These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1081 - 2013-07-08 14:44:39 UTC
Quote:
My point is, is that it shouldn't.

Just being a victim shouldn't warrant a timer. This has been mentioned quite a few times that is an opinion and also a suggestion, not a fact (which is why we are all players discussing it).

Seriously, pay attention.


Why shouldn't it? That basically removes any and all non-consensual pvp. Is that your objective here? If so, I suggest you simply play a different game.

"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.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1082 - 2013-07-08 14:54:14 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
I'll agree it's kind of dumb from a "roleplay" kind of perspective, but it's a necessary evil - prior to the recent changes, high ehp ships, like capitals and freighters, were manually killing the client to save themselves. That's really bad for a bunch of reasons, and from a role play perspective is also really dumb.

Obviously people who log off "properly" and not as a way to save themselves shouldn't be penalised, and for that theres safe log offs.

There's a few unfortunate situations where maybe disconnects or whatever leave players vulnerable through no fault of their own, but there's always going to be some edge case where something undesirable happens. The system is currently as good as it can be right now, I think



When you bump and refresh the timer in such a way... I don't think it's really a matter of the freighter trying to logoff at "first sign of danger" or anything remotely near that.

In this scenario, this was done to the point of excess (which was discussed 30+ pages ago) since to an extent that does in fact become abuse. Of course, it was then argued at that time that "excessiveness" needed to be proven by a matter of days (which strangely enough, downtime kind of trumps the logoff timer doesn't it?) which I think it would be silly and definitely against common sense to imply you need to bump a freighter and abuse the logoff timer in such a way that you could keep that ship online and in space for that long.



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
#1083 - 2013-07-08 14:57:39 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



Thank you for confirming what I've been trying to say. I just wanted acknowledgement that freighters were not "like any other ship".


But when it comes to the agression timer it is just like any other ship.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1084 - 2013-07-08 15:02:50 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
The important word there is armoured, an armoured car is specifically designed to resist an attack and in countries without draconian gun laws the guards are probably armed. A freighter on the other hand is not, and the pilot doesn't have a side arm, ergo, you bring friends to assist and provide the equivalent to both armour and side arms.


I like this argument. It shows where freighters shouldn't be used. Because those armored cars are designed to work in that way. You know... like gun ports and bullet proof glass and reinforced tires.

Quote:
Webbing is an offensive action - shortening align time was never an intentional function afaik; if there was something like an alignment boosting mod it would make a lot more sense.
It's not an offensive action if it's applied by a corp member (another game mechanic), it's clever use of game mechanics to get a ship into warp faster.[/quote]

It's not punishable by Concord you mean. It's still an offensive action.

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.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1085 - 2013-07-08 15:06:48 UTC
Bumping is a valid tactic, however ... Ten minutes?

Did you ask them to cease and desist after an appropriate amount of time?

Next time do that and then petition their asses for harassment when/if it drags out ..

In short: What they are doing is 'allowed' but if they want to suicide select targets in that fashion then they are required to have their ducks in a row before engaging.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1086 - 2013-07-08 15:27:54 UTC
Elizabeth Aideron wrote:


could you please flesh out your ideas for "realistic" physics in a game where ships have a maximum velocity?



A harpoon piercing a fish, shark, whale etc, underwater maybe.

That would be my guess.

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
#1087 - 2013-07-08 15:32:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I'm going to take a chance and call you a liar. In fact, I will attempt to prove this tonight once I get home. I am going to take 2 of my accounts, and try to see which one gets the aggression timer first.

Both will be flying a freighter.

If I am able to get one to kill the other, I will correct myself and say you were right.

What's your side of the wager?


My side of the wager is that I am right and you don't understand the mechanics. You're misunderstanding what the time means - it does not mean "I pulled the trigger on someone else" it means "I was involved in an act of aggression in some way" - that includes being on the receiving end

hope this helps



My point is, is that it shouldn't.

Just being a victim shouldn't warrant a timer. This has been mentioned quite a few times that is an opinion and also a suggestion, not a fact (which is why we are all players discussing it).

Seriously, pay attention.


Why on Earth shouldn't it warrant a timer? Not incurring one pretty much means anyone in high hp ships can pull the plug to save themselves from attacks. This is a bloody horrific idea, and will be abused to hell and back (like it used to be, and is literally why CCP changed it in the first place)



Not that I'm advocating it, but at the end of the day you play a game on a computer that connects via a network with your innate right to disengage your client from the server (regardless of consequence).

At the end of the day, logging off to disengage an hour of "harassment" (I am using the term loosely) is quite a bit different than pulling the plug on a capital that was engaged in consensual pvp. Again, because the freighter is a victim and cannot choose to aggress and then dodge retaliation (such as capital ships do).

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
#1088 - 2013-07-08 15:35:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
My point is, is that it shouldn't.

Just being a victim shouldn't warrant a timer. This has been mentioned quite a few times that is an opinion and also a suggestion, not a fact (which is why we are all players discussing it).

Seriously, pay attention.


Why shouldn't it? That basically removes any and all non-consensual pvp. Is that your objective here? If so, I suggest you simply play a different game.




Nothing like that at all.

If you've read my suggestions concerning on how to change it, you'd see I'm advocating a freighter being able to aggress therefore warranting that timer.

Since like a shuttle or a pod, a freighter is a hull that can have the timer but not incur one. (edit- such as a 5m drone bay). A freighter, if being said is like "any other ship", then it should be.

Like I told him... pay attention (not trying to be antagonistic but come on!).

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
#1089 - 2013-07-08 15:35:52 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



Thank you for confirming what I've been trying to say. I just wanted acknowledgement that freighters were not "like any other ship".


But when it comes to the agression timer it is just like any other ship.



Except for the fact you cannot cause one.

Which is quite significant.

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.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1090 - 2013-07-08 15:43:34 UTC
Quote:
Nothing like that at all.

If you've read my suggestions concerning on how to change it, you'd see I'm advocating a freighter being able to aggress therefore warranting that timer.


But it has the same effect. Sure, if you give a freighter a turret slot or a dronebay they can aggress someone else, but who is seriously going to do that? At that point you have the exact same situation we already have. It's not like people will make a Battle Freighter just for the lulz, it's a bit more costly than a Badger.

So nothing changes.

"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.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1091 - 2013-07-08 15:59:25 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
Nothing like that at all.

If you've read my suggestions concerning on how to change it, you'd see I'm advocating a freighter being able to aggress therefore warranting that timer.


But it has the same effect. Sure, if you give a freighter a turret slot or a dronebay they can aggress someone else, but who is seriously going to do that? At that point you have the exact same situation we already have. It's not like people will make a Battle Freighter just for the lulz, it's a bit more costly than a Badger.

So nothing changes.


Except the freighter. And if it wasn't that big of a deal, shouldn't have any issues with the proposed change.

So, yea, something changes. The freighter.

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.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1092 - 2013-07-08 16:06:29 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
Nothing like that at all.

If you've read my suggestions concerning on how to change it, you'd see I'm advocating a freighter being able to aggress therefore warranting that timer.


But it has the same effect. Sure, if you give a freighter a turret slot or a dronebay they can aggress someone else, but who is seriously going to do that? At that point you have the exact same situation we already have. It's not like people will make a Battle Freighter just for the lulz, it's a bit more costly than a Badger.

So nothing changes.


Except the freighter. And if it wasn't that big of a deal, shouldn't have any issues with the proposed change.

So, yea, something changes. The freighter.


So, what I am hearing here, correct me if I am wrong, but giving a freighter the theoretical ability to aggress would make you feel better about all of this?

"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.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1093 - 2013-07-08 16:10:06 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I'm going to take a chance and call you a liar. In fact, I will attempt to prove this tonight once I get home. I am going to take 2 of my accounts, and try to see which one gets the aggression timer first.

Both will be flying a freighter.

If I am able to get one to kill the other, I will correct myself and say you were right.

What's your side of the wager?


My side of the wager is that I am right and you don't understand the mechanics. You're misunderstanding what the time means - it does not mean "I pulled the trigger on someone else" it means "I was involved in an act of aggression in some way" - that includes being on the receiving end

hope this helps



My point is, is that it shouldn't.

Just being a victim shouldn't warrant a timer. This has been mentioned quite a few times that is an opinion and also a suggestion, not a fact (which is why we are all players discussing it).

Seriously, pay attention.


Why on Earth shouldn't it warrant a timer? Not incurring one pretty much means anyone in high hp ships can pull the plug to save themselves from attacks. This is a bloody horrific idea, and will be abused to hell and back (like it used to be, and is literally why CCP changed it in the first place)



Not that I'm advocating it, but at the end of the day you play a game on a computer that connects via a network with your innate right to disengage your client from the server (regardless of consequence).

At the end of the day, logging off to disengage an hour of "harassment" (I am using the term loosely) is quite a bit different than pulling the plug on a capital that was engaged in consensual pvp. Again, because the freighter is a victim and cannot choose to aggress and then dodge retaliation (such as capital ships do).


They do maintain the right to disconnect their client from the server. The consequence however is that they run the risk of losing their ship. Your suggestion that they should be able to pull the plug to instantly save themselves is utterly preposterous. Go play a single player game if you don't want to have to deal with others.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1094 - 2013-07-08 16:12:26 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
Nothing like that at all.

If you've read my suggestions concerning on how to change it, you'd see I'm advocating a freighter being able to aggress therefore warranting that timer.


But it has the same effect. Sure, if you give a freighter a turret slot or a dronebay they can aggress someone else, but who is seriously going to do that? At that point you have the exact same situation we already have. It's not like people will make a Battle Freighter just for the lulz, it's a bit more costly than a Badger.

So nothing changes.


Except the freighter. And if it wasn't that big of a deal, shouldn't have any issues with the proposed change.

So, yea, something changes. The freighter.


So, what I am hearing here, correct me if I am wrong, but giving a freighter the theoretical ability to aggress would make you feel better about all of this?



It would satisfy the argument most people on here put forth. Otherwise my opinion of it 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.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1095 - 2013-07-08 16:18:12 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:



They do maintain the right to disconnect their client from the server. The consequence however is that they run the risk of losing their ship. Your suggestion that they should be able to pull the plug to instantly save themselves is utterly preposterous. Go play a single player game if you don't want to have to deal with others.



This is where you need to distance yourself from a topic that gets you emotionally vested.

Just because I can talk about a subject does not give any insight as to what I want to do, or what I try to do within the game. As much as you would like to fall back on "if you don't like it play a different game"... that has nothing to do with any topic in here, or has anything constructive on any forum whatsoever.

The same could be said from me "if you don't like my ideas don't read my posts and go read something else". Although I COULD say that, I tend to not give any sort of assumption as to why people such as yourself would post anything (minus the assumption I made about you being involved in this thread emotionally since it warranted such a butthurt response).

But since I DO in fact like to interact with others, that is why I'm here. So your advice or whatever it is can be appreciated at token value, your implication cannot be, since your response would question YOUR desire to play a game with others, as this forum is built for communicating. Maybe you are the one who should be taking your advice.

Atleast exercise some professionalism man.

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.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1096 - 2013-07-08 16:27:43 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
Nothing like that at all.

If you've read my suggestions concerning on how to change it, you'd see I'm advocating a freighter being able to aggress therefore warranting that timer.


But it has the same effect. Sure, if you give a freighter a turret slot or a dronebay they can aggress someone else, but who is seriously going to do that? At that point you have the exact same situation we already have. It's not like people will make a Battle Freighter just for the lulz, it's a bit more costly than a Badger.

So nothing changes.


Except the freighter. And if it wasn't that big of a deal, shouldn't have any issues with the proposed change.

So, yea, something changes. The freighter.


So, what I am hearing here, correct me if I am wrong, but giving a freighter the theoretical ability to aggress would make you feel better about all of this?



It would satisfy the argument most people on here put forth. Otherwise my opinion of it is moot.


Well, that's all I wanted to know. At this point, you are just arguing semantics, based on your own view of the term "aggression timer". Your interpretation might be different, but it's not enough of an issue, imo, for CCP to invest time in changing it. Furthermore as the art asset for freighters would all get changed, and the dreaded art department is unlikely to do such a thing.

"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
#1097 - 2013-07-08 16:35:08 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
No you see ... because some dictionaries define the word by stating the concept of intent in words other than using intent explicitly, it doesn't mean intent is implied!


It's very telling when you have to settle for passive aggressively mocking a post several pages later (just fyi).

It's obvious that those definitions (and virtually all modern definitions for that matter) define harassment in respect to its effect on the recipient. Legal definitions too mind you; perhaps look up the actual laws instead of basing your entire argument on Wikipedia. I can't do much about your willful lack of reading comprehension though.

Quote:
Also a study in 2012 that showed an inability to be useful with regards to these scenarios


Why you think advanced methods used to effectively find needles in hugely vast haystacks would be useless on much smaller pre-processed data sets is beyond me.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#1098 - 2013-07-08 16:36:24 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



Thank you for confirming what I've been trying to say. I just wanted acknowledgement that freighters were not "like any other ship".


But when it comes to the agression timer it is just like any other ship.
If only we had made these points earlier. Oh wait.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1099 - 2013-07-08 16:37:18 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


Well, that's all I wanted to know. At this point, you are just arguing semantics, based on your own view of the term "aggression timer". Your interpretation might be different, but it's not enough of an issue, imo, for CCP to invest time in changing it. Furthermore as the art asset for freighters would all get changed, and the dreaded art department is unlikely to do such a thing.



At this point I'm arguing the mechanics in place and countering an argument put forth by people as to why it's there in the first place.

You're talking about art.

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.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#1100 - 2013-07-08 16:41:52 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



Thank you for confirming what I've been trying to say. I just wanted acknowledgement that freighters were not "like any other ship".


But when it comes to the agression timer it is just like any other ship.



Except for the fact you cannot cause one.

Which is quite significant.
Which we already acknowledged pages ago. But is like all others in gaining one.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.