These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#641 - 2013-07-05 17:11:35 UTC
Ace Uoweme wrote:
Because it does already, simply with having CONCORD around.
Yeah, no. The rules for combat are still the same, and there's no reason why it should be different.

Quote:
Then add that CCP has special circumstances in the area as a measure to not scare off 9 out of 10 new players.
Those rules and measures have nothing to do with highsec, though.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#642 - 2013-07-05 17:16:28 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Quote:
(He obviously didn't)
…except that he obviously did, even by his own description. In fact, he must have, or it wouldn't have gone on for an hour. That's how the mechanics work. If you are so interested in them, maybe it's about time you learn this fact.


IIRC, you claimed that the tactic had no counter (regardless of how long the gank takes) if executed correctly. Or are you still trying to convince us that it's hard to execute?

Quote:
Quote:
I asked my question first
You didn't ask any question.


I did though. Go back and look for the question mark.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#643 - 2013-07-05 17:17:12 UTC
S Byerley wrote:


nou


Very well we will take this refusal to answer as yet more evidence that you have no argument and should be ignored by CCP.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#644 - 2013-07-05 17:19:32 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Very well we will take this refusal to answer as yet more evidence that you have no argument and should be ignored by CCP.


Feel free; your opinion (much like mine), doesn't matter much to CCP.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#645 - 2013-07-05 17:20:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Mag's wrote:
Of course they should be affected by the aggression mechanic. The whole reason for it's inception, was due in part to these things logging off to save their skin. So to close that loophole/exploit, CCP introduced the timer.
Freighters are not and should not be due special treatment in this regard, because they cannot aggress. If they wish to avoid aggression, they have options. Use corp mates to scout/web and utilize other routes.

The justification remains the same for all ships in space. They can all be shot to hell and back and not avoid such things with a log off. Freighters are no different.



But you just agreed with me and obviously Tippia, then disagreed. Which is kind of odd tbh. You really should follow what you and others post.




I think you are starting to supplement data to reinforce facts that do not exist.

Point 1- Yes, freighters ARE special. The do not have all the functionality othyer ships do in regards to having an aggression timer applied to them. Except maybe a shuttle. Is that what you're trying to say? Freighters are shuttles? Didn't think so. AVOIDING the need for the mechanic applied is moot. We are not talking about preventive maintenance, but application.

Point 2- Same as point 1. Freighters are most definitely not like any other ship in the game, except shuttles (yes shuttles can have an aggression timer too, but that is an entirely different topic isn't it?). You want to say a freighter is a capital, that's why they can't logoff, or why the need for the timer existed? Fine. Keep them out of highsec! Make them the same. Or give them the ability to aggress "like every other ship in game" (except shuttles bleh).

Point3- I do not agree with Tippia to say it takes DAYS to become "excessive". You yourself said that is not possible (downtime) and that GM/DEVs have final say. I do not understand how you can think it's impossible to agree with you and not Tippia at the same time. Maybe it isn't me who should try to keep up with other people posting. Take your own advice maybe.

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.
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#646 - 2013-07-05 17:20:59 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Yeah, no. The rules for combat are still the same, and there's no reason why it should be different.


Do you have CONCORD in null...yeah, no. The rules aren't the same because you don't have an NPC police force. Which exists in high-sec to protect it's residents. And also you don't have conditions, like using bombs IN Jita. Nor antics like can-flipping being dimly looked at by CCP.

Combat has changed in high-sec. Blinders don't change that fact.

_"In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." _ ~George Orwell
Elizabeth Aideron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#647 - 2013-07-05 17:22:54 UTC
Ace Uoweme wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Yeah, no. The rules for combat are still the same, and there's no reason why it should be different.


Do you have CONCORD in null...yeah, no. The rules aren't the same because you don't have an NPC police force. Which exists in high-sec to protect it's residents. And also you don't have conditions, like using bombs IN Jita. Nor antics like can-flipping being dimly looked at by CCP.

Combat has changed in high-sec. Blinders don't change that fact.


and yet the timers are the same because extended combat can and should take place anywhere. deal with it
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#648 - 2013-07-05 17:24:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Ace Uoweme wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Typherian wrote:
Moving **** is solo play defending yourself from people that want to blow your stuff up isn't.


Sure, but when one requires the other because the mechanics are too one-sided, it becomes a problem. I think most people advocating mechanic adjustment are trying to point out imbalance rather than outright brokenness; better to fix it now than after someone gets kicked out of nullsec and decides to take advantage of the risk-free, stupid easy, tear-filled income potential.

Quote:
hey I'm moving stuff in my freighter can any of you bros scout me with a highsec alt.


People keep saying this like it would have made a difference. Are freighters supposed to route around every 0.8 high sec gate with a neutral battleship on it?


You make good points.

But the solution to the mechanic won't come easy, as that's to fix the physics first.

After the other day getting trapped -- literally -- on a top of a structure, then IN a structure due to the bouncing physics in the game, more so.

Things like that in other games is totally unacceptable. The bumping mechanic is accepted as an interesting feature, but the cause of it is the physics. The same physics you see when NPC ships are bumping and bouncing all over the same gates (unacceptable)...and players get stuck on in missions.


LOL, I wonder if you could petition an /unstuck if you're being bumped by a ship (like getitng stuck on a collidable).

I mean hell, if it takes a certain amount of time as there is no forward action going on... /shrug.

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
#649 - 2013-07-05 17:26:27 UTC
Aura of Ice wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
intent.


Intent is a philosophical concept mate; as a cold unfeeling scientist you'll have to forgive me for not getting it. Fortunately, it's unnecessary; I'm not sure how to make that any clearer.

Well, no it isn't. For as much as you have ignored the point - bumping is not against the rules.

Bumping for 2 minutes is not against the rules.
Bumping for 15 minutes is not against the rules.
Bumping for 30 minutes is not against the rules.
Bumping for 60 minutes is not against the rules.
Bumping for 90 minutes is not against the rules.
Bumping with the intent to harass is against the rules.

You are therefore looking at causation (in the legal sense, law here being CCP's statute), to which there are two established parts, actus reus and mens rea -- you're able to show actus reus (a fact I have not disputed at any point) but to date, no computer analysis has been able to form a judgement on issues of mens rea. If you're able to show I am wrong on this .. then great! Do so and I will look like a complete idiot for saying it's impossible over and over.

However, if you're saying you can't understand why you're wrong here because you lack the ability to think outside of black and white classifications, then I will accept that. I will even explain why you're wrong (again) if you like. The answer is in all my previous posts but I don't think you're reading them, or are reading them and willfully ignoring their content.


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.



Yea, that's what Tippia told me when I said hours (1+) was "excessive".

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.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#650 - 2013-07-05 17:29:44 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
S Byerley wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Very well we will take this refusal to answer as yet more evidence that you have no argument and should be ignored by CCP.


Feel free; your opinion (much like mine), doesn't matter much to CCP.


Well they followed my advice and feedback on the second look at the Megathron hull slot layout.

Now, why is it that given an hour of being under attack the freighter pilot didn't get help from the hundreds of pilots in his alliance?
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#651 - 2013-07-05 17:32:29 UTC  |  Edited by: S Byerley
baltec1 wrote:
Well they followed my advice and feedback on the second look at the Megathron hull slot layout.


I'm sure.

Quote:
Now, why is it that given an hour of being under attack the freighter pilot didn't get help from the hundreds of pilots in his alliance?


Maybe because they had no efficient countermeasure?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#652 - 2013-07-05 17:33:00 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
IIRC, you claimed that the tactic had no counter (regardless of how long the gank takes) if executed correctly.
[citation needed] There are plenty of counters, but I suspect that you took two words out of context to read it as if there aren't. And no, I'm not trying to convince you since you are apparently impervious to facts. At this point, I merely suggest that you go out and try it yourself and that you explain why it's such a rare event if it's not hard to execture.

Quote:
I did though. Go back and look for the question mark.
The last question you asked was “You wouldn't have any problem with CCP limiting the timer to 10m then?”, which was answered in full, so no, you did not. You're not in the queue. Now, answer his question: why did the OP let the gankers keep him there for an hour and do nothing to help himself?

While you're at it, why not answer all the other questions you've skipped?

Ace Uoweme wrote:
Do you have CONCORD in null...yeah, no. The rules aren't the same because you don't have an NPC police force.
…and yet, the rules for the timers (from both players and NPCs) are the same no matter where you are, and there's still no reason why it should be any different.

Combat has been made consistent, which means that there are no special rules for highsec any more. Blinders don't change that fact, and asking for them to be made inconsistent again requires some pretty good reasons — none have been given. Oh, and no, CCP does not look dimly at can flipping. What on earth gave you that idea? Lol
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#653 - 2013-07-05 17:33:31 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Very well we will take this refusal to answer as yet more evidence that you have no argument and should be ignored by CCP.


Feel free; your opinion (much like mine), doesn't matter much to CCP.


Well they followed my advice and feedback on the second look at the Megathron hull slot layout.

Now, why is it that given an hour of being under attack the freighter pilot didn't get help from the hundreds of pilots in his alliance?

ITT: Person who isn't good at Eve loses freighter, becomes expert on CCP's official opinion of user feedback.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#654 - 2013-07-05 17:34:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaju Enki
Ace Uoweme wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Yeah, no. The rules for combat are still the same, and there's no reason why it should be different.


Do you have CONCORD in null...yeah, no. The rules aren't the same because you don't have an NPC police force. Which exists in high-sec to protect it's residents. And also you don't have conditions, like using bombs IN Jita. Nor antics like can-flipping being dimly looked at by CCP.

Combat has changed in high-sec. Blinders don't change that fact.


Oh look, the WoW expert is spamming nonsense again.

Concord is not in the game to protect, Concord is in the game to punish. About Bombs... Bombs are only truly balanced in Bubble Land, so their not allowed in Empire Space. And last but not least, Can Flipping, CCP has no problem with it whatsoever, it's just another sandbox system. What CCP "dimly looks" is baiting rookies in starting systems.

The Tears Must Flow
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#655 - 2013-07-05 17:42:03 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
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



Wouldn't a wartarget just be scrammed and held through active means and also not have Concord involved?

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.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#656 - 2013-07-05 17:42:07 UTC  |  Edited by: S Byerley
Tippia wrote:
There are plenty of counters, but I suspect that you took two words out of context to read it as if there aren't.


Naw, context is pretty much how I remembered it:

Tippia wrote:
Epikurus wrote:
I'm not familiar with the mechanics of this but the big question seems to be whether there is any effective counter. Is there anything at all that a solo freighter pilot can do in this situation to avoid being killed or is death a foregone conclusion the moment the attack is initiated?

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.


Quote:
which was answered in full


No it wasn't.

Quote:
While you're at it, why not answer all the other questions you've skipped?


You're not interesting enough to talk around in circles with, sorry.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#657 - 2013-07-05 17:42:24 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Point 1- Yes, freighters ARE special. The do not have all the functionality othyer ships do in regards to having an aggression timer applied to them.
Just because they have no slots doesn't mean they are treated any differently than other ships, and being without slots doesn't make them special either.

So why should they have special leave to ignore mechanics that were specifically in place to put an end to a kind of abuse that freighters were often using?

Quote:
Freighters are most definitely not like any other ship in the game, except shuttles (yes shuttles can have an aggression timer too, but that is an entirely different topic isn't it?).
It's not so much a different topic as proof that they're not special. And hell, even if they were, why should they be given special rules to dictate their survivability when one of the main purposes behind the new timers were to take away that ability?

Quote:
I do not agree with Tippia to say it takes DAYS to become "excessive". You yourself said that is not possible (downtime) and that GM/DEVs have final say.
You can keep bumping people for days, at which point it becomes excessive and the GMs will start to inquire into your intentions. What's not possible is to keep bumping and refreshing PvP timers for days. In fact, it's the impossibility of the latter that lets the former slide into the realm of harassment if it happens for the wrong reasons: because you're doing something a number of days when there's no reason or benefit from keeping it up for that long.
Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
#658 - 2013-07-05 17:43:52 UTC
Tippia wrote:
and yet, the rules for the timers (from both players and NPCs) are the same no matter where you are, and there's still no reason why it should be any different.

Combat has been made consistent, which means that there are no special rules for highsec any more. Blinders don't change that fact, and asking for them to be made inconsistent again requires some pretty good reasons — none have been given. Oh, and no, CCP does not look dimly at can flipping. What on earth gave you that idea? Lol

No it hasn't. If anything it allows you to harass people more freely in high sec than in any other part of the game. That is the total opposite of consistent. In low or null you can go weapons free and there is not the certainty of losing your ship. In high sec the only way to stop them is to suicide into them. That is not consistent. That means there are also special rules in play because of the zone you are in. AND, it is not even a true deterrent that they won't just come back at you again in a new ship causing you to have to suicide against them again. Either make them legally attackable or it should be deemed an exploit.

Look, I have no idea why you are defending this infinitely ridiculous game mechanic, but it is making you look infinitely ridiculous.

SCHALAC HAS SPOKEN!! http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schalac
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#659 - 2013-07-05 17:44:13 UTC
S Byerley wrote:


Maybe because they had no efficient countermeasure?


Right...

So a whole alliance did not have anyone able to fly logistic ships, insta canes/zealots/anything with medium guns, blackbirds, anything fitted with webs? Sounds like a terrible alliance that the freighter pilot should leave.
Elizabeth Aideron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#660 - 2013-07-05 17:44:32 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Tippia wrote:
There are plenty of counters, but I suspect that you took two words out of context to read it as if there aren't.


Naw, context is pretty much how I remembered it:

Tippia wrote:
Epikurus wrote:
I'm not familiar with the mechanics of this but the big question seems to be whether there is any effective counter. Is there anything at all that a solo freighter pilot can do in this situation to avoid being killed or is death a foregone conclusion the moment the attack is initiated?

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.


Quote:
which was answered in full


No it wasn't.


what part of "outside interruption" dont you understand