These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Why freighter bumping in High Sec is an exploit

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mag's
Azn Empire
#481 - 2014-02-12 15:57:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Cathy Mikakka wrote:
I am not angry, but I kinda hate when people do not see things my way :D sorry about that..
The only way that matters is CCPs and their GMs on this subject and they have ruled.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Llyona
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#482 - 2014-02-12 16:03:01 UTC
Cassie Helio wrote:



No it doesn't work that way, we've tried it (My friends and I). The issue isn't speed it's alignment. The freighter takes about 45 seconds to align and so the bumper (usually a Machariel) can bump you again before you can get into alignment. This is also why the webs do not work after it has bumped the first time.

Man, these must be some bad ass bumpers if they can not only get to your freighter, but also bump it, in the 3 seconds it takes to lock and web a freighter.

That is, unless you're a scrub and single webbing. Then that would explain why you think anything can be done to a freighter before he's webbed off field.

EVE is an illness, for which there is no cure.
Cathy Mikakka
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#483 - 2014-02-12 16:05:14 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Cathy Mikakka wrote:
I am not angry, but I kinda hate when people do not see things my way :D sorry about that..
The only way that matters is CCPs and their GMs on this subject and they have ruled.

That link you said does not have anything from Eve devs in it on this, has a GM ruling on a case of someone being bumped for 60 minutes. Those posts are removed from these forums, for obvious reasons.


I have read those. Those could be all lies, but I am inclined to believe them. But that still leaves you with https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority. And moreso, what is not exploit now can become one if sufficient number of people dislike the mechanics and only few people like them.... There are 26 pages of people arguing about this very thing, so CCP can change their mind quite easily...

Kenrailae: What if someone is in NPC corp? AFAIK Red Frog haulers are not in RF, dunno if they can be in other corps, but still, not every corp has people who can do PVP/logistics etc.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#484 - 2014-02-12 16:11:11 UTC
Cathy Mikakka wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Cathy Mikakka wrote:
I am not angry, but I kinda hate when people do not see things my way :D sorry about that..
The only way that matters is CCPs and their GMs on this subject and they have ruled.

That link you said does not have anything from Eve devs in it on this, has a GM ruling on a case of someone being bumped for 60 minutes. Those posts are removed from these forums, for obvious reasons.


I have read those. Those could be all lies, but I am inclined to believe them. But that still leaves you with https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority. And moreso, what is not exploit now can become one if sufficient number of people dislike the mechanics and only few people like them.... There are 26 pages of people arguing about this very thing, so CCP can change their mind quite easily...

Kenrailae: What if someone is in NPC corp? AFAIK Red Frog haulers are not in RF, dunno if they can be in other corps, but still, not every corp has people who can do PVP/logistics etc.




Red Frog tends to operate within the 'not gankeable' limits in terms of cost and procedure. People choose to be in NPC corps. That is their choice.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Cathy Mikakka
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#485 - 2014-02-12 16:12:13 UTC
Kenrailae wrote:
Cathy Mikakka wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Cathy Mikakka wrote:
I am not angry, but I kinda hate when people do not see things my way :D sorry about that..
The only way that matters is CCPs and their GMs on this subject and they have ruled.

That link you said does not have anything from Eve devs in it on this, has a GM ruling on a case of someone being bumped for 60 minutes. Those posts are removed from these forums, for obvious reasons.


I have read those. Those could be all lies, but I am inclined to believe them. But that still leaves you with https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority. And moreso, what is not exploit now can become one if sufficient number of people dislike the mechanics and only few people like them.... There are 26 pages of people arguing about this very thing, so CCP can change their mind quite easily...

Kenrailae: What if someone is in NPC corp? AFAIK Red Frog haulers are not in RF, dunno if they can be in other corps, but still, not every corp has people who can do PVP/logistics etc.




Red Frog tends to operate within the 'not gankeable' limits in terms of cost and procedure. People choose to be in NPC corps. That is their choice.


But being in non gankable limits (1b) still can result in the gank for the lulz OR just bumping for the lulz (for couple of hours... why not?).
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#486 - 2014-02-12 16:13:18 UTC
Cathy Mikakka wrote:


Kenrailae: What if someone is in NPC corp? AFAIK Red Frog haulers are not in RF, dunno if they can be in other corps, but still, not every corp has people who can do PVP/logistics etc.


well u dnt have to be in corp to provide logi. but this is why it is an advantage to know ppl who can do such things. With T1 logi cruisers, providing logi is damn easy to skill for, and so is T1 e-war.

those who reach out to such ppl or train it for themselves have an advantage over those who refuse to reach out to other players or otherwise adapt. and that is why i love eve.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#487 - 2014-02-12 16:24:37 UTC
Cathy Mikakka wrote:
Kenrailae wrote:
Cathy Mikakka wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Cathy Mikakka wrote:
I am not angry, but I kinda hate when people do not see things my way :D sorry about that..
The only way that matters is CCPs and their GMs on this subject and they have ruled.

That link you said does not have anything from Eve devs in it on this, has a GM ruling on a case of someone being bumped for 60 minutes. Those posts are removed from these forums, for obvious reasons.


I have read those. Those could be all lies, but I am inclined to believe them. But that still leaves you with https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority. And moreso, what is not exploit now can become one if sufficient number of people dislike the mechanics and only few people like them.... There are 26 pages of people arguing about this very thing, so CCP can change their mind quite easily...

Kenrailae: What if someone is in NPC corp? AFAIK Red Frog haulers are not in RF, dunno if they can be in other corps, but still, not every corp has people who can do PVP/logistics etc.




Red Frog tends to operate within the 'not gankeable' limits in terms of cost and procedure. People choose to be in NPC corps. That is their choice.


But being in non gankable limits (1b) still can result in the gank for the lulz OR just bumping for the lulz (for couple of hours... why not?).



Goes right into that 'Yep, crap is still gonna happen from time to time category.' There should never be a 100% outcome in Eve. I could log in today fleet today and we could whelp a 50B isk + fleet. Yup.... crap happens. It'd suck... but crap still happens.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Mag's
Azn Empire
#488 - 2014-02-12 16:31:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Cathy Mikakka wrote:
I have read those. Those could be all lies, but I am inclined to believe them. But that still leaves you with https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority. And moreso, what is not exploit now can become one if sufficient number of people dislike the mechanics and only few people like them.... There are 26 pages of people arguing about this very thing, so CCP can change their mind quite easily...
Your fallacy argument would hold some water, if it wasn't for the fact that it's CCP ruling on their own game.

You'll see that thread I linked ran on for many more pages than this and it ended the same way.

You should also note that they did not instantly rule on this, they discussed it first. The first thread on the subject by a Dev, was started on November 28th 2012. Even then, the rule was it was not an exploit. But CCP Falcon said "In this thread I will be gathering questions, comments, feedback and opinions regarding bumping."

They finally ruled at the end of January 2013 and made their stance known.

So yes, I do appeal to authority. I appeal to the only authority that matters in this regard. CCP.
That's not fallacy, but fact. Blink

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Llyona
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#489 - 2014-02-12 16:54:15 UTC
Cathy Mikakka wrote:
[quote=Mag's]
I have read those. Those could be all lies, but I am inclined to believe them. But that still leaves you with https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority. And moreso, what is not exploit now can become one if sufficient number of people dislike the mechanics and only few people like them.... There are 26 pages of people arguing about this very thing, so CCP can change their mind quite easily...

Kenrailae: What if someone is in NPC corp? AFAIK Red Frog haulers are not in RF, dunno if they can be in other corps, but still, not every corp has people who can do PVP/logistics etc.

The very definition of "exploit" requires it to be deemed so by the developers of the game, in that they must make it known that the mechanics were utilized in a way they had not intended. As such, it is not fallacious to state that developers are the sole authority on what is or is not an exploit.

EVE is an illness, for which there is no cure.
Jta Grl
2 Pingeons Incorporated
#490 - 2014-02-14 02:15:59 UTC
I'd like to add my 2 cents to the discussion. No member of CCP ever said that bumping as an agressive maneuver is allowed under any circumstances. What they said was that miner bumping was not an exploit. And they said under the context of a controversy provoked by a game institution dedicated to do push afk miners away from their juice: http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html
Another completly different kind of bumping got an exploit notification from CCP: http://community.eveonline.com/news/news-channels/eve-online-news/exploit-notification-forcefield-access/
An then there's the freighter bumping that is completly different from these two and and didn't got an official statement yet.
So stop linking decontextualized declarations from devs.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#491 - 2014-02-14 03:55:17 UTC
Jta Grl wrote:
No member of CCP ever said that bumping as an agressive maneuver is allowed under any circumstances. What they said was that miner bumping was not an exploit.

So it's allowed... and it's aggressive

Oh god.
Paul Tsukaya
Doomheim
#492 - 2014-02-14 04:30:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Paul Tsukaya
I kinda agree with this. Bump tackling really circumvents the crimewatch system.

In lowsec/nullsec/wspace harassing another person means risking your ship (except for some niche cases which are bullshit like permabubbling an undock with a dictor).

In highsec harassing another person is supposed to mean the automatic loss of your ship. However bumping allows you to harass people without having to risk anything.

I think hostile actions should always involve risking or losing something.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#493 - 2014-02-14 04:34:22 UTC
Quote:
In highsec harassing another person is supposed to mean the automatic loss of your ship.

No it isn't.

Oh god.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#494 - 2014-02-14 05:20:42 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Quote:
In highsec harassing another person is supposed to mean the automatic loss of your ship.

No it isn't.

Yes it should. (Constructive comment of the year)

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#495 - 2014-02-14 06:20:32 UTC
In your opinion, which isn't shared by CCP.

Oh god.
Cathy Mikakka
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#496 - 2014-02-14 06:22:53 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Quote:
In highsec harassing another person is supposed to mean the automatic loss of your ship.

No it isn't.

This forum needs a dislike button.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#497 - 2014-02-14 06:26:16 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
In your opinion, which isn't shared by CCP.

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#498 - 2014-02-14 06:29:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Riot Girl
Cathy Mikakka wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Quote:
In highsec harassing another person is supposed to mean the automatic loss of your ship.

No it isn't.

This forum needs a dislike button.

Would that satisfy your frustration at not being able to formulate a comprehensive argument? There are more meaningful ways to deal with that, like actually doing some research on the subject you are arguing about.

Goldiiee wrote:
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

So which one is the fanatic?

Oh god.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#499 - 2014-02-14 06:42:26 UTC
Paul Tsukaya wrote:
I kinda agree with this. Bump tackling really circumvents the crimewatch system.

In lowsec/nullsec/wspace harassing another person means risking your ship (except for some niche cases which are bullshit like permabubbling an undock with a dictor).

In highsec harassing another person is supposed to mean the automatic loss of your ship. However bumping allows you to harass people without having to risk anything.

I think hostile actions should always involve risking or losing something.


Riot Girl wrote:
No it isn't.

So you agree with statement A, B, but find fault in the logic of 'If A is true' and 'B is true' then 'C should be true'

Or do you disagree that the current mechanic of 'Concord relieves you of your ship' for criminal acts is true. Bumping to prevent a ship from going into warp and escaping is a workaround for the aggression mechanic in High sec, no suspect flag, no criminal flag but the same effect as a Warp scram, and should be classified as an act of aggression, or at least suspect.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#500 - 2014-02-14 06:50:22 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
So you agree with statement A, B, but find fault in the logic of 'If A is true' and 'B is true' then 'C should be true'
Maybe if you marked statements A, B and C, I'd know what you are talking about.

Quote:
Do you disagree that the current mechanic of 'Concord relieves you of your ship' for criminal acts is true.

Nope.

Quote:
Bumping to prevent a ship from going into warp and escaping is a workaround for the aggression mechanic in High sec
Yep, a workaround which doesn't break the rules and doesn't cause any game-breaking complications. It's a creative use of game tools.

Quote:
the same effect as a Warp scram

Nope.

Oh god.