These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

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

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
klikit
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#281 - 2013-07-02 01:13:35 UTC  |  Edited by: klikit
Tippia wrote:
Diomedes Calypso wrote:
I'm also unclear.. if he does nothing, when he eventually gets attacked concord will kill the attackers even if the attackers kill him first .. right?

Does the bumping just give more time to bring in more firepower from other systems to make sure the job gets done?

The bumping serves two purposes.

The most important one is that it creates a controlled environment where the gankers can delay and monitor the CONCORD response. You shoot the target once as he exits gate cloak to give him a PvP timer, which ensures that the ship will stay in space for another 15 minutes, no matter what, so logging off no longer saves the victim. This is obviously a criminal act so CONCORD shows up and kills the flagging alt. To counter this, you take advantage of the 15 minute timer to use a neutral alt (or two) to bump the victim at last 150km away from where CONCORD is sitting. The bumping both ensures that the victim can't just warp off willy-nilly, and that the victim is out of reach from immediate CONCORD response.

Being this far away causes the CONCORD mechanics to consider the target (and, more importantly, the awaiting gankers) “out of range” for the purpose of responding to their actions, which in turn yields the same effect as delaying CONCORD by spawning them somewhere else in the system. When responding to a crime that's this far away, the CONCORD ships first have to despawn from the first crime scene before they can show up at a new one, which delays the response by half a dozen seconds or so. You sacrifice the loss of a newbship with civvy guns for being able to execute the gank with maybe 20–50% fewer actual attack ships. You can also keep a close eye on CONCORD while doing all of this, which means you have more control over the timers.

The second benefit is that the gank now happens maybe 200km off the gate, rather than 15km away from it. As a result, loot thieves will not get as much of a chance to get to the goods, and white knights stand less of a chance counter-killing the looting ships (which will go suspect in the process). If it's a freighter gank, you're likely to need a freighter to loot the wreck, and you definitely want to keep those away from the normal traffic lanes when they go blinky.


The bumping itself doesn't seem like an exploit but the intended consequences do. One, using the aggression timer to keep the freighter pilot from logging off... the aggression mechanics are being exploited to keep the pilot from logging off. I am not sure of what CCPs intent regarding the aggression timer is but I don't think it was meant to keep freighters from logging off in hi sec.

Second, the act of bumping the player out of range of CONCORD in order to force them (CONCORD) to have to redeploy is exploiting the CONCORD spawn timers. I have played a lot of other games and circumstances like this would get your arse banned quicker then you could blink. Alas though, this is EVE were scamming and exploiting are not only allowed but encouraged.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#282 - 2013-07-02 01:31:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Herzog Wolfhammer
Interesting.

Now let's see, if the intent is a tactical one, then it's not an 'offense'.

But who is to say that it's not greifing made to look like it had a reason. Kind of like a cat playing with a bird for a while, pulling it's feet off, before killing it?

Whatever the case, people are going to lie. This is why I always liked Herr Wilkus and his ganking work. He was never afraid to come out and say he was there to pop your ship and was very good at it.

But really, if people are going to use this "non aggressing warp scrambling" method in such a manner they are basically taking the pale and shovel in the sandbox, hitting the other "kids" over the head with them, and then pointing and laughing, you know that "mommy" (CCP) is going to have to take away the pale and shovel. It'll happen when there are no sandcastles, just a lot of pointing and laughing, and that threatens the sandbox itself.

And then the same people abusing the tactic will be in these forums, acting like victims. They'll troll with a smirk, knowing full well what the entire circumstance was.

And those who use it as a stalling tactic when the gank squad is a few minutes late will lose out, all because of those others who take an hour to get the crew in (really I thought goons would be more efficient than that but maybe they are busy in VFK or something).

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Maxpie
MUSE LLP
#283 - 2013-07-02 01:44:55 UTC
I'd say an hour is getting into griefing territory. But this is Eve, so it would probably take about 10 hours before CCP consider it griefing.

No good deed goes unpunished
Kewso
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#284 - 2013-07-02 02:19:22 UTC
You should have petitioned this in game as it was happening

I've had devs boot people for constant bumping for harassment.


they'll watch and judge if it's harassment they'll boot them.


had 2 guys bumping me for 15 mins one day and they insta disappeared, dev took care of issue, they were butthurt at 24 hour suspension but it was lulzy
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#285 - 2013-07-02 03:18:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Tippia wrote:


Infinity Ziona wrote:
******** argument though. Its a freighter its supposed to be stuffed with goodies.
Says who? It's a freighter — it's supposed to transport bulk goods. Bulk goods have a tendency to be rather cheap and not worth ganking over. If you want to move goodies around, there are far better options available.

Look at OPs cargo. There nothing even remotely fantastic about his cargo. Couple of ships, T2 mods, random junk.

Personally I dont care about the OP or his ship, but I call it what it is, a skilless tactic and aweful game design. A freighter should be able to haul the crap he was hauling without being considered gank worthy. It was crap not uber faction gear or a stack of plex. Freighters need a decent buff to make them able to perform their role properly.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#286 - 2013-07-02 03:54:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Callyuk
Yea he wasnt hauling any uber faction/dead/officer stuff just a lot of junk loot mainly. hes petitioned it and would be glad to accept a 2 bil loss and a hard lesson learned (that lesson being freightors are null and void) rather than the full 5 bil loss .


I think if he had it to do again hed definitely buy a ANSHAR and have 2 cynos ready to undock and pop since bumping wouldnt affect a jf that will be his method of moving stuff in the future. BTW he was banned for 14 days on the forums (Reason Given TOO MANY TEARS) :)
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#287 - 2013-07-02 04:08:27 UTC
jedijed wrote:
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

Did he mention Third Goons failed on the first gank attempt and had to wait out global criminal then reship then bump him 250km off concord again before (finishing him) ganking him again ?

Fourth 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
Andrea Griffin
#288 - 2013-07-02 04:13:45 UTC
jedijed wrote:
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18472599
Flying around with nearly 5 billion isk in stuff is begging to be ganked. These guys blew up the freighter because it was profitable.

CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer.
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#289 - 2013-07-02 04:15:20 UTC
This is true no doubt about that but the way they did it and the amount of time they greifed him its far extreme
Joan Greywind
The Lazy Crabs
#290 - 2013-07-02 04:25:31 UTC
It was probably said before, but I seriously couldn't go through 15 pages (I saw some posts about quantum computing?!?!?), so here goes:

In EVE as long as you are not hacking or intentionally breaking the game, and your intent is getting some kind of "profit", you can use whatever in game mechanics that are implemented to achieve that goal. That is the way EVE and that is the way it is going to hopefully stay. Bumping as have been said a million times before is a legitimate game mechanic. The fact that they actually killed you makes it all that more legitimate according to CCP's rule. Let me give you an example. If I found a freighter and bumped him off the gate for 2 hours, that would be griefing and could be punishable by CCP. If i bumped the same player for 2 hours and asked for a ransom payment to let him go, that is completely legitimate. That is the reason behind the statment "Case by Case basis". Argument should be closed at this point. (I am sure this explanation has been mentioned in the post before, but as usual the OP for these kinds of threads are usually thick headed and have a wrong sense of entitlement), so maybe it needs to be hammered in.

Added wisdom: The real "profits" of any kind of ganker, is usually the tears and moans of the person that got ganked (there are a lot more profitable professions in EVE than ganking). So kudos in giving them that, and these posts only hurt you more and gratifies the gankers.


These things being possible in the game, is why I love EVE. So at the end OP a mandatory, thank you for the tears, they are delicious.
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#291 - 2013-07-02 04:36:23 UTC
I agree with some of the stuff you said . I personally love tears but the way i (like 97% of eve players that love tears) extract them and the way these cowards extract them is far different.
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#292 - 2013-07-02 04:42:03 UTC
If the freightor had been alpha'd by a nado fleet or something similar to hulkageddon that would be totaly different .
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#293 - 2013-07-02 04:45:01 UTC
Large T2 Bubbles worked the way they were intended too but when an OP was able to prove they were being exploited on pos's as a drag bubble pulling an entire fleet through there pos and into a barrel to be shot they changed em
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
#294 - 2013-07-02 04:59:17 UTC
I love these threads.

They consist of players falling into the grey areas of the rules followed by the EvE amateur lawyers saying "Quiet, it is up to CCP to say it is an exploit, but it is not and I will tell you why."

Leave these explanations as to what is and what is not an exploit to CCP and go back to watching Judge Judy. Your interpretations equate to opinions. And as my dear old dad used to say, opinions are like assholes. Everyone has them and they all stink.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#295 - 2013-07-02 05:43:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Andrea Griffin wrote:
jedijed wrote:
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18472599
Flying around with nearly 5 billion isk in stuff is begging to be ganked. These guys blew up the freighter because it was profitable.

No they did it because its too easy and costs close to nothing. 30 pilots / 2,000,000,000. I could make 80,000,000 in L4s in less time than they took to do it. Crap profits.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#296 - 2013-07-02 13:06:42 UTC  |  Edited by: S Byerley
Khanh'rhh wrote:
The rules are, that it's against the rules when the intent is to greif - it's not against the rules when the intent isn't to grief. Since the actual rule we're talking about enforcing wavers on someone's interpretation of someone else's intent - it is more than central to the argument; it is the entire argument. Showing that the intent was to grief and not valid gameplay is what makes it against the rules. Maybe you will lightbulb here and go "oh ****, yeah, I was thinking of something else" but you will likely instead grit your teeth and continue to argue black is blue.


The post you keep referencing specifically says harassment and not "greifing". I hate to be the one to disillusion you, but you are not a special snowflake; no one cares what's going through your head. When you cross the line you get punished for the effects - not because you crossed over to the mental dark side.

Khanh'rhh wrote:
I've demonstrated an ability to grasp the subject at a level far exceeding yours. You'll get no-where trying the "I know so much I can't tell you!" line - try me. Link anything you want. Any source. Anything at all that shows that causation can be determined mathematically by correlation.


You've already demonstrated an inability to grasp the basic necessary metrics and your bizarre choice of terminology indicates that you aren't familiar with the field. Even if I did waste my time to dig you up something relevant, you'd just skim over the abstract (maybe the conclusion if you're feeling really brave) and half-assedly try to twist it into your counter argument - you can understand my reluctance.

Khanh'rhh wrote:
I mean, I have asked three times for a single tangible piece of evidence that computer models can accurately determine intent, and you've failed 4 times in coming up with anything.


And I've refused however many times because, like your correlation vs. causation sillyness, it's a straw man.

Khanh'rhh wrote:
Kind of - insofar as you simply **can't** do what you want with computer technology as it exists so you would need to construct some manner of pseudo-pattern recognition to get around your inability to measure the data you require. It should be noted this is merely my "best guess" at how one would try to achieve something which is essentially not possible.
The current leading edge in this area is a kind-of multi-tiered pattern analysis, which is many steps below what you need to model the actual why of the origin of the data. Again, with your data-mining to measure causality approach, this is vis-a-vis to intent.

I don't. No-one does. It's a potential application of a technology not yet invented. Which is why you're reaching so far it's laughable.


Oh, seems we have another misunderstanding caused by your limited vocabulary: pattern recognition is a very broad term (I can only guess how much falls under "psuedo-pattern recognition). Classification, a branch of pattern recognition, assumes, among other things, that the data is already collected. I can only guess what you mean by "multi-tiered pattern analysis".

You can't say something "pretty much requires quantum computing" without proving both that it falls under BQP and that it is not a member of P.

Khanh'rhh wrote:
Orders of magnitude past a task we can't perform with current technology is not "easy" - what are you smoking?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation - no sense worrying about constant factors when

a. you don't have the input size
b. your computing power is growing exponentially.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#297 - 2013-07-02 13:10:56 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
In any case, credit card fraud is always the default example in data mining (and quite applicable) so here's a quick google result: http://news.byu.edu/archive12-sep-frauddetection.aspx

I refer you to my previous posts where I said you could neither:

- Show a computer model that shows intent *
- Do so without changing the conditions of the rules **
- As a bonus, your "best example" achieves 90% accuracy and the banks openly admit this merely flags the account, it doesn't act as a judge.

* - in this example, the data is it's own system and doesn't need to make external inferences. For instance - your system can't take one or two transactions and show fraud; it's just comparing raw data.
** - I have already shown that you need to demonstrate how it can distinguish between identical data sets giving different conclusions. Your model cannot do this.

Look son, you're way out of your depth on this. I've torpedoed your argument many times over and you're not even trying to argue it's possible within the terms of the EvE rules, you're just tossing noise.

The "you can show journals" line was a ploy, by the way - it demonstrates you're basically just hacking at google searches and don't really know what research is being done in the area. I've read recent developments in heuristic analysis and I can tell you we're 10's of years and a leap in computing technology away from doing what you want.
Quantum state computing is essentially a pre-requisite for the kind of pattern analysis you're looking for, by the way. Not sure what the cost of those was 40 years ago because they don't exist today.

Or, to put it in other terms - what you're asking for is several **orders of magnitude** more complex than being able to predict every share price rise and fall for the next 12 months.

You are, in every possible facet of human possibility, wrong. All you're doing by clutching at non-related web articles is showing that, not only are you wrong, but you lack the basic knowledge to understand WHY you are wrong.

We've tried to help but you don't want to know that you're wrong, so is there further point in bashing you over the head on this?

Actually I'm not done .. there's literally a 20metre section of books in my local library which, in a meta context, is basically the sum of knowledge about why you are wrong. No, not figuratively - literally.

S Byerley wrote:
Closest I could find was kernite; too lazy to search properly Ugh

http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=18057395


This just shows that your inability to see our contacts list is working as intended, I assume?



I am in no way going to try to compete with what is obviously your field of expertise... but what you just described, to me, is how computers would be a Level One customer service agent who would request a judgement call from a Floor Walker (or technician from a Lead/Supervisor).

If that's true, then although you are right a computer would not be able to MAKE those judgements, simply being able to flag, accurately, those anomalies would be a great step in the right direction for the DEVs/GMs to be able to review a case by case on a much smaller scale.

Of course, like all programs it could be exploited and you could simply jot down a few keywords and meet those expectations without having to write out a cognitive sentence, but I digress.

Interesting information there sir.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#298 - 2013-07-02 13:20:30 UTC
too many pages didnt read: why didnt you log out?

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Calgrissom Torvec
#299 - 2013-07-02 13:32:03 UTC
If CCP wanted to fix this it would be simple. Removing the clipping mechanics from ships. You try to bump someone and you pass through them. It would not have to apply to any other structures in the game. However this is a way that removes Large amounts of ISK through ship destruction from the economy meaning its good for CCP.

They very well know at CCP that this is effectively as good as warp scrambling and the only way to lock a large ship (Freighter/Orca) down in high sec so that it can be ganked. Its only a Valid tactic because its removing billions of ISK from the economy in ship destruction and the victim can do nothing to stop it.

Its good for CCPs wallet so its not going to get fixed.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#300 - 2013-07-02 13:35:50 UTC
Joan Greywind wrote:
It was probably said before, but I seriously couldn't go through 15 pages (I saw some posts about quantum computing?!?!?), so here goes:

In EVE as long as you are not hacking or intentionally breaking the game, and your intent is getting some kind of "profit", you can use whatever in game mechanics that are implemented to achieve that goal. That is the way EVE and that is the way it is going to hopefully stay. Bumping as have been said a million times before is a legitimate game mechanic. The fact that they actually killed you makes it all that more legitimate according to CCP's rule. Let me give you an example. If I found a freighter and bumped him off the gate for 2 hours, that would be griefing and could be punishable by CCP. If i bumped the same player for 2 hours and asked for a ransom payment to let him go, that is completely legitimate. That is the reason behind the statment "Case by Case basis". Argument should be closed at this point. (I am sure this explanation has been mentioned in the post before, but as usual the OP for these kinds of threads are usually thick headed and have a wrong sense of entitlement), so maybe it needs to be hammered in.

Added wisdom: The real "profits" of any kind of ganker, is usually the tears and moans of the person that got ganked (there are a lot more profitable professions in EVE than ganking). So kudos in giving them that, and these posts only hurt you more and gratifies the gankers.


These things being possible in the game, is why I love EVE. So at the end OP a mandatory, thank you for the tears, they are delicious.



The problem with that is how the aggression timer has nothing to do with a freighter who cannot aggress. He mechanically could not log off or disengage. The mechanic was abused (or rather, was shown to be working incorrectly).

Now, the counter argument, is the fact regardless of sector of space, this game is pvp... but the argument isn't a game mechanic argument any more.. it's a player using the game mechanics beyond their intended use.

ie- there is literally nothing he can do for himself without the aid of others. It wasn't a lost fight. It's not a 1v1 fight (not duel or bushido gtfo with those terms) or any other consensual pvp, since that freighter CANNOT pvp. Losing a ship to a dumb mistake is what it is, and it could be argued that it fits here.

But simply not being able to logoff for an hour because of an exploited mechanic... well... that's a bit too far.

If that pilot actually pulled the plug and was not on the server, his ship should disappear off the server after an allotted amount of time. The current game mechanic doesn't allow for that.

So, Crimewatch is not working as intended, but was exploited, in my opinion. There should be a victim timer, but a lack of diminishing returns on that mechanic is frightening for anyone who wants to be an industrialist if I could simply make sure you CAN'T logoff if you decide.

That is pure player victimization. Which is bad.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.