open All Channels
seplocked Warfare & Tactics
blankseplocked What are your thoughts on this 'exploit' ?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Author Topic

Relain Linday
Amarr
Disposable Warriors
STR8NGE BREW
Posted - 2011.02.08 01:58:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Relain Linday on 10/02/2011 04:06:11
Edited by: Relain Linday on 10/02/2011 04:05:20
Edited by: Relain Linday on 08/02/2011 02:02:14
Before we start this off, I know the rules. In fact I will quote them for those people who most likely intend on quoting them, just to save you the time. You could even quote me and save you looking them up or here is a fast reference : Forum Rules


Quote:
# Do not post about bugs and exploits.

Bugs and exploits should be reported through the proper method by filing a report for our Quality Assurance department. You can find the form here. Discussions about unverified problems in the game can cause unnecessary panic in the community. When there is an issue the community needs to be aware of, we will make an official statement about it.




I did petition this at first and have been notified that it is not an 'Exploit' and is the intended game mechanics, however I cannot show logs due to rule 9.


Quote:
# 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.




Now, onto the 'Exploit' - Which even though it isn't one (supposedly) I will reference it as one as I think it is completely ******ed. Perhaps this GM may just be incompetent, it wouldn't be the first case of incompetence displayed.

You are fighting someone outside a station in low sec or 0.0, they aggress you and flag to sentry's and undock a carrier to remote rep them self. The person you are shooting is still aggressed and you start to break its tank, even with the carrier repping him (not in triage). You still have that person locked and then he puts his ship in the "Ship Maintenance Bay" of the carrier, whilst still fighting. This causes the person you are fighting's ship to instantly disappear into the carrier and that person's pod appearing, which he instantly warps off.

I cannot fathom that this can be considered "Intended game mechanics" - and I propose the following solution :

* Make it so when you are targeting someone, or being targeted by someone that you cannot transfer your ship to a Ship Maintenance Bay, or Board another ship via the ship maintenance bay - or board a ship that is in space whilst being locked or locking someone.

--- This was revised throughout the thread, to incorporate aggression mechanics only. By either not allowing the pilot who is aggresed to use the Ship Maintenance Bay, or giving the carrier an aggro timer. (Could be a dialog box for accepting aggressed ships into your ship maint bay).

This would solve the risk free PvP which I have encountered as of late, I will be frapsing it and hoping to escalate further - and will try replicate it on SiSi and file a bug report if I get no satisfactory response. The carrier is never in danger as it never has to agress and neither does the ship that is being remote repped face any danger either.

I posted this as constructively as possible and would appreciate the same in responses, do not troll with 'you mad bro' - This isn't CAOD and it's pathetic in general.

Thanks in advance,

Relain



Skinae
Hello Kitty Hug Patrol
Posted - 2011.02.08 02:10:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Skinae on 08/02/2011 11:25:14
Game mechanics you don't like aren't exploits.

Jovan Geldon
Gallente
Lead Farmers
Kill It With Fire
Posted - 2011.02.08 02:12:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Relain Linday
I did petition this at first and have been notified that it is not an 'Exploit' and is the intended game mechanics


Originally by: Relain Linday

I will be frapsing it and hoping to escalate further - and will try replicate it on SiSi and file a bug report if I get no satisfactory response



So you know it's how the game is supposed to work and yet you're going to bug report it anyway because you don't like it? Rolling Eyes

Patient 2428190
DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School
Posted - 2011.02.08 02:20:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Patient 2428190 on 08/02/2011 02:24:15
Just don't fight people by their Orcas? Or fight their station humping carriers?

Pretty sure a ship in space can only be boarded by the original pilot if it is locked by somebody as well

edit: Added the carrier part. Do not fight on stations if you can't handle station gamers

Emperor Cheney
Celebrity Sex Tape
Posted - 2011.02.08 02:29:00 - [5]
 

oh no, the sanctity and honoure of station games are being sullied! the tragedy and horor(e) of killmails denied. oh, my, the humanity.

Relain Linday
Amarr
Disposable Warriors
STR8NGE BREW
Posted - 2011.02.08 02:30:00 - [6]
 

No, you may be missing the point.

The fact is these people are aggressed and locked whilst putting there ships inside the carrier and then warping off.

Jovan Geldon
Gallente
Lead Farmers
Kill It With Fire
Posted - 2011.02.08 02:32:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Relain Linday
The fact is these people are aggressed and locked whilst putting there ships inside the carrier and then warping off.


So? That fact that YOU think it shouldn't be allowed doesn't mean squat. "HTFU or GTFO", as the kids like to say these days.

Relain Linday
Amarr
Disposable Warriors
STR8NGE BREW
Posted - 2011.02.08 02:32:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Skinae
So me undocking, targetting a ship outside of a station and redocking before I die is an exploit?


This makes no sense, I never said you couldn't dock. I'm referring to carrier ship maintenance bays.

Relain Linday
Amarr
Disposable Warriors
STR8NGE BREW
Posted - 2011.02.08 02:35:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Relain Linday on 08/02/2011 03:07:14
Originally by: Jovan Geldon
Originally by: Relain Linday
The fact is these people are aggressed and locked whilst putting there ships inside the carrier and then warping off.


So? That fact that YOU think it shouldn't be allowed doesn't mean squat. "HTFU or GTFO", as the kids like to say these days.


I was looking for constructive responses. The reason I posted here is for peoples opinions on the matter, I very much doubt it will get resolved through a forum thread.

This is a discussion, that's all.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.02.08 02:38:00 - [10]
 

One thing for sure, this game mechanic needs to be changed.

Simplest thing - no ship maintenance bay loading while on aggro timer. Same as docking timer.

Hack Harrison
Caldari
Posted - 2011.02.08 02:40:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Skinae
So me undocking, targetting a ship outside of a station and redocking before I die is an exploit?


The issue is actually a valid one. If you have recently aggressed, you cannot dock or jump a gate until a timer has expired. This timer is reset if you fire/run a hostile module (Hence the need to de-agress to escape a fight on station/gate).

The issue here is that the person is engaging (read ganking in low sec in the case of a certain well known individual) people who are undocking. If they choose to fight back, they have to deal with a neutral carrier performing RR. If as stated they can still beat the carrier's RR, the person puts the ship IMMEDIATELY into the carrier and warps off. No de-aggression mechanic required. Now, it is impossible to kill the carrier that you have aggression towards from the RR before it docks up.

<tl;dr> It is "almost" an I win button. It is a "I can't lose and best you can do is draw" button

Aiwha
Caldari
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.02.08 02:40:00 - [12]
 

Doing this in highsec to avoid CONCORD is an exploit.

Relain Linday
Amarr
Disposable Warriors
STR8NGE BREW
Posted - 2011.02.08 02:41:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
One thing for sure, this game mechanic needs to be changed.

Simplest thing - no ship maintenance bay loading while on aggro timer. Same as docking timer.


This is my belief as well. I'm not trying to Emo Rage on the forums - I posted this constructively. I just don't believe this can be an intended game mechanic or at least it needs to be fixed.

Alotta Baggage
Amarr
Imperial Shipment
Posted - 2011.02.08 02:53:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Relain Linday

I did petition this at first and have been notified that it is not an 'Exploit' and is the intended game mechanics





Originally by: Relain Linday
I just don't believe this can be an intended game mechanic or at least it needs to be fixed.



Relain Linday
Amarr
Disposable Warriors
STR8NGE BREW
Posted - 2011.02.08 02:55:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Relain Linday on 08/02/2011 02:57:28
Edited by: Relain Linday on 08/02/2011 02:55:41
Originally by: Alotta Baggage
Originally by: Relain Linday

I did petition this at first and have been notified that it is not an 'Exploit' and is the intended game mechanics





Originally by: Relain Linday
I just don't believe this can be an intended game mechanic or at least it needs to be fixed.





This was what I was told by a GM in response to my petition, I then went onto explain possible GM incompetence and I think it is not intended and should be fixed.

END3R 101
Amarr
Diabolus Ex Machina
Posted - 2011.02.08 03:02:00 - [16]
 

In the world of people who are in space while everyone else is docked scouring the forums for a chance to say something terribly funny, GMs are known mainly for their ignorance in regards to the issues they respond to. If it IS a game mechanic, it absolutely should not be, hence this discussion. But if it isn't I wouldn't be surprised in the least to hear the GM 'mispoke,' -the discussion still needs to be had in that case.

They are essentially using carriers as mobile stations; except they can dock at any time, in the middle of any task. So at the end of a brawl, instead of being killed, just click a single button and your structured battleship is safe and sound inside a neutral and unaggroed carrier which can dock in a real station at any time it pleases. Since you are also within dock range of the station, no one can fire a smartbomb so you aren't even in danger of losing your pod. Simply put, at the point where anyone else would reasonably explode, you have not, and it defies reason.

Desert Ice78
Gryphon River Industries
R-I-P
Posted - 2011.02.08 03:05:00 - [17]
 

The OP has an excelent point here, which is aptly highlighted by the degree to which the trolls get all defensive now that its pointed out.

Shadowjet
Gallente
Diabolus Ex Machina
Posted - 2011.02.08 03:42:00 - [18]
 

My two cents on the topic is simple; even if your not of the sound judgment to accept the philosophical problems with this (persay)exploit, You have to look at the facts that govern the mechanics of Eve online.

Fact 1: engaging a person not in your corp results in a combat aggression
Fact 2: a combat aggression denies the player to change sessions for 1 minute (docking, jumping, etc.)
Fact 3: ejecting from your ship is a session change
Fact 4: it is impossible to board a ship that is locked (so it should be impossible to scoop that ship)
Fact 5: this is an exploit in high sec to avoid concord... literally speaking that means CPP have deemed it taking advantage of game mechanics in order to avoid the consequences of a player engaged action. I.E. I shoot a guy in highsec, I have to face all penalties that are associated with that action; getting concorded, having an aggression timer, loosing security status, etc. etc.

The fact is that the action (known exploit) remains the same. While the setting changes, the consequences endure, minus the concord. And from this logic the ability to not have to face the consequences intended by a certain action is what makes scooping an aggressed ship an exploit.


Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.02.08 04:49:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 08/02/2011 04:49:49
Originally by: Shadowjet

The fact is that the action (known exploit) remains the same. While the setting changes, the consequences endure, minus the concord. And from this logic the ability to not have to face the consequences intended by a certain action is what makes scooping an aggressed ship an exploit.



Stowing your ship in a carrier has **** all to do with the exploit. The exploit is avoiding concord in any way whatsoever.

-Liang

Ed: I knew one guy who warped to safe spots for 15 minutes and avoided concord. He got a temp ban. Does that mean that bouncing between safes is an exploit?

Achilles15
Gallente
Literacy.
Posted - 2011.02.08 04:59:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 08/02/2011 04:49:49
Originally by: Shadowjet

...



Stowing your ship in a carrier has **** all to do with the exploit. The exploit is avoiding concord in any way whatsoever.

-Liang

Ed: I knew one guy who warped to safe spots for 15 minutes and avoided concord. He got a temp ban. Does that mean that bouncing between safes is an exploit?


Did you take what he said entirely out of context just for the sake of poking holes? If you have no opinion then don't reply at all. Stowing your ship in a carrier in the middle of a fight so that you dont have to lose a ship is everything to do with the exploit.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.02.08 05:07:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Achilles15
Did you take what he said entirely out of context just for the sake of poking holes? If you have no opinion then don't reply at all. Stowing your ship in a carrier in the middle of a fight so that you dont have to lose a ship is everything to do with the exploit.


I didn't take what he said out of context at all. He fully equated the two actions by declaring them the same action - he even marginalized the actual exploit by saying "except concord". The exploit is not stowing your ship, it is avoiding Concord. Furthermore, a GM has already ruled on the issue.

Neither crappy game mechanics or "dishonorable PVP" make it an exploit.

