Explain why is it bad?
Does this forum openly advocates task killing the app when things go sour?
It certainly seems to be the case, its amazing tbh since this is the official forum of the game.
- Status
Explain why is it bad?
Does this forum openly advocates task killing the app when things go sour?
It certainly seems to be the case, its amazing tbh since this is the official forum of the game.
Lol. I love this stuff.
Don't know. Why do you care? I am the forum? Did I advocate task killing? Does it matter if this is the official forum?
Anyway, if you harass players in game you are breaking the TOS, so are you openly advocating harassing players?
And just to annoy you: Yes, I think task killing is perfectly legal and reasonable in the scenario OP described. Now try to do something against it.
Don't know. Why do you care? I am the forum? Did I advocate task killing? Does it matter if this is the official forum?
Anyway, if you harass players in game you are breaking the TOS, so are you openly advocating harassing players?
And just to annoy you: Yes, I think task killing is perfectly legal and reasonable in the scenario OP described. Now try to do something against it.
Ok hmm, I dont think Fdev agrees with you.
Killing a player in open is not harassment.
Task killing is cheating.
I think you are playing the wrong game tbh, did you research before you bought it?
I think you are reading the wrong thread. Task killing is only cheating when you are in combat. OP wasn't in combat. He was docking.
Did you read the thread before posting in it?
a possible solution to this particular exploit: disable or dampen ramming damage inside stations. con: would take out the excitement of boosting into them, and possibly: everybody would boost into them like crazy. nothing is perfect.
this is a really hard nut. i would leave it as is. the 100m/s rule is already a good mitigation. totally against combat logging but op's case might just be one of those rare exceptions.
oh, never mind. you mean nerfing damage for collisions in rapid succession. could be a thing, yes.
Last edited:
So, ask yourself this: if there had been actual human beings in the Station's control room, what would they have done? Would they have said "Oh, look, that ship's ramming that other ship. Shall we do something? Nah."
Or would they have issued a warning and then blown that ship apart?
If I were to try and enforce a blockade (I wouldn't, as that does not interest me. I also do not have the piloting skills to have any hope of success) I would try doing it in the following fashion.
I would be broadcasting (every minute or so) a blockade warning. If somebody tried to run the blockade I would attempt to interdict them (knowing me I would probably fail!). Should I succeed in the interdiction, after I got over the shock, I would try to knock out the shields of the blockade runner. If I succeeded in this I would pause in my attack, suggesting to the runner that they might want to leave the system. If they high waked out, great, but should they continue with the attempt to break the blockade I would try and interdict them again. If I succeeded again (will wonders never cease?) I would then cripple their FSD, and advise them that if they continued with their attempt I would try to blow their ship up. Should they continue with the attempt, and I interdicted them again (oh, come on! There is no way I could do 3 successful interdictions, even with divine intervention!!!) I would now try to blow the ship up. However, if a runner made it to the No Fire zone I would consider that they had run the blockade, and were victorious. I would congratulate them, and that (should they try again) I would try and get them next time; "Well done, Commander, and well flown. Should you try again I will try and get you next time. Fly safely (except here!), and see you out amongst the stars".
I would be broadcasting (every minute or so) a blockade warning. If somebody tried to run the blockade I would attempt to interdict them (knowing me I would probably fail!). Should I succeed in the interdiction, after I got over the shock, I would try to knock out the shields of the blockade runner. If I succeeded in this I would pause in my attack, suggesting to the runner that they might want to leave the system. If they high waked out, great, but should they continue with the attempt to break the blockade I would try and interdict them again. If I succeeded again (will wonders never cease?) I would then cripple their FSD, and advise them that if they continued with their attempt I would try to blow their ship up. Should they continue with the attempt, and I interdicted them again (oh, come on! There is no way I could do 3 successful interdictions, even with divine intervention!!!) I would now try to blow the ship up. However, if a runner made it to the No Fire zone I would consider that they had run the blockade, and were victorious. I would congratulate them, and that (should they try again) I would try and get them next time; "Well done, Commander, and well flown. Should you try again I will try and get you next time. Fly safely (except here!), and see you out amongst the stars".
