These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#901 - 2013-07-06 19:18:21 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
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.



Logging off as a tactic has been around for how long before they fixed it? CrimeWatch has been around for how long before 2.0 came out?

Please consider the fact that I don't think we as players have a right to put a shelf life on their changes or fixes.

To speak in such an absolute is to say you either know something most others do not, or you're being foolish.

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
#902 - 2013-07-06 19:18:47 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



...

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



A single corp/alliance member in an insta locking blackbird is all it takes.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#903 - 2013-07-06 19:19:51 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
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.



Logging off as a tactic has been around for how long before they fixed it? CrimeWatch has been around for how long before 2.0 came out?

Please consider the fact that I don't think we as players have a right to put a shelf life on their changes or fixes.

To speak in such an absolute is to say you either know something most others do not, or you're being foolish.



What the mechanics used to be is irrelevant, what they are now - and what part of the stated intent of the current mechanics are - show you are wrong.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#904 - 2013-07-06 19:19:56 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
"You keep getting bumped in your freighter, and you keep fighting back."
Yes? That is a quote.



/clap

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
#905 - 2013-07-06 19:20:28 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
...

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

A single corp/alliance member in an insta locking blackbird is all it takes.

…or just staying away from the kill box long enough for the opposition to screw up, which is what almost happened in this case.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#906 - 2013-07-06 19:20:56 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



...

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



A single corp/alliance member in an insta locking blackbird is all it takes.



You mean someone else. Arguably, it wouldn't matter what ship came to help.

We aren't talking about someone else. We are talking about the freighter.

Relevance.

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
#907 - 2013-07-06 19:22:24 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
[



What the mechanics used to be is irrelevant, what they are now - and what part of the stated intent of the current mechanics are - show you are wrong.



It's relevant when you claim something being in place for x amount of time means it's fine as is. As everything is subject to change, again speaking in absolutes is foolish.

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
#908 - 2013-07-06 19:22:47 UTC
mop up time.

ta.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#909 - 2013-07-06 19:24:03 UTC
Tippia wrote:
What would prove you right is has nothing to do with his ability to provide anything


Uh.... k?

Quote:
So prove it.


I did. Even if you want to argue that I haven't met an appropriate burden of proof (which would be pretty asinine since I've gone above and beyond for the context of a forum), every source supplied supports my theory.

Quote:
No. He's merely asking you to prove your assertion, which you haven't been able to do. You are the one trying to dodge said methodology. He's merely taking the null hypothesis and it's up to you to falsify it. So do so.


Daw, look at you trying to throw scientific philosophy around.

Assuming for a moment that "Nah dawg, computers sucks - you need quantum gizmos and multi-level thingamahwirls" is a null hypothesis, the purpose of a null hypothesis is to weigh against the original because proving something in this context isn't possible. So, it's not my duty to falsify it, I merely have to show that the original is more likely. If you disagree, you're going to have to pony up and do some work of your own.

Quote:
You're also not very good at providing sources for your claims… that's a much bigger problem because it means, good teacher or not, what you teach is incorrect by default.


Please take a moment to consider where your logic here went wrong.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#910 - 2013-07-06 19:24:22 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
You mean someone else. Arguably, it wouldn't matter what ship came to help.

We aren't talking about someone else. We are talking about the freighter.
…and one of the things the freighter can do is call for help. With a bit of luck, he could have kept on fighting on his own too, but that's a bit more tedious.

Or he could just have left.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#911 - 2013-07-06 19:25:43 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



You mean someone else. Arguably, it wouldn't matter what ship came to help.

We aren't talking about someone else. We are talking about the freighter.

Relevance.


The freighter is playing a multiplayer game and was in an alliance with hundreds of others. It was killed by a fleet of around 30.


Seems very relevant.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#912 - 2013-07-06 19:28:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
S Byerley wrote:
I did.
No. You just made a lot of unsupported claims.

Quote:
Daw, look at you trying to throw scientific philosophy around.

Assuming for a moment that "Nah dawg, computers sucks - you need quantum gizmos and multi-level thingamahwirls" is a null hypothesis
Let's not do that, and instead assume that the null hypothesis is “no, you can't do that [with the suggested equipment and methods].”

If you want to claim otherwise, you have to provide evidence — something you've failed to do. The purpose of the null hypothesis is to be the fallback if some other hypothesis cannot be proven. If you want to go after the null hypothesis itself, you still need proof to show that it's ill-formed. Either way, it's your duty to provide that proof.

Quote:
Please take a moment to consider where your logic here went wrong.
Where I said that it's a bigger problem? Ok, we'll call the two equal. Better?
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#913 - 2013-07-06 19:29:35 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



You mean someone else. Arguably, it wouldn't matter what ship came to help.

We aren't talking about someone else. We are talking about the freighter.

Relevance.


The freighter is playing a multiplayer game and was in an alliance with hundreds of others. It was killed by a fleet of around 30.


Seems very relevant.


The mechanic applied to the freighter doesn't apply to any other ship (until it is applied).

So, if a freighter is aggressed, and has a timer on it, it doesn't matter what ship comes to help because that freighter still has a timer on it.

Period.

Unless you wish to insinuate a blackbird or any other ship, could simply remove that timer? No, I did not think so.

Whether it is a multiplayer or not, noone is forced to do anything. You aren't forced to gank, that freighter isn't forced to transport solo.

Those choices have no relevance of the mechanics applied to the ship and the innate abilities (or lack thereof) the ship has for it's defense.

Which is also how the mechanics were manipulated and abused against a freighter, as opposed to say.... a cruiser or barge who could fight back, even at the cost of losing.

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
#914 - 2013-07-06 19:31:54 UTC
Tippia wrote:
no, they have not said anything of the kind.


If by "not said anything of the kind" you mean directly implied it via tone and context; as opposed to your completely illogical deductions regarding intent, then sure.

What's the matter, too risk averse to war?

Quote:
…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.


Perhaps you can explain to me why you need 15 minutes to scan down a target if it only take a few seconds - more ganker entitlement?

Quote:
…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.


But if you're actively attacking him the timer is getting refreshed anyway?
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#915 - 2013-07-06 19:32:12 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



You mean someone else. Arguably, it wouldn't matter what ship came to help.

We aren't talking about someone else. We are talking about the freighter.

Relevance.


The freighter is playing a multiplayer game and was in an alliance with hundreds of others. It was killed by a fleet of around 30.


Seems very relevant.


The mechanic applied to the freighter doesn't apply to any other ship (until it is applied).

So, if a freighter is aggressed, and has a timer on it, it doesn't matter what ship comes to help because that freighter still has a timer on it.

Period.

Unless you wish to insinuate a blackbird or any other ship, could simply remove that timer? No, I did not think so.

Whether it is a multiplayer or not, noone is forced to do anything. You aren't forced to gank, that freighter isn't forced to transport solo.

Those choices have no relevance of the mechanics applied to the ship and the innate abilities (or lack thereof) the ship has for it's defense.

Which is also how the mechanics were manipulated and abused against a freighter, as opposed to say.... a cruiser or barge who could fight back, even at the cost of losing.


Please stop using the word manipulated in an attempt to paint what happened here in a negative light. They weren't manipulated, some of them were used quite literally as intended, and some of them were used in a way that has been used countless times for a decade and which CCP have stated is fine.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#916 - 2013-07-06 19:33:51 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:


The mechanic applied to the freighter doesn't apply to any other ship (until it is applied).

So, if a freighter is aggressed, and has a timer on it, it doesn't matter what ship comes to help because that freighter still has a timer on it.

Period.

Unless you wish to insinuate a blackbird or any other ship, could simply remove that timer? No, I did not think so.

Whether it is a multiplayer or not, noone is forced to do anything. You aren't forced to gank, that freighter isn't forced to transport solo.

Those choices have no relevance of the mechanics applied to the ship and the innate abilities (or lack thereof) the ship has for it's defense.

Which is also how the mechanics were manipulated and abused against a freighter, as opposed to say.... a cruiser or barge who could fight back, even at the cost of losing.


Blackbird jams a handful of the destroyers and the gank fails. Bring a t1 armour logi and you will have the freighter fully repped and able to take even more damage on a second run with the blackbird ready too.

Two ships is all it takes.

Also once again no mechanics were abused in this case, everything is working as intended by CCP.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#917 - 2013-07-06 19:34:19 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



You mean someone else. Arguably, it wouldn't matter what ship came to help.

We aren't talking about someone else. We are talking about the freighter.

Relevance.


The freighter is playing a multiplayer game and was in an alliance with hundreds of others. It was killed by a fleet of around 30.


Seems very relevant.


The mechanic applied to the freighter doesn't apply to any other ship (until it is applied).

So, if a freighter is aggressed, and has a timer on it, it doesn't matter what ship comes to help because that freighter still has a timer on it.

Period.

Unless you wish to insinuate a blackbird or any other ship, could simply remove that timer? No, I did not think so.

Whether it is a multiplayer or not, noone is forced to do anything. You aren't forced to gank, that freighter isn't forced to transport solo.

Those choices have no relevance of the mechanics applied to the ship and the innate abilities (or lack thereof) the ship has for it's defense.

Which is also how the mechanics were manipulated and abused against a freighter, as opposed to say.... a cruiser or barge who could fight back, even at the cost of losing.


Please stop using the word manipulated in an attempt to paint what happened here in a negative light. They weren't manipulated, some of them were used quite literally as intended, and some of them were used in a way that has been used countless times for a decade and which CCP have stated is fine.



Why such an issue with "manipulation"? It has many forms and I could simply say "abuse" or "misuse". It's not a "bad" word, but a descriptive one.

That's just dumb, m8.

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.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#918 - 2013-07-06 19:34:53 UTC
S Byerley you still haven't answered my questions :(

Do you think intent matters in these situations?

Do you think in the two situations I provided, in which the in game data available is potentially identical, can one - which is harassment - be separated from the other (legitimate none harassment gameplay, but resulted in the same outcome due to incompetence or other outside factors)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#919 - 2013-07-06 19:34:59 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
The mechanic applied to the freighter doesn't apply to any other ship (until it is applied).
Eh… all mechanics apply equally to all ships. It being a freighter makes no difference.

Quote:
So, if a freighter is aggressed, and has a timer on it, it doesn't matter what ship comes to help because that freighter still has a timer on it.

Period.

Unless you wish to insinuate a blackbird or any other ship, could simply remove that timer?
No, he's insinuating that a Blackbird or any other ship could make the gank fail.

Quote:
Which is also how the mechanics were manipulated and abused against a freighter, as opposed to say.... a cruiser or barge who could fight back, even at the cost of losing.
A cruiser or barge would meat no different an end than the freighter in that case.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#920 - 2013-07-06 19:35:51 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


The mechanic applied to the freighter doesn't apply to any other ship (until it is applied).

So, if a freighter is aggressed, and has a timer on it, it doesn't matter what ship comes to help because that freighter still has a timer on it.

Period.

Unless you wish to insinuate a blackbird or any other ship, could simply remove that timer? No, I did not think so.

Whether it is a multiplayer or not, noone is forced to do anything. You aren't forced to gank, that freighter isn't forced to transport solo.

Those choices have no relevance of the mechanics applied to the ship and the innate abilities (or lack thereof) the ship has for it's defense.

Which is also how the mechanics were manipulated and abused against a freighter, as opposed to say.... a cruiser or barge who could fight back, even at the cost of losing.


Blackbird jams a handful of the destroyers and the gank fails. Bring a t1 armour logi and you will have the freighter fully repped and able to take even more damage on a second run with the blackbird ready too.

Two ships is all it takes.

Also once again no mechanics were abused in this case, everything is working as intended by CCP.


None of that has anything to do with the freighter. The freighter has none of any of those abilities, nor does it have any drones or anything else those ships have. It's special in this case, as it were.

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.