These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

At what point is something an Exploit and not game Mechanics ? Bumped for 60 Minutes

First post First post First post
Author
jedijed
legion of fortune
#1 - 2013-06-30 16:06:42 UTC  |  Edited by: jedijed
http://youtu.be/0MmIsrAQPM4

Being Bumped for an hour kinda kills a little bit of the like and excitement i have for this game,,,

Fisrt the 2 machariels bumped me for 10 minutes or so before goons ever showed up.

Second i never fly freightors i knew they get ganked but i thought it was only in .5 .6 systems

Third i didnt know it could be done in 30 fuc***** destroyers :(

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18472599

http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&view=kills&plt_id=341330&m=6&y=2013
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#2 - 2013-06-30 16:10:22 UTC
At the point CCP says so.



There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3 - 2013-06-30 16:11:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Probably around the time you explain what the problem is…

Less snark: when the mechanics stop working as intended. It's really as simple as that.
Minmatar Citizen160812
The LGBT Last Supper
#4 - 2013-06-30 16:20:46 UTC
At the point where you loose a freighter and need an excuse?
Ghazu
#5 - 2013-06-30 16:21:29 UTC
ahahahahaha another freighter victim

http://www.minerbumping.com/ lol what the christ https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2299984#post2299984

S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#6 - 2013-06-30 16:22:06 UTC  |  Edited by: S Byerley
Tippia wrote:
Probably around the time you explain what the problem is…

Less snark: when the mechanics stop working as intended. It's really as simple as that.


Explained pretty plainly in the video description. I tend to agree that completely disabling a person in high sec without concord intervention is not working as intended.

Incidentally, how'd you get the video from the bumper's perspective?
handbanana
State War Academy
Caldari State
#7 - 2013-06-30 16:30:10 UTC
I thought a "Jedi" could get out of just about anything.

“It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.”    -Jack Handy

Hra Neuvosto
Party Cat Enterprises
#8 - 2013-06-30 16:30:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Hra Neuvosto
Exhilarating video...

//EDIT all its missing is some heavy breathing in the background
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#9 - 2013-06-30 16:31:09 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Explained pretty plainly in the video description. I tend to agree that completely disabling a person in high sec without concord intervention is not working as intended.
How is he being disabled? And no, CONCORD only intervenes against aggression, so that's working as intended.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#10 - 2013-06-30 16:33:21 UTC
Looks like the OP was bumped by a neutral Macheriel so he/she couldn't get back to gate. The DEVs don't consider this an exploit.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=199310&find=unread


And FYI... CCP will not take any action based on evidence provided by a player. It's easy to falsify.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#11 - 2013-06-30 16:39:37 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Looks like the OP was bumped by a neutral Macheriel so he/she couldn't get back to gate. The DEVs don't consider this an exploit.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=199310&find=unread


And FYI... CCP will not take any action based on evidence provided by a player. It's easy to falsify.


Falls under his description of harassment though:

"However, persistent targeting of a player with bumping by following them around after they have made an effort to move on to another location can be classified as harassment, and this will be judged on a case by case basis."

Judging on a case to case basis is silly; better to adjust the mechanic so you can't completely disable someone in that manner. (or introduce consequences, w/e)
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#12 - 2013-06-30 16:42:16 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Probably around the time you explain what the problem is…

Less snark: when the mechanics stop working as intended. It's really as simple as that.


Explained pretty plainly in the video description. I tend to agree that completely disabling a person in high sec without concord intervention is not working as intended.

Incidentally, how'd you get the video from the bumper's perspective?


The video is from an alt in corp to the freighter as far as I could tell. I would have webbed my freighter whilst trying to bump the machs - ie one imagines that 2v2 this situation is not entirely unbalanced, one side would have to be more skillful than the other.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#13 - 2013-06-30 16:45:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
S Byerley wrote:
Falls under his description of harassment though:

"However, persistent targeting of a player with bumping by following them around after they have made an effort to move on to another location can be classified as harassment, and this will be judged on a case by case basis."
He hasn't made an effort to move to another location, and they weren't following him around, so no.

Quote:
Judging on a case to case basis is silly; better to adjust the mechanic so you can't completely disable someone in that manner.
How is he being completely disabled? And no, all kind of harassment must be judged on a case-by-case basis. Not that bumping someone away from a gate qualifies…
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#14 - 2013-06-30 16:48:10 UTC
Tauranon wrote:
The video is from an alt in corp to the freighter as far as I could tell. I would have webbed my freighter whilst trying to bump the machs


That makes a whole lot more sense, thanks.

I guess I overestimated GSF's infiltration into random ass corps Sad
Othran
Route One
#15 - 2013-06-30 16:50:06 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Tauranon wrote:
The video is from an alt in corp to the freighter as far as I could tell. I would have webbed my freighter whilst trying to bump the machs


That makes a whole lot more sense, thanks.

I guess I overestimated GSF's infiltration into random ass corps Sad


Or you underestimated your own paranoia.

I think my explanation is likelier than yours P
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#16 - 2013-06-30 16:54:17 UTC  |  Edited by: S Byerley
Tippia wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Falls under his description of harassment though:

"However, persistent targeting of a player with bumping by following them around after they have made an effort to move on to another location can be classified as harassment, and this will be judged on a case by case basis."
He hasn't made an effort to move to another location, and they weren't following him around, so no.


Yes yes, constantly trying to warp off and bringing a webber is intolerable idleness. Not going to bite any further, sorry.

Tippia wrote:
Quote:
Judging on a case to case basis is silly; better to adjust the mechanic so you can't completely disable someone in that manner.
How is he being completely disabled? And no, all kind of harassment must be judged on a case-by-case basis. Not that bumping someone away from a gate qualifies…


I am remiss not to acknowledge that he had the option to eject or self-destruct, apologies.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#17 - 2013-06-30 16:55:45 UTC
Othran wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Tauranon wrote:
The video is from an alt in corp to the freighter as far as I could tell. I would have webbed my freighter whilst trying to bump the machs


That makes a whole lot more sense, thanks.

I guess I overestimated GSF's infiltration into random ass corps Sad


Or you underestimated your own paranoia.

I think my explanation is likelier than yours P


Is it paranoia to think other people are out to get other people?
Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
#18 - 2013-06-30 16:58:08 UTC
Golden rule 1) It is CCP's sandbox, not yours.

It is an exploit when somebody uses it to wtf pwn goons then CCP sais its not a game mechanic.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#19 - 2013-06-30 16:58:27 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
Looks like the OP was bumped by a neutral Macheriel so he/she couldn't get back to gate. The DEVs don't consider this an exploit.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=199310&find=unread


And FYI... CCP will not take any action based on evidence provided by a player. It's easy to falsify.


Falls under his description of harassment though:

"However, persistent targeting of a player with bumping by following them around after they have made an effort to move on to another location can be classified as harassment, and this will be judged on a case by case basis."

The way CCP usually considers "harrassment" is only if the player is targeted of the course of days, no matter where he/she goes to avoid conflict, for no particular reason.

Unless the OP is bumped by the same people no matter where he/she goes despite being unprofitable... the OP has no case. What?


S Byerley wrote:
Judging on a case to case basis is silly; better to adjust the mechanic so you can't completely disable someone in that manner. (or introduce consequences, w/e)

Really think about that.

If you gain suspect status by bumping someone...

- then every time you undock from a congested station (Jita 4-4) you will bump or be bumped. Everyone will gain suspect status and carnage will ensue.
- when you warp to gates there is a chance you might run into someone (or even the gate)... resulting in people being made suspect for no reason.
- how will the server decide who should gain the suspect timer? Based on who had the lower velocity? Greater mass?

Sure... there are ways to get around this...

- make an exception where ships won't go suspect if they are within a certain range of the station.
- make another exception where people within a certain range of the stargate won't go suspect.

WHOOPSIE-DAISY! Back to square one again. People will be using the exception to bump people off of gates again (at least up to a point).


tl;dr... computers and coding are actually quite "stupid" and can't reason. You also can't create or alter a blanket mechanic that affects so many things in the game without creating numerous exceptions and/or creating new, unforeseen consequences that will also be abused.
Elizabeth Aideron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2013-06-30 17:03:43 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
Looks like the OP was bumped by a neutral Macheriel so he/she couldn't get back to gate. The DEVs don't consider this an exploit.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=199310&find=unread


And FYI... CCP will not take any action based on evidence provided by a player. It's easy to falsify.


Falls under his description of harassment though:

"However, persistent targeting of a player with bumping by following them around after they have made an effort to move on to another location can be classified as harassment, and this will be judged on a case by case basis."

Judging on a case to case basis is silly; better to adjust the mechanic so you can't completely disable someone in that manner. (or introduce consequences, w/e)


thats a miner bumping response thread, they were just bumping you in order to gank you. freighter ganking is obviously fine
123Next pageLast page