These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#121 - 2013-07-01 04:04:24 UTC
Mina Sebiestar wrote:
Also if CCP isn't doing anything about it it doesn't mean it isn't exploit
True enough. Devs stating outright that it isn't an exploit, on the other hand, means it isn't an exploit.

…oh, and the code to “fix” this non-issue already exists in the game. So no, it wouldn't be particularly hard.
Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
#122 - 2013-07-01 04:12:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Diomedes Calypso
Tippia wrote:
Diomedes Calypso wrote:
I'm also unclear.. if he does nothing, when he eventually gets attacked concord will kill the attackers even if the attackers kill him first .. right?

Does the bumping just give more time to bring in more firepower from other systems to make sure the job gets done?

The bumping serves two purposes.

The most important one is that it creates a controlled environment where the gankers can delay and monitor the CONCORD response. You shoot the target once as he exits gate cloak to give him a PvP timer, which ensures that the ship will stay in space for another 15 minutes, no matter what, so logging off no longer saves the victim. This is obviously a criminal act so CONCORD shows up and kills the flagging alt. To counter this, you take advantage of the 15 minute timer to use a neutral alt (or two) to bump the victim at last 150km away from where CONCORD is sitting. The bumping both ensures that the victim can't just warp off willy-nilly, and that the victim is out of reach from immediate CONCORD response.

Being this far away causes the CONCORD mechanics to consider the target (and, more importantly, the awaiting gankers) “out of range” for the purpose of responding to their actions, which in turn yields the same effect as delaying CONCORD by spawning them somewhere else in the system. When responding to a crime that's this far away, the CONCORD ships first have to despawn from the first crime scene before they can show up at a new one, which delays the response by half a dozen seconds or so. You sacrifice the loss of a newbship with civvy guns for being able to execute the gank with maybe 20–50% fewer actual attack ships. You can also keep a close eye on CONCORD while doing all of this, which means you have more control over the timers.

The second benefit is that the gank now happens maybe 200km off the gate, rather than 15km away from it. As a result, loot thieves will not get as much of a chance to get to the goods, and white knights stand less of a chance counter-killing the looting ships (which will go suspect in the process). If it's a freighter gank, you're likely to need a freighter to loot the wreck, and you definitely want to keep those away from the normal traffic lanes when they go blinky.




Thanks.

I had no idea that there weren't Infinite concord guys or that you could divert them causing a fracas elsewhere in the system! That's kind of a cool .. less "computer spawn" concept. (although given the huge number of real players ready to "hot drop" into any big battle anywhere in EVE , perhaps a bit underpowered compared to some alliances).

I think all the bouncing makes sense .

How safe "high sec" should be is entirely CCP's creative discretion. It is a war game..... just safer and less safe places that require different sorts of steps players should take to _minimize_ not eliminate risk. Like whether or not you get mugged in NYC has large parts precaution, some parts bad luck so it is in EVE.


So, if I read the situation right, a pilot should work hard enough at it to delay and make the gankers keep doing a good job at it. A player in a freighter might call in alts and corp mates to make the whole thing less fun for the gankers even if it wasn't going to lead to safety.

Would jettisoning a can every time the timer is up help give the other would be looters a place to warp to near you?

How about getting and alt in a noob ship to attack the gankers and bring concord in. ?

Would having concord right next to you like that help obstruct the bumping?

It sounds like its worth thinking about a possible response that could muddle things up a bit and give a greater chance to gloriously hang on from what looked like certain death.


( IF (if!) they wanted to make it safer while still getting rid of the lame logofski tactics.. a lame part in 'heroic' battles ... They could let player purchase a "road-side assistance" program... especially frieghters. You call the tow truck ...give them a Tag in payment and Concord towing rushes you off to the nearest service station safefly...

... of course.. like any towing service you'd need to wait for the driver to show up. Gankers could still have 5 to 10 minutes to get their job done or not. Of course, the towing service would only be for industrial ships.. war ships would be presumed to be big enough boys and be viewed as expendable in motion or something.)

.
Cannibal Kane
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#123 - 2013-07-01 06:25:01 UTC
Something completely unrelated.

1998 called. They want their computer back.. or whatever machine was used to record that vid on. My god man... do people play on machines that slow?

"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#124 - 2013-07-01 06:33:11 UTC
Mina Sebiestar wrote:
I personally think bumping mechanic was designed for different purpose than ganking freighters or bumping scrubs of a station they play in(very useful btw).


It wasn't designed by the devs. It's gameplay that players figured out. It's left into the game for interest, but also because it ties into annoying mechanics that is difficult to fix with Havok physics (I hate it, things bounce all over. Items on shelves bounce off just walking past deal [seen in F.E.A.R. and even Oblivion, for example]).

_"In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." _ ~George Orwell
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#125 - 2013-07-01 06:38:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Ace Uoweme wrote:
It wasn't designed by the devs. It's gameplay that players figured out.
Bumping was very much designed by the devs. Bumping for the explicit purpose of moving people out of the way and/or keep them from aligning were just great side-effects of that basic tool, and since they didn't break the design, they were incorporated as a legitimate part of it to the point where they explicitly are not exploits.

Oh, and EVE does not use Havok physics so it's not tied into that or difficult to fix because of it.
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#126 - 2013-07-01 07:03:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Ace Uoweme
Tippia wrote:
Bumping was very much designed by the devs..


No it wasn't. That's player made.

Much like CCP changing ship names to jive with what players called them.

It's a tactic left in the game for interest, but not specifically designed by devs themselves, just like with ship names. They create it, and players find the exploits (or use the environment or tools as they see fit) and use it.

It's like the concept of ninjaing in WoW. Blizzard doesn't see ninjaing as what players see it (they'll even put the term in parentheses as it's not an internal term). Players do though and react to it that way independent of Blizzard. Same things happen with CCP, they make things and view things differently than players do. How players use the environment depends on how it effects the game itself. The ban on warp to 0 was CCP closing a loophole they felt damaged gameplay and fixed it. Bumping in itself is seen as a mechanic that evolved from the game physics alone. It's left in the game as something interesting to do (as fixing it would be trying due to the game physics).

But it's still an exploit.

You're fighting the wrong thing, Tippia. The red meat isn't me, it's you trained to attack anything that threatens your comfort zone.

_"In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." _ ~George Orwell
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#127 - 2013-07-01 07:13:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Ace Uoweme wrote:
No it wasn't. That's player made.
…which is how the devs designed the game. They designed bumping. The players took that tool and started hammering away at the nails with it, as intended. Since no unwanted effects or exploits arose, it was all working as intended and as designed.

Quote:
It's a tactic left in the game for interest, but not specifically designed by devs themselves, just like with ship names. They create it, and players find the exploits and use it.
…except that they're not exploits, and that they're not “left in the game” but part of a concept built around providing a toolset rather than a ruleset. That's the root of your problem: you are stuck in a design frame of mined based around rules. EVE is not that kind of game.

Quote:
But it's still a exploit.
Nope. So sayeth the devs, and they are the only ones who can say whether it is one or not. And their answer is “not” — explicitly “not”, so not even implicitly by leaving it unmentioned or unregulated.

You can keep repeating your quaint lie to yourself as often as you like, but it doesn't change this simple fact.
You are of course free to reject this reality and substitute your own, but that road only really leads to disappointment and medication.

Quote:
The red meat isn't me, it's you trained to attack anything that threatens your comfort zone.
If by my “comfort zone” you mean reality, then yes — I do indeed attack people who spout counter-factual nonsense. That means that until you start accepting reality for what it is, you are very much my target. All you have to do to avoid it is to accept facts as they are and not make up your own.
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#128 - 2013-07-01 07:35:03 UTC
Bumping to avoid gate guns is an exploit.
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#129 - 2013-07-01 07:47:39 UTC
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#130 - 2013-07-01 07:52:14 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Quote:
The red meat isn't me, it's you trained to attack anything that threatens your comfort zone.
If by my “comfort zone” you mean reality, then yes — I do indeed attack people who spout counter-factual nonsense. That means that until you start accepting reality for what it is, you are very much my target. All you have to do to avoid it is to accept facts as they are and not make up your own.


No, it's your pet interests in the game. You're protecting your comfort zone. That's why you zeroed in on this issue. It concerns you (and/or your special interests).

I don't have any special interests (I don't represent any special interest, but to improve gaming itself...as I'm a consumer and want the best bang for the buck). I didn't descend on EvE to make it WoW, for example. I explain it by using WoW examples as the industry watches Blizzard for ease to explain things.

You're fighting a ghost of your own fears (and it's not me!).

_"In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." _ ~George Orwell
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#131 - 2013-07-01 08:02:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Ace Uoweme wrote:
No, it's your pet interests in the game.
What? Invention? What does it have to do with bumping and ganking? You're not making any sense.

So no. I'm not protecting my comfort zone. I'm protecting facts from being mixed up with the kind of counter-factual nonsense that you keep inventing. For instance, you are desperately trying failing to change the simple fact that bumping is not an exploit, — a fact that has been clearly, explicitly, and definitely stated by the devs.

When you try to muddy the reality of this fact, you harm the entire community. This is bad of you. I will keep beating on you for it. And yes, as long as it is you who keep inventing this ignorant BS, it most definitely is you that I'm fighting. Unless you want to suddenly proclaim yourself as dead, you are not a ghost. I would settle for troll, though, since it's more in line with what you're doing, and I rather like beating on those as well…

Quote:
I don't have any special interests
…aside from continually suggesting that it be made worse by replicating gameplay in a way that has never been done successfully, rather than continue down its current road to success.

Quote:
I explain it by using WoW examples as the industry watches Blizzard for ease to explain things.
…and you really need to stop doing that since WoW doesn't exemplify or explain anything that goes on in EVE since they're two completely different games. It only ever manages to illustrate that you don't really understand how EVE works.
Thar Saal
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#132 - 2013-07-01 08:02:47 UTC
Liafcipe9000 wrote:
because I got high


And clicking on this thread becomes worth it.
Azrael Dinn
Imperial Mechanics
#133 - 2013-07-01 08:03:25 UTC
I always wondered why I started to spoke against ganking and now I remember.

CCP please add more protection to high sec.

After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#134 - 2013-07-01 08:04:56 UTC
Azrael Dinn wrote:
I always wondered why I started to spoke against ganking and now I remember.

CCP please add more protection to high sec.

Why should they?
Epikurus
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#135 - 2013-07-01 08:20:32 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Diomedes Calypso wrote:
I'm also unclear.. if he does nothing, when he eventually gets attacked concord will kill the attackers even if the attackers kill him first .. right?

Does the bumping just give more time to bring in more firepower from other systems to make sure the job gets done?

The bumping serves two purposes.

The most important one is that it creates a controlled environment where the gankers can delay and monitor the CONCORD response. You shoot the target once as he exits gate cloak to give him a PvP timer, which ensures that the ship will stay in space for another 15 minutes, no matter what, so logging off no longer saves the victim. This is obviously a criminal act so CONCORD shows up and kills the flagging alt. To counter this, you take advantage of the 15 minute timer to use a neutral alt (or two) to bump the victim at last 150km away from where CONCORD is sitting. The bumping both ensures that the victim can't just warp off willy-nilly, and that the victim is out of reach from immediate CONCORD response.

Being this far away causes the CONCORD mechanics to consider the target (and, more importantly, the awaiting gankers) “out of range” for the purpose of responding to their actions, which in turn yields the same effect as delaying CONCORD by spawning them somewhere else in the system. When responding to a crime that's this far away, the CONCORD ships first have to despawn from the first crime scene before they can show up at a new one, which delays the response by half a dozen seconds or so. You sacrifice the loss of a newbship with civvy guns for being able to execute the gank with maybe 20–50% fewer actual attack ships. You can also keep a close eye on CONCORD while doing all of this, which means you have more control over the timers.

The second benefit is that the gank now happens maybe 200km off the gate, rather than 15km away from it. As a result, loot thieves will not get as much of a chance to get to the goods, and white knights stand less of a chance counter-killing the looting ships (which will go suspect in the process). If it's a freighter gank, you're likely to need a freighter to loot the wreck, and you definitely want to keep those away from the normal traffic lanes when they go blinky.



I'm not familiar with the mechanics of this but the big question seems to be whether there is any effective counter. Is there anything at all that a solo freighter pilot can do in this situation to avoid being killed or is death a foregone conclusion the moment the attack is initiated?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#136 - 2013-07-01 08:30:46 UTC
Quote:
I'm not familiar with the mechanics of this but the big question seems to be whether there is any effective counter. Is there anything at all that a solo freighter pilot can do in this situation to avoid being killed or is death a foregone conclusion the moment the attack is initiated?


Not being afk and not auto piloting helps. Much harder to get you then.

And not carrying enough in your cargohold that it makes you attractive to gank. I wouldn't go above 1.5b, that seems to be the magic number.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#137 - 2013-07-01 08:37:33 UTC
Epikurus wrote:
I'm not familiar with the mechanics of this but the big question seems to be whether there is any effective counter. Is there anything at all that a solo freighter pilot can do in this situation to avoid being killed or is death a foregone conclusion the moment the attack is initiated?

If it's executed flawlessly and without outside interruption, the victim is pretty much dead, as he should be. As illustrated, it's a fairly complex set of actions that need to be taken in a co-ordinated fashion between a number of people — as with most such things, a single player's main option is to try to not find himself in such a situation to begin with. With freighters, in particular, this is best done by not being a worth-while target.

There are more direct counters; most of them include having support in some form such as scouts, counter-ganks, web-warpers, gang boosts (some implants may be a soloist variation here), logistics, etc. For some reason, the most slow-turning hunk of junk allowed in highsec, flown solo, has problems dealing with a co-ordinated, multi-tiered, multi-prong attack from a dozen players… fancy that. P
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#138 - 2013-07-01 08:39:32 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Not being afk and not auto piloting helps. Much harder to get you then.


Bumping a freighter while they're aligning for next warp is trivial.
Epikurus
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#139 - 2013-07-01 08:43:25 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Epikurus wrote:
I'm not familiar with the mechanics of this but the big question seems to be whether there is any effective counter. Is there anything at all that a solo freighter pilot can do in this situation to avoid being killed or is death a foregone conclusion the moment the attack is initiated?

If it's executed flawlessly and without outside interruption, the victim is pretty much dead, as he should be. As illustrated, it's a fairly complex set of actions that need to be taken in a co-ordinated fashion between a number of people — as with most such things, a single player's main option is to try to not find himself in such a situation to begin with. With freighters, in particular, this is best done by not being a worth-while target.



Well, that does seem broken. It doesn't matter if it takes a fairly complex set of coordinated actions to pull off, if there is literally nothing one can do once picked for death, and if that death can be caused at almost no cost to the attackers, then there is a problem. Would even warping to zero not help the freighter pilot here?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#140 - 2013-07-01 08:44:07 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Not being afk and not auto piloting helps. Much harder to get you then.


Bumping a freighter while they're aligning for next warp is trivial.


Not as easy as you think, no. It's pretty tricky, but if pulled off correctly, then they basically got all their ducks in a row, so yeah, they deserve the kill.

And if we want to depart from the whole "solo" nonsense, if you double web a freighter, they align MUCH faster.

Also, use an Orca because it has better tank, for small(er) m3 amounts.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.