These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#61 - 2013-09-22 00:16:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Mayhaw Morgan
Andski wrote:
yes clearly all you need to do is:

  • kill all the sentry drones
  • reinforce the pos
  • anchor t2 large bubbles all around to ensure that nobody warps out
  • camp them into the POS for the entire reinforcement timer
  • take down the POS after the reinforcement timer
  • camp for days and blow up domis when they log in


Do you think that's unfair? What's unfair about it? Is it the millions of shield HP that the game makes you shoot through? Is it the invincibility mode of reinforcement? Is it that all those players and drones can be so effectively yoked to one person's will without any degradation of their combat effectiveness, thus eliminating the need for skill in coordinating? Is it that the risk and the burden of change falls so heavily on the attackers? We already know the tactic can be countered, so, what IS the problem?

Tippia wrote:
Doesn't change the nature of the drones or the misuse of the mechanics that govern their application.


The POS shield is intended to protect what is inside the shield from what is outside the shield. It is not intended to protect what is outside the shield from what is inside the shield. Drones are intended to provide an expendable alternative to risking your ship and pod in combat. If a drone couldn't go and do damage where you, yourself didn't want to be, then it would serve no function at all. What good would a killer robot be if you had to be standing right next to it, in the line of fire, pushing buttons, in order for it to be effective? Your problem seems to be with the POS itself and drones themselves, more so than how they are used.

Tippia wrote:
I'm demonstrating a common pattern: ship + weapon system → ship exposure. I then fill in the specifics for this case: Domi + Drone → exposure of that Domi.


In order for a ship like a Dominix to bring it's full weight to bear on a target, it has to leave the POS and get into optimal of its turret batteries. If it doesn't do that, for whatever reason, it is gimped. It is not doing full DPS.
Furthermore, different weapon systems necessitate different kinds of exposure. A Tornado does not lose any of it's guns in a firefight, unless it loses them all. For a Dominix, it doesn't even have to die to lose its primary weapons. It just has to warp out or go outside of the 250km maximum control range. A Tornado is never at risk of running out of 1400mm Artillery, just relatively cheap ammunition. A Tornado's DPS doesn't degrade the more damage it takes. If it does 750 DPS on the first shot it takes, it also does 750 DPS on the last shot it takes. A drone boat pilot, on the other hand, does less damage if you kill his his weapons, and those weapons are not nearly as durable as his ship is (or even as durable as a Tornado). The gist of it all being that each weapon has strengths and weaknesses. They're not all the same and they are not necessarily intended to function in an equivalent manner. Someone could just as easily complain that missiles do full damage at maximum range or complain that turrets are effective instantaneously.

Utremi Fasolasi wrote:
You seem to have this wrong - you could be on the edge of the FF but not inside it with assigned drones or else the drones would disconnect and go inert. You could dodge into the field if you needed to save your hull but you left your drones outside to die. This would appear to be a new bug.

If it was a bug that's really been around a long time that was just recently petitioned, it is really clear what the intended behavior is. Hence the term "exploit".


Maybe you should test it. I have seen how it worked (not recently). It's fairly intuitive.

If it is an old "bug", then we can't really say whether or not the effect was intended without talking to the people who were making the game when it was implemented. It seems pretty deliberate to me. Rules change and we have to live with those changes, definitely. But, calling a feature a defect and labeling innovators cheaters seems unfair.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#62 - 2013-09-22 00:21:04 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
I noticed that there has been a recent ruling on the (rather old) mechanic of drones continuing to perform outside a POS shield while the manned ship that launched them is inside the POS shield. This mechanic has existed for at least 3 years (probably longer) and I was curious why it is now considered an exploit rather than simply being deemed "emergent behavior".



Some group with plenty of forum resources got burned.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#63 - 2013-09-22 00:28:27 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
We already know the tactic can be countered, so, what IS the problem?


the problem is that their ships are simply not at risk, no matter how much bullshit you make up to say they are, so it is only correct for CCP to deem it an exploit

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#64 - 2013-09-22 00:28:52 UTC
The tactic has been countered.

Try it and see what happens

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 ?

Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#65 - 2013-09-22 00:30:35 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Drones are intended to provide an expendable alternative to risking your ship and pod in combat.


nope

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#66 - 2013-09-22 00:34:43 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Do you think that's unfair? What's unfair about it? Is it the millions of shield HP that the game makes you shoot through? Is it the invincibility mode of reinforcement? Is it that all those players and drones can be so effectively yoked to one person's will without any degradation of their combat effectiveness, thus eliminating the need for skill in coordinating? Is it that the risk and the burden of change falls so heavily on the attackers? We already know the tactic can be countered, so, what IS the problem?

yes the problem is that it's an exploit and exploiting the game mechanics is unfair on the players not using an exploit

Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
The POS shield is intended to protect what is inside the shield from what is outside the shield. It is not intended to protect what is outside the shield from what is inside the shield. Drones are intended to provide an expendable alternative to risking your ship and pod in combat. If a drone couldn't go and do damage where you, yourself didn't want to be, then it would serve no function at all. What good would a killer robot be if you had to be standing right next to it, in the line of fire, pushing buttons, in order for it to be effective? Your problem seems to be with the POS itself and drones themselves, more so than how they are used.

actually the pos shield is intended to do what ccp intends it to do

it's not intended to facilitate exploits, for example
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#67 - 2013-09-22 00:38:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Being inside a POS shield means that whatever is outside the POS cannot shoot you, but your ship also cannot shoot anything while in the shield. The ability to have drones assist a fleet member outside of the POS while your ship is inside the POS was very clearly something CCP never intended, otherwise, they wouldn't have ruled this an exploit. It doesn't matter whether the tactic can be countered or not (it can, obviously, by killing the sentries) because the ships themselves are not at risk (and stop lying and saying they are) while they are within the POS shield. It's not a difficult idea to comprehend: if you are engaging in combat, your ship and pod must be at immediate risk.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#68 - 2013-09-22 00:41:29 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
The tactic has been countered.

Try it and see what happens


Also yeah I guess F12 is now a valid counter to that!

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Seraph Essael
Air
The Initiative.
#69 - 2013-09-22 00:41:35 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Seraph Essael wrote:
So OP, you're clearly a special butterfly who is obviously butthurt about this new exploit (which it is an exploit: being able to apply DPS when your ship is secure and safe behind a POS shield) because you are no longer allowed to do it? Right?

What does it look like?

Rhetorical question; more of a statement really...
I just wonder how many kills OP has gotten using this exploit and how many ships he's lost (or going to lose) now that he has to be outside the POS. Nothing like risking your ship everytime you log on and undock... Big smile

Quoted from Doc Fury: "Concerned citizens: Doc seldom plays EVE on the weekends during spring and summer, so you will always be on your own for a couple days a week. Doc spends that time collecting kittens for the on-going sacrifices, engaging in reckless outdoor activities, and speaking in the 3rd person."

Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#70 - 2013-09-22 01:14:34 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Utremi Fasolasi wrote:
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
I noticed that there has been a recent ruling on the (rather old) mechanic of drones continuing to perform outside a POS shield while the manned ship that launched them is inside the POS shield. This mechanic has existed for at least 3 years (probably longer) and I was curious why it is now considered an exploit rather than simply being deemed "emergent behavior".


You seem to have this wrong - you could be on the edge of the FF but not inside it with assigned drones or else the drones would disconnect and go inert. You could dodge into the field if you needed to save your hull but you left your drones outside to die. This would appear to be a new bug.

If it was a bug that's really been around a long time that was just recently petitioned, it is really clear what the intended behavior is. Hence the term "exploit".


Like a titan that has a activated module not leaving the pos to use it? (just the tip!)


Can you shoot at the tip?
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#71 - 2013-09-22 02:06:53 UTC
Andski wrote:
if you are engaging in combat, your ship and pod must be at immediate risk.


So, you don't think we should be able to dock, jump, warp, enter a POS force field, go through a wormhole, cloak, or otherwise remove out our ship and pod from immediate risk if we are engaged? I don't understand your criteria for determining what is "fair" risk mitigation and what is exploitative of the game mechanics. Is docking, repairing, and undocking to re-engage an exploit? Is assigning fighters to a player who goes to operate a different grid than you an exploit? Is engaging an opponent from outside of their effective combat range an exploit? Ultimately, isn't it the job of the player to impose risk and consequence on other players that are attacking and isn't it the job of the player on the other side of that equation to mitigate that risk and consequence by whatever means they have available?

A player in a POS force field cannot engage you with any of his modules, and so long as he is outside the force field, you can web him, scram him, bump him, alpha him, or anything else to prevent him from retreating to the safety of the force field. I think what you're not ready to admit is that space magic and fairy bubbles are the problem. The game gives players a place to retreat to where they are effectively immune from interaction by other players. So long as there is such a mechanic, players are going to use it to their advantage. If you don't like that, then, next time one of your capitals is sitting right outside a POS, dying, leave it out there, or you're guilty of "exploiting" the game mechanics.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#72 - 2013-09-22 02:29:04 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
I don't understand your criteria for determining what is "fair" risk mitigation and what is exploitative of the game mechanics

Do you understand CCP's ? If not perhaps you should petition them and ask. Or just get caught and be banned, that works too.


This NPC corp alt seems pretty upset over something

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 ?

Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#73 - 2013-09-22 02:38:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
So, you don't think we should be able to dock, jump, warp, enter a POS force field, go through a wormhole, cloak, or otherwise remove out our ship and pod from immediate risk if we are engaged? I don't understand your criteria for determining what is "fair" risk mitigation and what is exploitative of the game mechanics. Is docking, repairing, and undocking to re-engage an exploit? Is assigning fighters to a player who goes to operate a different grid than you an exploit? Is engaging an opponent from outside of their effective combat range an exploit? Ultimately, isn't it the job of the player to impose risk and consequence on other players that are attacking and isn't it the job of the player on the other side of that equation to mitigate that risk and consequence by whatever means they have available?

A player in a POS force field cannot engage you with any of his modules, and so long as he is outside the force field, you can web him, scram him, bump him, alpha him, or anything else to prevent him from retreating to the safety of the force field. I think what you're not ready to admit is that space magic and fairy bubbles are the problem. The game gives players a place to retreat to where they are effectively immune from interaction by other players. So long as there is such a mechanic, players are going to use it to their advantage. If you don't like that, then, next time one of your capitals is sitting right outside a POS, dying, leave it out there, or you're guilty of "exploiting" the game mechanics.


There is a huge, huge difference between docking up after you get shot and engaging in combat from inside a POS shield. You're drawing comparisons between that and things that are utterly irrelevant in this discussion. Once you dock up, POS up, jump out, warp out, or enter a wormhole, you're effectively out of the engagement entirely. Engaging in combat from inside a forcefield is not a form of risk mitigation, it is an exploit, as deemed by the GM team.

What we're talking about isn't sentry ships engaging at the edge of a POS shield, they're inside a POS shield while their drones are engaging. I apologize if you fail to see why this is undesirable (unless you're one of those who refuse to engage in PvP without a get out of jail free card, in which case, your opinion is worthless) but the rest of us can see the line between "clever tactics" and exploits.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#74 - 2013-09-22 02:43:02 UTC
Andski wrote:
the rest of us can see the line between "clever tactics" and exploits.

Maybe we need some "clarifications" from gms

threadnaught

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 ?

Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#75 - 2013-09-22 02:59:26 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
This NPC corp alt seems pretty upset over something

he does play on that character, actually
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#76 - 2013-09-22 03:01:29 UTC
Andski wrote:
Engaging in combat from inside a forcefield is not a form of risk mitigation, it is an exploit, as deemed by the GM team.


I know, right? Let's get rid of ship shields, too, and armor as well. Go hull or go home!
This one time, I was PVPing this guy, and not only did he have a huge shield, but his friend kept helping him regenerate it. Shields are so exploitative.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#77 - 2013-09-22 03:10:19 UTC
I see the misunderstanding. Mayhaw, shield transporters have not been declared an exploit, but sentry drones inside forcefields have.

Glad that's sorted.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#78 - 2013-09-22 03:17:22 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
I see the misunderstanding. Mayhaw, shield transporters have not been declared an exploit, but sentry drones inside forcefields have.

Glad that's sorted.

Yeah. That was pretty cleared up.

Unless you are repping from inside a pos shield, if you are doing that I might have to ask ccp about that

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 ?

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#79 - 2013-09-22 03:18:35 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
This NPC corp alt seems pretty upset over something

he does play on that character, actually

I do on mine as well. The safety in highsec is very useful

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 ?

Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#80 - 2013-09-22 03:27:39 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Andski wrote:
Engaging in combat from inside a forcefield is not a form of risk mitigation, it is an exploit, as deemed by the GM team.


I know, right? Let's get rid of ship shields, too, and armor as well. Go hull or go home!
This one time, I was PVPing this guy, and not only did he have a huge shield, but his friend kept helping him regenerate it. Shields are so exploitative.


hey, post whatever nonsense you want

you're not getting your exploit back sorry

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar