Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
413
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 21:18:00 -
[271] - Quote
EDIT-Screw it, changed my mind, the formula given isn't correct enough to give a true dps rating.
The amount of time given and the dps required for the EHP listed is just under 115. "Never rub another man's rhubarb." -Joker in Batman (Jack Nicholson) Just get a catalyst, blow him up and the post in local "Just a friendly reminder that I'm mining here and not you." -Abrazzar
|
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
66
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 21:32:00 -
[272] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:S Byerley wrote:Now you're just being silly; computers are quite smart, especially when analyzing something already broken down into 1's and 0's. Your inability to come up with a naive solution doesn't indicate much of anything. Uh no, they aren't. Computers can compute, and they can do it really well. They can't come up with solutions of their own to the more broad-reaching types of problems that humans face.
That's just your flesh sack pride talking.
To put things in perspective: A full simulation of the human brain takes about an exaflop (+/- an order subject to debate). We're currently in the tens of petaflops and the exaflop projections are for ~2020. Keep in mind, that's a full simulation, fundamentally more powerful.
Now, consider how much of the brain is tied up in mundane tasks and specialization. We're so bad at numerical math, for example, because we have to do several extremely expensive conversions to get it in the right format - it's an inefficient hack.
It shouldn't be surprising that computers are already better at most applications. The specialized tasks are starting to fall as well and the limiting factor is often the algorithm rather than the hardware (A couple million years of genetic tuning gives us a pretty wicked head start as far as optimizations).
James Amril-Kesh wrote:They can't, for example, determine intent or what would constitute harassment.
You say that like humans can. No, we use heuristics; computers are more than capable of doing the same. |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
413
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 21:49:00 -
[273] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Ace Uoweme wrote:
If webbers were designed to pull. They're designed to hold a target still.
Thus, a very messy mechanic.
Same job, they help manoeuvre the ship.
Funnily enough, I think of bumpers as tugboats.
Tough little sausages that they are. "Never rub another man's rhubarb." -Joker in Batman (Jack Nicholson) Just get a catalyst, blow him up and the post in local "Just a friendly reminder that I'm mining here and not you." -Abrazzar
|
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
413
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 22:01:00 -
[274] - Quote
Gallowmere Rorschach wrote:E-2C Hawkeye wrote: Yea I have to agree....bumping someone for an hour is not working as intended.
How so? If I smash something repeatedly with a big enough hammer, it's going to keep moving, no matter how long I swing at it. Well, until it runs into something that I don't have the force to move, like a brick wall, or a tree.
Here's my take on it. Crimewatch. Their timers. Your aggression timers. A Victim has the same timer as the aggressor. 15 minutes right? (not counting the fun LE timer =)). That timer should NOT be able to be refreshed until a certain amount of time has elapsed. Why? Because of that same timer.
If you cannot accomplish your goal in 15 minutes you shouldn't be attempting it. I know I know, there's going to be blowback about structure grinding etc... but seriously, if you start a fight with something NOT shooting back.... there should be an escape timer.
And this is why-
Eve is cold, and harsh. It should punish the incompetent.
That goes for the pirates too. This is where Crimewatch and Concord need to be on the same page.
Using the aggression timer on a victim who cannot actually make an aggression timer, so you can buy yourself more time to accomadate your inability to kill a freighter is, well, for lack of better terms, exploiting a mechanic.
Just my opinion. I think anyone should be able to kill and shoot anyone. But I also think you need to be able to do the job you pretend to do without having to use a mechanic to allow you to "safely".
At a certain point it should be considered "excessive".
Or try to convince everyone else that Eve shouldn't be a sandbox. "Never rub another man's rhubarb." -Joker in Batman (Jack Nicholson) Just get a catalyst, blow him up and the post in local "Just a friendly reminder that I'm mining here and not you." -Abrazzar
|
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1927
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 22:10:00 -
[275] - Quote
I refer you to my previous posts where I said you could neither:
- Show a computer model that shows intent * - Do so without changing the conditions of the rules ** - As a bonus, your "best example" achieves 90% accuracy and the banks openly admit this merely flags the account, it doesn't act as a judge.
* - in this example, the data is it's own system and doesn't need to make external inferences. For instance - your system can't take one or two transactions and show fraud; it's just comparing raw data. ** - I have already shown that you need to demonstrate how it can distinguish between identical data sets giving different conclusions. Your model cannot do this.
Look son, you're way out of your depth on this. I've torpedoed your argument many times over and you're not even trying to argue it's possible within the terms of the EvE rules, you're just tossing noise.
The "you can show journals" line was a ploy, by the way - it demonstrates you're basically just hacking at google searches and don't really know what research is being done in the area. I've read recent developments in heuristic analysis and I can tell you we're 10's of years and a leap in computing technology away from doing what you want. Quantum state computing is essentially a pre-requisite for the kind of pattern analysis you're looking for, by the way. Not sure what the cost of those was 40 years ago because they don't exist today.
Or, to put it in other terms - what you're asking for is several **orders of magnitude** more complex than being able to predict every share price rise and fall for the next 12 months.
You are, in every possible facet of human possibility, wrong. All you're doing by clutching at non-related web articles is showing that, not only are you wrong, but you lack the basic knowledge to understand WHY you are wrong.
We've tried to help but you don't want to know that you're wrong, so is there further point in bashing you over the head on this?
Actually I'm not done .. there's literally a 20metre section of books in my local library which, in a meta context, is basically the sum of knowledge about why you are wrong. No, not figuratively - literally.
This just shows that your inability to see our contacts list is working as intended, I assume? "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1927
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 22:12:00 -
[276] - Quote
Oh, and your article isn't even about credit card fraud .... I missed that you claimed that. Actually being able to predict whether a single transaction is fraudulent or not would be a multi-billion dollar breakthough.
I mean, if you think you can use 40 year old technology to achieve this why in the **** aren't you out doing it instead of crying about pretend spaceships in a game? "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1927
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 22:18:00 -
[277] - Quote
You know what ... I missed a trick. It's been so long that someone was blind enough to simply say "the stats are right because the stats show it" that I forgot the most simple, most basic tenet of this type of mathematical analysis:
Correlation does not equal causation.
In context - data showing someone was being bumped for X times over Y locations does not, and cannot, tell you why.
We need to know the why, because we punish based on the why.
By definition, no model which tells you what happened can tell you why.
Just adding to the pile of "you're so wrong, so very very very measurably wrong" I have got going here. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
694
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 22:26:00 -
[278] - Quote
Quote:He hasn't made an effort to move to another location, and they weren't following him around, so no.
Literally impossible to bump someone more than once without following them. Eve is Real |
Gallowmere Rorschach
Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats
325
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 22:28:00 -
[279] - Quote
Cipher Jones wrote:Quote:He hasn't made an effort to move to another location, and they weren't following him around, so no. Literally impossible to bump someone more than once without following them. Touch+¬ salesman, touch+¬. |
Aiwha
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
501
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 22:57:00 -
[280] - Quote
Did GSF lose their ships each time they ganked? If they did, then that's the way the cookie crumbles, scout out gates for traps next time, blah blah blah. It happens all the time.
If they didn't lose their ships with each gank, then that's an exploit.
And bump tackle isn't an exploit. You had an hour to hire a merc group, there's a whole channel of reputable merc's who would have easily dispatched a half dozen gank BC's for a few hundred mil. Lock up your staions and hide your daughters.
Nulli incoming |
|
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
854
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 23:06:00 -
[281] - Quote
Themeparkers don't understand EvE Online. The Tears Must Flow |
Rich Uncle PennyBags
EVE Online Monopoly
10
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 23:07:00 -
[282] - Quote
As far as I understand, the line is thus:
If they bump for: Ransom, Tactical advantage, waiting for backup, any other reason with an end goal. It's A-O.K.
If they do it for hours on end without any recognizable goal or reason other than to cause trouble and be dicks, you have a case.
|
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
67
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 23:17:00 -
[283] - Quote
Wow, haven't seen this much incoherent rambling in a while; ah well, here we go
Khanh'rhh wrote: - Show a computer model that shows intent * - Do so without changing the conditions of the rules ** - As a bonus, your "best example" achieves 90% accuracy and the banks openly admit this merely flags the account, it doesn't act as a judge.
What is it with you guys and "intent"? It's not relevant and it's not adequately defined so I guess if it's a requirement of your.... challenge?, I can just skip the rest.
Khanh'rhh wrote:The "you can show journals" line was a ploy, by the way - it demonstrates you're basically just hacking at google searches and don't really know what research is being done in the area. I've read recent developments in heuristic analysis and I can tell you we're 10's of years and a leap in computing technology away from doing what you want.
I never said I could "show journals". I mean, I could, but it's not worth digging for a reference you won't be able to understand anyway. I don't keep track of them because I don't publish in KDD. Where exactly are you reading about "heuristic analysis" btw? I can't say I've ever heard anyone use that phrase; or are you just mashing buzz words together?
Khanh'rhh wrote:Quantum state computing is essentially a pre-requisite for the kind of pattern analysis you're looking for, by the way. Not sure what the cost of those was 40 years ago because they don't exist today.
Or, to put it in other terms - what you're asking for is several **orders of magnitude** more complex than being able to predict every share price rise and fall for the next 12 months.
Woah there buddy; slow down. First of all, wtf kind of "pattern analysis" have you decided this is? Second, orders of magnitude are easy; heck, we throw them out in most of complexity analysis. Third, I alluded to old *techniques* because the algorithms haven't evolved all that much.
ROFL@ quantum computing (this is how I know you're just being silly). If you know what does and doesn't fall under the BQP complexity class, a lot of very smart people would like to talk to you.
Khanh'rhh wrote:Oh, and your article isn't even about credit card fraud .... I missed that you claimed that. Actually being able to predict whether a single transaction is fraudulent or not would be a multi-billion dollar breakthough.
Technically, I never said it was. Credit cards are very much the default example though; not sure why you think no one is doing it.
Khanh'rhh wrote:You know what ... I missed a trick. It's been so long that someone was blind enough to simply say "the stats are right because the stats show it" that I forgot the most simple, most basic tenet of this type of mathematical analysis:
Correlation does not equal causation.
In context - data showing someone was being bumped for X times over Y locations does not, and cannot, tell you why.
We need to know the why, because we punish based on the why.
Who said anything about causation? The statement you've evidently lost in all your rambling was that data mining could be used to "mimic human judgement" with some degree of accuracy. |
Tiber Ibis
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
67
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 23:49:00 -
[284] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: What I said was, that it requires coordination and planning and preparedness, and that those are rewarded in EVE, which is why they get kills and are working as intended. I also said it was hilariously easy to avoid most gatecamps, and that someone would have to be rather ignorant of how the game works to claim otherwise. There is nothing difficult about bumping a freighter. This technique is basically shooting fish in a barrel with little to no risk. The only skill required is to be prepared with enough ships to pull off the gank.
Bumping is a lame mechanic, most people agree with this, so by defending you are simply making you look silly. Particularly as you are trying to indicate that it is some sort of elite pvp skill. |
Bischopt
Arbitrary Repossession
123
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 00:15:00 -
[285] - Quote
I cannot believe the sound your mouse is making.
Is it a tap dancing shoe? |
Thugnificent Gangstalicio
Nigerian Drug Manufactory co. xXPlease Pandemic Citizens Reloaded Alliance.Xx
10
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 00:16:00 -
[286] - Quote
They're bumping him for a reason. It's no exploit, it's simply buying time to set up gank squad. I love your response in local "I'm frapsing this so you'll be banned". EVE players pride themselves as being above the WoW players where GMs hold your hand. This guy is obviously not EVE material. EDIT: Wow, you're trying to stop your login-warp. You're bad. |
Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
95
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 00:34:00 -
[287] - Quote
This thread has definitely saved me a freighter and cargo. I rarely used it before I left but the change in the scan thing made me wonder if it was better than my orca. I'm not sure why I used it the last week or two..... it seems to have a specialty roll for only shipping things like t1 ships and ore.
That is still a purpose.. I'll just never put modules or components in a freighter after I've learned all this.
I'll act according to the premises below ... mostly # 1 ... the others are all superficial explanations.
1) Capital Ships by definition require a support fleet . (true in many eras of naval warfare )
1a) The size of support needed has to do with the potential engagements that might be encountered... no exact size of support fleet will be optimum for all voyages (you donGÇÖt want to draw attention either) 1b) Hi -sec attacks will use different mechanics and require support trained in specific ways ... 1c) there is nothing inherently wrong with a game design that makes all areas of space dangerous due to potential criminal assaults . It makes it more costly to move trade items GǪ more trips in smaller ships or more lost cargo in unprotected giant ships
2) Knowing that your freighter will always be at risk, even with a support fleet GÇ£be an un-enticing target is your second Prime Factor in planning industrial logistics.
2a) Not all goods are supposed to be shipped by freighter and its use is primarily worth the risk reward for only cumbersome loads with any additional modules left behind. Transport ships should be used to ship modulesGǪ with faction stuff snuck away on unlikely and difficult targets and multiple trips.. Balance doesnGÇÖt mean that one ship can be used to ship all types of cargo. What alternatives a player have to move gear are part of the balance calculation.
2b) there should be no presumption that "balance" means 1 player is balanced vs 1 other player. This game is designed as a multiplayer experience and while there may be areas for solo play the use of capital ships does not need to be one of those solo areas. Even with the orca , not only should I have forward and in system scouts but I should have the in system scout on the ship to web after the gate jump
Except the facts on the ground - developers are aware and made the call. The situation leaves players alternatives.
Quit whining and understand that a freighter only has a situational roll and there is NO MIN/MAX correct decision in terms of which ship to transport which equipment and what risk reward factor for your time that you should bear.
No MIN/MAx... the importance of gageing the personalities and motivations of other peoples behavior or making social bonds to make you more safe. .. OCD and aspberger guys are doomed to mental anguish ! that anguish over a dilema with no one answer is probably the real story. |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1927
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 00:48:00 -
[288] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:What is it with you guys and "intent"? It's not relevant and it's not adequately defined so I guess if it's a requirement of your.... challenge?, I can just skip the rest The rules are, that it's against the rules when the intent is to greif - it's not against the rules when the intent isn't to grief. Since the actual rule we're talking about enforcing wavers on someone's interpretation of someone else's intent - it is more than central to the argument; it is the entire argument. Showing that the intent was to grief and not valid gameplay is what makes it against the rules. Maybe you will lightbulb here and go "oh ****, yeah, I was thinking of something else" but you will likely instead grit your teeth and continue to argue black is blue.
A computer algorithm cannot determine intent, ergo it cannot rule on a matter of intent. This was QED about 10 pages back but you're so wilfully belligerent that it's just not sinking in.
Quote:I never said I could "show journals". I mean, I could, but it's not worth digging for a reference you won't be able to understand anyway I've demonstrated an ability to grasp the subject at a level far exceeding yours. You'll get no-where trying the "I know so much I can't tell you!" line - try me. Link anything you want. Any source. Anything at all that shows that causation can be determined mathematically by correlation.
I mean, I have asked three times for a single tangible piece of evidence that computer models can accurately determine intent, and you've failed 4 times in coming up with anything.
Quote:Where exactly are you reading about "heuristic analysis" btw? I can't say I've ever heard anyone use that phrase; or are you just mashing buzz words together? Kind of - insofar as you simply **can't** do what you want with computer technology as it exists so you would need to construct some manner of pseudo-pattern recognition to get around your inability to measure the data you require. It should be noted this is merely my "best guess" at how one would try to achieve something which is essentially not possible. The current leading edge in this area is a kind-of multi-tiered pattern analysis, which is many steps below what you need to model the actual why of the origin of the data. Again, with your data-mining to measure causality approach, this is vis-a-vis to intent.
Quote:If you know what does and doesn't fall under the BQP complexity class, a lot of very smart people would like to talk to you I don't. No-one does. It's a potential application of a technology not yet invented. Which is why you're reaching so far it's laughable.
Quote:Second, orders of magnitude are easy Orders of magnitude past a task we can't perform with current technology is not "easy" - what are you smoking?
The rest of your post just goes on to miss the basic fact that, I think we both know, is staring you in the face as much as it is me: you're still suggesting that a correlational analysis of server data can determine the causation.
If you can show a working model of this, there is literally a nobel prize in it for you.
I'll keep on asking for you to show a single citation that shows that any of this ~~amazing computer analysis~~ is possible. I have no idea why people like you insist on dragging a discussion way past the point that everyone knows you're wrong. I guess it's just the problem of internet posting (that a literal sequence amplifies the "who posted on the subject last" problem) but GODDAMN man, there's only so many ways you can say nothing of any citable value and not look like a complete fool.
That was pages ago, you do look like a complete fool. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
Jonah Gravenstein
Balius and Xanthus Traditional Gunsmiths
9459
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 01:11:00 -
[289] - Quote
Tinfoil : Red Frog Freight, its subsidiaries and rival Push Industries have pooled resources to mount an aggressive marketing campaign, in association with MiniLuv and other freighter inspectors, to drum up some more business
OP, htfu, freighters are for low value high volume goods, you have plenty of other ways to move your valuables, including using other people to do it for you, collateral is your friend.
This paid advertisment was brought to you by Red Frog, PushX and MiniLuv.
In Eve you're a god, why have morals? |
klikit
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 01:13:00 -
[290] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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. 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. I am not sure of what CCPs intent regarding the aggression timer is but I don't think it was meant to keep freighters from logging off in hi sec.
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. I have played a lot of other games and circumstances like this would get your arse banned quicker then you could blink. Alas though, this is EVE were scamming and exploiting are not only allowed but encouraged. |
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
2963
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 01:31:00 -
[291] - Quote
Interesting.
Now let's see, if the intent is a tactical one, then it's not an 'offense'.
But who is to say that it's not greifing made to look like it had a reason. Kind of like a cat playing with a bird for a while, pulling it's feet off, before killing it?
Whatever the case, people are going to lie. This is why I always liked Herr Wilkus and his ganking work. He was never afraid to come out and say he was there to pop your ship and was very good at it.
But really, if people are going to use this "non aggressing warp scrambling" method in such a manner they are basically taking the pale and shovel in the sandbox, hitting the other "kids" over the head with them, and then pointing and laughing, you know that "mommy" (CCP) is going to have to take away the pale and shovel. It'll happen when there are no sandcastles, just a lot of pointing and laughing, and that threatens the sandbox itself.
And then the same people abusing the tactic will be in these forums, acting like victims. They'll troll with a smirk, knowing full well what the entire circumstance was.
And those who use it as a stalling tactic when the gank squad is a few minutes late will lose out, all because of those others who take an hour to get the crew in (really I thought goons would be more efficient than that but maybe they are busy in VFK or something). |
Maxpie
MUSE Buy-n-Large Metaphysical Utopian Society Enterprises
304
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 01:44:00 -
[292] - Quote
I'd say an hour is getting into griefing territory. But this is Eve, so it would probably take about 10 hours before CCP consider it griefing.
No good deed goes unpunished |
Kewso
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 02:19:00 -
[293] - Quote
You should have petitioned this in game as it was happening
I've had devs boot people for constant bumping for harassment.
they'll watch and judge if it's harassment they'll boot them.
had 2 guys bumping me for 15 mins one day and they insta disappeared, dev took care of issue, they were butthurt at 24 hour suspension but it was lulzy |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
156
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 03:18:00 -
[294] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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. 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 yo haul the crap he was hauling. It was crap not uber faction gear or a stack of plex.
|
Callyuk
Thundercats The Initiative.
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 03:54:00 -
[295] - Quote
Yea he wasnt hauling any uber faction/dead/officer stuff just a lot of junk loot mainly. hes petitioned it and would be glad to accept a 2 bil loss and a hard lesson learned (that lesson being freightors are null and void) rather than the full 5 bil loss . I think if he had it to do again hed definitely buy a jf and have 2 cynos ready to undock and pop since bumping wouldnt affect a jf that will be his method of moving stuff in the future. BTW he was banned for 14 days on the forums :) |
Callyuk
Thundercats The Initiative.
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 04:08:00 -
[296] - Quote
jedijed wrote:http://youtu.be/0MmIsrAQPM4 Being Bumped for an hour kinda kills a little bit of the like and excitement i have for this game,,, Fisrt the 2 machariels bumped me for 10 minutes or so before goons ever showed up. Second i never fly freightors i knew they get ganked but i thought it was only in .5 .6 systems Did he mention Third Goons failed on the first gank attempt and had to wait out global criminal then reship then bump him 250km off concord again before (finishing him) ganking him again ? Fourth i didnt know it could be done in 30 fuc***** destroyers :( http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18472599http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&view=kills&plt_id=341330&m=6&y=2013
|
Andrea Griffin
494
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 04:13:00 -
[297] - Quote
jedijed wrote:http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18472599 Flying around with nearly 5 billion isk in stuff is begging to be ganked. These guys blew up the freighter because it was profitable. CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer. |
Callyuk
Thundercats The Initiative.
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 04:15:00 -
[298] - Quote
This is true no doubt about that but the way they did it and the amount of time they greifed him its far extreme |
Joan Greywind
Temnava Legion No Holes Barred
32
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 04:25:00 -
[299] - Quote
It was probably said before, but I seriously couldn't go through 15 pages (I saw some posts about quantum computing?!?!?), so here goes:
In EVE as long as you are not hacking or intentionally breaking the game, and your intent is getting some kind of "profit", you can use whatever in game mechanics that are implemented to achieve that goal. That is the way EVE and that is the way it is going to hopefully stay. Bumping as have been said a million times before is a legitimate game mechanic. The fact that they actually killed you makes it all that more legitimate according to CCP's rule. Let me give you an example. If I found a freighter and bumped him off the gate for 2 hours, that would be griefing and could be punishable by CCP. If i bumped the same player for 2 hours and asked for a ransom payment to let him go, that is completely legitimate. That is the reason behind the statment "Case by Case basis". Argument should be closed at this point. (I am sure this explanation has been mentioned in the post before, but as usual the OP for these kinds of threads are usually thick headed and have a wrong sense of entitlement), so maybe it needs to be hammered in.
Added wisdom: The real "profits" of any kind of ganker, is usually the tears and moans of the person that got ganked (there are a lot more profitable professions in EVE than ganking). So kudos in giving them that, and these posts only hurt you more and gratifies the gankers.
These things being possible in the game, is why I love EVE. So at the end OP a mandatory, thank you for the tears, they are delicious. |
Callyuk
Thundercats The Initiative.
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 04:36:00 -
[300] - Quote
I agree with some of the stuff you said . I personally love tears but the way i (like 97% of eve players that love tears) extract them and the way these cowards extract them is far different. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |