Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ishmael Hansen
No Quarter. C0VEN
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 15:45:00 -
[91]
This game used to be fun. Atm flying anything not set for speed is just not worth it, I have to buy a wussie ship like a vagabond or a curse and start flying it and join the trend.
|
Major Stallion
The Dark Horses Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 16:56:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Elgar Lightfoot
Originally by: Major Stallion
Originally by: Elgar Lightfoot I don't actually think ships should be able to 'bump' each other at all. With the mass of these things they'd destroy each other if they really did collide. But the point of the post was to draw the attention of CCP to a game exploit.
Why bother training up to use Scramblers, when all you need to a fast ship to run into them?
I would love to agree with u that this is an exploit of game mechanics, but when I filed a petition stating that i was bumped, they stated that it is a mechanic that is intended to be there and there is no intention of replacing ships lost to the use of the mechanic. Furthermore I was told that there were no plans to change bumping as they said the mechanic is "working as intended"....typical CCP
Wasn't that a GM response though? Not a CCP dev one? If I were you I'd appeal it. If I lost a ship to someone because I was unable to warp through bumping I'd petition exploit.
Its not worth me appealing it, tbh. Every petition filed with the game becomes a silly back and forth game with the GMs. All ship losses incurred, be it legit or due to fleet lag or some other BS reason, are taken in stride. I do think bumping needs to be fixed, however. And shame on the people who jump into the thread with the "baby lost a stabbed out ship, cry some more". Flaming only makes you look more immature than you already are.
|
Elgar Lightfoot
Lightfoot Industries
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 18:10:00 -
[93]
I'll reply once more, just for those who have a severe problem with reading comprehension (pay attention in school)...
...I've never lost a ship to bumping. In fact, I don't believe I've ever had my ship destroyed by another player. I've only ever been put into my pod by NPC's. NPC's don't bump.
I'm simply posting on a subject which seems to have a large support in the EVE playerbase.
Only one more comment...The negative side to this thread seem unable to post without insults or some form of ridicule. I believe that makes all the statement it needs.
|
shuckstar
Gallente Order of New Blood
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 18:28:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Alski Ahhh ok I see what ya saying, once we are in "pre-warp" just fix it so bumping stops the ship from being thrown of course, yup, I'll /sign that.
Agreed
|
Phelan Lore
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 18:51:00 -
[95]
I'll sign for no bumping if CCP makes a module which prevents people from docking or jumping. -
|
Rhaegor Stormborn
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 18:57:00 -
[96]
I'd rather see ship collision cause some sort of damage to both vessels rather than the bumper car effect.
|
Bish Ounen
Gallente Omni-Core Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 19:15:00 -
[97]
Well, I was going to respond to c0rn1, but Elgar Lightfoot stated my position so well already I don't feel the need.
However, I will respond to one of the other posters, Miss Aramendel.
Aramendel, you made many arguments, many of them very intelligent. However, there is one single word that blows your overall premise out of the water.
Just to set the table, I will attempt to sum up your premise as accurately as I am able;
"Bumping is not an exploit because the Devs have not said it is. Historically the Devs have always been quick to state that certain things/actions were exploits and rectified them immediately."
Here is the one word that obliterates this entire line of thought...
Logoffski.
This has been in since BETA and was not addressed. To use your writing style; The Devs said nothing, the Devs said nothing, the Devs said nothing, the Devs said nothing, the Devs said nothing, the Devs said nothing, the Devs said nothing, the Devs said nothing.
THEN The Devs said it was an exploit!
THEN The Devs did nothing, The Devs did nothing, The Devs did nothing, The Devs did nothing, The Devs did nothing, The Devs did nothing, The Devs did nothing, The Devs did nothing, The Devs did nothing.
THEN it was just recently fixed.
The question is; At what point did it become an exploit? Not until after the Devs said so? Well then why did they take so long to fix it if they ALWAYS fix exploits right away? Were they just kidding? Was it not really an exploit and they just said that for fun?
If it was an exploit after the Devs stated so, does this mean it was NOT an exploit before then? What caused this magical state-change?
Maybe the truth is that it was ALWAYS an exploit, and it just took the Devs some time to RECOGNIZE it as such, and then even more time to realize the seriousness of it and take action.
