These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#741 - 2013-07-05 19:36:45 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
and explain why your definition of the term is better than CCP's definition of "gaps longer than 15 minutes."


It's not inherently better, CCP just had a different context in mind; thus the aforementioned restrictions.



You neglected to define "significant gap." You have to provide a definition before arguing that your definition is better.

If it's not better, why change it?

CCP's context was:
Quote:
Logging off should not be a viable tactic
We are changing the logoff mechanics in such a way that as long as your enemies are actively engaged in fighting you, logging off is not going to save your ship.

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/capital-ship-balancing/

Emphasis mine.


So, what is your definition of a "Significant Gap," why is it better than CCP's definition, and why should logging off be a viable tactic to save your ship from destruction by people who are fighting you?

"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
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#742 - 2013-07-05 19:40:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Tippia wrote:
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.


It wasn't the only mechanic used. And it was in highsec. We aren't talking about a null freighter, or a low freighter or a wh freighter. We are talking about an instance in highsec and highsec mechanics were used. It is relevant.



Quote:
In the “not related to PvP timers” column.


It is in highsec. Which shows the difference of this situation compared to anywhere else.

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
#743 - 2013-07-05 19:44:30 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.



idot?

You mean it was an eye dee ten tee error?

=)

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
#744 - 2013-07-05 19:45:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
We are talking about an instance in highsec and highsec mechanics were used. It is relevant.
…except that there are no “highsec mechanics” — there are only the CrimeWatch timers, which are the same all over the place, and bumping, which is the same all over the place. So it being in highsec is not relevant.

Quote:
It is in highsec. Which shows the difference of this situation compared to anywhere else.
…except that being in highsec is not relevant since we're talking about the PvP timer, which is the same all over the place. CONCORD is not related to the timer. The situation is no different from any other part of space: if you're attacked, you incur a 15-minute PvP timer — be it in highsec or lowsec or nullsec.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#745 - 2013-07-05 19:48:18 UTC
Tippia wrote:


I wouldn't know; I've never failed one, because none of them are mechanically impossible to complete.


So it's not mechanically possible to fail either? Or rather, there is no mechanic installed to declare it failed? I don't know either since I don't do storyline missions, but when I have done missions, I remember getting a mail from an Agent I never accepted the mission from (I don't stay in highsec long when I do go there; it sucks).

I don't do missions enough to know if storyline ones were the only ones that did that.

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.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#746 - 2013-07-05 19:49:01 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:

You mean it was an eye dee ten tee error?

=)


The 4 unique letters were used to refer to a 5 letter word where 1 of the letters is used twice. Learn to Sesame Street Big smile

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#747 - 2013-07-05 19:50:40 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
S Byerley wrote:


This is very well put.


Until you are told that CCP consider bumping to be a form of warp disrupting.




Again, why focusing on bumping and it's relations to bumping miners is, as I've said, a terrible comparison.

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
#748 - 2013-07-05 19:51:05 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

You mean it was an eye dee ten tee error?

=)


The 4 unique letters were used to refer to a 5 letter word where 1 of the letters is used twice. Learn to Sesame Street Big smile



Fair enough =(

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.
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#749 - 2013-07-05 19:54:57 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.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#750 - 2013-07-05 19:56:52 UTC
Tippia wrote:
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



In my defense you can claim, and be right, that you were harassed by a bumper (as a miner) in one day. You just have to prove he followed you over multiple systems. I do not think a matter of time (be it hours or days or weeks) need to be a requirement for proof.

Again, bumping freighters and bumping mining barges are entirely different and not comparable since the intent is different.

(Hell, mining barges can field drones as a defense).

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
#751 - 2013-07-05 19:58:54 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:

Again, why focusing on bumping and it's relations to bumping miners is, as I've said, a terrible comparison.


Its exactly the same thing, the only difference is the size of the object we are ramming into.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#752 - 2013-07-05 20:04:35 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


Your turn.


That doesn't make it exempt to the rules on everything else.



It invalidates the fact when someone says the freighter was just like every other ship in the game that the timer affects, and also helps create credibility as to why it is indeed special (which is what the argument was; that the freighter is not special in any way, to which I'm arguing).

This, when used to say that the timers were put in place because of freighters, and you are unconsciously arguing that point when you say freighter ganks are at an all time low.

If ganks were at all time low, and freighters are moving loads by the hundreds, and the timer was put in place because of freighters avoiding combat...

Well, someone between you and Tippia are wrong. You guys figure out which is which. The timers aren't THAT new.

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
#753 - 2013-07-05 20:13:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
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.

Now you're asking me to do very precise searches on the forum without the benefit of remembering which (probably no longer employed) GM made the statement in 2008… Suffice to say, it has come up on numerous occasions, and harassment of the kind we're talking about here has consistently been described as something that happens over a prolonged period, at multiple occasions, and preferably multiple log-ins (there's also harassing speech acts, which are a different matter… in nothing else than because they're far more explicitly forbidden by the EULA and TOS).

And yes, the time required for it to be called harassment versus the daily downtime is pretty important: since no act can carry over from before to after downtime, that is a universal cut-off point that's handy to go by: if you can't get them before downtime, the target will escape. If you choose to pick it up again when he returns, it is pretty obviously not a single occurrence, but rather the first two instances in what might be a longer campaign — longer campaigns being the big no-no.


2008... contrary to changes that are in place because of those outdated mechanics you mean?

Quote:
“All ships are the same” is not the opposite of “freighters are special”. All that's required for them to not be special is that any other ship shares similar characteristics. Freighter's access to modules, for instance, is shared by shuttles and pods.


Wait wait wait. Now you're stretching nonsensicals. First, you told me that freighters are NOT special, that they ARE "just like every other ship in game" so you just contradicted yourself. Second, you said (I think it was you) said freighters were more like a capital ship than anything else (argued that capitals cannot enter highsec even though they are allowed to remain if grandfathered in at creation date). Now you're comparing freighters to shuttles and pods. Interesting. A ship with the largest cargo bay compared to the only 2 ships, of one is not a ship btw(pod), that have the smallest cargo hold. In the game.

Quote:
…but we're not talking about weapons timers — we're talking about PvP timers. The ability to aggress someone is not a factor, and this (in)ability is not something that puts freighters in a special category of their own.


Special. Yes. Not "like every other ship in the game". This has been my point for quite some time. Of which you have argued with me. Thank you for finaly agreeing with me.

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.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#754 - 2013-07-05 20:13:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Callyuk wrote:
Multiple posts containing the exact same quote with no added content

Now try adding some actual content instead of endlessly repeating the same post.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#755 - 2013-07-05 20:16:37 UTC
Tippia wrote:
And, once again, even if it did, why should they be given special exemptions from the timers? Timers, I remind you, that were put into place to remove the kind of tactics that the special exemption is meant to provide.



Well, wait another second.

baltec1 said freighter ganking is at an all time low, and you are saying that freighters are responsible for the new mechanics.

One of you are full of it.

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
#756 - 2013-07-05 20:17:44 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Doesn't that show that a freighter is not equipped to handle the dangers of open space?
Sure. That is probably intentional. They are extremely well served by having a small support fleet, for instance — this is a fairly common attribute among capital ships.

Then again, almost everything in space is well-served by having a fleet to support it, so that doesn't say much. It's almost as if there's some kind of implicit push towards grouping up built into the game… Blink



Almost like orcas and carriers and such right?

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.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#757 - 2013-07-05 20:18:29 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


1. I think bumping needs to have some consequences attached but because ships bump into each other all the time finding some reasonable way to do this eludes me, the only thing i can think of that would really solve the problem eliminates bumping altogether and reduces 'immersion' and that is to make all ships pass through one another rather than collide.

2. This doesn't help your situation but the devs have made it clear they are looking into the situation of freighters being a bit to easy to kill in their current form and as always deliver on that promise is coming "soon".

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#758 - 2013-07-05 20:19:04 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



Doesn't that show that a freighter is not equipped to handle the dangers of open space?

(separate argument concerning ships and equality).


Given the hundreds of thousands of trips these ships make every month (perhaps millions) the very fact that only several dozen are killed in all of EVE a month says that they are very much equipped for the dangers out there.

Freighter ganking is very rare.



Well, they were common enough to have a mechanic put in place just because of their ability to avoid ganking.

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
#759 - 2013-07-05 20:20:30 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


To coin your phrase... "what abuse?". baltec1 himself said ganks were at an all time low. SO I find a lack of credibility in your statement.




Actually Freighter ganks are at a high, we have turned it into a true industry. Its miner ganking that is at an all time low.



Miner ganking has nothing to do with logoff timers.

The barge revamp however, was. Although it can be argued that the isk per loss is quite considerably higher than it used to be.

Coincidence?

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
#760 - 2013-07-05 20:24:22 UTC
Tippia wrote:


Quote:
Lack of slots, lack of drone bay, no way to aggress, ganks are at an all time low. This has been covered already. Freighters are very unique and "special".
Lack of slots is shared with other ships. Lack of drone bay shared with tons of different ships (many of them even have explicit attack roles). An inability to aggress is shared with other ships. None of it makes freighters unique or special.





And what ONE ship has no aggressing module and no drone bay? And don't bother saying shuttles and pods for the love of god. That's way too obtuse.

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.