Pretty much how I feel as well - if you make it to the station (especially if you make it inside the station) then you've won. The inside of a station should be safe space, and the only reason it isn't is simply down the game not knowing how to categorise accidental vs. deliberate-and-persistent interference.
Just wondering, would a auto docking computer help in a situation like this ?
Presumably the station could detect interference with the landing procedure more easily than it could with manual docking ?
Presumably the station could detect interference with the landing procedure more easily than it could with manual docking ?
I think FDEV also made it quite clear that this is their intention. With no fire zones, anti loitering, anti letterbox blocking, anti speeding mechanics and super powerful station weapons... But some people believe exploiting game mechanics is intended gameplay and everyone else bought the wrong game...
Theoretically yes, however I believe when dealing with exploits there comes a point where every new mechanic against an exploit opens two possibilities for new exploits... I think it's best to just put these CMDRs on the block list, they'll move on when they realise there is nobody to play with them anymore.
If I am sufficiently outnumbered to think docking may be difficult, I normally don't even try, and head elsewhere. If I do try to dock, but cannot out maneuver my attackers, I flee the station and high wake.
The main problem I see in this scenario was your presumption of safety. Key point to remember is that you are not safe until you are locked onto a pad and you are only safe as long as you are locked on to a pad. There are numerous ways to attack targets inside stations, and even without exploiting any oversights, you can easily be destroyed by a creative or suicidal attacker if you aren't careful.
If you had time to log out you had time to escape.
Not sure why you care about the consensus of opinions, but I'm even less sure how you can use one immersion defying flaw as justification for a more overt one.
No. Stations don't care about bystanders.
It didn't fire because the timer wasn't triggered and no one had exploded yet, so there was no murder crime.
If both parties are cheating, ban them both.
No.
Anyone who uses a docking computer in a potentially hostile situation is begging for trouble.
Since he wasn't in combat most of your points are irrelevant in my opinion.
Repeatedly ramming should be same as shooting. Ram someone once you get fine, ram some more station opens fire same as they do when you do other silly stuff inside of station.
OP as far as I can see you played game the way it is ment and the other player simply cheated by exploiting broken station mechanism.
Frontier should really address these silly exploits ASAP as they have been around for some time now.
Killing a player in fight is ok and by all means acceptable, but killing someone by using broken game mechanics ia simply cheep tricks and frankly cheeting.
OP as far as I can see you played game the way it is ment and the other player simply cheated by exploiting broken station mechanism.
Frontier should really address these silly exploits ASAP as they have been around for some time now.
Killing a player in fight is ok and by all means acceptable, but killing someone by using broken game mechanics ia simply cheep tricks and frankly cheeting.
First, congrats on successfully running the blockade. Don't let a sore loser exploiting a loophole in the "justice" system bring you down.
Incidents like yours demonstrates why Frontier should've had a karma system in place before the game went live. If you're building a game that allows for open PvP, you need something that can track chronic jerkish behavior, and respond to it. You can be sure that you weren't the only one that... individual has done this to. The game really should take a look at a player's accumulated karma, and react accordingly, based on both the security level of the system, and the severity of the offense. At a certain point, any infraction should provoke a hostile response, assuming the station lets you approach at all.
Inside a medium security station Station C&C:
"Hey! The ship approaching our station has a long history of incidents with other Member's of the Pilots' Federation. Should we blow him up?"
"Not yet. If we blow up every jerk who approached our station, we'll starve to death. I know the Pilots' Federation has him on their 'Kill on Sight' list, but he's not on ours yet.
"Target his ship, though. One step out of line, and he's space dust."
*37 seconds later*
"Sir, he was just involved in a minor shield clash with another ship."
"Good. Open fire!"
Last edited:
Task killing is cheating, anytime, combat or not.
So.....when the game hangs I can't exit the game for fear of being branded a cheater. I've had to use the task kill to exit the game on many occasions.
Blanket statements show a fixed attitude, which doesn't allow for any other possibility, such as the possibility that the person making the statement just 'might' be wrong.
- Status