These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Red Frog Rufen
Red Frog Freight
Red-Frog
#301 - 2012-04-05 17:22:37 UTC
reading the last page, most people forget one thing:

freighter pilots don't want ganking to stop, we live with that pretty confortably, even tho it's now easier with tornado to gank us.

the problem here is the bumping of the freighter. that bumping ship gets no GCC, and prevent us from doing anything. that is part of the exploit. feel free to evade as long as you want after destroying a ship, no one care, but allowing this while another ship bump you without consequence is not a leveled playing field.
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Gradient
Electus Matari
#302 - 2012-04-05 17:39:43 UTC
Red Frog Rufen wrote:
reading the last page, most people forget one thing:

freighter pilots don't want ganking to stop, we live with that pretty confortably, even tho it's now easier with tornado to gank us.

To be fair, some freighter pilots do.

There's a bunch of people among high-sec gankers who understand the concept of balance between risk and gain, and there's a bunch of people among high-sec haulers who understand the same. Then there's a bunch of gankers who think it should be as easy for them as just showing up on a gate in a remotely correct fit, and a bunch of haulers who think any risk to them is unfair...
jimmyjam
Fire Mandrill
#303 - 2012-04-05 19:04:17 UTC
You know the real reason this got banned was because the original guy who figured made a huge post about it should have kept quiet to be honest.
Chicken Pizza
One-man Armada
#304 - 2012-04-05 20:56:46 UTC
Awwwwww, poor babies! They can't use their precious new-found exploit anymore!

http://www.lowbird.com/data/images/2010/09/1284810185633.gif

Deal with it.
kiki mo
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
#305 - 2012-04-05 21:42:25 UTC
jimmyjam wrote:
You know the real reason this got banned was because the original guy who figured made a huge post about it should have kept quiet to be honest.



Well, actually I believe he felt it was going to be stealth-nerfed anyway like many things this past year...so he 'forced' CCP to publicly state if it was an exploit or not. Warping away after initiating GCC has ALWAYS been 'NOT AN EXPLOIT' as long as you didn't stay in warp until the GCC expired (i.e. avoid getting blown up by Concord). As long as you eventually were blown up, it was considered normal gameplay. After all, not everyone has max navigation skills or could figure out how to warp around like this. It also used to be 'NOT AN EXPLOIT' if you boarded a ship while under GCC...you just understood that would result in a concord response.

Now, the goalposts have been moved and it was declared an exploit...and CCP declares loudly that 'New Eden is a better place'...LOL.

I think his tactic on this was actually brilliant. It did two things (other than having the GCC boarding/warping being declared an exploit).
- it highlighted the current mindset and direction that CCP is going for everyone to see - hisec safe zone
- it made CCP create a special patch with notes, instead of yet another stealth-nerf with no patch notes and no word of it outside of the people who would use this tactic

As an example, contrast this with the Decshield and Dec-scraping. This was an exploit before. Suddenly, it became 'not an exploit'. Now, they say it is going away with the new patch, but they're not going to do a mini-patch to 'fix' it beforehand and still allow people to decshield and decscrape until that time.

So, IMHO, this was going to get nerfed or declared an exploit anyway...the forum post wasn't the impetus that 'caused' it. CCP is on a kick to remove criminal activity from hisec due to the flawed data of 'why' people unsub...try it, you'll see what I mean with the preset 'reasons'. So, to lessen the percentage of people who unsub because of the preset reasons in the accounts section, they're 'fixing' the game so those reasons won't exist anymore (they think then the people will stay in the game). Sort of like thinking that hospitals are full of sick people, so in order to be healthy you should avoid hospitals.

New Eden is a better place because of flawed logic.
Red Frog Rufen
Red Frog Freight
Red-Frog
#306 - 2012-04-06 01:12:33 UTC
kiki mo wrote:
[quote=jimmyjam]

So, IMHO, this was going to get nerfed or declared an exploit anyway...the forum post wasn't the impetus that 'caused' it. CCP is on a kick to remove criminal activity from hisec due to the flawed data of 'why' people unsub...try it, you'll see what I mean with the preset 'reasons'. So, to lessen the percentage of people who unsub because of the preset reasons in the accounts section, they're 'fixing' the game so those reasons won't exist anymore (they think then the people will stay in the game). Sort of like thinking that hospitals are full of sick people, so in order to be healthy you should avoid hospitals.

New Eden is a better place because of flawed logic.





I don't think they want to remove high-sec criminality.

if we were to transport anything of value in high-sec without risking it, then the market would all fall over, since it wouldn't mean anything to haul from one place to the other.

I don't think there's a lot of pilot that want that either. You just need to explain some market base knowledge to them and they will agree piracy is good, WHEN DONE RIGHT.

jimmyjam
Fire Mandrill
#307 - 2012-04-06 01:40:45 UTC
I love piracy as much as the next guy iam just saying i would have loved if the boomerang would have stayed underground and really effed someone over i would have loved to see a huge rant from a care bear.

Red Frog Rufen wrote:
kiki mo wrote:
[quote=jimmyjam]

So, IMHO, this was going to get nerfed or declared an exploit anyway...the forum post wasn't the impetus that 'caused' it. CCP is on a kick to remove criminal activity from hisec due to the flawed data of 'why' people unsub...try it, you'll see what I mean with the preset 'reasons'. So, to lessen the percentage of people who unsub because of the preset reasons in the accounts section, they're 'fixing' the game so those reasons won't exist anymore (they think then the people will stay in the game). Sort of like thinking that hospitals are full of sick people, so in order to be healthy you should avoid hospitals.

New Eden is a better place because of flawed logic.





I don't think they want to remove high-sec criminality.

if we were to transport anything of value in high-sec without risking it, then the market would all fall over, since it wouldn't mean anything to haul from one place to the other.

I don't think there's a lot of pilot that want that either. You just need to explain some market base knowledge to them and they will agree piracy is good, WHEN DONE RIGHT.


Red Frog Rufen
Red Frog Freight
Red-Frog
#308 - 2012-04-06 11:36:41 UTC
jimmyjam wrote:
I love piracy as much as the next guy iam just saying i would have loved if the boomerang would have stayed underground and really effed someone over i would have loved to see a huge rant from a care bear.


it would have stayed underground if the tactics didn't involved freighters/orca. The killmail were too obvious.

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#309 - 2012-04-06 14:18:47 UTC
Red Frog Rufen wrote:
the problem here is the bumping of the freighter. that bumping ship gets no GCC, and prevent us from doing anything. that is part of the exploit. feel free to evade as long as you want after destroying a ship, no one care, but allowing this while another ship bump you without consequence is not a leveled playing field.

Good luck finding a way to prevent people from bumping you. Imagine an Eve where bumping into someone allows them to shoot at you.

TEARS would love it. Never mind can flipping, just cloak up in the path of the missioners and wait for them to bump you.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Micheal Dietrich
Kings Gambit Black
#310 - 2012-04-06 14:56:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Micheal Dietrich
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Red Frog Rufen wrote:
the problem here is the bumping of the freighter. that bumping ship gets no GCC, and prevent us from doing anything. that is part of the exploit. feel free to evade as long as you want after destroying a ship, no one care, but allowing this while another ship bump you without consequence is not a leveled playing field.

Good luck finding a way to prevent people from bumping you. Imagine an Eve where bumping into someone allows them to shoot at you.

TEARS would love it. Never mind can flipping, just cloak up in the path of the missioners and wait for them to bump you.



I still think we should have real physics collision. Suicide Ganking would have a whole new meaning then.

Edit: And now that I thought about it, Jita would turn into the 405 in no time.

Out of Pod is getting In the Pod - Join in game channel **IG OOPE **
kiki mo
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
#311 - 2012-04-06 15:03:01 UTC
Red Frog Rufen wrote:
jimmyjam wrote:
I love piracy as much as the next guy iam just saying i would have loved if the boomerang would have stayed underground and really effed someone over i would have loved to see a huge rant from a care bear.


it would have stayed underground if the tactics didn't involved freighters/orca. The killmail were too obvious.



I like the thought behind your post, unfortunately CCP has shown the desire to wield the nerf bat regardless if it involves Orcas and Freighters...usually by stealth and with no warning or patch notes. With that in mind, the OP created this thread.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#312 - 2012-04-06 15:06:33 UTC
Micheal Dietrich wrote:
I still think we should have real physics collision.

Not with a 1 second tick. Collision avoidance would be impossible in any crowded situation.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Micheal Dietrich
Kings Gambit Black
#313 - 2012-04-06 15:11:48 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Micheal Dietrich wrote:
I still think we should have real physics collision.

Not with a 1 second tick. Collision avoidance would be impossible in any crowded situation.



Like I said, Jita would turn into the 405 real quick. You know all those movies where they show traffic on the highway at a standstill, yeah, change that to freighters.

