These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

At what point is something an Exploit and not game Mechanics ? Bumped for 60 Minutes

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Felicity Love
Doomheim
#41 - 2013-06-30 18:13:18 UTC
... when it's a string of POSes making you billions and billions in free moon poop every month and you can afford to build massive capital fleets even though nobody is really mining all that much anyway ?

Roll

"EVE is dying." -- The Four Forum Trolls of the Apocalypse.   ( Pick four, any four. They all smell.  )
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#42 - 2013-06-30 18:13:18 UTC  |  Edited by: S Byerley
Tippia wrote:
No, metadata is just data about data. It's still two steps of refinement away from actionable knowledge.


You seem confused; data mining is a broad field and classification methods are very much a staple. Consult your local Wikipedia for more information.

Tippia wrote:
the fact that the categorization of data is not the result you're trying to mimic.


Your understanding of classification also seems to be too narrow. You could, for example, consider the server logs over some time period the attribute list and harassment/not harassment the classification.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#43 - 2013-06-30 18:23:38 UTC
I, too, want a game that is barely functional with more than 2 people on grid because the server is logging every facet of every interaction in the vain hope that one day heuristic analysis will be good enough to accurately determine human intent.

You're arguing something that is so removed from possibility that there's no logical objection someone can have to it.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#44 - 2013-06-30 18:24:28 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
You seem confused
About what?

Quote:
Your understanding of classification also seems to be too narrow. You could, for example, consider the server logs over some time period the data set and harassment/not harassment the classification.
No, my understanding of classification simply matches what we're talking about (the legitimacy of bumping). You could expand it, but then you'd be talking about something completely different and there would be even less reason to automate the decision-making. Nice attempt at moving the goalposts, though.

Judgement calls about harassment go beyond mere data. They're inherently case-by-case decisions, which are much better left to humans since they can judge intent and moderate their response as appropriate. That's where you went wrong from the very start: by assuming that it's a binary decision.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#45 - 2013-06-30 18:25:41 UTC
The old addage is true here: If a computer is good at it, humans are bad at it. If a human is good at it, computers are bad at it"

To statistically approximate a decision a human can make in an instant requires an inordinate amount of programing, data and time.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#46 - 2013-06-30 18:31:33 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
I, too, want a game that is barely functional with more than 2 people on grid because the server is logging every facet of every interaction


Why would it need more logs than the GM's have at their disposal?

Khanh'rhh wrote:
in the vain hope that one day heuristic analysis will be good enough to accurately determine human intent.


I'd wager you could use 30-40 yr old techniques and still get the job done depending on what the data set looks like.

Quote:
You're arguing something that is so removed from possibility that there's no logical objection someone can have to it.


It's OK that you don't get Computer Science, but please stop saying trivial things are impossible.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#47 - 2013-06-30 18:38:26 UTC  |  Edited by: S Byerley
Khanh'rhh wrote:
The old addage is true here: If a computer is good at it, humans are bad at it. If a human is good at it, computers are bad at it"


Humans have extremely specialized processing strengths that were evolutionarily driven; visual recognition is an example, creativity is an example, environment interaction is an example, reading over server logs is not an example.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#48 - 2013-06-30 18:41:38 UTC  |  Edited by: S Byerley
Tippia wrote:
No, my understanding of classification simply matches what we're talking about (the legitimacy of bumping). You could expand it, but then you'd be talking about something completely different and there would be even less reason to automate the decision-making. Nice attempt at moving the goalposts, though.


Illegitimate bumping would presumably fall under harassment since the official stance is that bumping, in and of itself, is fine. It was an example though; should I leave some blanks for you to fill in your own?

Tippia wrote:
Judgement calls about harassment go beyond mere data. They're inherently case-by-case decisions, which are much better left to humans since they can judge intent and moderate their response as appropriate. That's where you went wrong from the very start: by assuming that it's a binary decision.


Implying that adding additional classes and associated responses makes the problem significantly harder?
Bruce Bayne
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#49 - 2013-06-30 18:44:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Bruce Bayne
Hmmm it actually more interesting for me what he is using in the second video he posted here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=254190

Can someone explain me what happens after 2 minutes and 18 seconds?
If i see this correctly the autopilot says "initiate warp to gate"
and then seconds later his noobship lands at 0 on the gate....and jumps through...

I smell warp to 0 autopilot exploit....

Here the link if you are too lazy to click the post :P http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNZk7jBG7Ww
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#50 - 2013-06-30 18:46:57 UTC
Bruce Bayne wrote:
Hmmm it actually more interesting for me what he is using in the second video he posted here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=254190

Can someone explain me what happens after 2 minutes and 40 seconds?
If i see this correctly the autopilot says "initiate warp to gate"
and then seconds later his noobship lands at 0 on the gate....and jumps through...

I smell warp to 0 autopilot exploit....

Here the link if you are too lazy to click the post :P http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNZk7jBG7Ww


Jumping manually doesn't interrupt autopilot.
Mytai Gengod
Sebees
#51 - 2013-06-30 18:48:18 UTC
While I'm not a fan of riskless bumping - you can be left unable to play the game in certain circumstances if they are persistent, there is not a good alternative.

Removing collision in a game like eve is not acceptable. And adding suspect timers would be abused far worse than bumping.

Relying on computer analysis for situations like this would be well less than 100% accurate. You would have false positives and miss some "legitimate" harassment. Not to mention running analysis across every ship bump in the game concurrently is non trivial. This would also add more tidi.

After experiencing this and reading about it, I don't believe CCP should change their approach because any alternative is far worse.
Bruce Bayne
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#52 - 2013-06-30 18:49:11 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Bruce Bayne wrote:
Hmmm it actually more interesting for me what he is using in the second video he posted here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=254190

Can someone explain me what happens after 2 minutes and 40 seconds?
If i see this correctly the autopilot says "initiate warp to gate"
and then seconds later his noobship lands at 0 on the gate....and jumps through...

I smell warp to 0 autopilot exploit....

Here the link if you are too lazy to click the post :P http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNZk7jBG7Ww


Jumping manually doesn't interrupt autopilot.


He landed on 0 at the gate. thats what im talking about. and the initiate warp sound came when he was tabbed out to another screen.
So there must have been some kind of bot program or something that warped him to gate at 0.
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#53 - 2013-06-30 18:50:13 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Really think about that.

If you gain suspect status by bumping someone...

- then every time you undock from a congested station (Jita 4-4) you will bump or be bumped. Everyone will gain suspect status and carnage will ensue.


Can put a conditional in the code it's not rocket science. Jita already isn't like any other solar system in EvE. It's special, not equal.

Bumping is an exploit (wasn't designed | player used) , but one CCP overlooks (same goes for our ships bumping off of gates). They're very selective is what is acceptable, and truly that makes warfare in EvE suck (can't bomb Jita 4-4 is an example of legit gameplay being restricted in Jita, but bumping is ignored as a tactic).

_"In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." _ ~George Orwell
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#54 - 2013-06-30 19:36:08 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Illegitimate bumping would presumably fall under harassment since the official stance is that bumping, in and of itself, is fine.
…and yet it exists in both legitimate and illegitimate forms. Both of which are allowed. Both of which can and can not be harassing.

Quote:
Implying that adding additional classes and associated responses makes the problem significantly harder?
You really love your fallacies, don't you?

No. Implying that there is no classes, and (deliberately) no defined association to responses because both of those are better left to the non-binary adjudication of the human mind. Implying that action, reception and response are all subjective — and that the devs explicitly wish to keep it that way so they can maintain a high degree of freedom, discretion, and not create any kind of ruleset that can will be gamed.

Ace Uoweme wrote:
Bumping is an exploit (wasn't designed | player used) , but one CCP overlooks (same goes for our ships bumping off of gates).
LMAO No
Not only was it deliberately designed, but the emergent gameplay it created is actively maintained and explicitly allowed.

And no, Jita is not special in any way other than being (semi)permanently planted on a specific node… at least until it loses its status as the most trafficked system in the game.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#55 - 2013-06-30 19:56:26 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Ace Uoweme wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
Really think about that.

If you gain suspect status by bumping someone...

- then every time you undock from a congested station (Jita 4-4) you will bump or be bumped. Everyone will gain suspect status and carnage will ensue.


Can put a conditional in the code it's not rocket science.

Read the rest of my post.

I wrote:
- make an exception where ships won't go suspect if they are within a certain range of the station (in case of accidental bumping).
- make another exception where people within a certain range of the stargate won't go suspect (in case of accidental bumping).

WHOOPSIE-DAISY! Back to square one. People will be using the exception to bump people off of gates again (at least up to a point).




Ace Uoweme wrote:
Jita already isn't like any other solar system in EvE. It's special, not equal.

Jita IS like every other system in EVE. The "special restrictions" they have there are more to prevent the server from melting down than to promote/discourage certain player behaviors.

Ace Uoweme wrote:
Bumping is an exploit (wasn't designed | player used) , but one CCP overlooks (same goes for our ships bumping off of gates).

Heh... nope. Bumping has been around for a LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time. It only gained extra attention with the (not so) recent buffs to the mining barges... which made miner ganking not as economical as it used to be. Former gankers still ply their trade... but with less explosions and more blackmail.

How did you Veterans start?
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#56 - 2013-06-30 20:01:35 UTC
Tippia wrote:
No. Implying that there is no classes, and (deliberately) no defined association to responses because both of those are better left to the non-binary adjudication of the human mind. Implying that action, reception and response are all subjective — and that the devs explicitly wish to keep it that way so they can maintain a high degree of freedom, discretion, and not create any kind of ruleset that can will be gamed.


I hate to break it to you, but GM's (and CS employees in general) typically have a rule set to follow and a discrete range of actions to take. Without that rule set, they'd be easier to "game" and we'd lose all semblance of quality control.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#57 - 2013-06-30 20:12:09 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:

Read the rest of my post.


You attack it from such a silly angle though; why not just tweak logoff restrictions in high sec to ensure a player can get his ship out of game if he's not (more regularly) involved in combat?
Sirinda
Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium
#58 - 2013-06-30 20:15:17 UTC
Warp Disruptor II.
Djana Libra
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#59 - 2013-06-30 20:18:45 UTC
Bruce Bayne wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Bruce Bayne wrote:
Hmmm it actually more interesting for me what he is using in the second video he posted here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=254190

Can someone explain me what happens after 2 minutes and 40 seconds?
If i see this correctly the autopilot says "initiate warp to gate"
and then seconds later his noobship lands at 0 on the gate....and jumps through...

I smell warp to 0 autopilot exploit....

Here the link if you are too lazy to click the post :P http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNZk7jBG7Ww


Jumping manually doesn't interrupt autopilot.


He landed on 0 at the gate. thats what im talking about. and the initiate warp sound came when he was tabbed out to another screen.
So there must have been some kind of bot program or something that warped him to gate at 0.


you can warp before the autopilot does, if you warp at 0 before AP warp you just land on gate n jump.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#60 - 2013-06-30 20:30:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
S Byerley wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
The old addage is true here: If a computer is good at it, humans are bad at it. If a human is good at it, computers are bad at it"


Humans have extremely specialized processing strengths that were evolutionarily driven; visual recognition is an example, creativity is an example, environment interaction is an example, reading over server logs is not an example.

Well, there's no need for a GM to read server logs in the same manner as a machine would, so no, that's not a concern.

What seems to be happening here, is you have some basic understanding of statistical significance, and like everyone who stared wide-eyed at their statistics 101 class, you now think it can be applied where it's not warranted. In this case, a situation that has not two, three, four or even 10 outcomes, but a very large number.

Or how about you put your ~~computer knowledge~~ to the test and design me a computer analysis that can decide which of these two scenarios is "griefing" and which is legimate bumping.

<><><><><><>YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REDEFINE THE CURRENT RULES TO FIT YOUR ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE<><><><><><>

Specifically, that bumping is currently allowed unless it is harassment.

Scenario a:
- Player A is mining
- Player B bumps him off the rock with the intent to gank him.
- His DPS buddies find a better target, so they go to gank that one instead.
Chat log:
Miner > See!! This is the second time you did this ... you just do it to harass, not to gank! Petitioned!
Ganker > Sure buddy, it's just me and I have no friends

Scenario b:
- Player A is mining
- Player B bumps him off the rock with the intent to do nothing but grief him. He did this yesterday and enjoyed the complaints
- He gets bored and leaves
Chat log:
Miner > See!! This is the second time you did this ... you just do it to harass, not to gank! Petitioned!
Ganker > Tears for the tears throne .. I'll be back!

Now run off to design a machine program that can either:
- determine intent from identical logs
- read English to a level that can determine meaning, without tripping over sarcasm

Of course, you can't, so I will instead wait for you to move the goalposts and backpeddle.

At some point you might realise that when you're asking a computer to make a statistical approximation, you are doing exactly that and your notion you can ask a computer "Did this player intend to cause malice?" has too many variables to possibly account for.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,