These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#441 - 2013-07-04 00:10:39 UTC
But actually ... with adequate data-mining we can say with a very small margin of error whether this disconnect is pure coincidence or is statistically likely to be motivated by the aggression flag.

I rescind my previous post - any ship deliberately logging off aggressed should self-destruct.

"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,

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#442 - 2013-07-04 00:15:32 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Bolow Santosi wrote:
I hear not flying around with a cargo full of stuff worth 4 times more than your ship is worth is a really good place to start to avoid things like this.



I think any ship you undock is not safe.

I just also think that there's a point to excess.


This excess being several dosen dead freighters out of hundreds of thousands of freighter trips every month?



I don't understand the relevance of your question. Are you trying to say that the hundreds of freighters killed took an hour each time?


No I am saying that out of hundreds of thousands of freighter trips a month only a few dozen end in a gank.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#443 - 2013-07-04 00:17:18 UTC  |  Edited by: S Byerley
Khanh'rhh wrote:
You're looking at this the complete wrong way - logging off shouldn't be an encouraged outcome for any scenario.


Can you think of any other scenario that would be impacted? Because I think I can live with a freighter being able to log after 10-20 minutes of being bumped.

Though, I can't say I'd have any qualms with diminishing returns on bumping or bumping's effect on warping. The latter would actually be kinda nice for when you get stuck on a stray invisible collidable.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#444 - 2013-07-04 00:18:17 UTC
Another option could be for Pend Insurance to refuse to issue rookie ships to criminals. At least the potential criminal will have to engage in the activity of collecting rookie ships in preparation for a crime.

While I don't like the logoffski tactic, there is something wrong with the situation where a player loses control of their character for an hour at the whim of some other player.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#445 - 2013-07-04 00:20:19 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
But actually ... with adequate data-mining we can say with a very small margin of error whether this disconnect is pure coincidence or is statistically likely to be motivated by the aggression flag.


You're cute when you're butthurt.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#446 - 2013-07-04 00:21:12 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
You're looking at this the complete wrong way - logging off shouldn't be an encouraged outcome for any scenario.


Can you think of any other scenario that would be impacted? Because I think I can live with a freighter being able to log after 10-20 minutes of being bumped.

The bumping didn't in any way hamper the logoff. If you instead mean the aggression timer - well it impacts the logoff conditions of every ship in space. That is to say, everyone at all times.

It's pretty significant.

"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.
#447 - 2013-07-04 00:22:37 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
But actually ... with adequate data-mining we can say with a very small margin of error whether this disconnect is pure coincidence or is statistically likely to be motivated by the aggression flag.


You're cute when you're butthurt.

Yeah, I thought you'd opt out of arguing against your own argument.

"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,

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#448 - 2013-07-04 00:23:38 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
But actually ... with adequate data-mining we can say with a very small margin of error whether this disconnect is pure coincidence or is statistically likely to be motivated by the aggression flag.


You're cute when you're butthurt.

Yeah, I thought you'd opt out of arguing against your own argument.


He usually does. I find it's a common tactic when faced with something irrefutable.

"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
#449 - 2013-07-04 00:24:37 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
You're looking at this the complete wrong way - logging off shouldn't be an encouraged outcome for any scenario.


Can you think of any other scenario that would be impacted? Because I think I can live with a freighter being able to log after 10-20 minutes of being bumped.

The bumping didn't in any way hamper the logoff. If you instead mean the aggression timer - well it impacts the logoff conditions of every ship in space. That is to say, everyone at all times.

It's pretty significant.


It's only the combination of bumping + suicide timer + high sec that would ever make it advantageous; unless you can think of something I haven't.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#450 - 2013-07-04 00:27:43 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
But actually ... with adequate data-mining we can say with a very small margin of error whether this disconnect is pure coincidence or is statistically likely to be motivated by the aggression flag.


You're cute when you're butthurt.

Yeah, I thought you'd opt out of arguing against your own argument.


He usually does. I find it's a common tactic when faced with something irrefutable.


Implying my original argument was irrefutable? K.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#451 - 2013-07-04 00:27:51 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Another option could be for Pend Insurance to refuse to issue rookie ships to criminals. At least the potential criminal will have to engage in the activity of collecting rookie ships in preparation for a crime.

While I don't like the logoffski tactic, there is something wrong with the situation where a player loses control of their character for an hour at the whim of some other player.

Can you list the controls unavailable to him?

"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,

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#452 - 2013-07-04 00:32:45 UTC
Quote:
Implying my original argument was irrefutable? K.


You infer incorrectly, and you are aware therof.

You are faced with several points that you cannot refute, and thus you dissemble.

"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
#453 - 2013-07-04 00:38:47 UTC  |  Edited by: S Byerley
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

You infer incorrectly, and you are aware therof.


You spell and grammar incorrectly. I can hardly be faulted for misinterpreting the thought process behind your broken English.

Quote:
You are faced with several points that you cannot refute, and thus you dissemble.


I'm not sure what points you mean, nor what you think I'm trying to conceal.

If you're referring to my unwillingness to teach someone whose only desire is to talk in circles, well... every masochist has his breaking point.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#454 - 2013-07-04 00:42:13 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
If you're referring to my unwillingness to teach someone whose only desire is to talk in circles, well... every masochist has his breaking point.

Yeah, but the whole thread saw me asking you the exact same question over, and over, and over again - with new and exciting ways of not answering the question doled out by forums poster S Byerley.

You can't just wait for a few pages to go by and then pretend that didn't happen.

"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
#455 - 2013-07-04 00:46:22 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
You can't just wait for a few pages to go by and then pretend that didn't happen.


I wasn't aware I had tried. Your question was invalid and you refused to let me teach you why so there wasn't anything left to be said.
klikit
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#456 - 2013-07-04 00:46:47 UTC
I now understand the reasoning behind putting in the aggression timer in the first place. It was put in place to keep capitals (I am assuming it was with combat capitals the timer was targeting) from logging out when aggressed. If that is indeed the case then just take the timer out of high sec space (unless of course you shoot back). Problem solved.

Now with that being said, I understand why all the pro-aggression timer folks don't want see the timer go away and its ok you guys can admit you don't want to see your cash cow dry up. Its ok to feel that way its human nature but to try and gloss over it as something else is just plain silly.

CCP put in a feature, players figured a way to turn into something that I really don't think it was intended for. Now its just a matter of how CCP is going to handle it. If it is intended I don't think it was a very good business decision to disenfranchise a large chunk of your player base.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#457 - 2013-07-04 00:49:58 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
You can't just wait for a few pages to go by and then pretend that didn't happen.


I wasn't aware I had tried. Your question was invalid and you refused to let me teach you why so there wasn't anything left to be said.

I ... I did what? I refused?

I literally asked you over and over and over and over again to show me why I was wrong but you claimed you were unwilling.

Here's you doing it: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3289894#post3289894

Do you actually think just saying things that are provably untrue over and over makes them true?

"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,

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#458 - 2013-07-04 00:53:24 UTC
Quote:
You spell and grammar incorrectly. I can hardly be faulted for misinterpreting the thought process behind your broken English.


Hilariously, it is not I who is in possession of broken English, colonial heathen.

Although I must confess myself to be in possession of a fondness for inordinately large posteriors, and I cannot prevaricate.

"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
#459 - 2013-07-04 00:53:40 UTC
klikit wrote:
I now understand the reasoning behind putting in the aggression timer in the first place. It was put in place to keep capitals (I am assuming it was with combat capitals the timer was targeting) from logging out when aggressed. If that is indeed the case then just take the timer out of high sec space (unless of course you shoot back). Problem solved.

Now with that being said, I understand why all the pro-aggression timer folks don't want see the timer go away and its ok you guys can admit you don't want to see your cash cow dry up. Its ok to feel that way its human nature but to try and gloss over it as something else is just plain silly.

CCP put in a feature, players figured a way to turn into something that I really don't think it was intended for. Now its just a matter of how CCP is going to handle it. If it is intended I don't think it was a very good business decision to disenfranchise a large chunk of your player base.


Why do you people think ganking bads in empire is something new?
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#460 - 2013-07-04 00:56:43 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
I ... I did what? I refused?


Yes.

Quote:
I literally asked you over and over and over and over again to show me why I was wrong but you claimed you were unwilling.


You asked me to spoon feed you literature you aren't qualified to read. It would have been irresponsible of me to acquiesce

Quote:
Do you actually think just saying things that are provably untrue over and over makes them true?


Do you think saying something is impossible makes it so?