Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1947
|
Posted - 2013.12.27 03:14:00 -
[181] - Quote
This is hilarious, did no one read or listen to how thd new mobile structures worked? Lots of shiney ships will burn! Novis Initiis is Recruting-á --á Ideas for Drone Improvement |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
512
|
Posted - 2013.12.27 09:49:00 -
[182] - Quote
I did and I missed the part where it mentioned that drones would attack automagically in the new era of mobile deployables like this, it's not wholly intuitive.
Feels outside the intention of the rules to me (though not the spirit of the game itself), an oversight if you will.
I wonder what happens if they're assigned to guard a person with one out.
Some clarity on if this is working as intended would be good (for both sides of the argument). |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1947
|
Posted - 2013.12.27 14:42:00 -
[183] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:I did and I missed the part where it mentioned that drones would attack automagically in the new era of mobile deployables like this, it's not wholly intuitive. Feels outside the intention of the rules to me (though not the spirit of the game itself), an oversight if you will. If your drones are out, an set to aggressive they will attack any hostile target in the area. If you have a mobile structure out, it can be attacked with no concord intervention giving the attacker a suspect flag. A player with a suspect flag can be attacked by anyone without concord intervention. What part did you miss? Novis Initiis is Recruting-á --á Ideas for Drone Improvement |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
512
|
Posted - 2013.12.27 15:07:00 -
[184] - Quote
That's the thing - they only work like this on mobile structures, which are new.
Remember they do NOT automagically go for flashy reds (or yellows). They have to be directed. The automated defence of the structure is the key difference here - it's not your ship, thus is unexpected behaviour.
YOU are not being attacked, a STRUCTURE is - there is a pretty big difference in drone behaviour expectation, imho.
Edit for clarity: By "work like this" I mean can drag people into LE by baiting drones to automatically attack. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1947
|
Posted - 2013.12.27 15:22:00 -
[185] - Quote
The structures belong to you, just like jet cans and wrecks. If I shoot your wreck I will get concorded, if I steal from your wreck I get a suspect flag. If you have drones out when I steal from your wreck they will attack me as a new hostile target; if they are set to aggressive.
There is nothing new going on here, other than being able to shoot a structure with concord responding. Novis Initiis is Recruting-á --á Ideas for Drone Improvement |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
512
|
Posted - 2013.12.27 15:29:00 -
[186] - Quote
Drones do no such thing if you steal from a player, that's the point. That there's never been a way to pull drones into shooting you like this before, i.e. an action that picks up a suspect, rather than criminal flag.
A change of this nature would usually this would be noted at the time in the dev blogs rather than simply implied, which is what makes me think it's iffy/potentially not working as intended. |
gfldex
691
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 10:56:00 -
[187] - Quote
I got my petition reply today and as promised I provide the GMs answer.
This is in my own words because of legal obligation. No really I did rephrase it!
Quote:This is currently classified as a bug, and we hope to have it fixed in the near future. For the moment, we recommend players set their drones to passive. If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain. |
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
16
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 20:49:00 -
[188] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:The structures belong to you, just like jet cans and wrecks. If I shoot your wreck I will get concorded, if I steal from your wreck I get a suspect flag. If you have drones out when I steal from your wreck they will attack me as a new hostile target; if they are set to aggressive.
There is nothing new going on here, other than being able to shoot a structure with(out) concord responding. Ummm, No. Not for quite some time (and by that i mean YEARS) has this worked. It was fixed for a reason. As this will be.
I'll chime in on this with some logic...*gasp!!!*
Okay, if i'm not mistaken, (which i very well could be) back in the day i believe it was possible to get a person's drones to auto-aggress from looting one of their wrecks. (and some ppl apparently believe it is STILL possible) And was that eventually changed to no-auto-aggression? Yes. Because even if the player is active and at the keyboard, it can happen quick enough for the player to not stop the drones.
Also, as the player is used to knowing that drones are not programmed to attack suspects, they will have no reason to worry...until this bug is employed and allakazam! they are now in a LE with a very pvp setup ship who usually has 'neutral' logi waiting to keep him alive, with their pve ship.
