Jump to content

There are Still ways to Hijack Ships from Territorys


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Zelight said:

@Daphne though nobody can pinpoint in the COD or EULA where this type of gameplay is prohibited, its just assumptions and a post in a forum that is not tied to either the COD or EULA... as have looked multiple times since i was told this was not allowed. 

The forum post you're talking about is from an NQ employee, in a forum called Rules & Announcements, and titled 'Clarification regarding Bug Exploits & Griefing.' It's not an assumption to read this as a post from NQ about rules clarifications and exploits. You may not have known about the rules when you did it, but parenting constructs without permission is not allowed in the game. The rule even specifically calls out your use case of dragging ships into pvp space. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hello Everyone, so one of our Members got a Problem two days ago. He was on Madis to Mine a bit, at the end oft the Day he leave his Ship on an Claimed Territory from him. At the next Mornin

Main concern should be finding how they did it. Ffs this is not rust, im not here to log in and find myself naked on a shore.

Recently, we've seen a lot of cases of the old bug where parking a large ship near a small one causes the small one to dock to the large one. This happens accidentally all the time at space stations.

1 hour ago, Atmosph3rik said:

 

See that's sketchy.  Using the tools the game has, would mean maneuvering a ship onto your ship, and then trying to fly away.  Which wouldn't work.  

 

I'm assuming you tried that, and it didn't work.  So you found an exploit that got you around the way the game is intended to work, which is that you can not use the maneuver tool to parent another player's construct.  And then you exploited it.

 

You knew you weren't supposed to be able to steal another players ship that way, because it wasn't possible until you found a complicated exploit that made it possible.  

all i did was maneuver tool ships into the air and catch it with another ship that is physics enabled. nothing more if you try it you will see its that easy. in 0.23 NQ changed the way docking worked so that if you stand on a dynamic construct it will enable physics on anything maneuvered... that was an intended change and one announced in the patch notes outside the game. 

 

1 hour ago, joaocordeiro said:

Ppl don't fly ships with "sorry" in the fuel tanks.

It's a start. But if you mean it, compensate them.

happy to... even though they also destroyed my ship and took it to pvp space from a safe zone and took 20mil worth of warp cells that I bought with ore mined from the ground.... am more than willing to compensate them and will still accept a ban if NQ sees it. had only done a single haul of ships out before I stopped and since this has been made aware of being not allowed had stopped.  that all being said i only used the games tools everyone has access to and didnt do anything that was directly against the code of conduct or eula and wish that the forum post they had about not doing this was included in those other documents.. i even reported myself and the reproduction when this was all made apparent.

 

place your blame on me and not NQ for allowing it to happen so easily and burying rules in a forum that isn't apart of the code of conduct or the ender user license agreements.

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

The forum post you're talking about is from an NQ employee, in a forum called Rules & Announcements, and titled 'Clarification regarding Bug Exploits & Griefing.' It's not an assumption to read this as a post from NQ about rules clarifications and exploits. You may not have known about the rules when you did it, but parenting constructs without permission is not allowed in the game. The rule even specifically calls out your use case of dragging ships into pvp space. 

 

 

saw that after the fact... none of this was in the code of conduct or the end user liences agreement when I signed up so how would I know unless i read the forums?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zelight said:

all i did was maneuver tool ships into the air and catch it with another ship that is physics enabled. nothing more if you try it you will see its that easy. in 0.23 NQ changed the way docking worked so that if you stand on a dynamic construct it will enable physics on anything maneuvered... that was an intended change and one announced in the patch notes outside the game. 

 

Can confirm this works.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Zelight said:

Arrr! its sadly just useses the ingame tools. no exploit needed. didn't know this was against the rules and thought it was apart of normal gameplay as it wasn't in the EULA or TOS when I signed up and onto the game and only just found out about the forum post.... whioh should be a EULA and or in the TOS... a friend told me after I had impounded a few ships, then gave up. couldn't undock the ships... so just sorta left them there.

 

so the big ship was stolen from kori and moddeded. adding a basket to it, and a killbox with lasers. Just fly up to a territory with a ship on it.... claim the territory.... maneuver tool ship above basket, fly to pvp space and pew pew ship... all using the in game tools as intended....  Surprised others haven't figured it out... was really easy and again uses in game tools without an exploit. After testing it a few times and finding out it wasn't allowed I gave up on it and reported the reproduction to NQ and left the ships floating in space for others to find. am glad its been destroyed actually. had never intended to use it again. and now people know it can be done so hope nq fixes it.

 

if I get banned.... its okay guess its deserved. I'd hope not as during this didn't know it wasnt allowed and stopped when found out. please hurl your insults at me. I deserve it. 

You didn't know that the safe zone means SAFE??  BS, you knew.  Players like you are the worst part of this game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Zelight said:

you could argue that i guess....  though in the case of taking ships to pvp space I was using the tools the devs gave everyone. They admitted to standing on mine ship to let it go into pvp space and then blowing it up. they used the tools built into the game as did I....  I could argue that they should have not left their ships on territory that i owned, if they had been on territory they owned the game tools would not allow it. so in either case if I am banned they should be also as technically they moved my ship without my knowledge or permission into PVP space when I left it in a safe zone.... and as retaliation arguably took my ship from safe space to pvp space to blow it up while admitting to it... the method or the circumstances shouldnt matter. 

These are not the same situations, but you know that, don't you? You logged off with your ship in motion. You set it on a course to PvP space, with the intended mechanics in place to make your ship move again the moment anyone was parented to it. This is in comparison to you maneuvering a parked ship on a planet surface to take into PvP space. 

 

I have a long history of piracy and being pro pvp, so I know when I smell a rat. You are arguing in bad faith, and playing dumb when you know exactly what you did. Now you suggest their ban when they turn the tables on you, even though what they did was lawful. If you didn't want your ship to move (very far) without you in it, an active ECU would have brought it to a stop in short order.

 

As for NQ, they should revert the change back to that simply seeing a ship should place it into motion again. Take your L and gtfo.

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

These are not the same situations, but you know that, don't you? You logged off with your ship in motion. You set it on a course to PvP space, with the intended mechanics in place to make your ship move again the moment anyone was parented to it. This is in comparison to you maneuvering a parked ship on a planet surface to take into PvP space. 

 

I have a long history of piracy and being pro pvp, so I know when I smell a rat. You are arguing in bad faith, and playing dumb when you know exactly what you did. Now you suggest their ban when they turn the tables on you, even though what they did was lawful. If you didn't want your ship to move (very far) without you in it, an active ECU would have brought it to a stop in short order.

 

As for NQ, they should revert the change back to that simply seeing a ship should place it into motion again. Take your L and gtfo.

someone has there panties in a knot..... anways

 

" After our Member got back to the Ship it was speeding up to 4000km/h. So we decided to let hiss hip fly into the PVP Zone and shot it Down. "

If you watch the video the OP doesn't show how they got it from safe space into pvp space.

 

Unless the OP can show in a video they didn't intentionally move the ship from safe space into pvp space both side are guilty of the same action.

quite convenient that this part of the video was left out.

 

"decided to" this seems more like you intentionally "bumped it" and then proceeded to then blow it up if you had simply left it alone and notified NQ is one thing however unless you can show video evidence this was not intentional you are as much as guilty as the other party. and that would be the end of this issue. either A) both sides get punished B ) nothing happens as both sides are guilty or c) if OP can prove this wasn't intentional then only 1 party is guilty.

 

What i am trying to say is NQ / community can learn from this:

 

update the rules in a official location: preferably a link on the homepage (just forums alone is unacceptable) there will be far to many people who don't check forums

 

NQ also need to flush out idea's / strategies on how to deal with player ships left idle on people's hexes who don't even play anymore, else we are going to see this behavior continue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DetectionZone said:

" After our Member got back to the Ship it was speeding up to 4000km/h. So we decided to let hiss hip fly into the PVP Zone and shot it Down. "

If you watch the video the OP doesn't show how they got it from safe space into pvp space.

 

Unless the OP can show in a video they didn't intentionally move the ship from safe space into pvp space both side are guilty of the same action.

quite convenient that this part of the video was left out.

Except their description perfectly matches what would happen if their avatar gets parented to a ship that was in motion at the time the owner logged off. This more than likely being the case, means they didn't move anything; the ship was already in motion, set by the owner. Why would we need a video of the ungodly amount of time it would take for them to sit in a ship moving at 4km/h just to get to the pvp zone? 

 

These are not the same offenses, as one isn't an offense at all. The other, however, is a breaking of the rules to a tee described by the perpetrator themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

still need to prove it was not intentional otherwise its just verbal word.  its obvious they recorded it. so why don't they show even a portion of it. ??

 

its not that hard...

 

but like i said if they cant show it was not intentional the overall result is still the same. safe zone > pvp space > ship dead. same offence

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, DetectionZone said:

still need to prove it was not intentional otherwise its just verbal word.  its obvious they recorded it. so why don't they show even a portion of it. ??

 

its not that hard...

 

but like i said if they cant show it was not intentional the overall result is still the same. safe zone > pvp space > ship dead. same offence

 

 

This isn't guilty until proven innocent. The accused perpetrator voluntarily admitted to his actions, which were to the letter against the rules. He parented a motionless dynamic core that was not his, parked on a planetary hex, moved it onto his ship, a ship designed to do this no less, and moved it into PvP space.

 

The other party simply landed on said ship, which began moving on its own due to the owner putting it in motion before logging off. These events are not the same, and you are being disingenuous. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Musclethorpe said:

This isn't guilty until proven innocent. The accused perpetrator voluntarily admitted to his actions, which were to the letter against the rules. He parented a motionless dynamic core that was not his, parked on a planetary hex, moved it onto his ship, a ship designed to do this no less, and moved it into PvP space.

 

The other party simply landed on said ship, which began moving on its own due to the owner putting it in motion before logging off. These events are not the same, and you are being disingenuous. 

 

 

grow up..

 

unless they can prove it wasn't intentional then they also moved a ship into pvp space from safe space followed it no less and proceeded to blow it up. if they simply let it go and did nothing that is one thing but they intentionally chased it. or are you oblivious to this fact?? 

 

FACTS: (both sides)

both parties are guilty of transgressions against each other. 

Intentionally moved / followed ships from safe space into pvp space

both parties committed the same act against each other aka both ships were blown up.

 

OP should've just left the ship there and reported it. but they had to go move it into pvp zone and blow it up.

if they recorded the incident why leave the part out of the video about how it got into pvp zone?? they could atleast show it moving on its own when they got to it. then simply cut parts of the video out, but no they just show the part of it being blown up.

 

also OP has some holes in hist story. if it was on a claimed tile by him how did it get manouver tooled ???? shouldnt be possible unless the RDMS was sent on the hex to be able to manouver constructs. tried thinking about that one ?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DetectionZone said:

grow up..

 

unless they can prove it wasn't intentional then they also moved a ship into pvp space from safe space followed it no less and proceeded to blow it up. if they simply let it go and did nothing that is one thing but they intentionally chased it. or are you oblivious to this fact?? 

 

FACTS: (both sides)

both parties are guilty of transgressions against each other. 

Intentionally moved / followed ships from safe space into pvp space

both parties committed the same act against each other aka both ships were blown up.

 

OP should've just left the ship there and reported it. but they had to go move it into pvp zone and blow it up.

if they recorded the incident why leave the part out of the video about how it got into pvp zone?? they could atleast show it moving on its own when they got to it. then simply cut parts of the video out, but no they just show the part of it being blown up.

 

also OP has some holes in hist story. if it was on a claimed tile by him how did it get manouver tooled ???? shouldnt be possible unless the RDMS was sent on the hex to be able to manouver constructs. tried thinking about that one ?

 

 

 

They didn't move anything, the ship was for all intents and purposes, already in motion. This is not the same as maneuver tooling the original ship...at all.

 

Why leave that part of the video out? It's boring and irrelevant, unless you were expecting someone to lawyerquest in favor of the person who clearly stole your ship. I wouldn't have included it.

 

So what if they were actually on an unclaimed hex? This changes nothing to the legality of the actions of the thief. Only one side broke the rules here, and by their own admission no less. If you can't understand this basic fact, I have nothing more to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, DetectionZone said:

also OP has some holes in hist story. if it was on a claimed tile by him how did it get manouver tooled ???? shouldnt be possible unless the RDMS was sent on the hex to be able to manouver constructs. tried thinking about that one ?

So we are not Sure how this Works. We didnt know how the other ships get into Space.
We are trying to reproduce it.

 

 

29 minutes ago, DetectionZone said:

unless they can prove it wasn't intentional then they also moved a ship into pvp space from safe space followed it no less and proceeded to blow it up. if they simply let it go and did nothing that is one thing but they intentionally chased it. or are you oblivious to this fact?? 

I have a short Clip of it, after the Core was shot down. One of our Members get to the other ship and it fly away.
But i havent a clip of the 1 1/2 hour flight from its original position to the PVP zone. But it was an L Core so there is no Way to Parent this construct, like there is no XL Core at the moment ;).

 

 

6 hours ago, Zelight said:

had only done a single haul of ships out before I stopped and since this has been made aware of being not allowed had

But your Story telling the whole time, doesnt make sense from my side. There were so much stuff on the Ship, this cant be the mor ore less first time you do this. And i think this ship is also not stolen by you from the creator. The Account with that you are writing here is, created directly after my post. You can only steal ships at the moment in PVP or when you where superlegate of the org of the Ship.

So if it was in PVP, you can see how much time and damage it takes to destroy the core. So in my opinion, this account is an Twink of the Creator and you made this show multiple Times!But thats only my opinion.
I hope NQ will look after it and find a way to fix this really fast.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DetectionZone said:

grow up..

 

unless they can prove it wasn't intentional then they also moved a ship into pvp space from safe space followed it no less and proceeded to blow it up. if they simply let it go and did nothing that is one thing but they intentionally chased it. or are you oblivious to this fact?? 

 

FACTS: (both sides)

both parties are guilty of transgressions against each other. 

Intentionally moved / followed ships from safe space into pvp space

both parties committed the same act against each other aka both ships were blown up.

 

OP should've just left the ship there and reported it. but they had to go move it into pvp zone and blow it up.

if they recorded the incident why leave the part out of the video about how it got into pvp zone?? they could atleast show it moving on its own when they got to it. then simply cut parts of the video out, but no they just show the part of it being blown up.

 

also OP has some holes in hist story. if it was on a claimed tile by him how did it get manouver tooled ???? shouldnt be possible unless the RDMS was sent on the hex to be able to manouver constructs. tried thinking about that one ?

 

 

 

OOF DetectionZone triggered amirite?

 

 

 

 

This thread has just turned into a flame war. Stop trying to see how far you can push the rules before everyone gets nuked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Zelight said:

all i did was maneuver tool ships into the air and catch it with another ship that is physics enabled. nothing more if you try it you will see its that easy. in 0.23 NQ changed the way docking worked so that if you stand on a dynamic construct it will enable physics on anything maneuvered... that was an intended change and one announced in the patch notes outside the game. 

 

happy to... even though they also destroyed my ship and took it to pvp space from a safe zone and took 20mil worth of warp cells that I bought with ore mined from the ground.... am more than willing to compensate them and will still accept a ban if NQ sees it. had only done a single haul of ships out before I stopped and since this has been made aware of being not allowed had stopped.  that all being said i only used the games tools everyone has access to and didnt do anything that was directly against the code of conduct or eula and wish that the forum post they had about not doing this was included in those other documents.. i even reported myself and the reproduction when this was all made apparent.

 

place your blame on me and not NQ for allowing it to happen so easily and burying rules in a forum that isn't apart of the code of conduct or the ender user license agreements.

NQ lives in a lalaland. They can't make a simple game mechanic work and expect people that are paying them to go to the forums, read 100500 pages of half obsolete posts and figure out what is and what is not part of their "emergent" gameplay.

I know some "free" games that do better.

 

Moreover they swing the ban hammer if people press buttons to do stuff in their "sandbox" game.

 

I knew about the possibility of this but never exploited it nor tried because I read that topic.

Getting another person banned because he didn't and there is 0 in-game links etc to that post is silly. We are not supposed to read and figure game rules on forums, we are supposed to play a damn game we pay for.

It's a sandbox game, it's all about doing "emergent" stuff...

 

There was a person yelling about it about a month ago on official discord, he said he created a ticket as he found a way to dock other person constructs to his. What NQ did ? Jetpack switch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Atmosph3rik said:

I'm assuming you tried that, and it didn't work.  So you found an exploit that got you around the way the game is intended to work, which is that you can not use the maneuver tool to parent another player's construct.  And then you exploited it.

I am assuming you are just too lazy to try anything and accuse other people of using exploits when they do something you are unable to understand. Many in-game tools are just the most sophisticated cocktail of meta and know-how atm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Hazaatan said:

You didn't know that the safe zone means SAFE??  BS, you knew.  Players like you are the worst part of this game.

It means you can't be shot at while there. Nothing else.

About the players, I can say 100% same about you. You make it boring af.

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

It means you can't be shot at while there. Nothing else.

About the players, I can say 100% same about you. You make it boring af.

1. you're full shit, you know the safe zone means safe

2. How do I make the game boring?

3. How are you bored?  Why aren't you PVP'ing in space with the PVP'ers? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Hazaatan said:

1. you're full shit, you know the safe zone means safe

2. How do I make the game boring?

3. How are you bored?  Why aren't you PVP'ing in space with the PVP'ers? 

1) Baselessly insulting people on the internet doesn't make you any good other than showing your inability to have a conversation. Safe zone is not safe, you can still screw up.

2) Because in your world everyone should be playing the game as you see it and you don't see that much.

3) I do:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, XKentX said:

just the most sophisticated cocktail of meta and know-how

 

That's the cutest way i've ever heard someone describe an exploit.  Hilarious. 

 

The fact is that the combination of the safe zone and RDMS permissions is supposed to guarantee that when you park your ship in the safe zone, someone without permission to move it, should not be able to move it into the PVP zone, to destroy it.  

 

If someone finds a way to do that, with a tool that is not intended to do that.  That's an exploit.

 

If that was something that was supposed to be possible, this would be a different story.  And you know that.

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

1) Baselessly insulting people on the internet doesn't make you any good other than showing your inability to have a conversation. Safe zone is not safe, you can still screw up.

My insults are not baseless.  The idea that you don't know what safe means in this context is stupid.  What is even more stupid is the way you try to defend that stupidity.  I know you're not a stupid person, but you are like a 13 year old brat trying to use reverse sockmology to get around the obvious meaning of 'safe' in this context.

3 minutes ago, XKentX said:

2) Because in your world everyone should be playing the game as you see it and you don't see that much.

You are doing the exact same thing...

 

9 minutes ago, XKentX said:

3) I do:

Then what are you F'n crying about???  How are you bored if you're doing what you think is fun??  

 

Are you a 13 year old brat?

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:

 

That's the cutest way i've ever heard someone describe an exploit.  Hilarious. 

 

The fact is that the combination of the safe zone and RDMS permissions is supposed to guarantee that when you park your ship in the safe zone, someone without permission to move it, should not be able to move it into the PVP zone, to destroy it.  

 

If someone finds a way to do that, with a tool that is not intended to do that.  That's an exploit.

 

If that was something that was supposed to be possible, this would be a different story.  And you know that.

You say park. When you logoff flying with speed it doesn't quality as parking in my book.

 

Parenting properly parked(construct that was like on the ground) construct and dragging it to PVP space to shoot it is considered an exploit by NQ and they have a post stating that. I don't argue here.

What I say is that their communication of "rules" is not transparent enough and applying penalties to someone not knowing some rules written on some forum thread half a year ago is not a proper way to go. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...