Jump to content

PVP possible in "Safe Zone"


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hey folks,   first of all: don't tell others their statement is "bullshit" or that their assumption is "stupid" - this doesn't help anyone. Keep it nice and let the other party know that you

Hello everybody,    Today i woke up, and learned some lesson in "Hard way"    I was flying around on Alioth with my Medium sized ship, that had some nice L sized parts on it, some

Correct, but there are some minor issues when the child construct doesn’t have landing gear to “attach itself” to the parent construct. So far: -Using the maneuvering tool to place a smaller

16 minutes ago, PureKickAss said:

Well, ain't this a pvp based game? You will be getting tricked, baited manipulated, lured, pirated etc. For me it looks legit tactic to be used to destroy, loot other players equipment. You are getting 15 min warning to gtfo, otherwise deal with consequences.

If the newbie zone dispensors that give you 1L of coal for 10k are OK so is stealing ships 'abandoned' in unclaimed tiles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mordgier said:

Even if they built a cage around it on the pad you can fetch it.

 

You have plenty of tools available to prevent your ship from being stolen. Failure to utilize these tools is on you.

No. The fetch tool was not designed to be used that way.

If you do that, you will be banned from the game by NQ for exploiting a game mechanic in an unintended fashion 😉

 

4 hours ago, Leogradance said:

Flying pig in DU? Too easy :D

 

Mate... really: destroy a core in safe zone without go in pvp zone are really easy. 

 

5 minutes?

30 seconds.

 

In a tile owned.

Please explain how I can destroy someone else's core on my territory in 30 seconds... Sounds handy...

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is a bug? If it's not what the programmer wanted, it's a bug. The machine only executes what it is asked to execute, it doesn't know if it is what the programmer really wanted to do.

It's the same problem with perfectly legal tax optimizations, it is legal but when it is abused to circumvent things, is it what a civilization wanted?
The rules define how things happen, a bug/exploit will always be a valid mechanic in a sense where the program only did his job following the rules.

Based on that, the judgement of what is an exploit or not can't be deducted from the game mechanics, only NQ can make statements about this. Players can only deduct NQ's will about that.

 

The full maneuver right was given on our territorys to be able to clean up the space and to counter another mechanic allowing griefing: placing dynamic big cubes on a territory to make it unplayable for your target. Its current use to hijack ships is perfectly valid, but it isn't its purpose. I really believe that NQ is not happy about that and they couldn't publicly speak about this feature to avoid revealing it to players and making it worst. But now that this is here, they will probably make statements soon. This is the exact same problem.

 

If it's technically possible, we need the opposite of "Parent construct" right : "Child construct: Gives your construct the rights to be parented by another construct."

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Randazzo said:

That's a big part of the issue, there is nothing to be done. It can't be dealt with. There is no recourse or retaliation possible, which is precisely why it's done. It's people who can't do actual pvp and so resort to grief tactics.

First up I hate statements like this, you have no bloody clue the pvp ability if the player doing this.  A lot of pvp players are bored at the moment and they will keep pushing the envelope until pvp opens up for real.  That doesnt make this right but it is a big part of the reason it happens, pvp is pretty much non existent and complete avoidable, so they have to find something to do.

Whilst I do not agree with the practice and do think it is an exploit, I also think the OP was a bit blase about his ship, I would never even consider just leaving my ship abandoned on a vacant tile, not in a millions years.  Regardless of whether or not I was in a safe zone. A lesson worth learning now before everything really kicks off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow this thread just ruined my day 😊, last night I left my ship in an unclaimed tile billions ly away from home, didnt have time to go back as it took hours to get there, I trusted the words "safe zone" too much this time lol

Last time I felt so anxious about logging back in was when I was playing rust, but with the subtle difference that it takes a few hours to build a shelter in rust, and it took me like a week to build that goddamn ship 😪

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's important when discussing mechanics to avoid falling into the trap of arguing semantics. Whether or not this behavior is techincally a bug or not doesn't mean much; all that matters is whether NQ specifically deems it an exploit of game mechanics. Personally, I don't think it's actually that clear-cut of an abuse, and it could go either way.

 

What we have here is a fairly straightforward application of established game mechanics. As has been stated, you need to be able to maneuver dynamic constructs on your territory to prevent people from just dropping a big box ship over your stuff and preventing you from leaving or accessing it. That much is clear and sensible, and it likely won't change. Claiming territory that has a ship parked on it with the intent of maneuvering that ship onto a larger dynamic core and then ferrying it off to the PvP Zone for breaking it down and stealing it is a complex application of the mechanic in question, and it does require a lot of variables to be true for it to work:

  1. The dynamic construct has to located on an unclaimed tile.
  2. The owner of the construct has to be offline or otherwise away from the ship for long enough for the "aggressor" to claim the territory (15 minutes), maneuver the ship onto a larger construct (~30 seconds), and then fly that construct into a PvP zone and destroy it (hard to estimate how long this would take, but I reckon it could be done in about 20-30 minutes if it took place on Alioth, for example).
  3. The "aggressor" needs to have a larger core sized construct than the "victim" that can lift the stolen craft into space and haul it to the PvP zone (easy enough for XS/S cores, but more difficult for M cores like the OP's example).

Besides all of these variables, the "aggressor" also has to deem that it's even worth it to steal the ship. Claiming the territory is probably going to at least cost over 100,000 quantas because it's unlikely anyone doing this doesn't already have territory claimed (though it's entirely possible they have a friend who hasn't claimed territory and can do it for free, I suppose), so it's not going to be worth it to steal new players' ships that are going to be worth less than that. Sure, some people might "do it for lols" but I can't imagine that will happen a whole lot. The real victims here are going to be people that have stuff actually worth stealing who, presumably, have a better working understanding of the game.

 

However, even with all this said, I can see this becoming a problem if a lot of people start doing it. It would be pretty simple to design a Medium or Large ship that's sole purpose is to troll around looking for people parked on unclaimed territory, then quickly and efficiently steal their ships. It would still require the victim to not be paying attention for a decent period of time though, so NQ's ruling on this could go either way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Leogradance said:

Flying pig in DU? Too easy :D

 

Mate... really: destroy a core in safe zone without go in pvp zone are really easy. 

 

5 minutes?

30 seconds.

 

In a tile owned.

This isn't a mechanic that I'm familiar with.

 

My stance is that hauling the ship away is legitimate.

 

IF there is a way to literally destroy the core in the safe zone, then I agree that THAT is an exploit.

 

Destroying elements in a safe zone crosses the line in my opinion. NQ has said that we are allowed to manipulate and move foreign constructs in owned tiles - but has said nothing about destroying the in the claimed tile.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, GraXXoR said:

No. The fetch tool was not designed to be used that way.

If you do that, you will be banned from the game by NQ for exploiting a game mechanic in an unintended fashion 😉

 

Please explain how I can destroy someone else's core on my territory in 30 seconds... Sounds handy...

Love too, sounds like a idea I'd want to crash into at speed.  Alas, I cant explain how to do an exploit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Anopheles said:

Love too, sounds like a idea I'd want to crash into at speed.  Alas, I cant explain how to do an exploit.

Didn't know this and not how we had been stealing ships - and yeah I would consider what you're describing definitely outside of the intended mechanics.

 

So I will amend my stance - Claiming a tile to destroy the ship IN that tile without dragging to a pvp zone is an exploit. Force docking it and dragging it out to a pvp area to pop it isn't.

 

The later requires far more effort and also forced the theif to venture into a pvp zone and put themselves at risk.

 

The former does not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is quite unlikely that whoever did this actually transported the ship to the pvp zone. Too situational, cumbersome and not economically convenient.

I will not explain how to do it. Only if NQ asks me.
I discovered it by accident and "the whole" ship exploded, not just the core.

In the case we are talking about, they have claimed the territory.
15 min, in the meantime they brought what is needed and set up the thing. As soon as they completely claimed the territory, they blew up the ship, repaired the useful parts, dismantled and threw the rest.

It didn't take them hours. Too risky.
What if the player returned? If was inside the ship? They had wasted a lot of time and resources for nothing.

 

Don't be naive.

 

Anyway, are all useless talking again.

 

Its an exploit. Explaine how its irrilevant. Safe zone must to be "safe".

Any other consideration is frying air

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Leogradance said:

It is quite unlikely that whoever did this actually transported the ship to the pvp zone. Too situational, cumbersome and not economically convenient.

I will not explain how to do it. Only if NQ asks me.
I discovered it by accident and "the whole" ship exploded, not just the core.

In the case we are talking about, they have claimed the territory.
15 min, in the meantime they brought what is needed and set up the thing. As soon as they completely claimed the territory, they blew up the ship, repaired the useful parts, dismantled and threw the rest.

It didn't take them hours. Too risky.
What if the player returned? If was inside the ship? They had wasted a lot of time and resources for nothing.

 

Don't be naive.

 

Anyway, are all useless talking again.

 

Its an exploit. Explaine how its irrilevant. Safe zone must to be "safe".

Any other consideration is frying air

 

Fair, but we had literally force docked ships and flown them to pvp zones and I'd like to be able to keep doing that. We were not aware of any exploit to destory it in tile, and had we been, we still wouldn't have done that. We would lock the ship in with voxels on our carrier to prevent the player from flying it of and just hauled it away then used the missiles on the hauler to blast it, repair it and fly it back to be scrapped.

 

So like I said, I think it's fine to have to fly the ships to a pvp area. I do agree that smashing it in tile is an exploit simply because I think destroying it in a non pvp area is an issue. MOVING it to a pvp area isn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mordgier said:

 

Fair, but we had literally force docked ships and flown them to pvp zones and I'd like to be able to keep doing that. We were not aware of any exploit to destory it in tile, and had we been, we still wouldn't have done that. We would lock the ship in with voxels on our carrier to prevent the player from flying it of and just hauled it away then used the missiles on the hauler to blast it, repair it and fly it back to be scrapped.

 

So like I said, I think it's fine to have to fly the ships to a pvp area. I do agree that smashing it in tile is an exploit simply because I think destroying it in a non pvp area is an issue. MOVING it to a pvp area isn't.

Now you understand, and also why we can’t explain how. But so you and others are aware there is a second exploit involving docking and flying away regarding the weight of what was docked (I was able to ferry away a test M core ship with 1500 t total weight on an L core ship that weight it 46t) and that one has also been reported with video proof, and that’s all I can say.

And that is exactly why I say people exploiting this are the ones that are going to kill PvP/PIracy for the rest of us. But the kicker is, I don’t have to fly it to the PvP zone to take possession of it either, I can do it on my own claimed hex (the other exploit)

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Iorail said:

Now you understand, and also why we can’t explain how. But so you and others are aware there is a second exploit involving docking and flying away regarding the weight of what was docked (I was able to ferry away a test M core ship with 1500 t total weight on an L core ship that weight it 46t) and that one has also been reported with video proof, and that’s all I can say.

And that is exactly why I say people exploiting this are the ones that are going to kill PvP/PIracy for the rest of us. But the kicker is, I don’t have to fly it to the PvP zone to take possession of it either, I can do it on my own claimed hex (the other exploit)

I'm well aware of the docking weight exploit and see it abused regularly, it's infuriating as it's allowed a certain org to ferry their entire pvp fleet around the system for essentially free using ultra light warp platforms with their entire pvp fleet docked to it. It's absolutely bullshit.

 

It's also been reported back in Alpha...

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:

This serves to prove a point i tried to make in the past:

"Expect the worst of ppl"

 

Most ppl playing MMOs have some kind of problem with RL socializing. 

Why would our kind of ppl be fitted to build a civilization without hard NQ guidelines? 

Nice generalizing.  I've had great and many social groups throughout my life.  In Highschool, in college.  I also love sports and often go to Football games with friends.  In my younger years we would go to Concerts.  Weekends in my 20s were spent a decent amount of time at bars socializing with friends.  I've met friends IRL thru games like EvE online, and also still have a few life long friends from when I was 5.  Seems like you are projecting.  Normal well adjusted adults know the difference between real life and video games.  We can handle "losing" pixels in a game, and understand and enjoy competition.  MMO's of these sorts are similar in other competitive shooter games that have become wildly popular.  To win at a battle royal, someone has to die and lose.  Are those people toxic or lack social skills? No one makes you play.  Its also Beta, so people pushing things to the limits is actual helpful, so NQ can see these things, then make judgments and make stances on their rules.  If you can't handle it emotionally, then maybe its you that needs to take a step back and re-evaluate how you see things. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:

This serves to prove a point i tried to make in the past:

"Expect the worst of ppl"

 

Most ppl playing MMOs have some kind of problem with RL socializing. 

Why would our kind of ppl be fitted to build a civilization without hard NQ 

 

That guy who died who was head of diplomacy for the Meta PVPers and troublemakers Goons Squad in Eve was a real life, high level diplomat who, you'd assume was pretty good at real socializing.

 

Most people can separate their in game  behaviour from real life because they can tell the difference between "play" and "life" unlike those who think they must be saintly everywhere regardless of the location or milieu which suggests a certain mental limitation masquerading as righteousness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Anopheles said:

 

That guy who died who was head of diplomacy for the Meta PVPers and troublemakers Goons Squad in Eve was a real life, high level diplomat who, you'd assume was pretty good at real socializing.

 

Most people can separate their in game  behaviour from real life because they can tell the difference between "play" and "life" unlike those who think they must be saintly everywhere regardless of the location or milieu which suggests a certain mental limitation masquerading as righteousness.

Exceptions dont make the rule. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:

Exceptions dont make the rule. 

It was an example as the forum couldn't cope with listing every single exemption on the planet.

 

Not that I could give enough examples to change a fixed and limited, and if I may, bigoted outlook.

 

Most of the clans I've been in have been full.of mature individuals with families and employment which indicates a certain ability to socialise normally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...