Posted - 2009.12.03 22:36:00 - [2]

 

Nope.

Had a GM confirm it.

Posted - 2009.12.03 22:43:00 - [4]

 

Originally by: Lee Dalton

---

Nope.

Had a GM confirm it.

---

Yep.

Had a SENIOR GM confirm it.

Posted - 2009.12.03 22:58:00 - [6]

 

If those are cans from salvaged wrecks or other stuff from victims (drones etc) : No.

If they dropped it with the intention to decloak people: apperently yes.

Posted - 2009.12.04 17:19:00 - [8]

 

You can only have 6 anchored containers on a grid at one time, any more and its considered harassment.

You can drop as many cargo containers (the ones that vanish after 2 hours) as you want.

Posted - 2009.12.04 18:49:00 - [10]

 

Originally by: Lee Dalton

---

OMG, CONFLICTING GM REPLIES.

The gist of what petitions have told me is: "You cannot drpp cans to induce lag, however, you may drop cans to prevent people from recloaking."

---

That's what i've known to be true, from a few petitions filed against me and my corps over the years. Although there's a very fine line between causing lag and trying to catch people.

I still remember bm bombs, people used to copy 1000's of bm's into their ship and then eject it near a gate. People warping to the gate would fly into the grid and lag out while their client tried to load the grid/bm's.

Posted - 2009.12.05 00:26:00 - [12]

 

Originally by: Tachyon Rhaul

---

You can only have 6 anchored containers on a grid at one time, any more and its considered harassment.

You can drop as many cargo containers (the ones that vanish after 2 hours) as you want.

---

So how do miners get away with having dozens of secure cans anchored in belts?

Posted - 2009.12.05 04:27:00 - [14]

 

Originally by: Rhanna Khurin

---

Perhaps those cans floating about were not actually dropped by the pirates, merely the contents of the cargoholds from destroyed ships that have been salvaged.

---

In that case they would just be the free floating ones. The exploit only applies to the anchorable secure containers

Posted - 2009.12.05 06:56:00 - [16]

 

Originally by: Ceat Murtains

---

I've seen this used in wormholes a far amount at pos's. Small bubble at the warp in for the moon that the pos is at filled with anchored cans. Not sure if it's an exploit, but it sure is a pretty lame tactic.

---

It's been judged to not be an exploit to decloak someone like that at your pos, and as far as lame....
being afk reading a book and hearing the pos guns go off because a navitas just warped to the moon is f-ing funny.

Posted - 2009.12.05 17:47:00 - [18]

 

I warped to a gate with about 100 cans littered around it. I petitioned it and the GM said it was only a problem if it caused undue lag.

Oddly enough I didn't get de-cloaked, but hells teeth it made me mad.

Posted - 2009.12.07 20:23:00 - [20]

 

/me is interested in CCP/GM posting in this thread.

I was nearly decloaked the other day by a sling bubble covered in cans, very nice trick. I realize it's not the same as a gate and I saw it as a valid tactic, gave props to those that put it up, and went on my way. However, I see people in here saying that this could be petitioned because it could lag my client? (regardless of a gate or a bubble, there were more than 6 cans, or whatever the magic number is). In any case, yea, CCP posting would be interesting, I'd like to hear their thoughts.

Posted - 2009.12.08 01:05:00 - [22]

 

Sure hope this isn't an exploit. I hate having cloakers come in with impunity, and this is the only way to really catch them. If I am at a gate camping I always make sure I have fast ships orbiting at 12km or so and dropping cans as fast as possible. We do get a lot of cloakers in Providence though, so it may not be as much of an issue elsewhere.

I don't mind cloak, but the best way to catch a cloaker being labeled an exploit would totally suck.

Posted - 2009.12.08 07:51:00 - [24]

 

Originally by: Zekran

---

Sure hope this isn't an exploit. I hate having cloakers come in with impunity, and this is the only way to really catch them. If I am at a gate camping I always make sure I have fast ships orbiting at 12km or so and dropping cans as fast as possible. We do get a lot of cloakers in Providence though, so it may not be as much of an issue elsewhere.

I don't mind cloak, but the best way to catch a cloaker being labeled an exploit would totally suck.

---

Really, it depends on the design intent. If the idea is that cloakers are supposed to be able to jump in cloaked, then it's... well, I don't really like the use of 'exploit' in this context, but it's a workaround that CCP didn't intent and will probably fix someday (probably by making jetcans not count as a decloaking contact).

If CCP decides that they don't want cloakers to be able to sneak around like that, they should probably just make jumping into a system decloak you. Which they haven't done, suggesting that the first scenario I outlined is more likely.

Posted - 2009.12.08 09:18:00 - [26]

 

It depends. Using cans to decloak someone is legitimate and I have had a GM confirm it. However, if you use the cans to cause LAG it is an exploit. (the difference between using the cans to cause lag and using them to decloak is unclear, I was not given a specific number even after I asked)

Posted - 2009.12.08 09:43:00 - [28]

 

Edited by: RiotRick on 08/12/2009 09:49:00
A corpmate got a 3-day ban for this. So yes it is an exploit.

The only reference to the eula in the gm's reply was this:

Quote:

---

Terms of service, section 25: We reserve the right to ban any user from the game without refund or compensation.

---

The terms of service rule 16 says:

Quote:

---

You may not do anything that interferes with the ability of other EVE Online subscribers to enjoy the game or web site in accordance with its rules. This includes, but is not limited to, making inappropriate use of any public channels within the game and/or intentionally creating excessive latency (lag) by dumping cargo containers, corpses or other items in the game world.

---

Posted - 2009.12.13 17:25:00 - [30]

 

Its relly dumb, it should be a legal counter to cloaks. There is no reason cloaks should be as impervious as they are.