|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |

Mu-Shi Ai
Ai Capital
215
|
Posted - 2014.02.10 14:29:00 -
[1] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:I've solo ganked a lot of folks myself and came to conclusion that people are simply lazy and ignorant.
Boy, that's not a convenient conclusion for a ganker to come to. We should all be convinced by the sheer counter-intuitiveness of this outcome. |

Mu-Shi Ai
Ai Capital
215
|
Posted - 2014.02.10 14:45:00 -
[2] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:It's the same conclusion capable freighter pilots come to.
And it's an interesting story, but ultimately a non sequitur, to counter the suggestion that freighter bumping is an exploit by saying that people shouldn't haul cargo of high value in T1 freighters. The criticism has nothing to do with the specific reason for any given gank, nor with the validity of ganking as an enterprise. It's solely about the bumping mechanics that are often used in the course of ganking. Referring to these specific reasons for ganking is not much more than a diversionary tactic to make it seem like the issue is about the validity of ganking, when it really has nothing to do with that. |

Mu-Shi Ai
Ai Capital
215
|
Posted - 2014.02.10 15:12:00 -
[3] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:I think you quoted the wrong post because I was talking about something completely different. I was talking about freighter pilots who take the necessary precautions to fly their ship safely. I wasn't justifying bumping by saying it was the pilot's fault they've been chosen as a target. I don't care why they were chosen, though I imagine it's because they're doing something stupid.
I didn't originally quote your post. You defended the conclusion of a post that I quoted, so I replied to your defense. Was it incorrect for me to assume that you agreed with what the other post said? Usually people defend things that they agree with. |

Mu-Shi Ai
Ai Capital
215
|
Posted - 2014.02.10 15:20:00 -
[4] - Quote
Estrella Sheikh wrote:So instead of continuing your warp to the gate, why are you not canceling warp and waiting for them to bump you in the direction of a celestial? or playing the aligning game and coerce them to bump you in the desired direction? If you were sitting there for 30 minutes that's plenty of time to do something about it.
Just because you can conceive of some convoluted way in which a freighter pilot might "do something about it" doesn't excuse the bumping mechanic. The fact remains that those who engage in this perma-bumping get a free, non-aggression causing point to use against their victims. That's simply absurd, on its face. |

Mu-Shi Ai
Ai Capital
215
|
Posted - 2014.02.10 15:24:00 -
[5] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Yeah but I don't really get what you're saying.
You're either saying; 1) You think my argument is that bumping is justified because people carry too much cargo. 2) Ganking shouldn't be taken into consideration when considering changes to bumping mechanics. or 3) Buff carebears, nerf sociopaths.
I can't figure out which it is.
The person I originally replied to offered "Don't carry goods beyond X value in a T1 freighter" as a response to the suggestion that freighter bumping is an exploit. I replied to that suggestion, arguing that it was mighty convenient for a ganker to conclude that gank victims are mostly just lazy and/or dumb about how they conduct their business. You defended that post. So I'm saying #1. If #1 is not true for you, perhaps you shouldn't defend posts that you don't agree with. Not sure what else I can really say about that. |

Mu-Shi Ai
Ai Capital
215
|
Posted - 2014.02.10 15:29:00 -
[6] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:I was defending the part you quoted because it was correct.
But do you think it is a valid rebuttal to the suggestion that freighter bumping is an exploit? If not, we're on the same page and have nothing to argue about. |

Mu-Shi Ai
Ai Capital
215
|
Posted - 2014.02.10 15:31:00 -
[7] - Quote
Estrella Sheikh wrote:Your argument ends when you state that there is a way as convoluted as it might be to actually counter this game mechanic "exploit".
Umm, no. My argument doesn't end when I say that.
Quote:CCP would probably classify freighter bumping as emergent gameplay.
Interesting speculation. Of course, I'd rather see CCP classify it that way outright, rather than just assume that's the case. And a bonus question: why do gankers always seem to get so much more emergent gameplay than non-gankers? I know carebears are the stupidest people in the game, but you'd think that even they would have discovered their own emergent gameplay to effectively counter that of the gankers, no? |

Mu-Shi Ai
Ai Capital
215
|
Posted - 2014.02.10 15:40:00 -
[8] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:The part you quoted about most people being ignorant and lazy is a valid rebuttal because the only people complaining are actually lazy and ignorant.
Okay, well, then that's why I replied to you the way I did. Because you actually were saying what you previously claimed not to be saying. Glad we could clear that up. |

Mu-Shi Ai
Ai Capital
215
|
Posted - 2014.02.10 15:50:00 -
[9] - Quote
Estrella Sheikh wrote:[Logically, wouldn't you agree that an exploit is some sort of bug or mechanic that can be use or "Exploited" by an individual to gain a leg up on someone else? I hope so.
You're missing an important element, which is that an exploit is often a known mechanic being used in an unintended way in order to gain an advantage. Some of these, yes, we might fairly classify as "emergent gameplay" in the context of a sandbox. But just because we're in a sandbox that allows for emergent gameplay doesn't make every single known mechanic used in an unintended way part of that classification. There is this tendency in EVE for people to take this normative stance on any use of a mechanic, to default to the idea that it's all innately fairplay. I think many of us are calling that into question on this specific case.
Quote:Then by that same definition bringing someone to counter-bump, or getting the bumper to move you in the right direction is a counter of said "exploit". It has now been redefined because the original "exploiter" is now being inhibited indefinitely, you can affect his outcome through different methods of input.
Again, just because one can dream up a convoluted counter to freighter bumping doesn't excuse it. Those who dream up such solutions always seem to be in the convenient position of not having to carry them out. And when people don't follow this sage advice, they're accused of doing so merely because they're lazy or stupid (and not, you know, because it's a totally convoluted and unworkable solution). Funny how that works. |

Mu-Shi Ai
Ai Capital
215
|
Posted - 2014.02.10 16:07:00 -
[10] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:It's not being used in an unintended way.
So CCP introduced the bumping mechanic specifically so that gankers would be able to perma-bump freighters in high-sec instead of having to aggress (and get blown up by CONCORD) for using a point? Interesting analysis. |
|

Mu-Shi Ai
Ai Capital
215
|
Posted - 2014.02.10 16:11:00 -
[11] - Quote
Estrella Sheikh wrote:The bulk of the problem then lies with the authorities dictating whether or not this is considered an exploit, We do have to remember that this is an inherently PVP based game and as unfair as it might sound, bumping someone to inconvenience them has already been proven to not be an exploit, within reason.
But isn't that the point of Eve? To think outside the (sand)box and come up with new ways to get **** done? The original counter to instant ganks of freighters were to web them to initiate warp faster, now individuals have figured out a way to counter that so the next step would be to counter their counter? And ahem, I've had my run in with bumpers, so if you don't mind, I'd like to imagine that the countermeasures i've taken are first hand experience. I'm not trying to say that my advice is 100% foolproof nor perfect, but doing something is much better than being bumped and then (Gò»-¦Gûí-¦n+ëGò»n+¦ Gö+GöüGö+ <-Giving up.
Do you routinely use the countermeasures that you've described in order to escape bumpers? Needless to say, I find that hard to believe. |

Mu-Shi Ai
Ai Capital
215
|
Posted - 2014.02.10 16:16:00 -
[12] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Mu-Shi Ai wrote:[quote=Riot Girl]It's not being used in an unintended way. It doesn't matter if the mechanic was designed to be used that way or not, CCP have kept it in the game knowing how people are using it. This means it is not being used in an unintended way.
You have just singlehandedly explained why no computer application need ever be modified or updated. |

Mu-Shi Ai
Ai Capital
215
|
Posted - 2014.02.10 16:26:00 -
[13] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Mu-Shi Ai wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Mu-Shi Ai wrote:[quote=Riot Girl]It's not being used in an unintended way. It doesn't matter if the mechanic was designed to be used that way or not, CCP have kept it in the game knowing how people are using it. This means it is not being used in an unintended way. You have just singlehandedly explained why no computer application need ever be modified or updated. Will you stop twisting my words? Argue like a grown up, please.
How is that even remotely twisting your words? Your entire point is "It exists in the game, therefore it must be intended use of the mechanics." You're not leaving any room, naturally, for the simple fact that CCP has development priorities, the list of which likely would not have perma-bumping of freighters anywhere near the top, or for the possibility that CCP just hasn't yet been thoroughly convinced of the seriousness of the problem, but could be at some future point. You might as well be arguing against further development of the game at all. |
|
|
|