Exploits do not exist in a state of quantum-flux. They are not Schrodinger's Cat. Either they are exploits, or are NOT exploits based on a universal rule-set, the overall definition of what a gaming exploit is. The Devs of a particular game, (EVE in this case) may not RECOGNIZE that they are exploits, but they are.
While I will agree that it is not Elgar's or my job to DEFINE what an exploit is, it is our responsibility as members of the EVE community to take the generally agreed-upon standard, apply it to EVE, and then seek redress accordingly if something in EVE seems to violate those standards.
Bumping to prevent Warp does violate those standards, and we are seeking redress. You are free to disagree, but that will not stop us from seeking to correct this problem.
This Space Reserved until my sexy new sig is completed. :) |
Phelan Lore
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 19:31:00 -
[98]
Bumping is fantastic! It requires actual player skill to do properly, and is the only counter to lame tactics such as stabbing, station hugging, and gate hugging. The only logical conclusion from this is that anyone against bumping supports stabs and hugging and is thus a carebear (making their opinion null and void). -
|
Maya Rkell
Forsaken Empire The Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 19:40:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Elgar Lightfoot In my oppinion bumping = exploiting a game dynamic and should be a bannable offence when used for that purpose. However a very simple fix would to be to auto warp after a set time.
Yes, yes, because small ships would be even MORE useless, and a common game incident even when not intentional should be bannable.
Wait, what?
//Maya |
Kalista Tradion
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 19:44:00 -
[100]
NPCing should be a bannable offense.
|
|
Maxpie
Split Infinity
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 19:52:00 -
[101]
interesting topic. never really thought much about it. now that you mention it though, i think bumping should cause some sort of damage. maybe in addition to knocking a ship out of alignment for warp. it just doesn't make sense that ships just bounce off of each other. i'd imagine that if technology ever brought us to this point, ships would also have built in sa***uards to prevent colliding with other ships, asteroids, etc.
|
Dampfschlaghammer
Minmatar Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 21:14:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Elgar Lightfoot
Only one more comment...The negative side to this thread seem unable to post without insults or some form of ridicule. I believe that makes all the statement it needs.
Originally by: Bish Ounen Edited by: Bish Ounen on 30/03/2007 19:30:51 Well, I was going to respond to Dampfschlaghammer, but Elgar Lightfoot stated my position so well already I don't feel the need.
However, I will respond to one of the other posters, Miss Aramendel.
Aramendel, you made many arguments, many of them very intelligent. However, there is one single word that blows your overall premise out of the water.
Just to set the table, I will attempt to sum up your premise as accurately as I am able;
"Bumping is not an exploit because the Devs have not said it is. Historically the Devs have always been quick to state that certain things/actions were exploits and rectified them immediately."
Here is the one word that obliterates this entire line of thought...
Logoffski.
This has been in since BETA and was not addressed. To use your writing style; The Devs said nothing, the Devs said nothing, the Devs said nothing, the Devs said nothing, the Devs said nothing, the Devs said nothing, the Devs said nothing, the Devs said nothing.
THEN The Devs said it was an exploit!
THEN The Devs did nothing, The Devs did nothing, The Devs did nothing, The Devs did nothing, The Devs did nothing, The Devs did nothing, The Devs did nothing, The Devs did nothing, The Devs did nothing.
THEN it was just recently fixed.
The question is; At what point did it become an exploit? Not until after the Devs said so? Well then why did they take so long to fix it if they ALWAYS fix exploits right away? Were they just kidding? Was it not really an exploit and they just said that for fun?
If it was an exploit after the Devs stated so, does this mean it was NOT an exploit before then? What caused this magical state-change?
Maybe the truth is that it was ALWAYS an exploit, and it just took the Devs some time to RECOGNIZE it as such, and then even more time to realize the seriousness of it and take action.
Exploits do not exist in a state of quantum-flux. They are not Schrodinger's Cat. Either they are exploits, or are NOT exploits based on a universal rule-set, the overall definition of what a gaming exploit is. The Devs of a particular game, (EVE in this case) may not RECOGNIZE that they are exploits, but they are.
While I will agree that it is not Elgar's or my job to DEFINE what an exploit is, it is our responsibility as members of the EVE community to take the generally agreed-upon standard, apply it to EVE, and then seek redress accordingly if something in EVE seems to violate those standards.
Bumping to prevent Warp does violate those standards, and we are seeking redress. You are free to disagree, but that will not stop us from seeking to correct this problem.
Just two quick comments, as the main arguments have all been exchanged.
Elgar, don't get all-high and mighty about insults when your side is the first to call others exploiters and griefers without providing any conclusive evidence.
And Bish Ounen, stop hiding behind a short, badly written and incomplete wikipedia article when we have a precise and relevant source like the EVE EULA providing a definition by which bumping is clearly not an exploit.
|
Elgar Lightfoot
Lightfoot Industries
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 21:58:00 -
[103]
I never accused anyone of exploiting. I know none of you personally and have not met any of you in game. I'm commenting specifically on an exploited tactic in game and stating how I see it as an exploit. I bring no insults to the table, yet see many from the other side. Discussion is a two sided thing. So long as insults stay out of it it's generally an enjoyable pastime. Once one side resorts to insults they clearly loose the plot.
You can not win an argument with insults, you only succeed in demonstrating a lack of skill.
|
Blind Man
Kemono.
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 22:52:00 -
[104]
Edited by: Blind Man on 30/03/2007 22:48:27
Originally by: Tonkin i love the bump. but it would be awful if they took that off and damage was introduce if we collide, lol there be no fleet fights due to the fleets killing them selfs.
its CCP's fix for blob warfare!
|
Mistress Suffering
Einherjar Rising
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 23:06:00 -
[105]
This thread has too many of the same guy's alts talking to themselves.
The fact that ships have physical properties and locations which can be influenced to effect the outcome of battle is pure goodness. There are a huge number of tactical elements that are introduced by this mechanic.
I'm sorry if its still beyond your skill threshhold to manipulate it well, but train harder, and you'll figure it out.
|
Elgar Lightfoot
Lightfoot Industries
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 23:57:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Mistress Suffering This thread has too many of the same guy's alts talking to themselves.
The fact that ships have physical properties and locations which can be influenced to effect the outcome of battle is pure goodness. There are a huge number of tactical elements that are introduced by this mechanic.
I'm sorry if its still beyond your skill threshhold to manipulate it well, but train harder, and you'll figure it out.
You seem to have missed the point that bumping requires NO training. It actually takes less training than a proper grappler.
|
The Slayer
Caldari The Black Rabbits Fatal Persuasion
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 00:20:00 -
[107]
Give me a skill to stop motherships warping in lowsec. Then i'll /sign.
|
Elgar Lightfoot
Lightfoot Industries
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 00:52:00 -
[108]
Originally by: The Slayer Give me a skill to stop motherships warping in lowsec. Then i'll /sign.
I agree with you that you should have some way to grapple a Mothership. I thought other motherships could do that? But that's a totally separate subject. It may need fixing as well.
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 12:03:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Bish Ounen Logoffski.
This has been in since BETA and was not addressed. To use your writing style; The Devs said nothing, the Devs said nothing, the Devs said nothing, the Devs said nothing, the Devs said nothing, the Devs said nothing, the Devs said nothing, the Devs said nothing.
THEN The Devs said it was an exploit!
THEN The Devs did nothing, The Devs did nothing, The Devs did nothing, The Devs did nothing, The Devs did nothing, The Devs did nothing, The Devs did nothing, The Devs did nothing, The Devs did nothing.
THEN it was just recently fixed.
The question is; At what point did it become an exploit? Not until after the Devs said so? Well then why did they take so long to fix it if they ALWAYS fix exploits right away? Were they just kidding? Was it not really an exploit and they just said that for fun?
Firstly, it wasn't in since beta. The bug there was that ships could warp out of dictor bubbles and dictors were not in the game until well after a year after it started (and, as a sidenote, it is not toally fixed now, there is now another issue which make logoffski a very effective tactic there). They never classified logoffski in general as a bug (and even if it would still not be in since beta because the jumpin cloak wasn't introduced until around 6 moths after the game started and without it you were locked & scrambled well before you could do anything, including logging).
Secondly, I never said the devs fix exploits right away. I said that if they classify something as exploit they usually inform us of this fast. You are twisting my words there.
The reason they took so long is because aknowledging logging in dictor bubbles as exploit/bug is because there is no way to distinguish between intentual and unintentual logging. Eve is not an 100% stable game nor are internet connections foolproof. I myself got a connection loss multiple times after jumping through gates. It just happens. Classifying something as exploit fast is only good if they are able to act on it as well. Can spamming is rather obvious. They cannot distinguish between logging and crashing. They just cannot - feel free to argue they can, but I had this discussion already several times and I can assure you that there is always a simple way to kill your connection without eve getting a sign that it was artificial.
Basically, in case of logging into bubbles they had the option of saying "It's a bug, but we cannot fix it right now nor can we punish anyone using it because there is no way to see if it was inentional" which will basically have no effect exept making it even more widely known and spreading it's use more or not saying anything until it is already so widespread that there's no point in not aknowledging it.
Why did they took so long to "fix" it? No idea. Perhaps it was not easily fixed. Some bugs seem very simple at the first look but are in truth surprisingly complex and require some serious recoding to fix, take for example the old cov ops cloak + cyno issue (which also got fixed recently after ages).
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 12:10:00 -
[110]
Edited by: Aramendel on 31/03/2007 12:09:59
Quote: If it was an exploit after the Devs stated so, does this mean it was NOT an exploit before then? What caused this magical state-change?
Some bugs are obvious. Duping something, for example. Many others however fall into a gray zone and can be argued either way. Depending on which subjective view you take you could classify them as exploits or not exploits. Now, the thing is that only one subjective view counts here - that one of the devs. And you cannot know what they are thinking. So without the devs stating it you have in many cases no way of knowing if it's ok or not.
Let's say they classify the mwd + cloak -> wait MWD cycle -> uncloak -> instawarp as exploit - how would you react if you get a mail with "We classified "mwd + cloak .... today as exploit and since you have according to our logs done this 1334 times in the last 2 years your account is now permabanned because of using an exploit multiple times.
But they won't do this. Because you can only get punished by using a known exploit. And how does it get known? Not by half of eve saying it is one and half saying it isn't, but by a dev stating it is one.
Quote: While I will agree that it is not Elgar's or my job to DEFINE what an exploit is, it is our responsibility as members of the EVE community to take the generally agreed-upon standard, apply it to EVE, and then seek redress accordingly if something in EVE seems to violate those standards.
Bumping to prevent Warp does violate those standards, and we are seeking redress. You are free to disagree, but that will not stop us from seeking to correct this problem.
Firstly, wikepedia is not the "generally agreed-upon standard". The only standard for EVE is eves EULA. In most other MMORPGs selling a GTC for ingame money would get you banned. In eve it's allowed.
And, no, bumping to prevent Warp does not violate those standards. You are the opinion that it does, but it does not make it a fact. Or the opinion of the devs. And you are welcome to argue for it. In fact I am supporting you by bumping this very thread. But you will still get the same answer you got for years - silence.
|
|
Elgar Lightfoot
Lightfoot Industries
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 12:21:00 -
[111]
One correction. Selling GTC's for cash IS permitted in every single MMO out there. A GTC has a real cash value and is a physical asset. No one can prevent you selling it anymore than they can prevent you selling your house. What is banned is selling in game gold (ISK) for RL cash.
|
Neon Genesis
Gallente The Landed Gentry
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 12:57:00 -
[112]
Edited by: Neon Genesis on 31/03/2007 12:54:17 Disagree, I know you've said in the thread that you think there should be a way to hold down capital ships, but this makes bumping very important at the moment.
Also I feel strongly about what someone else said, it adds a big physical dimension to the game that isn't present in games such as WOW. I also don't understand why you have such a problem with it. Theres no way collision should cause damage, that would make the game ridiculous. And should having 7 stabs on mean you can just warp when you are swarmed on all sides by large ships?
|
Elgar Lightfoot
Lightfoot Industries
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 13:41:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Neon Genesis Edited by: Neon Genesis on 31/03/2007 12:54:17 Disagree, I know you've said in the thread that you think there should be a way to hold down capital ships, but this makes bumping very important at the moment.
Also I feel strongly about what someone else said, it adds a big physical dimension to the game that isn't present in games such as WOW. I also don't understand why you have such a problem with it. Theres no way collision should cause damage, that would make the game ridiculous. And should having 7 stabs on mean you can just warp when you are swarmed on all sides by large ships?
If the other ships can't beat your fittings then yes you should be able to warp away. This is a skills based game, not one where if you can find some dynamic which is undefensible you win. If you gave up seven low slots to fit stabs then you gain all the benefits of those. Bumping invalidates the sacrifice that pilot made when they chose to fit seven stabs instead of Cargo expanders. If he had seven stabs, then the attackers have a choice. Either sacrifice other functionality to fit scramblers or they lose because they chose not to fit what was required. Currently the system is that the attackers gain a huge advantage because they don't have to choose. They can have both while making no sacrifice, their bonus is undefensible.
|
Savesti Kyrsst
Minmatar White-Noise
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 14:04:00 -
[114]
Edited by: Savesti Kyrsst on 31/03/2007 14:02:04 Edit: My spelling sucks
What's so wrong about bumping? Ships can already pass through one another under invulnerability timers. Why should we have to pay even less attention to where our ships are in space relative to others?
Speed tanking has already been nerfed very hard. It's already ridiculously easy to escape PvP in EvE by docking or logging off. Why should the only way to get someone outside dock range, which already has been nerfed such that you need lg snakes to get it to work in one go, be eliminated alltogether?
I admit I'm not very good at bumping, but I intend to get better. Contrary to the OP, it does take some skill to partially-manually hit a transversing target in a mwding ship.
There are lots of ways to escape bumping, but they take player skill. Why should player skill be nerfed? I think this is a very bad trend.
|
Auron Shadowbane
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 14:10:00 -
[115]
/++ vote for collision damage.
"bumping" a bigger ship should mean certain destruction for a small one.
bumping a ship of same class should mean serious damage for both.
point solved
|
Savesti Kyrsst
Minmatar White-Noise
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 14:17:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Elgar Lightfoot
You seem to have missed the point that bumping requires NO training. It actually takes less training than a proper grappler.
Have you ever actually tried to prevent a ship from warping by bumping alone? And are you suggesting "approach" and "alt-f1 alt-f2" take a significant amount of player skill?
|
Elgar Lightfoot
Lightfoot Industries
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 14:23:00 -
[117]
Edited by: Elgar Lightfoot on 31/03/2007 14:19:56 Yes I have tried out bumping. I did it on my two accounts to see how easy it was, and I have to say it was so easy a new character can even do it. I jumped in an Incurus frigate and put my other account in a BS. Fitted with just an AB I was able to close from 20k and bump to keep him from warping. With an MWD I'd assume it's even easier to close from a greater distance. This wasn't just close and bump once either. I was able to stay close and constantly bump him to prevent him from warping. It was so easy I was appauled.
As for skill, I said this was a 'skills' based game, not skill based.
|
Savesti Kyrsst
Minmatar White-Noise
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 14:47:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Elgar Lightfoot Edited by: Elgar Lightfoot on 31/03/2007 14:19:56 Yes I have tried out bumping. I did it on my two accounts to see how easy it was, and I have to say it was so easy a new character can even do it. I jumped in an Incurus frigate and put my other account in a BS. Fitted with just an AB I was able to close from 20k and bump to keep him from warping. With an MWD I'd assume it's even easier to close from a greater distance. This wasn't just close and bump once either. I was able to stay close and constantly bump him to prevent him from warping. It was so easy I was appauled.
As for skill, I said this was a 'skills' based game, not skill based.
Then perhaps the implementation of bumping should be tweaked, so that it is harder to prevent a large ship warping in a smaller ship.
That is no reason to eliminate bumping altogether, and such reactionary decisions on game mechanics can have a very deleterious effect on games.
I have to say that if it isn't similarly easy for said bs to kill the incursus that you're doing something wrong.
You may have the opinion that EvE performance should depend on your character "skills" not player skills, but I think many people will disagree.
A good example of a game that depends entirely on character skill is here: Progress Quest.
|
Penny Priddy
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 15:30:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Savesti Kyrsst There are lots of ways to escape bumping, but they take player skill.
Describe them.
|
Savesti Kyrsst
Minmatar White-Noise
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 15:37:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Penny Priddy
Originally by: Savesti Kyrsst There are lots of ways to escape bumping, but they take player skill.
Describe them.
Insta-undocks.
Killing the bumpers.
Webbing the bumpers.
Getting someone else to web you.
Flying with other people
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |