EVE Search - The last GM straw...

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)
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 615 drones max with a lower boundary of 613 (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 615 drones max with a lower boundary of 613 (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 615 drones max with a lower boundary of 613 (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.
sonofollo	Posted - 2005.08.06 08:34:00 - [31] solo POS operators always take the risk - there are pirate corps that go round busting small POS just for fun and they dont use drones. If you want a POS at least start youre own corp recruit players that will aid u and do it as a corp thing. At least then defense is a little easier.
aeti	Posted - 2005.08.06 08:39:00 - [32] funny thing is the reason the GM gave (which of course can't be spoken of here) I have screenshots of exactly the opposite happening and they already should have a copy of them from a totally unrelated petition weeks ago random decisions
WildHope	Posted - 2005.08.06 08:44:00 - [33] 1) Lag was not in our interest. Given our tactics, lag was more of an irritant than a benefit. 2) I can't speak for everyone, but I and all I spoke to were unaware that the drones weren't inflicting damage. 3) I was aware that the drones would create extra targets for the guns, we were using light drones because they are the most cheap, expendable, and replenishable. Since when has this been considered an exploit? NO-ONE (categorically) knew that the locking time of the large gun on drones was larger than it's cycle time. However there were several small and medium batteries there in addition to the large ones. 4) Approximately 350 man hours were spent in the orgainsation and operation of this event. Overturned with the click of a button, maybe 3.5 secs. I've slept on it, and I still feel this is outrageous. Wildhope ShinRa Curse Alliance (may it last 1000 generations) Victim of the GM White JV1V massacre
Terradoct	Posted - 2005.08.06 08:45:00 - [34] alt rage 4tw woot!!! [5] is all your alts, come on show them all let howl eve know how good you are.
sonofollo	Posted - 2005.08.06 08:46:00 - [35] just another reasons to give POS anti drone drones that can only attack other drones (a much awaited and delayed feature from CCP as well as scavenger drones) and smaller anti drone weapons that can lock drones or wait - smartbombs on POS to take out the pesky drones Other option to neutralise both defenders and attackers using drones is a natural field or module on POS that neutralises all drones within a 100km radius (problem solved)
Terradoct	Posted - 2005.08.06 08:50:00 - [36] Originally by: sonofollo just another reasons to give POS anti drone drones that can only attack other drones (a much awaited and delayed feature from CCP as well as scavenger drones) and smaller anti drone weapons that can lock drones or wait - smartbombs on POS to take out the pesky drones Other option to neutralise both defenders and attackers using drones is a natural field or module on POS that neutralises all drones within a 100km radius (problem solved) There is NO problems with the drones. There is a problem with ppl that think if I send drone attack pos it will wtfpwn it. BUT field bubble is 30km radius, drones have 1km-4km optimal. HOW on earth are you attacking with them POS. Even blasterthrone can't do i scrach on POS shield.
W0lverine	Posted - 2005.08.06 08:54:00 - [37] so, you cant use drones on MOROS to take POS?..great
W0lverine	Posted - 2005.08.06 08:56:00 - [38] RABle rable rable!!
sonofollo	Posted - 2005.08.06 09:00:00 - [39] wel the rabble has spoken.
Kyle Caldrel	Posted - 2005.08.06 09:01:00 - [40] Originally by: Terradoct alt rage 4tw woot!!! [5] is all your alts, come on show them all let howl eve know how good you are. Obviously you dont see whos posting. There are a lot of non 5 members agreeing that it is not an exploit.
Galk	Posted - 2005.08.06 09:05:00 - [41] Cut between the lines here.... The original post was probaly made in haste, i 'seriously' doubt there's any exploit here, people have been using drones as aditional targets for ages... Though i can imagine here an honourable allaince such as the 5 not going for overkill and attracting gm attention because ccp are recieving a flood of petitions from the other party. Whats probaly happend here is the old professional ccp support staff issue...interpretation based on the furiousity of the complaints against... So GM makes a snap judgement just to clear it up. All wrong naturaly and having been the victim before.. well it's whatever. shrugs -------- 23
sonofollo	Posted - 2005.08.06 09:06:00 - [42] well if its an exploit lets see CCP take a proactive lead and add modules to POS that simulate a effect that renders all drones unworkable - unlaunchable within 100km of a POS - applies to both attackers or defenders using them OR add POS weapons that specifically target and shoot drones while he big guns target the player ships. Its easy enough to add a tag to the AI that says if its a player drone dont shoot it shoot with the big guns the player hsips - and with anti drone weapons shoot drones only. Would expand the weapons choices for POS - add POS drones that engage other drones. Or smartbombs on POS that can also attack drones within a 10km radius - a programmingsolution would be easy enough to implement
Joe	Posted - 2005.08.06 09:10:00 - [43] Originally by: W0lverine so, you cant use drones on MOROS to take POS?..great Moros is for empire mining by npc corp alts. please read patch notes Oberon Tech II Sales.
sonofollo	Posted - 2005.08.06 09:12:00 - [44] well dominix is still good for fitting mining lasers and high end mining drones :)
Ohmite	Posted - 2005.08.06 09:23:00 - [45] All I can say on the matter is one GM has made CCP look like a bunch of ******. A decision he made has done a lot of damage to CCP reputation, this needs to be looked into at the highest level as there is so many inconsistancies in what was done, the decision to class drones as an expoit is laughable as they have always been used to take fire from NPCs, POS FOF missiles etc and have been used by all alliances before without problems. If it affected tracking of guns then fit a sensor booster to the POS, I believe they have them, fit smaller guns, lots of things to try and do but to claim an expoit and say the drones were the cause of lag is total rubbish, even when the drones dissappeared the lag was still as bad So now you might as well remove the gallente dread from the game as it has no purpose. /emote shacks his head, A bad bad day for CCP, due to a GM over stepping the mark
Terradoct	Posted - 2005.08.06 09:28:00 - [46] Originally by: Ohmite All I can say on the matter is one GM has made CCP look like a bunch of ******. A decision he made has done a lot of damage to CCP reputation, this needs to be looked into at the highest level as there is so many inconsistancies in what was done, the decision to class drones as an expoit is laughable as they have always been used to take fire from NPCs, POS FOF missiles etc and have been used by all alliances before without problems. If it affected tracking of guns then fit a sensor booster to the POS, I believe they have them, fit smaller guns, lots of things to try and do but to claim an expoit and say the drones were the cause of lag is total rubbish, even when the drones dissappeared the lag was still as bad So now you might as well remove the gallente dread from the game as it has no purpose. /emote shacks his head, A bad bad day for CCP, due to a GM over stepping the mark All I can say on this matter is that 5 is bunch of whinning kids that can't read.
Doc Brown	Posted - 2005.08.06 09:29:00 - [47] I think I see an abuse for this right now and why it was stoped. I don't know if you did this or not, but if so I agree with the GM's decision. step 1: lots of drones (figure out the rest for your self since it'll be moderated if I continue) _________________________________________________ There are no bad ideas, only bad implementations.
Letouk Mernel	Posted - 2005.08.06 09:30:00 - [48] Oh come on, you all throw words like "reputation", "CCP", "bad day", "highest level" around as if this matters even one bit. How about this: IBTL, thread locked because "discussing GM actions is not allowed on the boards," matter will be reviewed internally, y'all have a nice day.
sonofollo	Posted - 2005.08.06 09:30:00 - [49] ohmite we have no way of knowing if a dev did or did not say something as there has been no offical response to this thread so its all heresay - the discussion has been based on if it is a exploit - though some ideas ie POS carrying anti drone drones - smaller guns - making drones unable to be launched within 50-100km of a POS So at least some good has come of this thread. But its all conjecture at this point lets not draw conclusions from incomplete information
Hunt Smacker	Posted - 2005.08.06 09:33:00 - [50] Well, it's time for a POS Mobile Smartbomb Battery! Lets call it Bob. Bob the smartbomb will erupt with a shield-piercing range of 100km, destroying anything too small to withstand the brutality! It requires additional fuel to activate, and uses up lots of grid on the control tower!
sonofollo	Posted - 2005.08.06 09:35:00 - [51] alternatively a smartbomb that fries all drones within a 20km radius and cycles every 3-5 minutes. or random cycles could be another avenue for new POS anti drone weapons
Brian Detaah	Posted - 2005.08.06 09:38:00 - [52] Originally by: Doc Brown Edited by: Doc Brown on 06/08/2005 09:29:55 I think I see an abuse for this right now and why it was stoped. I don't know if you did this or not, but if so I agree with the GM's decision. step 1: lots of drones (figure out the rest for your self since it'll be moderated if I continue) Hint: it's possible to have more drones in space than you can control. Well, yes it propery is possible, but thats not what happened. People had no more drones than they could control. Since you obviously are not informed on the issue, dont hand out tissues and have a dose of stfu ------------------------------------------------ `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.'
Ithildin	Posted - 2005.08.06 09:43:00 - [53] The most simple solution of all is to disallow POS batteries to target drones, just as drones are disallowed to target pods. "Problem" solved. Still, there will be the tiny little problem that taking down a POS will absolutely require a large amount of Dreadnoughts so that only a few (one or two alliances) will be able to afford a POS take-down this year. Further degrading is that battleships won't be able to survive long enough to bolster the defences of the Dreadnoughts that are sieging and come under attack! This scenario still hasn't been considered, it seems: only the Moros will be able to reliably defend itself (assuming none of the defenders has a smartbomb), the rest will have to spend ten minutes going out of siege and then hope they've got enough stabs to get clear. Originally by: Christopher Scott 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. Quoted for further emphasis. -- If TC causes you discomfort that you feel is unwarranted or may be outside TC's current contract - contact me, please. Josameto III - Moon 1
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2005.08.06 09:47:00 - [54] Sounds like NPC POS defence system AI needs some adjustment. Every ship/drone should be given a threat level (higher number = higher threat) and NPC POS defence AI should attack that which is most threatening. Link this with AI which recognises who/what is doing the most damage. You'd probably have to code something that made drones appear as a single threat once they start to actually attack (i.e in range and hitting for damage). That way the NPC P{OS defences would attack the most dangerous threats as individuals but if the drones start to rerally hurt, it would switch to them and start hitting. Obviously, since drones have really poor range, they'd be up close and personal rather than sitting 100km for lag purposes. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Sherkaner	Posted - 2005.08.06 09:51:00 - [55] Exploits are not to be discussed on the forums. GM actions are not to be discussed on the forums. Private correspondence with GMs (including petitions) are not to be posted on the forums. And guys, please don't take rumors spread by a single player for face value. The above rules were created just because on the forums, those GM messages inescapably get garbled, misunderstood and misinterpreted. I have no idea what case the first poster is referring to, and I don't want to know either, but there's probably more behind it than just using drones against a POS. If you want an official response about if something is an exploit or not, your only way is to petition. Only the GMs have the authority to say that. And please only petition if you are directly affected by this, either defending a POS or planning to attack a POS with drones. forum rules \| [email protected]
WildHope	Posted - 2005.08.06 10:09:00 - [56] Edited by: WildHope on 06/08/2005 10:09:38 Originally by: Joshua Calvert Obviously, since drones have really poor range, they'd be up close and personal rather than sitting 100km for lag purposes. Not sure if you meant this to apply to the JV1V situation, but I'll point out there was no sniping. Everyone was up close. Wildhope ShinRa Curse Alliance (may it last 1000 generations) Victim of the GM White JV1V massacre
Ohmite	Posted - 2005.08.06 10:19:00 - [57] Dropping drones for defence is a valid tactic, we all use it. 1. If there is a enemy frig fleet about you deploy drones just in case they warp in. 2. You deploy drones to stop a covert ship getting on top of you. 3. If you are jamming a raven BS, you drop drones do the FOFs go for them and not you 4. When a NPC ship is attacking you, you drop drones and it allows you a bit of respite if they retarget your drones. All of the above are used by all in various situations, taking stations, fleet battles and also POS taking. Stating dropping drones as an exploit has far reaching consequences, does that mean in fleet battles dropping drones is an expoit as FOFs wont always hit ships.
ParMizaN	Posted - 2005.08.06 10:30:00 - [58] Drones in large amount are a massive lag for anybody trying to fight back. Granted it is extra damage but I'm sure if you could tell a pos not to target drones people would. I would doubt that such a piece of "advanced" technology would be "dumb" ------------------ Take from the rich and give to me
EL Soros	Posted - 2005.08.06 10:41:00 - [59] Quote: 1) Lag was not in our interest. Given our tactics, lag was more of an irritant than a benefit. 2) I can't speak for everyone, but I and all I spoke to were unaware that the drones weren't inflicting damage. 3) I was aware that the drones would create extra targets for the guns, we were using light drones because they are the most cheap, expendable, and replenishable. Since when has this been considered an exploit? NO-ONE (categorically) knew that the locking time of the large gun on drones was larger than it's cycle time. However there were several small and medium batteries there in addition to the large ones. Ok, I always hear we were unaware of, we honestly didnt know etc, strangely coming from those people who are regarded as among the most experienced and best PvPers in EVE... To be fair, we will never know whether you knew that you were almost completely disabling any functionality of large batteries, i.e. whether you were exploiting that problem on purpose. Still, the fact remains that these turrets were intended to provide POS owners with stationary defence that should be so tough to ***** that a special ship class was created. The thought that CCP intended that they should be so easily countered by using swarms of light drones is absurd. Whenever you find a loophole that obviously runs so completely against CCP intentions, your EVE fate lies in their hands. While it is true that others already exploited this design flaw of large batteries, it has never been policy of CCP to legalise such exploting behaviour based on not having acted quickly enough to prevent events in the past.
Blitz0r	Posted - 2005.08.06 10:43:00 - [60] Edited by: Blitz0r on 06/08/2005 10:45:15 Well this is just stupid! Drones have been in the game a LONG fracking time.. They have always been used as extra targets for gate camping (since gateguns target drones). GM's should not be allowed to play the darn game! Get staff to be GM's, ur making enough money as it is from the game that you can affort this. Get a grip and post the GM's name so that we all can stay away from this dudes answers! Don't care if its Xetic or Five or PA or anyone else who gains on it.. its fracked up! Fit a small gun on the POS ur fine.. it will take out drones fast. Edit: btw, drones and POS's have been in long enough for you to nerf this earlier.... M.Corp BPC Packages
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 615 drones max with a lower boundary of 613 (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.
BOldMan	Posted - 2005.08.06 12:49:00 - [91] Better. Drones are clever than AI NPC. Kill them all. Starting with light. After that kill all gallente. They are clever and tricky. Next let us play only with guns. What we need drones or missiles? And named sistems X1 and X2. Reduce to 2 only. And named our weapons AK and MP5. Gamed solved.
Kaeryn Blackheart	Posted - 2005.08.06 12:51:00 - [92] As i got it from yesterdays convo and the discussion on TS about the judgement of the GM, the point of exploitation was not the deployment of drones as a bait itself, it was the fact that large pos cant lock on the ¦drones due to their target cycling rate faster than their locking times on the drones, which lead to the large guns being inoperabel (not firing) for 70% of the fight. Well, rest assured, noone in this op knew about this being handled as an exploit, and we all went into 15 seconds of dead silence after the GM repaired the station back to 100% and watched our combined effort & losses being nullified. Not to mention the strange fact that as soon XF had a "problem" with one of their pos ("they are ¦xplotin us!! heelp!!"), a GM showed up 5 minutes after the petition, but five had problems with souvereignity in the system for over three WEEKS and nothing happened, only fruitless replies after a long line of petitions. (it was impossible to anchor pos at some moons, when all of a sudden XF where able to anchor theirs and took over souvereignity....) --------------------------------------------------------
Psychopat	Posted - 2005.08.06 12:52:00 - [93] Its funny how i see snip snip snip. But NO POST from the Snipper.
Draximus Prime	Posted - 2005.08.06 12:53:00 - [94] OK people this calls for a bit of common sense, I will be the bearer. We know that using drones to attack POS causes undesired actions by the game mechanics, CCP have decided that they dont want people to abuse the undesired action. Yes this is clearly a bug/glitch in the AI, yes this is clearly annoying, yes CCP will do what they can to fix it, yes CCP dont want you to abuse the said bug/glitch. Until it is fixed dont use drones to attack a POS, is it really that much of a deal? Mountains out of molehills... ______________________ To dare in fields is valor; but how few dare to be throughly valiant to be true?
Sun Ra	Posted - 2005.08.06 12:57:00 - [95] Originally by: Draximus Prime OK people this calls for a bit of common sense, I will be the bearer. We know that using drones to attack POS causes undesired actions by the game mechanics, CCP have decided that they dont want people to abuse the undesired action. Yes this is clearly a bug/glitch in the AI, yes this is clearly annoying, yes CCP will do what they can to fix it, yes CCP dont want you to abuse the said bug/glitch. Until it is fixed dont use drones to attack a POS, is it really that much of a deal? Mountains out of molehills... Problem is they didnt tell peopel before hand its an exploit We're coming for you
Tholarim	Posted - 2005.08.06 12:58:00 - [96] Originally by: Draximus Prime OK people this calls for a bit of common sense, I will be the bearer. We know that using drones to attack POS causes undesired actions by the game mechanics, CCP have decided that they dont want people to abuse the undesired action. Yes this is clearly a bug/glitch in the AI, yes this is clearly annoying, yes CCP will do what they can to fix it, yes CCP dont want you to abuse the said bug/glitch. Until it is fixed dont use drones to attack a POS, is it really that much of a deal? Mountains out of molehills... The prob was mostly the way it was dealth with drax. A warning etc would be nice.
XTrader	Posted - 2005.08.06 12:59:00 - [97] I think we have to distinguish between the bug and the exploit here. The bug is that a POS shots at drones, which is pointless because: - drones can not do damage to the POS because of the distance - when the ship that is controlling the drones is taken down by the POS, the drones stop attacking The exploit is to use this bug to use drones as reinforceable decoys. The POS has a hard time to kill those drones because: - smaller objects lead to longer targeting time - smaller objects are harder to hit Remember, each ship can deploy up to ten additional targets at low price. The shields of the POS were restored by the GMs because the reinforcement mode did not work either. The POS displayed a reinforcement time of 1 hour and 52 minutes which is far less then it should have been. As you can see, two bugs hit the XETIC POS here. The POS was not unmanaged and we tried oour best to fit even more small guns during the fight to counter the drones. We don't know how many drones were shot down by the POS because killmails are only generated for ships. During the one hour fight, the POS destroyed 3 ships. The attacking force had about 40 ships. Unfortunately, I don't have count about the deployed drones but i guess something around 300. XTrader, CEO of the X-Trading Company, XETIC Federation
Acwron	Posted - 2005.08.06 13:00:00 - [98] Originally by: Sun Ra Originally by: Draximus Prime [...] Problem is they didnt tell peopel before hand its an exploit Sun Ra do you seriously want to tell people that they didn't know that it was at least "fishy" ? Please come on...
Avon	Posted - 2005.08.06 13:04:00 - [99] wtf? I can't shoot drones with large turrets on my BS, can I petition my attacker and get my shields restored? I know I can fit guns to do the job, and I know my main guns won't - but that's ccp's fault right, not mine for being a muppet? Please. It is up to the POS owner to provide defence. If they do it wrong they should live with their error, not get a GM to fix it up for them. Even if the lock time is longer than the cycle time of large pos turrets that is still no reason to call drones an exploit. Inform the pos owners of that weakness in their defence and let them decide what to do. POS GOD-MODE ON is h4x, no matter what way you cut it. ______________________________________________ Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay.
Sun Ra	Posted - 2005.08.06 13:06:00 - [100] Originally by: Acwron Originally by: Sun Ra Originally by: Draximus Prime [...] Problem is they didnt tell peopel before hand its an exploit Sun Ra do you seriously want to tell people that they didn't know that it was at least "fishy" ? Please come on... I dunno dood ive nevver atatcked an active pos.. but i know when ive attack a station ive used drones, tbh i dunno how these pos work so maybe i should stfu We're coming for you
SengH	Posted - 2005.08.06 13:10:00 - [101] Edited by: SengH on 06/08/2005 13:10:39
disassembler	Posted - 2005.08.06 13:11:00 - [102] Sounds like some sort of bug. Probably a good thing to call it an explot until it can be fixed. Unfortunate that you were the ones who discovered it, but someone has to find the **** code.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.08.06 13:14:00 - [103] And if there are defenders, you can't use drones on them? BRILLIANT! thud "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Tehel Necrona	Posted - 2005.08.06 13:26:00 - [104] Exploit or no exploit, the GM should be fired. F I R E D And hopefull the door will hit ur ass on the way out for good measure
Elenia Kheynes	Posted - 2005.08.06 13:27:00 - [105] Originally by: Tehel Necrona Exploit or no exploit, the GM should be fired. F I R E D And hopefull the door will hit ur ass on the way out for good measure omgbuhu ? Dear friendly customer... Can I have your money ?
Jaabaa Prime	Posted - 2005.08.06 13:30:00 - [106] 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. Deploying drones as decoys to help save your ship from being the sole target is a valid tactic, even if they don't have the range required to hit the tower itself. The fact that the POS continues to attack drones after their owner has been destroyed or has had to warp out is nothing new, and it isn't really a "bug" either. Judging from what I have read here, the POS was ill prepared for an assault which is why you started to deploy "more" small weapons after realising this mistake. It would appear that the GM gave you a "second chance" to sort out your defences, which is totally unfair to the attacking force. -- Intergalactic Teeth Pullers "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
mahhy	Posted - 2005.08.06 13:37:00 - [107] 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.
slip66	Posted - 2005.08.06 13:48:00 - [108] Originally by: Christopher Scott Originally by: Hue Jorgon It would seem 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. very true
Terradoct	Posted - 2005.08.06 13:48:00 - [109] Edited by: Terradoct on 06/08/2005 13:48:53 Originally by: mahhy Fine telling 5 members not to use drones, but don't just nullify all their hard work instantly. They knew that this is not intented. They use light drones always when attacking POSes. What hard work your are talking about? They lost only 3 BS to POS that is heavyly armed even Dread will have strugle to take it down.
Gigi Barbagrigia	Posted - 2005.08.06 14:00:00 - [110] My bet is it was TomB in disguise. He's gonna balance alliances now Dunno guys, traditionally in RPGs, GM says you can't do it, you can't do it. EoD. Kinda pointless thread tbh. You feel like it was bad refereeing. Fair enough, you appealed. Now you wait for the rullng like everybody else. Besides, you are influential enough so can hope for a favorable one. And if you don't get it, oh well, it's not like you couldn't use a loss. You know, when one team is winning too much league loses audience ----- 42
Sir JoJo	Posted - 2005.08.06 14:03:00 - [111] ok first lets not make this a whichhunt on xetic atm we wanna discuss the "exploit" and the actions of the GM. not who if any have unautorized help from GM's it will only get the thread locked again. the fact that ppl say its an exploit not to use drones cause they cant hit? wtf that BS. cause u know its not a exploit to try and hit whit antimatter at 120km arent it? its not a exploit to use drones to take fire from npc if u wanna use em that way arent it? its not a exploit to use drones in long range combat arent it? its not a exploit to get 150 Interceptors to orbit the pos whit even less signature radius arent it?? u can infact use the the intys like drones would that be clasified a exploit cause the guns will have a even les Hitiing % agains intys??? its not a exploit to try and avoid u ships taking dammage by using the TOOLS CCP gave u whit the game in this case drones. If the POS did not work how could it kill both drones and BS??? how can u in a middle of an assualt take actions like this no warnig no nothing???? normally things like this are Getting fixed whit the next or so patch but never have it been classified EXPLOITS In matter of minutes? i could go on but damn this is a big issue whic i am sure CCP takes really serius. ------------- Be a warrior in game Not on forums -------------
Albus	Posted - 2005.08.06 14:05:00 - [112] Edited by: Albus on 06/08/2005 14:06:20 Originally by: Terradoct Edited by: Terradoct on 06/08/2005 13:48:53 Originally by: mahhy Fine telling 5 members not to use drones, but don't just nullify all their hard work instantly. They knew that this is not intented. They use light drones always when attacking POSes. What hard work your are talking about? They lost only 3 BS to POS that is heavyly armed even Dread will have strugle to take it down. So, are you telling me that the 7 separate gangs we had going, the specific ship setups EVERYONE in the assault was required to fit, the remote repairing that was constantly going on to keep everyone alive (contrary to what you might think, our group of 4 BS's had at least one gun firing on us for 75% of the assault.), the coordinated warp ins and outs, the 3 hours of preparation and forming up and the huge amount of organisation required was not hard work?
Galk	Posted - 2005.08.06 14:07:00 - [113] Originally by: Terradoct Edited by: Terradoct on 06/08/2005 13:48:53 Originally by: mahhy Fine telling 5 members not to use drones, but don't just nullify all their hard work instantly. They knew that this is not intented. They use light drones always when attacking POSes. What hard work your are talking about? They lost only 3 BS to POS that is heavyly armed even Dread will have strugle to take it down. Exactly.... it's the same everytime. Like somebody said earlier in the thread.. the most experienced playing stupid like they didn't know... It fools nobody, not that it excuses the actions of the gm in anyway... For why... because if there's an easy way... bet on it that xetic would exploit it.. empire war decs anyone... Gm's realy shouldn't play on morales. -------- 23
Ovaron	Posted - 2005.08.06 14:13:00 - [114] You miss 2 important points. 1) Would a player control the POS , would he attack the 400 Drones orbiting the POS without any danger or chance to hit the POS? Or would he attack the Ships who is the Launcher of the Drones? 2) You miss the point that POS is controlled by an AI , and to use a bug in an AI to get a massive advantage , its called an exploit. To example, in en Fantasy RGP , if you get the monster in a zone , who can't defend herself , and your are able to attack them without any danger. You would see this as an "normal" way to kill this monster? Ingame Sales Page : http://www.ii-inc.org/xtech
Sir JoJo	Posted - 2005.08.06 14:17:00 - [115] Originally by: Ovaron You miss 2 important points. 1) Would a player control the POS , would he attack the 400 Drones orbiting the POS without any danger or chance to hit the POS? Or would he attack the Ships who is the Launcher of the Drones? 2) You miss the point that POS is controlled by an AI , and to use a bug in an AI to get a massive advantage , its called an exploit. To example, in en Fantasy RGP , if you get the monster in a zone , who can't defend herself , and your are able to attack them without any danger. You would see this as an "normal" way to kill this monster? Do a player control the npc??? same thing? if i cant use drones on POS ai i shouldent be allowed on NPC ai either? clearly ppl use drones to go around the npc's ai when they wait to all npc are target u then realease drones so they can kill frigs safly? ------------- Be a warrior in game Not on forums -------------
Xard	Posted - 2005.08.06 14:28:00 - [116] in this case Dominix mining in 0.0 defended by drones is exploit and wait omg why my large guns cant hit orbiting enemy drones. Exploit as well?
Miri Tirzan	Posted - 2005.08.06 14:30:00 - [117] Originally by: Sir JoJo Originally by: Ovaron You miss 2 important points. 1) Would a player control the POS , would he attack the 400 Drones orbiting the POS without any danger or chance to hit the POS? Or would he attack the Ships who is the Launcher of the Drones? 2) You miss the point that POS is controlled by an AI , and to use a bug in an AI to get a massive advantage , its called an exploit. To example, in en Fantasy RGP , if you get the monster in a zone , who can't defend herself , and your are able to attack them without any danger. You would see this as an "normal" way to kill this monster? Do a player control the npc??? same thing? if i cant use drones on POS ai i shouldent be allowed on NPC ai either? clearly ppl use drones to go around the npc's ai when they wait to all npc are target u then realease drones so they can kill frigs safly? Actually, I am pretty sure that is called tactics and is why you dont leave an IA to do the work of a player. svetlana - "whining gets you stuff. that is why humans got to the top of the food chain and all the other animals got nerfed."
Udat	Posted - 2005.08.06 14:30:00 - [118] This is a reminder to post constructively. Flames cause nothing but trouble. If you can't post constructively then please don't post at all. Also, please post in English only.
Jaabaa Prime	Posted - 2005.08.06 14:35:00 - [119] Wouldn't a BS with a few large smartbombs inside of the shield be able to clear any amount of drones attacking a POS ? -- Intergalactic Teeth Pullers "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
Sir JoJo	Posted - 2005.08.06 14:36:00 - [120] Originally by: Miri Tirzan Originally by: Sir JoJo Originally by: Ovaron You miss 2 important points. 1) Would a player control the POS , would he attack the 400 Drones orbiting the POS without any danger or chance to hit the POS? Or would he attack the Ships who is the Launcher of the Drones? 2) You miss the point that POS is controlled by an AI , and to use a bug in an AI to get a massive advantage , its called an exploit. To example, in en Fantasy RGP , if you get the monster in a zone , who can't defend herself , and your are able to attack them without any danger. You would see this as an "normal" way to kill this monster? Do a player control the npc??? same thing? if i cant use drones on POS ai i shouldent be allowed on NPC ai either? clearly ppl use drones to go around the npc's ai when they wait to all npc are target u then realease drones so they can kill frigs safly? Actually, I am pretty sure that is called tactics and is why you dont leave an IA to do the work of a player. ' u got the point yes in both case its tactis NOT exploits. ------------- Be a warrior in game Not on forums -------------
Hllaxiu	Posted - 2005.08.06 14:44:00 - [121] To the poster a while back that said that this is a nerf to the moros - heavy drones cannot deal damage to a control tower until the shields/armor are down on the control tower. Proud member of Elite Academy.
Redblade	Posted - 2005.08.06 14:45:00 - [122] Well if this is an exploit then i'll be petitioning all the losses i have had in a Raven while beeing jammed and my fof only whent for the drones as it shuld be an exploit aswell. And as we are allowed to discuss the GM's action in this case i would like to say that in some cases "common sens" isn't used in the decission prosess, in this case wouldn't it have been a better sollution for the GM to teleport himself to the said system and basicly told the attackers in local to scope there drones and dont use them unless the need for them is required to kill hostile ships untill a decission can be made about how to handle this problem. And after that if a shield boost where in order to compensate for the drone problem add 20-30% and let the assult continue. Killboard
theRaptor	Posted - 2005.08.06 14:49:00 - [123] Originally by: Ovaron To example, in en Fantasy RGP , if you get the monster in a zone , who can't defend herself , and your are able to attack them without any danger. You would see this as an "normal" way to kill this monster? And you are allowed to distract NPC's using light drons. And also against players, for example using light drones to shield against FoF's. Why the hell is it suddenly an exploit when used against POS? CCP can say anything is an exploit and you better obey or you will get a ban. It doesnt mean they have given a good reason or that it makes sense. God mode for POS needs to end. But 5 need to stop whining about GM favouritism, Im sure it just makes the GM's less likely to listen to you. That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die. -- Ancient "Dirt" Religious figure.
Arimas Talasko	Posted - 2005.08.06 14:52:00 - [124] Originally by: Elve Sorrow 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. Ollyy respond to this. Terradoct you too. So far it seems to me like when Xetic gets under attack and lots of carebear subscribers threaten to leave over 'grief tactics' and stuff everything we do starts becoming an exploit or enemy shields start getting repaired a lot for no reason. Such as the previous time [5] wiped out Xetic a couple months ago. Remember the station shields... that was ridiculous. Kinda like this. Supremacy Keepin it Real Originally by: Daniel Jackson PLEASE TELL US WHY, WHY DO U WANT US TO DIE, I AM JUST GOING FRIGGEN INSAIGN
Stormfront	Posted - 2005.08.06 14:53:00 - [125] If its an exploit, fine. Atleast learn to deal with it in a more constructive manner CCP. Just coming in then making an impromptu decision that it is not acceptable and restoring all shields. How often have we asked for similar fixes when we have faced bugged CCP code resulted in NO WE CANT DO ANYTHING NOW SORRY. TBH, we will get this station one way or the other. But you guys really need to work on your game and its "SECRET FEATURES" before you release this new content that doesn't work. And stop lying on main page about "NO REPORTS OF LAG WERE REPORTED"
Lunas Feelgood	Posted - 2005.08.06 14:55:00 - [126] OMFG [5] stop this whinning **** and get ower it. we all know you are using lag tactics in fleet battles and now you are doing it to a POS. its an sploit get ower it buy a dread and take the POS down and stop sploiting.
Stormfront	Posted - 2005.08.06 14:59:00 - [127] LMFAO at Lunas talkmuch. "we all know" rofl talk about making generalisations. Thought your buddy Cartiff said you guys were gonna stick to playing the game and not trolling threads.
W0lverine	Posted - 2005.08.06 15:00:00 - [128] Originally by: Lunas Feelgood OMFG [5] stop this whinning **** and get ower it. we all know you are using lag tactics in fleet battles and now you are doing it to a POS. its an sploit get ower it buy a dread and take the POS down and stop sploiting. go back to your mining op in yulai or I'll tell your dad
Xthril Ranger	Posted - 2005.08.06 15:02:00 - [129] I have petitioned a ship I lost (to Bob :) ). All I got as a reply from the GMs was that they never did anything when PvP was involved. Why do they come in and save some people but not others?
Lunas Feelgood	Posted - 2005.08.06 15:07:00 - [130] All i sayd stop this whinning ****. when we tryed to take xelas POS down we had so many bugs. But we didnt whine about it on the bloddy forums.. THE GM is saying is a sploit, then is a sploit end...
Stormfront	Posted - 2005.08.06 15:13:00 - [131] Quote: THE GM is saying is a sploit, then is a sploit end... So its a "sploit". Cool, we got it. Now its time to have these sploits defined to us before we run into them experimentally and our hours of planned activities in a game aren't just nullified because CCP forgot how to write a line of code.
theRaptor	Posted - 2005.08.06 15:13:00 - [132] Originally by: Lunas Feelgood OMFG [5] stop this whinning **** and get ower it. we all know you are using lag tactics in fleet battles and now you are doing it to a POS. No the lag is CCP's fault. Or are people not allowed to use drones in fleet? It would be simple to write some code that made drones one object for fleet battles. The fact that I get lag in high pop systems when nobody is at the gate is a joke. The use of light drones against POS is an obvious tactic. My alliance has discussed it several times. Its CCP's fault for doing half the work and not accounting for obvious player tactics. That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die. -- Ancient "Dirt" Religious figure.
W0lverine	Posted - 2005.08.06 15:13:00 - [133] Originally by: Lunas Feelgood All i sayd stop this whinning ****. when we tryed to take xelas POS down we had so many bugs. But we didnt whine about it on the bloddy forums.. THE GM is saying is a sploit, then is a sploit end... why you whine bout your POS now?
Elenia Kheynes	Posted - 2005.08.06 15:14:00 - [134] Edited by: Elenia Kheynes on 06/08/2005 15:15:12 Originally by: Arimas Talasko Originally by: Elve Sorrow 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. Ollyy respond to this. Terradoct you too. So far it seems to me like when Xetic gets under attack and lots of carebear subscribers threaten to leave over 'grief tactics' and stuff everything we do starts becoming an exploit or enemy shields start getting repaired a lot for no reason. Such as the previous time [5] wiped out Xetic a couple months ago. Remember the station shields... that was ridiculous. Kinda like this. Let me respond to this, but in all honesty I just see that you guys are so ***ed you can't just admit something which was obviously an exploit can be considered as such (let me laugh with your so called "superior tactics"): -raven against drones: if raven ain't jammed, he can defend itself. there is also something called a SMARTBOMB to help you. In current case the POS CAN NEVER DEFEND ITSELF. Is it clear ? You can put whatever guns you want, POS can't defend itself. There is 0 chance for a POS to win against a fleet using light drones. -light drones in complex to solo them -> you are taking an example which is player vs npcs. In current case I'd like to remind you that POSs belong to players, so attacking a POS is PVP. You are completly off topic. I'd to add that the hundreds of npcs in a complex (sorry I only did a level 10 and lvl 5) would kill your drones pretty fast anyway. At a POS you can't deploy 100 sentries JUST TO KILL THE DRONES. (I put it in big in case you were trying to read one word out of 3) -light drones from a cruiser doing a lvl4 complex solo. In this case you are again off topic, talking about PVE and not PVP. But I'll answer anyway: the amount of npcs + sentries are usually enough to kill the drones a cruiser can carry making the interest of the operation... quite uninteresting. you are also talking about 1 solo cruiser. Here were are talking about 40+ BSs launching hundreds of drones at a POS. I will finaly add one last thing: the night when we took jv1, I petitonned ccp to know if the use of massive drones against POSs would be an exploit. Answer was they would wait to see it but recommanded NOT to do it. You had the opportunity to ask what CCP thought about your tactic and didn't do it. You lost time and work (and light drones ^^) but all by your very own fault. Dear friendly customer... Can I have your money ?*
Slaveabuser	Posted - 2005.08.06 15:14:00 - [135] Originally by: Lunas Feelgood All i sayd stop this whinning **. when we tryed to take xelas POS down we had so many bugs. But we didnt whine about it on the bloddy forums.. THE GM is saying is a sploit, then is a sploit end... But thats the whole point. Calling it a exploit is outrageous. The fault is at CCP`s end for hireing ty testers. This "problem" should have been identefied before pos`s were released. I mean jesus, thats what game testers are for. =1 Industry skills trained, for a total of 250 skillPoints=**
Stormfront	Posted - 2005.08.06 15:17:00 - [136] Quote: You had the opportunity to ask what CCP thought about your tactic and didn't do it. You lost time and work (and light drones ^^) but all by your very own fault. So we are still Beta testing this game then? Next time I undock, I might have to ask CCP if clicking that yellow tab at bottom left is an exploit or will I get banned for double clicking in space.
Slaveabuser	Posted - 2005.08.06 15:18:00 - [137] Originally by: Elenia Kheynes In current case the POS CAN NEVER DEFEND ITSELF. Is it clear ? What about the owner then, doesnt he have a responsabilaty? =1 Industry skills trained, for a total of 250 skillPoints=
Elve Sorrow	Posted - 2005.08.06 15:19:00 - [138] So, this 'defenceless POS' of yours somehow still managed to blow up 3 of our BS?
Lifewire	Posted - 2005.08.06 15:20:00 - [139] the concept is buggy Remove the whole POS-crap, make outposts use fuel, undestroyable like NPC-station and improve this game.
StiZum Hilidii	Posted - 2005.08.06 15:22:00 - [140] gm madness STAN FACTA NON VERBA BRING BACK MMO CASINO
Genova Friar	Posted - 2005.08.06 15:32:00 - [141] Originally by: Redblade Well if this is an exploit then i'll be petitioning all the losses i have had in a Raven while beeing jammed and my fof only whent for the drones as it shuld be an exploit aswell. And as we are allowed to discuss the GM's action in this case i would like to say that in some cases "common sens" isn't used in the decission prosess, in this case wouldn't it have been a better sollution for the GM to teleport himself to the said system and basicly told the attackers in local to scope there drones and dont use them unless the need for them is required to kill hostile ships untill a decission can be made about how to handle this problem. And after that if a shield boost where in order to compensate for the drone problem add 20-30% and let the assult continue. I agree 100%, that would have been a far better solution than to p*** off 100+ people or wasting a day of their life for nothing; i think most uf us could have lived with that. To call a new tactic a game exploit is one thing, to punish players for using it instantly after this with no further negotiation is another.
Sir JoJo	Posted - 2005.08.06 15:32:00 - [142] Originally by: Lunas Feelgood All i sayd stop this whinning ****. when we tryed to take xelas POS down we had so many bugs. But we didnt whine about it on the bloddy forums.. THE GM is saying is a sploit, then is a sploit end... u clearly have nothing to add to the discussion so plzz stay out of the thread and let the ppl who actually have arguments on both side discuss.. and no u GM said so END OF story are not a argument. ------------- Be a warrior in game Not on forums -------------
Elenia Kheynes	Posted - 2005.08.06 15:38:00 - [143] Originally by: Slaveabuser Originally by: Elenia Kheynes In current case the POS CAN NEVER DEFEND ITSELF. Is it clear ? What about the owner then, doesnt he have a responsabilaty? the POS was fitted to its maximum with turrets of all kind like i already said. Small pulse, medium autocanons, medium artilleries, large artilleries. A Fortress. Most large POSs ingame aren't as well protected as this medium one. Originally by: Elve Sorrow So, this 'defenceless POS' of yours somehow still managed to blow up 3 of our BS? Without the lag you created with your "tactic", you wouldn't have lost a single Battleship. Also, your killboard only has 2 losses reported =^.^= Originally by: Genova Friar I agree 100%, that would have been a far better solution than to p*** off 100+ people or wasting a day of their life for nothing; i think most uf us could have lived with that. To call a new tactic a game exploit is one thing, to punish players for using it instantly after this with no further negotiation is another. In current case the GM also noticed a bug with strontiums since they permitted only 2 hours of reinforced more instead of several dozen of hours. This + the drone trick made the GM choose to reload shields. It was justified imo. Dear friendly customer... Can I have your money ?
Sir JoJo	Posted - 2005.08.06 15:38:00 - [144] Originally by: Elenia Kheynes Edited by: Elenia Kheynes on 06/08/2005 15:15:12 Originally by: Arimas Talasko Originally by: Elve Sorrow 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. Ollyy respond to this. Terradoct you too. So far it seems to me like when Xetic gets under attack and lots of carebear subscribers threaten to leave over 'grief tactics' and stuff everything we do starts becoming an exploit or enemy shields start getting repaired a lot for no reason. Such as the previous time [5] wiped out Xetic a couple months ago. Remember the station shields... that was ridiculous. Kinda like this. Let me respond to this, but in all honesty I just see that you guys are so **ed you can't just admit something which was obviously an exploit can be considered as such (let me laugh with your so called "superior tactics"): -raven against drones: if raven ain't jammed, he can defend itself. there is also something called a SMARTBOMB to help you. In current case the POS CAN NEVER DEFEND ITSELF. Is it clear ? You can put whatever guns you want, POS can't defend itself. There is 0 chance for a POS to win against a fleet using light drones. -light drones in complex to solo them -> you are taking an example which is player vs npcs. In current case I'd like to remind you that POSs belong to players, so attacking a POS is PVP. You are completly off topic. I'd to add that the hundreds of npcs in a complex (sorry I only did a level 10 and lvl 5) would kill your drones pretty fast anyway. At a POS you can't deploy 100 sentries JUST TO KILL THE DRONES. (I put it in big in case you were trying to read one word out of 3) -light drones from a cruiser doing a lvl4 complex solo. In this case you are again off topic, talking about PVE and not PVP. But I'll answer anyway: the amount of npcs + sentries are usually enough to kill the drones a cruiser can carry making the interest of the operation... quite uninteresting. you are also talking about 1 solo cruiser. Here were are talking about 40+ BSs launching hundreds of drones at a POS. I will finaly add one last thing: the night when we took jv1, I petitonned ccp to know if the use of massive drones against POSs would be an exploit. Answer was they would wait to see it but recommanded NOT to do it. You had the opportunity to ask what CCP thought about your tactic and didn't do it. You lost time and work (and light drones ^^) but all by your very own fault. ok i am not gonna try adn figure who said what and **.. but at one point u guys say POS are using AI so u cant see em as a player object(PvP) then the next its a a player object and cant be compared whit npcs? what is it? clearly its using AI like NPC and should be dealth like that cause as u say it need to be able to take care of itself whit no player controling it... so u are kinda giving us right there ------------- Be a warrior in game Not on forums -------------
Slaveabuser	Posted - 2005.08.06 15:41:00 - [145] Originally by: Elenia Kheynes the POS was fitted to its maximum with turrets of all kind like i already said. Small pulse, medium autocanons, medium artilleries, large artilleries. A Fortress. Most large POSs ingame aren't as well protected as this medium one. And did you go to the pos and help it? If drones mess up the guns then aid the pos with your own ships. =1 Industry skills trained, for a total of 250 skillPoints=
Elenia Kheynes	Posted - 2005.08.06 15:46:00 - [146] Originally by: Sir JoJo ok i am not gonna try adn figure who said what and **.. but at one point u guys say POS are using AI so u cant see em as a player object(PvP) then the next its a a player object and cant be compared whit npcs? what is it? clearly its using AI like NPC and should be dealth like that cause as u say it need to be able to take care of itself whit no player controling it... so u are kinda giving us right there my dear... 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. Originally by:** Slaveabuser Originally by: Elenia Kheynes the POS was fitted to its maximum with turrets of all kind like i already said. Small pulse, medium autocanons, medium artilleries, large artilleries. A Fortress. Most large POSs ingame aren't as well protected as this medium one. And did you go to the pos and help it? If drones mess up the guns then aid the pos with your own ships. 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. anybody else got a concrete (and serious) argument to explain why drones should be allowed against POSs ? Dear friendly customer... Can I have your money ?
Sir JoJo	Posted - 2005.08.06 15:46:00 - [147] 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? ------------- Be a warrior in game Not on forums -------------
Xthril Ranger	Posted - 2005.08.06 15:46:00 - [148] Edited by: Xthril Ranger on 06/08/2005 15:46:53 edit : nevermind
Kar Brogan	Posted - 2005.08.06 15:47:00 - [149] 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
Sir JoJo	Posted - 2005.08.06 15:49:00 - [150] Originally by: Elenia Kheynes Originally by: Sir JoJo ok i am not gonna try adn figure who said what and **.. but at one point u guys say POS are using AI so u cant see em as a player object(PvP) then the next its a a player object and cant be compared whit npcs? what is it? clearly its using AI like NPC and should be dealth like that cause as u say it need to be able to take care of itself whit no player controling it... so u are kinda giving us right there my dear... 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. Originally by:** Slaveabuser Originally by: Elenia Kheynes the POS was fitted to its maximum with turrets of all kind like i already said. Small pulse, medium autocanons, medium artilleries, large artilleries. A Fortress. Most large POSs ingame aren't as well protected as this medium one. And did you go to the pos and help it? If drones mess up the guns then aid the pos with your own ships. 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. anybody else got a concrete (and serious) argument to explain why drones should be allowed against POSs ? 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. ------------- Be a warrior in game Not on forums -------------
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=
Elenia Kheynes	Posted - 2005.08.06 17:46:00 - [181] Edited by: Elenia Kheynes on 06/08/2005 17:47:05 your hundred of frigs would have got killed and you would have reported 2 losses on your killboard. and tbh I'm pretty damn sure you currently don't have the logistics to build those hundred frigs in Tenerifis. Dear friendly customer... Can I have your money ?
TheMoog	Posted - 2005.08.06 17:46:00 - [182] So let me get this straight. The Moros, with his 35 drones as primary weapons, will not have the right to attack a POS. A dreadnaught's main function is to kill POS, but it's an exploit to use its weapons in the exact way they were meant to be use.. ?!
Sir JoJo	Posted - 2005.08.06 17:50:00 - [183] Edited by: Sir JoJo on 06/08/2005 17:50:51 now u leave the topics here its not about if we have em or not??? its the fact its doable... and u guns would have just as hard to kill those as the drones cause of the locktimes targeting rotating time.... we arent discussing if we have 200 frigs or dont but the fact that would be a exploit to kill a pos whit 200 frigs and 50 bs if its a splot to use drones. ------------- Be a warrior in game Not on forums -------------
Hast	Posted - 2005.08.06 17:52:00 - [184] Originally by: Nafri 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 bwhahaahahhahaha. and I repeat bwhahaahahaha. best. comment. ever. Reinforced mode has always been buggy. Its not our drones that made reinforced mode more then two hours... and you dont know if it was just the timer or the actual time that it would have spent thats bugged either And I always assumed that POS guns worked like sentry's with instalock...
Righteous Fury	Posted - 2005.08.06 18:01:00 - [185] This entire thing is bs, if they're actually going to go through with it they may as well replace the three or four POS my corp has taken out using the sme tactics. But on the whole relevance of the exploit issue, the instant-nullification of 5's work is a bit odd. I had a recent run in with the GMs because I found a way (thats now an exploit, so don't try it) of stealing ships out of POS fields. However, our endgame was the GMs asking us how we did it, and then telling us not to do it anymore. We didn't have any repercussions, and got to keep everything we stole. Different GMs, different responses perhaps - but this is over the line. *ISD - If above post is too much of a discussion of an exploit, please delete at your convienence.
Hikaru Okuda	Posted - 2005.08.06 18:07:00 - [186] Well, using drones as decoys seems like a good military strategy to me. If they decide it is an exploit, so be it. It is just one more artificial restraint on available tactics. I guess they could argue it is exploiting the bad AI... Well fix the AI to ignore the drones and that would be that, or give the AI greater threat assessment abilities so it knows Apocs are more dangerous than Wasps. But decoys have been used in military engagements for oh... For the entire existence of warfare! Yeah, this is a science fiction/fantasy game, but adding some plausibility to the things that might work if we had all this fancy technology makes the game more fun. I'd like it if the game used real physics and we are all worrying about delta-V and fuel/mass ratios, etc. but that might make the game too hard.
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2005.08.06 18:09:00 - [187] Amazing to see this tyhread still open. It's got flames, exploit discussion, and alt trolls. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
XxGITxX	Posted - 2005.08.06 18:09:00 - [188] Get rid of drones And u might as well get rid of every gallente ship going - i feel that it was a viable tactic and gm's should stop whinning and get on with fixing all the rest of the bugs - and not creating more inblances in the game
mahhy	Posted - 2005.08.06 18:11:00 - [189] 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.
TheMoog	Posted - 2005.08.06 18:12:00 - [190] Originally by: Elenia Kheynes Originally by: TheMoog So let me get this straight. The Moros, with his 35 drones as primary weapons, will not have the right to attack a POS. A dreadnaught's main function is to kill POS, but it's an exploit to use its weapons in the exact way they were meant to be use.. ?! you don't read the other posts you lazy man ! Drones don't do damages to the POS. People are just using them as decoys. So you'll be using your Moros's drones in fleet battles mmkay ? My bad I tought by "don't do damage" they meant "don't do significant damage".
Galk	Posted - 2005.08.06 18:17:00 - [191] Originally by: Joshua Calvert Amazing to see this thread still open. It's got flames, exploit discussion, and alt trolls. Why? Last few weeks we have had a couple of topics go with 5 complaining on the gd.. neither was locked until the threads had ran their course.. alliance discussion styley..... Ironic realy... and they complain about indifferent moderation while the mods here were locking multiple topics about people complaining they were stuck.. as soon as 5 bummed the forum moaning... they let it roll..... It brings the whole system into utter contempt.. i belive thats what this topic is about at the end of the day.. This time... the sharp end of it -------- 23
Darkrydar	Posted - 2005.08.06 18:26:00 - [192] Originally by: Redblade Well if this is an exploit then i'll be petitioning all the losses i have had in a Raven while beeing jammed and my fof only whent for the drones as it shuld be an exploit aswell. And as we are allowed to discuss the GM's action in this case i would like to say that in some cases "common sens" isn't used in the decission prosess, in this case wouldn't it have been a better sollution for the GM to teleport himself to the said system and basicly told the attackers in local to scope there drones and dont use them unless the need for them is required to kill hostile ships untill a decission can be made about how to handle this problem. And after that if a shield boost where in order to compensate for the drone problem add 20-30% and let the assult continue. Yeah, the GM came to system, watched us work at the pos for a few hours and once it got to reinforced moed he healed it. It had approx 60% shields when he got there. He let us waste two hours then acted. There is a lot more to the story that cannot be said here as we dont want this thread locked. OMG, WE'RE UBER (POS KILLS for the nubs)
Terradoct	Posted - 2005.08.06 18:38:00 - [193] Originally by: TheMoog So let me get this straight. The Moros, with his 35 drones as primary weapons, will not have the right to attack a POS. A dreadnaught's main function is to kill POS, but it's an exploit to use its weapons in the exact way they were meant to be use.. ?! DRONES CAN'T DO ANY DMG TO POS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
Dukath	Posted - 2005.08.06 18:39:00 - [194] If the problem is really that the POS retarget faster than the lock time for drones, then the solution is very simple. Set a minimum timethe guns stay on one target. That way the guns might still target drones but they'll stick to the target long enough to actually shoot the drones and maybe destroy them. Drones should stay as valid decoys in my opinion, there are enough drawbacks to using drones as it is so a small bonus is always welcome.
0Virtu0	Posted - 2005.08.06 18:54:00 - [195] I started reading this thread on page one, gave up on page two and went to seven. And I've determined something that everyone has known for a long time. [5] whines ALOT when they don't get it their way. I guess daycare gets internet access now... But anyways, getting away from the omgforumblobwhine, so it'd be cool to be able to make POS defenses useless by launching a bunch of light drones? ...no. ---------------------------------- I play EvE and I don't even get a stupid signature.
Nafri	Posted - 2005.08.06 19:02:00 - [196] Originally by: Hast Originally by: Nafri 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 bwhahaahahhahaha. and I repeat bwhahaahahaha. best. comment. ever. Reinforced mode has always been buggy. Its not our drones that made reinforced mode more then two hours... and you dont know if it was just the timer or the actual time that it would have spent thats bugged either And I always assumed that POS guns worked like sentry's with instalock... Did I talked to you, or meant a comment? As far as I know this was the reason the shields got recharged. So please dont post when you dont have the time to read the posts you dare to quote. Thx Your bla bla hit bla bla for bla bla damage. Wanna have some bubu now?
Jungle Jim	Posted - 2005.08.06 19:09:00 - [197] Originally by: 0Virtu0 I started reading this thread on page one, gave up on page two and went to seven. And I've determined something that everyone has known for a long time. [5] whines ALOT when they don't get it their way. I guess daycare gets internet access now... But anyways, getting away from the omgforumblobwhine, so it'd be cool to be able to make POS defenses useless by launching a bunch of light drones? ...no. He he he he... * Proud First Time Winner of the MLM Muppet Award *
Hast	Posted - 2005.08.06 19:10:00 - [198] Originally by: Nafri Originally by: Hast Originally by: Nafri 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 bwhahaahahhahaha. and I repeat bwhahaahahaha. best. comment. ever. Reinforced mode has always been buggy. Its not our drones that made reinforced mode more then two hours... and you dont know if it was just the timer or the actual time that it would have spent thats bugged either And I always assumed that POS guns worked like sentry's with instalock... Did I talked to you, or meant a comment? As far as I know this was the reason the shields got recharged. So please dont post when you dont have the time to read the posts you dare to quote. Thx the way you typed it it seemed that the reason the reinforced mode was two hours instead of 1.5 as xf claimed that there was clathrates for was our socalled exploiting
Saladin	Posted - 2005.08.06 19:27:00 - [199] There are already ships in game for taking down POS's, they are called dreadnaughts. A POS represents several hundred man hours in effort, far exceeding the hours quoted by the people seeking to use this tactic. They are meant to be hard to take down. The use of drones which do no damage simply to fool the POS AI into expending ammo is obviously an exploit and well caught by the GMs (for a change). It doesn't take a genius to see that this tactic is not in agreement with the design intent. Those arguing it is not an exploit would be arguing for the other side with equal passion if the shoe was on the other foot. Being a victim of exploits myself, I have come to learn it is imperative that proper channels of communication be followed as opposed to forum sensationalism. ----
Darkrydar	Posted - 2005.08.06 19:32:00 - [200] Again, some ppl are missing the point. We spend a day geting micromanaged gangs running so we could killa GOD-Mode POS. When the shields were at 60% a GM joined local and watched. Over two hours later while the POS was in re-inforced mode he healed it. Now, why werent we told to cease and desist while it was being investigated. Why did it take two hours. Why was it healed, when we started it wasnt an expolit. For the ppl saying we whine, YOUR RIGHT! We spend a day to do this and it was nullified on a whim. We complain because the station oweners didnt have to defend their station, just hit the HELP button and got aid. We complain because we could have not wasted all our time while the GM sat and watched. Atleast some ppl who on opposite side of 5 can see what happened here and not be biased. Sadly, there are many sheep in the anti-5 brigade that think us playing with a spiked deck of cards was funny. I assure you, it wont be funny when it happens to you. OMG, WE'RE UBER (POS KILLS for the nubs)
Darkrydar	Posted - 2005.08.06 19:34:00 - [201] Originally by: Saladin The use of drones which do no damage simply to fool the POS AI into expending ammo is obviously an exploit and well caught by the GMs (for a change). Guess you better not use the drones npcing then as they target and kill them usually first. OMG, WE'RE UBER (POS KILLS for the nubs)
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2005.08.06 19:38:00 - [202] Originally by: Darkrydar Again, some ppl are missing the point. We spend a day geting micromanaged gangs running so we could killa GOD-Mode POS. When the shields were at 60% a GM joined local and watched. Over two hours later while the POS was in re-inforced mode he healed it. Now, why werent we told to cease and desist while it was being investigated. Why did it take two hours. Why was it healed, when we started it wasnt an expolit. For the ppl saying we whine, YOUR RIGHT! We spend a day to do this and it was nullified on a whim. We complain because the station oweners didnt have to defend their station, just hit the HELP button and got aid. We complain because we could have not wasted all our time while the GM sat and watched. Atleast some ppl who on opposite side of 5 can see what happened here and not be biased. Sadly, there are many sheep in the anti-5 brigade that think us playing with a spiked deck of cards was funny. I assure you, it wont be funny when it happens to you. What would you do if this had happened to you from the other end of the spectrum? LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Scoundrelus	Posted - 2005.08.06 19:47:00 - [203] I only read the first bit so i apologize if this has already been said but... what about the Gallante Dreadnought? It has like 2000m3 space for drones made for when it assaults POS. How will it fend off playerships if those drones cause lag? =============================================== I will punch you with my laser! -Scoundrelus
Darkrydar	Posted - 2005.08.06 19:50:00 - [204] Originally by: Joshua Calvert Originally by: Darkrydar Again, some ppl are missing the point. We spend a day geting micromanaged gangs running so we could killa GOD-Mode POS. When the shields were at 60% a GM joined local and watched. Over two hours later while the POS was in re-inforced mode he healed it. Now, why werent we told to cease and desist while it was being investigated. Why did it take two hours. Why was it healed, when we started it wasnt an expolit. For the ppl saying we whine, YOUR RIGHT! We spend a day to do this and it was nullified on a whim. We complain because the station oweners didnt have to defend their station, just hit the HELP button and got aid. We complain because we could have not wasted all our time while the GM sat and watched. Atleast some ppl who on opposite side of 5 can see what happened here and not be biased. Sadly, there are many sheep in the anti-5 brigade that think us playing with a spiked deck of cards was funny. I assure you, it wont be funny when it happens to you. What would you do if this had happened to you from the other end of the spectrum? Got a fleet toghether and defended my claim? OMG, WE'RE UBER (POS KILLS for the nubs)
Amthrianius	Posted - 2005.08.06 19:56:00 - [205] we use f1-f8 xetic use f12 ---------------
Kuroro Lucifer	Posted - 2005.08.06 19:57:00 - [206] Exploit or not, this issue certainly is hurting the game's customer service and therefore demands an official response. I have faith in CCP not to overlook the issue. --- The spider will live forever
Emeline Cabernet	Posted - 2005.08.06 20:01:00 - [207] flak cannons for pos's now? for shoting down large numbers of drones?
JaegerX	Posted - 2005.08.06 20:03:00 - [208] The answer is simple. Using drones is not the problem. Using them to fool the POS guns into endless locking and switching cycles is. Solution: Small POS guns prefer smaller targets. If none are present, it will target medium sized target, and so on. Medium POS guns should prefer medium sized targets. If none are present, it will target Large sized targets and so on. Large POS guns should prefer large targets. If none are present, it will target medium sized targets. Drones should be able to hit POS shields. Really simple. You can use your precious light drones, Large turrets will ignore them. Please tell me how that sounds. I think we should all be searching for a solution here. In addition, I think POS guns should be placed outside the forcefield. (but that's another issue alltogeather.)
Hast	Posted - 2005.08.06 20:16:00 - [209] hows them apples tonight XF?
Nafri	Posted - 2005.08.06 20:19:00 - [210] Originally by: Hast Originally by: Nafri Originally by: Hast Originally by: Nafri 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 bwhahaahahhahaha. and I repeat bwhahaahahaha. best. comment. ever. Reinforced mode has always been buggy. Its not our drones that made reinforced mode more then two hours... and you dont know if it was just the timer or the actual time that it would have spent thats bugged either And I always assumed that POS guns worked like sentry's with instalock... Did I talked to you, or meant a comment? As far as I know this was the reason the shields got recharged. So please dont post when you dont have the time to read the posts you dare to quote. Thx the way you typed it it seemed that the reason the reinforced mode was two hours instead of 1.5 as xf claimed that there was clathrates for was our socalled exploiting I just summed the 2 problem which the GM saw, when you guys would try to be calm and analyze situation, you would have easily seen it too Your bla bla hit bla bla for bla bla damage. Wanna have some bubu now?
Hast	Posted - 2005.08.06 20:21:00 - [211] Originally by: Nafri Originally by: Hast Originally by: Nafri Originally by: Hast Originally by: Nafri 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 bwhahaahahhahaha. and I repeat bwhahaahahaha. best. comment. ever. Reinforced mode has always been buggy. Its not our drones that made reinforced mode more then two hours... and you dont know if it was just the timer or the actual time that it would have spent thats bugged either And I always assumed that POS guns worked like sentry's with instalock... Did I talked to you, or meant a comment? As far as I know this was the reason the shields got recharged. So please dont post when you dont have the time to read the posts you dare to quote. Thx the way you typed it it seemed that the reason the reinforced mode was two hours instead of 1.5 as xf claimed that there was clathrates for was our socalled exploiting I just summed the 2 problem which the GM saw, when you guys would try to be calm and analyze situation, you would have easily seen it too the fact is that drones and reinforced mode is two unrelated issues
Alberta	Posted - 2005.08.06 20:25:00 - [212] Originally by: JaegerX In addition, I think POS guns should be placed outside the forcefield. (but that's another issue alltogeather.) That's how it used to be when they first came out on the test server if I remember righly. I don't think it's a good idea as they could be jammed and picked off too easily. Your ideas on giving turrets priority targets by the type they are designed to kill sound reasonable to me. I'm also wondering if the POS was fitted with a web battery. My Thoughts on Game Balance
Amthrianius	Posted - 2005.08.06 20:31:00 - [213] Sooooooooo now we do it without drones, just incase :/ Lets see if F12 works this time olyyy ---------------
LoxyRider	Posted - 2005.08.06 20:38:00 - [214] As just said there; The POS has just fallen into re-enforced (again) thanks to the attack by [5] forces. No drones where used and no bs were lost. That is all. ----- Eris Discordia; I think the proper term is <3
SengH	Posted - 2005.08.06 20:40:00 - [215] correction we lost 1 on the initial warpin thats all
sonofollo	Posted - 2005.08.06 20:43:00 - [216] yeah well there hsa been no GM or dev post on this thread so as it stands if you want to attack a POS go right ahead and use drones untilt hey fix it so POS can either disable drones within 100km or fit anti drone drones or guns. That is all
theRaptor	Posted - 2005.08.06 21:01:00 - [217] Originally by: Amthrianius Sooooooooo now we do it without drones, just incase :/ Lets see if F12 works this time olyyy That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die. -- Ancient "Dirt" Religious figure.
Zerodragoon	Posted - 2005.08.06 21:18:00 - [218] Originally by: Amthrianius Sooooooooo now we do it without drones, just incase :/ Lets see if F12 works this time olyyy Gotta love the smell of ownage. -------
Ast2610	Posted - 2005.08.06 21:27:00 - [219] U know the funniest thing is its actually quicker without drones out LMFAO, im waitin for the next post from olly sayin well xetic decided to change its plan and LET the five kill there pos and we didnt really want the station anyways it was just to give me somethin to post about
Sir JoJo	Posted - 2005.08.06 21:49:00 - [220] Edited by: Sir JoJo on 06/08/2005 21:57:08 Nuked ------------- Be a warrior in game Not on forums -------------
Stormfront	Posted - 2005.08.06 22:02:00 - [221] O M G W T F H A X
Amthrianius	Posted - 2005.08.06 22:06:00 - [222] Oh and we just killed another for good measure :p ---------------
WildHope	Posted - 2005.08.06 22:09:00 - [223] Note how many ships were lost with drones. Now note how many ships were lost without drones. I'm glad the "exploit" made a fundamental difference. http://five.killboard.net/?p=alldeaths Wildhope ShinRa Curse Alliance (may it last 1000 generations) Victim of the GM White JV1V massacre
Lodhi	Posted - 2005.08.06 23:37:00 - [224] Ok first, whats been said between a GM and you in game is confidential. Posting that is against the rules of this forum. And posting an exploit is against the forum rules and the TOS. This have been reported since it's against the rules and tos. Now have a nice day, and why this post were not deleted the second it were posted is strange. But i guess it further proves what a few of us thinks...
Dreez	Posted - 2005.08.06 23:46:00 - [225] Originally by: Lodhi Ok first, whats been said between a GM and you in game is confidential. Posting that is against the rules of this forum. And posting an exploit is against the forum rules and the TOS. GM deciding whats an exploit and whats not is also against the rules, CCPs own rules - hence the GM broke this rule when he commited this act. I might have ATUK in my tag, but i have OC in my DNA
Mr Altpants	Posted - 2005.08.06 23:50:00 - [226] 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. Has anyone got a link to that Tech 2 Tissue picture?
Sleazy Cabbie	Posted - 2005.08.06 23:58:00 - [227] Remember kids, there's more than 1 side to every story. Obviously the GM is not gonna come here and discuss it publicly, just keep that in mind and take things with a grain of salt.
Lodhi	Posted - 2005.08.07 00:02:00 - [228] Edited by: Lodhi on 07/08/2005 00:04:09 Originally by: Dreez Originally by: Lodhi Ok first, whats been said between a GM and you in game is confidential. Posting that is against the rules of this forum. And posting an exploit is against the forum rules and the TOS. GM deciding whats an exploit and whats not is also against the rules, CCPs own rules - hence the GM broke this rule when he commited this act. And posting this is still against forum rules and the tos. Anything more i must explain? And if u want to quote me use my whole post pls.
Vlandarr	Posted - 2005.08.07 00:07:00 - [229] Originally by: Lodhi Originally by: Dreez Originally by: Lodhi Ok first, whats been said between a GM and you in game is confidential. Posting that is against the rules of this forum. And posting an exploit is against the forum rules and the TOS. GM deciding whats an exploit and whats not is also against the rules, CCPs own rules - hence the GM broke this rule when he commited this act. And posting this is still against forum rules and the tos. Anything more i must explain? I believe you should climb down off your high horse stop crying and being a bitter little fanboi and read the full thread there you will notice that this thread had been locked by a mod (who follows and enforces the rules you are *****ing about) and then unlocked. Obviously it was unlocked as it did not breach any of the rules. So stop crying and stfu the mods decide what its what on these forums not you.
Lodhi	Posted - 2005.08.07 00:14:00 - [230] Originally by: Vlandarr Originally by: Lodhi Originally by: Dreez Originally by: Lodhi Ok first, whats been said between a GM and you in game is confidential. Posting that is against the rules of this forum. And posting an exploit is against the forum rules and the TOS. GM deciding whats an exploit and whats not is also against the rules, CCPs own rules - hence the GM broke this rule when he commited this act. And posting this is still against forum rules and the tos. Anything more i must explain? I believe you should climb down off your high horse stop crying and being a bitter little fanboi and read the full thread there you will notice that this thread had been locked by a mod (who follows and enforces the rules you are *****ing about) and then unlocked. Obviously it was unlocked as it did not breach any of the rules. So stop crying and stfu the mods decide what its what on these forums not you. 9. Private communication between the Game Masters, Eve Team members, moderators and administrators of the forum and the forum users is not to be made public on these forums or by any other venue. You are not permitted to publicize any private correspondence (including petitions) received from any of the aforementioned.
Vlandarr	Posted - 2005.08.07 00:18:00 - [231] Originally by: Lodhi 9. Private communication between the Game Masters, Eve Team members, moderators and administrators of the forum and the forum users is not to be made public on these forums or by any other venue. You are not permitted to publicize any private correspondence (including petitions) received from any of the aforementioned. I will give you 20mill isk if you can find 1 post with actual conversations between player and GMS.
GigaIndy	Posted - 2005.08.07 00:22:00 - [232] So its confirmed, 5ive did use the exploit i just posted about in the xetic whine thread. ITs an exploit because it confuses the **** outa the POS. AI is teh stupid.
Darkrydar	Posted - 2005.08.07 00:24:00 - [233] Edited by: Darkrydar on 07/08/2005 00:24:30 Originally by: Lodhi Edited by: Lodhi on 07/08/2005 00:20:48 Originally by: Vlandarr Originally by: Lodhi Originally by: Dreez Originally by: Lodhi Ok first, whats been said between a GM and you in game is confidential. Posting that is against the rules of this forum. And posting an exploit is against the forum rules and the TOS. GM deciding whats an exploit and whats not is also against the rules, CCPs own rules - hence the GM broke this rule when he commited this act. And posting this is still against forum rules and the tos. Anything more i must explain? I believe you should climb down off your high horse stop crying and being a bitter little fanboi and read the full thread there you will notice that this thread had been locked by a mod (who follows and enforces the rules you are *****ing about) and then unlocked. Obviously it was unlocked as it did not breach any of the rules. So stop crying and stfu the mods decide what its what on these forums not you. 9. Private communication between the Game Masters, Eve Team members, moderators and administrators of the forum and the forum users is not to be made public on these forums or by any other venue. You are not permitted to publicize any private correspondence (including petitions) received from any of the aforementioned. Yep im a fanboi i know. Now stfu since ure post is: A: Flame B: Personal insult on me And both are against forum rules. Anything more u would like to add? Ok, now here is the deal. Our petitons were answered and we were TOLD that so far to post it on the forums SO ppl know whats up with it as CCP isnt able to provide an answer to the community or to even notify us that there is an issue. WHICH is why this post isnt locked. Have a nice day. OMG, WE'RE UBER (POS KILLS for the nubs)
The Enslaver	Posted - 2005.08.07 00:24:00 - [234] Originally by: GigaIndy So its confirmed, 5ive did use the exploit i just posted about in the xetic whine thread. ITs an exploit because it confuses the **** outa the POS. AI is teh stupid. Sorry, let me guess: a) Armor Hardeners are a known exploit b) Armor Repairers are a known exploit c) Armor Transferers are a known exploit d) Activating a module on a control tower is a known exploit e) Being on the same grid as a hostile POS is an exploit Please tell me which one of the above is correct. -------- FireFoxx80: If you think you can do a better job, go find yourself a datacentre to host a box, get a copy of Visual Studio, and STFU.
Cory	Posted - 2005.08.07 00:26:00 - [235] Edited by: Cory on 07/08/2005 00:26:40 it shouldnt be artificial intelligence, it should be artificial dumbness harr harr harr
Vlandarr	Posted - 2005.08.07 00:28:00 - [236] Originally by: Lodhi Anything more u would like to add? see my post below yours....
Lodhi	Posted - 2005.08.07 00:32:00 - [237] Originally by: Vlandarr Originally by: Lodhi 9. Private communication between the Game Masters, Eve Team members, moderators and administrators of the forum and the forum users is not to be made public on these forums or by any other venue. You are not permitted to publicize any private correspondence (including petitions) received from any of the aforementioned. I will give you 20mill isk if you can find 1 post with actual conversations between player and GMS. Ok he dint post actuall LOG, but check first post were Hue Jorgon say's that a GM told that using drones as a Starbase defence deterent = Exploit. And again: 9. Private communication between the Game Masters, Eve Team members, moderators and administrators of the forum and the forum users is not to be made public on these forums or by any other venue. You are not permitted to publicize any private correspondence (including petitions) received from any of the aforementioned. And what he posted is still aginst the rules, since he post's what a gm has told him. Now about those 20m, send them to a the3654 corp...
Vlandarr	Posted - 2005.08.07 00:38:00 - [238] Originally by: Lodhi Originally by: Vlandarr Originally by: Lodhi 9. Private communication between the Game Masters, Eve Team members, moderators and administrators of the forum and the forum users is not to be made public on these forums or by any other venue. You are not permitted to publicize any private correspondence (including petitions) received from any of the aforementioned. I will give you 20mill isk if you can find 1 post with actual conversations between player and GMS. Ok he dint post actuall LOG, but check first post were Hue Jorgon say's that a GM told that using drones as a Starbase defence deterent = Exploit. And again: 9. Private communication between the Game Masters, Eve Team members, moderators and administrators of the forum and the forum users is not to be made public on these forums or by any other venue. You are not permitted to publicize any private correspondence (including petitions) received from any of the aforementioned. And what he posted is still aginst the rules, since he post's what a gm has told him. Now about those 20m, send them to a the3654 corp... geeze you are a little slow arent you it basically means that you can not post actual logs it does not mean you can not discuss generally what was said. See there has been no private correspondence posted as you admit! corÀreÀsponÀdence 1. Communication by the exchange of letters. 2. The letters written or received. Linkage
GigaIndy	Posted - 2005.08.07 00:39:00 - [239] Originally by: The Enslaver Originally by: GigaIndy So its confirmed, 5ive did use the exploit i just posted about in the xetic whine thread. ITs an exploit because it confuses the **** outa the POS. AI is teh stupid. Sorry, let me guess: a) Armor Hardeners are a known exploit b) Armor Repairers are a known exploit c) Armor Transferers are a known exploit d) Activating a module on a control tower is a known exploit e) Being on the same grid as a hostile POS is an exploit Please tell me which one of the above is correct. Asshat? I do believe you are Sir! Drones Overload the tower, known exploit.
The Enslaver	Posted - 2005.08.07 00:43:00 - [240] Originally by: GigaIndy Asshat? I do believe you are Sir! Drones Overload the tower, known exploit. However, we didn't use drones at all... So... Point? -------- FireFoxx80: If you think you can do a better job, go find yourself a datacentre to host a box, get a copy of Visual Studio, and STFU.
Darkrydar	Posted - 2005.08.07 00:48:00 - [241] Originally by: Lodhi Originally by: Vlandarr Originally by: Lodhi 9. Private communication between the Game Masters, Eve Team members, moderators and administrators of the forum and the forum users is not to be made public on these forums or by any other venue. You are not permitted to publicize any private correspondence (including petitions) received from any of the aforementioned. I will give you 20mill isk if you can find 1 post with actual conversations between player and GMS. Ok he dint post actuall LOG, but check first post were Hue Jorgon say's that a GM told that using drones as a Starbase defence deterent = Exploit. And again: 9. Private communication between the Game Masters, Eve Team members, moderators and administrators of the forum and the forum users is not to be made public on these forums or by any other venue. You are not permitted to publicize any private correspondence (including petitions) received from any of the aforementioned. And what he posted is still aginst the rules, since he post's what a gm has told him. Now about those 20m, send them to a the3654 corp... Again, I will reitterate we HAVE their blessing to share it! OMG, WE'RE UBER (POS KILLS for the nubs)
Vlandarr	Posted - 2005.08.07 01:02:00 - [242] Edited by: Vlandarr on 07/08/2005 01:02:22 Originally by: Lodhi Originally by: Vlandarr Originally by: Lodhi Originally by: Vlandarr Originally by: Lodhi 9. Private communication between the Game Masters, Eve Team members, moderators and administrators of the forum and the forum users is not to be made public on these forums or by any other venue. You are not permitted to publicize any private correspondence (including petitions) received from any of the aforementioned. I will give you 20mill isk if you can find 1 post with actual conversations between player and GMS. Ok he dint post actuall LOG, but check first post were Hue Jorgon say's that a GM told that using drones as a Starbase defence deterent = Exploit. And again: 9. Private communication between the Game Masters, Eve Team members, moderators and administrators of the forum and the forum users is not to be made public on these forums or by any other venue. You are not permitted to publicize any private correspondence (including petitions) received from any of the aforementioned. And what he posted is still aginst the rules, since he post's what a gm has told him. Now about those 20m, send them to a the3654 corp... geeze you are a little slow arent you it basically means that you can not post actual logs it does not mean you can not discuss generally what was said. See there has been no private correspondence posted as you admit! corÀreÀsponÀdence 1. Communication by the exchange of letters. 2. The letters written or received. Linkage I guess thats a all bout how u c it then. In my point of view this is still against rules and tos.¿ And should be since he is talking about something classfied as an exploit by the GM's... Now about the part were im a fanboy, ok if i call u a retard? Since im slow, and your a member of the Fecktard corp that should be cool, right? Ops did i go down to your level now? Any way, flame on boy... Please just put the spade down your digging yourself a bigger hole and stop trying to rescue yourself from looking like a worthy member of my corp. Also re read this post and take it ALL in
Trina Tron	Posted - 2005.08.07 01:09:00 - [243] Edited by: Trina Tron on 07/08/2005 01:10:29 You know I was thinking about this to spam the pos with drones to avoid being shot at seems like a bit of a exploite to me. Then i rembered that the gal dread has +5 drones per capital lvl meaning it can use over 40+ drones and a dread as we know is specifical meant to attack a pos...... So I suppose if a gal dread uses drones on a pos a skill wich was put in place by the devs then its a know expolite. Honsetly what are you thinking, its like your encourageing the use of massive drone attacks then going omg noes its cheating. ---------------------------------------------------
Darkrydar	Posted - 2005.08.07 01:11:00 - [244] Originally by: Lodhi Originally by: Vlandarr Originally by: Lodhi Originally by: Vlandarr Originally by: Lodhi 9. Private communication between the Game Masters, Eve Team members, moderators and administrators of the forum and the forum users is not to be made public on these forums or by any other venue. You are not permitted to publicize any private correspondence (including petitions) received from any of the aforementioned. I will give you 20mill isk if you can find 1 post with actual conversations between player and GMS. Ok he dint post actuall LOG, but check first post were Hue Jorgon say's that a GM told that using drones as a Starbase defence deterent = Exploit. And again: 9. Private communication between the Game Masters, Eve Team members, moderators and administrators of the forum and the forum users is not to be made public on these forums or by any other venue. You are not permitted to publicize any private correspondence (including petitions) received from any of the aforementioned. And what he posted is still aginst the rules, since he post's what a gm has told him. Now about those 20m, send them to a the3654 corp... geeze you are a little slow arent you it basically means that you can not post actual logs it does not mean you can not discuss generally what was said. See there has been no private correspondence posted as you admit! corÀreÀsponÀdence 1. Communication by the exchange of letters. 2. The letters written or received. Linkage I guess thats a all bout how u c it then. In my point of view this is still against rules and tos.¿ And should be since he is talking about something classfied as an exploit by the GM's... Now about the part were im a fanboy, ok if i call u a retard? Since im slow, and your a member of the Fecktard corp that should be cool, right? Ops did i go down to your level now? Any way, flame on boy... Are you incapable of readin g? Or are you stuck in flame mode? OMG, WE'RE UBER (POS KILLS for the nubs)
Vlandarr	Posted - 2005.08.07 01:13:00 - [245] Originally by: Darkrydar Are you incapable of readin g? Or are you stuck in flame mode? I think she just wants to be in my corp
Lodhi	Posted - 2005.08.07 01:15:00 - [246] Originally by: Vlandarr Edited by: Vlandarr on 07/08/2005 01:02:22 Originally by: Lodhi Originally by: Vlandarr Originally by: Lodhi Originally by: Vlandarr Originally by: Lodhi 9. Private communication between the Game Masters, Eve Team members, moderators and administrators of the forum and the forum users is not to be made public on these forums or by any other venue. You are not permitted to publicize any private correspondence (including petitions) received from any of the aforementioned. I will give you 20mill isk if you can find 1 post with actual conversations between player and GMS. Ok he dint post actuall LOG, but check first post were Hue Jorgon say's that a GM told that using drones as a Starbase defence deterent = Exploit. And again: 9. Private communication between the Game Masters, Eve Team members, moderators and administrators of the forum and the forum users is not to be made public on these forums or by any other venue. You are not permitted to publicize any private correspondence (including petitions) received from any of the aforementioned. And what he posted is still aginst the rules, since he post's what a gm has told him. Now about those 20m, send them to a the3654 corp... geeze you are a little slow arent you it basically means that you can not post actual logs it does not mean you can not discuss generally what was said. See there has been no private correspondence posted as you admit! corÀreÀsponÀdence 1. Communication by the exchange of letters. 2. The letters written or received. Linkage I guess thats a all bout how u c it then. In my point of view this is still against rules and tos.¿ And should be since he is talking about something classfied as an exploit by the GM's... Now about the part were im a fanboy, ok if i call u a retard? Since im slow, and your a member of the Fecktard corp that should be cool, right? Ops did i go down to your level now? Any way, flame on boy... Please just put the spade down your digging yourself a bigger hole and stop trying to rescue yourself from looking like a worthy member of my corp. Also re read this post and take it ALL in I know what he posted, but then again this post still tells how to exploit and that a gm told him that this were an exploit. And i dont give a **** if so god(that dont exist) told him to post this. It still tells what a gm said and still tells how to exploit a game mechanic. And yes i know that forum mods wont lock or del this thread, why whould they... They are still fanbois( sorry used your word again)of a few corps. Now have fun here i rest my case..
Lodhi	Posted - 2005.08.07 01:40:00 - [247] Originally by: Vlandarr Originally by: Lodhi Originally by: Vlandarr Originally by: Lodhi 9. Private communication between the Game Masters, Eve Team members, moderators and administrators of the forum and the forum users is not to be made public on these forums or by any other venue. You are not permitted to publicize any private correspondence (including petitions) received from any of the aforementioned. I will give you 20mill isk if you can find 1 post with actual conversations between player and GMS. Ok he dint post actuall LOG, but check first post were Hue Jorgon say's that a GM told that using drones as a Starbase defence deterent = Exploit. And again: 9. Private communication between the Game Masters, Eve Team members, moderators and administrators of the forum and the forum users is not to be made public on these forums or by any other venue. You are not permitted to publicize any private correspondence (including petitions) received from any of the aforementioned. And what he posted is still aginst the rules, since he post's what a gm has told him. Now about those 20m, send them to a the3654 corp... geeze you are a little slow arent you it basically means that you can not post actual logs it does not mean you can not discuss generally what was said. See there has been no private correspondence posted as you admit! corÀreÀsponÀdence 1. Communication by the exchange of letters. 2. The letters written or received. Linkage Damit one of the mods dint like the replys we made i guess Must have been that i used your word fanboi on them, oh well.. I still stand for what i said...

Lomithrandra	Posted - 2005.08.07 02:03:00 - [248] Locked for clean up. _____________________________ Lomithrandra Lead Forum Moderator [ Forum Rules ]


Lomithrandra	Posted - 2005.08.07 02:20:00 - [249] CCP Game Masters make decisions based upon facts, what they can see and what they expect to happen. In this case; using drones (which serve no purpose when attacking a POS) cause an undesired effect in the POS artificial intelligence. The result of this action does not mean you are forbidden to use drones on the whole; it does however mean CCP are aware of a problem regarding drones and POS defence. Until CCP make an offical announcement about this; then the actions of the game master are what you should adhere to; which was do not use drones when attacking a POS to cause POS defences to malfunction. _____________________________ Lomithrandra Lead Forum Moderator [ Forum Rules ]

Lodhi	Posted - 2005.08.07 02:46:00 - [250] Originally by: Malken amazing isnt it? Quoted for thruth
Jaabaa Prime	Posted - 2005.08.07 03:07:00 - [251] Originally by: Lomithrandra Until CCP make an offical announcement about this; then the actions of the game master are what you should adhere to; which was do not use drones when attacking a POS to cause POS defences to malfunction. From what I've read here the POS defences were functioning and 3 or 4 BSs were lost to them. What I can't understand is the following: Since when has using drones as target decoys against EVE AI systems been an exploit ? Why did the GM watch for 2 hours before taking action ? Why wasn't the attacking force told to stop using drones before taking action ? Why did the GM replenish the shields of the POS, effectively resetting the attackers efforts, but not replace the ships lost by the attackers ? (I assume that they weren't replaced) Why do the GMs and CCP send an ISD vol to post this, instead of taking a stance themselves on this issue ? -- Intergalactic Teeth Pullers "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
Draximus Prime	Posted - 2005.08.07 03:12:00 - [252] I dont think the developers will be awake, nevermind working so late at night, and at the weekend. People just need to keep a level head, its not the end of the world Just wait for an official response from CCP, they will need time to look through logs, records etc to see what has caused it, what they can do to fix it, and then let us know about it. ______________________ To dare in fields is valor; but how few dare to be throughly valiant to be true?
