These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#701 - 2013-07-05 18:33:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
S Byerley wrote:
You might be doing something wrong when I can answer your questions with your own argument from the same post.
No. It means I know the answers to my questions, and I'm trying to figure out if you do.

So: why did the OP let the gankers keep him there for an hour and do nothing to help himself? If you want to build on the answer I gave because you can't answer it yourself, please specify what it was he did.

Quote:
No thanks.
Ok. So we can completely disregard your claim then. Not only are you (immensely) interested, as your posting history show, but I measure up just fine. Thank you for the nice compliment. It's very kind of you. Now, since I impress you so, perhaps you can be grant me the favour of answering the question?

Murk Paradox wrote:
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?
I wouldn't know; I've never failed one, because none of them are mechanically impossible to complete.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#702 - 2013-07-05 18:35:29 UTC
S Byerley wrote:


This is very well put.


Until you are told that CCP consider bumping to be a form of warp disrupting.
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#703 - 2013-07-05 18:36:08 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
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.

.Extremely Well Put
Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
#704 - 2013-07-05 18:40:03 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
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.

And what were their counters, suicide, suicide, give up, give up, give up and counter bump. Counter bump is the only even plausible counter and it is not very effective in and of itself as it doesn't put an end to act at hand. Only maybe slightly delays it, and to be effective at counter bumping you will need atleast as many pilots that are bumping you in ships capable of bumping them. That is ridiculous that you would even have to think of making a ship for bumper protection. F-in kindergarten BS.

SCHALAC HAS SPOKEN!! http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schalac
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#705 - 2013-07-05 18:42:35 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
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?


In my opinion? WT timer should behave exactly the same as the current timer, non-WT timer shouldn't extend any other time (or itself + some grace period to allow logging off) - obviously this is only under aforementioned constraints.

Quote:
Why should the WT status of the person shooting at you affect the type of timer you get?


Because CCP thinks War decs are the correct way to pvp someone in high sec. It would be transparent at the user level anyway.

Quote:
Why should HS have not one, but two sets of special snowflake logoff mechanics?


Why not? You can't really pretend that a few extra conditionals are abhorrent from an aesthetic point of view, but bumping someone for an hour isn't.

Quote:
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.


Exactly, but an alt doing a flyby in a noob ship every 15m doesn't really constitute actively shooting someone.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#706 - 2013-07-05 18:43:18 UTC
Callyuk wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
This is very well put.

.Extremely Well Put

It's well written, but it is also incorrect. The same model can't be used for freighter bumping since it's only a single event, whereas the harassment-worthy mining bumping example is multiple events over a multiple locations and at multiple times.

If, when the freighter pilot undocks after having bought a brand new freighter, he immediately gets bumped off the the station grid and (possibly, but not necssarily) ganked again without any gain in it, then maybe it starts to approach the initial stages of harassment.Post
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#707 - 2013-07-05 18:43:28 UTC
True
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#708 - 2013-07-05 18:43:55 UTC
Callyuk wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
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.

.Extremely Well Put
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#709 - 2013-07-05 18:45:46 UTC
Tippia wrote:
S Byerley wrote:


[quote]Also, why do you think it's important for someone with that same timer be able to dock but not escape open space?
Because docking is contingent on there being some place to dock and because it requires the target to actually deliberately there and successfully docking — not just killing the client.



So we are not questioning the safety of a freighter or the ability to kill it 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
#710 - 2013-07-05 18:46:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
S Byerley wrote:
In my opinion? WT timer should behave exactly the same as the current timer, non-WT timer shouldn't extend any other time (or itself + some grace period to allow logging off) - obviously this is only under aforementioned constraints.
…but the question remains: why? Why do they need to be different?

Quote:
Because CCP thinks War decs are the correct way to pvp someone in high sec.
No. CCP thinks that ganks, wardecs, and duels are the correct ways to pvp engage in combat in highsc. The ways to actually PvP are far more numerous.

Quote:
Why not?
That doesn't answer the question. Why should highsec have two special-snowflake logoff mechanics? What purpose would it serve? What problem does it solve? Why is it needed?

Murk Paradox wrote:
So we are not questioning the safety of a freighter or the ability to kill it then?
What? When docked up? No. That's what stations are for — very much unlike logging off while under fire.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#711 - 2013-07-05 18:46:58 UTC
Schalac wrote:

And what were their counters, suicide, suicide, give up, give up, give up and counter bump. Counter bump is the only even plausible counter and it is not very effective in and of itself as it doesn't put an end to act at hand. Only maybe slightly delays it, and to be effective at counter bumping you will need atleast as many pilots that are bumping you in ships capable of bumping them. That is ridiculous that you would even have to think of making a ship for bumper protection. F-in kindergarten BS.


Try reading some of the counters before posting next time, some of them are common sense, like not making yourself a target, others are a bit more involved and require friends.

You obviously have selective reading trained to 5, now train reading comprehension to the same level and we might get somewhere.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#712 - 2013-07-05 18:48:09 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Not only are you (immensely) interested, as your posting history show


I, obviously, have no eggs in the basket. Getting a layman's perspective on CS stuff was pretty interesting, but you have succeeded in making the rest fairly dull.

Quote:
but I measure up just fine.


Your posting persona is boring and rigid.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#713 - 2013-07-05 18:48:16 UTC
Schalac wrote:

And what were their counters, suicide, suicide, give up, give up, give up and counter bump. Counter bump is the only even plausible counter and it is not very effective in and of itself as it doesn't put an end to act at hand. Only maybe slightly delays it, and to be effective at counter bumping you will need atleast as many pilots that are bumping you in ships capable of bumping them. That is ridiculous that you would even have to think of making a ship for bumper protection. F-in kindergarten BS.


3 blackbirds will jam at the very least half a gank fleet (you can get away with one) and a single t1 armour logi will have the freighter repped up to full long before a second round of ships can even undock.

That's how easy it is.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#714 - 2013-07-05 18:49:53 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Tippia wrote:
S Byerley wrote:


[quote]Also, why do you think it's important for someone with that same timer be able to dock but not escape open space?
Because docking is contingent on there being some place to dock and because it requires the target to actually deliberately there and successfully docking — not just killing the client.



So we are not questioning the safety of a freighter or the ability to kill it then?


It is statistically one of the safest ships to be in and has one of the biggest tanks in high sec.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#715 - 2013-07-05 18:49:54 UTC
Tippia wrote:


Quote:
My opinion is that act after a certain amount of time constitutes harassment. It is also my opinion that if you cannot legally attack them without losing your ship, that should be cause for the action being deemed an exploit.
…and CCP's opinion is that the “certain amount of time” is counted in days or weeks, and that you have all the tools you need at your disposal to get rid of them. It's up to you to choose which one you'll use. If you have no other options, it already is an exploit, because apparently, they've managed to get hold of ships that don't bump (but then, how do they manage to bump the freighter!?), modules that somehow restrict you from warping without triggering an aggression flag (but then, why are they bumping?!), modules that keep you from logging off, ejecting, calling for help, etc etc etc.




CCP's opinion?

Citation please.

The reason I ask is because of the supposed amount of time on that timer versus the amount of downtime each day used on the servers.

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
#716 - 2013-07-05 18:52:42 UTC  |  Edited by: S Byerley
Tippia wrote:
but the question remains: why?


Kennedy wrote:
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?


Tippia wrote:
The ways to actually PvP are far more numerous.


True; I should have said it was the best way, which is obviously a sentiment they've expressed.
Varesk
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#717 - 2013-07-05 18:53:31 UTC
jedijed wrote:
http://youtu.be/0MmIsrAQPM4

Being Bumped for an hour kinda kills a little bit of the like and excitement i have for this game,,,

Fisrt the 2 machariels bumped me for 10 minutes or so before goons ever showed up.

Second i never fly freightors i knew they get ganked but i thought it was only in .5 .6 systems

Third i didnt know it could be done in 30 fuc***** destroyers :(

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18472599

http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&view=kills&plt_id=341330&m=6&y=2013


you could have logged off, went outside, then returned later to continue your voyage in a very slow ship across the universe. or you could have had an alt with a web to get in to warp faster.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#718 - 2013-07-05 18:54:29 UTC
Tippia wrote:


Quote:
That freighter IS a special snowflake, no matter how you cut it.
The only way for it to be special is if you invent some hitherto unknown cut that completely redefines how the game works…



Fair enough. Feel free to show me a ship that has the same access to the same modules to support your argument that all ships are the same.

In fact... let's just make it easier (I am fair I suppose) and explain to me how a freighter can aggress someone like ANY other ship in the game (minus a shuttle of course).

Oh wait, you might want to play the card how the burden of proof is on me.

Well, uhm, I claim the freighter is special because it cannot aggress anything.

Your turn.

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
#719 - 2013-07-05 18:58:46 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:


Your turn.


That doesn't make it exempt to the rules on everything else.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#720 - 2013-07-05 18:59:07 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Quote:

If we are going to guess... let's try to guess why a disposable alt, or even better, a brand new character that's a stranger, in a noobship, was passing by and decided to shoot a freighter or even have the skill to use a scram.

If we are going to guess, that is.


I ***** on killmails I'm not a part of all the freaking time, dude. Plenty of people do it. "Hey, free freighter kill, come get some!". Hilariously, the best ship to do it in, if it's a gank, is a newbie ship, since you lose nothing by losing it, and it still has a gun on it. Stop assuming every new player you ever see is someone's alt. Maybe this guy just saw a chance and took it. In which case, good for him, on a freighter killmail his first day. :)


True enough, cuz slowboating over 150km off gate in a noobship is quite alright given the amount of time you are allowed to hold a freighter from moving on, or not being able to kill it before a noobship can get to it.

Again it reinforces my point but you are not wrong.

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.