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
424
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:25:00 -
[691] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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.
The situation was in highsec, I think it's very relevant. It was using highsec mechanics. "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
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15386
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:25:00 -
[692] - 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. |
baltec1
Bat Country
7214
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:25:00 -
[693] - Quote
Schalac wrote: If bumping is combat then make it an aggressive act and flag them for retaliation.
Jita just got very interesting. |
Callyuk
Thundercats The Initiative.
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:25:00 -
[694] - Quote
when i post on an obvious border line exploit im a whiner but when goons get screwed by a node crash its legit LAWL 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 |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
426
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:26:00 -
[695] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
The majority of L4 missions are completed in under an hour, should we therefore make it impossible to complete a L4 mission if you dilly dally and take longer than an hour?
What if we said you weren't allowed finish hauling stupidly expensive cargo in a freighter to your desired destination purely because the trip would take longer than the average freighter trip?
Or anything else equally as stupid
Well, at the point of ignoring the "bonus" part of a mission as well, a bonus, it's hard to correlate a comparison truth be told. "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
426
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:27:00 -
[696] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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. 15 minutes is enough to ensure that you can kill a target that tries to log off to save itself; 10 minutes is often not, or cuts it too close. I'd say that the only reason it's not 30 minutes is because it is to ask a bit too much of people's patience to wait that long before logging off.
Where is Concord in all your examples then? "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
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15386
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:28:00 -
[697] - 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. |
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
78
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:29:00 -
[698] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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?
Quote:there were things he did
You might be doing something wrong when I can answer your questions with your own argument from the same post.
No thanks. |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
426
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:29:00 -
[699] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:S Byerley wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:The majority of L4 missions are completed in under an hour, should we therefore make it impossible to complete a L4 mission if you dilly dally and take longer than an hour? Nah, we might consider reducing the reward though.... oh wait. Tippia wrote: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. I wasn't aware that high sec had no unique rules Reducing the reward is not the same as making it mechanically impossible to complete. You also ignored the other example I provided. Should you not be able to reach your destination if your trip takes longer than the majority of freighter trips do? What about those two situations I posed to you? You still kind of havent addressed them....
Good point, and leads to my "diminishing returns" theory.
Take that L4 and it's bonus reward for completing it within a specific amount of time.
Imagine a hardcode for the loot fairy if you do not execute a gank in X amount of minutes.
Now again, keep in mind ganking freighters is for profit and compute the need for expediting that amount of time needed. "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
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3585
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:29:00 -
[700] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:RubyPorto wrote:You said High Sec. The Wartarget status of a ship generally only matters in.... [drumroll] Highsec.
Why do you feel that a frigate who catches a WT freighter in HS shouldn't be able to kill it? Sorry, I assumed an exception for war targets fell under "obvious constraints".
So now you're proposing two separate Aggression logoff timers depending on WT status? Can a WT Aggro timer extend a non-WT timer? Can a non-WT aggro timer extend a WT timer? Why should the WT status of the person shooting at you affect the type of timer you get?
So now we have 3 rules regarding when your ship disappears from space. One for HS between WTs, One for HS without WTs, and One for everywhere else. Why should HS have not one, but two sets of special snowflake logoff mechanics?
Keep in mind that the explicit intent of the Aggression logoff timer is to keep your ship in space until people who are actively shooting at you are done doing so. That's why it's extended by 15 minutes every time anyone shoots your ship, even after you disconnect. 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 |
|
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
78
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:30:00 -
[701] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:Also, have you not seen that big thread about bumping? I'm sure it's been linked numerous times. The gist of that thread pretty much does indicate that bumping, if it's for some legitimate purpose, is valid.
You can make the font bigger if you have a hard time reading the screen Here's the problem with that. Miner bumping is not used ion the same way. Miner bumping is to encourage the miner to leave. Freighter bumping is to keep the ship from leaving. Intent CAN be proven, simply by the actions of the target (log of warp being clicked for instance). Now, since you CAN data mine that freighter spamming warp, you can infer intent. "Yes, as you can see by the number of times I was spamming my warp shortcut and right clicking with my mouse, I was trying to get away". But you cannot prove intent by the bumper except for hitting the approach key. You know he wanted to bump, but that's all. (By the way, this is why I first replied that miner bumping was a terrible example when it first came up). Now, since we know the differences of intent, we can then look to the differences of intent, in regards, to harassment. For instance, we do know, by GM declaration, that harassment was decided by following the miner, from system to system while continuing to bump. This is in regards to knowing you are bumping a miner from a rock so he cannot mine it, to which a simple recourse is to leave the system and find somewhere else. Using that same model (but in reverse since freighter bumping is meant to KEEP the ship in system, not force it out), continually NOT letting that freighter to leave would be deemed harassment since that freighter was then pushed around multiple grids in system (proven by Concord placement and vectors of such) as well as kept from the gate and gate guns and not able to leave. Approach versus Warp/jump, as the command given to facilitate the harassment. Before this gets argued, we already know bumping is not illegal. Yes yes we know this. The act by itself did not get the freighter killed. It was a combination of mechanics that led to what looks like 1 specific instance of how those mechanics, when used in combination, by manipulating current mechanics to reduce risk of the ganker and increase risk of the freighter that relies specifically to highsec's mechanics. Of which was used to what looks like a matter of excess to the point of harassment.
This is very well put.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Balius and Xanthus Traditional Gunsmiths
9630
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:31:00 -
[702] - Quote
Schalac wrote: 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. This is only partly about escape. It is more about having a viable counter to a broken game mechanic and if CCP can't add one in then they should outlaw it and people that use this tactic in the future will have actions taken against their account.
Multiple posters have posted multiple counters multiple times, but you're so set on your train of thought being the correct one that you've dismissed them as irrelevant.
It's not up to you to decide what is and what is not an abuse of game mechanics, when you can prefix your character name with CCP then you can make that decision.
This post was brought to you by the letters I,D,O and T.
In Eve you're a god, why have morals? |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
426
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:31:00 -
[703] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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.
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? "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
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15386
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:33:00 -
[704] - 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. |
baltec1
Bat Country
7214
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:35:00 -
[705] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:
This is very well put.
Until you are told that CCP consider bumping to be a form of warp disrupting.
|
Callyuk
Thundercats The Initiative.
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:36:00 -
[706] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:Also, have you not seen that big thread about bumping? I'm sure it's been linked numerous times. The gist of that thread pretty much does indicate that bumping, if it's for some legitimate purpose, is valid.
You can make the font bigger if you have a hard time reading the screen Here's the problem with that. Miner bumping is not used ion the same way. Miner bumping is to encourage the miner to leave. Freighter bumping is to keep the ship from leaving. Intent CAN be proven, simply by the actions of the target (log of warp being clicked for instance). Now, since you CAN data mine that freighter spamming warp, you can infer intent. "Yes, as you can see by the number of times I was spamming my warp shortcut and right clicking with my mouse, I was trying to get away". But you cannot prove intent by the bumper except for hitting the approach key. You know he wanted to bump, but that's all. (By the way, this is why I first replied that miner bumping was a terrible example when it first came up). Now, since we know the differences of intent, we can then look to the differences of intent, in regards, to harassment. For instance, we do know, by GM declaration, that harassment was decided by following the miner, from system to system while continuing to bump. This is in regards to knowing you are bumping a miner from a rock so he cannot mine it, to which a simple recourse is to leave the system and find somewhere else. Using that same model (but in reverse since freighter bumping is meant to KEEP the ship in system, not force it out), continually NOT letting that freighter to leave would be deemed harassment since that freighter was then pushed around multiple grids in system (proven by Concord placement and vectors of such) as well as kept from the gate and gate guns and not able to leave. Approach versus Warp/jump, as the command given to facilitate the harassment. Before this gets argued, we already know bumping is not illegal. Yes yes we know this. The act by itself did not get the freighter killed. It was a combination of mechanics that led to what looks like 1 specific instance of how those mechanics, when used in combination, by manipulating current mechanics to reduce risk of the ganker and increase risk of the freighter that relies specifically to highsec's mechanics. Of which was used to what looks like a matter of excess to the point of harassment. This is very well put. .Extremely Well Put 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 |
Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
318
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:40:00 -
[707] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Schalac wrote: 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. This is only partly about escape. It is more about having a viable counter to a broken game mechanic and if CCP can't add one in then they should outlaw it and people that use this tactic in the future will have actions taken against their account.
Multiple posters have posted multiple counters multiple times, but you're so set on your train of thought being the correct one that you've dismissed them as irrelevant. It's not up to you to decide what is and what is not an abuse of game mechanics, when you can prefix your character name with CCP then you can make that decision. This post was brought to you by the letters I,D,O and T. And what were their counters, suicide, suicide, give up, give up, give up and counter bump. Counter bump is the only even plausible counter and it is not very effective in and of itself as it doesn't put an end to act at hand. Only maybe slightly delays it, and to be effective at counter bumping you will need atleast as many pilots that are bumping you in ships capable of bumping them. That is ridiculous that you would even have to think of making a ship for bumper protection. F-in kindergarten BS. SCHALAC HAS SPOKEN!! http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schalac |
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
78
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:42:00 -
[708] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:So now you're proposing two separate Aggression logoff timers depending on WT status? Can a WT Aggro timer extend a non-WT timer? Can a non-WT aggro timer extend a WT timer?
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.
Quote:Why should the WT status of the person shooting at you affect the type of timer you get?
Because CCP thinks War decs are the correct way to pvp someone in high sec. It would be transparent at the user level anyway.
Quote:Why should HS have not one, but two sets of special snowflake logoff mechanics?
Why not? You can't really pretend that a few extra conditionals are abhorrent from an aesthetic point of view, but bumping someone for an hour isn't.
Quote:Keep in mind that the explicit intent of the Aggression logoff timer is to keep your ship in space until people who are actively shooting at you are done doing so.
Exactly, but an alt doing a flyby in a noob ship every 15m doesn't really constitute actively shooting someone.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15386
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:43:00 -
[709] - 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. |
Callyuk
Thundercats The Initiative.
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:43:00 -
[710] - Quote
True 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 |
|
Callyuk
Thundercats The Initiative.
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:43:00 -
[711] - Quote
Callyuk wrote:S Byerley wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:Also, have you not seen that big thread about bumping? I'm sure it's been linked numerous times. The gist of that thread pretty much does indicate that bumping, if it's for some legitimate purpose, is valid.
You can make the font bigger if you have a hard time reading the screen Here's the problem with that. Miner bumping is not used ion the same way. Miner bumping is to encourage the miner to leave. Freighter bumping is to keep the ship from leaving. Intent CAN be proven, simply by the actions of the target (log of warp being clicked for instance). Now, since you CAN data mine that freighter spamming warp, you can infer intent. "Yes, as you can see by the number of times I was spamming my warp shortcut and right clicking with my mouse, I was trying to get away". But you cannot prove intent by the bumper except for hitting the approach key. You know he wanted to bump, but that's all. (By the way, this is why I first replied that miner bumping was a terrible example when it first came up). Now, since we know the differences of intent, we can then look to the differences of intent, in regards, to harassment. For instance, we do know, by GM declaration, that harassment was decided by following the miner, from system to system while continuing to bump. This is in regards to knowing you are bumping a miner from a rock so he cannot mine it, to which a simple recourse is to leave the system and find somewhere else. Using that same model (but in reverse since freighter bumping is meant to KEEP the ship in system, not force it out), continually NOT letting that freighter to leave would be deemed harassment since that freighter was then pushed around multiple grids in system (proven by Concord placement and vectors of such) as well as kept from the gate and gate guns and not able to leave. Approach versus Warp/jump, as the command given to facilitate the harassment. Before this gets argued, we already know bumping is not illegal. Yes yes we know this. The act by itself did not get the freighter killed. It was a combination of mechanics that led to what looks like 1 specific instance of how those mechanics, when used in combination, by manipulating current mechanics to reduce risk of the ganker and increase risk of the freighter that relies specifically to highsec's mechanics. Of which was used to what looks like a matter of excess to the point of harassment. This is very well put. .Extremely Well Put
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 |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
426
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:45:00 -
[712] - Quote
Tippia wrote:[quote=S Byerley] 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.
So we are not questioning the safety of a freighter or the ability to kill it then? "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
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15386
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:46:00 -
[713] - 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. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Balius and Xanthus Traditional Gunsmiths
9648
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:46:00 -
[714] - Quote
Schalac wrote: And what were their counters, suicide, suicide, give up, give up, give up and counter bump. Counter bump is the only even plausible counter and it is not very effective in and of itself as it doesn't put an end to act at hand. Only maybe slightly delays it, and to be effective at counter bumping you will need atleast as many pilots that are bumping you in ships capable of bumping them. That is ridiculous that you would even have to think of making a ship for bumper protection. F-in kindergarten BS.
Try reading some of the counters before posting next time, some of them are common sense, like not making yourself a target, others are a bit more involved and require friends.
You obviously have selective reading trained to 5, now train reading comprehension to the same level and we might get somewhere.
In Eve you're a god, why have morals? |
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
78
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:48:00 -
[715] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Not only are you (immensely) interested, as your posting history show
I, obviously, have no eggs in the basket. Getting a layman's perspective on CS stuff was pretty interesting, but you have succeeded in making the rest fairly dull.
Quote:but I measure up just fine.
Your posting persona is boring and rigid.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
7214
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:48:00 -
[716] - Quote
Schalac wrote: And what were their counters, suicide, suicide, give up, give up, give up and counter bump. Counter bump is the only even plausible counter and it is not very effective in and of itself as it doesn't put an end to act at hand. Only maybe slightly delays it, and to be effective at counter bumping you will need atleast as many pilots that are bumping you in ships capable of bumping them. That is ridiculous that you would even have to think of making a ship for bumper protection. F-in kindergarten BS.
3 blackbirds will jam at the very least half a gank fleet (you can get away with one) and a single t1 armour logi will have the freighter repped up to full long before a second round of ships can even undock.
That's how easy it is. |
baltec1
Bat Country
7214
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:49:00 -
[717] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Tippia wrote:[quote=S Byerley] 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. So we are not questioning the safety of a freighter or the ability to kill it then?
It is statistically one of the safest ships to be in and has one of the biggest tanks in high sec. |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
426
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:49:00 -
[718] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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.
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. "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
78
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:52:00 -
[719] - Quote
Tippia wrote:but the question remains: why?
Kennedy wrote:There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?
Tippia wrote:The ways to actually PvP are far more numerous.
True; I should have said it was the best way, which is obviously a sentiment they've expressed. |
Varesk
Origin. Black Legion.
433
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:53:00 -
[720] - Quote
you could have logged off, went outside, then returned later to continue your voyage in a very slow ship across the universe. or you could have had an alt with a web to get in to warp faster.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |