These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Maika Mabata
State War Academy
Caldari State
#141 - 2013-07-01 08:48:54 UTC
You do know that crossposting the same thing over and over is forbidden in forum rules. Time to report all of your whining threads.

Bumping is allowed, deal with it.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#142 - 2013-07-01 08:54:37 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
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.


Do tell how burning a Mach (max speed is what? 1.5k?) at a freighter that takes 20-30s to align is tricky. You don't even have to do it reliably.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#143 - 2013-07-01 08:57:45 UTC
Quote:
Do tell how burning a Mach (max speed is what? 1.5k?) at a freighter that takes 20-30s to align is tricky. You don't even have to do it reliably.


I'll go ahead and quote Tippia here for you.

Quote:
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.


Is there anything there that you have an issue with, or what?

I'm curious what you think the problem is...

"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.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#144 - 2013-07-01 08:59:05 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
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.


Do tell how burning a Mach (max speed is what? 1.5k?) at a freighter that takes 20-30s to align is tricky. You don't even have to do it reliably.


Its amazing how many times mach pilots miss supers.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#145 - 2013-07-01 09:02:14 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I'm curious what you think the problem is...


I'm just curious why you think bumping during align as opposed to autopilot approach is so hard. Then again, you think gate camping is hard so I guess my standards might be too high.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#146 - 2013-07-01 09:13:25 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I'm curious what you think the problem is...


I'm just curious why you think bumping during align as opposed to autopilot approach is so hard. Then again, you think gate camping is hard so I guess my standards might be too high.


Honestly, how hard is it to not put 20 billion in the hold to start with?

The stupid are everywhere.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#147 - 2013-07-01 09:13:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
S Byerley wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I'm curious what you think the problem is...


I'm just curious why you think bumping during align as opposed to autopilot approach is so hard. Then again, you think gate camping is hard so I guess my standards might be too high.


When did I ever say gatecamping was hard? What I said was, that it requires coordination and planning and preparedness, and that those are rewarded in EVE, which is why they get kills and are working as intended. I also said it was hilariously easy to avoid most gatecamps, and that someone would have to be rather ignorant of how the game works to claim otherwise.

Now, as to your question.

Bumping something trying to autopilot, is easier, because the autopilot has a pretty decent delay. They also warp to 15km on a gate, so you don't even need to bump them on arrival.

So, basically, as anyone who has played the game right would know, using autopilot is a good way to get ganked.

Also, as mentioned, it's more than possible to just outright miss the bump anyway.

[Edit: And, oh yes. I repeat my question. What do you think the problem is, and why, and how would you like it fixed? Or are you just here to complain?

"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.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#148 - 2013-07-01 09:27:42 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
[tl;dr: ganking is so haaaaaaaaard]


You're not fooling anyone; do you just get a kick out of forcing other people to correct you? Perhaps you're just legitimately bad at the game?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#149 - 2013-07-01 09:33:18 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
[tl;dr: ganking is so haaaaaaaaard]


You're not fooling anyone; do you just get a kick out of forcing other people to correct you? Perhaps you're just legitimately bad at the game?


I'd have to say, the guy arguing against gatecamps (as if they're hard), and whining about getting ganked, is probably not the guy who needs to be calling someone bad.

And again, liar, I never said ganking is too hard. I said it requires coordination and planning, and that those things are and should be rewarded.

I do get a bit of kick seeing how mad I appear to make you, but then I imagine that constantly being told by multiple people all across these forums that you are wrong about just about everything you say, would make you upset. Which you clearly are. :)

Settle down some, and take the advice of all the people who are telling that you're doing it wrong. Because you are. Especially your entitled mindset, that needs to go if you want to be any good at EVE.

"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.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#150 - 2013-07-01 09:42:14 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
whining about getting ganked, is probably not the guy who needs to be calling someone bad.


I don't have any gank losses to whine about. I dare say you're the one whining as you seem to have an invested interest in keeping easy pvp easy.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I do get a bit of kick seeing how mad I appear to make you.


Sorry to disappoint, but I find you immensely boring; so much so that I have trouble maintaining my naturally thorough and argumentative posting habits.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#151 - 2013-07-01 09:44:47 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
whining about getting ganked, is probably not the guy who needs to be calling someone bad.


I don't have any gank losses to whine about. I dare say you're the one whining as you seem to have an invested interest in keeping easy pvp easy.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I do get a bit of kick seeing how mad I appear to make you.


Sorry to disappoint, but I find you immensely boring; so much so that I have trouble maintaining my naturally thorough and argumentative posting habits.


That was pretty well a colossal fail on quoting, btw.

Not disappointed at all. Although I certainly wouldn't describe anything you posted so far as thorough, as that implies it's well thought out.

So please, let us continue. What, in your opinion, is wrong with bumping and ganking, and why? I notice you continue to refuse to answer the question.

"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.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#152 - 2013-07-01 09:52:09 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
So please, let us continue.


No thanks; you offer too little return on investment.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#153 - 2013-07-01 09:53:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
S Byerley wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
So please, let us continue.


No thanks; you offer too little return on investment.


Then, by all means, silence.

[Edit: Btw, refusing to even answer the question asking you to define what you think is wrong, is pretty much giving up the argument. :)

"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.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#154 - 2013-07-01 09:53:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
Tippia wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
The logoff timer can be reset if he's been given the 15 minute capsuleer aggression timer, by simply re-aggressing him. This was explicitly made this way to counteract super-caps logging off, and is fully intended.
Yes, but this is highsec we're talking about: each reset spawns CONCORD at that spot; the whole point of the exercise is to get away from that spot so you can get the additional “CONCORD is occupied elsewhere” time delay.

So the entire trick relies on getting the target 150km+ away from the place where the aggression took place within 15 minutes — any more and he can log off; any less distance, and CONCORD doesn't have to go through the whole despawn/respawn cycle. If not, you to re-agress him, you now have CONCORD in a new spot and have to move another 150km away, and you're back to square one. So either the gankers were thoroughly incompetent (effectively failing the same gank five times in a row), or he just gave up after his first failed logoffski.

This is why I question the notion that it took 60 minutes without some serious errors made by the victim himself.

Yeah, I see. If you understand the mechanism by how and where concord spawns ships, you can ensure you don't hinder yourself in this way.

I mean, it MAY have been error on his part, but Goonswarm (us here at miniluv) test the bejesus out of these things every time CCP change something to make sure there's never a way the guy can escape. This one was obviously fluffed a bit (looks like the available DPS might have been within the RNG), there's not usually need to try to extend timers.
S Byerley wrote:
Well... you're off by at least a factor of 5 in this case. Similarly, killboard indicates that even empty freighters aren't a significant deterrent.

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18502230
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18499970
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18499236
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18497615
ect.

So.... there's that.

We target reds and other alts of interest, too, no matter what they're carrying.
S Byerley wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
[tl;dr: ganking is so haaaaaaaaard]


You're not fooling anyone; do you just get a kick out of forcing other people to correct you? Perhaps you're just legitimately bad at the game?

As a thought experiment, tell me in what other aspect of EvE would you be able to reliably counter-act the coordinated actions of 10+ people with a positive outcome to yourself?
Since you will fail to provide an answer here, I will save time and instead ask: Why do you think in the specific example of freighter ganking this dynamic should not exist?

"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
#155 - 2013-07-01 09:57:41 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Then, by all means, silence.


No thanks.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#156 - 2013-07-01 11:38:30 UTC
Epikurus wrote:
ell, 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.
…but seeing as how there are plenty of things one can do when picked for death, and even more you can do to not be picked to begin with, and as how the attack costs the attackers a sizeable chunk of cash, there is no problem.

Quote:
Would even warping to zero not help the freighter pilot here?
No. It happens on the other side of the gate.

Khanh'rhh wrote:
Yeah, I see. If you understand the mechanism by how and where concord spawns ships, you can ensure you don't hinder yourself in this way.
Either way, someone screwed up… multiple times… on that one, or it wouldn't have lasted for 60 minutes.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#157 - 2013-07-01 11:57:35 UTC
Tippia wrote:
and as how the attack costs the attackers a sizeable chunk of cash, there is no problem.


1m per person per tick is on par with ammo cost; not exactly a "sizeable chunk of cash"
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#158 - 2013-07-01 12:24:52 UTC
The rule that states "persistent" bumping even after a player "has made an effort to move to a different location" or whatever the phrasing is NOT "I tried to warp away but they stopped me :(" but rather if you move to other systems and people follow you specifically to prevent you from ever doing anything. Preventing your freighter to warp off on one occasion is perfectly acceptable. Learn2play m8

hth

o7
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#159 - 2013-07-01 12:28:11 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
1m per person per tick is on par with ammo cost; not exactly a "sizeable chunk of cash"

1M per person also doesn't generate any kind of income, so yes, you're looking at an ever-growing loss, which quickly ends up being a sizeable chunk of cash.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#160 - 2013-07-01 12:30:56 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
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.


If you think determining the human intention behind the events that occur in this game are trivial then you are the one who doesn't "get computer science".