while in the safety of that pos.

If he had multiple modules to use, he cannot while under protection.

While he cannot receive return fire on his hull, he cannot also use any other module to help.

The ship that does have control of the drones, can in fact be fired upon, and if he was destroyed, those sentrys would in fact be disabled until the drone pilot assigned the sentrys to a new pilot, or exited the pos and used them himself, which would apply the same requirements about being able to be fired upon.

Again, reciprocity is in fact met. Just not as how you see fit. But the burden IS there.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#191 - 2013-09-24 21:49:37 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
But he still controls them.
…and yet it's not his weapon system any more than the POS guns are the pod's/titan's/Hulk's weapon system. He can be nuked all to hell and the weapon system is still around and active.

That's because it's the drone ship's weapon system. That's why the drone ship is supposed to be exposed to return fire — so you can kill the drones and their replacements once and for all — and that's why it has been deemed an exploit to use those drones in combat without exposing the ship that has deployed them.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#192 - 2013-09-24 21:56:07 UTC
Keep in mind when you have multiple ships NOT in the fight, it is in fact a hindrance more than help since a ship can have more uses to a fight other than applying drones.

So while 10 ships might assign their 50 drones to 1 T3 cruiser, it is not 11 ships worth of fight.

But maybe more like 8.

A strong ass 8, but there lies the crux.

See, this whole argument is based on drones being assisted, because innately most people understand, and choose not to accept it, that the drones being assisted is not the problem.

It's the POS. The POS is at fault here.

But that's not as exciting, because we all know POSs are screwed up and have been.

But when someone comes up with something creative to further expose an already evident weakness/bug/exploit/problem, you have a bunch of people jumping on the bandwagon to throw their 2 cents in and damn everyone else who may have an opinion.

But the drones aren't at fault, which surprises me why you would be so cavalier about it.

I know you are way more observant than that and can recognize the problem being with the pos, because without the pos your argument on drones and the assist function doesn't exist.

Whereas with the pos being the problem, eliminating the drones from the equation still does not eliminate the problem (only part of the exploit) because missiles, bridging,etc) can still be manipulated through the shields.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#193 - 2013-09-24 21:56:46 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
But he still controls them.
…and yet it's not his weapon system any more than the POS guns are the pod's/titan's/Hulk's weapon system. He can be nuked all to hell and the weapon system is still around and active.

That's because it's the drone ship's weapon system. That's why the drone ship is supposed to be exposed to return fire — so you can kill the drones and their replacements once and for all — and that's why it has been deemed an exploit to use those drones in combat without exposing the ship that has deployed them.



The drone assist mechanic disagrees.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#194 - 2013-09-24 22:03:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
So while 10 ships might assign their 50 drones to 1 T3 cruiser, it is not 11 ships worth of fight.

But maybe more like 8.

A strong ass 8, but there lies the crux.
The crux is that it doesn't matter. It's still ”more like 8 ships” when it should only be 1 since 10 of those ships are safe from return-fire in a fight where their weapon systems are being employed.

Quote:
It's the POS. The POS is at fault here.
…and exploiting that bug is still an exploit for all the obvious reasons. You still have a weapon system that should not be employable because the ship holding that weapon system is hidden behind the POS shield. This should work exactly the same as if that ship had fitted hybrids or lasers or projectiles or remote reps or scanners or warfare links or scrams or any number of weapon and support systems.

Quote:
Whereas with the pos being the problem, eliminating the drones from the equation still does not eliminate the problem (only part of the exploit) because missiles, bridging,etc) can still be manipulated through the shields.

…but the problem right now is that drones are being employed in fights while the ships holding them are safe. So making sure that they don't do that is exactly the right way to go. If other exploits exist with other weapon systems, then they are up for a fix to and employing them in a similar manner will be called an exploit if you ask the devs.

Quote:
The drone assist mechanic disagrees.
It really doesn't. It does not transfer ownership, bonus sourcing, or disabling/abandonment mechanics, or indeed much of anything that regulates drone capabilities or behaviour. It only transfer (a very limited amount of) targeting control.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#195 - 2013-09-24 22:07:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
So while 10 ships might assign their 50 drones to 1 T3 cruiser, it is not 11 ships worth of fight.

But maybe more like 8.

A strong ass 8, but there lies the crux.
The crux is that it doesn't matter. It's still ”more like 8 ships” when it should only be 1 since 10 of those ships are safe from return-fire in a fight where their weapon systems are being employed.

Quote:
It's the POS. The POS is at fault here.
…and exploiting that bug is still an exploit for all the obvious reasons. You still have a weapon system that should not be employable because the ship holding that weapon system is hidden behind the POS shield. This should work exactly the same as if that ship had fitted hybrids or lasers or projectiles or remote reps or scanners or warfare links or scrams or any number of weapon and support systems.

Quote:
Whereas with the pos being the problem, eliminating the drones from the equation still does not eliminate the problem (only part of the exploit) because missiles, bridging,etc) can still be manipulated through the shields.

…but the problem right now is that drones are being employed in fights while the ships holding them are safe. So making sure that they don't do that is exactly the right way to go. If other exploits exist with other weapon systems, then they are up for a fix to and employing them in a similar manner will be called an exploit if you ask the devs.

Quote:
The drone assist mechanic disagrees.
It really doesn't. It does not transfer ownership, bonus sourcing, or disabling/abandonment mechanics.



The weapon system does not matter. It's the pos shields that are the problem.

And yes, drone assist is "transfering" the ships dps capabilities to the ship that is choosing the targets.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#196 - 2013-09-24 22:52:51 UTC
Yep, still rolling around in this thread.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#197 - 2013-09-24 23:33:22 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Keep in mind when you have multiple ships NOT in the fight, it is in fact a hindrance more than help since a ship can have more uses to a fight other than applying drones.

So while 10 ships might assign their 50 drones to 1 T3 cruiser, it is not 11 ships worth of fight.

But maybe more like 8.

A strong ass 8, but there lies the crux.

More like 15+, learn to exploit.

Since the drone boat is invulnerable it can disregard tank and fit max dps, while the only targetable ship is brick tanked and pre-locked by logi.

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#198 - 2013-09-25 00:14:06 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
The weapon system does not matter. It's the pos shields that are the problem.
…and in this case, the weapon system that the POS shields cause problems with just happens to be drones. Should any other weapon system exhibit the same issues, the same kind of exploit would be in effect for them. So trying to make any kind of argument that drones are somehow special and should receive special treatment is nonsensical — they should behave as all weapon systems do when combined with POS shields.

Quote:
And yes, drone assist is "transfering" the ships dps capabilities to the ship that is choosing the targets.
…in other words, it's still the drone ship's weapon system that is being employed in a situation where that ship is not exposed to return-fire, which is not how things are supposed to be. Otherwise, it would have been the assisted ship's (and its pilot's) skills and bonuses that would determine the drones' abilities (which would, among other things, mean that most ships could not be handed more than 2–3 sentries in total).

Drones employed with assist are no different than any other remote support module in that regard: a Remote Armour Repper is not a repper that is employed by the ship that is being repped; an RSB is not a sensor booster fitted to the ship being boosted; and a flock of sentry drones assisting a fast-locking interceptor are not a weapon system of that interceptor. All of those still belong to the carrier of the system being employed. The interceptor just directs the incoming aid to an appropriate target. And even then, look at how assisting drones interact with CrimeWatch and then tell me who they belong to…

It doesn't matter who's doing the pointing — it's still your weapon being fired using your skills and your ship, so it is you who should be exposed to return-fire at any point when those weapons are able to be employed.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#199 - 2013-09-25 00:49:30 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Keep in mind when you have multiple ships NOT in the fight, it is in fact a hindrance more than help since a ship can have more uses to a fight other than applying drones.

So while 10 ships might assign their 50 drones to 1 T3 cruiser, it is not 11 ships worth of fight.

But maybe more like 8.

A strong ass 8, but there lies the crux.

More like 15+, learn to exploit.

Since the drone boat is invulnerable it can disregard tank and fit max dps, while the only targetable ship is brick tanked and pre-locked by logi.

Someone was caught with bad made up numbers.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#200 - 2013-09-25 01:15:45 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Keep in mind when you have multiple ships NOT in the fight, it is in fact a hindrance more than help since a ship can have more uses to a fight other than applying drones.

So while 10 ships might assign their 50 drones to 1 T3 cruiser, it is not 11 ships worth of fight.

But maybe more like 8.

A strong ass 8, but there lies the crux.

More like 15+, learn to exploit.

Since the drone boat is invulnerable it can disregard tank and fit max dps, while the only targetable ship is brick tanked and pre-locked by logi.


Well, that's not grossly unbalanced at all.

I find it amazing how some people will choose to argue that up is down and down is slight left lol. It's crazy and shows how common sense is no longer common.