These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1541 - 2015-03-04 12:42:13 UTC
Erasmus Grant wrote:
What kind of world would alot a clone with a consistent criminal record to be reactivated, at least without some kind of imprisonment?


A world where the people doing it are immortal demigods with wealth that exceeds the gross domestic product of entire star systems.

Or Kennedys.

"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.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1542 - 2015-03-07 05:59:26 UTC
Erasmus Grant wrote:
What kind of world would alot a clone with a consistent criminal record to be reactivated, at least without some kind of imprisonment?

Hyper dunking can work both ways.

Criminal to whom exactly?
While standing to NPC Factions should be more restrictive in some elements and not as easy to exploit the navies to ignore them, we aren't dealing with a unified justice system.
Concord deals with offenders by blowing up their ship, since.... they have really only committed vandalism and theft (And Baseliner murder but the contracts they sign when joining our ships absolve other capsuleers of that).
It's not like you really died, they damaged some of your assets and maybe stole some.
So Concord 'fines' them.

We can debate if the 'fines' are appropriate, or if Industrials should have PG/CPU & Slots equivilant to a normal ship of their class, or all sorts of other balance things, but lets not get carried away in demanding gankers be put in prison or anything.
eliminator2
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1543 - 2015-03-08 13:32:21 UTC
probe down bowhead and then just sit in sniper ship waiting for the criminal to come get a fresh ship and insta pop
Revis Owen
Krigmakt Elite
Safety.
#1544 - 2015-03-10 23:58:50 UTC
eliminator2 wrote:
probe down bowhead and then just sit in sniper ship waiting for the criminal to come get a fresh ship and insta pop


How dare you suggest that people use existing game mechanics and tools to deal with their problems? How DARE you?

Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Mining Permit, please contact me for issuance.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1545 - 2015-03-11 17:50:09 UTC
Erasmus Grant wrote:
What kind of world would alot a clone with a consistent criminal record to be reactivated, at least without some kind of imprisonment?

Hyper dunking can work both ways.



The kind of world that allows private individuals to own more fully armed modern warships than the US and Royal navies ever commissioned.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1546 - 2015-03-11 18:42:35 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Erasmus Grant wrote:
What kind of world would alot a clone with a consistent criminal record to be reactivated, at least without some kind of imprisonment?

Hyper dunking can work both ways.



The kind of world that allows private individuals to own more fully armed modern warships than the US and Royal navies ever commissioned.

The problem is: neither in RL or in Eve Online we can observe such world.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Kuga
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1547 - 2015-03-17 19:52:47 UTC
Frankly this a ridiculous tactic which abuses incomplete game mechanics and this response from the development team disappointingly appears to roughly translate to 'we know about it, but can't really be bothered going about fixing it'.

I've ever fallen victim to it (I don't freight), but its inane nature should certainly warrant a little more attention than the dev. team are currently willing to invest. Bad mechanics are bad for game sales.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1548 - 2015-03-23 08:20:24 UTC
Kuga wrote:
Frankly this a ridiculous tactic which abuses incomplete game mechanics and this response from the development team disappointingly appears to roughly translate to 'we know about it, but can't really be bothered going about fixing it'.

I've ever fallen victim to it (I don't freight), but its inane nature should certainly warrant a little more attention than the dev. team are currently willing to invest. Bad mechanics are bad for game sales.


CONCORD is itself a horrible game mechanic.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Mark O'Helm
Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt
#1549 - 2015-03-26 22:39:59 UTC
Wow, this is a long threat. I didnt read all of it, in fact only a few pages. It took a while for me to figure out, what hyperdunking actually means.
But if a criminal timer (red flash) deactivates the ability to warp a ship, shouldnt it deactivate any ship systems, wich means preventing any module activation?

"Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen. Aber Frauen wollen keine Frauenversteher. Weil Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen." (Ein Single)

"Wirklich coolen Leuten ist es egal, ob sie cool sind." (Einer, dem es egal ist)
Paranoid Loyd
#1550 - 2015-03-26 22:48:46 UTC
Mark O'Helm wrote:

But if a criminal timer (red flash) deactivates the ability to warp a ship, shouldnt it deactivate any ship systems, wich means preventing any module activation?

Maybe you could explain how it would be possible to gank if this were the case?

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!
Mark O'Helm
Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt
#1551 - 2015-03-26 23:44:30 UTC
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Mark O'Helm wrote:

But if a criminal timer (red flash) deactivates the ability to warp a ship, shouldnt it deactivate any ship systems, wich means preventing any module activation?

Maybe you could explain how it would be possible to gank if this were the case?

You are right. Maybe after the attack ship exploded and you reship.

"Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen. Aber Frauen wollen keine Frauenversteher. Weil Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen." (Ein Single)

"Wirklich coolen Leuten ist es egal, ob sie cool sind." (Einer, dem es egal ist)
Daerrol
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1552 - 2015-04-02 16:45:18 UTC
Why not just hyperdunk the hyperdunkers...? If you can solo anyship in the game now, solo their Bowhead.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#1553 - 2015-04-03 01:14:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Daerrol wrote:
Why not just hyperdunk the hyperdunkers...? If you can solo anyship in the game now, solo their Bowhead.
It requires effort and can't be done afk.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#1554 - 2015-04-03 15:13:31 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Daerrol wrote:
Why not just hyperdunk the hyperdunkers...? If you can solo anyship in the game now, solo their Bowhead.
It requires effort and can't be done afk.




There's a thread about nerfing AFK cloaking that you need to jump into BTW. I expect to see you there NOT showing double standards.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#1555 - 2015-04-03 17:18:21 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Daerrol wrote:
Why not just hyperdunk the hyperdunkers...? If you can solo anyship in the game now, solo their Bowhead.
It requires effort and can't be done afk.




There's a thread about nerfing AFK cloaking that you need to jump into BTW. I expect to see you there NOT showing double standards.

You don't actually kill ships when cloacked and/or AFK

Evil RatKid
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#1556 - 2015-04-04 00:00:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Daerrol wrote:
Why not just hyperdunk the hyperdunkers...? If you can solo anyship in the game now, solo their Bowhead.
It requires effort and can't be done afk.




There's a thread about nerfing AFK cloaking that you need to jump into BTW. I expect to see you there NOT showing double standards.
If you look at my post history I rarely, if ever, post on gameplay subjects that aren't highsec related or affect highsec through gamewide changes.

AFK cloaking doesn't affect the way I play, or the areas of the game that I spend the most time in. As such I have no need or interest in campaigning one way or the other with regards to it.

That said, the only thing an AFK cloaker is capable of doing, via virtue of game mechanics, is prey on the fear and ignorance of others.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Maxpie
MUSE LLP
#1557 - 2015-05-27 22:26:57 UTC
Counselor Gina wrote:
I'm fairly new - not a ganker or a freighter, so I really have no horse in this race - but I've always had a question.

It seems like the vast majority of contested methods of attack all come down to bumping not being considered an act of aggression. Why is it that way? Bumping can almost indefinitely prevent warp (right?), and as long as your locked (another act of non-aggression), you can't log off either? I get bumps happen non-aggressively from time to time - but freighters tell me (I contract them a ton) they get bumped for 10, 20, 30 minutes and more. If this is not an act of aggression, why is my scram or point?

Again, I'm pretty ambivalent to it either way, I'm just wondering the historical roots for this decision?



Nobody seems to have a real answer to this question. I have no issue with ganking freighters, but I don't think someone should essentially have the ability to keep me from being able to log off for an unreasonable amount of time. I have choose between geting ganked while offline, or to stay up all night at the whim of someone else, because someone wants to lock and bump my ship endlessly? That's just poor gameplay. Put a time limit on it, for example, say gank within 20 minutes or let the ship go otherwise you are griefing.

No good deed goes unpunished
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1558 - 2015-05-27 23:49:58 UTC
Maxpie wrote:

Nobody seems to have a real answer to this question.


What, as to why bumping is not a mechanically hostile act? For starters, because it happens very frequently over the course of normal gameplay, with no hostile intent.

Secondly, as a result of the first point, the game engine is quite literally fully incapable of determining intent of someone who is involved in a bump.

And thirdly, because recoding the game's base physics engine is something that CCP is literally not capable of.


Quote:

I have no issue with ganking freighters, but I don't think someone should essentially have the ability to keep me from being able to log off for an unreasonable amount of time.


Then fly with a web escort. The rules for "harassment" require you to have made an effort to move away from someone bumping you, and no, pushing the "warp to" button a few more times doesn't count.


Quote:

I have choose between geting ganked while offline, or to stay up all night at the whim of someone else, because someone wants to lock and bump my ship endlessly? That's just poor gameplay. Put a time limit on it, for example, say gank within 20 minutes or let the ship go otherwise you are griefing.


Or you can play with more than half of your ass, and never encounter this situation in the first place. As I said above, use a web escort.

Oh, and "griefing" is what CCP says it is, not whatever mealy mouthed carebear definition you're trying to foist. This is, by the only definition that matters, not griefing. Get used to it.

"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.
Moonlit Raid
Doomheim
#1559 - 2015-05-28 01:37:43 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Talos Antilles 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?


I was wondering the same thing:

"..even if you later return to that grid while still affected by that GCC."

The exploit mentioned there was a way to avoid CONCORD retribution by warping around on-grid — breaking the single rule with CONCORD. So two things make it inapplicable in this case: one is that the boomerang tactic was patched out; the other is that it was outlawed because you avoided CONCORD retribution in order to keep your ship and keep killing, whereas the entire point of chain-ganking (I will not use that sophomoric h-word) is that it relies on losing your ship CONCORD retribution in order for the whole thing to actually work.

So as Falcon points out, it's an outdated ruling from a mechanical standpoint, and it is an inapplicable ruling from a technical standpoint.
Bagrat Skalski wrote:
So when can we expect CONCORD podding the criminals?

Never. Podding is a 100% player activity and there's no reason for NPCs to ever do it.

Have you fought drifters yet?

If brute force isn't working, you're just not using enough.

Please Note: Any advice given comes with the caveat that nothing will be suitable for every situation.
13kr1d1
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1560 - 2015-05-28 06:07:20 UTC
EvilweaselFinance 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?

I obviously don't set policy but there's a big difference between the two and so it's reasonable you'd treat them differently.

The boomerang allowed you to get a ****-ton more damage out of a single ship - this just lets you get a lot more damage out of a single pilot in a specific timeframe at a cost of increased ships. With the boomerang (before it was banned) I could clear out most of an ice belt in a single tornado by warping to the top and bottom, alphaing, then warping away before i got blown up - I'd die eventually, but I'd kill way more ships per lost tornado. This doesn't have the same ability to let me get way more out of a single ship before it explodes.


People boomerang all the time when camping enemy militia trade hubs in highsec.

Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices