Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vadimik
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.12.03 22:32:00 -
[1]
Was passing by a gatecamp with cans all over the place tonight, and it makes me wonder: isn't it kind of prohibited?
|
Lee Dalton
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2009.12.03 22:36:00 -
[2]
Nope.
Had a GM confirm it. *** You're only as good as your last fight. |
Randomina Randomona
|
Posted - 2009.12.03 22:39:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Randomina Randomona on 03/12/2009 22:39:59
Originally by: Vadimik Was passing by a gatecamp with cans all over the place tonight, and it makes me wonder: isn't it kind of prohibited?
Yes it is if its used to uncover a cloaked ship, had a GM confirm it, you can petition this.
|
Oscardoodle
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.12.03 22:43:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Lee Dalton Nope.
Had a GM confirm it.
Yep.
Had a SENIOR GM confirm it.
|
Vadimik
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.12.03 22:46:00 -
[5]
So, I can technically petition those guys, right?
|
Femaref
Armageddon Day
|
Posted - 2009.12.03 22:58:00 -
[6]
If those are cans from salvaged wrecks or other stuff from victims (drones etc) : No.
If they dropped it with the intention to decloak people: apperently yes.
|
Noun Verber
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.12.04 01:22:00 -
[7]
There's some limit to the amount of cans you can drop in one area before they get angry.
|
Tachyon Rhaul
|
Posted - 2009.12.04 17:19:00 -
[8]
You can only have 6 anchored containers on a grid at one time, any more and its considered harassment.
You can drop as many cargo containers (the ones that vanish after 2 hours) as you want.
|
Lee Dalton
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2009.12.04 17:42:00 -
[9]
OMG, CONFLICTING GM REPLIES.
The gist of what petitions have told me is: "You cannot drpp cans to induce lag, however, you may drop cans to prevent people from recloaking." *** You're only as good as your last fight. |
Mitsune Konno
|
Posted - 2009.12.04 18:49:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Lee Dalton OMG, CONFLICTING GM REPLIES.
The gist of what petitions have told me is: "You cannot drpp cans to induce lag, however, you may drop cans to prevent people from recloaking."
That's what i've known to be true, from a few petitions filed against me and my corps over the years. Although there's a very fine line between causing lag and trying to catch people.
I still remember bm bombs, people used to copy 1000's of bm's into their ship and then eject it near a gate. People warping to the gate would fly into the grid and lag out while their client tried to load the grid/bm's.
|
|
Taedrin
Gallente The Green Cross
|
Posted - 2009.12.05 00:19:00 -
[11]
From what I have heard: dropping cans to decloak people, is fine. However, if it causes lag it is against the rules.
If you are dropping cans randomly, then it is probably petitionable. However, if you are dropping cans at key warp-in points on a gate (example, at the 100km warp in point from another celestial object), then it is fine. ---------- There is always a choice. The choice might not be easy, nor simple, nor the options be what you desire - but, nevertheless, the choice is there to be made. |
Joseph48212
|
Posted - 2009.12.05 00:26:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Tachyon Rhaul You can only have 6 anchored containers on a grid at one time, any more and its considered harassment.
You can drop as many cargo containers (the ones that vanish after 2 hours) as you want.
So how do miners get away with having dozens of secure cans anchored in belts?
|
Rhanna Khurin
Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.05 03:55:00 -
[13]
Perhaps those cans floating about were not actually dropped by the pirates, merely the contents of the cargoholds from destroyed ships that have been salvaged.
|
Joseph48212
|
Posted - 2009.12.05 04:27:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Rhanna Khurin Perhaps those cans floating about were not actually dropped by the pirates, merely the contents of the cargoholds from destroyed ships that have been salvaged.
In that case they would just be the free floating ones. The exploit only applies to the anchorable secure containers
|
Ceat Murtains
|
Posted - 2009.12.05 04:38:00 -
[15]
I've seen this used in wormholes a far amount at pos's. Small bubble at the warp in for the moon that the pos is at filled with anchored cans. Not sure if it's an exploit, but it sure is a pretty lame tactic.
|
Sicardae Bad'ia
|
Posted - 2009.12.05 06:56:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Ceat Murtains I've seen this used in wormholes a far amount at pos's. Small bubble at the warp in for the moon that the pos is at filled with anchored cans. Not sure if it's an exploit, but it sure is a pretty lame tactic.
It's been judged to not be an exploit to decloak someone like that at your pos, and as far as lame.... being afk reading a book and hearing the pos guns go off because a navitas just warped to the moon is f-ing funny. |
Lord Zap
Caldari Fairlight Corp Rooks and Kings
|
Posted - 2009.12.05 11:51:00 -
[17]
I just had a really bad case of dejavu
|
Chipan Asty
|
Posted - 2009.12.05 17:47:00 -
[18]
I warped to a gate with about 100 cans littered around it. I petitioned it and the GM said it was only a problem if it caused undue lag.
Oddly enough I didn't get de-cloaked, but hells teeth it made me mad.
|
Compleat Bacon
|
Posted - 2009.12.05 18:45:00 -
[19]
Anchored cans at a w-space POS can be for storage. There is a problem wrt tower hangar access and unanchoring said stuff. As in, the only way to give someone tower hangar access is to give them the ability to unanchor stuff at the tower. So, depending on your trust level....
|
BeanBagKing
The Keepers of Gold Gypsy Nation
|
Posted - 2009.12.07 20:23:00 -
[20]
/me is interested in CCP/GM posting in this thread.
I was nearly decloaked the other day by a sling bubble covered in cans, very nice trick. I realize it's not the same as a gate and I saw it as a valid tactic, gave props to those that put it up, and went on my way. However, I see people in here saying that this could be petitioned because it could lag my client? (regardless of a gate or a bubble, there were more than 6 cans, or whatever the magic number is). In any case, yea, CCP posting would be interesting, I'd like to hear their thoughts.
|
|
Toramii
Le Moulin Rouge
|
Posted - 2009.12.07 20:33:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Lord Zap I just had a really bad case of dejavu
meep meep
|
Zekran
Caldari Nomad LLP TransWarp Ventures
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 01:05:00 -
[22]
Sure hope this isn't an exploit. I hate having cloakers come in with impunity, and this is the only way to really catch them. If I am at a gate camping I always make sure I have fast ships orbiting at 12km or so and dropping cans as fast as possible. We do get a lot of cloakers in Providence though, so it may not be as much of an issue elsewhere.
I don't mind cloak, but the best way to catch a cloaker being labeled an exploit would totally suck. ____ "Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people."
- Thomas Jefferson |
HostageTaker
Band of Freelancers THE R0NIN
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 02:25:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Lord Zap I just had a really bad case of dejavu
The Mara JIP camps!
Sup Zap
|
Zoe Midoru
Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 07:51:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Zekran Sure hope this isn't an exploit. I hate having cloakers come in with impunity, and this is the only way to really catch them. If I am at a gate camping I always make sure I have fast ships orbiting at 12km or so and dropping cans as fast as possible. We do get a lot of cloakers in Providence though, so it may not be as much of an issue elsewhere.
I don't mind cloak, but the best way to catch a cloaker being labeled an exploit would totally suck.
Really, it depends on the design intent. If the idea is that cloakers are supposed to be able to jump in cloaked, then it's... well, I don't really like the use of 'exploit' in this context, but it's a workaround that CCP didn't intent and will probably fix someday (probably by making jetcans not count as a decloaking contact).
If CCP decides that they don't want cloakers to be able to sneak around like that, they should probably just make jumping into a system decloak you. Which they haven't done, suggesting that the first scenario I outlined is more likely.
|
Dipluz
Caldari PodPal
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 08:34:00 -
[25]
oh the joy, but yeah it might be salvaged wrecks
|
Asuka Smith
Gallente Noir.
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 09:18:00 -
[26]
It depends. Using cans to decloak someone is legitimate and I have had a GM confirm it. However, if you use the cans to cause LAG it is an exploit. (the difference between using the cans to cause lag and using them to decloak is unclear, I was not given a specific number even after I asked)
|
inVictu5
Caldari Glauxian Brothers Intrepid Explorers
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 09:41:00 -
[27]
genius! why didnt I think of this
|
RiotRick
Black-Sun Pitch Black Legion
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 09:43:00 -
[28]
A corpmate got a 3-day ban for this. So yes it is an exploit. -- The future is black.
|
Chribbas Dad
|
Posted - 2009.12.13 17:16:00 -
[29]
tis an exploit
|
Nikita Alterana
Gallente Clearly Compensating Da Orkz
|
Posted - 2009.12.13 17:25:00 -
[30]
Its relly dumb, it should be a legal counter to cloaks. There is no reason cloaks should be as impervious as they are.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |