These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

So this is ok now?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Pooji Bongton
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2015-01-27 13:00:24 UTC
https://zkillboard.com/character/92612051/

https://zkillboard.com/character/1941616627/

You're looking specifically at the red catalyst-shuttle-catalyst-shuttle losses before a green pos module kill.

Obviously an occurrence of what has been dubbed "hyper-dunking"

Only reason I spotted this is that I was flying through a system it occurred in. I wonder how many more players are jumping on the band wagon.

No official response to this from ccp but to the untrained eye this is obviously an exploit of game mechanics and while they make up their minds people are loosing a lot of stuff.

So., is this ok? We all allowed to break the rules or just a select few?
Charlie Jacobson
#2 - 2015-01-27 13:06:50 UTC
I'd call it an exploit, but if it were up to me I'd try to address the issue in a patch without punishing any of the exploiters, since it's not really gamebreaking. They're still losing catalysts. They're just doing it with fewer pilots.

I support James 315 and the New Order of Highsec
Pooji Bongton
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2015-01-27 13:28:50 UTC
Game breaking no.. Well in a normal game, no. In eve where everything you lose must be replaced with hard work then on a personal level, yes. Their game , for the time being, is most definitely broken.

And as for punishing the exploiters, you said the word yourself, exploiters... Punishable.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#4 - 2015-01-27 13:50:57 UTC
Pooji Bongton wrote:
https://zkillboard.com/character/92612051/

https://zkillboard.com/character/1941616627/

You're looking specifically at the red catalyst-shuttle-catalyst-shuttle losses before a green pos module kill.

Obviously an occurrence of what has been dubbed "hyper-dunking"

Only reason I spotted this is that I was flying through a system it occurred in. I wonder how many more players are jumping on the band wagon.

No official response to this from ccp but to the untrained eye this is obviously an exploit of game mechanics and while they make up their minds people are loosing a lot of stuff.

So., is this ok? We all allowed to break the rules or just a select few?

What rule do you think is being broken?

I can't claim that this so-called "hyperdunking" is 100% legal, but all evidence points to this being completely within the rules. This is just a creative use of existing mechanics, ones that have been used in various forms for years, just not perhaps to gank freighters.

If you want to try it out but don't want to risk a ban, then just press 'F12' and ask CCP. No one here can tell you whether or not this is for sure legit.

If you are worried about falling victim to it don't. A single friend would be able to disrupt the hyperdunk by either stealing the cats or more efficiently interfering with the single catalyst ganker with ECM, DPS or whatever and stop the gank. It really is only feasible against abandoned structures or people who have logged off and left their ship to its fate.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Charlie Jacobson
#5 - 2015-01-27 13:52:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Charlie Jacobson
Pooji Bongton wrote:
Game breaking no.. Well in a normal game, no. In eve where everything you lose must be replaced with hard work then on a personal level, yes. Their game , for the time being, is most definitely broken.

And as for punishing the exploiters, you said the word yourself, exploiters... Punishable.


If we're talking about the same exploit here (can't go into detail without breaking EULA) then those same losses could be caused with the same number of catalysts if they just used a larger number of pilots to do it. I'd hardly consider it game breaking, even in EVE.

I support James 315 and the New Order of Highsec
Mag's
Azn Empire
#6 - 2015-01-27 13:57:04 UTC
Pooji Bongton wrote:
So., is this ok? We all allowed to break the rules or just a select few?
What rules were broken exactly?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Pooji Bongton
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2015-01-27 14:11:23 UTC
The rule being broken is quite obviously, albeit temporarily, evasion.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#8 - 2015-01-27 14:21:53 UTC
If you read the old dev blog on concord evasion, it explicitly states:
Quote:
If you gain a Global Criminal Countdown by committing an illegal action in high security space, it is considered an exploit to attack a target after you warp away from the grid, or warp within the same grid, where you gained that GCC; even if you later return to that grid while still affected by that GCC


This would seem to me that until that GCC has ticked down, you are not allowed to attack a target. Whether or not you lose your ship in between hits doesn't seem to matter.

Common sense also states that the method being used is an exploit, as it's clearly not what the system is designed to allow. Personally, I'd just stop people from being able to enter a ship until their GCC has expired.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#9 - 2015-01-27 14:22:55 UTC
We can assume by now that CCP is well aware of this tactic because there seams to be a new tear thread about it every other day. Since there is no official exploit notice in the launcher and no CONCORD evasion is involved I don't see why you are still crying that this is an exploit.

Evil RatKid
Pooji Bongton
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2015-01-27 14:28:30 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
We can assume by now that CCP is well aware of this tactic because there seams to be a new tear thread about it every other day. Since there is no official exploit notice in the launcher and no CONCORD evasion is involved I don't see why you are still crying that this is an exploit.



I have no danger of being at the receiving end of this tactic due to my play style and ships I fly. The reason for my post is simply to express my bewilderment at the fact that this is still occurring when it is pain stakingly obvious that it is an exploit.

Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#11 - 2015-01-27 14:29:24 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
If you read the old dev blog on concord evasion, it explicitly states:
Quote:
If you gain a Global Criminal Countdown by committing an illegal action in high security space, it is considered an exploit to attack a target after you warp away from the grid, or warp within the same grid, where you gained that GCC; even if you later return to that grid while still affected by that GCC


This would seem to me that until that GCC has ticked down, you are not allowed to attack a target. Whether or not you lose your ship in between hits doesn't seem to matter.

Common sense also states that the method being used is an exploit, as it's clearly not what the system is designed to allow. Personally, I'd just stop people from being able to enter a ship until their GCC has expired.

Oh look a space lawyer.

There is not even a GCC anymore.

Evil RatKid
Charlie Jacobson
#12 - 2015-01-27 14:31:07 UTC
Pooji Bongton wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
We can assume by now that CCP is well aware of this tactic because there seams to be a new tear thread about it every other day. Since there is no official exploit notice in the launcher and no CONCORD evasion is involved I don't see why you are still crying that this is an exploit.



I have no danger of being at the receiving end of this tactic due to my play style and ships I fly. The reason for my post is simply to express my bewilderment at the fact that this is still occurring when it is pain stakingly obvious that it is an exploit.



Maybe the people at CCP plan to address it in a future patch but don't care enough to make a big deal out of it until then? That would be my guess.

I support James 315 and the New Order of Highsec
Black Pedro
Mine.
#13 - 2015-01-27 14:42:10 UTC
Pooji Bongton wrote:
The rule being broken is quite obviously, albeit temporarily, evasion.

Evasion of CONCORD? CONCORD still arrives and destroys the ship as usual. Who is evading what?

Pooji Bongton wrote:
I have no danger of being at the receiving end of this tactic due to my play style and ships I fly. The reason for my post is simply to express my bewilderment at the fact that this is still occurring when it is pain stakingly obvious that it is an exploit.

Well, it is against the forum rules to discuss exploits. If you truly think it is one, you should petition CCP directly.

However, CCP is well aware of this ganking technique, and Globby's killboard after his temporary suspension would seem to indicate that CCP at least currently does not consider it an exploit or against the rules.

Make of this what you will.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Mag's
Azn Empire
#14 - 2015-01-27 14:42:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Pooji Bongton wrote:
The rule being broken is quite obviously, albeit temporarily, evasion.
Nope.

Lucas Kell wrote:
If you read the old dev blog on concord evasion, it explicitly states:
Quote:
If you gain a Global Criminal Countdown by committing an illegal action in high security space, it is considered an exploit to attack a target after you warp away from the grid, or warp within the same grid, where you gained that GCC; even if you later return to that grid while still affected by that GCC


This would seem to me that until that GCC has ticked down, you are not allowed to attack a target. Whether or not you lose your ship in between hits doesn't seem to matter.

Common sense also states that the method being used is an exploit, as it's clearly not what the system is designed to allow. Personally, I'd just stop people from being able to enter a ship until their GCC has expired.
Nice out of context quote there. Now post all of it and let me know when they avoided retaliation from Concord. Which that Dev post was in regards to.

Although the last part does indicate a rule, that could be made to fit. I.E. even if you later return to that grid while still affected by that GCC.
But again, this was in regards to avoiding Concord. Which isn't the case here.

I love all the guessing here, by the way. But no one from CCP has told us any rules have been broken, or that any exploit is being used. But hey, facts be damned burn them, burn them all. Roll

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#15 - 2015-01-27 14:49:15 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Oh look a space lawyer.

There is not even a GCC anymore.
Not a space lawyer, simply a player with the ability to read. And yes, GCC was renamed to Criminal Timer, but what rules applied to it when it was called GCC still apply to it now.

Mag's wrote:
Nice out of context quote there. Now post all of it and let me know when they avoided retaliation from Concord. Which that Dev post was in regards to.

I love all the guessing here, by the way. But no one from CCP has told us any rules have been broken, or that any exploit is being used. But hey, facts be damned burn them, burn them all. Roll
The whole quote was in the link. The point of what I quoted was to show that when faced with the same situation before CCP ruled it to be an exploit. This is just the same exploit with a new method.

And honestly, the guys doing it know it's an exploit, they know it's not right, but they know because it's a technicality they'll get away with temp bans when CCP comes down on it. CCP need to start permabanning people a bit more when they start using obvious exploits. That would put people off doing it in the first place next time.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Pooji Bongton
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2015-01-27 15:00:52 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Oh look a space lawyer.

There is not even a GCC anymore.
Not a space lawyer, simply a player with the ability to read. And yes, GCC was renamed to Criminal Timer, but what rules applied to it when it was called GCC still apply to it now.

Mag's wrote:
Nice out of context quote there. Now post all of it and let me know when they avoided retaliation from Concord. Which that Dev post was in regards to.

I love all the guessing here, by the way. But no one from CCP has told us any rules have been broken, or that any exploit is being used. But hey, facts be damned burn them, burn them all. Roll
The whole quote was in the link. The point of what I quoted was to show that when faced with the same situation before CCP ruled it to be an exploit. This is just the same exploit with a new method.

And honestly, the guys doing it know it's an exploit, they know it's not right, but they know because it's a technicality they'll get away with temp bans when CCP comes down on it. CCP need to start permabanning people a bit more when they start using obvious exploits. That would put people off doing it in the first place next time.



Couldn't agree more.
Shailagh
6Six6Six6Six
#17 - 2015-01-27 15:29:30 UTC
Globbster got account suspended pending investigation.... several days later Ccp PURPOSLY UNBANNS HIM then he resumes hyperdunking like a Harlem Globetrotter.

Ok now, use your logic and try to imagine ccps stance on this...
Its not hard...

"Sorry for the temp ban while we investigated your hyperdunking Mr Globbs, youre accounts are now reactivated. Resume the ganks. Have a nice day."

What other possible outcome could have happened from the gms???
This aint no rocket science. If it was sploit, Globbster wouldnt have been unbanned. Even if it was a temp ban warning, hed be banned again by now.

Its obviously kosher and WORKINg AS INTENDED..


Cant nobody stop the ganks!!
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#18 - 2015-01-27 15:41:32 UTC
Shailagh wrote:
Globbster got account suspended pending investigation.... several days later Ccp PURPOSLY UNBANNS HIM then he resumes hyperdunking like a Harlem Globetrotter.

Ok now, use your logic and try to imagine ccps stance on this...
Its not hard...

"Sorry for the temp ban while we investigated your hyperdunking Mr Globbs, youre accounts are now reactivated. Resume the ganks. Have a nice day."

What other possible outcome could have happened from the gms???
This aint no rocket science. If it was sploit, Globbster wouldnt have been unbanned. Even if it was a temp ban warning, hed be banned again by now.

Its obviously kosher and WORKINg AS INTENDED..


Cant nobody stop the ganks!!
If it is deemed by CCP as OK, then CCP clarification of that would be nice. It also shouldn't be accepted as it's quite obviously not right as it means that anyone can solo gank almost any ship or structure, so either way there will be threads about it until CCP sorts it out.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Charlie Jacobson
#19 - 2015-01-27 15:46:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Charlie Jacobson
Lucas Kell wrote:
Shailagh wrote:
Globbster got account suspended pending investigation.... several days later Ccp PURPOSLY UNBANNS HIM then he resumes hyperdunking like a Harlem Globetrotter.

Ok now, use your logic and try to imagine ccps stance on this...
Its not hard...

"Sorry for the temp ban while we investigated your hyperdunking Mr Globbs, youre accounts are now reactivated. Resume the ganks. Have a nice day."

What other possible outcome could have happened from the gms???
This aint no rocket science. If it was sploit, Globbster wouldnt have been unbanned. Even if it was a temp ban warning, hed be banned again by now.

Its obviously kosher and WORKINg AS INTENDED..


Cant nobody stop the ganks!!
If it is deemed by CCP as OK, then CCP clarification of that would be nice. It also shouldn't be accepted as it's quite obviously not right as it means that anyone can solo gank almost any ship or structure, so either way there will be threads about it until CCP sorts it out.


"Solo gank" with much more effort, tedium and risk than it would take for multiple pilots to do the same thing, at the same isk cost. It's clever use of game mechanics that doesn't really hurt anyone, but should probably be patched out regardless.

To the people complaining about this; I hope you do realize that they lose every catalyst used in this method. They're not saving their catalysts by jumping into shuttles.

I support James 315 and the New Order of Highsec
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#20 - 2015-01-27 15:49:13 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
If it is deemed by CCP as OK, then CCP clarification of that would be nice. It also shouldn't be accepted as it's quite obviously not right as it means that anyone can solo gank almost any ship or structure, so either way there will be threads about it until CCP sorts it out.

You can solo fly that Bowhead/Freigher or put up that POS module all by yourself. So why is it then a problem if you can solo remove said stuff in a fair 1v1 battle? You think it is more "fair" if a whole fleet dunks the same ship or module with even less ships and risk because of the shield reload and the fact that "hyperdunking" is extremely fragile if someone tries to interfere?

Please present us your logic on this...

Evil RatKid
123Next page