These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#581 - 2013-07-05 14:35:13 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
How on earth are you still acting like intention isn't key?


Because despite all the wailing of you and your friends/alt, you've failed to reference CCP saying anything remotely like that.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#582 - 2013-07-05 14:35:28 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
I did a word search for intent and didn't find it; sorry.
…and that's why text mining fails as a method: you couldn't determine the intent of the written words. Blink

Quote:
You wouldn't have any problem with CCP limiting the timer to 10m then?
That could potentially cause all kinds of problems when it comes to killing stuff, yes. There's also no reason to limit the timer.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#583 - 2013-07-05 14:37:01 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
How on earth are you still acting like intention isn't key?


Because despite all the wailing of you and your friends/alt, you've failed to reference CCP saying anything remotely like that.


Hey bro you seem to have missed about 90% of my post.

Hope this helps.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#584 - 2013-07-05 14:39:06 UTC
Also, have you not seen that big thread about bumping? I'm sure it's been linked numerous times. The gist of that thread pretty much does indicate that bumping, if it's for some legitimate purpose, is valid.

You can make the font bigger if you have a hard time reading the screen
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#585 - 2013-07-05 14:39:16 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Quote:
You wouldn't have any problem with CCP limiting the timer to 10m then?
That could potentially cause all kinds of problems when it comes to killing stuff, yes. There's also no reason to limit the timer.


Please list one other potential encounter that would be effected by limiting the timer of a passive party in highsec to 10m.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#586 - 2013-07-05 14:41:46 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Quote:
You wouldn't have any problem with CCP limiting the timer to 10m then?
That could potentially cause all kinds of problems when it comes to killing stuff, yes. There's also no reason to limit the timer.


Please list one other potential encounter that would be effected by limiting the timer of a passive party in highsec to 10m.


Please list all your reasons for introducing a time limit on ship on ship violence. I'd be interested to see if any of them don't boil down to "baw i dont want to explode"
Xython
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#587 - 2013-07-05 14:42:38 UTC
So wow, this thread is still around? Guess the MiniLuv guys are doing something right. :)
Dyphorus
Inritus Astrum
#588 - 2013-07-05 14:44:25 UTC
Maybe try not hauling 4 bil worth of cargo at once? You were well beyond the threshold where it becomes profitable to gank a Freighter. Or maybe once you realized you they were setting you up, log off... come back later.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#589 - 2013-07-05 14:45:33 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Quote:
You wouldn't have any problem with CCP limiting the timer to 10m then?
That could potentially cause all kinds of problems when it comes to killing stuff, yes. There's also no reason to limit the timer.


Please list one other potential encounter that would be effected by limiting the timer of a passive party in highsec to 10m.


Please list all your reasons for introducing a time limit on ship on ship violence. I'd be interested to see if any of them don't boil down to "baw i dont want to explode"


That has no bearing on the question; I simply asked if he'd have a problem with aforementioned mechanic since he thinks proper ganks should take <10m.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#590 - 2013-07-05 14:47:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
S Byerley wrote:
Please list one other potential encounter that would be effected by limiting the timer of a passive party in highsec to 10m.
Let's cut out the irrelevant parts of that question before answering it…

I'll give you four:
· Killing any kind of supercap.
· Killing some of the sturdier capships.
· Learning to gank (be it by suicide or lowsec camp).
· Any attack where the aggressor's numbers means it'll take 10–15 minutes to locate and kill the target.

…and, again, there's no reason to reduce the timer to 10 minutes. That means we have a lot of breakage and no advantage. Not the best basis for a change, you know.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#591 - 2013-07-05 14:49:46 UTC
Tippia wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Please list one other potential encounter that would be effected by limiting the timer of a passive party in highsec to 10m.
Let's cut out the irrelevant parts of that question before answering it…


Seems pretty relevant since all your examples happen in low/null.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#592 - 2013-07-05 14:49:56 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Quote:
You wouldn't have any problem with CCP limiting the timer to 10m then?
That could potentially cause all kinds of problems when it comes to killing stuff, yes. There's also no reason to limit the timer.


Please list one other potential encounter that would be effected by limiting the timer of a passive party in highsec to 10m.


Please list all your reasons for introducing a time limit on ship on ship violence. I'd be interested to see if any of them don't boil down to "baw i dont want to explode"


That has no bearing on the question; I simply asked if he'd have a problem with aforementioned mechanic since he thinks proper ganks should take <10m.


Just because the majority of ganks happen in a speedy fashion does not warrant hardcoding times that make it mechanically impossible for ganks that take longer than the norm to succeed. Even suggesting such a thing is preposterous.

It's just... it's unthinkably dumb.

The majority of L4 missions are completed in under an hour, should we therefore make it impossible to complete a L4 mission if you dilly dally and take longer than an hour?

What if we said you weren't allowed finish hauling stupidly expensive cargo in a freighter to your desired destination purely because the trip would take longer than the average freighter trip?

Or anything else equally as stupid
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#593 - 2013-07-05 14:50:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
S Byerley wrote:
Seems pretty relevant since all your examples happen in low/null.
It's not relevant because the rules apply the same everywhere for the same reasons.

15 minutes is enough to ensure that you can kill a target that tries to log off to save itself; 10 minutes is often not, or cuts it too close. I'd say that the only reason it's not 30 minutes is because it is to ask a bit too much of people's patience to wait that long before logging off.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#594 - 2013-07-05 14:51:56 UTC
Also, I'm still waiting for you to respond to my post on the last page. How would you determine which of those two situations are harassment if not making a judgement about intent.

I'll give you time to go back and reread it.

Or are you just going to continue ignoring points that expose your arguments for the empty, weak things they are
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#595 - 2013-07-05 14:53:20 UTC  |  Edited by: S Byerley
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
The majority of L4 missions are completed in under an hour, should we therefore make it impossible to complete a L4 mission if you dilly dally and take longer than an hour?


Nah, we might consider reducing the reward though.... oh wait.

Tippia wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Seems pretty relevant since all your examples happen in low/null.
It's not relevant because the rules apply the same everywhere for the same reasons.


I wasn't aware that high sec had no unique rules

TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Or are you just going to continue ignoring points


Ignoring points that I've addressed ad nauseam and have no basis, certainly.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#596 - 2013-07-05 14:54:10 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
I wasn't aware that high sec had no unique rules
It has no unique timers, no.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#597 - 2013-07-05 14:54:54 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
The majority of L4 missions are completed in under an hour, should we therefore make it impossible to complete a L4 mission if you dilly dally and take longer than an hour?


Nah, we might consider reducing the reward though.... oh wait.

Tippia wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Seems pretty relevant since all your examples happen in low/null.
It's not relevant because the rules apply the same everywhere for the same reasons.


I wasn't aware that high sec had no unique rules


Reducing the reward is not the same as making it mechanically impossible to complete. You also ignored the other example I provided. Should you not be able to reach your destination if your trip takes longer than the majority of freighter trips do?

What about those two situations I posed to you? You still kind of havent addressed them....
Mag's
Azn Empire
#598 - 2013-07-05 14:57:59 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
29 pages and basically what I'm gathering is this:

1) Stupid bad players want special handholding and coddling because they do not understand the game they're playing.
2) Stupid bad players refuse to do anything to help themselves
3) That S Bwhatever guy has no clue about the issue, or computer systems, etc
Pretty much nailed it tbh.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#599 - 2013-07-05 14:58:12 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Reducing the reward is not the same as making it mechanically impossible to complete.


You'd have no problem with a mechanic that reduced the reward of your gank then?

Quote:
You also ignored the other example I provided. Should you not be able to reach your destination if your trip takes longer than the majority of freighter trips do?


Courier contracts/missions have timers as well, afaik.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#600 - 2013-07-05 15:01:42 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Reducing the reward is not the same as making it mechanically impossible to complete.


You'd have no problem with a mechanic that reduced the reward of your gank then?


Which already happens, the longer we dawdle, the more of us have to sacrifice ourselves to the angry Concord Gods to keep him aggressed, and we take sec hits for that, and it pulls concord to us which we then have to deal with, etc.

So yeah, the longer it goes on, the more we pay for it.

Pssst you still haven't addressed those two situations and the argument about intent.