Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Romeo Deluxe
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 11:11:00 -
[211] - Quote
Enough with the speculation, read this same thread and it's already been answered. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4048843#post4048843 |
Malacha Syn'Rabies
Strand Technologies
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 14:46:00 -
[212] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:No. Forcing to aggressive would mean you couldn't change it. You always had a say in the matter. Like I said, I'd be fine with changing the default to passive. That's basically what you're also arguing for.
Yes, being able to initiate a fight is a handout. It's a handout to EVERYONE. There's no bypassing the normal repercussions, since the repercussions were explicitly designed this way. Suspect status is part of crimewatch.
Do NOT change the safety switch. It currently exists in a very clearly defined and consistent manner. Green prevents you from taking any action that flags you suspect or criminal. Yellow allows suspect actions but prevents you from taking criminal (or potentially criminal, i.e. smartbombs) actions. Red allows you to take any action, including criminal ones.
Drone aggressive behavior is also very clearly defined and consistent. A drone set to aggressive will automatically attack anyone and anything that attacks you or your assets on grid (such as another drone, a can, a wreck, or a deployable).
Changing either of these leads to unclear and exception-ridden scenarios, which is the entire reason CCP created crimewatch in the first place. Consider this the new can flipping. Teach newbies about it. Don't beg CCP to create exceptions just for your scenario.
The intent was to generate conflict, and I'd say it's definitely succeeded as such. And it's not one-way conflict either. Highsec carebears who would have normally gone about their business solo and not contributing to the game in ANY way are now banding together to destroy people who go suspect by attacking MTUs. That's called emergent gameplay. If the GMs are reimbursing people and calling this a bug then they're ******* ******** and they don't understand this game.
You seem to be responding to other people in this thread rather than me. I applaud the new high sec conflict generation that the mobile structures have introduced. The only area I disagree with you, other than the semantics of the word forced, apparently, is that I feel there should be a clear indicator for the danger aggressive drones introduce. If a pilot wants to run them in that dangerous mode, they should expect consequences even in high sec.
Something new was added (mobile structures) and it clearly has repercussions that may not have been intended by CCP with the introduction of these items. This new category of fielded device is not consistent with previous consequences in high sec, since shooting wrecks, drones, or other fielded items would get the aggressor Concorded in high sec. Thus the addition of the new mobile structures and drone aggression has created a new inconsistency.
I understand that you really like the change "as is" and you strongly feel it is "working as intended."
I feel that the MTU/aggressive drone gank is too sketchy and needs a mechanic that indicates the potential danger to a pilot. I don't really care if CCP uses crimewatch to fix this inconsistent behavior, but they do need some form of indicator. However, I also do not understand why you averse to having crimewatch yellow up if your are using aggressive drones. Is there some negative effect that this would have on the gameplay? You did claim that there would be exception-ridden scenarios generated from this, please enlighten me on what one might be?
It is the lack of indication that is the problem. That is why I am NOT arguing to get rid of the new emergent conflict generation, just make it more consistent by clearly indicating the potential danger.
EDIT: Removed the line about quote confusion... |
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
17
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 14:54:00 -
[213] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:asteroidjas wrote:The reply was something similar to "We know about this, and it is a bug. Drones were never meant to unintentionally draw their owners into a Limited Engagement." It is NOT a bug, it's consistent with how one would expect aggressive drones to behave. That's how they've always behaved.
To answer the first point. you say they've "always behaved" this way. So tell me an example of drones auto-aggressing a suspect that did not shoot one of the new deployables. You bring up the fact it 'happens but concord blows them up before the player is is trouble'....except thats not the same thing. That is a criminal flag for an illegal activity. This is dealing with a suspect flag for NOT illegal activity.
James Amril-Kesh wrote:asteroidjas wrote:....b/c this is the only thing aggressive drones behave like this on. Drones do not auto-engage can-flip-suspects or any other form of suspects, only those that shoot the new deployable's, and only after they have already been shooting NPC's and only while on aggressive. It just seems shady from the start, what with all the special cases that go into making it happen. No, there's no special case. Drones have to be out and set to aggressive.
As to the second point, yes, this is a special case, because up until the release of these new 'mobile deployables' there has not been a way to aggress a player without concord getting involved. The drones react b/c they see the deployable as an extension of the player. So when it gets shot at, (which the shooting is as intended and working just fine), the drones think the player has been shot at and react. That is the bug, the drones seeing the deployable as the player. There is no other item that the player might 'own' with which someone can flag themselves 'suspect' that will automatically draw said player into an unintended LE. That is the special case. It only works with this one NEW type of item, and only when drones are on aggressive and only when they are currently in 'fighting' mode against npc's. That's alot of "only"s for it to not be a special case.
And PS, there have been plenty of ppl (maybe not in this particular thread) who have claimed "hundreds of kills because of this mechanic", but they then are VERY adamant that drones have always auto-aggressed all suspects. Period. (This is a very common thing to see claimed in any online discussion i have had about this matter.) To which i ask, then why is it neccesary to shoot the MTU's in order to get the LE? I have yet to hear any response to this.
PPS: There have been enough 'replies to petitions' posted that have Dev's labeling this as a bug to sufficiently say its very likely labeled a bug internally. Yes, Mittens posted that article and claimed it was not a bug...it doesn't help alot of ppl think this has something to do with the 'safety' setting, which it does not. But Mittens (dare i say it) is not a Dev, and not even CSM, (correct?), and as such, i will take the word from Dev's over his. Only CCP knows 100% if this mehcanic was intentional or not. And as of yet, there has been no official word from them. Just alot of speculation and "i heard so-and-so say such-and-such."
Personally, in my petition CCP may have implied it would be best if i did not use this bug, but they were VERY cryptic in their response to my (since i have a warning on my account), will i get banned retroactively, like the first warning was retroactive after the public announcement? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8264
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:06:00 -
[214] - Quote
It doesn't matter what I say anyway. Senior GM Nythanos has told me I'm wrong, that this is not working as intended, and that this is a bug. I certainly wish they weren't so shortsighted. My EVE Videos |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
604
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:38:00 -
[215] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:It doesn't matter what I say anyway. Senior GM Nythanos has told me I'm wrong, that this is not working as intended, and that this is a bug. I certainly wish they weren't so shortsighted.
Meant to post this at the time, got side tracked and a recent thread reminded me.
Kudos for posting the findings, many wouldn't have, especially arguing the side you did.
/doffs cap. |
Sniper Wolf18
Aggressive Diplomacy
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 01:31:00 -
[216] - Quote
That's bullshit, in no way should this be considered a bug. What happens if someone attacks your MTU and you launch FOF missiles? I'd bet they would attack the person shooting your MTU. Drones on aggressive are just like FOF missiles, they seek out and destroy whoever is attacking you or your property. Shooting a wreck/jetcan in lowsec/nullsec causes the owner's drones to attack, the same should be said for MTUs in hisec. It shouldn't be considered a bug because morons are losing their ships to it and crying about it, though, the new carebear friendly CCP clearly needs to do everything in their power to make highsec safer. Making the eve experience safer and easier will net more profits in the short-term, but, with star citizen and other upcoming sci-fi space mmos will leave it a ghost-town a few more years down the line. If CCP are worried about bears losing their expensive pinata faction ships in hisec, all they need to is set the default drone option to passive and add a warning along the lines of 'Setting your drones to aggressive will cause them to attack anyone who is attacking you or your property, this feature should be used at your own risk. Autopilot has it's drawbacks, AFK drone usage should too, if you want to play eve using it's built in bot systems, there should be a price to pay. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4394
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 02:18:00 -
[217] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:It doesn't matter what I say anyway. Senior GM Nythanos has told me I'm wrong, that this is not working as intended, and that this is a bug. I certainly wish they weren't so shortsighted.
Remember that time a Senior GM said telling people that you are your alt is bannable & anyone running ISboxer is botting? Turns out he was wrong. One of the great things to come out of this interesting new way of killing mission runners is a lot of them have started to adapt which is really great to see, for once. This user won the forums on 18/09/2013, then lost on 18/12/2013. |
IbanezLaney
The Church of Awesome Caldari State Capturing
821
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 03:43:00 -
[218] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:It's clearly a bug, if you think otherwise you're trolling or drunk.
Oh and CCP hates drones.
There is no bug.
Ill explain the normal order of events so you know what exactly is happening.
1. You have your safety green which means you can shoot at any legit target. 2. The person steals which makes them a legit target - so your drones engage them. 3. You have now entered a limited engagement timer by your own choice. 4. This is the bit where you discover that a T1 frig with a good pilot is better that your officer fit Battleship. 5. Now you must complain on the forums. (Don't forget - Had you won the fight you would not be here and you would be telling all your mates how you beat someone at pvp.)
The fact that you have drones out and set to aggressive is your own fault.
I somehow doubt the person cleaning up your space rubbish deployed your drones and set them to aggressive for you. Or do you want to blame other players with no access to your account for that too??
It is your fault for being an aggressive pilot and using your drones to attack the poor innocent person cleaning up the mess you left in space. Maybe if all you high sec mission runners stopped being so trigger happy and the problem would resolve itself.
If you want to get your soul to heaven, trust in me. Now don't judge or question. You are broken now, but faith can heal you. Just do everything I tell you to do. (Opiate - Tool) |
Sniper Wolf18
Aggressive Diplomacy
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 03:53:00 -
[219] - Quote
If CCP is really reimbursing ships for this I'd urge them to revisit every other clever use of game mechanics that have resulted in people dying despite them having no clue that they could even be attacked. I remember killing many tens of people, including one of the first marauders by using the lofty scam, maybe you should start there, hell, why not just give everyone some free SP and ships, I'm sure we've all had a loss of a ship despite never knowing the mechanic was in place and was possible, have you replaced the ships belonging to people who got concorded by giving logi to someone who then got concorded? Hell, why not reimburse everyone who'd been podded when limited engagments were first introduced, despite there being no CCP confirmation of this being possible and it being unprecedented and completely new in terms of hisec PvP.
See, reimbursing ships because of a clever manipulation of strange new game mechanics is a very, very stupid thing to do. |
Malacha Syn'Rabies
Strand Technologies
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 06:20:00 -
[220] - Quote
IbanezLaney wrote:Sentamon wrote:It's clearly a bug, if you think otherwise you're trolling or drunk.
Oh and CCP hates drones. There is no bug. Ill explain the normal order of events so you know what exactly is happening. ... 2. The person steals which makes them a legit target - so your drones engage them. ...
Have you actually tested your explanation? Stealing does NOT cause aggressive drones to engage...
|
|
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 07:49:00 -
[221] - Quote
I only deployed an MTU once on SiSi, but doesnt it warn you that aggressive drones will defend it? |
Sweetest Mowi
Blaupausen Kompetenz Agentur
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 11:49:00 -
[222] - Quote
A GM answered my Petition and gave me my lost ship back.
Dunno if it is catigororized as an exploit, but it seems at least to be a bug. |
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
785
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 12:00:00 -
[223] - Quote
Sweetest Mowi wrote:A GM answered my Petition and gave me my lost ship back.
Dunno if it is catigororized as an exploit, but it seems at least to be a bug. Why do we have to wait days before a GM or CCP dev make an official respond to these case?
Once again the Internet Layer Fools are going on and on about "the dev blog said this", "the GM said that" , blablabla...
And in the end, it is ONLY CCP who can make a judgment on what is right and what is not.
As it is now, people should just bet on these issues while awaiting the official CCP response: A decade of experience with this game makes me put 10 M ISK on, that this drone behavior is NOT intended by CCP. Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook-á |
Sniper Wolf18
Aggressive Diplomacy
10
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 01:31:00 -
[224] - Quote
Sweetest Mowi wrote:A GM answered my Petition and gave me my lost ship back.
Dunno if it is catigororized as an exploit, but it seems at least to be a bug.
Well that's rather disappointing.
I guess CCP's 2014 plan is "Have your cake and eat it too! AFK mission run all you want, we've even made this handy little device that does even more work for you" I guess the people who make bots for MMOs will be going out of business soon. |
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
24
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 21:30:00 -
[225] - Quote
Sniper Wolf18 wrote: I guess CCP's 2014 plan is "Have your cake and eat it too! AFK mission run all you want, we've even made this handy little device that does even more work for you"...blah...blah... By reimbursing these ships you're sending the message that running missions while AFK and not paying attention is perfectly fine, wanting to mission and have all your wrecks vacuumed up into a neat pile is great too, after all, the more ISK you make the more PLEX you can buy, right?
Again, this has nothing to do with being AFK, as it can happen to a pilot who is very much active and at the keyboard. The timing for this to happen can be nearly instantly...if the aggressor happens to shoot the MTU the second before the players drones kill a target...there is almost nothing the player can do between those two actions to prevent this from happening.
I've watched it happen with my own eyes. Dude came into a mission me and my bro were doing, he flew in as suspect already (from previous target i'm guessing), he started to shoot my bro's MTU, so he scooped it before dude could pop it. But by the time that was done, he was already in an LE. With some luck we got him out unscathed. But the point is the same. And btw, again, the only other ways players can aggress another persons stuff in a manner in which draws the drones defensive aggro...gets you Concorded. So the five minute LE from that drone aggro is countered by the 15 minute criminal flag
Drones on aggressive does not mean AFK. It simply means, i only have X-number of target slots, and i don't want to spend 10-20 seconds to lock a new frigate after my drones have killed the last one.
PS: Have you actually tried to USE one of these MTU's? They are so slow they can take upwards of 30 minutes to 'clear' a room. Most of the time they are dropped, then forgot about till after the mission is turned in...or even after the next. 1k/sec tractor beam grabbing wrecks 50k away with 10 second 'switching' delay...times 30 wrecks...yup...30 minutes. |
Sniper Wolf18
Aggressive Diplomacy
10
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 23:00:00 -
[226] - Quote
asteroidjas wrote:Sniper Wolf18 wrote: I guess CCP's 2014 plan is "Have your cake and eat it too! AFK mission run all you want, we've even made this handy little device that does even more work for you"...blah...blah... By reimbursing these ships you're sending the message that running missions while AFK and not paying attention is perfectly fine, wanting to mission and have all your wrecks vacuumed up into a neat pile is great too, after all, the more ISK you make the more PLEX you can buy, right?
Again, this has nothing to do with being AFK, as it can happen to a pilot who is very much active and at the keyboard. The timing for this to happen can be nearly instantly...if the aggressor happens to shoot the MTU the second before the players drones kill a target...there is almost nothing the player can do between those two actions to prevent this from happening.
This can be prevented from happening by turning your drones to passive, watching D-scan, pulling your MTU the instant you see someone warp into your mission or by having an alt drop the MTU for you. If you fail to do all those four things and your drones aggro someone, you can have an alt/friend in a BB/falcon warp in and ECM them. This is not an unstoppable bug, all it requires is that you pay attention and not be stupid. You complain that you don't have enough target slots, but that's just another admission that you're lazy and don't want to have to lock targets every few seconds and would rather use CCP's built in botting systems with impunity. You claim that it's possible for someone to shoot your MTU the second a rat pops and have your drones aggress them. This is such an unlikely situation that it borders on impossible, unless you are ignoring the person who's just warped into your mission, started to approach your drones (they attack whatever is closest) and then started shooting your MTU, unless you'
Ships were never reimbursed due to losses from mechanics similar to this, such as the lofty scam, which allowed you to be shot just by accepting a fleet invite, there was no warning. This is no different, why should CCP start reimbursing ships now.
CCP - Carebear concession people?
|
Je'ron
The Happy Shooters
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 20:23:00 -
[227] - Quote
Jowen Datloran wrote:Sweetest Mowi wrote:A GM answered my Petition and gave me my lost ship back.
Dunno if it is catigororized as an exploit, but it seems at least to be a bug. Why do we have to wait days before a GM or CCP dev make an official respond to these case? Once again the Internet Layer Fools are going on and on about "the dev blog said this", "the GM said that" , blablabla... And in the end, it is ONLY CCP who can make a judgment on what is right and what is not. As it is now, people should just bet on these issues while awaiting the official CCP response: A decade of experience with this game makes me put 10 M ISK on, that this drone behavior is NOT intended by CCP.
I think CCP dev have made their view on this very clear From the Patch notes for Rubicon 1.1, which is to be release tomorrow
Quote:Drones that are set to aggressive will no longer perform automatic actions against a target if those actions would trigger a new Limited Engagement, unless explicitly instructed to engage that target. |
Sniper Wolf18
Aggressive Diplomacy
13
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 22:04:00 -
[228] - Quote
Interesting, now that CCP are fixing inherent issues with drones can they fix all the other disparities with drones too, such as no drone implants, no overheating for drones, etc? Or is it just the problems with drones that make bears angry that get fixed? |
Je'ron
The Happy Shooters
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 23:13:00 -
[229] - Quote
lol, with a couple of people tried to remember when drones weren't broken, must have been before boot.ini. Got a couple more for you: the Drone UI in general, no drone health display when in bay (keep on launching those near death drones), no T2 resists on T2 drones, heavies being obsolete except for very, very close combat, ECM drones icw stacking penalty |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
402
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 10:42:00 -
[230] - Quote
Sweetest Mowi wrote:A GM answered my Petition and gave me my lost ship back.
Dunno if it is catigororized as an exploit, but it seems at least to be a bug. refunding you the ship is the exploit, drones set as agressive, i you are to dumb to understand what that means, well set them to passive.
/me now waiting for the inevitable "but huuuu then they won't run my mission themselv duh!" |
|
Kalu Alar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 15:16:00 -
[231] - Quote
As per patch Rubicon 1.1 notes:
Drones that are set to aggressive will no longer perform automatic actions against a target if those actions would trigger a new Limited Engagement, unless explicitly instructed to engage that target.
/thread |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
411
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 17:04:00 -
[232] - Quote
yeah, even more dumbing eve down......... |
Sniper Wolf18
Aggressive Diplomacy
16
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 21:04:00 -
[233] - Quote
This makes me rather sad tbh, star citizen probably won't be an unforgiving PvP game, not with as many backers as it has now, they'll have to cater to the casual/dumb masses too. EvE online used to be an uncompromising and unforgiving PvP game, I don't know what to think now, I guess most of the highsec PvP crowd feel the same and don't want to unsub and ragequit as there's nowhere else to go, at least, that's how I feel now anyway. |
Thomas Mayaki
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.02.02 11:13:00 -
[234] - Quote
Kalu Alar wrote:As per patch Rubicon 1.1 notes:
Drones that are set to aggressive will no longer perform automatic actions against a target if those actions would trigger a new Limited Engagement, unless explicitly instructed to engage that target.
/thread
Does that mean if I have ecm drones out on a mining barges they won't work automatically on aggression?
Also won't that mean mining barges no longer create 'killmails ' when they get ganked? |
DSpite Culhach
Corp 54 Curatores Veritatis Alliance
265
|
Posted - 2014.02.10 15:04:00 -
[235] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Gregor Parud wrote:One can argue and troll over "bug, exploit or intended mechanic" semantics all you want, reality is that it's outright silly for someone set to "green" entering a limited engagement while not actively having chosen to do so. The whole "well don't set to aggressive then" is a similar fallacy as "afk cloakers are no threat" bullshit.
It's obviously an oversight by CCP because they don't really do any sort of combat. pvp or QA. I will give you a Nyx if you show me where an AFK cloaker killed someone.
AFK cloaker was in a fleet. The FC did a fleet warp, then cancelled it and asked everyone else to cancel it also. The AFK cloaker covops warped anyway, and landed on grid 500 meters away from a T1 battleship that was also cloaked up, in a ratting belt, decloakign both ships. Local rats target the Battleship, web/scram it and it dies. I suddenly woke up thinking I had a nightmare, then remembered I can't even fly Amarr Battleships. I add bits to this when I'm bored https://www.dropbox.com/s/foijsawsqolarom/EVE_Online.html |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |