These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

When is an Exploit not an Exploit.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
BlueMajere
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#21 - 2012-10-04 03:58:14 UTC
hi friends
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#22 - 2012-10-04 04:25:34 UTC
Dar Saleem wrote:
And the carriers weren't lost because of lag, they were lost because capped out by about a 100+ man ahac fleet. They were stupid and were repping from 20-30km from the POS shield

This sums it up pretty much. If you look at their fits, they are not cap stable at all. Not even by a long shot. So even though they held reps for the first minute or two, they capped themselves out fast and melted under the pressure of the hacs. Going on about how they lost due to convo bombs is, well... just pathetic really.
King Rothgar
Deadly Solutions
#23 - 2012-10-04 04:30:56 UTC
You can turn on autoreject however that also rejects both chat and fleet invites from corp mates, allies and blues. Needless to say that's problematic. If it only blocked neutrals and reds, it wouldn't be an issue. It's an exploit, plain and simple.

[u]Fireworks and snowballs are great, but what I really want is a corpse launcher.[/u]
BlueMajere
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#24 - 2012-10-04 04:31:40 UTC
King Rothgar wrote:
You can turn on autoreject however that also rejects both chat and fleet invites from corp mates, allies and blues. Needless to say that's problematic. If it only blocked neutrals and reds, it wouldn't be an issue. It's an exploit, plain and simple.

it's not problematic, there's a little thing called fleet finder you may or may not be aware of
Addrake
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2012-10-04 04:53:58 UTC
I really don't see how having auto-reject on is problematic. I've had it on for a while because of convo-bombing from the CFC and not noticed a difference.
Tomas Marny
GreenSwarm
#26 - 2012-10-04 07:55:40 UTC
I've had autoreject on for ages, don't think it ever affected me in any ways (apart from not having my cap alts convobombed midfight :V)
Hot-Drop O'Clock
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#27 - 2012-10-04 08:22:16 UTC
ITT:

1) Goons don't come to help their pets
2) Pets lose 19 carriers due to bad positioning and capping out
3) CFC feels boo-boo because the enemy found CFC's supa sikrit weapon
4) CFC cries for bans to those who used the CFC secret weapon
Lilja Consideratio
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2012-10-04 08:27:03 UTC
Hot-Drop O'Clock wrote:
ITT:

1) Goons don't come to help their pets
2) Pets lose 19 carriers due to bad positioning and capping out
3) CFC feels boo-boo because the enemy found CFC's supa sikrit weapon
4) CFC cries for bans to those who used the CFC secret weapon


A wild Dotbros appears

Dotbros uses CFC SIKRIT WEAPON

It's super effective!
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#29 - 2012-10-04 08:32:50 UTC
Lilja Consideratio wrote:
Hot-Drop O'Clock wrote:
ITT:

1) Goons don't come to help their pets
2) Pets lose 19 carriers due to bad positioning and capping out
3) CFC feels boo-boo because the enemy found CFC's supa sikrit weapon
4) CFC cries for bans to those who used the CFC secret weapon


A wild Dotbros appears

Dotbros uses CFC SIKRIT WEAPON

It's super effective!

CFC SIKRIT WEAPON or not, the outcome of that battle would not have changed in the slightest. That is a fact. Blink
Arthello
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2012-10-04 10:06:25 UTC
What a delicious little thread. The double standards inside here is just beautiful. EVE needs more of this to be honest.
Mik kyo
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#31 - 2012-10-04 10:11:40 UTC
Nc. should stop hacking Cry
StevieTopSiders
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#32 - 2012-10-04 13:41:43 UTC
im gay

like this thread
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#33 - 2012-10-04 13:44:00 UTC
Cage Man wrote:
Easy to fix, change the limit on CSPA charges. Then you can set it to 10bil or something and see how many times you get convo-ed. Not sure if this changes lag, but it will soon stop the requests.


Worst case, I'll be able to replace whatever they caused me to lose, and on their dime no less.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#34 - 2012-10-04 13:48:56 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
Cage Man wrote:
Easy to fix, change the limit on CSPA charges. Then you can set it to 10bil or something and see how many times you get convo-ed. Not sure if this changes lag, but it will soon stop the requests.


Worst case, I'll be able to replace whatever they caused me to lose, and on their dime no less.

Why is it that no one realizes the CSPA charge goes to CONCORD and not the player?
It is REALLY that goddamn hard to figure out?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#35 - 2012-10-04 13:57:14 UTC
Dumb tactics like this that take advantage of supposedly off limits details in a fight are not helping our game in any way, shape, or form.

Pay it forward is not the useful attitude when the topic is comparable to flinging poo.

Or as my grandmother put it, "Two wrongs don't make a right".

Noone should give a flying frak who did what in the past. This is something we need to take out of the sandbox moving forward.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Addrake
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2012-10-04 14:16:58 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Noone should give a flying frak who did what in the past. This is something we need to take out of the sandbox moving forward.


It's been reported time and time again, and CCP doesn't seem to care. Hence why everyone just turns on auto-reject now.

Btw, did you know that NC.dot has a stiletto that causes 90% tidi every time it jumps through a gate? True Story.
NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#37 - 2012-10-04 14:39:41 UTC
Addrake wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Noone should give a flying frak who did what in the past. This is something we need to take out of the sandbox moving forward.


It's been reported time and time again, and CCP doesn't seem to care. Hence why everyone just turns on auto-reject now.

Btw, did you know that NC.dot has a stiletto that causes 90% tidi every time it jumps through a gate? True Story.

Ok I want to hear the rest of this story.

It seems like EVE has a number of mystical things that behave very differently than they should.
King Rothgar
Deadly Solutions
#38 - 2012-10-04 15:37:01 UTC
BlueMajere wrote:
King Rothgar wrote:
You can turn on autoreject however that also rejects both chat and fleet invites from corp mates, allies and blues. Needless to say that's problematic. If it only blocked neutrals and reds, it wouldn't be an issue. It's an exploit, plain and simple.

it's not problematic, there's a little thing called fleet finder you may or may not be aware of


You know some of us like to have little private secure fleets that aren't advertised to every ******* in the corp/alliance/coalition. It's also problematic when someone wants to legitimately private convo you for whatever reason.

As has been said many times, regardless of past use, it is an exploit to deliberately lag out or CTD another player's client via chat spam. CCP may not see it that way, but in this case they are indisputably wrong. It's about as lagit as hacking someone's account.

[u]Fireworks and snowballs are great, but what I really want is a corpse launcher.[/u]
NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#39 - 2012-10-04 15:45:48 UTC  |  Edited by: NEONOVUS
CCP owns the game and all related stuff.
If they say it is allowed it is.
If they say it is not then it is not.

Case in point, special delivery item can not be repackaged, you can however ask for it in a contract.
The contract thus can not be filled, but buyers wont know that.
A bit of alt fu and you can make massive amounts of isk all while they cant do anything.
Better than margin scams (oh hey what about those?) as unless you check each item you will never know.
Despite this being in game CCP has made it known that doing such a contract is an exploit.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#40 - 2012-10-04 16:49:06 UTC
NEONOVUS wrote:
CCP owns the game and all related stuff.
If they say it is allowed it is.
If they say it is not then it is not.

Case in point, special delivery item can not be repackaged, you can however ask for it in a contract.
The contract thus can not be filled, but buyers wont know that.
A bit of alt fu and you can make massive amounts of isk all while they cant do anything.
Better than margin scams (oh hey what about those?) as unless you check each item you will never know.
Despite this being in game CCP has made it known that doing such a contract is an exploit.

This is a straw man argument.

We are not talking about deception on a level between characters at all here. Fraud is not involved here.

This involves a group of players abusing a game function to disable the client of another player, so that they can take advantage of the resulting situation in the game.

Attempts to justify it based off of arguments similar to "He did it to me first", fail to recognize the need to stop the problem.

Don't waste time pointing fingers. Fix it.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Previous page123Next page