Out of Pod is getting In the Pod - Join in game channel **IG OOPE **
Cheborneck
Hallelujah Goat
#314 - 2012-04-06 19:02:50 UTC
Is CCP planning to put a new "Remote Engine Disabler" in every system to cover the RP aspect of this? lawl
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Gradient
Electus Matari
#315 - 2012-04-06 19:13:04 UTC
I think it is invisible CONCORD tackler ships. Blink

Which is technology I could use too, now that I think of it.
Jita Bloodtear
Bloodtear Labs
#316 - 2012-04-07 02:38:12 UTC
Just to throw this out there... not pushing for anything. But if you initiate warp before committing a concordable crime, you'll still go to warp and bring you to a second grid.
Red Frog Rufen
Red Frog Freight
Red-Frog
#317 - 2012-04-07 05:19:40 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Red Frog Rufen wrote:
the problem here is the bumping of the freighter. that bumping ship gets no GCC, and prevent us from doing anything. that is part of the exploit. feel free to evade as long as you want after destroying a ship, no one care, but allowing this while another ship bump you without consequence is not a leveled playing field.

Good luck finding a way to prevent people from bumping you. Imagine an Eve where bumping into someone allows them to shoot at you.

TEARS would love it. Never mind can flipping, just cloak up in the path of the missioners and wait for them to bump you.


there's a easy to to prevent bumping. no collision! there's already enough non-sense in the physic of this game..

it's not like other games are not like that already anyway.

but I disgress, that's not what I wanted to say...
Cunanium
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#318 - 2012-04-09 02:41:00 UTC
CoLe Blackblood wrote:
I wouldn't ever use the Boomerang and only just heard of it, but I think calling it an exploit is a load of bull. What is the point of having concord modeled as an entity, with ships, reaction times, even an in-game persona of sorts, etc. if you are not supposed to at least try to get away from them? What is the point of increasing reaction times in differing high sec locations?
If they are not to be treated like NPCs but gods, then why bother to have them in the first place? Take out the fun and just implement an instapop for anyone who opens fire in high sec. There, no need to waste our time with Concorde, any backstory involving them, or any backstory involving Eve in general. We can make Eve as generic as possible so as not to incur any infractions of any level to anyone. That sounds fun, immersive and makes for a meanigful experience in a game.

No one should be 100% safe in Eve, that goes for bear and pirates. Calling this maneuver an exploit, while I guess it technically is according to the mandate that NO SHIP SHALL EVER get away from Concorde, just reeks. That's right, it smells fishy and, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Eve supposed to be some great sandbox? This is like adding **** to the sand just because somebody complained.



Whoa whoa, turn the tear faucet down there high speed.

Nothing really changed, its not a safer high sec, its exactly the same. Someone can fit a catalyst and go pop hulks all day long, no one said you can't. The only thing that was changed are the consequences, if you shoot someone, you will be blown up. You don't get to save your stuff. You don't get the possibility of running away in your pod (in the case of low sec status). You get to die. These are known game mechanics, working around them should be considered an exploit. What was said is that warping off grid/across grid to avoid concord popping you to 1.) remove your expensive stuff or in the limited case, 2.) completely avoid getting popped altogether, is considered an exploit.

To argue, well my **** got popped anyways so I wasn't evading CONCORD, it extremely hilarious. I had at least a good 10 minutes laughing to myself at some of these guys trying to pull that off. Tell you what, next time you get pulled over, just floor it. Go a few blocks then stop. While you have your face smashed into the ground, tell the cops that you weren't evading arrest because they caught you.

But anyways, CONCORD has evolved into the idea that CCP has for it, with a minimalist idea in mind. CONCORD was always supposed to follow the same rules as the player base, in fact it used to be possible to tank CONCORD, the original design intent being to give CONCORD enough firepower and tankage as to be omnipotent. That was proven wrong, so CONCORD was upgraded and made to insta pop.

This is simply another iteration of CCP going, "Well guys, you don't want to follow the design intent for CONCORD, so you are forcing us to do this..." The intent is that if you do something "bad" your ship *WILL* be blown up. You are not allowed to mitigate this punishment in any way or fashion. Attempting to evade the punishment is punishable (Ha!).

I find it hilarious how sensitive the ganking community is around here, and how hard they talk about carebears. I havn't seen such a hubbub over saving a few ISK'ies in such a long time. And those who use this to completely avoid CONCORD, yeah, that was always against the EULA.

TL:DR As soon as everyone gets it through their head that if you get GCC in high sec you will be blow up, mitigating it or trying to boost up your kill stats by not losing as many ships to CONCORD is not acceptable. You should probably just move out to low/null and get into real fights anyways.
CoLe Blackblood
the united
#319 - 2012-04-09 13:03:40 UTC
Cunanium wrote:
CoLe Blackblood wrote:
I wouldn't ever use the Boomerang and only just heard of it, but I think calling it an exploit is a load of bull. What is the point of having concord modeled as an entity, with ships, reaction times, even an in-game persona of sorts, etc. if you are not supposed to at least try to get away from them? What is the point of increasing reaction times in differing high sec locations?
If they are not to be treated like NPCs but gods, then why bother to have them in the first place? Take out the fun and just implement an instapop for anyone who opens fire in high sec. There, no need to waste our time with Concorde, any backstory involving them, or any backstory involving Eve in general. We can make Eve as generic as possible so as not to incur any infractions of any level to anyone. That sounds fun, immersive and makes for a meanigful experience in a game.

No one should be 100% safe in Eve, that goes for bear and pirates. Calling this maneuver an exploit, while I guess it technically is according to the mandate that NO SHIP SHALL EVER get away from Concorde, just reeks. That's right, it smells fishy and, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Eve supposed to be some great sandbox? This is like adding **** to the sand just because somebody complained.



Whoa whoa, turn the tear faucet down there high speed.

Nothing really changed, its not a safer high sec, its exactly the same. Someone can fit a catalyst and go pop hulks all day long, no one said you can't. The only thing that was changed are the consequences, if you shoot someone, you will be blown up. You don't get to save your stuff. You don't get the possibility of running away in your pod (in the case of low sec status). You get to die. These are known game mechanics, working around them should be considered an exploit. What was said is that warping off grid/across grid to avoid concord popping you to 1.) remove your expensive stuff or in the limited case, 2.) completely avoid getting popped altogether, is considered an exploit.

To argue, well my **** got popped anyways so I wasn't evading CONCORD, it extremely hilarious. I had at least a good 10 minutes laughing to myself at some of these guys trying to pull that off. Tell you what, next time you get pulled over, just floor it. Go a few blocks then stop. While you have your face smashed into the ground, tell the cops that you weren't evading arrest because they caught you.

But anyways, CONCORD has evolved into the idea that CCP has for it, with a minimalist idea in mind. CONCORD was always supposed to follow the same rules as the player base, in fact it used to be possible to tank CONCORD, the original design intent being to give CONCORD enough firepower and tankage as to be omnipotent. That was proven wrong, so CONCORD was upgraded and made to insta pop.

This is simply another iteration of CCP going, "Well guys, you don't want to follow the design intent for CONCORD, so you are forcing us to do this..." The intent is that if you do something "bad" your ship *WILL* be blown up. You are not allowed to mitigate this punishment in any way or fashion. Attempting to evade the punishment is punishable (Ha!).

I find it hilarious how sensitive the ganking community is around here, and how hard they talk about carebears. I havn't seen such a hubbub over saving a few ISK'ies in such a long time. And those who use this to completely avoid CONCORD, yeah, that was always against the EULA.

TL:DR As soon as everyone gets it through their head that if you get GCC in high sec you will be blow up, mitigating it or trying to boost up your kill stats by not losing as many ships to CONCORD is not acceptable. You should probably just move out to low/null and get into real fights anyways.


The fact that you brought a real life occurence of running from the police into your argument and then related it to this make believe game is laughable at best. Why the F should an internet space game correlate to real life so dramatically as to take the fun of out of evading law enforcement? You have obviously never succeeded or tried it and failed...the real life aspect to such matters is extremely fun to do, go watch Smokey & The Bandit for pointers.

And to take your approach that CCP has adopted their own approach to a minimalist style of Concord because of the ganker's approach to Concord leads me to my original statement, that they should just remove all aspect of immersion and when a player shoots another in high-sec, they should instapop. No Concord. No Blue Lights. Just boom. That's the true WoW way I am sure and one that you would enjoy as you sit drooling in your hulk.
Ilandriel
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#320 - 2012-04-15 19:32:06 UTC
*cough* Thread Necro *cough*

...but I had to come back, to show a possible solution for High-Sec:

1. Mark all ganked Wrecks as "un-lootable".
2. CONCORD move all Loot to the nearest Station, and contract it to the Owner.

This will work, because:

Gankers do this for the Tears....right ?
Gankers don´t do this, to earn ISK the easy Way...right ?

If this will happen, the Gankers are able to show, that they are real "Space - Criminals"...because they have to invest something, to get the next Ship ready.

I assume: "Ohh !!!...I have to grind for the Ship !!!!!" ...will lead to real Tears *lol*
Guess what, your victims have to grind too...;-)

That´s the truth behind every MMO out there: If you want to do/reach something, you have to grind for it !

That leads to the Fact, that we all grind more or less...but the Gankers won´t.

Ask the Pirats, who live in Low-Sec, how they earn their ISK. They are, in most cases, not be able to replace their Losses by the Loot + Insurance....sure, I know, there is the ****** Magnet called "Sagain"...*Facepalm*

Today, I have good news for you: There is another Way:

Convert ETC...*roflmao*



tl;dr :

Remove the ability to earn ISK with Ganking --> Problem solved.