These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Drone assist "Exploit"

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#101 - 2013-09-21 18:54:51 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
But you did. I can quote you if you need it.
Please do.



Ok then.


In other words, you're using your weapons while still being inside the shield — a tactic that is deemed an exploit since, if you want to employ your ship and its weapons in combat, that ship is supposed to be exposed to return-fire.

But there is no mention of turrets or anything else in that blog that is referred to as a "weapon"
…aside from the drones, of course. They are supposed to work like every other weapon (and support) system in the game as far as being used from inside a POS bubble goes, but currently they do not. Therefore, using them in such a manner has been deemed an exploit until the mechanics can be put into place to enforce this (non)behaviour.(NOTE- only half is yours since you decided to paraphrase into someone else's post).

If you want to employ your ship's weapons in battle, that ship is supposed to be exposed to return-fire, not stowed away safely where it can't be attacked. Using drones to work around this rule is deemed an exploit because they're not meant to be any different from any of the other weapon (or support) systems in that regard.

…which are a weapon system just like the rest of them. So yes, we are indeed talking about weapons — specifically ones that don't behave the way they're supposed to when mixed with POS shields. That's why the notice specifically talks about drones: because they're the only weapon system that is currently known to not work properly and which therefore need to be slapped with an exploit notice.



All those replies above are in regards to you trying to justify using the word "weapon" and "weapon system" instead of drone to the point of idiocy.

There is simply no other reason to use those words other than "drone" when "drone" is the key word in the exploit notice.

Stop playing dumb.

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
#102 - 2013-09-21 18:56:18 UTC
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
This thread is about using drones and assigning them and using the pos shield for defense as an exploit.


Correct. The change that sparked the OP is bringing the weapon system "Combat Drones" back in line with the weapon systems "Turrets" and "Launchers".

Quote:
Not about "weapon systems".


As has been stated multiple times already: Drones are a weapons system.



Drones are drones.

Period.

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.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#103 - 2013-09-21 18:56:46 UTC
But drones are weapons and a weapon system. So what's your point again Murk?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#104 - 2013-09-21 18:57:17 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



Drones are drones.

Period.


And some drones are a weapon system. Period.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#105 - 2013-09-21 18:58:17 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

I'm not the one adding "weapon systems" to an already clear notice on an exploit.



No, CCP did. A long time ago. Here's your citation. Drones are a weapon system. Just like you're a mammal, even if no one ever clarified that to you.



I'm not arguing a drone being a combat system. I'm saying the exploit only has to do with drones.


Because the drone system is the only one currently able to take advantage of the exploit. If something were discovered that allowed to you operate other weapon and support systems from inside the POS forcefield, that would very clearly be labeled an exploit as well.



Which is why we do not need to worry about "weapon systems" and merely focus on drones.

You know, drones.

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.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#106 - 2013-09-21 18:59:11 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:

You know, drones.


I do know. Drones. The weapon system.
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#107 - 2013-09-21 19:00:29 UTC
Hey Murk, you know the rules. 3 pulls then pass to the left.

User of 'Bumblefck's Luscious & Luminous Mustachio Wax'
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#108 - 2013-09-21 19:00:37 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Mag's wrote:
No one has put forward the notion in this thread, that this exploit includes anything other than drones. I know reading and comprehension is a problem for you, but I'm sure that was clear enough.



Uhm, no. My reading comprehension is just fine. Yours might be in question though since you said noone else is trying to say anything else, since that was the last 2 pages have been; Tippia including "weapons systems" into the exploit.

I have always said it's only drones and nothing else.

I'm not the one arguing against that.

Oytherwise, you and Tippia would be in agreement.

Since you aren't...

You should rethink your attack.
He hasn't though. But at this point I think you either:
A. know you made an error and are continuing to argue anyway.
B. knew all along and have trolled.
Or C. I was right in the first place..

And as Tippia has already said, he and I are in agreement.



But I am only talking about drones. You and Tippia are arguing about how I'm wrong because I'm including something other than drones? WTF? So now you have successfully trolled me because I am just going to go back to talking about drones.

Listen kids, don't assign your drones while hiding behind a pos shield.

You'll get in trouble.

Drones are bad mm'kay.

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.
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#109 - 2013-09-21 19:00:54 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Drones are drones.

Period.


Saying "The sky is green. Period." doesn't make the sky change its color.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#110 - 2013-09-21 19:02:55 UTC
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Drones are drones.

Period.


Saying "The sky is green. Period." doesn't make the sky change its color.



True.

Until someone else also says the sky is blue, or white, or black, or orange, or purple.

At the moment, the topic is the green sky.

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.
Aiwha
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#111 - 2013-09-21 19:03:48 UTC
I find it funny that people who aren't S2N are more butthurt about this being labeled an exploit than S2N is. We figured it out first, we're the only group that got to use it before it became an exploit. dealwithit.png

Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#112 - 2013-09-21 19:04:18 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:

At the moment, the topic is the green sky.



Didn't you just unilaterally declare that the topic was drones?

You should stop waffling like this.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#113 - 2013-09-21 19:05:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
All those replies above are in regards to you trying to justify using the word "weapon" and "weapon system" instead of drone to the point of idiocy.
…because a drone is a weapon; drones are a weapon system. This policy is all about making the drone weapon system work like all other weapon (and support) systems.

None of the quotes you provided show any instance of me saying that this exploit notification applies to anything other than drones. That's just something you've made up. What I'm saying is that, no, it doesn't matter that you can shoot the drones because they're still just a weapon system.

As such, they are supposed to have the same reciprocity that all other weapon systems share: if you want to employ your ship's weapons in battle, that ship is supposed to be exposed to return-fire, not stowed away safely where it can't be attacked. Drones broke this rule (which, again, is supposed to apply to all weapon systems), and this usage has been declared an exploit.

Quote:
You and Tippia are arguing about how I'm wrong because I'm including something other than drones?
No. We're arguing about how you're wrong to say that there is some kind of notion that the exploit includes anything other than drones. There isn't. That's just something you've made up.

I'd suggest that you look up the concept of “synecdoche”, since it rather seems like your mind is (mis)applying this style figure on everything people say…
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#114 - 2013-09-21 19:11:37 UTC
When you base your entire argument on something that has zero similarity you're going to get called on it.

Drones are drones.

If you want to pretend that calling it a weapon system "like any other" is going to make you more concise when trying to make a point, that's your burden to bear.

For me, I'd rather just call a drone a drone.

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.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#115 - 2013-09-21 19:16:45 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:


For me, I'd rather just call a drone a drone.


That's cool. CCP, who declared the exploit, calls them a weapon.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#116 - 2013-09-21 19:17:07 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
When you base your entire argument on something that has zero similarity you're going to get called on it.
Ok. When that situation arises, just holler.

Meanwhile, drones are a weapon system like the rest of them. It is therefore no surprise that they're supposed to abide by the same rules of application. So if you're not exposed to a fight, you should not be able to take part in that fight.

Quote:
If you want to pretend that calling it a weapon system "like any other" is going to make you more concise when trying to make a point, that's your burden to bear.
It makes my point more concise since it provides the pattern that they are meant to follow in just two words, rather than repeat “just like turrets, launchers, fleet links, remote reps, ewar, remote support, or indeed any kind of targeted module” every time I want to demonstrate this pattern.

Quote:
For me, I'd rather just call a drone a drone.
Then you can't really make the point I'm making.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#117 - 2013-09-21 19:29:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
When you base your entire argument on something that has zero similarity you're going to get called on it.
Ok. When that situation arises, just holler.


I did. It's what sparked this conversation.

Quote:
Meanwhile, drones are a weapon system like the rest of them. It is therefore no surprise that they're supposed to abide by the same rules of application. So if you're not exposed to a fight, you should not be able to take part in that fight.


I would rather not delve into the confusing possibilities that you are trying to imply that CCP is including other weapons into their exploit notice based on the premise that drones are weapons like "any other". Whereas, you could just simply acknowledge the fact that Falcon banned the use of assigning drones while hiding inside a pos.


Quote:
It makes my point more concise since it provides the pattern that they are meant to follow in just two words, rather than repeat “just like turrets, launchers, fleet links, remote reps, ewar, remote support, or indeed any kind of targeted module” every time I want to demonstrate this pattern.


ORRRR you could just use "drones" since everyone realizes that while a drone may be another weapon(and logi and ewar) system a ship can have (and not guaranteed), it is in fact still different than all the rest because of the very innate nature of drones.



Quote:
Then you can't really make the point I'm making.

And since you're the one arguing with me, I don't need to.

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
#118 - 2013-09-21 19:30:47 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


For me, I'd rather just call a drone a drone.


That's cool. CCP, who declared the exploit, calls them a weapon.



Not in their declaration they did not. The wiki makes no mention of the exploit either, just FYI. Although I am sure it will once they find a mechanic and if they even find a need to add that in.

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
#119 - 2013-09-21 19:36:10 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
I did. It's what sparked this conversation.[/quote)Then you mistimed your hollering, since the whole point of this exploit is the similarity: that drones are just another weapon system.

Quote:
I would rather not delve into the confusing possibilities that you are trying to imply that CCP is including other weapons into their exploit notice
…which is a good choice since I've never implied anything of the kind. That's just some notion you've invented to have something to scream about. But yes, that would be confusing since the possibility of me doing that is somewhere in the region of zero.

[quote]ORRRR you could just use "drones" since everyone realizes that while a drone may be another weapon(and logi and ewar) system a ship can have (and not guaranteed), it is in fact still different than all the rest because of the very innate nature of drones.
Apparently I can't, since people seem to not actually realise that, and instead are under the assumption that drones should follow different rules of application that the other weapon (and support) systems.

So no. In demonstrating that all this means is that drones are being held to the same pattern of application as other weapon systems, it is better to use the term “weapon system” since that quickly and efficiently communicates the commonality between them.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#120 - 2013-09-21 19:45:21 UTC
Until we can assign lasers and missiles to guard or assist like any other "weapon system" because they are the same as you suggest, we should most likely just stick to "drones".

"Should".



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.