These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Siphon Units = Useless

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#101 - 2014-08-14 19:51:37 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Soldarius wrote:
API coverage of hostile siphon activities for starters. You really do make this too easy.

I like this "I'm right because I'm right" thing you've got going.


It's about as good as "we're right because we say we are" from the other side of the argument...

This side of the argument is working from facts only.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#102 - 2014-08-14 19:53:59 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Frostys Virpio wrote:
We are supposed to assume their design direction changed when something is not working as it was previously described?

No, you're supposed to consider it a possibility. Nobody told you to assume anything.

Frostys Virpio wrote:
So for example it should of been accepted as correct for worm drones to keep their bonus when going from a ship to another since nobody from CCP said the drone should have it's value reset?

No because that's pretty contrary to what the game tells you should happen.

Frostys Virpio wrote:
You are basically saying every single bug in the game should be used because CCP obviously never mentioned a mechanic was not supposed to work that way and even if they did, then it gets a free pass because they somehow might have changed their mind? What's the point of asking people to report bug when they think there might be one if the course of action is to effectively use it because it might be intended even if it makes no sense at all to be this way?

Please do explain, as I said earlier, how exactly you expect someone to avoid taking advantage of this. Do you want us to ignore our own API data? Pretend we didn't see it and let the siphons run anyway?

You were also already told in this thread that it was reported by at least one person and I would be very surprised if he were the only one.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#103 - 2014-08-14 19:54:08 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
DaReaper wrote:
I did not read the entire thread, too much 'grrr goons' and too long.

You're missing all the content though



The content in this case that I see is a bunch of children making circular arguments that no one but CCP can answer or address. Its pointless and stupid.

Matters not what a segment thinks, CCP is the dictator of eve, end of story.

"But goons exploited"

"nu-uh we didn't!"

"yes you did!"

"no we didn't"

and the response form empror CCP "Don't worry about it" boom, end of discussion, not an exploit.

Make them aware, let them reply or chose not to, but seriously why people think goon or any alliance, as I said it used to be bob, runs how eve works just looks like an idiot.

But enjoy the petty arguments.

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#104 - 2014-08-14 19:57:31 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Soldarius wrote:
API coverage of hostile siphon activities for starters. You really do make this too easy.

I like this "I'm right because I'm right" thing you've got going.


It's about as good as "we're right because we say we are" from the other side of the argument...

This side of the argument is working from facts only.


The fact that the only version from CCP that we have say it's not supposed to be showing the info? You assume they made a 180 on that design while the other side assume they derped the api implementation of it.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#105 - 2014-08-14 19:59:58 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Frostys Virpio wrote:
The fact that the only version from CCP that we have say it's not supposed to be showing the info?

We have patch notes which say nothing of the sort.

Frostys Virpio wrote:
You assume they made a 180 on that design while the other side assume they derped the api implementation of it.

I think it's more likely they did, yeah. Considering it's not in the patch notes, considering changes were made to the module between then and release, and considering how bad of an idea it is to have the API provide intentionally inaccurate data. It may not have even been feasible to do.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Billy McCandless
Zacharia Explorations Group
#106 - 2014-08-14 20:02:23 UTC
i done geddit

"Thread locked for being deemed a total loss." - ISD Ezwal
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
#107 - 2014-08-14 20:07:10 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Derrick Miles wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Regardless of the above, still not an exploit to look at your own API data.
I mean what options would we have to avoid it if it were an exploit? Refuse to look at our API data? Unreasonable. Pretend we didn't see it? Unreasonable.

It wouldn't be an exploit to continue using the API, but if it was used explicitly for this purpose without CCP being told then it was an exploit.


And you prove this how?


If siphons were being consistently killed within hours of being onlined, with no eyes in the system before the kill squad appeared, and the kill squad didn't appear to be on some sort of siphon patrol, it would be strong circumstantial evidence of exploitation.

If some corps were actively squashing siphons very quickly, while neighboring corps were not, it would be some circumstantial evidence of exploitation.

If someone came forward and said, "yup, we noticed this **** right away, and were very careful to keep it quiet as hell so we could continue to harvest stupid pubbie siphons from fools who thought they were being sneaky" . . . there's some direct evidence of exploitation.

But common sense and logic tells you that every major coalition - all with an IT structure that easily exceeds that of most small businesses - knew from day one that they were able to obtain data from the API that CCP explicitly said should not be viewable. It would take very little additional evidence for CCP to start handing out bans - they don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Flip side is that this issue just cropped up within the past week, and hasn't been an ongoing issue. Super doubtful, but would likely resolve any real concerns about exploiting the system.

I am not an alt of Chribba.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#108 - 2014-08-14 20:10:54 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
The fact that the only version from CCP that we have say it's not supposed to be showing the info?

We have patch notes which say nothing of the sort.

Frostys Virpio wrote:
You assume they made a 180 on that design while the other side assume they derped the api implementation of it.

I think it's more likely they did, yeah. Considering it's not in the patch notes, considering changes were made to the module between then and release, and considering how bad of an idea it is to have the API provide intentionally inaccurate data. It may not have even been feasible to do.


Yeah most bugs are usually non mentionned in patch notes so a non documented "feature" can either be intended or not. In this case, it's not documented in the official change log, not documented in the post about the modification to the syphon unit and documented in the initial syphon proposal. They would not of mentionned it was changing when they edited the syphon while they did mention all the other change because :reasons: I guess.

The API giving false data is not that bad of an idea if it's intended for an ingame mechanic to work that way. It's most likely mean the siphon, lore wise, is hacking the tower to steal stuff from it but also give it the wrong data about what it contain to hide it's theft. Then your API check would question the tower in question which would report the data it has which would be wrong because the siphon unit is cheezing it to hide it's effect. This would make siphon actually not as stupid as they are if they were implemented that way. If it was not possible to do so, CCP should of told the player base that the feature had to be changed because of a technical hurdle making it impossible.
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#109 - 2014-08-14 20:15:23 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:
So, if what james & co say is true, it implies several things.

First, you have to understand that siphons were quite literally the first and only real tool ccp ever gave to smaller entities to screw larger entities. And it worked, kinda. You can find posts from every major alliance, but goonswarm and PL in particular have quite a few bitching about the little things. Both organizations instituted policy specifically to deal with siphons.

Second, removing the immunity to api detection basically castrates the bloody thing. The point of the thing was that you needed people in space to know if you were being siphoned. No people = no intel = your goo gets jacked. Since the blocs have way more space than they ever use, this makes siphons an ideal tool against them, again assuming no api detection. It also *may* explain why we've been able to siphon goo off with impunity off of the shittier (aka non-goonswarm) cfc entities but any siphon operations on goonswarm towers are quickly shut down outside of a particular time bracket.

Third, backtracking on the api detection represents a full cave-in to the whims of the blocs. This was the first and only thing that could actually f*ck blocs a tiny bit that they themselves can't use. Goons and PL don't siphon, because in most cases doing so would violate their existing treaties. But goons (and to a lesser extent PL) were most of the people that opposed siphons.

If true, to me it sends the message that CCP will cater to the whims of the blocs on just about every f*cking issue under the sun, even when that issue is specifically designed to hurt said blocs (a tiny bit). Further, because CCP themselves suggested the API immunity, it means they damn well understand what happens if you don't have said api immunity. And that just makes it shittier

So, if what james & co say is true, it would pi*ss me off something fierce, and it would disappoint a whole lot of the player base.



Apparently, 'PotatoOverdoes in Ancient Aramaic translates to "Dinsdale was here" Big smile

Disregarding the ad hominem, how is what I said not true? Go to this thread. Who opposed the initial design of the api immune system? The same people against whom the system was targeted. Who got exactly what they wanted? Those people.

Mallak Azaria wrote:

Let me tell you about how I reported it as soon as I realised that the API was not in fact lying to me, and was told "Don't worry about it" by CCP.

If this is true than I have one thing to say: f*ck this game. It deserves to lose all the subs it's been losing.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#110 - 2014-08-14 20:40:03 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Yeah most bugs are usually non mentionned in patch notes so a non documented "feature" can either be intended or not.

This is completely irrelevant to what we're discussing.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Thomas Harding
Doomheim
#111 - 2014-08-14 20:46:53 UTC
Thing that really bothers me with these things is that they make you think that maybe Dinsdale is...

And then you realize you already downed more than half of that Russian standard platinum and just shrug your shoulders.

Until it happens again.

Not sure who's to blame; CCP, Dinsdale, vodka or, hey I know, grrr goons.

Anyways, this thread needs dev post.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#112 - 2014-08-14 20:49:20 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Yeah most bugs are usually non mentionned in patch notes so a non documented "feature" can either be intended or not.

This is completely irrelevant to what we're discussing.


It actually is because you used the patch notes to prove it was not intended because it was not there. There are instance where stuff were not in the patch note and actually were intended changes and change which were in the patch note not working as intended. This basicaly mean the patch notes is only of value if CCP confirm it some time after.

I must admit now that I missed a the post where ti was mentioned the issue was reported and the guy was told to not worry about it. I can't assume the poster is lying so either CCP didn't care enough to mention this change in the design of the siphon unit (what's the god damn point of stealing something if you don't try to hide the fact it's getting stolen) or don't care enough to fix something not working as intended. In both case, it's horse ****...
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#113 - 2014-08-14 21:14:25 UTC
So, the end result is that nullsec did know about it (I guess I'm just ill informed from lack of owning a moon pos), and not only did CCP know about it as a result, they also don't care?

Hilarious.

Now I am going to go back and read all the bitter tears about this. See you in a few pages, folks.

"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.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#114 - 2014-08-14 21:32:41 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Yeah most bugs are usually non mentionned in patch notes so a non documented "feature" can either be intended or not.

This is completely irrelevant to what we're discussing.


It actually is because you used the patch notes to prove it was not intended because it was not there.

I didn't prove anything. I used the patch notes, among other things, to suggest the likelihood of them having changed their minds.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Rhes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#115 - 2014-08-14 21:59:30 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
If this is true than I have one thing to say: f*ck this game. It deserves to lose all the subs it's been losing.

I understand that it must be very frustrating to be in MoA these days but these kinds of comments aren't helpful.

EVE is a game about spaceships and there's an enormous amount of work to do on the in-space gameplay before players (or developers) are ready to sacrifice it for a totally new type of gameplay - CCP Rise
Kaaii
Kaaii-Net Research Labs
#116 - 2014-08-14 22:01:00 UTC


Goons cheating, who knew!
Prince Kobol
#117 - 2014-08-14 22:19:56 UTC
Here is the Dev Blog about Siphon Units

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/stop-the-thief-siphon-units-in-rubicon/

Here is the Wiki entry for deployable units which contains information regards siphon units

https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Personal_Deployable_Structures

Here you can view all the patch notes for Rubicon (as well as others)

http://community.eveonline.com/news/patch-notes/patch-notes-for-rubicon

Somebody show me anywhere CCP talks about the API in regards to Siphon Units.

I can not find any official reference to how the API interacts with Siphon Units. To me this means that we have no idea how CCP intended the API to work.

My guess is CCP don't even know but I am sure they will come up with something snappy like "its working as intended" or "we are looking in to it", you know, the usually same old that we have come to expect when they mess something up and get all embarrassed about it. Big smile
General Nusense
Doomheim
#118 - 2014-08-14 22:35:38 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
So, the end result is that nullsec did know about it (I guess I'm just ill informed from lack of owning a moon pos), and not only did CCP know about it as a result, they also don't care?

Hilarious.

Now I am going to go back and read all the bitter tears about this. See you in a few pages, folks.



After reading this entire thread, i have found out you live in highsec, for your entire eve life. that is nice to know, please stop being rude to npc poster and people that dont post with their mains. there are reasons for this, that you will never understand. please go back to your mining and mission running.

tia.

Made a signature so I am taken seriously on the forums, since thats the only thing they are good for.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#119 - 2014-08-14 22:40:19 UTC
So what does the siphon unit look like anyway? I imagine a large red floating gas can with a hose. I'm too busy RL sperglording to check right now.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Grog Aftermath
Doomheim
#120 - 2014-08-14 22:50:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Grog Aftermath
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I wouldn't really say that's an exploit.



Depends, was it working as intended, if not, were people gaining an unfair in-game advantage by using it.