PvP "Dangerous" times in Eravate

Crank Larson

Crank Larson
Stigbob said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh, in my opinion it is not a grey area either - it is clearly not an exploit. :p But that is why it actually is a grey area, because we both have differing opinions, and there are reasonable arguments on both sides (I think).

Personally, if I was prevented from landing on a pad I'd have no qualms about logging out and going into another mode. That kind of behaviour simply wouldn't be tolerated inside a space station (imo), but the game isn't yet smart enough to do anything about it.
 

Morbad

Morbad
Pumabear8 said:
A quick fix for that, disable SLF's if they enter a no fire zone without the mother ship.
Click to expand...

Why the arbitrary "without the mother ship" condition? If the station has some way of interfering with SLF telepresence/remote control, wouldn't it make more sense to just disable SLFs entirely within that field?

The NFZ of high sec starports is 10km in radius. This is way out of range of the starport laser turrets, and far enough from the giant autocannons that even large ships can evade their fire. A multi-crew vessel would still be able to launch SLFs at targets inside the station and remain safe.
 

Stigbob

Stigbob
CMDR Crank Larson said:
Oh, in my opinion it is not a grey area either - it is clearly not an exploit. :p But that is why it actually is a grey area, because we both have differing opinions, and there are reasonable arguments on both sides (I think).

Personally, if I was prevented from landing on a pad I'd have no qualms about logging out and going into another mode. That kind of behaviour simply wouldn't be tolerated inside a space station (imo), but the game isn't yet smart enough to do anything about it.
Click to expand...

Yeah I can see that, I only got into blocking due to a couple of years worth of ineffective quickly bypassed fixes. It's more effective to remove the exploiters yourself than wait for FDEV to fix the individual exploits, and it's just as quick as mode switching.
 

Pumabear8

Pumabear8
Morbad said:
Why the arbitrary "without the mother ship" condition? If the station has some way of interfering with SLF telepresence/remote control, wouldn't it make more sense to just disable SLFs entirely within that field?

The NFZ of high sec starports is 10km in radius. This is way out of range of the starport laser turrets, and far enough from the giant autocannons that even large ships can evade their fire. A multi-crew vessel would still be able to launch SLFs at targets inside the station and remain safe.
Click to expand...

Because battles still have to take place within the no fire zone, this is why you can still deploy in the no fire zones, if both mothership and SLF are within the zone, battle can continue, like I said, this is a quick fix.
 

bladerunner900

bladerunner900
pnr8uk said:
Only been playing the game since launch - I did not know that! thank you sire
Click to expand...
I'm in the same boat. I believe it was always intended to work that way from the start, but has only recently been fixed. Strike one impediment to returning to the public pool. (It's a good thing) ;)
 

Stigbob

Stigbob
bladerunner900 said:
I'm in the same boat. I believe it was always intended to work that way from the start, but has only recently been fixed. Strike one impediment to returning to the public pool. (It's a good thing) ;)
Click to expand...

Merely mentioning block tends to attract the ire of a certain type of CMDR, apparently I got KOS listed for starting threads about it. There were comedy attempts to shut the them down and all sorts of cobblers being spread about how it works and what it's for.
 

Ziggy Stardust

Ziggy Stardust
CMDR Crank Larson said:
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.
Click to expand...
When it's not intended by the developers, it's exploiting. When it breaks the rules, it's cheating.

Since I don't believe the developers intended this kind of player interaction (I might very well be wrong, but it would be weird if this is an intended mechanic) I believe it's an exploit. Can't think of any rules that are broken (again, I might be wrong), so that would mean it's not cheating.
 

Herbrand

Herbrand
I think someone tried to do this to my combat-fitted T9 a couple of months ago - I logged via the 15s menu because my ship was though enough to withstand ramming for a long time.

If someone has a less resilient ship, I see no reason for not combat-logging on them - fight exploit with another exploit.
Oh, and definitely block them - you will not get instanced with them again.
 

amysteriousstranger

A
I think the idea of a ram distress signal could work, it only works when you are within landing range (when the screen changes to see your ship landing on the HUD)
If you deploy a distress signal the station will immediately destroy any ship that touches you since no other ship should be within touching distance when you 100m from the landing bay
Still exploitable? Maybe, but would offer some protection


Pretty sure FD have confirmed blocking only affects comms, I’ve blocked dozens of people for bad language and I still see them all the time
 
Last edited:

Arguendo

Volunteer Moderator
Arguendo
amysteriousstranger said:
Pretty sure FD have confirmed blocking only affects comms, I’ve blocked dozens of people for bad language and I still see them all the time
Click to expand...
Nope. Blocking will make the server try to avoid instancing you with the player in question, if it can.
If you have blocked players, you're not in a wing with anyone, they aren't in a wing with anyone, and you still instance with those players on a regular basis; file a ticket. That is not the intended behaviour. If the coding can't avoid instancing you with those players in a populated instance, it should create another instance just for you that other players will populate into.

Note: It may be that those players are in wings with people you haven't blocked. You will then instance with those players first, and the rest of the wing will follow. Wings override blocking.
 
Last edited:

amysteriousstranger

A
CMDR Arguendo said:
Nope. Blocking will make the server try to avoid instancing you with the player in question, if it can.
If you have blocked players, you're not in a wing with anyone, they aren't in a wing with anyone, and you still instance with those players on a regular basis; file a ticket. That is not the intended behaviour. If the coding can't avoid instancing you with those players in a populated instance, it should create another instance just for you that other players will populate into.

Note: It may be that those players are in wings with people you haven't blocked. You will then instance with those players first, and the rest of the wing will follow. Wings override blocking.
Click to expand...

Well that’s annoying, I only want to block certain people’s comms and not Instancing but I guess that’s not how it works.
Obviously can’t really turn off local and direct messages all the time as that would stop everyone messaging me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom