These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A Message Regarding "Hyperdunking"

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#741 - 2015-02-01 21:53:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Valterra Craven wrote:
Please provide evidence proving your point.
Your link provides the proof, as does even a cursory understanding of CONCORD mechanics and timers.

The timers make it impossible to sit in a system and gank anything every 15 minutes. CONCORD makes it impossible to do so with no tangible consequences. The population distribution and play patterns of EVE (and especially Code) makes it impossible to do so all day, every day.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#742 - 2015-02-01 21:56:31 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


You are asking for faction navies to step up patrols in popular choke points for ganking. Thats asking for CCP to protect you.



Actually, what I'm asking for escalating consequences for repeated criminal activity. The form of those consequences is irrelevant to me. That is no way asking for CCP to protect me.


You just asked for exactly what I just described again.
Valterra Craven
#743 - 2015-02-01 21:57:49 UTC
Tippia wrote:


The timers make it impossible to sit in a system and gank anything every 15 minutes.


And yet, I just showed you exactly where this is happening.

That Code person had 4 freighter kills in the span of 1 hour and 2 minutes Starting at 8:05 and ending at 9:07. So please, tell me what game mechanics should be preventing this so I can report them as exploiters.


Tippia wrote:

CONCORD makes it impossible to do so with no tangible consequences.


Well "tangible consequences" means completely different things to different sets of players. Otherwise this thread wouldn't exist.
Valterra Craven
#744 - 2015-02-01 22:00:43 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


You just asked for exactly what I just described again.


So asking for a scenario where a person could still die (and is entirely likely to still die) is asking for complete protection. Got it.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#745 - 2015-02-01 22:02:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Valterra Craven wrote:
And yet, I just showed you exactly where this is happening.
Nope.

Quote:
That Code person had 4 freighter kills in the span of 1 hour and 2 minutes Starting at 8:05 and ending at 9:07.
You need to look up the turn “fence post error” (or off-by-one error). 4 kills in the span of 1 hour does not mean one happens every 15 minutes. The fact that you can't spot this error by simply looking at the timestamps is worrying. Straight

Quote:
Well "tangible consequences" means completely different things to different sets of players. Otherwise this thread wouldn't exist.
Yes, there are tons of people who erroneously think that minerals you mine yourself are free. Or that low = zero. Or that by voiding consequences, they don't exist to begin with. Just because they think these things does not mean any of it is actually true — it just means that those people are objectively wrong.

Quote:
So asking for a scenario where a person could still die (and is entirely likely to still die) is asking for complete protection. Got it.
It is asking for CCP to protect you, and for NPCs to do the work of players.
Valterra Craven
#746 - 2015-02-01 22:06:58 UTC
Tippia wrote:
You need to look up the turn “fence post error” (or off-by-one error). 4 kills in the span of 1 hour does not mean one happens every 15 minutes.


I'm sorry, because 15 minutes and 30 seconds is so drastically and radically different than a straight 15 minutes? K, mister specific to the tee. I'll just round up and say its possible to sit in a system and kill things all day every day every 16 minutes.

Tippia wrote:
Yes, there are tons of people who erroneously think that minerals you mine yourself are free. Or that low = zero. Or that by voiding consequences, they don't exist to begin with. Just because they think these things does not mean any of it is actually true — it just means that those people are objectively wrong.


All valid points, which don't actually relate to the effectiveness of ganking consequences.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#747 - 2015-02-01 22:11:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Valterra Craven wrote:
I'm sorry, because 15 minutes and 30 seconds is so drastically and radically different than a straight 15 minutes?
You are still making the exact same error. Look at the times. Look at how they are spaced. Then look up the term off-by-one error and see where you're going wrong. 4 kills in 62 minutes does not mean that they are [ 62 / 4 =] 15.5 minutes apart. It means they are [ 62 / 3 =] 20⅔ minutes apart.

So not only do you not understand the basic mechanics of CONCORD and its timers, which will give you the answer anyway, you fail simple subtraction. Do you understand why I was so quick to pull out the word “incoherent” when generalising about the counter-gank arguments? It's because of face-palmingly silly mistakes such as that one — and again, you are only joining the herd in that regard.

Quote:
K, mister specific to the tee. I'll just round up and say its possible to sit in a system and kill things all day every day every 16 minutes.
If you want to be specific to the tee, at least be accurate and say that you can kill things every server tick.

Quote:
All valid points, which don't actually relate to the effectiveness of ganking consequences.
It relates to them being objectively wrong about the consequences, for almost the exact same reasons.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#748 - 2015-02-01 22:18:44 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


You just asked for exactly what I just described again.


So asking for a scenario where a person could still die (and is entirely likely to still die) is asking for complete protection. Got it.


Its asking for more protection yes. The more you try to worm your way out of what you just said the more stupid you look.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#749 - 2015-02-01 22:25:23 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


You just asked for exactly what I just described again.


So asking for a scenario where a person could still die (and is entirely likely to still die) is asking for complete protection. Got it.


Its asking for more protection yes. The more you try to worm your way out of what you just said the more stupid you look.


Nothing stupid about asking CONCORD to act like any effective police force would and take actual measures to curtail the crime sprees of known repeat criminals.
Valterra Craven
#750 - 2015-02-01 22:27:16 UTC
Tippia wrote:
You are still making the exact same error. Look at the times. Look at how they are spaced. Then look up the term off-by-one error and see where you're going wrong. 4 kills in 62 minutes does not mean that they are [ 62 / 4 =] 15.5 minutes apart. It means they are [ 62 / 3 =] 20⅔ minutes apart.


I'm not making ANY error because the actual minute differences between 15 minutes, 16 minutes, 20 minutes or more is irrelevant to the point of the argument as ALL of those times are of a similar duration ie: SHORT. You are being obtuse for the sake of it. The POINT of the argument is that it is possible to sit in a system and indiscriminately kill targets in short busts of time.

Tippia wrote:

Do you understand why I was so quick to pull out the word “incoherent” when generalising about the counter-gank arguments? It's because of face-palmingly silly mistakes such as that one — and again, you are only joining the herd in that regard.


Do you understand why people hate you?

Tippia wrote:

Quote:
The fact that code folks can sit in uedama and gank freighters every 15 minutes with no tangible consequences is telling.

That is a fantasy, not a fact, and the fact that people keep bringing this nonsense up is telling. It shows that they are utterly clueless about all things related to ganking


Because taking his point and blowing it out of proportion to his mistake and mine while failing to address the main point he was making is mean and utterly counterproductive to civil debate?
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#751 - 2015-02-01 22:28:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Hiasa Kite
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


You just asked for exactly what I just described again.


So asking for a scenario where a person could still die (and is entirely likely to still die) is asking for complete protection. Got it.


Its asking for more protection yes. The more you try to worm your way out of what you just said the more stupid you look.


Nothing stupid about asking CONCORD to act like any effective police force would and take actual measures to curtail the crime sprees of known repeat criminals.

Oh, mighty NPC overlords. Grant thy boon and cast down the criminals that we mere mortals are too lazy and incompetent to punish, ourselves!

Loot fairy be praised!

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#752 - 2015-02-01 22:28:41 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Nothing stupid about asking CONCORD to act like any effective police force would and take actual measures to curtail the crime sprees of known repeat criminals.

So… show up late, most often not catch the criminal, and having very little to go on you mean? Thereby making it possible to more effectively go on crime sprees and become a repeat criminal…

No, that's not so stupid. What's stupid is asking NPCs to do something outside of their design purpose, to harm and reduce gameplay and content, and to take work away from players. It's also pretty stupid to ask for more protection in an area of the game where protection is already far higher than it needs to be.
Valterra Craven
#753 - 2015-02-01 22:31:58 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


Its asking for more protection yes. The more you try to worm your way out of what you just said the more stupid you look.


Asking for more consequences is not the same as asking for more protection.

Let me put it to you this way: the US made certain drug offenses harsher than others. The net result was not that citizens were more protected from dugs. It just meant that when criminals were caught, they had longer jail terms.
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#754 - 2015-02-01 22:32:59 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Tippia wrote:
You are still making the exact same error. Look at the times. Look at how they are spaced. Then look up the term off-by-one error and see where you're going wrong. 4 kills in 62 minutes does not mean that they are [ 62 / 4 =] 15.5 minutes apart. It means they are [ 62 / 3 =] 20⅔ minutes apart.


I'm not making ANY error because the actual minute differences between 15 minutes, 16 minutes, 20 minutes or more is irrelevant to the point of the argument as ALL of those times are of a similar duration ie: SHORT. You are being obtuse for the sake of it. The POINT of the argument is that it is possible to sit in a system and indiscriminately kill targets in short busts of time.

And the freighter pilots that happily prance through that system despite its killboard lighting up like a Christmas tree had absolutely no choice but to accept their fate, right?

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#755 - 2015-02-01 22:35:52 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Nothing stupid about asking CONCORD to act like any effective police force would and take actual measures to curtail the crime sprees of known repeat criminals.

So… show up late, most often not catch the criminal, and having very little to go on you mean? Thereby making it possible to more effectively go on crime sprees and become a repeat criminal…

No, that's not so stupid. What's stupid is asking NPCs to do something outside of their design purpose, to harm and reduce gameplay and content, and to take work away from players. It's also pretty stupid to ask for more protection in an area of the game where protection is already far higher than it needs to be.


No, what's stupid is "code enforcers" sitting in Uedama and committing the EXACT SAME CRIME over and over again, and yet suffering no penalty beyond loss of gank ship and a 15 minute timeout. What's stupid is that said gankers can do so on a disposable gank alt while their nullsec main happily afk rats or afk mines his way to wealth. That is a crazy and broken system and screams out for a fix.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#756 - 2015-02-01 22:40:07 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
I'm not making ANY error
…aside from basic maths, basic understanding of game mechanics, and basic application of common sense. Had you applied those in reverse order, you would not have arrived to the point where you are trying to claim that 26-5 = 15, or that 49 - 26 = 15.

Instead, you made the error of outing yourself as fundamentally unqualified to discuss the matter at hand.

Quote:
The POINT of the argument is that it is possible to sit in a system and indiscriminately kill targets in short busts of time.
Good. The system is purposefully designed to allow for that.

Quote:
Do you understand why people hate you?
They don't.

Quote:
Because taking his point and blowing it out of proportion to his mistake and mine while failing to address the main point he was making is mean and utterly counterproductive to civil debate?
No. it's entirely constructive to expose the ignorance, incompetence, incoherence, and outright mendacity that characterises the entire anti-gank faction. The main point has been addressed many times over, and you tried to invent some evidence to prop up a minor — inherently inaccurate — tangent. Now you're upset that this point, too, exploded spectacularly when it came into contact with reality.

Quote:
Asking for more consequences is not the same as asking for more protection.
Good. Then we can remove the consequences entirely since it won't affect the protection int the slightest.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#757 - 2015-02-01 22:44:12 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
No, what's stupid is "code enforcers" sitting in Uedama and committing the EXACT SAME CRIME over and over again, and yet suffering no penalty beyond loss of gank ship and a 15 minute timeout.
How is that stupid? It's no different than how the game treats miners or mission-runners or traders or… well… everyone really. Why must criminals be treated differently and not be allowed to grind?

Quote:
What's stupid is that said gankers can do so on a disposable gank alt while their nullsec main happily afk rats or afk mines his way to wealth.
No, they really can't. Disposable alts aren't really allowed and are probably one of the biggest myths of EVE. And how is it stupid that you can do earn money on one character and spend it on another?

Quote:
That is a crazy and broken system and screams out for a fix.
What's crazy and broken about it? Why does it need to be fixed?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#758 - 2015-02-01 22:45:45 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:


Nothing stupid about asking CONCORD to act like any effective police force would and take actual measures to curtail the crime sprees of known repeat criminals.


If you want safety for zero effort go play a game that provides it. STO for example.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#759 - 2015-02-01 22:46:51 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:


Asking for more consequences is not the same as asking for more protection.


Yes it is.

Valterra Craven wrote:

Let me put it to you this way: the US made certain drug offenses harsher than others. The net result was not that citizens were more protected from dugs. It just meant that when criminals were caught, they had longer jail terms.


Once again, this is a game.
Valterra Craven
#760 - 2015-02-01 22:52:21 UTC
Tippia wrote:
…aside from basic maths, basic understanding of game mechanics, and basic application of common sense. Had you applied those in reverse order, you would not have arrived to the point where you are trying to claim that 26-5 = 15, or that 49 - 26 = 15.


You mean I don't understand the basic game mechanic that when you shoot something you get a criminal flag for a short duration of time, or that 26-5 = 21 but that the 6 minute gap could mean he didn't have a target to shoot for 6 minutes and therefore could account for the gap without making the first past the post error? I don't understand that being able to kill something in the same spot in the same way every 20 minutes doesn't make much common sense? Ok. Understand.

Tippia wrote:

Instead, you made the error of outing yourself as fundamentally unqualified to discuss the matter at hand.


Well rightly or wrongly the US justice system does not demand that juries be subject matter experts in the case at hand to be able to come to some semblance of a resolution, so your point on its face seems rather silly. Especially when considering those stakes are a lot higher...

Tippia wrote:
They don't.
You can not categorically state that no one on these forums hate you.

Tippia wrote:
No. it's entirely constructive to expose the ignorance, incompetence, incoherence, and outright mendacity that characterises the entire anti-gank faction. The main point has been addressed many times over, and you tried to invent some evidence to prop up a minor — inherently inaccurate — tangent. Now you're upset that this point, too, exploded spectacularly when it came into contact with reality.


Well considering that you agree with the point that gankers can gank in short bursts of time, It would seem that have you failed at your objective to expose those problems.

Tippia wrote:
Then we can remove the consequences entirely since it won't affect the protection int the slightest.
Course on the flip side asking for more of them won't affect the protection in the slightest either. I'm happy to agree with you on that point.