These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#881 - 2013-07-06 18:57:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Look, it's simple.

In the scenario this thread has generated, the gank would not have been accomplished had it not been for the manipulation of 2 mechanics.

Both sides were stupid.

"mistakes were made" and all that.

Trying to argue about who said what for this reason is just doing nothing.

The facts still remain; the gank shouldn't have been successful. But it was.

The mechanics should still be looked at, for reasons other than the fact a freighter died.

A pilot, of a ship unable to perform combat, was stuck in place with mechanics that when applied, created a situation that should be a concern for the dev staff to take a look at and decide if it is in fact working as intended, or would need further research and/or tweaking.

As much as we all have our own opinions, it will not be a right or wrong aspect since we obviously will drive this thread into the ground and none of us are admitting to being a dev, so therefore the point is moot.



CCP have said that bumping to stop a target from warping is a valid tactic.

CCP put the agession mechanic in with the very goal of stopping people from logging off to escape losing their ship.

Nothing needs looking at because everything is working as intended.


They also said continuous following and bumping is considered harassment. Since bumping is KEEPING you from leaving, the fact of having to span multiple systems does not have to be met as criteria since both are "working as intended" as you put it.

So... you have 2 omnipotent sources... which is stronger?

Here's the quick answer- we don't decide.

This is where it becomes questioned if a mechanic should or should not be looked at further... because it is NOT obvious that this is why the mechanic was put in place in the first time.

Based on the findings you have mentioned baltec about CCP listening to you, the frequency of the ganks, the industry of being a pirate etc, I do not think those mechanics were put in place to accomodate this scenario.

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.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#882 - 2013-07-06 18:58:24 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Using your words, freighters are just like every other ship in the game. One specific ship using a logoff mechanic is your own special blend of asshattery.
…but it's wasn't change because one specific ship used that mechanic, and no-one ever said it was.

Quote:
Logoff tactic, regardless of what ship can use it, is what we are discussing concerning a freighter in this thread.

Because the aggression timer, used in conjunction with concord timers, apply to this scenario as it was executed in highsec.

Therefore, it is relevant. You are claiming it is not.
I'm claiming that, what, exactly, is not relevant? Be very specific because your penchant for putting words in my mouth means I don't trust anything you claim I've said at this point…

Quote:
You are saying the logoff timer is why the mechanic is there. The other goon said it was to probe safe ships.
Same thing. The timer mechanic was changed to ensure that it was always applicable so you could always probe down aggressed ships.

Quote:
If that mechanic was put in place to halt the logging off of freighters (such as you claimed)
I claimed it was put into place to halt logging off as a means of saving your ship. It has nothing to do with freighters.

Quote:
Whereas the mechanic, ALSO said by you (way in the beginning of the thread), was because of capitals logging off in pvp combat. You'll have to forgive me if I'm wrong, I am not going to be bothered linking that post, but it was inferred that freighters were capitals so therefore it applied to them (again was weak).
I said that capital ships were particularly prone to use this tactic because they inherently had the hit points to survive the non-aggressed timer. I said that, since freighters are capitals too, it's not surprising that they had the buffers to make use of this tactic. But the reason the timers were fixed was because of the general case: given large enough a buffer, a ship (any ship) can avoid being destroyed by logging off.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#883 - 2013-07-06 18:59:19 UTC
Tippia wrote:
So they haven't actually said that wardecs are in any way “the best way” to PvP someone in highsec.


They've said it a lot more directly than any of your nonsense about intent. What's the matter, too risk averse to war?

Quote:
Ok. We'll reduce it to 14 minutes 58 seconds instead. Happy? Or, hell, let's just round it off to 15 minutes to make it easy to remember.


Nah, scanning takes about half as long as it used to so let's say 7:30 - nice and round.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#884 - 2013-07-06 18:59:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
They also said continuous following and bumping is considered harassment. Since bumping is KEEPING you from leaving, the fact of having to span multiple systems does not have to be met as criteria since both are "working as intended" as you put it.
…except that it does not keep you from leaving. It keeps you from aligning your ship to warp out (if done correctly). You are free to leave at any time, and if they pursue you to keep bump you, then you can start building a case.

S Byerley wrote:
They've said it a lot more directly than any of your nonsense about intent.
If by “more directly” you mean “not at all, as opposed to” (since intent is intrinsic to harassment), then yes. Otherwise, no, they have not said anything of the kind.
What's the matter, too risk averse to war?

Quote:
Nah, scanning takes about half as long as it used to so let's say 7:30 - nice and round.
…except that by reducing the scanning time to half, it's been reduced to by a couple of seconds. So we'll reduce the timer by that amount — to 14 minute, 58 seconds… or let's just say 15 to round it off to something easy to remember.

…unless you suggest that all combat ships get their DPS doubled (and all siege timers halved)? Because that would be a good reason to reduce the timer by half rather than by the few seconds difference the change in scanning is worth.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#885 - 2013-07-06 19:00:45 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
44 Pages of bad players insisting that freighters should be able to log off to avoid dying when people shoot at them.

lol



Make no mistake, let me be clear. It's not the dying part that gives me cause for discussing the mechanic. It's the amount of time it took to get that ship even to a point of dying that should have allowed him to logoff.

Hell, I'd have petitioned it and let a GM intervene (had I cared about dying in a game) if it took some jackasses an hour from keeping me to my destination.


Why do you have an issue with the amount of time it took to kill the ship? Do you believe that if people can't kill a ship in some arbitrary time limit than the other ship should instantly win?

That's dumb, mate
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#886 - 2013-07-06 19:03:34 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
They also said continuous following and bumping is considered harassment. Since bumping is KEEPING you from leaving, the fact of having to span multiple systems does not have to be met as criteria since both are "working as intended" as you put it.
…except that it does not keep you from leaving. It keeps you from aligning your ship to warp out (if done correctly). You are free to leave at any time, and if they pursue you to keep bump you, then you can start building a case.


Pursue doesn't fit when the act is "block".

That's just silly.

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.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#887 - 2013-07-06 19:06:54 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:


They also said continuous following and bumping is considered harassment. Since bumping is KEEPING you from leaving, the fact of having to span multiple systems does not have to be met as criteria since both are "working as intended" as you put it.

So... you have 2 omnipotent sources... which is stronger?

Here's the quick answer- we don't decide.


An hour of being stopped from warping and then ganked is not harassment. We hold down capitals in null and low sec for much longer spans of time. This is simply a case of a gank gone bad. You can ask CCP Punkturis when she gets back and she will provide the same answer as me because that's what we were told back when crimewatch was announced.

Most people would love for their freighter to take this long to gank as that would give them a lot of time to form a defence fleet to save it.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#888 - 2013-07-06 19:07:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Some of the posters in this thread are using arguments so circular that π is now getting involved.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Mag's
Azn Empire
#889 - 2013-07-06 19:09:26 UTC
PeHD0M wrote:
Mag's wrote:
PeHD0M wrote:
This is definitely a flawed game mechanic and exploit.
Except it's definitely not.


Nope. You are wrong.

Bumping miners is one case. Bumping for hours is another. The player tried to move to another location, but he is UNABLE do it because of said actions. Therefore:

Quote:
However, persistent targeting of a player with bumping by following them around after they have made an effort to move on to another location can be classified as harassment, and this will be judged on a case by case basis.
They didn't bump for hours, they bumped for an hour. The freighter didn't move locations either.

But even if that were the case and the GMs ruled in the pilots favour, it still wouldn't make it a flawed mechanic and exploit. It would be ruled under griefing and harassment. But thanks for posting.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#890 - 2013-07-06 19:09:51 UTC
In the hour it took to kill I could roll a trial account and keep taking pot shots at the catalysts (or even my own freighter) to pull concord to the scene of the action - and if concord is sitting right on top of it, good luck ganking

of course, alliance mates could have helped too, instead of just sitting watching in chat like useless knobheads
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#891 - 2013-07-06 19:10:04 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
44 Pages of bad players insisting that freighters should be able to log off to avoid dying when people shoot at them.

lol



Make no mistake, let me be clear. It's not the dying part that gives me cause for discussing the mechanic. It's the amount of time it took to get that ship even to a point of dying that should have allowed him to logoff.

Hell, I'd have petitioned it and let a GM intervene (had I cared about dying in a game) if it took some jackasses an hour from keeping me to my destination.


Why do you have an issue with the amount of time it took to kill the ship? Do you believe that if people can't kill a ship in some arbitrary time limit than the other ship should instantly win?

That's dumb, mate



To answer your second question first- It really depends on how you define win and lose. There was nothing "win" about this scenario. It was pisspoor performance on both sides, it was a situation that never should happened.

Your first question answered, is that it shouldn't take that long to execute something. EVERYTHING has a point of excess. I care about quality, and standards. And to be quite frank, people thinking their cool for being dogshit is lame. It's a ******** standard that should be eliminated.

I also think EVERYONE has a fair shot at this game, and I tend to look at people as players, not pilots, not hulls, not wrecks.

If I want to awox someone, it will not be a stupid theft that is replaced in a week. It's going to be a full blown act of sabotage.

Manipulating mechanics to waste someone's time in such a way is just plain old distasteful and lame, and quite honestly, I got roped into it since I'm not scared to fight or argue /shrug.

It's amusing at the end of the day, and I'll still be smiling on my drive home as I anxiously wait to log in and blow someone up.

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.
fuer0n
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#892 - 2013-07-06 19:10:49 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Some of the posters in this thread are using arguments so circular that PI is now getting involved.



**** your suck and **** pi. you lot are just bad. give up ffs.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#893 - 2013-07-06 19:12:22 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


They also said continuous following and bumping is considered harassment. Since bumping is KEEPING you from leaving, the fact of having to span multiple systems does not have to be met as criteria since both are "working as intended" as you put it.

So... you have 2 omnipotent sources... which is stronger?

Here's the quick answer- we don't decide.


An hour of being stopped from warping and then ganked is not harassment. We hold down capitals in null and low sec for much longer spans of time. This is simply a case of a gank gone bad. You can ask CCP Punkturis when she gets back and she will provide the same answer as me because that's what we were told back when crimewatch was announced.

Most people would love for their freighter to take this long to gank as that would give them a lot of time to form a defence fleet to save it.



I agree, this isn't null or lowsec.

As to Punkturis deciding, that's kind of my point. I think this scenario warrants a petition. I don't think the combination of CrimeWatch and Concord mechanics in this scenario were why each one were designed.

Which is why I guess we end up being alpha testers /shrug.

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.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#894 - 2013-07-06 19:13:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
Pursue doesn't fit when the act is "block".

That's just silly.
Pursue fits perfectly when it's very easy to stop being blocked.

You keep getting bumped in your freighter, and you keep fighting back. This drags on for hours — no harassment.
You say “screw this”, and leave, letting the other side do whatever they want with what remains — no harassment.
They ignore your abandoned freighter and warp after you… — odd, but no harassment yet.
You dock up, pick up a new ship and undock…

…and immediately get bumped by the same people, even though you're now in a mining Moa. — Ooooh… now it has taken the first step down the road towards it being a genuine case of harassment.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#895 - 2013-07-06 19:14:55 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


They also said continuous following and bumping is considered harassment. Since bumping is KEEPING you from leaving, the fact of having to span multiple systems does not have to be met as criteria since both are "working as intended" as you put it.

So... you have 2 omnipotent sources... which is stronger?

Here's the quick answer- we don't decide.


An hour of being stopped from warping and then ganked is not harassment. We hold down capitals in null and low sec for much longer spans of time. This is simply a case of a gank gone bad. You can ask CCP Punkturis when she gets back and she will provide the same answer as me because that's what we were told back when crimewatch was announced.

Most people would love for their freighter to take this long to gank as that would give them a lot of time to form a defence fleet to save it.



I agree, this isn't null or lowsec.

As to Punkturis deciding, that's kind of my point. I think this scenario warrants a petition. I don't think the combination of CrimeWatch and Concord mechanics in this scenario were why each one were designed.

Which is why I guess we end up being alpha testers /shrug.


The crimewatch mechanics were designed literally with a mind to put stop to logging off to save yourself. Concord and how they were being dragged around weren't planned as such, but it's been like that for a decade and CCP don't consider it an exploit.

So it doesn't even warrant a petition.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#896 - 2013-07-06 19:15:20 UTC
fuer0n wrote:

**** your suck and **** pi. you lot are just bad. give up ffs.

Coherent English please, I can't read manure

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#897 - 2013-07-06 19:15:54 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Pursue doesn't fit when the act is "block".

That's just silly.
Pursue fits perfectly when it's very easy to stop being blocked.

You keep getting bumped in your freighter, and you keep fighting back. This drags on for hours — no harassment.
You say “screw this”, and leave, letting the other side do whatever they want with what remains — no harassment.
They ignore your abandoned freighter and warp after you… — odd, but no harassment yet.
You dock up, pick up a new ship and undock…

…and immediately gets bumped by the same people, even though you're now in a mining Moa. — Ooooh… now it has taken the first step down the road towards it being a genuine case of harassment.



...

"You keep getting bumped in your freighter, and you keep fighting back."

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.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#898 - 2013-07-06 19:16:04 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:


I agree, this isn't null or lowsec.

As to Punkturis deciding, that's kind of my point. I think this scenario warrants a petition. I don't think the combination of CrimeWatch and Concord mechanics in this scenario were why each one were designed.

Which is why I guess we end up being alpha testers /shrug.


The petition will arrive back like all the others sent in about us ganking freighters.


Working as intended.
fuer0n
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#899 - 2013-07-06 19:16:27 UTC  |  Edited by: fuer0n
sucks. i was a 40 hour a week t2 player. you lot SUCK.

edit prolly a lot more hours but who's counting. ;)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#900 - 2013-07-06 19:18:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
"You keep getting bumped in your freighter, and you keep fighting back."
Yes? That is a quote.
Did you have any intentions with posting it, or are you just admiring my writing style?