| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Shai 'Hulud
   |
Posted - 2004.03.05 07:35:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Shai 'Hulud on 05/03/2004 07:41:23
I read the recent warning with regard to the Yulai incident, and feel that it was not made as clear as it could/should have been.
"As a lot of you are aware, a certain corp willingly exploited a fault in the game mechanics and managed to kill over a 100 people in the supposedly secure Yulai system last night." ... "The exploiters have received a ban for their efforts and anyone thinking of following their example should be aware that the same fate awaits them." - The GM Team
This warning cites a "fault in the game mechanics", but does not say exactly what that fault is. Does this mean that you will be banned for killing someone else in a 1.0 sec. system? Or is this "fault" only found in Yulai? I have noticed this often in the warnings we are handed. They fail to tell us exactly what it is that we are not to do. I personally do not want to be banned, because I enjoy this game. And from time to time I do kill people in high security systems. So I would like for CCP to make it clear exactly what "fault" they are referring to when they issue this warning. As the game is now, it is actually pretty hard to get your sec. status down without a BS to camp systems with less than a .5 security status.
Basically, my message to CCP is: Please tell me exactly what it is that you do not want me to do so that I can be sure and not do it. I enjoy your game very much and want to continue to play it.
P.S. Anybody know when we can expect the other l337 frigs? 
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 07:42:00 -
[2]
CCP do not allow open discussion of exploits, on the grounds that telling everyone what it is just means more people will do it.
It's a crappy argument, but hey, this is their board.
In short, if you kill another player in 0.5 space or higher, CONCORD should destroy your ship. If you manage to evade that destruction, by *any means whatsoever*, you are exploiting. The exception is of course fighting a corp war, which doesn't bother CONCORD either way.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Sally
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 07:44:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Sally on 05/03/2004 07:46:40
 Quote:
CCP do not allow open discussion of exploits, on the grounds that telling everyone what it is just means more people will do it.
It's a crappy argument, but hey, this is their board.
In short, if you kill another player in 0.5 space or higher, CONCORD should destroy your ship. If you manage to evade that destruction, by *any means whatsoever*, you are exploiting. The exception is of course fighting a corp war, which doesn't bother CONCORD either way.
So 0.5 = 0.6 = 0.7 = 0.8 = 0.9 = 1.0? Hopefully not!
Since there is no clear communication about this issue and never will be, someone should pull out the stunt in 0.9 - 0.5 systems again and wait for what will happen  .
--
Stories: #1
--
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 07:48:00 -
[4]
Quote:
[So 0.5 = 0.6 = 0.7 = 0.8 = 0.9 = 1.0?
And 0.4=0.0, by the same method. Yes, it could do with a work-over, but atm space is either safe from player-killers, or it is not. 0.5 is; 0.4 is not.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Jowen Datloran
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 07:48:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Jowen Datloran on 05/03/2004 07:50:11
Easy to answer.
If you make agression against somebody you don't have a formal war with in a high security system (1.0-0.5) you should a few seconds later either be in warp with CONCORD on your tail or your is ship blown up. If this isn't the case you're doing something wrong.
This especially applies to 1.0 systems.
EDIT: The only difference between the high sec systems are the difficulty of the NPC's and the ore.
----------------
What's a rumor on page one is a fact on page two |
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 07:49:00 -
[6]
Quote:
Hope you read quickly as this will be locked and deleted soon.
It wouldn't have been if you hadn't explicitly described the exploit in question. Generalised discussions are usually allowed. 
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Shai 'Hulud
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 07:51:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Shai 'Hulud on 05/03/2004 07:54:11
Thank you Heritor for clearing up exactly what they did. Not sure I would have banned rather than strongly warned, but I support CCP's decision. I would still like a clarifying statement from the GM's themselves, but I think it can be drawn from this that they were refering to the exact exploit used by this group.
Edit: Oh ... and you might want to edit "exactly" what they did out of your post so CCP won't delete this topic ... thanks though 
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 07:57:00 -
[8]
Quote:
Not sure I would have banned rather than strongly warned, but I support CCP's decision.
They were warned, and carried on.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Shai 'Hulud
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 08:04:00 -
[9]
hehe .... thanks Heritor
|
Archemedes
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 08:40:00 -
[10]
People argue over what is or isn't an "exploit", but apparently CCP isn't interested in debating loopholes like a lawyer. The fact is that you cannot legitimately attack someone in high-security space (0.5+) unless they are a criminal (-5 SS), you are ganged with them, or at war with them. If you attack ANYONE else by ANY means in ANY 0.5+ system then CONCORD is supposed to show up and force you to flee or kill you. Doing any of the following is forbidden, PERIOD (except for war, wanted criminals, etc...):
1) Killing a ship in 0.5+ space without CONCORD showing up
2) Surviving the CONCORD response without running away (especially if you continue to kill player ships)
3) Doing anything to cause CONCORD to attack other people after you start a fight with them
If you do this sort of thing, you're asking for a ban. Period. CONCORD is supposed to be unbeatable... end of story. There IS no legitimate way to keep killing in high-security space once they show up. You want to kill a lone ship and run for it? Go ahead. You want to go out in a blaze of glory and keep tossing cruise missiles at innocent travellers until CONCORD vaporizes your Raven? Have fun. Found a way to keep your ship in one piece even with an entire CONCORD fleet attacking you? DO NOT USE IT! Found a way to keep CONCORD from responding at all? DO NOT USE IT!
In short, if you keep the following in mind you don't NEED to know what exactly is considered an exploit...
Quote:
CONCORD IS SUPPOSED TO BE UNBEATABLE and therefore anything that allows you to beat them is by definition NOT working as intended. Using something that is not working as intended is exploiting. So don't do it.
Simple enough?
|
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 08:46:00 -
[11]
Quote:
People argue over what is or isn't an "exploit", but apparently CCP isn't interested in debating loopholes like a lawyer. The fact is that you cannot legitimately attack someone in high-security space (0.5+) unless they are a criminal (-5 SS), you are ganged with them, or at war with them. If you attack ANYONE else by ANY means in ANY 0.5+ system then CONCORD is supposed to show up and force you to flee or kill you. Doing any of the following is forbidden, PERIOD (except for war, wanted criminals, etc...):
1) Killing a ship in 0.5+ space without CONCORD showing up
2) Surviving the CONCORD response without running away (especially if you continue to kill player ships)
3) Doing anything to cause CONCORD to attack other people after you start a fight with them
If you do this sort of thing, you're asking for a ban. Period. CONCORD is supposed to be unbeatable... end of story. There IS no legitimate way to keep killing in high-security space once they show up. You want to kill a lone ship and run for it? Go ahead. You want to go out in a blaze of glory and keep tossing cruise missiles at innocent travellers until CONCORD vaporizes your Raven? Have fun. Found a way to keep your ship in one piece even with an entire CONCORD fleet attacking you? DO NOT USE IT! Found a way to keep CONCORD from responding at all? DO NOT USE IT!
In short, if you keep the following in mind you don't NEED to know what exactly is considered an exploit...
Quote:
CONCORD IS SUPPOSED TO BE UNBEATABLE and therefore anything that allows you to beat them is by definition NOT working as intended. Using something that is not working as intended is exploiting. So don't do it.
Simple enough?
Hmm...those are a lot of facts.
Mind providing link to a post to back up those facts? Cause I'm usually pretty good on keeping up with information and all those 'facts' seemed to have slipped by me.
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Busko Moonwalker
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 09:05:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Busko Moonwalker on 05/03/2004 09:09:59
So i can open fire at someone and then try to get away but most prob i will be shot down but the cops. but if i fire and then like have 5mwd that boost away :D i should be able to get away :D
its another thing to be able to take one concord by urself (coz of some bug/exploit/cheat)
I say it here as i wasent able to say it in the last topic as it was closed.
LET CCP say whats exploit and whats not but i think THEY should better say whats it and whats not. And as i understand CCP(GMs) come and tell you hey you u using a exploit stop or get banned. And if u cont you get banned that i uderstand. But if it happend to me i would realy LIKE to know excactly what it was i did wrong COZ it may happen by misstake.
What happend in Yulai was that the GMs told them to stop but they contiued to do it anyway.
With that i can understand what the GMs did.
|
Shai 'Hulud
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 09:09:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Shai 'Hulud on 05/03/2004 09:14:37
Busko, you just provided an example of why I have a problem with the warning. They need to clarify exactly which cases of attack in high sec. space are exploits. Or at least name a category of attack types that are exploits. As it is now, were you to do your mwd idea, you would not be able to do so without fear of being banned. 
|
Busko Moonwalker
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 09:10:00 -
[14]
hehe shai i added some to my comment :P
|
Busko Moonwalker
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 09:10:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Busko Moonwalker on 05/03/2004 09:11:48
damn sorry lag on the I-net (Post 2X )
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 09:14:00 -
[16]
Quote:
LET CCP say whats exploit and whats not but i think THEY should better say whats it and whats not.
