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) |
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
40
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 02:38:00 -
[481] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Its working exactly as intended and ganking is at a near record low.
citation needed.
Keep seeing this mantra and yet to see any evidence for it. Maybe keep posting it, and it can be made into fact?
Or maybe just like fotm ship fits, market value of specific items or anything else in a player driven content game - its a cyclic. Previous too high and now balanced back into levels desired by CCP. Or perhaps players moved onto other game content. The new "interaction / story telling" of bumping now happening instead of ganking isn't a recorded statistic. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy The ROC
364
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 02:43:00 -
[482] - Quote
Quote:If the gank fleet can't get their acts together in fifteen minutes, they really didn't deserve that gank.
Oh, I agree. But in the OP itself, he mentioned that only the Machariels were bumping him for so long (which, btw, we only have his word on, since his video only shows the last 15 min worth of it).
He didn't mention that they were keeping him aggressed. Because it didn't happen.
Yeah, for taking as long as they did to get there, they didn't deserve the gank. But the freighter pilot pretty much made that happen regardless. I mean, when you have 45 minutes to summon help, and you don't, then you deserve to die. And he did. No problems there.
Quote:But please do keep pushing the limits of credulity until CCP is forced to take action simply to reduce the petition load
Yeah, like making an attempt to petition bumping actionable, since their policy on it being acceptable gameplay is publicly stated. I'd say a warning for the first offense, then a 3 day login ban for any repeated offenses. Sound good? Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
74
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 02:54:00 -
[483] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:He didn't mention that they were keeping him aggressed. Because it didn't happen.
Yeah, the noob ship in a starter corp on the killmail was obviously just playing kiss ass.
Oh my, looks like they're recycling too; isn't that **** ban-able? |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy The ROC
364
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 03:03:00 -
[484] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:He didn't mention that they were keeping him aggressed. Because it didn't happen. Yeah, the noob ship in a starter corp on the killmail was obviously just playing kiss ass. Oh my, looks like they're recycling too; isn't that **** ban-able?
Funny, it looks like no damage was done by that ship. Guessing they scrammed him, which, once again, is legitimate gameplay(and would have required them to refit). Looks like simple killmail whoring to me. How do you even draw the conclusion that they were recycling?
Oh, and I notice, with some degree of amusement, that his video was removed. No doubt because it contained information that did not support the "facts" of the case.
Again, I call into question whether he was held for 45 minutes before the video started. Seeing as he's done his best to remove any evidence of this, the claim of suspicion is a fair one. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |
Callyuk
Thundercats The Initiative.
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 03:10:00 -
[485] - Quote
Calling for help like some drunk bi**h who lost her keys wouldnt have made anything different happen . I belong to nullsec alliance that is actively fighting a russian war. it would take them more than an hr to fly to wherever the f**k i was ganked at . The onlything that will change anything is CCP and its in there hands to evaluate the video and the logs and make the decision. This incident is probably the most extreme gank failure in eve history TBH since it took an hour and some of it was recorded How Freighters are ganked with new flagging system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdq5in9fR-Y |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
3840
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 03:10:00 -
[486] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:He didn't mention that they were keeping him aggressed. Because it didn't happen.
You are correct, the Machariels were not keeping the freighter aggressed. Was someone claiming that the Machariels were keeping the freighter aggressed?
Kaarous Aldurad wrote:Yeah, like making an attempt to petition bumping actionable, since their policy on it being acceptable gameplay is publicly stated. I'd say a warning for the first offense, then a 3 day login ban for any repeated offenses. Sound good?
Because punishing the victim is all the rage these days.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy The ROC
364
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 03:12:00 -
[487] - Quote
Callyuk wrote:Calling for help like some drunk bi**h in a bar bathroom wouldnt have made anything different happen . I belong to nullsec alliance that is actively fighting a russian war. it would take them more than an hr to fly to wherever the f**k i was ganked at .
First of all, I highly suggest you remove that metaphor. It's easily within reportable standards, and it does nothing to improve the level of discourse in this sinkhole of a thread.
Secondly, that's your fault for being so far away from support. Why should the ganker be penalized because you choose to behave in a more risky manner? Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy The ROC
364
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 03:16:00 -
[488] - Quote
Quote:You are correct, the Machariels were not keeping the freighter aggressed. Was someone claiming that the Machariels were keeping the freighter aggressed?
Callyuk was, he's said it several times already, yeah.
Quote:Because punishing the victim is all the rage these days.
Victim of what? His own foolishness? I made the analogy a while ago of wearing a suit made of meat in a tiger cage. Do you blame the tiger for taking a bite? Or do you blame the fool who made himself such a attractive target?
At some point, the actions of the "victim" have to come into play. Especially if those actions were the direct cause. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |
Callyuk
Thundercats The Initiative.
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 03:20:00 -
[489] - Quote
A gank squad that fails on first attempt and takes an hr to complete the gank should be penalized How Freighters are ganked with new flagging system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdq5in9fR-Y
Theres a gear at the bottom right in every YOUTUBE video use it |
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
74
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 03:20:00 -
[490] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Funny, it looks like no damage was done by that ship. Guessing they scrammed him, which, once again, is legitimate gameplay(and would have required them to refit).
http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=1608182 http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=1682724 ect.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Oh, and I notice, with some degree of amusement, that his video was removed. No doubt because it contained information that did not support the "facts" of the case.
Is your memory so bad that you don't remember the icon, or did you not bother to look the first time? |
|
Callyuk
Thundercats The Initiative.
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 03:22:00 -
[491] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Quote:You are correct, the Machariels were not keeping the freighter aggressed. Was someone claiming that the Machariels were keeping the freighter aggressed?
Callyuk was, he's said it several times already, yeah. Quote:Because punishing the victim is all the rage these days.
Victim of what? His own foolishness? I made the analogy a while ago of wearing a suit made of meat in a tiger cage. Do you blame the tiger for taking a bite? Or do you blame the fool who made himself such a attractive target? At some point, the actions of the "victim" have to come into play. Especially if those actions were the direct cause.
what i said is an aggressed bumped frieghtor i didnt say the bumping was causing the aggression i have a vidoe in my signature of this event if you care to see for yourself what happened . FYI watch it in HD How Freighters are ganked with new flagging system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdq5in9fR-Y
Theres a gear at the bottom right in every YOUTUBE video use it |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1938
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 10:56:00 -
[492] - Quote
Istyn wrote:I can only presume Khanh'rhh and Baltec both have the patience of a saint or masochistically enjoy the debating equivalent of banging your head against a wall frequently described by its peers as 'slow', because, holy crap this thread is just getting worse as time goes by. If he thinks someone from a forum posting community will tire of forum posting he's got a lot to learn. I mean, he has a lot to learn but I don't think he realizes he's locked himself into everyone calling him dumb over and over. It's fun because every post he makes takes another step along the adolescent arguing path -- at some point we will be hearing about his father's ability to fight mine, I am sure.
S Byerley wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote:Again friend, I'm not sure you realise how juvenile "I know the answer but can't tell you" appears to be. But I did tell you the answer; you wouldn't take my word for it. While that would ordinarily be admirable, combined with your lack of basic knowledge and insistence on trying to sound smart at the expense of learning, it becomes the worst kind of ignorance Yeah, but I torpedoed this mate. You linked a couple of things which were about algorithms classifying data, something I am fully aware of the ability to do. What you failed to do was show a computer model which could spit out why the data was in which category - i.e. show causation. Bumping isn't against the rules, so having a computer model which shows someone was definitely bumping is just step 1 - you then need it to tell you why. To show intent. I know, you don't like me mentioning that because it sinks your argument. Tough luck, really. Stamping your feet, wailing and telling everyone you don't need to prove someone wrong is just frankly bizarre, to say nothing of the logical fallacy of claiming I can't be right unless I prove a negative. Your grade-school debate ability, littered with such things, as well as ad-hominem attacks and poor appeals to (your own) authority are demonstrably meaningless. I think you even know this, which makes me wonder why you continue.
Mara Rinn wrote:Lack of control does not infer inability to access the controls. Sure - this was my point. There was nothing stopping him from pressing align or warp, and nothing stopping those commands being accepted. His ship couldn't achieve either state because he was being bumped. He can, however, take any number of hundreds of possible actions which prevent him from being bumped, at which point he will notice his ship warps. It's really not our fault he sat there for an hour trying to exploit logoff mechanics and mashing a button instead of thinking his way out of it.
Callyuk wrote:Calling for help like some drunk bi**h who lost her keys wouldnt have made anything different happen . I belong to nullsec alliance that is actively fighting a russian war. it would take them more than an hr to fly to wherever the f**k i was ganked at . And it's really not our fault your alliance is useless, really. If CCP balanced the game by finding the most inept people and helping them, I'm pretty sure they would just give all of 0.0 to goonswarm. I mean, look at us taking an hour to kill you. You died to a complete fuckup. Man, embarrassing, right?
"A gank squad that fails on first attempt and takes an hr to complete the gank should be penalized"
And we/they often are, by the potential victim having more than enough time to rally a support crew. You'd be surprised what logi, ECM or counter bumping a webbed ship will do. You can get a freighter align time down to be similar to a cruiser, and it's inordinately hard to keep it persistently bumped in that condition. Many escape when the attacked party is competent. "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 |
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
75
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 11:42:00 -
[493] - Quote
Intent is a philosophical concept mate; as a cold unfeeling scientist you'll have to forgive me for not getting it. Fortunately, it's unnecessary; I'm not sure how to make that any clearer.
|
Typherian
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
42
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 12:54:00 -
[494] - Quote
Callyuk wrote:A gank squad that fails on first attempt and takes an hr to complete the gank should be penalized
Waaah waaah ccp I'm incompetent and want to solo an mmo save me from a coordinated group of players so I don't have to get help waaaah waaah
That's all I got from that. Relying on ccp to save you is the pinnacle of carebeary bs. If a freighter pilot can't get help in an hour but instead goes to the forums to cry about it should be penalized harshly. |
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
75
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 13:11:00 -
[495] - Quote
Typherian wrote:Waaah waaah ccp I'm incompetent and want to solo an mmo save me from a coordinated group of players so I don't have to get help waaaah waaah.
Confirming sandbox should mean having to suck the **** of your chosen corporate overload even in careers designed for solo play. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
15078
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 13:30:00 -
[496] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:But it shouldn't, since it can't. Choosing to engage and aggress should incur a timer. Being a victim should not. It's up to the attacker to execute, not just simply engage a mechanic to pin a victim. Take a cap pilot, like in say... null sec (I know we are talking about nonspecialcapitalshipthatcanenterhighsec) where it agresses a target, but then tries to deagress, but cannot because of that timer. Makes perfect sense. Now take a freighter, who CANNOT agress anything, just flyin by minding it's own business, and now is penalized because of someone else's choices. Terrible mechanic. You should be taxed because I decided to mine an asteroid in the same system you are in. Almost as ludicrous. Almost. Of course they should be affected by the aggression mechanic. The whole reason for it's inception, was due in part to these things logging off to save their skin. So to close that loophole/exploit, CCP introduced the timer. Freighters are not and should not be due special treatment in this regard, because they cannot aggress. If they wish to avoid aggression, they have options. Use corp mates to scout/web and utilize other routes.
Murk Paradox wrote:It means the timer should be removed from freighters. Or give them something that justifies being able to agress something. (IE- drone bay?) Nothing is stopping the freighter from being bumped, or scrammed, or notkilled. So please don't exercise an asinine opinion about me wanting special treatment to freighter pilots (not saying you would or are, just being pre emptive). The justification remains the same for all ships in space. They can all be shot to hell and back and not avoid such things with a log off. Freighters are no different.
Murk Paradox wrote:Agreed. Tippia said days were required to meet the burden of proving "excessiveness". Not me. Mag's wrote:He said the harassment could only sometimes be concluded after days of bumping the same person. There has to be intent shown over a long period, to be sure you have the right conclusion. This is where the GM's have the final say. The bumping of this freighter for an hour however, was not harassment. I also agree with this. I think it's a strong case for a petition and to have the DEVs get involved to oversee how this mechanic can be used, and if it meets that goal. But becareful of "long period" since nothing determines that. And like you said... it is up to the GM to decide on the harassment call. "I" think it is though, and have proven my point as to why I think so, so that's all I got I guess. Bumping someone for an hour isn't excessive and therefore doesn't require GM/Dev intervention. Especially when they can simply stay logged off, wait for an hour or so and avoid it completely. You need to read their ruling and understand what they have said. They have already gotten involved in this mechanic and ruled.
But you just agreed with me and obviously Tippia, then disagreed. Which is kind of odd tbh. You really should follow what you and others post.
Murk Paradox wrote:Depends on the results from the GM/DEVs I suppose. No I meant he shouldn't have died because he didn't need to die in that situation. He could have avoided getting his ship blown up simply by doing the none stupid thing first. The GMs and Devs wouldn't even get involved, as no exploit took place and no rules were broken.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Typherian
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
44
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 13:45:00 -
[497] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Typherian wrote:Waaah waaah ccp I'm incompetent and want to solo an mmo save me from a coordinated group of players so I don't have to get help waaaah waaah. Confirming sandbox should mean having to suck the **** of your chosen corporate overload even in careers designed for solo play.
Moving **** is solo play defending yourself from people that want to blow your stuff up isn't. Two separate "careers" if you want to call it that. Also you can argue that while you CAN move stuff solo it is smarter to do it in a group with scouts and whatnot to avoid getting blown up. Just because the op wanted to solo doesn't make him immune to group play. If he wants to be immune to group play he should biomass and play X3
PS. Saying hey I'm moving stuff in my freighter can any of you bros scout me with a highsec alt isn't sucking anything it's being smart. If you have to suck something to get help you are in the wrong corp and that's your own damned fault. |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1938
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 14:01:00 -
[498] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Intent is a philosophical concept mate; as a cold unfeeling scientist you'll have to forgive me for not getting it. Fortunately, it's unnecessary; I'm not sure how to make that any clearer. Well, no it isn't. For as much as you have ignored the point - bumping is not against the rules.
Bumping for 2 minutes is not against the rules. Bumping for 15 minutes is not against the rules. Bumping for 30 minutes is not against the rules. Bumping for 60 minutes is not against the rules. Bumping for 90 minutes is not against the rules. Bumping with the intent to harass is against the rules.
You are therefore looking at causation (in the legal sense, law here being CCP's statute), to which there are two established parts, actus reus and mens rea -- you're able to show actus reus (a fact I have not disputed at any point) but to date, no computer analysis has been able to form a judgement on issues of mens rea. If you're able to show I am wrong on this .. then great! Do so and I will look like a complete idiot for saying it's impossible over and over.
However, if you're saying you can't understand why you're wrong here because you lack the ability to think outside of black and white classifications, then I will accept that. I will even explain why you're wrong (again) if you like. The answer is in all my previous posts but I don't think you're reading them, or are reading them and willfully ignoring their content. "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 |
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
76
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 14:05:00 -
[499] - Quote
Typherian wrote:Moving **** is solo play defending yourself from people that want to blow your stuff up isn't.
Sure, but when one requires the other because the mechanics are too one-sided, it becomes a problem. I think most people advocating mechanic adjustment are trying to point out imbalance rather than outright brokenness; better to fix it now than after someone gets kicked out of nullsec and decides to take advantage of the risk-free, stupid easy, tear-filled income potential.
Quote:hey I'm moving stuff in my freighter can any of you bros scout me with a highsec alt.
People keep saying this like it would have made a difference. Are freighters supposed to route around every high sec gate with a neutral battleship on it?
|
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
77
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 14:20:00 -
[500] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Bumping with the intent to harass is against the rules.
Harassment is against the rules; again, nothing to do with intent. The bumper who follows a miner halfway across highsec isn't immune because he thought he could get a ransom out of the guy and was only in it for the ISK.
CCP has no obligation to show mens rea. Further, even in court, mens rea doesn't play out the way you seem to think; primarily because people lie.
Khanh'rhh wrote:no computer analysis has been able to form a judgement on issues of mens rea.
Oh, allow me to write you an AI that does:
printf("Guilty.\n"); // Or, if you prefer: printf("Innocent.\n");
The task of making a judgement is trivial; the task of imitating a human decision is notably harder, but you can typically achieve a decent amount of accuracy with naive data set analysis and a training set (which, if you'll recall, is all I claimed). |
|
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
363
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 14:26:00 -
[501] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Typherian wrote:Moving **** is solo play defending yourself from people that want to blow your stuff up isn't. Sure, but when one requires the other because the mechanics are too one-sided, it becomes a problem. I think most people advocating mechanic adjustment are trying to point out imbalance rather than outright brokenness; better to fix it now than after someone gets kicked out of nullsec and decides to take advantage of the risk-free, stupid easy, tear-filled income potential. Quote:hey I'm moving stuff in my freighter can any of you bros scout me with a highsec alt. People keep saying this like it would have made a difference. Are freighters supposed to route around every 0.8 high sec gate with a neutral battleship on it?
You make good points.
But the solution to the mechanic won't come easy, as that's to fix the physics first.
After the other day getting trapped -- literally -- on a top of a structure, then IN a structure due to the bouncing physics in the game, more so.
Things like that in other games is totally unacceptable. The bumping mechanic is accepted as an interesting feature, but the cause of it is the physics. The same physics you see when NPC ships are bumping and bouncing all over the same gates (unacceptable)...and players get stuck on in missions. "In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell
|
Aura of Ice
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 16:17:00 -
[502] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:S Byerley wrote:Intent is a philosophical concept mate; as a cold unfeeling scientist you'll have to forgive me for not getting it. Fortunately, it's unnecessary; I'm not sure how to make that any clearer. Well, no it isn't. For as much as you have ignored the point - bumping is not against the rules. Bumping for 2 minutes is not against the rules. Bumping for 15 minutes is not against the rules. Bumping for 30 minutes is not against the rules. Bumping for 60 minutes is not against the rules. Bumping for 90 minutes is not against the rules. Bumping with the intent to harass is against the rules. You are therefore looking at causation (in the legal sense, law here being CCP's statute), to which there are two established parts, actus reus and mens rea -- you're able to show actus reus (a fact I have not disputed at any point) but to date, no computer analysis has been able to form a judgement on issues of mens rea. If you're able to show I am wrong on this .. then great! Do so and I will look like a complete idiot for saying it's impossible over and over. However, if you're saying you can't understand why you're wrong here because you lack the ability to think outside of black and white classifications, then I will accept that. I will even explain why you're wrong (again) if you like. The answer is in all my previous posts but I don't think you're reading them, or are reading them and willfully ignoring their content.
Do you people live in some sort of bubble on mars?
Being locked out of ANY game for 90 minutes would be considered BAD GAMEPLAY by any sane person.
I also recall reading another comment saying DAYS would constitute harassment, not hours. Are you people serious? I just won't even say anything more about that one. Speaks for itself.
|
Elizabeth Aideron
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
54
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 16:23:00 -
[503] - Quote
Aura of Ice wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote:S Byerley wrote:Intent is a philosophical concept mate; as a cold unfeeling scientist you'll have to forgive me for not getting it. Fortunately, it's unnecessary; I'm not sure how to make that any clearer. Well, no it isn't. For as much as you have ignored the point - bumping is not against the rules. Bumping for 2 minutes is not against the rules. Bumping for 15 minutes is not against the rules. Bumping for 30 minutes is not against the rules. Bumping for 60 minutes is not against the rules. Bumping for 90 minutes is not against the rules. Bumping with the intent to harass is against the rules. You are therefore looking at causation (in the legal sense, law here being CCP's statute), to which there are two established parts, actus reus and mens rea -- you're able to show actus reus (a fact I have not disputed at any point) but to date, no computer analysis has been able to form a judgement on issues of mens rea. If you're able to show I am wrong on this .. then great! Do so and I will look like a complete idiot for saying it's impossible over and over. However, if you're saying you can't understand why you're wrong here because you lack the ability to think outside of black and white classifications, then I will accept that. I will even explain why you're wrong (again) if you like. The answer is in all my previous posts but I don't think you're reading them, or are reading them and willfully ignoring their content. Do you people live in some sort of bubble on mars? Being locked out of ANY game for 90 minutes would be considered BAD GAMEPLAY by any sane person. I also recall reading another comment saying DAYS would constitute harassment, not hours. Are you people serious? I just won't even say anything more about that one. Speaks for itself.
he wasnt "locked out" of anything, he spent an hour trying to save his freighter and failed. ive spent longer than that trying to evade enemies |
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
683
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 16:26:00 -
[504] - Quote
Elizabeth Aideron wrote:Aura of Ice wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote:S Byerley wrote:Intent is a philosophical concept mate; as a cold unfeeling scientist you'll have to forgive me for not getting it. Fortunately, it's unnecessary; I'm not sure how to make that any clearer. Well, no it isn't. For as much as you have ignored the point - bumping is not against the rules. Bumping for 2 minutes is not against the rules. Bumping for 15 minutes is not against the rules. Bumping for 30 minutes is not against the rules. Bumping for 60 minutes is not against the rules. Bumping for 90 minutes is not against the rules. Bumping with the intent to harass is against the rules. You are therefore looking at causation (in the legal sense, law here being CCP's statute), to which there are two established parts, actus reus and mens rea -- you're able to show actus reus (a fact I have not disputed at any point) but to date, no computer analysis has been able to form a judgement on issues of mens rea. If you're able to show I am wrong on this .. then great! Do so and I will look like a complete idiot for saying it's impossible over and over. However, if you're saying you can't understand why you're wrong here because you lack the ability to think outside of black and white classifications, then I will accept that. I will even explain why you're wrong (again) if you like. The answer is in all my previous posts but I don't think you're reading them, or are reading them and willfully ignoring their content. Do you people live in some sort of bubble on mars? Being locked out of ANY game for 90 minutes would be considered BAD GAMEPLAY by any sane person. I also recall reading another comment saying DAYS would constitute harassment, not hours. Are you people serious? I just won't even say anything more about that one. Speaks for itself. he wasnt "locked out" of anything, he spent an hour trying to save his freighter and failed. ive spent longer than that trying to evade enemies
I think the difference being, he has no hope of escape.....
I too am excited about trading playability for more lag and shiny pictures.....:( Petition for a Minimum bounty of 10 mil. Prevent useless bounties!
|
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1939
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 17:05:00 -
[505] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Harassment is against the rules; again, nothing to do with intent. The bumper who follows a miner halfway across highsec isn't immune because he thought he could get a ransom out of the guy and was only in it for the ISK. That's intent to bump (do the action) - whereas I'm referring to the intent to cause harassment through the actions. It can be commonly used as a noun or adjective, or in other forms in context. Your semantic dodging is rather silly. Or perhaps English isn't your first language?
An example ruling "Player A bumped Player B with the sole intent to cause harassment"
Quote:The task of making a judgement is trivial; the task of imitating a human decision is notably harder, but you can typically achieve a decent amount of accuracy with naive analysis and a training set (which, if you'll recall, is all I claimed). Yes, this would be your original claim. However, like the first time you raised it, it is flawed in that any analysis of the data can't show why it arose.
If two players are identically bumping for an hour each, it is fully possible for one player to be breaking the rules, and the other not to be. This is the very basic flaw in your thinking that you refuse to accept some 300 posts later.
Computer analysis cannot show causality, and CCP punish based on the cause of the bumping, not the actual act.
You can however prove me wrong by demonstrating a computer analysis technique that is able to show causality. I've repeatedly asked in a polite manner. "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 |
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
78
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 17:28:00 -
[506] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:That's intent to bump (do the action) - whereas I'm referring to the intent to cause harassment through the actions. It can be commonly used as a noun or adjective, or in other forms in context. Your semantic dodging is rather silly.
What semantics? It doesn't matter if he was trying to make ISK or to actually harass the guy because the only person who can make that distinction is him (and even then it's subjective and largely philosophical).
Quote:An example ruling "Player A harassed Player B"
FTFY
Quote:If two players are identically bumping for an hour each, it is fully possible for one player to be breaking the rules, and the other not to be.
In which case,
A. The GM can't tell the difference
or
B. The GM uses contextual information to distinguish between them
In the case of B, the algorithm will have the same contextual information and it's reasonable to assume that some trend/relation (no, I can't tell you which without the data because finding them is the whole point of data mining) can be used to predict the GM's ruling.
You seem to be running out of steam mate. |
Callyuk
Thundercats The Initiative.
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 17:49:00 -
[507] - Quote
Logs being the keyword How Goons Gank Freighters with the new flagging system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdq5in9fR-Y https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=254193&p=25 Theres a gear at the bottom right in every YOUTUBE video use it |
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
78
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 17:52:00 -
[508] - Quote
Elizabeth Aideron wrote:contextual information in this case is generally going to be chatlogs. feel free to show how you can datamine harassment from those
Appropriately enough, that field is called text mining. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
5644
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 17:54:00 -
[509] - Quote
S Byerley wrote: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. The brain is not a digital computer. At least, not in the traditional sense. There's quite a bit of evidence that suggests that the human brain (and indeed that of many or even most animals that have a central nervous system) is more analogous to a quantum computer. -áMy (mostly boring) Youtube channel. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3583
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 18:14:00 -
[510] - Quote
Callyuk wrote:A gank squad that fails on first attempt and takes an hr to complete the gank should be penalized
They are. They lose the ships they used on the first attempt and have to try again.
Aura of Ice wrote:Do you people live in some sort of bubble on mars?
Being locked out of ANY game for 90 minutes would be considered BAD GAMEPLAY by any sane person.
I also recall reading another comment saying DAYS would constitute harassment, not hours. Are you people serious? I just won't even say anything more about that one. Speaks for itself.
He's not locked out of anything. In fact, escape is trivial. Right Click > Eject.
He chose to spend that hour in the hopes that he could rescue his cargo.
Beekeeper Bob wrote:I think the difference being, he has no hope of escape.....
He had no hope of escape solo. But then, a suicide ganker has no hope of killing him solo either, so there's a sort of symmetry there.
With far fewer people helping than it took to gank that freighter, escape for the freighter becomes trivial. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
|
|
|
|
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 |