EVE Search - Yulai Incident

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Yulai Incident

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lei'Ta Idee'Ats	Posted - 2005.03.30 13:03:00 - [1] Whats this Yulai incident I keep hearing about, and does anyone have any links to old threads?
Ray Laria	Posted - 2005.03.30 13:10:00 - [2] it was called the siege of yulai and some players came in and killed everyone who was there or who entered for a couple of hours and ccp banned all of them from eve
Mr MadCap	Posted - 2005.03.30 13:13:00 - [3] Edited by: Mr MadCap on 30/03/2005 13:14:00 L1nkY "Zombie attacks Yulai" Enjoy
K'thang	Posted - 2005.03.30 13:14:00 - [4] From the EVE-I boards (couldn't find it here): "Regarding the mass killings in Yulai last night (3rd of March 2004) As a lot of you are aware, a certain corp willingly exploited a fault in the game mechanics and managed to kill over a 100 people in the supposedly secure Yulai system last night. We have decreed that those who were the recipiants of this heinous crime will be fully reimbursed for their loss. If you are one of those who lost your belongings and still haven¦t petitioned us, please do so and we will see to it that your possessions are returned to you. The exploiters have received a ban for their efforts and anyone thinking of following their example should be aware that the same fate awaits them. - The GM Team" I still remember it, I almost got killed myself
Nyphur	Posted - 2005.03.30 13:25:00 - [5] This is what makes Eve great. The players doing something that everyone remembers, something that puts a system or a corporation or even a single player on the map. Something the devs didn't count on, the events team didn't plan and there are no eve chronicles about. It's the players that make a game like eve great :).
Ray Laria	Posted - 2005.03.30 13:29:00 - [6] Originally by: Nyphur This is what makes Eve great. The players doing something that everyone remembers, something that puts a system or a corporation or even a single player on the map. Something the devs didn't count on, the events team didn't plan and there are no eve chronicles about. It's the players that make a game like eve great :). agreed but i don't see y they got banned i mean the m0o did the same but on an even bigger scale but yet i don't believe any of them got banned for it
Polaris Lumine	Posted - 2005.03.30 13:38:00 - [7] Tbh I never understood why they were banned either. From what I remember they did nothing more than tank the damage from the turrets and concord (using ships to do remote shield and armour boosting). It seemed to be well planned and well executed. The response by CCP was imo heavy handed. A few days later an event in the system of Abudban took place where the event hostiles (played by CCP) disabled turret and concord response while they sat at the gate destroying player ships! -- Polaris Lumine
Hellspawn01	Posted - 2005.03.30 13:48:00 - [8] Killing ppl in high sec without getting killed by concord is an exploit. That clearly happend at the yulai incident. End of story. --------------------------------------------- Eve is not game, it¦s a way of life!
Avon	Posted - 2005.03.30 13:51:00 - [9] They weren't banned for the act itself, but for refusing to stop when so instructed by a GM. Lesson: Always do what GM's tell you. Not that we can discuss this here anyway. ______________________________________________ Never argue with idiots. They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience.
Muddy FunkStar	Posted - 2005.03.30 13:52:00 - [10] The problem/exploit has since been rectified, as the only reason CONCORD could not kill Zombie is that the ships providing shields to the main smartbomb ship were not flagged, if they had been all Zombies ships would have been destroyed fairly quickly.

Matthew	Posted - 2005.03.30 13:55:00 - [11] Originally by: Ray Laria agreed but i don't see y they got banned i mean the m0o did the same but on an even bigger scale but yet i don't believe any of them got banned for it Wasn't the difference that m0o did it in reletively low sec systems (like 0.4's and such), wheras zombie took it too far in going to the most central, most used system in eve, and creating as much disruption as they possibly could. Of course, the bans could also have to do with their reactions to the GM's who were trying to deal with it - if the GM's asked them to desist, and zombie gave them the collective finger, that would probably have been enough to tip it from a warning into a ban. But we'll never know about that either way. Also, I seem to remember that CCP were fighting a running battle at that stage, with people finding ways around concord. Zombie making such a high-profile statement with the Yulai massacre were really asking to be made an example of, and they were.
Latex Mistress	Posted - 2005.03.30 13:56:00 - [12] Originally by: Avon Not that we can discuss this here anyway. Yup! In before.... Yeah, you know what's next. If ECM is an act of aggression, why am I not on kill mails?
Ray Laria	Posted - 2005.03.30 14:00:00 - [13] yea i can see it comin any time now
Val Amon	Posted - 2005.03.30 14:02:00 - [14] Probably banned them because 1/4 of the petitions said, "How do I cancel my eve subscription" _ _ How many pilots does it take to wire a Flux Capacitor? 3, 1 to wire it and 2 to talk about how the old one was better.
Andrue	Posted - 2005.03.30 14:25:00 - [15] Originally by: Nyphur This is what makes Eve great. The players doing something that everyone remembers, something that puts a system or a corporation or even a single player on the map. Something the devs didn't count on, the events team didn't plan and there are no eve chronicles about. It's the players that make a game like eve great :). I agree - it was good. It was role playing. It made travel that night quite exciting. The problem (and where the GMs were right IMO) was that the perpetrators were asked to stop doing it. They ignored the requests from GMs and got banned. From what I recall they weren't banned for all the killing they were banned for ignoring GM instructions. -- (Battle hardened miner) [Brackley, UK] WARNING:This post may contain large doses of reality.
Discorporation	Posted - 2005.03.30 14:26:00 - [16] Yeah, coz like, exploiting game mechanics is soooo RP. [Heterocephalus glaber]
Paw Sandberg	Posted - 2005.03.30 14:29:00 - [17] they where Banned because they used a exploit they where made aware they where exploiting and cont doing it after being asked to stop did they deserve it ... Proberly Thank You Paw Sandberg for all your BPC needs see http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=55706&page=1
Avon	Posted - 2005.03.30 14:36:00 - [18] Originally by: Paw Sandberg they where Banned because they used a exploit they where made aware they where exploiting and cont doing it after being asked to stop did they deserve it ... Proberly Just to clarify, it wasn't deemed an exploit until after they did it. The ban was for disobeying a GM, not for exploiting per se. ______________________________________________ Never argue with idiots. They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience.
Aleyna	Posted - 2005.03.30 15:58:00 - [19] imo they shouldnt have been banned simply because the GMs coulda jumped in their titans and wiped them out then proceeded to ask concord to increase their defenses in the higher secs then something could've been worked into the story. -like- "breaking news, after the mass xenocide caused by the rogue pirates Zombie, Concord scientist have developped a new system wide response team outfited with top secret technologies. The new weapons and ships are to be deployed soon (tm). In other news, the search continues for the rogues who escaped...." i mean sure they didnt listen but you know something? if i'm pirating the high seas in the 21st century and i capture, loot and sink a bunch of cargo ships, you think im going to listen to the World's nations asking me to cease my actions? i think not. CCP imo handled that wrong. It was a perfect setup for a story which would've probably kept many players on their toes and would've added much to the Eve universe. as it stands, i don't think CCP is doing that great a job with the events. (im still waiting for my Fleet Issued Tempest/Phoon). The events as it stands are far too rare and hard to find. People like Zombie tried spicing it up, CCP banned them... oh well 4 life
Ray Laria	Posted - 2005.03.30 16:02:00 - [20] agreed there has been an uber shortage of offical events the last one i believe was the collous (sorry about the spelling and correct me if i'm wrong)race which was in feb come on where hav all the events gone.

Abraxus	Posted - 2005.03.30 16:08:00 - [21] Why is this going to be locked? Aren't we allowed to talk about things that happen in EVE?
Jaabaa Prime	Posted - 2005.03.30 16:22:00 - [22] If I remeber rightly the exploit was that the character had a -10.0 sec rating, and CONCORD only reacted to a drop of security rating. This couldn't happen to someone that was already at -10.0 so CONCORD ignored the assault. That piece of code was fixed and the security level of a system was there after used to define what sec status could enter there, i.e. no more -10.0 sec status people in >= 0.5. So I think they were banned for exploiting a game bug related to CONCORD reactions. -- Intergalactic Teeth Pullers "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
Paw Sandberg	Posted - 2005.03.30 16:24:00 - [23] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Paw Sandberg they where Banned because they used a exploit they where made aware they where exploiting and cont doing it after being asked to stop did they deserve it ... Proberly Just to clarify, it wasn't deemed an exploit until after they did it. The ban was for disobeying a GM, not for exploiting per se. hmm IF that is true I will have to say that CCP went over the line with banning them I dont know the full story although it does seam to me that a exploit is anything that exploits the game mechanics to do something you know you are not suppose to do (like killing peoble in a 1.0 with no penalty from Concord) Thank You Paw Sandberg for all your BPC needs see http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=55706&page=1
rowbin hod	Posted - 2005.03.30 16:32:00 - [24] Edited by: rowbin hod on 30/03/2005 16:33:08 Originally by: Paw Sandberg hmm IF that is true I will have to say that CCP went over the line with banning them How can you say that? They were told to stop and they didn't. I don't see any problem with it at all. They were using an exploit, CCP said "yeah, fine, well done, now stop" and they didn't. They knew what they were doing right from the start was wrong (concord is not there to be tanked) and IMO ccp were quite leniant in all the warnings before they were banned.
Paw Sandberg	Posted - 2005.03.30 16:39:00 - [25] Edited by: Paw Sandberg on 30/03/2005 16:39:19 Originally by: rowbin hod Edited by: rowbin hod on 30/03/2005 16:33:08 Originally by: Paw Sandberg hmm IF that is true I will have to say that CCP went over the line with banning them How can you say that? They were told to stop and they didn't. I don't see any problem with it at all. They were using an exploit, CCP said "yeah, fine, well done, now stop" and they didn't. They knew what they were doing right from the start was wrong (concord is not there to be tanked) and IMO ccp were quite leniant in all the warnings before they were banned. notice what I say in the line below it IF it is true though I still feel that a warning would heve been more prober than a Ban again though no one will be able to tell me that they did not know they where exploiting even before the GM told them and exploiting is a banneble offense Thank You Paw Sandberg for all your BPC needs see http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=55706&page=1
Nostradamu5	Posted - 2005.03.30 16:40:00 - [26] What surprises me is that this thread is still alive, normally posting is killed off and a semi-warning of not rehashing old incidents. Then again this could just be the pendulum swinging back to the lenient side. Those of you that remember the incident wasn't there a posting storm that followed? Stop griping about server instability and go buy an EVE mug! Additionally with the purchase of each mug you will receive two(2) invisible Elves.
Viceroy	Posted - 2005.03.30 16:41:00 - [27] Originally by: Jaabaa Prime If I remeber rightly the exploit was that the character had a -10.0 sec rating, and CONCORD only reacted to a drop of security rating. This couldn't happen to someone that was already at -10.0 so CONCORD ignored the assault. That piece of code was fixed and the security level of a system was there after used to define what sec status could enter there, i.e. no more -10.0 sec status people in >= 0.5. So I think they were banned for exploiting a game bug related to CONCORD reactions. That was fixed way before this particular event. -
Paw Sandberg	Posted - 2005.03.30 16:45:00 - [28] I am also (pleasently) surprised this thread has not been locked yet :-) Thank You Paw Sandberg for all your BPC needs see http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=55706&page=1
Xavier Arron	Posted - 2005.03.30 17:10:00 - [29] Heres a link to one of the threads: Linkage Originally by: drunkenmaster Had a few people or a corp actually done something about this, their names would be almost as well known as Zombies now are. Can you imagine the carebear respect you would get for ending a situation like this? People would be sending you fur samples for a month... lol -
Skinman	Posted - 2005.03.30 17:11:00 - [30] Originally by: Paw Sandberg IF it is true though I still feel that a warning would heve been more prober than a Ban again though no one will be able to tell me that they did not know they where exploiting even before the GM told them and exploiting is a banneble offense I think the point is that they WHERE warned while still in the process of exploiting. Therefore, the warning was already given, and was ignored. Next step for GM's (remember, GM's = God (unless your Amarrian, in which case they're slightly below the Emperor)), is a ban.

Corvus Dove	Posted - 2005.03.30 17:21:00 - [31] Originally by: Ray Laria Originally by: Nyphur This is what makes Eve great. The players doing something that everyone remembers, something that puts a system or a corporation or even a single player on the map. Something the devs didn't count on, the events team didn't plan and there are no eve chronicles about. It's the players that make a game like eve great :). agreed but i don't see y they got banned i mean the m0o did the same but on an even bigger scale but yet i don't believe any of them got banned for it m0o did it in 0.4. "You Griefer!!!" = "You Doodyhead!!!"
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.30 17:36:00 - [32] GMs there were stupid.. sorry to say this The problem was that the main attacker ship was shield/cap boosted by several other ships and those ships weren't marked as hostile CONCORD. Hence you got an uber tanking ship. If GMs were smart, they would have set security standing of supporting ships to -5. It would have been very easy, it would be proper from every possible perspective. Nobody would have to get banned or get out of character. There were many onlookers in Yulai, that simply stayed out of smartbomb range, they could have killed off the enemy support ships if it was actually legal to shoot them. Even if other players didn't get involved, CONCORD could change targets to support ships. If players weren't so enthusiastic about fighting the attackers, GMs could have organized a defense event. As last resort, GMs could have jumped into their own battleships. But they didn't do any of that. I bet the thought didn't even cross their mind. Which just shows how little CCP cares for role playing and game immersion.
Dionysus Davinci	Posted - 2005.03.30 17:42:00 - [33] Originally by: Face Lifter GMs there were stupid.. sorry to say this You are not suppose to survive Concord, sentries are a yes, but not Concord. To do other wise means your exploiting a game mechanic, there is one you can do now >_> <_< ^_^ , and deserved to be banned. It has been said other wise though, they where banned for ignoring the GM.
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.30 17:53:00 - [34] Originally by: Dionysus Davinci Originally by: Face Lifter GMs there were stupid.. sorry to say this You are not suppose to survive Concord, sentries are a yes, but not Concord. To do other wise means your exploiting a game mechanic, there is one you can do now.. CONCORD is stupid, it's dumb AI and everyone understands, it's ok. Yes, I know you aren't supposed to be able to tank CONCORD. But as I said, that was easily fixable by manually adjusting security status of supporting ships.. in that particular incident. Then add a hotfix to server that does this automatically, the way it works now. Banning was a dumb solution, GMs didn't think of anything better to do, that's why I think they were stupid.
ManOfHonor	Posted - 2005.03.30 17:56:00 - [35] they exploited- should be banned they IGNORED a GM (GM=god, except ***ass amarrians)- should be banned they griefed like all hell- should equal a BAN _____________________________ Honor Glory And Strength! Honor Above Self Glory For Self Strength Of Self (\_/) (^.^) (> <)
Nostradamu5	Posted - 2005.03.30 18:05:00 - [36] Facelifter's original post about an event would be unreasonable, GM's and god knows Polaris cannot create an event on the fly, you need to give them at least 3 weeks notice to get anything done. And how much of a suprise would it be with all those Polaris ships flying around for 1 week in advance (yeah I know two weeks missing, in a word meeting overkill). And they had nothing to give out to their favorite corps. Stop griping about server instability and go buy an EVE mug! Additionally with the purchase of each mug you will receive two(2) invisible Elves.
Xenu	Posted - 2005.03.30 18:07:00 - [37] Originally by: K'thang From the EVE-I boards (couldn't find it here): "Regarding the mass killings in Yulai last night (3rd of March 2004) As a lot of you are aware, a certain corp willingly exploited a fault in the game mechanics and managed to kill over a 100 people in the supposedly secure Yulai system last night. We have decreed that those who were the recipiants of this heinous crime will be fully reimbursed for their loss. If you are one of those who lost your belongings and still haven¦t petitioned us, please do so and we will see to it that your possessions are returned to you. The exploiters have received a ban for their efforts and anyone thinking of following their example should be aware that the same fate awaits them. - The GM Team" great moment in eve history. probably the funniest thing i've ever seen in game.
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.30 18:09:00 - [38] Originally by: ManOfHonor they exploited- should be banned they IGNORED a GM (GM=god, except ***ass amarrians)- should be banned they griefed like all hell- should equal a BAN It wasn't considered an exploit then. They just thought of a strategy that the devs haven't thought of, and executed it successfully. GMs aren't gods, they make mistakes. GMs shouldn't haved asked them to stop, at least, they shouldn't expect them to stop. Here's an example, if there is a bank robbery, the cops ask robbers to give up. Robbers refuse.. then cops ban than from existence? no, they can't, it's not how it works, they have to force the robbers to give up or kill them. That incident doesn't really qualify as "griefing like hell". It would be so only if such tactics were employed excessively, too often. This is no more greifing than camping 0.0 gate. The fact that it was 1.0 space can only qualify the act as an exploit, at most. I guess the difference of opinion breaks down to who you are, a PvPer or carebear.
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.30 18:12:00 - [39] Originally by: Nostradamu5 Facelifter's original post about an event would be unreasonable, GM's and god knows Polaris cannot create an event on the fly, you need to give them at least 3 weeks notice to get anything done. And how much of a suprise would it be with all those Polaris ships flying around for 1 week in advance (yeah I know two weeks missing, in a word meeting overkill). And they had nothing to give out to their favorite corps. I could have organized the event myself within 1 hour just by asking people in Alliance and Help chats. I'd even throw in some personal cash as reward to participants, no biggy And if it really takes that long for events to start, a server hotfix for supporting ship security standings could be done in 1 work day. Maybe 1 hour of coding, a few hours of testing.
Ray Laria	Posted - 2005.03.30 18:12:00 - [40] i guess u could say that this was a very babyish thing to do its like saying stop it or i won't be ur friend the gm's hav powers and ships that players don't they could of teleported then to the other end of the universe into deep 0.0 or broken out the polarsis ships

Lianhaun	Posted - 2005.03.30 18:13:00 - [41] 1.0 is safe space, or it should be safe. Zombie came and made it unsafe. It has nothing to do with being a carebear or a pirate. If people decide to stay in safespace then it should be safe and others should repsect that. Don't we ask carebears to respect our right to gank them in 0.0 space which is unsafe? Your bank robbery makes no sense either, the GM's decide what is ok or not, if you disagree with them then you can sod off from the game. They have that power and people know they do. Ignoring their requests is silly because do you really think they'll ask again? This is not a hijack
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.30 18:19:00 - [42] Originally by: Lianhaun 1.0 is safe space, or it should be safe. Zombie came and made it unsafe. It has nothing to do with being a carebear or a pirate. If people decide to stay in safespace then it should be safe and others should repsect that. Don't we ask carebears to respect our right to gank them in 0.0 space which is unsafe? Your bank robbery makes no sense either, the GM's decide what is ok or not, if you disagree with them then you can sod off from the game. They have that power and people know they do. Ignoring their requests is silly because do you really think they'll ask again? Yes 1.0 should be safe and it is so MOST of the time. As I said earlier, the Yulai incident would become a serious problem if such tactics were employed on regular basis as opposed to a single isolated incident. The devs would have fixed their CONCORD thing before it would become a serious problem. The very fact that guns aren't automatically disabled when you enter 1.0 shows that while 1.0 is very safe, there is still a chance, a small possibility that something bad may happen. You would godly security? disable guns, prevent lock of ships, prevent activation of weapons when non-war pilots are in harms way. Until then, your 100% security arguement is flawed by design, as the system wasn't designed that way.
Lianhaun	Posted - 2005.03.30 18:22:00 - [43] Edited by: Lianhaun on 30/03/2005 18:22:49 If it wasn't designed that way then why is the standard rule that if you attack someone concord comes and gank you? If it was not intended as such then why did the GM's step in? They wont disable guns because offical wars would make no sense and you need to defend yourself against npc This is not a hijack
Paw Sandberg	Posted - 2005.03.30 19:09:00 - [44] Originally by: Lianhaun Edited by: Lianhaun on 30/03/2005 18:22:49 If it wasn't designed that way then why is the standard rule that if you attack someone concord comes and gank you? If it was not intended as such then why did the GM's step in? They wont disable guns because offical wars would make no sense and you need to defend yourself against npc actuelly disabling all guns in .9 and 1.0 would make alot of sense (need the guns to defend your self against what Pirates ??) aint never going to happen but it would make sense (why would anyone want a war on their door steps ??) to get back to the Topic a Exploit is when someone exploits the game mechanics to do something they know they are not suppose to be doing simple as that Zombie KNEW that they where not suppose to kill ppl in a 1.0 system yet they did it anyway just to prove it could be done I would agree though that giving each of the involved a -10 sec status and adding a Bounty on each of them (say 100 mill) would have been better than simply banning the players but again I am not a GM either way the ppl that was attacked had the right to file petition's about it as 1.0 (and .9) are suppose to be safe Thank You Paw Sandberg for all your BPC needs see http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=55706&page=1
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.30 19:12:00 - [45] Originally by: Lianhaun Edited by: Lianhaun on 30/03/2005 18:22:49 If it wasn't designed that way then why is the standard rule that if you attack someone concord comes and gank you? If it was not intended as such then why did the GM's step in? To make it very improbable for bad things happening, but still not impossible. Why is this so hard to understand? If something is possible - it WILL happen, sooner or later. When it happens, you can be upset all you want, but you should understand that the system was designed to allow it.
Marcus Grisbius	Posted - 2005.03.30 19:12:00 - [46] First of all, they weren't doing any of that in character. It was purely griefing. Secondly, they were exploiting faults in the game mechanics to grief other players. Had they stopped when the GM's asked them to, I dont think they would have gotten banned. They would have gotten a warning but probably not banned. It wasnt like they accidentally came in and found out that they could do and kept doing it. They were sending a msg to the Devs to fix a bug they found. If so, they could have tested out for them on the test server and put in a bug report. No, they came in fully knowing they were doing something that was not supposed to be done and was entirely detrimental to the game. There were plenty of warnings given to many people who tried going on killing sprees in 1.0 space. TankCEO and the -10 sec status bug as mentioned earlier comes to mind. So there was precedence for people knowing that griefing in 1.0 space was not acceptable, no matter what "technique" was used. I'm glad the GM's didn't humor Zombies with an in character response too. That would have sent the message that as long as you are in character, it's ok to exploit bugs in the code and would have validated their griefing. The code wasnt set up the way it was intended so alternate actions were taken that matched the nature and scope of the offense. Bans were entirely appropriate. Certainty of death... little chance of success... what are we waiting for? - Gimli, son of Gloinn
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.30 19:16:00 - [47] Edited by: Face Lifter on 30/03/2005 19:21:19 Quote: a Exploit is when someone exploits the game mechanics to do something they know they are not suppose to be doing simple as that Then how come all the corp thieves and escrow scammers get away clean? I'm pretty sure they know they aren't supposed to be doing that. They know that what they are doing is a bad thing. But it's still okay, GMs don't reimburse the victims, GMs don't punish the wrong doers in any way. Why is that? because the system is designed to allow it. And from the same logic it follows that while you aren't supposed to kill anyone (non-war) in 1.0, it can still happen, and it's okay, because that's the way the system is designed. Quote: There were plenty of warnings given to many people who tried going on killing sprees in 1.0 space. TankCEO and the -10 sec status bug as mentioned earlier comes to mind. So there was precedence for people knowing that griefing in 1.0 space was not acceptable, no matter what "technique" was used. The bottom line is - if CCP really doesn't want people to "grief" others in 0.0, they will disable gun activations on non-war targets. That's the proper way. That's a simple way of doing away with all the possibilities for bad things. Right now, your arguement is similar to this case: lets say you have a violent criminal in the room. You put a loaded gun on the table. You say that if he tries to grab it, you'll kill him. Will he go for it? he may or may not. If you aren't willing to take the risk, WHY DO IT? If you want no risk, don't put the gun on the table.
Dionysus Davinci	Posted - 2005.03.30 19:26:00 - [48] Edited by: Dionysus Davinci on 30/03/2005 19:26:08 Originally by: Face Lifter Edited by: Face Lifter on 30/03/2005 19:21:19 Quote: a Exploit is when someone exploits the game mechanics to do something they know they are not suppose to be doing simple as that Then how come all the corp thieves and escrow scammers get away clean? I'm pretty sure they know they aren't supposed to be doing that. They know that what they are doing is a bad thing. But it's still okay, GMs don't reimburse the victims, GMs don't punish the wrong doers in any way. Why is that? because the system is designed to allow it. And from the same logic it follows that while you aren't supposed to kill anyone (non-war) in 1.0, it can still happen, and it's okay, because that's the way the system is designed. Quote: There were plenty of warnings given to many people who tried going on killing sprees in 1.0 space. TankCEO and the -10 sec status bug as mentioned earlier comes to mind. So there was precedence for people knowing that griefing in 1.0 space was not acceptable, no matter what "technique" was used. The bottom line is - if CCP really doesn't want people to "grief" others in 0.0, they will disable gun activations on non-war targets. That's the proper way. That's a simple way of doing away with all the possibilities for bad things. Right now, your arguement is similar to this case: lets say you have a violent criminal in the room. You put a loaded gun on the table. You say that if he tries to grab it, you'll kill him. Will he go for it? he may or may not. If you aren't willing to take the risk, WHY DO IT? If you want no risk, don't put the gun on the table. I think now you are just being silly or entirley missing the point. Scamming is allowed, because the tools exist to prevent it. If you are too stupid, oh well. Podding people in 1.0 and keeping your ship is not allowed though. Sure, I could load up 8 smartbombs on my Mega and pod a crap load of afk frigs that always hang out around DED Assembly, but I would loose my ship as a result, but if I keep it because I found a way to. Then I shoud be banned, espically if a GM warns me to stop and I still do it.
Paw Sandberg	Posted - 2005.03.30 19:31:00 - [49] Originally by: Marcus Grisbius First of all, they weren't doing any of that in character. It was purely griefing. Secondly, they were exploiting faults in the game mechanics to grief other players. Had they stopped when the GM's asked them to, I dont think they would have gotten banned. They would have gotten a warning but probably not banned. It wasnt like they accidentally came in and found out that they could do and kept doing it. They were sending a msg to the Devs to fix a bug they found. If so, they could have tested out for them on the test server and put in a bug report. No, they came in fully knowing they were doing something that was not supposed to be done and was entirely detrimental to the game. There were plenty of warnings given to many people who tried going on killing sprees in 1.0 space. TankCEO and the -10 sec status bug as mentioned earlier comes to mind. So there was precedence for people knowing that griefing in 1.0 space was not acceptable, no matter what "technique" was used. I'm glad the GM's didn't humor Zombies with an in character response too. That would have sent the message that as long as you are in character, it's ok to exploit bugs in the code and would have validated their griefing. The code wasnt set up the way it was intended so alternate actions were taken that matched the nature and scope of the offense. Bans were entirely appropriate. this is a really good point unfortunatly Originally by: Face Lifter Edited by: Face Lifter on 30/03/2005 19:21:19 Quote: a Exploit is when someone exploits the game mechanics to do something they know they are not suppose to be doing simple as that Then how come all the corp thieves and escrow scammers get away clean? I'm pretty sure they know they aren't supposed to be doing that. They know that what they are doing is a bad thing. But it's still okay, GMs don't reimburse the victims, GMs don't punish the wrong doers in any way. Why is that? because the system is designed to allow it. And from the same logic it follows that while you aren't supposed to kill anyone (non-war) in 1.0, it can still happen, and it's okay, because that's the way the system is designed. Quote: There were plenty of warnings given to many people who tried going on killing sprees in 1.0 space. TankCEO and the -10 sec status bug as mentioned earlier comes to mind. So there was precedence for people knowing that griefing in 1.0 space was not acceptable, no matter what "technique" was used. The bottom line is - if CCP really doesn't want people to "grief" others in 0.0, they will disable gun activations on non-war targets. That's the proper way. That's a simple way of doing away with all the possibilities for bad things. Right now, your arguement is similar to this case: lets say you have a violent criminal in the room. You put a loaded gun on the table. You say that if he tries to grab it, you'll kill him. Will he go for it? he may or may not. If you aren't willing to take the risk, WHY DO IT? If you want no risk, don't put the gun on the table. so is that scamming imo is a exploit you know you are not suppose to do it yet you do not get punished for it Thank You Paw Sandberg for all your BPC needs see http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=55706&page=1
Soren	Posted - 2005.03.30 19:31:00 - [50] Edited by: Soren on 30/03/2005 19:31:54 I think it was kinda harsh to ban them, they added some spunk to the game. But I guess someone needed to be made an expample of and the GMs couldn't just let it go. I also think that things like this is what makes the life in Eve. It makes great news and give people something to talk about for months after. Since the ban... how many "big" things have happened to make the universe interesting? (besides X pvp corp kills Y alliance). _________________________________________________________

Lygos	Posted - 2005.03.30 19:51:00 - [51] Edited by: Lygos on 30/03/2005 19:53:03 Clearly the game moderator responsible for that decision did not possess the proper faculties to maintain an immersive approach to game maintenance. Faculties here is inclusive of ethical codas for dealing with other political agents. All empires crumble, concord is no exception. Any number of responses could have been taken without resorting to out of game mechanisms for maintaining the status quo. Because the moderators did not exhaust avenues of diplomacy before engaging in conflict despite having a monopoly on the de jure and de facto use of coercion.. their response is categorically unjust and they thoroughly earned the right to be roundly condemned into perpetuity. This sort of action firmly cements their role as hostile agents of a crass commercial enterprise rather than as governors of a virtual community. With this lesson in mind, you are well advised to no longer revere the accomplishments or intentions of CCP, but treat the entire arena as just another form of workaday distraction to consume. CCP evidently does not desire your creativity or input into this environment. You may subscribe to it, but you would not be well-advised to seek to promulgatate any opinion regarding content. This is not a prescriptive or proscriptive opinion. It is an observation and an interpretation. This is not a reporting of CCP's official stances, but it is the only coherent position that may be gathered by observing their actions as indicative of their sense higher goods. We should all consider ourselves duly and thoroughly warned. [Edit] consider deletion and editation of this post to be conclusive evidence of jurisprudence bent purely to the demands of the contemporary commercial environment and it's fixation on identity and superficial appearance - spectacle if you will.
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.30 19:54:00 - [52] Quote: I think now you are just being silly or entirley missing the point. Scamming is allowed, because the tools exist to prevent it. If you are too stupid, oh well. Alright, if you accept that arguement, you must accept there are tools that smart people could use to prevent themselves from getting killed in Yulai on that day. Your best tool: the map, it shows everything you need to know 2nd tool: other people. What was happening in Yulai became known very quick, almost anyone who's not AFK traveling would know about the danger. 3rd: the smartbombing battleship has very limited killing range. It was positioned in a way as to intercept people that are warping from another gate to the camped gate. A smart person would easily know about what's going on before trying to warp there at 15km. So, if you say there are tools for smart people to avoid scams and corp theft (to me they aren't so smart as super paranoid control freaks), then you should understand there are tools to avoid getting podded in Yulai (you have to be equally paranoid control freak). Quote: Podding people in 1.0 and keeping your ship is not allowed though. Sure, I could load up 8 smartbombs on my Mega and pod a crap load of afk frigs that always hang out around DED Assembly, but I would loose my ship as a result, but if I keep it because I found a way to. Then I shoud be banned, espically if a GM warns me to stop and I still do it. If you found a way to do this, props to you, good job. But guess what, there are many more people, who are thinking of ways to counter your new tactic, and they will come up with a solution pretty quick. You can't be a one trick pony. If the support ship strategy went unchallanged, if it was allowed to happen over and over again THEN you'd have a serious problem, then you could say the system is broken, that high security space is after all not secure at all. But who's fault would that be? not the attacker's fault, it's the defenders fault for not being quick to respond, not using their brains to counter new strategies. You can't blame a wolf for eating a sheep in the herd. But you can blame the shepherd for it.
Eris Discordia	Posted - 2005.03.30 20:14:00 - [53] Time for a lock me thinks, question was answered in the first post and the discussion went from the topic to GM actions to what is or is not an exploit. The common definition of an exploit is ôto use the game mechanics in such a way as they were not intended for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage over other players.ö Taken from here If you have further questions concerning this subject you can Ask A Question on this website under EVE Support on the left. I ♥ my pink dreadnought of pwnage Mail [email protected] if you have any questions.


Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.