These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

GMs - "We can't figure it out on our own. You do it"

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cyprus Black
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1 - 2012-03-02 02:33:28 UTC
Had an interesting chat with a few GMs tonight regarding the decshield exploit. I'm not allowed to post GM chat logs here on the EvE forums, but the full conversation is not hard to find *wink*

Basically we went back and forth on the topic. Both GMs insist that it's not an exploit, but cannot offer a viable solution to the problem. They basically said we can't figure it out on our own so you do it.

To be honest I'm a bit shocked. The GMs broke the wardec mechanic yet refuse to call it an exploit and can't figure out a solution.

Something is terribly wrong in the GM department.

Summary of EvEs last four expansions: http://imgur.com/ZL5SM33
KrakizBad
Section 8.
#2 - 2012-03-02 02:35:08 UTC
GM's aren't devs, news at 11.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2012-03-02 02:35:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Cyprus Black wrote:
Had an interesting chat with a few GMs tonight regarding the decshield exploit. I'm not allowed to post GM chat logs here on the EvE forums, but the full conversation is not hard to find *wink*

Basically we went back and forth on the topic. Both GMs insist that it's not an exploit, but cannot offer a viable solution to the problem. They basically said we can't figure it out on our own so you do it.

To be honest I'm a bit shocked. The GMs broke the wardec mechanic yet refuse to call it an exploit and can't figure out a solution.

Something is terribly wrong in the GM department.


Why? What makes you think that GM's are CCP devs? Most GMs are volunteer players from within the ISD.

Bounty Hunting - Soon (™): Retribution (Winter 2012)

It's just criminal - Smuggling
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#4 - 2012-03-02 02:38:09 UTC
Well it seems too hard for you too. I personally like the dec shield. So I won't tell you how to bypass it.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
Cyprus Black
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#5 - 2012-03-02 02:38:57 UTC
Nowhere in my post does it mention anything about devs. The word isn't even mentioned. I don't know where you guys are pulling this from.

The GMs broke the mechanic by refusing to enforce rules against this exploit.

Summary of EvEs last four expansions: http://imgur.com/ZL5SM33
Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#6 - 2012-03-02 02:52:46 UTC
Confirming Wardec is broken for eve players and working as intended for WOW players

"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
Brock Nelson
#7 - 2012-03-02 02:53:57 UTC
So...GM broke the mechanism...how?

Escalate to senior GM.

Signature removed, CCP Phantom
Serge Bastana
GWA Corp
#8 - 2012-03-02 02:55:21 UTC
I think you're missing the point they're trying to make, the devs put the game mechanics in place and decided to remove the rule of it being an exploit, the GM's just follow CCP's rules since they're mostly volunteers and don't actually work for CCP to create the game.

WoW holds your hand until end game, and gives you a cookie whether you win or lose. EVE not only takes your cookie, but laughs at you for bringing one in the first place...

Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2012-03-02 02:55:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Cyprus Black wrote:
Nowhere in my post does it mention anything about devs. The word isn't even mentioned. I don't know where you guys are pulling this from.

The GMs broke the mechanic by refusing to enforce rules against this exploit.


Both references of dec shield usage have been validated by CCP for use as legitimate mechanics.

1) Wethers it's the padding of freindly wars for alliances to afford more expensive war declaration charges.

2) Or the applied use of a dec shield alliance where you join to subsequently drop to remove the associated war dec.

So whats to enforce, even if frowned upon for use?

(Largely going to change with the Inferno expansion and its focus on the war theme anyhow I would suspect.)

Bounty Hunting - Soon (™): Retribution (Winter 2012)

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#10 - 2012-03-02 03:57:23 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Both references of dec shield usage have been validated by CCP for use as legitimate mechanics.
…and the question is why, when it was considered an exploit for ages. They didn't change any mechanics — all they did was void existing mechanics through a rather silly policy decision.

Quote:
So whats to enforce, even if frowned upon for use?
They could simply revert to the old stance and enforce it…
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#11 - 2012-03-02 04:06:46 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Both references of dec shield usage have been validated by CCP for use as legitimate mechanics.
…and the question is why, when it was considered an exploit for ages. They didn't change any mechanics — all they did was void existing mechanics through a rather silly policy decision.

Quote:
So whats to enforce, even if frowned upon for use?
They could simply revert to the old stance and enforce it…


Fair enough, but changing things is a movement away from current realities. What kind of basis is that for an argument. You might aswell say "but you can prove anything with facts". Roll

The point being made is the objective position as stands now. As such the OP doesnt have a leg to stand on currently regarding the claims about the perceived unfair treatment.

There's a really nice Features and Ideas forum for any proposal for change.

Bounty Hunting - Soon (™): Retribution (Winter 2012)

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Valei Khurelem
#12 - 2012-03-02 04:32:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Valei Khurelem
When the **** will tech support understand that if they can't solve something it's perfectly acceptable to pass it on to someone who can? I had a situation with my web host provider some time ago where I had to practically yell at the person on the other side in text to get someone else who could actually bloody read my question.

In case anyone was wondering, it was about rankings and checking how many people visited your site, finally got an answer that you couldn't accurately determine it.

"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP."   - CCP Ytterbium
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#13 - 2012-03-02 06:06:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Ptraci
Terminal Insanity wrote:
Confirming Wardec is broken for eve players and working as intended for WOW players


Get out of high sec. All of you. Problem solved.

Oh wait no, you want your cake and to be able to eat it too. You want to pound that 5 man industry corp into the sand, ravage their hulks, raid their POS and extract maximum tears while, at the same time, no one else should be able to shoot you oh no gotta do all that while hiding behind mama concord's skirts. Get out into low/nullsec and suddenly no one cares about war dec mechanics. Pussycats.
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2012-03-02 06:27:06 UTC
Neither high nor low/null is perfect, but those of us that choose to pvp in highsec have our reasons. While I'm sure some *are* hiding behind Concord's skirts, the fact is that it is (or rather was) much easier to find pvp in highsec. Especially the type that doesn't involve 300 man Drake fleets.

The fact of the matter is that I just plain old don't like enough people to fight 300 man drake fleets. And if I did, all that high-octane science I've done is for naught, as I'd just be orbiting the anchor and shooting the primary.

The other alternative is a wandering :wulfpax: waits until they stumble upon some dumbass soloing around and not paying attention to their intel channel. Or gate camping.

There are whispers of rumors of people who get intense, fun, small gang on small gang nullsec pvp, but I can think of maybe one outfit that supposedly does, and that's Hydra Reloaded. On the other hand, I can name a half-dozen highsec outfits that do. Yes, sometimes you stomp newbies into the dirt and laugh about it, but sometimes you get good fights.

Stop thinking that because you are an instrument of the will of DBRB's dog you are somehow better than the very high-speed individuals in outfits like Moar Tears or Break-a-Wish Foundation.

And the OP brings up a very solid point that our way of life really is drying up. Many outfits of the sort named above are just filling skill queues and playing the DotA 2 beta, hoping Inferno brings us the rain to soak our parched ground and feed our withered crops.

Except the rain is fights. Or possibly tears. And the ground is our killboards. And the crops are... uh... erections? Listen, it's not a perfect analogy.

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#15 - 2012-03-02 07:23:45 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:
but those of us that choose to pvp in highsec have our reasons. While I'm sure some *are* hiding behind Concord's skirts, the fact is that it is (or rather was) much easier to find pvp in highsec.


Yeah. Those reasons can usually be summed up as:

1. We want to gank a specific enemy because we know a) they are noobs b) they are carebears c) we have overwhelming force.
2. We want to fight people we know are not prepared for combat
3. We want to have all the niceties of high sec, namely, no one else can shoot at us and we can act like carebears when we're not at war or there are no WT in the system, and we don't want any logistics problems at all.
4. Hanging around Jita undock waiting for a null/lowsec alliance freighter pilot who didn't check his mail is the pinnacle of creativity for us.

I have no problem with any of that. My problem is people who whine about the rules while trying every single trick they can to get around those rules, when there are plenty of people itching to fight only 5 jumps away... It's this mentality of "I wanna fight I wanna fight anyone I am soo leet I wanna fight but no, not this fight, this is too much fight, I want a different fight - the fight where I'm sure to win!" - which usually ends up being the Brutix vs Mackinaw fight in a 0.6 system.

Sure, go on, make excuses to yourself but it's so obvious. All those rules and limitations stop bothering you in 0.4 and below. Only you won't do it. It's like the 20 guys that jump into our home system in nullsec acting all bad-arse in their hurricanes, cynabals and tornados, smacking up local after they kill some dumb hulk pilot who wasn't paying attention. Why do these guys always run when our 20-30 man defense fleet shows up? I thought they wanted to fight? Nah, I wanna fight but not this fight....
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#16 - 2012-03-02 07:32:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Pretty sure with P Monk its a case of he's still pissed with CCP for changing RR rules and now doesnt have a nice easy trick to grief incursions with. aka the skunkworks platform that was removed.

Bounty Hunting - Soon (™): Retribution (Winter 2012)

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#17 - 2012-03-02 07:34:56 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Pretty sure with P Monk its a case of he's still pissed with CCP for changing RR rules and now doesnt have a nice easy trick to grief incursions with. aka the old skunkworks platform that was removed.


So go after the logis if it means that much to you. Blackbirds are cheap :)
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#18 - 2012-03-02 07:50:43 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Pretty sure with P Monk its a case of he's still pissed with CCP for changing RR rules and now doesnt have a nice easy trick to grief incursions with. aka the skunkworks platform that was removed.


This.

I mean, other things, too.

But mostly this.

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity
GM Homonoia
Game Master Retirement Home
#19 - 2012-03-02 09:41:13 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Cyprus Black wrote:
Had an interesting chat with a few GMs tonight regarding the decshield exploit. I'm not allowed to post GM chat logs here on the EvE forums, but the full conversation is not hard to find *wink*

Basically we went back and forth on the topic. Both GMs insist that it's not an exploit, but cannot offer a viable solution to the problem. They basically said we can't figure it out on our own so you do it.

To be honest I'm a bit shocked. The GMs broke the wardec mechanic yet refuse to call it an exploit and can't figure out a solution.

Something is terribly wrong in the GM department.


Why? What makes you think that GM's are CCP devs? Most GMs are volunteer players from within the ISD.


This is incorrect. All GMs are paid CCP staff. However, we are not programmers and we do not have the capabilities to fix bugs or change code.

Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master
Bubanni
Corus Aerospace
#20 - 2012-03-02 09:47:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Bubanni
GM Homonoia wrote:

This is incorrect. All GMs are paid CCP staff. However, we are not programmers and we do not have the capabilities to fix bugs or change code.


I have a strong feeling that what he was actually refereing to was people doing stuff like... joining an alliance when they get war dec'ed and then leaving it right afterwards... heck could be their own temp alliance... thus removing their war dec...

And I think he is commenting on how apparently this is 100% okay now, but wasn't in the past? I do not know, but you clearly missed his point... he is talking about punishment for "exploiting" game mechanics, as it wasn't okay in the past? nothing to do with the GM staff having to fix the "bug" that allows corps to do this, but to reinforce the rules (that apparently dont exist anymore?)

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934
123Next pageLast page