|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Meilandra Vanderganken
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
13
   |
Posted - 2013.12.11 13:51:00 -
[1] - Quote
CEO deGroot wrote:I am not against how they playt it, just that they can avoid a wardec so easy.
it gives us miners no first strike option. i have pvp chars also and in null sec i do play the same game
but there they can shoot me too without concord shooting you out of your ship.
You have first strike option. The game mechanics are the same for gankers as for non gankers. So you can try and hunt them or their alts for ganking and bumping. Yes, I know that will require effort on your part. |
Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
153
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 21:30:32 -
[2] - Quote
Dusty 3allvalve wrote:
So if such "emergent gameplay" has "occurred due to the nature of game mechanics"...it seems clear that we should also be able to dress up and reconfigure a shipm, like the iteron and other feeble industrial ships, as a suicide-ganker hunter. A warship that looks just like its orignal, sending signals (elec mod) of a nicely loaded cargo bay...for a price of course.
"Necessity is the mother of invention." Would you believe I didn't just make that lil' gem up. Point is, if the program does not evolve in common sense ways, it is "dated" and unkept. Because if we are talking about game evolution, how many of us drive a Model A? Or is it only natural to grow...before dying?
Seems obvious to me. I'm sure those that are exploiting the hole, or lack if you prefer, in the game mechanics would disagree.
"Be careful what you wish for.", that's another nice lil' gem you should give some thought. 
Also: this is a thread about bumping, not ganking. |
Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
243
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 18:11:20 -
[3] - Quote
Raimena wrote:
Does this mean that keeping a player bumped and agressed indefinitely to harass them is within the game rules? After all, they haven't made any effort to move away - they simply have no option to. The only "option" they have is to basically give away all their current possessions (ship+contents) to whoever decides to harrass them - giving a huge benefit to the harasser and a huge loss to the victim. This is the literal interpretation of the rules, but is this the one that will actually be endorsed? If not, what wording WILL be endorsed?
"Moving to another location" is not trying to warp off, it's relocating your operation to another part of space as I understand it.
If you consistenly target one person and follow them around the galaxy ganking/bumping/screwing up his missions/exploration/whatever it will at some point be considered harassment. Things like that will be judged on a case by case basis and I guess you have to take it very far before it is classified as actual harassment.
Example: the miner that get's blown up in the same system(s) repeatedly by the same player, not harassment.
If that miner makes attempt to relocate to the far side of the map, only to be followed by the ganker every single time he relocates and getting ganked, harassment (at some point). |
Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
243
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 19:22:47 -
[4] - Quote
Raimena wrote:That's why i specifically linked to the example of a hauler being held hostage for many hours and eventually killed by a single enemy. It wasn't followed, yet it's hard to argue it isn't harassment when you sit around doing nothing but stop another player from doing another for multiple hours. It's harassment by definition, but the question is wether it's harassment by the rules.
You can bet your behind that it is fully within the rules. Getting your gameplay stomped on is the core of EVE, engagements lasting for hours or getting hell camped is stuff that is very common in EVE. I see no reason why all of a sudden a freighter getting bumped for the time it takes to gather a fleet to kill it should be any different just because it happened in high sec. High sec is NOT 100% safe and it does not provide you with extra 'rights to safety' that have not already been built into the game mechanics.
Quote:
As for moving operations; haulers can't really move operations away from market hubs. They kind of work like that, so that part doesn't make sense on them either :/.
Of course they can move operations. If they choose not to because of 'convenient' or 'better income' (the latter being debateable I reckon) that is just that: their CHOICE.
Furthermore, you're not going to get a response from a GM in this thread on specifics. It is CCP policy not to draw a definitive line in the sand on issues like these. They want to maintain the freedom of being able to judge on a case by case basis. I think they were very clear on this subject though and that you're just trying to find loopholes (which you're not gonna get).
Edit: ah, this guy did it by himself mostly. Doesn't change anything though. Bumping is legal and he was not being singled out after making a serious attempt to move his operations. Simple really :) |
Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
243
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 04:33:34 -
[5] - Quote
Raimena wrote:I see you are plainly pro-harassment, then. Nothing to be gained here if nobody "official" will ever reply. I only hope CCP will deal with harassment properly, rather than your literal "he didn't move so it's okay to keep him from logging out until another player decides he can" (after being held unable to move for hours).
Again: being shut down or held in an engagement for hours is very common in EVE. It's very much part of the core gameplay. If you don't like that, maybe this is not the game for you?
Other than that, judging from experience and what CCP has stated in this and other threads on what goes and what doesn't, I'd say it's pretty clear that your singled out case will not be considered 'harassment'.
And yes, chances of a GM ruling on a single case in an open forum thread are very slim. As stated: they do not want to draw a line in the sand and want to keep the option open to judge on a case by case basis. |
|
|
| |
|