EVE General Discussion

Agreed. The major difference being that the first one is possible in game and the second one is not.
Think about it this way: If I sick my Rotweiler on the mail man (purely a hypothetical scenario), and then I run inside my house and lock the door, then I'm not engaging in combat from inside my house. Am I?



shitshow



You honestly should ask them, since they haven't ruled on that. I would be especially curious about repping when there is no combat taking place. That's actually the scenario in which I encountered the feature/exploit/defect/bug/tactic.

Ya know; I thought emergent gameplay was a selling point of EVE.

Given that the mechanics make it impossible to rep anyone from inside a POS its clear CCP would burn you for using an exploit

Concord can kill people inside POSes right

Yes, Concord and the faction police don't care about pos shields. There was once a nice bug/feature with that, don't know if that can still happen:

1. Get Orca in pos-shield
2. Eject from Orca and board a Catalyst (or any other ship really)
3. Commit a GCC worthy crime on the same grid
4. Have your Catalyst destroyed by Concord (expected)
5. Have your Orca destroyed by Concord (Unexpected)

Yes it is. The shield is meant to be a two-way barrier for engagement. They can't attack ships inside it; you can't use your ship to attack out of it. If you want to fire at stuff from the safety of your shield, there is a very specific tool available for that: POS guns.

Incorrect. Drones are intended to provide an alternate weapon system that isn't turrets or launchers. That is all. They are still your ship's weapon system, and thus fall under the same rules of reciprocity: if you you use your ship's weapons in a fight, that ship should be exposed to return-fire. At no point are your ship and pod meant to not be at risk just because you picked this (or indeed any specific) weapon system.

…and they let you do that. They just don't let you do that while you're in complete safety. And even if they weren't mobile in that way, they'd still serve the same function as now: doing damage to the enemy… you know, the function that rather defines a weapon system? If you want to be able to do damage to other people, those other people will be able to do damage to you. Not your weapon system — you.

Irrelevant. You're still using your ship's weapon system to engage an enemy; they are therefore supposed to be able to hit you right back. Just because you choose to be inefficient doesn't mean you've just bought yourself invulnerability.

Don't want to expose your ship? Guess what: then you can't do damage to others. Want to hurt others? Guess what: then they can hurt you right back. Drones are not a special case, and the fact that a bug let them break this very simple reciprocity rule is what has caused such tactics to be declared an exploit. It is the same reason as why command ships are being moved out from POSes. It is the same reason as why you can shoot people while docked up. It is same reason as why you can't DD through cynos. It is the same reason as why you can't fire your weapons while cloaked.

That's not how it currently functions, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Moreover, tell me why I would deploy a shield that was intended to protect my opponent from me.



Then why, on some ships, am I able to fit drones, turrets, and launchers. Are they alternatives or are they complementary?

What "rule of reciprocity" are you speaking of? Are you referring to the principle of a "fair" fight? Because, I thought we didn't really have to do that in EVE. And, what about the fact that I can't kill a Tornado's guns 1 at a time but I can kill a drone boat's drones? Where's the recipricity, there?
I think the best reason to pick a specific weapon is because employing it will expose you to the least risk possible. I don't really CARE how many times I have to shoot someone or how much DPS I do or what skills I need to train. I pick the weapon so I can use it without dying (too soon, anyway).



So, your first contention is that inside a POS bubble there is perfect safety. And, of course, you are perfectly fine with a player's ship being in perfect safety immediately before and immediately after they engage in combat and having total freedom to enter and exit that position of perfect safety at will . . . but leaving my drones outside to fight and die is the problem.

Your second contention is that a weapon's primary characteristic is that it damages the opponent. That's fine, but every weapon damages the opponent. The thing that differentiates which weapon you choose is what circumstance you have to put yourself in to do that damage.

Your third contention seems to be that damaging my weapon system is somehow not useful or fair. I beg to differ. I WISH it was possible to kill a battleship's guns off or a titan's doomsday weapon. Drone boats are the ONLY ships that have that weakness. What do you think the trade-off should be for such a glaring weakness?



That's perfectly fair, but that's not how EVE works. Tit for tat is not the same as combat. If you ****** up and warped your fleet into an ambush where you can't even kill off the enemy ships, then you're supposed to lose. The end. No one was forcing you to attack a POS. No one was forcing you to continue to attack. Leave! It's a fortified position. If the assault is failing, disengage.

Command ships boosting from POSes weren't an exploit, and there was a ton of discussion about changing them before that happened. Also, the effect of boosting comes from the ship itself, not from it's drones, which are their own separate, semi-autonomous entities. If the Dominix's main battery was shooting through the POS shields, THAT would be a valid analogy. If command ships boosted fleets using drones, THAT would be a valid analogy. Shooting while docked, killing stuff at a cyno from a different star system, and attacking while cloaked are not things the current game mechanic supports . . . but I'll tell you what. I sure as hell WOULD put a jump drive on a bomb if I could.

Command ships boosting from a PoS was not an exploit because it was then intended behaviour. Now it would be if someone managed it.
Drones fighting while their owner is inside a PoS was not intended behaviour, but a coding overlook, since whoever coded the PoS shield only thought about the ship itself attacking targets via drones & the shield breaks locks. Not about the drone assignment mechanics (Which may or may not have existed when the PoS shield was even coded). Hence now it has been discovered & it has been seen how it functions it has been declared an exploit.
TLDR: Tough luck, adapt or die. HTFU

No, it's more analogous to handing the Rottweiler's leash to someone else and then siccing him on the mailman, and then telling the police that because someone else was holding the leash you weren't liable.

Start spamming the board with threads about it

This is like comparing a blue squiggly line to a red straight line. If you try really really really really hard there might be some parallel.

and no its silly, pos has forcefield, protected gunners and long range ewar, and any large pos can have spare resources to already offer fitting services for a retreating ishtar to replace bombed or otherwise irretrievable or lost drones - its already sufficiently advantageous to a defending fleet.