| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
2740
   |
Posted - 2013.06.30 16:33:00 -
[1] - Quote
Looks like the OP was bumped by a neutral Macheriel so he/she couldn't get back to gate. The DEVs don't consider this an exploit.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=199310&find=unread
And FYI... CCP will not take any action based on evidence provided by a player. It's easy to falsify.
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
2740
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 16:58:00 -
[2] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Falls under his description of harassment though: "However, persistent targeting of a player with bumping by following them around after they have made an effort to move on to another location can be classified as harassment, and this will be judged on a case by case basis."
The way CCP usually considers "harrassment" is only if the player is targeted of the course of days, no matter where he/she goes to avoid conflict, for no particular reason.
Unless the OP is bumped by the same people no matter where he/she goes despite being unprofitable... the OP has no case. 
S Byerley wrote:Judging on a case to case basis is silly; better to adjust the mechanic so you can't completely disable someone in that manner. (or introduce consequences, w/e)
Really think about that.
If you gain suspect status by bumping someone...
- then every time you undock from a congested station (Jita 4-4) you will bump or be bumped. Everyone will gain suspect status and carnage will ensue.
- when you warp to gates there is a chance you might run into someone (or even the gate)... resulting in people being made suspect for no reason.
- how will the server decide who should gain the suspect timer? Based on who had the lower velocity? Greater mass?
Sure... there are ways to get around this...
- make an exception where ships won't go suspect if they are within a certain range of the station.
- make another exception where people within a certain range of the stargate won't go suspect.
WHOOPSIE-DAISY! Back to square one again. People will be using the exception to bump people off of gates again (at least up to a point).
tl;dr... computers and coding are actually quite "stupid" and can't reason. You also can't create or alter a blanket mechanic that affects so many things in the game without creating numerous exceptions and/or creating new, unforeseen consequences that will also be abused.
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
2741
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 19:56:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ace Uoweme wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:Really think about that.
If you gain suspect status by bumping someone...
- then every time you undock from a congested station (Jita 4-4) you will bump or be bumped. Everyone will gain suspect status and carnage will ensue. Can put a conditional in the code it's not rocket science.
Read the rest of my post.
I wrote:- make an exception where ships won't go suspect if they are within a certain range of the station (in case of accidental bumping).
- make another exception where people within a certain range of the stargate won't go suspect (in case of accidental bumping).
WHOOPSIE-DAISY! Back to square one. People will be using the exception to bump people off of gates again (at least up to a point).
Ace Uoweme wrote:Jita already isn't like any other solar system in EvE. It's special, not equal.
Jita IS like every other system in EVE. The "special restrictions" they have there are more to prevent the server from melting down than to promote/discourage certain player behaviors.
Ace Uoweme wrote:Bumping is an exploit (wasn't designed | player used) , but one CCP overlooks (same goes for our ships bumping off of gates).
Heh... nope. Bumping has been around for a LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time. It only gained extra attention with the (not so) recent buffs to the mining barges... which made miner ganking not as economical as it used to be. Former gankers still ply their trade... but with less explosions and more blackmail.
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
2741
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 20:51:00 -
[4] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:
Read the rest of my post.
You attack it from such a silly angle though; why not just tweak logoff restrictions in high sec to ensure a player can get his ship out of game if he's not (more regularly) involved in combat?
Then people (not just haulers) can perform a "logoffskii" as soon as they feel threatened and/or see that they are going to be blown up. And CCP actually coded the Crimewatch mechanics SPECIFICALLY to counter that kind of behavior.
The tradeoff for this is that those who have legitimate disconnects/drops from the server will not "disappear" and may get killed by the NPCs (because the server cannot distinguish between a dropped connection or "pulling the plug" on your computer).
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
2741
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 22:31:00 -
[5] - Quote
Ace Uoweme wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:Ace Uoweme wrote:Bumping is an exploit (wasn't designed | player used) , but one CCP overlooks (same goes for our ships bumping off of gates). Heh... nope. Bumping has been around for a LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time. It only gained extra attention with the (not so) recent buffs to the mining barges... which made miner ganking not as economical as it used to be. Former gankers still ply their trade... but with less explosions and more blackmail. Read it. An exploit is something not designed by the devs, but players discovered and using to their advantage. This exploit isn't fixed because it's tied to physics itself (and they'll have to fix the ships bumping gates). But that doesn't mean it's right to do. In WoW if you don't know if the exploit is valid or not, you risk losing your account. Yeah, people ask first in WoW because losing a 5+ year account to one mistake hurts. Those guys who found an exploit in archaeology using a certain addon, about 30,000 got permanent ban notices. CCP is real kind, other games are not.
By that standard then then these other "exploits" should be stopped too as they were never intentional and some still exist in a sort of grey/limbo area (which ironically, bumping does not). Some are simply "not right" depending on which perspective you have.
- Web-to-warp trick : as soon as a large ship starts to go into warp, web it. It will go into warp almost immediately.
- Cloak-MWD trick : used on larger ships, you activate the cloak and MWD at the same time and as soon as the MWD cycle ends, drop cloak. You will insta-warp.
- Multi-boxing fleets : self explanatory.
- Using drones/space junk to decloak ships in bubbles : cloaks deactivate when the ship they are fitted to is within 2000 meters of another object. Litter enough objects in a drag bubble (but not enough to cause lag) and you will catch almost everything that gets sucked in.
- Grid-fu : you can expand or move the size of the space grid by anchoring cans in specific places at the right distances. This allows you to play some really nasty skirmishing tricks (one moment you are on grid, next you are not) which makes snipers **** and rage.
- Jetcan mining : self explanatory. It was never intentional (the CEO of CCP can tell you himself  ). It just happened (even with haulers being available at the time). Nothing was ever done to get rid of it.
- Fleet-gank : fleet up a random neutral in system, warp to them, and gank them. It's an abuse of the fleet system as it was intended to be. Then again, you shouldn't get into a "car" with someone you don't know.
- AFK-cloaking : get into any cloaking-specialized ship, find a populated 0.0 system, and sit in it cloaked 23 hours a day for as long as you want. Definitely not intentional as far as mechanics are concerned... but one that is in response to the next non-intended action...
- Local intel : using Local as an intel source to avoid conflict was not the intention of the DEVs. It was just supposed to be a chat channel so that people wouldn't get lonely in the blackness of space.
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
2741
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 22:41:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ace Uoweme wrote:Tippia wrote:Ace Uoweme wrote:CCP doesn't make the definitions. Of course they do. Every part of them, in fact. There is no Mystic Exploit Council that determine the universal standard for what counts in an exploit across all games everywhere GÇö just individual devs and GMs that set up the policies for their specific game. You're arguing the wrong points, the definition is quite clear across all games -- it's not a dev design feature but one players discovered and use to their advantage. That's the definition of a game exploit.
Soooooo... EVE is pretty much one giant exploit then? Because I think that was the underlying idea behind the game itself (that players try to use any and all mechanics to their advantage).
Ace Uoweme wrote:CCP allows it for whatever reason, but it's clear it's an exploit by the gaming definition independent of EvE (which isn't a celestial court for gaming definitions).
CCP allows it because they don't consider it an exploit. As per THEIR definition. Because at the end of the day... that's the only one that actually MATTERS.
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
2741
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 23:03:00 -
[7] - Quote
Ace Uoweme wrote:Mag's wrote:We defend it because it is not an exploit, no matter how many times you use the term. EvE is not so removed from gaming to defy even gaming definitions. Point blank. As long as the devs didn't design it, and players discovered it, and uses what they discovered for an advantage, it's an exploit. You want to hide under CCP's skirt because they allow it, but it doesn't change the definition.
You do know that language is not set in stone and that words are often redefined over time depending in their usage. The fact that we are even discussing what an "exploit" actually is and can't agree is literally proof of that.
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
2741
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 23:21:00 -
[8] - Quote
Ace Uoweme wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:
You do know that language is not set in stone and that words are often redefined over time depending in their usage. The fact that we are even discussing what an "exploit" actually is and can't agree is literally proof of that.
Yeah, all those Dream Paragon supporters said the same. Dream Paragon still got a 10 day suspension and lost the world first -- and they deserved it. When professional gamers cheat, it's b-a-d. They know better. http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/1549389227?page=1Worst thing about that exploit was the excuses made, like if they didn't do it... the others would. If folks got to exploit to play or have fun..."Houston, we have a problem..."
In that case, the DEVs of WoW considered it an exploit and acted accordingly. Again... as everyone has been saying... it's what the company deems an exploit that defines an exploit. It is both black and white and yet grey at the same time.
Tomorrow CCP could declare bumping an exploit and it shall be so. Because they get to decide what is and isn't one.
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
| |
|