These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#601 - 2013-07-05 15:03:25 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
You'd have no problem with a mechanic that reduced the reward of your gank then?
Red herring.

Quote:
Courier contracts/missions have timers as well, afaik.
None that make it mechanically impossible to complete them.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#602 - 2013-07-05 15:06:15 UTC
Still waiting for an answer as to why there should be a hard limit on the time we have available to shoot spaceships in a spaceship shooting game.

For someone who has posted an awful lot in 30 pages, you don't ever seem to say much
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#603 - 2013-07-05 15:06:52 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
In the end all this thread boils down to us botching a gank. We are sorry about this and garentee the third one to take no more than ten minutes of your freinds time.


You wouldn't have any problem with CCP limiting the timer to 10m then?

You just made supers invincible again.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#604 - 2013-07-05 15:11:47 UTC
Ace Uoweme wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
In the end all this thread boils down to us botching a gank. We are sorry about this and garentee the third one to take no more than ten minutes of your freinds time.


Only if it had 6 prepackaged T3s, and if the IsBox owner isn't napping. Can confirm they IsBox.

And you guys really made multiple toons named after your leader? I mean really want to promote having a cult, too???


Ggod forbid we have fun while we make isk
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#605 - 2013-07-05 15:13:38 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
In the end all this thread boils down to us botching a gank. We are sorry about this and garentee the third one to take no more than ten minutes of your freinds time.


You wouldn't have any problem with CCP limiting the timer to 10m then?

You just made supers invincible again.


See previous posts.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#606 - 2013-07-05 15:17:25 UTC
It's rude to ignore people you know.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#607 - 2013-07-05 15:18:58 UTC
Elizabeth Aideron wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Quote:
But it shouldn't, since it can't. Choosing to engage and aggress should incur a timer. Being a victim should not

So you believe CCP should revert the celebrated change to logoff mechanics that has made the game measurably more balanced and playable?

Why?



Why do you need a logoff timer to kill a freighter?

When you have people cryiing for mechanics to make their job easier... they are bigger carebears than their targets.

No different than any station game playing troll who pretends their are a badass.


why should a freighter be allowed to disappear from space in 30 seconds at the first sign of danger?



How long would it take you to execute an aggressive action on a freighter?

Or maybe I might need to rephrase...

Do you need more than 30 seconds to kill a freighter who can't fight back?

Also, why do you think it's important for someone with that same timer be able to dock but not escape open space? Are you campaigning for these kind of freighters to be removed from the game?

That's the player escalation from such an instance you refer to. The rarity of such things is why they are still used to this day, sure. But take away that rarity once more and more people use such an abuse and people are only going to freight in ships that you could not perform such an act anyways.

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.

S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#608 - 2013-07-05 15:19:19 UTC
Tippia wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
You'd have no problem with a mechanic that reduced the reward of your gank then?
Red herring.


More of a socratic line of inquiry.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#609 - 2013-07-05 15:21:01 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
It's rude to ignore people you know.


Rudeness is sometimes appropriate.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#610 - 2013-07-05 15:24:52 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
It's rude to ignore people you know.


Rudeness is sometimes appropriate.


So being rude is the appropriate response when someone merely questions an argument you made? That's rather childish.

I was merely asking how, in the situations I presented, you would be able to determine harassment - and to illustrate that intent does play a key part in these decisions.

If your response to that is to be rude then I think we can all see what little weight your points have.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#611 - 2013-07-05 15:25:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
S Byerley wrote:
See previous posts.
So you agree that it breaks things and that there is no upside to it, so reducing the timer would be a pretty horrid idea?

Quote:
More of a socratic line of inquiry.
More of a red herring.

Murk Paradox wrote:
How long would it take you to execute an aggressive action on a freighter?

Or maybe I might need to rephrase...

Do you need more than 30 seconds to kill a freighter who can't fight back?
Yes. Probably somewhere in the region of 45–60 seconds or so: 5 seconds to scan, ~5 seconds to align, 15 seconds of warp, 5 seconds to get organised and in position, and then 15–30 seconds to get the kill. Oh, and a couple of seconds for his emergency warp to finish so you have a final position. So maybe even as much as a minute and a half…

Quote:
Also, why do you think it's important for someone with that same timer be able to dock but not escape open space?
Because docking is contingent on there being some place to dock and because it requires the target to actually deliberately there and successfully docking — not just killing the client.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#612 - 2013-07-05 15:27:35 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
So being rude is the appropriate response when someone merely questions an argument you made? That's rather childish.


It's rude not to do your reading before asking a question.

Responding to rudeness with rudeness is childish, but appropriate.
Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
#613 - 2013-07-05 15:27:40 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Stuff

I believe you are getting me all wrong here. I am not against the gank. The gank is fine in my eyes. It is the amount of time the player was locked down by a ridiculous game mechanic that I am against. Just think about how silly it is on a game play level. For an hour all two people, or one guy and his alt, did was approach, bump and reapproach a freighter. And that is 99% safe while locking down another person from doing whatever else they were going to do. My opinion is that act after a certain amount of time constitutes harassment. It is also my opinion that if you cannot legally attack them without losing your ship, that should be cause for the action being deemed an exploit.

Simple right. Forget about the gank. Let's look at the mechanic used to facilitate it. If you aren't legally able to be attacked, then any action you take to ruin the play of another player should be cause for repercussions from CCP. And leave out all the silly nonsense that you will bring up about how other miners or market alts or ninja salvagers ruin your play. I am talking about direct actions taken on you such as bumping.

SCHALAC HAS SPOKEN!! http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schalac

S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#614 - 2013-07-05 15:28:24 UTC
Tippia wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
See previous posts.
So you agree that it breaks things and that there is no upside to it, so reducing the timer would be a pretty horrid idea?


Red herring.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#615 - 2013-07-05 15:31:03 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
So being rude is the appropriate response when someone merely questions an argument you made? That's rather childish.


It's rude not to do your reading before asking a question.

Responding to rudeness with rudeness is childish, but appropriate.


I've read the entire topic, and I saw nothing that satisfied the questions I had that are illustrated by the posed situations. To flat out ignore my questions and selectively choose what to respond to, and then claim I am the one being rude by asking for clarification is just laughable, friend.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#616 - 2013-07-05 15:31:58 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
If you can't be smart enough to kill a freighter without having to use a timer to do it...

Get a new job.

Luckily I don't need to because CCP coded the timers into the game so we could do what we are doing. Once again, I have no idea why you are complaining that we are playing within the rules. It is somewhat bizarre.
Murk Paradox wrote:
Why do you need a logoff timer to kill a freighter?

When you have people cryiing for mechanics to make their job easier... they are bigger carebears than their targets.

No different than any station game playing troll who pretends their are a badass.

You have missed the point here. Do you know WHY it is that CCP decided to change the logoff mechanics to what they are now?

I'm seriously actually asking this as a question. I am asking because you will literally be the first person I have heard of who wants to go back to those days where many, many fights in all areas of space under all manner of conditions ended because the other ship just vanished.

It was utterly terrible.

At first the logging off trick to save your ship was **a punishable offence** -- if CCP thought it was deliberate you could be banned. Then they realised proving this was an enormous amount of GM time, so instead they relaxed the ruling awaiting a fix to the logoff mechanics.
Then they fixed the logoff mechanics such that people could no longer log off to save their ships.

I am utterly dumbfounded by your central point, which is that you think simply logging off should be a valid counter to an in-game actions.

Why do you think the proper action should be to stop playing the game when faced with a situation you might lose? Why should refusing to play your part in the interaction be a winning condition?

Do you even realise intentionally logging off to prevent losses is bannable in most games?

Do you realise why? That it is utterly absurd so support a winning condition which is "don't play the game"?

And you say all this, under your banner of "supporting mechanics that make sense?"

I am quite lost how any of this stacks up in your head.


It's easy. It should not take you that long to kill something that cannot fight back. The same mechanic that allows you to keep a ship online and in space should not allow someone else to dock up.

There should be a diminishing return as to put the burden of performance on the aggressor.

Otherwise you would be cutting your own throat forcing freighter pilots to find alternate means to transport stuff based off of mechanics.

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.

S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#617 - 2013-07-05 15:33:29 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
laughable, friend.


Thanks, I do my best, pal.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#618 - 2013-07-05 15:44:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Schalac wrote:
I believe you are getting me all wrong here. I am not against the gank. The gank is fine in my eyes. It is the amount of time the player was locked down by a ridiculous game mechanic that I am against.
But again, he's not locked down by any game mechanic. He was locked down by his own dogged insistence on trying to get away with his ship intact. He had tons of outs — hell, if I understood the last revelation correctly, he wasn't even aggressed for large portions of that hour (but that could just be his confusing inability to properly describe what happened and/or his lack of understanding of the mechanics involved).

Quote:
My opinion is that act after a certain amount of time constitutes harassment. It is also my opinion that if you cannot legally attack them without losing your ship, that should be cause for the action being deemed an exploit.
…and CCP's opinion is that the “certain amount of time” is counted in days or weeks, and that you have all the tools you need at your disposal to get rid of them. It's up to you to choose which one you'll use. If you have no other options, it already is an exploit, because apparently, they've managed to get hold of ships that don't bump (but then, how do they manage to bump the freighter!?), modules that somehow restrict you from warping without triggering an aggression flag (but then, why are they bumping?!), modules that keep you from logging off, ejecting, calling for help, etc etc etc.

The victim's decision not to make use of the tools at his disposal does not mean the aggressor is exploiting.

Quote:
Just think about how silly it is on a game play level. For an hour all two people, or one guy and his alt, did was approach, bump and reapproach a freighter.
Or, put another way, for an hour, three people were jockeying for position to respectively get the target into a good attack position and trying to avoid getting into that position. It may not have been the crazed excitement of sonars and coasting silently and crazy ivans of other submarine fiction, but it was a hunt none the less — I don't find it particularly silly that such contests can drag on. In fact, I think it's pretty neat that the game allows for it: an entire combat that is not dictated by the firing of guns, but of positioning and the struggle to get the upper hand.

Quote:
Simple right. Forget about the gank. Let's look at the mechanic used to facilitate it. If you aren't legally able to be attacked, then any action you take to ruin the play of another player should be cause for repercussions from CCP.
Now that's silly. Ruining other people's play is at the very heart of the game, and it comes in a myriad of forms — blowing people up is just one minute option. As long as there are ways to combat this kind of jockeying for position (and there are), it's all fine and dandy.

When you undock log in, your game can be ruined. It's what makes this game so much better than the competition: the fact that you have all these people out there who are (occasionally) out to ruin your day, and you have to make sure it doesn't get ruined by them.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#619 - 2013-07-05 15:49:48 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Tippia wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
See previous posts.
So you agree that it breaks things and that there is no upside to it, so reducing the timer would be a pretty horrid idea?

Red herring.

Nope. That's just following your directions. By the previous posts, you offered no reason to change the timers; no objection to the fact that it would break things; and thus no disagreement with the conclusion that it's a horrid idea. You also misidentified the scope and consequences of such a change.

The fact that you have resorted to mere quips and non-responses shows that what arguments you had have been ground into such fine dust that all you can do at this point is to try to divert the attention away from this fact through these kinds of trolling attempts.

If I'm wrong, how about you try to actually answer the questions people are posing to you? How about you present some kind of argument for why timers should be reduced or (just to be kind and include your red herring) why profits should be cut?
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#620 - 2013-07-05 16:01:33 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Bolow Santosi wrote:
I hear not flying around with a cargo full of stuff worth 4 times more than your ship is worth is a really good place to start to avoid things like this.



I think any ship you undock is not safe.

I just also think that there's a point to excess.


This excess being several dosen dead freighters out of hundreds of thousands of freighter trips every month?



I don't understand the relevance of your question. Are you trying to say that the hundreds of freighters killed took an hour each time?


No I am saying that out of hundreds of thousands of freighter trips a month only a few dozen end in a gank.



And an even smaller result in a gank that took over an hour to accomplish right?

I guess that's not the point of in "excess" then.

But the amount of time should be.

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.