EVE General Discussion

Nope; sorry



Op took 60k in killmail; give me a pricetag pls.

Oh that's not a problem. The video isn't admissible as evidence anyway.

So it sounds like the worst case to escape bumping without aggression is you have to logoff for however long it takes the bumpers to get bored and go away.

Is it ever possible to cancel the e-warp on login, or is that what you mean by allowing no input?

If they're unusually persistent, then a bumping alt or two could deny a freighter pilot the ability to take any in-game action for basically as long as they're willing to stay logged in at the spot you e-warped off from, with no cost other than boredom. Since the freighter can't warp off before they can start bumping you again, you're stuck unless they all go AFK or leave.

This starts to sound a little like the silliness that arises in other games when collision boxes make it possible for players to block doors in social or quest areas either with several toons or with collidable player-deployed objects. It seems there is a point at which this becomes actionable as harassment, but nothing CCP has said so far makes it clear when that might be.

How does a downtime affect this? You could obviously hope that it takes the bumpers long enough to log in that you have enough time to get out of e-warp and warp off. But would there be any change to your e-warp return spot as well, or would you just log in at the random e-warp spot without an e-warp happening?

The same way a GM would; I can assure you that the person's thought process doesn't factor in.



60k doesn't conflict with the account at all.



200k/29/19 is < 363dps hun. Even 5m is still comparable to continuous fire on a Machariel with republic fleet ammo (which napkin math puts at about 3.6m a tick)



Sure it does: http://www.eve-central.com/home/quicklook.html?typeid=16240

So your data sifting tool includes an Eliza implementation now? Interesting…

The thought process of all three parties factor in. I assure you right back.

…referring to which part, exactly?

…or you can try not to alter the numbers. 200k / 29 / 15 = 460 + margin to make sure you get it done = 500.

…and minerals you mine yourself are free. Except, you know, not. So it's just over 1M.

No, they just use judgement and investigative ability to clear up judgement calls, and they are able to exercise discretion depending on what they find in what context.

So: how do you propose that the data mining should uncover hitherto unknown facts about the bumper and bumpee that makes it a clear case of non-harassment even though they've been running into each other constantly for months?

You mean the part where the first squad was faced with on-grid CONCORD and died immediately? No, that doesn't account for a 70% reduction of HP (which over an hour would be even less due to regen).

So: 200k EHP over 15 seconds for 29 ships → 460 + safety margin = 500 DPS.

It's a ballpark of the actual number (13 seconds) plus/minus a two second error margin from server tick timings. So: 15 seconds. Or even as low as 11.

…that would give us 630 DPS by the way.

You are cluless about what the phrase signifies, just saying. So: a bit over 1M per hull minimum; closer to 1.4 if you buy in bulk.

I love how a 3 month old 'Ace' player and the OP both can't accept bumping isn't an exploit even when presented with very comprehensive statements (proof) from CCP saying it isn't.

Please QQ moar. My bucket has not runneth over quite yet.

In EVE, something is not an exploit until or unless CCP says so. When they say specifically something isn't an exploit, no matter how much word wrangling you do, or how convoluted a scenario you can devise to try to prove your position, CCP decides, and if you don't want to accept it, GTFO and GBTW.

I would suggest the OP petition his loss and be fully prepared for CCP's answer.

Desperation to win a debate that really, as many of you have said, is CCP's to decide. You're all actually arguing for what you want to be true rather than what's true. CCP has changed its mind about exploits in the past. CCP has bowed to pressure from players at times also. The only answer is to petition and find out, which is really all anybody needed to say. When you get to the point that you're claiming to have the right point of view about something that's somebody else's judgment call - CCP's in this case - then you're really arguing for your point of view, not for the facts.

The whole point of data mining is that it reveals trends and relations that aren't obvious to a silly fleshsack like myself. I can tell you from personal experience/literature that it's not hard to pull out 95%+ accuracy in similar applications.

You mean the part where the first squad was faced with on-grid CONCORD and died immediately? No, that doesn't account for a 70% reduction of HP (which over an hour would be even less due to regen).[/quote]

54% reduction in EHP you mean, which is pretty well verified by the other video as far as I can tell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNZk7jBG7Ww



Your own blog(as well as other sources) says otherwise: http://blog.beyondreality.se/TTK-CONCORD#tldr



You evidently didn't get the joke.

Post 105 is you telling Ace off. While I can't really fault you for that, it doesn't seem relevant.



I'm not really missing the point, I've just indulged people who misread my tone with a few tangents.

I'm also not "disagreeing with the rules" (though the "rules" were outlined in a very different context and it's anyone's guess what a GM will/won't consider harassment). I do think that this case shows that the mechanics have been stretch a little far beyond their intended limitations and that some tweaks would be to the benefit of the community as a whole.