Lodhi	Posted - 2005.08.07 03:50:00 - [253] Edited by: Lodhi on 07/08/2005 03:51:55 Originally by: Lomithrandra CCP Game Masters make decisions based upon facts, what they can see and what they expect to happen. In this case; using drones (which serve no purpose when attacking a POS) cause an undesired effect in the POS artificial intelligence. The result of this action does not mean you are forbidden to use drones on the whole; it does however mean CCP are aware of a problem regarding drones and POS defence. Until CCP make an offical announcement about this; then the actions of the game master are what you should adhere to; which was do not use drones when attacking a POS to cause POS defences to malfunction. Im beeing polite now so. Can this thread be locked or moved to a secure forum were the devs can read, get info from gm's and take actions. It's still a fact that an exploit is beeing discussed in this thread and there for it should not be allowed on a open forum like this.
Altai Saker	Posted - 2005.08.07 04:39:00 - [254] lol, so this is what happened. You used light drones(which do 0 damage to a pos because of the range, thats right no damage!) because you figured out the pos would waste your cheapass drones instead of your bs.... A GM came in and said hey thats not right, your exploiting, boom shields go up since you haxored to not get shot, and no drones, have fun with the pos now. Oversights happen in game developement, a gm made a correct call, and you have to come to the forums to whine about it. The 9 showing off their a class act YET AGAIN.
Brian Detaah	Posted - 2005.08.07 05:28:00 - [255] The drone were not why we could take the pos so shhhhs nublet. ------------------------------------------------ `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.'
PaulAtreides	Posted - 2005.08.07 05:37:00 - [256] I can't agree more with Lomithrandra, Draximus and Altai. Drone's, be it light/medium/heavy are OF NO USE against a POS. The only reason you deployed them are because you figured out that you can use them as cannon fodder for the POS. Clearly utilizing a game mechanic in a way that it was not designed to be used, and hence abusing the system. Grats for keeping this thread open, so as to inform everyone what is going on. <3 CCP. Work for me!
Darkrydar	Posted - 2005.08.07 05:41:00 - [257] Originally by: Altai Saker lol, so this is what happened. You used light drones(which do 0 damage to a pos because of the range, thats right no damage!) because you figured out the pos would waste your cheapass drones instead of your bs.... A GM came in and said hey thats not right, your exploiting, boom shields go up since you haxored to not get shot, and no drones, have fun with the pos now. Oversights happen in game developement, a gm made a correct call, and you have to come to the forums to whine about it. The 9 showing off their a class act YET AGAIN. random f-e nub showing his inability to ready YET AGAIN OMG, WE'RE UBER (POS KILLS for the nubs)
Blind Fear	Posted - 2005.08.07 05:56:00 - [258] Originally by: Altai Saker lol, so this is what happened. You used light drones(which do 0 damage to a pos because of the range, thats right no damage!) because you figured out the pos would waste your cheapass drones instead of your bs.... A GM came in and said hey thats not right, your exploiting, boom shields go up since you haxored to not get shot, and no drones, have fun with the pos now. Oversights happen in game developement, a gm made a correct call, and you have to come to the forums to whine about it. The 9 showing off their a class act YET AGAIN. Lets extend this to other quasi-exploits. Let's say that tomorrow, 400mm plates on interceptors are claimed to be exploits by the always brilliant GM staff. The reaction to this is to reimburse everyone who has lost a ship to you in full, while not reimbursing any of your losses. There is absolutely no difference between that situation and this situation, except one happens to you and one doesnt.
Altai Saker	Posted - 2005.08.07 05:59:00 - [259] Originally by: Blind Fear Originally by: Altai Saker lol, so this is what happened. You used light drones(which do 0 damage to a pos because of the range, thats right no damage!) because you figured out the pos would waste your cheapass drones instead of your bs.... A GM came in and said hey thats not right, your exploiting, boom shields go up since you haxored to not get shot, and no drones, have fun with the pos now. Oversights happen in game developement, a gm made a correct call, and you have to come to the forums to whine about it. The 9 showing off their a class act YET AGAIN. Lets extend this to other quasi-exploits. Let's say that tomorrow, 400mm plates on interceptors are claimed to be exploits by the always brilliant GM staff. The reaction to this is to reimburse everyone who has lost a ship to you in full, while not reimbursing any of your losses. There is absolutely no difference between that situation and this situation, except one happens to you and one doesnt. I think the difference here is that what I did was not an exploit?
Blind Fear	Posted - 2005.08.07 06:02:00 - [260] Originally by: Altai Saker I think the difference here is that what I did was not an exploit? Says you now. You were merely using a module unintended for that ship to gain an advantage, which is a commonly used tactic. They were using a module unintended for that target to gain an advantage, which was also a commonly used tactic. There is nowhere near enough difference between the two that you can feel safe saying that drones are an exploit but plates arent.
Zenst	Posted - 2005.08.07 06:18:00 - [261] Originally by: Lomithrandra CCP Game Masters make decisions based upon facts, what they can see and what they expect to happen. In this case; using drones (which serve no purpose when attacking a POS) cause an undesired effect in the POS artificial intelligence. The result of this action does not mean you are forbidden to use drones on the whole; it does however mean CCP are aware of a problem regarding drones and POS defence. Until CCP make an offical announcement about this; then the actions of the game master are what you should adhere to; which was do not use drones when attacking a POS to cause POS defences to malfunction. Whilst your input on this matter is by no means the official CCP answear its is appreacieated as input non the less. Given a GM has taken the stance to penalise players who's drones AI are unable to effect upon the target in question and given the end results I'd say had no real effect upon the target overall given it was dealt with WITHOUT DRONES just as effectivly - possibly more so. One can but not wonder HOW such a GM can take such harsh actions which given the way they were executed can but only appear to be short-sighted or possibly biased due to the way they were executed; though that would not be the case as any favoritisim would leave a large audit trail and nobody puts RL>than a game and GM's are paid for there work, so we can saftly burry that consipiracy. I do however wonder the following, as I'm sure many do: 1) Why did not the GM dscuss the raised issue with all parties. Would of seemed prodent IMHO and he did have 2 hours from all accounts to do this. 2) Why was the tower's sheild replaced when the drones and ships lost were not. Seems a tadge unbalanced in that action alone. 3) What kinda of timeframe will there be with regard to an official answear and fix to this bug if indeed it is a bug. Whilst the input of the forum moderators is better than nothing and indeed respected they are after all forum moderators and this is an in-game issues that seems to demand some urgent addressing. 4) The POS shoots at drones, as indeed do NPC's. All seems perfectly logical to me, though drones unable to hit the POS/sheilds does seem a little unfair to the drone users. 5) How can this be an issue given that if indeed it was an issue this WHOLE thread would have been locked long long ago under the - do not discuss expliots, ego it is not an expliot and as such would seem like poor judgment by the GM perhaps or induced peer-preasured into his actions perhaps. I'm sure there are many more questions that will get raised and given POS's are more (least owners aqre) of fitting varius sized guns then the usage of drones as a defence against incomming hostiles would indeed seem prodent imho and for this to be an issue purly due to the fact that the POS owners did not avail themselves of any form of tracking boosters or smaller guns would seems to be the real issue and not the usage of drones. Though why drones dont do damage to POS sheilds is perhaps another question that realy needs to be asked now. IF and I say that with a big i dont think so smile this is an issue then the whole POS thing would needs a little rethinking as dynamic rules and postdated dynamic rule changes are a garanteed way to deflavour somebodies porridge.
Brian Detaah	Posted - 2005.08.07 06:27:00 - [262] Hey Zenst dude, hows it hanging? I agree, the big problem is that people seem to regard it as a exploit because they think the drones were what made it possible to take the pos. It was not. Like i said, the drones were incidental to the strategy not the core. In the end they hurt us more than the posowners. ------------------------------------------------ `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.'
Stormfront	Posted - 2005.08.07 06:32:00 - [263] Edited by: Stormfront on 07/08/2005 06:33:46 Quote: lol, so this is what happened. You used light drones(which do 0 damage to a pos because of the range, thats right no damage!) because you figured out the pos would waste your cheapass drones instead of your bs.... A GM came in and said hey thats not right, your exploiting, boom shields go up since you haxored to not get shot, and no drones, have fun with the pos now. Oversights happen in game developement, a gm made a correct call, and you have to come to the forums to whine about it. The 9 showing off their a class act YET AGAIN. ' Hey Altai, how about you leave the flames to another thread? Sure you carry a grudge, but lets not bring into this forum. Our concern is that the GM was in there while station had 50+% shields. We were not told to stop shooting. After station was in reinforced mode it was recharged. Our lost ships were not reimbursed. That is just silly. If they had an issue with the drones, tell us to pull em off and carry on without em. Instead they made an impromptu decision to boost shields, not refund us and tell us we were exploiting.
Altai Saker	Posted - 2005.08.07 07:00:00 - [264] 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. If your gripe is not in the TOPIC POST, please say something different before page 2 kthx. As far as me holding a grudge? Look me up on your killboards I got no reason to be upset with you.
Kirlana Rikogo	Posted - 2005.08.07 07:30:00 - [265] The main gripe i have with the situatuion is the fact that it was a decision made on the spot that this was an exploit, well not on the spot he sat and watched for 2 hours before deciding this. The GM should have contacted involved parties and should have asked for drones to be pulled in. The shields should not have been recharged as should ships not be replaced (none have been replaced as far as i know anyway) We did ask for a senior GM's opinion on this but apparently none were available at that time. To Clarify: This was not known to be an exploit, there are certain things people do in the game that are sly but are considered well within the game mechanics and viable, jetcan mining, bumping off course to name 2 exapmles. Imagine the outrage if one day a GM warped to a belt with jetcan miners and claimed that everyone there was exploiting the game mechanics and should be punished for it. I'm waiting for an official stance about this from CCP, not to say i disagree with the GM, but the seemingly snap decision that was made seems to have riled a lot of people, and not without good reason which i won't discuss here on these forums.
Stormfront	Posted - 2005.08.07 07:48:00 - [266] Quote: As far as me holding a grudge? Look me up on your killboards I got no reason to be upset with you. So no grudges? Gotcha just a troll on 5 threads then.
F'nog	Posted - 2005.08.07 07:54:00 - [267] Kirlana and several others bring up good points. Why wasn't this handled like the Zombie incident. In that case, the GMs told Zombie to stop what they were doing before taking action. The same thing could have, and should have happened here. Or, the GM could have simply teleported the fleet away and told them to stop while the matter was being investigated. Instead, he took no actions to prevent this until well after the fact, wasting a lot of peoples' time and **ing them off in the end. This is an excellent example of how not to handle potential exploits and other problems. Had it been handled in a more responsible manner, there would not have been nearly as much anger from all sides. Instead he acted rashly, or at least appeared to, and caused a great deal of hubub over a matter that could have been easily avoided. I don't think the GM should be fired, but he definitely needs a hand in how he conducts himself. Had anyone in a customer service/help sort of job done something like this in the real world that caused such an uproar from a company's customers, he would probably be fired. It just goes to show how much the computer industry still has to learn about good customer service. Originally by:** Morela "hey! I'm gonna go attack the north! Afk till tuesday!"
DoctorGonzo	Posted - 2005.08.07 07:58:00 - [268] Edited by: DoctorGonzo on 07/08/2005 07:59:02 My opinion and take on all of this, is that the GM's were completely out of order. They have totally abused their power. You can't simply replace a POS's shields because you suddenly don't agree with what's happening. It looks completely biased against the [5] to all intents and purposes. What should have happened is one of the following. 1) The GM's let that current station go down, then approaches the [5] and told them not to do it again as it's now classified as an exploit. Then they make a general announcement to the community. Or 2) Change it mid stream, as they did, but replace all of the [5]'s lost ships to the POS. Also with the replaced ships an apology for what they did, then a general announcement. I can understand the [5]'s frustration as the GM's have made and absolute cluster f*ck of this situation. They (the GM's) have a lot of back tracking and apologies to make, imo. It's almost like England scoring a winning goal in a world cup qualifier, for FIFA to stop play, come on the pitch, and annouce they've changed the offside rule during the game and the last goal no longer stands. This example would also be a complete abuse of power and would never happen, which is why it shouldn't have in this case. Black Nova Corporation COO
Zyrla Bladestorm	Posted - 2005.08.07 08:04:00 - [269] People seem to be assuming it was one GM acting alone that made the "snap decision" over a two hour period, Is it not equally possible that the delay was the GM having no clue what to do about it and getting in contact with a "higher power" as it where (Responsible Devs) and/or some sort of conference going on about a potentially previously totally unknown circumstance ?. . ----- Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
Jorev	Posted - 2005.08.07 08:18:00 - [270] Originally by: Zyrla Bladestorm People seem to be assuming it was one GM acting alone that made the "snap decision" over a two hour period, Is it not equally possible that the delay was the GM having no clue what to do about it and getting in contact with a "higher power" as it where (Responsible Devs) and/or some sort of conference going on about a potentially previously totally unknown circumstance ?. In that case the entire procedure (or lack thereof tbfh) are at fault not the gm... This was not "OMG Zombies are killing carebears in Yulai" crisis. It was a POS deep into 0.0 There was no need for rash and extreme measures taken without any consideration whatsoever. There is a sense of judicial activism that was totally out of place.
GM Rendo	Posted - 2005.08.07 08:34:00 - [271] I think it's safe to say that we've seen both sides make their arguments in this thread. The reason why we haven't made an official response is simply because no senior GM has been on duty since this happened. We'll of course make an announcement regarding this case as soon as that happens.
JaegerX	Posted - 2005.08.07 08:42:00 - [272] Originally by: DoctorGonzo Edited by: DoctorGonzo on 07/08/2005 07:59:02 It's almost like England scoring a winning goal in a world cup qualifier, for FIFA to stop play, come on the pitch, and annouce they've changed the offside rule during the game and the last goal no longer stands. This example would also be a complete abuse of power and would never happen, which is why it shouldn't have in this case. Well it would be understandable that FIFA would void the victory, if the english team had strewn something on the pitch which would make the oponent team unable to play, while they could. You analogy makes no sense. It seems that those who have a stake in this are selectively ignoring some basic facts. This was clearly a fault in the game mechanics, and using it to ones advantage is a blatant exploit.
DoctorGonzo	Posted - 2005.08.07 09:00:00 - [273] Originally by: JaegerX Originally by: DoctorGonzo Edited by: DoctorGonzo on 07/08/2005 07:59:02 It's almost like England scoring a winning goal in a world cup qualifier, for FIFA to stop play, come on the pitch, and annouce they've changed the offside rule during the game and the last goal no longer stands. This example would also be a complete abuse of power and would never happen, which is why it shouldn't have in this case. Well it would be understandable that FIFA would void the victory, if the english team had strewn something on the pitch which would make the oponent team unable to play, while they could. You analogy makes no sense. It seems that those who have a stake in this are selectively ignoring some basic facts. This was clearly a fault in the game mechanics, and using it to ones advantage is a blatant exploit. Using the tools that CCP have given to the best advantage is not an exploit, no one screamed exploit when there was duel MWD Ravens all over the galaxy. Also my analogy makes perfect sense; the [5] were using the tools and rules that they had at their disposal, for some one in a higher power to change them in the middle of what they were doing. I don't have a stake or vested interest in what the [5] are doing; it is of no concern of mine. What does concern me is the GM's acting in the way they have. Anyway my original post said how I think the GM's should have handled the situation. Black Nova Corporation COO
Hikaru Okuda	Posted - 2005.08.07 09:01:00 - [274] Edited by: Hikaru Okuda on 07/08/2005 09:04:31 The final decision about all this is not known as far as I can tell, but I think using drones as decoys/fodder should be a valid tactic. I also think that the AI should be a little smarter and not fall for it very long. Using decoys is a valid military tactic used both in fiction, other games, and real life even. Just look up "drones confuse targeting" on google. And yes drones should be able to do damage to the POS. I think it would also be fair for the POS to have a "fighter bay" of sorts and launch drones at attackers. Having someone be able to manually direct targeting of the POS defenses really should be possible--why force it to be AI controlled only? Yes this is a game and fun should be the number 1 factor in determining what should be done. I do believe games like this benefit greatly if there is some plausibility to things. The suspension of disbelief and emersion affects of a game like this makes it so much more fun. It's part of why I really like science fiction based games more than fantasy based games. I do like fantasy--not knocking it, but there is so much more fantasy in MMOG's. It is refreshing to have a game such as Eve. And while it may not be "hard science fiction" and some may say it's "science fantasy", at least it leans towards the science somewhat. So for plausibility reasons... There should not be some magical force preventing the use of drones when attacking a POS. And I'm sure the devs would have to feel this way too. There should be a counter to the "drone diversion" tactic and that should be better AI or some anti-drone defense. Defender missiles to attack drones or something should exist.
Mark A	Posted - 2005.08.07 09:07:00 - [275] Edited by: Mark A on 07/08/2005 09:13:32 Originally by: GM Rendo I think it's safe to say that we've seen both sides make their arguments in this thread. The reason why we haven't made an official response is simply because no senior GM has been on duty since this happened. We'll of course make an announcement regarding this case as soon as that happens. Thanks for looking into this. To summarise Five's position: 1. We did not consider using drones as decoy targets to be an "obvious exploit" (to quote the GM convo). This has been an oft used tactic in other circumstances, e.g. against FoFs, NPCs or gate guns. We were not aware that the L guns could not hit the drones, having not gone up against L guns previously. Also the drones were being shot down a lot, presumably by the med and small batteries. Also L guns missing small targets isn't exactly new. Finally we lost several BS, so the POS was far from rendered impotent. 2. Regardless of whether people agree that it was an exploit, it is our understanding that only CCP, as the game's designers, can declare something unintentional and hence an exploit of the game mechanics. 3. Regardless of 1 & 2 above, it is at best unusual for an exploit to be declared on-the-fly in this manner. Further to this, it is (to my knowledge) unprecedented for a new exploit to be applied retroactively, ie healing the station to 100% after it had been put in reinforced mode. If this had been handled properly and "by the book" there would be no complaints. It's the way it was done, more than the issue itself, that is the problem here. Thank you. ____________________________________ Killmail wh÷re.
GM Rendo	Posted - 2005.08.07 09:46:00 - [276] Originally by: Mark A Edited by: Mark A on 07/08/2005 09:13:32 Originally by: GM Rendo I think it's safe to say that we've seen both sides make their arguments in this thread. The reason why we haven't made an official response is simply because no senior GM has been on duty since this happened. We'll of course make an announcement regarding this case as soon as that happens. Thanks for looking into this. To summarise Five's position: 1. We did not consider using drones as decoy targets to be an "obvious exploit" (to quote the GM convo). This has been an oft used tactic in other circumstances, e.g. against FoFs, NPCs or gate guns. We were not aware that the L guns could not hit the drones, having not gone up against L guns previously. Also the drones were being shot down a lot, presumably by the med and small batteries. Also L guns missing small targets isn't exactly new. Finally we lost several BS, so the POS was far from rendered impotent. 2. Regardless of whether people agree that it was an exploit, it is our understanding that only CCP, as the game's designers, can declare something unintentional and hence an exploit of the game mechanics. 3. Regardless of 1 & 2 above, it is at best unusual for an exploit to be declared on-the-fly in this manner. Further to this, it is (to my knowledge) unprecedented for a new exploit to be applied retroactively, ie healing the station to 100% after it had been put in reinforced mode. If this had been handled properly and "by the book" there would be no complaints. It's the way it was done, more than the issue itself, that is the problem here. Thank you. We understand your concerns. Regarding your second point then we do have the authority to make these decisions although we usually like to get a word from the devs before we make a decision. We rarely make a decision regarding an exploit without their input. In the extreme cases though such as if another Yulai-Zombie incident would occur and no one could be reached down at CCP HQ then we would of course take action immediately. Regarding the losses "The Five" took then we will of course consider your reimbursement requests. I can't make any promises regarding that though. You can expect an announcement soon.
Steven Dynahir	Posted - 2005.08.07 10:17:00 - [277] Originally by: Lomithrandra CCP Game Masters make decisions based upon facts, what they can see and what they expect to happen. In this case; using drones (which serve no purpose when attacking a POS) cause an undesired effect in the POS artificial intelligence. The result of this action does not mean you are forbidden to use drones on the whole; it does however mean CCP are aware of a problem regarding drones and POS defence. Until CCP make an offical announcement about this; then the actions of the game master are what you should adhere to; which was do not use drones when attacking a POS to cause POS defences to malfunction. I'll say few words on this. First of all, I am a long time Drone user myself and have few million points in Drone skills, plus few million in other skills providing Drone bonuses. I pretty much know how the drones work in EVE, what are their strengts and weaknesses. I know how to use them in ways that suit my purposes and the situation where I am. A Drone is much more than it's DPS, to think it's just a DPS increase shows lack of imagination. These other specialities include the role of a decoy, in which the Drones have been used since day one. In this scenario, Drones DPS was dropped to zero. But their role as an AI decoy stayed intact. Their purpose in this scenario was propably just that, to be a decoy so that AI would not attack the real ships. Since the players can override the AI, and choose the targets the defence guns will use, I see no exploit in here. Only thing this shows that the players defending the POS were not using common sense and help their POS to overcome the problems of AI and leaving your POS alone. Now the defenders are saying that they could not enter the system because of 20 ships camping a stargate leading to that system. Last time I checked the camping of stargates was a valid tactic, and has been used for ages. So the defenders got outsmarted and outgunned in there. Yet some defenders did manage to get into the system, and now raised another complain. It took 3 minutes to warp into the camping fleet. Which happens to be a small amount of time in the grand scale of this scenario. This time, the complain only shows poor tactics on the part of defenders. So the summary is simple. 1. The defender used poor judgement when building POS defences (firepower over hitting) 2. The attacker used tactics to overcome the AI defences 3. The defender could have countered this tactic by controlling the defences manually 4. The attacker used tactics to deny the movement of defenders, so they could not help. 5. The defenders that got thru the denial of movement, acted with poor tactics and warped not to POS but into the attacking fleet. 6. The situation overwhelmed the GM who acted And now we are at this point, arguing should's and should not's on these forums. And have to say, I favor the should not's crowd. SigPl/HQ&Log Coy/MNB(C)/KFOR
Dreez	Posted - 2005.08.07 11:00:00 - [278] According to CCPs own rules, no GM can make the decition of what is an exploit what what is not. Which meens that said GM broke the rules acting on behalf of the XF. I might have ATUK in my tag, but i have OC in my DNA
DJTheBaron	Posted - 2005.08.07 11:14:00 - [279] Edited by: DJTheBaron on 07/08/2005 11:18:58 I see ccp siding with the gms simply because they have to support their customer service/law enforcement but it doesnt make the gm decision right there was a copy of a gm convo which said the low sig on drones meant a longer lock time and that was part of the reason, which everyone knows is incorect, a shuttle is locked just as fast as a bs now if we attack the pos and use drones to help us take it down, just like the conquerable stations, the gm claim of adding lagg does not apply either if its applicable to use on a conq station adding targets for the guns to cycle, well you loose your drones for one thing, and you cannot resupply unless you dock and refit them, which was nto possible to do in jv1, and if you dont want pos guns shooting drones, thats a ccp error, that was not removed from the game, or made public knowledge of an exploit with penalties attatched to those who used it one last thing, enemies used drones on our pos, are you going to heal or replace our losses? if this is a game problem which th eplayers were not made aware of beforehand even tho the gm sat and watched, without warning, then surley we sould have our ammo, drones and losses reimbursed also? it will be intresting to see the reply on the matter, its a loose loose situation for ccp, and no matter what will onyl undermine faith in them, perhaps if you resolved software and hardware problems there wouldnt be incidents like this by the way, we put two xetic heavily armed medium pos into reenforced mode within 3-4hrs, without drones, and the reenforced mode counter was incorect and added a further few hours to its time 5min before we went to attack it again today, another case of hardware/software problems for ccp? __________________________________________________ Scum, your all scum.
Galk	Posted - 2005.08.07 11:14:00 - [280] Originally by: Lomithrandra CCP Game Masters make decisions based upon facts No they don't, if you would like me to forward my first correspondence with the gm's, i can absolutely 100% prove that statement as being completely inaccurate. -------- 23
Miri Tirzan	Posted - 2005.08.07 11:25:00 - [281] I have to admit, since the owner, since the onwer can take over targeting of the POS weapons instead of letting the IA do it. Then this sure seems like a case where the defenders did not want to risk themselves and the POS. Also, since the owners can do manual targeting, then the drones dont matter other than to be something the POS owner gets to collect if they win. So, reading this whole thing, you have to ask "what do they have pictures of the GM doing that go him to do this?" svetlana - "whining gets you stuff. that is why humans got to the top of the food chain and all the other animals got nerfed."
Purask	Posted - 2005.08.07 11:40:00 - [282] this is such a clear case of exploit that im really surprised about such a long discussion. U all know that POSs are very expensive structures and being able to kill them with just so few loses through is drone use is just redicilous. The POS defence is already flawed enough with its targeting do u want to make it even worse with this drone thing? Then better lets get rid off pos defence alltogether cause no matter what "tactic" u use it simply shouldnt be possible to destroy a POS (without Dreadnoughs) to take so few loses, they are simply too expensive and time consuming to get destroyed in such a way.
Brian Detaah	Posted - 2005.08.07 12:08:00 - [283] Maybe you should have POS in 0.0 if you cant defend them. Who said that POS should have the ability to pwn big well-coordinated fleets of bses? The extra umph that the pos give you should enable you to defende the pos with far lower number and make life hard for the enemy fleet. If you dont have the balls or skills to survive in 0.0 you have to pay for protection or get back to empire. ------------------------------------------------ `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.'
Hans Roaming	Posted - 2005.08.07 13:20:00 - [284] Using drones is valid, you telling me i can't use my domi now? Small guns on pos are for anti drone, it's not like POS are not like death stars as it is. It seems that some POS owners want to have 4TW buttons on their UI when it comes to POS. WTS: Male, 37, single, can fly starships, build rockets and dance Salsa. WTB: Female, plays eve, lives near London UK
Ohmite	Posted - 2005.08.07 13:22:00 - [285] Originally by: Purask this is such a clear case of exploit that im really surprised about such a long discussion. U all know that POSs are very expensive structures and being able to kill them with just so few loses through is drone use is just redicilous. . Well hate to burst your bubble, without drones yesterday we took two POS's into reinforced mode with very few losses, a couple of BS only, so expoit or not it is possible to take a POS down with few losses It does require alot of cordination as the POS was hitting for upto 10,000 damage at times so, yes it is very heavily defended but is certainly not indestructable as some people thing they should be. Another point even with the drones attacking station on previous night there seems to be this misconception that the POS was defenceless because of this so called exploit but the guns were still hitting for upto 10,000 damage - hardly defenceless!!!!!!!
Critta	Posted - 2005.08.07 13:24:00 - [286] I wasn't at this siege, but from what I have heard, the situation seems to have been handled rather badly. The way I see it, XF knew their POS was under attack, they were attaching new guns to it during combat, if this was the case then why were you not also manually targetting the guns on it as well? There were obviously pilots in the POS if you were anchoring new guns to it, so why instead of targeting your large guns on battleships did you find the need to petition GM's and get a valid tactic vs AI classed as an exploit? Just wondering really.
The Ratfink	Posted - 2005.08.07 14:19:00 - [287] damn i've been at work all weekend great job indeed guys been in similar controversial situations where gm's have taken action like this before. Must of been hell of frustrating atleast you did the hardest part of doing it all over again
Hue Jorgon	Posted - 2005.08.07 14:33:00 - [288] All said and done, by the actions of the last few days, it can only be said that even questionable discisions will not repress the conviction of dedicated friends.
Hellspawn666	Posted - 2005.08.07 15:31:00 - [289] The thing that really gets me here is how ccp are willing to screw so many people over in the blink of an eyelid, i think its likly that the gm in question has not followed everything corectly. This games support system is pretty much its worst part becuase its simply just not fair.(incidently i was no involved in the station taking so dont just say im whining...) I was always told that shooting a station or a person in high sec space SHOULD always get u killed to not lose the ship is considered an exploit, yet wen i petitioned somone logging off to save his ship i was simply told that it was an accident he didnt mean to exploit.. Now how is this any different to this situation if anything the previous situation is more of an exploit because hes using out of game tactics (logging off) to survive. This situation was using all in game rules there was no haxoring or anything dodgy about it, i often deploy drones wen i warp into a belt this isnt at all to do damage to the enemy it is to confuse the npcs so they shoot my drones first , is this an exploit to? Also ive seen many fleeets be lame and deploy drones just as an enemy jump in even if there sniper setups from +100km this is purly to lag the enemy surely this is an exploit to? What mainly gets me here is that ccp cant change somthing and punish people for the beforehand, this tactic clearly gives pos takers an advantage but in no way is it a god mode win button it just makes it more unlikly for u to be hit. If this is now an exploit we should hear offical words on the matter before we can consider it an exploit. No way should gms go back befor eit was considered an exploit and change it. I would not say remove the xetic pos that would be unfair for xetic but put it back into reinforced mode and take away any additions to tis defence/fuel that have been made sicne hte incident this will give xetic a free chance to defend their POS when it comes out of reinforced mode.(the way it should of been) GM's should follow strict guidelines not change there friggin minds all the time its about time ccp give us a sodding statement on the entire gm issue.
Darkrydar	Posted - 2005.08.07 16:24:00 - [290] Originally by: JaegerX Originally by: DoctorGonzo Edited by: DoctorGonzo on 07/08/2005 07:59:02 It's almost like England scoring a winning goal in a world cup qualifier, for FIFA to stop play, come on the pitch, and annouce they've changed the offside rule during the game and the last goal no longer stands. This example would also be a complete abuse of power and would never happen, which is why it shouldn't have in this case. It seems that those who have a stake in this are selectively ignoring some basic facts. This was clearly a fault in the game mechanics, and using it to ones advantage is a blatant exploit. Seems the same can be said for you. Don't worry, you're next. OMG, WE'RE UBER (POS KILLS for the nubs)
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2005.08.07 16:28:00 - [291] What's done is done. You've subsequently shown it can be done without drones. Still, this thread has raised some interesting issues about POS defences (both as far as game machanics, usability, and silly peoples reliance on them as the only form of defence rather than good old presence in the field). Hopefully one of the Dev's is scratching his beard and pondering all of this. Hi Devs waves LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Kinderschokolade	Posted - 2005.08.07 16:44:00 - [292] Originally by: Critta The way I see it, XF knew their POS was under attack, they were attaching new guns to it during combat, if this was the case then why were you not also manually targetting the guns on it as well? You cannot target POS guns manually. In fact you can only sit there and see that piece of crap not working.
Brian Detaah	Posted - 2005.08.07 16:55:00 - [293] The POS are working fine. They have the defense to fend of a small attack on their own and provide a great advantage in a fleetbattle occuring near a POS. The only problem is the lag, but that hurts the attackers (being shot by NPC who are not affected by lag) alot more than the defenders. You get around 12 to 24 hours to gather a fleet, you choose the terms of the fight, have defence helping you out and have the advantage of knowing the enemies capabilities (limited amount of viable fittings for POS taking). Ofc if you have no real military in the area and no will to defend you assets then we have now show that they can be over-run, even with Large Turrets. So what is the lesson? If you want to stay in 0.0 you still need a military and cant rely on OMGPWN poses for unbreakable safespots. Seems fair to me. ------------------------------------------------ `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.'
Bonaventure Augustus	Posted - 2005.08.07 17:01:00 - [294] Agree with the attackers: It is completely improper to say drone pliots can't do the same things missile pilots or gunnery pilots do. This is not a circumstance in which drones are used as an exploit, this is a cirucumstance when using drones gives you an advantage. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Ithildin	Posted - 2005.08.07 17:01:00 - [295] So. The solution from CCP developers is pretty simple in theory: 1. Remove drones from the POS AI list 2. Make POS AI target anyone and everyone shooting at it (thus also removing standing-sniping) As for the situation discussed here, from the information gathered from all parts what happened was basically thus: * POS was attacked with drones to protect from POS fire. * 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) * POS was setup with a large array of guns, including small batteries, and still had problems hitting drones. * GM was in system for 2 hours doing nothing, saying nothing. What did he do? Doesn't take a genius to figure out he was checking on things like battery targeting, drone lag, and POS fuel comsumption * GM determines that POS handles fuel oddly, as well as the drones causing a lot of lag as well as not doing anything constructive for the actual POS takedown other than protect the ships using them (note how drones are weapons and not shields) So, I simply cannot, from an observers point of view, consider the GMs at fault for anything. It's sad that POS are so utterly powerful that Battleships, not to mention smaller ships, have little place in taking out POSes, even the smaller ones. I am certain, however, that come a patch or two, this will not be an issue. Now. Can a senior GM or a Dev come here and post simply that it is considered an exploit officially so the kind people in the moderation department can safely lock these kinds of CCP-official bashing fests? (we ARE discussing an exploit after all, read forum rule #13) -- http://mc.stylii.com/sigs/Ithildin/Ye-Shadows.png Prototype sig
mahhy	Posted - 2005.08.07 17:01:00 - [296] 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 - [297] 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.
Elve Sorrow	Posted - 2005.08.07 17:10:00 - [298] Ithildin: It was not the drones and the thereby caused lag that stopped the POS owners from warping in. We repeated the same thing except without the drones today, and as such no lag, and we met no resistance atall. The POS owners completely relied on their POS guns to take us out, and failed. And tbfh, stopping us from taking it would've been easy if they had half a clue along with some balls. Doesn't take a genius to figure out how either. Besides that, i think you will find were not whining about drones being considered an exploit. Were whining that the shield got recharged without consulting us, and our own ships were not reimbursed. Also, i've my own little theory at hand here. Yes, i firmly believe the GMs are biased. But, they aren't biased against or in favour of a certain faction. They're biased towards whoever owns the POS. They realised that at launch, POSs were bugged as hell and as such decided on a 'when in doubt, decide in the POSs favour' policy. And that makes some sense, if you realise that in 90% of the cases, whoever owned the POS would lose more, both in ISK and in time spent, by losing that POS. Pure speculation ofcourse, but most replies to petitions, and also replies in this thread, confirm it.
Stormfront	Posted - 2005.08.07 17:18:00 - [299] Quote: * GM was in system for 2 hours doing nothing, saying nothing. What did he do? Doesn't take a genius to figure out he was checking on things like battery targeting, drone lag, and POS fuel comsumption * GM determines that POS handles fuel oddly, as well as the drones causing a lot of lag as well as not doing anything constructive for the actual POS takedown other than protect the ships using them GM takes 2 hrs to determine while letting us carry on wasting ammo, losing ships and MOST IMPORTANTLY wasting our RL time in doing something that is IN NO WAY fun. Think even a low IQ person would realise that if there is a question with regards to such things. You call off the force and not use us as TESTERS for your theory. Then to top it off, after we are dont taking it. GM decides to recharge shields because he has happened upon some NEW EXPLOIT. However, he does not in any way reimburse us for lost time/ships. You as an observer appear to be extremely biased Ithildin. Quote: (note how drones are weapons and not shields) since when? Using small drones to avoid large ships aggroing you is an exploit?
Kinderschokolade	Posted - 2005.08.07 17:56:00 - [300] Originally by: mahhy Does setting standings on a specific pilot work as "manually targetting" a POS or not? It does not.
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]
StiZum Hilidii	Posted - 2005.08.08 12:28:00 - [331] so rather than fixing the ai just saying that its an exploit removes the work for ccp sweet deal for you guys btw the shields should be hit by the drones. shiled is there drones should dmg it. and you reply was a real let down STAN FACTA NON VERBA BRING BACK MMO CASINO
Hue Jorgon	Posted - 2005.08.08 12:36:00 - [332] 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. Thanks for your candid reply. However. Should I be in a fleet attacking a POS, and in the system additional emeny forces are present. Am I not within my rights to drop my drones in anticipation of a potential action by the enemy? The fact that drones are attack systems should not be construde as their sole use. Defence is a valued offens. Is it not?
Sir JoJo	Posted - 2005.08.08 12:50:00 - [333] i guees thats its not a exploit to laucnh u drones and have them orbit u if there is a enemy fleet inbound??? seems a bit of a hasty conclusion here. ------------- Be a warrior in game Not on forums -------------
Steven Dynahir	Posted - 2005.08.08 12:54:00 - [334] Quote: 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. One though of similiar situation.. 1. Using light drones to confuse NPC battleship targeting is an exploit of game mechanics, pure and simple. The light drones can not damage the NPC battleship, since they don't have the damage capability for it and the NPC battleship guns can hardly hit the light drones either. All that happens is that the NPC battleship guns are effectively incapacitated as they cycle targets from one drone to the next, leaving the attacking ships free to attack the NPC battleship. SigPl/HQ&Log Coy/MNB(C)/KFOR
Miri Tirzan	Posted - 2005.08.08 13:02:00 - [335] So now it is an exploit to use a legal weapon that cannot hurt the target. So using a Large Turret to try an shoot a orbiting frigate is by this dumb definition an exploit. After all, your using a weapon that cannot hurt the target in an non-GM approved manner. So using drones to soak off attackers is an exploit. When will this be posted in the Dev Blog or be put on its own thread with a sticky? svetlana - "whining gets you stuff. that is why humans got to the top of the food chain and all the other animals got nerfed."
Loka	Posted - 2005.08.08 13:06:00 - [336] Edited by: Loka on 08/08/2005 13:07:27 From what i have understood the locking time of the Turretbays were bigger, than their target cycling time. Therefore if an enemy would dampen every single Turretbattery of the POS, the effect would be the same. Because the locking time of the POS on BS would to bigger than their target cycling time. -> Damping Turretbays = Exploit too? May i get an aswer here pls. _____________________________________ Dead or Alive
Braaage	Posted - 2005.08.08 13:23:00 - [337] Looks like this is a result of the topic ___________________________________________ http://www.eve-tutor.com Picture based tutorial site for EVE-Online *New - Building an Outpost
Avon	Posted - 2005.08.08 13:29:00 - [338] Edited by: Avon on 08/08/2005 13:30:01 ______________________________________________ Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay.
Intensity Green	Posted - 2005.08.08 13:33:00 - [339] LMAO. Darwin awards for CCP...
Discorporation	Posted - 2005.08.08 13:35:00 - [340] Ahh, light drones. [Come to Daddy]
Burzon	Posted - 2005.08.08 13:38:00 - [341] This is a GM decision, so i do not see the need for further discussion. As the GM¦s resemble Executive and Legeslative force in this game all you can fo is to accept it. I am sure that CCP will come up with a solution to the problem. Til then just accept and quit trying to talk the GM¦s into situational traps that do not directly connect to the incident ... Just my 2 ISK Burzon CEO PAX Interstellar Services
Miri Tirzan	Posted - 2005.08.08 13:42:00 - [342] Ok, which is it. The GM in the thread says all drones are an exploit and the news article says light drones are an exploit. svetlana - "whining gets you stuff. that is why humans got to the top of the food chain and all the other animals got nerfed."
Albus	Posted - 2005.08.08 13:48:00 - [343] Edited by: Albus on 08/08/2005 13:49:55 Can we please get a clarification - is it an exploit to use swarms of medium or heavy drones for the purposes of distracting POS guns? I personally lost half of my medium drones assaulting the POS, so valkyries at least can be hit.
Altai Saker	Posted - 2005.08.08 14:07:00 - [344] Originally by: Loka Edited by: Loka on 08/08/2005 13:07:27 From what i have understood the locking time of the Turretbays were bigger, than their target cycling time. Therefore if an enemy would dampen every single Turretbattery of the POS, the effect would be the same. Because the locking time of the POS on BS would to bigger than their target cycling time. -> Damping Turretbays = Exploit too? May i get an aswer here pls. Cant lock anything inside pos...
Cawt Yrmanlookin	Posted - 2005.08.08 14:25:00 - [345] Originally by: Burzon This is a GM decision, so i do not see the need for further discussion. As the GM¦s resemble Executive and Legeslative force in this game all you can fo is to accept it. Burzon They are gonna do what they are gonna do no matter what we say. Just like the time T0mb was in FA space and I told him he needs a pass cause I didnt know who he was and he warped me to a moon with sentries and ripped my shield/armor/structure to exactly half then warped me to the sun. Everytime we do something like this it makes them look bad because we look smarter then them for finding it. A warrior's faith in her commander is her best armour and her strongest weapon.
Loka	Posted - 2005.08.08 14:29:00 - [346] Edited by: Loka on 08/08/2005 14:31:29 what me p1$$ off most is the answer i get on 90% of my petions ... "Sorry we have no Logs". I doubt this every time, because i know from myself that in my code i have to log any thing what iam doing and iam lazy. From my expirience and the wonderfull piece of code the developers have tiped down (hat down, iam impressed), i believe, they have enough Logs, but are too lazy or even are told to say so. sorry, but this thing p1$$ed me even that often, that i dont even bother writing a petition nowadays. Developer \o/, but Supporter /o\ ... _____________________________________ Dead or Alive
Lord Zap	Posted - 2005.08.08 14:46:00 - [347] Playing to win.
Stormfront	Posted - 2005.08.08 14:52:00 - [348] Oh well now we know what to use :) 50 Dominix with medium drones... tons of them.
Quanteeri	Posted - 2005.08.08 15:01:00 - [349] Is it just me, or have some of the development decisions recently about this game become progressively flaky?
MAXsu1c1de	Posted - 2005.08.08 16:08:00 - [350] so why not give 5 the bs's back also?
Yes please	Posted - 2005.08.08 16:14:00 - [351] If you were to take a quick look at the news, you would notice that it has been stated the using light drones IS an exploit and DOES shut down the POS guns for whatever reason. Please, do get over it [5], for crying out loud.
Roshan longshot	Posted - 2005.08.08 16:16:00 - [352] So let me get this right...useing drones to attack a pos is a exploit? But can I use them to attack another players ship? Really need some help on this...makes nosense what so ever. Drones out to give the pos more targets or for self defence from the POS owners warping in? If useing drones is a no-no then Gallente need twice the number of guns we currently are allowed to use. I cant compete with a apoc outfitted proper, Even my best shots dont come close to a apoc. I rely on speed armor and getting real close to shoot, and have my drones attack at the same time. This thread is saying Drones are exploits now Free-form Professions, ensure no limetations on professions. Be a trader, fighter, industialist, researcher, hunter [i]pirate[/i] or mixture of them all. [i]As read from the original box.
Yes please	Posted - 2005.08.08 16:19:00 - [353] Originally by: Roshan longshot So let me get this right...useing drones to attack a pos is a exploit? But can I use them to attack another players ship? Really need some help on this...makes nosense what so ever. NO YOU IDIOT, read the news article. The light drones caused the guns not to work as they should, and, therefore, are classed as an EXPLOIT. Let me try and make it simple for you. If I came along and launched a bunch of light drones and your ship, and, suddendly, you were unable to shoot me back, how would you feel about that?
SengH	Posted - 2005.08.08 16:26:00 - [354] errm thats how FOF's were for a LONG time.... someone launches drones at you and you have FOF's... they go for the drones instead... effectively you wouldnt be able to shoot them...
Brian Detaah	Posted - 2005.08.08 16:52:00 - [355] Guys, Every argument have been made, a decision have been rendered, life goes on and we killed the POS in question anyway. This thread is ol yeller. Needs to be put down. ------------------------------------------------ `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.'
Malken	Posted - 2005.08.08 17:07:00 - [356] 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. if it were so easily classified as a exploit and it was posted here then why wasnt this thread instalocked and warnings given out for discussing a exploit. and if it was so easily classified as a exploit then this thread should have been totally redundant from second 2. i saw that it was a textbook exploit and i assume everyone but the five and bob saw it that way since they were the ones using it. you will have problems in the future to justify locking and handing out warnings for discussing exploits though since you didnt play it by the forum rules on this one. but as usual different people, different strokes right? lets see what happens when a member of PA,FA,F-E,RED,IMP,G posts about a exploit next time.
Fire Hawk	Posted - 2005.08.08 17:13:00 - [357] 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. There is 2 ways to handle it : 1 - Say you are sorry, it's a game design mistake and u need to heal the POS to correct it, reimburse the ships and again appologize for 3 hours of gametime wasted. 2 - Say it's players fault who exploited a bug. You guys decided to launch drones while in combat on something (dont care if it's useless, i spent isk to buy them, i find it cool on my fraps so i launch them). You choosed the second way, you decided to judge and point Five pilots as cheaters cause of YOUR mistake on the game dev. Sorry CCP, i love this game, i love the work done, even with it cons, but in that case, u failed to my opinion, u failed. I'm CEO IRL and i can tell u guys, u need some communication skills. U can ban me or watherver for this post, but u cant decide how ur customers think.
Nostradamu5	Posted - 2005.08.08 17:30:00 - [358] Great and I've spent the last 16 months reprocessing light drones, now they have a use Faulty testing kept me from delivering the "Logic Editor" earlier. I was using my own post and it kept blanking everything out.
Zigadenus	Posted - 2005.08.08 17:45:00 - [359] Originally by: Braaage Looks like this is a result of the topic So heavy/med drones are not part of the "exploit" everyone is riled up about? So when the poor fool that hasn't bothered to read all this that sets his heavy drones on a POS gets bent over a barrel for doing it, we'll all get the notice not to use those? You gotta be kidding me. CCP/GMs/whoever, you guys need to get your pupe together. I know it takes effort but it's part of the job we pay you to do. This type oif thing wouldn't bother me so much except that when you don't lay down the law consistently, your customers lose hours or days worth of effort that is typically not the fun component of our gametime, rather just work time to get to the fun. Not cool.
UglyBugly	Posted - 2005.08.08 17:49:00 - [360] I must say I am utterly amazed at the number of people stating "I can do it using the tools CCP has given us, therefore it cannot be an exploit" or sentences to that effect. Those sentences are nearly imploding due the lack of making sense. The ones saying the players should have controlled the towers are also off base in regards to evaluating the issue at hand. POS are meant to be autonomous. The one screaming that their drones are now outlawed and useless, should just read the thing again and see that it is one specific situation in question. Growing up a little beforehand might help. It would be the same arguing that ALL actions were outlawed and useless because one was bannable. CCP gives us tools to play. They at the same time state that the toys might be a little bit broken and/or allow you to do stuff it was not intended for, and that if we use them for said purposes it will be deemed exploits. In the given example it can always be debated at what level the users should be aware that this might fall under such a category. But I think we can state that most knew, that it was making the guns behave in a way that made the guns _significantly_ less efficient. That should raise a flag with most players. Then this has been a tactic in other forms and situations so I can see why it could be an inbred tactic. But not against an autonomous player owned object(again; The fact that a player _could_ control it is irrellevant. He is not meant to do so.). But I agree that the flag should have been raised by CCP before, perhaps, based on the other applications of the tactic. And that brings us to the fine line between clever thinking and exploiting. The GM decided that it was an exploit. Knowingly or not(by the players :-). Could he have contacted both parts before taking action? He should perhaps have done so. Was the action taken excessive? Well, if he decides that results were achieved using exploits, I would say no. Should lost BSs be reimbursed? That all depends on whether they deem the exploit to have been performed knowingly, I guess. And as such not a decision to be made on the spot by the GM. Lastly: The ones jumping on the whole "GMs favors this and that"-wagon should be ashamed of themselves. And especially the ones taking that unfounded accusation without having any proof beyond the OP and rolling it down the hill.
Roshan longshot	Posted - 2005.08.08 17:54:00 - [361] I dont think its just "light drones" that have a problem. Alliance members can not go into the field of another alliance members POS, hell it was set to "Do not fire" and soon as the member came out of warp he was floating in his pod. Funny thing, the screwy POS let the pod in. I beleave the POS controls are seriously POCKED up right now. Free-form Professions, ensure no limetations on professions. Be a trader, fighter, industialist, researcher, hunter [i]pirate[/i] or mixture of them all. [i]As read from the original box.
Galk	Posted - 2005.08.08 18:01:00 - [362] While i stated i don't agree on the snap course of action, as it was unfair to kick people down after the event. Well done for finaly having the balls to a) let the thread run, b) making it 'very' clear on your front news page what your doing as a now course of action until this one is resolved. About bloody time. -------- 23
Brian Detaah	Posted - 2005.08.08 18:21:00 - [363] Edited by: Brian Detaah on 08/08/2005 18:21:42 Originally by: Malken 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. if it were so easily classified as a exploit and it was posted here then why wasnt this thread instalocked and warnings given out for discussing a exploit. and if it was so easily classified as a exploit then this thread should have been totally redundant from second 2. i saw that it was a textbook exploit and i assume everyone but the five and bob saw it that way since they were the ones using it. you will have problems in the future to justify locking and handing out warnings for discussing exploits though since you didnt play it by the forum rules on this one. but as usual different people, different strokes right? lets see what happens when a member of PA,FA,F-E,RED,IMP,G posts about a exploit next time. LOL, now we are getting special treatment from the GMs? They are nice to us? WE are being favored? lollerskates! They have rendered a decision and good for them. But you can hardly say we were being given favors m8. And mods.....Thread ebil, Faster *****cat, kill kill! ------------------------------------------------ `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.'
Bobby Wilson	Posted - 2005.08.08 18:46:00 - [364] Er, ppl keep saying "using drones to attack a POS". but afaik if the tower is online drones can't attack them because the bubble effect puts them outside of their operating range? Last time I was part of killing an online POS none of our drones worked and we were stuck with guns and missiles only. Having drones deployed would only be to distract the guns or have them available for defense if one's enemy counterattacked, yes? BW Originally by: Nervar We allready play EvE wich by definition allready makes us the most patient people on the planet.

Lomithrandra	Posted - 2005.08.08 18:47:00 - [365] An official announcement regarding this can be found here http://myeve.eve-online.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=862&tid=1 Thread Closed. _____________________________ Lomithrandra Lead Forum Moderator [ Forum Rules ]


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: [one 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.

then using standings to "aim" the guns at specific, single targets is also an exploit.

then using standings to "aim" the guns at specific, single targets is also an exploit.

then using standings to "aim" the guns at specific, single targets is also an exploit.