As said: his takes are terrible.
1 Like
I still donât know or understand what he considers an exploit but I also donât really care since CCP would have expressed it as one.
5 Likes
He tried to do the âanything CCP didnât design on purpose is (thus) an exploitâ. Given how at least half of all the stuff in the game is, or started as and then expanded on, emergent gameplay itâs a hilariously dumb take.
1 Like
Speaking as a hauler, not having an option other than explode would make playing the game purposeless.
3 Likes
We (Frostpacker) are feeling so much negative vibes here on this thread.
1 Like
You didnât feel the disney vibes,
Sing youre welcome it helps
Im simply saying, CCP didnt sit down and create the MWD trick. They created MWDs and they created warp mechanics (and didnt think about the server being limited to 1 second ticks). In that discussion, that had no intent or even knowledge that we were going to use the two in combination to avoid combat with the âtrickâ. Later on, they saw how it was being used and decided this unintended âtrickâ was an acceptable exploit of the game mechanics. Im also saying they allowed this âtrickâ because it was being exploited by carebears. If it was a âTRICKâ used in pvp to cause combat and not avoid it⌠it would have been removed after threats of ban for its use.
1 Like
/snerk
âGadget snerks
1 Like
You already donât have an option other than explode as a hauler. When targeting haulers specifically, players can use specialized ships/setups to ensure that you wonât get away. Your viable forms of counter-play donât include the cloak/MWD mechanic, but rather proper scouting, self-webifying, combat escorts, and/or using covert ops-capable ships.
The problem is when the game extends the use of the cloak/MWD mechanic to every other ship type, such as heavily-plated 500,000 EHP battleships and Orcas, giving them the option to effectively opt-out of any potential engagement without needing to use scouts or any other form of precaution. It amounts to giving a PvP toggle to combat-capable ships, with the only ways of countering it either being really exploitative in themselves (e.g. using fighters on gates), or encouraging players to use overwhelming, unbeatable odds to attack their enemies (which is really unhealthy for the game).
At the very least, a compromise where relatively unarmed ships like haulers and mining barges have access to this mechanic, but conventional combat ships do not, would be reasonable.
2 Likes
If you werenât alone and/or used a fast ship youâd be able to decloak them.
1 Like
My favorite is landing on the smart bombing battleships with instant warp ships think they can warp through but end up getting destroyed
I had a guy decloke me in my exploration ship when I moved off the gate and then I cloaked again and warped off
Are you trying to suggest making solo in anything larger than a cruiser even harder?
Not everyone has alts. This game does NOT need to make pvp, or any other activity in it, to be more difficult to do solo.
A scout almost completely negates the need to use this trick by the way. And youâre supposed to be the advocate of the little guy versus the giants
1 Like
Some people dont know how to self scout or are lazy? Idk
The people using this mechanic arenât the ones who are looking for PvP. As groups are a natural counter to the mechanic (whether by virtue of covering the entire gate or having specialized tacklers on call), cloak/MWD works perfectly only against either very small groups or solo players. If someone piloting a combat ship is using this trick to escape a confrontation with a solo player, theyâre very obviously not looking for a fight, so your entire chain of logic here is very much off.
I can attest to the fact that not a single target Iâve ever taken down that had this combination of modules fitted ever proactively engaged me, even when I was under-shipped and/or outnumbered. The most egregious example I have is from a few weeks ago, when I scouted a group of four players in battleships and a command ship, went out to intercept them, and they all used the trick to run away instead of taking the fight.
I can make the same exact argument for the other side. Not everyone has alts to dedicate to specialized anti-cloaking tackle or to cover the gate emergence perimeter with ships and drones to prevent cloaking.
To support the cloak/MWD mechanicâs existence is to support an environment in which N+1 is the recommended solution to every tactical challenge. Instead of encouraging sportsmanlike behavior and more equitable encounters, itâs saying âjust bring as many people as you can, then youâll get the kill.â
1 Like
Fantastic thread.
Well, yesâŚin the truest sense of the word, you are âexploitingâ the wardec system and using it as a means to highsec gank without Concord consequence. Youâd never have solo ganked that Paladin the other day in a 0.9 system without that wardec.
Also, your targets will mostly be doctrine ships, whereas you can just undock in whatever you know to be more powerful and longer range and take free pot shots at them anywhere. I doubt that is as difficult as you make outâŚonce one has the skills for Kronos and other relevant ships.
Of course, it is quite arguable that the hiring of mercenaries is âintendedâ roleplay and not an exploit in the technical sense. Never the less, in the true ethical sense of the word you are âexploitingâ the ally system.
Who donât change âallegianceâ every 5 minutes depending on which way the ISK wind is blowing. And abandoned stations donât spring 22 Ravens on one as I encountered recently, or a fleet of Catalysts, which I also encountered recently.
For an endeavour that according to you only involves âabandoned stationsâ, I have 23 Battleships, 2 Combat Battlecruisers, 3 Command ships, 10 destroyers, 1 Freighter, 8 Frigates, 11 Heavy Assault Cruisers, 1 Heavy Fighter, 54 Light Fighters, 1 Logistics, 7 Marauders, 2 Strategic Cruisers, and 6 Support Fighters on my kills list. In fact over 1/3 of all my killboard records consists of stuff I have encountered whilst shooting âabandoned stationsââŚlol.
1 Like
I stated anything solo, not just pvp.
Everything in eve is exponentially more difficult to do solo. To the extent that most people will only take the n+1 or not at all. Thatâs my point.
And what fight was avoided by the example cited? It would be easy to make the case that had they taken the fight, a rapier would have shown up to drop HAW dreads, or 15 legions, happens all the time.
Would it be better for the game of the mechanic didnât exist, so a battleship could almost never escape even a small camp? Would it encourage more people to participate in activities outside hisec if they are very likely to die en route? Doubtful. Besides, then you have atrocious lock speeds.
1 Like
Youâre just arguing semantics now. Youâre conflating two entirely separate meanings of the term âexploitâ (one being to utilize something, like a resource or an opportunity, and the other being a synonym for cheating).
The ally system was specifically created and programmed to work the way it does, whereas the MWD/cloak trick wasnât. A CCP developer didnât sit down in 2003 and ponder âhm, how do we make it so that players can always warp away their ship in complete safety from a gate?â and then another developer responded âwell, what if we create a module that makes your ship entirely invisible, and also a module that gives ships a giant speed boost? that way ships can accelerate to warp velocity while invisible, and then warp instantly once the invisibility is dropped!â
Iâm an exploiter because Iâm making use of an intended feature? I donât know why youâd try to make such an asinine argument. Itâs on the same level as quietly saying âlosersayswhat,â and then yelling about how you won the debate because I just admitted that I lost. Yikes.
You seem to have no cognizance as to how sad that actually sounds.
No, donât take my word for it. Go ask some people, maybe run a poll.
A battleship wouldnât escape from any camp that has enough participants to field a specialized de-cloaker anyway. Once again, the two primary arguments (that the trick is used to avoid engagements with solo players or very small groups, and that players who use the trick are players who arenât looking for PvP under any circumstances but rather simply want to perform safe travel and transportation) are going completely unaddressed.
1 Like
Nonsense. Youâre the one semantically playing around with âintendedâ and with other words and definitions. Somehow you alone psychically and retrospectively know exactly what the âintentâ was of developers in 2003.
It is just plain absurd to argue that something that has been part of the game for 20 years is not âintendedâ. At any point in all that time, CCP could have âfixedâ this alleged issueâŚyet they have not. One could make the same argument for people being able to insta warp or insta dock using bookmarksâŚwhich clearly over-rides the âintendedâ docking mechanism yet people have made use of it for years.
Neither do you know for certain that any developer ever sat down and said â lets make it so that someone can make an entire career out of abusing the wardec ally system '. As with the other things, it is a consequence of other mechanics and it is more likely that developer stance has been â mehâŚlets just leave that as it is '.
Thereâs all sorts of shenanigans that go on with holding corps and corp swaps that were probably never âintendedâ but which have evolved over time and CCP have just left things as they are. Any game as complex as Eve is naturally going to have emergent gameplay that was not specifically âintendedâ. A classic example is gate camps, which were likely âintendedââŚuntil players blocked one of the main trade routes and CCPs own developers ended up having to log in to fight them off. So much for âintendedââŚlol.
You have a greater lack of cognizance of how it totally negates your âabandoned stationsâ claim and you are thus just changing the subject.
1 Like