Abuse of Depots and Citadels mechanics

The mechanical aspect of the low power mode was to eliminate a piece of the timer for reinforcement. Specifically the armor. It is entirely possible that (because nobody was doing it at the time) people began putting structures into powered mode at the last second possible and was not actually intended to be allowed to happen.

I don’t know if CCP intended this to be part of the way the flowchart worked. It is possible it’s an unintended side effect but completely acceptable. It is possible it is unintended and an abused mechanic which requires a fix.

I am not CCP. I would like CCP to answer on that. Only that. Nothing but that. I’ll submit a ticket on this now and point at this forum as I am sure it needs a public answer similar to how bumping is not an exploit.

Heck with it.

@Brisc_Rubal Would you kindly add this to your questions as it applies to all sectors of space? I have no idea if CCP will answer earlier than you.

Interesting. SO you claim your debate is on the mechanical aspect, when in fact the mechanical aspect has nothing to do with it. You’re talking about what was intended to happen.

The flowchart does not show intent, it shows the logical progression from one stage to the next. Even IF the flowchart was the ultimate authority of what CCP intended, the way it happened was still intended:

That said, their intended usage, the “why we added low power mode”, cannot be explained with that flowchart. You were correct in originally quoting the patch notes explaining it.

It’s like someone asking “why is it illegal to speed?”… the mechanical answer, the flowchart if you will, is “because the posted speed is 80kph”. The intent is “because dipshits can’t drive, and we need to make it slow enough that they don’t kill each other”.

As you correctly quoted, the intent is “so that we can kill unoccupied structures faster, without impacting the structures that we’re actually using”.

And ultimately, they were obviously still using the structure. If it were abandoned, they would not have logged an alt on right inside it and onlined a stand-up module.

Good luck.

I’ve said all I can say, at this point we’re just going in circles.

The mechanic aspect is that a structure which loses it’s shield when in low power mode is pushed towards final timer. As referenced on the chart it does not look at if a service module was online before the fight started, when it was under fire, or was put online in the last seconds. It has no mention of when, how, why, but only if. Debating on the point of when is not the issue. The question is did the mechanic intentionally ignore this or was it just recently discovered that this could happen and may or may not be an exploit.

“Online Service Module?” does not mention online thru the fight, online only after the fight began, or online only at the last seconds of the fight. If the timeline of the module being online does not apply then working as intended is how CCP would answer and confirm it is not an exploit. That’s what we both want to know. Not “well I’m a player and…” because that’s not CCP. It is possible to have multiple answers on the question. I accept that these may not be in favor of the defender who’s using this tactic.

I applaud the people who probably have been using this up to this point to great effect. I’d still like to confirm if it’s working as intended, not working as intended but accepted, or not working as intended and declared an exploit.

That is correct.

It’s a clever tactic to use. Was this what they wanted the mechanics to be? If not then this flowchart needs another bubble added to it between shields shot to 0 which reads “Service modules unable to be put online during combat.”

I will ask. From my perspective I think what you’re saying makes sense - the idea behind low power mode as I understood it was to make it quicker to remove structures that weren’t being used or were essentially abandoned.

At the same time, I can see how the old POS mechanic of stronting the tower might apply here as well, so it easily could be either way.

1 Like

There’s no fuckin’ reason to change this, ‘cause it made people cry for a nerf. If it baited someone into wastin’ his time the mechanic’s just fine. Ya whiners just wanna see everythin’ allowin’ people to mess with others to be removed so we don’t know ya’rr actually crybabies.

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.