-Liang

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.02.08 05:10:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Achilles15
Stowing your ship in a carrier in the middle of a fight so that you dont have to lose a ship is everything to do with the exploit.
No. The exploit Shadowjet is talking about has nothing to do with stowing your ship in a carrier it has to do with avoiding CONCORD. That fact alone is what would make his scenario an exploit, nothing else. Whether it's done through the stowing of a ship or through any other mechanism is entirely irrelevant.

That's what Liang's scenario illustrates: bouncing between safes for 15 minutes to avoid CONCORD and let the timer run out is an exploit. Take CONCORD out of the picture, and it's no longer an exploit bouncing between safes to ride out some other timer is entirely within the rules. Same action, much the same reason, completely different legality.
Originally by: Shadowjet
The fact is that the action (known exploit) remains the same. While the setting changes, the consequences endure, minus the concord. And from this logic the ability to not have to face the consequences intended by a certain action is what makes scooping an aggressed ship an exploit.
The problem is that "minus the concord" means "minus the exploit" because that is the key part that makes it an exploit at all. You can change everything else around, but as long as you keep the CONCORD bit, it's an exploit. Conversely, if you take the CONCORD part out, the rest is entirely up for grabs and you cannot consider it an exploit on the basis of what happens when CONCORD is around.

Meridith Akesia
Stimulus
Posted - 2011.02.08 05:15:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Emperor Cheney
oh no, the sanctity and honoure of station games are being sullied! the tragedy and horor(e) of killmails denied. oh, my, the humanity.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.02.08 05:41:00 - [24]
 

Simple solution = Kill the Carrier.

Vonlutt
Amarr
Posted - 2011.02.08 05:47:00 - [25]
 

Carrier isn't agressed, it can insta-dock.

Sawyer LaFleur
Posted - 2011.02.08 06:22:00 - [26]
 

A faulty mechanic isn't an exploit ... at least in this game and I'd prefer it that way than other games using the ban hammer by people unsure of where the lines were in using attributes of their characters and ships to the maximum advantage.

But, I would agree that it is a game mechanic that needs to be fixed. Yeah, others have pointed out how station games are pathetic to begin with but one problem doesn't mean you can't fix another... and the point that someone can dock (into a ship)while they have agression is a step beyond the level of failure of the station games.

Still, it doesn't make it an exploit, just something that should be fixed... no being able to dock in a carrier or orca while agressed seems most consistent with the rest of the game ( gate jumps / stations) .... who knows what convulted coding conflicts might make it hard to impliment, but it seems like its got to be a high enough priority to get someone on it... other wise a pirate orca at every gate might happen sooner than we think

fr0gout
The Scope
Posted - 2011.02.08 06:50:00 - [27]
 

Make it so if you're agressed you can't store your ship in the Carrier, give the people who want risk-free PvP in EVE who can't handle losing ships or taking part in fights where they actually have something on the line a free 30-day world of warcraft trial.

Cygnus Zhada
Viziam
Posted - 2011.02.08 07:23:00 - [28]
 

Yes, being able to store your ship while agressing is something that makes station hugging carriers and Orcas (in high sec) very, very powerful. I've been using the Orca "trick" myself a lot (the Orca is a very powerful ship for high sec PVP, for many reasons).

It certainly isn't logical but it is how it is and always has been. So it's NOT an exploit but rather a design choice or CCP being lazy idiots who don't play their own game, your choice. To me the OPness of the Orca for PVP is kinda balanced with the OPness for miners (no cans needed) so that somehow soothes my "fair play gland". I'd have no trouble if they removed that option From the Orca as long as they also removed the insanely OP, no cans needed, miner capability.

In your specific situation; you fight on stations, you get station games. If you don't like silly&idiotic station games.... don't fight there.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.02.08 07:38:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Vonlutt
Carrier isn't agressed, it can insta-dock.


Not if you have a Dreadnought named 'Bumper Cars WEEEEEEE!!!' around.

Vandiilo
Gallente
Full Metal Jacket LLC
Posted - 2011.02.08 07:45:00 - [30]
 

Lukka got you too??


Pages: [1] 2 3 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only