EVE Search - GMs - Please weigh in on the boomerang maneuver. Exploit (y/n)?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Crime and Punishment

GMs - Please weigh in on the boomerang maneuver. Exploit (y/n)?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
Kelvan Hemanseh Starwinders The Unwilling. 28	Posted - 2012.03.21 02:52:00 - [1] - Quote Can we get a ruling on this instead of just locking the thread and saying we need a GM ruling. One would think because both of you work for the same company you could just point a GM to the thread instead of leaving us all wondering. The thread is here what I'm asking about is the ganking technique described in the first few posts: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=83644&find=unread Is doing this considered an exploit?
Kelvan Hemanseh Starwinders The Unwilling. 28	Posted - 2012.03.21 05:46:00 - [2] - Quote Ajita al Tchar wrote: I do think that unfitting your crap in an Orca is kind of dodgy, but personally I'm of the opinion that using an Orca's services (docking, fitting, etc) should be allowed, but it also should result in the Orca incurring GCC. Same for carriers that pull the same shenanigans in low sec. It would make sense: help a criminal get on with their crime-doing and you become one by extension. As much as I agree with you here I'm not trying to get into a discussion here as much as demand a clarification. CCP Guard wrote: Evading Concord is dodgy business. The GMs will make the call on whether this is an exploit or not, until then I'm locking the thread. That can of worms is what I want closed, give us a ruling before anyone gets banned for something that isn't well defined in the first place.
Kelvan Hemanseh Starwinders The Unwilling. 28	Posted - 2012.03.21 13:22:00 - [3] - Quote CCP you were quick enough to lock the thread how about being quick in providing us an answer? Literally all we need is someone with a red tag saying GM to come and say yes it is an exploit or no it is not an exploit.
Kelvan Hemanseh Starwinders The Unwilling. 28	Posted - 2012.03.21 13:26:00 - [4] - Quote Syrias Bizniz wrote: As far as i'm informed about the policy of 'evading concord' The problem there is that evading concord is not well defined. See CCP Guard's post in the locked thread.
Kelvan Hemanseh Starwinders The Unwilling. 28	Posted - 2012.03.21 13:49:00 - [5] - Quote Syrias Bizniz wrote: I don't have a source right now, but i think i remember a statement, that cleary said: You can warp off, and unless your ship gets destroyed, it's totally okay. It hasn't to be destroyed at the same location where the crime has been comitted. This is really the key part that needs to be answered. Preferably by a senior GM so we don't have to worry about it going back in forth again in the future. If the above is okay then the boomerang maneuver should be fine, warping about the system on a crime spree until the police (concord) kills you. Its sort of like a high speed chase in space. E: Actually we need two rulings. Is it okay or not okay to refit our ship with an orca mid GCC? Is it okay or not okay to warp away in order to have more time to execute more ganks before concord catches us?
Kelvan Hemanseh Starwinders The Unwilling. 28	Posted - 2012.03.21 13:52:00 - [6] - Quote Lemok Sonji wrote: I'll just say that the OP of the tornado thread is not using a 50x more expensive ship, so don't get over yourself. Keep it civil. Its just a few extra mil at most (and defenetly not 50x) to be able to warp and gank someone else. Exploit or not, the best way to fix it, is to not allow a ganking ship to be able to warp out. He can do what ever he wants, shoot another one, but only in the same area. No warping out. Easy fix really. That way no exploit possible, ship will 100% blowup. On trying to warp out get a "Your actions have made your warp drive melfunction. Concord are coming to fix it for you, please hold, have a nice day". Using faction loot means its a lot more than a few mill, not 50x but quite a bit more than a few mill. Why exactly is preventing a warp out after committing a crime a good idea? Instead of just spouting crap at least try to justify it.
Kelvan Hemanseh Starwinders The Unwilling. 28	Posted - 2012.03.21 15:45:00 - [7] - Quote FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: If the GMs are so overburdened that they shed all rules concerning wardec exploits, then they certainly don't have time to be enforcing new rules on this. They shouldn't be selectively controlling exploits based on its impact on the carebears. Or you know, they could let us know what is and isn't an exploit related to this in this thread so we can avoid exploiting which will decrease their work load.
Kelvan Hemanseh Starwinders The Unwilling. 30	Posted - 2012.03.22 02:50:00 - [8] - Quote So CCP you can't even send someone here to tell us you're aware of this and working on a ruling? What gives? You're quick enough to send me a warning for annoying people in local but you can't spend two minutes letting us know whats going on.
Kelvan Hemanseh Starwinders The Unwilling. 30	Posted - 2012.03.22 12:28:00 - [9] - Quote Mokanor Lenak wrote: Herr Wilkus wrote: I said nothing about 'fair'. I'm describing why 'warping out' after a Tornado gank is a perfectly rational thing to do. Last I checked, it is still perfectly legal, so, your claims of finding 'ganker tears' only make you look particularly unintelligent. Ganking someone who can not fight back is perfectly rational, but catching you is not? Next thing you will demand -10 pilots to be not targetable because it "nasty". Sorry mate, cry me a river. As I said, ganking has its risks. If you want to avoid all the risks, that can be considered an exploit. Quote: It might surprise a bonehead like yourself, but given a choice, I'd prefer to warp off! Its better than having to sit there locked down by Concord for 15 seconds, while an interceptor closes in to snag my pod. Because I prefer not to be podded. It might surprice an empty headed like you, but I'm not sure all the ganked miners are happy and prefer to have their ships blown or being podded as well So boo hoo. If CCP decide to change the warp away, I will be happy. I'm not against ganking, and you can kill all the botters and hulks you want. But all the profit zero the risk? Sorry, I don't see ganking being that. gank = risky. You can't handle the risk, don't gank. Great poorly worded poorly argued side track. I don't think were talking about fair at all and the last time I checked losing your ship without killing the other is a risk. Traveling in highsec as an outlaw is a risk. Being shipless in a pod in highsec is an even bigger risk. So don't tell me their are no risks until you've at least tried it several times. If you're a bitter miner that's tired of being ganked then pay attention to the game and you won't get ganked its that simple.
Kelvan Hemanseh Starwinders The Unwilling. 30	Posted - 2012.03.22 16:53:00 - [10] - Quote FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: Presenting my latest wall of text on this subject: http://stinkinguplocal.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/can-we-get-some-consistency-please/ Summary: We have too many GM-enforced rules already, don't play favorites, and I weighed in on what kind of fixes make sense to ensure no exploiting is done. Turn that into multiple posts here in this thread, the more posts/likes this thread gets the higher the likelihood of CCP responding to us.

Kelvan Hemanseh Starwinders The Unwilling. 30	Posted - 2012.03.22 21:22:00 - [11] - Quote Tallian Saotome wrote: If you want a verdict, don't ask here, file a petition. I have it on record in a different thread that the GM staff would rather answer your question about its legality in advance than have to do all the work of proving you are exploiting(pulling logs, watching you do it, etc). This is the perfect place to ask for a ruling, its an issue that affects more than just me and it does create thousands of petitions asking the same thing. Try again.
Kelvan Hemanseh Starwinders The Unwilling. 30	Posted - 2012.03.22 22:08:00 - [12] - Quote Tallian Saotome wrote: Kelvan Hemanseh wrote: Tallian Saotome wrote: If you want a verdict, don't ask here, file a petition. I have it on record in a different thread that the GM staff would rather answer your question about its legality in advance than have to do all the work of proving you are exploiting(pulling logs, watching you do it, etc). This is the perfect place to ask for a ruling, its an issue that affects more than just me and it doesn't create thousands of petitions asking the same thing. Try again. GMs are not allowed to come to the forums without getting a ton of permission. Its not worth the time, but they have to answer the petitions, and if its an exploit, it only takes one or 2 petitions to get it added to the list of known exploits(and in short order patched out of existence). The forums, on the other hand, don't guarantee they will notice(tho keeping it toward the top of the page will help til it get locks for discussing potential exploits) They can post here when they like, take a look at EVE General where they've posted plenty of times. Unless you work for CCP and know their PR policies, you shouldn't speak of them.
Kelvan Hemanseh Starwinders The Unwilling. 30	Posted - 2012.03.23 04:18:00 - [13] - Quote Corina Jarr wrote: I think this is awesome. Makes ganking (effectively) a lot of work, with a big payoff potentially. I can agree if this is allowed then the effort:reward ratio is satisfied. It requires some decent equipment as well so the risk:reward ratio is satisfied as well. So now all we need is someone with a red box in their portrait to come tell us if its okay to do these things.
Kelvan Hemanseh Starwinders The Unwilling. 30	Posted - 2012.03.23 15:40:00 - [14] - Quote Katarina Reid wrote: CCP Greyscale Nope, not intended as a change to suicide ganking at all. Any CONCORD replacement will keep the same time interval as current CONCORD spawns. We're kicking around the idea of deploying an instant warp-scrambler to prevent warping-around shenanigans, but we don't have any plans to alter the DPS delay right now. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=984080#post984080 That doesn't really answer the question but it does make this harder to do if not impossible.
Kelvan Hemanseh Starwinders The Unwilling. 30	Posted - 2012.03.23 16:43:00 - [15] - Quote Ban Bindy wrote: This thread is yet more proof that this game is more about bullying than anything else. Suicide ganking is not pvp, it's fake pvp. If the intent of the game is for older players to make the lives of newer and weaker players utterly miserable so that they leave, then this is a good idea. If you want a game where the player base grows and you have more combat by people who want it, then this is just one more step toward the shrinking of Eve. In case you haven't noticed, the game is smaller than it was. The supposed "victory" of the bitter vets over CCP did nothing but confuse the issue. Solo mining was one of the only ways a casual player could enjoy this game. Getting killed while solo mining has driven a lot of people out of my main's corp. Hardly anybody logs on when we get a war dec, and, increasingly, the numbers are lower and lower. Without some part of Eve where players have real safety, this game will die. The death will be long and slow because many people love the game. But death will come nevertheless. Fight this idea all you want. Throw that "carebear" word around like it means something. There have always been more people who wanted to play this game as carebears, they've just all been driven away by now. And the game has such a forbidding reputation at this point that people are not going to join it as readily or give it as much of a chance as in the past. But please, keep looking at ways to force people to play in a style that they don't want and won't accept. That's the Eve mentality, for sure. I don't where people differentiate between real and fake pvp. Any pvp that happens is real pvp. This game is a sandbox game you choose what you want to do. You chose to mine. I chose to kill you after you refused to pay for protection. Also this is a derail, please answer the OP CCP.
Kelvan Hemanseh Starwinders The Unwilling. 31	Posted - 2012.03.24 12:45:00 - [16] - Quote Prince Kobol wrote: Read the the OP's post, couldn't be bothered ready the replies. Short answer... No If only you had a red tag that said GM.
Kelvan Hemanseh Starwinders The Unwilling. 31	Posted - 2012.04.01 01:45:00 - [17] - Quote The GMs have ruled shouldn't this be locked now?
Kelvan Hemanseh Starwinders The Unwilling. 31	Posted - 2012.04.01 03:29:00 - [18] - Quote I'd like to add that you GMs who ruled the boomerang maneuver as an exploit are anti-fun GMs and that I hear Blizzard Entertainment is hiring your kind of people. Go ahead and make room for the pro-fun GMs if you please.
Kelvan Hemanseh Starwinders The Unwilling. 31	Posted - 2012.04.01 13:57:00 - [19] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Kelvan Hemanseh wrote: I'd like to add that you GMs who ruled the boomerang maneuver as an exploit are anti-fun GMs and that I hear Blizzard Entertainment is hiring your kind of people. Go ahead and make room for the pro-fun GMs if you please. Just make suicide ganking an exploit. Players should never be attacking players consequentially. Ever. No matter what. Just do it and get it over with. Tauranon wrote: Its just dual account, and every time a task becomes dual account optimal, communication of such to non players negatively affects the perception of the game and thus signups etc. Escorting a freighter, carrying exactly 1 module is a second account role, not a player role. Well cap pilots would have their cyno alts and of course scouting alts, even carrier alts for fighters when ratting. I don't think highseccers use carriers though. Not for much except maybe mining veldspar with drones... Goon friend we are in need of a threadnaught. You know what to do.
Kelvan Hemanseh Starwinders The Unwilling. 31	Posted - 2012.04.03 03:27:00 - [20] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Varr Dorn wrote: First off, my main is a carebear. I fit a tank, but haven't seen the hint of a gank, though I've lived in .5/.6 the whole time. I would rather the Concord response time be changed because it fits in more with the elements of gameplay(lore/rp), just because it's natural to want to TRY to get away (not full evasion). But Carebears as a whole, and even in this thread, are constantly told "Well, bring some friends to help" (to guard freighters, miners etc). Now the gankers are whining because they can't solo kill a freighter. To that I say: "Well, bring some friends...." I always wondered how that worked. Especially if using tornados where the first volley is all that matters, do you suicide gank them before their sensorboosted lock finishes and their prefired 1400s pucnh holes into the target? Goon friend do you need a cyno for the threadnaught?

Kelvan Hemanseh Hole Exploitation Inc. The Unwilling. 31	Posted - 2012.04.19 12:44:00 - [21] - Quote Herr Wilkus wrote: Trinkets friend wrote: All those terrible outlaw podding opportunists, making the cnsequences of your action come back to haunt you. Poor little fellow, cry some more! I know you want this game to be an endless source of free carebear kills, from which you can harest infinite tears and mewling blubbering and coat yourself in the armour of "well he was stupid / a bot / a nub" and carry on, secure in the thought that you are part of some elite alliance of ultimate grief. A) Wow, you have a lot of built up rage. TEARS must have really violated you once. B) You are replying to a post that is several weeks old - speculating on something that hadn't happened yet. C) Patch is done, volley ganking and warping off grid with a Tornado (and unloading into an Orca) is still legal, and was declared as such by GM Homo in the GD thread. I just killed 33 Exhumers and 25 Pods in one evening, dealing almost 9 Billion in damage to miners collectively. Thats solo. Want tears? Here you go. n++[ 2012.04.18 15:37:50 ] bandRK Numon > -ƒ-Ç-+-¦-¦-é n++[ 2012.04.18 15:37:56 ] bandRK Numon > Hi n++[ 2012.04.18 15:38:06 ] Herr Wilkus > -ƒ-+-+-¦-¦-å n++[ 2012.04.18 15:38:12 ] bandRK Numon > -ó-ï -¦-¦-¦-+-ï-¦ -¦-¦-+-¦-+-+ -ç-é-+ -é-¦-¦-Ç-+-ê?????? n++[ 2012.04.18 15:38:19 ] bandRK Numon > -¥-¦-à-â-¦ -é-¦-¦ -¦-¦-+-¦-é-î? n++[ 2012.04.18 15:38:52 ] Herr Wilkus > :) n++[ 2012.04.18 15:38:53 ] bandRK Numon > -º-+, -é-¦-¦-¦ -¦-+-¦-Ç-+-¦-+-ü-¦-+-à -é-¦-Ç-+-+-+ -+-¦-+-+? n++[ 2012.04.18 15:39:06 ] bandRK Numon > -º-é-+ -é-¦-¦-¦ -ü -ì-é-+-¦-+, n++[ 2012.04.18 15:39:14 ] bandRK Numon > -ç-é-+ -Ç-¦-ü-à-â-Å-Ç-+ -+-+-¦ -¦-¦-Ç-¦-¦-+-î??? n++[ 2012.04.18 15:39:37 ] bandRK Numon > -ÿ -+-¦-¦-+-¦ -Å-¦-å-+, -¦-+-Å -é-¦-+ -+-+-+-+-¦-+-é-+-¦ -+-¦ 300 -Ü-Ü n++[ 2012.04.18 15:40:15 ] bandRK Numon > -º-+ -+-+-+-ç-+-ê -â-+-ï-Ç-î??? n++[ 2012.04.18 15:40:33 ] Herr Wilkus > -» -+-¦ -¦-+-¦-+-Ç-Ä -¦-+-+-+-â-+-+-ü-é. n++[ 2012.04.18 15:40:49 ] bandRK Numon > -+-¦-+-+ -¦-+-+-Ç-+-ü??? -+-¦-à-â-Å? n++[ 2012.04.18 15:42:08 ] Herr Wilkus > -¦-ï -ü-+-ê-+-+ -ü -â-+-¦ n++[ 2012.04.18 15:42:20 ] bandRK Numon > ???? n++[ 2012.04.18 15:42:29 ] Herr Wilkus > what do you want? n++[ 2012.04.18 15:42:30 ] bandRK Numon > -¥-¦-ä-+-¦-¦ -é-ï -+-+-¦ -+-¦-¦-+-+-¦-¦-¦ -Ç-¦-+-¦-ì-+-¦-+??? n++[ 2012.04.18 15:43:03 ] bandRK Numon > I want your soul n++[ 2012.04.18 15:43:15 ] bandRK Numon > -Æ -+-+-+-¦ -é-¦-¦-Å -é-Ç-¦-à-+-â-é-î n++[ 2012.04.18 15:43:18 ] bandRK Numon > -ô-¦-+-¦-+-+ n++[ 2012.04.18 15:43:33 ] Herr Wilkus > funny. well, you are on the tracking list now. You are no longer allowed to mine. Expect to be ganked again in the future. Can we get this Russian rage translated? My place of work has blocked google for some reason.