These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#721 - 2013-07-05 19:01:42 UTC
Shainai wrote:

a ship has no way to aggress, therefore it CANNOT cause an aggression timer. It is simply a victim, and because it became a victim, it cannot log off. You said this is for capitals so they could not escape a fight. Freighters don't fight.



Actually, just because it is an aggression timer doesn't mean that you (or the pilot in this case) caused the aggression, If you have been aggressed (is that actually a word) you get an aggression timer, there's no problem with the aggression timer IMO. Just because a pilot is flying a freighter does not mean he should be safe from everything. the aggression system is in place for a reason, it was made this way so people can not use log offski as a way to escape a death.

My only issue with all of this are the mach. pilots that are keeping the pilot from warping out have no aggression and the use of newb accounts to keep the freighter pilot aggressed. BUT i cannot think of a way to enact an aggression timer on the bumping pilots.

There are ways to avoid a gank, I've flown freighters for years and have never been ganked. I've flown for RF, BF and for myself carrying much more then I ever should have. there have been gank attempts on my pilots, all have failed because i fly with a webbing character.

Our corp has escaped a gank attempt by calling for help recently, we sent help and the pilot escaped.

Don't fly what you can't afford to lose EVE is a cruel world
Don't fly alone... EVE is a cruel world AND it's a MMO (ya know Massively multiplayer online game).

In what MMO game can you play solo and achieve the greatest rewards? I can't think of any and i've been gaming since computers came out. Hint, most (if not all) MMO's i've ever played it takes a group of people to complete things to recieve greatest rewards!



Yes, this is where the problem lies. I do not mind the ship getting blown up mind you, just the way it was. For being a recipient of something it had no intention of (or ability), it was locked into the same constraints as everyone else who could, and did.

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.

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#722 - 2013-07-05 19:02:01 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
In my opinion? WT timer should behave exactly the same as the current timer, non-WT timer shouldn't extend any other time (or itself + some grace period to allow logging off) - obviously this is only under aforementioned constraints.


Why?

Quote:
Because CCP thinks War decs are the correct way to pvp someone in high sec. It would be transparent at the user level anyway.

[Citation Needed]

Find where CCP has said that they think War Decs are the "correct" way to PvP in HS. Quote and Link, thanks.

Quote:
Why not? You can't really pretend that a few extra conditionals are abhorrent from an aesthetic point of view, but bumping someone for an hour isn't.

The only reason they were able to bump someone for an hour is because he let them. He had many ways to avoid it, and many ways to stop it available to him. He chose not to avail himself of them.

Quote:
Exactly, but an alt doing a flyby in a noob ship every 15m doesn't really constitute actively shooting someone.


Sure it is. Because there is no sensible reason for the game to care what ship you're using to actively shoot someone.

"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

S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#723 - 2013-07-05 19:05:30 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Sure it is. Because there is no sensible reason for the game to care what ship you're using to actively shoot someone.


I'd have the same complaint with any other ship doing it; if there are considerable gaps, then it doesn't constitute "actively shooting".
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#724 - 2013-07-05 19:05:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
CCP's opinion?

Citation please.

The reason I ask is because of the supposed amount of time on that timer versus the amount of downtime each day used on the servers.

Now you're asking me to do very precise searches on the forum without the benefit of remembering which (probably no longer employed) GM made the statement in 2008… Suffice to say, it has come up on numerous occasions, and harassment of the kind we're talking about here has consistently been described as something that happens over a prolonged period, at multiple occasions, and preferably multiple log-ins (there's also harassing speech acts, which are a different matter… in nothing else than because they're far more explicitly forbidden by the EULA and TOS).

And yes, the time required for it to be called harassment versus the daily downtime is pretty important: since no act can carry over from before to after downtime, that is a universal cut-off point that's handy to go by: if you can't get them before downtime, the target will escape. If you choose to pick it up again when he returns, it is pretty obviously not a single occurrence, but rather the first two instances in what might be a longer campaign — longer campaigns being the big no-no.

Quote:
Fair enough. Feel free to show me a ship that has the same access to the same modules to support your argument that all ships are the same.
“All ships are the same” is not the opposite of “freighters are special”. All that's required for them to not be special is that any other ship shares similar characteristics. Freighter's access to modules, for instance, is shared by shuttles and pods.

Quote:
explain to me how a freighter can aggress someone like ANY other ship in the game
…but we're not talking about weapons timers — we're talking about PvP timers. The ability to aggress someone is not a factor, and this (in)ability is not something that puts freighters in a special category of their own.

And, once again, even if it did, why should they be given special exemptions from the timers? Timers, I remind you, that were put into place to remove the kind of tactics that the special exemption is meant to provide.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#725 - 2013-07-05 19:10:37 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Very well we will take this refusal to answer as yet more evidence that you have no argument and should be ignored by CCP.


Feel free; your opinion (much like mine), doesn't matter much to CCP.


Well they followed my advice and feedback on the second look at the Megathron hull slot layout.

Now, why is it that given an hour of being under attack the freighter pilot didn't get help from the hundreds of pilots in his alliance?



Doesn't that show that a freighter is not equipped to handle the dangers of open space?

(separate argument concerning ships and equality).

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.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#726 - 2013-07-05 19:12:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
Doesn't that show that a freighter is not equipped to handle the dangers of open space?
Sure. That is probably intentional. They are extremely well served by having a small support fleet, for instance — this is a fairly common attribute among capital ships.

Then again, almost everything in space is well-served by having a fleet to support it, so that doesn't say much. It's almost as if there's some kind of implicit push towards grouping up built into the game… Blink
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#727 - 2013-07-05 19:14:19 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
S Byerley wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Sure it is. Because there is no sensible reason for the game to care what ship you're using to actively shoot someone.


I'd have the same complaint with any other ship doing it; if there are considerable gaps, then it doesn't constitute "actively shooting".



Define "considerable gaps" and explain why your definition of the term is better than CCP's definition of "gaps longer than 15 minutes."

"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

Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#728 - 2013-07-05 19:15:29 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
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



Here's the problem with that. Miner bumping is not used ion the same way. Miner bumping is to encourage the miner to leave. Freighter bumping is to keep the ship from leaving.

Intent CAN be proven, simply by the actions of the target (log of warp being clicked for instance).

Now, since you CAN data mine that freighter spamming warp, you can infer intent. "Yes, as you can see by the number of times I was spamming my warp shortcut and right clicking with my mouse, I was trying to get away".

But you cannot prove intent by the bumper except for hitting the approach key. You know he wanted to bump, but that's all.

(By the way, this is why I first replied that miner bumping was a terrible example when it first came up).

Now, since we know the differences of intent, we can then look to the differences of intent, in regards, to harassment.

For instance, we do know, by GM declaration, that harassment was decided by following the miner, from system to system while continuing to bump. This is in regards to knowing you are bumping a miner from a rock so he cannot mine it, to which a simple recourse is to leave the system and find somewhere else.

Using that same model (but in reverse since freighter bumping is meant to KEEP the ship in system, not force it out), continually NOT letting that freighter to leave would be deemed harassment since that freighter was then pushed around multiple grids in system (proven by Concord placement and vectors of such) as well as kept from the gate and gate guns and not able to leave. Approach versus Warp/jump, as the command given to facilitate the harassment.

Before this gets argued, we already know bumping is not illegal. Yes yes we know this. The act by itself did not get the freighter killed.

It was a combination of mechanics that led to what looks like 1 specific instance of how those mechanics, when used in combination, by manipulating current mechanics to reduce risk of the ganker and increase risk of the freighter that relies specifically to highsec's mechanics.

Of which was used to what looks like a matter of excess to the point of harassment.


This is very well put.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#729 - 2013-07-05 19:15:31 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Murk Paradox wrote:



Doesn't that show that a freighter is not equipped to handle the dangers of open space?

(separate argument concerning ships and equality).


Given the hundreds of thousands of trips these ships make every month (perhaps millions) the very fact that only several dozen are killed in all of EVE a month says that they are very much equipped for the dangers out there.

Freighter ganking is very rare.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#730 - 2013-07-05 19:19:45 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
and explain why your definition of the term is better than CCP's definition of "gaps longer than 15 minutes."


It's not inherently better, CCP just had a different context in mind; thus the aforementioned restrictions.
Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#731 - 2013-07-05 19:19:47 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
CCP's opinion?

Citation please.

The reason I ask is because of the supposed amount of time on that timer versus the amount of downtime each day used on the servers.

Now you're asking me to do very precise searches on the forum without the benefit of remembering which (probably no longer employed) GM made the statement in 2008… Suffice to say, it has come up on numerous occasions, and harassment of the kind we're talking about here has consistently been described as something that happens over a prolonged period, at multiple occasions, and preferably multiple log-ins (there's also harassing speech acts, which are a different matter… in nothing else than because they're far more explicitly forbidden by the EULA and TOS).

And yes, the time required for it to be called harassment versus the daily downtime is pretty important: since no act can carry over from before to after downtime, that is a universal cut-off point that's handy to go by: if you can't get them before downtime, the target will escape. If you choose to pick it up again when he returns, it is pretty obviously not a single occurrence, but rather the first two instances in what might be a longer campaign — longer campaigns being the big no-no.

Quote:
Fair enough. Feel free to show me a ship that has the same access to the same modules to support your argument that all ships are the same.
“All ships are the same” is not the opposite of “freighters are special”. All that's required for them to not be special is that any other ship shares similar characteristics. Freighter's access to modules, for instance, is shared by shuttles and pods.

Quote:
explain to me how a freighter can aggress someone like ANY other ship in the game
…but we're not talking about weapons timers — we're talking about PvP timers. The ability to aggress someone is not a factor, and this (in)ability is not something that puts freighters in a special category of their own.

And, once again, even if it did, why should they be given special exemptions from the timers? Timers, I remind you, that were put into place to remove the kind of tactics that the special exemption is meant to provide.


Why are strategic cruisers given the ability to warp through bubbles ? because there a special snowflake
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#732 - 2013-07-05 19:20:11 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Given the hundreds of thousands of trips these ships make every month (perhaps millions) the very fact that only several dozen are killed in all of EVE a month says that they are very much equipped for the dangers out there.

Freighter ganking is very rare.

I want CCP Diagoras back. I would probably severely hurt myself laughing if it turned out that more EAFs are destroyed each month than freighters… and I have this nagging suspicion that it's actually the case. Lol
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#733 - 2013-07-05 19:22:06 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Point 1- Yes, freighters ARE special. The do not have all the functionality othyer ships do in regards to having an aggression timer applied to them.
Just because they have no slots doesn't mean they are treated any differently than other ships, and being without slots doesn't make them special either.


It DOES make them unlike any other ship.

Quote:
So why should they have special leave to ignore mechanics that were specifically in place to put an end to a kind of abuse that freighters were often using?


To coin your phrase... "what abuse?". baltec1 himself said ganks were at an all time low. SO I find a lack of credibility in your statement.

Quote:
It's not so much a different topic as proof that they're not special. And hell, even if they were, why should they be given special rules to dictate their survivability when one of the main purposes behind the new timers were to take away that ability?


Lack of slots, lack of drone bay, no way to aggress, ganks are at an all time low. This has been covered already. Freighters are very unique and "special".

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.

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#734 - 2013-07-05 19:24:43 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Callyuk wrote:


of course it is for you :)


The day you catch a war target in a freighter while flying a frigate solo you will understand



Wouldn't a wartarget just be scrammed and held through active means and also not have Concord involved?


Where is the difference?

Both parties are holding down the target till they kill them.



Well, the mechanics used for one. That's kind of the entire point of this thread.

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.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#735 - 2013-07-05 19:27:44 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:


To coin your phrase... "what abuse?". baltec1 himself said ganks were at an all time low. SO I find a lack of credibility in your statement.




Actually Freighter ganks are at a high, we have turned it into a true industry. Its miner ganking that is at an all time low.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#736 - 2013-07-05 19:30:17 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Murk Paradox wrote:



Well, the mechanics used for one. That's kind of the entire point of this thread.


CCP view it as being another form or warp disrupting. The only difference being that bumping to stop warp require more work than the other options. The GMs posted a blog about it last year when we were using this tactic on barge ganking.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#737 - 2013-07-05 19:32:53 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
though it does shed light on why you're so defensive.


Yes, the fact that it is very easy to defend a freighter from a gank and that your ideas will damage the game.

You are literally trying to patch stupid.



With all due respect, if we are talking about ganking freighters in highsec.... with the more recent light of the fact that the big CFC-TEST snafu can't be hardware supported consistently... maybe the game does need a good breaking and revamped.

Plenty of people from all sides have spoken about highsec versus nullsec in terms of "balance" and "fixing". It kind of derails from this discussion... but I seriously think specific elements in this game have outgrown itself.

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.

Callyuk
M1A12 Corp
#738 - 2013-07-05 19:33:25 UTC
Callyuk wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
CCP's opinion?

Citation please.

The reason I ask is because of the supposed amount of time on that timer versus the amount of downtime each day used on the servers.

Now you're asking me to do very precise searches on the forum without the benefit of remembering which (probably no longer employed) GM made the statement in 2008… Suffice to say, it has come up on numerous occasions, and harassment of the kind we're talking about here has consistently been described as something that happens over a prolonged period, at multiple occasions, and preferably multiple log-ins (there's also harassing speech acts, which are a different matter… in nothing else than because they're far more explicitly forbidden by the EULA and TOS).

And yes, the time required for it to be called harassment versus the daily downtime is pretty important: since no act can carry over from before to after downtime, that is a universal cut-off point that's handy to go by: if you can't get them before downtime, the target will escape. If you choose to pick it up again when he returns, it is pretty obviously not a single occurrence, but rather the first two instances in what might be a longer campaign — longer campaigns being the big no-no.

Quote:
Fair enough. Feel free to show me a ship that has the same access to the same modules to support your argument that all ships are the same.
“All ships are the same” is not the opposite of “freighters are special”. All that's required for them to not be special is that any other ship shares similar characteristics. Freighter's access to modules, for instance, is shared by shuttles and pods.

Quote:
explain to me how a freighter can aggress someone like ANY other ship in the game
…but we're not talking about weapons timers — we're talking about PvP timers. The ability to aggress someone is not a factor, and this (in)ability is not something that puts freighters in a special category of their own.

And, once again, even if it did, why should they be given special exemptions from the timers? Timers, I remind you, that were put into place to remove the kind of tactics that the special exemption is meant to provide.


Why are strategic cruisers given the ability to warp through bubbles ? because there a special snowflake

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#739 - 2013-07-05 19:33:29 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
It DOES make them unlike any other ship.
It makes them unlike some other ships, but not all of them.

Quote:
To coin your phrase... "what abuse?".
The abuse that was rampant before Crimewatch 2.0, where freighters would warp around carelessly, and if they spotted something gank-like on approach to a station or gate, or when entering a system, they'd kill the client… and relog and kill the client… and [repeat as needed] to ensure that the attackers could never lock the freighter down because it would disappear too soon.

The new PvP flag (mostly) fixed this: if you end up in a fight, logging off only ever leaves you dead in the water. This is intentional and is meant to make people stay logged in because at least then they can try to do something about it…

…like struggle for position for an hour.

Just because ganks are low doesn't mean that timer abuse wasn't rampant — with a bit of luck, it means that people have adapted new strategies for staying out of fights beyond flying straight into them because why-the-hell-not-it's-not-going-to-hurt-anyway.

Quote:
Lack of slots, lack of drone bay, no way to aggress, ganks are at an all time low. This has been covered already. Freighters are very unique and "special".
Lack of slots is shared with other ships. Lack of drone bay shared with tons of different ships (many of them even have explicit attack roles). An inability to aggress is shared with other ships. None of it makes freighters unique or special.

Ganks being at an all-time low is because they've been made hellalot more difficult to do for profit. The “suspect for looting” change is a particularly big game-changer there…
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#740 - 2013-07-05 19:33:40 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Schalac wrote:

How they are held, and the process that you can go about countering the person that is holding you. In low, null and WH you can shoot the target without the certainty of losing your ship. In highsec if you shoot the target you WILL lose your ship. That is the biggest difference you can possibly get.


Show me a freighter with guns.



It's just like every other ship in game right?

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.