Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Mordus Angels
2021
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 10:35:00 -
[91] - Quote
At any rate, foxfour posted in the reddit thread, so someone at CCP noticed the concern and will hopefully address it soon. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Mordus Angels
2021
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 10:43:00 -
[92] - Quote
Tippia wrote:]GǪand there is nothing particularly strange about this. In fact, it's not even a 180 and doing the opposite GÇö it's just a case of doing nothing at all. Their abandoning previously presented ideas happens all the time.
You can huff and puff as much as you like, but still no gymnastics is needed to connect the dots between players saying that it was a bad idea to make the API export incorrect data and them not changing it in a way that would make the API export incorrect data. Except the mental gymnaistics was always in reference to the intent. I really don't give a damn about what you think happened as a result of what some players said at some given point. I only care about written statements of intent, the only 100% reliable applicable evidence of intent. I'm just gonna quote myself here:
PotatoOverdose wrote:The mental gymnastics in question: James Amril-Kesh wrote: been intended this way and CCP forgot to tell us.
CCP Tuxford wrote:Quote:Will a player or program, using the API, be able to tell if a siphon is on their POS or not? Not. Saying siphons detected via API in any way is intended by CCP when the exact opposite is true is mental gymnastics. No amount of pedantic obfuscation will change that.
Did CCP intend to allow the API to detect siphons? ALL written statements from CCP say the opposite. Therefore, the only factual conclusion that can be drawn from CCPs written posts is that they did not intend this. Ergo mental gymnastics.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
8789
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 10:46:00 -
[93] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote: Did CCP intend to allow the API to detect siphons? ALL written statements from CCP say the opposite.
Not "ALL". "one". That was the only one, and there was a redesign afterwards.
And you still haven't gotten around the fact that the functionality that you are claiming is supposed to exist is not in the patch notes.
So, the only written statements about what is, or is not, included in the game, contradict your assertions.
Quote: Therefore, the only factual conclusion that can be drawn from CCPs written posts is that they did not intend this. Ergo mental gymnastics.
The only mental gymnastics I see here are from people claiming that there can only be one conclusion.
Because, as has been repeatedly mentioned, the patch notes don't agree with you. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
11039
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 10:48:00 -
[94] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Tippia wrote: So yes, it may very well have been intended this way and CCP forgot to tell us. They forget to tell us lots of things that happen between the first presentation and the final release. Given the amount of criticism they received on this particular point, no mental gymnastics is needed to think that the intent changed as a result of the player input and that what was in the final release was entirely intentional.
Hi. My position is that CCP changed it's mind, did a complete 180 to do the exact opposite of all prior written statements. Than they forgot to tell us. How unlikely do you think that is, given what they've done in the past?
PotatoOverdose wrote:I have no evidence besides my own conjecture to support CCP changing their intent Except the absence of any mention in the patch notes about API data being modified to lie to players about silo amounts, and the fact that the API wasn't modified in this manner suggests that they intended it this way just as much as it suggests that they mistakenly didn't include it.
PotatoOverdose wrote:given that the only factual statements from ccp do not corroborate this in any way. However, since I said "they forgot to tell us," it renders any requirement to provide factual evidence moot. I am therefore correct. The entire argument is moot. We have to wait for CCP to tell us what's up. That's the case regardless of whether anyone mentioned the possibility of them having forgotten, since your original point was about this being an exploit - something that CCP themselves define at their convenience. No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
11039
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 10:55:00 -
[95] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Did CCP intend to allow the API to detect siphons? ALL written statements from CCP say the opposite. Therefore, the only factual conclusion that can be drawn from CCPs written posts is that they did not intend this. Ergo mental gymnastics.
No, the only factual conclusion that can be drawn is that at one point they did not intend this, and that something happened between now and then. No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
Grimpak
Shifting Sands Trader Cartel Bleak Horizon Alliance.
2129
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 10:57:00 -
[96] - Quote
Shederov Blood wrote:Grimpak wrote:well:
a) tbh, if it's exploit or not, all I can see is *semantics*
b) if the API isn't lying about it, then it's a bug from CCP
d) THE API IS (NOT) A LIE! e) What happened to c) ? f) bitches took ma c) [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Valleria Darkmoon
Convicts and Savages Shadow Cartel
303
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 11:02:00 -
[97] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Did CCP intend to allow the API to detect siphons? ALL written statements from CCP say the opposite. Therefore, the only factual conclusion that can be drawn from CCPs written posts is that they did not intend this. Ergo mental gymnastics.
No, the only factual conclusion that can be drawn is that at one point they did not intend this, and that something happened between now and then. Actually the only facts in evidence that I'm aware of are that at one point CCP did not intend siphon units to be found through API and currently they can be.
Technically the something that happened is true because it is so vague that it covers literally anything and everything that happened in the interim. However, you are being misleading by using it in this context, as it leads people to draw the possibly incorrect conclusion that something, intentional or otherwise, fundamentally changed with the setup and now siphon units can be found by API whether by design or by accident. Reality has an almost infinite capacity to resist oversimplification. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
11039
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 11:04:00 -
[98] - Quote
Valleria Darkmoon wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Did CCP intend to allow the API to detect siphons? ALL written statements from CCP say the opposite. Therefore, the only factual conclusion that can be drawn from CCPs written posts is that they did not intend this. Ergo mental gymnastics.
No, the only factual conclusion that can be drawn is that at one point they did not intend this, and that something happened between now and then. Actually the only facts in evidence that I'm aware of are that at one point CCP did not intend siphon units to be found through API and currently they can be. Technically the something that happened is true because it covers literally anything and everything that happened in the interim but you are being misleading by using it in this context as it leads people to draw the possibly incorrect conclusion that something intentional or otherwise fundamentally changed with the setup and now siphon units can be found by API. Something intentional or otherwise fundamental did change with the setup. We wouldn't be having this conversation otherwise. No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
8790
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 11:06:00 -
[99] - Quote
Valleria Darkmoon wrote: Actually the only facts in evidence that I'm aware of are that at one point CCP did not intend siphon units to be found through API and currently they can be.
The chain of events is as follows:
They said it would lie to the API.
People told them that was a bad idea.
A rework was done to change the siphon.
Lying to the API was not in the patch notes.
Siphons currently do not lie to the API. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
Grimpak
Shifting Sands Trader Cartel Bleak Horizon Alliance.
2129
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 11:07:00 -
[100] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Valleria Darkmoon wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Did CCP intend to allow the API to detect siphons? ALL written statements from CCP say the opposite. Therefore, the only factual conclusion that can be drawn from CCPs written posts is that they did not intend this. Ergo mental gymnastics.
No, the only factual conclusion that can be drawn is that at one point they did not intend this, and that something happened between now and then. Actually the only facts in evidence that I'm aware of are that at one point CCP did not intend siphon units to be found through API and currently they can be. Technically the something that happened is true because it covers literally anything and everything that happened in the interim but you are being misleading by using it in this context as it leads people to draw the possibly incorrect conclusion that something intentional or otherwise fundamentally changed with the setup and now siphon units can be found by API. Something intentional or otherwise fundamental did change with the setup. We wouldn't be having this conversation otherwise.
soo.........
this thread sums down to "something happened, oh no!"? [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
|
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Mordus Angels
2022
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 11:26:00 -
[101] - Quote
So, if what james & co say is true, it implies several things.
First, you have to understand that siphons were quite literally the first and only real tool ccp ever gave to smaller entities to screw larger entities. And it worked, kinda. You can find posts from every major alliance, but goonswarm and PL in particular have quite a few bitching about the little things. Both organizations instituted policy specifically to deal with siphons.
Second, removing the immunity to api detection basically castrates the bloody thing. The point of the thing was that you needed people in space to know if you were being siphoned. No people = no intel = your goo gets jacked. Since the blocs have way more space than they ever use, this makes siphons an ideal tool against them, again assuming no api detection. It also *may* explain why we've been able to siphon goo off with impunity off of the shittier (aka non-goonswarm) cfc entities but any siphon operations on goonswarm towers are quickly shut down outside of a particular time bracket.
Third, backtracking on the api detection represents a full cave-in to the whims of the blocs. This was the first and only thing that could actually f*ck blocs a tiny bit that they themselves can't use. Goons and PL don't siphon, because in most cases doing so would violate their existing treaties. But goons (and to a lesser extent PL) were most of the people that opposed siphons.
If true, to me it sends the message that CCP will cater to the whims of the blocs on just about every f*cking issue under the sun, even when that issue is specifically designed to hurt said blocs (a tiny bit). Further, because CCP themselves suggested the API immunity, it means they damn well understand what happens if you don't have said api immunity. And that just makes it shittier
So, if what james & co say is true, it would pi*ss me off something fierce, and it would disappoint a whole lot of the player base. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
11041
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 11:28:00 -
[102] - Quote
I for one think having the API present intentionally inaccurate data goes against what the API is intended to do. No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
8790
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 11:34:00 -
[103] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote: First, you have to understand that siphons were quite literally the first and only real tool ccp ever gave to smaller entities to screw larger entities.
And, as such, was born out of the half baked ideas and plaintive wails of the have-nots, frustrated with their own impotence on the large scale.
It is literally the anklebiting module. All of Dinsdales crying given form. Much like the ESS, another excellent example of flawed conceptualization.
So yeah, I have absolutely no sympathy if it turns out that it doesn't work. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
Jarnis McPieksu
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
535
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 11:37:00 -
[104] - Quote
If someone wants to fix this, the obvious fix is that the goo is removed from the silo only when the siphon is emptied. Until that point it actually resides in the silo. API says all is well, goo is in the silo, no siphons around, no sir.
If you want, goo could also move if siphon is destroyed or silo is accessed but I don't think that would really matter. In most cases the tower owner could just empty the siphon first, then blow it up, but having to do so could open some additional vulnerability to being attacked by someone.
Of course siphons in general are stupid, so just outright removing them from the game for later redesign is an option. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Mordus Angels
2022
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 11:40:00 -
[105] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote: First, you have to understand that siphons were quite literally the first and only real tool ccp ever gave to smaller entities to screw larger entities.
And, as such, was born out of the half baked ideas and plaintive wails of the have-nots, frustrated with their own impotence on the large scale. It is literally the anklebiting module. All of Dinsdales crying given form. Much like the ESS, another excellent example of flawed conceptualization. So yeah, I have absolutely no sympathy if it turns out that it doesn't work. In my own humble opinion it is a far, far better thing to be an anklebiter than dude #53,221 that joins the winning side because he wants to think he's winning too. Eve is in stagnation in no small part because of people that represent the latter. And that applies to BOTH the CFC and N3PL.
And the siphon does work if it has api immunity. Because than you need people, or a the every least alts spread across all of your space. And that takes ~effort~ |
Maeltstome
Twisted Insanity. The Kadeshi
572
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 11:44:00 -
[106] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Regardless of the above, still not an exploit to look at your own API data. I mean what options would we have to avoid it if it were an exploit? Refuse to look at our API data? Unreasonable. Pretend we didn't see it? Unreasonable.
Without physically stopping players from playing, it wouldn't be unreasonable to fine ISK representative of income generated from towers which had siphon units on them at some point.
How much? No idea. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
8792
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 11:45:00 -
[107] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote: In my own humble opinion it is a far, far better thing to be an anklebiter than dude #53,221 that joins the winning side because he wants to think he's winning too.
I disagree. At least so far as one person is doing what they want to do to have fun, and the other is spitting vitriol at them out of envy, rather than just go and have fun themselves.
One of those kind of people is just fine, playing the game. The other is a bitter waste of a subscription fee.
Quote: And the siphon does work if it has api immunity.
And the reason we're here in the first place is because this is either impossible, if they intended to do it, or unwanted, if they intended to not do it.
Quote: Because than you need people, or a the every least alts spread across all of your space. And that takes ~effort~
Defending the siphon, a zero effort way of taking what others have earned, is not a great time to bring up ~effort~. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
11042
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 11:46:00 -
[108] - Quote
Maeltstome wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Regardless of the above, still not an exploit to look at your own API data. I mean what options would we have to avoid it if it were an exploit? Refuse to look at our API data? Unreasonable. Pretend we didn't see it? Unreasonable. Without physically stopping players from playing, it wouldn't be unreasonable to fine ISK representative of income generated from towers which had siphon units on them at some point. Of course it would be unreasonable. You have no way of knowing if those players responded to having a siphon on their tower because of API data. Even if you did, you have no way of knowing when they'd have responded had the API not revealed the presence of a siphon. No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
fairimear
Air The Initiative.
21
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 11:53:00 -
[109] - Quote
HAHAH as if you need to look at api. if you see one of these on scanner in a friendly system its probably a bad guy one so you shoot it.
Now if they did'nt show on dscan they may actually work. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Mordus Angels
2022
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 11:56:00 -
[110] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote: In my own humble opinion it is a far, far better thing to be an anklebiter than dude #53,221 that joins the winning side because he wants to think he's winning too.
I disagree. At least so far as one person is doing what they want to do to have fun, and the other is spitting vitriol at them out of envy, rather than just go and have fun themselves. Why does opposing the larger stronger entity imply vitriol and no fun? You make assumptions where you should not.
Quote: Defending the siphon, a zero effort way of taking what others have earned, is not a great time to bring up ~effort~.
What is impossible for one may be trivial for 50,000. I cannot defend a tower by myself against my neighbors. I may not even be able to defend said tower with a group of 3000 backing me up if the group of 50,000 comes along. And so siphons offer a small option of asymmetrical warfare, a "f*ck you too, buddy" to eve online.
That's something eve sorely lacks, you know? Asymmetrical warfare. While I hate using real life examples, we have the equivalents of aircraft carriers, destroyer, submarines, tanks, apc's, etc but we lack IED's, vietcong tunnels, and booby traps. Where are the anti-spaceship mines, a trope of much sci-fi, in this game? And so you get this wonderfully stagnant gameplay. Two poles filled with thousands upon thousands of nerds and not much between them. |
|
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Mordus Angels
2022
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 11:58:00 -
[111] - Quote
fairimear wrote:HAHAH as if you need to look at api. if you see one of these on scanner in a friendly system its probably a bad guy one so you shoot it.
Now if they did'nt show on dscan they may actually work. Only a moron puts up a siphon in a high traffic system. Thankfully, something like 90% (statistic pulled straight from my a**) of all nullsec falls squarely into the low traffic category. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
8792
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 11:59:00 -
[112] - Quote
Potato, fix your quotes on that previous post, and I will reply to it before I go to bed. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
Maekchu
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
68
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 12:01:00 -
[113] - Quote
Just remove siphons from API, notifications (not sure, if they get a notification) and d-scan.
Would require you to actually be on-grid to see them. Then maybe, the siphon would be an interesting little thing.
But yeah, I have no idea what I'm talking about and never really use them, besides the occasional I steal from in space. |
Lauresh Thellere
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 12:04:00 -
[114] - Quote
Regardless of what people think the only opinions that matter are CCP's.
I and others don't think it's an exploit since it's the only real way to track siphons without going to several hundred moons and checking them on a daily basis.
Mordus however disagrees and thinks it's an exploit since their plans rely on using siphons to attack the large coalitions.
CCP don't really care what either of us think as they have their own opinion on this and no doubt will stop the petty bickering and provide an answer soon enough. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
8793
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 12:11:00 -
[115] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote: Why does opposing the larger stronger entity imply vitriol and no fun? You make assumptions where you should not.
If you think that the people who "grr nullsec" day in and day out do it because they enjoy fighting the most people, you're the one making assumptions.
There are no grapes more sour than the have-nots.
Quote: That's something eve sorely lacks, you know? Asymmetrical warfare. While I hate using real life examples, we have the equivalents of aircraft carriers, destroyer, submarines, tanks, apc's, etc but we lack IED's, vietcong tunnels, and booby traps. Where are the anti-spaceship mines, a trope of much sci-fi, in this game? And so you get this wonderfully stagnant gameplay. Two poles filled with thousands upon thousands of nerds and not much between them.
Mines can be used for camping, like you would not even imagine. They used to exist, by the way, and they got turned into the current drone system since they were such an awful idea. Sometimes you can buy space mines as an old legacy item, but they don't do anything anymore.
As for tunnels, you have cloaking devices and you have cynos to move around with. You also have wormholes.
But what it all boils down to is that organization > no organization. The fact of the matter is that no outside force worth even a tenth of a damn has bothered to put in the effort to try and fight the nullsec blocs in years. The last group to actually do it were the Goons themselves, back in the heyday of BoB and the great war.
So what you really have is people who want to win without having to put in anywhere close to as much effort or organization as their opponent. That will never happen.
And that's not going to change any time soon, nor should it. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
TharOkha
0asis Group
915
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 13:27:00 -
[116] - Quote
Lauresh Thellere wrote: I and others don't think it's an exploit since it's the only real way to track siphons without going to several hundred moons and checking them on a daily basis.
somehow you missing the whole point of siphon
there are a lot of lowsec moons ut there owned by CFC/PL/N3.. faaaar from their homelands, faaaaar from their influence.
if you set up POS correctly, you dont need to visit it within 2 weeks. You can set up alt to keep it and watch it on every day basis.
But the problem with this API exploit is that you dont have to... Just look at your api (you dont even need to be in game) and you know which POS and where you need to visit to shut down this "stealth" siphon .
Ok maybe its not an exploit but siphons definitely are not working as they meant to by this way. CODE. in a nutshell |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
899
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 13:48:00 -
[117] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:I for one think having the API present intentionally inaccurate data goes against what the API is intended to do. One could state the same of a market margin scam |
embrel
BamBam Inc.
184
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 14:30:00 -
[118] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote: In my own humble opinion it is a far, far better thing to be an anklebiter than dude #53,221 that joins the winning side because he wants to think he's winning too.
I disagree. At least so far as one person is doing what they want to do to have fun, and the other is spitting vitriol at them out of envy, rather than just go and have fun themselves. One of those kind of people is just fine, playing the game. The other is a bitter waste of a subscription fee. Quote: And the siphon does work if it has api immunity.
And the reason we're here in the first place is because this is either impossible, if they intended to do it, or unwanted, if they intended to not do it. Quote: Because than you need people, or a the every least alts spread across all of your space. And that takes ~effort~
Defending the siphon, a zero effort way of taking what others have earned, is not a great time to bring up ~effort~.
In the sandbox, there's no right or wrong. Some people like to play Don Quijote just for fun.
The siphon is not a zero effort way of taking what others have earned. You have to buy the thing and bring it to a tower which is more effort than I was ready to put in...
|
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5852
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 14:31:00 -
[119] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:How M'I Alive wrote:If you know something is working in a manner that is not intended, which allows you to gain an advantage over others who are not aware of such, you are supposed to cease that activity immediately and report it to CCP. Try proving that we knew it wasn't working as intended. Proof that it isn't working as intended. Given that (figuratively) half of goonswarm posted in that thread, and most of them replied to that specific dev post...yeah, you knew. Personally, I think a whole bunch of you should be slapped with a temp ban. You found a loophole that was not at all intended, and you abused it. Simple as that. You saw a mechanic that wasn't working as intended, you gained an advantage, and you didn't report it to ccp. You're probably still abusing it as we speak.
Let me tell you about how I reported it as soon as I realised that the API was not in fact lying to me, and was told "Don't worry about it" by CCP. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee & Grammar Gestapo. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5852
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 14:34:00 -
[120] - Quote
Basically I'm shooting down the arguments of anyone calling for banns by saying that yes, both everyone in nullsec using towers & CCP have been aware of this since week 1. It's business as usual for the former & the latter don't really seem to care. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee & Grammar Gestapo. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |