Probably around the time you explain what the problem isGǪ

Less snark: when the mechanics stop working as intended. It's really as simple as that.

Explained pretty plainly in the video description. I tend to agree that completely disabling a person in high sec without concord intervention is not working as intended.

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.

Explained pretty plainly in the video description. I tend to agree that completely disabling a person in high sec without concord intervention is not working as intended.

Incidentally, how'd you get the video from the bumper's perspective?

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."

Judging on a case to case basis is silly; better to adjust the mechanic so you can't completely disable someone in that manner.

The video is from an alt in corp to the freighter as far as I could tell. I would have webbed my freighter whilst trying to bump the machs

That makes a whole lot more sense, thanks.

I guess I overestimated GSF's infiltration into random ass corps

He hasn't made an effort to move to another location, and they weren't following him around, so no.

How is he being completely disabled? And no, all kind of harassment must be judged on a case-by-case basis. Not that bumping someone away from a gate qualifiesGǪ

Or you underestimated your own paranoia.

I think my explanation is likelier than yours

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."

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)

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."

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)

Unless the OP is bumped by the same people no matter where he/she goes despite being unprofitable... the OP has no case.

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.

freighter ganking is obviously fine

Yes yes, constantly trying to warp off and bringing a webber is intolerable idleness. Not going to bite any further, sorry.

I am remiss not to acknowledge that he had the option to eject or self-destruct, apologies.

Now you're just being silly; computers are quite smart, especially when analyzing something already broken down into 1's and 0's.

Of course ganking is fine; maybe you should be more coordinated and manage it without bumping.

Of course ganking is fine; maybe you should be more coordinated and manage it without bumping.

he had the option to wait out the aggression timer (without which this tactic doesn't work GÇö if he had none, he didn't even need that); he had an hour to it all in order, which means the gankers ****** up somehow, but that he ****** up even more in playing into their hands.

GǪin other words, they're pretty much useless for these kinds of judgement calls.

You seem confused.

Eve is a computer simulation mate.

GǪexcept that we're talking about GM evaluations of player actions and the intent behind those actions, not a computer simulation. So no, computers would be pretty much useless for these kinds of judgement calls.

Implying humans make consistent moral decisions? Incidentally, data mining would mimic human judgement with an extremely high degree of accuracy in a scenario like this. Computers are smart; people are bad at utilizing them.

Implying humans make consistent moral decisions?

Confirming TQ needs to mine data that it logs itself. It's not totally busy running a submarine sim.

Classifications tend to be quite fast once you've sorted the training set. In any case, I didn't say I thought it was appropriate, just that I took exception to the thought that computers are somehow inept in this regard.

Classifications tend to be quite fast once you've sorted the training set. In any case, I didn't say I thought it was appropriate, just that I took exception to the thought that computers are somehow inept in this regard.

You tried to use logoffsky to escape, they found your logoff location and were still there when you came back. Nothing wrong with that.

You also made an amazing statement: That data mining itself would mimic human judgement.

It won't.

It will just create metadata.

Yet, they are. I mean, you can keep saying "no, they're not" but you've misunderstood what you're asking them to define, and so do not understand why you're wrong on this.

Bumping with malicious intent is fine, so what use would a simulation that showed whether it was accidental or deliberate be?

Metadata for procedural classifications = judgement

matching human results with a high degree of accuracy = mimicking
Dunno what you're trying to get at

If the result is trivial then making the computer produce it is trivial.

No, metadata is just data about data. It's still two steps of refinement away from actionable knowledge.

the fact that the categorization of data is not the result you're trying to mimic.

You seem confused

Your understanding of classification also seems to be too narrow. You could, for example, consider the server logs over some time period the data set and harassment/not harassment the classification.

I, too, want a game that is barely functional with more than 2 people on grid because the server is logging every facet of every interaction

in the vain hope that one day heuristic analysis will be good enough to accurately determine human intent.

You're arguing something that is so removed from possibility that there's no logical objection someone can have to it.

The old addage is true here: If a computer is good at it, humans are bad at it. If a human is good at it, computers are bad at it"

No, my understanding of classification simply matches what we're talking about (the legitimacy of bumping). You could expand it, but then you'd be talking about something completely different and there would be even less reason to automate the decision-making. Nice attempt at moving the goalposts, though.

Judgement calls about harassment go beyond mere data. They're inherently case-by-case decisions, which are much better left to humans since they can judge intent and moderate their response as appropriate. That's where you went wrong from the very start: by assuming that it's a binary decision.

Hmmm it actually more interesting for me what he is using in the second video he posted here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=254190

Can someone explain me what happens after 2 minutes and 40 seconds?
If i see this correctly the autopilot says "initiate warp to gate"
and then seconds later his noobship lands at 0 on the gate....and jumps through...

I smell warp to 0 autopilot exploit....

Here the link if you are too lazy to click the post :P http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNZk7jBG7Ww

Jumping manually doesn't interrupt autopilot.

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.

Illegitimate bumping would presumably fall under harassment since the official stance is that bumping, in and of itself, is fine.

Implying that adding additional classes and associated responses makes the problem significantly harder?

Bumping is an exploit (wasn't designed | player used) , but one CCP overlooks (same goes for our ships bumping off of gates).

Can put a conditional in the code it's not rocket science.

- 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).

Jita already isn't like any other solar system in EvE. It's special, not equal.

Bumping is an exploit (wasn't designed | player used) , but one CCP overlooks (same goes for our ships bumping off of gates).

No. Implying that there is no classes, and (deliberately) no defined association to responses because both of those are better left to the non-binary adjudication of the human mind. Implying that action, reception and response are all subjective GÇö and that the devs explicitly wish to keep it that way so they can maintain a high degree of freedom, discretion, and not create any kind of ruleset that can will be gamed.

Read the rest of my post.

He landed on 0 at the gate. thats what im talking about. and the initiate warp sound came when he was tabbed out to another screen.
So there must have been some kind of bot program or something that warped him to gate at 0.

Humans have extremely specialized processing strengths that were evolutionarily driven; visual recognition is an example, creativity is an example, environment interaction is an example, reading over server logs is not an example.

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?

As far as I know, the GM class bumping a Freighter to keep it from warping as an exploit. This rule only applies in highsec.

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?

Implying humans make consistent moral decisions? Incidentally, data mining would mimic human judgement with an extremely high degree of accuracy in a scenario like this. Computers are smart; people are bad at utilizing them.

was there something to prevent the freighter pilot from hitting "log off safely" in the course of this hour?

I hate to break it to you, but GM's (and CS employees in general) typically have a rule set to follow and a discrete range of actions to take. Without that rule set, they'd be easier to "game" and we'd lose all semblance of quality control.

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?

He was aggressed.

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.

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.

Like PI even?

The Jita system is unlike any other in EvE in what can be done in it.

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.

Like PI even?

The Jita system is unlike any other in EvE in what can be done in it. That's why it's special. Anything special can't be equal.

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.

You can state exploit all day long. The only time in Eve something can be deemed an exploit, is when CCP do so. The point being the term 'exploit' has a very defined meaning in this game.

CCP doesn't make the definitions.

CCP doesn't make the definitions. CCP may police them in EvE, but they don't make the definition itself.

And apparently this is one exploit you guys came out of the woodwork to defend, rapidly even.

But you do realize these things change right? Is that why you're scared?

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.

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.

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.

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 doesn't make the definitions. CCP may police them in EvE, but they don't make the definition itself.

And apparently this is one exploit you guys came out of the woodwork to defend, rapidly even.

But you do realize these things change right? Is that why you're scared?

Yes yes, constantly trying to warp off and bringing a webber is intolerable idleness. Not going to bite any further, sorry.



I am remiss not to acknowledge that he had the option to eject or self-destruct, apologies.

Should you have children teenage or below you would have greater success convincing them and would have a more adult like interaction than trying to get some people to see or acknowledge the issue as you see it.

May I suggest you do not post then and let the adults continue the discussion. Thank you kindly.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Post 69.

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.

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?

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.

Hmmmm, this exploit seems to be a very hot potato.

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..."

This is getting good. Getting the alts of alts out now to post.

Hmmmm, this exploit seems to be a very hot potato......

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.

In that case, the DEVs of WoW considered it an exploit and acted accordingly.

The only reason CCP doesn't stop bumping is because they can't stop it

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

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.

This is mildly off topic, but how has Ace not been banned yet?

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.

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.



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.

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?

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.

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 :(

Also if CCP isn't doing anything about it it doesn't mean it isn't exploit

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.

I personally think bumping mechanic was designed for different purpose than ganking freighters or bumping scrubs of a station they play in(very useful btw).

It wasn't designed by the devs. It's gameplay that players figured out.

Bumping was very much designed by the devs..

No it wasn't. That's player made.

It's a tactic left in the game for interest, but not specifically designed by devs themselves, just like with ship names. They create it, and players find the exploits and use it.

But it's still a exploit.

If by my GÇ£comfort zoneGÇ¥ you mean reality, then yes GÇö I do indeed attack people who spout counter-factual nonsense. That means that until you start accepting reality for what it is, you are very much my target. All you have to do to avoid it is to accept facts as they are and not make up your own.

No, it's your pet interests in the game.

I don't have any special interests

I explain it by using WoW examples as the industry watches Blizzard for ease to explain things.

I always wondered why I started to spoke against ganking and now I remember.

CCP please add more protection to high sec.

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.

I'm not familiar with the mechanics of this but the big question seems to be whether there is any effective counter. Is there anything at all that a solo freighter pilot can do in this situation to avoid being killed or is death a foregone conclusion the moment the attack is initiated?

I'm not familiar with the mechanics of this but the big question seems to be whether there is any effective counter. Is there anything at all that a solo freighter pilot can do in this situation to avoid being killed or is death a foregone conclusion the moment the attack is initiated?

Not being afk and not auto piloting helps. Much harder to get you then.

If it's executed flawlessly and without outside interruption, the victim is pretty much dead, as he should be. As illustrated, it's a fairly complex set of actions that need to be taken in a co-ordinated fashion between a number of people GÇö as with most such things, a single player's main option is to try to not find himself in such a situation to begin with. With freighters, in particular, this is best done by not being a worth-while target.

Bumping a freighter while they're aligning for next warp is trivial.

Not as easy as you think, no. It's pretty tricky, but if pulled off correctly, then they basically got all their ducks in a row, so yeah, they deserve the kill.

And if we want to depart from the whole "solo" nonsense, if you double web a freighter, they align MUCH faster.

Also, use an Orca because it has better tank, for small(er) m3 amounts.

Do tell how burning a Mach (max speed is what? 1.5k?) at a freighter that takes 20-30s to align is tricky. You don't even have to do it reliably.

If it's executed flawlessly and without outside interruption, the victim is pretty much dead, as he should be. As illustrated, it's a fairly complex set of actions that need to be taken in a co-ordinated fashion between a number of people GÇö as with most such things, a single player's main option is to try to not find himself in such a situation to begin with. With freighters, in particular, this is best done by not being a worth-while target.

There are more direct counters; most of them include having support in some form such as scouts, counter-ganks, web-warpers, gang boosts (some implants may be a soloist variation here), logistics, etc. For some reason, the most slow-turning hunk of junk allowed in highsec, flown solo, has problems dealing with a co-ordinated, multi-tiered, multi-prong attack from a dozen playersGǪ fancy that.

Do tell how burning a Mach (max speed is what? 1.5k?) at a freighter that takes 20-30s to align is tricky. You don't even have to do it reliably.

I'm curious what you think the problem is...

I'm just curious why you think bumping during align as opposed to autopilot approach is so hard. Then again, you think gate camping is hard so I guess my standards might be too high.

I'm just curious why you think bumping during align as opposed to autopilot approach is so hard. Then again, you think gate camping is hard so I guess my standards might be too high.

Honestly, how hard is it to not put 20 billion in the hold to start with?

The stupid are everywhere.

[tl;dr: ganking is so haaaaaaaaard]

You're not fooling anyone; do you just get a kick out of forcing other people to correct you? Perhaps you're just legitimately bad at the game?

Well... you're off by at least a factor of 5 in this case. Similarly, killboard indicates that even empty freighters aren't a significant deterrent.

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18502230
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18499970
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18499236
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18497615
ect.

So.... there's that.

whining about getting ganked, is probably not the guy who needs to be calling someone bad.

I do get a bit of kick seeing how mad I appear to make you.

I don't have any gank losses to whine about. I dare say you're the one whining as you seem to have an invested interest in keeping easy pvp easy.



Sorry to disappoint, but I find you immensely boring; so much so that I have trouble maintaining my naturally thorough and argumentative posting habits.

So please, let us continue.

No thanks; you offer too little return on investment.

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; any less distance, and CONCORD doesn't have to go through the whole despawn/respawn cycle. If not, you to re-agress him, you now have CONCORD in a new spot and have to move another 150km away, and you're back to square one. 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.

Well... you're off by at least a factor of 5 in this case. Similarly, killboard indicates that even empty freighters aren't a significant deterrent.

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18502230
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18499970
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18499236
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18497615
ect.

So.... there's that.

You're not fooling anyone; do you just get a kick out of forcing other people to correct you? Perhaps you're just legitimately bad at the game?

All of those were profitable to gank and none of them were empty. We happen to be fighting a little war.

Careful; if you go telling everyone how profitable it is you'll get yourselves nerfed again.

I didn't realize the war was giving you so much financial trouble btw?

Then, by all means, silence.

I didn't realize the war was giving you so much financial trouble btw?

Its not, we are targeting enemy alts.

Its not, we are targeting enemy alts.

You're catching enemy alts (in completely random corps) in the same general area consistently every 20 minutes? Sounds legit.

Incidentally, looks like about 300m/hr per person. I have to admit that's not bad for no-risk hisec income.

ell, that does seem broken. It doesn't matter if it takes a fairly complex set of coordinated actions to pull off, if there is literally nothing one can do once picked for death, and if that death can be caused at almost no cost to the attackers, then there is a problem.

Would even warping to zero not help the freighter pilot here?

Yeah, I see. If you understand the mechanism by how and where concord spawns ships, you can ensure you don't hinder yourself in this way.

and as how the attack costs the attackers a sizeable chunk of cash, there is no problem.

1m per person per tick is on par with ammo cost; not exactly a "sizeable chunk of cash"

Why would it need more logs than the GM's have at their disposal?



I'd wager you could use 30-40 yr old techniques and still get the job done depending on what the data set looks like.



It's OK that you don't get Computer Science, but please stop saying trivial things are impossible.

If you think determining the human intention behind the events that occur in this game are trivial then you are the one who doesn't "get computer science".

1M per person also doesn't generate any kind of income, so yes, you're looking at an ever-growing loss, which quickly ends up being a sizeable chunk of cash.

I said "get the job done"; intent really doesn't matter here.

I said "get the job done"; intent really doesn't matter here.

Catalyst ganking doesn't generate income?

You're right, it doesn't. Because according to the defined dev posts and precedent, bumping someone to gank them is not actionable. In any way, shape, or form. It's within the rules, and totally allowable as a recognized tactic.

So yeah, it doesn't matter here. All of this thread is a non issue.

What happens if you log off while being bumped?

What happens if you log off while being bumped?

I missed the part where he talked about ganking and where he talked about holding someone down for an hour; can you quote those bits and the precedent for me please?

CCP considers the act of bumping a normal game mechanic, and does not class the bumping of another playerGÇÖs ship as an exploit.

We would also like to stress that if a gameplay activity is classified as being GÇ£within the rulesGÇ¥ this does not mean that we endorse, sanction or back player activity. We simply see this as emergent gameplay that has occurred due to the nature of game mechanics.

It does when the job that has to be done is determining intent.

Not at 1M a pop, no.

The precedent? Easily, it's a sticky on C&P.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=199310&find=unread

Highlights:




Bolded emphasis mine.

Good thing that's not the case?

How much do you propose spending on a 200dps catalyst then?

Oh, I expected actual instances where the ruling was completely in the bumper's favor. That's usually what someone means when they say precedent.

they use a frig or destro to shoot you so you get an aggression counter which forbids you from logging off. Obviously broken mechanic, because freighters are unable to aggress anyone. I can see this stupid "tactic" causing many unsubs in the freighter community if CCP doesn't act.

Oh, I expected actual instances where the ruling was completely in the bumper's favor. That's usually what someone means when they say precedent.

If they never aggress you, does that mean you can escape persistent bumping by logging off at any time and logging back on?

If it requires that they sacrifice a ship every X minutes to keep the PvP flag on and thus prevent the random warp out on logoffski, then that's not really different from any other aggressive action that would lock you down like a scram or point.

Unfortunately, no. That's exactly the case.

I wouldn't build a 200dps catalyst to begin with since it would be too weak.

If it requires that they sacrifice a ship every X minutes to keep the PvP flag on and thus prevent the random warp out on logoffski, then that's not really different from any other aggressive action that would lock you down like a scram or point.

So as long as someone means well they can do whatever they want?

The required DPS for the OP's loss was well under 200.

A reasonable dev, even one that has designed bumping as an option, might find being bumped for an hour to be excessive or an exploit. Despite Tippia's dominance here, she does not actually speak for the devs. So it's worth a petition to find out.

Quite possibly, yes.

Uh-huh. 200k EHP delivered in ~15 seconds by 29 ships Gëá less than 200 DPS.

http://youtu.be/0MmIsrAQPM4

Being Bumped for an hour kinda kills a little bit of the like and excitement i have for this game,,,

Fisrt the 2 machariels bumped me for 10 minutes or so before goons ever showed up.

The major problem with that is, since he only has 15-16 minutes of video...

Oh that's not a problem. The video isn't admissible as evidence anyway.

Pretty much. You just have to wait a while for them to leave the spot where you'll reappear when you log back in. Ewarps are purposefully designed to allow pretty much zero input once they've been initiated. Every now and then, some tactic or technique arises that lets you manipulate where you end up, but they tend to get squished in short order.

Nope

Op took 60k in killmail; give me a pricetag pls.

Sure it is. The fact that you can't think of a scenario rather proves the inability to automate it in the fashion you're suggesting. How do you propose that the data mining should uncover hitherto unknown facts about the bumper and bumpee that makes it a clear case of non-harassment even though they've been running into each other constantly for months?

You mean the killmail that 1) only records raw HP, not EHP and 2) is notoriously inaccurate in measuring HP damage delivered?

An Obelisk has 200k EHP against blasters. The DPS required is in the region of 500, which means we're looking at T2 equipment, which means we end up in the 5GÇô10M region depending on how close you dare to cut it and how you boost the damage.

1M doesn't even buy you the hull.

From time to time, it's been possible to alter the landing spot by doing repeated login/disconnects, but they seem to have fixed that for now.

The same way a GM would

I can assure you that the person's thought process doesn't factor in.

60k doesn't conflict with the account at all.

200k/29/19

Sure it does: http://www.eve-central.com/home/quicklook.html?typeid=16240

So your data sifting tool includes an Eliza implementation now? InterestingGǪ

The thought process of all three parties factor in. I assure you right back.

GǪreferring to which part, exactly?

GǪor you can try not to alter the numbers. 200k / 29 / 15 = 460 + margin to make sure you get it done = 500.