These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Crimewatch, Suspect, and War Targets

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ginger Barbarella
#21 - 2012-12-20 19:06:17 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

I never said I was confused, but this is a rule from five years ago. It's not posted publicly anywhere except there.


Please point me to some official CCP documentation (not community Wikis, not community forums, not rampant speculation, not forum posts by people who apparently can't even get their in-game object names correct) by CCP covering their product "Eve Online". A user guide, if you will.

Thanks. Haven't seen one in my 7 years here, but maybe I was just looking in all the wrong places.

Oh, and ever heard of "security thru obscurity"? This is pretty much the same thing...

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#22 - 2012-12-20 19:09:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Adriel Malakai
masternerdguy wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

I never said I was confused, but this is a rule from five years ago. It's not posted publicly anywhere except there. There's nothing in the EULA or TOS about it. How am I supposed to know that repairing a starbase with a neutral alt is considered an exploit unless someone tells me?


Reading the forums where devs post these kinds of communications. Besides, how could you not sense this was an exploit? You found a way to 100% evade all consequences for your actions by using an edge case of the game mechanics and it isn't an exploit?


Prior to the recent crimewatch changes, neutral logi would turn red to the war targets of the pos owner for repping the tower or any of its anchored structures. There was no evasion for this edge case, and in fact many people offered this as a service as part of merc contracts. To my knowledge, none of the people regularly involved in this activity were warned nor banned. My guess would be that this was put into place before that was fixed in the old system.

As far as the new Crimewatch system goes - it's brand new and largely more broken than the previous version. It only stands to reason edge cases such as this will come up for the overly simplistic nature of Crimewatch 2.0. Applying a five year old warning that was aimed for a version of Crimewatch which has been completely scraped and replaced is suspect at best. I would strongly encourage anyone who receives any form of disciplinary action regarding this to petition and escalate it to lead GMs.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2012-12-20 19:10:00 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:
[quote=James Amril-Kesh]Reading the forums where devs post these kinds of communications. Besides, how could you not sense this was an exploit? You found a way to 100% evade all consequences for your actions by using an edge case of the game mechanics and it isn't an exploit?

Not every such thing is an exploit. It used to be possible to defend your massive mining fleet from smartbombs by using anchored containers. It was impossible to activate a smartbomb around these containers. Ergo, you are 100% evading any significant risk to your huge mining fleet simply by anchoring some containers.

This wasn't an exploit.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#24 - 2012-12-20 19:13:12 UTC
Cindy Marco wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

I never said I was confused, but this is a rule from five years ago. It's not posted publicly anywhere except there. There's nothing in the EULA or TOS about it. How am I supposed to know that repairing a starbase with a neutral alt is considered an exploit unless someone tells me?


I would think any situation where you can directly influence a battle, and not be flagged is clearly an exploit.

Why should someone have to tell you that something is wrong if your not flagged when your part of a fight? It seems pretty obvious.

With such an obvious exploit they don't need to warn you.


To be fair, CCP Greyscale did mention how they were planning to not flag neutral logi assisting the non-suspect party in a LE between a suspect and a non-suspect. This was changed due to a fair amount of "WTF are you thinking?" on the forums. And with CCP (particularly CCP Greyscale), you never really know what will happen.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#25 - 2012-12-20 19:13:22 UTC
Ginger Barbarella wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

I never said I was confused, but this is a rule from five years ago. It's not posted publicly anywhere except there.


Please point me to some official CCP documentation (not community Wikis, not community forums, not rampant speculation, not forum posts by people who apparently can't even get their in-game object names correct) by CCP covering their product "Eve Online". A user guide, if you will.

Thanks. Haven't seen one in my 7 years here, but maybe I was just looking in all the wrong places.

Oh, and ever heard of "security thru obscurity"? This is pretty much the same thing...

http://community.eveonline.com/pnp/eula.asp
http://community.eveonline.com/pnp/terms.asp

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2012-12-20 19:21:47 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

Quote:
Quote:

That's obscure as ****. They'd better get warned for a first offense instead of straight out banned.

Looks very straight forward to me. Which part confused you?

I never said I was confused, but this is a rule from five years ago. It's not posted publicly anywhere except there. There's nothing in the EULA or TOS about it. How am I supposed to know that repairing a starbase with a neutral alt is considered an exploit unless someone tells me?

well.
1) you rep someones wartarget while fight is running
2) you don't get suspect/any other flag
3) you don't become valid target for another side of a war

Isn't anything suspicious there? I guess the whole situation leads to some thoughts.....

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#27 - 2012-12-20 19:23:45 UTC
Did some of your alts and or friends get the ban hammer James Amril-Kesh?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2012-12-20 19:23:57 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
March rabbit wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

Quote:
Quote:

That's obscure as ****. They'd better get warned for a first offense instead of straight out banned.

Looks very straight forward to me. Which part confused you?

I never said I was confused, but this is a rule from five years ago. It's not posted publicly anywhere except there. There's nothing in the EULA or TOS about it. How am I supposed to know that repairing a starbase with a neutral alt is considered an exploit unless someone tells me?

well.
1) you rep someones wartarget while fight is running
2) you don't get suspect/any other flag
3) you don't become valid target for another side of a war

Isn't anything suspicious there? I guess the whole situation leads to some thoughts.....

And yet neutral rep on ships for PVP wasn't an exploit, even when it didn't make that logi a valid target.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2012-12-20 19:26:15 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Did some of your alts and or friends get the ban hammer James Amril-Kesh?

Nobody I know even plays in high sec.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Ginger Barbarella
#30 - 2012-12-20 19:32:06 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Ginger Barbarella wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

I never said I was confused, but this is a rule from five years ago. It's not posted publicly anywhere except there.


Please point me to some official CCP documentation (not community Wikis, not community forums, not rampant speculation, not forum posts by people who apparently can't even get their in-game object names correct) by CCP covering their product "Eve Online". A user guide, if you will.

Thanks. Haven't seen one in my 7 years here, but maybe I was just looking in all the wrong places.

Oh, and ever heard of "security thru obscurity"? This is pretty much the same thing...

http://community.eveonline.com/pnp/eula.asp
http://community.eveonline.com/pnp/terms.asp


You apparently misread my post. I didn't ask for a copy of the EULA, I asked for a copy of the official CCP documentation on Eve Online.

I'll wait while you grab that.

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#31 - 2012-12-20 19:33:08 UTC
Ginger Barbarella wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Ginger Barbarella wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

I never said I was confused, but this is a rule from five years ago. It's not posted publicly anywhere except there.


Please point me to some official CCP documentation (not community Wikis, not community forums, not rampant speculation, not forum posts by people who apparently can't even get their in-game object names correct) by CCP covering their product "Eve Online". A user guide, if you will.

Thanks. Haven't seen one in my 7 years here, but maybe I was just looking in all the wrong places.

Oh, and ever heard of "security thru obscurity"? This is pretty much the same thing...

http://community.eveonline.com/pnp/eula.asp
http://community.eveonline.com/pnp/terms.asp


You apparently misread my post. I didn't ask for a copy of the EULA, I asked for a copy of the official CCP documentation on Eve Online.

I'll wait while you grab that.

How is that at all relevant?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2012-12-20 22:31:49 UTC
Quote:
And yet neutral rep on ships for PVP wasn't an exploit, even when it didn't make that logi a valid target.

right. but since CCP announced CrimeWatch there was said A LOT about neutral logis. And all info i've seen lead to "no more neutral logis".

So for me situation is obvious: either you become valid target or something wrong happens here.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#33 - 2012-12-20 22:39:10 UTC
Which leads to the same conclusion: CCP needs to reevaluate their position here, and it's a lot more complicated than just saying "lol dundoityoullgetbanned".

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Tora Bushido
Commonwealth Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#34 - 2012-12-21 11:58:55 UTC
It's not an exploit. An exploit is a design error which was unknown to CCP and has just been discovered. This is a feature. P

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#35 - 2012-12-21 15:12:33 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
It's not an exploit. An exploit is a design error which was unknown to CCP and has just been discovered. This is a feature. P


Apparently not.

Quote:
There's still a little bit of quirkiness in the system when it comes to crimewatch and starbases. We're hoping to iron it out in the new year

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Anya Klibor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2012-12-22 17:21:52 UTC
Yesterday, during an engagement with legal war targets, they provided neutral logistics for their fleet. Those logistics were not valid targets for us to engage, confirming CCP has made neutral logistics in high sec wars even more powerful, and thus not nerfing them like previously expected.

CCP, is this going to be considered an exploit if it's used?

Leadership is something you learn. Maybe one day, you'll learn that.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#37 - 2012-12-22 17:29:07 UTC
Anya Klibor wrote:
Yesterday, during an engagement with legal war targets, they provided neutral logistics for their fleet. Those logistics were not valid targets for us to engage, confirming CCP has made neutral logistics in high sec wars even more powerful, and thus not nerfing them like previously expected.

CCP, is this going to be considered an exploit if it's used?

They just need to code it where any module that provides a remote effect will not activate on war targets if you are not in the same corp/alliance and are in high sec. Maybe low sec as well. This includes logistic drones.
Anya Klibor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#38 - 2012-12-22 17:35:05 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Anya Klibor wrote:
Yesterday, during an engagement with legal war targets, they provided neutral logistics for their fleet. Those logistics were not valid targets for us to engage, confirming CCP has made neutral logistics in high sec wars even more powerful, and thus not nerfing them like previously expected.

CCP, is this going to be considered an exploit if it's used?

They just need to code it where any module that provides a remote effect will not activate on war targets if you are not in the same corp/alliance and are in high sec. Maybe low sec as well. This includes logistic drones.


I'm not even sure that will fix the issue. Yesterday our CEO raged about the fact it was an "exploit", but there's been no word on if in this case this is considered a legitimate exploit. I agree that it's bullshit that the logistics can't be shot at and should be, but I'm on the fence about this. Given CCP's stance of pushing PvP out of high sec as much as possible, I could see this staying put.

Leadership is something you learn. Maybe one day, you'll learn that.
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#39 - 2012-12-30 17:44:43 UTC
Except a dev has spoken in this very thread about their intent to fix this issue.

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#40 - 2012-12-30 18:03:00 UTC
Cindy Marco wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

I never said I was confused, but this is a rule from five years ago. It's not posted publicly anywhere except there. There's nothing in the EULA or TOS about it. How am I supposed to know that repairing a starbase with a neutral alt is considered an exploit unless someone tells me?


I would think any situation where you can directly influence a battle, and not be flagged is clearly an exploit.

Why should someone have to tell you that something is wrong if your not flagged when your part of a fight? It seems pretty obvious.

With such an obvious exploit they don't need to warn you.



Because for many players it's only an exploit if they get caught, untill then it's fair game and always someone else fault.

And they even provide delicious tears.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Previous page123Next page