| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
mahhy
   |
Posted - 2005.08.06 07:06:00 -
[1]
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...
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 11:08:00 -
[2]
What the... first time I've ever seen a thread get UN-locked for discussing GMs and such 
Anyhow, its kind of acedemic isn't it? If CCP decides using drones as extra targets is an exploit, then it is. Until then, continue to do so. I would imagine someone official will say something, soon-ish. If its recently been classified as an exploit then its something everyone needs to be told, etc...
In the meantime however that shield recharge given by a GM should be reversed IMO.
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 13:37:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Jaabaa Prime
POS owners can anchor small batteries to counter drones, if a couple of large weapons can't hit the drones then that is a simple part of the game mechanics and by no means an exploit.
Even small POS turrets won't hit light drones at least. Been there, tried that, works wonders. Not sure about heavies though.
I think people need to realize that just because something is a part of the game mechanics does not necessarily mean it isn't an exploit. If CCP decide that this is not the way they intended it to work, then it is an exploit. If it is supposed to work that way, then its not an exploit.
I couldn't care either way. But I know if I was there and a GM came along and just magically restored the shields I'd be ****ed off too. Fine telling 5 members not to use drones, but don't just nullify all their hard work instantly.
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 16:12:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Elenia Kheynes
Who deploys a POS ? A player right ? So when you attack a POS it's PVP. It's player vs player, you are trying to hurt a corp or a specific player. You know it perfectly, you're just arguing it for arguing.
If attacking a POS is "Player vs Player" why are you complaining that the POS NPC AI couldn't figure out that it should hit the players? That was your job (or whoever owned the POS)
Originally by: Elenia Kheynes
Attacking the hostile fleet was like committing mass suicide.
Lag effects everyone, or sometimes no one. Lag is not an excuse to not defend your POS. If you chose to not defend your POS, you should lose it, regardless of drones or not, lag or not.
When 5 come back with a couple of dreadnoughts, and don't need to distract POS turrets with drones, are Xetic going to petition because they don't have the force to rescue their POS? Will that be an exploit?
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 16:45:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Elenia Kheynes
I love repeating things 3 times ^.^
hundreds of drones cause guns disfunctions and are also used as decoys against POS IA in a way that make the kill of a POS too easy. CCP never intented POS to be killed so easely when defended like this (I should post a screenshot of the POS, there are turrets everywhere on it, powergrid is fully used to fit turrets).
Repeat all you want. What you say doesn't matter  This is just a bunch of people throwing opinions around.
When CCP state its an exploit, then its an exploit.
Other than that, the GM acted incorrectly IMO (based on what we know so far, which may not be the whole story of course).
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 17:24:00 -
[6]
Edited by: mahhy on 06/08/2005 17:24:44
Originally by: ParMizaN
Clearly it was not intended for a fully armed pos to shoot at drones instead of players.
You could just as easily assume that CCP did not intend for POS turrets to 1 or 2 shot a BS, and they knew that we'd eventually figure out that using drones as a distraction allowed a ship to last a little longer 
Personally I'm expecting that CPP will class this as an exploit until they can code turrets not to target drones.
edit: that doesn't mean I agree that its an exploit, but theres no arguing with CCP heh.
But since the drones never did any damage to the shield, why recharge it?
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 17:44:00 -
[7]
Originally by: ParMizaN
Originally by: mahhy
But since the drones never did any damage to the shield, why recharge it?
From their POV the battleships that would have died were it not for the drones did a lot of the damage to the shields, im guessing.
Perhaps, but its not gaurunteed, so personally anyhow I can't really see why charging the shields was acceptable.
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 18:11:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
Amazing to see this tyhread still open. It's got flames, exploit discussion, and alt trolls.
It was locked at one point, but then it was unlocked and the mods post deleted.
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2005.08.07 17:01:00 -
[9]
Does setting standings on a specific pilot work as "manually targetting" a POS or not?
If it does, then theres no way using drones should be an exploit.
If it doesn't then its up to CCP
Can anyone confirm 100% either way?
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2005.08.07 17:07:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Ithildin
* Amount of idle drones prohibited defence force to warp in and "help" the POS (this has been an exploit since back in Gemini, by the way)
Not true, if the defense force warped into the POS bubble they were perfectly safe, no matter if it took them many minutes to load because of drone lag. Thats a false arguement.
Since we know they could be perfectly safe while waiting to load, if they warped into the bubble, all that remains in my mind is to determine if standings actually works (since many people have said contradictory things here).
If it does, then the drones simply don't matter and it was the the defenders fault for not targetting specific ships.
If it doesn't then its going to be a judgement call by CCP I would imagine.
The fact that 5 was camping the entrance to the system is entirely irrelevant as well, as thats simply good strategy when assaulting a POS since you ideally want to deny any attempts to refuel it or restock ammo, etc.
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2005.08.08 11:38:00 -
[11]
Originally by: anister
Originally by: W0lverine
Originally by: Miri Tirzan
I have to admit, the Gal Dred's main weapon is 35 drones it could carry and now we are being told that using drones is an exploite. Any one else think this qualifies as one of the more stupid things ever posted?
drones cant harm POS
Then the Gallente's Anti-Pos Ships main weapons have been nullified.
The Gall dread relies on its 3 turrets for Anti-Pos duties, just like the other Dreads. The ships description even suggests that the drones are not meant to be used against a POS.
|
| |
|