EVE Search - The last GM straw...

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The last GM straw...

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Gunship	Posted - 2005.08.07 18:26:00 - [301] [5] Showed that we can take a POS without drones over the weekend and another is due to bit the dust 21:00 eve time. So drones or not the end result is now the same. What many [5] pilots find unjust is the "swift" action from the GM's to reload the station shield without also giving back ships lost in the process. If you wan't to press the reset button, please do so in a fair way. It may be by chance, but the GM attendance to the Xetic cry for help was somewhat speedier than the 3+ weeks we waited for a responce the m53 issues. I welcome that the GM's now consider replacing lost ships, but a little to late springs into mind
Gierling	Posted - 2005.08.07 18:54:00 - [302] I mentioned it in the other thread and I am very much a fan of the idea. They should treat POS guns like ships, and allow players to board and manually operate them using the interface. Bastards we are lest Bastards we become.
Ranger 1	Posted - 2005.08.07 19:37:00 - [303] Edited by: Ranger 1 on 07/08/2005 19:44:53 Add a check box for the POS to ignore drones if so desired, or even better for specific guns to ignore drones. Shouldn't be all that difficult. Add anti-drone (rocket) missile batteries. Allow POS guns to be "grouped" so that say all of your large guns, Cruise missile batteries and Citadel Torp launchers would target the same ship within range, all small guns and Torpedo batteries would target the same ship within their range, etc. Thus introducing some strategy into organizing POS defenses. That's not a moon... that's my POS
Lorth	Posted - 2005.08.07 20:39:00 - [304] Originally by: Kinderschokolade Originally by: mahhy Does setting standings on a specific pilot work as "manually targetting" a POS or not? It does not. It did less then a mounth ago.
Zigadenus	Posted - 2005.08.07 20:54:00 - [305] Originally by: Ranger 1 Edited by: Ranger 1 on 07/08/2005 19:44:53 Add a check box for the POS to ignore drones if so desired, or even better for specific guns to ignore drones. Shouldn't be all that difficult. Add anti-drone (rocket) missile batteries. Allow POS guns to be "grouped" so that say all of your large guns, Cruise missile batteries and Citadel Torp launchers would target the same ship within range, all small guns and Torpedo batteries would target the same ship within their range, etc. Thus introducing some strategy into organizing POS defenses. Some good ideas. Being able to focus fire with POS weapons would be devastating. Regarding drones, if they do no damage then why bother with a counter-measure for them? Just allow for the operator (or reprogram the AI) to ignore them completely.
Gierling	Posted - 2005.08.07 21:17:00 - [306] Yeah I'm up for improving the AI, but as long as its AI it will have weaknesses that can be used to defeat it consistantly without any grea loss. LEt us use the "board ship" option on POS battaries! Wouldn't be unbalanced because it would still require concentration and teamwork to do some good. Bastards we are lest Bastards we become.
Gierling	Posted - 2005.08.07 21:17:00 - [307] Yeah I'm up for improving the AI, but as long as its AI it will have weaknesses that can be used to defeat it consistantly without any grea loss. LEt us use the "board ship" option on POS battaries! Wouldn't be unbalanced because it would still require concentration and teamwork to do some good. Bastards we are lest Bastards we become.
Felony Assualt	Posted - 2005.08.07 23:24:00 - [308] I dont think that anyone mentioned the fact that you can use drones to attract fire from FOF missiles. Im not sure who actually uses those pieces of **** anymore but still. Isnt this the same idea that drawing fire from your target(s) to live longer. I just dont see why using drones to attack a POS is a exploit. Soooo I guess drones are just there for players to find out new exploits arent they? Those who can, do; Those who cant, teach
10 Bears	Posted - 2005.08.08 03:41:00 - [309] Originally by: Dukath 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. OR... The guy that made the decission is not one of the 'A'List GM's and made a mistake? Your 280mm Howitzer Artillery II perfectly strikes Serpentis Defender, wrecking for 230.4 damage.
Elenia Kheynes	Posted - 2005.08.08 03:57:00 - [310] Edited by: Elenia Kheynes on 08/08/2005 04:01:01 guys, the GM took the situation seriously. It ended in a lot of wasted time yes. But let's be honest: he took a decision after checking what was happening, what were the issues and bugs so far. He then prolly asked to other GMs what they were thinking about it. Yes, a lot of time was wasted. But in the day after, what would u have done if CCP had called it an exploit ? CCP would have had to undo EVERYTHING that had been done to that point. It would have been complex and a waste of time. I don't think it was a reason name (I heard from one of your member this) one of your TS channel "**** GM [whatever his name was]". Dear friendly customer... Can I have your money ?

Band Zior	Posted - 2005.08.08 04:10:00 - [311] Edited by: Band Zior on 08/08/2005 04:10:33 Originally by: Elenia Kheynes Edited by: Elenia Kheynes on 08/08/2005 04:01:01 guys, the GM took the situation seriously. It ended in a lot of wasted time yes. But let's be honest: he took a decision after checking what was happening, what were the issues and bugs so far. He then prolly asked to other GMs what they were thinking about it. Yes, a lot of time was wasted. But in the day after, what would u have done if CCP had called it an exploit ? CCP would have had to undo EVERYTHING that had been done to that point. It would have been complex and a waste of time. I don't think it was a reason name (I heard from one of your member this) one of your TS channel "**** GM [whatever his name was]". Hehe, way to slip it in. ---------- Richard Simmons in Space
Stormfront	Posted - 2005.08.08 04:14:00 - [312] Quote: CCP would have had to undo EVERYTHING that had been done to that point. It would have been complex and a waste of time. So our time wasted is less than their time wasted?
Jorev	Posted - 2005.08.08 04:23:00 - [313] Originally by: Stormfront Quote: CCP would have had to undo EVERYTHING that had been done to that point. It would have been complex and a waste of time. So our time wasted is less than their time wasted? Yeah, his shift was about over.
Zigadenus	Posted - 2005.08.08 04:42:00 - [314] Quote: CCP would have had to undo EVERYTHING that had been done to that point. It would have been complex and a waste of time. Right, like undo every POS assault that's every been executed using drones. That's why it's so important to stick to precedence.
F'nog	Posted - 2005.08.08 07:09:00 - [315] Originally by: Elenia Kheynes Edited by: Elenia Kheynes on 08/08/2005 04:01:01 guys, the GM took the situation seriously. It ended in a lot of wasted time yes. But let's be honest: he took a decision after checking what was happening, what were the issues and bugs so far. He then prolly asked to other GMs what they were thinking about it. Yes, a lot of time was wasted. But in the day after, what would u have done if CCP had called it an exploit ? CCP would have had to undo EVERYTHING that had been done to that point. It would have been complex and a waste of time. I don't think it was a reason name (I heard from one of your member this) one of your TS channel "** GM [whatever his name was]". Or, he could have told [5] to stop what they were doing while it was being investigated and saved both sides a lot of time and grief (and lost ISK). Originally by:** Morela "hey! I'm gonna go attack the north! Afk till tuesday!"
Fitz Chivalry	Posted - 2005.08.08 09:00:00 - [316] This thread is kind of funny because I have often seen other threads with people complaining about [5] and their pet GMs! IMO using Drones on a POS is an exploit - in so far as you are exploiting limitations with the mechanics of the game. Look at it from a roleplaying perspective (after all this is a game - never forget this) - if this were "real life" then the POS would have a vast computer cotrolling it that would be able to realise (or could be programmed to realise) that the real threat comes not from the drones but from the battleships - therefore it should concentrate its fire on the battleships - it would not waste its time trying to pop little frigs. I don't think the argument about "people use drones to attract FOF missiles and that is fair" really works because again, from a roleplaying perspective, the AI in a missile should not be expected to be as good as that running a huge space station - plus in that instance you could view drones as "chaff" that could confuse a missiles tiny brain. Obviously, the AI script in the game is not as good as that which would exist in a real POS and so the game AI can be fooled - and that is what you are doing - exploiting gaps in the AI. I am not saying that your "exploit" is up there with macro mining or whatever as everyone "exploits" the games AI limitations in this way all the time - foe example, people can complete 10/10 complexes with little trouble by having a tanked ship with 3 or 4 ships just supporting it because the enemies are too stupid to shoot the supporters rather than the tanked ship. If a GM thinks you are exploiting the game then of course they should take action during the combat - as opposed to what? waiting until you are successful and then doing something? The best solution would be to allow you to set preferences (like in overview) as to what the POS guns should target or in what order they should target - or better yet - allow an individual to take direct control of the guns by linking them to your ship and have them shoot at whatever you shoot at.

GM Arkanon	Posted - 2005.08.08 09:58:00 - [317] Hello everyone. I'd like to address some of the points raised in this thread. 1. Using drones to confuse POS targeting is an exploit of game mechanics, pure and simple. The drones can not damage the station, since they don't have the range and the POS guns can hardly hit the drones either. All that happens is that the POS guns are effectively incapacitated as they cycle targets from one drone to the next, leaving the attacking ships free to attack the station. 2. The GM on duty had to make a decision and was within his rights to do so. The GM team's duty is to report and react to situations potentially harmful to the game and it's the GM team that enforces ingame policies, not CCP. The GM in question has also been criticized for not taking action sooner, but you may want to consider that during that time, he was investigating the issue, contacting CCP and the bug hunting team and in general, doing his job correctly and responsibly. 3. This issue has now, thankfully, been drawn to our attention and I hope we will see changes to the POS guns' AI very soon. Until then, this will be considered an exploit and we will issue warnings/bans to those using it from now on. Note that this has no bearing on drone use in other situations, this is a very specific and easily classifiable exploit. GM Arkanon Senior Game Master EVE CSS

WildHope	Posted - 2005.08.08 10:04:00 - [318] Edited by: WildHope on 08/08/2005 10:04:02 Will you be replacing the ships lost to this 'incapacitated' POS? Wildhope ShinRa Curse Alliance (may it last 1000 generations) Victim of the GM JV1V massacre
Avon	Posted - 2005.08.08 10:09:00 - [319] 5 have already demonstrated that they can take down POS faster, and with fewer losses, without drones. Calling something that makes the task harder and more dangerous an exploit is, frankly, dumb. Even is it was an exploit, it was still handled very badly, and I think this is the real issue. If you decide something is an exploit during or after the fact, but it was not declared as such before the fact, you can not accuse anyone of exploiting. If you decide the outcome is unfair because of the 'exploit', you must roll-back the entire situation. In this case, fix the POS and replace all lost ships / drones / ammo. Showing favoritism, even unintentionally, brings the exploit decision in to question - and grey areas and doubt have no place in defining something which could potentially get an account banned. ______________________________________________ Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay.
Brian Detaah	Posted - 2005.08.08 10:18:00 - [320] Originally by: GM Arkanon Hello everyone. I'd like to address some of the points raised in this thread. 1. Using drones to confuse POS targeting is an exploit of game mechanics, pure and simple. The drones can not damage the station, since they don't have the range and the POS guns can hardly hit the drones either. All that happens is that the POS guns are effectively incapacitated as they cycle targets from one drone to the next, leaving the attacking ships free to attack the station. 2. The GM on duty had to make a decision and was within his rights to do so. The GM team's duty is to report and react to situations potentially harmful to the game and it's the GM team that enforces ingame policies, not CCP. The GM in question has also been criticized for not taking action sooner, but you may want to consider that during that time, he was investigating the issue, contacting CCP and the bug hunting team and in general, doing his job correctly and responsibly. 3. This issue has now, thankfully, been drawn to our attention and I hope we will see changes to the POS guns' AI very soon. Until then, this will be considered an exploit and we will issue warnings/bans to those using it from now on. Note that this has no bearing on drone use in other situations, this is a very specific and easily classifiable exploit. Hmmm, this whole discussion works from the assumption that the drones were very effective and useful to the attackers. As it turned out the drones did more harm to us than the POS. In theory drones confuse the POS and help the attacking party. In reality the drones generate lag which spells death to the attackers as it disrupts organisation. When a gun cycles on to a attacker, he cannot be saved at module lag prevents repairing. This can be show by the fact that the same POS (with extra defense and new ammo stockpiles) inflicted WAY fewer losses on the second, no drone, attack. Both you and the GM in the field seems to assume that the lynchpin of the strategy was drones and that they offered a unfair advantage to us and that the prime reason for our success was the drones. Frankly we were better off without them. But how would we know? I havent attacked a POS with large guns before. I actually thought the drones DID dmg the POS (as i thought it was the forcefield that was the target....silly me) so i used heavy drones, which i lost. ------------------------------------------------ `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.' `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

Miri Tirzan	Posted - 2005.08.08 11:04:00 - [321] 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? svetlana - "whining gets you stuff. that is why humans got to the top of the food chain and all the other animals got nerfed."
W0lverine	Posted - 2005.08.08 11:23:00 - [322] 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
anister	Posted - 2005.08.08 11:30:00 - [323] 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. ___
Jorev	Posted - 2005.08.08 11:35:00 - [324] GM's response is disappointing, doesn't address valid concerns and downplays the issue at hand. I am not surprised in the least.
mahhy	Posted - 2005.08.08 11:38:00 - [325] 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.
Fitz Chivalry	Posted - 2005.08.08 11:42:00 - [326] 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 drones are intended to protect the dread from enemy ships while it shoot the POS.
Brian Detaah	Posted - 2005.08.08 11:51:00 - [327] But the pos would still target the drones....right? So that dread would be xploiting! Bad dread! ------------------------------------------------ `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.' `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'
Fred0	Posted - 2005.08.08 11:53:00 - [328] Drones have been used for 6 months to kill pos. And now the 5 gets the short end of it. Totally unfair towards them imho. (first time ever im on 5's side)
bUBbLeS	Posted - 2005.08.08 12:26:00 - [329] Drones are an exploit? bah thats bollox no cAKe 4 CCP Julius ceaser : "operor vos volo MCCCXXXVII laganum bUBbLeS?"
Discorporation	Posted - 2005.08.08 12:26:00 - [330] Originally by: bUBbLeS Drones are an exploit? bah thats bollox no cAKe 4 CCP no, trixing stupid pos AI is an exploit :) drones are coo :D cAKe for me? [Come to Daddy]



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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.