These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Communication Center » EVE General Discussion » CCP - Attack Battlecruiser overview issue

Topic is locked indefinitely.

First pagePrevious page45678Next pageLast page

CCP - Attack Battlecruiser overview issue First post
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

Tippia

Sunshine and Lollipops

Likes received: 27,526

#101 - 2013-02-21 16:37:04 UTC

Flatiner wrote:

wtf was the point of adding a new name to ships that already exist fine

It wasn't just a new name — it was a new item type, meaning they can start making mechanical distinctions in terms of fittings and abilities that would be far more cumbersome before.

It's far easier to say some mechanic “allow type A” (especially if, at a later stage, you start adding more ships to that class) rather than say “allow ships A, B, Q and T” (and two months later, ship Z₂ as well).

BoSau Hotim

Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated

Likes received: 9,007

#102 - 2013-02-21 16:37:50 UTC

Ginger Barbarella wrote:

BoSau Hotim wrote:

Mag's wrote:

So, where's the exploit?

well (sorta exploit as i stated above :P )

players can exploit this by making an ABC fleet and kiting and tearing up other players that don't see you on overview since CCP didn't check it off in our settings.

sooo.. go exploit it and get some kills

Sooo... lazy players who are incapable of using local or dscan can now cry "EXPLOIT!!! BAN THEM AND REIMBURSE ME!!", yeah?

You were dropped on your head as a baby, weren't you?

If you had read the posts you would have seen that WE WERE USING D-SCAN! spamming it. So lone rapier caught in the bubble was my target. Spamming D-scan... yes a spike in local says GTFO... we were right at gate.. LOL! Passive targeted by Nagas that were not showing on Dscan and not showing on overview ... Stealth Nagas 4TW! can't jump gate bcz of aggro timer... 26 seconds to go and whammo.. Shocked

so before you start being an armchair quarterback... at least know what happened in the game first before you remark plz. Oh wait.. you were dropped on your butt as a baby right? I mean head..... same thing I guess...

I'm not a carebear... I'm a SPACE BARBIE! Now... where's Ken?

HollyShocker 2inthestink

HOW to PEG SAFETY

Likes received: 706

#103 - 2013-02-21 17:19:21 UTC

Tippia wrote:

HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:

Adriel Malakai wrote:

The problem with using the word exploit here is that you're implying that those people are taking advantage of a problem in the actual game mechanics that you cannot control in order to gain an advantage over you, such as the invulnerable neutral logi exploit that came out with Crimewatch 2.0 (ie WTs could not engage neutral logi that was repping you). In this sense, which is the general use of the word in the EVE context, implies that their are actual negative consequences for the abuser, and that CCP will eventually fix the loophole.

In this case, they would simply be exploiting your own stupidity and inability to stay current with the game, which is completely legal. This makes your use of the word exploit a very poor decision and suggest you are purposefully using it in an inflammatory manner.

Think you may want to look up the definition of exploit.

Going by the only one that matters:

“You may not exploit any bug in EVE Online to gain an unfair advantage over other players. You may not communicate the existence of any exploitable bug to others directly or through a public forum. Bugs should be reported through the bug reporting tool on our website.”

No bug — no exploit.

Quote:

People will always justify exploits, especially when they benefit from it.

As luck would have it, there are no exploits to benefit from or to justify in this case.

Depends on interpitation. Your gonna see it your way and argue till your blue in the face even when your wrong. Things can be exploited that are not per the letter. There is the letter of the law which people like yourself will hold to because it allows for interpitation and then there is the spirit of the law. Exploiting a game mechanic that is not working as intended is still an exploit even if it does not spell it out for you.

James Amril-Kesh

Viziam

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 11,532

#104 - 2013-02-21 17:48:07 UTC

BoSau Hotim wrote:

I wouldn't call it a bug, I do call it an oversight by CCP. It's interesting that the Combat Battlecruisers were checked off in the overview after the patch. So they did one of them and it seems that they forgot the other two.

Well no, in the files they're not explicitly stated as "transport ships" and "combat battlecruisers", they're referred to by a typeID. Combat Battlecruisers inherited the typeID from Battlecruisers and so that remained the same in overviews where Battlecruisers were checked. CCP didn't actually do anything in that regard. At the same time Transport Ships typeID did not change.
New typeIDs were added for the attack battlecruisers and blockade runners categories.

What CCP SHOULD have done is create some external application made available to players that would read an exported XML overview file, determine which overviews have the typeIDs for combat battlecruisers and/or transport ships, and add the typeIDs for attack battlecruisers and/or blockade runners where applicable. Then the user could import that same XML file back into EVE and have fully updated overviews.
I'd write this myself but I'm a pretty novice programmer and have no idea how to do file manipulation.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

James Amril-Kesh

Viziam

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 11,532

#105 - 2013-02-21 17:49:55 UTC | Edited by: James Amril-Kesh

The reason the distinction was created was because they removed the "-99% bonus to covert ops cloaks/warfare links" stuff and replaced it with a fixed modifier that says that these modules can be fit to specific groups. These groups are also indicated on the overview as separate types. Blockade Runners can now fit covert ops cloaks and covert cyno field generators, and the Attack Battlecruisers lack the ability (which Bombat Battlecruisers have) to fit warfare links.

It's for that reason that force and combat recons were already separate on the overview.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

1,687
Commander Spurty Likes received: 1,687	#106 - 2013-02-21 18:02:34 UTC \| Edited by: Commander Spurty 1 "IMPEL IS NOT A BLOCKADE RUNNER MATE" - cite NAMELESS ALLIANCE MATE There are good ships, And wood ships, And ships that sail the sea But the best ships are Spaceships Built by CCP

The Troll Bridge 23,523
Unsuccessful At Everything The Troll Bridge Likes received: 23,523	#107 - 2013-02-21 20:50:14 UTC 1 Naga (fleet) please. *Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?*

Tippia

Sunshine and Lollipops

Likes received: 27,526

#108 - 2013-02-21 20:59:34 UTC

HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:

Depends on interpitation. Your gonna see it your way and argue till your blue in the face even when your wrong.

Not really, no. It's just that I'm right about this.

Quote:

Things can be exploited that are not per the letter.

Sure, but that doesn't make them exploits. That just means you're using a meaning of “exploit” that isn't suited for the gaming context.

Quote:

Exploiting a game mechanic that is not working as intended is still an exploit even if it does not spell it out for you.

…except, of course, that it is spelled out, specifically, so you're not making much sense in trying to use that as an examples of the rules not covering everything. A game mechanic that is not working as intended is exactly that: the exploitation of a bug. That's what “not working as intended” means, you know.

So no, it's doesn't depend on the interpretation, and it fits perfectly in the relevant definition of an exploit.

It's All About Me 11,530
Mr Epeen It's All About Me Likes received: 11,530	#109 - 2013-02-21 21:14:00 UTC 2 Thank you for pointing this out, OP. While not likely to help the many that don't read the forums, I think there will be a trickle down effect that will save a lot of pilots their rides. While definitely not an exploit, it is exploitable for a short while. You've helped shorten that even further. Mr Epeen

HollyShocker 2inthestink

HOW to PEG SAFETY

Likes received: 706

#110 - 2013-02-21 21:58:46 UTC

Tippia wrote:

HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:

Depends on interpitation. Your gonna see it your way and argue till your blue in the face even when your wrong.

Not really, no. It's just that I'm right about this.

Quote:

Things can be exploited that are not per the letter.

Sure, but that doesn't make them exploits. That just means you're using a meaning of “exploit” that isn't suited for the gaming context.

Quote:

Exploiting a game mechanic that is not working as intended is still an exploit even if it does not spell it out for you.

Twist it around and word it it how ever you want and justify taking advantage of it how you like. It doent change it. If they make a patch and that patch causes an issue and people rush to take advantage of the issue that is NOT working as intended then that would be an exploit. Regardless if it is know or not. It would be no different if it were something that allowed you to duplicate ISK.

ex·ploit
/ikˈsploit/Verb
Make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource)

In this case people are using it to not show up in UI. By definition ex-ploit. Was this intended by ccp? NO! so by definition ex-ploit

So in a way you may be correct because it truely iisnt a matter of interpitation but that of a definition. A bug is not always exploitable. A bug could be a simple graphics glitch or mission error.

Either way known or not still not working as intended by the programers. Taking advantage of said issue= ex-ploit

Tippia

Sunshine and Lollipops

Likes received: 27,526

#111 - 2013-02-21 22:07:10 UTC | Edited by: Tippia

HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:

Twist it around and word it it how ever you want and justify taking advantage of it how you like.

Take advantage of what? Justify what? There's nothing new going on here, and there is no bug to exploit. It really is as simple as that.

The overview filtering objects per your settings is working as intended. You can try to paint it in whatever vague terms you like — the fact of the matter is that it is not an exploit.

Quote:

If they make a patch and that patch causes an issue and people rush to take advantage of the issue that is NOT working as intended then that would be an exploit. Regardless if it is know or not. It would be no different if it were something that allowed you to duplicate ISK.

Good thing, then, that nothing of the kind has happened.

Quote:

ex·ploit
/ikˈsploit/Verb
Make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource)
Using any bug in EVE Online to gain an unfair advantage over other players

There. Fixed. Nothing about this change is something that people can use to gain advantage over other players, and it is working as intended. That's still the only definition that matters, and you can quote as many other irrelevant sources as you like.

Quote:

A bug is not always exploitable. A bug could be a simple graphics glitch or mission error.

…in which case there is no exploit either, just like how when you get an advantage from something that isn't a bug, it's also not an exploit. Your flawed settings is not the fault of other players, nor is your failure to update your custom filters (and CCP has updated theirs, so it's hardly their fault either).

RubyPorto

RubysRhymes

Likes received: 5,663

#112 - 2013-02-21 22:25:52 UTC | Edited by: RubyPorto

HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:

Except that it is working as intended. CCP maintains the Default Overview filters. If you make and use custom ones, it is your job to keep them current and useful. If you failed to do your job...

The Default Overviews were maintained, and Attack BCs and Blockade Runners are visible to those using them.

Quote:

So in a way you may be correct because it truely iisnt a matter of interpitation but that of a definition. A bug is not always exploitable. A bug could be a simple graphics glitch or mission error.

Have I ever told you the story of the square and the rectangle?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Better Killing Through Chemistry 278
Bridgette d'Iberville Better Killing Through Chemistry Likes received: 278	#113 - 2013-02-21 22:36:16 UTC 2 They should have unchecked the Blockade Runner and then deleted the option to re-chcek it. Cloaky Win! "I considered a career in griefing, but then realized that I would never achieve the level of tear generation that CCP manages to do each and every expansion."

Daniel Whateley

Likes received: 82

#114 - 2013-02-22 00:51:04 UTC

Tippia wrote:

HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:

Depends on interpitation. Your gonna see it your way and argue till your blue in the face even when your wrong.

Not really, no. It's just that I'm right about this.

Quote:

Things can be exploited that are not per the letter.

Sure, but that doesn't make them exploits. That just means you're using a meaning of “exploit” that isn't suited for the gaming context.

Quote:

Exploiting a game mechanic that is not working as intended is still an exploit even if it does not spell it out for you.

eve isn't a game, eve is real Cool

BoSau Hotim

Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated

Likes received: 9,007

#115 - 2013-02-22 00:53:54 UTC

Mr Epeen wrote:

Thank you for pointing this out, OP.

While not likely to help the many that don't read the forums, I think there will be a trickle down effect that will save a lot of pilots their rides.

While definitely not an exploit, it is exploitable for a short while. You've helped shorten that even further.

Mr Epeen Cool

Thank you for your post! Lol

I appreciate that you get what I'm trying to do here.

I'm not a carebear... I'm a SPACE BARBIE! Now... where's Ken?

Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1,863
ACE McFACE Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation Likes received: 1,863	#116 - 2013-02-22 01:27:17 UTC 4 I think the real thing to focus on here is that someone is flying a Phantasm EDIT: Was flying a Phantasm Now, more than ever, we need a dislike button.

HollyShocker 2inthestink

HOW to PEG SAFETY

Likes received: 706

#117 - 2013-02-26 14:27:14 UTC

Tippia wrote:

HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:

Twist it around and word it it how ever you want and justify taking advantage of it how you like.

Quote:

Good thing, then, that nothing of the kind has happened.

Quote:

ex·ploit
/ikˈsploit/Verb
Make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource)
Using any bug in EVE Online to gain an unfair advantage over other players

Quote:

A bug is not always exploitable. A bug could be a simple graphics glitch or mission error.

Drawing a line thru it and calling it fixed doesn’t fix it. It is what it is and no matter how you want or try to justify it. Exploits are what they are. Again I will type it slow in hopes you read it slow to perhaps allow better grey matter processing. Not all bugs are exploitable.

I understand that you try to divert from the main topic of exploit because you cannot stand on the merit of your only argument, but it’s okay I didn’t expect nothing less, especially when your wrong.

HollyShocker 2inthestink

HOW to PEG SAFETY

Likes received: 706

#118 - 2013-02-26 14:57:18 UTC

RubyPorto wrote:

HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:

Except that it is working as intended. CCP maintains the Default Overview filters. If you make and use custom ones, it is your job to keep them current and useful. If you failed to do your job... The Default Overviews were maintained, and Attack BCs and Blockade Runners are visible to those using them.

Quote:

So in a way you may be correct because it truely iisnt a matter of interpitation but that of a definition. A bug is not always exploitable. A bug could be a simple graphics glitch or mission error.

Have I ever told you the story of the square and the rectangle?

Once again people will try hard to justify taking advantage of exploits. I don’t know if it’s to make themselves feel better or if their worried they may get banned if deemed a banable exploit. I am sure it’s not to maintain the high moral standards or sense of honor and integrity that most players fail to bring to eve.

Here it is in a nutshell. All those people rushing to fly in fleets of combat battle cruisers who never flew them before are exploiting the system. just because there is no bug doesnt mean the situation isn't being exploited.

If this was working as intended then why did they fix it?

Even my 8 year old knows right from wrong and has free will to choose and she knows she will be held accountable for those choices just as the rest of us as a gaming community will be held accountable in the end for the game we create.

Mindstar Technology Goonswarm Federation 1,005
NEONOVUS Mindstar Technology Goonswarm Federation Likes received: 1,005	#119 - 2013-02-26 18:04:19 UTC 1 So wait the argument is that some one makes an exclusive setting, new ship isnt on there, thus no one should use the ship because it is cheating? Never before have I felt the need to say HTFU, but this is the perfect time whiners.

Caldari Black Hand Caldari Tactical Operations Command 366
Onomerous Caldari Black Hand Caldari Tactical Operations Command Likes received: 366	#120 - 2013-02-26 18:07:53 UTC 2 Definitely a problem but not an exploit. This thread has helped to get the information out to some of the players.