These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

gridfu

First post
Author
Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#21 - 2015-11-19 22:34:44 UTC
What you perceive as "tears" is actually just disappointment.

The fact so many of you people actually defend the position of this being an "intended feature" is beyond moronic.

"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP

Austneal
Nero Fazione
#22 - 2015-11-19 22:35:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Austneal
Terminal Insanity wrote:
Austneal wrote:
It's not an exploit. It's a deliberate game mechanic.

Also comparing TF2 and Battlefield to Eve...



This is literally hilarious.

Your losing a ship to widely known game mechanics, and then needlessly ranting about it on the forums is a bit humorous.

I'm just going to report this thread as a rant.
Paranoid Loyd
#23 - 2015-11-19 22:38:18 UTC
Terminal Insanity wrote:
The fact so many of you people actually defend the position of this being an "intended feature" is beyond moronic.

There are very few things that are documented when it comes to how mechanics are suppossed to be. The mechanic in question is clearly documented as not an exploit. So who is the moron?

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!

Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#24 - 2015-11-19 22:38:56 UTC
Terminal Insanity wrote:
What you perceive as "tears" is actually just disappointment.

The fact so many of you people actually defend the position of this being an "intended feature" is beyond moronic.

Who's defended it?

Everyone has just stated facts. It's not an exploit.

Why or why not from my view is kind of irrelevant, since my opinion means nothing more than anyone else's.

Doesn't change the facts though.
Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#25 - 2015-11-19 22:39:41 UTC
Austneal wrote:
Terminal Insanity wrote:
Austneal wrote:
It's not an exploit. It's a deliberate game mechanic.

Also comparing TF2 and Battlefield to Eve...



This is literally hilarious.

Your losing a ship to widely known game mechanics, and then needlessly ranting about it on the forums is a bit humorous.


*broken game mechanic

yes, i lost my ship to a *broken* game mechanic. If this is an intended mechanic, then what is the lore reason for it? is there a reason why my ship sensors are limited to 60km today and not yesterday?

Why would dropping a jetcan near the edge my my ship's sensor range suddenly increase my ship's sensor range? Why can another player slowly shrink my ship's sensor range by dropping jetcans? What does Emperess Jamyl have to say about this? Isnt the Amarrian army concerned with the ability of capsuleers to manipulate their ship's sensors with jetcans?

"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP

Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#26 - 2015-11-19 22:41:54 UTC
Terminal Insanity wrote:
What does Emperess Jamyl have to say about this?

Probably not much. She's dead.
Austneal
Nero Fazione
#27 - 2015-11-19 22:42:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Austneal
Terminal Insanity wrote:
Austneal wrote:
Terminal Insanity wrote:
Austneal wrote:
It's not an exploit. It's a deliberate game mechanic.

Also comparing TF2 and Battlefield to Eve...



This is literally hilarious.

Your losing a ship to widely known game mechanics, and then needlessly ranting about it on the forums is a bit humorous.


*broken game mechanic

yes, i lost my ship to a *broken* game mechanic. If this is an intended mechanic, then what is the lore reason for it? is there a reason why my ship sensors are limited to 60km today and not yesterday?

Why would dropping a jetcan near the edge my my ship's sensor range suddenly increase my ship's sensor range? Why can another player slowly shrink my ship's sensor range by dropping jetcans? What does Emperess Jamyl have to say about this? Isnt the Amarrian army concerned with the ability of capsuleers to manipulate their ship's sensors with jetcans?

How can I fly into a planet and not explode? How can I ram into a station at 3km/s and not explode? Because it's a video game with certain mechanics programmed in.

Also, one person losing a ship once because he didn't check d-scan and / or wasn't aligned doesn't make a mechanic broken.

I have a feeling you're taking this a bit too seriously. You might want to take a short break and then come back after you've cooled off a bit.
Paranoid Loyd
#28 - 2015-11-19 22:43:14 UTC
Heh, since you can't argue it's not an exploit any more you start going all RPtard. Lol

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!

Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#29 - 2015-11-19 22:43:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Terminal Insanity
I think its more of a case of Stockholm Syndrome or something.

So i play this other game, Heroes&Generals. Sometimes assholes will glitch their way into a wall, so you cant see them or shoot them, but they can see and shoot you. All their developers need to do is create a list of "non-exploits" and label this a non-exploit, and everyone should just be happy and ignore it, right?

"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP

Austneal
Nero Fazione
#30 - 2015-11-19 22:45:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Austneal
Terminal Insanity wrote:
I think its more of a case of Stockholm Syndrome or something.

So i play this other game, Heroes&Generals. Sometimes assholes will glitch their way into a wall, so you cant see them or shoot them, but they can see and shoot you. All their developers need to do is create a list of "non-exploits" and label this a non-exploit, and everyone should just be happy and ignore it, right?


You're failing to realize the difference between a bug, and an intentional feature. The devs didn't just grunt really hard and pop out a video game... they sat down, planned it out, and intentionally put this into the game.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#31 - 2015-11-19 22:46:24 UTC
Terminal Insanity wrote:
I think its more of a case of Stockholm Syndrome or something.

This is awesome. Thanks OP. This thread is brilliant.

Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#32 - 2015-11-19 22:47:32 UTC
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Heh, since you can't argue it's not an exploit any more you start going all RPtard. Lol


Well nobody here has given me a logical explaination as to why this ISNT an exploit.

Yes, its on a list, created by the developers, that says its not an exploit. But try for like 2 seconds and think for yourself. Do you really believe that when CCP was originally programming the grid mechanic, they thought, "hey we need to create this in a way that allows players to extend or shrink the grid" ? or do you think this was just an unintended side-effect (bug) that is now being taken advantage of (exploited)?

I have a hard time believing so many of you honestly dont see this as something that should be fixed

"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP

Austneal
Nero Fazione
#33 - 2015-11-19 22:49:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Austneal
Terminal Insanity wrote:
Well nobody here has given me a logical explaination as to why this ISNT an exploit.

We actually have... multiple times.
Paranoid Loyd
#34 - 2015-11-19 22:51:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Paranoid Loyd
Terminal Insanity wrote:
I have a hard time believing so many of you honestly dont see this as something that should be fixed
I don't waste time thinking about whether or not it should be fixed. I learn everything I can about the mechanic and use the knowledge to survive. If I get caught because of it, I think about what I should do differently the next time instead of coming to the forums and crying about how ****** up I think the mechanic is. If I did feel the need to bring something up I certainly wouldn't post a rant in GD and expect anything productive to come from it.

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!

Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#35 - 2015-11-19 22:52:23 UTC
Terminal Insanity wrote:
Yes, its on a list, created by the developers, that says its not an exploit. But try for like 2 seconds and think for yourself. Do you really believe that when CCP was originally programming the grid mechanic, they thought, "hey we need to create this in a way that allows players to extend or shrink the grid" ? or do you think this was just an unintended side-effect (bug) that is now being taken advantage of (exploited)?

none of us can speak for CCP, so anything we offer is just useless opinion.

If I had to guess, I'd say it was an unintended side effect, but one that CCP decided was ok.

But that's purely a guess and just as likely to be wrong as it is to be right. You'd need to ask CCP directly if you want something factual as to why.

As to fixing it, as indicated in my first reply on this thread, work on grids is currently underway. That work will make this issue irrelevant even though it will still be possible.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#36 - 2015-11-19 22:59:18 UTC
Austneal wrote:


You're failing to realize the difference between a bug, and an intentional feature. The devs didn't just grunt really hard and pop out a video game... they sat down, planned it out, and intentionally put this into the game.

Actually no they didn't.
But since CCP also are keen on emergent gameplay, they shrugged their shoulders, thought about it, and then decided it could remain as a feature rather than declaring it a bug. So labelled it not an exploit.
But Grid Fu comes from them attempting to create grids that people couldn't just run over an invisible wall with someone 20km behind them and escape. Not from a deliberate decision to create gridfu.

However to the Op, CCP's mega grids are going to stop most cases of grid fu already.
Why complain when CCP are already doing what you want.
Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#37 - 2015-11-19 23:00:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Terminal Insanity
Austneal wrote:
Terminal Insanity wrote:
Well nobody here has given me a logical explaination as to why this ISNT an exploit.

We actually have... multiple times.

Terminal Insanity wrote:

Do you really believe that when CCP was originally programming the grid mechanic, they thought, "hey we need to create this in a way that allows players to extend or shrink the grid" ?

Again, yes... they did.



I dont think so. I think the reason there are grids in the first place is a way to deal with the fact its all on one "shard". This is the spaceships equivalent of "clipping".

See, in FPS games, you can increase client performance, and decrease server load, by limiting what you process to things that are only visible to the players. When a player is behind a wall, we dont need to bother drawing that player, or anything else behind that wall. You can also save on bandwidth by simply not sending data to the clients about whats behind that wall.

In space, there are no walls, so instead we have "grids", artificial zones that act in the same manner. Anything outside of the wall of this zone is simply not sent to the client, because its too far away to be seen.

Its understandable even, that these grids would be variable, so that it can expand to deal with an ongoing fight that is drifting off away from where it started.

This is all fine and understandable.

The problem comes when a player is deliberately abusing this mechanic to shrink a grid so they can be 50km off a station and still be invisible. Im sure CCP did not intend for me to be able to make 5 separate grids around the station so i can break lockon just by traveling a few km in one direction, and then 5km more and im back on the previous grid, able to take another volley, and then back offgrid, and back on, etc etc


If CCP honestly intended for the ability to shrink grids to 60km off a station, and create several different grids around that station as well... that seems even worse than ignoring a bug in the first place. Because now you're teling me they've deliberately created this ridiculous gameplay mechanic, and provided absolutely no explanation as to why it would function that way.
I'd say its far dumber than even fozziesov was. But at least they admit fozziesov needs some work.

"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#38 - 2015-11-19 23:39:20 UTC
Quote:

Forum rules

3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.


Thread closed.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Previous page12