| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
CyberGh0st
   |
Posted - 2006.10.13 10:27:00 -
[211]
 Originally by: xHoodx
Just a question cyberghost... You see nothing wrong with a person logging on and off 30 times in order to first escape from the bubble he was in and then repeating the process over and over for 15 minutes in order to avoid getting probed down?
I agree that a blanket ban of anyone logging in a bubble would be a bad thing and the real way to solve that problem would be to fix the bubbles themselves. As do a couple of the people you quote (I assume you listed them to show they wanted to ban ppl for this but instead you quoted ppl who seem to agree on this point :P)
What I fail to understand is how you seem to think it is perfectly fine to abuse the emergency warp in the way the person mentioned by the op did. After all, the person was just exercising his right to log on and off as he pleases right? 30 times, for the excact ammount of time it took for the aggression timer to run out. Guess he just got bored then, nothing to do with the timer at all.
Correct me if I am wrong in thinking you are defending this kind of behaviour.
There is a difference between simply logging out because you have to/want to and exploiting the emergency warp feature in order to get out of a situation you put yourself in by abusing log on/off. You seem to be defending both to me.
I do not think it is fine that someone logs off and on 10+ times in a row, it is stupid, it is against the spirit of the game, etc.
My point is that there should not even be thoughts about banning players for this behavior. Because it can never be said for sure why a person logged off and on again. Maybe he is bugged and trying to test something out.
So again, fix the issues. Perhaps a good fix would be to reset the agro timer when you logon + you can not logon more then 5 times per 10 minutes ( more thinking in favor of the logon server load here ) ... or something
Clearly people are abusing the system, but you can not ban them for it, not because it is "allowed" or "good tactics" but because it is not ethical to ban people for logging off and on.
Greetings,
CyberGh0st.
|
xHoodx
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2006.10.13 11:49:00 -
[212]
Glad to hear I was mistaken in that cyberghost :)
As for banning them, while it would be impossible to prove 100% what motivates the person to behave in this way I'd say one could claim within a reasonable ammount of doubt that he was in fact exploiting a known bug and deserves a warning/ban for it.
I guess it is reasonable enough to simply avoid the question tho given the difficulty of proving a person was exploiting a bug and the time it would take to do so. What is a reasonable ammount of doubt anyway? 
As long as someone is working on fixing this bug (and hopefully succeed) it's all good. Until the next bug comes along of course
|
Lubomir Penev
Gallente
Dark Nexxus
|
Posted - 2006.10.13 13:19:00 -
[213]
Originally by: Taram Caldar
Simple Map method:
1) Set to show ships destroyed in last hour
2) Check for hotspots on your path
Derailing the thread even more... I am the only one finding the map take "quite some time" to update? I've seen at least a case of the map seeing no ship kills in the last hour in a system where I pretty much knew it was not true as I personnaly blew up ships in that same system. It took maybe 20 or 30 minutes to update if I recall well.
And even if the map worked properly, that wouldn't avoid you being the first one to run in a camp.
So to be safe you HAVE to resort to an alt scout, some people in this thread even recommand abusing the trial program to do so. Surely so many alt trial scouts can't be good for the lag...
IMHO you should be able to scan the other side of a gate, I see no problem with it from a rp point of view.
|
Gort
Rampage Eternal
|
Posted - 2006.10.13 22:26:00 -
[214]
Eve is not meant to be utterly risk free.
Logging while in immediate peril brings shame on the game, not to mention the lamer who does it.
It should be fixed in the code, so that if a ship is scrambled/bubbled the warp out takes longer to accomplish. Say 120 seconds, which give persons with network glitches a chance to log back in and continue the encounter.
Apologias based on the so-called uberness of gate camps or bubbles are moronic nonsense.
Low-tech sig:
"When in doubt, empty the magazine." |
Nanobotter Mk2
|
Posted - 2006.10.14 08:59:00 -
[215]
"Eve is not meant to be utterly risk free."
Funny that is why most people camp gates, keep a cheap inty at gate (almost risk free) long range ships aligned and ready to bug out, and kill solo players coming through utterly risk free...
|
Spy4Hire
|
Posted - 2006.10.14 11:26:00 -
[216]
Originally by: Awox
Because CCP don't have the balls to ban paying customers?
QFT.
Note the tens of thousands of macro miners in empire.
43 mackinaws alone on one ice belt in one system using *screamingly* obvious macros... and CCP responding to the exploit petition with: So, and?
And that's not taking into account 0.0 macro operations (yes, they DO exist) that are pretty much never petitioned because the only ones who see them are their own alliance members.
|
Xordus
Beasts of Burden
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.10.15 02:13:00 -
[217]
I've seen some incredibly bad things in EVE and said man, those guys are gonna get busted so bad. No way am I doing that, I actually want to keep my account. One day I realized, they do all these things because they get away with it. CCP doesnt care about half of the insanely obvious and unjust things that go on in EVE. Logging out in a bubble and logging in another character to make the first disappear is ok??? I always held CCP in the highest of regards but seeing them consider obvious exploits and loopholes as "part of the game" have killed their reputation in my eyes.
I can understand it difficult to fix certain things, but in those cases I can wait while they do. When they just give people a free pass to exploit the game, I wonder why I'm still playing.
Xordus
|
SBxl Chief
|
Posted - 2006.10.15 15:40:00 -
[218]
Originally by: Major Dim
Before forbidding log off CCP should fix the lag! For example - u have a fleet on one side of the gate camping. Another one wants to jump in and fight. They hit jump....what happens now is that half the people get a jumping que a quarter looses connection and only a couple of ships are actually able to jump and load the grid. And i dont talk about big fleets...i see this situation almost daily even with small numbers like 20-20. So what u do if after jumping in u have just like 5 of ur ships left out of 20? U log. Thats it. And if this is an exploit then consider the lag and crash an exploit too and ban 90% of the customers so eve will become a small carebear game where only macrominers are left ^). Simple as that
winner!!! 
sorry folks, but the simple fact is, 75% of the time when i jump through a gate, i end up insta-warping away 1mil km due to lag. there is NO WAY IN HELL that i am going to invest ONE SINGLE OUNCE of "gaming integrity" into a situation like that. period.
youse can whine all day long until your face is blue, i simply don't care. look on the map to see danger spots? sorry, not when it takes 60 seconds just to load the map, and another 60 seconds every time i change the display filter. takes 3 minutes just to change autopilot settings (god forbid i want to enter more than one waypoint!)! as long as it's taking me minutes to jump from system A to system B - with no guarantee that the game mechanics will actually work properly when i get to the other side - i WILL use any and every technique available to ensure my survival.
oh, and thanks for the pointers, *******s.
|
Taram Caldar
Caldari
Acheron Vanguard Armada
The Shadow Ascension
|
Posted - 2006.10.15 15:53:00 -
[219]
Originally by: Lubomir Penev
Originally by: Taram Caldar
Simple Map method:
1) Set to show ships destroyed in last hour
2) Check for hotspots on your path
Derailing the thread even more... I am the only one finding the map take "quite some time" to update? I've seen at least a case of the map seeing no ship kills in the last hour in a system where I pretty much knew it was not true as I personnaly blew up ships in that same system. It took maybe 20 or 30 minutes to update if I recall well.
And even if the map worked properly, that wouldn't avoid you being the first one to run in a camp.
So to be safe you HAVE to resort to an alt scout, some people in this thread even recommand abusing the trial program to do so. Surely so many alt trial scouts can't be good for the lag...
IMHO you should be able to scan the other side of a gate, I see no problem with it from a rp point of view.
How exactly would you scan the far side of that gate with a scanner? The far side of that 'gate' is dozens, if not hundreds, if not thousands, of light years away. That'd be one hell of a scanner!
As to it being 'perfectlly' safe? Exactly what part of 0.0 security do you not understand? It's not meant to be "perfectly" safe. The map is a little behind, yes, but if you pay attention and are careful you CAN use the map, and nothing else, and get through most, if not all, problem areas with ease. I know because I do it. I don't have an alt account... in fact I don't even have an alt. The only character on my account is Taram. I don't even have a trial account. I play as me.
I go in and out of 0.0 and fly in 0.0 daily. Ask CDC... they've seen me, they've even managed to kill me. (As has pink fluffy bunnies which I find mildly embarrassing to have been killed by a pink fluffy harmless rodent). My point is that getting around in 0.0 is not so terribly difficult that you MUST resort to exploiting a bug to get around. You don't HAVE to shuttle scout... you can CHOOSE to to be safer but you don't HAVE to. 0.0 is not supposed to be safe. 0.0 is dangerous... it's not called 0 security for no reason.
I don't want people banned for logging though. I want the bug fixed. Warp scramblers will stop people from warping when they disco. Bubbles should as well.
And I don't even gate camp (Find it phenomenally boring) unless I have to as part of sector defense during an op.
|
Lady Beauvoir
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 12:30:00 -
[220]
Hello,
there is just one issue I wish to clarify to everyone involved in the discussion.
Metagaming and circumventing the ruleset are two different issues. Wikipedia defines metagaming as "a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game."
What I wish to emphasise is the word "transcends". That is, metagaming creates rules and regulations which work on top of the game mechanics and are used to gain in-game advantage. That does not mean circumventing the ruleset on which the metagaming is based on.
For example in EVE, use of TS or some other voice communication software is a metagaming method. So is a use of OOG forums for planning and discussion. As are business plans for an EVE corporation, strategic and tactical formulations of an alliance, inserting spies into enemy corporations or alliances and such. As are using scouting alts (they do not circumvent the ruleset), gatecamps (again, using in-game mechanics), high-security suicide gangs (using in-game mechanics while accepting the prescribed CONCORD penalty due to his in-game actions) planning or fitting of ships for maximum efficiency.
Some methods circumvent the rules. Those are, for example, logging out from a bubble. While by other definitions it could be a metagaming method, it does not transcend the prescribed ruleset, but breaks it. By the same definition tipping a chess board when one's losing is not metagaming, as it invalidates the prescribed rules: one's opponent can't really continue the game with pieces on the floor.
One must accept the predescribed ruleset prior to accepting to play the game. If one deems the ruleset unfair or flawed, one can always opt not to play. If one decides that the other players in the game are not to his liking, the choice is again to either find other type of company in the game or choose not to play altogether.
If one feels that the prescribed ruleset in lacking in some way (for example, if the gatecamping mechanic is flawed or gatecamping confers too much of an advantage to the campers), the correct place for such discussion is probably in the game development -forum.
To the OP: The initial logoff was circumventing the rules and should be punishable. The latter logins were simply poor gameplay as he was not willing to spend time making his own SS's in the system with you chasing him and hop between them in 90 sec intervals while his aggression timer ran out. The said player should have chosen either to play the game by the predescribed rules or quit altogether.
|
|
|
Fubear
Vogon Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 13:15:00 -
[221]
Metagaming is a stupid buzzword that I wish would die!
|
Ladyah Liandri
Soapbox Pilots
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 14:06:00 -
[222]
Recently I played a part in the "eject-ship-exploit" two times - at first as a multiple victim and at a second time as a more active participant ;-).
We pulled the "trick" on a 2004-vet who happened to wardec a n00b corp simply for fun, smacking the poor fellows all day long and lame-sniping them in his Mega.
Concord got him in his Crow, he whined like a baby and insta-petitioned. 5 minutes later the friend who had ejected his ship - not the one who boarded (!) - during the operation was banned for three (3 !!!) days. No warning, no comment, nothing substantial from CCP.
I mean it could have easily been an accident anyway and since the n00bs haven't done anything "bad" in the past a warning and propably a ban for several hours would have been enough punishment, right? Besides what did the bully lose? A Crow - come on!
Now let's compare that exploit to the OP's one. Why is the first exploit a bannable one but using the second a "valid tactics"?
|
Ilmonstre
Minmatar
TYRANTS
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 15:48:00 -
[223]
Originally by: Raquel Smith
Originally by: Christos Hendez
Amazing how anyone can justify logging in a bubble to save their ship.
For those that are trying to justify this then why are you playing this type of game? Eve IS risk versus reward in every format of pvp (all types).
I play this game to have fun. Fun does not involve losing 100 million ISK in cargo, or 500 million ISK in ships and fittings and implants.
I actually got a strange sense of enjoyment when I denied Red Alliance a chance to pop a badger 2. I always love(d) evading wannabe PKs in games.
dont fly without a scout then or be prepared to loose your goods when you meet such camp.
|
violator2k5
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 16:04:00 -
[224]
Originally by: Complacency's Bane
He's allowed to (not) play EVE any way he wants. This includes using obvious-but-unpunished exploits to save a ship that never should have survived due to his carelessness otherwise.
bah, when i was in my old corp we were in a war with people who loved using log on / log off tactics and just cos i put a few shuttles infront of the station undocking point (which hardly anyone else was using that station)i had 1 of the gm's moaning at me, even going as far to say that i'd be getting a warning if i didnt do what he said and remove them.
imo they really need to sort out their own rules before trying to lay down the law to others.
|
Malena Panic
Gallente
Acme Technologies Incorporated
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 14:19:00 -
[225]
Originally by: Lubomir Penev
IMHO you should be able to scan the other side of a gate, I see no problem with it from a rp point of view.
That wouldn't stop the problem, since gatecamps will keep killing the unwary and unlucky with a slight change in camping tactics, and people will continue to cheat to gain an edge.
I've just never understood why Eve, which built its reputation on harsh and uncompromising gameplay, continues to have such a large and game-breaking exploit. In any other game if I disco in pvp, deliberately or otherwise, I lose the fight (and die).
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |