EVE Search - i consider this cheating

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

i consider this cheating

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
Ki An Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum	Posted - 2008.01.02 12:22:00 - [151] Originally by: Drasked So anyone who claims his bounty with an alt is getting a warning? So anyone who does exploration and runs multiple scans is getting a warning? Etc, etc, etc, etc, you see where im going?? Has a senior GM said that either of those constituted cheating? Nope. Originally by: Drasked Just like Privateers they should be allowed to use this untill the game mechanics are changed, or i want that same gm to monitor EVERY game mechanic in this game this is not being used as its intended and hand out warnings for eveyrone that misuses them. The Privateers wheren't exploiting or cheating. CCP just changed the game. Much like they changed escrow to contracts. Those who where using escrow wheren't exploiting. A GM has just said this is cheating. Therefore it's cheating.
Ponderous Thunderstroke Republic War Machine Industries	Posted - 2008.01.02 12:26:00 - [152] Which part is the cheating? The joining iMune? the leaving? Leaving after 1 second? Leaving to get the wardec off? Do you wait for 2 seconds instead? 20 minutes? Do you leave a 'leaving note' saying "my corp is leaving because we don't like the alliance", and then you're covered because you didn't leave to lose the wardec? CCP's hasty and ill-advised post leaves a lot of room that is just going to cause a crapload more petitions and forums posts until some strong boundaries are laid down.
Drasked North Face Force	Posted - 2008.01.02 12:30:00 - [153] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Drasked So anyone who claims his bounty with an alt is getting a warning? So anyone who does exploration and runs multiple scans is getting a warning? Etc, etc, etc, etc, you see where im going?? Has a senior GM said that either of those constituted cheating? Nope. Originally by: Drasked Just like Privateers they should be allowed to use this untill the game mechanics are changed, or i want that same gm to monitor EVERY game mechanic in this game this is not being used as its intended and hand out warnings for eveyrone that misuses them. The Privateers wheren't exploiting or cheating. CCP just changed the game. Much like they changed escrow to contracts. Those who where using escrow wheren't exploiting. A GM has just said this is cheating. Therefore it's cheating. Well one only has to read kutsugumen to know that GM's in this game are in fact "lollerskates" But if a GM can go around and class stuff as "cheating" without giving any proper explenation about why, then so be it.
Lil'Red Ridin'Hood Snake Assault	Posted - 2008.01.02 12:38:00 - [154] Heheh, this thread is hilarious. The whinees become whiners. Boofricketyhoo, smaller victims found a game mechanic to avoid one way of being ganked. That's cheating, obv.
Kay Han Caldari FroZen SoulS	Posted - 2008.01.02 12:38:00 - [155] Originally by: Drasked Well one only has to read kutsugumen to know that GM's in this game are in fact "lollerskates" you just disqualified yourself. made my day TBH Originally by: CCP Atropos Personally I think Amarr ships should consume slaves in a similar way that other ships consume ammunition.
Loyal Lady	Posted - 2008.01.02 12:39:00 - [156] Originally by: GM Nova This is cheating, plain and simple. CEOs exploiting this loophole will receive a warning from now on. GM Nova Senior Game Master EVE Online Customer Support I agree that this is a bit of a loophole. However, how about before you drop a big clear statement like this, you take a few moments to fix the f-ing war dec mechanics. war dec fees on an individual corp should be 50M isk and they should be 200M on an alliance. Right now wars are little more than a 2 cent tool for griefers.
Xandria Pearl KIA Corp	Posted - 2008.01.02 12:39:00 - [157] Originally by: Ponderous Thunderstroke Which part is the cheating? The joining iMune? the leaving? Leaving after 1 second? Leaving to get the wardec off? Do you wait for 2 seconds instead? 20 minutes? Do you leave a 'leaving note' saying "my corp is leaving because we don't like the alliance", and then you're covered because you didn't leave to lose the wardec? Honestly you must be joking. We can't have everything idiot proof and some common sense is needed. When that fails, whatever CCP says is the deal. Obviously, joining iMune is not cheating. Leaving them is not cheating in itself either. The joining and instantly leaving is obviously an exploit but for arguments sake let's say you just instantly changed your mind... if you are re-decced and do it again would you still say it's ok? A simple change is needed to stop this crap... just make it so that you can't leave an alliance before 7 days have passed, or that the war declared at your corp is carried with you for the full 7 days.
Drasked North Face Force	Posted - 2008.01.02 12:43:00 - [158] Originally by: Xandria Pearl Originally by: Ponderous Thunderstroke Which part is the cheating? The joining iMune? the leaving? Leaving after 1 second? Leaving to get the wardec off? Do you wait for 2 seconds instead? 20 minutes? Do you leave a 'leaving note' saying "my corp is leaving because we don't like the alliance", and then you're covered because you didn't leave to lose the wardec? Honestly you must be joking. We can't have everything idiot proof and some common sense is needed. When that fails, whatever CCP says is the deal. Obviously, joining iMune is not cheating. Leaving them is not cheating in itself either. The joining and instantly leaving is obviously an exploit but for arguments sake let's say you just instantly changed your mind... if you are re-decced and do it again would you still say it's ok? A simple change is needed to stop this crap... just make it so that you can't leave an alliance before 7 days have passed, or that the war declared at your corp is carried with you for the full 7 days. Ok so what the GM said in this thread can be considered void because the loophole it opens is so fricking huge its not even "lollerskates" anymore.
Orravan	Posted - 2008.01.02 12:46:00 - [159] Originally by: Xandria Pearl ... Better to not waste your time to respond to brickwalls. To you all, arguing that what is doing Imune is not an exploit : What is the purpose of war mechanisms in Eve if you can avoid it ? Can't you answer a so basic question ? ____________________ Finicky diplomat. Suicidal explorer. Faithful ally.
Le Donkey	Posted - 2008.01.02 12:46:00 - [160] Originally by: Drasked Ok so what the GM said in this thread can be considered void because the loophole it opens is so fricking huge its not even "lollerskates" anymore. Erm, he didn't open a loophole, he attempted to make clear that ppl shouldn't use this already open loophole. If you fail or don't want to accept it, that's your problem.
Drasked North Face Force	Posted - 2008.01.02 12:51:00 - [161] Originally by: Le Donkey Originally by: Drasked Ok so what the GM said in this thread can be considered void because the loophole it opens is so fricking huge its not even "lollerskates" anymore. Erm, he didn't open a loophole, he attempted to make clear that ppl shouldn't use this already open loophole. If you fail or don't want to accept it, that's your problem. But what if my corp is wardecced and i actually want to join imune but leave seconds after because one of their members called me "party boy" in alliance chat. Then the corp that dec'd me notices this and redecs my corp, but seconds after that the leader of imune convos me to talk with me about my sudden departure and convinces me to join back up again and mute the person that called me party boy, but the guy that called me party boy has an alt and called me party boy again, so i leave again. At what point is it a cheat? if a GM can't be clear about this then its pretty save to stay away from statements like this alltogether.
Ki An Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum	Posted - 2008.01.02 12:54:00 - [162] I think I understand now why CCP usually keeps their mouths shut and just sneak a fix in a patch once people have argued amongst each other for six months. Seems they can't please the player base. If they would have kept quiet about this, they would be drowned in petitions about all the corps that would use this 'service' to dodge wars. As they instead clearly states that this is not supposed to happen, and is illegal to use, they get loads of people yelling "you aren't clear enough", and who looks in every nook and cranny after ways to beat the system. Ffs, use your nuggin! Common sense is apparently a commodity.
Le Donkey	Posted - 2008.01.02 12:57:00 - [163] Originally by: Drasked At what point is it a cheat? if a GM can't be clear about this then its pretty save to stay away from statements like this alltogether. First time you do it you get a cozy warning. Second time you get a nice ban, kk?
PhantomVyper Darkness Inc. Blood Blind	Posted - 2008.01.02 12:59:00 - [164] Originally by: Drasked Originally by: Le Donkey Originally by: Drasked Ok so what the GM said in this thread can be considered void because the loophole it opens is so fricking huge its not even "lollerskates" anymore. Erm, he didn't open a loophole, he attempted to make clear that ppl shouldn't use this already open loophole. If you fail or don't want to accept it, that's your problem. But what if my corp is wardecced and i actually want to join imune but leave seconds after because one of their members called me "party boy" in alliance chat. Then the corp that dec'd me notices this and redecs my corp, but seconds after that the leader of imune convos me to talk with me about my sudden departure and convinces me to join back up again and mute the person that called me party boy, but the guy that called me party boy has an alt and called me party boy again, so i leave again. At what point is it a cheat? if a GM can't be clear about this then its pretty save to stay away from statements like this alltogether. At the exact point that you get reported for it and a GM gives you a nice little warning or ban.
Ponderous Thunderstroke Republic War Machine Industries	Posted - 2008.01.02 13:01:00 - [165] Originally by: Xandria Pearl Originally by: Ponderous Thunderstroke Which part is the cheating? The joining iMune? the leaving? Leaving after 1 second? Leaving to get the wardec off? Do you wait for 2 seconds instead? 20 minutes? Do you leave a 'leaving note' saying "my corp is leaving because we don't like the alliance", and then you're covered because you didn't leave to lose the wardec? Honestly you must be joking. We can't have everything idiot proof and some common sense is needed. When that fails, whatever CCP says is the deal. Obviously, joining iMune is not cheating. Leaving them is not cheating in itself either. The joining and instantly leaving is obviously an exploit but for arguments sake let's say you just instantly changed your mind... if you are re-decced and do it again would you still say it's ok? A simple change is needed to stop this crap... just make it so that you can't leave an alliance before 7 days have passed, or that the war declared at your corp is carried with you for the full 7 days. OK, you say 7 days. CCP hasn't said squat. Except that "It's cheating". So we're then left to explore the boundaries of what the cheating is. Can I leave my alliance after 6 days, or do I get a warning? Sounds like something someone should petition to see if it's OK...oh wait, somebody did that, got a response, and now is getting railroaded with a contradictory response. In fact, all we know about it's illegality is that "it's cheating" and "CEO's will get a warning". How many warnings? Can IMune accept 50 corps in/out, and get 50 warnings? Once again, it's an open ended, vague ruling that sounds like it was made on the heels of looking at 5 pages of complaints from wounded griefers and mercs and taking action from there. In the interestes of fairness, I'm sympathetic to the mercs' plight. Not a shred to the griefers. There has to be a more concrete fix here, something involving oh, I dunno, maybe FIXING THE WARDEC SYSTEM or something.
Arctur Ceti	Posted - 2008.01.02 13:02:00 - [166] It's funny how this is considered an exploit but using the gang mechanic to group up as a team can be used to gank victims in high security space without concord intervention. Talk about double standard.
Xandria Pearl KIA Corp	Posted - 2008.01.02 13:09:00 - [167] Originally by: Ponderous Thunderstroke OK, you say 7 days. CCP hasn't said squat. Except that "It's cheating". The GM replied to this thread regarding to the OP, which clearly describes a corp joining and instantly leaving the alliance. You say it's vague? I say you're just avoiding the real issue.
Kransthow AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.01.02 13:10:00 - [168] Originally by: Arctur Ceti It's funny how this is considered an exploit but using the gang mechanic to group up as a team can be used to gank victims in high security space without concord intervention. Talk about double standard. /fail
Ponderous Thunderstroke Republic War Machine Industries	Posted - 2008.01.02 13:13:00 - [169] Edited by: Ponderous Thunderstroke on 02/01/2008 13:15:15 Originally by: Xandria Pearl Originally by: Ponderous Thunderstroke OK, you say 7 days. CCP hasn't said squat. Except that "It's cheating". The GM replied to this thread regarding to the OP, which clearly describes a corp joining and instantly leaving the alliance. You say it's vague? I say you're just avoiding the real issue. Hey, no problem then! We just won't instantly leave if we choose to avail ourselves of IMune.
Kransthow AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.01.02 13:30:00 - [170] Originally by: Ponderous Thunderstroke Hey, no problem then! We just won't instantly leave if we choose to avail ourselves of IMune. It's cheating to join and leave a alliance to lose your war dec on your corp, time dosen't come into the matter
Le Donkey	Posted - 2008.01.02 13:35:00 - [171] Originally by: Ponderous Thunderstroke Hey, no problem then! We just won't instantly leave if we choose to avail ourselves of IMune. Oh my. I'm planning on sueing a shoe company. I forgot to tie my shoelaces and tripped and hurt my knees. On second thought, I'll sue the goverment too... they should have made pillowed pavements just to prevent ppl from getting hurt if they fall. Irrelevant? Think about it. Playing dumb ftl...
PhantomVyper Darkness Inc. Blood Blind	Posted - 2008.01.02 13:35:00 - [172] Originally by: Arctur Ceti It's funny how this is considered an exploit but using the gang mechanic to group up as a team can be used to gank victims in high security space without concord intervention. Talk about double standard. Its not a double standard because the "victim" of this "exploit" can simply NOT join the gang and thus be completly immune to it. The "victim" of the iMune aliance scheme (i.e. the Merc / agrieved / ganker corp that initiated the wardec), can do absolutely nothing to avoid it, except spending even more ISK to continue the wardec that could be as easilly voided as the first one...
Ponderous Thunderstroke Republic War Machine Industries	Posted - 2008.01.02 13:41:00 - [173] Originally by: Le Donkey Originally by: Ponderous Thunderstroke Hey, no problem then! We just won't instantly leave if we choose to avail ourselves of IMune. Oh my. I'm planning on sueing a shoe company. I forgot to tie my shoelaces and tripped and hurt my knees. On second thought, I'll sue the goverment too... they should have made pillowed pavements just to prevent ppl from getting hurt if they fall. Irrelevant? Think about it. Playing dumb ftl... My point is, adjudicating whether or not someone is exploiting will be a judgement call. And as we have already seen in this IMune saga, how the judgement call will go depends on who you talk to and at what time. Yeah, I know, that's the point of a JUDGEMENT call. But why bother with the screechings of "UNFAIR!" from either side, when you could just fix the freaking wardec system and eliminate all uncertainty? Oh yeah, btw. "I didn't leave that alliance 10 minutes after joining because I wanted my corp to dodge the wardec. I left because the alliance leader was a meanie head and called my pilots noobs." Reserving the above excuse for if I decide to use IMune.
Drasked North Face Force	Posted - 2008.01.02 13:49:00 - [174] Originally by: PhantomVyper Originally by: Arctur Ceti It's funny how this is considered an exploit but using the gang mechanic to group up as a team can be used to gank victims in high security space without concord intervention. Talk about double standard. Its not a double standard because the "victim" of this "exploit" can simply NOT join the gang and thus be completly immune to it. The "victim" of the iMune aliance scheme (i.e. the Merc / agrieved / ganker corp that initiated the wardec), can do absolutely nothing to avoid it, except spending even more ISK to continue the wardec that could be as easilly voided as the first one... Just like the victims of privateer alliance where just able to NOT get wardecced.. oh wait..
Drasked North Face Force	Posted - 2008.01.02 13:55:00 - [175] Originally by: Kransthow Originally by: Ponderous Thunderstroke Hey, no problem then! We just won't instantly leave if we choose to avail ourselves of IMune. It's cheating to join and leave a alliance to lose your war dec on your corp, time dosen't come into the matter Ok so if i leave multiple times because they keep calling me "party boy" in alliance chat then it's ok??
The'Chosen	Posted - 2008.01.02 14:12:00 - [176] Edited by: The''Chosen on 02/01/2008 14:12:13 Originally by: Drasked Originally by: PhantomVyper Originally by: Arctur Ceti It's funny how this is considered an exploit but using the gang mechanic to group up as a team can be used to gank victims in high security space without concord intervention. Talk about double standard. Its not a double standard because the "victim" of this "exploit" can simply NOT join the gang and thus be completly immune to it. The "victim" of the iMune aliance scheme (i.e. the Merc / agrieved / ganker corp that initiated the wardec), can do absolutely nothing to avoid it, except spending even more ISK to continue the wardec that could be as easilly voided as the first one... Just like the victims of privateer alliance where just able to NOT get wardecced.. oh wait.. So some 2 man griefer corp spends 2M isk to war dec a small group of industrialists who have all their SP in mining and industry. These industrialists can do NOTHING to avoid this war. (I'm agreeing wit you Drasked) Seriously... if you guys are going to throw this out as a cheat, then you REALLY need to re-evaluate the current war dec system. It's so fantastically broken that you are fully alienating anyone who doesn't have SP spent on PvP. It's not good for the EvE community/game and for CCP, it's not good for business.
Drasked North Face Force	Posted - 2008.01.02 14:14:00 - [177] Originally by: Orravan Originally by: Xandria Pearl ... Better to not waste your time to respond to brickwalls. To you all, arguing that what is doing Imune is not an exploit : What is the purpose of war mechanisms in Eve if you can avoid it ? Can't you answer a so basic question ? What is the purpose of the bounty system if you can claim your own bounty?? If it's not obvious by now that we need this fixed sooner rather then later and that a GM quote like that is only going to make things more complicated then i dont know what the hell you guys are all smoking but i'll take 3.
Angel DeMorphis Gallente	Posted - 2008.01.02 14:24:00 - [178] Originally by: Ponderous Thunderstroke My point is, adjudicating whether or not someone is exploiting will be a judgement call. And as we have already seen in this IMune saga, how the judgement call will go depends on who you talk to and at what time. There seems to be a lot of people in this thread that do not know the Eve definition of an exploit. So here it is, taken from the knowledgebase: "An exploit is when someone bypasses normal game mechanics, such as by utilizing a bug in the game, allowing him to take advantage of other players without them having any means of preventing it whatsoever." In Eve, the definition of exploit is when someone bypasses normal game mechanics. Using or abusing normal game mechanics, such as the alliance handling of a war dec, then, by definition, is not an exploit. Sometimes CCP does label these as possible bannable offenses, however, such as jet can spamming to lag an opponent long enough for your to crush them. But until CCP calls it such, it is not an exploit. -- My sig taken from this site, so thoroughly explains the people I speak with on the forums.
PhantomVyper Darkness Inc. Blood Blind	Posted - 2008.01.02 14:28:00 - [179] Originally by: Angel DeMorphis But until CCP calls it such, it is not an exploit. CCP has already called it an exploit (not exactly an exploit, but "cheating that can get you banned", so same thing actually)
Angel DeMorphis Gallente	Posted - 2008.01.02 14:35:00 - [180] Originally by: PhantomVyper Originally by: Angel DeMorphis But until CCP calls it such, it is not an exploit. CCP has already called it an exploit (not exactly an exploit, but "cheating that can get you banned", so same thing actually) Darn. I should have read every freaking page! /sigh -- My sig taken from this site, so thoroughly explains the people I speak with on the forums.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.