Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Corthon
Stolen Identities
4
|
Posted - 2014.01.01 05:54:00 -
[31] - Quote
How interesting. |
Kirkwood Ross
Golden Profession
114
|
Posted - 2014.01.02 16:17:00 -
[32] - Quote
CCP stated a long time ago that drones set to aggressive should never perform any action that would get the pilot concorded. This applied a lot to can flippers of miners. Even though a pilot stole your ore your drone's would not auto attack them.
When suspect flags and green safety button came out.
CCP stated that drones set to aggressive should never perform any action that would get the pilot flagged. CCP stated that drones set to aggressive should never perform any action that would get the pilot flagged if the pilot's button is set to green.
I believe the problem is that the pilot is dealing damage to the MTU or MD and that triggers a response from drones to attack back or defend that supersedes the safety button. |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
579
|
Posted - 2014.01.02 17:26:00 -
[33] - Quote
Kirkwood Ross wrote:CCP stated a long time ago that drones set to aggressive should never perform any action that would get the pilot concorded. This applied a lot to can flippers of miners. Even though a pilot stole your ore your drone's would not auto attack them.
When suspect flags and green safety button came out.
CCP stated that drones set to aggressive should never perform any action that would get the pilot flagged. CCP stated that drones set to aggressive should never perform any action that would get the pilot flagged if the pilot's button is set to green.
Link source please |
Ori Muvila
Armax Arsenal. It is hard being this sexy
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 01:21:00 -
[34] - Quote
Yes, please supply the source.
Also, if you dont want to get done in by this tactic, dont have your drones set to aggressive, and dont go AFK. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4346
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 03:32:00 -
[35] - Quote
This thread is amazing. Mission runners freely admiting that adapting to new circumstances is too hard. This user won the forums on 18/09/2013, then lost on 18/12/2013. |
Shaotuk
Sin City Enterprises
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 05:21:00 -
[36] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:This thread is amazing. Mission runners freely admiting that adapting to new circumstances is too hard.
Ahem... Slowcats...
|
Ori Muvila
Armax Arsenal.
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 06:16:00 -
[37] - Quote
Shaotuk wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:This thread is amazing. Mission runners freely admiting that adapting to new circumstances is too hard. Ahem... Slowcats...
Dont you mean Sniper Naglfars? |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1301
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 07:45:00 -
[38] - Quote
Decaneos wrote:Its because if your running drones and they attack a MTU the drones will aggress the player thus putting you into " Consentual" PVP even if you didn't mean to.
Ouch. I guess setting them passive is a good idea ? I always do anyway. If only women had that setting... |
Cookie
Snakeoil Industries Ltd.
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 11:49:00 -
[39] - Quote
The thing i don't really get is, why can people destroy other peoples stuff without war declaration ? When i shoot drones of other people, will i get concorded ? When i shoot other peoples hi-sec pos without wardec, what will concord do ? What happens when an anchored can is shot at ?
(i had a loooong break, so forgive my lack of knowledge on that mechanics) |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4348
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 17:39:00 -
[40] - Quote
Shaotuk wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:This thread is amazing. Mission runners freely admiting that adapting to new circumstances is too hard. Ahem... Slowcats...
I guess you haven't heard about Omegafleet or Waterboarding yet.
This user won the forums on 18/09/2013, then lost on 18/12/2013. |
|
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4348
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 17:40:00 -
[41] - Quote
Cookie wrote:The thing i don't really get is, why can people destroy other peoples stuff without war declaration ? When i shoot drones of other people, will i get concorded ? When i shoot other peoples hi-sec pos without wardec, what will concord do ? What happens when an anchored can is shot at ?
(i had a loooong break, so forgive my lack of knowledge on that mechanics)
The mechanic was intended.
This user won the forums on 18/09/2013, then lost on 18/12/2013. |
Cookie
Snakeoil Industries Ltd.
