These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#801 - 2013-07-06 13:11:40 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Typherian wrote:
Yes it says "hey we are using the systems provided to kill people trying to solo in an MMO." You can whine and cry all you want but playing eve solo will always put you at a disadvantage. Crying that you don't like a mechanic doesn't make it an exploit.



If you need the mechanic to accomplish a goal, without having to depend on it (let it do it's thing in the background) then it's working how it should. You know... such as... having to chase a ship, or try to reship and let that timer keep the person getting away scot free.

When you sit there and take pop shots, just to refresh a timer so he cannot do anything, that's exploiting it.



What bizarro EVE are you playing where the ability to refresh the timer to keep the ship in space is an exploit? Because in this reality, CCP literally designed that mechanic specifically to accomplish that. Freighters, along with caps, were exploiting log off mechanics to win in situations they shouldn't, which is exactly why CCP made it.

wtf man I honestly don't understand you
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#802 - 2013-07-06 13:12:11 UTC
Callyuk wrote:
Goon Gummy Bear Tears MMMMMMMM YUMMMY

I guess when every pathetic argument you've made has been evicerated but you are still too angry to not post all you can do is insist you actually won.
PeHD0M
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#803 - 2013-07-06 13:28:09 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Yet I bet you see no issue with ponting a titan for 3 hours. Once again the bears of highsec demand to be exempt from pvp.

Wrong. "Bears" demand consequences for warp scrambling using the bumping trick. Hi-sec, low-sec, 0.0, wh-space have different agression rules. Nobody denies you the right to warp scram the neutral ship in hi-sec.. but your ship will be killed by concord. Why that should be different with the bumping trick if it is the same thing?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#804 - 2013-07-06 14:02:47 UTC
PeHD0M wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Yet I bet you see no issue with ponting a titan for 3 hours. Once again the bears of highsec demand to be exempt from pvp.

Wrong. "Bears" demand consequences for warp scrambling using the bumping trick. Hi-sec, low-sec, 0.0, wh-space have different agression rules. Nobody denies you the right to warp scram the neutral ship in hi-sec.. but your ship will be killed by concord. Why that should be different with the bumping trick if it is the same thing?


Well aside from CCP stating that it is not an exploit and a valid tactic to use and the fact that jita would be very interesting, I can tell you that this tactic has counters.
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#805 - 2013-07-06 14:31:38 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
I think Callyuk has completely lost his mind, he's just ranting against the goon bogeyman when the majority of the people in this thread aren't even goons to begin with


No im just pointing out the Irony of them saying im a crying Noob , But when they do it its Not Whining Its Stating the facts ;)
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#806 - 2013-07-06 14:34:37 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
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.



So how are you using bumping as a warp disruptor when bumping a miner from mining a rock?


Bump the miner so he cannot align to warp off and then gank it. Exactly what we are doing with freighters.



But that wasn't in reference to miner bumping, because that doesn't happen anymore.

That was the way of long outdated can flipping. Now a handful of catalysts land, and blow the ship out of the water.

Hence my confusion as to why you compare the 2.

I mean, it's not to say you CAN'T still do the same thing. It just isn't the norm any longer.

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
#807 - 2013-07-06 14:34:59 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
PeHD0M wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Yet I bet you see no issue with ponting a titan for 3 hours. Once again the bears of highsec demand to be exempt from pvp.

Wrong. "Bears" demand consequences for warp scrambling using the bumping trick. Hi-sec, low-sec, 0.0, wh-space have different agression rules. Nobody denies you the right to warp scram the neutral ship in hi-sec.. but your ship will be killed by concord. Why that should be different with the bumping trick if it is the same thing?


Well aside from CCP stating that it is not an exploit and a valid tactic to use and the fact that jita would be very interesting, I can tell you that this tactic has counters.



Titans Moms Carriers Dreads Rorqs all dont apply to my thread. Only freighters and jf's and only in high sec and only in non war target situations . The conditions for this thread are very specific
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#808 - 2013-07-06 14:38:06 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
[rabble rabble rabble]


I'm mildly curious why you're all on the same page throwing "intent" around like it means something. You can't reference a single instance of CCP mentioning anything even remotely similar, so.... Do Goons have some sort of internal memo on the topic? Is it just a convenient loophole to cling to? Too many lawyer dramas maybe? Perhaps you just like my rambling on the topic?

Inquiring minds want to know.


If you look through the dev blogs you will find the crimewatch blog that says CCP do not want logging off to be a valid tactic when attacked and if you look back to around spring last year you will find a blog made by the head GM stating that bumping is seen as another form of warp disruption in their eyes. So we know CCPs oppinion on this matter.




Yep. Absolutely true.

But also irrelevant in this case. The logoff timer was manipulated. That timer, as we know as explained as well, (and from reading the dev blogs) are for the continuation of a fight. Example- you die, you have time to reship and get revenge while still tilted in the heat of the battle. Also, in case you ARE able to get away, you can still be chased. Also, for ships who can aggress back (this is where its apparent freighters dont apply), if you survive a guerilla tactic, you can chase the aggressor and NOT let him just disappear after his attempt failed.

I sincerly doubt the timer was put in place so you can take 1 shot in a noob ship doing 0 damage every 5 minutes just so your victim cannot logoff.

If you are saying that is intended and that's how you can only accomplish your meta game.. then well... you are ****.

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.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#809 - 2013-07-06 14:38:29 UTC
Callyuk wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
PeHD0M wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Yet I bet you see no issue with ponting a titan for 3 hours. Once again the bears of highsec demand to be exempt from pvp.

Wrong. "Bears" demand consequences for warp scrambling using the bumping trick. Hi-sec, low-sec, 0.0, wh-space have different agression rules. Nobody denies you the right to warp scram the neutral ship in hi-sec.. but your ship will be killed by concord. Why that should be different with the bumping trick if it is the same thing?


Well aside from CCP stating that it is not an exploit and a valid tactic to use and the fact that jita would be very interesting, I can tell you that this tactic has counters.



Titans Moms Carriers Dreads Rorqs all dont apply to my thread. Only freighters and jf's and only in high sec and only in non war target situations . The conditions for this thread are very specific


Why should high HP ships in highsec be able to exploit log off mechanics to avoid situations in which they would die? That is why these mechanics are here
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#810 - 2013-07-06 14:41:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Mag's wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I think you are starting to supplement data to reinforce facts that do not exist.
How so?

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. 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.
1. Freighters having a specific function in the game, does not and should not make them exempt from this aggression timer. It was put in place to stop people logging off to save their skin and includes all ships. Hence why this doesn't make the freighter special in this regard.

2. See 1.

3. I agree with Tippia and just worded what he said differently. Maybe English isn't your first language? But after reading other posts, there is most certainly a lack of comprehension on your part. No disrespect intended.



None taken, you joined in late (such as I did) and I'm allowing you time to catch up. You are only selectively reading and I don't think you are soaking in everything, hence why you even bother to wonder if english is my native language.

It's quite a bit simpler if you slow it down and read the context as opposed to get an initial idea and run with it.

For an example, I agreed with you in regards to the GMs having a final say. Tippia did not say that. Tippia speaks for everyone at all times. Will tell you exactly what YOU are thinking, what CCP is thinking, and what everyone else is thinking. Will also ignore blatant facts to simply manipulate a fact to suit her own theories.

If you want to do that, I will definitely disagree with you as well =)

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.
Elizabeth Aideron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#811 - 2013-07-06 14:42:33 UTC
Callyuk wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
PeHD0M wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Yet I bet you see no issue with ponting a titan for 3 hours. Once again the bears of highsec demand to be exempt from pvp.

Wrong. "Bears" demand consequences for warp scrambling using the bumping trick. Hi-sec, low-sec, 0.0, wh-space have different agression rules. Nobody denies you the right to warp scram the neutral ship in hi-sec.. but your ship will be killed by concord. Why that should be different with the bumping trick if it is the same thing?


Well aside from CCP stating that it is not an exploit and a valid tactic to use and the fact that jita would be very interesting, I can tell you that this tactic has counters.



Titans Moms Carriers Dreads Rorqs all dont apply to my thread. Only freighters and jf's and only in high sec and only in non war target situations . The conditions for this thread are very specific


"nobody should be exempt from combat except me"
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#812 - 2013-07-06 14:49:27 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
No, I can't quote CCP saying this because it's the logical result of someone saying they will judge someone's actions on a case-by-case basis.


Judging based on intent of the aggressor isn't a logical result of judging on a case to case basis; it just isn't. I've already done my best to explain why, but you dropped the line of discussion.

So, once again, what's the common denominator? Warped logic would be a really boring answer.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#813 - 2013-07-06 14:50:16 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
PeHD0M wrote:
Can you disable the neutral ship with warp scram in hi-sec? - Yes
Consequences? - GCC, Concordokken, loss of the security status

Can you disable the neutral ship by bumping it for hours in hi-sec? - Yes
Consequences? - None. Clearly an exploit.

I don't know how to fix it. Even more, i'm not sure that it is even possible to fix it without changing the warp mechanics. But clearly something should be done by CCP, otherwise sooner or later that trick will ruin the game for a lot of players in hi-sec.


We have been doing this for a decade...



Is this to say you want all things to revert back to how they used to be? Are you saying you don't want future changes? Are you saying you don't like tiericide?

Otherwise, that's not a very good excuse.

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
#814 - 2013-07-06 14:52:28 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Typherian wrote:
Yes it says "hey we are using the systems provided to kill people trying to solo in an MMO." You can whine and cry all you want but playing eve solo will always put you at a disadvantage. Crying that you don't like a mechanic doesn't make it an exploit.



If you need the mechanic to accomplish a goal, without having to depend on it (let it do it's thing in the background) then it's working how it should. You know... such as... having to chase a ship, or try to reship and let that timer keep the person getting away scot free.

When you sit there and take pop shots, just to refresh a timer so he cannot do anything, that's exploiting it.



What bizarro EVE are you playing where the ability to refresh the timer to keep the ship in space is an exploit? Because in this reality, CCP literally designed that mechanic specifically to accomplish that. Freighters, along with caps, were exploiting log off mechanics to win in situations they shouldn't, which is exactly why CCP made it.

wtf man I honestly don't understand you


That's because you're approaching the subject as someone who wants to manipulate something in order to accomplish a goal.

You shouldn't have to.

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
#815 - 2013-07-06 14:54:30 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Because CCP thinks War decs are the [best] way to pvp someone in high sec. It would be transparent at the user level anyway.


Where on Earth are you getting this garbage? Where have CCP said that the only "[best]" way to PVP in highsec is through wars? I've never seen that anywhere. Do you believe that suicide ganks, baiting, etc are all invalid forms of PVP? If they're not the "[best]" way to PVP why have CCP explicitly implemented those abilities?


GM Karidor wrote:
If you are reported and we find you actively following around a target without a war to continue bumping a specific player, it will still (at some point) considered harassment, even if you divert your 'attention' a little while doing so. If you have a bone to pick with someone, declare a war and take the risk that your target may actually taste blood and fight back (or finds allies for that part).


Seem like a good sentiment to me.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#816 - 2013-07-06 14:55:14 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Callyuk wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
PeHD0M wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Yet I bet you see no issue with ponting a titan for 3 hours. Once again the bears of highsec demand to be exempt from pvp.

Wrong. "Bears" demand consequences for warp scrambling using the bumping trick. Hi-sec, low-sec, 0.0, wh-space have different agression rules. Nobody denies you the right to warp scram the neutral ship in hi-sec.. but your ship will be killed by concord. Why that should be different with the bumping trick if it is the same thing?


Well aside from CCP stating that it is not an exploit and a valid tactic to use and the fact that jita would be very interesting, I can tell you that this tactic has counters.



Titans Moms Carriers Dreads Rorqs all dont apply to my thread. Only freighters and jf's and only in high sec and only in non war target situations . The conditions for this thread are very specific


Why should high HP ships in highsec be able to exploit log off mechanics to avoid situations in which they would die? That is why these mechanics are here



Because if you are going to aggress a ship and do combat, you should do combat. Not exploit a mechanic to work around that.

You're saying freighters are wanting to exploit a logoff timer because you are exploiting a mechanic that doesn't allow them to.

That's a ****** argument don't you think?

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.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#817 - 2013-07-06 15:08:42 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
No, I can't quote CCP saying this because it's the logical result of someone saying they will judge someone's actions on a case-by-case basis.


Judging based on intent of the aggressor isn't a logical result of judging on a case to case basis; it just isn't. I've already done my best to explain why, but you dropped the line of discussion.

So, once again, what's the common denominator? Warped logic would be a really boring answer.


Well then lets go back to the two situations I posted ten pages back - how do you determine which of those is harassment without judging intent.

Go.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#818 - 2013-07-06 15:17:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
PeHD0M wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Yet I bet you see no issue with ponting a titan for 3 hours. Once again the bears of highsec demand to be exempt from pvp.

Wrong. "Bears" demand consequences for warp scrambling using the bumping trick. Hi-sec, low-sec, 0.0, wh-space have different agression rules. Nobody denies you the right to warp scram the neutral ship in hi-sec.. but your ship will be killed by concord. Why that should be different with the bumping trick if it is the same thing?


You can demand nothing. The precedent is already made, set, and done with. That's all there is to it.

Bumping is different because *drumroll* it isn't an attack! Aggression, and thus flagging and being CONCORD'ed in highsec, is determined by the activation of modules.

It is both impossible and unfeasible in it's entirety to clamor for bumping counting as aggression, so you die in highsec from it. It is open to vast, disgusting abuses based on any criteria they choose to use for it. If bumping someone gets your ship blown up, then all I have to do is sit in a brick tank ship with a big hitbox on an undock, and then everyone dies.

It is beyond moronic to even suggest such a thing. The only, even most remotely possible way for it to work, is if somehow the kind of computing power existed to determine fault on a case by case basis within the client. And such a thing is hilariously impossible.

There is no way around it. Bumping is a consequence of the physics engine the game uses. We cannot overhaul the entire game, and the consequences of making bumping some kind of aggression are far worse than the "problem" that exists at present.

So, basically, whether they realize it or not, the people crying about bumping cannot, will not, and must never get what they want. They can cry til the world ends if they want, but it's not happening. They'd be well advised to start playing the game the right way instead.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#819 - 2013-07-06 15:24:07 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
No, I can't quote CCP saying this because it's the logical result of someone saying they will judge someone's actions on a case-by-case basis.


Judging based on intent of the aggressor isn't a logical result of judging on a case to case basis; it just isn't. I've already done my best to explain why, but you dropped the line of discussion.

So, once again, what's the common denominator? Warped logic would be a really boring answer.


Well then lets go back to the two situations I posted ten pages back - how do you determine which of those is harassment without judging intent.

Go.


Feel free to go check my answer 9 pages back... and 8 pages back.... and 7 pages back, ect.
Elizabeth Aideron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#820 - 2013-07-06 15:30:21 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
No, I can't quote CCP saying this because it's the logical result of someone saying they will judge someone's actions on a case-by-case basis.


Judging based on intent of the aggressor isn't a logical result of judging on a case to case basis; it just isn't. I've already done my best to explain why, but you dropped the line of discussion.

So, once again, what's the common denominator? Warped logic would be a really boring answer.


Well then lets go back to the two situations I posted ten pages back - how do you determine which of those is harassment without judging intent.

Go.


Feel free to go check my answer 9 pages back... and 8 pages back.... and 7 pages back, ect.


you mean when you sperged out about computers data mining chatlogs? (this would also be judging intent)