| 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) |
Virida
   |
Posted - 2005.08.06 10:45:00 -
[61]
Sound like an effect who is not meant from the dev's, and giving an unfortunate effect, hope its easy fixed in some patch, so ppl can use all skills in battle, and not get hindered in pvp.
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 11:08:00 -
[62]
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.
|
BOldMan
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 11:17:00 -
[63]
I am galente. I pay 1 year money to train my blood race. I use drone as primary weapon. After 1 year I hear i am not allowed to use my skills. Sound like is a problem of my galente ethnicities. And that is forbbiden.
Please fix that. Inteligency of players is not an issue. Is a chalenge. Give our drones back.
|
fras
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 11:19:00 -
[64]
dont expect them to do anything or even care. my responses from them regarding a exploit i inquired on
from 1 gm- said it was BORDERLINE exploit. i said the defintion of this word does not nesessarily mean its one.
frrom 2nd one after 3 additional respones from me.
this thing in particular was removed during beta. oh come on what a crap story i had this happen not 3 months ago
ive no respect left period. shame
went from wishing i played this game from the start to
wishing i never quit my last game and sold/gave away all my stuff. and my last game sooo more sucks compared to eve. but there starting to run neck and neck. eve's caching up to them
someone should make up a list of exploits that are known and post them somewhere on another site/place. maybe that MAY goad them in actually fixing things they CLAIM that are broken and stop BREAKING things they claim are broken
god i swear they whine more than anyone else sometimes
kk nough gotta go find my medication.
|
Slaveabuser
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 11:22:00 -
[65]
If this is true then CCP ought to look for more/new GM`s.
=1 Industry skills trained, for a total of 250 skillPoints= |
Cadman Weyland
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 11:26:00 -
[66]
Everyone needs to step back and take a chill pill.
5 are ticked off cause they lost the station...i accept that and hats off to them for getting stuck in attacking the pos straight away. But rem guys this isnt the first POS oddity to happen in the GW Conflict.
POS are screwed, big time. Foundation have lost 2 POS due to them unexplicablymoving position after the patch, which you lads were happy enough to destroy rather than warn the users (which might have been a nice gesture and more in the spirit of fair play) some ships move outwith force fields at others, while some have used weeks worth of fuel in days. others have had all ammo in sentiy guns disappear. None of this has been soerted, refunded etc.
On top of this they lag far too much and look naff. Drones just add to the lag, my pc slows noticably around a pos. Time they were changed to mini stations.
In general pos seem rushed, have crap ai, crap control features, have the ability to move by them selves and generally screw with the game.
So i feel some of yer pain at this,just a lil 
Director of Empire Ops and Chief Carebear |
Sarkos
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 11:27:00 -
[67]
Wow, this is tough if you take the time to look at this from all sides. I think this course was chosen by the GM because no one in CCP had anticipated this tactic, and they may have been unsure of the repricussions.
The answer, as has been said earlier is a simple one.
1) Drones not be able to target POS
2) POS not be able to target Drones
End of the problem.
As to drones causing so much lag, that can be fixed if CCP wanted to end the many 'X' orbiting each ship and simply replace it with a '>10<' or '>4<' showing the swarm size and position instead of each individual drone.
Thereby only needing to plot and display 1 icon per drone swarm.
Sarkos
Either free the slaves or we will come and get them.
|
Terradoct
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 11:29:00 -
[68]
A think you don't get to the point or do not wish to understand what was said.
1. Shield bubble is from 15km on smlaa pos to 30km on large one.
2. Drone have optimal 1-4km.
3. Drone do not do any dmg to the pos as the force field prvent them to orbin on the optimal near tower.
4. Why [5] used only small drone, they are weak in dmg field. Why not use heavy?
As you can see [5] bluntly exploited POS AI.
|
Demarcus
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 11:33:00 -
[69]
 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.
Says who? I think that is a great use for them. Deception has always been the very most important element in warfare. Why should deception be limited to players. If a player can use game mechanics to throw off the AI to buy some time then BRAVO good for them.
-------------------------------------
You are all worthless, and weak.
|
BOldMan
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 11:36:00 -
[70]
Edited by: BOldMan on 06/08/2005 11:37:02
Originally by: Terradoct
I think you don't get to the point or do not wish to understand what was said.
As you can see [5] bluntly exploited POS AI.
I am hunting NPC with that drone strategy for a year. Why YOUR POS has to be different? Exploit AI? Maybe AI is not enough I for us.
|
Drilla
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 11:38:00 -
[71]
Using drones to take fire from NPC controlled entities has been a standard since day 1 of this game.
To suddenly call it an exploit because it was a Xetic POS makes the whole deal alot more outragous.
Until CCP publically states on the news that using drones is an exploit and giving all Gallentian drone carrier 2 more highslots, lowslots and 25% damage on turrets then it's not an exploit - no matter how ignorant any GM might be thinking he decides what is exploits and what is not.
Fact of the matter was that this tactic has been used before, has been petitioned before and nothing until Xetic cries about it.
Makes you wonder how Xetic magically got their station shields up during the war doesn't it....
EVE System Security - Killboard (still early alpha) |
Xthril Ranger
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 11:40:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Terradoct
4. Why [5] used only small drone, they are weak in dmg field. Why not use heavy?
Drones get killed. If you carry only large drones they wouldnt last the battle. Good enough explenation for me.
Sounds like a AI programming error to me though.
|
Deja Thoris
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 11:41:00 -
[73]
If this is the case then its an exploit to
- Spin out a light drone in a complex and watch every battleship try to hit it in vain
- Jam a missile boat and drop drones to stop FoF's hitting you
CCP GM's have a long history of giving POS's back for bull**** reasons. We took one down 3 times in syndicate and it was returned to the owners 3 times. The last time after we watched the owner anchor guns after it went into reinforced mode.
|
IamBen
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 11:42:00 -
[74]
the fact that a gm actually just recharged the shields is ridiculous. Everyone uses drones to assault a POS. Its ridiculous that a GM just now decided that it was an exploit. Thats completely insane.
|
aggro
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 11:43:00 -
[75]
the station was hitting us as i remember 1 hit of over 5300 which got me a bit worry,but it was totally DEDICATION OF ALL CORP MATES REPAIRING AND TRANSFERRING EACH OTHER. AT TIMES IF WAS SCARYU SEEING SHIELD TAKING HITS THAT BIG.
SO WHERE IS THE EXPLOIT
SOMEONE PLEASE SHOW ME
Where there is trouble you will always find AGGRO |
Kerby Lane
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 11:47:00 -
[76]
Originally by: IamBen
the fact that a gm actually just recharged the shields is ridiculous. Everyone uses drones to assault a POS. Its ridiculous that a GM just now decided that it was an exploit. Thats completely insane.
I wonder is it exploit to atack POS with drones OR is it exploit to attack Xectic POS with drones.
|
Drilla
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 11:50:00 -
[77]
It's an exploit to attack Xetic .... apparently.
EVE System Security - Killboard (still early alpha) |
Brian Detaah
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 11:52:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Brian Detaah on 06/08/2005 11:53:23
Short moderation discussion: Since the moderator locked the thread said (quoting from memory): "the issue is properly more complex then just having drones attack a pos" i understand the unlock.
The issue is EXACTLY that we had drones attacking the stn. I, for one, was using heavy drones btw.
And i did not think that the posgun would be so retarded as to shoot at the drones rather than ships...When they did, well bonus it appeared. If we all bring hvy drones next time, will it still be a OMGSPLOIT!
------------------------------------------------
`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.'
|
Ishana
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 11:52:00 -
[79]
Wow, after reading the other thread and this one I have only one thing to say against all the [5] whinners..
"can I have your stuff?"
_________________________________________________________
|
W0lverine
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 11:53:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Ishana
Wow, after reading the other thread and this one I have only one thing to say against all the [5] whinners..
"can I have your stuff?"
best you could come up with?
|
Elenia Kheynes
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 12:03:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Clementina
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.
lemme explain here:
-drones DO NOT attack the POS, they just take dmgs
that could be fine if like u said small guns had any effect.
The POS that got attacked had several small pulse lasers, medium artilleries, medium autocanons, large artilleries.
IT DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING
Let it be clear: the [5] could have killed all the POSs in system at ease, loosing from time a ship to lag, that's it.
Those POSs were the absolut top of what you could do: turrets anchored and onlined until no powergrid left. Ammo supplies to handle battles.
It didn't change a damn thing.
There was absolutly no weapon that could handle multiple light drones.
I'll add that no ship could counter attack the [5] fleet due to the lag they created (approx 3 minutes to warp \o/).
Things are better now. Many will whine. But it's fair.
And stop whining about the Gallente dreadnough, dreads are also anti BSs ships, therefor drones could be useful.
Dear friendly customer... Can I have your money ?
|
Gerome Doutrande
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 12:04:00 -
[82]
Originally by: mahhy
What the... first time I've ever seen a thread get UN-locked for discussing GMs and such
if this post is dealing with a topic that is a "potential exploit", and "gms are being accused of favoritism", why has it not been locked for good, but instead locked, then unlocked again and the respective moderator post deleted?
this is not exactly helping me believe that the forum moderator group is acting without bias.
|
Acwron
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 12:06:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Acwron on 06/08/2005 12:06:57
Well there are 2 positions.
First those that say there are Drones in the game so I can use them in any way I want.
The others and GMs are doubting your motives and the way you used the drones (which was not intended).
You used drones in the clear intention to draw fire away from your ships. You did this by using loads of light drones (nearly unlimited supply, hard to hit). So you made the POS defenses useless and elimitated the point of Dreadnaughts because this "tactic" would be possible with large POS aswell. This is clearly against the intention of CCP (and you know it of course).
And before you go "oh noes. Nothing I can do against a small or medium POS anymore!!" Well not true. By using boosting it is possible to kill medium POS atm.
Just to make another example. Atm it would by possible to shut down Empire gates by the use of Freighters, deployable structures and the help of concord.
All ingame possibilities but that would be clearly a exploit aswell and punished by CCP.
|
Elve Sorrow
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 12:10:00 -
[84]
Everyone has ALWAYS used Light Drones to draw fire.
Light drones against a jammed Raven.
Light drones in complexes to solo them.
Light drones from a cruiser doing lvl4 solo.
Whats the difference? It's just retarded, clearly. Whats even more retarded ofcourse is the POS got set to 100% shield, but none of the BS were returned.
Oh and please, you lads want to stop whining about the lag. Which retards deployed 100s of drones to lag us out in GW and then claimed it was a valid tactic? Add that to the list above btw.
|
Ivvor
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 12:12:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Terradoct
A think you don't get to the point or do not wish to understand what was said.
1. Shield bubble is from 15km on smlaa pos to 30km on large one.
2. Drone have optimal 1-4km.
3. Drone do not do any dmg to the pos as the force field prvent them to orbin on the optimal near tower.
4. Why [5] used only small drone, they are weak in dmg field. Why not use heavy?
As you can see [5] bluntly exploited POS AI.
Speaking as someone who was actually there for most of the battle ...
1. It was a medium POS we were attacking. It was decided by the leadership that a large fleet attack against a medium POS with its medium guns, and at long range, was probably at least worth trying. Not long after the shooting started XF started to put up LARGE guns in their MEDIUM POS, which I personally didn't think was possible anyway. The fleet withdrew to draw up a new plan and wait for more people to join. A large part of the new plan involved attacking at optimal, or point blank range as the guns were going to hit us no matter what range we were. So better to just get in optimal range and hope for the best.
2. As I have said, we were attacking at close range, so the tower was well within my usual drone range, between 30-40km.
3. I personally did not expect my drones to hit the tower anyway, only the forcefield, which as I explained was well within my normal drone range. The main purpose of the drones, as it was explained to me, was to act as a sort of mobile chaff so the cycling POS guns wouldn't target us too often, and hopefully do a little extra damage to the shield as well. As it was, I still took many heavy hits, but survived the battle. However, I still got to watch helplessly as gangmates got reduced to debris in seconds by a barrage of LARGE POS gunfire.
4. I am not aware of any order being given to specifically use only small drones, and I simply used what I had in my drone bay at the time. A usual mix of heavy and medium. Most of which were destroyed by the POS anyway.
|
Elenia Kheynes
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 12:14:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Acwron
You used drones in the clear intention to draw fire away from your ships. You did this by using loads of light drones (nearly unlimited supply, hard to hit). So you made the POS defenses useless and elimitated the point of Dreadnaughts because this "tactic" would be possible with large POS aswell. This is clearly against the intention of CCP (and you know it of course).
And before you go "oh noes. Nothing I can do against a small or medium POS anymore!!" Well not true. By using boosting it is possible to kill medium POS atm.
I think you summarized it pretty well.
Add to this that small turrets aren't able to handle the drone swarm (some people here seems to be convinced they can, well, it was tested yesterday that they couldn't.)
Dear friendly customer... Can I have your money ?
|
Steven Dynahir
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 12:14:00 -
[87]
Considering the whole thread.
1. Replace the GM in question, that operation was plain wrong.
2. Announce it as an not allowed exploit if there is no immediate solution.
3. Fix it.
SigPl/HQ&Log Coy/MNB(C)/KFOR |
Albus
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 12:15:00 -
[88]
Edited by: Albus on 06/08/2005 12:19:07
Originally by: Clementina
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.
The exploit as far as we understand it is related to the time required to target drones vs the cycle time on the large guns, so they don't have a chance to fire on the drones.
The POS we were shooting had only 2 Large batteries and many medium and small batteries. Quite why the entire shield should be recharged purely because two out of the 10 or so guns were having issues is beyond me. Why should it be classed as an exploit purely because of the behaviour of large batteries, when there were plenty of smaller batteries which presumably do not suffer from the problem and were quite happily shooting (Whether they were hitting or not is irrelevant, as no tracking modules were installed on the POS. If they could not hit then it was due to bad POS planning).
I personally took damage from large guns during the assault, so they were certainly functioning. There are also sensor booster modules available for POS's, which reduce lock time. This POS was not fitted with such a module, so moaning that large guns couldn't target the smallest drone in the game when they didn't even have the module on which decreases lock time seems rediculous.
|
W0lverine
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 12:38:00 -
[89]
GM cleary made a mistake, Public appology and removing of the POS would be in order
|
SPIONKOP
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 12:44:00 -
[90]
This is an intersting point and needs clarification from a GM/CCP.
Using drones to attack a POS does seem like a valid tactic if the affect of the attack is to damage the POS shield and defending ships.
The use and affect of suicide drones again proves that the Eve players have once again used their ability to adapt and evolve and use the tactic to great effect, and one that was not anticipated by the devs.
I am sure that the Devs will now have to react by intoducing some form of POS defence against drones rather than shout exploite and "ban" their use in attacks against POS.
Someone suggested a POS smartbomb, that sure sounds like a good idea but it may also destroy missiles launched from defenders and attackers alike. What about a a FOF launcher (cruise or heavy) designed to only attact drones or objects smaller than a given size. The promised release of carrier craft with much larger drones will need to be taken into account as well.
|
| |
|
| 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 |