EVE General Discussion

Guess what? It was.

Guess what? It was.

So, again, please show me where CCP stated that, even though boomeranging no longer exists, the rule against boomeranging is still around and applicable to non-boomeranging.

…and the tactic that was outlawed was patched out. You can no longer do it. You still don't understand what the actual rule was. I'll quote directly from the exploit notification:

“It is a violation of game policy to avoid retaliation from CONCORD”.

Boomeranging did this, and that's the reason it was outlawed. Hyperdunking doesn't do that, and that's the reason it is legal.

Except nothing. If you think one is bad because it reduces interaction, you must also think the other is bad because it reduces interaction. Or are you a hypocrite?

CCP has deemed that neither is an exploit but rather clever uses of game mechanics — what you think is irrelevant. This in spite of the fact that hyperdunking doesn't bypass any mechanics, whereas web slinging bypasses the normal mechanics determining how quickly a ship can get into warp.

Of course it is. There is this concept you need to learn that is called “force multiplier” — it's when a clever combination of tactics and equipment makes it possible for a smaller force to do what you'd expect from a larger force. Unless you have that, balance just becomes a matter of N+1, which isn't really balance at all, but rather a particularly flat and boring version of top trumps.

Of course it does. There was an entire new mechanism in CW2.0 to deal with the old exploit — one that deprecated all old rules concerning it and shifted them into the generic realm of “don't use bugs”.

CW2.0 even — explicitly and intentionally — invented situations where you were rewarded for warping off and then returning. That's how little relevance the boomerang ruling has after CW2.0

Yes, is is: you are not allowed to evade CONCORD. That's all. This was already the case, by the way, and the exploit notification specifically outlawed boomeranging by addressing the silly rules lawyering of “Oh, but I will be destroyed by CONCORD, only it'll happen much much later…”, which is all boomeranging actually was.

No matter how uninformed you choose to be about how hyperdunking works, it is not boomeranging. it does not break the rules that made boomeranging an exploit. Once boomeranging was mechanically removed from the game, the underlying rule is still around, and guess what? Hyperdunking does not break it.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
You haven't proven your case, so I rightly dismiss it without proof. And with proof. And with logic. And with recorded history. Twice.

…and cited the actual rule being broken: “It is a violation of game policy to avoid retaliation from CONCORD”.

The rest of the ruling is deprecated by CW2.0. Hyperdunking is not boomeranging, no matter how much you beg, wish, plead, or stomp your feet. Accept reality for once.

Yes is is: “It is a violation of game policy to avoid retaliation from CONCORD”.

Boomeranging was deemed an exploit because ti did just that. Hyperdunking was deemed not an exploit for the simple reason that it doesn't do that.

The only thing that's obvious is that you are illiterate and a hypocrite.

The rule is written plainly: “It is a violation of game policy to avoid retaliation from CONCORD”.
The exploit notification is written plainly. It outlaws boomeranging because it breaks that rule.
Hyperdunking is allowed because it is not boomeranging and because it does not break that rule.
You are a hypocrite because you think this clever use of the mechanics should be an exploit because of your rage-frothing hatred of ganking, in spite of the GMs and devs telling you you are factually, objectively, unequivocally wrong, and yet you think that a clever use of the mechanics that prevents ganking is the best thing since sliced bread even though it fulfils the exact same criteria.

I don't hate empire dwellers. Admittedly, I don't generally love them either. I am mostly indifferent. But that holds true for most players in Eve anyway. I would however love to see Dreadnoughts (or Capitals in general) in High Sec. Just imagine the reign of terror we could establish in high sec (once we figure out how war and aggression mechanics work, that is)

In this time were you wrote one wot after the next one maybe watch some pvp tutorial Videos and be brave and jump into the dam 0.0 space.

I hope you don't mean in an arena.

Not going to go that far, but wardecs do have a theoretical purpose. It just needs a good evaluation on how can they be made more of a part of play instead of a nonconcentual means to pvp. But how does one give a "kill right" on a corp for purposes of business competition? I really think empire standings are under utilized....

Why?

Seriously? Why?

What would that actually bring to eve? Result? Nobody undocking. Ergo new player starts up, gets ganked the third time on his first day and never subs out of trial. Eve would be done within weeks. Period. The few full pvp guys would play, suddenly realize that assets are tough to come by, industry is dead and the market supply dries up. PvPers have to carebear and do the job of the hated highsec player just to keep pvping.


Or do you mean that unagressed combat should not be allowed in highsec thereby eliminating the need for concord?

The former exists solely because of the latter.

Concord is a needlessly binary, heavy handed, immersion breaking, anti sandbox mechanic. CCP knows full well that it should not exist, and that's why we have wars, to allow players to remove the loathsome presence of Concord for a fee.




And removing PvP from highsec accomplishes the same thing, just a slower death. Look up Ultima Online sometime.