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 18:10:00 -
[42] - Quote
I'm just trying to find a clear line within the mechanics of aggression/flagging since i missed the last few years of changes. I don't mind someone wasting his time when i'm doing a mission to try and get aggro from me, it's just confusing me which stuff belonging to other people i can shoot, and which i can't. If my thirst for knowledge is totally misplaced here, point me into the right direction pls. |
Etro Vaille
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 19:09:00 -
[43] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Shaotuk wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:This thread is amazing. Mission runners freely admiting that adapting to new circumstances is too hard. Ahem... Slowcats... I guess you haven't heard about Omegafleet or Waterboarding yet.
God I love the Waterboarding concept...definitely more torture than griefing...lol |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4348
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 20:31:00 -
[44] - Quote
Cookie wrote:I'm just trying to find a clear line within the mechanics of aggression/flagging since i missed the last few years of changes. I don't mind someone wasting his time when i'm doing a mission to try and get aggro from me, it's just confusing me which stuff belonging to other people i can shoot, and which i can't. If my thirst for knowledge is totally misplaced here, point me into the right direction pls.
Patch notes & dev blogs are your friend. This user won the forums on 18/09/2013, then lost on 18/12/2013. |
Cookie
Snakeoil Industries Ltd.
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 20:56:00 -
[45] - Quote
afk, reading 4 years of patchnotes |
Nerf Burger
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
175
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 21:51:00 -
[46] - Quote
Another way to abuse mechanics and reward sociopaths. Well done CCP. "I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose." -Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer
|
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
587
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 22:22:00 -
[47] - Quote
Clearly. I'm sure CCP is collecting data as we speak for this atrocity! Think of the innocent lives lost on these ships. These criminals must be punished! |
Nerf Burger
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
175
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 22:33:00 -
[48] - Quote
IIshira wrote:Clearly. I'm sure CCP is collecting data as we speak for this atrocity! Think of the innocent lives lost on these ships. These criminals must be punished!
These things only become a problem for CCP once more people start doing it. Look how long it took them to fix miner ganking and can flipping. Besides, why should these "pirates" who are probable sociopaths be so easily rewarded? I want to play a game where douche bag activity has realistic consequences. "I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose." -Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer
|
Nerf Burger
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
175
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 22:42:00 -
[49] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Current thread in...actually it was moved TO issues/workarounds subforum as well as anecdotal reimbursements suggest all is not working as CCP intended.
The behaviour of the drones in this particular case is inconsistent i.e. that they now engage on a (certain) suspect level action - that's new. Likely a side effect of something that would 'usually' draw a criminal action - just these mobile units are exempt from that 'criminal' rule.
"Safety" switches have nothing to do with this, the drone owners aren't going yellow. It's a third party baiting drone AI to engage without criminal action, thus precipitating a limited engagement - hitherto this was something completely beyond the realms of possibility (at least in more recent times, I'm sure some recall drone stupidity quickly patched but my point remains).
Something that major I would expect in dev blogs, which is why it feels unintended to me - the other thread simply adds weight to that belief.
I may be wrong, just...intuition/past experience of major game changers like this at play here
Nailed it. It is clearly an exploit, and the fact that this was being promoted as a "new and exciting gameplay feature" by certain CSMs who only care about things that effect them proves the worthlessness of their election. "I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose." -Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer
|
Paranoid Loyd
University of Caille Gallente Federation
215
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 22:54:00 -
[50] - Quote
Nerf Burger wrote: I want to play a game where douche bag activity has realistic and fair consequences.
Then go play something else FFS, we are sick of your incessant whining. |
|
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4348
|
Posted - 2014.01.04 01:03:00 -
[51] - Quote
Nerf Burger wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Current thread in...actually it was moved TO issues/workarounds subforum as well as anecdotal reimbursements suggest all is not working as CCP intended.
The behaviour of the drones in this particular case is inconsistent i.e. that they now engage on a (certain) suspect level action - that's new. Likely a side effect of something that would 'usually' draw a criminal action - just these mobile units are exempt from that 'criminal' rule.
"Safety" switches have nothing to do with this, the drone owners aren't going yellow. It's a third party baiting drone AI to engage without criminal action, thus precipitating a limited engagement - hitherto this was something completely beyond the realms of possibility (at least in more recent times, I'm sure some recall drone stupidity quickly patched but my point remains).
Something that major I would expect in dev blogs, which is why it feels unintended to me - the other thread simply adds weight to that belief.
I may be wrong, just...intuition/past experience of major game changers like this at play here Nailed it. It is clearly an exploit, and the fact that this was being promoted as a "new and exciting gameplay feature" by certain CSMs who only care about things that effect them proves the worthlessness of their election.
The major hole in that entire argument is the fact that drones set to agressive are protecting the asset belonging to the player, which is how drones actually work when set to agressive. This particular mechanic has been consistant for several years. This user won the forums on 18/09/2013, then lost on 18/12/2013. |
Nerf Burger
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
176
|
Posted - 2014.01.04 01:20:00 -
[52] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Nerf Burger wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Current thread in...actually it was moved TO issues/workarounds subforum as well as anecdotal reimbursements suggest all is not working as CCP intended.
The behaviour of the drones in this particular case is inconsistent i.e. that they now engage on a (certain) suspect level action - that's new. Likely a side effect of something that would 'usually' draw a criminal action - just these mobile units are exempt from that 'criminal' rule.
"Safety" switches have nothing to do with this, the drone owners aren't going yellow. It's a third party baiting drone AI to engage without criminal action, thus precipitating a limited engagement - hitherto this was something completely beyond the realms of possibility (at least in more recent times, I'm sure some recall drone stupidity quickly patched but my point remains).
Something that major I would expect in dev blogs, which is why it feels unintended to me - the other thread simply adds weight to that belief.
I may be wrong, just...intuition/past experience of major game changers like this at play here Nailed it. It is clearly an exploit, and the fact that this was being promoted as a "new and exciting gameplay feature" by certain CSMs who only care about things that effect them proves the worthlessness of their election. The major hole in that entire argument is the fact that drones set to agressive are protecting the asset belonging to the player, which is how drones actually work when set to agressive. This particular mechanic has been consistant for several years.
It doesn't work like you say, only when the drones are engaged with npcs will they attack the aggressor of the MTU. It is clearly an exploit of the drone AI. "I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose." -Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer
|
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4348
|
Posted - 2014.01.04 02:31:00 -
[53] - Quote
Nerf Burger wrote:It doesn't work like you say, only when the drones are engaged with npcs will they attack the aggressor of the MTU. It is clearly an exploit of the drone AI.
Or perhaps the drones not engaging the player when not in combat with NPC's is a minor oversight by CCP. Judging by the amount of denied reimbursement requests, I'm going to side with the latter. This user won the forums on 18/09/2013, then lost on 18/12/2013. |
Lugalbandak
Anunnaku Warfare Corp.
393
|
Posted - 2014.01.04 12:49:00 -
[54] - Quote
HK -56 wrote:This just happened to my Raven tonight, and I've petitioned it for reimbursed (although with the special kind of ******* only CCP can be, I'm not expecting to get anything). As if drones in missions weren't miserable enough to use.
I'm actually surprised more people aren't talking about this; it may technically not be a glitch but it is clearly against the spirit of the Safety Settings. I understand pvp is omnipresent in EVE, but for CCP to allow this 'backdoor' griefing is just nonsense. This backdoor should not be the isk drain to counter the MTU isk faucet.
Glad the other pilot had the thrill of a ship kill, but this mechanic is absolutely in error.
no its not , and your lying about your reimbursment prolly
afcourse Agr. drones gonna attack a suspect , dotn set them on agr. you silly afker, also try shooting a suspect with green safety it works , so wy not drones? set them passive if you dont want to defend your mission The police horse is the only animal in the world that haz his male genitals on his back |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
590
|
Posted - 2014.01.04 14:12:00 -
[55] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Nerf Burger wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Current thread in...actually it was moved TO issues/workarounds subforum as well as anecdotal reimbursements suggest all is not working as CCP intended.
The behaviour of the drones in this particular case is inconsistent i.e. that they now engage on a (certain) suspect level action - that's new. Likely a side effect of something that would 'usually' draw a criminal action - just these mobile units are exempt from that 'criminal' rule.
"Safety" switches have nothing to do with this, the drone owners aren't going yellow. It's a third party baiting drone AI to engage without criminal action, thus precipitating a limited engagement - hitherto this was something completely beyond the realms of possibility (at least in more recent times, I'm sure some recall drone stupidity quickly patched but my point remains).
Something that major I would expect in dev blogs, which is why it feels unintended to me - the other thread simply adds weight to that belief.
I may be wrong, just...intuition/past experience of major game changers like this at play here Nailed it. It is clearly an exploit, and the fact that this was being promoted as a "new and exciting gameplay feature" by certain CSMs who only care about things that effect them proves the worthlessness of their election. The major hole in that entire argument is the fact that drones set to agressive are protecting the asset belonging to the player, which is how drones actually work when set to agressive. This particular mechanic has been consistant for several years.
No, it is inconsistent behaviour all round, introduced by aggression only garnering a suspect flag.
I don't think it's an exploit - I think it's just unforeseen accident. If they'd intended this exact effect they would have mentioned it - it's too big a mechanic change, IMO, to not. Furthermore if it was intended, I would expect a dev would have said so - especially given the long thread in the issues forum.
It's hardly an 'AFK' issue either, aggressive drones are a valid and sound counter to ewar. |
Nadia Gallen
Advanced Engineering and Research Division
30
|
Posted - 2014.01.04 14:34:00 -
[56] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Nerf Burger wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Current thread in...actually it was moved TO issues/workarounds subforum as well as anecdotal reimbursements suggest all is not working as CCP intended.
The behaviour of the drones in this particular case is inconsistent i.e. that they now engage on a (certain) suspect level action - that's new. Likely a side effect of something that would 'usually' draw a criminal action - just these mobile units are exempt from that 'criminal' rule.
"Safety" switches have nothing to do with this, the drone owners aren't going yellow. It's a third party baiting drone AI to engage without criminal action, thus precipitating a limited engagement - hitherto this was something completely beyond the realms of possibility (at least in more recent times, I'm sure some recall drone stupidity quickly patched but my point remains).
Something that major I would expect in dev blogs, which is why it feels unintended to me - the other thread simply adds weight to that belief.
I may be wrong, just...intuition/past experience of major game changers like this at play here Nailed it. It is clearly an exploit, and the fact that this was being promoted as a "new and exciting gameplay feature" by certain CSMs who only care about things that effect them proves the worthlessness of their election. The major hole in that entire argument is the fact that drones set to agressive are protecting the asset belonging to the player, which is how drones actually work when set to agressive. This particular mechanic has been consistant for several years. No, it is inconsistent behaviour all round, introduced by aggression only garnering a suspect flag. I don't think it's an exploit - I think it's just unforeseen accident. If they'd intended this exact effect they would have mentioned it - it's too big a mechanic change, IMO, to not. Furthermore if it was intended, I would expect a dev would have said so - especially given the long thread in the issues forum. It's hardly an 'AFK' issue either, aggressive drones are a valid and sound counter to ewar.
So from what I am reading, is that you want a dev to look into the code why players are dumb and set their drones on agressive if they are handling a MTU in a mission site, instead of controlling them manually. Do I understand your complaint correctly ?
|
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
590
|
Posted - 2014.01.04 14:52:00 -
[57] - Quote
Whoever said I was complaining?
Your insinuation that people being caught out by a new, poorly documented mechanic are somehow 'dumb', however suggests there is no merit in continuing engagement with you. |
Nerf Burger
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
178
|
Posted - 2014.01.04 19:12:00 -
[58] - Quote
Nadia Gallen wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Nerf Burger wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Current thread in...actually it was moved TO issues/workarounds subforum as well as anecdotal reimbursements suggest all is not working as CCP intended.
The behaviour of the drones in this particular case is inconsistent i.e. that they now engage on a (certain) suspect level action - that's new. Likely a side effect of something that would 'usually' draw a criminal action - just these mobile units are exempt from that 'criminal' rule.
"Safety" switches have nothing to do with this, the drone owners aren't going yellow. It's a third party baiting drone AI to engage without criminal action, thus precipitating a limited engagement - hitherto this was something completely beyond the realms of possibility (at least in more recent times, I'm sure some recall drone stupidity quickly patched but my point remains).
Something that major I would expect in dev blogs, which is why it feels unintended to me - the other thread simply adds weight to that belief.
I may be wrong, just...intuition/past experience of major game changers like this at play here Nailed it. It is clearly an exploit, and the fact that this was being promoted as a "new and exciting gameplay feature" by certain CSMs who only care about things that effect them proves the worthlessness of their election. The major hole in that entire argument is the fact that drones set to agressive are protecting the asset belonging to the player, which is how drones actually work when set to agressive. This particular mechanic has been consistant for several years. No, it is inconsistent behaviour all round, introduced by aggression only garnering a suspect flag. I don't think it's an exploit - I think it's just unforeseen accident. If they'd intended this exact effect they would have mentioned it - it's too big a mechanic change, IMO, to not. Furthermore if it was intended, I would expect a dev would have said so - especially given the long thread in the issues forum. It's hardly an 'AFK' issue either, aggressive drones are a valid and sound counter to ewar. So from what I am reading, is that you want a dev to look into the code why players are dumb and set their drones on agressive if they are handling a MTU in a mission site, instead of controlling them manually. Do I understand your complaint correctly ?
Do you really think those people who lost their ships due to this abuse of mechanics were dumb? Are you really that stupid? "I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose." -Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer
|
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4352
|
Posted - 2014.01.04 19:27:00 -
[59] - Quote
Nerf Burger wrote:Nadia Gallen wrote:So from what I am reading, is that you want a dev to look into the code why players are dumb and set their drones on agressive if they are handling a MTU in a mission site, instead of controlling them manually. Do I understand your complaint correctly ?
Do you really think those people who lost their ships due to this abuse of mechanics were necessarily dumb? Are you really that stupid? It is clearly an exploit with the drone AI. Unless you are a ridiculous person who cannot be taken seriously, you would be in favor of bug fixes, not telling mission runners they have to adapt to exploits.
Yes, I do think they're dumb. When new mechanics are being introduced we spend time on the test server fleshing things out before the changes are implemented on Tranquility. I spend most of my time in nullsec, yet I know more about highsec aggression than the people who live in highsec 100% of the time. Unironically this mechanic that you call an exploit was picked up on the test server & documented, yet it made it to Tranquility. This user won the forums on 18/09/2013, then lost on 18/12/2013. |
Nerf Burger
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
178
|
Posted - 2014.01.04 19:42:00 -
[60] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Nerf Burger wrote:Nadia Gallen wrote:So from what I am reading, is that you want a dev to look into the code why players are dumb and set their drones on agressive if they are handling a MTU in a mission site, instead of controlling them manually. Do I understand your complaint correctly ?
Do you really think those people who lost their ships due to this abuse of mechanics were necessarily dumb? Are you really that stupid? It is clearly an exploit with the drone AI. Unless you are a ridiculous person who cannot be taken seriously, you would be in favor of bug fixes, not telling mission runners they have to adapt to exploits. Yes, I do think they're dumb. When new mechanics are being introduced we spend time on the test server fleshing things out before the changes are implemented on Tranquility. I spend most of my time in nullsec, yet I know more about highsec aggression than the people who live in highsec 100% of the time. Unironically this mechanic that you call an exploit was picked up on the test server & documented, yet it made it to Tranquility.
when was the introduction to these "new mechanics", genius? "I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose." -Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |