These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Death of the Boomerang / GCC Rapid-Orca Unfitting Primer

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#101 - 2012-03-31 18:39:13 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Eh, whats the point of arguing.

CCP GMs want to coddle carebears - even if they have to rewrite their own rules to do it.

Avoiding Concord has always been an exploit. Kind of understood was that the "ganker" would lose his/her stuff. Avoiding loosing stuff is an exploit.

whine more.


Well, for instance this statement.

Avoiding Concord has always been an exploit. But warping away from the site of a gank was never considered 'avoiding Concord.' And it still isn't. (now you just can't shoot after warping) Further, warping away doesn't save your ship - Concord ALWAYS catches you and destroys you. You just shoot as much as you can before that inevitably happens.

Interesting that you use the term 'stuff' very clever - CCP's policy is that you must lose your 'ship'. Not 'stuff'.
You are allowed to keep your mods. Did you know that they often survive Concord death? Amazing.

People need to learn to read.

Oh, and for the other fellow saying that 'saving a freighter from the Boomerang/bump combination was 'impossible'.

Answer: Tornados are GCC - anyone can engage them. Your solution: A single excorting Rifter with a point or two and a MWD. Tornados turn red, you point them, Concord showed up and the attack is thwarted. Easy as that. Care to revise your statement?

Kind of a shame, as it could have been a new business opportunity for bored pilots: High-sec Freighter escorts. Cost of shipping goes up, but thats not a bad thing. Further, there might have been opportunities to 'bribe' the guards to look the other way. Interesting stuff that will never happen, because now we are back to the same old 'brute force' gank. To which there is NO countermeasure except cargo risk management and economics. Kind sad. There was a lot of potential for everyone, not just pirates. What was that sound? Player interaction potential being snuffed out.

Oh.

I see.

You're an "internet spaceship lawyer". Well, when I did hulkageddon (exhumer is still my "prey of choice, I think) - we lost all our stuffs involved in the gank.

My understanding of the rule was "you gank - you lose your stuff involved in the gank". Ship/etc...

You just need to be told explicitly. It's guys like you that will tie this game down in red tape. Just because CCP didn't take you by the nose and say "this is it, x, y and z" doesn't mean it wasn't intended.

Reading comprehension indeed...

Said it before and I'll say it again:

"Whine more".

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#102 - 2012-03-31 20:22:08 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:

Oh.

I see.

You're an "internet spaceship lawyer". Well, when I did hulkageddon (exhumer is still my "prey of choice, I think) - we lost all our stuffs involved in the gank.

My understanding of the rule was "you gank - you lose your stuff involved in the gank". Ship/etc...

You just need to be told explicitly. It's guys like you that will tie this game down in red tape. Just because CCP didn't take you by the nose and say "this is it, x, y and z" doesn't mean it wasn't intended.

Reading comprehension indeed...

Said it before and I'll say it again:

"Whine more".


No, you don't need to be a lawyer to understand it. You just need average reasoning capability.

Your statement, "Gank and you lose your stuff" is both simplistic and inaccurate. CCP's policy specifically refers to "Your ship."
When you buy a "ship" does it come with guns built in? "Ship" does not = "stuff".

I'll explain, in simple terms, as reasoning obviously isn't your strong suit.

A) Go gank something.
B) Watch as your ship gets popped.
C) Check your wreck. Are there mods there?
D) Yes? Mods ARE there? Amazing. That means you aren't 'expected' to lose them at all.

Or do you consider looting your own wreck to be an exploit too?

Eh, I shouldn't have to explain this stuff. Its quite simple to understand.

But all you really want to do is throw insults like a child - along with about 90% of the other replies.

There are well reasoned opposing viewpoints out there, but yours isn't one of them.
I am glad there are a few smart people out there that 'get it' as well - its a shame they aren't Devs or GMs.
Ajita al Tchar
Doomheim
#103 - 2012-03-31 21:18:58 UTC
ITT: people with terrible reading comprehension, posting before they let the words sink into their brains. People who suck at reading and thinking about what they read??? IN MY EVE FORUMS?? Roll

I agree with much of what Wilkus said regarding CCP bending to whine from carebears. IMO he was never exploiting with the Tornado boomerang, but that of course depends on your definition of "escaping" in "escaping CONCORD". He lost his ships every time, I do believe this counts as "did not escape CONCORD".

The problem people have with the Tornado Boomerang appears to be the fact that after the first gank the ship warps off to rinse and repeat until eventually and inevitably being popped by CONCORD (after all, we're not exploiting here, so the pop must happen). Let's say that such a Tornado killed a Hulk with that very first alpha. That Hulk would have died whether or not the Tornado warped off afterwards. The Tornado now goes to kill a second Hulk before CONCORD nabs it. That second Hulk would not have died to that same Tornado had the Tornado been unable to land nearby, lock the Hulk and fire at it. So, you will have one Hulk death however you spin it, whether the Boomerang is an "exploit" or not. If the Boomerang isn't possible, then only one Hulk dies. I suppose it's the ability to inflict multiple deaths via the Boomerang that's objectionable to some, seems unfair.

You know, it's actually possible to more or less ensure this outcome of "only one Hulk dies" even without CCP intervention. It goes something like this: have a buddy point the Tornado that just popped your friend's Hulk. Done. I know that training Propulsion Jamming and fitting points is only for very elite PvPers, and having a friendly tackler is just not something that's usually done by miners, therefore it's not something that should ever be considered a solution to the "problem" of warping Tornadoes. Changing mining tactics, IN MY EVE? Nah, let's instead just have CCP do all the work to solve all carebear woes.

Jesus, I've only suicided people a few times (presumably they were all bots), and I find the "solution" to this "problem" ridiculous.
Cougars Scout
CANNOT UNDERSTAND NORMAL THINKING
#104 - 2012-03-31 21:21:53 UTC
Tons fo effort brosef; ever tried nullsec or something not so greasebally?
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#105 - 2012-03-31 22:12:51 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
No, you don't need to be a lawyer to understand it. You just need average reasoning capability.

Which you obviously don't have.

This in *no* way makes "hi-sec" safer. it in *no* way impedes your ability to gank.

It *does* impede your ability to avoid risk.

Obviously CCP doesn't agree with your *simplistic* definition of what concord is responsible for...

I'm out of here.

Your just another hi-sec care bear.

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Ashina Sito
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2012-03-31 23:12:14 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
stuf

Don't like it? Cry more and louder. That seems to work pretty well for your types. We just act.


Try more thinking and less acting.

As I said in my previous post if you harass a player you can get a ban. Your intent is to make someones game play so bad that they decide to leave the game. You clearly made the statement that is IS personal.


The one who is crying here is you. Your tactic, which is a clear violating of the rules, got snuffed out. Your the one whining.

Kill a ship lose your ship is CCP's policy. Just because you can kill a ship, and another and another and another then lose your ship does not mean it follows the rules set by CCP. The only thing that has changed here that you exploited this so much that it finally came to CCP's attention and they snuffed it out.

As to swapping modules in an Orca, you can do that... but when CCP changes the game so that the orca picks up the GCC from your ganker, don't complain. You got to exploit that while it lasted


Going back to the "your types" comment. My battle Hulk pilot is 56/0. Never lost one to a ganker yet. Ashina has easily killed any TEARS that have attacked her bait ship when running missions. "My type" is the type that has spent the last 4 years training new players how to PvP so they can kick "your type" in the ass.

Go look up "Lofty scam". CCP congratulated him on finding a loophole to easily kill mission runners in high sec. Yet 6 months later they redid the code and the Lofty Scam was squashed. CCP is always changing interpretation of the rules to fit the intent of the rules. Now stop crying and go find yourself another exploit to take advantage of so we can see more tears from you when CCP squashes that one.

Have fun, I would say fly safe but you can't seem to PvP without losing a ship.... P
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#107 - 2012-03-31 23:24:39 UTC
Richard Aiel wrote:
So Im curious, does the OP get banned given he showed knowledge of using that exploit and knowledge that it is an exploit?

Only if you think a person should go to jail for committing a crime BEFORE it was a crime.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Im Super Gay
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#108 - 2012-03-31 23:27:01 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:

It *does* impede your ability to avoid risk.


I missed the part where one of his ships survived after 15 min of GCC. Could you please point that out to me?
Vila eNorvic
#109 - 2012-04-01 00:02:39 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
I plan to do my utmost to 'encourage' young mining carebears to quit the game via selective, predatory ganking.

Are you some sort of professional idiot?
Richard Aiel
The Merchants of War
#110 - 2012-04-01 00:03:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Richard Aiel
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Richard Aiel wrote:
So Im curious, does the OP get banned given he showed knowledge of using that exploit and knowledge that it is an exploit?

Only if you think a person should go to jail for committing a crime BEFORE it was a crime.


Well thats about to happen in Florida so why not?


An Im always suprised at the ppl qqing at ppl looking for loopholes... I thought Grey area WAS the object of the game??

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r188/buddahcjcc/SOA-3-2.jpg
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#111 - 2012-04-01 00:58:54 UTC
Im Super Gay wrote:
Asuri Kinnes wrote:

It *does* impede your ability to avoid risk.


I missed the part where one of his ships survived after 15 min of GCC. Could you please point that out to me?

Roll

Oh right, the point of dropping your fit in the Orca is to avoid ship loss.... Nice straw man - but it doesn't apply, OP even says you have time to drop your expensive mods...

So yeah, nice straw man.

Not.

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
JC Anderson
RED ROSE THORN
#112 - 2012-04-01 01:55:02 UTC
Watch.. Now that hes posted this hes going to have people stalking and waiting cloaked near his Orca just to bump the Nado out of range to use the fitting services.

Now that I think about it, would that even work?
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#113 - 2012-04-01 09:25:09 UTC
JC Anderson wrote:
Watch.. Now that hes posted this hes going to have people stalking and waiting cloaked near his Orca just to bump the Nado out of range to use the fitting services.

Now that I think about it, would that even work?


Actually, they do - occasionally. Most miners have no idea how to scan, so they just suffer and die.

However, one time, had a close call where an interceptor showed up at my safespot while unfitting and tried to lock my pod.

That is why I suggest people fit a cloaking device to your Orca. Makes it impossible to find the Orca until you begin the actual unfitting process. Just to be sure, move safe-spots from time to time, and D-scan on occasion to look for probes.


Man, the carebears just keep crying and screaming 'exploit' and 'nerf!' - while accusing me of crying.

Actually, my purpose is to 'spread useful information to allow people to kill carebears (solo) at a cheaper cost'.

Stupid carebears, answer me this:
You claim that the 'Boomerang' was an 'exploit'.
You claim that GCC-unfitting gankships is an 'exploit'.

Fact: CCP policy is to hand out bans and warning for using exploits.

According to you:
-I've 'exploited' in the past - and by currently using the 'Orca unfitting tactic' I still am.
-I've openly posted about it on the forums, and GM's/DEVs commented on them.
-I've informed lots of griefers, in detail with bullet points, how to do it themselves.
-I've done significant damage to the mining population using these 'exploits' - something like 121 Billion. Solo. Over 3 months of intermittent play.

SO. WHY haven't I been banned or warned?
I don't belong to any groups routinely accused of favoritism. (LOL - TEARS)
I am not a secret CCP employee, like Vincent "T20".

Heres the answer:

Boomeranging wasn't an exploit until recently. Why?
Because CCP's 'evasion' policy had to be REWORDED in order to classify it as an exploit.
And Orca unfitting is NOT an exploit - otherwise GM's would have said so - or simply deleted the thread, like they did with the 'freighter kill' threads.

So, idiot carebears - why do you insist on using the term? Meta-game politics? Stupidity? Ignorant righteousness? Which?

Still it must be pretty good, though. Not only does CCP bend game mechanics to protect carebears - they Sharpie the rulebook as well. Maybe I am in the wrong business and should just start grinding Incursions or Lvl 4's like a moron.
Sobach
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#114 - 2012-04-01 09:46:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Sobach
I'm no carebear, but I'll bite ;)

Herr Wilkus wrote:
SO. WHY haven't I been banned or warned?


My guess would be that since it was a rather gray area you were operating in(unlike the moon exploits for example), it wouldn't have made sense to ban you for it, and unless you kept using the tactic after it was declared exploit, I don't see why you'd receive a warning or ban.

Herr Wilkus wrote:
Boomeranging wasn't an exploit until recently. Why?


because it wasn't widely used or known until recently

Herr Wilkus wrote:
Because CCP's 'evasion' policy had to be REWORDED in order to classify it as an exploit.


true, because they obviously did not foresee something like this being used to such an effect.

Herr Wilkus wrote:
And Orca unfitting is NOT an exploit - otherwise GM's would have said so - or simply deleted the thread, like they did with the 'freighter kill' threads.


agreed, since it's part of current mechanics that have other uses as well. Whether they'll decide using it to avoid module losses in suicide ganks would become an exploit in the future remains to be seen however, as was hinted by some of the GM posts.


Herr Wilkus wrote:
Still it must be pretty good, though. Not only does CCP bend game mechanics to protect carebears - they Sharpie the rulebook as well. Maybe I am in the wrong business and should just start grinding Incursions or Lvl 4's like a moron.


this I can't say I agree with. In my opinion it's simply a matter of balance. The boomerang simply tipped the scale too far in favor of the suicide gankers for CCP's liking (and frankly, far more so than at any time I can remember in the six years I've played eve), so they stepped in to put it back to where it was.
Rimase
#115 - 2012-04-01 10:12:11 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Eh, whats the point of arguing.

CCP GMs want to coddle carebears - even if they have to rewrite their own rules to do it.
srsly just stfu and gtfo.

Looking to join Caldari Faction Warfare corporation!
Ender Karazaki
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#116 - 2012-04-01 10:55:58 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
[quote=JC Anderson]Stuff.



Lol what an ass, but kudos to him, he found a way to break the game. Although I would of gotten bored with all these easy kills. Is it just me or is ganking really, really, easy against mackinaws? I was ratting in a belt and 4 of them fell so quickly that if I blinked I would of missed it. The guy that was suppose to be looking after them must of got bored and started to watch a movie or something since he did nothing.
Kyshonuba
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#117 - 2012-04-01 17:37:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Kyshonuba
You may play "badass-style" (suicide_gangking, pirate-lifestyle, jita-scamming etc. ) Mr. Wilkus but no player can be allowed to damage the econmic basic of a RealLife Softwarecompany.
I think are you a missing a sense where you cross that line, or mabye just dont understand the difference between badass gamingstyle and criminal intentions.
We are like avatar actors, .....we are allowed to play criminal on the stage but definatly not on the backstage of the theater.

Herr Wilkus wrote:

........
Thus: I plan to do my utmost to 'encourage' young mining carebears to quit the game via selective, predatory ganking.
Effective immediately, all operations, reports, and petitions against mining botters will cease. No more 'padding' the KB with my new 'artificial friends'. In my view, mining bots are actually beneficial: They flood the market with minerals/ice and significantly depress 'real miner' earnings.

Resources will now be focused exclusively on hunting 'real' miners. I've found that younger miners are more likely to become discouraged after multiple Exhumer losses and will simply cancel their subscription. This will help achieve the goal of reducing carebear influence over EVE - simply by reducing their numbers.


What you do here is, trying blackmail CCP.

If they do what you dont want them to do (e.g.nerf the orca fitting service) you gonna try scaring away (new) suscribers ... and since you announce public (in the forums) you are encouraging others to do it too.
Maybe the GM's act friendly and just ignore your statements, but dont take it for sure.


EDIT: Besides this issue i find this thread is a very good reading for everyone interessed in the dangers of mining. Thanks to all its contributors and to the OP Blink
Killer Gandry
The Concilium Enterprises
#118 - 2012-04-01 18:57:12 UTC
The only reason he is now going to focus on new players mining is because he has to pad his killboard somehow.
Kurnkuku
Doomheim
#119 - 2012-04-01 19:42:04 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Please CCP let me kill really big ships full of nice stuff that have no chance of escape so that I can get rich without putting much work in kthxbai!!
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#120 - 2012-04-01 20:17:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Tanya Powers
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Im Super Gay wrote:
Asuri Kinnes wrote:

It *does* impede your ability to avoid risk.


I missed the part where one of his ships survived after 15 min of GCC. Could you please point that out to me?

Roll

Oh right, the point of dropping your fit in the Orca is to avoid ship loss.... Nice straw man - but it doesn't apply, OP even says you have time to drop your expensive mods...

So yeah, nice straw man.

Not.


It's up to CCP to make sort counter mechanics like Concord work as intended and are not the joke that actually is that many players say now for years.
Actually, game mechanics like concord and everything around aggression CCP is doing related to High sec is obviously and strongly directed towards high sec haulers and miners ganking.
If new players leave the game rather than high sec to low/null then it's up to CCP to do something about it, the game is what they've done of it, we just play in.