| 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) |
Maya Rkell
   |
Posted - 2005.08.06 15:53:00 -
[151]
 Originally by: Sir JoJo
ohh and id like to pint out that the trick stated as "exploit" was the locking time on those where to long against its target rotating time.
Now take 150 frigs/intys whit nano and abs u will have ships taking even longer to lock? cause they got les signature radius then drones.... ? so if i do that take a fleet of 100+ intys and frigs to take fire for my bs or shuttles is that a exploit? i doubt that VERY much?
Bu this ruling, clearly yes it is.
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Bruchpilot
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 15:55:00 -
[152]
Aye, I agree that the GM shouldn't have recharged the shields. I'd have reimbused Xetic with a new one next day.
|
Sir JoJo
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 15:55:00 -
[153]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Originally by: Sir JoJo
ohh and id like to pint out that the trick stated as "exploit" was the locking time on those where to long against its target rotating time.
Now take 150 frigs/intys whit nano and abs u will have ships taking even longer to lock? cause they got les signature radius then drones.... ? so if i do that take a fleet of 100+ intys and frigs to take fire for my bs or shuttles is that a exploit? i doubt that VERY much?
Bu this ruling, clearly yes it is.
yes by this ruling it is but wouldent that be odd that u couldent use a Ship been in game for twice and more the time then the pos?
-------------
Be a warrior in game Not on forums
------------- |
Elenia Kheynes
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 16:04:00 -
[154]
Originally by: Sir JoJo
ohh and id like to pint out that the trick stated as "exploit" was the locking time on those where to long against its target rotating time.
Now take 150 frigs/intys whit nano and abs u will have ships taking even longer to lock? cause they got les signature radius then drones.... ? so if i do that take a fleet of 100+ intys and frigs to take fire for my bs or shuttles is that a exploit? i doubt that VERY much?
My dear... what are u thinking about ?
Frigates heh... we got webbies you know right ? And small turrets as well. Do it if you like wasting your time, your problem, not ours. As long as you post the losses ofc.
Frigates can't also be replaced as easely as small drones and can't be deployed in such numbers.
Originally by: Kar Brogan
Unless things have changed massively since i was defending a POS (which granted was a fair few months ago) can you not:-
1-Fit small turrets which can deal with the drones?
2-Even better Aim the guns yourself which totaly removes any problems generated by the drones?
If both of these are no longer possible, then yes i could see this being an exploit, if either of these are possible then it is the fault of the defenders that their POS was so easly taken down.
Regardless, a 60% boost to the stations shields is a little extreem and highly suspicious given the quick time in which a GM has seemed to respond.Even if (as was previously posted) there was a bug with the reinforced mode, should not the shields have just been boosted up to their 'reinforced' state?
I think both sides of this are getting (understandably) angry, one side for being affected by a bug and (what apparently, with no warning) is an exploit, the other side for having hrs of planning and co-ordination destroyed by a potentially heavy handed and biased GM response.
The fact that this thread has been locked then unlocked indicates an investigation may well already be under way, so the best we can do is calmly wait for an official response
1. We had small close range turrets fitted. But they couldn't do anything against several hundreds of drones replaced immediatly after killed. note that the drone swarm was also causing turret disfunctions it seems (I'm not saying they were never firing)
2. We can't. And anyway it would have been hard with the lag they had created.
Boosting POS shields wouldn't change a damn. The light drones are just some kind of "invicible mode" against POSs. Side effect is lag, only reason why ships were losts.
We planned this for weeks. POSs, defenses, fuel, strontiums. the [5] only found a tactic and lost 4 hours.
Originally by: Sir JoJo
Player vs Player i say yes but we managed to frie the pos so wasent it up to u guys come safe it? ind the end whats killed it was that we used a way to minimise the dammage and u guys did nothing but pettion to stop it insteda of what u should have FOUGHT for it.
riiight... we should have come to fight your drone swarm with its tremendous lag (5 to 15 minutes to log in system remember)? Stop kidding mmkay
Dear friendly customer... Can I have your money ?
|
L3on
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 16:05:00 -
[155]
Is the use of drones as an additional defence/counter measure vs POS turrets not just an imitation of the use of Chaff by figher pilots and SSTD (Surface Ship Topedo Defence) by ships.
|
Elve Sorrow
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 16:08:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Elenia Kheynes
riiight... we should have come to fight your drone swarm with its tremendous lag (5 to 15 minutes to log in system remember)? Stop kidding mmkay
That's fairly funny coming from the people who only weeks ago deployed 100s of drones to lag us out in GW.
We jumped in.
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 16:12:00 -
[157]
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?
|
Sir JoJo
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 16:26:00 -
[158]
Edited by: Sir JoJo on 06/08/2005 16:26:56
Originally by: Elenia Kheynes
Originally by: Sir JoJo
ohh and id like to pint out that the trick stated as "exploit" was the locking time on those where to long against its target rotating time.
Now take 150 frigs/intys whit nano and abs u will have ships taking even longer to lock? cause they got les signature radius then drones.... ? so if i do that take a fleet of 100+ intys and frigs to take fire for my bs or shuttles is that a exploit? i doubt that VERY much?
My dear... what are u thinking about ?
Frigates heh... we got webbies you know right ? And small turrets as well. Do it if you like wasting your time, your problem, not ours. As long as you post the losses ofc.
Frigates can't also be replaced as easely as small drones and can't be deployed in such numbers.
Webbies arent the issue here but the facts that the locking time is larger then the targetting rotating time?
u webbies works on drones also?
so what u point?
-------------
Be a warrior in game Not on forums
------------- |
Pegas
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 16:41:00 -
[159]
For all the people that said that drones are an exploit, if we would warped 100 shuttels at the pos with our alts would that been better? And Ollly come fight us ....
PS: I sure hope that some senior GM takes a look at the matter serious and he will see that the same GM that made this POS backwards thing is the same on that knocked the shields for the other team when Shinra was in TPAR-G a few month ago...
|
Elenia Kheynes
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 16:42:00 -
[160]
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).
Dear friendly customer... Can I have your money ?
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 16:45:00 -
[161]
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).
|
Judge Doom
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 16:48:00 -
[162]
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).
Shouldnt you be plotting a long-on trap or something? |
Elenia Kheynes
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 16:50:00 -
[163]
Edited by: Elenia Kheynes on 06/08/2005 16:51:44
Originally by: Pegas
For all the people that said that drones are an exploit, if we would warped 100 shuttels at the pos with our alts would that been better? And Ollly come fight us ....
PS: I sure hope that some senior GM takes a look at the matter serious and he will see that the same GM that made this POS backwards thing is the same on that knocked the shields for the other team when Shinra was in TPAR-G a few month ago...
Your hundred shuttles would get killed pretty fast imo. Test it if you want 8)
Your accusations of GM biasis don't have their place on forums imo ^^
As for fighting you guys... don't worry 
Dear friendly customer... Can I have your money ?
|
Emylia
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 16:55:00 -
[164]
The point is to keep the BS alive ...
|
ParMizaN
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 17:01:00 -
[165]
Wow... for all those who are screaming "fire the gm" etc .. grow up. You laughed at red alliance when they complained about their own pos'
Clearly it was not intended for a fully armed pos to shoot at drones instead of players.
Quit the whining and let it get sorted by the gms etc.
or be polite and send your suggestions by email...
------------------
Take from the rich and give to me |
Pez Perry
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 17:02:00 -
[166]
Originally by: Elenia Kheynes
Without the lag you created with your "tactic", you wouldn't have lost a single Battleship.
Also, your killboard only has 2 losses reported =^.^=
check again
|
Carth Jared
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 17:05:00 -
[167]
Edited by: Carth Jared on 06/08/2005 17:05:45
Originally by: ParMizaN
Wow... for all those who are screaming "fire the gm" etc .. grow up. You laughed at red alliance when they complained about their own pos'
I found the red alliance post hilarious for 2 reasons. 1. was that we had had the same bugs and issues takin down the pos' and defendin our own and 2. That they were accusing a gm of bias in our favour which, imo is a ridicoulos accusation (same goes for this matter mind you).
ATUK Killboard | 5 Killboard
|
darth solo
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 17:06:00 -
[168]
If the GMs dont have anymore straws after this one id be happy to supply them with some more free of charge. contact me ingame.
d solo.
|
Slaveabuser
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 17:07:00 -
[169]
Originally by: Elenia Kheynes
There were approx 20 ships keeping the gate. And one very important detail: LAG. It was taking like 3 minutes to warp. Attacking the hostile fleet was like committing mass suicide. You are also arguing just for the pelasure to argue it seems.
Im asking because im curious, how many of you were there?
If enemies appear in superior numbers than accept the fact that they kill your pos. Surely you understand that calling drone attack "exploit" so long after posses were released is
just plain rubbish?
I mean dont ccp have testers?
=1 Industry skills trained, for a total of 250 skillPoints= |
Nafri
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 17:08:00 -
[170]
Originally by: ParMizaN
Wow... for all those who are screaming "fire the gm" etc .. grow up. You laughed at red alliance when they complained about their own pos'
Clearly it was not intended for a fully armed pos to shoot at drones instead of players.
Quit the whining and let it get sorted by the gms etc.
or be polite and send your suggestions by email...
signed
and most big decisions arent made by a single GM, mostly thy discuss it with CCP staff
Your bla bla hit bla bla for bla bla damage. Wanna have some bubu now? |
Nafri
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 17:12:00 -
[171]
Originally by: Slaveabuser
Originally by: Elenia Kheynes
There were approx 20 ships keeping the gate. And one very important detail: LAG. It was taking like 3 minutes to warp. Attacking the hostile fleet was like committing mass suicide. You are also arguing just for the pelasure to argue it seems.
Im asking because im curious, how many of you were there?
If enemies appear in superior numbers than accept the fact that they kill your pos. Surely you understand that calling drone attack "exploit" so long after posses were released is
just plain rubbish?
I mean dont ccp have testers?
your werent there, I think
Your bla bla hit bla bla for bla bla damage. Wanna have some bubu now? |
theRaptor
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 17:14:00 -
[172]
Originally by: ParMizaN
Clearly it was not intended for a fully armed pos to shoot at drones instead of players.
Then CCP should have written the code right back when they released them. Using drones to confuse POS is about the second tactic people come up with after trying to snipe. And if CCP cant program a contingency to take account of this bloody obvious tactic then I can't wait to see all the other exploits they didnt account for.
Its been most of a year since POS came out, and in all this time they couldnt spare a programmer for a day to do the code?
That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die.
-- Ancient "Dirt" Religious figure. |
mahhy
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 17:24:00 -
[173]
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?
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 17:31:00 -
[174]
Originally by: mahhy
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?
reinforced mode was bugged, and 5 achieved it with the drone xploit
Your bla bla hit bla bla for bla bla damage. Wanna have some bubu now? |
theRaptor
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 17:32:00 -
[175]
Originally by: mahhy
Personally I'm expecting that CPP will class this as an exploit until they can code turrets not to target drones.
Dude thats about two lines of code. Thats what gets me.
That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die.
-- Ancient "Dirt" Religious figure. |
Dukath
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 17:34:00 -
[176]
To those claiming it would be suicide to warp in to defend the POS because of lag. Why not warp in to the POS, you'll end up inside the bubble and no amount of lag will help the enemy targetting your ship. Do you really think they'd stay if you had a fleet 2/3th their size or even more inside the bubble ready to come out? Even with lag it would be suicide for them.
Besides you could move outside the shield without them noticing and take out their drones quickly, or deploy drones yourself, go out attack their drones and move back to the safety of the POS.
If the lag was really bad,in stead of petitioning something that i can't believe a GM considered an exploit, why not request a node reboot. Even large fleetbattles are fine right after a node reboot.
Now if its true that drones don't damage a shield then obviously it needs to be changed to that they do. The people saying that one shouldn't be allowed to use drones on a POS are a bit unfair, how would you feel if one wouldn't be allowed to use missiles against a POS, or lasers...
And finally...
Drones to me are more than simple weapons. Gallente ships have enough problems as it is capwise and stuff, why not allow them the drones as extra armor tanking by method of being a decoy to enemy fire?
Want to fix drones? then remove or lower drone bays in non-gallente ships, but don't nerf gallente AGAIN simply because you can't defend a POS
|
ParMizaN
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 17:36:00 -
[177]
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.
------------------
Take from the rich and give to me |
Sir JoJo
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 17:42:00 -
[178]
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).
yes and hundreds of frigs would make the guns malfunction also..... so u could do the same as the drones did whit frigs and it would be a exploit OR?
so only diffrents is the amount of players ?
so my point is if this is gonna be stated as a exploit multiplie other options and things normally used in pvp should be also which prolly would **** of quiet alot more ppl.
-------------
Be a warrior in game Not on forums
------------- |
mahhy
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 17:44:00 -
[179]
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.
|
Slaveabuser
|
Posted - 2005.08.06 17:44:00 -
[180]
Originally by: Nafri
Originally by: Slaveabuser
Originally by: Elenia Kheynes
There were approx 20 ships keeping the gate. And one very important detail: LAG. It was taking like 3 minutes to warp. Attacking the hostile fleet was like committing mass suicide. You are also arguing just for the pelasure to argue it seems.
Im asking because im curious, how many of you were there?
If enemies appear in superior numbers than accept the fact that they kill your pos. Surely you understand that calling drone attack "exploit" so long after posses were released is
just plain rubbish?
I mean dont ccp have testers?
your werent there, I think
No sh1t sherlock, if I was I wouldnt be asking now would I?
=1 Industry skills trained, for a total of 250 skillPoints= |
| |
|
| 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 |