These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Incursion sites kept open on purpose

Author
Vengeance Thirst
Sons Of Decebal
#1 - 2013-01-01 11:46:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Vengeance Thirst
Hi

We recently has a guy black mailing us for isk by using 4 alts to keep incursion sites open in high sec stopin other sites to respawn.

I wouls like to know how is this not a exploit.

(Faild copy paste)

I would like to know how it its not a exploit, seen the GM telling me as response to my petition that it its ok for him to do so.

I thought the use of game mechanics in any other way that what they are intended to is illegal. And yes he did private convo us and told us in local that we need to pay him or he will stay there blocking the respawns.

Thank you.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#2 - 2013-01-01 12:00:55 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Quote:
welcome to eve. here is a rubik's cube, now go **** yourself.

Please do not attempt to bypass the language detection filter. Thank you. -ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

I should buy an Ishtar.

Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#3 - 2013-01-01 14:47:41 UTC
Vengeance Thirst wrote:
Hi

We recently has a guy black mailing us for isk by using 4 alts to keep incursion sites open in high sec stopin other sites to respawn.

I wouls like to know how is this not a exploit.

(Faild copy paste)

I would like to know how it its not a exploit, seen the GM telling me as response to my petition that it its ok for him to do so.

I thought the use of game mechanics in any other way that what they are intended to is illegal. And yes he did private convo us and told us in local that we need to pay him or he will stay there blocking the respawns.

Thank you.


Amongst 10 bears you don't have 3 with destroyer flying alts that can gank his alts Roll
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#4 - 2013-01-01 15:06:13 UTC
why WOULD it be an exploit?

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout

Kithran
#5 - 2013-01-01 15:30:10 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
why WOULD it be an exploit?


Um perhaps because CCP made a change to prevent people holding open sites back in Crucible - http://community.eveonline.com/updates/patchnotes.asp?newpatchlogID=3219

Specifically they made a change to prevent cloaked ships keeping a site open to prevent it despawning.

Now in this case they people holding the sites open are simply using day-old characters in noob ships.

It is perfectly possible to have a few ships to gank said alt, who then simply gets a new noob ship and repeats the process, assuming he doesn't just sit there in his pod - afterall what does it matter if a day old alt gets podded?

Turning your question on its head why WOULDN'T it be an exploit?
Vengeance Thirst
Sons Of Decebal
#6 - 2013-01-01 17:51:55 UTC
My main char is a 5 year old nul sec pvper so yes First thing i thought was to kill him but he would just get another noob ship.

Not to mention doing that in high would damage my chars more than him.

It should be an exploit because it is abusing a game mechanic.

He is using a game mechanic in a way it was not intended to. Simple as that.

Solus Starstrike
Rules of Acquisition
#7 - 2013-01-01 18:05:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Solus Starstrike
http://support.eveonline.com/Pages/KB/Article.aspx?id=336


If he is ransoming then by what that states he is doing it for profit and is fine. Just blow em up
Kithran
#8 - 2013-01-01 20:02:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Kithran
Solus Starstrike wrote:
http://support.eveonline.com/Pages/KB/Article.aspx?id=336


If he is ransoming then by what that states he is doing it for profit and is fine. Just blow em up


No its not as you can't 'just blow em up' - they are simply alts in noob ships. To blow them up you have to spend isk and lose sec status while they just sit in their pod and still hold the site open. You pod them you lose even more isk and sec status and they just get another free noob ship for no cost.

Also by your argument using cloaked ships to hold sites open would be fine - yet CCP disagreed with you.
Solus Starstrike
Rules of Acquisition
#9 - 2013-01-01 20:22:14 UTC
Vengeance Thirst wrote:




I would like to know how it its not a exploit, seen the GM telling me as response to my petition that it its ok for him to do so.






apparently a gm did say it was ok. Eve is sand box If a bully comes and takes all your toys, you punch him back. Dont complain that you may get a few scrapes in the fight.
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#10 - 2013-01-01 20:24:31 UTC
Kithran wrote:
Jack Miton wrote:
why WOULD it be an exploit?


Um perhaps because CCP made a change to prevent people holding open sites back in Crucible - http://community.eveonline.com/updates/patchnotes.asp?newpatchlogID=3219

Specifically they made a change to prevent cloaked ships keeping a site open to prevent it despawning.

Now in this case they people holding the sites open are simply using day-old characters in noob ships.

It is perfectly possible to have a few ships to gank said alt, who then simply gets a new noob ship and repeats the process, assuming he doesn't just sit there in his pod - afterall what does it matter if a day old alt gets podded?

Turning your question on its head why WOULDN'T it be an exploit?


You answered your own question, CCP changed the rules so that cloaked ships can't hold open a gate.

Furthermore;

Quote:
Also by your argument using cloaked ships to hold sites open would be fine - yet CCP disagreed with you.


Now CCP is disagreeing with YOU and now YOU are pissed. CCPs stance is that cloaked ships are not allowed to hold open a gate and uncloaked ships are.

It is 100% not an exploit as the issue has been adressed and rectified by the developers.

And there is no excuse for tears whatsoever with the new bounty system. 10 people making 100+ mil an hour cant be arsed to put out some bounties? Fuckin pathetic.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it

Kithran
#11 - 2013-01-01 20:51:05 UTC
Cipher Jones wrote:
Kithran wrote:
Jack Miton wrote:
why WOULD it be an exploit?


Um perhaps because CCP made a change to prevent people holding open sites back in Crucible - http://community.eveonline.com/updates/patchnotes.asp?newpatchlogID=3219

Specifically they made a change to prevent cloaked ships keeping a site open to prevent it despawning.

Now in this case they people holding the sites open are simply using day-old characters in noob ships.

It is perfectly possible to have a few ships to gank said alt, who then simply gets a new noob ship and repeats the process, assuming he doesn't just sit there in his pod - afterall what does it matter if a day old alt gets podded?

Turning your question on its head why WOULDN'T it be an exploit?


You answered your own question, CCP changed the rules so that cloaked ships can't hold open a gate.

Furthermore;

Quote:
Also by your argument using cloaked ships to hold sites open would be fine - yet CCP disagreed with you.


Now CCP is disagreeing with YOU and now YOU are pissed. CCPs stance is that cloaked ships are not allowed to hold open a gate and uncloaked ships are.

It is 100% not an exploit as the issue has been adressed and rectified by the developers.

And there is no excuse for tears whatsoever with the new bounty system. 10 people making 100+ mil an hour cant be arsed to put out some bounties? Fuckin pathetic.



You seem unable to follow the logic, allow me to spell it out for you:

CCP have already said that it is not ok to hold a site open perpetually in a way that cannot be countered (by using a cloaked ship).

I am saying that it is equally not possible to counter people using multiple day old alts in noob ships to hold sites open thus this practice should also be disallowed.

As for suggesting bounties you obviously don't know how bounties work - you could put a billion credit bounty on these alts, it doesn't let you attack them without concord blowing you away and it isn't going to encourage anyone else to attack them - they are flying noob ships so the bounty payout is nothing.

People responding with things like just punch him back seem to be just seem to be using the old 'its a sandbox' argument - well if its a sandbox and (to use an equally old arguement) there should be no reward without risk you seem to be missing the fact the people doing this HAVE NO RISK - they pay nothing for their ships or for their clones.
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#12 - 2013-01-01 21:09:52 UTC
And what I am saying is your idea was considered and rejected. Logic and all.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it

Kithran
#13 - 2013-01-01 21:31:58 UTC
Cipher Jones wrote:
And what I am saying is your idea was considered and rejected. Logic and all.


I see nothing saying that my idea has been considered beyond a gm response of working as intended.

Unless you are claiming GMs have never been known to make a mistake that hardly considers proof - how do you even know GMs were aware of the precedent I have cited?
Solus Starstrike
Rules of Acquisition
#14 - 2013-01-01 21:53:18 UTC
Its funny, By reading this thread you can see the two diffrent main mind sets of eve players. The ones who accept the game for what it is ( a harsh and brutal environment ) and thrive in said environment , And those that believe ccp Should fix all their problems for them, and perfer to avoid confrontation.

From what i have read the person isnt cloaked and is a easy target. You are incursion runners isk shouldn't be a issue nor should numbers to achieve a successful gank. The only thing that is stopping you from fixing the situation is you, and until a dev steps in and takes a stand on it thats the best advice i can give ya.
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#15 - 2013-01-01 21:54:47 UTC
Kithran wrote:
Cipher Jones wrote:
And what I am saying is your idea was considered and rejected. Logic and all.


I see nothing saying that my idea has been considered beyond a gm response of working as intended.

Unless you are claiming GMs have never been known to make a mistake that hardly considers proof - how do you even know GMs were aware of the precedent I have cited?


I mean the devs had to decide how they wanted the mechanic to function whenever they made the balance change.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it

Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2013-01-01 22:21:46 UTC
Regardless of the mechanic (which personally I think is S**ty, but also part of the game), where is the huge problem?

I'm not an expert at incursions and their spawns (whether they are system to system vs constellation wide). But this guy is only mucking up 4 correct? So ignore him. Move a system over and continue. He can't camp them forever (downtime will see to that) at which time the sites will end, and everyone gets their payout correct?

When I have run incursions I have seen more than 4 sites in a system at a given time, so he can't be locking up all of the sites.

Do that a few days and there is a good likelihood he will find some other community to annoy.
Vengeance Thirst
Sons Of Decebal
#17 - 2013-01-01 22:45:51 UTC
Derath Ellecon wrote:
Regardless of the mechanic (which personally I think is S**ty, but also part of the game), where is the huge problem?

I'm not an expert at incursions and their spawns (whether they are system to system vs constellation wide). But this guy is only mucking up 4 correct? So ignore him. Move a system over and continue. He can't camp them forever (downtime will see to that) at which time the sites will end, and everyone gets their payout correct?

When I have run incursions I have seen more than 4 sites in a system at a given time, so he can't be locking up all of the sites.

Do that a few days and there is a good likelihood he will find some other community to annoy.



In a hq system there is 4 normal sited and 1 boss site that you need to complete to close the incursion and the lp payment.

Although it is constellation wide every system has a different level of difficulty (hq highest and best pay).

Moving around other systems to make lower level less pay sites its fine but that is not the issue.

Issue is simple. Someone is abusing game mechanics in a way it was not intended to make profit and stop others from enjoying the game.

If it was null sec this was not a problem as he'd be killed by now. Problem is this is not nullsec this is highsec and we can't go around killing noob ships and pods every 5min the time it would take him to get in a new noob ship and come back.

I got 3 accounts all up and running i can make other things for isk so its not huge issue for me but its a matter of fair play, something that the gm's apparently don't know about.
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#18 - 2013-01-01 22:47:49 UTC
Kithran wrote:
Jack Miton wrote:
why WOULD it be an exploit?


Um perhaps because CCP made a change to prevent people holding open sites back in Crucible - http://community.eveonline.com/updates/patchnotes.asp?newpatchlogID=3219

Specifically they made a change to prevent cloaked ships keeping a site open to prevent it despawning.

Now in this case they people holding the sites open are simply using day-old characters in noob ships.

It is perfectly possible to have a few ships to gank said alt, who then simply gets a new noob ship and repeats the process, assuming he doesn't just sit there in his pod - afterall what does it matter if a day old alt gets podded?

Turning your question on its head why WOULDN'T it be an exploit?


you dont need to cloak to do this so your argument is irrelevant

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout

Herr Ronin
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2013-01-01 23:51:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Herr Ronin
Vengeance Thirst wrote:
Hi

We recently has a guy black mailing us for isk by using 4 alts to keep incursion sites open in high sec stopin other sites to respawn.

I wouls like to know how is this not a exploit.

(Faild copy paste)

I would like to know how it its not a exploit, seen the GM telling me as response to my petition that it its ok for him to do so.

I thought the use of game mechanics in any other way that what they are intended to is illegal. And yes he did private convo us and told us in local that we need to pay him or he will stay there blocking the respawns.

Thank you.




Is This A TVP Member - Checklist:


Current OP has no clue about game mechanic's - Check

Current OP makes it known to the world he has a problem - Check

Current OP lacks some common sense and change to a different site, Vanguard, Assault etc - Check

Current OP is sick of griefers stealing "there" sites - Check


Conclusion - TVP pilot need attention


Ok, silliness aside for a moment, know i can understand why people are doing this and they have been doing this for a very long time, ask yourself why they re doing it? It is rather simple, to make you cry and make it known to the world that you are indeed crying, good job on that regard!

You need to understand that there is still "Mechanics" in this game that is indeed "broken", I can write you a healthy list, but the fact still stands that you need to understand that people will abuse these Mechanics, Nobody will get banned or told off, due to CCP have got bigger problems on there plate, I understand that this annoying you but please you some brain cells and maybe downgrade to a Assault, Vanguard etc, it isn't that hard.

I really cannot see a problem here, but indeed you lack the information judging by you contacting a GM, It is indeed a Game Mechanic and he is doing nothing wrong what so ever, am afraid you just need to bring your portable tear bucket for the times ahead!

No but really, I think you can handle this problem if you give it some thought.

I'll Race You For A Amburhgear

Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#20 - 2013-01-02 00:10:03 UTC
Kithran wrote:


Also by your argument using cloaked ships to hold sites open would be fine - yet CCP disagreed with you.


There is no (practical) mechanism for locating a cloaked ship anywhere on a grid, hence they are not allowed to prevent despawns.
123Next pageLast page