EVE General Discussion

Poor example to use.

That's just your flesh sack pride talking.

To put things in perspective: A full simulation of the human brain takes about an exaflop (+/- an order subject to debate). We're currently in the tens of petaflops and the exaflop projections are for ~2020. Keep in mind, that's a full simulation, fundamentally more powerful.

Now, consider how much of the brain is tied up in mundane tasks and specialization. We're so bad at numerical math, for example, because we have to do several extremely expensive conversions to get it in the right format - it's an inefficient hack.

It shouldn't be surprising that computers are already better at most applications. The specialized tasks are starting to fall as well and the limiting factor is often the algorithm rather than the hardware (A couple million years of genetic tuning gives us a pretty wicked head start as far as optimizations).



You say that like humans can. No, we use heuristics; computers are more than capable of doing the same.

Here's my take on it. Crimewatch. Their timers. Your aggression timers. A Victim has the same timer as the aggressor. 15 minutes right? (not counting the fun LE timer =)). That timer should NOT be able to be refreshed until a certain amount of time has elapsed. Why? Because of that same timer.

If you cannot accomplish your goal in 15 minutes you shouldn't be attempting it. I know I know, there's going to be blowback about structure grinding etc... but seriously, if you start a fight with something NOT shooting back.... there should be an escape timer.

And this is why-

Eve is cold, and harsh. It should punish the incompetent.

That goes for the pirates too. This is where Crimewatch and Concord need to be on the same page.

Using the aggression timer on a victim who cannot actually make an aggression timer, so you can buy yourself more time to accomadate your inability to kill a freighter is, well, for lack of better terms, exploiting a mechanic.

Just my opinion. I think anyone should be able to kill and shoot anyone. But I also think you need to be able to do the job you pretend to do without having to use a mechanic to allow you to "safely".

At a certain point it should be considered "excessive".

Or try to convince everyone else that Eve shouldn't be a sandbox.

Oh, and your article isn't even about credit card fraud .... I missed that you claimed that. Actually being able to predict whether a single transaction is fraudulent or not would be a multi-billion dollar breakthough.

I mean, if you think you can use 40 year old technology to achieve this why in the **** aren't you out doing it instead of crying about pretend spaceships in a game?

Literally impossible to bump someone more than once without following them.

Did GSF lose their ships each time they ganked? If they did, then that's the way the cookie crumbles, scout out gates for traps next time, blah blah blah. It happens all the time.


If they didn't lose their ships with each gank, then that's an exploit.



And bump tackle isn't an exploit. You had an hour to hire a merc group, there's a whole channel of reputable merc's who would have easily dispatched a half dozen gank BC's for a few hundred mil.

As far as I understand, the line is thus:

If they bump for:
Ransom, Tactical advantage, waiting for backup, any other reason with an end goal.
It's A-O.K.

If they do it for hours on end without any recognizable goal or reason other than to cause trouble and be dicks, you have a case.

There is nothing difficult about bumping a freighter. This technique is basically shooting fish in a barrel with little to no risk. The only skill required is to be prepared with enough ships to pull off the gank.

Bumping is a lame mechanic, most people agree with this, so by defending you are simply making you look silly. Particularly as you are trying to indicate that it is some sort of elite pvp skill.

They're bumping him for a reason. It's no exploit, it's simply buying time to set up gank squad.
I love your response in local "I'm frapsing this so you'll be banned".
EVE players pride themselves as being above the WoW players where GMs hold your hand. This guy is obviously not EVE material.
EDIT: Wow, you're trying to stop your login-warp. You're bad.

The rules are, that it's against the rules when the intent is to greif - it's not against the rules when the intent isn't to grief. Since the actual rule we're talking about enforcing wavers on someone's interpretation of someone else's intent - it is more than central to the argument; it is the entire argument. Showing that the intent was to grief and not valid gameplay is what makes it against the rules. Maybe you will lightbulb here and go "oh ****, yeah, I was thinking of something else" but you will likely instead grit your teeth and continue to argue black is blue.

A computer algorithm cannot determine intent, ergo it cannot rule on a matter of intent. This was QED about 10 pages back but you're so wilfully belligerent that it's just not sinking in.

I've demonstrated an ability to grasp the subject at a level far exceeding yours. You'll get no-where trying the "I know so much I can't tell you!" line - try me. Link anything you want. Any source. Anything at all that shows that causation can be determined mathematically by correlation.

I mean, I have asked three times for a single tangible piece of evidence that computer models can accurately determine intent, and you've failed 4 times in coming up with anything.

Kind of - insofar as you simply **can't** do what you want with computer technology as it exists so you would need to construct some manner of pseudo-pattern recognition to get around your inability to measure the data you require. It should be noted this is merely my "best guess" at how one would try to achieve something which is essentially not possible.
The current leading edge in this area is a kind-of multi-tiered pattern analysis, which is many steps below what you need to model the actual why of the origin of the data. Again, with your data-mining to measure causality approach, this is vis-a-vis to intent.

I don't. No-one does. It's a potential application of a technology not yet invented. Which is why you're reaching so far it's laughable.

Orders of magnitude past a task we can't perform with current technology is not "easy" - what are you smoking?

The rest of your post just goes on to miss the basic fact that, I think we both know, is staring you in the face as much as it is me: you're still suggesting that a correlational analysis of server data can determine the causation.

If you can show a working model of this, there is literally a nobel prize in it for you.

I'll keep on asking for you to show a single citation that shows that any of this ~~amazing computer analysis~~ is possible.
I have no idea why people like you insist on dragging a discussion way past the point that everyone knows you're wrong. I guess it's just the problem of internet posting (that a literal sequence amplifies the "who posted on the subject last" problem) but GODDAMN man, there's only so many ways you can say nothing of any citable value and not look like a complete fool.

That was pages ago, you do look like a complete fool.