Attack Hacks??

[roadrage]

Hmm, the solution I see to this problem is fairly simple. Reverb torps are needed to counter super shield tank builds, so the solution is to extend the no-fire zone out to about 15km, and give the station's lasers about 10000 DPS with phasing sequence. Also anarchy stations need to enforce the no-fire zone, and any firing of weapons besides PDT inside the zone should mean instant destruction, whether you are defending yourself or not. Goes right along with loitering being punished by death. No-fire means exactly that, stay off the trigger or die.

Stations should protect anyone inside the no-fire zone just for the simple fact that allowing destruction of those who are trying to dock or leave is bad for business. Even an anarchy faction would realize that.

 

[Valije]

parking here waiting the ganker to cry because someone did not get destroyed and try to argue that someones "owe" him something.

Plus need more popcorn !!

 

[Shadowma]

First & foremost, the folks that attacked the op are ATS & nothing else, there was no monetary gain for attacking someone coming out of the port & certainly no skill. Sooner or later everyone will do as I have & migrate to a private server & leave the ATS to themselves or worse case scenario everyone will go & play a different game. Then when Frontier has to close up shop the ATS will be happy. You          don't impress me, if you wanted to take someone on so be it, do it one on one, but that is never how it happens, there are usually more like at least 3 or four when this happens. Maybe Frontier needs to make authority ships more aggressive against wings that participate in these types of endeavors, only time will tell.

Shadowma

 

[Doolittle]

Sorry you didn't know that ED is being groomed for the limited mentality of the griefers and console pew-pew players. Best to stick with Solo play.
So you got stabbed in the back by a low-life ED gamers. Too bad they didn't have the courage to face you in combat but rather do it that way.

Here's the funny part. If you came here with a name of the commander who did this and offered a bounty that someone could actually collect on it might be fun. But FD only wants to give the griefers the fun element in this game. With the logic that FD has applied to many of these situations it becomes very apparent what type of gamer they want playing their game, and they don't want you playing it.

 

[AutoMechancal]

This doesn't appear to be the case - see my experience as I posted above. Torpedo speed appears to be current ship speed + 150 m/s.

Torpedos are at the firing ships speed for the arming time (2.5 seconds) then drop to 250ms after that. Unless they changed something from the 2.1beta.

 

[LoneKharnivore]

Sorry you didn't know that ED is being groomed for the limited mentality of the griefers and console pew-pew players.

Console pew-pew players being that 70% that voted for delayed gratification, right?

 

[Mangal Oemie]

It's been a long time since I was attacked by another CMDR but tonight, as I left Obsidian Orbital I was attacked by someone.

First hit completely knocked out my shields (I'm in a fully A rated and modded Fed Corvette with alot of shields) also disabled my shield gen and thrusters.

I didn't get a chance to see the name of the commander, only that he/she was in a Corvette also.

I have a decent specced ship, albeit I'm not really in for the PvP. I am unaware of any weapons in the game which can disable shields in one hit????

Anyone know of such things or if it's likely I was attacked by a cowardly hacker of some kind?

Nope. Just the idiocy of engineers...

Or rather heavily engineered ships for PvP. The gulf between regular PvE and unmodded builds and engineered PvP ships means it's essentially you with a peashooters, and them with a nuke. No excitement, just a boring interlude until it's over and you're back at your last station.

I think engineered PvP needs a separate game mode, considering it is neither impactful on the BGS/wider galaxy nor is it of interest to anyone but dedicated PvPers, but hey, that's probably not going to happen.

I lost a mission python a few weeks back on a conda and FdL PvPer wing. Over in seconds, and I had to make a 6 jump trip again. It can't have been much fun for them, either, shooting a fleeing unmodded ship they could easily keep up with...

 

[LoneKharnivore]

It can't have been much fun for them, either, shooting a fleeing unmodded ship they could easily keep up with...

The fun for them comes when they imagine you feeling really upset as you look at the rebuy screen. Schadenfreude ain't just a river in... wait, no, hang on.

 

[Mangal Oemie]

The fun for them comes when they imagine you feeling really upset as you look at the rebuy screen. Schadenfreude ain't just a river in... wait, no, hang on.

ah, ok. Does that even work when the victim isn't actually upset? Do they just imagine I got "salty" and stuff?

 

[LoneKharnivore]

ah, ok. Does that even work when the victim isn't actually upset? Do they just imagine I got "salty" and stuff?

They would get salty, so obviously you do. Part of the mindset seems to be a lack of empathy.

 

[hiciacit]

Actually yes you owe me my rebuy because when you combat log my missiles pass through you and hit the station which destroy me instant.

I'm not sure this is working as intending. Its quite funny that your combat log led to my destruction.

And if you don't want to get attack so easily don't go in anarchy system that's easy.

Haha, amazing! Now here's a reason to go play in Open if I've ever seen one.

 

[CMDR Ellegon]

Actually yes you owe me my rebuy because when you combat log my missiles pass through you and hit the station which destroy me instant.

I'm not sure this is working as intending. Its quite funny that your combat log led to my destruction.

And if you don't want to get attack so easily don't go in anarchy system that's easy.

LOL! You got what you deserved. Cowardly attack led to rebuy screen for yourself. Priceless!

 

[Valije]

That reason it's so funny that I decided to add it to my sig.

 

[CMDR Ellegon]

Hey FD? Here's a guy who just admitted to CLing. Given that you're on record as this being an exploit, you're going to do something about it. Right?

It is questionable that that attack qualified as "combat". It was more a cowardly assassination attempt. So Wayner506 "assassination-logged".

 

[Vorxian]

If someone exploits a weakness in game that goes against the grain of what the developers intended as 'fair game play'... has no real foundation to argue that the intended victim also using an exploit or weakness to evade an unnecessary loss of time / investment caused unnecessary loss by doing it.

What is it exactly that the devs have intended as fair gameplay? I'd like to imagine there is such a quote somewhere regarding killing players around station, but so far the only one I've found is this one:

The devs have time and time again suggested (without directly saying it out in concrete) that certain game play elements being found by players are against the essence of what they intended. Just because it's possible, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

In the OP's case he was playing by the rules, sticking to speed limit, exiting a station, in a no fire zone, and someone takes advantage of his encumbered and helpless state to rake him with torpedoes from a safe distance. That, I am sure isn't how FDEV intended PvP / emergent game play to happen.

In an ironic twist to the story, the OP pulled the plug, and the already very gray 'gameplay' by the attacker backfired, as when the OP vanished from existence, the torpedoes hurtled into the wall of the station which was not much appreciated by station management. They turned all gun batteries on the would be ganker.

I think had this been a legitimate interception, and no parties were hand tied by in game station mechanics, then there may be room for debate. As it stands, it's not the case.

Unless many many people really do wish to discuss further, it's an open / shut case. But I really don't see how a mass-debate would change peoples minds (unless people get off on these types of gank)

 

[HalloweenWeed]

I think you all are missing something very basic. This is a game, not a simulation. The game physics are far from realistic. If it were a simulation, then the following characteristics would be questioned:

Why does the ship fly like an airplane/jet, instantly turning all inertia (speed) when applying yaw/pitch/attitude, instead of having to wait for the thrusters to overcome inertia? It should act more like the old classic asteroids game as far as flying mechanics. Basically, they have applied atmospheric avionics physics to space flight.
Why does deploying the landing gear cause drag in space?
Why do I hover effortlessly, without using fuel, above a planetary body (Horizons) without dropping to the ground due to gravity?
Why does it not take significantly more fuel to launch from a planetary body, than from a space station?
Why doesn't the orbiting bodies (and space stations) ever proceed around their orbit (they're actually stationary)?

There's a hundred more physics issues that could be listed.
Since this is a game, the devs are free to make whatever rules they see fit, so arguing specifics about speed/physics is pointless.
In fact, torpedoes would only be limited IRL according to their amount of fuel, they could accelerate until they ran out of fuel, or neglected to use the reserves of fuel in order to adjust course farther ahead in the trajectory. But in fact in game the devs can and do simply apply rules like the aforementioned about torpedo speed, so there is no point in arguing about it.
But this is not the point of the OP, this thread is about something else.

The devs have time and time again suggested (without directly saying it out in concrete) that certain game play elements being found by players are against the essence of what they intended. Just because it's possible, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

In the OP's case he was playing by the rules, sticking to speed limit, exiting a station, in a no fire zone, and someone takes advantage of his encumbered and helpless state to rake him with torpedoes from a safe distance. That, I am sure isn't how FDEV intended PvP / emergent game play to happen.

In an ironic twist to the story, the OP pulled the plug, and the already very gray 'gameplay' by the attacker backfired, as when the OP vanished from existence, the torpedoes hurtled into the wall of the station which was not much appreciated by station management. They turned all gun batteries on the would be ganker.

I think had this been a legitimate interception, and no parties were hand tied by in game station mechanics, then there may be room for debate. As it stands, it's not the case.

Unless many many people really do wish to discuss further, it's an open / shut case. But I really don't see how a mass-debate would change peoples minds (unless people get off on these types of gank)

Very well said.

 

[Arguendo]

I think you all are missing something very basic. This is a game, not a simulation. The game physics are far from realistic. If it were a simulation, then the following characteristics would be questioned:

Why does the ship fly like an airplane/jet, instantly turning all inertia (speed) when applying yaw/pitch/attitude, instead of having to wait for the thrusters to overcome inertia? It should act more like the old classic asteroids game as far as flying mechanics. Basically, they have applied atmospheric avionics physics to space flight.
Why does deploying the landing gear cause drag in space?
Why do I hover effortlessly, without using fuel, above a planetary body (Horizons) without dropping to the ground due to gravity?

You must not have read the flight manual. I thought that was covered in Space Flight 101
Just like in the original Elite, the difference between Flight Assist ON and OFF cover all those. Well, maybe not the landing gear part. Let's just call that "Automatic Flying Restrictions for Landing Mode."
Wanna fly like in Asteroids? Always fly with it OFF

Why does it not take significantly more fuel to launch from a planetary body, than from a space station?

The fuel consumption is negligible as it is, so it doesn't really matter anyway imho. And we're not exactly taking off with large Takeoff Boosters like the Space Shuttle anyhow.

Why doesn't the orbiting bodies (and space stations) ever proceed around their orbit (they're actually stationary)?

Pretty much this if that is the case.

Now who are these Hacks that keep attacking you all are on about? Is it Paul or Peter this time around?

 

[LoneKharnivore]

Why doesn't the orbiting bodies (and space stations) ever proceed around their orbit (they're actually stationary)?

What? Do yourself a favour, go land on a planet's surface and lock a non-tidally-locked moon or non-geosynchronous station orbiting it as your destination, walk away for 20 minutes, and then see where it is in relation to your ship.

 

[Siranui]

Why does the ship fly like an airplane/jet, instantly turning all inertia (speed) when applying yaw/pitch/attitude, instead of having to wait for the thrusters to overcome inertia? It should act more like the old classic asteroids game as far as flying mechanics. Basically, they have applied atmospheric avionics physics to space flight.
Why does deploying the landing gear cause drag in space?
Why do I hover effortlessly, without using fuel, above a planetary body (Horizons) without dropping to the ground due to gravity?
Why does it not take significantly more fuel to launch from a planetary body, than from a space station?
Why doesn't the orbiting bodies (and space stations) ever proceed around their orbit (they're actually stationary)?

1) Because it's easier to fly like that. It's a stability control. If you want inertia then FA-OFF.
Also: Frontier had full inertia, and the dog-fighting was dreadful. It makes a bad game.

2) Simple explanation: Safety over-ride rather than physical drag. Designed to limit speed while near docking areas. Like a 'pit lane' button in a sportscar, limiting top speed.

3) Because some thrust is diverted downwards through lateral thrusters in order to keep you in the air with brute force. The physics of this are well established and modelled in the game. You run hotter in high-g because of this additional strain.

4) Why does it not take measurably more hydrogen fuel in a fusion reactor to lift a few hundred tons out of a gravity well? Because it's a negligible amount of energy in relative terms a few grams of hydrogen. Compared to the amount of energy needed to initiate transstellar travel, its like the amount of difference in fuel between your driveway being on a slope or level.

There are plenty of dodgy physics in E which has been fudged for play, but on the whole the queries you raise are not amonst them.

 

[HalloweenWeed]

Pretty much this if that is the case.

Geosynchronous means the satellites move around with the planet rotation. It doesn't work if the planet doesn't rotate (yet another missing feature), nor if the planet rotates too slowly (or too fast). Even if it were, it would be moving.


I didn't know that about FA. I will have to try it sometime. I think I might actually be better at combat that way, when not near other objects/bodies.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

What? Do yourself a favour, go land on a planet's surface and lock a non-tidally-locked moon or non-geosynchronous station orbiting it as your destination, walk away for 20 minutes, and then see where it is in relation to your ship.

So you're saying they ARE really moving? The planets & satellites? So when I re-enter a solar system, the planets may have moved, and the moons have moved?