|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15303
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 16:11:00 -
[1] - Quote
Probably around the time you don't explain what the problem isGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15303
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 16:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Explained pretty plainly in the video description. I tend to agree that completely disabling a person in high sec without concord intervention is not working as intended. How is he being disabled? And no, CONCORD only intervenes against aggression, so that's working as intended. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15303
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 16:45:00 -
[3] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Falls under his description of harassment though:
"However, persistent targeting of a player with bumping by following them around after they have made an effort to move on to another location can be classified as harassment, and this will be judged on a case by case basis." He hasn't made an effort to move to another location, so no.
Quote:Judging on a case to case basis is silly; better to adjust the mechanic so you can't completely disable someone in that manner. How is he being completely disabled? And no, all kind of harassment must be judged on a case-by-case basis. Not that bumping someone away from a gate qualifiesGǪ
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15305
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 17:07:00 -
[4] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Yes yes, constantly trying to warp off and bringing a webber is intolerable idleness. Not going to bite any further, sorry. It's just one instance, so no, it does not apply.
The whole GÇ£follow aroundGÇ¥ bit relates to the basic idea of harassment that they are specifically targetting you on multiple occasions no matter what you do: try to do your business elsewhere, and they follow you; try to do it at other times, and they start changing their log-on schedule; present them with juicier and easier target, and they still go after you. We're talking multiple instances over a long period of time.
A single gank is never harassment because it's a single gank. You don't have to bite anything GÇö you just have to understand the concept of context. I'm sure you''ll fail miserably.
Quote:I am remiss not to acknowledge that he had the option to eject or self-destruct, apologies. He had the option to keep conjuring CONCORD; he had the option to get warp help; he had the option to wait out the aggression timer (without which this tactic doesn't work GÇö if he had none, he didn't even need that); he had an hour to it all in order, which means the gankers ****** up somehow, but that he ****** up even more in playing into their hands.
Quote:Now you're just being silly; computers are quite smart, especially when analyzing something already broken down into 1's and 0's. GǪin other words, they're pretty much useless for these kinds of judgement calls. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15306
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 17:20:00 -
[5] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:You seem confused. I understand that knowing the mechanics will seem confusing to you. Anything you want me to explain to you?
Quote:Eve is a computer simulation mate. GǪexcept that we're talking about GM evaluations of player actions and the intent behind those actions, not a computer simulation. So no, computers would be pretty much useless for these kinds of judgement calls. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15306
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 17:31:00 -
[6] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Implying humans make consistent moral decisions? No, but at least they can make them, unlike computers.
Not that it matters anyway: it's all working as intended, and there's nothing about bumping that needs to be coded out. GMs already have the data needed to make their judgements on abuses of all kinds. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15307
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 18:04:00 -
[7] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Metadata for procedural classifications = judgement No, metadata is just data about data. It's still two steps of refinement away from actionable knowledge.
Quote:matching human results with a high degree of accuracy = mimicking Dunno what you're trying to get at GǪthe fact that the categorization of data is not the result you're trying to mimic.
Quote:If the result is trivial then making the computer produce it is trivial. The result is not trivial, and it is also pretty useless. It's a ton of processing to create something the GMs don't need to make their judgement call. So what good is it? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15309
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 18:24:00 -
[8] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:You seem confused About what?
Quote:Your understanding of classification also seems to be too narrow. You could, for example, consider the server logs over some time period the data set and harassment/not harassment the classification. No, my understanding of classification simply matches what we're talking about (the legitimacy of bumping). You could expand it, but then you'd be talking about something completely different and there would be even less reason to automate the decision-making. Nice attempt at moving the goalposts, though.
Judgement calls about harassment go beyond mere data. They're inherently case-by-case decisions, which are much better left to humans since they can judge intent and moderate their response as appropriate. That's where you went wrong from the very start: by assuming that it's a binary decision. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15311
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 19:36:00 -
[9] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Illegitimate bumping would presumably fall under harassment since the official stance is that bumping, in and of itself, is fine. GǪand yet it exists in both legitimate and illegitimate forms. Both of which are allowed. Both of which can and can not be harassing.
Quote:Implying that adding additional classes and associated responses makes the problem significantly harder? You really love your fallacies, don't you?
No. Implying that there is no classes, and (deliberately) no defined association to responses because both of those are better left to the non-binary adjudication of the human mind. Implying that action, reception and response are all subjective GÇö and that the devs explicitly wish to keep it that way so they can maintain a high degree of freedom, discretion, and not create any kind of ruleset that can will be gamed.
Ace Uoweme wrote:Bumping is an exploit (wasn't designed | player used) , but one CCP overlooks (same goes for our ships bumping off of gates). LMAO No Not only was it deliberately designed, but the emergent gameplay it created is actively maintained and explicitly allowed.
And no, Jita is not special in any way other than being (semi)permanently planted on a specific nodeGǪ at least until it loses its status as the most trafficked system in the game. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15312
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 22:03:00 -
[10] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:I hate to break it to you, but GM's (and CS employees in general) typically have a rule set to follow and a discrete range of actions to take. Without that rule set, they'd be easier to "game" and we'd lose all semblance of quality control. GǪand still have that very human ability to be judicious in their judgement and to exercise the right to choose differently at their discretion. Again, the GMs have very explicitly stated that the rules will never be explicit or absolute, because it would make it too easy to game.
Guess what automating the system would do?
Quote:You attack it from such a silly angle though; why not just tweak logoff restrictions in high sec to ensure a player can get his ship out of game if he's not (more regularly) involved in combat? Because that would go counter to the purpose of the log-off restrictions. You attack it from an even sillier angle: why does the rules even need a tweak? No actual problem has been presented that needs to be fixed.
Khanh'rhh wrote:Ottersmacker wrote:was there something to prevent the freighter pilot from hitting "log off safely" in the course of this hour? He was aggressed. GǪbut even then, he must have done somethingGǪ odd. Aggression lasts for 15 minutes, not an hour, so he would have to have been aggressed four times. Each time, CONCORD would have moved closer to the kill spot, which would be counter-productive. This tells us that the either gankers couldn't get the job done in the 15 minutes required to make it work, or he wasn't actually aggressed, and just ****** up on his own. These ganks do not go on for 60 minutes without the help of the victim, for the simple reason that if it doesn't work within 15 minutes, it doesn't work at all.
GǪfrom the description, it rather sounds like he successfully logoffskid once, but then was too eager to log back in. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15312
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 22:07:00 -
[11] - Quote
Ace Uoweme wrote:Read it. An exploit is something not designed by the devs, but players discovered and using to their advantage. No. An exploit the use of mechanics in a way that creates outcomes that are not intended. Bumping is very much intended, and the emergent gameplay created by it is being actively preserved.
This mechanic isn't being fixed because it is working in a way that the devs are happy with. It is very clearly and very explicitly not an exploit since no rules are broken and no unwanted or unintended outcomes are generated.
Quote:Like PI even?
The Jita system is unlike any other in EvE in what can be done in it. Not really, no. There are several systems that disallow PI, for instance. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15312
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 22:23:00 -
[12] - Quote
Ace Uoweme wrote:CCP doesn't make the definitions. Of course they do. Every part of them, in fact.
There is no Mystic Exploit Council that determine the universal standard for what counts in an exploit across all games everywhere GÇö just individual devs and GMs that set up the policies for their specific game. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15312
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 22:40:00 -
[13] - Quote
Ace Uoweme wrote:You're arguing the wrong points, the definition is quite clear across all games -- it's not a dev design feature but one players discovered and use to their advantage. That's the definition of a game exploit. GǪand CCP chose to skip that one and roll their own, where player-discovered quirks of the mechanics that they can use to their own benefit don't qualify unless they do something the devs don't like.
So no. It is not an exploit. And no, there is no objective, game-independent definition because each game chooses its own rules. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15312
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 23:18:00 -
[14] - Quote
Ace Uoweme wrote:EvE is not so removed from gaming to defy even gaming definitions. Point blank. GǪand no-one says it is. All we're saying is that there is no universal definition and that the only ones who can define what is and what isn't an exploit in any specific game is that game's developers. Only they can decide what you can and cannot legitimately do. Only they can judge whether or not some particular use goes against the overall intent of the mechanics involved.
Quote:As long as the devs didn't design it, and players discovered it, and uses what they discovered for an advantage, it's an exploit. No. As long as the devs feel that some particular use of a mechanic produces undesirable outcomes, it is an exploit. Whether the players discovered it or not only matters to the extent the devs are fans of emergent gameplay. CCP are very big fans of this.
So the fact remains: it is not an exploit. There is no way around this GÇö especially not your attempts to impose some non-existing law from on high.
Quote:Hmmmm, this exploit seems to be a very hot potato. What exploit? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15313
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 23:30:00 -
[15] - Quote
Ace Uoweme wrote:And so are other game devs.
BUT, the definition is not yours or mine or CCP. GǪonly CCP's. They are the only ones who can define what the term means within the ruleset of the game they created. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15313
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 23:35:00 -
[16] - Quote
Tasha Saisima wrote:The only reason CCP doesn't stop bumping is because they can't stop it Sure they can. One of the may reasons they don't is because they don't want to. Another is that there is no reason to. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15315
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 00:42:00 -
[17] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:The logoff timer can be reset if he's been given the 15 minute capsuleer aggression timer, by simply re-aggressing him. This was explicitly made this way to counteract super-caps logging off, and is fully intended. Yes, but this is highsec we're talking about: each reset spawns CONCORD at that spot; the whole point of the exercise is to get away from that spot so you can get the additional GÇ£CONCORD is occupied elsewhereGÇ¥ time delay.
So the entire trick relies on getting the target 150km+ away from the place where the aggression took place within 15 minutes GÇö any more and he can log off, alternatively you have to re-agress him which means you now have CONCORD in a new spot and have to move another 150km away. So either the gankers were thoroughly incompetent (effectively failing the same gank five times in a row), or he just gave up after his first failed logoffski.
This is why I question the notion that it took 60 minutes without some serious errors made by the victim himself. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15323
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 03:13:00 -
[18] - Quote
Diomedes Calypso wrote:I'm also unclear.. if he does nothing, when he eventually gets attacked concord will kill the attackers even if the attackers kill him first .. right?
Does the bumping just give more time to bring in more firepower from other systems to make sure the job gets done? The bumping serves two purposes.
The most important one is that it creates a controlled environment where the gankers can delay and monitor the CONCORD response. You shoot the target once as he exits gate cloak to give him a PvP timer, which ensures that the ship will stay in space for another 15 minutes, no matter what, so logging off no longer saves the victim. This is obviously a criminal act so CONCORD shows up and kills the flagging alt. To counter this, you take advantage of the 15 minute timer to use a neutral alt (or two) to bump the victim at last 150km away from where CONCORD is sitting. The bumping both ensures that the victim can't just warp off willy-nilly, and that the victim is out of reach from immediate CONCORD response.
Being this far away causes the CONCORD mechanics to consider the target (and, more importantly, the awaiting gankers) GÇ£out of rangeGÇ¥ for the purpose of responding to their actions, which in turn yields the same effect as delaying CONCORD by spawning them somewhere else in the system. When responding to a crime that's this far away, the CONCORD ships first have to despawn from the first crime scene before they can show up at a new one, which delays the response by half a dozen seconds or so. You sacrifice the loss of a newbship with civvy guns for being able to execute the gank with maybe 20GÇô50% fewer actual attack ships. You can also keep a close eye on CONCORD while doing all of this, which means you have more control over the timers.
The second benefit is that the gank now happens maybe 200km off the gate, rather than 15km away from it. As a result, loot thieves will not get as much of a chance to get to the goods, and white knights stand less of a chance counter-killing the looting ships (which will go suspect in the process). If it's a freighter gank, you're likely to need a freighter to loot the wreck, and you definitely want to keep those away from the normal traffic lanes when they go blinky.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15325
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 04:04:00 -
[19] - Quote
Mina Sebiestar wrote:Also if CCP isn't doing anything about it it doesn't mean it isn't exploit True enough. Devs stating outright that it isn't an exploit, on the other hand, means it isn't an exploit.
GǪoh, and the code to GǣfixGǥ this non-issue already exists in the game. So no, it wouldn't be particularly hard.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15326
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 06:38:00 -
[20] - Quote
Ace Uoweme wrote:It wasn't designed by the devs. It's gameplay that players figured out. Bumping was very much designed by the devs. Bumping for the explicit purpose of moving people out of the way and/or keep them from aligning were just great side-effects of that basic tool, and since they didn't break the design, they were incorporated as a legitimate part of it to the point where they explicitly are not exploits.
Oh, and EVE does not use Havok physics so it's not tied into that or difficult to fix because of it. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15328
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 07:13:00 -
[21] - Quote
Ace Uoweme wrote:No it wasn't. That's player made. GǪwhich is how the devs designed the game. They designed bumping. The players took that tool and started hammering away at the nails with it, as intended. Since no unwanted effects or exploits arose, it was all working as intended and as designed.
Quote:It's a tactic left in the game for interest, but not specifically designed by devs themselves, just like with ship names. They create it, and players find the exploits and use it. GǪexcept that they're not exploits, and that they're not GÇ£left in the gameGÇ¥ but part of a concept built around providing a toolset rather than a ruleset. That's the root of your problem GÇö you are stuck in a design school based around rules. EVE is not that kind of game.
Quote:But it's still a exploit. Nope. So sayeth the devs, and they are the only ones who can say whether it is one or not. And their answer is GÇ£notGÇ¥ GÇö explicitly GÇ£notGÇ¥, so not even implicitly by leaving it unmentioned or unregulated.
You can keep repeating your quaint lie to yourself as often as you like, but it doesn't change this simple fact. You are of course free to reject this reality and substitute your own, but that road only really leads to disappointment and medication. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15329
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 08:02:00 -
[22] - Quote
Ace Uoweme wrote:No, it's your pet interests in the game. What? Invention? What does it have to do with bumping and ganking? You're not making any sense.
So no. I'm not protecting my comfort zone. I'm protecting facts from being mixed up with the kind of counter-factual nonsense that you keep inventing. For instance, you are desperately trying failing to change the simple fact that bumping is not an exploit, GÇö a fact that has been clearly, explicitly, and definitely stated by the devs.
When you try to muddy the reality of this fact, you harm the entire community. This is bad of you. I will keep beating on you for it.
Quote:I don't have any special interests GǪaside from continually suggesting that it be made worse by replicating gameplay in a way that has never been done successfully, rather than continue down its current road to success.
Quote:I explain it by using WoW examples as the industry watches Blizzard for ease to explain things. GǪand you really need to stop doing that since WoW doesn't exemplify or explain anything that goes on in EVE since they're two completely different games. It only ever manages to illustrate that you don't really understand how EVE works. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15329
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 08:04:00 -
[23] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:I always wondered why I started to spoke against ganking and now I remember.
CCP please add more protection to high sec. Why should they? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15329
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 08:37:00 -
[24] - Quote
Epikurus wrote:I'm not familiar with the mechanics of this but the big question seems to be whether there is any effective counter. Is there anything at all that a solo freighter pilot can do in this situation to avoid being killed or is death a foregone conclusion the moment the attack is initiated? If it's executed flawlessly and without outside interruption, the victim is pretty much dead, as he should be. As illustrated, it's a fairly complex set of actions that need to be taken in a co-ordinated fashion between a number of people GÇö as with most such things, a single player's main option is to try to not find himself in such a situation to begin with. With freighters, in particular, this is best done by not being a worth-while target.
There are more direct counters; most of them include having support in some form such as scouts, counter-ganks, web-warpers, gang boosts (some implants may be a soloist variation here), logistics, etc. For some reason, the most slow-turning hunk of junk allowed in highsec, flown solo, has problems dealing with a co-ordinated, multi-tiered, multi-prong attack from a dozen playersGǪ fancy that. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15332
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 11:38:00 -
[25] - Quote
Epikurus wrote:ell, that does seem broken. It doesn't matter if it takes a fairly complex set of coordinated actions to pull off, if there is literally nothing one can do once picked for death, and if that death can be caused at almost no cost to the attackers, then there is a problem. GǪbut seeing as how there are plenty of things one can do when picked for death, and even more you can do to not be picked to begin with, and as how the attack costs the attackers a sizeable chunk of cash, there is no problem.
Quote:Would even warping to zero not help the freighter pilot here? No. It happens on the other side of the gate.
Khanh'rhh wrote:Yeah, I see. If you understand the mechanism by how and where concord spawns ships, you can ensure you don't hinder yourself in this way. Either way, someone screwed upGǪ multiple timesGǪ on that one, or it wouldn't have lasted for 60 minutes. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15337
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 12:28:00 -
[26] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:1m per person per tick is on par with ammo cost; not exactly a "sizeable chunk of cash" 1M per person also doesn't generate any kind of income, so yes, you're looking at an ever-growing loss, which quickly ends up being a sizeable chunk of cash. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15337
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 12:49:00 -
[27] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:I said "get the job done"; intent really doesn't matter here. It does when the job that has to be done is determining intent.
S Byerley wrote:Catalyst ganking doesn't generate income? Not at 1M a pop, no. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15337
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 13:00:00 -
[28] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:What happens if you log off while being bumped? Your ship disappears after the appropriate timer runs out GÇö 30s for an unflaggd ship; 15 minutes for a ship with a PvP flag; 0s for a ship with a completed safe logoff (which itself takes 30s and requires you to not have any aggression flags). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15340
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 13:14:00 -
[29] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Good thing that's not the case? Unfortunately, no. That's exactly the case.
Quote:How much do you propose spending on a 200dps catalyst then? I wouldn't build a 200dps catalyst to begin with since it would be too weak.
Quote:Oh, I expected actual instances where the ruling was completely in the bumper's favor. That's usually what someone means when they say precedent. You're asking him to provide something that doesn't exist because it's not allowed on these boards. Are you going to declare victory when he fails to prove not just a a negative, but a disallowed negative?
How about instead you prove a positive: show a bumper that has been punished. Incidentally, extended periods fall well within the normal gameplay described. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15340
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 13:20:00 -
[30] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:If they never aggress you, does that mean you can escape persistent bumping by logging off at any time and logging back on? Pretty much. You just have to wait a while for them to leave the spot where you'll reappear when you log back in.
Ewarps are purposefully designed to allow pretty much zero input once they've been initiated. Every now and then, some tactic or technique arises that lets you manipulate where you end up, but they tend to get squished in short order.
Quote:If it requires that they sacrifice a ship every X minutes to keep the PvP flag on and thus prevent the random warp out on logoffski, then that's not really different from any other aggressive action that would lock you down like a scram or point. Pretty much, except that flagging the ship doesn't so much prevent the warp-out as it delays the removal of the ship from space. You could still manage to get into warp if the bumpers fumble, but the your ship will sit in the ewarp spot for 15 minutes GÇö a time during which they'll probe you out and gank you. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15340
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 13:28:00 -
[31] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:So as long as someone means well they can do whatever they want? Quite possibly, yes.
Quote:The required DPS for the OP's loss was well under 200. Uh-huh. 200k EHP delivered in ~15 seconds by 29 ships Gëá less than 200 DPS. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15340
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 13:39:00 -
[32] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Ban Bindy wrote:A reasonable dev, even one that has designed bumping as an option, might find being bumped for an hour to be excessive or an exploit. Despite Tippia's dominance here, she does not actually speak for the devs. So it's worth a petition to find out. The major problem with that is, since he only has 15-16 minutes of video... Oh that's not a problem. The video isn't admissible as evidence anyway. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15340
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 13:45:00 -
[33] - Quote
Sure it is. The fact that you can't think of a scenario rather proves the inability to automate it in the fashion you're suggesting. How do you propose that the data mining should uncover hitherto unknown facts about the bumper and bumpee that makes it a clear case of non-harassment even though they've been running into each other constantly for months?
Quote:Op took 60k in killmail; give me a pricetag pls. You mean the killmail that 1) only records raw HP, not EHP and 2) is notoriously inaccurate in measuring HP damage delivered?
An Obelisk has 200k EHP against blasters. The DPS required is in the region of 500, which means we're looking at T2 equipment, which means we end up in the 5GÇô10M region depending on how close you dare to cut it and how you boost the damage. 1M doesn't even buy you the hull. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15341
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 14:21:00 -
[34] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:The same way a GM would So your data sifting tool includes an Eliza implementation now? InterestingGǪ
Quote:I can assure you that the person's thought process doesn't factor in. The thought process of all three parties factor in. I assure you right back.
Quote:60k doesn't conflict with the account at all. GǪreferring to which part, exactly?
GǪor you can try not to alter the numbers. 200k / 29 / 15 = 460 + margin to make sure you get it done = 500.
GǪand minerals you mine yourself are free. Except, you know, not. So it's just over 1M.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15342
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 14:50:00 -
[35] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:I know CCP is pretty cool, but I don't think their GMs read minds. No, they just use judgement and investigative ability to clear up judgement calls, and they are able to exercise discretion depending on what they find in what context.
So: how do you propose that the data mining should uncover hitherto unknown facts about the bumper and bumpee that makes it a clear case of non-harassment even though they've been running into each other constantly for months?
Quote:The part where they made multiple suicide runs. You mean the part where the first squad was faced with on-grid CONCORD and died immediately? No, that doesn't account for a 70% reduction of HP (which over an hour would be even less due to regen).
So: 200k EHP over 15 seconds for 29 ships GåÆ 460 + safety margin = 500 DPS.
Quote:15s is a ballpark (you acknowledged as much) It's a ballpark of the actual number (13 seconds) plus/minus a two second error margin from server tick timings. So: 15 seconds. Or even as low as 11.
GǪthat would give us 630 DPS by the way.
Quote:You wouldn't have to do the manufacturing if you stopped bumping all the freighters; just saying. You are cluless about what the phrase signifies, just saying. So: a bit over 1M per hull minimum; closer to 1.4 if you buy in bulk. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15342
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 15:01:00 -
[36] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Tippia wrote:Either way, someone screwed upGǪ multiple timesGǪ on that one, or it wouldn't have lasted for 60 minutes. I said it must have been us fluffing it stop rubbing it in Oh there, there. I'm merely saying that he probably helped you. You don't have to take the whole burden like that. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15342
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 15:25:00 -
[37] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:The whole point of data mining is that it reveals trends and relations that aren't obvious to a silly fleshsack like myself. I can tell you from personal experience/literature that it's not hard to pull out 95%+ accuracy in similar applications. GǪand the whole counterpoint is that it misses out on the part that lets humans do what humans do: investigating and judging close calls.
Quote:54% reduction in EHP you mean No, I mean 70% reduction, because that's what's required for the wildly inaccurate HP number on the killmail to be correct. In short, the number on the killmail is GÇö as always GÇö unreliable in preeeeetty much every way. Oh, and the gankers still need the 500 DPS because no-one plans on having to do it in two runs. If you want to calculate it that way, then congratulations, the price just went up to 10GÇô20M per ganker. We're getting further and further away from the initially (incorrectly) estimated cost of 1M.
Quote:Your own blog(as well as other sources) says otherwise: You mean the table that says 7 seconds for a 0.8 + 6 seconds for off-grid CONCORD -¦1 for each event due to sync-to-tick errors? 7+6-¦2 = 11GÇô15.
Quote:You evidently didn't get the joke. You evidently didn't get the meaning of what I said. Wilful ignorance is not humorous. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15342
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 15:30:00 -
[38] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:I do think that this case shows that the mechanics have been stretch a little far beyond their intended limitations and that some tweaks would be to the benefit of the community as a whole. Indeed. CONCORD could use some slowing down and the ability to loot safely could be boosted. Tweaks like that. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15342
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 15:44:00 -
[39] - Quote
RAW23 wrote:Can someone put a figure on the lost ship cost for the gank fleet? A couple of hundred mill. Not that it matters much. Cost is not a balancing factor, after all GÇö if anything, the ability to kill something as expensive with something as inexpensive shows that a good balance is being maintained.
Quote:It looks like we have here a mechanic that guarantees the death of the freighter with no possible counter-measures available to the freighter pilot. No, it looks like we have a mechanic that requires a lot of teamwork and effort on the gankers' side and with plenty of counter-measures available to the freighter pilot.
Diomedes Calypso wrote:Forget the "exploit" crap... the issue is whether the developers want game play to work in ways that industrial ships can get destroyed in all regions by two or three other players. The only place where that can happen is null and low, where it's very much intended. In high, as shown here, you need a whole lot more people or a whole lot larger investment. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15342
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 15:48:00 -
[40] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:"Close calls" are rare and the outcome is less important than you seem to think. Close calls are far more important than the obvious cases, since that's where the boundaries are defined and since that's what massively and embarrassingly trips up the system.
Quote:I'm not really sure what you're on about, but I can EFT warrior an appropriate fit (even assuming he started at full health) + margin for well under 2m (1m if you'll forgive me for rounding down). Ok Do it. I want 500 DPS for <2M.
Quote:I thought we weren't using the OP because his conditions were muddled? I'm using the three things that are clear: an Obelisk in a 0.8 system against 29 Catalysts. Those are the conditions that matter.
Quote:Or I'm functioning on a deeper level of rhetoric than you Trolling is not a rhetoric level. Personally, I don't troll at all. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15342
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 16:06:00 -
[41] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Preemptively? That would be an awfully weird status quo. Not really, no. It's one of the best-known (and most effective) counters you have as a freighter pilot.
Quote:Nah, we were discussing the mechanic and you claimed the aggressors needed to commit significant resources to the endeavor (which they don't) No. We were discussing the OP all along, since that's the topic of the thread and since that's where the numbers come from. Trying to suddenly change them into something else is quite silly. As expected, it shows that the aggressors need to commit significant resources to the endeavour.
RAW23 wrote:I know you've been pushing this line for years but CCP doesn't really seem to agree with you and have made quite a few changes in order to make sure that ganking is not a risk free certainty. GǪwhich it never was to begin with, and which was not tied to the idiotic notion of ISK tanking (which CCP have a personal history of attempting and GÇö predictably GÇö abjectly failing at).
The line in question remains as true as ever, and CCP seems to agree. Just look at how much more powerful small and cheap ships have become over the last few years, and how the big and expensive ones have been crowding the nerf check-out counter.
Quote:You twist and turn like a twisty-turny thing. GǪby listing some of the many counters available to the freighter pilot and at the same time pointing out that well-executed teamwork is likely to trump mindless solo play (which is a good thing since that effort should be rewarded)? No, it's about as twisty-turny as a straight line. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15342
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 16:34:00 -
[42] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:I'm not saying it's an obscure tactic, I'm saying frigates following freighters around to web them is weird from both a gameplay and roleplay perspective; imagine trying to explain that mechanic to a new player. I don't have to imagine. It's quite easy, and if they get the weird sly smirk, you know something has clicked GÇö they've finally grasped EVE.
Quote:Then you need to base your numbers on the freighter starting with ~85% shields and ~25% hull or at least acknowledge multiple attack runs; can't have it both ways. No. I can and will base my numbers just fine on what the gankers plan for: a single run that will be enough to kill a freighter in the 15 seconds allotted.
RAW23 wrote:You have offered two counters: 1) Don't undock, and 2) Bring friends. GǪand make yourself less of a target. GǪand pick the road less travelled. GǪand tweak the stats to something they don't expect. GǪand learn the aggression mechanics (because these things don't take 60 minutes GÇö in fact, this is where the OP went wrong most spectacularly).
It's not like it's a completely unreasonable and horrible suggestion to bring friends GÇö that's what the gankers do, and that's why they can do what they do. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that this is why they should win such an outcome (even such a massively bungled one as this).
Infinity Ziona wrote:******** argument though. Its a freighter its supposed to be stuffed with goodies. Says who? It's a freighter GÇö it's supposed to transport bulk goods. Bulk goods have a tendency to be rather cheap and not worth ganking over. If you want to move goodies around, there are far better options available. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15346
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 17:56:00 -
[43] - Quote
klikit wrote:The bumping itself doesn't seem like an exploit but the intended consequences do. One, using the aggression timer to keep the freighter pilot from logging off... the aggression mechanics are being exploited to keep the pilot from logging off. Neither of those are exploits. In fact, they are entirely legitimate mechanics expressly put into place to ensure that logging off does not save you.
Quote:Second, the act of bumping the player out of range of CONCORD in order to force them (CONCORD) to have to redeploy is exploiting the CONCORD spawn timers. That is not an exploit either. It is a long-standing mechanic that is just being used a bit differently here because it simplifies co-ordination. Herding CONCORD (both to and from the scene of the crime) has been used for pretty much as long as CONCORD has existed, and has been approved for both ends; both parties can use this mechanic to their advantage.
Infinity Ziona wrote:Look at OPs cargo. There nothing even remotely fantastic about his cargo. Couple of ships, T2 mods, random junk.
Personally I dont care about the OP or his ship, but I call it what it is, a skilless tactic and aweful game design. A freighter should be able to haul the crap he was hauling without being considered gank worthy. It was crap not uber faction gear or a stack of plex. Freighters need a decent buff to make them able to perform their role properly. It was fantastic enough to yield a profit, and that's all that's needed. It may have been crap, but it was not particularly bulky crap GÇö no need for a bulk hauler for that one.
Oh, and 500 DPS was about the limit for what Catalysts could do. After the dessie buffs, you can get closer to 700 out of themGǪ
S Byerley wrote:"intent to harass" - no. Harassment is defined in respect to its effect on the victim. GǪwhich means there's even less ability to determine it. Oh, and yes, harassment is definitely about intent, both from the harasser and the victim's side GÇö the GM needs to be able to determine both. Otherwise, either or both parties will start gaming the system GÇö a very real and possible intent that you have to control for in the context of the EVE metagame. That's the part you keep missing: there are two parties involved; both need to be assessed; and the third party needs to be able to make judgement calls about not just the actions, but the intents of both. You're persistent inability to show that data-mining can prove this kind of intent (on either of the two sides required) rather illustrates why this can't be left to machines. Hell, not even Google GÇö the world's most slavering fanboys of GÇ£let's algorthm it!GÇ¥ GÇö leaves these things automated without human interaction.
Quote:Why on earth would you want a computer, or even a human, to take identical data sets and judge them different? Because they're made different by outside factors. A human can spot this. How does mining the data itself succeed at making this distinction? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15346
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 18:26:00 -
[44] - Quote
Since you like copy-pastingGǪCallyuk wrote:But when you can warp scramble the freightor for an hr and keep him aggressed for an hour (so he cant log off and disappear) then something has been abused in the game. Neither of those have anything to do with freighters, and both of them are legitimate tactics GÇö in fact, the aggression flagging was explicitly put into place to get rid of certain abuses. Also, being able to do it for an hour doesn't make in any more of an abuse GÇö it all happens in 15-minute portions anyway GÇö it just makes it a complete failure on both sides.
Quote:Bubbles (not catch "drag,sling") were abused on POS's back in the day pulling anyone that warped to the POS in line with the buble through the POS into the bubble (Supers included) and it was deemed an exploit. It worked dam good as it was supposed to. Eh no. POS shields were not working as they supposed to, which is why that was deemed an exploit. This makes it quite unlike both bumping and aggression-flagging. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15346
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 18:43:00 -
[45] - Quote
Callyuk wrote:Just like the bubbles on pos's it wasnt intended to be used that way. Yes they were. What wasn't working as intended were the POS shields, so exploiting that particular behaviour was deemed an exploit.
POSes not working properly Gëá bumping/aggressing working properly. Also, can you please keep your answers in one thread? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15346
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 19:13:00 -
[46] - Quote
klikit wrote:I seriously doubt that the aggression timer was put into place so that players with trial accounts can sit there and take pot shots at a defenseless freighter to keep it from logging off. No, it was put into place so that any players can sit there and take pot shots at a any defenseless ship to keep it from disappearing after logging off. Players with trial accounts and freighters are just subsets of those two classes, and no special rules are (or should be) applied to them.
Ok, maybe not any class GÇö it was mainly targeted at capships, since it takes a while to kill those and that it was too easy for them to evade destruction by simply logging off.
Quote:CONCORD is a mechanic that was placed into the game to give players a layer of protection when in empire space. If players choose to loose there ship to CONCORD by ganking haulers off a gate that's fine the way I see it. Those players are aware of the consequences of there actions and are prepared to pay the price, but when you bump a ship out of CONCORDs range with the expressive intention of breaking the CONCORD defense mechanic that is an exploit. Sure. But this is not breaking the mechanic. Being able to delay CONCORD by luring them off-grid before a gank is part of the toolbox, same as being able to speed it up by luring them on-grid before a gank. Neither of these break the defence mechanic.
Quote:You can sugar coat all you want but at the end of the day a spade is still a spade. GǪwhich is why all of this is called a legitimate tactic. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15346
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 19:18:00 -
[47] - Quote
Callyuk wrote:luring them on gird is the only way i had to save myself and i did . the first time . after that the xploiters win They didn't exploit any more than you did. Are you going to hand yourself in to the GMs? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15346
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 19:25:00 -
[48] - Quote
Silent Rambo wrote:Add collision damage. Youll stop bumping into things eventually as you see your ship go *pop*. Don't make one bump enough to damage a ship a lot, just make a bunch in a certain time frame add up to killing yourself. Free ganking? Excellent. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15350
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 00:03:00 -
[49] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:That's the problem. It shouldn't apply to freighters at all. Of course it should. Freighters are not special, nor are freighter pilots; they abide by the same rules as everything else. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15350
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 00:27:00 -
[50] - Quote
Callyuk wrote:Freighters are not special hence they should be given 8 mids and 8 lows :) Sure. You understand that this would require them to reduce their cargo hold by 90% and slash their HP byGǪ ohGǪ half or so, right?
If that's what you're after, may I suggest the post-tiercide Bestower? I'd rather not have my freighters nerfed in the way you suggest. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15359
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 13:27:00 -
[51] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Yes they are.
An Obelisk does not have the slots to incur any act of aggression. So? There are more aggression timers than the weapon timer, you know. They're targets; they can be shot; they can therefore incur a number of aggression timers (in this case the PvP timer). They're still not special and follow the same rules as every other ship. And no, disconnecting to survive is not something that should be possible since it has already been proven to cause tons of problems. The aggression timers are there for a reason: so that ships die. All ships.
Freighters follow this rule as well because, hey, they're a ship and they could previously abuse the flagging and timing system to avoid death when they shouldn't have been able to. Now they no longer can, and there is absolutely no reason to allow them to abuse that system again.
Quote:They are either special or they aren't. Make up your mind. They aren't. For instance, not having any slots is not special. Also, giving them slots would nerf them massively, which I'm sure would cause quite an uproar among freighter pilots. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15359
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 14:03:00 -
[52] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:A victim of aggression is not an aggressor. GǪbut still incurs an aggression timer to ensure that he can't just log off to save himself. This is intentional. Freighters have a special page in the history of abuses where this comes into play, which is why that particular loophole has been closed.
Quote:I dunno, you just mentioned having to "balance" the benefits of the ship based on moving slots around to make them "like other ships" (ie- not special). They're already like other ships. Their benefits are already balanced (or, more accurately, maxed out GÇö again, giving them slots would only ever make them worse).
Regardless of whatever (not actually) special traits you want to dream up for them, the aggression flagging system is still such a base mechanic that all ships must abide by them: they're specifically there to remove all manners of tricks and rule abuse that might save your ship.
Quote:No matter the mechanic, there does come a point where doing a single act, or even a simple series of acts, in excess, would be considered harassment and griefing to a much further degree of normal gameplay. Yes. And that point has been defined by CCP already: when you keep following a player around and pestering him no matter where he goes and what he tries to do.
A single gank is not harassment for the simple reason that no-one is being followed around and continuously pestered, and that the target is the ship, not the player. It's a single occurrence; it's done for profit; it has all the hallmarks of a legitimate attacks on players; it has none of the hallmarks of harassment or greifing.
For reference:
-+ Bumping, shooting, and generally making the life miserable for everyone in a system rich on belts 23.5/7/365 GÇö not harassment (the victims can choose a different system; the aggressors are pursuing the legitimate goal of taking the system as their own and earning ISK from it). -+ Bumping, shooting, and generally making the life miserable (again 23.5/7/365) for anyone who jumps into a system with too much cargo GÇö not harassment (the victim can choose a different route; the aggressors are pursuing the legitimate goal of blockading the system and earning ISK from it). -+ Bumping, shooting, and generally making the life miserable of a single player no matter where he goes and what he tries to do GÇö harassment (the victim is being specifically and personally targeted and his only solution is to not play the game).
The line you're talking about gets drawn after several days, not arbitrarily inside the timeframe of a single attack.
Quote:Doing it for an hour and affecting the players ability to play the game for that amount of time does not seem to be an issue of normal gameplay. It just seems weird that you think that's ok. Why wouldn't it be ok? It's great that the game allows for these kinds of drawn-out struggles between players, where they constantly wrestle to gain the upper hand. If the OP felt that the outcome was given and there was no point in fighting, it wouldn't have lasted for 60 minutes GÇö again, this tactic relies on it being done in 15 minutes because beyond that, the entire setup is reset since you have to restart the aggression flag. He chose to extend the confrontation just as much as the gankers did.
The line was not crossed here because the OP kept pushing it in front of him. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15361
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 16:24:00 -
[53] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Uhm yes they have.
The timers have expired, and refreshed, numerous times. Tippia herself has mentioned that it is a working as intended mechanic to not allow someone to continue playing for over an hour. Even OFFLINE. Because that pilot has a timer on a ship that cannot aggress. GǪand yet, none has said that the victim of aggression is an aggressor. That's something you've made up.
Quote:That mechanic you keep talking about, and the use of logging off, as stated earlier, was designed for capitals GǪand any other ship that could consistently use logoff as a means to avoid destruction. Freighters were notorious for doing this as well. Coincidentally, freighters are also capitals.
And no, it has nothing to do with whether or not the ship can aggress GÇö it has to do with the fact that the ship can get itself into so much trouble that it has no way out, and that logging off should not offer access to any such out. This holds true for freighters the same as for every other ship in the game.
Quote:I DO care, however, that keeping someone locked down for an hour to the point of not being able to play the game happened. GǪwhich doesn't happen. The only reason it takes an hour is because the victim manages to drag it out. The reason it takes an hour is because he's playing the game. If he had just left, it would have been over in less than 15 minutes.
Just because neither side wants to give up and go home doesn't mean that anything is broken. It most certainly does not mean that either part is not playing the game. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15361
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 16:47:00 -
[54] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:I did not make up the timer. GǪand no-one said you did.
Quote:While you might want to try to insist on freighters being capitals, and not special, they are allowed in highsec... and can continue entering/leaving highsec right? GǪjust like Orcas. And no, Freighters are not special. They most certainly aren't special in any way that should let them abuse a mechanic that was put in place specifically to put an end to that kind of abuse.
If a Freighter gets itself mixed up in something it can't handle, it should die, just like every other ship. It's really as simple as that. The solution to this problem is not to start doling out game-breaking special rules for freighters, but for freighter pilots to stop getting themselves mixed up in things they can't handle.
Quote:There is a mechanic, that prevents people from logging off, and you are claiming that mechanic is not broken because noone wants to give up and go home. No. I'm saying that claiming that it's broken because it drags on for an hour is wrong GÇö the reason it drags out for an hour is because neither side wants to give in. I'm saying that time and brokenness are not connected.
Quote:I don't understand the relevance of your question. Are you trying to say that the hundreds of freighters killed took an hour each time? He's saying that freighter ganks are ridiculously rare events GÇö not something that's done to excess or that creates excessive risk for freighters. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15365
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 18:16:00 -
[55] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Reread your posts. You inferred it. No. I said that you made up the nonsense about GÇ£victims are aggressors. Stop inventing things I never said.
Quote:I agree. I also agree that pirates shouldn't be able to use a mechanic to the advantage So you don't agree. Stop inventing things I never said.
Why should pirates, completely arbitrarily, not be able to make use of this mechanic to ensure that the target can't get away without dying (which they would otherwise be able to) when the mechanic was put into the game for the express purpose of ensuring that targets can't get away without dying (which they would otherwise be able to)?
Quote:And I'm saying it's broken because it was used as a griefing tool and a crutch GǪexcept of course, that it's not griefing, and that it's not a crutch. It's a counter to a crutch that was used for many years to make people get out of situations that they had no business getting out of. It is also done in an acceptable time GÇö 15 minutes GÇö unless the target is slippery enough to avoid destruction for long enough, in which case who knows how long the chase might go on. Probably until either side gives up or until either side finally manages to press home their advantage. This can go on for hours.
It's excellent game design that these kinds of long-lasting struggles can happen. Oh, and it doesn't take an hour to kill something in highsec. It takes ~15 seconds. It apparently does take about an hour to finally catch the target, though GÇö at least if he's struggling. This also shows that, quite contrary to the lies some people try to spread, the victim is far from helplessGǪ
Quote:I don't understand how you are speaking for baltec By easily understanding the connection he made and explaining it to you since you didn't. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15365
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 18:25:00 -
[56] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Untrue on all counts. So you can't think of anything that actually disproves any of what I said, then. Goodie. I accept your surrender to facts.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15365
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 18:46:00 -
[57] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Don't be a tool. So you still can't think of anything that actually disproves any of what I said, then. Goodie. I accept your surrender to facts once again.
Abishai wrote:The only reason I have a problem with resetting the agression timer in this situation is due to thave fact it was done in high-sec.
There is no way for him or anyone else to agress the bumpers without getting concorded, meanwhile they continue to bring in expendable ships to extend agression and prevent him from taking any action. You don't have to aggress the bumper to make them fail. In fact, any of their tactics can be used against them: bump the bumpers; keep calling CONCORD to the scene so they have to move the bumpee another 150km out of the way, gank the gankers (many of them will be legitimate targets in one way or another); or just provide the victim with a good out. If you can web-sling him, that's one way. If you can provide a warp-in in-line with where they're bumping him, that's another.
All their strategies are made specifically to work within the confines of highsec. Steal them and make them your own. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15380
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 13:43:00 -
[58] - Quote
Schalac wrote:Suicide ganking them is not an option, as you would need more ISK and people on grid than than the haul is probably worth. This is inherently impossible. A Mach is easier to gank than a Freighter. Bump Machs, in particular, have a tendency to fit lots of stuff that reduces their EHP and/or makes them easier to damage, and not a lot of tank. The reason they're trying to gank the freighter is because the cost of said gank is (much) lower than half the value of haul, or it would be a loss to attempt it. So Value of haul > 2 Times cost of ganking the freighter > Cost of ganking the Mach.
So yes, suicide ganking them is very much an option.
Quote:Sure counterbump a mach, sounds so easy right. Even if you start at your freighter and go right at them, unless you are in a bigger ship that mach is going to just plow right through you. No, bumping does not work that way. What will happen is that both bounce off in new and exciting angles.
Quote:Log off is a great tactic, that is definitely how CCP wants you to counter a game play mechanic. True, they'd prefer it not be used that way (which is why the PvP timer was implemented), but that doesn't change the fact that it does work and that it is indeed a great tactic.
Quote:The rest are non issues. So that still leaves six very viable and immediately obvious counters. On top of this, there are numerous others that could be conceived with a bit of cleverness. Oh, and giving up is always an option. Just because it's not something you prefer doesn't mean it's not an option.
Quote:CCP has changed rules many times in the past. GǪwhen there's been a need to. There is no particular need to redefine harassment in this case, especially since it's still done for in-game profit, which has always been cause for exemption when it comes to in-game activities. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15380
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 14:14:00 -
[59] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:You said that it was impossible for an algorithm to judge between cases that boil down to searching text logs for harassment; that's obviously not the case. In reality, I'd expect such borderline cases to be uncommon. That's because, in reality, there are so few cases of harassment and (like with this one) it takes no effort whatever to determine that it isn't. The problem comes when you actually have a case that could be harassment, in which case you will have to dig into other sources to determine the intent, because the actions alone won't do that. So it's only rare in the cases that don't matter GÇö for the cases that do, it'll be obligatory.
Quote:I said finding you a reference was easy; this topic is popular and highly motivated. In contrast, I've said repeatedly that proper text analysis is hard, but probably not necessary for the task. GǪaside from determining intent, which will be required if it is to be classified as harassment. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15380
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 14:22:00 -
[60] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Tippia wrote:GǪaside from determining intent, which will be required if it is to be classified as harassment. Citation needed. See previous GM quotes.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15381
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 14:35:00 -
[61] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:I did a word search for intent and didn't find it; sorry. GǪand that's why text mining fails as a method: you couldn't determine the intent of the written words.
Quote:You wouldn't have any problem with CCP limiting the timer to 10m then? That could potentially cause all kinds of problems when it comes to killing stuff, yes. There's also no reason to limit the timer. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15381
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 14:47:00 -
[62] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Please list one other potential encounter that would be effected by limiting the timer of a passive party in highsec to 10m. Let's cut out the irrelevant parts of that question before answering itGǪ
I'll give you four: -+ Killing any kind of supercap. -+ Killing some of the sturdier capships. -+ Learning to gank (be it by suicide or lowsec camp). -+ Any attack where the aggressor's numbers means it'll take 10GÇô15 minutes to locate and kill the target.
GǪand, again, there's no reason to reduce the timer to 10 minutes. That means we have a lot of breakage and no advantage. Not the best basis for a change, you know. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15381
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 14:50:00 -
[63] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Seems pretty relevant since all your examples happen in low/null. It's not relevant because the rules apply the same everywhere for the same reasons.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15381
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 14:54:00 -
[64] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:I wasn't aware that high sec had no unique rules It has no unique timers, no.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15381
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 15:03:00 -
[65] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:You'd have no problem with a mechanic that reduced the reward of your gank then? Red herring.
Quote:Courier contracts/missions have timers as well, afaik. None that make it mechanically impossible to complete them. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15381
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 15:25:00 -
[66] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:See previous posts. So you agree that it breaks things and that there is no upside to it, so reducing the timer would be a pretty horrid idea?
Quote:More of a socratic line of inquiry. More of a red herring.
Murk Paradox wrote:How long would it take you to execute an aggressive action on a freighter?
Or maybe I might need to rephrase...
Do you need more than 30 seconds to kill a freighter who can't fight back? Yes. Probably somewhere in the region of 45GÇô60 seconds or so: 5 seconds to scan, ~5 seconds to align, 15 seconds of warp, 5 seconds to get organised and in position, and then 15GÇô30 seconds to get the kill.
Quote:Also, why do you think it's important for someone with that same timer be able to dock but not escape open space? Because docking is contingent on there being some place to dock and because it requires the target to actually deliberately there and successfully docking GÇö not just killing the client. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15382
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 15:44:00 -
[67] - Quote
Schalac wrote:I believe you are getting me all wrong here. I am not against the gank. The gank is fine in my eyes. It is the amount of time the player was locked down by a ridiculous game mechanic that I am against. But again, he's not locked down by any game mechanic. He was locked down by his own dogged insistence on trying to get away with his ship intact. He had tons of outs GÇö hell, if I understood the last revelation correctly, he wasn't even aggressed for large portions of that hour (but that could just be his confusing inability to properly describe what happened and/or his lack of understanding of the mechanics involved).
Quote:My opinion is that act after a certain amount of time constitutes harassment. It is also my opinion that if you cannot legally attack them without losing your ship, that should be cause for the action being deemed an exploit. GǪand CCP's opinion is that the Gǣcertain amount of timeGǥ is counted in days or weeks, and that you have all the tools you need at your disposal to get rid of them. It's up to you to choose which one you'll use. If you have no other options, it already is an exploit, because apparently, they've managed to get hold of ships that don't bump (but then, how do they manage to bump the freighter!?), modules that somehow restrict you from warping without triggering an aggression flag (but then, why are they bumping?!), modules that keep you from logging off, ejecting, calling for help, etc etc etc.
The victim's decision not to make use of the tools at his disposal does not mean the aggressor is exploiting.
Quote:Just think about how silly it is on a game play level. For an hour all two people, or one guy and his alt, did was approach, bump and reapproach a freighter. Or, put another way, for an hour, three people were jockeying for position to respectively get the target into a good attack position and trying to avoid getting into that position. It may not have been the crazed excitement of sonars and going coasting silently and crazy ivans of other submarine fiction, but it was a hunt none the less GÇö I don't find it particularly silly that such contests can drag. In fact, I think it's pretty neat that the game allows for it: an entire combat that is not dictated by the firing of guns, but of positioning and the struggle to get the upper hand.
Quote:Simple right. Forget about the gank. Let's look at the mechanic used to facilitate it. If you aren't legally able to be attacked, then any action you take to ruin the play of another player should be cause for repercussions from CCP. Now that's silly. Ruining other people's play is at the very heart of the game, and it comes in a myriad of forms GÇö blowing people up is just one minute option. As long as there are ways to combat this kind of jockeying for position (and there are), it's all fine and dandy.
When you undock log in, your game can be ruined. It's what makes this game so much better than the competition: the fact that you have all these people out there who are (occasionally) out to ruin your day, and you have to make sure it doesn't get ruined by them. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15382
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 15:49:00 -
[68] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Tippia wrote:S Byerley wrote:See previous posts. So you agree that it breaks things and that there is no upside to it, so reducing the timer would be a pretty horrid idea? Red herring. Nope. That's just following your directions. By the previous posts, you offered no reason to change the timers; no objection to the fact that it would break things; and thus no disagreement with the conclusion that it's a horrid idea. You also misidentified the scope and consequences of such a change.
The fact that you have resorted to mere quips and non-responses shows that what arguments you had have been ground into such fine dust that all you can do at this point is to try to divert the attention away from this fact through these kinds of trolling attempts.
If I'm wrong, how about you try to actually answer the questions people are posing to you? How about you present some kind of argument for why timers should be reduced or (just to be kind and include your red herring) why profits should be cut? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15382
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 16:07:00 -
[69] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:It should only affect a ship that cannot dock due to acts of aggression. No, that's not what the timer is for. The PvP timer is specifically there to make sure that logging off to avoid combat is not a viable tactic for any kind of ship (including freighters, since they were common offenders of abusing the older timer mechanics). There's a completely different timer that dictates those kinds of things and the freighter is already exempt from ever triggering it.
Quote:That freighter IS a special snowflake, no matter how you cut it. The only way for it to be special is if you invent some hitherto unknown cut that completely redefines how the game worksGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15383
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 17:09:00 -
[70] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:It's a red herring because you insist on discounting the obvious constraints would would make it inapplicable to the cases you're worried about. GǪexcept that it was instituted to fix exactly the kind of cases we're talking about. There are no constraints that make in inapplicable. If you think there are, please list them.
Quote:(He obviously didn't) GǪexcept that he obviously did, even by his own description. In fact, he must have, or it wouldn't have gone on for an hour. That's how the mechanics work. If you are so interested in them, maybe it's about time you learn this fact.
Quote:I asked my question first You didn't ask any question. Now answer his, and every other question that you've refused to answer so far. You're not even in the queue, and your quips and evasions fail to hide this fact. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15384
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 17:11:00 -
[71] - Quote
Ace Uoweme wrote:Because it does already, simply with having CONCORD around. Yeah, no. The rules for combat are still the same, and there's no reason why it should be different.
Quote:Then add that CCP has special circumstances in the area as a measure to not scare off 9 out of 10 new players. Those rules and measures have nothing to do with highsec, though.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15386
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 17:33:00 -
[72] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:IIRC, you claimed that the tactic had no counter (regardless of how long the gank takes) if executed correctly. [citation needed] There are plenty of counters, but I suspect that you took two words out of context to read it as if there aren't. And no, I'm not trying to convince you since you are apparently impervious to facts. At this point, I merely suggest that you go out and try it yourself and that you explain why it's such a rare event if it's not hard to execture.
Quote:I did though. Go back and look for the question mark. The last question you asked was GÇ£You wouldn't have any problem with CCP limiting the timer to 10m then?GÇ¥, which was answered in full, so no, you did not. You're not in the queue. Now, answer his question: why did the OP let the gankers keep him there for an hour and do nothing to help himself?
While you're at it, why not answer all the other questions you've skipped?
Ace Uoweme wrote:Do you have CONCORD in null...yeah, no. The rules aren't the same because you don't have an NPC police force. GǪand yet, the rules for the timers (from both players and NPCs) are the same no matter where you are, and there's still no reason why it should be any different.
Combat has been made consistent, which means that there are no special rules for highsec any more. Blinders don't change that fact, and asking for them to be made inconsistent again requires some pretty good reasons GÇö none have been given. Oh, and no, CCP does not look dimly at can flipping. What on earth gave you that idea? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15386
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 17:42:00 -
[73] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Point 1- Yes, freighters ARE special. The do not have all the functionality othyer ships do in regards to having an aggression timer applied to them. Just because they have no slots doesn't mean they are treated any differently than other ships, and being without slots doesn't make them special either.
So why should they have special leave to ignore mechanics that were specifically in place to put an end to a kind of abuse that freighters were often using?
Quote:Freighters are most definitely not like any other ship in the game, except shuttles (yes shuttles can have an aggression timer too, but that is an entirely different topic isn't it?). It's not so much a different topic as proof that they're not special. And hell, even if they were, why should they be given special rules to dictate their survivability when one of the main purposes behind the new timers were to take away that ability?
Quote:I do not agree with Tippia to say it takes DAYS to become "excessive". You yourself said that is not possible (downtime) and that GM/DEVs have final say. You can keep bumping people for days, at which point it becomes excessive and the GMs will start to inquire into your intentions. What's not possible is to keep bumping and refreshing PvP timers for days. In fact, it's the impossibility of the latter that lets the former slide into the realm of harassment if it happens for the wrong reasons: because you're doing something a number of days when there's no reason or benefit from keeping it up for that long. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15386
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 17:48:00 -
[74] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Naw, counter is pretty much how I remembered it: Tippia wrote:GÇ£Is there anything at all that a solo freighter pilot can do in this situation to avoid being killed or is death a foregone conclusion the moment the attack is initiated?GÇ¥
If it's executed flawlessly and without outside interruption, the victim is pretty much dead, as he should be. GǪso in other words, there are plenty of counters and I never said otherwise
Yes it was, and you couldn't mount any argument against the answer other than positing that GÇ£it's not the same thingGÇ¥ to which the current question is GÇ£how so?GÇ¥ (both paraphrased). You have yet to answer this question.
Quote:You're not interesting enough to talk around in circles with, sorry. Of course you are. It's all you do, after all. If you're actually not interested in doing so, here's a tip: just stop. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15386
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:05:00 -
[75] - Quote
Schalac wrote:No it hasn't. If anything it allows you to harass people more freely in high sec than in any other part of the game. How is it in any way more free? If they don't aggress you (and thus die), you can get out of it at zero effort. Compare this to low or null, where they can keep you stuck at no effort 'til downtime.
Quote:That is the total opposite of consistent. It's been made very consistent: no matter what you fly and where, if you get into combat, you can't escape by logging off. There are no special cases of GÇ£having done X to A so therefore B can do Z to C for N minutes because of rules clause PGÇ¥ GÇö there are just five states of legality, four states of aggression, and a very distinct set of rules to get yourself (and only yourself) into any of these states. These states and their corresponding timers are the same all over the place with no exception to ensure that you always understand what they entail.
Quote:Look, I have no idea why you are defending this infinitely ridiculous game mechanic What's ridiculous (much less infinitely so) about it?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15386
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:10:00 -
[76] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Context silly. You said that he(not his alliance) didn't do anything when you said yourself there was nothing he could do. Context, silly. I said that once the attack has begun (i.e. he's already done a number of mistakes and missed a couple of counters), the remaining outs require outside help (i.e. it can still be countered), and even then, he can capitalise on mistakes the gankers make (giving him a few more counters).
So in other words, there are plenty of counters and I never said otherwise.
So your only counter-argument is GÇ£nu-uhGÇ¥. We can therefore safely conclude that it is the same thing and that you cannot think of even the slightest shred of an argument to the contrary. Goodie, surrender accepted. Thus, your question has been answered in full, and it's your turn to start providing answers to all the other questions that have queued up in the meantime.
So: why did the OP let the gankers keep him there for an hour and do nothing to help himself?
Quote:With other people, about interesting things; you don't measure up. Of course I do. You keep at it, after all. If you're actually not interested in doing so, here's a tip: just stop. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15386
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:20:00 -
[77] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Would the catalysts still be at the gate waiting? In situation 1: no, because they're not actually involved in what's going on. In situation 2: no, because many of them are outlaws and won't undock until the target is in the kill box.
Schalac wrote:How they are held, and the process that you can go about countering the person that is holding you. In low, null and WH you can shoot the target without the certainty of losing your ship. In highsec if you shoot the target you WILL lose your ship. That is the biggest difference you can possibly get. GǪbut that difference is countered by the fact that in high, you can just log off to counter the whole GǣholdingGǥ bit, which leaves you about as free there as everywhere else. To counter this, the holders will have to do something they don't need to do in low or null, which is to lose a ship of their own, at which point it's definitely not Gǣmore freelyGǥ than elsewhere.
Quote:If bumping is combat then make it an aggressive act and flag them for retaliation. If not then it is an abuse of game mechanics and should be deemed an exploit to do so constantly while in high sec. It's not combat, so that part is easy. However, why should it be deemed an exploit? It's an intended game mechanic that has been specifically and explicitly deemed not and exploit, and it has plenty of counters. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15386
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:25:00 -
[78] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Context, silly goose. You said it was his fault for not doing anything while they held him for an hour, not before they started holding him. GǪand there were plenty of things that he could have done. In fact, there were things he did, but which he fumbled.
So in other words, there are plenty of counters and I never said otherwise
Quote:Or that I'm echoing your own obstinance in a concise manner; I like my explanation better. GǪand in doing so, proving me more and more right with every post you make. If that's not your objective, how about answering a simple question: why did the OP let the gankers keep him there for an hour and do nothing to help himself?
Prove it.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15386
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:28:00 -
[79] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:The situation was in highsec, I think it's very relevant. It was using highsec mechanics. It is not relevant because we're not talking about some kind of GÇ£highsec mechanicGÇ¥ GÇö we're talking about the CrimeWatch timers, which are the same all over the place.
Schalac wrote:Using a rookie ship on a throwaway alt is hardly a penalty compared to the amount of people and firepower needed to suicide a mach or two. It is when you consider how cheaply you can completely negate any profit that might have come out of the gank. Bumping Machs are hardly sturdy ships, and losing one hurtsGǪ
Quote:Where is Concord in all your examples then? In the GÇ£not related to PvP timersGÇ¥ column. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15386
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:33:00 -
[80] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:You might be doing something wrong when I can answer your questions with your own argument from the same post. No. It means I know the answers to my questions, and I'm trying to figure out if you do.
So: why did the OP let the gankers keep him there for an hour and do nothing to help himself? If you want to build on the answer I gave because you can't answer it yourself, please specify what it was he did.
Ok. So we can completely disregard your claim then. Not only are you (immensely) interested, as your posting history show, but I measure up just fine. Thank you for the nice compliment. It's very kind of you. Now, since I impress you so, perhaps you can be grant me the favour of answering the question?
Murk Paradox wrote:Is it only storyline missions that get you a friendly eve mail about how disappointed that Agent is in you if you do not complete the mission? I wouldn't know; I've never failed one, because none of them are mechanically impossible to complete. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15386
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:43:00 -
[81] - Quote
Callyuk wrote:S Byerley wrote:This is very well put.
.Extremely Well Put It's well written, but it is also incorrect. The same model can't be used for freighter bumping since it's only a single event, whereas the harassment-worthy mining bumping example is multiple events over a multiple locations and at multiple times.
If, when the freighter pilot undocks after having bought a brand new freighter, he immediately gets bumped off the the station grid and (possibly, but not necssarily) ganked again without any gain in it, then maybe it starts to approach the initial stages of harassment.Post GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15386
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:46:00 -
[82] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:In my opinion? WT timer should behave exactly the same as the current timer, non-WT timer shouldn't extend any other time (or itself + some grace period to allow logging off) - obviously this is only under aforementioned constraints. GǪbut the question remains: why? Why do they need to be different?
Quote:Because CCP thinks War decs are the correct way to pvp someone in high sec. No. CCP thinks that ganks, wardecs, and duels are the correct ways to pvp engage in combat in highsc. The ways to actually PvP are far more numerous.
That doesn't answer the question. Why should highsec have two special-snowflake logoff mechanics? What purpose would it serve? What problem does it solve? Why is it needed?
Murk Paradox wrote:So we are not questioning the safety of a freighter or the ability to kill it then? What? When docked up? No. That's what stations are for GÇö very much unlike logging off while under fire. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15386
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 19:05:00 -
[83] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:CCP's opinion?
Citation please.
The reason I ask is because of the supposed amount of time on that timer versus the amount of downtime each day used on the servers. Now you're asking me to do very precise searches on the forum without the benefit of remembering which (probably no longer employed) GM made the statement in 2008GǪ Suffice to say, it has come up on numerous occasions, and harassment of the kind we're talking about here has consistently been described as something that happens over a prolonged period and multiple log-ins (there's also harassing speech acts, which are a different matterGǪ in nothing else than because they're far more explicitly forbidden by the EULA and TOS).
And yes, the time required for it to be called harassment versus the daily downtime is pretty important: since no act can carry over from before to after downtime, that is a universal cut-off point that's handy to go by: if you can't get them before downtime, the target will escape. If you choose to pick it up again when he returns, it is pretty obviously not a single occurrence, but rather the first two instances in what might be a longer campaign.
Quote:Fair enough. Feel free to show me a ship that has the same access to the same modules to support your argument that all ships are the same. GÇ£All ships are the sameGÇ¥ is not the opposite of GÇ£freighters are not specialGÇ¥. Freighter's access to modules is shared by shuttles and pods.
Quote:explain to me how a freighter can aggress someone like ANY other ship in the game GǪbut we're not talking about weapons timers GÇö we're talking about PvP timers. The ability to aggress someone is not a factor, and this (in)ability is not something that puts freighters in a special category of their own.
And, once again, even if it did, why should they be given special exemptions from the timers? Timers, I remind you, that were put into place to remove the kind of tactics that the special exemption is meant to provide. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15386
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 19:12:00 -
[84] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Doesn't that show that a freighter is not equipped to handle the dangers of open space? Sure. That is probably intentional. They are extremely well served by having a small support fleet, for instance GÇö this is a fairly common attribute among capital ships.
Then again, almost everything in space is well-served by having a fleet to support it, so that doesn't say much. It's almost as if there's some kind of implicit push towards grouping up built into the gameGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15386
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 19:20:00 -
[85] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Given the hundreds of thousands of trips these ships make every month (perhaps millions) the very fact that only several dozen are killed in all of EVE a month says that they are very much equipped for the dangers out there.
Freighter ganking is very rare. I want CCP Diagoras back. I would probably severely hurt myself laughing if it turned out that more EAFs are destroyed each month than freightersGǪ and I have this nagging suspicion that it's actually the case. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15386
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 19:33:00 -
[86] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:It DOES make them unlike any other ship. It makes them unlike some other ships, but not all of them.
Quote:To coin your phrase... "what abuse?". The abuse that was rampant before Crimewatch 2.0, where freighters would warp around carelessly, and if they spotted something gank-like on approach to a station or gate, or when entering a system, they'd kill the clientGǪ and relog and kill the clientGǪ and [repeat as needed] to ensure that the attackers could never lock the freighter down because it would disappear too soon.
The new PvP flag (mostly) fixed this: if you end up in a fight, logging off only ever leaves you dead in the water. This is intentional and is meant to make people stay logged in because at least then they can try to do something about itGǪ
GǪlike struggle for position for an hour.
Just because ganks are low doesn't mean that timer abuse wasn't rampant GÇö with a bit of luck, it means that people have adapted new strategies for staying out of fights beyond flying straight into them because why-the-hell-not-it's-not-going-to-hurt-anyway.
Quote:Lack of slots, lack of drone bay, no way to aggress, ganks are at an all time low. This has been covered already. Freighters are very unique and "special". Lack of slots is shared with other ships. Lack of drone bay shared with tons of different ships (many of them even have explicit attack roles). An inability to aggress is shared with other ships. None of it makes freighters unique or special.
Ganks being at an all-time low is because they've been made hellalot more difficult to do for profit. The Gǣsuspect for lootingGǥ change is a particularly big game-changer thereGǪ
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15386
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 19:45:00 -
[87] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:We are talking about an instance in highsec and highsec mechanics were used. It is relevant. GǪexcept that there are no GÇ£highsec mechanicsGÇ¥ GÇö there are only the CrimeWatch timers, which are the same all over the place. So it being in highsec is not relevant.
Quote:It is in highsec. Which shows the difference of this situation compared to anywhere else. GǪexcept that being in highsec is not relevant since we're talking about the PvP timer, which is the same all over the place. CONCORD is not related to the timer. The situation is no different from any other part of space: if you're attacked, you incur a 15-minute PvP timer GÇö be it in highsec or lowsec or nullsec.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15388
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 17:38:00 -
[88] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:S Byerley wrote:Because CCP thinks War decs are the [best] way to pvp someone in high sec. It would be transparent at the user level anyway. Where on Earth are you getting this garbage? Where have CCP said that the only "[best]" way to PVP in highsec is through wars? I've never seen that anywhere. Do you believe that suicide ganks, baiting, etc are all invalid forms of PVP? If they're not the "[best]" way to PVP why have CCP explicitly implemented those abilities? GM Karidor wrote: If you are reported and we find you actively following around a target without a war to continue bumping a specific player, it will still (at some point) considered harassment, even if you divert your 'attention' a little while doing so. If you have a bone to pick with someone, declare a war and take the risk that your target may actually taste blood and fight back (or finds allies for that part). Seem like a good sentiment to me. So they haven't actually said that wardecs are in any way GÇ£the best wayGÇ¥ to PvP someone in highsec.
S Byerley wrote:Shouldn't the timer be reduced because scanning was buffed then? Ok. We'll reduce it to 14 minutes 58 seconds instead. Happy? Or, hell, let's just round it off to 15 minutes to make it easy to remember. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15388
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 17:42:00 -
[89] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote:Which demonstrated an inability to accurately determine harassment by text mining. FTFY, you prove me right for being so reluctant to cite you proper work every time you spout nonsense stemming from your inability to read scientific results. Re-fixed that. What would prove you right is has nothing to do with his ability to provide anything, but with yours, and you haven't been able to prove yourself right so far.
Quote:Not me mate; these are common consensuses. So prove it.
Quote:You've backpeddled so far that you might as well be protesting scientific methodology at this point. No. He's merely asking you to prove your assertion, which you haven't been able to do. You are the one trying to dodge said methodology. He's merely taking the null hypothesis and it's up to you to falsify it. So do so.
Quote:I've said repeatedly I'm not a good teacher; it's just not a strength of mine. You're also not very good at providing sources for your claimsGǪ that's a much bigger problem because it means, good teacher or not, what you teach is incorrect by default. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15388
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 17:46:00 -
[90] - Quote
Callyuk wrote:The GM quote is pertaining to harassment not ganking ,but there one in the same if you don't do the gank right and have to lock your target down for an hour for your incompetent friends/alts. GǪand it shows that as we've been telling you all along: that, no, a single occurrence is not harassment. So no, even if you fail to get the gank in order, it's not harassment.
If you come back and do it the next day or at some other later point, then it might start to mount up, but a single occurrence is still a single occurrence GÇö you have not been GÇ£ actively following [a target] around [GǪ] to continue bumping a specific playerGÇ¥. All you're doing is trying to gank him, which (to everyone's great surprise) is something that is not guaranteed to succeed.
Murk Paradox wrote:Wait. You're wrong. Or I should say, Tippia thinks you're wrong. She said freighter pilots abusing the logoff technique was the basis for this mechanic. Nope. Stop inventing things I never said.
Quote:A freighter actively defending themselves...
Are you mad? No he isn't. What makes you say that? The freighter can actively defend himself using any of the myriad of tactics and techniques described in this thread and every thread like it. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15388
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 18:22:00 -
[91] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:So uhm.. no. I am not making anything up. You said that. Numerous times. Yes you are. At no point did I say that freighters abusing it was the basis for the mechanic. Everyone that could abused it, and it had to go GÇö freighters were just one of many common examples.
If you tried actually reading the quotes you provided rather than just hope that they said what you imagined, you'd notice that I'm consistently saying the same thing: abusing the old timer mechanics to let you log off and save your ship was rampant; freighters abused this tactic too; there is no reason to give this particular abuse back to freighters.
Quote:Don't ever bother trying to insinuate otherwise. I don't have to insinuate anything since the simple fact is that you just made it up. Instead, I think I'll insinuate that you need to go see an optometristGǪ
GǪwait, it's not much of an insinuation if I say it outright like that, is it?
Quote:Uhm, what? Are you strawmanning now? Scroll up to post #855 and read wtf she posted. GǪok, and where did I say that the timers were fixed because of freighters, specifically? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15389
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 18:37:00 -
[92] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:You should reread your own quotes. I did not edit them in anyway, shape or form. GǪwhich is nice, since it shows that I at no point said freighters were the reason the fixed the timers.
Quote:You ******* said that ****. VERBATIM. I said that there were ways of abusing the timers, and that these abuses were removed because they were stupid. Just because freighters were among the many types of ships that abused them doesn't mean that freighters were the only reason the timers were fixed. There were far bigger fish to fry.
The reason freighters keep coming up in the quotes is because that's the topic at hand and because it's being suggested that they GÇö specifically GÇö should be allowed to get their timer-abuse ability back for no particular reason.
Quote:Those are your own godamn words. GǪand they don't include Gǣfreighters abusing the timers was the basis for the changeGǥ. That's something you've made up, not me.
Everyone abusing the timers GÇö in any ship that could (i.e. pretty much all of them) GÇö was the basis for changing them. The abuse was the reason for the change; not freighters. Freighters were just not given special pardon (because why they hell should they), and thus, when people say that freighters should be given special pardon from this change, I ask GÇ£why the hell should they?GÇ¥
Get it? Or are you a complete imbecile?
The things I supposedly said, but which are all a figment of your imagination (or, to be a bit more kind: a figment of you reading far too much into thingsGǪ which is much the same thing). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15389
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 18:58:00 -
[93] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Using your words, freighters are just like every other ship in the game. One specific ship using a logoff mechanic is your own special blend of asshattery. GǪbut it's wasn't change because one specific ship used that mechanic, and no-one ever said it was.
Quote:Logoff tactic, regardless of what ship can use it, is what we are discussing concerning a freighter in this thread.
Because the aggression timer, used in conjunction with concord timers, apply to this scenario as it was executed in highsec.
Therefore, it is relevant. You are claiming it is not. I'm claiming that, what, exactly, is not relevant? Be very specific because your penchant for putting words in my mouth means I don't trust anything you claim I've said at this pointGǪ
Quote:You are saying the logoff timer is why the mechanic is there. The other goon said it was to probe safe ships. Same thing. The timer mechanic was changed to ensure that it was always applicable so you could always probe down aggressed ships.
Quote:If that mechanic was put in place to halt the logging off of freighters (such as you claimed) I claimed it was put into place to halt logging off as a means of saving your ship. It has nothing to do with freighters.
Quote:Whereas the mechanic, ALSO said by you (way in the beginning of the thread), was because of capitals logging off in pvp combat. You'll have to forgive me if I'm wrong, I am not going to be bothered linking that post, but it was inferred that freighters were capitals so therefore it applied to them (again was weak). I said that capital ships were particularly prone to use this tactic because they inherently had the hit points to survive the non-aggressed timer. I said that, since freighters are capitals too, it's not surprising that they had the buffers to make use of this tactic. But the reason the timers were fixed was because of the general case: given large enough a buffer, a ship (any ship) can avoid being destroyed by logging off.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15389
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 18:59:00 -
[94] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:They also said continuous following and bumping is considered harassment. Since bumping is KEEPING you from leaving, the fact of having to span multiple systems does not have to be met as criteria since both are "working as intended" as you put it. GǪexcept that it does not keep you from leaving. It keeps you from aligning your ship to warp out (if done correctly). You are free to leave at any time, and if they pursue you to keep bump you, then you can start building a case.
S Byerley wrote:They've said it a lot more directly than any of your nonsense about intent. If by GÇ£more directlyGÇ¥ you mean GÇ£not at all, as opposed toGÇ¥ (since intent is intrinsic to harassment), then yes. Otherwise, no, they have not said anything of the kind. What's the matter, too risk averse to war?
Quote:Nah, scanning takes about half as long as it used to so let's say 7:30 - nice and round. GǪexcept that by reducing the scanning time to half, it's been reduced to by a couple of seconds. So we'll reduce the timer by that amount GÇö to 14 minute, 58 secondsGǪ or let's just say 15 to round it off to something easy to remember.
GǪunless you suggest that all combat ships get their DPS doubled (and all siege timers halved)? Because that would be a good reason to reduce the timer by half rather than by the few seconds difference the change in scanning is worth. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15389
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 19:13:00 -
[95] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Pursue doesn't fit when the act is "block".
That's just silly. Pursue fits perfectly when it's very easy to stop being blocked.
You keep getting bumped in your freighter, and you keep fighting back. This drags on for hours GÇö No harassment. You say GÇ£screw thisGÇ¥, and leave, letting the other side do whatever they want with what remains. GÇö No harassment. They abandon your empty freighter and warp after youGǪ GÇö OddGǪ but no harassment yet. You dock up, pick up a new ship and undockGǪ GǪand immediately gets bumped by the same people, even though you're now in a mining Moa. GÇö OooohGǪ now it has taken the first step down the road towards harassment. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15389
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 19:18:00 -
[96] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:"You keep getting bumped in your freighter, and you keep fighting back." Yes? That is a quote. Did you have any intentions with posting it, or are you just admiring my writing style? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15389
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 19:20:00 -
[97] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:...
"You keep getting bumped in your freighter, and you keep fighting back." A single corp/alliance member in an insta locking blackbird is all it takes. GǪor just staying away from the kill box long enough for the opposition to screw up, which is what almost happened in this case.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15389
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 19:24:00 -
[98] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:You mean someone else. Arguably, it wouldn't matter what ship came to help.
We aren't talking about someone else. We are talking about the freighter. GǪand one of the things the freighter can do is call for help. With a bit of luck, he could have kept on fighting on his own too, but that's a bit more tedious.
Or he could just have left. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15389
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 19:28:00 -
[99] - Quote
No. You just made a lot of unsupported claims.
Quote:Daw, look at you trying to throw scientific philosophy around.
Assuming for a moment that "Nah dawg, computers sucks - you need quantum gizmos and multi-level thingamahwirls" is a null hypothesis Let's not do that, and instead assume that the null hypothesis is GÇ£no, you can't do that [with the suggested equipment and methods].GÇ¥
If you want to claim otherwise, you have to provide evidence GÇö something you've failed to do. The purpose of the null hypothesis is to be the fallback if some other hypothesis cannot be proven. If you want to go after the null hypothesis itself, you still need proof to show that it's ill-formed. Either way, it's your duty to provide that proof.
Quote:Please take a moment to consider where your logic here went wrong. Where I said that it's a bigger problem? Ok, we'll call the two equal. Better? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15389
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 19:34:00 -
[100] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:The mechanic applied to the freighter doesn't apply to any other ship (until it is applied). EhGǪ all mechanics apply equally to all ships. It being a freighter makes no difference.
Quote:So, if a freighter is aggressed, and has a timer on it, it doesn't matter what ship comes to help because that freighter still has a timer on it.
Period.
Unless you wish to insinuate a blackbird or any other ship, could simply remove that timer? No, he's insinuating that a Blackbird or any other ship could make the gank fail.
Quote:Which is also how the mechanics were manipulated and abused against a freighter, as opposed to say.... a cruiser or barge who could fight back, even at the cost of losing. A cruiser or barge would meat no different an end than the freighter in that case.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15389
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 19:41:00 -
[101] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:If by "not said anything of the kind" you mean directly implied it via tone and context; as opposed to your completely illogical deductions regarding intent GǪthen still no. All PvP is good and equal. The only thing they really care about is abuse of mechanics and exploits.
Quote:Perhaps you can explain to me why you need 15 minutes to scan down a target if it only take a few seconds - more ganker entitlement? Because it's not 15 minutes to scan down a target. It's 15 minutes to allow for aggressing him, him warping out, you calling in a scanning ship, scanning him down, warping to the spot, and then killing him.
Quote:But if you're actively attacking him the timer is getting refreshed anyway? They've wavered back and forth on this. During some periods in the history of log-off timers, you could not refresh existing timers once the target logged off; during others you could. Either way, making it a blank 15 minutes gives enough time no matter what and makes it easy to remember regardless of the current state of refreshability.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15390
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 19:49:00 -
[102] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Except being able to warp off, or fight back. Which is what you're saying the freighter could do. Again, you're reading too much into things. I said that the freighter can fight back (which it can), or that the pilot can leave.
And no, a cruiser or barge would not be able to warp off any more than a freighter can. The alignment rules apply to them as well. They can certainly fight back (again, in the same way the freighter can), but if they tried to shoot back GÇö which I guess is what you're hinting at GÇö they'd get CONCORDed and explode, which is what would be the final end for the freighter as wellGǪ so having weapons makes no real difference.
Well, ok, it makes one difference: it means the cruiser/barge pilot can be ganked once for free.
Quote:Because it is like every other ship except for every other ship. No. It's just like very other ship in that regard because none of the mechanics involved are in any way tied to a specific ship class.
Quote:You should have 15 minutes and not be able to refresh the timer, to accomplish that act. (Of course you could have a second ship that has not aggressed in that time [say logi]) refresh that timer via drones... Someone with more hands-on experience with this will have to correct me, but I think the final implementation of CW2.0 finally landed on not letting people refresh timers on logged-off targetsGǪ vOv GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15390
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 19:53:00 -
[103] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Put a civ gun on and find a freighter, make sure safety is set to atleast yellow, and fire.
Don't be mad if you cannot succeed, just rest easy in knowing you are able to try. That certainly is one way of ensuring that you don't manage to gank himGǪ
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15390
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 20:00:00 -
[104] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:What button do I press on the freighter to do this "fight back" option? The align button on the selected items panel. The GÇ£WGÇ¥ key (or is it S? I don't remember the defaults and I know one of them makes no sense) and clicking something nice in your overview. Double-clicking in space. RclickGåÆwarp to if something happens to be in-line with your vector of travel (fleet mates can be very helpful here). If you're so inclined, the PTT button on vent/TS/mumble/whateverGǪ
Quote:When I get home I'll try clicking all my modules and see which one allows me to. You're reading too much into things.
Quote:It's not reading "too much" into understanding a simple fact that the ship cannot accomplish a certain task. I do not know why you think it can. It cannot. What certain task are you talking about? I can pretty much guarantee you that it's something you've read into what I said, rather than something I've actually said.
Quote:Every other action in game can be done by a solo player except for a freighter incurring an aggression-áweapons timer (or LE timer for that matter). GǪfixed. As luck would have it, that's not the timer that matters here GÇö in fact, it's the inability to trigger that particular timer that the pilot dock up if/when he gets away. Also, as Elizabeth Aideron points out, these kinds of sweeping statements have a tendency to be wrong.
Freighters aren't all that special, after all. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15390
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 20:01:00 -
[105] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Elizabeth Aideron wrote: link the catalyst fit that can solo a freighter then
Any of them. A freighter can't fight back. In that case, it's spectacularly easy to fight back: just leave low/nullsec and trick the catalyst into following youGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15390
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 20:06:00 -
[106] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:But, you can try! And that's the point. Not with a yellow safety, you can't.
And no, being able to try was not the point GÇö succeeding was the point. Otherwise no, you can't actually suicide gank a freighterGǪ only suicide.
Ok, sure, it may have been the point you were trying to make, but you literally said that GÇ£Any ship can suicide gank a freighter. Except another freighter.GÇ¥ This is false. There are plenty of ships that can't suicide gank a freighter.
GǪin fact, come to think of it, I don't think any single ship can. Even officer-fit Machs and Vindis fall short of the kind of damage output needed. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15390
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 20:12:00 -
[107] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Yes you can.
You just can't pod the pilot with yellow safety. GǪin low or nullsec, at which point it's not a suicide gank, so no. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
|
|