These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#501 - 2013-07-04 17:49:22 UTC
Logs being the keyword
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#502 - 2013-07-04 17:52:04 UTC
Elizabeth Aideron wrote:
contextual information in this case is generally going to be chatlogs. feel free to show how you can datamine harassment from those


Appropriately enough, that field is called text mining.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#503 - 2013-07-04 17:54:51 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
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.

The brain is not a digital computer. At least, not in the traditional sense. There's quite a bit of evidence that suggests that the human brain (and indeed that of many or even most animals that have a central nervous system) is more analogous to a quantum computer.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#504 - 2013-07-04 18:14:30 UTC
Callyuk wrote:
A gank squad that fails on first attempt and takes an hr to complete the gank should be penalized


They are. They lose the ships they used on the first attempt and have to try again.


Aura of Ice wrote:
Do you people live in some sort of bubble on mars?

Being locked out of ANY game for 90 minutes would be considered BAD GAMEPLAY by any sane person.

I also recall reading another comment saying DAYS would constitute harassment, not hours. Are you people serious? I just won't even say anything more about that one. Speaks for itself.



He's not locked out of anything. In fact, escape is trivial. Right Click > Eject.

He chose to spend that hour in the hopes that he could rescue his cargo.

Beekeeper Bob wrote:
I think the difference being, he has no hope of escape.....Lol


He had no hope of escape solo. But then, a suicide ganker has no hope of killing him solo either, so there's a sort of symmetry there.

With far fewer people helping than it took to gank that freighter, escape for the freighter becomes trivial.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#505 - 2013-07-04 18:15:24 UTC  |  Edited by: S Byerley
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
The brain is not a digital computer. At least, not in the traditional sense. There's quite a bit of evidence that suggests that the human brain (and indeed that of many or even most animals that have a central nervous system) is more analogous to a quantum computer.


There's evidence of quantum interaction (which is hardly surprising since the information density of DNA, ect. requires a scale where quantum effects are inevitably a factor), but no evidence that it plays a significant role in the computations.

It's also extremely unlikely that quantum computing is beneficial for general purpose algorithms; all evidence suggests that it offers no exponential complexity benefits over the Turing machine model outside a very narrow range of problems.

In any case, we (humans) have made steady progress on quantum computing hardware (though no one can agree on which model to run with).

TL;DR - quantum mind is not a widely accepted theory.
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#506 - 2013-07-04 18:29:08 UTC
My brain tells me that game mechanics were working correctly but not working as intended
Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
#507 - 2013-07-04 18:30:49 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.


Which, none of this matters if you are able to A.) alpha the ship or B.) able to draw concord away by attacking other ships in the system. Honestly, the ability to keep someone in space until DT just by shooting it with a rookie ship is a dumb mechanic and should be considered an exploit. Or log off and PvP timers should not renew once the pilot is logged off. You want that kill, bring enough people to do it in 15 minutes.... Oh wait, all the nullbears complained that they couldn't kill ships before they logged off, while at the same time told high sec dwellers to HTFU. The hypocrisy in this game is astounding.

SCHALAC HAS SPOKEN!! http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schalac
Elizabeth Aideron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#508 - 2013-07-04 18:57:57 UTC
Schalac wrote:
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.


Which, none of this matters if you are able to A.) alpha the ship or B.) able to draw concord away by attacking other ships in the system. Honestly, the ability to keep someone in space until DT just by shooting it with a rookie ship is a dumb mechanic and should be considered an exploit. Or log off and PvP timers should not renew once the pilot is logged off. You want that kill, bring enough people to do it in 15 minutes.... Oh wait, all the nullbears complained that they couldn't kill ships before they logged off, while at the same time told high sec dwellers to HTFU. The hypocrisy in this game is astounding.


yes the honourable highseccers logging off to avoid combat versus the cowardly nullbears losing multiple waves of ships for a single kill
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#509 - 2013-07-04 18:59:34 UTC
Schalac wrote:
Which, none of this matters if you are able to A.) alpha the ship or B.) able to draw concord away by attacking other ships in the system. Honestly, the ability to keep someone in space until DT just by shooting it with a rookie ship is a dumb mechanic and should be considered an exploit. Or log off and PvP timers should not renew once the pilot is logged off. You want that kill, bring enough people to do it in 15 minutes.... Oh wait, all the nullbears complained that they couldn't kill ships before they logged off, while at the same time told high sec dwellers to HTFU. The hypocrisy in this game is astounding.


Why shouldn't you have all the time in the world to kill an unmanned ship?
Why should "alt+F4" be an effective means of escape for anyone?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#510 - 2013-07-04 19:09:45 UTC
Schalac wrote:



Which, none of this matters if you are able to A.) alpha the ship or B.) able to draw concord away by attacking other ships in the system. Honestly, the ability to keep someone in space until DT just by shooting it with a rookie ship is a dumb mechanic and should be considered an exploit. Or log off and PvP timers should not renew once the pilot is logged off. You want that kill, bring enough people to do it in 15 minutes.... Oh wait, all the nullbears complained that they couldn't kill ships before they logged off, while at the same time told high sec dwellers to HTFU. The hypocrisy in this game is astounding.


Why do you chose to always be a victim?
Typherian
Criterion.
Pandemic Legion
#511 - 2013-07-04 19:19:15 UTC
Hey wait a minute. OP didn't call in help for his freighter but he did call in help to cry on the forums about it. I find this quite funny.
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#512 - 2013-07-04 19:23:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Callyuk
This is how it went down. 2 machs bumped the freighter for 10 minutes or so (to get out of range of gate guns) and agressed with a rookie toon before goons showed up. Goons got there regrouped got concord in sys off grid that took em another 5-10 minutes (agressed with another rookie toon) then they warped in i went global just after they landed. Concord came in as they fired on the freighter and Concord insta popped em so they got off one or two volleys the first round (they failed), Then they bumped (just 1 Machariel now) and agressed freighter 2 more times before they came in sys (1more time after they were in sys) with rookie toons to keep timer on it for 30 more minutes (15+15) (60 or so minutes in total) while they deaggressed global and reshipped then they came back in sys for another 5-10 minutes then finished it.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#513 - 2013-07-04 19:27:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
S Byerley wrote:
What semantics? It doesn't matter if he was trying to make ISK or to actually harass the guy because the only person who can make that distinction is him (and even then it's subjective and largely philosophical).

Honestly, I think the problem is you just don't understand the rule. That the player claims to feel harassed does not make the actions that led to him making that claim harassment. If that were true, people would game the system by claiming harassment.
Therefore, CCP look at the facts and try to make a determination of the players intent - was he intending to make ISK or satisfy any tangible in-game goals doing this, or was he doing it just to harass the person?

And yet you bleat on and on that you don't need to show intent - you could not be more wrong because CCP judge intent. CCP have stated they judge intent. I really have no idea why you keep saying the literal opposite to what the facts are. It's either wilful belligerence or you lack the intellect to realise that you are looking at a fact.
Quote:
In which case,

A. The GM can't tell the difference

or

B. The GM uses contextual information to distinguish between them

In the case of B, the algorithm will have the same contextual information and it's reasonable to assume that some trend/relation (no, I can't tell you which without the data because finding them is the whole point of data mining) can be used to predict the GM's ruling

Well OK, now we're getting to the nuts and bolts of it - the discussion I asked to have with you countless posts ago.

You're claiming that "there will be some data that can show the player intended to harass the other player with no ulterior motive" -- well, unfortunately you can't simply state something is true, you need to demonstrate it is. Alternately, you can demonstrate similar techniques used in very similar applications and argue they can be applied. Both/either of which I have asked you to demonstrate for a very, very long time now.

The problem with your assertion that "the logs will show something" is I have demonstrated that scenarios can exist where identical server logs can lead to different judgement-based outcomes, based on contextual information that the server doesn't log.

The video in the OP might be ruled harassment, for instance, if the player could show evidence he was targeted for, say, religious reasons or because he was friends with someone. Contents of eve-mails, wallet transactions, conversations .. and the more nebulous idea that humans will make judgement calls on a level that is far greater than raw data can measure.

Now, if you're going to support your wild claims by claiming other wild claims (like "but the chat logs will be data-mined, too, so will support it!") then you're going to have to demonstrate the ability of a machine to accurately read a written language (lets not even look at typos, grammatical errors, or otherwise to confuse it) because otherwise you're just claiming something is true because you know it's 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,

Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#514 - 2013-07-04 19:30:06 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Elizabeth Aideron wrote:
contextual information in this case is generally going to be chatlogs. feel free to show how you can datamine harassment from those


Appropriately enough, that field is called text mining.

No such attempt at text-mining has been able to show intent, though.
The field is much, much more juvenile than whatever pamphlet you swallowed has led you to believe.

You must have shares in some tech company somewhere who have fed you a load of pie in the sky bullshit. No way you can be this invested in believing in technological make-believe otherwise.

"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.
#515 - 2013-07-04 19:31:27 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
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.

The brain is not a digital computer. At least, not in the traditional sense. There's quite a bit of evidence that suggests that the human brain (and indeed that of many or even most animals that have a central nervous system) is more analogous to a quantum computer.

Yeah, don't try to make this point. He will wail for ~2000 words that you can't prove this needs quantum computing (despite the fact digital computers cannot do it).

"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
#516 - 2013-07-04 19:33:09 UTC
Callyuk wrote:
This is how it went down. 2 machs bumped the freighter for 10 minutes or so (to get out of range of gate guns) and agressed with a rookie toon before goons showed up. Goons got there regrouped got concord in sys off grid that took em another 5-10 minutes (agressed with another rookie toon) then they warped in i went global just after they landed. Concord came in as they fired on the freighter and Concord insta popped em so they got off one or two volleys the first round (they failed), Then they bumped (just 1 Machariel now) and agressed freighter 2 more times before they came in sys (1more time after they were in sys) with rookie toons to keep timer on it for 30 more minutes (15+15) (60 or so minutes in total) while they deaggressed global and reshipped then they came back in sys for another 5-10 minutes then finished it.


So where were your friends?
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#517 - 2013-07-04 19:35:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Callyuk
i don't care about algorithms me i just want CCP to look at the video and logs in my case and determine if this is an intended use of game mechanics.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#518 - 2013-07-04 19:49:45 UTC
Callyuk wrote:
i don't care about algorithms me i just want CCP to look at the video and logs in my case and determine if this is an intended use of game mechanics.


Yes it is.
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#519 - 2013-07-04 19:51:01 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Callyuk wrote:
i don't care about algorithms me i just want CCP to look at the video and logs in my case and determine if this is an intended use of game mechanics.


Yes it is.



of course it is for you :)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#520 - 2013-07-04 20:00:25 UTC
Callyuk wrote:


of course it is for you :)


The day you catch a war target in a freighter while flying a frigate solo you will understand