I agreed to man the guns of our Tatara when fighting for its survival yesterday.
Mostly by diligent use of the POINT DEFENSE GUNS I managed to kill off a substantial number of agressors.
However these were not noted as kills - which basically would be fine.
What is not fine is that my character took heavy security status loss, despite being “anonymous” to the kills.
Actually the loss is so heavy that this character cannot even fullfill its most basic function as a travelling cyno provider and researcher and hauler anymore.
I do not understand how the game mechanics can do this to any character agreeing to defend a structure. Any other character who fought and shot ships (even dozens) yesterday took maybe one or two full points of security hit. I lost about 8
This was not me assaulting any unsuspecting players. This was consensual combat between my group and at least three other groups. Standing down and “not doing” it is not an option here.
So - ultimately - the game mechanics condem the char manning station guns to security death.
GM is refusing to help me here - this “is a game mechanic” and " intended"
To me this is game breaking and I only can refuse to help my alliance defend from here on.
Man citadel guns
Turn on PDS
Let enemy come close
Lose security status rapidly for defending your belongings
I guess it is normal and intended. You should have not used an AOE weapon and only attacked the suspect flagged targets that attacked your structure. It’s like in a normal ship where you also lose security status when you aggress not flagged entities.
Frustrating, sure, but normal. And I understand your sentiment.
In this case it is not really a choice you have when you try to fend off agressors shooting down your station.
Its not like flying to Jita and firing a smartbomb, its more a necessity.
At the very least I d assume getting at least credit for the action you have to pay for.
This is not supported - so why not exempt the security loss too ?
Was that corporation/alliance in the war as an ally at the time? Since I’ve left a week before this, I don’t have those notifications so I can’t check for you.
From the EVE UNI site:
Unprovoked actions are actions not sanctioned through war, limited engagement, suspect or criminal timers. For example, engaging a non-suspect or non-criminal in low security space that you are not at war with, or suicide ganking in high security space. In null security and wormhole space everything is legal so actions there have no effect on security status.
The killboard shows a lot of groups involved, so that might have been why (some of them might have not been part of the war). You’ll take small standing hits for ships, while any existing capsules will result in a much harsher penalty.
So it looks like it was likely the AoE weaponry that screwed your standings over. You can work it back up like Geo Eclipse Oksaras mentioned, but everything seems to be acting as intended by the game’s mechanics and rules.
Defensive weaponry might have to be changed to avoid this in the future, or let someone that won’t mind taking a standing loss take reign of the guns.
Thanks to all for providing tips to mitigate the damage done to sec status.
Please also note I am not whining about this, but rather hinting at a broken game mechanic that will ultimately be met by meta gaming of some sorts.
Not atypical for Eve but meta gaming always is an indicator of flaws - and flaws that accumulate are real bugs eventually.
So - point defense should credit the kills at least for now really - shouldnt it ?
Or just dont hit my sec status -. technically an exempt can be programmed…I guess…
Not sure how to push for a solution when many people have already accepted the bug as a feature
But here I am - this is not as the mechanics intended . I am convinced
Any other ideas on how to change this would be most welcome !
Well, when I mentioned that I mean not having AoE weaponry on the station.
Usually with station defense the weaponry is more for supportive actions while actual fleets deliver the bulk of DPS on attacking ships. Still, if that’s something you want to suggest that’s why we have the Council of Stellar Management.
There’s an assembly hall section of the forum for players to bring topics to the attention of CSM members who could then bring them to the attention of CCP. Once campaigns pick up for those looking to run for the next CSM I’d suggest looking into candidates and voting on who you’d want at that table (and suggest the same to the others too).
I understand your reasoning and also thank you very much for pointing me to the CSM assembly hall.
Another thread has been created there - referring to this one.
I know this is just a detail, but it is a very annoying one.
And it should be easy to - at the very least - show some goodwill and reward the players who sacrifice their “good name” to get some kills accredited.
Maybe this would even make it easier to reason with the alliance you help defend the structure for.
Right now I feel only very little motion to help me out with alliance resources - after all I just fumbled around at the gun controls - cant even prove I killed someone - eh ?
Ultimately it would be great to find another solution of course - why not really exempt the gunner from security loss ?
Excuse me, please, I’m trying to make sure I get this. You did not actually engage any ships that did not engage you first? Or how does this work?
Partly it seems that the Point Defense (never used one) is like an AoE weapon and anyone can make you suffer for using it, simply by planting an alt at close range?
You lose sec status for every illegal aggression, but a magnitude more for pods. Podding a suspect will not give you a sec hit, it was a legal target.
The OP piloted the point defense on a Fortizar, so aggressing everybody on grid and podding players with this AoE weapon got him in this situation. Like starting a smartbomb on Jita undock.