If you still want to cry about how this isn't an exploit b/c it is happening (giving you the ability to 'fight' and kill shiney ships) then maybe you should just keep doing this, and enjoy the ban when CCP brings the hammer.
|
Cory Rose
Club Deadspace
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.04 13:22:00 -
[189] - Quote
Seeing everyone is complaining and whining about this, lets review.
If you engage in PVP activity a warning pops up letting you know that everyone and their mom with the same ticker can now attack you.
If your drones do this without your consent, there is no warning, they just fire ( I laughed so hard I fell out of my chair when my guards did it even when I popped I laughed and had a great conversation with the aggressor afterwards.
I will say that I got everything back and had to refund my insurance payment as SOP, so this very well might be an exploit and then again it might not but the fact a DEV moved this post into issues in my experience means its something they are seriously looking at.
And a quick pro tip, to avoid this whole thing set your drones to passive and command them to fire when someone shoots your MTU go pick it up or watch it pop, your choice.
My reasoning against: again I am not for or against but the last aggressive drone loophole got closed by CCP, and with the same suspect mechanic your drones should autopop Ninja looters but do not, suspect aggression is suspect aggression and all forms should be treated equally and in this case they are not, both the wrecks and MTU's are "owned" by a player and have the same ownership rights so thus should be treated as such.
My reasoning for: Setting yourself to green means you will not take any action that will make "you" a suspect or criminal, the fact that the aggressor is attacking you and your drones are now choosing to see that as the next high priority target is nominal they will attack and you do not have to change your security setting because this will not cause "you" to be a suspect or criminal they are doing what they do when anything attacks you, they fire.
In this matter because of my two opinions on this matter I would have to lean towards the against, unless all suspect aggression against all owned property is treated the same the MTU should not be different than your personal wreck and drones and mechanics should mirror in both situations.
Again all of the speculation is listed towards my refund of my ship, if I had a message of this is a mechanic that is working as intended like I did when I noticed something with the downtime window and got the this is working as intended message.
Just some food for thought, as you were. :P
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8096
|
Posted - 2014.01.04 22:26:00 -
[190] - Quote
gfldex wrote:I got my petition reply today and as promised I provide the GMs answer. This is in my own words because of legal obligation. No really I did rephrase it! Quote:This is currently classified as a bug, and we hope to have it fixed in the near future. For the moment, we recommend players set their drones to passive. Bullshit. Latest video - Pandemic Legion titan and supers killed |
|
Dark Nanny
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 02:59:00 -
[191] - Quote
Damasi DeFanel wrote:Hasikan Miallok wrote:Damasi DeFanel wrote:Hasikan Miallok wrote:TBH there is no huge problem with an excess of AFK mission running now drones are aggro-ed.
The supposed opposition to AFK missioning and mining is simply a rationalization that allows people to grief weak targets without feeling guilty.
In reality the main reason to leave mission drones on aggressive is for missions that disrupt targeting.
You will almost certainly have the same problem if you deploy FoF missiles when targeting is disrupted.
In both cases being at the keyboard will not avoid your drones targeting the wrong target.
The only solution would seem to be pull in the MTU when targeting is disrupted and you need to go aggressive.
I am not sure how that is "working as intended" but there are bigger oddities with drones - apparently remote repping drones is a bannable offense at GM discretion so I think this is mild in comparison and simply a case of "following the referees call" and pull your MTU in when you need to go aggressive.
Only, generally.... if you are active at your keyboard you will see the person attacking your MTU and would either recall your drones so that they dont get destroyed too, or to high tail it out, or to stop them aggro-ing and making you a target... cause well.... Drones are called that for a reason THEY DONT THINK... they just Do. Pretty sure FoF missiles will behave in exactly the same fashion. Friend or Foe ("F.O.F") missiles are available in standard-, heavy-, and cruise-launcher sizes. They can be fired without a locked target and will strike the nearest hostile ships or object. Working as intended then.... as suspect for damaging your own gear = hostile.... am i right? Again. If a Hi Sec mission runner is NOT afk, and NOT a bot.... Hi Sec runner should have the brains NOT to fire FoF if their stuffs getting shot at.... if they see a yellow blip, and STILL fire off the missiles.... then its their own damned fault and they shouldnt come crying here about it. Cause and Effect, my friend. Stupidity, Laziness or Carelessness being the cause.... rage, tears, and a kill mail being the result. People should take responsibility for their actions and stop blaming "Broken" game mechanics Being distracted for 5 seconds in a hi-sec L4 mission should not equate to my death at the hands of another capsuleer.
The solution is to allow us to enable a setting - much like the safety - that does not allow us to aggress suspects. That means missiles will find another target or fire into empty space. That means drones will find another target or stay idle. That means manually enabling my guns will give a message, "please remove your suspect engagement restrictions".
That is completely logical, sane and balanced. Arguing against that is basically saying, "I can't kill PVPers so give me some easy people to shoot at".
I don't say this as a risk averse carebear; this character I'm posting on is purely setup for ganking haulers for instance. I enjoy ganking and hi-sec. I don't think hi-sec aggro against PVE players is always a bad thing. It just has to be balanced and make sense. The current mechanics DO NOT! |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
590
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 13:02:00 -
[192] - Quote
FOFs do NOT shoot suspects, not without something else in play. Much like drones.
@James: which bit is bullshit? I don't doubt the reimburse - bug line...maybe. |
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
16
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 20:58:00 -
[193] - Quote
^he says it aint true b/c thats not what his icon Mittani believes. Simple as that. Meanwhile lots of ppl are getting reimbursed, and i'm still waiting for an answer to whether or not i'll get a ban for engaging in this activity. (since i have previously been warned b/c i did something the whole community believed was legit and 'as intended' last year)
It looks like great fun, but not enough fun to justify a ban. I just want to know. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4713
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 22:12:00 -
[194] - Quote
Dark Nanny wrote:Being distracted for 5 seconds in a hi-sec L4 mission should not equate to my death at the hands of another capsuleer.
The solution is to allow us to enable a setting - much like the safety - that does not allow us to aggress suspects. That means missiles will find another target or fire into empty space. That means drones will find another target or stay idle. That means manually enabling my guns will give a message, "please remove your suspect engagement restrictions".
That is completely logical, sane and balanced. Arguing against that is basically saying, "I can't kill PVPers so give me some easy people to shoot at".
I don't say this as a risk averse carebear; this character I'm posting on is purely setup for ganking haulers for instance. I enjoy ganking and hi-sec. I don't think hi-sec aggro against PVE players is always a bad thing. It just has to be balanced and make sense. The current mechanics DO NOT!
You paint a picture like anyone who is suspect can warp in and kill any mission runner they please. That is not the case, not even remotely close. . |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
355
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 16:58:00 -
[195] - Quote
Dark Nanny wrote:Damasi DeFanel wrote:Hasikan Miallok wrote:Damasi DeFanel wrote:Hasikan Miallok wrote:TBH there is no huge problem with an excess of AFK mission running now drones are aggro-ed.
The supposed opposition to AFK missioning and mining is simply a rationalization that allows people to grief weak targets without feeling guilty.
In reality the main reason to leave mission drones on aggressive is for missions that disrupt targeting.
You will almost certainly have the same problem if you deploy FoF missiles when targeting is disrupted.
In both cases being at the keyboard will not avoid your drones targeting the wrong target.
The only solution would seem to be pull in the MTU when targeting is disrupted and you need to go aggressive.
I am not sure how that is "working as intended" but there are bigger oddities with drones - apparently remote repping drones is a bannable offense at GM discretion so I think this is mild in comparison and simply a case of "following the referees call" and pull your MTU in when you need to go aggressive.
Only, generally.... if you are active at your keyboard you will see the person attacking your MTU and would either recall your drones so that they dont get destroyed too, or to high tail it out, or to stop them aggro-ing and making you a target... cause well.... Drones are called that for a reason THEY DONT THINK... they just Do. Pretty sure FoF missiles will behave in exactly the same fashion. Friend or Foe ("F.O.F") missiles are available in standard-, heavy-, and cruise-launcher sizes. They can be fired without a locked target and will strike the nearest hostile ships or object. Working as intended then.... as suspect for damaging your own gear = hostile.... am i right? Again. If a Hi Sec mission runner is NOT afk, and NOT a bot.... Hi Sec runner should have the brains NOT to fire FoF if their stuffs getting shot at.... if they see a yellow blip, and STILL fire off the missiles.... then its their own damned fault and they shouldnt come crying here about it. Cause and Effect, my friend. Stupidity, Laziness or Carelessness being the cause.... rage, tears, and a kill mail being the result. People should take responsibility for their actions and stop blaming "Broken" game mechanics Being distracted for 5 seconds in a hi-sec L4 mission should not equate to my death at the hands of another capsuleer. The solution is to allow us to enable a setting - much like the safety - that does not allow us to aggress suspects. That means missiles will find another target or fire into empty space. That means drones will find another target or stay idle. That means manually enabling my guns will give a message, "please remove your suspect engagement restrictions". That is completely logical, sane and balanced. Arguing against that is basically saying, "I can't kill PVPers so give me some easy people to shoot at". I don't say this as a risk averse carebear; this character I'm posting on is purely setup for ganking haulers for instance. I enjoy ganking and hi-sec. I don't think hi-sec aggro against PVE players is always a bad thing. It just has to be balanced and make sense. The current mechanics DO NOT! this setting does already exist, set you drones to passive, problem solved
this game is pvp based, deal with it, it has been dumbed down way too much already because of ppl unable to use their brain and are too lazy to spend 10 minutes setting up their overview / drones settings and learning the aggro mechanics.
you don't wan't pvp => gtfo from eve |
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
16
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 17:44:00 -
[196] - Quote
seth Hendar wrote:
you don't wan't pvp => gtfo from eve
Yes, that is indeed the solution we are looking for. Eve has ever, and is always solely a PVP game. Any PVE content should be removed b/c it isn't pvp anyways. Problem solved.
Also, to those who claim drones have always since the begining of time automatically (on their own) engaged all suspects i ask this. Why all of a sudden is the only way for you to kill these shiney mission ships by shooting MTU? Why not just loot their wrecks if that supposedly draws drone aggro? Why is everyone now claiming pride in how many ships they've gotten to kill b/c of the MTU...i would think the number of mission runners with wrecks is greater than the number that are using MTU's....so wouldn't it just be easier? |
Nariya Kentaya
Always Negative
974
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 20:16:00 -
[197] - Quote
Tippia wrote:What makes you think it's a bug? so, not in highsec often enough to bother learning crimewatch, but isnt the purpose of setting your "guns" green to rpevent any hostile action against another player?
why should drones, the primary weapon system of several ships, be excluded from this? is this just a "sorry or being a ****** and training drone skills" to all mission runners?
just saying, mission runners deal with enough crap using drones, dotn need them aggroing every player that warps into the mission. |
Colman Dietmar
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
24
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 03:38:00 -
[198] - Quote
The real question here is, why does destroying assets in highsec not make you a criminal? Attacking as little as a container will get you concorded, so why is the tractor unit an exception to this rule? |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4719
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 09:06:00 -
[199] - Quote
Nariya Kentaya wrote:Tippia wrote:What makes you think it's a bug? so, not in highsec often enough to bother learning crimewatch, but isnt the purpose of setting your "guns" green to rpevent any hostile action against another player? why should drones, the primary weapon system of several ships, be excluded from this? is this just a "sorry or being a ****** and training drone skills" to all mission runners? just saying, mission runners deal with enough crap using drones, dotn need them aggroing every player that warps into the mission. You are highly misinformed. Let me enlight you and anyone else in here who can't read. If you mouse over the green Enable Safety button in the safety setting window, you will see the following dialog window pop up:
To prevent all actions that would give you suspect or criminal status.
So when you attack a suspect player guess what. Does your status become suspect? No, no it does not. Does your status become criminal? Absolutely not.
So as you can see, it is functioning EXACTLY the way it says it will. Now, who here doesn't understand? . |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4719
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 09:10:00 -
[200] - Quote
Colman Dietmar wrote:The real question here is, why does destroying assets in highsec not make you a criminal? Attacking as little as a container will get you concorded, so why is the tractor unit an exception to this rule? Because the developers designed them this way. Then even went as far as putting out multiple dev blogs and even talked about this very aspect in one or two videos. But the summary is they want the PLAYERS to be the ones to take action. And guess what, that is exactly what is happening. Players are taking action. . |
|
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4382
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 12:00:00 -
[201] - Quote
asteroidjas wrote:seth Hendar wrote:
you don't wan't pvp => gtfo from eve
Yes, that is indeed the solution we are looking for. Eve has ever, and is always solely a PVP game. Any PVE content should be removed b/c it isn't pvp anyways. Problem solved. Also, to those who claim drones have always since the begining of time automatically (on their own) engaged all suspects i ask this. Why all of a sudden is the only way for you to kill these shiney mission ships by shooting MTU? Why not just loot their wrecks if that supposedly draws drone aggro? Why is everyone now claiming pride in how many ships they've gotten to kill b/c of the MTU...i would think the number of mission runners with wrecks is greater than the number that are using MTU's....so wouldn't it just be easier?
Because looting a wreck isn't the same as attacking an asset of the mission runner, which is specifically what the drones are attempting to protect. It's the same as attacking the mission runners ship outright except that will get you concorded, whereas shooting a mobile structure will not, by design This user won the forums on 18/09/2013, then lost on 18/12/2013. |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
357
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 16:50:00 -
[202] - Quote
asteroidjas wrote:seth Hendar wrote:
you don't wan't pvp => gtfo from eve
Yes, that is indeed the solution we are looking for. Eve has ever, and is always solely a PVP game. Any PVE content should be removed b/c it isn't pvp anyways. Problem solved. Also, to those who claim drones have always since the begining of time automatically (on their own) engaged all suspects i ask this. Why all of a sudden is the only way for you to kill these shiney mission ships by shooting MTU? Why not just loot their wrecks if that supposedly draws drone aggro? Why is everyone now claiming pride in how many ships they've gotten to kill b/c of the MTU...i would think the number of mission runners with wrecks is greater than the number that are using MTU's....so wouldn't it just be easier? then you don't understand the purpose of the pve content, wich is to make ppl meet on the field so pvp can occur |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
357
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 17:00:00 -
[203] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:I did and I missed the part where it mentioned that drones would attack automagically in the new era of mobile deployables like this, it's not wholly intuitive. Feels outside the intention of the rules to me (though not the spirit of the game itself), an oversight if you will. I wonder what happens if they're assigned to guard a person with one out. Some clarity on if this is working as intended would be good (for both sides of the argument). they should attack too, provided they are on agressive |
Malacha Syn'Rabies
Strand Technologies
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 21:34:00 -
[204] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:ElQuirko wrote:the idea that another capsuleer can force a limited engagement without going criminal themselves Nobody forced you to set drones to aggressive.
As a matter of fact, the initial setting for drones is aggressive. You ARE initially forced to have aggressive drones. Try making a new toon and check for yourself. It certainly doesn't help that the settings for drones and their posture is fairly obfuscated and there is no OBVIOUS indicator that they are defaulted to an aggressive posture. Although unlikely, a pilot could go their entire pod career without having any idea that their drones are set up all wrong for their chosen play style.
This is poor design and we are seeing how easily it is being exploited in combination with the oddness of MTU and other mobile structures becoming an extension of your own ship while deployed. And then yet again with the combination of those two oddities, we have the fact that drones will aggro someone with a limited engagement timer, which also is not clear until that first moment the pretty blue timer pops up.
This sketchy behavior is not a difficult problem to avoid if you know how it all interacts together, but the default setting is working against an unsuspecting pilot--who is merely employing mobile structures and drones together--without any indication that there is a potentially dangerous problem.
This should be treated as a bug, and steps should be taken to fix these design issues so they work together intuitively--rather than as the awfully convenient backdoor "Tears and KM generator" that it currently is. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8226
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 22:00:00 -
[205] - Quote
Malacha Syn'Rabies wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:ElQuirko wrote:the idea that another capsuleer can force a limited engagement without going criminal themselves Nobody forced you to set drones to aggressive. As a matter of fact, the initial setting for drones is aggressive. You ARE initially forced to have aggressive drones. No, nobody forced you to set drones to aggressive. I'd be fine with changing the default to passive, sure. But beyond that you shouldn't get any handouts. My EVE Videos |
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
17
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 23:29:00 -
[206] - Quote
Again i ask, to those who claim drones have always since the beginning of time automatically (on their own) engaged all suspects i ask this. Why all of a sudden is the only way for you to kill these shiny mission ships by shooting MTU/MD? Why not just loot their wrecks if that supposedly draws drone aggro? Why is everyone now claiming pride in how many ships they've gotten to kill b/c of the MTU...i would think the number of mission runners with wrecks is greater than the number that are using MTU's....so wouldn't it just be easier?
And please ppl, the safety has NOTHING to do with this.stop using it as a reason for/against this being declared a bug. Yes, the safety is 'working as intended', but the drone aggro is not.
And to further note, i petitioned to see if i would receive any negative action for "not exploiting" this "not bug."
The reply was something similar to "We know about this, and it is a bug. Drones were never meant to unintentionally draw their owners into a Limited Engagement."
And please stop with the "then don't use aggressive"....b/c this is the only thing aggressive drones behave like this on. Drones do not auto-engage can-flip-suspects or any other form of suspects, only those that shoot the new deployable's, and only after they have already been shooting NPC's and only while on aggressive. It just seems shady from the start, what with all the special cases that go into making it happen. |
Malacha Syn'Rabies
Strand Technologies
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 23:31:00 -
[207] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Malacha Syn'Rabies wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:ElQuirko wrote:the idea that another capsuleer can force a limited engagement without going criminal themselves Nobody forced you to set drones to aggressive. As a matter of fact, the initial setting for drones is aggressive. You ARE initially forced to have aggressive drones. No, nobody forced you to set drones to aggressive. I'd be fine with changing the default to passive, sure. But beyond that you shouldn't get any handouts.
I just returned to this game, and I didn't know about the drone aggression setting until someone mentioned the MTU problem to me. I checked my drones and noticed they were set to aggressive by default. My drones were most definitely FORCED to aggressive, because that is the default, and I had no say in the matter until I discovered that I could change it. I also noticed my brand new alt was defaulted to aggressive drones as well. Granted, they aren't forced to STAY in that posture, which I believe is what you meant by not being forced. But the initial state very much is forced.
I've always hated how stupidly my drones would blunder about without my direction in the past, and I only use them in passive mode now, I love passive mode. None of this MTU ganking business actually affects me directly, however, I did immediately realize how poorly thought out the combination of the new mobile units and the default aggressive behavior of drones could be once I was informed.
The largest problem is that a new or inexperienced pilot has no idea what danger awaits them if they use aggressive drones. Aggressive drones should indicate to the pilot that their drones will attack another player without their direct intervention. The safety switch is a great--already existing--mechanic for this. Drones set to aggressive should yellow your safety, greening it up again should make them passive. It's an easy fix and generally follows the spirit of the safety switch.
Lastly, you mention handouts... Being able to initiate a fight and bypassing the normal criminal action repurcussions in high sec is very much a handout too. One that I fully support if the mechanics supporting this were more transparent. The safety switch is an excellent way to let inexperienced pilots know that their activity could have dangerous consequences. The aggressive drone/mobile device mechanic should not be giving tear collectors free killmail handouts simply because the system is hidden behind a few unpolished design choices. It is bad form, fairly lame, and it does look an awful lot like a bug.
If you yellow up your safety to use aggressive drones and afk mission, mine, whatever... expect to shed some tears. My problem is NOT that it can happen, it is that it is currently happening in a way that is unintuitive, hidden within sketchy interaction mechanics, and without any clear indicators or warnings. It is an unfinished design and currently flawed. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8229
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 06:24:00 -
[208] - Quote
No. Forcing to aggressive would mean you couldn't change it. You always had a say in the matter. Like I said, I'd be fine with changing the default to passive. That's basically what you're also arguing for.
Yes, being able to initiate a fight is a handout. It's a handout to EVERYONE. There's no bypassing the normal repercussions, since the repercussions were explicitly designed this way. Suspect status is part of crimewatch.
Do NOT change the safety switch. It currently exists in a very clearly defined and consistent manner. Green prevents you from taking any action that flags you suspect or criminal. Yellow allows suspect actions but prevents you from taking criminal (or potentially criminal, i.e. smartbombs) actions. Red allows you to take any action, including criminal ones.
Drone aggressive behavior is also very clearly defined and consistent. A drone set to aggressive will automatically attack anyone and anything that attacks you or your assets on grid (such as another drone, a can, a wreck, or a deployable).
Changing either of these leads to unclear and exception-ridden scenarios, which is the entire reason CCP created crimewatch in the first place. Consider this the new can flipping. Teach newbies about it. Don't beg CCP to create exceptions just for your scenario.
The intent was to generate conflict, and I'd say it's definitely succeeded as such. And it's not one-way conflict either. Highsec carebears who would have normally gone about their business solo and not contributing to the game in ANY way are now banding together to destroy people who go suspect by attacking MTUs. That's called emergent gameplay. If the GMs are reimbursing people and calling this a bug then they're ******* ******** and they don't understand this game. My EVE Videos |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8229
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 06:28:00 -
[209] - Quote
asteroidjas wrote:Again i ask, to those who claim drones have always since the beginning of time automatically (on their own) engaged all suspects i ask this. Why all of a sudden is the only way for you to kill these shiny mission ships by shooting MTU/MD? Why not just loot their wrecks if that supposedly draws drone aggro? Why is everyone now claiming pride in how many ships they've gotten to kill b/c of the MTU...i would think the number of mission runners with wrecks is greater than the number that are using MTU's....so wouldn't it just be easier? Nobody has claimed that, because it would be false. Drones set to aggressive do not automatically attack suspects. They automatically attack anyone who has aggressed you or something belonging to you. This has probably happened many times before, with people who are stupid enough to shoot a player's wrecks or drones. The difference there is that such an action was criminal and they would always get blown up, so the carebear was never at any risk from the LE that was created.
asteroidjas wrote:The reply was something similar to "We know about this, and it is a bug. Drones were never meant to unintentionally draw their owners into a Limited Engagement." It is NOT a bug, it's consistent with how one would expect aggressive drones to behave. That's how they've always behaved.
asteroidjas wrote:And please stop with the "then don't use aggressive"....b/c this is the only thing aggressive drones behave like this on. Drones do not auto-engage can-flip-suspects or any other form of suspects, only those that shoot the new deployable's, and only after they have already been shooting NPC's and only while on aggressive. It just seems shady from the start, what with all the special cases that go into making it happen. No, there's no special case. Drones have to be out and set to aggressive. My EVE Videos |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
590
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 10:07:00 -
[210] - Quote
Could easily be resolved by having drones ignore player assets in their automagical attacking. Drones are enough of a hassle that they don't need this additional hurdle.
I don't buy the claims this is the 'intended' PvP it caused - if it was, it would have been better covered in the dev blogs, this thread wouldnt be moved to this subforum and reimburses wouldnt be happening. As such, I stand by my belief it is an oversight - it's in the spirit of the game regardless though. But I still think it was an accident. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |