These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

PCO griefing in FW. CCP confirmed intended mechanics

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
#21 - 2011-12-18 14:00:04 UTC  |  Edited by: IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
I'll start by saying that this isn't a bug, it sounds like everything is functioning ok.

However I will raise this with the team to see if this is valid gameplay or if this is considered an exploit and report back here.


FW players here is how to make a hostile fleet take a standing hit, security status loss and GCC if they want to destroy your structures

I'm a little confused as to how something can be both an intended game mechanic and an exploit. I will take this to mean, we can't think of how to fix this so lets just pretend everything is ok.


1. Set up PCO and use as normal, ideally in hostile space to gain maximum attention


2. Set up an alt corp in the hostile miltia (you probably already have one or two spare anyway)


3. Wait for the eve mail saying the PCO has been reinforced


4. When the hostile fleet start shooting it at after RF ends you swap ownership to the hostile militia corp and watch them all (including logi because CCP still haven't fixed that bug) take a large standing hit, security status loss and GCC.

You can either do this early on in the fight and give them the option to disengage or try and do it last minute, the WT red star remains on the targeted item so they probably won't notice in time.


5. Rinse and repeat untill hostile players start running out of standings.


6. ????


7. Profit and laugh at CCP's complete ineptitude at game design and continued neglect for FW
Pak Narhoo
Splinter Foundation
#22 - 2011-12-18 14:12:33 UTC
^^ Talk about jumping to conclusions. Let me give you a hint:


CCP Nullarbor wrote:

However I will raise this with the team to see if this is valid gameplay or if this is considered an exploit and report back here.
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
#23 - 2011-12-18 14:15:29 UTC  |  Edited by: IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Pak Narhoo wrote:
^^ Talk about jumping to conclusions. Let me give you a hint:


CCP Nullarbor wrote:

However I will raise this with the team to see if this is valid gameplay or if this is considered an exploit and report back here.



Well I don't see how intended game mechanics can be an exploit.


Definition: An exploit is a software program that takes advantage of a bug, defect or glitch in another software program so that it executes in a way that the original writer did not intend. Usually this is done for malicious purposes.


I don't think you can exploit something if that is its intended function.

Either

A - The system is working fine, and everything you do with it is legit

or

B - There is a fault with the system, and abusing this fault for personal gain is an exploit
gfldex
#24 - 2011-12-18 15:06:16 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
I'll start by saying that this isn't a bug, it sounds like everything is functioning ok.


Is it equally OK then dropping corp while being shot in highsec to get the attacker exploded by CONCORD? Can we have the same 'feature' for POSes please?

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.
kyrieee
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2011-12-18 15:15:06 UTC
Just make it so you can't transfer ownership unless they're at 100% shields
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#26 - 2011-12-18 15:22:07 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
I'll start by saying that this isn't a bug, it sounds like everything is functioning ok.

However I will raise this with the team to see if this is valid gameplay or if this is considered an exploit and report back here.

How can abusing the fact that overview/standings doesn't update properly ever be considered valid gameplay?

You NEED to start work on updating the standings code and/or system. It is older than 90% of the population and it shows!

PS: Why the hell is the POCO system designed to allow ownership switches when reinforced or even under attack in the first place?
PPS: "Lol" at OP for discussing broken stuff related to broken EHP game mechanics (get rid of the grinds goddamnit!).
PPPS: {something witty goes here}
Crystal Liche
ACME Mineral and Gas
#27 - 2011-12-18 15:52:18 UTC
K Suri wrote:
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
Whilst shooting WT PCOs that has just left RF the WTs swapped ownership to a neutral corp causing fleet to take sec hits and GCC for all PCOs that were destroyed


Hoping CCP will reply and confirm whether or not this is an exploit, it seems something that should have been spotted during testing.


If this is not an exploit and you are unable to defeat a hostile fleet you outnumber 3:1 on caps then you can feel free to troll your enemies by swapping ownership.

Ya bitchin about sec hits killing **** in lowsec, are you a carebear or sumthin' or iz da big bad nasty man gettin a bad weputation bwowing stuff up?

**** me, everything is a exploit when someone takes it in the ring around here. HTFU and go rattin' when ya finished. Roll


You win the stupid post award for this thread.

Calling names and obviously doesn't even understand the issue being presented.

What was it, your attention span is only long enough to read the title?
Rixiu
PonyTek
#28 - 2011-12-18 15:59:27 UTC
Sounds simple enough to fix, in order for it to be transferred it has to be at 100% health and most defiantly not in post-reinforced mode.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#29 - 2011-12-18 16:10:58 UTC
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
Pak Narhoo wrote:
^^ Talk about jumping to conclusions. Let me give you a hint:


CCP Nullarbor wrote:

However I will raise this with the team to see if this is valid gameplay or if this is considered an exploit and report back here.



Well I don't see how intended game mechanics can be an exploit.


Definition: An exploit is a software program that takes advantage of a bug, defect or glitch in another software program so that it executes in a way that the original writer did not intend. Usually this is done for malicious purposes.


I don't think you can exploit something if that is its intended function.

Either

A - The system is working fine, and everything you do with it is legit

or

B - There is a fault with the system, and abusing this fault for personal gain is an exploit



That is not the definition of an exploit.

The game mechanic is working as it was designed to do.

They may have to modify it slightly to avoid exploitation by clever players.

Welcome to EVE, where 99% of the game play was never foreseen by the people who created it.

Situation excellent.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
DeBingJos
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2011-12-18 16:21:40 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
I'll start by saying that this isn't a bug, it sounds like everything is functioning ok.

However I will raise this with the team to see if this is valid gameplay or if this is considered an exploit and report back here.


Clueless dev is clueless... ShockedRoll

Ungi maðurinn þekkir reglurnar, en gamli maðurinn þekkir undantekningarnar. The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions.

Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#31 - 2011-12-18 16:33:04 UTC
It's not a bug, in the same way joining a corp in space next to one of that corp's war targets is not a bug. That, however, is classed as an exploit (but rarely enforced).

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644
oldbutfeelingyoung
Perkone
Caldari State
#32 - 2011-12-18 16:57:31 UTC
another thread with an CCP response ,strange

R.S.I2014
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#33 - 2011-12-18 17:02:07 UTC
Rixiu wrote:
Sounds simple enough to fix, in order for it to be transferred it has to be at 100% health and most defiantly not in post-reinforced mode.


I can see valid reasons for people wanting to transfer ownership after it has been put into reinforce so instead we might just guard against transferring when it has been attacked recently.

But like I said, I'm not giving any answers just yet because it is a Sunday and I need to talk with a few people first.

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
Tammarr
#34 - 2011-12-18 17:12:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Tammarr
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Rixiu wrote:
Sounds simple enough to fix, in order for it to be transferred it has to be at 100% health and most defiantly not in post-reinforced mode.


I can see valid reasons for people wanting to transfer ownership after it has been put into reinforce so instead we might just guard against transferring when it has been attacked recently.

But like I said, I'm not giving any answers just yet because it is a Sunday and I need to talk with a few people first.


...Valid reason being to save their poco without a fight. Forcing the aggressor to wait 48 hours for their new wardec for the corp the poco got transfered to? Coming back to shooting a 100% health poco that can be transfered again to a new corp that needs a new wardec? That you can shoot things in for instance lowsec and take gcc does not mean it should be required to beat wardec dodging.

I would like to see a single valid reason posted that Trumphs the wardec dodging effect it will be used for.
...this means that once a wardec gets delivered to you the: you have 24hours till its open season; you cannot simply transfer a poco away from the corp receiving the wardec.
If you can transfer a poco after a 24hr notice been delivered no poco will ever fall to people playing the game by the books and using the wardec system because they do not want to go GCC be it for RP reasons or be it for FW reasons.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#35 - 2011-12-18 17:58:49 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
I'll start by saying that this isn't a bug, it sounds like everything is functioning ok.

However I will raise this with the team to see if this is valid gameplay or if this is considered an exploit and report back here.


You can't call this an exploit. It's an oversight. There was a failure to determine all the potential ripple effects these structures would introduce.

Well, now the ripples are reaching the shore.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#36 - 2011-12-18 18:07:25 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
I'll start by saying that this isn't a bug, it sounds like everything is functioning ok.

However I will raise this with the team to see if this is valid gameplay or if this is considered an exploit and report back here.


You can't call this an exploit. It's an oversight. There was a failure to determine all the potential ripple effects these structures would introduce.

Well, now the ripples are reaching the shore.


quite

not so much a bug or exploit as an unintended consequence, so DEV post is accurate

and a valid transfer might involve forcing a corp to turn over the POCOs to the attacking corp as part of terms of surrender.

really, do you want to shot POCOs for a week to clear a system or have them all become yours because the owner wants to get back to business?

anyhow its a possible scenario
RougeOperator
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#37 - 2011-12-18 21:08:47 UTC  |  Edited by: RougeOperator
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
Whilst shooting WT PCOs that had just left RF the WTs swapped ownership to a neutral corp causing fleet to take sec hits and GCC for all PCOs that were destroyed. If they had been even more cunning they would have changed it to a FW corp forcing us to take standing hits as well.

CCP post in this thread now confirms intended game design, so here is the helpful guide to decreasing hostile standings and security status. Remember all you need is to get one pilot -5 and their logi chain will GCC during normal combat so these security losses do matter.

Apparently although intended mechanics this may somehow still be an exploit so until we have further confirmation use this guide at your own risk.


FW players here is how to make a hostile fleet take a standing hit, security status loss and GCC if they want to destroy your structures


1. Set up PCO and use as normal, ideally in hostile space to gain maximum attention


2. Set up an alt corp in the hostile miltia (you probably already have one or two spare anyway)


3. Wait for the eve mail saying the PCO has been reinforced


4. When the hostile fleet start shooting it at after RF ends you swap ownership to the hostile militia corp and watch them all (including logi because CCP still haven't fixed that bug) take a large standing hit, security status loss and GCC.

You can either do this early on in the fight and give them the option to disengage or try and do it last minute, the WT red star remains on the targeted item so they probably won't notice in time.


5. Rinse and repeat untill hostile players start running out of standings.


6. ????


7. Profit and laugh at CCP's complete ineptitude at game design and continued neglect for FW



Yup you can basically force all the people shooting your PCO to lose tons of standings. We even talked about it in corp about how it might be possible to set up a chain of alts to swap possession of the PCO with to cause players to lose standings with Faction War Corps and NPC corps etc. Depending on how the aggression works.

This is def a huge oversite.

**Space wizards are real, they can make 10058 votes vanish. "and for a moment i hurd 10k goons cry out, then silence" **
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
#38 - 2011-12-18 22:15:16 UTC
Groan. Seriously CCP sit down and sort this sort of cack out, and start with War Decs, theve been egging CCPs face for four years now.

SKUNK
Asthariye
Angry Mustellid
#39 - 2011-12-18 22:44:18 UTC
If you intend to keep the possibility of switching ownership while it's under attack, then in my opinion you absolutely *must* prioritise fixing of the FW standings loss bug. It's been with us for more than a year anyway which is Not Good, and with this mechanic it has become extremely exploitable as noted above.
RougeOperator
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#40 - 2011-12-18 23:45:01 UTC  |  Edited by: RougeOperator
Asthariye wrote:
If you intend to keep the possibility of switching ownership while it's under attack, then in my opinion you absolutely *must* prioritise fixing of the FW standings loss bug. It's been with us for more than a year anyway which is Not Good, and with this mechanic it has become extremely exploitable as noted above.



this is like that bug amped up to 10.

And they said that bug was an exploit.

All you have to do is line up like 15 corps or factions that the opposing party has good standings with and BAM nuke all their standings by using alts to change ownership left and right.

Yeah there is no way this is AS INTENDED.

They should at least have to be 25% shields to be able to transfer ownership

**Space wizards are real, they can make 10058 votes vanish. "and for a moment i hurd 10k goons cry out, then silence" **