Notwithstanding Jash's inability to read the forums for himself, CCP have done so, frequently, in multiple threads, in the FAQ, in the news, and in the damn manual if anyone ever bothered to read it (that's about the only part of the manual still up to date).
If you're in 0.5 security space or above, you are NOT at risk of being shot at by other players. That's the entire premise of the security system we have here. Ergo, anyone who finds a way of putting people at that risk, in 0.5 or above, MUST be breaking the game rules.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Busko Moonwalker
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 09:20:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Busko Moonwalker on 05/03/2004 09:23:00
Thats a bit lame isent it ?
I always thought it was in this way.
That if YOU would shoot someone in 0.5 and above the cops would be on ur tail fast then ever and shooot u to pices with superior Fire power no mather if u are in a BS or Interceptor.
But if it is like you say then well it is that way :D
And with the comment you "" i mean OVERALL not just the Yulai incident but there is allways some topics about someone using a exploit/cheat/Bug/error and you get like 1000 experts if that was a exploit/bug/error/cheat or not.
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 09:23:00 -
[18]
Quote:
Thats a bit lame isent it ?
I always thought it was in this way.
That if YOU would shoot someone in 0.5 and above the cops would be on ur tail fast then ever and shooot u to pices with superior Fire power no mather if u are in a BS or Interceptor.
Exactly - and, moreover, they'll kill you *before* you manage to kill off your victim. Hence CONCORD guaranteeing safety in 0.5 and above. Hence the popup message warning you that they *don't* guarantee your safety when you travel to 0.4.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Busko Moonwalker
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 09:29:00 -
[19]
So then you agree with what the GMs did.
As in Yulai the camper cont to kill players even after they where told to stop.
Which in this case i cant say if it was a exploit or tactic.
B
|
Thyro
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 10:36:00 -
[20]
Quote:
People argue over what is or isn't an "exploit", but apparently CCP isn't interested in debating loopholes like a lawyer. The fact is that you cannot legitimately attack someone in high-security space (0.5+) unless they are a criminal (-5 SS), you are ganged with them, or at war with them. If you attack ANYONE else by ANY means in ANY 0.5+ system then CONCORD is supposed to show up and force you to flee or kill you. Doing any of the following is forbidden, PERIOD (except for war, wanted criminals, etc...):
1) Killing a ship in 0.5+ space without CONCORD showing up
2) Surviving the CONCORD response without running away (especially if you continue to kill player ships)
3) Doing anything to cause CONCORD to attack other people after you start a fight with them
If you do this sort of thing, you're asking for a ban. Period. CONCORD is supposed to be unbeatable... end of story. There IS no legitimate way to keep killing in high-security space once they show up. You want to kill a lone ship and run for it? Go ahead. You want to go out in a blaze of glory and keep tossing cruise missiles at innocent travellers until CONCORD vaporizes your Raven? Have fun. Found a way to keep your ship in one piece even with an entire CONCORD fleet attacking you? DO NOT USE IT! Found a way to keep CONCORD from responding at all? DO NOT USE IT!
In short, if you keep the following in mind you don't NEED to know what exactly is considered an exploit...
Quote:
CONCORD IS SUPPOSED TO BE UNBEATABLE and therefore anything that allows you to beat them is by definition NOT working as intended. Using something that is not working as intended is exploiting. So don't do it.
Simple enough?
Sorry to say but those points are the most stupid rules that I've heard in this forum and its a shame for this game if that is true...
So if u fire against someone in +0.5 u will be killed buy concord ... how a racional person would think about this rule...
"Right... im gona fire agains that dude ... and wait untill all stupid concord to show up and kill me ..." right 
The expression "Fault in game mechanincs" means a BUG or a thing never but never thought by CCP Game thinkers... Exploit their ass.
If they managed to over rule Concord fleet, just showed how STUPID AI Concord rules have like any other NPC that appears in this game which come from no where. AI require a better thinkin rather than a simply show up in numbers or increase their resistance to shields/armor or weapons.
