Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
16
|
Posted - 2014.01.02 16:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
It seems this is broken, as it leads to players engaging suspects without ever deciding to.
There have been reports of players getting reimbursed for their losses due to this apparent bug. But no official word. If you are infact reimbursing players, that means you have made the decision as to how to classify this occurrence. Why keep your customer base in the dark.
CCP, please chime in on this. Intended or Not. There are plenty of us who would love to use this, but are currently worried that doing so might be a ban worth 'exploit' as there has been no OFFICIAL response from a Dev regarding this.
I'm not asking for this to be ruled in either specific direction. (that is a whole debate going on in several threads) I just want to know what the ruling is! |
Major Templar
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
46
|
Posted - 2014.01.02 17:54:00 -
[2] - Quote
http://themittani.com/features/mission-runners-proclaim-exploit |
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
16
|
Posted - 2014.01.02 18:04:00 -
[3] - Quote
Sooo, A high profile greifer claims its not an exploit...so i guess its settled then. Without official word from the Developers themselves.
To counter that, i have spoken with 3 pilots within the last two days who very recently fell victim to this, and have been reimbursed.
Unfortunately, right now its just a He-said-She-said argument. |
Major Templar
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
46
|
Posted - 2014.01.02 18:36:00 -
[4] - Quote
I'm just pointing that it's not actually an issue but more of a general discussion item. Simply put, they know it's happening and making more threads about it isn't going to help anything. If/when they choose to make a statement they will, they won't pander to a minority that is screaming exploit and give us our stuff back because we chose to go AFK in a mission. |
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
16
|
Posted - 2014.01.02 18:48:00 -
[5] - Quote
Its not about AFK, it is an instantaneous thing, the instant the MTU is shot, the drones go straight for the shooter. At the keyboard or not, essentially, most of the time the mission runner doesn't see the 'suspect' flag, it just goes straight from neutral to Limited Engagement.
(it happened to my brother while we were running some missions, very much not afk, we got out due to combination of either a fail multiboxer or successful jam, still not sure which one)
And you are implying that the Highsec mission population is a small minority?
I just want to hear it from the horse's mouth, so if it is legit, i can go about not-exploiting it. As i already have a 'warning' for engaging in something, that was previously considered legit by the community for MONTHS, (w/o official word from CCP during that whole time) that CCP decided to finally chime in on...now i have a warning on my record.
I simply want to know b/c if i happen to fall on the wrong side of the fence again, it will be a ban this time.
This post is not here for an argument, it is here to get a CCP response. Yes, or No. Simple as that.
Now, if you want to debate, go into said GD threads and debate, but not here. |
Major Templar
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
46
|
Posted - 2014.01.02 20:12:00 -
[6] - Quote
Once final thing then we can discuss it in general. You say it was instant buti refute that and refer you to the video where you can see that it took a few to engage him with the drones. Also, you say that it isn't an afk thing, then set your drones to passive and you won't have the issue of you are in fact in control of your ship. |
Romeo Deluxe
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2014.01.04 09:29:00 -
[7] - Quote
It's been answered but not directly on these forums.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4048843#post4048843
Advise file a petition if you lose a ship this way. FYI they were on vacation. |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
355
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 16:53:00 -
[8] - Quote
asteroidjas wrote:Sooo, A high profile greifer claims its not an exploit...so i guess its settled then. Without official word from the Developers themselves.
To counter that, i have spoken with 3 pilots within the last two days who very recently fell victim to this, and have been reimbursed.
Unfortunately, right now its just a He-said-She-said argument.
To also make my point more clear that it could very well be internally considered an 'exploit'....here is an example from last year. (?)
How long did it take CCP to fix the Remote Rep of a third party mechanic when they overhauled crimewatch? So far as nearly the entire public was concerned after months of no word from CCP, rep'ing a 3rd party, who was not actively shooting their guns (or other offensive modules) and not drawing a flag was working as intended. Until CCP finally decided to put an end to it. easy, don't set your drones to "aggressive", problem solved, they won't agress the suspect unless you gave them the order to explicitely do so.
|
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
16
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 17:26:00 -
[9] - Quote
Again, this is not the thread meant for argument of this, this is the thread asking for official comment. If you feel the need to troll either side, please do so in the already numerous threads devoted to it.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the other popular 'solution'....don't use drones...yeah, that makes all those drone boat mission ships just a whole pile of awesomesauce. If you are going to troll, do it proper, and in the appropriate threads thank you. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4719
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 23:17:00 -
[10] - Quote
asteroidjas wrote:Again, this is not the thread meant for argument of this, this is the thread asking for official comment. If you feel the need to troll either side, please do so in the already numerous threads devoted to it.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the other popular 'solution'....don't use drones...yeah, that makes all those drone boat mission ships just a whole pile of awesomesauce. If you are going to troll, do it proper, and in the appropriate threads thank you. Don't use a MTU or MD when you have drones set to aggressive. . |
|
Nariya Kentaya
Always Negative
982
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 22:14:00 -
[11] - Quote
seth Hendar wrote:asteroidjas wrote:Sooo, A high profile greifer claims its not an exploit...so i guess its settled then. Without official word from the Developers themselves.
To counter that, i have spoken with 3 pilots within the last two days who very recently fell victim to this, and have been reimbursed.
Unfortunately, right now its just a He-said-She-said argument.
To also make my point more clear that it could very well be internally considered an 'exploit'....here is an example from last year. (?)
How long did it take CCP to fix the Remote Rep of a third party mechanic when they overhauled crimewatch? So far as nearly the entire public was concerned after months of no word from CCP, rep'ing a 3rd party, who was not actively shooting their guns (or other offensive modules) and not drawing a flag was working as intended. Until CCP finally decided to put an end to it. easy, don't set your drones to "aggressive", problem solved, they won't agress the suspect unless you gave them the order to explicitely do so. Aggressive or not, why should you be allowed to accidentally flag yourself for aggressionj even when your cimewatch is set green?
This makes drones a weapon system with a crimewatch exception, unlike all other weapons, and that should be fixed, since it IS a weapon system, and it SHOULD prevent aggression against another player if you are set to green. |
Dante Chusuk
eHarmony Inc.
18
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 12:27:00 -
[12] - Quote
This reminds me of when salvaging first came out and people cried that it was an "exploit" because people weren't being flagged for "stealing" when salvaging wrecks.
Two friends did an article for Eve Tribune within the first month discussing probing down and salvaging from active missions.
The conclusion ... Pretty much the same as Marlona's TMC article on this "issue" ... Works as intended, move along please. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
590
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 16:58:00 -
[13] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:asteroidjas wrote:Again, this is not the thread meant for argument of this, this is the thread asking for official comment. If you feel the need to troll either side, please do so in the already numerous threads devoted to it.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the other popular 'solution'....don't use drones...yeah, that makes all those drone boat mission ships just a whole pile of awesomesauce. If you are going to troll, do it proper, and in the appropriate threads thank you. Don't use a MTU or MD when you have drones set to aggressive.
That's not actually good enough to be sure.
I'd read of this, but hadnt had a chance to confirm until today but the following is also true.
Passive drones. Tell drones to assist (NOT guard) player #2.
Player #2 opens fire.
Drones assist.
Target pops.
Player #2 ceases fire.
Drones? Well, those "passive" little drones continue blapping all over the place.
The "fix" is simply to consider MTU and drones mutually exclusive, until such time as every little nuance is worked out. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8264
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:05:00 -
[14] - Quote
asteroidjas wrote:Again, this is not the thread meant for argument of this, this is the thread asking for official comment. If you want official comment you should petition. Lucky for you I have already done so.
I sent a lengthy petition a few days ago asking them to reconsider what I had heard was their position, that this behavior was not as intended. I made several points such as how this was consistent with expected behavior of aggressive drones, with crimewatch in general, and with the design of the new mobile structures.
Senior GM Nythanos basically said that this is indeed not working as intended as they have confirmed with the development team, so they are treating it as a bug. He would not speculate however on a fix. My EVE Videos |
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
17
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 21:14:00 -
[15] - Quote
All you ppl and crimewatch!! Its not about crimewatch. Period. Drones did not auto-agress any other form of suspect before the new deployable structures. Simple as that. Its the fact the new structures provide a loophole in aggression against a player + concord response. As covered before, the safety setting is only to prevent you from putting yourself into lower level of status (suspect/criminal), it DOES NOT prevent one from engaging in pvp with anyone who currently has those flags. This is the only part of this whole debacle that is "working as intended".
Yes, it is 'consistent with behavior of aggressive drones', when someone shoots your ship, they retaliate. However, in HS that is usually done through a criminal act, and concord blaps the offender anyways. The MTU thing is a loophole in the system allowing someone to technically aggress a players "ship" without the criminal status. That is likely why it is being considered a bug.
If aggressive drones auto-aggressed "all suspects all the time" like alot of the supporters for this claim, then the other pilots in the mission would also get pulled it by 'accident'. That is not the case.
And i did put in a petition, but after not getting any response for over a week i put of this thread.
In the end i was told the same thing, but was told to 'avoid using' this bug.
And since my current warning was for using a tactic that, at the time, was considered by the public (for several months) to be "working as intended", however, 2 weeks after i used it the once, CCP made a public announcement and retroactively gave me a warning.
So, i would advise anyone using this to stop, b/c even if they haven't announced it yet, they can, and likely will still dole out punishments retroactively if there is a petition from the 'victim' involved. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8268
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 22:19:00 -
[16] - Quote
Really? My petition was answered in 36 hours. My EVE Videos |
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
18
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 23:28:00 -
[17] - Quote
--off topic--- Yes, really, actually, i have never had any petition of my dozens every answered within 3 days i think was the quickest. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |