These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#101 - 2012-03-22 22:25:37 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
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.


The way I always learned to interpret it, in my time in game since 2006, is that evading CONCORD meant they stopped chasing you.

CCPs new carebear friendly stance may have changed this, which is why I am slightly non-committal on it

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.

MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#102 - 2012-03-22 23:17:01 UTC  |  Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Tallian Saotome wrote:
CCPs new carebear friendly stance may have changed this, which is why I am slightly non-committal on it

Interesting way to look at it considering that the ones that have changed the rule (as you view it) are the hi sec gankers extending their own GCC (and Concord destruction times) by using the boomerang technique. They can now go on indefinitely with this technique.

They (hi sec suicide gankers) can keep Concord chasing them for hours. If the rule was as you say then it is not CCP or carebears that have changed it.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.

Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#103 - 2012-03-23 01:15:26 UTC
I think this is awesome. Makes ganking (effectively) a lot of work, with a big payoff potentially.


You can bet the one Mack that isn't afk/botting will leave very fast the second time he sees you warp and gank... if he lives that long.
Kelvan Hemanseh
Hole Exploitation Inc.
#104 - 2012-03-23 04:18:19 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
I think this is awesome. Makes ganking (effectively) a lot of work, with a big payoff potentially.


I can agree if this is allowed then the effort:reward ratio is satisfied. It requires some decent equipment as well so the risk:reward ratio is satisfied as well. So now all we need is someone with a red box in their portrait to come tell us if its okay to do these things.
Katarina Reid
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#105 - 2012-03-23 15:34:06 UTC

CCP Greyscale
Nope, not intended as a change to suicide ganking at all. Any CONCORD replacement will keep the same time interval as current CONCORD spawns. We're kicking around the idea of deploying an instant warp-scrambler to prevent warping-around shenanigans, but we don't have any plans to alter the DPS delay right now.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=984080#post984080
Kelvan Hemanseh
Hole Exploitation Inc.
#106 - 2012-03-23 15:40:55 UTC
Katarina Reid wrote:

CCP Greyscale
Nope, not intended as a change to suicide ganking at all. Any CONCORD replacement will keep the same time interval as current CONCORD spawns. We're kicking around the idea of deploying an instant warp-scrambler to prevent warping-around shenanigans, but we don't have any plans to alter the DPS delay right now.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=984080#post984080


That doesn't really answer the question but it does make this harder to do if not impossible.
Katarina Reid
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#107 - 2012-03-23 15:51:00 UTC
well there fixing it so i guess they see it as a problem so enjoy while u can
Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
True Reign
#108 - 2012-03-23 15:53:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Ban Bindy
This thread is yet more proof that this game is more about bullying than anything else. Suicide ganking is not pvp, it's fake pvp. If the intent of the game is for older players to make the lives of newer and weaker players utterly miserable so that they leave, then this is a good idea. If you want a game where the player base grows and you have more combat by people who want it, then this is just one more step toward the shrinking of Eve. In case you haven't noticed, the game is smaller than it was. The supposed "victory" of the bitter vets over CCP did nothing but confuse the issue.

Solo mining was one of the only ways a casual player could enjoy this game. Getting killed while solo mining has driven a lot of people out of my main's corp. Hardly anybody logs on when we get a war dec, and, increasingly, the numbers are lower and lower.

Without some part of Eve where players have real safety, this game will die. The death will be long and slow because many people love the game. But death will come nevertheless. Fight this idea all you want. Throw that "carebear" word around like it means something. There have always been more people who wanted to play this game as carebears, they've just all been driven away by now. And the game has such a forbidding reputation at this point that people are not going to join it as readily or give it as much of a chance as in the past.

But please, keep looking at ways to force people to play in a style that they don't want and won't accept. That's the Eve mentality, for sure.
Rindon Callsar
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#109 - 2012-03-23 16:22:36 UTC
Ban Bindy wrote:
This thread is yet more proof that this game is more about bullying than anything else. Suicide ganking is not pvp, it's fake pvp.




In my opinion 99% of the PvP in this game is one sided ganks. It is sad really. I have been wandering through null for the past few days and all you see are 5-10 people sitting at bubbles on gates waiting for someone to stumble in. That or the same size gank groups roaming around looking for a target.

Makes me miss Pirates of the Burning Seas pvp where it takes actual skill instead of numbers.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#110 - 2012-03-23 16:31:43 UTC
Ban Bindy wrote:
Solo mining was one of the only ways a casual player could enjoy this game. Getting killed while solo mining has driven a lot of people out of my main's corp. Hardly anybody logs on when we get a war dec, and, increasingly, the numbers are lower and lower.

I've done plenty of solo mining. It's boring as hell. I don't understand how you could enjoy it...it was a means of passive income for me, something I could do while watching movies or studying.

As for war decs, if you're going to operate a corp, be prepared to fight. If not, join one that is. War is a core part of Eve and if your corp is a soft target, you WILL be exploited.

Ban Bindy wrote:
Without some part of Eve where players have real safety, this game will die. The death will be long and slow because many people love the game. But death will come nevertheless. Fight this idea all you want. Throw that "carebear" word around like it means something. There have always been more people who wanted to play this game as carebears, they've just all been driven away by now. And the game has such a forbidding reputation at this point that people are not going to join it as readily or give it as much of a chance as in the past.

If you come in to Eve expecting it to be a safe, friendly environment, then you never heard of the game before you came here. When I started playing, I'd heard of massive corp thefts, the dismantling of BoB, the 30 billion isk Palladin gank, and various other craziness that has gone on over the years. That was what drew me to the game: Eve is a player-driven universe where we write our stories. One person can make a difference. A dozen people can drive major, news-making events. That's how Eve works, that's how it's always worked, and if you come here expecting anything else, I can only wonder how you ever found this game without knowing what you were getting into.

I spent the first year of gameplay mining, running missions, and generally being a highsec carebear. And I loved the chaos that surrounded me.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#111 - 2012-03-23 16:41:08 UTC
"real safety" in this game comes more from how you play rather then where you play. Location is a factor when you choose to mission or mine in the "mainstream" areas where every noob gankaholic and ninja salvager goes.

I once met a miner in a backwater Amarr high sec system who never heard of Hulkageddon. At that time there were already three of them. The same miner had not trained a new skill since 2006.


If the expectation is that you should just sit there and let Concord deliver the no-lube treatment, it's kind of dumb. It makes as much sense as an insurance payout for losing a ship to criminal activity.

Running from Concord seems like a logical thing to do, because if you RP or act out criminal intent, running from the law is part of being a criminal. To have to sit there and wait for it does not make sense.





Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Kelvan Hemanseh
Hole Exploitation Inc.
#112 - 2012-03-23 16:43:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Kelvan Hemanseh
Ban Bindy wrote:
This thread is yet more proof that this game is more about bullying than anything else. Suicide ganking is not pvp, it's fake pvp. If the intent of the game is for older players to make the lives of newer and weaker players utterly miserable so that they leave, then this is a good idea. If you want a game where the player base grows and you have more combat by people who want it, then this is just one more step toward the shrinking of Eve. In case you haven't noticed, the game is smaller than it was. The supposed "victory" of the bitter vets over CCP did nothing but confuse the issue.

Solo mining was one of the only ways a casual player could enjoy this game. Getting killed while solo mining has driven a lot of people out of my main's corp. Hardly anybody logs on when we get a war dec, and, increasingly, the numbers are lower and lower.

Without some part of Eve where players have real safety, this game will die. The death will be long and slow because many people love the game. But death will come nevertheless. Fight this idea all you want. Throw that "carebear" word around like it means something. There have always been more people who wanted to play this game as carebears, they've just all been driven away by now. And the game has such a forbidding reputation at this point that people are not going to join it as readily or give it as much of a chance as in the past.

But please, keep looking at ways to force people to play in a style that they don't want and won't accept. That's the Eve mentality, for sure.


I don't get where people differentiate between real and fake pvp. Any pvp that happens is real pvp. This game is a sandbox game you choose what you want to do. You chose to mine. I chose to kill you after you refused to pay for protection.

Also this is a derail, please answer the OP CCP.
Tauren Tom
Order of the Silver Dragons
Silver Dragonz
#113 - 2012-03-23 16:48:18 UTC
Should have gone to fanfest so you could badger greyscale and heckle him on stage.
In the grand scheme of things... You're all pubbies. So HTFU.   "It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses." - Elwood Blues
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#114 - 2012-03-23 16:58:47 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Running from Concord seems like a logical thing to do, because if you RP or act out criminal intent, running from the law is part of being a criminal. To have to sit there and wait for it does not make sense.

Exactly.

In real life, running from the law results in escalations by the law. More cops, helicopters, road blocks, et cetera. Concord should mimic that behavior. This new "death ray" idea that I've heard was suggested is just BAD.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Savannah Zateki
Whispering Fang Syndicate
#115 - 2012-03-23 20:23:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Savannah Zateki
Here's the thing. You guys are trying to using loopholes to make this 'boomerang technique' seem legit. Just because it doesn't say it explicitly on the rules doesn't mean that it's allowed.

The purpose of CONCORD retaliation in highsec is so illegal aggressors get their ship popped. Evading CONCORD is an exploit. Warping away from CONCORD is technically, evading CONCORD. Therefore, warping away from CONCORD is an exploit. Simple as that.

Furthermore, using an Orca's fittting services to reduce the blow to your wallet should also be considered an exploit, since once again, THE PURPOSE OF CONCORD IN HIGHSEC IS TO DESTROY PILOTS COMMITING ILLEGAL AGGRESSION! That includes losing EVERYTHING they had in their ship, not just what they couldn't swap out in time.

Two solutions I can see to this: Either make it so you can't warp off grid when you have GCC in highsec, or bring on the Warp Scramble Ray.

edit: Also, on the CONCORD Mechanics EVElopedia page, ISD Othismos wrote "On any actions that Concord has deemed unacceptable, they will respond by destroying the offender's ship. The offender's pod is not touched. It is considered an exploit to dodge Concord's response."

Note the use of the word "dodge".
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#116 - 2012-03-24 07:16:58 UTC
I interpret it differently.

Evading Concord is not 'evading' in the temporary sense of simply warping away.
Warping away from a ganksite is simply common sense self preservation when other players are free to engage (and pod) you at will.

Evading is escaping the destruction of your ship. (ie former Black ops jump or Orca stash maneuver)

Likewise, its perfectly legal to unfit your ship after ganking. Because CCP does not require your mods to be destroyed during a GCC - only the ship.

How do I know this? Your mods survive the explosion.....



Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#117 - 2012-03-24 08:27:35 UTC
Oh, and based on their lack of an official response and recent 'Crimewatch' insights...

I interpret it this way:

It is not 'an exploit' in the generally accepted sense that will earn a ban or a warning. No reasonable person could come to that conclusion.

But CCP is planning on turfing out out high-sec aggression anyway, and will likely patch it out anyway, much like high-sec insurance.

So locking the thread followed by.........nothing...........is merely a tactic to cause confusion until they patch it out of the game.

So make use of it while you can....I know I will be.

Still have 102 Tornados staged, and built to destroy.

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#118 - 2012-03-24 09:54:30 UTC
Serenity Frye wrote:
i doubt ccp will consider the maneuver itself to be an exploit. it has been used in this game for a very long time, in various forms. if anything, they will look into the storing of fitted modules into orcas.


It's always about Knowing Thy Limits.

As long as it's a very limited group of peeps doing that, CCP will close 1, 2 or even 3 eyes on that. It's a PvP game after all.

But once you get some smart ass beginning to publish detailed tutorials about how to scientifically do it, maybe making videos, posting everywhere on the forums about it... then everybody start doing it and then CCP have to stop it before it goes out of control.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#119 - 2012-03-24 09:59:07 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:

I was just shooting down a stupid reactive carebear idea. "LOL, I know! Make it so they cannot warp out after a gank! That will fix it!" When really, there is nothing here to fix....


Selective thinking here:


Herr Wilkus wrote:

It might surprise a bonehead like yourself, but given a choice, I'd prefer to warp off! Its better than having to sit there locked down by Concord for 15 seconds, while an interceptor closes in to snag my pod. Because I prefer not to be podded.


It might surprise you but given a choice, the ganked guy would have preferred to not lose ship and pod to you.
Yet he's the carebear and you aren't one?


Herr Wilkus wrote:

Another news flash: I also prefer to be able to keep my mods, rather than let a random Orca or frigate steal them from me. Not really 'scared' of it as you claim. At this moment, I've got somewhere between 110 and 120 T2 Tornados fit and ready to gank in 5 different ice systems. I don't even count the T2 Catalysts.


Again, this is risk aversion. If you do a gank you take the responsibility that comes with it. Else you are as carebear and actually cheating because you gank with a setup not with an empty hull thus you shall lose the setup or get castigated by a GM.

Prince Kobol
#120 - 2012-03-24 10:00:14 UTC
Read the the OP's post, couldn't be bothered ready the replies.

Short answer... No