These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

GM Response On Bumping

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#261 - 2013-11-24 16:13:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Ursa Fatalis Deathbear
RubyPorto wrote:

Bumping is within the rules of the game.


Not really, CCP isnt very clear about it Bumping, thats all.

RubyPorto wrote:

Just like any other video game, the mechanics are the rules.


No: Abuses of Game Mechanics are very well known as "Exploits".
But like Highsec Ganking it adds to the Player Created Content.
AS long the situation gets not somehow out of hand, CCP will do nothing.
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#262 - 2013-11-24 16:21:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Ursa Fatalis Deathbear
ööhm, no delete?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#263 - 2013-11-24 19:56:49 UTC
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

Bumping is within the rules of the game.


Not really, CCP isnt very clear about it Bumping, thats all.


GM Karidor wrote:
CCP considers the act of bumping a normal game mechanic, and does not class the bumping of another player’s ship as an exploit.


What's unclear?

Quote:
No: Abuses of Game Mechanics are very well known as "Exploits".
But like Highsec Ganking it adds to the Player Created Content.


Not quite. EVE's definition of an "Exploit" is a bit different from yours:

KBase Article wrote:
An exploit is when someone bypasses normal game mechanics, such as by utilizing a bug in the game, allowing him to take advantage of other players without them having any means of preventing it whatsoever.

http://community.eveonline.com/support/knowledge-base/article.aspx?articleId=34&_ga=1.48750566.1138323024.1385283132

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Sitting Bull Lakota
Poppins and Company
#264 - 2013-11-26 22:04:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Sitting Bull Lakota
"Reviewed in even more detail? You are aware that this very thread is the outcome of a week-long consultation of players followed by a two-month review by CCP?" -Nanatoa

"A Detailed Review by CCP, as you asked."-RubyPorto

"Did you even read the thread? The very first post is the result of a 2 month review."-Jonah Gravenstein

Have any game mechanics been changed? Has CCP done anything to address the complaints of the high sec mining community?

The GM's response basically says "Rules, mechanics, HTFU"

The resounding complaint that I hear is that there is no reasonable retaliatory action a player can take against a bumper.
You can get bumped, or you can leave. There is no risk at all to the bumper. CONCORD prevents reasonable retaliation against the bumper.
You can get some dudes to gank the bumper, you can wardec the bumper, you can hire a merc corp to gank/wardec the bumper, you can gank the bumper yourself. All of theses actions are expensive, or heavily time-consuming. Bumping is both instant and costless. This is not acceptable.

When I said that this probably needs to be reviewed in more detail by CCP, I obviously meant that this mechanic is terribad-op and very broken. Miners can handle suicide gankers. A damage control goes a long way to thwarting a gank attempt. Kill rights can be pursued to great effect against unsuspecting marks.

Bumping has no in-game retaliation. CCP needs to "fix" it. Suspect flags would be great, I would love to abuse a collision mechanic that results in dead missioners or mass carnage in Jita or Amarr. Damage resulting from collisions would be fantastic, freighter bowling could become a thing. Point being, the GM's response of "within mechanics, but not endorsed" is lame. Something needs to change.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#265 - 2013-11-26 23:01:49 UTC
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:
The resounding complaint that I hear is that there is no reasonable retaliatory action a player can take against a bumper.
You can get bumped, or you can leave. There is no risk at all to the bumper. CONCORD prevents reasonable retaliation against the bumper.
You can get some dudes to gank the bumper, you can wardec the bumper, you can hire a merc corp to gank/wardec the bumper, you can gank the bumper yourself. All of theses actions are expensive, or heavily time-consuming. Bumping is both instant and costless. This is not acceptable.


If you're mining, you can slap a prop mod on your mining ship, orbit your asteroid and successfully avoid being bumped.

If you're hauling, you can have a friend web you into warp, preventing you from being bumped.


Stopping someone from doing whatever they're doing (mining/hauling/bumping) is much easier than blowing them up. Duh.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#266 - 2013-11-27 15:19:45 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
What's unclear?

"considers"
CCP might change their minds, right now its "normal".

Quote:
No: Abuses of Game Mechanics are very well known as "Exploits".
But like Highsec Ganking it adds to the Player Created Content.


Not quite. EVE's definition of an "Exploit" is a bit different from yours:

In this case it is "normal game mechanics".
The expression "such as by" does not exclude anything else.
What would be "abnormal" game mechanics?

My point is, that CCP can change their minds.
For eg.
In the Beginning Titans could fire their Doomdays Devs through cyno gates without leaving the system. (According to "mittens")
Since it worked that way it was "normal game mechanics".
Was that intended by CCP?
I dont know.
Did CCP change it?
As far as i l know YES
Omar Alharazaad
New Eden Tech Support
#267 - 2013-11-27 15:38:31 UTC
CCP tends to only fix things they consider broken. Despite many moons of debate, they still do not consider the mechanic of bumping to be broken. My magic 8 ball tells me that this is unlikely to change. As there are methods in existence to prevent this kind of thing from happening already, pretty sure it's highly unlikely that they'll do much to change things.

Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.
RoaK Varr
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#268 - 2013-11-27 19:02:55 UTC
If bumping is such a problem for some players then maybe there should be a piece of equipment you buy and put in a high slot that delivers damage to the bumping vessel without setting off agro… sort of a contact pulse weapon.

If course you’d have to work out the mechanics on determining who the bumper and the bumpy are but you get the idea. Maybe the damage could multiply per bump from the same craft.

Just a thought.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#269 - 2013-11-27 23:39:14 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear wrote:
"considers"
CCP might change their minds, right now its "normal".


That's nothing like what that word means in that context.

Quote:
con·sid·er
kənˈsidər/Submit
verb
regard (someone or something) as having a specified quality.
"I consider him irresponsible"
synonyms: deem, think, believe, judge, adjudge, rate, count, find;



Quote:
In this case it is "normal game mechanics".
The expression "such as by" does not exclude anything else.
What would be "abnormal" game mechanics?


Bugs, Duplication tricks (i.e. Goons LP FOREX thing), things like that.

But then there's that second clause, which includes the further requirement that the bypassing of normal mechanics result in an unavoidable advantage. Bumping does not do that because it's got plenty of counters.

Quote:
My point is, that CCP can change their minds.
For eg.
In the Beginning Titans could fire their Doomdays Devs through cyno gates without leaving the system. (According to "mittens")
Since it worked that way it was "normal game mechanics".
Was that intended by CCP?
I dont know.
Did CCP change it?
As far as i l know YES


That CCP changed something does not make the use of that mechanic before the change an Exploit.

For instance, before the BC changes, I would fit a bunch of guns on a Cyclone. Was that an exploit because the Cyclone is now a Missile boat? No.

Similarly, bumping is not now nor has ever been considered an exploit. Claiming that that is unclear based on the off chance that CCP might someday change their minds after ten years is ludicrous.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#270 - 2013-11-30 18:52:13 UTC
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:
The GM's response basically says "Rules, mechanics, HTFU"
And that is all you need to know on the matter.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#271 - 2013-12-02 01:52:35 UTC
RoaK Varr wrote:
If bumping is such a problem for some players then maybe there should be a piece of equipment you buy and put in a high slot that delivers damage to the bumping vessel without setting off agro… sort of a contact pulse weapon.

If course you’d have to work out the mechanics on determining who the bumper and the bumpy are but you get the idea. Maybe the damage could multiply per bump from the same craft.

Just a thought.


No.

The players being bumped already have all the tools necessary to take control of the situation and fight back themselves. They lack conviction, not tools.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#272 - 2013-12-02 02:23:49 UTC
RoaK Varr wrote:
If bumping is such a problem for some players then maybe there should be a piece of equipment you buy and put in a high slot that delivers damage to the bumping vessel without setting off agro… sort of a contact pulse weapon.

If course you’d have to work out the mechanics on determining who the bumper and the bumpy are but you get the idea. Maybe the damage could multiply per bump from the same craft.

Just a thought.



Excellent. Now we can either gank Freighters without CONCORD's intervention or get CONCORD to gank miners for us.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#273 - 2013-12-04 16:05:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Ursa Fatalis Deathbear
RubyPorto wrote:

blablub...
ludicrous
...


So so...

CCP wrote:

Bumping a ship in order to get it stuck in emergency warp alignment limbo when its pilot logs in is now considered an exploit.


From "Offical Game Mechanic" to "Exploit".
Looks like i was right.
And they even use the Word "considered".

^^
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#274 - 2013-12-04 16:15:58 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear wrote:
CCP wrote:

Bumping a ship in order to get it stuck in emergency warp alignment limbo when its pilot logs in is now considered an exploit.


From "Offical Game Mechanic" to "Exploit".
Looks like i was right.
And they even use the Word "considered".

^^



Yes, bumping ships that cannot do anything to prevent it is an exploit now. Duh. Just about everybody involved expected CCP to declare bumping in e-warp to be an exploit.
Quote:
An exploit is when someone bypasses normal game mechanics, such as by utilizing a bug in the game, allowing him to take advantage of other players without them having any means of preventing it whatsoever.

There's a bug (you can bump someone during the login warp), it provides an advantage (killing titans), and the victim can't do anything about it (can't cancel a login warp).

That doesn't imply anything about bumping ships whose owners can do things to prevent or stop it. Which is what this thread is about.

The word "considered" still doesn't mean "we'll change our mind in the future." Let me help:
Your version of the word wrote:

Bumping a ship in order to get it stuck in emergency warp alignment limbo when its pilot logs in is now we might change our mind, but for now its an exploit.

Actual meaning of the word wrote:

Bumping a ship in order to get it stuck in emergency warp alignment limbo when its pilot logs in is now regarded as having the quality of being an exploit.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Ria Nieyli
Nieyli Enterprises
SL33PERS
#275 - 2013-12-04 17:50:27 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
There's a bug (you can bump someone during the login warp), it provides an advantage (killing titans), and the victim can't do anything about it (can't cancel a login warp).


How is that a bug tho? The titan has to be probed down which is well within game mechanics. Then it has to be bumped, which is well within game mechanics. Then others come and kill it, which is... you get the idea. Also, you can always call friends to help you login safely, EvE was a MMO last time I checked.

I mean, how's that different from bumping a freighter out of alignment to gank it in highsec. It has no defensive modules that it can use, it can't warp cause it's being bumped. But that's not considered an exploit why?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#276 - 2013-12-05 00:54:18 UTC
Ria Nieyli wrote:
How is that a bug tho? The titan has to be probed down which is well within game mechanics. Then it has to be bumped, which is well within game mechanics. Then others come and kill it, which is... you get the idea. Also, you can always call friends to help you login safely, EvE was a MMO last time I checked.


In normal instances, when you bump someone in the process of warping, they can cancel their warp to regain control of their ship and take action. During the login e-warp, they cannot cancel their warp.

This is similar to the multi-web JF killing exploit, where you would take a Vindi and web but not point a JF that had initiated warp without killing its speed from leaving the station. The server would think that the JF had already entered warp and refuse to allow the warp to be canceled while the Vindi would keep bumping the JF to keep its speed above its new max speed. This was declared an exploit (and fixed soon afterwards) because the JF pilot could not cancel the warp to regain control of their ship.

Quote:
I mean, how's that different from bumping a freighter out of alignment to gank it in highsec. It has no defensive modules that it can use, it can't warp cause it's being bumped. But that's not considered an exploit why?


A freighter pilot can cancel warp and regain control of their ship in order to deal with the bumper. They could safe log out or eject, they could prevent the initial bump by webbing the freighter, etc.
None of those options are available for the e-warping pilot.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Ria Nieyli
Nieyli Enterprises
SL33PERS
#277 - 2013-12-05 15:39:45 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:
How is that a bug tho? The titan has to be probed down which is well within game mechanics. Then it has to be bumped, which is well within game mechanics. Then others come and kill it, which is... you get the idea. Also, you can always call friends to help you login safely, EvE was a MMO last time I checked.


In normal instances, when you bump someone in the process of warping, they can cancel their warp to regain control of their ship and take action. During the login e-warp, they cannot cancel their warp.

This is similar to the multi-web JF killing exploit, where you would take a Vindi and web but not point a JF that had initiated warp without killing its speed from leaving the station. The server would think that the JF had already entered warp and refuse to allow the warp to be canceled while the Vindi would keep bumping the JF to keep its speed above its new max speed. This was declared an exploit (and fixed soon afterwards) because the JF pilot could not cancel the warp to regain control of their ship.

Quote:
I mean, how's that different from bumping a freighter out of alignment to gank it in highsec. It has no defensive modules that it can use, it can't warp cause it's being bumped. But that's not considered an exploit why?


A freighter pilot can cancel warp and regain control of their ship in order to deal with the bumper. They could safe log out or eject, they could prevent the initial bump by webbing the freighter, etc.
None of those options are available for the e-warping pilot.


Ah, I did not know that there was a precedent to this kind of situation.

Also, is it not possible to fleet people and have them warp to you when you log in with a titan and have them explode them bumping vessel?
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#278 - 2013-12-06 15:21:19 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
The word "considered" still doesn't mean "we'll change our mind in the future."

I didnt write that.

RubyPorto wrote:

Let me help:

Thank you, but NO thank you, i am peachy...

RubyPorto wrote:

Your version of the word

More likely its your version and the meaning that you would like to read out of it.
Finished nitpicking?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#279 - 2013-12-06 18:19:52 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
The word "considered" still doesn't mean "we'll change our mind in the future."

I didnt write that.


So what, exactly did you mean by this:

Ursa Fatalis Deathbear wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
What's unclear?

"considers"
CCP might change their minds, right now its "normal".


Quote:
More likely its your version and the meaning that you would like to read out of it.
Finished nitpicking?


My definition of the word comes straight out of the dictionary, and is the only dictionary definition that fits the context.
What's your definition of the word that leads you to think the ruling is unclear?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#280 - 2013-12-07 00:20:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Ursa Fatalis Deathbear
RubyPorto wrote:
So what, exactly d id you mean by this:

Read it again. There is a slight difference.


RubyPorto wrote:
My definition

As i wrote, your definition.

RubyPorto wrote:

of the word comes straight out of the dictionary, and is the only dictionary definition that fits the context.

The only one that fits in your context. Language is not "defined" by dictionaries.
I thought i would be easier to understand:

Eve is a complex peace of code.
Not all the side effects of that code are known and some "game mechanics" simply havent been thought of, or not thoroughly thought through.

In this special case its not the bump thats broken, its the emergency warp.
Bumping to use the bug is exploiting.

Bumping is still a valid game mechanic and if not many had found out, even this ebump would be legit.

Another example where CCP dosnt want realy to clarify?
Where Gamplay ends and Harrasment begins and CCP has good reasons to be unspecific.