EVE General Discussion

It's almost like you're saying "it is but it isn't".

Yes, consequences to the actions put in place concerning a game meant for consensual, and non consensual, pvp.

It's very similiar to seeing a ship as being an anomaly because it's almost like it's not like any other ship. Of which there are quite a few.

Strangely enough, you mentioned a bestower. Haulers do have the slots and ability to aggress.

Funny ol world aint it?

I was arguing the combination of the mechanics when used with the others to a matter of excessiveness.

It wasn't me who brought the discussion to this level. It was the work of a few who have to pretend that one element proves the rule.

I question that.

Murk, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I get the feeling that you think a freighters ability to aggress has some kind of relevance regarding these timers

So pardon me if I'm incorrect and that's not what you're talking about, but yeah, a freighters ability to be the aggressor is meaningless in this situation.

It is relevant when you say a ship is like "any other ship" in some sort of factual statement in a retort as to how it's not manipulating the mechanics of timers that do not allow you to continue forward for over an hour.

It was more of the abuse of the mechanics to keep a freighter pinned so long when mechanically, through hull design and timer design, that freighter was able to be harassed.

What, what I think was exploited? A combination of using the aggression timers to keep those same timers refreshed in regards to a freighter not being able to do anythign defensively while noobships simply discharge their civ guns at 0 cost when concorded and returned while non aggressed ships bump it.

For over an hour.

Now, take a capital fight for instance (it has been declared this is why the mechanic exists by numerous people)... I understand that in the throes of passionate combat, a cap ship pilot might see the end is near and quite simply logoff as to not incur such a valuable loss. Sure. It's combat, many ships involved, everyone wants this to happen. This isn't not to say the freighter pilot did not account for loss. If he did not, that's his fault since loss is inevitable.

BUT...

Exploiting those timers to the point of abuse is terrible. This is not a 10 second "uh oh ima die log off logoff!" when it goes on and on for an hour.

His meta game abilities/options in regards to asking for help isn't in question. This is not a preventive maintenance question.

This brings to question should the timers work in such a way as to allow this to even happen.

It's a matter of excess to the point of harassment.

First of all, props for actually answering the question, which is more than can be said of Byerly, who just makes your cause look bad.

Now then, on to the points.

So, we have established then, that bumping itself, is not the issue, yes? Continuing on that assumption.

Then, your objection is that they continued to send ships after him to keep the aggression timer on him? Or is it that they used noob ships to do it? If the latter, does it somehow make it better if they had, for instance, thrown several Rifters after him instead?

If the former, then I can't say anything, because honestly, that's what it's for. If someone is willing to continue accepting the consequences of attacking you repeatedly, then the ramifications remain the same.

Over an hour, yeah. I will note, that at this point, the only actual proof we have of his statement is a video showing just above 15 minutes of the actual incident. Whether this did happen to that degree or not, is in question.

So, then, where do we draw the line? Because, the moment an actual line is drawn, is the moment it starts being abused. "Oh, well we have 55 minutes before it becomes actionable, let's get him!". No, much better to do things on a case by case basis, and let the GM's sort it out, if in fact the OP chooses to petition this. So the time is entirely irrelevant.

Yep, cap ships were the primary abusers of the logoffski exploit, but anyone could do it easily. It wasn't just cap ships, it was a systemic problem. Which is why it was addressed to the entire playerbase. The design intent was clearly to prevent the use of such a mechanic.

Now, on to the meta issues. I don't see that this can be discounted. Playing the metagame is important almost as much as the client itself. He had options, he chose not to use them. And really, the preventative maintenance thing cannot be discounted either, as the best way to defeat such a situation is not to get in one in the first place. Yes, I understand the point that, it happened here, it could happen anywhere.

And it does. Bump tackling is a vital part of large fleet warfare all over the game. It's become such that, if you commit a capital, you are pretty much commited to an engagement until the enemy quits the field, or is all slain (or you die). That is a good thing, in fact that is a GREAT thing.

So, were they sloppy about ganking this one guy? Yeah. Did they take too long? Probably, but I am not aware of the extenuating circumstances of them having to gather the catalyst fleet.

Is it an exploit? I don't think so. The freighter had options (ejecting or self destruct being among them), and chose not to exercise them. In the end, one player was defeated by 30 players.

But it's because he had options, that it's not harrasment. The bumping Machs did not lock down his client to stop him from playing. Just because the options are unattractive, does not mean they weren't still there. Can you really tell me, after the first ten minutes, that he didn't realize he was already as good as dead? No, but he held out for some freaking reason, probably hoping to save his cargo. That is as good as consent to continue the exercise.

Which means jack ****.

Freighters follow the same mechanic for agression times as every other ship.

Murk, why do think it's an exploit or harassment because it lasted as long (and by long I mean a pretty short time, really - an hour is nothing) as it did?

Do you think there should be a special cut off time after which you can merely excuse yourself from the fight and leave without taking a loss?

I personally think that if someone manages to start and engagement with you while you're online and playing, then they should be able to finish what they started regardless of how long it takes, and merely logging off during the engagement should NEVER be what results in you escaping or winning.

I don't think ongoing fights should have any kind to time limit after which they are mechanically ended (such as via a log off) because that's crap. Currently, the time limit is technically until you reach downtime, I guess, but I don't see why we should go back to the old days of ships vanishing mid combat because the other guy decided he was losing and killed the client. That's just crap

Because AFK cloakers aggress people often? Amiright?