These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#681 - 2013-07-05 18:19:44 UTC
Elizabeth Aideron wrote:
Callyuk wrote:
Trying to defend your cash cow with the tech nerfs coming we all understand :)


im pretty sure i know how were making up for that and it doesnt involve highsec freighters


It dosent involve fountain either LAWL
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#682 - 2013-07-05 18:20:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
Would the catalysts still be at the gate waiting?
In situation 1: no, because they're not actually involved in what's going on.
In situation 2: no, because many of them are outlaws and won't undock until the target is in the kill box.

Schalac wrote:
How they are held, and the process that you can go about countering the person that is holding you. In low, null and WH you can shoot the target without the certainty of losing your ship. In highsec if you shoot the target you WILL lose your ship. That is the biggest difference you can possibly get.
…but that difference is countered by the fact that in high, you can just log off to counter the whole “holding” bit, which leaves you about as free there as everywhere else. To counter this, the holders will have to do something they don't need to do in low or null, which is to lose a ship of their own, at which point it's definitely not “more freely” than elsewhere.

Quote:
If bumping is combat then make it an aggressive act and flag them for retaliation. If not then it is an abuse of game mechanics and should be deemed an exploit to do so constantly while in high sec.
It's not combat, so that part is easy. However, why should it be deemed an exploit? It's an intended game mechanic that has been specifically and explicitly deemed not and exploit, and it has plenty of counters.
Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
#683 - 2013-07-05 18:20:40 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Schalac wrote:

How they are held, and the process that you can go about countering the person that is holding you. In low, null and WH you can shoot the target without the certainty of losing your ship. In highsec if you shoot the target you WILL lose your ship. That is the biggest difference you can possibly get.


Show me a freighter with guns.
I'm going to block your posts because you are just a troll. Peace, bal.

SCHALAC HAS SPOKEN!! http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schalac
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#684 - 2013-07-05 18:21:31 UTC  |  Edited by: S Byerley
Tippia wrote:
Context, silly. I said that once the attack has begun (i.e. he's already done a number of mistakes and missed a couple of counters).


Context, silly goose. You said it was his fault for not doing anything while they held him for an hour, not before they started holding him.

Quote:
We can therefore safely conclude that it is the same thing and that you cannot think of even the slightest shred of an argument to the contrary.


Or that I'm echoing your own obstinance in a concise manner; I like my explanation better.

Quote:
Goodie, surrender accepted.


Sorry to disappoint, but declaring your own victory doesn't incite me. (just trying to save you some trouble)

Quote:
Of course I do.


Nope.
Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
#685 - 2013-07-05 18:23:35 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Would the catalysts still be at the gate waiting?
In situation 1: no, because they're not actually involved in what's going on.
In situation 2: no, because many of them are outlaws and won't undock until the target is in the kill box.

Schalac wrote:
How they are held, and the process that you can go about countering the person that is holding you. In low, null and WH you can shoot the target without the certainty of losing your ship. In highsec if you shoot the target you WILL lose your ship. That is the biggest difference you can possibly get.
…but that difference is countered by the fact that in high, you can just log off to counter the whole “holding” bit, which leaves you about as free there as everywhere else. To counter this, the holders will have to do something they don't need to do in low or null, which is to lose a ship of their own, at which point it's definitely not “more freely” than elsewhere.

Using a rookie ship on a throwaway alt is hardly a penalty compared to the amount of people and firepower needed to suicide a mach or two.

SCHALAC HAS SPOKEN!! http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schalac
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#686 - 2013-07-05 18:23:41 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Also, have you not seen that big thread about bumping? I'm sure it's been linked numerous times. The gist of that thread pretty much does indicate that bumping, if it's for some legitimate purpose, is valid.

You can make the font bigger if you have a hard time reading the screen



Here's the problem with that. Miner bumping is not used ion the same way. Miner bumping is to encourage the miner to leave. Freighter bumping is to keep the ship from leaving.

Intent CAN be proven, simply by the actions of the target (log of warp being clicked for instance).

Now, since you CAN data mine that freighter spamming warp, you can infer intent. "Yes, as you can see by the number of times I was spamming my warp shortcut and right clicking with my mouse, I was trying to get away".

But you cannot prove intent by the bumper except for hitting the approach key. You know he wanted to bump, but that's all.

(By the way, this is why I first replied that miner bumping was a terrible example when it first came up).

Now, since we know the differences of intent, we can then look to the differences of intent, in regards, to harassment.

For instance, we do know, by GM declaration, that harassment was decided by following the miner, from system to system while continuing to bump. This is in regards to knowing you are bumping a miner from a rock so he cannot mine it, to which a simple recourse is to leave the system and find somewhere else.

Using that same model (but in reverse since freighter bumping is meant to KEEP the ship in system, not force it out), continually NOT letting that freighter to leave would be deemed harassment since that freighter was then pushed around multiple grids in system (proven by Concord placement and vectors of such) as well as kept from the gate and gate guns and not able to leave. Approach versus Warp/jump, as the command given to facilitate the harassment.

Before this gets argued, we already know bumping is not illegal. Yes yes we know this. The act by itself did not get the freighter killed.

It was a combination of mechanics that led to what looks like 1 specific instance of how those mechanics, when used in combination, by manipulating current mechanics to reduce risk of the ganker and increase risk of the freighter that relies specifically to highsec's mechanics.

Of which was used to what looks like a matter of excess to the point of harassment.

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
#687 - 2013-07-05 18:24:22 UTC
Schalac wrote:
I'm going to block your posts because I have no argument that stands. Peace, bal.


Fixed.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#688 - 2013-07-05 18:25:18 UTC
Tippia wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Please list one other potential encounter that would be effected by limiting the timer of a passive party in highsec to 10m.
Let's cut out the irrelevant parts of that question before answering it…

I'll give you four:
· Killing any kind of supercap.
· Killing some of the sturdier capships.
· Learning to gank (be it by suicide or lowsec camp).
· Any attack where the aggressor's numbers means it'll take 10–15 minutes to locate and kill the target.

…and, again, there's no reason to reduce the timer to 10 minutes. That means we have a lot of breakage and no advantage. Not the best basis for a change, you know.



The situation was in highsec, I think it's very relevant. It was using highsec mechanics.

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.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#689 - 2013-07-05 18:25:29 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Context, silly goose. You said it was his fault for not doing anything while they held him for an hour, not before they started holding him.
…and there were plenty of things that he could have done. In fact, there were things he did, but which he fumbled.

So in other words, there are plenty of counters and I never said otherwise

Quote:
Or that I'm echoing your own obstinance in a concise manner; I like my explanation better.
…and in doing so, proving me more and more right with every post you make. If that's not your objective, how about answering a simple question: why did the OP let the gankers keep him there for an hour and do nothing to help himself?

Quote:
Nope.
Prove it.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#690 - 2013-07-05 18:25:30 UTC
Schalac wrote:

If bumping is combat then make it an aggressive act and flag them for retaliation.


Jita just got very interesting.
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#691 - 2013-07-05 18:25:58 UTC
when i post on an obvious border line exploit im a whiner but when goons get screwed by a node crash its legit LAWL
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#692 - 2013-07-05 18:26:57 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:


The majority of L4 missions are completed in under an hour, should we therefore make it impossible to complete a L4 mission if you dilly dally and take longer than an hour?

What if we said you weren't allowed finish hauling stupidly expensive cargo in a freighter to your desired destination purely because the trip would take longer than the average freighter trip?

Or anything else equally as stupid



Well, at the point of ignoring the "bonus" part of a mission as well, a bonus, it's hard to correlate a comparison truth be told.

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
#693 - 2013-07-05 18:27:26 UTC
Tippia wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Seems pretty relevant since all your examples happen in low/null.
It's not relevant because the rules apply the same everywhere for the same reasons.

15 minutes is enough to ensure that you can kill a target that tries to log off to save itself; 10 minutes is often not, or cuts it too close. I'd say that the only reason it's not 30 minutes is because it is to ask a bit too much of people's patience to wait that long before logging off.



Where is Concord in all your examples then?

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.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#694 - 2013-07-05 18:28:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
The situation was in highsec, I think it's very relevant. It was using highsec mechanics.
It is not relevant because we're not talking about some kind of “highsec mechanic” — we're talking about the CrimeWatch timers, which are the same all over the place.

Schalac wrote:
Using a rookie ship on a throwaway alt is hardly a penalty compared to the amount of people and firepower needed to suicide a mach or two.
It is when you consider how cheaply you can completely negate any profit that might have come out of the gank. Bumping Machs are hardly sturdy ships, and losing one hurts…

Quote:
Where is Concord in all your examples then?
In the “not related to PvP timers” column.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#695 - 2013-07-05 18:29:28 UTC
Tippia wrote:
If that's not your objective, how about answering a simple question: why did the OP let the gankers keep him there for an hour and do nothing to help himself?


Quote:
there were things he did


You might be doing something wrong when I can answer your questions with your own argument from the same post.

Quote:
Prove it.


No thanks.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#696 - 2013-07-05 18:29:41 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
The majority of L4 missions are completed in under an hour, should we therefore make it impossible to complete a L4 mission if you dilly dally and take longer than an hour?


Nah, we might consider reducing the reward though.... oh wait.

Tippia wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Seems pretty relevant since all your examples happen in low/null.
It's not relevant because the rules apply the same everywhere for the same reasons.


I wasn't aware that high sec had no unique rules


Reducing the reward is not the same as making it mechanically impossible to complete. You also ignored the other example I provided. Should you not be able to reach your destination if your trip takes longer than the majority of freighter trips do?

What about those two situations I posed to you? You still kind of havent addressed them....



Good point, and leads to my "diminishing returns" theory.

Take that L4 and it's bonus reward for completing it within a specific amount of time.

Imagine a hardcode for the loot fairy if you do not execute a gank in X amount of minutes.

Now again, keep in mind ganking freighters is for profit and compute the need for expediting that amount of time needed.

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.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#697 - 2013-07-05 18:29:47 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
You said High Sec. The Wartarget status of a ship generally only matters in.... [drumroll] Highsec.


Why do you feel that a frigate who catches a WT freighter in HS shouldn't be able to kill it?


Sorry, I assumed an exception for war targets fell under "obvious constraints".



So now you're proposing two separate Aggression logoff timers depending on WT status? Can a WT Aggro timer extend a non-WT timer? Can a non-WT aggro timer extend a WT timer? Why should the WT status of the person shooting at you affect the type of timer you get?

So now we have 3 rules regarding when your ship disappears from space. One for HS between WTs, One for HS without WTs, and One for everywhere else. Why should HS have not one, but two sets of special snowflake logoff mechanics?

Keep in mind that the explicit intent of the Aggression logoff timer is to keep your ship in space until people who are actively shooting at you are done doing so. That's why it's extended by 15 minutes every time anyone shoots your ship, even after you disconnect.

"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
#698 - 2013-07-05 18:30:58 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Also, have you not seen that big thread about bumping? I'm sure it's been linked numerous times. The gist of that thread pretty much does indicate that bumping, if it's for some legitimate purpose, is valid.

You can make the font bigger if you have a hard time reading the screen



Here's the problem with that. Miner bumping is not used ion the same way. Miner bumping is to encourage the miner to leave. Freighter bumping is to keep the ship from leaving.

Intent CAN be proven, simply by the actions of the target (log of warp being clicked for instance).

Now, since you CAN data mine that freighter spamming warp, you can infer intent. "Yes, as you can see by the number of times I was spamming my warp shortcut and right clicking with my mouse, I was trying to get away".

But you cannot prove intent by the bumper except for hitting the approach key. You know he wanted to bump, but that's all.

(By the way, this is why I first replied that miner bumping was a terrible example when it first came up).

Now, since we know the differences of intent, we can then look to the differences of intent, in regards, to harassment.

For instance, we do know, by GM declaration, that harassment was decided by following the miner, from system to system while continuing to bump. This is in regards to knowing you are bumping a miner from a rock so he cannot mine it, to which a simple recourse is to leave the system and find somewhere else.

Using that same model (but in reverse since freighter bumping is meant to KEEP the ship in system, not force it out), continually NOT letting that freighter to leave would be deemed harassment since that freighter was then pushed around multiple grids in system (proven by Concord placement and vectors of such) as well as kept from the gate and gate guns and not able to leave. Approach versus Warp/jump, as the command given to facilitate the harassment.

Before this gets argued, we already know bumping is not illegal. Yes yes we know this. The act by itself did not get the freighter killed.

It was a combination of mechanics that led to what looks like 1 specific instance of how those mechanics, when used in combination, by manipulating current mechanics to reduce risk of the ganker and increase risk of the freighter that relies specifically to highsec's mechanics.

Of which was used to what looks like a matter of excess to the point of harassment.


This is very well put.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#699 - 2013-07-05 18:31:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Schalac wrote:

If bumping is combat then make it an aggressive act and flag them for retaliation. If not then it is an abuse of game mechanics and should be deemed an exploit to do so constantly while in high sec. This is only partly about escape. It is more about having a viable counter to a broken game mechanic and if CCP can't add one in then they should outlaw it and people that use this tactic in the future will have actions taken against their account.

Multiple posters have posted multiple counters multiple times, but you're so set on your train of thought being the correct one that you've dismissed them as irrelevant.

It's not up to you to decide what is and what is not an abuse of game mechanics, when you can prefix your character name with CCP then you can make that decision.

This post was brought to you by the letters I,D,O and T.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#700 - 2013-07-05 18:31:43 UTC
Tippia wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
You'd have no problem with a mechanic that reduced the reward of your gank then?
Red herring.

Quote:
Courier contracts/missions have timers as well, afaik.
None that make it mechanically impossible to complete them.


Is it only storyline missions that get you a friendly eve mail about how disappointed that Agent is in you if you do not complete the mission?

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.