These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP - Attack Battlecruiser overview issue

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#141 - 2013-02-27 08:21:56 UTC
BoSau Hotim wrote:
patch notes are for patches. I read the patch notes. It should have been in the patch notes that are linked directly on the Eve launcher.


With you up until here.

Quote:
I have a valid point.


The claim in your OP was that it is an exploit to kill people who don't have your shiptypes on their Overview:
"CCP - ATTACK BATTLECRUISER OVERVIEW EXPLOIT - plz fix"
"How is this an exploit? (maybe not a typical exploit) But, some players noticed very quickly that Attack BC's don't show up. So they make up nice little Attack BC fleets and can warp right on you in low/null and melt your lovely little ship without you ever seeing anything in your overview. "

This claim does not follow from "should have been in the patch notes." A non-sequitor is not a valid argument.

"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
BoSau Hotim
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
#142 - 2013-02-27 08:31:10 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
BoSau Hotim wrote:
patch notes are for patches. I read the patch notes. It should have been in the patch notes that are linked directly on the Eve launcher.


With you up until here.

Quote:
I have a valid point.


The claim in your OP was that it is an exploit to kill people who don't have your shiptypes on their Overview:
"CCP - ATTACK BATTLECRUISER OVERVIEW EXPLOIT - plz fix"
"How is this an exploit? (maybe not a typical exploit) But, some players noticed very quickly that Attack BC's don't show up. So they make up nice little Attack BC fleets and can warp right on you in low/null and melt your lovely little ship without you ever seeing anything in your overview. "

This claim does not follow from "should have been in the patch notes." A non-sequitor is not a valid argument.


Actually after reading people's posts and one person's definition of exploit I edited it for "issue". I felt that was more appropriate.


In my OP I was trying to say that very thing, that since we weren't informed in the patch notes others were using it for kills (which is absolutely valid in Eve and I have nothing against those who were quick enough to do it)

I do agree with you. but as I discussed the issue it ended up boiling down to the above statement.

I'm not a carebear... I'm a SPACE BARBIE!  Now... where's Ken?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#143 - 2013-02-27 09:03:21 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
BoSau Hotim wrote:
one person's definition of exploit

Stop being obtuse. The word "exploit" has a very specific definition within the context of EVE. Given the manner in which you used it you clearly also understood and intended this definition, except you've embarrassed yourself and are now trying to save face.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
BoSau Hotim
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
#144 - 2013-02-27 09:15:40 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
BoSau Hotim wrote:
one person's definition of exploit

Stop being obtuse. The word "exploit" has a very specific definition within the context of EVE. Given the manner in which you used it you clearly also understood and intended this definition, except you've embarrassed yourself and are now trying to save face.


No.

I had my definition of gaming 'exploit' that I thought was valid .

I am a reasonable person and agreed with some people's point of view. So I changed it accordingly. I never embarassed myself. I'm just mature enough to say when I made a mistake as all humans make. You don't know me so making your assumption that I clearly understood the definition is ridiculous.

You don't know what your talking about.

I suggest you know a person before you assume what their motives are.

... and maybe try harder at trolling and flaming someone. You failed.

I



I'm not a carebear... I'm a SPACE BARBIE!  Now... where's Ken?
HollyShocker 2inthestink
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#145 - 2013-02-27 14:43:34 UTC  |  Edited by: E-2C Hawkeye
BoSau Hotim wrote:
dark heartt wrote:
BoSau Hotim wrote:
dark heartt wrote:

If people are too stupid to come to where a lot of Eve info is posted then they deserve whatever fate they get. Not knowing is no excuse for stupidity.


Since your ignorant of what was read and not read you really shouldn't post on a thread you don't understand.


Hahahahahaha yeah I'm the ignorant one for paying attention and reading the forums for info like this. If people don't read the forums and miss pieces of info that are posted here, how is that my fault. It's not my fault someone is getting mad for an 'issue' that actually doesn't exist, and was addressed in a dev post on the forums.

I understand that yes to those who didn't read it the fact that certain BC's and the blockade runners not showing up was annoying, and confusing. But geez man a quick check on google or the dev posts on the forums would have told you about it.

People need to quit whining about every little change that is made that they missed.



patch notes are for patches. I read the patch notes. It should have been in the patch notes that are linked directly on the Eve launcher. I have a valid point. There is no whining here - funny how people assume its whining when it is a legit post. Especially for new players who dont' know how these things work. I suggest when you first post on a new thread you use your obvious intelligence for everyone's benefit and not call them stupid. Newer players aren't stupid. They just need a little help at times to know what to do after each patch.

Patch notes linked from Eve launcher is where all of this should be is my opinion. There is no reason to be rude about it.



Your asking alot of these guy. Read and understand? That would require reading comprehension and not having ADD to allow them to read the entire thread and not skim over it. After all they have to keep Xbox forums, eve, facebook,Twitter and p o r n all going at once.
HollyShocker 2inthestink
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#146 - 2013-02-27 15:03:31 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
BoSau Hotim wrote:
one person's definition of exploit

Stop being obtuse. The word "exploit" has a very specific definition within the context of EVE. Given the manner in which you used it you clearly also understood and intended this definition, except you've embarrassed yourself and are now trying to save face.


The problem with you guys is your afraid. Your afraid should you admit to exploiting something that your precious little account may get banned. No one said it was a bannable offense to exploit the change to the overview yet because you fear the word exploit you feel the need to defend your actions. People rushing to group up in combat battle cruiser fleets is exploiting the recent change in the last patch.

You can try hard to defend it or call it what you want but by definition it is exploiting the recent change. Bannable? Not likely. Should the information be shared? You bet. Educated my corp. and alliance as soon as I could.

Don’t be afraid no one’s coming to take your EVE from you because you exploited the system. Try reading the definition and understanding the definition.

I won’t even open the topic on should you have taken advantage of this exploit. That is a long very dark and convoluted topic that many of us don’t want to have.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#147 - 2013-02-27 15:16:20 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:
The problem with you guys is your afraid. Your afraid should you admit to exploiting something that your precious little account may get banned. No one said it was a bannable offense to exploit the change to the overview yet because you fear the word exploit you feel the need to defend your actions. People rushing to group up in combat battle cruiser fleets is exploiting the recent change in the last patch.

I flew attack battlecruisers directly after the change knowing full well that people might not have them in their overviews because of it. I flew them before the change, but that's irrelevant.
I dare CCP to declare my actions an exploit and ban me for them.

Yeah, I'm not afraid because I know that CCP's not ******** enough to think that this could be an exploit in any sense of the word.
Is there a metagaming advantage here? Perhaps. But it's not an exploit, any more that it's an exploit that I can kill your industrial ship during war while it's sitting on the Jita gate waiting to get in, or suicide ganking your blockade runner carrying precious loot even though there's no way I could have known there was anything valuable in it.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#148 - 2013-02-27 15:22:13 UTC
Actually, come to think of it, let's approach this from a different angle.

If I fly blockade runners to Jita carrying expensive loot knowing that gankers might not have updated their overviews to include them, does that mean I'm using an exploit?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#149 - 2013-02-27 15:22:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:
You can try hard to defend it or call it what you want but by definition it is exploiting the recent change.
Since there is no bug involved and since the “perpetrators” are not actually doing anything (it's the “victims” that do), then no, it's not an exploit in any sense of the word.

Quote:
Try reading the definition and understanding the definition.
Yes. Please do. It should make it abundantly clear why one player's (completely legit) settings does not turn other players into exploiters.
NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#150 - 2013-02-27 15:33:40 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Actually, come to think of it, let's approach this from a different angle.

If I fly blockade runners to Jita carrying expensive loot knowing that gankers might not have updated their overviews to include them, does that mean I'm using an exploit?

Personally I think their should be no overview option for blockade runners.
This would greatly improve their use as stealth asset.
Actually no stealth item should show on overview.
Would make for actually useful combat recons.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#151 - 2013-02-27 15:42:55 UTC
NEONOVUS wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Actually, come to think of it, let's approach this from a different angle.

If I fly blockade runners to Jita carrying expensive loot knowing that gankers might not have updated their overviews to include them, does that mean I'm using an exploit?

Personally I think their should be no overview option for blockade runners.
This would greatly improve their use as stealth asset.
Actually no stealth item should show on overview.
Would make for actually useful combat recons.

This is a terrible idea.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#152 - 2013-02-27 16:25:03 UTC
NEONOVUS wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Actually, come to think of it, let's approach this from a different angle.

If I fly blockade runners to Jita carrying expensive loot knowing that gankers might not have updated their overviews to include them, does that mean I'm using an exploit?

Personally I think their should be no overview option for blockade runners.
This would greatly improve their use as stealth asset.
Actually no stealth item should show on overview.
Would make for actually useful combat recons.


You are in luck, as there is currently no overview setting that will allow you to see a "stealth asset" when it has it's cloak engaged.

However, when it decides it's time to stop being stealthy and drops its cloak... Smile.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#153 - 2013-02-27 16:55:11 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
NEONOVUS wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Actually, come to think of it, let's approach this from a different angle.

If I fly blockade runners to Jita carrying expensive loot knowing that gankers might not have updated their overviews to include them, does that mean I'm using an exploit?

Personally I think their should be no overview option for blockade runners.
This would greatly improve their use as stealth asset.
Actually no stealth item should show on overview.
Would make for actually useful combat recons.

This is a terrible idea.

Why?
Because you actually have to search space for one instead of relying on overview?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#154 - 2013-02-27 16:56:26 UTC
NEONOVUS wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
NEONOVUS wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Actually, come to think of it, let's approach this from a different angle.

If I fly blockade runners to Jita carrying expensive loot knowing that gankers might not have updated their overviews to include them, does that mean I'm using an exploit?

Personally I think their should be no overview option for blockade runners.
This would greatly improve their use as stealth asset.
Actually no stealth item should show on overview.
Would make for actually useful combat recons.

This is a terrible idea.

Why?
Because you actually have to search space for one instead of relying on overview?

They're already hidden from overview when cloaked.
Why should they be hidden when uncloaked?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
HollyShocker 2inthestink
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#155 - 2013-02-27 17:22:43 UTC
Tippia wrote:
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:
You can try hard to defend it or call it what you want but by definition it is exploiting the recent change.
Since there is no bug involved and since the “perpetrators” are not actually doing anything (it's the “victims” that do), then no, it's not an exploit in any sense of the word.

Quote:
Try reading the definition and understanding the definition.
Yes. Please do. It should make it abundantly clear why one player's (completely legit) settings does not turn other players into exploiters.


Here is another afraid that the definition of exploit will get them banned. Right now I am exploiting your lack of understanding. Will I get banned?

Another example of an exploit. Bumping... is bumping a bug? nope. is bumping a bannable offense? Nope. Is it exploited? You bet your A S S it is.

Lets look at cans or drones something that is a grey area. Have people been warned for saturating a gate or bubble with cans and drones in stupid large amounts to cause lag as a way to uncloak people? Yes they have. Is it a bug? no it isint. Is it exploited? Yes it is. Can it can get you banned? If so how could this be? Its not a bug its working as intended?

So yes Tip some things can be exploited that wont get you banned that may or may not be bugs. And some things can be exploited that may get you banned that are not bugs.

You guys run scared of the word exploit for fear of being banned.

Which exploites are bannable and which are not is regulated by ccp not by definition.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#156 - 2013-02-27 17:24:40 UTC
NEONOVUS wrote:
Why?
Because you actually have to search space for one instead of relying on overview?


1) Because Overview Settings control Bracket settings and d-scan settings.
2) Because invulnerable ships are bad.
3) Because that breaks the entire function of the Overview.

"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
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#157 - 2013-02-27 17:24:43 UTC
Stop conflating definitions, and stop posting with your head up your ass.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#158 - 2013-02-27 17:30:15 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:

Another example of an exploit. Bumping... is bumping a bug? nope. is bumping a bannable offense? Nope. Is it exploited? You bet your A S S it is.


Then it is not an exploit. You're using the common logical fallacy of equivocation*.

"An Exploit" (EVE relevant definition) != "Something that is exploited" (common useage definition)
"An Exploit" in EVE has a very specific meaning, and you're trying to use it incorrectly.


*A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.


PS: Trying to circumvent the swear filter is actually against the rules, so there's that.

"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
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#159 - 2013-02-27 17:33:45 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
PS: Trying to circumvent the swear filter is actually against the rules, so there's that.

It's funny too, because there's no filter for that word.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#160 - 2013-02-27 17:53:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:
Here is another afraid that the definition of exploit will get them banned.
Why would I be afraid of that?

Quote:
Right now I am exploiting your lack of understanding. Will I get banned?
Not for exploiting anything, no, since you aren't, but maybe for your constant personal attacks and trolling. Oh, and for your failed attempt at circumventing the word filter.

Quote:
Another example of an exploit. Bumping... is bumping a bug? nope. is bumping a bannable offense? Nope. Is it exploited?
Nope. It is simply being used, since it's not an exploit in any way, which explains why it's not a bannable offence. No bug = no exploit = no ban. Your settings working as you have set them up = no bug, so no exploit. Period.

Quote:
Lets look at cans or drones something that is a grey area. Have people been warned for saturating a gate or bubble with cans and drones in stupid large amounts to cause lag as a way to uncloak people? Yes they have. Is it a bug?
When used in the way that has gotten people banned, yes. Specifically, it exploits the software weaknesses in the client and server that make them both behave in an unintended manner… you know — making it bug out? Bug = exploit = ban.

Seeing a pattern yet?

Quote:
So yes Tip some things can be exploited used that wont get you banned that may or may not be bugs are not bugs.
…and using them that way is not in any way exploitation. I know this really really hurts you, since it means you're wrong about… oh… everything. As always. But those are just the facts. People having screwed up their settings does not turn others into exploiters — neither by CCP regulation nor by definition.