These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Soylent Jade
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#301 - 2013-07-02 13:44:06 UTC
I don't really understand the logic of making such a large, expensive ship so defenseless with no upgrade slots, PG, or CPU. Who would design such a ship? All the other soft targets in the game (AFAIK) can be upgraded...why not freighters?

Rich Uncle PennyBags wrote:
As far as I understand, the line is thus:

If they bump for:
Ransom, Tactical advantage, waiting for backup, any other reason with an end goal.
It's A-O.K.

If they do it for hours on end without any recognizable goal or reason other than to cause trouble and be dicks, you have a case.



Pretty much this.

Making hisec better...one Catalyst at a time

minerbumping.com
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#302 - 2013-07-02 13:50:10 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Soylent Jade wrote:
I don't really understand the logic of making such a large, expensive ship so defenseless with no upgrade slots, PG, or CPU. Who would design such a ship? All the other soft targets in the game (AFAIK) can be upgraded...why

Pretty much this.


If you give freighters slots then they would have to be nerfed and I do not want my freighter nerfed to try and fix stupid.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#303 - 2013-07-02 14:01:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
S Byerley wrote:
The post you keep referencing specifically says harassment and not "greifing". I hate to be the one to disillusion you, but you are not a special snowflake; no one cares what's going through your head. When you cross the line you get punished for the effects - not because you crossed over to the mental dark side

There is no numerical line. There is no duration after which is is harassment, and before which it is not. This is the fundamental mistake you are making over, and over again.
It is "harassment" when CCP conclude the actions taken were with the intent to harass.

Again, you need to show intent. There is nothing you can ever say which will stop this being true, so stop trying.
Quote:
You've already demonstrated an inability to grasp the basic necessary metrics and your bizarre choice of terminology indicates that you aren't familiar with the field. Even if I did waste my time to dig you up something relevant, you'd just skim over the abstract (maybe the conclusion if you're feeling really brave) and half-assedly try to twist it into your counter argument - you can understand my reluctance.

Heh.

Yeah, well I called that you would do the "I know so much I can't be bothered to prove you wrong (but will spend hours arguing about why I won't prove you wrong)"

No one over the age of 12 buys this. Cough something up, champ.

Quote:
And I've refused however many times because, like your correlation vs. causation sillyness, it's a straw man


My argument is that to determine intent, you need to be able to determine intent. This isn't a silly strawman it is the literal consequence of the ruling as given and there's simply no way you can dodge that you need to show it.
Quote:
Oh, seems we have another misunderstanding caused by your limited vocabulary: pattern recognition is a very broad term (I can only guess how much falls under "psuedo-pattern recognition). Classification, a branch of pattern recognition, assumes, among other things, that the data is already collected. I can only guess what you mean by "multi-tiered pattern analysis".

You're quoting me saying that it's a guess at the technique that would need to be involved. It is such because **the actual science to do this doesn't exist** - you saying "that's not how it's done" is semantically equivalent to saying I'm right, unless you provide a way it can be done.

You're not right until proven wrong - you're wrong until proven right. Your "I'm sorry, I know more than you but I can't tell you for reasons that are convenient only to me" is laughably transparent.

I could very well say it needs to probably wait until Bio-mimetic gel takes the leap from science fiction to science fact, because that's no further from the truth. You can toss barbs at my terminology all you want - you're still ignoring that I have completely floored the central tenet of your argument and you're just engaging in some semantic **** flinging.
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation - no sense worrying about constant factors when

a. you don't have the input size
b. your computing power is growing exponentially

Yeah, that's not relevant to passing a knowledge threshold though, which is the very problem I have outlined multiple times and you've failed to show anything for.

Anyway -- though you refuse to cite any examples in your discourse, you've given up the flaw in your argument - you're basing it on our ability to use computer models to classify data. This is something that I have not refuted.

You need to be able to show WHY something is in it's current classification or you can't meet the basic criteria of the exercise; using a computer algorithm to show human intent.

I'll restate it simply:

- Show any computer analysis technique that is able to take identical data-sets and classify them based on the external circumstances that caused them to be in different groups.

Just don't even bother replying if you can't understand why being able to show someone's intent is central to the argument when the rule is enforced based on the players intent, OK? It's frankly just embarrassing.

"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,

Jake Warbird
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#304 - 2013-07-02 14:06:53 UTC
hey guys, CCP just hired an EA employee... lets take all our torches and pitchforks to that thread!

Sugar Von MurdererTits : Jake Warbird gets my vote for most intriguing and attractive male character in Eve.
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#305 - 2013-07-02 14:11:31 UTC
Quote:
The problem with that is how the aggression timer has nothing to do with a freighter who cannot aggress. He mechanically could not log off or disengage. The mechanic was abused (or rather, was shown to be working incorrectly).

Now, the counter argument, is the fact regardless of sector of space, this game is pvp... but the argument isn't a game mechanic argument any more.. it's a player using the game mechanics beyond their intended use.

ie- there is literally nothing he can do for himself without the aid of others. It wasn't a lost fight. It's not a 1v1 fight (not duel or bushido gtfo with those terms) or any other consensual pvp, since that freighter CANNOT pvp. Losing a ship to a dumb mistake is what it is, and it could be argued that it fits here.

But simply not being able to logoff for an hour because of an exploited mechanic... well... that's a bit too far.

If that pilot actually pulled the plug and was not on the server, his ship should disappear off the server after an allotted amount of time. The current game mechanic doesn't allow for that.

So, Crimewatch is not working as intended, but was exploited, in my opinion. There should be a victim timer, but a lack of diminishing returns on that mechanic is frightening for anyone who wants to be an industrialist if I could simply make sure you CAN'T logoff if you decide.

That is pure player victimization. Which is bad.


I think this has been the most spot on post yet
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#306 - 2013-07-02 14:58:37 UTC  |  Edited by: S Byerley
Khanh'rhh wrote:
There is no numerical line. There is no duration after which is is harassment, and before which it is not. This is the fundamental mistake you are making over, and over again.
It is "harassment" when CCP conclude the actions taken were with the intent to harass.

Again, you need to show intent. There is nothing you can ever say which will stop this being true, so stop trying.


"when CCP concludes" - yes. How is it you think CCP comes to a conclusion? Try to go a little deeper than "herp derp they judge intent".

"intent to harass" - no. Harassment is defined in respect to its effect on the victim.

You also seem to think that CCP needs to prove intent; they don't. Further, you seem to think that a program need prove intent to statistically mimic CCP's judgement; it doesn't. I'm at a loss how to make that any clearer

You can't convincingly whine about a lack of references (in a medium that typically doesn't utilize them) when you haven't provided any yourself; sorry. Incidentally, being able to pick out some relevant papers would go a long way towards convincing me that you're worth having a proper academic discussion with.

Khanh'rhh wrote:
My argument is that to determine intent, you need to be able to determine intent.


I've never claimed anything about determining intent; in fact, I've repeatedly explained that intent isn't required. You can see where this would leave us at an impasse since I'm not willing to re-frame my original statement to suite your argument?

Khanh'rhh wrote:
I could very well say it needs to probably wait until Bio-mimetic gel takes the leap from science fiction to science fact, because that's no further from the truth. You can toss barbs at my terminology all you want - you're still ignoring that I have completely floored the central tenet of your argument and you're just engaging in some semantic **** flinging.


You didn't though; you said quantum computing, for which there's a very rigorous mathematical model outlining what is and isn't practical. If you used the term in ignorance, I guess we can leave it at that.

This isn't "semantic **** flinging" mind you, we're just not getting anywhere because you keep dipping into terminology you don't understand - generating confusion between us.

Khanh'rhh wrote:
Yeah, that's not relevant to passing a knowledge threshold though, which is the very problem I have outlined multiple times and you've failed to show anything for.


I have no idea what you mean by "knowledge threshold" in the context of Computer Science.

Khanh'rhh wrote:
- Show any computer analysis technique that is able to take identical data-sets and classify them based on the external circumstances that caused them to be in different groups.


Why on earth would you want a computer, or even a human, to take identical data sets and judge them different?

I'm sure you know the old insanity description misattributed to Einstein?
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#307 - 2013-07-02 15:09:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Callyuk
Well In this case we all know Goons meant to gank the freighter but the amount of time it took them to accomplish the goal turned into harassment
Jedijed has filed for a restraining order against the goonswarm federation with concord they said it is awaiting the captains approval ;)
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#308 - 2013-07-02 16:03:59 UTC
Soylent Jade wrote:
I don't really understand the logic of making such a large, expensive ship so defenseless with no upgrade slots, PG, or CPU. Who would design such a ship? All the other soft targets in the game (AFAIK) can be upgraded...why not freighters?

Rich Uncle PennyBags wrote:
As far as I understand, the line is thus:

If they bump for:
Ransom, Tactical advantage, waiting for backup, any other reason with an end goal.
It's A-O.K.

If they do it for hours on end without any recognizable goal or reason other than to cause trouble and be dicks, you have a case.



Pretty much this.



Oh that's easy. Bigrig trucks get hijacked all the time. Having spotters would help. I don't think the issue is with the hull. I also do not think it's a matter of choosing your cargo (although those facts are definitely true and should be adhered to).

Flying something worth 5bil alone is foolhardy. Flying anything alone is foolhardy, period. Sometimes you can get away with it though.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#309 - 2013-07-02 16:14:04 UTC
Callyuk wrote:
Quote:
The problem with that is how the aggression timer has nothing to do with a freighter who cannot aggress. He mechanically could not log off or disengage. The mechanic was abused (or rather, was shown to be working incorrectly).

Now, the counter argument, is the fact regardless of sector of space, this game is pvp... but the argument isn't a game mechanic argument any more.. it's a player using the game mechanics beyond their intended use.

ie- there is literally nothing he can do for himself without the aid of others. It wasn't a lost fight. It's not a 1v1 fight (not duel or bushido gtfo with those terms) or any other consensual pvp, since that freighter CANNOT pvp. Losing a ship to a dumb mistake is what it is, and it could be argued that it fits here.

But simply not being able to logoff for an hour because of an exploited mechanic... well... that's a bit too far.

If that pilot actually pulled the plug and was not on the server, his ship should disappear off the server after an allotted amount of time. The current game mechanic doesn't allow for that.

So, Crimewatch is not working as intended, but was exploited, in my opinion. There should be a victim timer, but a lack of diminishing returns on that mechanic is frightening for anyone who wants to be an industrialist if I could simply make sure you CAN'T logoff if you decide.

That is pure player victimization. Which is bad.


I think this has been the most spot on post yet



My quotes dont have my name on it... what has my reputation become =(

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#310 - 2013-07-02 16:18:51 UTC
Soylent Jade wrote:
I don't really understand the logic of making such a large, expensive ship so defenseless with no upgrade slots, PG, or CPU. Who would design such a ship? All the other soft targets in the game (AFAIK) can be upgraded...why not freighters?

Rich Uncle PennyBags wrote:
As far as I understand, the line is thus:

If they bump for:
Ransom, Tactical advantage, waiting for backup, any other reason with an end goal.
It's A-O.K.

If they do it for hours on end without any recognizable goal or reason other than to cause trouble and be dicks, you have a case.



Pretty much this.

When they first came out it took a crapload of BS gank to kill one. If I recall you could also hide cargos in sec containers. As things progressed they have stayed relatively the same but new ships and changes have made them easily gankable with little effort.

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..... :)
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#311 - 2013-07-02 16:31:54 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
The problem with that is how the aggression timer has nothing to do with a freighter who cannot aggress. He mechanically could not log off or disengage. The mechanic was abused (or rather, was shown to be working incorrectly).

Now, the counter argument, is the fact regardless of sector of space, this game is pvp... but the argument isn't a game mechanic argument any more.. it's a player using the game mechanics beyond their intended use.

ie- there is literally nothing he can do for himself without the aid of others. It wasn't a lost fight. It's not a 1v1 fight (not duel or bushido gtfo with those terms) or any other consensual pvp, since that freighter CANNOT pvp. Losing a ship to a dumb mistake is what it is, and it could be argued that it fits here.

But simply not being able to logoff for an hour because of an exploited mechanic... well... that's a bit too far.

If that pilot actually pulled the plug and was not on the server, his ship should disappear off the server after an allotted amount of time. The current game mechanic doesn't allow for that.

So, Crimewatch is not working as intended, but was exploited, in my opinion. There should be a victim timer, but a lack of diminishing returns on that mechanic is frightening for anyone who wants to be an industrialist if I could simply make sure you CAN'T logoff if you decide.

That is pure player victimization. Which is bad.


my bad im a forum noob
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#312 - 2013-07-02 16:48:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
S Byerley wrote:
"when CCP concludes" - yes. How is it you think CCP comes to a conclusion? Try to go a little deeper than "herp derp they judge intent".

But I don't need to go any deeper than showing they judge intent, because this is literally what they do. The decision is not reached based on the length of time it was bumped for - this is something that, now 300 posts in, is a fundamental facet you have failed to internalize.

"no. Harassment is defined in respect to its effect on the victim" - no, it's not. Harassment as a punishable offense is the attempt to create a negative effect - CCP punish based on this and not whether the victim claims woe. This is why pages of people crying about it happening to them aren't met by CCP action.

You won't get very far by simply claiming things that are evidently not true. I still have no idea why you are trying to do this.
Quote:
You can't convincingly whine about a lack of references (in a medium that typically doesn't utilize them) when you haven't provided any yourself; sorry. Incidentally, being able to pick out some relevant papers would go a long way towards convincing me that you're worth having a proper academic discussion with

For the fifth time - I can't. I cannot pull up papers on an area of science that doesn't exist. It's up to you to say "Look you fool, here is some research in the area that shows you're talking out of your ass" and then you can walk away having won.

You can't.

Instead, you're trying very, very hard to save face by claiming that you simply don't want to prove me wrong. This is pretty damn transparent.

Quote:
I've never claimed anything about determining intent; in fact, I've repeatedly explained that intent isn't required

Yes, unsuccessfully given the rules you claim a computer model can give conclusions for is based on intent. No doubt in your next post you will ignore this again and try to throw mud on technical terms.

I gave you (for the third time) a simple thought experiment to demonstrate your idea fundamentally cannot work. You have been unable to complete this.
Quote:
This isn't "semantic **** flinging" mind you, we're just not getting anywhere because you keep dipping into terminology you don't understand - generating confusion between us

There's no confusion at all on my end -- your central argument is completely flawed. You're trying to blow a lot of smoke but the problem is you're refusing to address very simple concepts that can be answered in very few words. You're avoiding them because they prove you to be wrong.

You're just confusing yourself if there's genuine confusion, which is just pitiable.
Quote:
I have no idea what you mean by "knowledge threshold" in the context of Computer Science


The ability to go from data > correlation > causation within a computer model does not currently exist.

The "causation" in respect to datamining bumping, would be WHY the person was colliding with another ship repeatedly. Since WHY they are doing it is the basis by which CCP say whether it is OK or not, and we know a model cannot tell us why, a computer analysis cannot give us the answer we are looking for.

"Why on earth would you want a computer, or even a human, to take identical data sets and judge them different?" - I gave you the full thought experiment which shows why this is important.

I highly suggest you take a stab at it instead of quoting one line from it and spewing idioms.

"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,

Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#313 - 2013-07-02 16:56:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Callyuk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MmIsrAQPM4

I recommend you watch this in HD click on the HD button and select 720 noob

First the 2 machariels bumping a freightor is effectively warp scrambling it.

Add a few trial accounts in noob ships to attack the freighter and keep it aggressed

I never fly freighters i knew they get ganked but unlike when i left the game it only happened in .5 .6 systems with alpha fleets (just started back after new global flagging system didn't fully understand how it worked in ganking situation)

Then add the fact that it went on for 60ish minutes

Third Goons failed on the first gank attempt and had to wait out global criminal then reship then bump the freightor 250km off concord again before ganking him again !

Fourth i didn't know it could be done in 30 destroyers and 2 (warp scrambling) machariels

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18472599

http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&view=kills&plt_id=341330&m=6&y=2013
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#314 - 2013-07-02 17:05:48 UTC
Callyuk wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MmIsrAQPM4

Fisrt the 2 machariels bumping a freightor is effectively warp scrambling it.

Add a few trial accounts in noob ships to attack the freighter and keep it aggressed

I never fly freighters i knew they get ganked but unlike when i left the game it only happened in .5 .6 systems with alpha fleets (just started back after new global flagging system didnt fully understand how it wrked in ganking situation)

Then add the fact that it went on for 60ish minutes

Third Goons failed on the first gank attempt and had to wait out global criminal then reship then bump the freightor 250km off concord again before ganking him again !

Fourth i didnt know it could be done in 30 destroyers and 2 (warp scrambling) machariels

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18472599

http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&view=kills&plt_id=341330&m=6&y=2013

Catalyst can do 500 dps or more. They couldnt when freighters first came out since I dont think they were even in game. Could be wrong not sure.

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..... :)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#315 - 2013-07-02 17:56:35 UTC
klikit wrote:
The bumping itself doesn't seem like an exploit but the intended consequences do. One, using the aggression timer to keep the freighter pilot from logging off... the aggression mechanics are being exploited to keep the pilot from logging off.
Neither of those are exploits. In fact, they are entirely legitimate mechanics expressly put into place to ensure that logging off does not save you.

Quote:
Second, the act of bumping the player out of range of CONCORD in order to force them (CONCORD) to have to redeploy is exploiting the CONCORD spawn timers.
That is not an exploit either. It is a long-standing mechanic that is just being used a bit differently here because it simplifies co-ordination. Herding CONCORD (both to and from the scene of the crime) has been used for pretty much as long as CONCORD has existed, and has been approved for both ends; both parties can use this mechanic to their advantage.

Infinity Ziona wrote:
Look at OPs cargo. There nothing even remotely fantastic about his cargo. Couple of ships, T2 mods, random junk.

Personally I dont care about the OP or his ship, but I call it what it is, a skilless tactic and aweful game design. A freighter should be able to haul the crap he was hauling without being considered gank worthy. It was crap not uber faction gear or a stack of plex. Freighters need a decent buff to make them able to perform their role properly.
It was fantastic enough to yield a profit, and that's all that's needed. It may have been crap, but it was not particularly bulky crap — no need for a bulk hauler for that one.

Oh, and 500 DPS was about the limit for what Catalysts could do. After the dessie buffs, you can get closer to 700 out of them… Twisted

S Byerley wrote:
"intent to harass" - no. Harassment is defined in respect to its effect on the victim.
…which means there's even less ability to determine it. Oh, and yes, harassment is definitely about intent, both from the harasser and the victim's side — the GM needs to be able to determine both. Otherwise, either or both parties will start gaming the system — a very real and possible intent that you have to control for in the context of the EVE metagame. That's the part you keep missing: there are two parties involved; both need to be assessed; and the third party needs to be able to make judgement calls about not just the actions, but the intents of both. You're persistent inability to show that data-mining can prove this kind of intent (on either of the two sides required) rather illustrates why this can't be left to machines. Hell, not even Google — the world's most slavering fanboys of “let's algorthm it!” — leaves these things automated without human interaction.

Quote:
Why on earth would you want a computer, or even a human, to take identical data sets and judge them different?
Because they're made different by outside factors. A human can spot this. How does mining the data itself succeed at making this distinction?
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#316 - 2013-07-02 18:15:27 UTC
Freightors and JF are easy to gank due to them being the only ships in the game (other than a shuttle) that cant add nano/tank mods that said i accept nado alpha fleets as a legitimate gank just like hulkageddon. But when you can warp scramble the freightor for an hr and keep him aggressed for an hour (so he cant log off and disappear) then something has been abused in the game. Bubbles (not catch "drag,sling") were abused on POS's back in the day pulling anyone that warped to the POS in line with the buble through the POS into the bubble (Supers included) and it was deemed an exploit. It worked dam good as it was supposed to.
Tasha Saisima
Doomheim
#317 - 2013-07-02 18:15:48 UTC
If he was bumped for an hour then that is ****
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#318 - 2013-07-02 18:26:06 UTC
Since you like copy-pasting…
Callyuk wrote:
But when you can warp scramble the freightor for an hr and keep him aggressed for an hour (so he cant log off and disappear) then something has been abused in the game.
Neither of those have anything to do with freighters, and both of them are legitimate tactics — in fact, the aggression flagging was explicitly put into place to get rid of certain abuses. Also, being able to do it for an hour doesn't make in any more of an abuse — it all happens in 15-minute portions anyway — it just makes it a complete failure on both sides. Lol

Quote:
Bubbles (not catch "drag,sling") were abused on POS's back in the day pulling anyone that warped to the POS in line with the buble through the POS into the bubble (Supers included) and it was deemed an exploit. It worked dam good as it was supposed to.
Eh no. POS shields were not working as they supposed to, which is why that was deemed an exploit. This makes it quite unlike both bumping and aggression-flagging.
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#319 - 2013-07-02 18:40:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Callyuk
Just like the bubbles on pos's it wasnt intended to be used that way. CCP giveth and CCP taketh away ,when a mechanic is exploited to a degree of CCP coming to the conclusion that combined mechanics they intorduced for a myriad of reasons. is being used in one certain way that it looks to be an exploit then thats that. Lets wait and see what they deem this combined mechanic situation as.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#320 - 2013-07-02 18:43:10 UTC
Callyuk wrote:
Just like the bubbles on pos's it wasnt intended to be used that way.
Yes they were. What wasn't working as intended were the POS shields, so exploiting that particular behaviour was deemed an exploit.

POSes not working properly ≠ bumping/aggressing working properly. Also, can you please keep your answers in one thread?