Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page |
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
15052
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 23:08:00 -
[91] - Quote
handbanana wrote:I am really, really, surprised you have not gone into great detail yet explaining to us how Blizzard defines exploits or handles this situation better.
Now that we know you can make it through one thread without doing that, how about all threads from now on? Post 69.
Ace Uoweme wrote: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.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |

handbanana
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 23:09:00 -
[92] - Quote
Mag's wrote:handbanana wrote:Now that we know you can make it through one thread without doing that, how about all threads from now on? Post 69. Ace Uoweme wrote: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.
Crap, I missed that. And I thought he was doing so well.
^O^ Tonight....you.
|

Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
335
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 23:12:00 -
[93] - Quote
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=1
Worst 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 a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell
|

Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
335
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 23:15:00 -
[94] - Quote
handbanana wrote:No one's hiding. Until CCP defines something as an exploit, you can throw whatever argument you want at it, they are the final word on everything around here.
I am really, really, surprised you have not gone into great detail yet explaining to us how Blizzard defines exploits or handles this situation better.
Now that we know you can make it through one thread without doing that, how about all threads from now on?
This is getting good. Getting the alts of alts out now to post.
Hmmmm, this exploit seems to be a very hot potato...... "In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell
|

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15312
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 23:18:00 -
[95] - Quote
Ace Uoweme wrote:EvE is not so removed from gaming to defy even gaming definitions. Point blank. GǪand no-one says it is. All we're saying is that there is no universal definition and that the only ones who can define what is and what isn't an exploit in any specific game is that game's developers. Only they can decide what you can and cannot legitimately do. Only they can judge whether or not some particular use goes against the overall intent of the mechanics involved.
Quote: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. No. As long as the devs feel that some particular use of a mechanic produces undesirable outcomes, it is an exploit. Whether the players discovered it or not only matters to the extent the devs are fans of emergent gameplay. CCP are very big fans of this.
So the fact remains: it is not an exploit. There is no way around this GÇö especially not your attempts to impose some non-existing law from on high.
Quote:Hmmmm, this exploit seems to be a very hot potato. What exploit? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
2741
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 23:21:00 -
[96] - 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. |

handbanana
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 23:25:00 -
[97] - Quote
Ace Uoweme wrote:handbanana wrote:No one's hiding. Until CCP defines something as an exploit, you can throw whatever argument you want at it, they are the final word on everything around here.
I am really, really, surprised you have not gone into great detail yet explaining to us how Blizzard defines exploits or handles this situation better.
Now that we know you can make it through one thread without doing that, how about all threads from now on? This is getting good. Getting the alts of alts out now to post. Hmmmm, this exploit seems to be a very hot potato......
Sorry, I've just been painfully following some of the threads you have posted in recently and am just sick of your tiresome need to try to impose your beliefs and what other game companies do on EVE as if you have some kind of special insight.
We get it, you've played a lot of other games and you want EVE to fit your world view. I am again sorry to inform you that CCP does things differently here, sometimes even to their detriment.
If pointing that out that makes me an alt-of-an-alt, I guess that's your problem. Tonight....you.
|

Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
335
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 23:27:00 -
[98] - Quote
Tippia wrote:No. As long as the devs feel that some particular use of a mechanic produces undesirable outcomes, it is an exploit. Whether the players discovered it or not only matters to the extent the devs are fans of emergent gameplay. CCP are very big fans of this.
And so are other game devs.
BUT, the definition is not yours or mine or CCP.
CCP can police their game to what they want, but not define the definition itself.
You're splitting hairs and you know it. "In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell
|

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15313
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 23:30:00 -
[99] - Quote
Ace Uoweme wrote:And so are other game devs.
BUT, the definition is not yours or mine or CCP. GǪonly CCP's. They are the only ones who can define what the term means within the ruleset of the game they created. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |

Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
335
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 23:30:00 -
[100] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:In that case, the DEVs of WoW considered it an exploit and acted accordingly.
No the players.
Because Blizzard wasn't going to punish Dream Paragon, until the stink got so bad (threads upon threads over the issue) it couldn't be ignored any longer.
The squeaky wheel gets noticed. And they couldn't bury the issue. "In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell
|

Tasha Saisima
State War Academy Caldari State
35
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 23:31:00 -
[101] - Quote
The only reason CCP doesn't stop bumping is because they can't stop it |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15313
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 23:35:00 -
[102] - Quote
Tasha Saisima wrote:The only reason CCP doesn't stop bumping is because they can't stop it Sure they can. One of the may reasons they don't is because they don't want to. Another is that there is no reason to. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |

Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy The ROC
353
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 23:58:00 -
[103] - Quote
This is mildly off topic, but how has Ace not been banned yet? Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |

Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
521
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 00:05:00 -
[104] - Quote
How the hell do people stand playing at 8 FPS anyway? |

Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1890
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 00:17:00 -
[105] - Quote
So, just to put this to bed in every logical way, so that Ace has to revert (once more) to wailing and smashing his keyboard in impotent rage, I thought I would search the web for definitions of exploits in gaming and computing. The general consensus, is Quote:An exploit (from the verb to exploit, in the meaning of using something to oneGÇÖs own advantage) is a [...] sequence of commands that takes advantage of a bug, glitch or vulnerability in order to cause unintended or unanticipated behaviour to occur Now, ships colliding with one another in EvE is deliberately modelled into the physics engine (intended) with the programmed consequence being the ship has it's alignment changed (anticipation).
It is, to use the oft-maligned phrase, working as intended.
Outside of the wider gaming world, and within the actually relevant rules of EvE online: CCP say something is an exploit when they say it is, and they have (now on many occasions) specifically stated that bumping is NOT an exploit and is intended gameplay.
Now Ace, please keep leaping up and down in anger and telling us it's an exploit because you say so. It's sure going to keep on being entertaining~ "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |

Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1890
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 00:21:00 -
[106] - Quote
Tippia wrote:GǪbut even then, he must have done somethingGǪ odd. Aggression lasts for 15 minutes, not an hour, so he would have to have been aggressed four times. Each time, CONCORD would have moved closer to the kill spot, which would be counter-productive. This tells us that the either gankers couldn't get the job done in the 15 minutes required to make it work, or he wasn't actually aggressed, and just ****** up on his own. These ganks do not go on for 60 minutes without the help of the victim, for the simple reason that if it doesn't work within 15 minutes, it doesn't work at all.
GǪfrom the description, it rather sounds like he successfully logoffskid once, but then was too eager to log back in.
The logoff timer can be reset if he's been given the 15 minute capsuleer aggression timer, by simply re-aggressing him. This was explicitly made this way to counteract super-caps logging off, and is fully intended.
In most circumstances, them logging off helps us; it puts them 1mil clicks away from the gate-grid and scavengers rarely work out where it's gone and we're left to it. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |

Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3272
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 00:33:00 -
[107] - Quote
When CCP deems it so. Bumping is an intended mechanic & not an exploit. The guy who was sitting next to me in the first nullsec round table who had obviously not had a shower since before boarding his flight to Iceland, you really stank. You know who you are. |

Setaceous
Nexus Prima
144
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 00:38:00 -
[108] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:This is mildly off topic, but how has Ace not been banned yet? For what? Having a different opinion? He might be annoying, but I'm reasonably sure he's not trolling. I mean if I started spouting off about WoW in every post I would definitely be trolling  |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15315
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 00:42:00 -
[109] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:The logoff timer can be reset if he's been given the 15 minute capsuleer aggression timer, by simply re-aggressing him. This was explicitly made this way to counteract super-caps logging off, and is fully intended. Yes, but this is highsec we're talking about: each reset spawns CONCORD at that spot; the whole point of the exercise is to get away from that spot so you can get the additional GÇ£CONCORD is occupied elsewhereGÇ¥ time delay.
So the entire trick relies on getting the target 150km+ away from the place where the aggression took place within 15 minutes GÇö any more and he can log off, alternatively you have to re-agress him which means you now have CONCORD in a new spot and have to move another 150km away. So either the gankers were thoroughly incompetent (effectively failing the same gank five times in a row), or he just gave up after his first failed logoffski.
This is why I question the notion that it took 60 minutes without some serious errors made by the victim himself. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |

Q 5
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
90
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 01:34:00 -
[110] - Quote
Not to sound like a dicky but with all the ganks the goons are doing AND HAVE BEEN DOING FOR MONTHS NOW....!!!NEWS FLASH!!!!
why would you carry 5 billion + around?
Why for the love of isk would you not have one of those alts scouting ahead for goons you may get lucky.
Why do you not have corporation protection escorting you?
Why not have a repping alt rep you so it cost them more then the 100 mil it cost to fit those destroyer.
And lastly I do believe that a criminal flag should cost 30 min or atleast Concord pod killing ganker so atleast there's some kind of consequence cause losing their ship means nothing and goons just farm tags all day long so there's no consequence there, maybe costing them the price of replacing a clone will be some of the cost associated with ganking. |

Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
168
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 01:35:00 -
[111] - Quote
what a stupid ******* thread. |

Berke Negri
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
93
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 01:41:00 -
[112] - Quote
theres no way i am going to watch a sixteen minute grainy video about a miner getting bumped |

Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
151
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 01:54:00 -
[113] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote: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. Actually bumping could be flagged. There was a game I played a while ago if you bumped into NPCs repeatedly over a small period of time they went aggressive. Of course players would just take turns to bump.
|

Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
168
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 01:55:00 -
[114] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote: Actually bumping could be flagged. There was a game I played a while ago if you bumped into NPCs repeatedly over a small period of time they went aggressive. Of course players would just take turns to bump.
Holy ****, just make the post even WORSE WHY DON'T YOU?
|

Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
94
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 02:18:00 -
[115] - Quote
LOL all of this finger pointing , semantic arguments and veiled collalarry about how one person or another would have things work in a perfect world....
What would be some good steps for a pilot of a freighter to take if he began to get bumped off gate.
The logging off seems like a bad idea.
Should he align to some other gate or station instead?
I'm also unclear.. if he does nothing, when he eventually gets attacked concord will kill the attackers even if the attackers kill him first .. right?
Does the bumping just give more time to bring in more firepower from other systems to make sure the job gets done?
-
I don't have any veiled "right or wrong" opinion on the thing. I'd just like to increase my odds of survival if I get targeted in a freighter but don't immediately get attacked.
- corollary questions... would it be easier to deal with the bumping if i were in an Orca ? (yeah its significantly smaller but that's not my question... I just am curious if i should used the Orca instead of the Freighter if I can fit everything in say two orca trips... i 'd like a better idea of the relative risk I'd need to account for in making the decision.) |

jedijed
Thundercats The Initiative.
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 02:44:00 -
[116] - Quote
A machariel can bump anything out of alignment say bs size and above if that was a state issue raven 2 determined machariels would make it impossible for him to escape the same thing would have happened to him |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15323
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 03:13:00 -
[117] - Quote
Diomedes Calypso wrote:I'm also unclear.. if he does nothing, when he eventually gets attacked concord will kill the attackers even if the attackers kill him first .. right?
Does the bumping just give more time to bring in more firepower from other systems to make sure the job gets done? The bumping serves two purposes.
The most important one is that it creates a controlled environment where the gankers can delay and monitor the CONCORD response. You shoot the target once as he exits gate cloak to give him a PvP timer, which ensures that the ship will stay in space for another 15 minutes, no matter what, so logging off no longer saves the victim. This is obviously a criminal act so CONCORD shows up and kills the flagging alt. To counter this, you take advantage of the 15 minute timer to use a neutral alt (or two) to bump the victim at last 150km away from where CONCORD is sitting. The bumping both ensures that the victim can't just warp off willy-nilly, and that the victim is out of reach from immediate CONCORD response.
Being this far away causes the CONCORD mechanics to consider the target (and, more importantly, the awaiting gankers) GÇ£out of rangeGÇ¥ for the purpose of responding to their actions, which in turn yields the same effect as delaying CONCORD by spawning them somewhere else in the system. When responding to a crime that's this far away, the CONCORD ships first have to despawn from the first crime scene before they can show up at a new one, which delays the response by half a dozen seconds or so. You sacrifice the loss of a newbship with civvy guns for being able to execute the gank with maybe 20GÇô50% fewer actual attack ships. You can also keep a close eye on CONCORD while doing all of this, which means you have more control over the timers.
The second benefit is that the gank now happens maybe 200km off the gate, rather than 15km away from it. As a result, loot thieves will not get as much of a chance to get to the goods, and white knights stand less of a chance counter-killing the looting ships (which will go suspect in the process). If it's a freighter gank, you're likely to need a freighter to loot the wreck, and you definitely want to keep those away from the normal traffic lanes when they go blinky.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |

jedijed
Thundercats The Initiative.
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 03:20:00 -
[118] - Quote
Berke Negri wrote:theres no way i am going to watch a sixteen minute grainy video about a miner getting bumped
its only grainy if u dont know where the dams hd button is. |

Minmatar Citizen160812
The LGBT Last Supper
333
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 03:40:00 -
[119] - Quote
jedijed wrote:Berke Negri wrote:theres no way i am going to watch a sixteen minute grainy video about a miner getting bumped its only grainy if u dont know where the dams hd button is.
Yeah push that and it's easier to see the client hack he's using... |

Sir Mack Inawrex
NEW ORDER DEATH DEALERS CODE.
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 03:41:00 -
[120] - Quote
jedijed wrote:http://youtu.be/0MmIsrAQPM4
Fisrt the 2 machariels bumped me for 10 minutes or so before goons ever showed up.
Second i never fly freightors i knew they get ganked but i thought it was only in .5 .6 systems
Third i didnt know it could be done in 30 fuc***** destroyers :( Protip: Don't carry more than a billion ISK in a freighter. If the gankers have no incentive to blow you up, you won't see this kind of stuff. |
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |