These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

So this is ok now?

First post
Author
Pooji Bongton
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2015-01-27 16:04:29 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
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...


You forgot the bumping alt.

I'm all for constructive use of game mechanics however evasion is evasion and was long ago deemed banable. Boomeranging ring any bells?
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#22 - 2015-01-27 16:10:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Concord Guy's Cousin
Pooji Bongton wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
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...


You forgot the bumping alt.

I'm all for constructive use of game mechanics however evasion is evasion and was long ago deemed banable. Boomeranging ring any bells?
Where's the evasion in hyperdunking? Every ship that is used by someone with a GCC dies at the hands of Concord, which is the exact opposite of evasion.

The bumping alt incurs no flag because bumping has never been a flaggable action, there's a whole thread dedicated to it in the stickies of C&P.

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.

Pooji Bongton
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2015-01-27 16:14:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Pooji Bongton
It's evasion for a prolonged amount of time. With the right preperation and perfect execution you could evade all day long.

Boomeranging ships died eventually but only when they'd finished what they'd begun. I don't see any difference. I find it incomprehensible that anyone can defend it.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#24 - 2015-01-27 16:36:57 UTC
Pooji Bongton wrote:
It's evasion for a prolonged amount of time. With the right preperation and perfect execution you could evade all day long.

Boomeranging ships died eventually but only when they'd finished what they'd begun. I don't see any difference. I find it incomprehensible that anyone can defend it.

Are you sure you understand exactly is going on? There is no evasion - every ship that the ganker gets in during the hyperdunk (is that the noun?) gets destroyed by CONCORD. There is no escaping the punishment.

The boomerang attack did evade CONCORD by warping off and allowed the same ship to participate in multiple ganks before being destroyed. In the boomerang attack one ship could gank many targets.

In this attack, CONCORD responds to each ship and destroys it as soon as the ganker boards it. Each gank ship can only attack one target before destruction as is normal with all ganks.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#25 - 2015-01-27 16:38:19 UTC
Charlie Jacobson wrote:
"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.
Well it does kind of hurt the player being ganked. The way I see it there's nothing different between arguing against this and the argument that ISBoxer ganking was bad. The only difference is that an ISBoxer ganker had to sub an account for each extra catalyst he brings, but in this situation it's done on one account.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#26 - 2015-01-27 16:47:03 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
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...
The ability to place a POS was explicitly written into the game as an action able to be performed by one player. Ganking using a single player jumping into fresh ships is working around the criminal timer.

I get it though, you obviously want code to to be able to solo gank players because it benefits you, therefore you'll ignore the glaringly obvious reasons that solo ganking almost any ship or structure is an exploit

Black Pedro wrote:
There is no evasion - every ship that the ganker gets in during the hyperdunk (is that the noun?) gets destroyed by CONCORD. There is no escaping the punishment.
Well technically you're evading concord the moment you enter a ship in space while under a criminal timer, since concord are on their way to destroy you at that point.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Pooji Bongton
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#27 - 2015-01-27 16:57:49 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Pooji Bongton wrote:
It's evasion for a prolonged amount of time. With the right preperation and perfect execution you could evade all day long.

Boomeranging ships died eventually but only when they'd finished what they'd begun. I don't see any difference. I find it incomprehensible that anyone can defend it.

Are you sure you understand exactly is going on? There is no evasion - every ship that the ganker gets in during the hyperdunk (is that the noun?) gets destroyed by CONCORD. There is no escaping the punishment.

The boomerang attack did evade CONCORD by warping off and allowed the same ship to participate in multiple ganks before being destroyed. In the boomerang attack one ship could gank many targets.

In this attack, CONCORD responds to each ship and destroys it as soon as the ganker boards it. Each gank ship can only attack one target before destruction as is normal with all ganks.



I am fully aware of the situation, yes. However, I have a feeling that you do not fully grasp the concept of evasion. Continuing to carry out the practice for which you were initially "Concorded", until that action is complete, regardless of number of ships used, is ultimately evading the consequences of those actions.

As mentioned earlier, a fix would be simple. You can not enter ships until your criminal timer is up.
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#28 - 2015-01-27 16:59:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Concord Guy's Cousin
Pooji Bongton wrote:
It's evasion for a prolonged amount of time. With the right preperation and perfect execution you could evade all day long.

Boomeranging ships died eventually but only when they'd finished what they'd begun. I don't see any difference. I find it incomprehensible that anyone can defend it.
It's impossible to warp anything other than a pod while under GCC and has been since CCP addressed the boomerang exploit, which involved warping a ship around and ganking multiple targets with Concord in hot pursuit.

Bearing in mind that the moment you gain a GCC timer you are effectively warp-scrammed, unless you're in a pod, and thus unable to leave the immediate area once you board a ship; please detail how it is evasion?

