EVE Search - EXPLOIT: Neutrals Remote Repairing Starbases At War

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

EXPLOIT: Neutrals Remote Repairing Starbases At War

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
yaniv abo Gallente Swordbruden Mining and Security Service Inc. Te-Ka	Posted - 2007.06.20 16:14:00 - [1] from the news : -- reported by: GM Spiral \| 2007.06.20 14:34:00 Using remote armor repairers, remote hull repairers or remote shield transfer modules on a starbase belonging to a corporation that is at active war is now considered an exploit, if the pilots involved are not members of the corporation owning the starbase or members of a corporation in the same alliance. Anyone utilizing this exploit to their advantage will face action from the GM team according to the rules laid out under the End Users License Agreement. -- can someone tall me whay not ?
Cotton Tail Domination. KIA Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.20 16:19:00 - [2] Because the neutral party would not be flagged for doing so, thus they could not be attacked without being Concorded. Not fair if you're trying to take down a high sec pos. This does seem more like a temporary solution before they can patch in a fix though.
Alora Venoda Caldari GalTech	Posted - 2007.06.20 16:19:00 - [3] i would imagine that they should be considered wartargets by those actions, just as if they were doing the same things to actual player's ships... ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ Take away the risk and it would make flying around in space utterly pointless. Take away the flying around part and you make EVE into a space themed spreadsheet application.
Von Druid Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.06.20 16:20:00 - [4] Well, according to that definition, it doesn't apply to highsec only. Even 0.0 alliances with a wardec would utilize that "exploit" if they had friendly alliances repairing their POSs.
ForceM Gallente POS Builder Inc.	Posted - 2007.06.20 16:22:00 - [5] Originally by: Von Druid Well, according to that definition, it doesn't apply to highsec only. Even 0.0 alliances with a wardec would utilize that "exploit" if they had friendly alliances repairing their POSs. Basically true but they will be shot by the wardeccers ... I aint playing eve that much .. i just spend very little time on anything else :)
SN3263827 The Black Rabbits	Posted - 2007.06.20 16:22:00 - [6] Edited by: SN3263827 on 20/06/2007 16:22:14 A good point, why us it an exploit to rep a 0.0 POS? _____________________________________________ My Wishlist
Tuko kun Gallente Spartan Industrial Manufacturing SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.20 16:23:00 - [7] Edited by: Tuko kun on 20/06/2007 16:22:44 is this an empire only exploit or something? or does this mean that if some1 would wardec a bob pet, would that mean that bob couldnt help rep the tower? edit: damn, posting while at work and taking ages to reply makes me look silly Chuck Norris played the eve beta. But when he fit a roundhouse kick to his ibis it caused the collapse of the eve gate, the minmatar to revolt, the jove to go into excile and drones turned stupid.
Cecille	Posted - 2007.06.20 16:24:00 - [8] Originally by: yaniv abo from the news : -- reported by: GM Spiral \| 2007.06.20 14:34:00 Using remote armor repairers, remote hull repairers or remote shield transfer modules on a starbase belonging to a corporation that is at active war is now considered an exploit, if the pilots involved are not members of the corporation owning the starbase or members of a corporation in the same alliance. Anyone utilizing this exploit to their advantage will face action from the GM team according to the rules laid out under the End Users License Agreement. -- can someone tall me whay not ? Let's say you are in a war (which is where this matters) and you shield transfer a war target's ship... you become fair game for aiding and abedding the enemy. (for a certain period of time) So now that you have a POS that can be shot outside the shields by war targets... neutrals currently have no penalty for shield / armor repping a pos and it's modules that can be attacked without being flagged as "aiding the enemy" so basically anyone with an alt could roll around and protect their empire POSes without fear of being shot, because if they do get shot... the attacker gets flagged as the criminal and gets a sec hit for attacking someone in low sec.
Joshua Foiritain Gallente Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.06.20 16:24:00 - [9] That is so lame, nothings more fun then busting some random corps low sec pos shooting op so you can remote rep the pos that belongs to god knows who back to health ----- [Coreli Corporation Mainframe]
Sahjahn Caldari Black Wolves	Posted - 2007.06.20 16:25:00 - [10] yes but in 0.0 everyone is shootable so it's not an issue. It's only an issue in empire because of the inability to shoot them (highsec) or sec status loss (lowsec). They should be flagged really just like none WTs remote repping ships that are at war.
Plutoinum German Cyberdome Corp Cult of War	Posted - 2007.06.20 16:29:00 - [11] Edited by: Plutoinum on 20/06/2007 16:30:17 Common sense says that it's not an exploit in 0.0, because you can shoot other corps and alliances in 0.0 without any security loss or getting flagged. One could believe the people asking about 0.0 are lawyers tbh.
Cecille	Posted - 2007.06.20 16:35:00 - [12] Originally by: Plutoinum Edited by: Plutoinum on 20/06/2007 16:30:17 Common sense says that it's not an exploit in 0.0, because you can shoot other corps and alliances in 0.0 without any security loss or getting flagged. One could believe the people asking about 0.0 are lawyers tbh. Or 13... same diff
Galmar Grief	Posted - 2007.06.20 16:40:00 - [13] What an utterly moronic rule. Perhaps the flagging system on POS's should just be fixed instead of threatening bans for people who help eachother in highsec.
Cecille	Posted - 2007.06.20 16:43:00 - [14] Originally by: Galmar Grief What an utterly moronic rule. Perhaps the flagging system on POS's should just be fixed instead of threatening bans for people who help eachother in highsec. I think they are working on it... and this is "IN THE MEAN TIME" it's an exploit till we fix it statement.

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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