These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP - Attack Battlecruiser overview issue

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#81 - 2013-02-21 14:46:55 UTC
Daniel Whateley wrote:
The whole "if you could fly it before you can fly it after the patch thing" if my overview setting showed naga's, nado's, oracle's, and talos's before i expect them to show AFTER.... Everyone Does.... people can exploit that Roll


The problem with using the word exploit here is that you're implying that those people are taking advantage of a problem in the actual game mechanics that you cannot control in order to gain an advantage over you, such as the invulnerable neutral logi exploit that came out with Crimewatch 2.0 (ie WTs could not engage neutral logi that was repping you). In this sense, which is the general use of the word in the EVE context, implies that their are actual negative consequences for the abuser, and that CCP will eventually fix the loophole.

In this case, they would simply be exploiting your own stupidity and inability to stay current with the game, which is completely legal. This makes your use of the word exploit a very poor decision and suggest you are purposefully using it in an inflammatory manner.

Anyways, you can sit here and argue that CCP should have put the notification in the patch notes, but complaining that CCP added more granularity to the overview and didn't add it in such a way that fits your specific uses is pretty self-righteous. Just fix your overview and go back to being terrible at this game instead of blaming your inability to be successful at EVE on a small overview change.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#82 - 2013-02-21 14:48:54 UTC  |  Edited by: March rabbit
RubyPorto wrote:
BoSau Hotim wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
or maybe it was just some guys flying nagas



Tell me.. have you looked at your overview settings? and tell me.. were the Attack battlecruisers and blockade runners checked off?

puh-leeez... anyone would have seen a spike of nagas on their overview while getting their ship melted if the settings were set right during the patch. Ugh


Seems custom overviews are a positive list. If you did not add Attack Battlecruisers and Blockade Runners to them, they will not appear. Until this patch those did not exist.

I don't want CCP adding random ships to my "Planets and Sun" overview.

i dunno. Maybe replace battlecruiser settting by 2 equal settings for ABC and CBC? And do it for every overview setup?

From my 10 years of developer experience this procedure doesn't look very complex and hard to implement Cool

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
HollyShocker 2inthestink
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#83 - 2013-02-21 14:49:15 UTC
Adriel Malakai wrote:
Daniel Whateley wrote:
The whole "if you could fly it before you can fly it after the patch thing" if my overview setting showed naga's, nado's, oracle's, and talos's before i expect them to show AFTER.... Everyone Does.... people can exploit that Roll


The problem with using the word exploit here is that you're implying that those people are taking advantage of a problem in the actual game mechanics that you cannot control in order to gain an advantage over you, such as the invulnerable neutral logi exploit that came out with Crimewatch 2.0 (ie WTs could not engage neutral logi that was repping you). In this sense, which is the general use of the word in the EVE context, implies that their are actual negative consequences for the abuser, and that CCP will eventually fix the loophole.

In this case, they would simply be exploiting your own stupidity and inability to stay current with the game, which is completely legal. This makes your use of the word exploit a very poor decision and suggest you are purposefully using it in an inflammatory manner.

Anyways, you can sit here and argue that CCP should have put the notification in the patch notes, but complaining that CCP added more granularity to the overview and didn't add it in such a way that fits your specific uses is pretty self-righteous. Just fix your overview and go back to being terrible at this game instead of blaming your inability to be successful at EVE on a small overview change.



Think you may want to look up the definition of exploit.
HollyShocker 2inthestink
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#84 - 2013-02-21 14:51:13 UTC
People will always justify exploits, especially when they benefit from it.
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#85 - 2013-02-21 14:53:49 UTC
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:
Think you may want to look up the definition of exploit.


Had you actually read the post, you would have realized that I was clearly discussing the connotations that come with the word when used in the context of EVE.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#86 - 2013-02-21 14:54:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:
Adriel Malakai wrote:
The problem with using the word exploit here is that you're implying that those people are taking advantage of a problem in the actual game mechanics that you cannot control in order to gain an advantage over you, such as the invulnerable neutral logi exploit that came out with Crimewatch 2.0 (ie WTs could not engage neutral logi that was repping you). In this sense, which is the general use of the word in the EVE context, implies that their are actual negative consequences for the abuser, and that CCP will eventually fix the loophole.

In this case, they would simply be exploiting your own stupidity and inability to stay current with the game, which is completely legal. This makes your use of the word exploit a very poor decision and suggest you are purposefully using it in an inflammatory manner.

Think you may want to look up the definition of exploit.
Going by the only one that matters:

“You may not exploit any bug in EVE Online to gain an unfair advantage over other players. You may not communicate the existence of any exploitable bug to others directly or through a public forum. Bugs should be reported through the bug reporting tool on our website.”

No bug — no exploit.

Quote:
People will always justify exploits, especially when they benefit from it.
As luck would have it, there are no exploits to benefit from or to justify in this case.
BoSau Hotim
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
#87 - 2013-02-21 15:00:35 UTC
Adriel Malakai wrote:
Daniel Whateley wrote:
The whole "if you could fly it before you can fly it after the patch thing" if my overview setting showed naga's, nado's, oracle's, and talos's before i expect them to show AFTER.... Everyone Does.... people can exploit that Roll


The problem with using the word exploit here is that you're implying that those people are taking advantage of a problem in the actual game mechanics that you cannot control in order to gain an advantage over you, such as the invulnerable neutral logi exploit that came out with Crimewatch 2.0 (ie WTs could not engage neutral logi that was repping you). In this sense, which is the general use of the word in the EVE context, implies that their are actual negative consequences for the abuser, and that CCP will eventually fix the loophole.

In this case, they would simply be exploiting your own stupidity and inability to stay current with the game, which is completely legal. This makes your use of the word exploit a very poor decision and suggest you are purposefully using it in an inflammatory manner.

Anyways, you can sit here and argue that CCP should have put the notification in the patch notes, but complaining that CCP added more granularity to the overview and didn't add it in such a way that fits your specific uses is pretty self-righteous. Just fix your overview and go back to being terrible at this game instead of blaming your inability to be successful at EVE on a small overview change.



You know you started out pretty good in the first paragraph of your post. You could have left it at that. but then you had to use childish words like stupidity and inability to be successful... etc etc....

Anyone can have an opinion. We thought this change should have been in the patch notes... that is a pretty simple thing...and you translate that into stupidity? and inability to stay current with the game? and then say go back to being terrible at this game? Standing your ground for an opinion is a good thing. Fine if you have a different opinion, you should post like an adult though.

Stick to the way you posted in the first paragraph. Then someone might actual think you have something to say that is worth hearing.

I'm not a carebear... I'm a SPACE BARBIE!  Now... where's Ken?
Varesk
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#88 - 2013-02-21 15:04:57 UTC
5 pages.

nice troll.

wont read again.
Dante Uisen
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#89 - 2013-02-21 15:06:09 UTC
Tippia wrote:
They can't be held responsible for your not updating your overview settings, now can they?


They can't be hold responsible if it's a technical limitation preventing them from automatically adding the new ship to the overview, but they can if they just "forgot" to do it.

The player didn't disable the showing of battlecrusier in the overview, and it worked prior to updating the client. If the player is not aware the settings have changed, how should know to update them?. The normal procedure following a client update, does not include manually verifying weather or not you have the correct overview configuration.
Dante Uisen
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#90 - 2013-02-21 15:07:46 UTC
Tippia wrote:
No bug — no exploit.


You should stay away from Jita, people a known to exploit human stupidity in that system.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#91 - 2013-02-21 15:13:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Dante Uisen wrote:
They can't be hold responsible if it's a technical limitation preventing them from automatically adding the new ship to the overview, but they can if they just "forgot" to do it.
They can't be held responsible because the setting is on another player's client and they have no control over that setting. What you do on your computer to get yourself killed by me is none of my business and not my headache. If there was a way to adjust other players' settings, then we'd have an exploit, but that is not what's going on. All we have is players getting themselves killed because of their own mistakes.

I'm not talking about CCP — I'm talking about the people you say are “exploiting”.

If you trip and fall when trying to be the 25th caller on the radio lottery, it is not an “exploit” from the guy who did call at the right time.

Quote:
If the player is not aware the settings have changed, how should know to update them?
By paying attention.

Quote:
You should stay away from Jita, people a known to exploit human stupidity in that system.
…and (almost) none of it qualifies as any kind of exploit.
TheBlueMonkey
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#92 - 2013-02-21 15:21:46 UTC
Daniel Whateley wrote:
TheBlueMonkey wrote:
BoSau Hotim wrote:

Yes.. I lost my cute little phantasm to a naga fleet that I never saw. Now everyone say, Awwwww poor Bo! Bear


Why weren't you watching local?



they all logged in obviously, and when you don't have naga's on your overview they also don't show in your Dscan, so your like woopdy dooo doo doo, no gate flash that's okay, ill stay here a little longer, nothing on dscan ? they mustn't of warped to here then *pop* "huhhh...? X"


local spike = get safe
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#93 - 2013-02-21 15:23:49 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
March rabbit wrote:

i dunno. Maybe replace battlecruiser settting by 2 equal settings for ABC and CBC? And do it for every overview setup?

From my 10 years of developer experience this procedure doesn't look very complex and hard to implement Cool


They did. For all non-custom overview settings.

Custom = You do your own maintenance, no warranties, expressed nor implied, apply.



That also happens to be the trivial counter to the "Exploit" Claim. Using a Default Overview setting completely negates the supposed "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
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#94 - 2013-02-21 15:46:40 UTC
i know you said that for the sake of the argument ruby, but in eve online 'default' means everything is wrong

(except the attack bc setting i guess vOv)
CMD Ishikawa
New Eden Public Security Section 9
#95 - 2013-02-21 16:01:21 UTC
BoSau Hotim wrote:
Sarmatiko wrote:
BoSau Hotim wrote:
Your quoting from the forums? This is not notifying all Eve players. It is notifying players on the forums - there is a HUGE difference as not all players go to the forums my friend. Try again.

CCP hates you and hates all those dummies who cannot edit their PVP overview settings manually.
Now you know the true horrible reason behind this.



...and I send kisses and hugs to you.... evidently you never had them as a child...



hehehe nice one ... Lol

People taking unfair advantage of some game mechanics is what I would really call an exploit, although this is almost the same, some people is taking advantage anyway.
Karak Terrel
Foundation for CODE and THE NEW ORDER
#96 - 2013-02-21 16:02:27 UTC
5 pages of discussion about a stupid misunderstanding the OP clarified on page one.

It seams to me those constant carebear "griefer"-whine posts did some serious conditioning on some peoples bite reflexes. But this isn't one of this "griefer"-whine posts so let it go.

Btw. to split a overview category and not respect the setting the category had when it was together is just plain stupid for such an important feature like the overview. Or at least they could communicate it where most of the players will notice the change.

Anyway, I hope i will get a lot of fun out of this, i still think it is stupid but i can't help, off to buy a bc o7.
Ginger Barbarella
#97 - 2013-02-21 16:08:21 UTC
BoSau Hotim wrote:
Mag's wrote:
So, where's the exploit?


well (sorta exploit as i stated above :P )

players can exploit this by making an ABC fleet and kiting and tearing up other players that don't see you on overview since CCP didn't check it off in our settings.

sooo.. go exploit it and get some kills



Sooo... lazy players who are incapable of using local or dscan can now cry "EXPLOIT!!! BAN THEM AND REIMBURSE ME!!", yeah?

You were dropped on your head as a baby, weren't you?

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
Kobal81
Thunderwaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#98 - 2013-02-21 16:17:54 UTC
BoSau Hotim wrote:
So players have noticed that with the new patch CCP has renamed battlecruisers into two classes. Attack BC's and Combat BC's.

What CCP DID NOT TELL US is that in the overview settings they only set it so we see Combat BC's.

The Attack Battlecruisers are not checked off so you cannot see them on your overview. Also blockade runner is a ship that is not checked off after the new patch.

So this post is to notify as many as possible to check your overviews.


How is this an exploit? (maybe not a typical exploit) But, some players noticed very quickly that Attack BC's don't show up. So they make up nice little Attack BC fleets and can warp right on you in low/null and melt your lovely little ship without you ever seeing anything in your overview.

Yes.. I lost my cute little phantasm to a naga fleet that I never saw. Now everyone say, Awwwww poor Bo! Bear


*Edited subject title from Exploit to issue*



You were killed by a blockade runner too? Post mail plsss

"Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit"
Flatiner
State War Academy
Caldari State
#99 - 2013-02-21 16:30:09 UTC
funny they make changes to the overview settings yet the market list is still the same .. wtf was the point of adding a new name to ships that already exist fine .. changing 30+ custom overviews is extremely annoying and cumbersome wtf ccp where do you find your employees?

props to team little things for fleet drag and drop

overall patch = fail
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#100 - 2013-02-21 16:31:04 UTC
BoSau Hotim wrote:
What CCP DID NOT TELL US...



They did, stop moaning and read dev's posts.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne