| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
Milkyway Tzu
   |
Posted - 2011.07.23 18:07:00 -
[1]
Is this considered as exploit? Tons of cans around the bubble.
[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/18/pic2yh.jpg/][/URL]
[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/204/pic1wbg.jpg/][/URL]
|
Simplus Massive
|
Posted - 2011.07.23 18:23:00 -
[2]
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1443066
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1522983
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1353163
So basicly, how many cans are a ton of cans?
------------------------------------------
simplus.rjctd.com ★ zaisen.rjctd.com |
Breaker77
Gallente
Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2011.07.23 18:35:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Simplus Massive
So basicly, how many cans are a ton of cans?
If you go by weight, a small standard container is 11 tons.
If you go by number of cans, then 2000 cans would be petitionable if the node didn't crash by the time they were all deployed.
|
|
GM Homonoia
|
Posted - 2011.07.23 23:13:00 -
[4]
Normally I would direct anyone with specific question to our petition system. However, we get this question a lot and a large part of our players seem to think that this is an exploit; thus let me answer this question as clear as possible:
No, this is not an exploit and is fully allowed.
Using debris to decloak ships is a perfectly valid strategy. You can use cans, drones, and any other object that decloaks a ship. This is simply a clever use of normal game mechanics.
The Exception: The only thing you may not do is deploy so much debris that it causes lag.
How much debris will cause lag? Well, there is no hard answer for that as this is highly dependent on too many factors to formulate a definition that can always be applied. Common sense will need to be applied (and GMs have certain protocols to use to determine if it causes lag or not, to make sure that all GMs use the same benchmark).
|
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2011.07.23 23:25:00 -
[5]
Changing the rules again I see.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
|
GM Homonoia
|
Posted - 2011.07.23 23:26:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Ghoest
Changing the rules again I see.
This has always been a valid tactic. As a player I have been using this since 2006 as a legal tactic.
|
|
Enquirer
|
Posted - 2011.07.23 23:26:00 -
[7]
Outstanding
warp bubble to drag the cloakies off of gate , cans probes and drones in around bubble leading to gate....
die cloakies die...
And thank you for answering this....
|
Sadayiel
Caldari
Inner Conflict
|
Posted - 2011.07.23 23:30:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Sadayiel on 23/07/2011 23:31:29
Originally by: Ghoest
Changing the rules again I see.
AS far as i know the answer has been and it's always been, as long it NOT LAGS it's allowed.
Hence there is no changing rules just a more definitive explanation (GM have benchmark to test if there is lag for such ammount or not so everyone measure all situations as equals) than before.
Originally by: GM Homonoia
Normally I would direct anyone with specific question to our petition system. However, we get this question a lot and a large part of our players seem to think that this is an exploit; thus let me answer this question as clear as possible:
No, this is not an exploit and is fully allowed.
Using debris to decloak ships is a perfectly valid strategy. You can use cans, drones, and any other object that decloaks a ship. This is simply a clever use of normal game mechanics.
The Exception: The only thing you may not do is deploy so much debris that it causes lag.
How much debris will cause lag? Well, there is no hard answer for that as this is highly dependent on too many factors to formulate a definition that can always be applied. Common sense will need to be applied (and GMs have certain protocols to use to determine if it causes lag or not, to make sure that all GMs use the same benchmark).
Also thx for finally answer the never answered question (the there is an equal benchmark for everyone) about this issue.
P.S: adding this thread to my adressbook to link whenever ppl comes up with this complain again.
DEAR MONOCLE OVERLORDS JOIN TO FORCE CCP ADD LORGNETTE FOR THE OVERLADIES!! |
|
GM Homonoia
|
Posted - 2011.07.23 23:36:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Sadayiel
Also thx for finally answer the never answered question (the there is an equal benchmark for everyone) about this issue.
P.S: adding this thread to my adressbook to link whenever ppl comes up with this complain again.
Well, it is quite simple, really. All GMs use roughly the same hardware (there are a few exceptions, but these GMs ask others who do have the hardware that falls within these standards to check it instead) and the very best way to check this is to simply go there and experience it (there are other options, of course, but going through the actual experience is always the best indicator). On top of that, even though we have these protocols in place, a second opinion is almost always part of the process.
|
|
Smoking McPot
|
Posted - 2011.07.23 23:37:00 -
[10]
with the term LAG do you mean real lag, like increasing network latencies, or does it also include stuttering graphics which is often also related to overstrained hardware? |
|
|
|
GM Homonoia
|
Posted - 2011.07.23 23:42:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Smoking McPot
with the term LAG do you mean real lag, like increasing network latencies, or does it also include stuttering graphics which is often also related to overstrained hardware?
The number of static items on a grid rarely causes actual server side lag (unless ridiculous amounts are used or the node itself is already under a heavy load from other causes). The lag we are talking about in these particular cases are usually client side lag. This usually manifests itself as all objects or models loading slowly or controls not responding for a few seconds as the grid loads.
|
|
Nian Istaria
|
Posted - 2011.07.23 23:49:00 -
[12]
As a cloaky with some experience staying alive this tactic doesn't bother me too much. I have no problem with it because it only makes the job marginally harder.
Thinking in 3 dimensions and having keep at range preset usually suffices. Also remember to throw occasional taunts in local, it can tie up as many 49 pilots looking for you.
Patience and a cool head will keep you alive and make any overpowered gatecamp wish they never heard of you.
|
Siigari Kitawa
Gallente
Perditus Peregrinus
|
Posted - 2011.07.23 23:58:00 -
[13]
Originally by: GM Homonoia
Originally by: Smoking McPot
with the term LAG do you mean real lag, like increasing network latencies, or does it also include stuttering graphics which is often also related to overstrained hardware?
The number of static items on a grid rarely causes actual server side lag (unless ridiculous amounts are used or the node itself is already under a heavy load from other causes). The lag we are talking about in these particular cases are usually client side lag. This usually manifests itself as all objects or models loading slowly or controls not responding for a few seconds as the grid loads.
I didn't know you guys were capable of detecting client-side lag.
I have a bunch of petitions to file now, thanks.
|
|
GM Homonoia
|
Posted - 2011.07.24 00:01:00 -
[14]
Edited by: GM Homonoia on 24/07/2011 00:01:13
Originally by: Siigari Kitawa
Originally by: GM Homonoia
Originally by: Smoking McPot
with the term LAG do you mean real lag, like increasing network latencies, or does it also include stuttering graphics which is often also related to overstrained hardware?
The number of static items on a grid rarely causes actual server side lag (unless ridiculous amounts are used or the node itself is already under a heavy load from other causes). The lag we are talking about in these particular cases are usually client side lag. This usually manifests itself as all objects or models loading slowly or controls not responding for a few seconds as the grid loads.
I didn't know you guys were capable of detecting client-side lag.
I have a bunch of petitions to file now, thanks.
We cannot detect if YOU have suffered from client side lag. That is on your PC and the internet gods have not bestowed me with the authority to snoop around in your PC. I can, however, detect if MY client suffers from lag.
|
|
The Pteradactyl
|
Posted - 2011.07.24 00:03:00 -
[15]
Originally by: GM Homonoia
Normally I would direct anyone with specific question to our petition system. However, we get this question a lot and a large part of our players seem to think that this is an exploit; thus let me answer this question as clear as possible:
No, this is not an exploit and is fully allowed.
Using debris to decloak ships is a perfectly valid strategy. You can use cans, drones, and any other object that decloaks a ship. This is simply a clever use of normal game mechanics.
The Exception: The only thing you may not do is deploy so much debris that it causes lag.
How much debris will cause lag? Well, there is no hard answer for that as this is highly dependent on too many factors to formulate a definition that can always be applied. Common sense will need to be applied (and GMs have certain protocols to use to determine if it causes lag or not, to make sure that all GMs use the same benchmark).
I petitioned a situation in which an alliance had put over 200 bubbles on one gate to protect it (it was a dead end system). My thought was that the only reason to put that many bubbles up was to lag out anyone that came in (the lag was massive).
In the response to my petition I was told that the bubbles provided a tactical advantage and so it was not an exploit despite the lag. Has that changed so that lag is considered an exploit? Or is the lag fine if it comes from objects that also provide some other advantage?
|
|
GM Homonoia
|
Posted - 2011.07.24 00:06:00 -
[16]
Originally by: The Pteradactyl
I petitioned a situation in which an alliance had put over 200 bubbles on one gate to protect it (it was a dead end system). My thought was that the only reason to put that many bubbles up was to lag out anyone that came in (the lag was massive).
In the response to my petition I was told that the bubbles provided a tactical advantage and so it was not an exploit despite the lag. Has that changed so that lag is considered an exploit? Or is the lag fine if it comes from objects that also provide some other advantage?
Bubbles are somewhat of a special case. No amount of deployed bubbles is considered an exploit. Overlapping bubbles are often needed to keep a fleet in place by preventing them from simply quickly destroying a few bubbles and leave.
|
|
Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
|
Posted - 2011.07.24 00:24:00 -
[17]
Thank you... it was great for me to have the rule cleared up.... I really wasn't sure if it was ok to pop a few dozen cans in a bubble or not.
And I think its perfectly clear to reasonable people where the lag issue starts getting pushed. ... something that feels in scale with other occurences in the game and not one player having the effect of hundreds feels like polite competition.
|
Chissie
|
Posted - 2011.07.24 00:28:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Chissie on 24/07/2011 00:30:30
Originally by: GM Homonoia
Originally by: The Pteradactyl
I petitioned a situation in which an alliance had put over 200 bubbles on one gate to protect it (it was a dead end system). My thought was that the only reason to put that many bubbles up was to lag out anyone that came in (the lag was massive).
In the response to my petition I was told that the bubbles provided a tactical advantage and so it was not an exploit despite the lag. Has that changed so that lag is considered an exploit? Or is the lag fine if it comes from objects that also provide some other advantage?
Bubbles are somewhat of a special case. No amount of deployed bubbles is considered an exploit. Overlapping bubbles are often needed to keep a fleet in place by preventing them from simply quickly destroying a few bubbles and leave.
I don't think this has always been the case, I remember few years ago, IT alliance deployed about 100 or so large bubbles around a gate, with extremely heavy overlapping (all of the bubbles were in an area that could have been covered with about 10 or less bubbles), this was deemed exploit (for causing excessive lag) by GM and all of the bubbles were destroyed by the GM.
|
|
GM Homonoia
|
Posted - 2011.07.24 00:33:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Chissie
I don't think this has always been the case, I remember few years ago, IT alliance deployed about 100 or so large bubbles around a gate, with extremely heavy overlapping (all of the bubbles were in an area that could have been covered with about 10 or less bubbles), this was deemed exploit (for causing excessive lag) by GM and all of the bubbles were destroyed by the GM.
Correct. This is one rule that was changed. Pretty much the way fleets battles were fought changed and we needed to update our policy in that regard in order to keep them in line wit reality.
|
|
Lady Spank
Amarr
Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2011.07.24 00:43:00 -
[20]
CLIENT SIDE LAG, BECAUSE THE LOGS SHOW SOMETHING 
~~~
|
|
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2011.07.24 00:59:00 -
[21]
It looks to me like we have GM drastically reinterpreting(effectively changing)the rules based her preferred play style when she was a player.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Speaker4 theDead
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.07.24 00:59:00 -
[22]
Wow, that's not a change? Are they hiring PR execs as coders now?
Current Subscription6 Months- Canceled
Account Expires09 August 2011 - 4:04 am (in 18 days) |
|
GM Homonoia
|
Posted - 2011.07.24 01:02:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Ghoest
It looks to me like we have GM drastically reinterpreting(effectively changing)the rules based her preferred play style when she was a player.
I can assure that this is not the case. Although I guess I should not be feeding the troll.
|
|
Kuronaga
Black Snake Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.07.24 01:15:00 -
[24]
Remember that thread where everyone told me I was wrong?
Yea, Kuronaga remembers.
What now, carebears?
|
Seamus Donohue
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.07.24 01:19:00 -
[25]
Thank you for clearing this up, Homonoia.
_____
SURVIVOR of Teskanen, fan of John Rourke.
The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated |
Taedrin
Gallente
Zero Percent Tax Haven
|
Posted - 2011.07.24 01:24:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Ghoest
Changing the rules again I see.
This has *ALWAYS* been this way. Decloaking cans have been used in EVE since I started playing in late 2004. As the good GM pointed out, this has been petitioned COUNTLESS times, and the answer has ALWAYS been the same: You can use as many decloaking cans as you want, so long as it does not cause lag. Exactly how many cans can be used has always been an open question - one which the GMs have never been willing to answer - they simply tell us to use common sense.
----------
Originally by: Dr Fighter
"how do you know when youve had a repro accident"
Theres modules missing and morphite in your mineral pile.
|
VicturusTeSaluto
Gallente
Metafarmers
MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2011.07.24 02:05:00 -
[27]
amazing. I have always been told this was an exploit.
one time I saw about 100 cans all around a gate. I decided to poooteeeeeshun just to find out if its actually considered an exploit. I basically said "hey, there's many many cans at this gate in this system. seems to be designed to prevent people from cloaking. Is such a tactic considered an exploit or not?"
All I ever got was "thanks for bringing the matter to our attention" *petition closed* Now why was it so hard for them to admit that its not an exploit?
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2011.07.24 02:08:00 -
[28]
Originally by: GM Homonoia
Originally by: Ghoest
It looks to me like we have GM drastically reinterpreting(effectively changing)the rules based her preferred play style when she was a player.
I can assure that this is not the case. Although I guess I should not be feeding the troll.
If you are going to start calling names based on people pointing out you effectively changing the rules - then you shouldnt be posting under a dev account.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Sentient Blade
|
Posted - 2011.07.24 02:11:00 -
[29]
IMO the topic is deserving of a renewed discussion within CCP and a firm policy stating from the devs and community support team themselves.
I think that there is a danger here of an individual GM's comments being used as cover for people to begin carpet bombing gates and stations with ever increasing numbers of jettisoned shuttles and cans in an attempt to push the limits -- I wouldn't give it long before petitions conveniently including screenshots with the FPS monitor show to argue "my frame rate was fine" etc.
Seems to me if you want to decloak someone you should have to use ships, not inanimate objects.
|
|
GM Homonoia
|
Posted - 2011.07.24 02:13:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Ghoest
Originally by: GM Homonoia
Originally by: Ghoest
It looks to me like we have GM drastically reinterpreting(effectively changing)the rules based her preferred play style when she was a player.
I can assure that this is not the case. Although I guess I should not be feeding the troll.
If you are going to start calling names based on people pointing out you effectively changing the rules - then you shouldnt be posting under a dev account.
Oh dear
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |