These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#861 - 2013-07-06 18:27:59 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
So uhm.. no. I am not making anything up. You said that. Numerous times.
Yes you are. At no point did I say that freighters abusing it was the basis for the mechanic. Everyone that could abused it, and it had to go — freighters were just one of many common examples.

If you tried actually reading the quotes you provided rather than just hope that they said what you imagined, you'd notice that I'm consistently saying the same thing: abusing the old timer mechanics to let you log off and save your ship was rampant; freighters abused this tactic too; there is no reason to give this particular abuse back to freighters.

Quote:
Don't ever bother trying to insinuate otherwise.
I don't have to insinuate anything since the simple fact is that you just made it up. Instead, I think I'll insinuate that you need to go see an optometrist…

…wait, it's not much of an insinuation if I say it outright like that, is it?

Quote:
Uhm, what? Are you strawmanning now? Scroll up to post #855 and read wtf she posted.
…ok, and where did I say that the timers were fixed because of freighters, specifically?


I'll put it into simpler terms so you analog brain can digest it.

Khanh'rhh wrote:

None of the timers require constant fire; they were designed specifically with that in mind (to be able to probe down ships sitting in safe spots with aggression).

You said otherwise.

You're wrong. Or he is wrong.

Figure it out.

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
#862 - 2013-07-06 18:29:39 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
So uhm.. no. I am not making anything up. You said that. Numerous times.
Yes you are. At no point did I say that freighters abusing it was the basis for the mechanic. Everyone that could abused it, and it had to go — freighters were just one of many common examples.

If you tried actually reading the quotes you provided rather than just hope that they said what you imagined, you'd notice that I'm consistently saying the same thing: abusing the old timer mechanics to let you log off and save your ship was rampant; freighters abused this tactic too; there is no reason to give this particular abuse back to freighters.

Quote:
Don't ever bother trying to insinuate otherwise.
I don't have to insinuate anything since the simple fact is that you just made it up. Instead, I think I'll insinuate that you need to go see an optometrist…

…wait, it's not much of an insinuation if I say it outright like that, is it?

Quote:
Uhm, what? Are you strawmanning now? Scroll up to post #855 and read wtf she posted.
…ok, and where did I say that the timers were fixed because of freighters, specifically?



You said for logoff. Of which freighters exploited. Stop making me bandaid your obtuse semantics.

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.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#863 - 2013-07-06 18:31:16 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
So uhm.. no. I am not making anything up. You said that. Numerous times.
Yes you are. At no point did I say that freighters abusing it was the basis for the mechanic. Everyone that could abused it, and it had to go — freighters were just one of many common examples.

If you tried actually reading the quotes you provided rather than just hope that they said what you imagined, you'd notice that I'm consistently saying the same thing: abusing the old timer mechanics to let you log off and save your ship was rampant; freighters abused this tactic too; there is no reason to give this particular abuse back to freighters.

Quote:
Don't ever bother trying to insinuate otherwise.
I don't have to insinuate anything since the simple fact is that you just made it up. Instead, I think I'll insinuate that you need to go see an optometrist…

…wait, it's not much of an insinuation if I say it outright like that, is it?



You should reread your own quotes. I did not edit them in anyway, shape or form.

1)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?

2)No, that's not what the timer is for. The PvP timer is specifically there to make sure that logging off to avoid combat is not a viable tactic for any kind of ship (including freighters, since they were common offenders of abusing the older timer mechanics). There's a completely different timer that dictates those kinds of things and the freighter is already exempt from ever triggering it.

3)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

You ******* said that ****. VERBATIM.

Those are your own godamn words.


Funny how you're unable to actually quote them Roll

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#864 - 2013-07-06 18:32:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
So uhm.. no. I am not making anything up. You said that. Numerous times.
Yes you are. At no point did I say that freighters abusing it was the basis for the mechanic. Everyone that could abused it, and it had to go — freighters were just one of many common examples.

If you tried actually reading the quotes you provided rather than just hope that they said what you imagined, you'd notice that I'm consistently saying the same thing: abusing the old timer mechanics to let you log off and save your ship was rampant; freighters abused this tactic too; there is no reason to give this particular abuse back to freighters.

Quote:
Don't ever bother trying to insinuate otherwise.
I don't have to insinuate anything since the simple fact is that you just made it up. Instead, I think I'll insinuate that you need to go see an optometrist…

…wait, it's not much of an insinuation if I say it outright like that, is it?



You should reread your own quotes. I did not edit them in anyway, shape or form.

1)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?

2)No, that's not what the timer is for. The PvP timer is specifically there to make sure that logging off to avoid combat is not a viable tactic for any kind of ship (including freighters, since they were common offenders of abusing the older timer mechanics). There's a completely different timer that dictates those kinds of things and the freighter is already exempt from ever triggering it.

3)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

You ******* said that ****. VERBATIM.

Those are your own godamn words.


Funny how you're unable to actually quote them Roll


Uhm, I did quote them. I even cited my work by listing the post number.

You know, proved my work. HINT-(you just need to go to the original post on the same page)

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.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#865 - 2013-07-06 18:33:57 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Uhm, I did quote them. I even cited my work by listing the post number.

You know, proved my work.




You mean post #855 that contains exactly nothing of what you're claiming? Yeah I read that, stop making stuff up.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#866 - 2013-07-06 18:35:25 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



Since it's your standard, it's your business.

How you want to come off to anyone else is ultimately up to you I suppose.

Becareful of your accusations however, because I do not mention sub numbers. I am quite confident in my knowledge that the marketing team and the development team have different priorities.

You WILL however, get people to not want to fly those same hulls you hunt if you show how easily manipulated those timers can be when a freighter has no innate ability to protect itself.

That has nothing to do with subscriptions.


You quoted me answering someone else...

As for people not flying freighters, their sales have not changed for the past year so it would seem they are not being impacted at all by a handful getting killed a month. So again, we see more evidence showing this to not be an issue at all.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#867 - 2013-07-06 18:35:26 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Uhm, I did quote them. I even cited my work by listing the post number.

You know, proved my work.




You mean post #855 that contains exactly nothing of what you're claiming? Yeah I read that, stop making stuff up.



Making what up? I didn't make anything up, only posted quotes.

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
#868 - 2013-07-06 18:36:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



Since it's your standard, it's your business.

How you want to come off to anyone else is ultimately up to you I suppose.

Becareful of your accusations however, because I do not mention sub numbers. I am quite confident in my knowledge that the marketing team and the development team have different priorities.

You WILL however, get people to not want to fly those same hulls you hunt if you show how easily manipulated those timers can be when a freighter has no innate ability to protect itself.

That has nothing to do with subscriptions.


You quoted me answering someone else...

As for people not flying freighters, their sales have not changed for the past year so it would seem they are not being impacted at all by a handful getting killed a month. So again, we see more evidence showing this to not be an issue at all.



baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



"but we been doing that for a decade now" is a pisspoor standard when you are trying to advocate being on the cutting edge of highsec mechanics sir.


Its the perfect response to someone who just said that it is going to start to drive off players and will hurt sub numbers because quite clearly it hasn't and won't.


Who was the someone else?

It really shouldn't be too hard to ask that if you're going to claim something, atleast be honest.

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
#869 - 2013-07-06 18:37:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
You should reread your own quotes. I did not edit them in anyway, shape or form.
…which is nice, since it shows that I at no point said freighters were the reason the fixed the timers.

Quote:
You ******* said that ****. VERBATIM.
I said that there were ways of abusing the timers, and that these abuses were removed because they were stupid. Just because freighters were among the many types of ships that abused them doesn't mean that freighters were the only reason the timers were fixed. There were far bigger fish to fry.

The reason freighters keep coming up in the quotes is because that's the topic at hand and because it's being suggested that they — specifically — should be allowed to get their timer-abuse ability back for no particular reason.

Quote:
Those are your own godamn words.
…and they don't include “freighters abusing the timers was the basis for the change”. That's something you've made up, not me.

Everyone abusing the timers — in any ship that could (i.e. pretty much all of them) — was the basis for changing them. The abuse was the reason for the change; not freighters. Freighters were just not given special pardon (because why they hell should they), and thus, when people say that freighters should be given special pardon from this change, I ask “why the hell should they?”

Get it? Or are you a complete imbecile?

Quote:
Making what up?
The things I supposedly said, but which are all a figment of your imagination (or, to be a bit more kind: a figment of you reading far too much into things… which is much the same thing).
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#870 - 2013-07-06 18:42:47 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.


I just kept seeing you insist that intent was irrelevant.

Are you now saying intent is relevant, but feel that it can be determined easily by a computer?

Whether or not it is even possible for a computer to do that in general, the situations I posted are constructed in a way in which the data available to make such a decision is potentially identical (as I could be talking to the catalyst pilots on teamspeak, rather than in game voice/chat, and they could easily be in different corps and not in fleet, etc)

So again, how, in those situations, would one be determined to be harassment over the other.

Go.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#871 - 2013-07-06 18:43:31 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:


Who was the someone else?

It really shouldn't be too hard to ask that if you're going to claim something, atleast be honest.


PeHD0M, page 40.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#872 - 2013-07-06 18:44:14 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
You should reread your own quotes. I did not edit them in anyway, shape or form.
…which is nice, since it shows that I at no point said freighters were the reason the fixed the timers.

Quote:
You ******* said that ****. VERBATIM.
I said that there were ways of abusing the timers, and that these abuses were removed because they were stupid. Just because freighters were among the many types of ships that abused them doesn't mean that freighters were the only reason the timers were fixed. There were far bigger fish to fry.

The reason freighters keep coming up in the quotes is because that's the topic at hand and because it's being suggested that they — specifically — should be allowed to get their timer-abuse ability back for no particular reason.

Quote:
Those are your own godamn words.
…and they don't include “freighters abusing the timers was the basis for the change”. Everyone abusing the timers — in any ship that could (i.e. pretty much all of them) — was the basis for changing them. The abuse was the reason for the change; not freighters. Freighters were just not given special pardon (because why they hell should they), and thus, when people say that freighters should be given special pardon from this change, I ask “why the hell should they?”

Get it? Or are you a complete imbecile?

Quote:
Making what up?
The things I supposedly said, but which are all a figment of your imagination (or, to be a bit more kind: a figment of you reading far too much into things… which is much the same thing).



Using your words, freighters are just like every other ship in the game. One specific ship using a logoff mechanic is your own special blend of asshattery.

Logoff tactic, regardless of what ship can use it, is what we are discussing concerning a freighter in this thread.

Because the aggression timer, used in conjunction with concord timers, apply to this scenario as it was executed in highsec.

Therefore, it is relevant. You are claiming it is not. You are saying the logoff timer is why the mechanic is there. The other goon said it was to probe safe ships.

Regardless of which, baltec has claimed that ganking is at an all time LOW.

If that mechanic was put in place to halt the logging off of freighters (such as you claimed) ganking should be on the rise.

Baltec also said they are making an industry out of it now.

All it takes is the manipulation of 2 mechanics to make it possible. Whereas the mechanic, ALSO said by you (way in the beginning of the thread), was because of capitals logging off in pvp combat. You'll have to forgive me if I'm wrong, I am not going to be bothered linking that post, but it was inferred that freighters were capitals so therefore it applied to them (again was weak).



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
#873 - 2013-07-06 18:44:43 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


Who was the someone else?

It really shouldn't be too hard to ask that if you're going to claim something, atleast be honest.


PeHD0M, page 40.




Ah ok, just used me in the quote, all good. Glad it's cleared up.

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
#874 - 2013-07-06 18:47:01 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:


Regardless of which, baltec has claimed that ganking is at an all time LOW.






Barge ganking is at an all time low.

Freighters are higher than normal but still very very rare.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#875 - 2013-07-06 18:50:14 UTC
44 Pages of bad players insisting that freighters should be able to log off to avoid dying when people shoot at them.

lol
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#876 - 2013-07-06 18:51:19 UTC
Look, it's simple.

In the scenario this thread has generated, the gank would not have been accomplished had it not been for the manipulation of 2 mechanics.

Both sides were stupid.

"mistakes were made" and all that.

Trying to argue about who said what for this reason is just doing nothing.

The facts still remain; the gank shouldn't have been successful. But it was.

The mechanics should still be looked at, for reasons other than the fact a freighter died.

A pilot, of a ship unable to perform combat, was stuck in place with mechanics that when applied, created a situation that should be a concern for the dev staff to take a look at and decide if it is in fact working as intended, or would need further research and/or tweaking.

As much as we all have our own opinions, it will not be a right or wrong aspect since we obviously will drive this thread into the ground and none of us are admitting to being a dev, so therefore the point is moot.

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
#877 - 2013-07-06 18:53:19 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Look, it's simple.

In the scenario this thread has generated, the gank would not have been accomplished had it not been for the manipulation of 2 mechanics.

Both sides were stupid.

"mistakes were made" and all that.

Trying to argue about who said what for this reason is just doing nothing.

The facts still remain; the gank shouldn't have been successful. But it was.

The mechanics should still be looked at, for reasons other than the fact a freighter died.

A pilot, of a ship unable to perform combat, was stuck in place with mechanics that when applied, created a situation that should be a concern for the dev staff to take a look at and decide if it is in fact working as intended, or would need further research and/or tweaking.

As much as we all have our own opinions, it will not be a right or wrong aspect since we obviously will drive this thread into the ground and none of us are admitting to being a dev, so therefore the point is moot.



Actually, the mechanics were not abused and the gank should have succeeded specifically because those mechanics were put in place in order to allow a gank like this to succeed. CCP do not want you to be able to win a fight by just unplugging the god damn thing.

Hope this helps.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#878 - 2013-07-06 18:53:44 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
44 Pages of bad players insisting that freighters should be able to log off to avoid dying when people shoot at them.

lol



Make no mistake, let me be clear. It's not the dying part that gives me cause for discussing the mechanic. It's the amount of time it took to get that ship even to a point of dying that should have allowed him to logoff.

Hell, I'd have petitioned it and let a GM intervene (had I cared about dying in a game) if it took some jackasses an hour from keeping me to my destination.

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
#879 - 2013-07-06 18:54:57 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Look, it's simple.

In the scenario this thread has generated, the gank would not have been accomplished had it not been for the manipulation of 2 mechanics.

Both sides were stupid.

"mistakes were made" and all that.

Trying to argue about who said what for this reason is just doing nothing.

The facts still remain; the gank shouldn't have been successful. But it was.

The mechanics should still be looked at, for reasons other than the fact a freighter died.

A pilot, of a ship unable to perform combat, was stuck in place with mechanics that when applied, created a situation that should be a concern for the dev staff to take a look at and decide if it is in fact working as intended, or would need further research and/or tweaking.

As much as we all have our own opinions, it will not be a right or wrong aspect since we obviously will drive this thread into the ground and none of us are admitting to being a dev, so therefore the point is moot.



CCP have said that bumping to stop a target from warping is a valid tactic.

CCP put the agession mechanic in with the very goal of stopping people from logging off to escape losing their ship.

Nothing needs looking at because everything is working as intended.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#880 - 2013-07-06 18:55:21 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Look, it's simple.

In the scenario this thread has generated, the gank would not have been accomplished had it not been for the manipulation of 2 mechanics.

Both sides were stupid.

"mistakes were made" and all that.

Trying to argue about who said what for this reason is just doing nothing.

The facts still remain; the gank shouldn't have been successful. But it was.

The mechanics should still be looked at, for reasons other than the fact a freighter died.

A pilot, of a ship unable to perform combat, was stuck in place with mechanics that when applied, created a situation that should be a concern for the dev staff to take a look at and decide if it is in fact working as intended, or would need further research and/or tweaking.

As much as we all have our own opinions, it will not be a right or wrong aspect since we obviously will drive this thread into the ground and none of us are admitting to being a dev, so therefore the point is moot.



Actually, the mechanics were not abused and the gank should have succeeded specifically because those mechanics were put in place in order to allow a gank like this to succeed. CCP do not want you to be able to win a fight by just unplugging the god damn thing.

Hope this helps.



I agree, but it wasn't that mechanic alone that allowed that gank to happen.

Since you are not fully correct as it pertains to this thread, it unfortunately did not help.

If we want to talk about the logoff timer by itself, I'm sure there's more than a few threads about it in a different subforum.

This is about using 2 seperate mechanics 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.