These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

GMs - Please weigh in on the boomerang maneuver. Exploit (y/n)?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#261 - 2012-03-31 19:19:35 UTC
Pisov viet wrote:
Red Frog Rufen wrote:
Herr Wilkus wrote:

Only one way to deal with carebears. Don't waste your breath arguing with them like I end up doing.
Exterminate them, drive them out of EVE - by any means possible.


you realise that it is the carebears that keep this game online?

No, bots keep this game alive.


Please show me where the bots are at. I like to say "hi" to them *wink - wink*

Adapt or Die
Karma Bad
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#262 - 2012-04-01 00:24:01 UTC
Kumori Masurao wrote:
I don't get all the fuss really....Personally the tactic developed seems sound to me, perhaps the issue is more to do with the introduction of the new ships and their abilities than the tactics employed by the players.

You can't expect to give bigger guns to people on more agile ship hulls and not expect them to be able to obtain maximum performance from them.

If they are so interested in the High Sec GCC side of things, why not make each GCC flag cumulative and speed the response time of concord or even increase their presence in the system. Taken to the extreme concord may even pod the offender should they go past a certain point....Just throwing ideas around though rather than banning a developed tactic.






To Look at this from a real life point of view... (which btw i think is stupid in a game but hey)... if we did what you said and translated it to out of game ... your telling us we should make the cops not only take your ride if you do a hit and run
but shoot you as well?


Hmm have to think about this... i do not like how that sounded but the best thing i can think of off hand
Msgerbs
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#263 - 2012-04-01 01:32:33 UTC
Karma Bad wrote:
Kumori Masurao wrote:
I don't get all the fuss really....Personally the tactic developed seems sound to me, perhaps the issue is more to do with the introduction of the new ships and their abilities than the tactics employed by the players.

You can't expect to give bigger guns to people on more agile ship hulls and not expect them to be able to obtain maximum performance from them.

If they are so interested in the High Sec GCC side of things, why not make each GCC flag cumulative and speed the response time of concord or even increase their presence in the system. Taken to the extreme concord may even pod the offender should they go past a certain point....Just throwing ideas around though rather than banning a developed tactic.






To Look at this from a real life point of view... (which btw i think is stupid in a game but hey)... if we did what you said and translated it to out of game ... your telling us we should make the cops not only take your ride if you do a hit and run
but shoot you as well?


Hmm have to think about this... i do not like how that sounded but the best thing i can think of off hand
If you go on a rampage, evading the cops while making further hit and runs, yeah, they probably will shoot you if they have to. Seeing as how you're not surrendering, shooting you becomes a valid option.
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#264 - 2012-04-01 01:44:29 UTC
Who says he's not surrendering? He knows how to evade concord completely, but isn't. Seems like surrendering to me.

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity
Kelvan Hemanseh
Hole Exploitation Inc.
#265 - 2012-04-01 01:45:44 UTC
The GMs have ruled shouldn't this be locked now?
Kat Ayclism
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#266 - 2012-04-01 02:07:53 UTC
Tauranon wrote:
Kat Ayclism wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
We adjusted the wording slightly to make it less ambiguous. See the full text here:

http://community.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=4972&tid=1

I also have to restate that we value the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. Also avoiding CONCORD in any way is simply not allowed, attempts to find loopholes in the wording will not fly.


I find it odd that we need to be "reminded" of a new rule, as if we've seen it before. Poor choice of words in my opinion.

I also think this is a bandaid that could have been better solved with a patch to adapt Concord to the tactic rather than a rule banning it. You guys stripped all the wardec rules and continue to allow highsec warfare to be utterly ruined by obvious exploits of game mechanics under the pretense that it was too much to enforce, yet you're okay with adding new rules to prevent this. It's rather disheartening.

THIS.
The response to highsec players' egregious abuse of exploits is to declare it no longer an exploit, but the response to what makes perfect sense (run from the popo as much as you can in the cordoned off area you're stuck in) is to declare this behavior an exploit even if it works WITHOUT crossing the bounds of something known to be an exploit.

The "spirit of the law" bit also introduces VERY problematic issues as, while with a lot of digging we can find out that some of the perfectly doable behavior that requires no stretching of the games bounds is considered an exploit, we have no way of reading a GM's mind and determining what they will interpret the "spirit of the law" to be. It doesn't even have to be intentionally obtuse interpretations of the letter of the law for some problematic things to arise from this. This is really not a precedent that's healthy to set.


Making highsec freightering and ganking freighters either dual account necessary or dual account optimal is bad mkaay. its really bad for the external perception of the game for people that would trial or buy a sub too.

Concord has never been intended to offer a grandtheftauto minigame, and has always supposed to represent overpowering force as far as capsuleers were concerned.


It's a multiplayer game. Solo play should always be suboptimal.

I said nothing about it being intended, just that it's a logical thing to do when one first crosses over into the fun of shooting people and since what is or is not considered an exploit is always a matter of hearsay or digging one could easily do such without knowing that it's considered as such.
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#267 - 2012-04-01 02:48:08 UTC
Kat Ayclism wrote:


It's a multiplayer game. Solo play should always be suboptimal

I said nothing about it being intended, just that it's a logical thing to do when one first crosses over into the fun of shooting people and since what is or is not considered an exploit is always a matter of hearsay or digging one could easily do such without knowing that it's considered as such.


Most of the communication of the technique is via the forums. In any case its not like people get biomassed over first offences.

As I said, dual account != multiplayer. Its just dual account, and every time a task becomes dual account optimal, communication of such to non players negatively affects the perception of the game and thus signups etc. Escorting a freighter, carrying exactly 1 module is a second account role, not a player role.
Kelvan Hemanseh
Hole Exploitation Inc.
#268 - 2012-04-01 03:29:44 UTC
I'd like to add that you GMs who ruled the boomerang maneuver as an exploit are anti-fun GMs and that I hear Blizzard Entertainment is hiring your kind of people. Go ahead and make room for the pro-fun GMs if you please.
Msgerbs
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#269 - 2012-04-01 05:20:51 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:
Who says he's not surrendering? He knows how to evade concord completely, but isn't. Seems like surrendering to me.
Not a very good comparison. It's more like he's running from the police as hard as I he can, so they finally shoot him.

"But officer, I wasn't escaping completely, I was just staying one step ahead of you so I could blow up more cars!"
Kumori Masurao
Rage Innovations
#270 - 2012-04-01 05:59:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Kumori Masurao
The escalation in punishment is based upon escalation of crimes. I guess from the carebear point of view is that eve doesn't really have an AI crime & punishment set up per se that can't be exploited by the player base to some extent (eg similar to the bounty system). So to someone who lives in hi-sec if there is supposed to be a police force then they should have some form of teeth.

The escalation of threat by Concord was just one suggestion for a system that may address this without taking the ability away from those people who have developed ways to gank ships that are within the game mechanics as opposed to game glitches or bugs.

What about giving concord bubbles in hi-sec, I'm sure that would lead to a fun mess lol

Again, just wanting to say I don't think the tactic developed should have been nerfed. I've heard from various people about the new ships. Haven't flown one myself so it could be all cr#p, but they seem to have some design floors that affect gameplay balance, something that should be sorted before implementation and not introduced as a nerf after.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#271 - 2012-04-01 06:06:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Kelvan Hemanseh wrote:
I'd like to add that you GMs who ruled the boomerang maneuver as an exploit are anti-fun GMs and that I hear Blizzard Entertainment is hiring your kind of people. Go ahead and make room for the pro-fun GMs if you please.

Just make suicide ganking an exploit. Players should never be attacking players consequentially. Ever. No matter what.

Just do it and get it over with.
Tauranon wrote:
Its just dual account, and every time a task becomes dual account optimal, communication of such to non players negatively affects the perception of the game and thus signups etc. Escorting a freighter, carrying exactly 1 module is a second account role, not a player role.

Well cap pilots would have their cyno alts and of course scouting alts, even carrier alts for fighters when ratting.

I don't think highseccers use carriers though. Not for much except maybe mining veldspar with drones...

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#272 - 2012-04-01 06:09:37 UTC
Tauranon wrote:
Concord has never been intended to offer a grandtheftauto minigame, and has always supposed to represent overpowering force as far as capsuleers were concerned.

Surprise content! Aww, CCP you shouldn't have *blush*

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Varr Dorn
Blue Flame Ore Excavations
#273 - 2012-04-01 13:32:31 UTC
First off, my main is a carebear. I fit a tank, but haven't seen the hint of a gank, though I've lived in .5/.6 the whole time.
I would rather the Concord response time be changed because it fits in more with the elements of gameplay(lore/rp), just because it's natural to want to TRY to get away (not full evasion).

But Carebears as a whole, and even in this thread, are constantly told "Well, bring some friends to help" (to guard freighters, miners etc). Now the gankers are whining because they can't solo kill a freighter. To that I say: "Well, bring some friends...."


And, btw, Carebear is OUR word. P
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#274 - 2012-04-01 13:38:30 UTC  |  Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2
"Evading Concord isn't really evading Concord as long as you eventually stop evading Concord".

True story.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Kelvan Hemanseh
Hole Exploitation Inc.
#275 - 2012-04-01 13:57:50 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Kelvan Hemanseh wrote:
I'd like to add that you GMs who ruled the boomerang maneuver as an exploit are anti-fun GMs and that I hear Blizzard Entertainment is hiring your kind of people. Go ahead and make room for the pro-fun GMs if you please.

Just make suicide ganking an exploit. Players should never be attacking players consequentially. Ever. No matter what.

Just do it and get it over with.
Tauranon wrote:
Its just dual account, and every time a task becomes dual account optimal, communication of such to non players negatively affects the perception of the game and thus signups etc. Escorting a freighter, carrying exactly 1 module is a second account role, not a player role.

Well cap pilots would have their cyno alts and of course scouting alts, even carrier alts for fighters when ratting.

I don't think highseccers use carriers though. Not for much except maybe mining veldspar with drones...


Goon friend we are in need of a threadnaught. You know what to do.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#276 - 2012-04-02 22:50:52 UTC
Varr Dorn wrote:
First off, my main is a carebear. I fit a tank, but haven't seen the hint of a gank, though I've lived in .5/.6 the whole time.
I would rather the Concord response time be changed because it fits in more with the elements of gameplay(lore/rp), just because it's natural to want to TRY to get away (not full evasion).

But Carebears as a whole, and even in this thread, are constantly told "Well, bring some friends to help" (to guard freighters, miners etc). Now the gankers are whining because they can't solo kill a freighter. To that I say: "Well, bring some friends...."

I always wondered how that worked. Especially if using tornados where the first volley is all that matters, do you suicide gank them before their sensorboosted lock finishes and their prefired 1400s pucnh holes into the target?

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#277 - 2012-04-03 03:19:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Kelvan Hemanseh wrote:
The GMs have ruled shouldn't this be locked now?


You seriously expect any EvE players to accept decisions even if and when they themselves may have ask for them?

But to be fair, it's an evolutionary process.

Bounty Hunting - Soon (™): Retribution (Winter 2012)

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Kelvan Hemanseh
Hole Exploitation Inc.
#278 - 2012-04-03 03:27:12 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Varr Dorn wrote:
First off, my main is a carebear. I fit a tank, but haven't seen the hint of a gank, though I've lived in .5/.6 the whole time.
I would rather the Concord response time be changed because it fits in more with the elements of gameplay(lore/rp), just because it's natural to want to TRY to get away (not full evasion).

But Carebears as a whole, and even in this thread, are constantly told "Well, bring some friends to help" (to guard freighters, miners etc). Now the gankers are whining because they can't solo kill a freighter. To that I say: "Well, bring some friends...."

I always wondered how that worked. Especially if using tornados where the first volley is all that matters, do you suicide gank them before their sensorboosted lock finishes and their prefired 1400s pucnh holes into the target?


Goon friend do you need a cyno for the threadnaught?
Freddy Nightpopper
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#279 - 2012-04-03 09:39:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Freddy Nightpopper
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
We adjusted the wording slightly to make it less ambiguous. See the full text here:

http://community.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=4972&tid=1

I also have to restate that we value the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. Also avoiding CONCORD in any way is simply not allowed, attempts to find loopholes in the wording will not fly.


I find it odd that we need to be "reminded" of a new rule, as if we've seen it before. Poor choice of words in my opinion.

I also think this is a bandaid that could have been better solved with a patch to adapt Concord to the tactic rather than a rule banning it. You guys stripped all the wardec rules and continue to allow highsec warfare to be utterly ruined by obvious exploits of game mechanics under the pretense that it was too much to enforce, yet you're okay with adding new rules to prevent this. It's rather disheartening.


I agree on this. Fix the problem if u want, but NOT with rules and more rules. Just make Concord follow u instantly to the next spot u warp to then.
So u go GCC, attempt to warp out, succeed, BUT when u land were ever u do land, concord is there and instantly points, jams and kills u like normally.
Then there will be no point of warping around. Making rules about it, just loads petition system and add other odd aspects of the problem. This way, there is no need for messy new rules. Its just the police learned of the problem, and acted on it.

Psychotic Monk wrote:
If it's going fast enough, yes. The calculation already makes the bump proportional based on sig radius (read: size), mass, and speed.


Well, yes, it should... once. After that both ships in reality would get affected. The freighter would take a "hit" from "object". And the frigate should be close to crushed and destroyed on impact.

Not saying this is how it should be, but its not realistic that he can do it over and over again nether.

Red Frog Rufen wrote:
Herr Wilkus wrote:

Only one way to deal with carebears. Don't waste your breath arguing with them like I end up doing.
Exterminate them, drive them out of EVE - by any means possible.


you realise that it is the carebears that keep this game online?


You realize that it is PVP in the game that makes it more interesting then Capitalism game? The reason eve has the players it has. PVP and industry are very depended on each other, and both need to work.
Kumori Masurao
Rage Innovations
#280 - 2012-04-03 10:37:57 UTC
Freddy Nightpopper wrote:
PVP and industry are very depended on each other, and both need to work.


Ain't that the truth.