These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A Message Regarding "Hyperdunking"

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mag's
Azn Empire
#41 - 2015-01-27 18:38:12 UTC
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
If we want the policy changed, all we have to do is hyperdunk Chribba in his Veldnaught...

CCP would reverse position on this faster than Concord could respond. Roll
You win the Darwin award for best post this month.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2015-01-27 18:41:09 UTC
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Fit a tank


I don't believe you know how this works. In the slightest.

Or did you find a way to ninja an ACTIVE tank onto a freighter?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#43 - 2015-01-27 18:41:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
If we want the policy changed, all we have to do is hyperdunk Chribba in his Veldnaught...
Excellent. Given the repping capacity of a Revelation, the policy will remain until the end of time, as it should. Big smile

afkalt wrote:
I don't believe you know how this works. In the slightest.

Or did you find a way to ninja an ACTIVE tank onto a freighter?

He didn't say active tank, now did he? Or indeed say anything to suggest he doesn't understand how it works.
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#44 - 2015-01-27 18:45:45 UTC
The reply from CCP Falcon is welcome.

There should be no ambiguity in this matter.

However. If CCP decide this is not only unintended, but also not desirable or balanced, and make it an exploit later, Then no one will be in any doubt of the matter.

If this is used in a self restrained manner then it is unlikely to need such attention.

we will see if self restraint is shown by the community.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#45 - 2015-01-27 18:48:14 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Considering one of the driving factors for the removal of input broadcasting was preventing people from being able to solo gank large ships and structures with ease, this seems like the exact opposite.


Hey, I get to post my 1st ever "Citation Needed" thing.

So....Citation...It is required.
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
#46 - 2015-01-27 18:49:29 UTC
An announcment of CCP not ******* up, and olympic grade mental gymnastics from carebears, all in one thread. I approve.

In my day, we used to call this toasting in an epic bread.

Witty Image - Stream

Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
Callic Veratar
#47 - 2015-01-27 18:52:11 UTC
I think I'll have to start looking for hyperdunkers and start collecting their abandoned ships.
Powers Sa
#48 - 2015-01-27 18:57:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Powers Sa
There is absolutely no NEW MECHANIC.

It's just an abandoned tactic called boomeranging that was repurposed when concord was patched to prevent you from warping.


So you could call it a new tactic.

Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk

Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#49 - 2015-01-27 18:58:11 UTC
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
The consequences of having a GCC are that you explode at the hands of Concord when you board a ship or undock in one, which is exactly what happens when you use this tactic.
But that's not the only consequence. You are unable to warp for a reason. Why even bother having that restriction if it can just be bypassed?

Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
If the purpose of the GCC timer was to completely shut you down, then you wouldn't be able to board a ship while under a GCC timer.
And you shouldn't be able to. Clearly it is supposed to shut you down. Even the OP call it "unintended".

Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Your point is what exactly?
That you're supposed to get a 15 minute timer for a gank. Instead you get a 2 minute timer if you gank 2 minutes after your first one.

Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
This has always been the case, using an Orca to reship during a POS bash is an old trick for example. If you don't want your ship or structure to be solo ganked then you take steps to protect it.
I don't disagree, but then the gankers should also have to put some bloody effort in. This means they can just chuck as many 2m isk catalysts at a target as they need.

To be honest it's pointless arguing with someone like you because you're not interested in what's fair and balanced gameplay.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#50 - 2015-01-27 19:02:03 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
I don't disagree, but then the gankers should also have to put some bloody effort in.


There it is. the underlying emotion based 'reasoning' behind an unreasonable worldview. "But, but, the other guy should have to work as hard as I think I am too!!!! It's not FAIR!!!" This thinking is at the core all every single anti ganking, scamming and afk-cloking post ever posted. Kind of a screwed up video game egalitarianism.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#51 - 2015-01-27 19:03:06 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
So why is it not considered an exploit considering you are avoiding the entire consequence of having the criminal timer.
Because they are not avoiding them.
Of course you are. They may as well have the criminal timer expire once concord blows up their ship and replace it with a suspect timer if they are still allowed to freely operate as if it didn't exist. The criminal timer prevents you warping a ship while it ticks down. Using an alt to warp that ship for you in an orca then hopping into it while in space seems to be against what the criminal timer is for, so why does it even exist?
No you're not avoiding them.

The criminal timer means you are to be shot on sight, in any ship in high sec. It does not stop you boarding them. If it were meant to do that, it would.
Just because you are trying to equate your ideals on top of the criminal timer, doesn't change the fact they are not avoid the consequences of it.
It's avoiding the consequence, which is supposed to be a 15 minute criminal timer. Using the orca to reship it's effectively a short criminal timer then what is in essence a suspect timer. And it's only possible because for CCP to keep load down on a server they move concord if it's available in the system rather than spawning a new concord response. It's lazy code and a workaround of the mechanics which means you can solo gank basically anything with the cheapest possible ships, making ganking even further lacking in consequence. Empty freighters are already killboard green. Now solo players can farm these themselves. People like yourself go on about how this game is supposed to be harsh so when the **** is it going to be harsh for you.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#52 - 2015-01-27 19:03:32 UTC
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.


Thank you for transparently communicating this decision, and thank you again for keeping the faith.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#53 - 2015-01-27 19:04:40 UTC
Crumplecorn wrote:
An announcment of CCP not ******* up, and olympic grade mental gymnastics from carebears, all in one thread. I approve.

In my day, we used to call this toasting in an epic bread.


1st of all, Toast is deleicious

2ndly, yes, I too approve. And while watching "Olympic grade mental gymnastics" )from people who just need to warp reality to get their thoughts to fit) is entertaining for a while, it's get's old fast Twisted
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#54 - 2015-01-27 19:05:03 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
I don't disagree, but then the gankers should also have to put some bloody effort in.
There it is. the underlying emotion based 'reasoning' behind an unreasonable worldview. "But, but, the other guy should have to work as hard as I think I am too!!!! It's not FAIR!!!" This thinking is at the core all every single anti ganking, scamming and afk-cloking post ever posted. Kind of a screwed up video game egalitarianism.
Of course they should have to work for it. I'm fed up of listening to CODE players going on and on and on about how easy the carebears have it while ganking is insanely easy, nearly risk free and without consequence. Now it's officially easy to solo gank basically any ship. Excuse me if I thought this is EVE Online where the game is supposed to take a modicum of effort.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Eojek
Starlight Moly
#55 - 2015-01-27 19:07:38 UTC
Just a suggestion about Hyperdunkers, who also generate a killright.

Sell the kill rights publicly for 0 ISK.


A mechanic I would impliment is being auto-booted out of newbiecorp if that same account is constantly being used for piracy. The ganker would have to plop down 30 bucks for a new account as they ruined the reputation of their old account. More money for CCP's coffers.

A more severe measure is labeling an IP as pirate. The account or IP must eventually join a pirate corporation be forced start in Nulsec, and thereby, place the player in it's own natural environment of internet-spaceship hell.

I'm amazed CONCORD or empires don't impound ships, or even capsules, forcing the perma-pirate to clone-jump back to Nul-Sec. Yes the offender can dock, but they cannot gain benefit from a society who'se ideals the pirate themselves holds in contempt.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#56 - 2015-01-27 19:07:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Lucas Kell wrote:
But that's not the only consequence. You are unable to warp for a reason. Why even bother having that restriction if it can just be bypassed?
It's not being bypassed. The reason it's there is to ensure you can't warp off and lead CONCORD on a snipe hunt while the timer ticks down. That is not what's happening. The timer and the no-warp effect is doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing.

Quote:
And you shouldn't be able to. Clearly it is supposed to shut you down. Even the OP call it "unintended".
Why shouldn't it? And no, the OP did not call it “unintended” that you can swap ships — what's unintended is that they didn't plan for this to happen. Same as can flipping. Same as can mining. Same as web-sling warping. Same as mwd-cloak warps. Same as any of the emergent tactics that have been discovered in the game, and which have been allowed (and even actively maintained) once they've figured that they don't actually break any rules.

Quote:
That you're supposed to get a 15 minute timer for a gank. Instead you get a 2 minute timer if you gank 2 minutes after your first one.
No. You get a 15 minute timer that resets for every new aggression. Just as intended.

