| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Hue Jorgon
   |
Posted - 2005.08.06 06:45:00 -
[1]
It would seem that GM's determined using Drones as a Starbase defence deterent is now an Exploit. Not because the drones create lag which make warping in and out difficult (for everyone), but because they provide additional targets for POS guns, thereby prolonging the life of attacking ships.
In this case I would suggest EVE simple remove drones from the game all together, because it seems every time someone comes up with a clever use for them it gets outlawed.
The incident in question resulted in a 60% shield insta-recharge. I would like to understand why/if this is sanctioned by DEV. In my opinion this along with other questionable actions, is a blantent evidence that GM's favour some groups over others.
I would like the EVE communities views on the ability for GM's to change the rules mid conflict. |
Necrologic
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 06:50:00 -
[2]
This is one of the dumbest things i have ever heard. Sadly, this thread will probably get locked.
|
Lig Lira
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 06:52:00 -
[3]
That's rediculous. 
|
Zarks
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 06:52:00 -
[4]
"a clever use for them", that sounds to me like a player looking to find an abusable game-mechanic bug.
Drones are meant to deal damage not to confuse ai systems.
|
Clementina
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 06:53:00 -
[5]
So basically a GM ruling nerfed the usefulness of the Dominix in station warfare?
Stupid GM rulings 4tl.
|
Hue Jorgon
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 06:55:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: Zarks
"a clever use for them", that sounds to me like a player looking to find an abusable game-mechanic bug.
Drones are meant to deal damage not to confuse ai systems.
I disagree, drones have always been additional targets for NPC's, if this was not a desired use for them, then why are they targetable? |
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 07:04:00 -
[7]
That¦s EVE: they code $hit. And then they have to fix it with so called "exploits". 1,5 years ago i posted that drones cause too much lag and drones should be reduced to max 2...but better drones. Domis could have 2 cruisersized drones (firepower of 13 ogres), while a Scorpion would only have 1 smaller drone with the firepower of 8 small drones.
However - calling an attack on a POS with drones exploits is one of the lowest lows of CCP.
CCP, IT`S YOUR FAULT! HOW CAN A PLAYER BE AN EXPLOITER USING DRONES ON A POS ??? You guys coded $hit again - i call it "the POS crap".
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 07:06:00 -
[8]
Bah. At the very least it certainly shouldn't have resulted in a shield recharge. Thats going far beyond warning a player that using drones is not allowed (which is news to me at least)
Personally, just to make sure I'd petition that specific GM and ask for the actions to be reviewed. Seems a bit over the top to me...
|
Vaaliant
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 07:08:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Hue Jorgon
Originally by: Zarks
"a clever use for them", that sounds to me like a player looking to find an abusable game-mechanic bug.
Drones are meant to deal damage not to confuse ai systems.
I disagree, drones have always been additional targets for NPC's, if this was not a desired use for them, then why are they targetable?
Cept a POS isn't an NPC but uses NPC AI coding. Basically think of it like this, you have a mixed fleet..toss in 6 domis...field infiltrator drones (with a really low sig radius already), now the POS with its large guns decides to target you at any range from 100-250km out...the chance of it hitting the drones is near nil. The problem occurs with the fact that because of the way it cycles targets you've just spawned 6*15 drones max with a lower boundary of 6*13 (due to BS levels and drone interfacing levels), which is 78-90 MORE targets that the POS has to cycle through before it even targets a legit target. See how that gets abusive over time?
|
Clementina
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 07:12:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Clementina on 06/08/2005 07:12:11
Originally by: Vaaliant
Originally by: Hue Jorgon
Originally by: Zarks
"a clever use for them", that sounds to me like a player looking to find an abusable game-mechanic bug.
Drones are meant to deal damage not to confuse ai systems.
I disagree, drones have always been additional targets for NPC's, if this was not a desired use for them, then why are they targetable?
Cept a POS isn't an NPC but uses NPC AI coding. Basically think of it like this, you have a mixed fleet..toss in 6 domis...field infiltrator drones (with a really low sig radius already), now the POS with its large guns decides to target you at any range from 100-250km out...the chance of it hitting the drones is near nil. The problem occurs with the fact that because of the way it cycles targets you've just spawned 6*15 drones max with a lower boundary of 6*13 (due to BS levels and drone interfacing levels), which is 78-90 MORE targets that the POS has to cycle through before it even targets a legit target. See how that gets abusive over time?
Don't POSes have multiple size guns, so that small guns would WTFPWN a drone. If so this is a problem, the POS owner's problem, for not fitting proper guns.
|
|
|
Necrologic
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 07:12:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Necrologic on 06/08/2005 07:13:13
Originally by: Vaaliant
Originally by: Hue Jorgon
Originally by: Zarks
"a clever use for them", that sounds to me like a player looking to find an abusable game-mechanic bug.
Drones are meant to deal damage not to confuse ai systems.
I disagree, drones have always been additional targets for NPC's, if this was not a desired use for them, then why are they targetable?
Cept a POS isn't an NPC but uses NPC AI coding. Basically think of it like this, you have a mixed fleet..toss in 6 domis...field infiltrator drones (with a really low sig radius already), now the POS with its large guns decides to target you at any range from 100-250km out...the chance of it hitting the drones is near nil. The problem occurs with the fact that because of the way it cycles targets you've just spawned 6*15 drones max with a lower boundary of 6*13 (due to BS levels and drone interfacing levels), which is 78-90 MORE targets that the POS has to cycle through before it even targets a legit target. See how that gets abusive over time?
Drones sig rad is close to that of a cruiser. Also why not just make it so pos don't target drones? The drones will buy you another minute or two, but it's nowhere near close enough to even slightly effect the outcome of a pos siege.
|
Kerby Lane
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 07:16:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Kerby Lane on 06/08/2005 07:16:48
And again and again , may we please have some official infromation ?
May I use drones to attack the POS? How about dreads ? Will Gallentes have a chance to kill POS or GMs will recharge shield after every succesfull attack ?
Am I gonna be warned\banned for attacking NPC Battleships with small drones of my Ishkur ?
|
Terradoct
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 07:18:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Hue Jorgon
It would seem that GM's determined using Drones as a Starbase defence deterent is now an Exploit. Not because the drones create lag which make warping in and out difficult (for everyone), but because they provide additional targets for POS guns, thereby prolonging the life of attacking ships.
In this case I would suggest EVE simple remove drones from the game all together, because it seems every time someone comes up with a clever use for them it gets outlawed.
The incident in question resulted in a 60% shield insta-recharge. I would like to understand why/if this is sanctioned by DEV. In my opinion this along with other questionable actions, is a blantent evidence that GM's favour some groups over others.
I would like the EVE communities views on the ability for GM's to change the rules mid conflict.
I guess you have somthin valuble in that station. maybe you inform us? Why you so disered to retake it?
|
Dukath
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 07:22:00 -
[14]
Petition the GM for exploiting, since its clear that
1) CCP intended te drones to be targets otherwise they would not have changed the AI targetting code making NPCing in a dominix or ishtar a lot less feasible.
2) Drones are valid weapons, for some ships they are primary weapons and denying people firepower to practically shoot the thing that has the most hitpoints in the game is jus plain unfair.
3) again it unbalances the races since some races are not allowed to use their main weapon.
4) the 60% shield recharge you talk about is unprecedented and can only come from the fact that the GM is part of that alliance being under fire.
|
Terradoct
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 07:22:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Kerby Lane
Edited by: Kerby Lane on 06/08/2005 07:16:48
And again and again , may we please have some official infromation ?
May I use drones to attack the POS? How about dreads ? Will Gallentes have a chance to kill POS or GMs will recharge shield after every succesfull attack ?
Am I gonna be warned\banned for attacking NPC Battleships with small drones of my Ishkur ?
The poin is - that Shield bubble of the POS do not allow drones to shot at it, so they just cicle around it shooting but NOT hiting POS.
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 07:24:00 -
[16]
The whole POS crap is 1 year wasted time! A POS should look exactly like a NPC station. When i see a POS i already feel how unrealistic, even the MIR looked better then this crap. POS should really look like normal NPC-stations and should be unarmed+undestroyable. But they should need fuel and should only have fuel for max 2 weeks inside. Once fuel is out it should be able to take them over. Thes stations should be anchorable everywhere. Then 0.0 might get settled.
This would be an easy and working concept.
With Outposts CCP trys to fix it all, but the POS are still crap and totally overpowered, unrealistic, look ugly and all battles vs POS are totally boring+stupid. The new drone problem is only another "feauture" (not a bug) lol
|
Kar Brogan
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 07:36:00 -
[17]
If this actually is a case of a GM's alliance being about to loose a pos to a clever tactical ploy (and lets face it, anyone defending the POS is free to shoot at the drones) and said GM getting all ****y and upping the shields, then i think its only fair that said GM loose his position......
|
F'nog
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 07:40:00 -
[18]
GMs should never be allowed to determine what is and isn't an exploit. Only the devs know what they intended from the game, and what is or is not allowed by their rules. How many times in the past, in all MMOGs have people seen GMs declare that something is an exploit/unlawful when the devs have clearly stated that it is not?
My favorite was in EnB when the GMs said that a name which the devs themselves added to the game was not allowed and that they'd force the devs to change it.
Originally by: Morela
"hey! I'm gonna go attack the north! Afk till tuesday!"
|
Del Narveux
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 07:49:00 -
[19]
Wow, this is incredibly messed up if its true. If GMs, devs, etc. consider using drones against POS an exploit then they need to fix whatever game mechanic allowed it, just saying where you are and are not allowed to use drones just nerfs drone ships.
_________________
[SAK] And Proud Of It!
aka Cpt Bogus
Is that my torped sig cloaking your base? |
JaegerX
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 07:52:00 -
[20]
What a bunch of whiners you are. This is such a clear case of exploiting. If the drones never hit the POS, and never do any damage to it, then why the **** deploy them??? ---the whiner says: "they are weapons, bla, bla, bla.....why have drones if you cant use them?? Bla Bla Bla ...""
The only possible reason for you to deploy the drones is: You want to **** up the POS targeting.
The fact is: It seems your free ticket to POS killing has been rescinded, and you guys whine like a bunch of kids. GROW UP.
|
|
|
Cpt Abestos
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 07:57:00 -
[21]
Out of the box thinking in banned in eve futhrer attemts to do anything that defys convention will result in a ban. kthxbye
|
sonofollo
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 07:58:00 -
[22]
here is the solution a) allow POS to have deployable drones to tackle other drones - allow anti drone guns for POS -
Until CCP give us an offical dev blog or post saying Drones are an exploit on POS keep using em folks.
If they give us offical word then dont on the other hand if it is a problem they need to deploy additional equipment or improve the AI or add small anti drone guns on POS to fix the problem or allow it.
What if u have 3 domi defneding a POS and 3 attackers can the defenders use drones to attack the attackers while they cannot use drones because the POS cant hit em.
That creates inbalance and unfairness. Fix it or allow it. Or improve AI coding.
|
aeti
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 08:07:00 -
[23]
Originally by: F'nog
My favorite was in EnB when the GMs said that a name which the devs themselves added to the game was not allowed and that they'd force the devs to change it.
heh
|
Ticondrius
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 08:09:00 -
[24]
If the POS is not setup well, it's possible to drain them of ammo too over time, then come in and chip away at your leisure with your buddies. The owner won't know anything about the lack of ammo until you start pounding on the tower.
"If I'm brutally honest and it offends you, that's not my fault." |
Nicholai Pestot
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 08:15:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Ticondrius
If the POS is not setup well, it's possible to drain them of ammo too over time, then come in and chip away at your leisure with your buddies. The owner won't know anything about the lack of ammo until you start pounding on the tower.
This is such a clear case of exploiting. If your not intending to stay and let the pos kill you then why the **** attack ??? ---the whiner says: "its a valid tactical ploy, bla, bla, bla.....why have limited ammo if it cant be drained?? Bla Bla Bla ...""
The only possible reason for you to attack without intending to die: You want to **** up the POS ammo.
The fact is: It seems your free ticket to POS killing has been rescinded, and you guys whine like a bunch of kids. GROW UP.
NOTE anyone who does not understand the true sarcasm in this post should not reply to it, read the entire thread first (and its not aimed at you Ticondrius) |
sonofollo
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 08:20:00 -
[26]
then CCP need to come up with an anit drone weapon that can be applied to POS - why wasnt this throught of before or a drone bay on POS that can attack other drones only. Perhaps allowing up to 1000 drones to be stored and deployed in case of an attack.
Or if you want to nerf drones where POS are concerned simply make them unable to work in a 100km radius around POS (however if the defendingship that comes to help a corp POS for example) is a dominix or drone carrier that is also a drawback that it has to rely on ship weapons to repel an invasion (though with the POS guns) that should be even.
COmmon CCP give us a solution quickly to this
|
Amthrianius
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 08:22:00 -
[27]
Its obviously GM BS :/
If drones are an exploit, why does the Moros have capacity for 40 heavy drones and +5 controlled per level
---------------
|
Christopher Scott
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 08:23:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Hue Jorgon
It would seem that GM's determined using Drones as a Starbase defence deterent is now an Exploit. Not because the drones create lag which make warping in and out difficult (for everyone), but because they provide additional targets for POS guns, thereby prolonging the life of attacking ships.
In this case I would suggest EVE simple remove drones from the game all together, because it seems every time someone comes up with a clever use for them it gets outlawed.
The incident in question resulted in a 60% shield insta-recharge. I would like to understand why/if this is sanctioned by DEV. In my opinion this along with other questionable actions, is a blantent evidence that GM's favour some groups over others.
I would like the EVE communities views on the ability for GM's to change the rules mid conflict.
Simple logic. If using drones as additional targets to the POS is an exploit:
then using standings to "aim" the guns at specific, single targets is also an exploit.Fix both, or don't call either an exploit. kthx. 
|
sonofollo
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 08:25:00 -
[29]
I think its all a misunderstanding no one offically has commented on it which means until something is done just go right ahead
|
Rawne Karrde
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 08:33:00 -
[30]
Even though I'm a pos operator i think this is crap. Drones are just as legit as guns for offence. If people whine about this tactic its only because they are leaving their pos's to fend for themselves. If this tactic was used againt my pos, i'd just be manually targetting the bs's instead. If you wanna leave your pos to fend for itself, well thats a risk you take.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |