EVE General Discussion

Correct. They don't function that way, but that's how they're supposed to function. Until the code has been corrected to work like it's supposed to, anything that makes shields not work like that is an exploit. How is this so hard for you to understand:

When actual behaviour ≠ intended behaviour, we have an exploit at our hands.

Because some ships — in fact pretty much all ships — can fit multiple weapon systems. All of them are alternatives. None of it matters. They're all still weapon systems and they are all intended to abide by the same rule.

And the rule of reciprocity is the one I keep mentioning that you can't work your way around no matter how much you skip over it in your quotes: if you you use your ship's weapons in a fight, that ship should be exposed to return-fire.

Yes, because that's not the intended behaviour and because it breaks the reciprocity that all other weapon systems have to adhere to. Being in a POS is no different than being in a station or being in a completely different system half-way across the map: you can't shoot them so they can't shoot you and vice versa.

Remember, if you you use your ship's weapons in a fight, that ship should be exposed to return-fire. So being able to have drones act outside the POS shield while you're inside it is a problem.

I have no second or third contention. Those are just some red herrings you invented to try to justify that drones should be treated differently in terms of reciprocity than other weapon systems, which is just silly. After all, if you you use your ship's weapons in a fight, that ship should be exposed to return-fire.

Yes it is.
If you you use your ship's weapons in a fight, that ship should be exposed to return-fire. The same goes for any other combat-related system they might be carrying — ewar, remote support, fleet bosting. If at any point you manage to use these inside a shield — i.e. without exposing yourself to return-fire — you can bet your ass it'll be an exploit.

Now, can you figure out why attacking targets using your drones while you hide inside a POS shield is deemed an exploit yet?

We're Black Legion pets, that's why a fight between BL and N3 turned out like this.

We still owe them a half-infinity isk for fountain

You owe them half of one of my isks? I'll sell you two halfs of one of my isks for your dirty goon soul.

I do not belive it is a disconnect it is an outright refusal to glance at the countless counter arguments.


I try it simply ...

Why should i have to fire at your turrets (your drones) and you with your drones firing on my ship, I should be extended the same courtesy as i am giving to you.


PS i am agreeing with a goon ... quick someone find out the temperature in hell at the moment.

…and that behaviour was not in accordance with their intentions. You may have come across this phenomenon every now and then. It's usually called a bug. So until they can fix the bug and make the code do what they want, they are telling you to do what they want anyway — anything else in an exploit.

More importantly, CCP says exploit. What you say is utterly and completely irrelevant.

…and none of them work without also exposing your ship to enemy fire. Drones are not meant to be any different. After all, if you you use your ship's weapons in a fight, that ship should be exposed to return-fire.

If you can keep your weapon (or support) systems working while you do it, yes.

No. It's because if you you use your ship's weapons in a fight, that ship should be exposed to return-fire.

I have no doubt CCP will get the matter sorted out. Like I said, it really doesn't affect me. I'm more interested in using this example to expose the hypocrisy that some players tend to exhibit when it comes to the game. Watch this:



So, it sounds like what you are saying is that I should only be subject to attack if I can attack back. Is that what you are saying?

So, no more podding, shooting freighters, unarmed POSes, POCOs, shuttles . . . ? They can't return fire. There's no potential for reciprocity.
In fact, that rules out shooting anything that isn't targeting you back, since it can't return fire if it doesn't have you locked.
SCORE! I'm gonna load some mining drones into my Retriever and go mine in null right now, because, without the ability to fire back, I am myself not subject to attack.

There goes Tippia illustrating the failures of Western Education again lol.

Attacking a player that is incapable of returning fire is an exploit.
Attacking a player from within a POS shield renders you immune from return fire.
Therefore, attacking a player from within a POS shield is an exploit.

Attacking a player that is incapable of returning fire is an exploit.
Attacking a player that has no weapons with which to return fire (and indeed may not be capable of mounting weapons at all) renders you immune from return fire.
Therefore, attacking a player who has no weapons with which to return fire is an exploit.

Denying the antecedent would be if I said that attacking a player who COULD return fire was definitely NOT an exploit:

Attacking a player that is incapable of returning fire is an exploit.
NOT attacking a player that has no weapons renders you immune from return fire.
Therefore, NOT attacking a player that has no weapons is NOT an exploit.

See the difference?

Wow . . . I'm starting to break a sweat, here. Good job.

BTW, you don't even have to be logged in to scam or warp disrupt someone. Fit THAT into your logical construction.

No.
Being able to use your ship's weapon in combat without exposing that ship to return-fire is the exploit, since… you know… if you want to use your ship's weapon (and support) systems in a fight, that ship should be exposed to return-fire. It is all about what you are doing and your status — not about the status of the opponent.

What you said was a classic case of denying the antecedent.

“If you want to use your ship's weapon (and support) systems in a fight, that ship should be exposed to return-fire.”
formally, if A, then B.

From this you tried to conclude that
“If you don't want to (or simply can't) use your ship's weapon (and support) systems in a fight, that fight should not be exposed to return-fire.”
formally, not A, therefore not B.

…but that is not a legal conclusion to draw from “if A then B”. The only legal negation would be a modus tollens: if your ship is not exposed to return-fire, then you don't want to/can't use your ship's weapon (and support) systems — i.e. not B, therefore not A.

If you want to use your ship's weapon (or support) systems, you most certainly have to.