Quote:
As mentioned earlier, a fix would be simple. You can not enter ships until your criminal timer is up.
Which breaks more than it fixes Roll

For example removal of the ability to board a ship while under GCC also removes the ability to move Concord around, which is an allowed practice.

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.

Renegade Heart
Doomheim
#29 - 2015-01-27 17:09:00 UTC
Pooji Bongton wrote:
However, I have a feeling that you do not fully grasp the concept of evasion. Continuing to carry out the practice for which you were initially "Concorded", until that action is complete, regardless of number of ships used, is ultimately evading the consequences of those actions.


This makes no sense. How is anyone "evading the consequences of those actions" if they keep losing ships? Evading Concord is not fine, and in no way is anyone evading Concord here.

It's no different from 10 miners getting the minerals together to build a big ship, compared to one miner mining 10 times longer to get the same minerals.

So really your problem is that it's not fair that smart people can do it with less numbers? Boohoo. Get better at EvE!
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#30 - 2015-01-27 17:14:21 UTC
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
It's impossible to warp anything other than a pod while under GCC and has been since CCP addressed the boomerang exploit, which involved warping a ship around and ganking multiple targets with Concord in hot pursuit.

Bearing in mind that the moment you gain a GCC timer you are effectively warp-scrammed, unless you're in a pod, and thus unable to leave the immediate area once you board a ship; please detail how it is evasion?
As he stated earlier:
Pooji Bongton wrote:
Continuing to carry out the practice for which you were initially "Concorded", until that action is complete, regardless of number of ships used, is ultimately evading the consequences of those actions.
It's evasion because the effect of concord (stopping you firing after a given length of time) is nullified. Once your criminal timer is up you should be free to go gank as much as you want.

Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Which breaks more than it fixes Roll

For example removal of the ability to board a ship while under GCC also removes the ability to move Concord around, which is an allowed practice.
Which you can still do by boarding a ship once your criminal timer ends and triggering concord away from your target area. The criminal timer is supposed to be a consequence. It doesn't really do it's job if you can just ignore it by working around the mechanics.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Pooji Bongton
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#31 - 2015-01-27 17:15:50 UTC
I don't remember reading anywhere that moving them around is allowed? However the initial warp fix would go someway to making me believe that this Is not the case.

Eve players are a creative and passionate bunch and I'm sure the devs never envisioned this particular tactic when dealing with the other, 3 years ago

Warp scram applies to pods too in the fix then I guess Roll
Black Pedro
Mine.
#32 - 2015-01-27 17:22:51 UTC
Pooji Bongton wrote:
I am fully aware of the situation, yes. However, I have a feeling that you do not fully grasp the concept of evasion. Continuing to carry out the practice for which you were initially "Concorded", until that action is complete, regardless of number of ships used, is ultimately evading the consequences of those actions.

As mentioned earlier, a fix would be simple. You can not enter ships until your criminal timer is up.

CONCORD works by attacking and destroying anybody who:

a) commits a criminal act in highsec;
b) anybody who undocks in a ship or boards a ship while under a criminal flag.

This still happens. The ganker pays the consequences for being in space while under the criminal flag with the loss of their ship. Always. There is no evasion.

CONCORD is reactive, not a protective force. It punishes players who break the above rules, nothing more. If you want protection you are intended to provide it - and protection from this hyperdunking thing is trivial to provide.

If you think you have an improvement to these CONCORD rules, perhaps you should suggest it in the Feature and Ideas subforum? Otherwise, you need to realize that CONCORD is doing exactly what it has always (or perhaps since the last time CCP tweaked the mechanics).
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#33 - 2015-01-27 17:25:35 UTC
Renegade Heart wrote:
This makes no sense. How is anyone "evading the consequences of those actions" if they keep losing ships? Evading Concord is not fine, and in no way is anyone evading Concord here.
Of course they are, the consequence of ganking is ship loss and a 15 minute criminal timer. What this does is ignore that 15 minute timer, and bypass the inability to warp it imposes on you to reduce the time between gank ships.

Renegade Heart wrote:
It's no different from 10 miners getting the minerals together to build a big ship, compared to one miner mining 10 times longer to get the same minerals.
Of course it's different, because none of those miners has to work around game mechanics to do that.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Renegade Heart
Doomheim
#34 - 2015-01-27 17:26:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Renegade Heart
Pooji Bongton wrote:
I don't remember reading anywhere that moving them around is allowed?


Both defensive and offensive spawning are allowed as long as you don't recycle the toons.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4768719#post4768719

Lucas Kell wrote:
It's evasion because the effect of concord (stopping you firing after a given length of time) is nullified. Once your criminal timer is up you should be free to go gank as much as you want.


Concord is there to punish criminal acts. They punish the acts by popping the ships of the criminal. The end effect is the same whether 1 player loses 10 ships or 10 players lose 1 ship.

So to say that the effect of concord is nullified is really silly imo. The effect of carebear tears seems to be greatly amplified though!

But yeah, if one dude is playing like this, why not try to stop him? Stopping one dude from ganking in loads of ships would be way easier than stopping 10 players in 1 ship each.

Or maybe you could just gank the bowhead?

Lucas Kell wrote:
15 minute criminal timer


You still get that timer. You are not evading the timer. Being under GCC affects your ability to do things!

Lucas Kell wrote:
Of course it's different, because none of those miners has to work around game mechanics to do that.


Nobody is working around game mechanics. It's all valid emergent gameplay!

[edit] I don't mind if anyone wants to call it GCC or Criminal TImer. Did not know it changed!
Mag's
Azn Empire
#35 - 2015-01-27 17:26:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
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.

Looks like I was right and you were wrong.Blink

CCP Falcon wrote:
Makari Aeron wrote:
Falcon, please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this contradict the ruling from 3 years ago?

http://community.eveonline.com/news/news-channels/eve-online-news/exploit-notification-boomerang-avoiding-concord-in-high-security-space.-updated/

EDIT: or is it because the hyperdunker loses their ship, they aren't actually "avoiding" CONCORD?


That ruling is from three years ago, before the release of Retribution and before the introduction of the new Crimewatch system.

Therefore, it's no longer applicable, and the current ruling overrides it.



This thread can close now, you've been served. Big smile

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

Renegade Heart
Doomheim
#36 - 2015-01-27 17:33:38 UTC


Makes perfect sense really!
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#37 - 2015-01-27 17:33:43 UTC
Pooji Bongton wrote:
I don't remember reading anywhere that moving them around is allowed?
GM Lelouch wrote:
We do not consider intentionally spawning CONCORD using disposable ships an exploit at this time
Source

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.

Pooji Bongton
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#38 - 2015-01-27 17:33:57 UTC
It seems we have reached that point where in blind defense of a chosen play style, people ignore the logic and reason of an argument in utter defense of their actions.

The discussion was started to determine if this is indeed an exploit. To me and others it is clearly that.
You mention that this is currently possible, so therefore intended. I don't believe this was ever intended. Just an oversight that, if dealt with by logical, reasonable people , will be fixed as many oversights have been before.

I'm all for fun and creativity in eve and as I have mentioned before, this in no way affects me. It is just a problem that is need of a fix.
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#39 - 2015-01-27 17:35:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Concord Guy's Cousin
Pooji Bongton wrote:
It seems we have reached that point where in blind defense of a chosen play style, people ignore the logic and reason of an argument in utter defense of their actions.

The discussion was started to determine if this is indeed an exploit. To me and others it is clearly that.
You mention that this is currently possible, so therefore intended. I don't believe this was ever intended. Just an oversight that, if dealt with by logical, reasonable people , will be fixed as many oversights have been before.

I'm all for fun and creativity in eve and as I have mentioned before, this in no way affects me. It is just a problem that is need of a fix.
CCP say that it's not an exploit, case closed.
CCP Falcon wrote:
Since the introduction of the Bowhead freighter, we’ve become aware of a tactic that has been introduced which has become known as “Hyperdunking”. This involves leaving a grid where a criminal action occurs to draw away CONCORD and reshipping to continue shooting at a target. There’s been much discussion among members of the community regarding this tactic, and whether or not it is considered legitimate gameplay.

After meeting with members of the game design and customer support teams and discussing this in depth, we have come to the consensus that due to the fact no rules are being broken and any ship that is involved in a criminal act is being destroyed by CONCORD as intended, that this tactic is simply an unintended but legitimate use of new game mechanics, and is not in breach of the rules. Tactics similar to this have been used with previous hulls before the Bowhead was introduced, and have been considered perfectly legitimate in the past.

With this in mind, at this time we do not consider this tactic to be in breach of the game rules, and as such our customer support team will not be offering reimbursements for hulls lost in this manner.


Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage.

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.

Mag's
Azn Empire
#40 - 2015-01-27 17:36:20 UTC
Pooji Bongton wrote:
It seems we have reached that point where in blind defense of a chosen play style, people ignore the logic and reason of an argument in utter defense of their actions.

The discussion was started to determine if this is indeed an exploit. To me and others it is clearly that.
You mention that this is currently possible, so therefore intended. I don't believe this was ever intended. Just an oversight that, if dealt with by logical, reasonable people , will be fixed as many oversights have been before.

I'm all for fun and creativity in eve and as I have mentioned before, this in no way affects me. It is just a problem that is need of a fix.
It's been ruled on, it's not. Get over it, you were wrong.

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

Previous page123Next page