These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

GMs - Please weigh in on the boomerang maneuver. Exploit (y/n)?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Daemon Ceed
Ice Fire Warriors
#81 - 2012-03-22 20:04:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Daemon Ceed
Rindon Callsar wrote:
Daemon Ceed wrote:
Rindon Callsar wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Presenting my latest wall of text on this subject:

http://stinkinguplocal.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/can-we-get-some-consistency-please/

Summary: We have too many GM-enforced rules already, don't play favorites, and I weighed in on what kind of fixes make sense to ensure no exploiting is done.



The GM's are forced to place rules on certain aspects because of the complete and utter asshattery that you guys come up with to grief people who try to opt out of PvP or just don't want to deal with the hassles of getting into low/null.

While I could care less if you suicide AFK farmers (and I wish there were more killing done) you guys end up targeting people who are trying to opt out of PvP by staying in high sec.


This is EVE. You can't "opt-out" of PVP in this game, and trying is futile. You can reduce your chances of encountering it by not being an idiot, but you cannot opt-out anymore than you can opt-out of being a victim of crime IRL. I really hope I run into you sometime so that I can give you some very unconsensual pvp to drive the point home.

Edited to add: You sound mad. U mad bro?



Not mad at all, but by your "I'm a hard ass" attitude you fall into the "let's 10 v 1 a person and then talk ****" category.



Edit: and from looking at your kill board I am exactly correct. Your only solo kills are against haulers. GG.


I see that you didn't bother looking at related kills. In many instances I was blobbed when I went in solo and as such my alliance counter blobbed. You should really take more time to do research before you open your pie hole.

Also, it's not my fault when my corpmates want to whore in on killmails, or when I whore in on there's. We are almost always in a fleet and they can warp-in on me at any time. You'll probably also see where some people where on the killmail but little to no damage in comparison to what I did...which means I was there for awhile before they arrived on-grid.
Rindon Callsar
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#82 - 2012-03-22 20:08:06 UTC
Daemon Ceed wrote:
Rindon Callsar wrote:
Daemon Ceed wrote:
Rindon Callsar wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Presenting my latest wall of text on this subject:

http://stinkinguplocal.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/can-we-get-some-consistency-please/

Summary: We have too many GM-enforced rules already, don't play favorites, and I weighed in on what kind of fixes make sense to ensure no exploiting is done.



The GM's are forced to place rules on certain aspects because of the complete and utter asshattery that you guys come up with to grief people who try to opt out of PvP or just don't want to deal with the hassles of getting into low/null.

While I could care less if you suicide AFK farmers (and I wish there were more killing done) you guys end up targeting people who are trying to opt out of PvP by staying in high sec.


This is EVE. You can't "opt-out" of PVP in this game, and trying is futile. You can reduce your chances of encountering it by not being an idiot, but you cannot opt-out anymore than you can opt-out of being a victim of crime IRL. I really hope I run into you sometime so that I can give you some very unconsensual pvp to drive the point home.

Edited to add: You sound mad. U mad bro?



Not mad at all, but by your "I'm a hard ass" attitude you fall into the "let's 10 v 1 a person and then talk ****" category.



Edit: and from looking at your kill board I am exactly correct. Your only solo kills are against haulers. GG.


I see that you didn't bother looking at related kills. In many instances I was blobbed when I went in solo and as such my alliance counter blobbed. You should really take more time to do research before you open your pie hole.

Also, it's not my fault when my corpmates want to ***** in on killmails, or when I ***** in on there's. We are almost always in a fleet and they can warp-in on me at any time. You'll probably also see where some people where on the killmail but little to no damage in comparison to what I did...which means I was there for awhile before they arrived on-grid.



Ohhh Tommy Toughnuts, you truly are the best!
Daemon Ceed
Ice Fire Warriors
#83 - 2012-03-22 20:10:17 UTC
Rindon Callsar wrote:



Ohhh Tommy Toughnuts, you truly are the best!


Your woman says the same thing to me ;)
Kazacy
BACKFIRE Squad
#84 - 2012-03-22 20:54:02 UTC
Rindon Callsar wrote:


stuff

While I could care less if you suicide AFK farmers (and I wish there were more killing done) you guys end up targeting people who are trying to opt out of PvP by staying in high sec.



When you undock you already opt in for pvp and even if you don't undock you can enjoy market pvp. If you don't like this it's better for everyone to leave this game, and if you wanna leave pls be kind and contract all your stuff to me.
thx in advance for the stuff.
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#85 - 2012-03-22 20:56:43 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
On TQ:
Ganked a covetor in 0.5 in an oracle, warped around until 15 minute GCC ran out, left system
Re-entered system, concord didn't pursue or attack.

Carebear: -1 Covetor
Me: No loss
Exploit? TBD I suppose.


Yes. Its an exploit because you didn't lose your ship. Thought we went over this already.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#86 - 2012-03-22 20:58:50 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Herr Wilkus wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
On TQ:
Ganked a covetor in 0.5 in an oracle, warped around until 15 minute GCC ran out, left system
Re-entered system, concord didn't pursue or attack.

Carebear: -1 Covetor
Me: No loss
Exploit? TBD I suppose.


Yes. Its an exploit because you didn't lose your ship. Thought we went over this already.

Seems other people differ on this.

Furthermore: again, if it's an exploit, why am I able to do it? I shouldn't be able to do it if it's considered an exploit.

It's not even like I used a bug or some hidden game mechanics that few people know about. If what I did is an exploit then that needs to be both clarified and changed so I can't do it. It would be quite easy to do, literally take maybe a minute of dev time.

All I did was warping around. If warping around gets me banned, then GMs are ********.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#87 - 2012-03-22 21:05:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Tallian Saotome
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Herr Wilkus wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
On TQ:
Ganked a covetor in 0.5 in an oracle, warped around until 15 minute GCC ran out, left system
Re-entered system, concord didn't pursue or attack.

Carebear: -1 Covetor
Me: No loss
Exploit? TBD I suppose.


Yes. Its an exploit because you didn't lose your ship. Thought we went over this already.

Seems other people differ on this.

Furthermore: again, if it's an exploit, why am I able to do it? I shouldn't be able to do it if it's considered an exploit.

It's not even like I used a bug or some hidden game mechanics that few people know about. If what I did is an exploit then that needs to be both clarified and changed so I can't do it. It would be quite easy to do, literally take maybe a minute of dev time.

If you don't die, its an exploit. Nothing says it has to be right away, but if it doesn't happen its punishable by perma-ban with no warnings.

And exploit, just to be clear, is where you can do things that should be able to be done. If you can do it, and are not supposed to be able to do it, its an exploit, that simple.

However, evading concord for a short time is not an exploit.

If you want a verdict, don't ask here, file a petition. I have it on record in a different thread that the GM staff would rather answer your question about its legality in advance than have to do all the work of proving you are exploiting(pulling logs, watching you do it, etc).

There is no room to differ. CCP has clearly stated that failing to die after incurring CONCORD wrath is an immediately bannable offense. The question is whether its legit to delay that wrath to get a few more ganks in.

Real question, CCP. Why are highsec players so dumb they think that an exploit isn't possible?

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#88 - 2012-03-22 21:12:01 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Tallian Saotome wrote:
There is no room to differ. CCP has clearly stated that failing to die after incurring CONCORD wrath is an immediately bannable offense. The question is whether its legit to delay that wrath to get a few more ganks in.

Mine is the logical extent of the exact same thing you're doing. I never incurred their wrath either, merely delayed it indefinitely.

Tallian Saotome wrote:
Real question, CCP. Why are highsec players so dumb they think that an exploit isn't possible?

Why shouldn't something bannable in game be changed to make it impossible to do in the first place?

CCP doesn't want players doing A
Players do A because the game lets them, knowing (or not) that it's a bannable offense
CCP bans players doing A

alternatively:

CCP doesn't want players doing A
CCP makes simple change to prevent A being possible
Players don't do A or get banned


Two possible fixes:
1) Increase CONCORD scan res and response time as GCC runs down guaranteeing you'll be caught before GCC runs out
2) CONCORD does not stop pursuit at GCC end if your ship hasn't been destroyed - also cannot dock or jump if GCC has expired without having ship destroyed. Log-off mechanics would also force your ship to stay on grid long enough to be destroyed.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#89 - 2012-03-22 21:18:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Tallian Saotome
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Tallian Saotome wrote:
There is no room to differ. CCP has clearly stated that failing to die after incurring CONCORD wrath is an immediately bannable offense. The question is whether its legit to delay that wrath to get a few more ganks in.

Mine is the logical extent of the exact same thing you're doing. I never incurred their wrath either, merely delayed it indefinitely.

Tallian Saotome wrote:
Real question, CCP. Why are highsec players so dumb they think that an exploit isn't possible?

Why shouldn't something bannable in game be changed to make it impossible to do in the first place?

CCP doesn't want players doing A
Players do A because the game lets them, knowing (or not) that it's a bannable offense
CCP bans players doing A

alternatively:

CCP doesn't want players doing A
CCP makes simple change to prevent A being possible
Players don't do A or get banned

They can, and usually do alter the game to make it impossible.

General rule, an exploit is a possibility they had figured was impossible(CCP is good at this) or a bug(afaik, intended CONCORD functionality is to chase you til you die, 15 min or not).

In the first case, its actually legit til CCP says otherwise(They have already stated that coming up with a way to survive concord is an exploit, very broadly) and in the second case, abusing a bug is a bannable offense.

If you found a way to survive concord, you can do it once on TQ as a proof of concept, and if you don't file a exploit report once you prove it(it has its own petition category) you can be banned. If its a bug, same story.

Any other exploit, report it and you can keep doing it til a GM tells you no, but surviving CONCORD is a flat ban, period, if you abuse it.

Is that clear?

Edit: your second example is ********. Thats like saying you can die from making your computer levitate through hamster power. If the devs make it impossible, you can't get banned for it because its can't be done.

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
Kelvan Hemanseh
Hole Exploitation Inc.
#90 - 2012-03-22 21:22:18 UTC
Tallian Saotome wrote:

If you want a verdict, don't ask here, file a petition. I have it on record in a different thread that the GM staff would rather answer your question about its legality in advance than have to do all the work of proving you are exploiting(pulling logs, watching you do it, etc).



This is the perfect place to ask for a ruling, its an issue that affects more than just me and it doesn't create thousands of petitions asking the same thing. Try again.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#91 - 2012-03-22 21:22:19 UTC
Tallian Saotome wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Tallian Saotome wrote:
There is no room to differ. CCP has clearly stated that failing to die after incurring CONCORD wrath is an immediately bannable offense. The question is whether its legit to delay that wrath to get a few more ganks in.

Mine is the logical extent of the exact same thing you're doing. I never incurred their wrath either, merely delayed it indefinitely.

Tallian Saotome wrote:
Real question, CCP. Why are highsec players so dumb they think that an exploit isn't possible?

Why shouldn't something bannable in game be changed to make it impossible to do in the first place?

CCP doesn't want players doing A
Players do A because the game lets them, knowing (or not) that it's a bannable offense
CCP bans players doing A

alternatively:

CCP doesn't want players doing A
CCP makes simple change to prevent A being possible
Players don't do A or get banned

They can, and usually do alter the game to make it impossible.

General rule, an exploit is a possibility they had figured was impossible(CCP is good at this) or a bug(afaik, intended CONCORD functionality is to chase you til you die, 15 min or not).

In the first case, its actually legit til CCP says otherwise(They have already stated that coming up with a way to survive concord is an exploit, very broadly) and in the second case, abusing a bug is a bannable offense.

If you found a way to survive concord, you can do it once on TQ as a proof of concept, and if you don't file a exploit report once you prove it(it has its own petition category) you can be banned. If its a bug, same story.

Any other exploit, report it and you can keep doing it til a GM tells you no, but surviving CONCORD is a flat ban, period, if you abuse it.

Is that clear?

Edit: your second example is ********. Thats like saying you can die from making your computer levitate through hamster power. If the devs make it impossible, you can't get banned for it because its can't be done.

Alright, I'll file my petition then. Seems like I need to cover my ass.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#92 - 2012-03-22 21:29:01 UTC  |  Edited by: FloppieTheBanjoClown
Rindon Callsar wrote:
Again I will reiterate what I said in my previous post. YOU ARE THE MINORITY. Yes, you null secers, you pirates, you griefers. You are the smallest portion of the Eve Online population. The reason you are the minority is your own fault. You blockade nullsec and hide behind bubble camps to keep anyone out. Sitting hours on end waiting for a single target so you can 10 v 1 them, and act like hardasses because of it.

Actually, on the rare occasion I go out to null I'm dodging bubble camps and, given the opportunity, will risk getting 10v1'ed myself in order to kill a straggler after his gang has warped away. I'm not one of the cowards you're ranting about. Have fun bashing that strawman, though.

Rindon Callsar wrote:
The GM's are forced to place rules on certain aspects because of the complete and utter asshattery that you guys come up with to grief people who try to opt out of PvP or just don't want to deal with the hassles of getting into low/null.

While I could care less if you suicide AFK farmers (and I wish there were more killing done) you guys end up targeting people who are trying to opt out of PvP by staying in high sec.


High sec isn't an "opt out" zone. If you think it is, you've missed out on one of the basic tenets of the game.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#93 - 2012-03-22 21:31:41 UTC
Kelvan Hemanseh wrote:
Tallian Saotome wrote:

If you want a verdict, don't ask here, file a petition. I have it on record in a different thread that the GM staff would rather answer your question about its legality in advance than have to do all the work of proving you are exploiting(pulling logs, watching you do it, etc).



This is the perfect place to ask for a ruling, its an issue that affects more than just me and it doesn't create thousands of petitions asking the same thing. Try again.

GMs are not allowed to come to the forums without getting a ton of permission. Its not worth the time, but they have to answer the petitions, and if its an exploit, it only takes one or 2 petitions to get it added to the list of known exploits(and in short order patched out of existence).

The forums, on the other hand, don't guarantee they will notice(tho keeping it toward the top of the page will help til it get locks for discussing potential exploits)

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#94 - 2012-03-22 21:42:06 UTC
I wouldn't go so far to say you'll get a permaban for exploiting right off.
A warning most likely, and a ban if the behavior continues.
Hell, the botters are getting 3 strikes. (though I've not seen a single one get dealt with yet at all...)

As far as argument goes, 'if I can do it, its not an exploit'...

Well, that doesn't fly. Until recently you could evade Concord by simply ejecting and scooping it into an Orca.
This has been possible since the Orca was introduced, but it always been an exploit, and subject to penalty from CCP. The actual mechanic wasn't fixed until last week. Why? Likely because use of this exploit was not serious enough until now.

The duplicating moon goo trick from a few years ago led to a large number of permabans once found out. it was 'possible' to do, but once CCP discovered it, they X'd the account of everyone directly involved in that particular scam.

If it IS theoretically possible to gank and then warp for 15 minutes in an 0.5 system, CCP likely would simply punish anyone discovered doing it. However if that enforcement becomes too burdensome, they'd probably dedicate resources towards a patch.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#95 - 2012-03-22 21:54:45 UTC
Yep, the full evasion is an exploit.

In retrospect the "if I can do it it's not an exploit" makes a little bit less sense, especially now that I know the GMs certainly don't view it that way.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#96 - 2012-03-22 22:03:19 UTC  |  Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Tallian Saotome wrote:


However, evading concord for a short time is not an exploit.


Is this known to be true?

If so, what is considered a "short time"?

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#97 - 2012-03-22 22:06:42 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Tallian Saotome wrote:


However, evading concord for a short time is not an exploit.


Is this known to be true?


Isn't that what this thread is for?



Following my example, you could petition. Literally, there's a section for exploits, and you don't even have to be reporting one, you can just describe a scenario and ask if it's an exploit. It's better to be safe than have to self-report and ask for forgiveness (I was, I think, lucky in doing this) or worse be banned.

It would seem that as long as CONCORD blows up your ship before the GCC runs out, you're in the clear. The fuzzy parts involve multiple ganks under one GCC or unloading your modules into an Orca.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Kelvan Hemanseh
Hole Exploitation Inc.
#98 - 2012-03-22 22:08:06 UTC
Tallian Saotome wrote:
Kelvan Hemanseh wrote:
Tallian Saotome wrote:

If you want a verdict, don't ask here, file a petition. I have it on record in a different thread that the GM staff would rather answer your question about its legality in advance than have to do all the work of proving you are exploiting(pulling logs, watching you do it, etc).



This is the perfect place to ask for a ruling, its an issue that affects more than just me and it doesn't create thousands of petitions asking the same thing. Try again.

GMs are not allowed to come to the forums without getting a ton of permission. Its not worth the time, but they have to answer the petitions, and if its an exploit, it only takes one or 2 petitions to get it added to the list of known exploits(and in short order patched out of existence).

The forums, on the other hand, don't guarantee they will notice(tho keeping it toward the top of the page will help til it get locks for discussing potential exploits)


They can post here when they like, take a look at EVE General where they've posted plenty of times. Unless you work for CCP and know their PR policies, you shouldn't speak of them.
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#99 - 2012-03-22 22:10:16 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Tallian Saotome wrote:


However, evading concord for a short time is not an exploit.


Is this known to be true?

If so, what is considered a "short time"?

No, not til someone asks CCP directly instead of talking about it where they expect CCP to overhear like this thread is doing.

General CCP stance usually tends to favor the person exploiting til they make an announcement.

And a 'Short time' is less than a GCC. If CONCORD stops chasing you, you have a clear and present exploit.

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#100 - 2012-03-22 22:19:59 UTC
That's still open to interpretation, since a GCC can be increased by simply committing another crime. So "short time" could mean 15 minutes, 30 minutes, an hour, or longer even. Or it could mean five minutes. Or, evading Concord at any time after committing a crime could be considered an exploit.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.