Quote:
I don't disagree, but then the gankers should also have to put some bloody effort in.
They are. Chucking as many Catalysts at a target as needed to kill it is vastly more effort than is required of the target. This is the worrying trend in ganking: gankers are forced to put more and more and more effort in, and the feebleminded whiners are never satisfied and refuse to put even the slightest bit of effort in themselves. That is frankly pathetic, as is any claim that ganking takes no effort.

The gankers are working their asses off to think up new strategies and perfecting them. The hapless victims just cry. Why can't the victims put even an ounce of effort — bloody or not — in towards preventing these trivially avoidable events?
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#57 - 2015-01-27 19:09:28 UTC
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
If we want the policy changed, all we have to do is hyperdunk Chribba in his Veldnaught...

CCP would reverse position on this faster than Concord could respond. Roll
Going by past occurrences of him being killed Chribba would probably say "GF" in local, and that would be the end of it as far as he's concerned.

afkalt wrote:
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Fit a tank


I don't believe you know how this works. In the slightest.

Or did you find a way to ninja an ACTIVE tank onto a freighter?
Try quoting the whole post next time so as to not look like a fool, it was an answer to a question that specifically referred to mining, as such it has precisely nothing to do with freighters.

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

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Alli Ginthur
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#58 - 2015-01-27 19:10:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Alli Ginthur
Eojek wrote:
Just a suggestion about Hyperdunkers, who also generate a killright.

Sell the kill rights publicly for 0 ISK.


A mechanic I would impliment is being auto-booted out of newbiecorp if that same account is constantly being used for piracy. The ganker would have to plop down 30 bucks for a new account as they ruined the reputation of their old account. More money for CCP's coffers.

A more severe measure is labeling an IP as pirate. The account or IP must eventually join a pirate corporation be forced start in Nulsec, and thereby, place the player in it's own natural environment of internet-spaceship hell.

I'm amazed CONCORD or empires don't impound ships, or even capsules, forcing the perma-pirate to clone-jump back to Nul-Sec. Yes the offender can dock, but they cannot gain benefit from a society who'se ideals the pirate themselves holds in contempt.


More than likely, the dunker will be at -10 or close anyway, so you can shoot him on sight regardless of kill right.

And just no to the rest.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#59 - 2015-01-27 19:11:01 UTC
Eojek wrote:
A mechanic I would impliment is being auto-booted out of newbiecorp if that same account is constantly being used for piracy. The ganker would have to plop down 30 bucks for a new account as they ruined the reputation of their old account. More money for CCP's coffers.

A more severe measure is labeling an IP as pirate. The account or IP must eventually join a pirate corporation be forced start in Nulsec, and thereby, place the player in it's own natural environment of internet-spaceship hell.

I'm amazed CONCORD or empires don't impound ships, or even capsules, forcing the perma-pirate to clone-jump back to Nul-Sec. Yes the offender can dock, but they cannot gain benefit from a society who'se ideals the pirate themselves holds in contempt.

Why on earth should any of that happen? And I'm not even commenting on the nonsensical first part since that is already in the game.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#60 - 2015-01-27 19:11:48 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
I don't disagree, but then the gankers should also have to put some bloody effort in.
There it is. the underlying emotion based 'reasoning' behind an unreasonable worldview. "But, but, the other guy should have to work as hard as I think I am too!!!! It's not FAIR!!!" This thinking is at the core all every single anti ganking, scamming and afk-cloking post ever posted. Kind of a screwed up video game egalitarianism.
Of course they should have to work for it. I'm fed up of listening to CODE players going on and on and on about how easy the carebears have it while ganking is insanely easy, nearly risk free and without consequence. Now it's officially easy to solo gank basically any ship. Excuse me if I thought this is EVE Online where the game is supposed to take a modicum of effort.


Thanks for proving my point Emotional bro. I know you're just thinking of the children though Twisted

Or did you think that CCP would forever coddle you and the rest of the complainers? Eventually, things have to balance out. instead of whining about it on a forum, why aren't you theory crafting ways to turns this back on the gankers and make them feel bad (that you can then post and otherwise teach to people who would be targets of this tactic)? That's how I deal with gankers (and afk-cloakers et al), out think them before undocking.

Oh yea, that's right, too much EFFORT to actually play the game, much easier to metagame the situation by lobbying CCP to fix it for you. Right?