|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear
Minor Miners
0
   |
Posted - 2013.11.24 16:13:00 -
[1] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
Bumping is within the rules of the game.
Not really, CCP isnt very clear about it Bumping, thats all.
RubyPorto wrote:
Just like any other video game, the mechanics are the rules.
No: Abuses of Game Mechanics are very well known as "Exploits".
But like Highsec Ganking it adds to the Player Created Content.
AS long the situation gets not somehow out of hand, CCP will do nothing. |
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear
Minor Miners
0
|
Posted - 2013.11.24 16:21:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
Bumping is within the rules of the game.
Not really, CCP isnt very clear about it Bumping, thats all. RubyPorto wrote:
Just like any other video game, the mechanics are the rules.
No: Abuses of Game Mechanics as intended by the Developers are very well known as "Exploits". But like Highsec Ganking it adds to the Player Created Content. AS long the situation gets not somehow out of hand, CCP will do nothing. |
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear
Minor Miners
0
|
Posted - 2013.11.27 15:19:00 -
[3] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:What's unclear?
"considers"
CCP might change their minds, right now its "normal".
Quote:No: Abuses of Game Mechanics are very well known as "Exploits".
But like Highsec Ganking it adds to the Player Created Content.
Not quite. EVE's definition of an "Exploit" is a bit different from yours:
In this case it is "normal game mechanics".
The expression "such as by" does not exclude anything else.
What would be "abnormal" game mechanics?
My point is, that CCP can change their minds.
For eg.
In the Beginning Titans could fire their Doomdays Devs through cyno gates without leaving the system. (According to "mittens")
Since it worked that way it was "normal game mechanics".
Was that intended by CCP?
I dont know.
Did CCP change it?
As far as i l know YES
|
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear
Minor Miners
0
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 16:05:00 -
[4] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
blablub...
ludicrous
...
So so...
CCP wrote:
Bumping a ship in order to get it stuck in emergency warp alignment limbo when its pilot logs in is now considered an exploit.
From "Offical Game Mechanic" to "Exploit".
Looks like i was right.
And they even use the Word "considered".
^^ |
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear
Minor Miners
0
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 15:21:00 -
[5] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:The word "considered" still doesn't mean "we'll change our mind in the future."
I didnt write that.
RubyPorto wrote:
Let me help:
Thank you, but NO thank you, i am peachy...
RubyPorto wrote:
Your version of the word
More likely its your version and the meaning that you would like to read out of it.
Finished nitpicking?
|
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear
Minor Miners
0
|
Posted - 2013.12.07 00:20:00 -
[6] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:So what, exactly d id you mean by this:
Read it again. There is a slight difference.
RubyPorto wrote:My definition
As i wrote, your definition.
RubyPorto wrote:
of the word comes straight out of the dictionary, and is the only dictionary definition that fits the context.
The only one that fits in your context. Language is not "defined" by dictionaries.
I thought i would be easier to understand:
Eve is a complex peace of code.
Not all the side effects of that code are known and some "game mechanics" simply havent been thought of, or not thoroughly thought through.
In this special case its not the bump thats broken, its the emergency warp.
Bumping to use the bug is exploiting.
Bumping is still a valid game mechanic and if not many had found out, even this ebump would be legit. |
|
|
| |
|