These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

At what point is something an Exploit and not game Mechanics ? Bumped for 60 Minutes

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#161 - 2013-07-01 12:37:41 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
If you think determining the human intention behind the events that occur in this game are trivial then you are the one who doesn't "get computer science".


I said "get the job done"; intent really doesn't matter here.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#162 - 2013-07-01 12:41:59 UTC
Tippia wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
1m per person per tick is on par with ammo cost; not exactly a "sizeable chunk of cash"

1M per person also doesn't generate any kind of income, so yes, you're looking at an ever-growing loss, which quickly ends up being a sizeable chunk of cash.


Catalyst ganking doesn't generate income? I don't really get the bit you're doing.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#163 - 2013-07-01 12:43:03 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
If you think determining the human intention behind the events that occur in this game are trivial then you are the one who doesn't "get computer science".


I said "get the job done"; intent really doesn't matter here.


You're right, it doesn't. Because according to the defined dev posts and precedent, bumping someone to gank them is not actionable. In any way, shape, or form. It's within the rules, and totally allowable as a recognized tactic.

So yeah, it doesn't matter here. All of this thread is a non issue.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#164 - 2013-07-01 12:49:27 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
I said "get the job done"; intent really doesn't matter here.
It does when the job that has to be done is determining intent.

S Byerley wrote:
Catalyst ganking doesn't generate income?
Not at 1M a pop, no.
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#165 - 2013-07-01 12:52:13 UTC
What happens if you log off while being bumped?

EvE is supposed to suck.  Wait . . . what was the question?
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#166 - 2013-07-01 12:58:49 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You're right, it doesn't. Because according to the defined dev posts and precedent, bumping someone to gank them is not actionable. In any way, shape, or form. It's within the rules, and totally allowable as a recognized tactic.

So yeah, it doesn't matter here. All of this thread is a non issue.


I missed the part where he talked about ganking and where he talked about holding someone down for an hour; can you quote those bits and the precedent for me please?
J3ssica Alba
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#167 - 2013-07-01 12:59:15 UTC
Freighdee Katt wrote:
What happens if you log off while being bumped?


they use a frig or destro to shoot you so you get an aggression counter which forbids you from logging off. Obviously broken mechanic, because freighters are unable to aggress anyone. I can see this stupid "tactic" causing many unsubs in the freighter community if CCP doesn't act.
This is my signature. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.  Without me, my signature is useless. Without my signature, I am useless
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#168 - 2013-07-01 13:00:24 UTC
Freighdee Katt wrote:
What happens if you log off while being bumped?
Your ship disappears after the appropriate timer runs out — 30s for an unflaggd ship; 15 minutes for a ship with a PvP flag; 0s for a ship with a completed safe logoff (which itself takes 30s and requires you to not have any aggression flags).
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#169 - 2013-07-01 13:02:54 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You're right, it doesn't. Because according to the defined dev posts and precedent, bumping someone to gank them is not actionable. In any way, shape, or form. It's within the rules, and totally allowable as a recognized tactic.

So yeah, it doesn't matter here. All of this thread is a non issue.


I missed the part where he talked about ganking and where he talked about holding someone down for an hour; can you quote those bits and the precedent for me please?


The precedent? Easily, it's a sticky on C&P.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=199310&find=unread

Highlights:

Quote:
CCP considers the act of bumping a normal game mechanic, and does not class the bumping of another player’s ship as an exploit.

Quote:

We would also like to stress that if a gameplay activity is classified as being “within the rules” this does not mean that we endorse, sanction or back player activity. We simply see this as emergent gameplay that has occurred due to the nature of game mechanics.


Bolded emphasis mine.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#170 - 2013-07-01 13:06:58 UTC
Tippia wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
I said "get the job done"; intent really doesn't matter here.
It does when the job that has to be done is determining intent.


Good thing that's not the case?

Tippia wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Catalyst ganking doesn't generate income?
Not at 1M a pop, no.


How much do you propose spending on a 200dps catalyst then?
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#171 - 2013-07-01 13:11:02 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

The precedent? Easily, it's a sticky on C&P.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=199310&find=unread

Highlights:

Quote:
CCP considers the act of bumping a normal game mechanic, and does not class the bumping of another player’s ship as an exploit.

Quote:

We would also like to stress that if a gameplay activity is classified as being “within the rules” this does not mean that we endorse, sanction or back player activity. We simply see this as emergent gameplay that has occurred due to the nature of game mechanics.


Bolded emphasis mine.


Oh, I expected actual instances where the ruling was completely in the bumper's favor. That's usually what someone means when they say precedent.

Incidentally, your quotes still don't mention ganking or holding someone for a prolonged period of time.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#172 - 2013-07-01 13:14:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
S Byerley wrote:
Good thing that's not the case?
Unfortunately, no. That's exactly the case.

Quote:
How much do you propose spending on a 200dps catalyst then?
I wouldn't build a 200dps catalyst to begin with since it would be too weak.

Quote:
Oh, I expected actual instances where the ruling was completely in the bumper's favor. That's usually what someone means when they say precedent.
You're asking him to provide something that doesn't exist because it's not allowed on these boards. Are you going to declare victory when he fails to prove not just a a negative, but a disallowed negative?

How about instead you prove a positive: show a bumper that has been punished. Incidentally, extended periods fall well within the normal gameplay described.
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#173 - 2013-07-01 13:15:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Freighdee Katt
J3ssica Alba wrote:
Freighdee Katt wrote:
What happens if you log off while being bumped?

they use a frig or destro to shoot you so you get an aggression counter which forbids you from logging off. Obviously broken mechanic, because freighters are unable to aggress anyone. I can see this stupid "tactic" causing many unsubs in the freighter community if CCP doesn't act.

If they never aggress you, does that mean you can escape persistent bumping by logging off at any time and logging back on? Or does the auto-warp-back warp you right back to where the bumpers are so they can then start bumping you again before you're able to warp off (assuming a ship with glacial align time, like a freighter). Can you cancel the auto-warp-back when you log on and then just continue on your way?

If it requires that they sacrifice a ship every X minutes to keep the PvP flag on and thus prevent the random warp out on logoffski, then that's not really different from any other aggressive action that would lock you down like a scram or point.

But if they can lock you down and prevent warping off indefinitely, without ever aggressing you and thus incurring CONDORDOKKEN, then that's a broken mechanic.

EvE is supposed to suck.  Wait . . . what was the question?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#174 - 2013-07-01 13:15:00 UTC
Quote:
Oh, I expected actual instances where the ruling was completely in the bumper's favor. That's usually what someone means when they say precedent.


Well, seeing as you must not have the capabilities to look this up yourself...

http://www.minerbumping.com/

Just over a year of precisely that. The precedent was established by the New Order, in a GM response that cannot be discussed on the forums, but is given in great detail as to the specifics.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#175 - 2013-07-01 13:20:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Freighdee Katt wrote:
If they never aggress you, does that mean you can escape persistent bumping by logging off at any time and logging back on?
Pretty much. You just have to wait a while for them to leave the spot where you'll reappear when you log back in.

Ewarps are purposefully designed to allow pretty much zero input once they've been initiated. Every now and then, some tactic or technique arises that lets you manipulate where you end up, but they tend to get squished in short order.

Quote:
If it requires that they sacrifice a ship every X minutes to keep the PvP flag on and thus prevent the random warp out on logoffski, then that's not really different from any other aggressive action that would lock you down like a scram or point.
Pretty much, except that flagging the ship doesn't so much prevent the warp-out as it delays the removal of the ship from space. You could still manage to get into warp if the bumpers fumble, but the your ship will sit in the ewarp spot for 15 minutes — a time during which they'll probe you out and gank you.
Leigh Akiga
Kuhri Innovations
#176 - 2013-07-01 13:21:52 UTC
free black legion
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#177 - 2013-07-01 13:23:33 UTC  |  Edited by: S Byerley
Tippia wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Good thing that's not the case?
Unfortunately, no. That's exactly the case.


So as long as someone means well they can do whatever they want? Nothing works that way; sorry.

Tippia wrote:
Quote:
How much do you propose spending on a 200dps catalyst then?
I wouldn't build a 200dps catalyst to begin with since it would be too weak.


The required DPS for the OP's loss was well under 200. Stop being so coy and give me a figure silly.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#178 - 2013-07-01 13:27:12 UTC
Freighdee Katt wrote:
If it requires that they sacrifice a ship every X minutes to keep the PvP flag on and thus prevent the random warp out on logoffski, then that's not really different from any other aggressive action that would lock you down like a scram or point.


Good luck scramming someone for an hour in high sec; bumping+timer is significantly easier.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#179 - 2013-07-01 13:28:34 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
So as long as someone means well they can do whatever they want?
Quite possibly, yes.

Quote:
The required DPS for the OP's loss was well under 200.
Uh-huh. 200k EHP delivered in ~15 seconds by 29 ships ≠ less than 200 DPS. Roll
Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
True Reign
#180 - 2013-07-01 13:29:57 UTC
A reasonable dev, even one that has designed bumping as an option, might find being bumped for an hour to be excessive or an exploit. Despite Tippia's dominance here, she does not actually speak for the devs. So it's worth a petition to find out.