But I'm sorry that wasn't an Exploit neither was a "Fault in game mechanics". The game is like it is and instead of stupid statments categorising CCP bugs or lack of correct thingking as exploits... its just a cover way to hide problems.
Shows them been ban for not listening the warnings perhaps yes or perhaps no... Beside they showed that someone in CCP made a mistake while intruduced Concord in the game and didn't cover all possible possibilities... which should be one of the 1st rules of any Developer... that is developing a program to fault prove...
Banning for the warning yes... Exploit? Don't be stupid... never was an exploit and never will be... and if CCP carrys with that ... then Shield and cap transfter should be removed from the game while those stupid Concord rules aren't revisioned.
Now to stat that concord should be unbeatable... that is pure nosence... show me a unbeatable fleet... not even US has an unbeatable army/navy why should this game have one?... and if ever have one that will only show how crap become a game for hidding BUGS
|
StealthNet
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 10:49:00 -
[21]
It all boils down to 1 thing: being warned and still doing something.
If you want to get ganned, do exactly that
_______________________________________________
|
Jowen Datloran
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 11:10:00 -
[22]
Exploit or not who gives a damn?
Only those trying to play ignorant (I hope for your sake you're only playing it) could even beging to critic a game developer in his own game and belive it is he who's right and not the other way around.
If you don't like playing by the rules, then don't play at all.
----------------
What's a rumor on page one is a fact on page two |
Silverlancer
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 11:13:00 -
[23]
The unstated rule AFAIK is that...
1. You CAN kill concord.
2. You CANNOT kill someone in 0.5-1.0 that you aren't at war with and has less than -5 without dying or being forced to flee.
|
Jowen Datloran
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 11:24:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Jowen Datloran on 05/03/2004 11:25:42
And if you want a real life ananlogue think of having a game of chess, when suddenly your opponent bashes your pieces of the board and sticks your quen up your nose and then claims he's allowed to do that because you can't stop him.
I think I can safely say that kind of behavior is known as "childish"
----------------
What's a rumor on page one is a fact on page two |
Alkad Mzu
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 11:37:00 -
[25]
Quote:
It all boils down to 1 thing: being warned and still doing something.
If you want to get ganned, do exactly that
StealthNet hit the nail on it's head. GM's are likely to give ample warning in most cases, and they most cerainly did in this one. People proceeding to ignore them deserve every banned day they get.
________________________________________________
Head of Public Relations, Fountain Alliance |
Seleene
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 11:37:00 -
[26]
Quote:
Edited by: Jowen Datloran on 05/03/2004 11:25:42
And if you want a real life ananlogue think of having a game of chess, when suddenly your opponent bashes your pieces of the board and sticks your quen up your nose and then claims he's allowed to do that because you can't stop him.
Sounds like my initiation party into SPVD.
-
T2 Weapons Testing in progress! Volunteer today! |
McWatt
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 11:38:00 -
[27]
Edited by: McWatt on 05/03/2004 11:39:47
Quote:
Edited by: Jowen Datloran on 05/03/2004 11:25:42
And if you want a real life ananlogue think of having a game of chess, when suddenly your opponent bashes your pieces of the board and sticks your quen up your nose and then claims he's allowed to do that because you can't stop him.
I think I can safely say that kind of behavior is known as "childish"
hm. i hate RL analogies, but it s simply too funny to resist:
2 ppl who don t have a lot of clue about chess are playing the game. their trainer who should teach them the rules, has been busy elsewhere, and made up the rule that the baselines are save.
one of the chaps gets bored after awhile and starts taking the pieces of his opponent there anyway, following the normal movement rules.
his opponent shouts "exploit".
the trainer declares that the new rule is: if you take a piece there you have to leave your own one at the very same spot untill your opponent finally manages to kill it.
the rogue player is banned from the next session of training.
(i wouldn t be suprised if he and others decide that chess is a bull**** game under these conditions)
|
Basileus
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 11:40:00 -
[28]
Quote:
... 2) Surviving the CONCORD response without running away (especially if you continue to kill player ships)...
Indeed. You're meant to just sit there and take it up the batti from Concord. Where is the logic in that? CCP are completely bonkers on this one. |
Orestes
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 11:49:00 -
[29]
Wether or not something is or is not an exploit, is not up for debate.
How to fix the problem, is.
This thread doesn't discuss how to potentially fix it, it just wants the exploit in question defined.
I can't let this one stay, I'm sorry 
Join the IC! |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |