|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 21:25:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Kurtz Weber So much about all the devHAXsploit theories :S
Well, dev haxsploit yes, but not plain ol normal haxsploit. Using Passive Targeters to target inside a POS bubble is an exploit. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 21:25:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Kurtz Weber So much about all the devHAXsploit theories :S
Well, dev haxsploit yes, but not plain ol normal haxsploit. Using Passive Targeters to target inside a POS bubble is an exploit. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 11:01:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Kaylana Syi
If you can't kill someone that wants to exit the game legitimately within 2 minutes then you don't deserve the kill.
addendum: When that players has is not logging for the sake of avoiding PvP when they have legitimatly been aggressed by non-friendly forces. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 11:36:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Edde Bebbi
Originally by: Jarjar
Originally by: August Personage d2 have also stated their pilot logged off, no h4xsploitz here guys. bob used a tactic within the game mechanics, REGARDLESS of whether that was the intended use of said mechanic it is not an exploit imo
Read up on the very definition of "exploit".
Hint: It has something to do with using a game mechanic in a way that it was not intended to be used to gain un unfair advantage.
As has been said over a dozen times, the game mechanics ARE INTENDED TO MAKE YOUR SHIP STAY IN SPACE FOR 15MINS AFTER AGGRESSION.
No, the game mechanics are intended to stop players from logging to save their ships or pods while in combat ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 11:45:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Goumindong on 17/02/2007 11:48:49
Originally by: Edde Bebbi
Originally by: Storm Child Edited by: Storm Child on 17/02/2007 11:31:06 Edited by: Storm Child on 17/02/2007 11:29:10 Personally I don't think it's an exploit, but it's certainly a dirty tactic and I'm absolutley disgusted that this was a plot using yet another internal turncoat.
It's hard to believe that people can sink to such a level in order to score a titan kill. Are BoB so weak that this is the only method they can think of to survive?
The sooner BoB is defeated the better in my opinion. Hopefully this will strengthen the allies resolve to achieve this.
How did your allies in Goonswarm and RA find out about the LV 'titan' in construction?
Irrelevent. The issue at hand is not how the titan was found out or the legitimacy of the spy. The issue is the specific tactic that the spy used in order to aggress the Titan, and whether that is considered exploiting the game mechanics to give an adversary an unfair disadvantage or giving yourself and unfair advantages.
The question comes up becuase the supposed intent of the aggression timer is to stop people from logging in combat in order to save their ships or pods. The titan was not in combat, expecting to be in combat, or anywhere near having taken aggressive action or having aggressive action taken against it. [Edit: Nor was the titan in a position where it could be reasonbly expect to be attacked, such as when hauling anything in a frieghter anywhere] The issue is whether the aggress was legitimate use of game mechanics or not, not whether or not the spy was legitimate.
This question will be solved by GMs and there isnt much else to worry about.
[edit for clearer information] ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 12:51:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Goumindong on 17/02/2007 12:49:14
Originally by: Edde Bebbi No you have already demonstrated your complete lack of comprehension skills already.
The aggro timer is to prevent people logging off while aggrod. Its not to prevent people from running from fights, thats just an effect.
Anyway, the titan ran from the covert ops's smartbomb :P
You have cause and effect backwards.
Purpose is a function of intelliegent design. Something that is not designed cannot have purpose. Purpose as well denotes intent and logical thought.
The developers did not say "we want to prevent people from logging when aggrod" and then proceed to make a mechanic that would achieve that goal. We can assume this, because such a goal is, from a design standpoint, rediciulous. It would be like saying that you want a specific ship to have 4 weapons and so you gave it 342 dps. When the cause is clearly you wanted it to do 342 dps, and the effect is that it recieved 4 weapons because of it.
Similarly here, the effect is that people are prevented form logging off while aggressed. And the intent is to stop people from running from fights.
It is easist to see this by examining a conflict resolution.
Problem: People are logging out to save their ships and pods when they should not be able to Solution: Make people who have given or recieved a hostile flagged action in the last 15 minutes stay in space for 15 minutes. Implementation: How it works on the server.
Any deviation from problem to implementation will result in an EULA violation according to the plain text. Though there is specific language in there to limit liability when it is not know the action would cause a breach. The breach is caused by imperfect solutions to the problem of stoping people from logging and getting to their ship.
Similarly we can look at POSs.
Problem: Player Owned Stations need to be safe havens in space for them to operate. Solution: Create a space around the station that doesnt allow targeting Implementation: How it goes on TQ... whoops passive targeters.
Now the breach happens due to imperfect coding that has allowed a bug to get through.
In essesnce, they are the same thing, one is simply an oversight in implementation and one is an oversight in solution. What matters though is the intent.
I also brought up passive targets because earlier it was mentioned that "d2 can do this as well", and that is true, and it is true of all exploits, since exploiting is not limted to any single player or corporation they are bugs that can be abused by anyone. Especialy when public. The definition of "its fair because you can do it too" does not hold to either the EULA definition or common sense when dealing with other known exploits.
edit: It could also be argued that the kill occured because of faulty implementation of the aggro timer, which would directly correlate to the passive targeter exploit in manner according to the EULA. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 13:13:00 -
[7]
Originally by: News
Originally by: Goumindong I also brought up passive targets because earlier it was mentioned that "d2 can do this as well", and that is true, and it is true of all exploits, since exploiting is not limted to any single player or corporation they are bugs that can be abused by anyone. Especialy when public. The definition of "its fair because you can do it too" does not hold to either the EULA definition or common sense when dealing with other known exploits.
Except that there's nothing you can do against the passive targeter bug, while it's very easy to check your logs for the last time you were agressed.
Unless they aggress you right as you are logging off. But even then, that aggression breaks the chain presented, because it goes agaisnt the intent, and uses the mechanics to achieve an unintended result.
Whether or not anything comes of any petition or what any final ruling is, that is the complete arguement. And it is internally and externally consistant. Im not trying to make the arguement that the titan should or will be reimbursed, simply correcting misconceptions about both sides of the arguement, which hinges, essentialy, on whether or not such a use is unintended, something that we cant, and only the folks in charge, can answer. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 13:26:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Minmatar Citizen 138031 Just like to point out a couple of things here for the colalition.
- Goons hacked the game client to show standings in local before it was added to the game, which forced CCP to also add it to level the playing field. Dont say they was going to add it anyhow because you remember talk about removing local ?
-AAA,RA,Russian devision of people since the start of the game ( aka RUS ) , early on the game RUS was banned from the game for duping in game items, mainly a million megacyte. AAA 30+ account banned for complex exploiting.
-D2, Used a fan site to match IP's to find spies on there team speak server. So they broke the law and they also heavily meta gamed. ( also the domain in question is owned by CCP, OMG DEVS ? )
So you guys have nothing to scream about.
Well. First you should join a dummy corp so you an post with your alt without it being deleted.
But for the goons, the client hack was technically not editing game data, and CCP ruled it "ok".
For the rest. True, however, that has little to do with the question at hand. Its a "Tu quoque" arguement, and a common logical fallacy. What anyone else has done is irrelvent to the question of whether or not its an EULA breach.
Now, i think you are getting at is the question of whether or not BoB is "in the wrong" that can be fairly easily answered. You cannot exploit a bug that you do not know to be against the rules. Since BoB could not know developer intent on the matter they would not know whether or not such an action would be considered a legitimate use of game mechanics or not, they cant be held liable for any consequences. The titan might get re-imbursed, but no disciplinary measures could be taken. At least, not until such an action occured a second time when it was known to be an EULA breach. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 13:46:00 -
[9]
Originally by: News snip
Suicide ganking, corp theft, can theft, etc are all intended consequences and specifically allowed actions and specifically allowed by intent of the developers. They arent comparable to this untested question.
Exploiting a bug would be ore theft without repurcussion because you do it in such a way as to avoid a crim flag. The crim flag being the mechanism in place to allow you to defend against theft. More comparable to when ore thieving didnt crim flag you. But the problem with that is that it was intended to not flag you. The oversight wasnt in the design of the implementation, it was in the intent.
A better example would be nanobattleships. They are clearly not intended. Though not perfect, because fast battleships are intended, its just not "that fast" where there is a solid arguement that the actions taken by BoB werent intended at all.
But yea, it will be up to the GMs/devs to decide the issue. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 14:05:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Ian Logalus
Originally by: Minmatar Citizen 138031
-D2, Used a fan site to match IP's to find spies on there team speak server. So they broke the law and they also heavily meta gamed. ( also the domain in question is owned by CCP, OMG DEVS ? )
Since when is checking for spies metagaming? Metagaming is geting advantage of things which you cannot control ingame like logintraps, ctrl-q on jumpin. Breaking the law by trying to match Ip adresses is not possible. It will be when you try to link it to personal information like adresses, names or phonenumbers.
There was issue that the IPs were cross checked from an official CCP site. Checking for spies isnt metagaming, but if you abuse a third party site to gain info you shouldnt then its a bit more dicey since the characters in question should have had a measure of protection there. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 15:16:00 -
[11]
Originally by: pershphanie Edited by: pershphanie on 17/02/2007 15:07:48
Originally by: Goldis I think you have lost the point of the game.
This is a massive online role playing game.
Dying in this game while offline cannot be justified by using role playing terms.
If this is true then logging off ever can not be justified in RP terms.
I'm so tired of ppl applying logic only when convenient for them.
If killing an aggro timered logged off ship is an exploit than logging off is an exploit. If spying on ts is an exploit then using ts at all is an exploit. If joining a corp with a spy is an exploit than joining a corp is an exploit. But none of those things really are exploits. It sucks when they happen to you. Theyve all happened to me. I know the feeling. But ffs ppl you cant have your cake and eat it too. You can't apply your logic to certain parts of the game and not others because its convenient for you. Thats BS.
No one hacked the server. No dev triggered their aggro timer. no one dos attacked anyone. This was 100% legit and fair game. You ppl need to quit crying.
This was one of the most diabolical ebil plans ever executed in the game. That's war for you. As long as you arent cheating the game then anything goes. Bravo to Digital Commie. This is up there with the adventures of GHSC. Very impressive.
What combat did the d2 titan log to avoid? ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 15:23:00 -
[12]
Originally by: pershphanie
Originally by: Goumindong
What combat did the d2 titan log to avoid?
They got sabotaged by a covert attack. Everyone knows how sensitive aggro timers are. If I had a titan you couldnt pay me to log it off atm. I dont even log off my bs's/hacs in hostile space atm. I just cloak and afk it.
What combat did the d2 titan log to avoid? ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 15:31:00 -
[13]
Originally by: pershphanie snip
What combat did the d2 titan log to avoid?
---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 15:55:00 -
[14]
Originally by: pershphanie
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: pershphanie snip
What combat did the d2 titan log to avoid?
What dont you understand about how the aggro timer works?
You want me to say "none" so you can give me some big self righteous speech about "boohoo the aggro timer is haxed". Well guess what. If you bothered to read what I wrote instead of repeating yourself over and over making yourself sound like someone who got ran over by the special bus then you'd know that I agree that the aggro timer sucks.
That doesnt change the fact you, me, D2, everyone in eve knows that the aggro timer as ****** as it might be, it still works the same for everyone. D2 could have done this to bob just as easy as it got done to them. But I'm guessing that BoB titan pilots wouldnt log off a titan without leaving gang and cloaking for at least 15 minutes. FFS I dont even do log out normal ships without doing that.
But dont let me stop your wonderful forest gump impersonation. Keep repeating yourself retard.
All exploits work the same for everyone. Doesnt make them not exploits.
And no, i wasnt going to say the aggro timer was hacked, but if you would care to read the last two pages, it might give you some insight into the reasons why such actions can be considered an exploit. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.18 17:53:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Ctharth
Its not an exploit because: - a ccp employee says so - Because everyone else has the same option. that means it can be done by anyone. - the system wasnt clear of enemies, there was a spy. spies are allowed. - sitting 3 hours in a POS and considder it safe. is not proper precaution. (follow a better procedure next time. - Because you think this isnt how it supposed to work. Doesnt mean it isnt how it is supposed to work. I refer to the post of the CCP employee.
Simply saying it was unfair doesnt make it an exploit. I¦m sure 100 ppl gets killed in eve every day because they meet a buble camp are lagged out and killed before even noticing. That doesnt make it an exploit. but is an advantage as well.
How many times is this going to come up...
"Because everyone else has the same option" is not an arguement as to whether or not something is an exploit. If there were a bug that allowed you to use a module to target through POS shields using said bug to target through a POS shield would still be an exploit.
But wait, both sides can use it! Yes they can, both sides can exploit, and you can ban both sides.
The position of "exploit" is not that it is "unfair", but that it uses a game mechanic in a way that it was not intended to gain an advantage that should not exist.
I.E. "Its unfair in a manner that is not intended by the creation of the game mechanic, and using that mechanic to specifically avoid the typical options available to you"
---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.18 21:25:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Ctharth
Originally by: Goumindong
How many times is this going to come up...
"Because everyone else has the same option" is not an arguement as to whether or not something is an exploit. If there were a bug that allowed you to use a module to target through POS shields using said bug to target through a POS shield would still be an exploit.
But wait, both sides can use it! Yes they can, both sides can exploit, and you can ban both sides.
The position of "exploit" is not that it is "unfair", but that it uses a game mechanic in a way that it was not intended to gain an advantage that should not exist.
I.E. "Its unfair in a manner that is not intended by the creation of the game mechanic, and using that mechanic to specifically avoid the typical options available to you"
Cut that argument of the list and read the others then . it was not an exploit refer CCP post saying so or my earlier post for more argumentation.
This point was brougth up in relation to the definition as an exploit being an advantage. But I cant considder it an unfair advantage when all players have the same advantage. (remember its within approved game mechanichs)
I do not believe the Jeikon post to be definitive due to the wording of the FAQ and EULA. The rest have already been covered multipule times. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
|
|
|