PvP "Dangerous" times in Eravate

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

I think, if you're caught intentionally griefing CMDRs in places you shouldn't.

Nothing should happen at the time.


But you should receive a message saying "It would be a shame if something were to happen to your <insert ship> docked at <station>. -FDev"



If you keep exploiting, you'll receive a tip off of a crashed ship.


It will be your ship.
No rebuy. It's just a smouldering wreck somewhere.


CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[Morbad]

Starports not attacking SLFs that have opened fire inside them is a bug and if the fighters aren't being destroyed when they attack you, using them to attack you inside a starport is an exploit.

See this thread (which was difficult for me to find, until I realized I created it) for reference and developer comments: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...tion-Diagnostic-Committee-at-Obsidian-Orbital

However, if the starport is correctly engaging and destroying the SLFs, as I have seen them do in non-anarchy space, then things do appear to be working as intended.

 

[CMDR Greg Rickshaw]

It should minimise the likelihood of you instancing with them.

Only been playing the game since launch - I did not know that! thank you sire

I think, if you're caught intentionally griefing CMDRs in places you shouldn't.

Nothing should happen at the time.


But you should receive a message saying "It would be a shame if something were to happen to your <insert ship> docked at <station>. -FDev"



If you keep exploiting, you'll receive a tip off of a crashed ship.


It will be your ship.
No rebuy. It's just a smouldering wreck somewhere.


CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

Please FD Make this happen

 

[verminstar]

If you are brave enough to venture into deepest darkest Eravate you may well become victim of a new kind of killing.
It took me a while to work out and I'm curious how they get away with it, but it seems to go; As you dock you will be nudged by a couple of CMDRS (Clipper and Federal Dropship) I won't give the commanders names but they are very well known.
Then what happens 'I think' is after they have done enough damage to avoid their own fine, typically your shields are done and hull damaged, they, again 'I think' launch their ship based fighters and destroy you. I have no idea why the station does not open up on the fighters, they may well do, but for sure you are destroyed by a commander not the station.
Be safe out there the night is dark and full of terror (and it would seem the space stations) o7

Unreadable ^

 

[leifhansson]

Haha. Det kalles en Ninja
(Krypto for the rest of you!)

Nul krypto for mig! Og jeg er tysker...

 

[Crank Larson]

I refuse to believe that is working as intended as it bypasses station security and prevents commanders from landing regardless of what they do. But I've been wrong about the devs intentions before

I agree. Once you have made it through the mailslot, station services should ensure that you are able to land. Any shenanigans within the docking bay itself should be prevented (e.g. perpetrators destroyed).

 

[GreyAreaUK]

I agree. Once you have made it through the mailslot, station services should ensure that you are able to land. Any shenanigans within the docking bay itself should be prevented (e.g. perpetrators destroyed).

In this sort of 'no official FDev reply' situation (and with other people claiming it's valid gameplay) I find it helps to ask yourself: what would real human controllers in the Station ATC Tower do? And I'm pretty sure the answer is 'issue a warning, then melt the offending ships if they continue'.

 

[Morbad]

Station security should absolutely take measures against CMDRs engaging in hostilities in the no-fire zone and especially inside the stations.

However, the idea that this should make the station interior perfectly safe is lunacy, and utterly contrary to four years of game precedent and marketing materials, as well as being unsupported by developer statements.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

Station security should absolutely take measures against CMDRs engaging in hostilities in the no-fire zone and especially inside the stations.

However, the idea that this should make the station interior perfectly safe is lunacy, and utterly contrary to four years of game precedent and marketing materials, as well as being unsupported by developer statements.

Hmmm. I think this falls into "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" territory. Just because it hasn't been addressed doesn't mean it's working as intended.

 

[Morbad]

In this sort of 'no official FDev reply' situation (and with other people claiming it's valid gameplay) I find it helps to ask yourself: what would real human controllers in the Station ATC Tower do? And I'm pretty sure the answer is 'issue a warning, then melt the offending ships if they continue'.

Indeed, but this doesn't imply safety for the victims. In the case of SLFs, the motherships are 20+ km away, far outside the range of the station's guns and potent enough to ignore security vessels for protracted periods of time, even unattended.

Hmmm. I think this falls into "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" territory. Just because it hasn't been addressed doesn't mean it's working as intended.

The stuff I'm referring to has been addressed (see the thread I linked to above for one example).

The only real gray areas are pinning ships to pads to induce a station response against the victim and using repeated low speed ramming to avoid being flagged as hostile. Full speed ramming and weapons fire do normally prompt a station response (and are always supposed to). If you are destroyed by an attacker willing to suffer the consequences (which are often, but not always, expensive), they aren't breaking any rules or even crossing into any reasonably dubious territory.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

Indeed, but this doesn't imply safety for the victims. In the case of SLFs, the motherships are 20+ km away, far outside the range of the station's guns and potent enough to ignore security vessels for protracted periods of time, even unattended.



The stuff I'm referring to has been addressed (see the thread I linked to above for one example).

The only real gray areas are pinning ships to pads to induce a station response against the victim and using repeated low speed ramming to avoid being flagged as hostile. Full speed ramming and weapons fire do normally prompt a station response (and are always supposed to). If you are destroyed by an attacker willing to suffer the consequences (which are often, but not always, expensive), they aren't breaking any rules or even crossing into any reasonably dubious territory.

Good point. It's also really, really hard to program something that recognises intent​.

 

[Crank Larson]

In this sort of 'no official FDev reply' situation (and with other people claiming it's valid gameplay) I find it helps to ask yourself: what would real human controllers in the Station ATC Tower do? And I'm pretty sure the answer is 'issue a warning, then melt the offending ships if they continue'.

Yes. Though in this case I can see how FD may have a hard task, as what a human will see as obvious offending behaviour can sometimes be very difficult to spot programmatically.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

Yes. Though in this case I can see how FD may have a hard task, as what a human will see as obvious offending behaviour can sometimes be very difficult to spot programmatically.

*nod* as in my previous reply, it's really hard for a computer to recognise intent.

 

[Morbad]

Good point. It's also really, really hard to program something that recognises intent​.

Yeah, I don't think the AI governing rules of engagement are up to task, but I'm sure their is some room for improvement.

Personally, I'd be inclined to treat any ramming while speeding the same as weapons fire, and apply a "three strikes in thirty seconds, then we shoot you" to the faster of two vessels that come in contact in the docking bay at speeds below that limit. This would be on top of more general C&P changes.

Problem is that it would be seen as an unfair annoyance by a significant portion of the player base, who seem to want both absolute safety and the hypocritical ability to act with reckless abandon themselves.

 

[Viscera]

As you are going to die anyway, why not equip a bucket load of mines and mass deploy the lot in the station as they start shoving you about.
It might be funny to see.

Please note I am not advocating this as a sensible or correct thing to do in anyway.

 

[Morbad]

As you are going to die anyway, why not equip a bucket load of mines and mass deploy the lot in the station as they start shoving you about.

Because any combat fit vessel, certainly anything anyone would intentionally ram anyone with, will survive a bucket load of mines largely unscathed.

[video=youtube;WCTH-kGT7yU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCTH-kGT7yU[/video]

 

[Stigbob]

The only real gray areas are pinning ships to pads to induce a station response against the victim and using repeated low speed ramming to avoid being flagged as hostile. Full speed ramming and weapons fire do normally prompt a station response (and are always supposed to). If you are destroyed by an attacker willing to suffer the consequences (which are often, but not always, expensive), they aren't breaking any rules or even crossing into any reasonably dubious territory.

That's not a grey area, that's exploiting.

 

[Crank Larson]

That's not a grey area, that's exploiting.

I don't agree that it is exploiting at all. Which means it most likely is a grey area. It may not be pleasant, but while it is within the current rules it is not exploiting. The rules need changing.

 

[Stigbob]

I don't agree that it is exploiting at all. Which means it most likely is a grey area. It may not be pleasant, but while it is within the current rules it is not exploiting. The rules need changing.

It's just another station cheat in the long line of station cheats, stop it and they'll just switch to something else exactly as they always have.

While I respect your opinion it's a grey area I disagree, and I'll still block anyone who does it.

 

[Pumabear8]

Indeed, but this doesn't imply safety for the victims. In the case of SLFs, the motherships are 20+ km away, far outside the range of the station's guns and potent enough to ignore security vessels for protracted periods of time, even unattended.

A quick fix for that, disable SLF's if they enter a no fire zone without the mother ship.