This is not fair.

[777Driver]

@Steve O B Have - All we are saying is that both parties were at fault, hence why this topic has appeared, the op made an innocent mistake, the griefer was a complete(insert 4 letter word). We can only give the OP advice that will ensure this never happens again within the current games rules.

What I don't understand is why some are so reluctant to fly the last few 7+ km's insde the NFZ at or below 360km/h, it's not exactly a snail pace for hundreds of miles. For those that are smuggling,well you are breaking the law anyway, it's all part of the risk, run slower and silent, or take the risk and speed. Those kind of griefers are rare anyway.

 

[Electric Kite]

Dude, it's not an exploit.

Dude - i disagree.

Its clearly an exploit if someone intentionally blows themselfs up on your hull to get u killed by a station.

What would you call that? "Working as intended" If so: awesome. We are on two totally different wave lenghts and theres no point in even talking to one another.

For real.

 

[Bonzodog]

Another thing the OP mentioned - the guy said he was videoing it? Why would you video yourself doing such a thing as ramming someone in station, knowing it could get you sanctioned by FDev?

 

[Electric Kite]

In the current situation, obeying the speed limit is prevention. As mentioned earlier, the speed limit was put in place to discourage antisocial players disrupting others' gameplay by ramming them with big ships & effective impunity.

Would like to hear what kind of fix you had in mind ("this problem can be fixed with maybe one line of code") though.

The station doesnt insta kill you. You get a count down timer asking you to leave the system.

....did i just blow your mind? I have literally no coding expereince..but im pretty sure thats entry level right there.

 

[Arry]

As ive said about 56 times. It still cost millions annnnnd millions due to an exploit. Rebuy or not. The point is entirely missed.

If you choose to use the argument, that players should stick to the rules and be punished for not doing so: Then stick to the rules and keep your docking speed under 99ms. Simples.

 

[stormyuk]

Another thing the OP mentioned - the guy said he was videoing it? Why would you video yourself doing such a thing as ramming someone in station, knowing it could get you sanctioned by FDev?

I guess as others have said, its working as intended, whats to sanction?

 

[Electric Kite]

Another thing the OP mentioned - the guy said he was videoing it? Why would you video yourself doing such a thing as ramming someone in station, knowing it could get you sanctioned by FDev?

I dont know? Hes an idiot? OR its pretty easy to edit a video clip to make it look like ur logging off when under fire?

Who knows.

 

[SaliVader]

Dude - i disagree.

Its clearly an exploit if someone intentionally blows themselfs up on your hull to get u killed by a station.

What would you call that? "Working as intended" If so: awesome. We are on two totally different wave lenghts and theres no point in even talking to one another.

For real.

Yeah, I don't think we're using the same definition of exploit. To me, an exploit is something that isn't working the way developers intended. For instance, skimmer kills used to count for conflict zones massacre missions, and this was heavily abused in 17 Draconis. It was an exploit because those weren't the intended targets for the missions, and they fixed it.

In this case, the rules are simple: If you ram a ship when over 100m/s, you get a fine and if the other ship dies, you get a bounty. This was placed to prevent people from ramming ships, as it's been stated before by me and other people in this thread. It is working as intended and thus it isn't an exploit, even if some people find some "creative" uses of this mechanic.

 

[Arvel Yael]

The DBX sounds like a grade A Jerk, and I'm not saying the words I really had in mind because the forum doesn't like them.

Folks like that are the reason why people are reluctant to play in open. I hope he loses his most expensive ship, can't afford the rebuy cost, and ragequits, never to play again.

 

[Zieman]

The station doesnt insta kill you. You get a count down timer asking you to leave the system.

....did i just blow your mind? I have literally no coding expereince..but im pretty sure thats entry level right there.

Hmm: "Murder detected, bounty of 5000 Cr issued. Punishment commences in 30 seconds." And timer stands to run, just like with loitering.
In your situation it would work. But what kind of deterrent would that be to someone with lots of firepower or fast durable ship? They could kill one or more traders, explorers, newbies, with impunity. Nah, IMO the current system is better.

 

[khaos526]

Dude - i disagree.

Its clearly an exploit if someone intentionally blows themselfs up on your hull to get u killed by a station.

What would you call that? "Working as intended" If so: awesome. We are on two totally different wave lenghts and theres no point in even talking to one another.

For real.

It's a scam not an exploit. It's the same thing that when people on the road jam on their brakes so the car behind them hits them and then the car in front tries to get money out of the accident. Same principle.

In this case though, the monetary satisfaction for the criminal doing the scam, is just to others off and that's their rewards.

Maybe all our ships need to purchase dash board cameras to catch that sort of thing. Of course we'd need a galactic court and so on...

 

[Electric Kite]

Yeah, I don't think we're using the same definition of exploit. To me, an exploit is something that isn't working the way developers intended. For instance, skimmer kills used to count for conflict zones massacre missions, and this was heavily abused in 17 Draconis. It was an exploit because those weren't the intended targets for the missions, and they fixed it.

In this case, the rules are simple: If you ram a ship when over 100m/s, you get a fine and if the other ship dies, you get a bounty. This was placed to prevent people from ramming ships, as it's been stated before by me and other people in this thread. It is working as intended and thus it isn't an exploit, even if some people find some "creative" uses of this mechanic.

I can see you and me are destined to have a 45 page long arguement which is depressing as all to me as i have no desire to convince you of anything. Honestly. I disagree with you. Thats all i got. As ive said: a player chilling outside astation at a CG event with the intention of blowing himself up on your hull to get you insta killed by a station , (for me) is not something F.D dreamed up and though YEAH THATS A GREAT IDEA. Therefore - not working as intended.



Ill say this folks, this is my last post. It was not my intention to come here and mine sympathy and to be honest i knew from the get go , as per forums in general, i would be blamed by the "git gud" crowd and im totally OK with that.

All i was doing was throwing it out there that i, in my humble opinion, would like to see this method of griefing be dealt with.

Thats all.

Fly safe commanders.

And to those who were actualy undrstanding and supportive - thank you. I wont forgot your names. o7

 

[Lendri]

Play in Open. If you dont- they win.

Nah. Let them have their ganker's paradise.

 

[Arry]

I can see you and me are destined to have a 45 page long arguement which is depressing as all to me as i have no desire to convince you of anything. Honestly. I disagree with you. Thats all i got. As ive said: a player chilling outside astation at a CG event with the intention of blowing himself up on your hull to get you insta killed by a station , (for me) is not something F.D dreamed up and though YEAH THATS A GREAT IDEA. Therefore - not working as intended.



Ill say this folks, this is my last post. It was not my intention to come here and mine sympathy and to be honest i knew from the get go , as per forums in general, i would be blamed by the "git gud" crowd and im totally OK with that.

All i was doing was throwing it out there that i, in my humble opinion, would like to see this method of griefing be dealt with.

Thats all.

Fly safe commanders.

And to those who were actualy undrstanding and supportive - thank you. I wont forgot your names. o7

So this simple,'one line of code', what would it do exactly? How does the game, understand the difference between your current issue and say, some poor guy, returning from a CZ in his first sidewinder with 3% hull left and you and him coming together, with you running over 99ms and him sticking to the speed limit? How does the game make that decision, you have told us, it would be easy too fix. So how?

 

[Asp Explorer]

So this simple,'one line of code', what would it do exactly?

IF Player1=Clean AND Harmless AND Credits<5000 AND Gametime<120minutes AND Speed>99 = SAMEPOSITION Player2 AND Player2=Wanted OR >Harmless AND Credits<5000 AND Gametime<120minutes AND Speed<=99 THEN LET Stationtarget=Player2

 

[Han_Zen]

Anyone can get their own Freewinder and keep the station area clean of suiciders.

Public service. You want even die if you bump them at 90m/s.
Nice way to went some frustration.

 

[V'larr]

Yeah, I don't think we're using the same definition of exploit. To me, an exploit is something that isn't working the way developers intended. For instance, skimmer kills used to count for conflict zones massacre missions, and this was heavily abused in 17 Draconis. It was an exploit because those weren't the intended targets for the missions, and they fixed it.

In this case, the rules are simple: If you ram a ship when over 100m/s, you get a fine and if the other ship dies, you get a bounty. This was placed to prevent people from ramming ships, as it's been stated before by me and other people in this thread. It is working as intended and thus it isn't an exploit, even if some people find some "creative" uses of this mechanic.

You do realize you're counteracting your own argument here by describing the exact same thing twice in two different ways?

"Creative" uses of a mechanic, that are clearly not how it's intended to be used, is exactly what exploits are.

 

[SaliVader]

You do realize you're counteracting your own argument here by describing the exact same thing twice in two different ways?

"Creative" uses of a mechanic, that are clearly not how it's intended to be used, is exactly what exploits are.

I described the rules quite clearly, and the game does abide to those rules. The example of an actual exploit I gave did not abide to the game's rules.

 

[GraXXoR]

Twice? By the same method? In two days? Fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice...

Stick to the speed limits. That other player didn't break any Pilot's Fed rules. He was using the law to his advantage. Just like any lawyer would.

I think your insistsnce on using the word exploit, here, is perhaps uncalled for. An exploit is using game mechanics to do something that should not be possible, like getting 20 contracts from the same employer to scan one terminal and get paid 20 times the going rate.. THAT is an exploit. This is just using the word of the law rather than the spirit.

 

[Devari]

Ive had my ship rammed to death before even though i was Auto Docking (so not speeding).

Its doesnt matter.

Trolls gotta troll.

If you are using the docking computer your ship should be exempt from speeding while the docking computer is engaged, even though the docking computer will boost to close the distance to the station and occasionally go slightly above 100 m/s even when doing final docking maneuvers.

If you are rammed by a ship when docking and the docking computer is flying your ship you should not become wanted even if you the ship was going over 100 m/s and the collision destroys the other ship. You were not actually in control at the time the collision occurred, the docking computer was, so it should not count against your CMDR.

I would definitely open a support ticket in that case because the entire point of the docking computer is to allow ships to dock more efficiently and safely and you should not get bounties or fines for collisions under ANY circumstances involving intentional docking computer behavior.