These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#461 - 2013-07-04 01:01:04 UTC
Quote:
You asked me to spoon feed you literature you aren't qualified to read. It would have been irresponsible of me to acquiesce


Foul dissembler! I shall heretoforth set myself a terrible burden, to pierce and penetrate the opacity of thine obfuscation! Forthwith I shall endeavor towards the defeat and unraveling of thine web, so opposed to gentle and immaculate speech as to fair Arachne!

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#462 - 2013-07-04 01:03:02 UTC
Ganking is accepted all of eve knows this. And most of us agree with it. But the aggression timer initiated on a bumped freightor by a ganker so that he can fail as many times as needed to acheive his goal is just bullshit
klikit
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#463 - 2013-07-04 01:04:08 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
klikit wrote:
I now understand the reasoning behind putting in the aggression timer in the first place. It was put in place to keep capitals (I am assuming it was with combat capitals the timer was targeting) from logging out when aggressed. If that is indeed the case then just take the timer out of high sec space (unless of course you shoot back). Problem solved.

Now with that being said, I understand why all the pro-aggression timer folks don't want see the timer go away and its ok you guys can admit you don't want to see your cash cow dry up. Its ok to feel that way its human nature but to try and gloss over it as something else is just plain silly.

CCP put in a feature, players figured a way to turn into something that I really don't think it was intended for. Now its just a matter of how CCP is going to handle it. If it is intended I don't think it was a very good business decision to disenfranchise a large chunk of your player base.


Why do you people think ganking bads in empire is something new?

I never said it was anything new, but the aggression timer is and the way its being utilized does not seem to be what it was intended for. It also seems since I quite playing back in 2010 and coming back 3 years later the rate of hi sec ganks seems to be much higher then it used to be and the targets have become a lot bigger.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#464 - 2013-07-04 01:04:35 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
I ... I did what? I refused?


Yes.


Quote it, please. Surely my small mind can read my own posts.
Quote:
You asked me to spoon feed you literature you aren't qualified to read

I asked you to demonstrate it's existence, the content of it is really irrelevent to the point I was making.

Again friend, I'm not sure you realise how juvenile "I know the answer but can't tell you" appears to be.

The real irony of the whole thing, is that should you actually prove I know nothing in the area, you will have shown yourself proven wrong by a layman.

The central tenet of your argument was sunk on ... page 80, 100? And every post since has you been trying to disguise the fact you have absolutely no way of proving your wild statement.

You're also fundamentally flawed in knowing your audience - you can say "but you can't understand it" when you should be concerned with the other readers of the thread who might, you know, think it really weird you would rather spend, by now, nearly 5000 words telling someone why they can't take 30 seconds pasting a URL.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#465 - 2013-07-04 01:05:21 UTC
Callyuk wrote:
Ganking is accepted all of eve knows this. And most of us agree with it. But the aggression timer initiated on a bumped freightor by a ganker so that he can fail as many times as needed to acheive his goal is just bullshit


Nope.

Bumping does not initiate an aggression timer. Shooting him does.

By his own admission, he had about forty minutes to attempt a logoffski before he was actually shot at. The OP is just a dumbass, and got what he deserved.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#466 - 2013-07-04 01:08:16 UTC
klikit wrote:
I never said it was anything new, but the aggression timer is and the way its being utilized does not seem to be what it was intended for. It also seems since I quite playing back in 2010 and coming back 3 years later the rate of hi sec ganks seems to be much higher then it used to be and the targets have become a lot bigger.

The aggression flag is to prevent people logging off when aggressed. It is being used to prevent people from logging off by aggressing them.

It's been rather confusing for the past 100 posts or so as to why this simple fact eludes people supporting the OP.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#467 - 2013-07-04 01:11:17 UTC
klikit wrote:



I never said it was anything new, but the aggression timer is and the way its being utilized does not seem to be what it was intended for. It also seems since I quite playing back in 2010 and coming back 3 years later the rate of hi sec ganks seems to be much higher then it used to be and the targets have become a lot bigger.


Its working exactly as intended and ganking is at a near record low.
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#468 - 2013-07-04 01:18:57 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
klikit wrote:



I never said it was anything new, but the aggression timer is and the way its being utilized does not seem to be what it was intended for. It also seems since I quite playing back in 2010 and coming back 3 years later the rate of hi sec ganks seems to be much higher then it used to be and the targets have become a lot bigger.


Its working exactly as intended and ganking is at a near record low.


LAWL
Istyn
Freight Club
#469 - 2013-07-04 01:24:55 UTC
I can only presume Khanh'rhh and Baltec both have the patience of a saint or masochistically enjoy the debating equivalent of banging your head against a wall frequently described by its peers as 'slow', because, holy crap this thread is just getting worse as time goes by.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#470 - 2013-07-04 01:34:07 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Again friend, I'm not sure you realise how juvenile "I know the answer but can't tell you" appears to be.


But I did tell you the answer; you wouldn't take my word for it. While that would ordinarily be admirable, combined with your lack of basic knowledge and insistence on trying to sound smart at the expense of learning, it becomes the worst kind of ignorance.

Quote:
readers of the thread who might, you know, think it really weird you would rather spend, by now, nearly 5000 words telling someone why they can't take 30 seconds pasting a URL.


I'm a bad teacher.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#471 - 2013-07-04 01:35:43 UTC  |  Edited by: S Byerley
Istyn wrote:
banging your head against a wall frequently


Bumpers! No wonder we can't get anywhere.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#472 - 2013-07-04 01:56:22 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
Another option could be for Pend Insurance to refuse to issue rookie ships to criminals. At least the potential criminal will have to engage in the activity of collecting rookie ships in preparation for a crime.

While I don't like the logoffski tactic, there is something wrong with the situation where a player loses control of their character for an hour at the whim of some other player.

Can you list the controls unavailable to him?


Lack of control does not infer inability to access the controls.

You can have your hands on the steering wheel while your car is sliding over ice: you are at the controls and actively manipulating them, but you have no control.

My concern isn't the lack of control, it is the hour long deprivation of control. Bumping is fine, when you are buying a minute or three for the gank fleet to arrive. Bumping for an hour while maintaining the aggression timer with suicide shots is bot-aspirant levels of absurd. If the gank fleet can't get their acts together in fifteen minutes, they really didn't deserve that gank.

But please do keep pushing the limits of credulity until CCP is forced to take action simply to reduce the petition load Twisted

Day 0 Advice for New Players
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#473 - 2013-07-04 02:38:05 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


Its working exactly as intended and ganking is at a near record low.


citation needed.

Keep seeing this mantra and yet to see any evidence for it. Maybe keep posting it, and it can be made into fact?

Or maybe just like fotm ship fits, market value of specific items or anything else in a player driven content game - its a cyclic. Previous too high and now balanced back into levels desired by CCP. Or perhaps players moved onto other game content. The new "interaction / story telling" of bumping now happening instead of ganking isn't a recorded statistic.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#474 - 2013-07-04 02:43:30 UTC
Quote:
If the gank fleet can't get their acts together in fifteen minutes, they really didn't deserve that gank.


Oh, I agree. But in the OP itself, he mentioned that only the Machariels were bumping him for so long (which, btw, we only have his word on, since his video only shows the last 15 min worth of it).

He didn't mention that they were keeping him aggressed. Because it didn't happen.

Yeah, for taking as long as they did to get there, they didn't deserve the gank. But the freighter pilot pretty much made that happen regardless. I mean, when you have 45 minutes to summon help, and you don't, then you deserve to die. And he did. No problems there.

Quote:
But please do keep pushing the limits of credulity until CCP is forced to take action simply to reduce the petition load Twisted


Yeah, like making an attempt to petition bumping actionable, since their policy on it being acceptable gameplay is publicly stated. I'd say a warning for the first offense, then a 3 day login ban for any repeated offenses. Sound good?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#475 - 2013-07-04 02:54:29 UTC  |  Edited by: S Byerley
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
He didn't mention that they were keeping him aggressed. Because it didn't happen.


Yeah, the noob ship in a starter corp on the killmail was obviously just playing kiss ass.

Oh my, looks like they're recycling too; isn't that **** ban-able?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#476 - 2013-07-04 03:03:07 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
He didn't mention that they were keeping him aggressed. Because it didn't happen.


Yeah, the noob ship in a starter corp on the killmail was obviously just playing kiss ass.

Oh my, looks like they're recycling too; isn't that **** ban-able?


Funny, it looks like no damage was done by that ship. Guessing they scrammed him, which, once again, is legitimate gameplay(and would have required them to refit). Looks like simple killmail whoring to me. How do you even draw the conclusion that they were recycling?

Oh, and I notice, with some degree of amusement, that his video was removed. No doubt because it contained information that did not support the "facts" of the case.

Again, I call into question whether he was held for 45 minutes before the video started. Seeing as he's done his best to remove any evidence of this, the claim of suspicion is a fair one.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#477 - 2013-07-04 03:10:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Callyuk
Calling for help like some drunk bi**h who lost her keys wouldnt have made anything different happen . I belong to nullsec alliance that is actively fighting a russian war. it would take them more than an hr to fly to wherever the f**k i was ganked at .
The onlything that will change anything is CCP and its in there hands to evaluate the video and the logs and make the decision. This incident is probably the most extreme gank failure in eve history TBH since it took an hour and some of it was recorded
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#478 - 2013-07-04 03:10:46 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
He didn't mention that they were keeping him aggressed. Because it didn't happen.


You are correct, the Machariels were not keeping the freighter aggressed. Was someone claiming that the Machariels were keeping the freighter aggressed?

Kaarous Aldurad wrote:
Yeah, like making an attempt to petition bumping actionable, since their policy on it being acceptable gameplay is publicly stated. I'd say a warning for the first offense, then a 3 day login ban for any repeated offenses. Sound good?


Because punishing the victim is all the rage these days.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#479 - 2013-07-04 03:12:54 UTC
Callyuk wrote:
Calling for help like some drunk bi**h in a bar bathroom wouldnt have made anything different happen . I belong to nullsec alliance that is actively fighting a russian war. it would take them more than an hr to fly to wherever the f**k i was ganked at .


First of all, I highly suggest you remove that metaphor. It's easily within reportable standards, and it does nothing to improve the level of discourse in this sinkhole of a thread.

Secondly, that's your fault for being so far away from support. Why should the ganker be penalized because you choose to behave in a more risky manner?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#480 - 2013-07-04 03:16:20 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Callyuk wrote:
Calling for help like some drunk bi**h in a bar bathroom wouldnt have made anything different happen . I belong to nullsec alliance that is actively fighting a russian war. it would take them more than an hr to fly to wherever the f**k i was ganked at .


First of all, I highly suggest you remove that metaphor. It's easily within reportable standards, and it does nothing to improve the level of discourse in this sinkhole of a thread.

Secondly, that's your fault for being so far away from support. Why should the ganker be penalized because you choose to behave in a more risky manner?


I wasnt reffering to any crime in a bathroom i was refering to a drunk woman who cant find her way out because shes to drunk.