These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#201 - 2013-07-01 15:30:53 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
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.

Indeed. CONCORD could use some slowing down and the ability to loot safely could be boosted. Tweaks like that.
RAW23
#202 - 2013-07-01 15:32:37 UTC
Can someone put a figure on the lost ship cost for the gank fleet? It looks like we have here a mechanic that guarantees the death of the freighter with no possible counter-measures available to the freighter pilot. If that is the case one would suspect on the basis of CCP's previous rebalancing work that they would want the cost of the gank to be in some reasonable proportion to the cost of the freighter hull (and rightly so). So how much do you have to spend on the destroyers to get your guaranteed kill?

There are two types of EVE player:

those who believe there are two types of EVE player and those who do not.
Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
#203 - 2013-07-01 15:34:31 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Freighters need a nice big HP buff or some mid lows. Having a 2 billion isk ship with its hold unable to haul more than a billion or so because of close to no risk / no skill ganks is pretty awful design.


This is another Key point and where people should try to redirect focus to .

The whole 'exploit" , "bullying" "harassing" thing pisses me off. I've got teenage kids and the crap they need to go through from teachers about this "bullying" stuff is ridiculous. The Seniors can't even make freshman carry their bags any-more on athletic teams... that is "bullying".

Forget the "exploit" crap... the issue is whether the developers want game play to work in ways that industrial ships can get destroyed in all regions by two or three other players.

"How easy?" is the question and it isn't a black or white question. Certainly more tank on Freighters could be a plausible game design choice, although that doesn't seem to cure the align time issue related to the bumping.

A module in the lows that allowed an un- interruptable align (computerized lateral adjustment jets) with a long activation period could also minimize the issue if they, from a game play design viewpoint, didn't like the ramifications of a game mechanic when used on one class of ship. (I think RL Ice breaking ships have some lateral thrusters much like I described )

.
Selene Cullen
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#204 - 2013-07-01 15:35:36 UTC
You had an alt there watching it happen and by your own account you had over an hour to get out. Next time just bring your alt with a webbing ship and web your freighter so you can warp out in only a few seconds.


All you're doing by posting here is giving Goons more tears to drink.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#205 - 2013-07-01 15:40:40 UTC
Tippia wrote:
…and the whole counterpoint is that it misses out on the part that lets humans do what humans do: investigating and judging close calls.


"Close calls" are rare and the outcome is less important than you seem to think.

Tippia wrote:
No, I mean 70% reduction, because that's what's required for the wildly inaccurate HP number on the killmail to be correct. In short, the number on the killmail is — as always — unreliable in preeeeetty much every way. Oh, and the gankers still need the 500 DPS because no-one plans on having to do it in two runs. If you want to calculate it that way, then congratulations, the price just went up to 10–20M per ganker. We're getting further and further away from the initially (incorrectly) estimate of 1M.


I'm not really sure what you're on about, but I can EFT warrior an appropriate fit (even assuming he started at full health) + margin for well under 2m (1m if you'll forgive me for rounding down). You can also trivialize the cost by adding a few extra people.

Tippia wrote:
You mean the table that says 7 seconds for a 0.8 + 6 seconds for off-grid CONCORD ±1 for each event due to sync-to-tick errors? 7+6±2 = 11–15.


I thought we weren't using the OP because his conditions were muddled? The vast majority of kills from that group are in .5 systems.

Tippia wrote:
You evidently didn't get the meaning of what I said.


Or I'm functioning on a deeper level of rhetoric than you; who knows.

Quote:
Wilful ignorance is not humorous.


Is this the stance of yourself or your willfully ignorant trolling persona? It seems a bit hypocritical in either case.
Mytai Gengod
Sebees
#206 - 2013-07-01 15:42:33 UTC
Ace Uoweme wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Ace Uoweme wrote:
CCP doesn't make the definitions.
Of course they do. Every part of them, in fact.

There is no Mystic Exploit Council that determine the universal standard for what counts in an exploit across all games everywhere — just individual devs and GMs that set up the policies for their specific game.


You're arguing the wrong points, the definition is quite clear across all games -- it's not a dev design feature but one players discovered and use to their advantage. That's the definition of a game exploit.

CCP allows it for whatever reason, but it's clear it's an exploit by the gaming definition independent of EvE (which isn't a celestial court for gaming definitions).


I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. The devs did intend for the game to include collision mechanics. Bumping is an obvious result of collision mechanics.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#207 - 2013-07-01 15:44:26 UTC
RAW23 wrote:
Can someone put a figure on the lost ship cost for the gank fleet?
A couple of hundred mill. Not that it matters much. Cost is not a balancing factor, after all — if anything, the ability to kill something as expensive with something as inexpensive shows that a good balance is being maintained.

Quote:
It looks like we have here a mechanic that guarantees the death of the freighter with no possible counter-measures available to the freighter pilot.
No, it looks like we have a mechanic that requires a lot of teamwork and effort on the gankers' side and with plenty of counter-measures available to the freighter pilot.

Diomedes Calypso wrote:
Forget the "exploit" crap... the issue is whether the developers want game play to work in ways that industrial ships can get destroyed in all regions by two or three other players.
The only place where that can happen is null and low, where it's very much intended. In high, as shown here, you need a whole lot more people or a whole lot larger investment.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#208 - 2013-07-01 15:45:20 UTC
RAW23 wrote:
So how much do you have to spend on the destroyers to get your guaranteed kill?


<70m if you're trying to minimize lost ISK; <300m if you're working with less people (combining my and Tippis' estimates)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#209 - 2013-07-01 15:48:20 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
"Close calls" are rare and the outcome is less important than you seem to think.
Close calls are far more important than the obvious cases, since that's where the boundaries are defined and since that's what massively and embarrassingly trips up the system.

Quote:
I'm not really sure what you're on about, but I can EFT warrior an appropriate fit (even assuming he started at full health) + margin for well under 2m (1m if you'll forgive me for rounding down).
Ok Do it. I want 500 DPS for <2M.

Quote:
I thought we weren't using the OP because his conditions were muddled?
I'm using the three things that are clear: an Obelisk in a 0.8 system against 29 Catalysts. Those are the conditions that matter.

Quote:
Or I'm functioning on a deeper level of rhetoric than you
Trolling is not a rhetoric level. Personally, I don't troll at all.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#210 - 2013-07-01 15:49:37 UTC
Selene Cullen wrote:
You had an alt there watching it happen and by your own account you had over an hour to get out. Next time just bring your alt with a webbing ship and web your freighter so you can warp out in only a few seconds.


Preemptively? That would be an awfully weird status quo. He did try it once he was caught; the bumpers have a large advantage at that point.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#211 - 2013-07-01 15:54:26 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Selene Cullen wrote:
You had an alt there watching it happen and by your own account you had over an hour to get out. Next time just bring your alt with a webbing ship and web your freighter so you can warp out in only a few seconds.


Preemptively? That would be an awfully weird status quo. He did try it once he was caught; the bumpers have a large advantage at that point.

And having to spend an additional 15 bucks per month for that is pretty stupid.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Abishai
#212 - 2013-07-01 15:54:54 UTC
An hour of bumping and agressing to prevent logout, in high-sec, is harassment.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#213 - 2013-07-01 15:55:25 UTC
Tippia wrote:
I'm using the three things that are clear: an Obelisk in a 0.8 system against 29 Catalysts. Those are the conditions that matter.


Nah, we were discussing the mechanic and you claimed the aggressors needed to commit significant resources to the endeavor (which they don't). Selectively picking details of the OP's loss to focus on is just sillyness.
RAW23
#214 - 2013-07-01 15:57:02 UTC
Tippia wrote:
A couple of hundred mill. Not that it matters much. Cost is not a balancing factor, after all — if anything, the ability to kill something as expensive with something as inexpensive shows that a good balance is being maintained.


I know you've been pushing this line for years but CCP doesn't really seem to agree with you and have made quite a few changes in order to make sure that ganking is not a risk free certainty. Which is nice Blink

There are two types of EVE player:

those who believe there are two types of EVE player and those who do not.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#215 - 2013-07-01 15:58:23 UTC
Abishai wrote:
An hour of bumping and agressing to prevent logout, in high-sec, is harassment.

Nope. As long as its to kill you its apparantly fine. Only harassment if its just to bump annoy you.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#216 - 2013-07-01 16:00:34 UTC
This is really a simple story....nothing to understand....

Boy meets girl.
Boy bumps girl.
Girl gets pregnant.
Girl attempts to sue boy for child support.

Don't ban me, bro!
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#217 - 2013-07-01 16:00:37 UTC
Selene Cullen wrote:
You had an alt there watching it happen and by your own account you had over an hour to get out. Next time just bring your alt with a webbing ship and web your freighter so you can warp out in only a few seconds.

Can he web the freighter with an alt that is in-fleet without picking up a suspect flag (and thus becoming a free gank for the bumpers standing by)? Or does the alt have to be in the same (player) corp in order to throw a web without getting suspect flagged?

EvE is supposed to suck.  Wait . . . what was the question?
RAW23
#218 - 2013-07-01 16:00:51 UTC
Tippia wrote:
No, it looks like we have a mechanic that requires a lot of teamwork and effort on the gankers' side and with plenty of counter-measures available to the freighter pilot.


You twist and turn like a twisty-turny thing.

Tippia wrote:

If it's executed flawlessly and without outside interruption, the victim is pretty much dead, as he should be. As illustrated, it's a fairly complex set of actions that need to be taken in a co-ordinated fashion between a number of people — as with most such things, a single player's main option is to try to not find himself in such a situation to begin with. With freighters, in particular, this is best done by not being a worth-while target.

There are two types of EVE player:

those who believe there are two types of EVE player and those who do not.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#219 - 2013-07-01 16:06:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
S Byerley wrote:
Preemptively? That would be an awfully weird status quo.
Not really, no. It's one of the best-known (and most effective) counters you have as a freighter pilot.

Quote:
Nah, we were discussing the mechanic and you claimed the aggressors needed to commit significant resources to the endeavor (which they don't)
No. We were discussing the OP all along, since that's the topic of the thread and since that's where the numbers come from. Trying to suddenly change them into something else is quite silly. As expected, it shows that the aggressors need to commit significant resources to the endeavour.

RAW23 wrote:
I know you've been pushing this line for years but CCP doesn't really seem to agree with you and have made quite a few changes in order to make sure that ganking is not a risk free certainty.
…which it never was to begin with, and which was not tied to the idiotic notion of ISK tanking (which CCP have a personal history of attempting and — predictably — abjectly failing at).

The line in question remains as true as ever, and CCP seems to agree. Just look at how much more powerful small and cheap ships have become over the last few years, and how the big and expensive ones have been crowding the nerf check-out counter.

Quote:
You twist and turn like a twisty-turny thing.
…by listing some of the many counters available to the freighter pilot and at the same time pointing out that well-executed teamwork is likely to trump mindless solo play (which is a good thing since that effort should be rewarded)? No, it's about as twisty-turny as a straight line.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#220 - 2013-07-01 16:08:45 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Care to actually have a go at that (post 105) or are you going to keep claiming it's possible whilst ignoring clear stated evidence it's not?


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

Well, I got the wrong number, but since you're going to hurf-blurf as though you think I'm not just going to quote it back at you, I will quote it back at you
Quote:
put your ~~computer knowledge~~ to the test and design me a computer analysis that can decide which of these two scenarios is "griefing" and which is legimate bumping.

<><><><><><>YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REDEFINE THE CURRENT RULES TO FIT YOUR ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE<><><><><><>

Specifically, that bumping is currently allowed unless it is harassment.

Scenario a:
- Player A is mining
- Player B bumps him off the rock with the intent to gank him.
- His DPS buddies find a better target, so they go to gank that one instead.
Chat log:
Miner > See!! This is the second time you did this ... you just do it to harass, not to gank! Petitioned!
Ganker > Sure buddy, it's just me and I have no friends

Scenario b:
- Player A is mining
- Player B bumps him off the rock with the intent to do nothing but grief him. He did this yesterday and enjoyed the complaints
- He gets bored and leaves
Chat log:
Miner > See!! This is the second time you did this ... you just do it to harass, not to gank! Petitioned!
Ganker > Tears for the tears throne .. I'll be back!

Now run off to design a machine program that can either:
- determine intent from identical logs
- read English to a level that can determine meaning, without tripping over sarcasm

Of course, you can't, so I will instead wait for you to move the goalposts and backpeddle.


Or ...

Since I am being lenient, in reference to:
S Byerley wrote:
I can tell you from personal experience/literature that it's not hard to pull out 95%+ accuracy in similar applications

I will ask you to cite one example of a computer program achieving 95% confidence in assessing intent from datamining. Key to this will be it's ability to distinguish between identical sets of data which one is the offending article. Remember: to not be able to do this is to fail the condition that you can't change the rules to suit your analysis technique.

Feel free to link to any pay-walled journal article if necessary; I have access to near all of them.
S Byerley wrote:
Nah, we were discussing the mechanic and you claimed the aggressors needed to commit significant resources to the endeavor (which they don't). Selectively picking details of the OP's loss to focus on is just sillyness.

Time and effort are also metrics by which CCP judge balance. You're forgetting the largest parts of the investment.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,