These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

GMs - Please weigh in on the boomerang maneuver. Exploit (y/n)?

First post
Author
zelma en Dairez
DeSoto Industries
#241 - 2012-03-30 22:34:02 UTC
I want to make it clear - I don't think any of these guys should be banned. At the time that they ganked me, there was no clarity from ccp as to whether this was considered an exploit.

Now that it has been clarified, it's a different kettle of fish. Even so, I'm personally of the opinion that banning people straight up is not really a good option - people may not read the forums often or other avenues to see this info.

Zel
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#242 - 2012-03-30 23:02:45 UTC
Subdolus Venator wrote:
Hear hear!
Simply changing the GCC in hi-sec to 'lasts until the criminal is hunted down and grease-spotted' should've been fine. And it would likely have produced some truly epic hot-pursuits - the kind which get written-up in blogs and industry news. Publicity-generating events, yanno?

I think CCP has missed a bet here.


If CCP would rewrite CONCORD so that, the longer you evade, the faster they respond (to the point where they act like they're in > 1.0 security space, then yes - that would work.

Maybe every "event" within a system jacks up the security status of the system (at least, with regards to CONCORD) by 0.01 security. So after 50 events or less in a hi-sec system, you end up with CONCORD responding as if the system was 1.0 status (basically instantly).

You could then setup the system to decay at a rate of 0.01 every 3 minutes.

Unfortunately, pirates would hate it. And people would simply jack up the system security by doing a lot of shoot-and-scoot (as each new aggression would reset the timer and cause a new "event").

But if the decay was fast enough, it might balance out.
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#243 - 2012-03-30 23:04:26 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:
Red Frog Rufen wrote:


btw, the exploit was also using another ship, without consequence, to bump the freighter.


Nerf bumping!


Should a frigate, with the mass of 1M kg really be able to bump a freighter with a mass of 940M kg?
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#244 - 2012-03-30 23:10:45 UTC
If it's going fast enough, yes. The calculation already makes the bump proportional based on sig radius (read: size), mass, and speed.
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#245 - 2012-03-31 00:00:09 UTC  |  Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote:
If it is an exploit, we're just one step closer to WOW in space.

I really hope CCP change their cearbear direction. If not, I'll have to re-think my yearly subscription.


Yes. Evading CONCORD has never been an exploit. I too will rage and act surprised when CCP deems this an exploit.

I am now acting surprised and furiously raging that, for the very first time CCP has declared evading Concord an exploit!

Shall we meet at the JIta statue, say, at 11 tonight?

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.

xxREDNUTTERxx
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#246 - 2012-03-31 00:52:59 UTC

NERD RAGE FEST!!!!!

seriously the ammount of tears on both sides has me smiling right after my new favorite game has just been banned, so thank you.

As far as I know I was one of the main contributers to all these "unfair" boomarang ganks, so as a posted before here is my opinion.

1. yes it was fun and I enjoyed every second of shooting people that have both no understanding of game mechanics and obviously no friends in local
2. yes it was overpowered and something would have to be changed so that it wasn't quite so easy to kill a freighter (or even multiple freighters, with a single tier 3
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=12883092
3. the fact that all the carebears went straight to CCP instead of getting in a fast locking ship and getting some revenge kills themselves again reminds me of how pathetic some eve players are.

So my final say is yes nerf it, that was expected. (when i first tested this it was to see if killing 100% afk freighters that sit on gates all day would be possible)
But ccp maybe change it so the original idea is still possible, I think that it is a bit to carebear focused that people can leave up to 6 bil in an afk jump freighter and it is not worth ganking by tradidional methods...... that s*** should ALWAYS be at risk
ScooterPuff Sr
Shenanigans Mining Hub
#247 - 2012-03-31 03:57:10 UTC
Pisov viet wrote:
I'm a bit unsure, is it still legit to click on buttons while in highsec?

all ships are to become exhumers next.
eve online is to become veldspar rush
Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#248 - 2012-03-31 05:36:01 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
We adjusted the wording slightly to make it less ambiguous. See the full text here:

http://community.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=4972&tid=1

I also have to restate that we value the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. Also avoiding CONCORD in any way is simply not allowed, attempts to find loopholes in the wording will not fly.


I find it odd that we need to be "reminded" of a new rule, as if we've seen it before. Poor choice of words in my opinion.

I also think this is a bandaid that could have been better solved with a patch to adapt Concord to the tactic rather than a rule banning it. You guys stripped all the wardec rules and continue to allow highsec warfare to be utterly ruined by obvious exploits of game mechanics under the pretense that it was too much to enforce, yet you're okay with adding new rules to prevent this. It's rather disheartening.

THIS.
The response to highsec players' egregious abuse of exploits is to declare it no longer an exploit, but the response to what makes perfect sense (run from the popo as much as you can in the cordoned off area you're stuck in) is to declare this behavior an exploit even if it works WITHOUT crossing the bounds of something known to be an exploit.

The "spirit of the law" bit also introduces VERY problematic issues as, while with a lot of digging we can find out that some of the perfectly doable behavior that requires no stretching of the games bounds is considered an exploit, we have no way of reading a GM's mind and determining what they will interpret the "spirit of the law" to be. It doesn't even have to be intentionally obtuse interpretations of the letter of the law for some problematic things to arise from this. This is really not a precedent that's healthy to set.
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#249 - 2012-03-31 07:00:48 UTC
Kat Ayclism wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
We adjusted the wording slightly to make it less ambiguous. See the full text here:

http://community.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=4972&tid=1

I also have to restate that we value the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. Also avoiding CONCORD in any way is simply not allowed, attempts to find loopholes in the wording will not fly.


I find it odd that we need to be "reminded" of a new rule, as if we've seen it before. Poor choice of words in my opinion.

I also think this is a bandaid that could have been better solved with a patch to adapt Concord to the tactic rather than a rule banning it. You guys stripped all the wardec rules and continue to allow highsec warfare to be utterly ruined by obvious exploits of game mechanics under the pretense that it was too much to enforce, yet you're okay with adding new rules to prevent this. It's rather disheartening.

THIS.
The response to highsec players' egregious abuse of exploits is to declare it no longer an exploit, but the response to what makes perfect sense (run from the popo as much as you can in the cordoned off area you're stuck in) is to declare this behavior an exploit even if it works WITHOUT crossing the bounds of something known to be an exploit.

The "spirit of the law" bit also introduces VERY problematic issues as, while with a lot of digging we can find out that some of the perfectly doable behavior that requires no stretching of the games bounds is considered an exploit, we have no way of reading a GM's mind and determining what they will interpret the "spirit of the law" to be. It doesn't even have to be intentionally obtuse interpretations of the letter of the law for some problematic things to arise from this. This is really not a precedent that's healthy to set.


Making highsec freightering and ganking freighters either dual account necessary or dual account optimal is bad mkaay. its really bad for the external perception of the game for people that would trial or buy a sub too.

Concord has never been intended to offer a grandtheftauto minigame, and has always supposed to represent overpowering force as far as capsuleers were concerned.
EnslaverOfMinmatar
You gonna get aped
#250 - 2012-03-31 08:17:16 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
We adjusted the wording slightly to make it less ambiguous. See the full text here:

http://community.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=4972&tid=1

I also have to restate that we value the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. Also avoiding CONCORD in any way is simply not allowed, attempts to find loopholes in the wording will not fly.


I really like your name. Is it an anagram of "GM i no a Homo"?

Every EVE player must read this http://www.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=29-01-07

Jack Miton
Holesale
Holesale Operations
#251 - 2012-03-31 08:23:05 UTC
god damn it ccp, stop being pansy carebears.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout

Harrigan VonStudly
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#252 - 2012-03-31 08:46:24 UTC
If it's an exploit then why the **** doesn't CCP give CCP Guard a bigger gank hammer? WHen players can out smart the creators then it's time to shove Concord in the closet and let us play the ******* game. Werd!
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#253 - 2012-03-31 12:04:37 UTC
Way I read the GM's statement:

"We didn't like the idea of 'Boomeranging' because it makes life hard on our carebear population, but the actual tactic didn't really fit our previous definition of an 'Concord evasion' exploit. We figured the proper was response was to simply stealth nerf it in an upcoming patch, like we usually do.

......but then freighters started dying and the software patch wasn't ready yet.
So we immediately adjusted our definitions to include this tactic.

Oh, and bend over guys, because the upcoming software fix will be much worse." - Luv and kisses, GM Homo.

Although, to be fair, it was refreshing that he/she spent a little time clarifying the issue in the forums. Maybe its because my expectations have fallen so far......

My guess? Concord will scram you down immediately, so randoms will have plenty of time to close with and pod the silly gankers while they their client is busy rendering the ship change and explosion. Or who knows, maybe they will start scramming your pod too, just for good measure. Why not?

I suppose they will probably figure out how to disable the Orca fitting service at some point, and naturally - leave the stealth cargo bay intact, because the carebears LIKE that particular 'exploit'.

But **** it.

Only one way to deal with carebears. Don't waste your breath arguing with them like I end up doing.
Exterminate them, drive them out of EVE - by any means possible.
Pamela Podpopper
Doomheim
#254 - 2012-03-31 12:18:13 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Way I read the GM's statement:

"We didn't like the idea of 'Boomeranging' because it makes life hard on our carebear population, but the actual tactic didn't really fit our previous definition of an 'Concord evasion' exploit. We figured the proper was response was to simply stealth nerf it in an upcoming patch, like we usually do.

......but then freighters started dying and the software patch wasn't ready yet.
So we immediately adjusted our definitions to include this tactic.

Oh, and bend over guys, because the upcoming software fix will be much worse." - Luv and kisses, GM Homo.

Although, to be fair, it was refreshing that he/she spent a little time clarifying the issue in the forums. Maybe its because my expectations have fallen so far......

My guess? Concord will scram you down immediately, so randoms will have plenty of time to close with and pod the silly gankers while they their client is busy rendering the ship change and explosion. Or who knows, maybe they will start scramming your pod too, just for good measure. Why not?

I suppose they will probably figure out how to disable the Orca fitting service at some point, and naturally - leave the stealth cargo bay intact, because the carebears LIKE that particular 'exploit'.

But **** it.

Only one way to deal with carebears. Don't waste your breath arguing with them like I end up doing.
Exterminate them, drive them out of EVE - by any means possible.


HErr i think you are wrong,
CCP will warp scramble gankers and then fly out a ship that instapops you and then melts you into veldspar. The Dirty Bears[tm] will then have a evegazm scooping up asll of the free veldspar and in the process save hours and hours of their exciting days melting space rocks for ***** and giggles
Loki Rabadonus
Play At Your Own Pace
#255 - 2012-03-31 12:23:00 UTC
once concord comes for you thats it your ships gonna be insta popped. anything done to prolong this happening is considered an exploit
Commander Lojak
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#256 - 2012-03-31 13:59:29 UTC
you say exploit, i say bad/lazy coding...
Red Frog Rufen
Red Frog Freight
Red-Frog
#257 - 2012-03-31 14:46:13 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:

Only one way to deal with carebears. Don't waste your breath arguing with them like I end up doing.
Exterminate them, drive them out of EVE - by any means possible.


you realise that it is the carebears that keep this game online?
Pisov viet
Perkone
Caldari State
#258 - 2012-03-31 15:04:50 UTC
Red Frog Rufen wrote:
Herr Wilkus wrote:

Only one way to deal with carebears. Don't waste your breath arguing with them like I end up doing.
Exterminate them, drive them out of EVE - by any means possible.


you realise that it is the carebears that keep this game online?

No, bots keep this game alive.
Red Frog Rufen
Red Frog Freight
Red-Frog
#259 - 2012-03-31 15:36:14 UTC
that too.
Kumori Masurao
Rage Innovations
#260 - 2012-03-31 18:27:55 UTC
I don't get all the fuss really....Personally the tactic developed seems sound to me, perhaps the issue is more to do with the introduction of the new ships and their abilities than the tactics employed by the players.

You can't expect to give bigger guns to people on more agile ship hulls and not expect them to be able to obtain maximum performance from them.

If they are so interested in the High Sec GCC side of things, why not make each GCC flag cumulative and speed the response time of concord or even increase their presence in the system. Taken to the extreme concord may even pod the offender should they go past a certain point....Just throwing ideas around though rather than banning a developed tactic.