These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#421 - 2013-07-03 20:32:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
NM, fixed the quotes (phew!).

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#422 - 2013-07-03 20:49:34 UTC
Mag's wrote:
No he didn't infer that. I've read the thread and he's referring to your talk regarding the capital pilot not being the aggressor. It's irrelevant they were not the aggressor, they are still subject to the timer because they were aggressed. No one has disputed the freighter CANNOT aggress, that's the point and that's what he was referring to.


But it shouldn't, since it can't. Choosing to engage and aggress should incur a timer. Being a victim should not. It's up to the attacker to execute, not just simply engage a mechanic to pin a victim. Take a cap pilot, like in say... null sec (I know we are talking about nonspecialcapitalshipthatcanenterhighsec) where it agresses a target, but then tries to deagress, but cannot because of that timer. Makes perfect sense. Now take a freighter, who CANNOT agress anything, just flyin by minding it's own business, and now is penalized because of someone else's choices. Terrible mechanic. You should be taxed because I decided to mine an asteroid in the same system you are in. Almost as ludicrous. Almost.

Quote:
The only reason the timer was kept alive for so long, was due to the freighter pilot not using his head. People were stupid on both sides, but one stupid lost out in the end. This doesn't mean we should remove the aggression timer from freighters, it means people should stop being stupid first.


It means the timer should be removed from freighters. Or give them something that justifies being able to agress something. (IE- drone bay?) Nothing is stopping the freighter from being bumped, or scrammed, or notkilled. So please don't exercise an asinine opinion about me wanting special treatment to freighter pilots (not saying you would or are, just being pre emptive).


Quote:
You couldn't keep the aggression timer going for days, but I digress.


Agreed. Tippia said days were required to meet the burden of proving "excessiveness". Not me.

Quote:
He said the harassment could only sometimes be concluded after days of bumping the same person. There has to be intent shown over a long period, to be sure you have the right conclusion.
This is where the GM's have the final say. The bumping of this freighter for an hour however, was not harassment.


I also agree with this. I think it's a strong case for a petition and to have the DEVs get involved to oversee how this mechanic can be used, and if it meets that goal. But becareful of "long period" since nothing determines that. And like you said... it is up to the GM to decide on the harassment call. "I" think it is though, and have proven my point as to why I think so, so that's all I got I guess.

Quote:
He shouldn't have died. Both sides were stupid, one side stopped being stupid before the other. Guess who lost.


Depends on the results from the GM/DEVs I suppose.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#423 - 2013-07-03 20:56:40 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
It's a ****** mechanic that got abused. On paper, you can argue about the semantics of the written word, but I would suggest rewatching the video.

You can choose to claim it as cruelty, or you can claim it as lack of ability, matters not which. That's up to you to decide.

Point being, if you can't do a job well, don't bother trying. Using a mechanic as a crutch is NOT what being a sandbox means.

It's not semantics. CCP have stated in no uncertain terms that bumping is fine. The aggression mechanics in the game were (fairly) recently added and the consequences of them are willful and deliberate. I don't know how else to say this now. It's one thing to say "you know what, I think CCP made a bad call on this, this is bullshit" and I won't disagree that you're allowed to make that claim (but would disagree with it Blink).
You're stating something that is simply impossible - we know no rules were broken because CCP have published the rules and this doesn't break them.
At what point are you going to accept that, like the actions or not, they were not against the rules?

I watched the video once, and carefully - at no point have I made an erroneous claim about what the video shows, the video simply does not show any of CCP's posted rules being violated. All it shows is a style of gameplay you would rather didn't exist, which is your motivation for posting here.

"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,

Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#424 - 2013-07-03 21:06:06 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
It means the timer should be removed from freighters. Or give them something that justifies being able to agress something. (IE- drone bay?) Nothing is stopping the freighter from being bumped, or scrammed, or notkilled. So please don't exercise an asinine opinion about me wanting special treatment to freighter pilots


Have you literally read what you write?

"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,

Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#425 - 2013-07-03 21:07:45 UTC
Quote:
But it shouldn't, since it can't. Choosing to engage and aggress should incur a timer. Being a victim should not

So you believe CCP should revert the celebrated change to logoff mechanics that has made the game measurably more balanced and playable?

Why?

"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,

Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#426 - 2013-07-03 21:08:38 UTC
I dont have a problem with ganking. ganking has been in the game as long as i have but the new mechanics allows u guys to be cowards and gank anything at nearly no cost to you.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#427 - 2013-07-03 21:09:32 UTC
n.b. - is this your first character?

If you weren't playing before mid-2012 then you missed the brilliant fun which was everyone trying to logoffski to save themselves at a whiff of any danger.

It was awful.

It was fixed.

It was widely celebrated.

You want this reverted because ... why?

"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,

Tetsuo Tsukaya
Perkone
Caldari State
#428 - 2013-07-03 21:09:39 UTC
Honestly, considering that it took THIRTY pilots working together to bring the freighter down, and over an hour toget everything set up, it's pretty damn ridiculous to feel slighted by this situation. "Abloobloobloo, it's not fair that I can't be completely invulnerable for no effort".

Ganks happen, it sucks but there it is.

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#429 - 2013-07-03 21:10:22 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
It's a ****** mechanic that got abused. On paper, you can argue about the semantics of the written word, but I would suggest rewatching the video.

You can choose to claim it as cruelty, or you can claim it as lack of ability, matters not which. That's up to you to decide.

Point being, if you can't do a job well, don't bother trying. Using a mechanic as a crutch is NOT what being a sandbox means.

It's not semantics. CCP have stated in no uncertain terms that bumping is fine. The aggression mechanics in the game were (fairly) recently added and the consequences of them are willful and deliberate. I don't know how else to say this now. It's one thing to say "you know what, I think CCP made a bad call on this, this is bullshit" and I won't disagree that you're allowed to make that claim (but would disagree with it Blink).
You're stating something that is simply impossible - we know no rules were broken because CCP have published the rules and this doesn't break them.
At what point are you going to accept that, like the actions or not, they were not against the rules?

I watched the video once, and carefully - at no point have I made an erroneous claim about what the video shows, the video simply does not show any of CCP's posted rules being violated. All it shows is a style of gameplay you would rather didn't exist, which is your motivation for posting here.



Actually that's not true. I have no problem shooting freighters whatsoever.

I do not think you have any clue whatsoever what my motivation for posting anything is based on your remarks =).

If you think that the style of which to play is "stretch current mechanics until they break" then yea, I guess you could be considered right. I'm all for questioning things, and seeing how they work... but I'm not in favor of trolling the rule makers. It's just too mischievious to create any fun for me anymore (I was like that long ago back in the 1990s).

Awoxing, while very interesting and entertaining, tends to get boring after a bit. I love the politics of it, and intrigue of backroom deals are definitely exciting... but when something is shown as borderline griefing... there is nothing appetizing about it.

It's almost like picking a fight with a toddler and boasting you won. Sure some people find it fun and exciting, but there's the rub I guess.

Now, if you have a question, by all means ask.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#430 - 2013-07-03 21:11:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
It means the timer should be removed from freighters. Or give them something that justifies being able to agress something. (IE- drone bay?) Nothing is stopping the freighter from being bumped, or scrammed, or notkilled. So please don't exercise an asinine opinion about me wanting special treatment to freighter pilots


Have you literally read what you write?



What, that I think being a victim does not mean you should have an aggression timer?

You do know what consensual means right. If you can't be smart enough to kill a freighter without having to use a timer to do it...

Get a new job.

If you think that me putting that disclaimer is off the mark, then by all means ignore it. But you know, if you've read these forums, someone either wants to post something like it, is about to, or will in the very new future. (It has been told to me already that I want special treatment to freighters; I don't. Kill them all, legitimately).

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#431 - 2013-07-03 21:13:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Quote:
But it shouldn't, since it can't. Choosing to engage and aggress should incur a timer. Being a victim should not

So you believe CCP should revert the celebrated change to logoff mechanics that has made the game measurably more balanced and playable?

Why?



Why do you need a logoff timer to kill a freighter?

When you have people cryiing for mechanics to make their job easier... they are bigger carebears than their targets.

No different than any station game playing troll who pretends their are a badass.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#432 - 2013-07-03 21:16:26 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
n.b. - is this your first character?

If you weren't playing before mid-2012 then you missed the brilliant fun which was everyone trying to logoffski to save themselves at a whiff of any danger.

It was awful.

It was fixed.

It was widely celebrated.

You want this reverted because ... why?



Are you saying that you are mad about blueball tactics?

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Tetsuo Tsukaya
Perkone
Caldari State
#433 - 2013-07-03 21:21:02 UTC
Also, if you'd ever shipped with Red Frog you'd note that their freighters have a 1b ISK collateral limit on courrier contracts. This may or may not relate to the fact that its almost impossible for a gank not to be profitable if the freighter is a 5 billion ISK loot piñata.

OP didnt make any consideration for the fact that ganking is even possible, then gets surprised when he gets ganked. Not trying to be a jerk but this is a valid part of the game and you should plan around it in the future. If your shipment was worth 1b or less you probably wouldn't be in this position.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#434 - 2013-07-03 21:26:06 UTC
Tetsuo Tsukaya wrote:
Also, if you'd ever shipped with Red Frog you'd note that their freighters have a 1b ISK collateral limit on courrier contracts. This may or may not relate to the fact that its almost impossible for a gank not to be profitable if the freighter is a 5 billion ISK loot piñata.

OP didnt make any consideration for the fact that ganking is even possible, then gets surprised when he gets ganked. Not trying to be a jerk but this is a valid part of the game and you should plan around it in the future. If your shipment was worth 1b or less you probably wouldn't be in this position.



Preventive maintenances I definitely agree with.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Elizabeth Aideron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#435 - 2013-07-03 21:49:56 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Quote:
But it shouldn't, since it can't. Choosing to engage and aggress should incur a timer. Being a victim should not

So you believe CCP should revert the celebrated change to logoff mechanics that has made the game measurably more balanced and playable?

Why?



Why do you need a logoff timer to kill a freighter?

When you have people cryiing for mechanics to make their job easier... they are bigger carebears than their targets.

No different than any station game playing troll who pretends their are a badass.


why should a freighter be allowed to disappear from space in 30 seconds at the first sign of danger?
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#436 - 2013-07-03 23:11:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
Murk Paradox wrote:
If you can't be smart enough to kill a freighter without having to use a timer to do it...

Get a new job.

Luckily I don't need to because CCP coded the timers into the game so we could do what we are doing. Once again, I have no idea why you are complaining that we are playing within the rules. It is somewhat bizarre.
Murk Paradox wrote:
Why do you need a logoff timer to kill a freighter?

When you have people cryiing for mechanics to make their job easier... they are bigger carebears than their targets.

No different than any station game playing troll who pretends their are a badass.

You have missed the point here. Do you know WHY it is that CCP decided to change the logoff mechanics to what they are now?

I'm seriously actually asking this as a question. I am asking because you will literally be the first person I have heard of who wants to go back to those days where many, many fights in all areas of space under all manner of conditions ended because the other ship just vanished.

It was utterly terrible.

At first the logging off trick to save your ship was **a punishable offence** -- if CCP thought it was deliberate you could be banned. Then they realised proving this was an enormous amount of GM time, so instead they relaxed the ruling awaiting a fix to the logoff mechanics.
Then they fixed the logoff mechanics such that people could no longer log off to save their ships.

I am utterly dumbfounded by your central point, which is that you think simply logging off should be a valid counter to an in-game actions.

Why do you think the proper action should be to stop playing the game when faced with a situation you might lose? Why should refusing to play your part in the interaction be a winning condition?

Do you even realise intentionally logging off to prevent losses is bannable in most games?

Do you realise why? That it is utterly absurd so support a winning condition which is "don't play the game"?

And you say all this, under your banner of "supporting mechanics that make sense?"

I am quite lost how any of this stacks up in your head.

"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,

Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#437 - 2013-07-03 23:12:57 UTC
tl;dr - the people against the actions of the posted video are literally saying "If threatened, the player should be able to simply decide they don't want to be, and log off, acquiring a magical aegis of protection"

It's dumb as all holy ****.

"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,

Ionia Leonforte
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#438 - 2013-07-03 23:45:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Ionia Leonforte
Carebears gonna cry about anything.

OP is a noob who should have learnt the mechanics. It took 30 ships to bump him untill he was ganked. Cry some more crybaby.

WoW is -> way

Edit: Wait, how can you afford to buy and have the skills to fly a frieghter if you didn't know that YOU COULD BE GANKED IN HIGH SEC? It's people like you that need people like James 315 the Father Protector and Savior of High Sec to force you to interact with other people and stop living in your own little bubble.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#439 - 2013-07-03 23:54:16 UTC
Elizabeth Aideron wrote:
why should a freighter be allowed to disappear from space in 30 seconds at the first sign of danger?


In high sec? Because Concord is supposed to show up after at most 20s anyway barring proper kill rights/dec.

30s is still perhaps a bit short, but there are plenty of ways to compromise; diminishing timers when aggressed by the same character pops to mind (doesn't prevent the tactic outright, but makes the logistics harder). You could also shorten the initial timer for a passive party based on the system sec.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#440 - 2013-07-04 00:07:59 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Elizabeth Aideron wrote:
why should a freighter be allowed to disappear from space in 30 seconds at the first sign of danger?


In high sec? Because Concord is supposed to show up after at most 20s anyway barring proper kill rights/dec.

30s is still perhaps a bit short, but there are plenty of ways to compromise; diminishing timers when aggressed by the same character pops to mind (doesn't prevent the tactic outright, but makes the logistics harder). You could also shorten the initial timer for a passive party based on the system sec.

You're looking at this the complete wrong way - logging off shouldn't be an encouraged outcome for any scenario. I'd go as far as to say a potential fix to the whole scenario being that a ship self destructs if it deliberately logs off aggressed, but this is potentially inviting server-based attacks, not to mention "deliberately" is essentially unprovable.

The situation as it exists now is a pretty adequate middle-ground.

"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,