Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Rindon Callsar
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 06:19:00 -
[61] - Quote
Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote: I really hope CCP change their cearbear direction. If not, I'll have to re-think my yearly subscription.
Last time I checked the majority of the player base lives in 0.5-1.0.
Maybe if you asshats living in nullsec found something better to do than bubble camping choke points 24/7 people would be a little more inclined to go into null. As it stands it isn't worth the hassle of trying to get into null when I can do the same things in high with a little less isk per hour and a hell of a lot less hassle. I.E. I was trying to move into null tonight during off hours. Took my Anathema to scout everything out and saw 5-6 bubbles up with cargo containers all over. That was only going 2 jumps deep. It just isn't worth the pain in the ass that it is to move around to get into an unoccupied area in nullsec.
As for the topic at hand, it has gotten kind of ridiculous around trade hubs. I bring a Bestower up from my mission hub to Jita and get scanned down 15-20 times in a 6 jump area. Most of them being Tornadoes trying to take advantage of the said game mechanic. Do I think it is an exploit? No, but it is becoming a problem that will only get worse if left untreated. |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
560
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 06:55:00 -
[62] - Quote
Rindon Callsar wrote: Last time I checked the majority of the player base lives in 0.5-1.0.
Because almost all nullseccers have multiple highsec toons to pay our pvp bills, since isk making ratio between null and high is way out of wack and you can make ALOT more running highsec incursions that anything you can do in nullsec(barring the occasional lucky streak of 4-5 8/10 or higher plexes in a day). Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
Serenity Frye
Brutor Bike Co.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 08:33:00 -
[63] - Quote
i doubt ccp will consider the maneuver itself to be an exploit. it has been used in this game for a very long time, in various forms. if anything, they will look into the storing of fitted modules into orcas. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
225
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 08:47:00 -
[64] - Quote
Mokanor Lenak wrote:You are saying that its not fair to be shot at by someone and having a one-sided fight, but warping in, alpha killing someone one-sided and warping out is fair? On the irony! I'm drowning in ganker tears Sorry mate, but that is the most stupid excuse I have read on this thread so far. You are scared that someone will take your wreck or the gank ship's wreck? No one has every promised that you can recover your items. That is the reason why the ships are not insureable anymore. You gank someone, you lose your ship, an orca with a tractor beam can steal your loot and salvage your wreck. C'est la vie. No one promised your roses and gift cards for ganking someone in high sec. Its a risky business being a douchbag.
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.
I was just shooting down a stupid reactive carebear idea. "LOL, I know! Make it so they cannot warp out after a gank! That will fix it!" When really, there is nothing here to fix....
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.
Another news flash: I also prefer to be able to keep my mods, rather than let a random Orca or frigate steal them from me. Not really 'scared' of it as you claim. At this moment, I've got somewhere between 110 and 120 T2 Tornados fit and ready to gank in 5 different ice systems. I don't even count the T2 Catalysts.
But I'd rather not allow carebears to be able to rationalize "Well, we lost two Mackinaws and a Hulk, but at least we got to take his T2 Howitzers and Gyrostabs!"
|
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
561
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 08:55:00 -
[65] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Mokanor Lenak wrote:You are saying that its not fair to be shot at by someone and having a one-sided fight, but warping in, alpha killing someone one-sided and warping out is fair? On the irony! I'm drowning in ganker tears Sorry mate, but that is the most stupid excuse I have read on this thread so far. You are scared that someone will take your wreck or the gank ship's wreck? No one has every promised that you can recover your items. That is the reason why the ships are not insureable anymore. You gank someone, you lose your ship, an orca with a tractor beam can steal your loot and salvage your wreck. C'est la vie. No one promised your roses and gift cards for ganking someone in high sec. Its a risky business being a douchbag. 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. I was just shooting down a stupid reactive carebear idea. "LOL, I know! Make it so they cannot warp out after a gank! That will fix it!" When really, there is nothing here to fix.... 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. Another news flash: I also prefer to be able to keep my mods, rather than let a random Orca or frigate steal them from me. Not really 'scared' of it as you claim. At this moment, I've got somewhere between 110 and 120 T2 Tornados fit and ready to gank in 5 different ice systems. I don't even count the T2 Catalysts. But I'd rather not allow carebears to be able to rationalize "Well, we lost two Mackinaws and a Hulk, but at least we got to take his T2 Howitzers and Gyrostabs!" They should totally be able to do that, and can!
If the bother fitting a point to keep you pinned long enough to be concorded. Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
143
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 11:07:00 -
[66] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:If the bother fitting a point to keep you pinned long enough to be concorded. This is reasonable. Could you post your complete pod fit?
|
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
561
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 11:24:00 -
[67] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Tallian Saotome wrote:If the bother fitting a point to keep you pinned long enough to be concorded. This is reasonable. Could you post your complete pod fit? [Capsule, Killer pod] 4x Capital Armor Repair DCU II Explosive Armor Hardener
100MN Afterburner II 2x Warp Disruptor II 2x Stasis Webifier II
8x ECM Burst II
Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
561
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 11:25:00 -
[68] - Quote
Or, don't be a tard, make some friends, and one of you will be in a ship to point the hostile Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
Mokanor Lenak
Republic University Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 11:45:00 -
[69] - Quote
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. |
Kelvan Hemanseh
Starwinders The Unwilling.
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 12:28:00 -
[70] - 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.
|
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
225
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 12:28:00 -
[71] - 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.
Who ever said anyone was 'preventing' me from being caught? Its perfectly legal for ANY player in the belt to warp scramble a -10 pilot any time they wish. And it does happen on occasion. EVERY pod pilot in the game can attempt to warp away from ANY situation, at any time they wish - even miners. Why should it be any different for gankers, hmm?
But I think you just expect Concord/NPC Navy to do it 'instantly' for you, and that is something else entirely.
And for someone who has twice accused me of 'crying', you are the one that seems kinda upset.... |
Subdolus Venator
State War Academy Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 14:00:00 -
[72] - Quote
Rindon Callsar wrote: I was trying to move into null tonight during off hours. Took my Anathema to scout everything out and saw 5-6 bubbles up with cargo containers all over. That was only going 2 jumps deep. It just isn't worth the pain in the ass that it is to move around to get into an unoccupied area in nullsec. I find this a bit odd. I take this Alt on screaming joyrides through lo- and nul-sec regularly; sometimes going more than 100 hops deep. This is a low-skilled alt, and frankly, I suk at PvP, but that doesn't stop me, and I beat large and generally well-respected corp camps routinely. Of course, I die a lot too, but hey!, what's the game without the risk?
If I, with my massive n00bly powers, can make a successful run through Syndicate, Goon, and TEST alliance space, taunting in local the whole way, all in one shot, then surely others can find their way in? |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1156
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 14:26:00 -
[73] - Quote
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. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Kelvan Hemanseh
Starwinders The Unwilling.
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 16:53:00 -
[74] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
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. |
March rabbit
Ganse Shadow of xXDEATHXx
144
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 17:39:00 -
[75] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:You are using a 50M ISK hull - - its got to be able to do something that a 1 Million ISK Catalyst cannot.
such a flawed logic like "hulk with price >200mils should be more survivable than other ships"....
anyway: Eve is all about tears. Why you don't like tears? Or you only like tears from n00bs? |
Rindon Callsar
Viziam Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:17:00 -
[76] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Again I will reiterate what I said in my previous post. YOU ARE THE MINORITY. Yes, you null secers, you pirates, you griefers. You are the smallest portion of the Eve Online population. The reason you are the minority is your own fault. You blockade nullsec and hide behind bubble camps to keep anyone out. Sitting hours on end waiting for a single target so you can 10 v 1 them, and act like hardasses because of it. The GM's are forced to place rules on certain aspects because of the complete and utter asshattery that you guys come up with to grief people who try to opt out of PvP or just don't want to deal with the hassles of getting into low/null.
While I could care less if you suicide AFK farmers (and I wish there were more killing done) you guys end up targeting people who are trying to opt out of PvP by staying in high sec.
That being said, who is really the carebear in the game? The people who choose to PVE or the people who choose to hide behind their gang going 10 v 1, the gate campers you attack single targets, etc. It amuses me that the so called PvPers in this game think they are so hard core when 99.9% of the time they are in a group killing a solo target that has little to no chance of escape/taking anyone out. |
Daemon Ceed
Crushed Ambitions Reckless Ambition
46
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:22:00 -
[77] - Quote
Rindon Callsar wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: The GM's are forced to place rules on certain aspects because of the complete and utter asshattery that you guys come up with to grief people who try to opt out of PvP or just don't want to deal with the hassles of getting into low/null. While I could care less if you suicide AFK farmers (and I wish there were more killing done) you guys end up targeting people who are trying to opt out of PvP by staying in high sec.
This is EVE. You can't "opt-out" of PVP in this game, and trying is futile. You can reduce your chances of encountering it by not being an idiot, but you cannot opt-out anymore than you can opt-out of being a victim of crime IRL. I really hope I run into you sometime so that I can give you some very unconsensual pvp to drive the point home.
Edited to add: You sound mad. U mad bro? Post with your main or GTFO! |
Rindon Callsar
Viziam Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:39:00 -
[78] - Quote
Daemon Ceed wrote:Rindon Callsar wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: The GM's are forced to place rules on certain aspects because of the complete and utter asshattery that you guys come up with to grief people who try to opt out of PvP or just don't want to deal with the hassles of getting into low/null. While I could care less if you suicide AFK farmers (and I wish there were more killing done) you guys end up targeting people who are trying to opt out of PvP by staying in high sec. This is EVE. You can't "opt-out" of PVP in this game, and trying is futile. You can reduce your chances of encountering it by not being an idiot, but you cannot opt-out anymore than you can opt-out of being a victim of crime IRL. I really hope I run into you sometime so that I can give you some very unconsensual pvp to drive the point home. Edited to add: You sound mad. U mad bro?
Not mad at all, but by your "I'm a hard ass" attitude you fall into the "let's 10 v 1 a person and then talk ****" category. |
GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:40:00 -
[79] - Quote
Daemon Ceed wrote:Rindon Callsar wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: The GM's are forced to place rules on certain aspects because of the complete and utter asshattery that you guys come up with to grief people who try to opt out of PvP or just don't want to deal with the hassles of getting into low/null. While I could care less if you suicide AFK farmers (and I wish there were more killing done) you guys end up targeting people who are trying to opt out of PvP by staying in high sec. This is EVE. You can't "opt-out" of PVP in this game, and trying is futile. You can reduce your chances of encountering it by not being an idiot, but you cannot opt-out anymore than you can opt-out of being a victim of crime IRL. I really hope I run into you sometime so that I can give you some very unconsensual pvp to drive the point home. Edited to add: You sound mad. U mad bro?
Oh no, he is coming after you, he sounds pretty serious, whatever shall you do? Don't soil yourself. |
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam Amarr Empire
111
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:54:00 -
[80] - Quote
On TQ: Ganked a covetor in 0.5 in an oracle, warped around until 15 minute GCC ran out, left system Re-entered system, concord didn't pursue or attack.
Carebear: -1 Covetor Me: No loss Exploit? TBD I suppose. Support showing T2 and faction frequency crystal damage in the info window! |
|
Daemon Ceed
Crushed Ambitions Reckless Ambition
46
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:04:00 -
[81] - Quote
Rindon Callsar wrote:Daemon Ceed wrote:Rindon Callsar wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: The GM's are forced to place rules on certain aspects because of the complete and utter asshattery that you guys come up with to grief people who try to opt out of PvP or just don't want to deal with the hassles of getting into low/null. While I could care less if you suicide AFK farmers (and I wish there were more killing done) you guys end up targeting people who are trying to opt out of PvP by staying in high sec. This is EVE. You can't "opt-out" of PVP in this game, and trying is futile. You can reduce your chances of encountering it by not being an idiot, but you cannot opt-out anymore than you can opt-out of being a victim of crime IRL. I really hope I run into you sometime so that I can give you some very unconsensual pvp to drive the point home. Edited to add: You sound mad. U mad bro? Not mad at all, but by your "I'm a hard ass" attitude you fall into the "let's 10 v 1 a person and then talk ****" category. Edit: and from looking at your kill board I am exactly correct. Your only solo kills are against haulers. GG.
I see that you didn't bother looking at related kills. In many instances I was blobbed when I went in solo and as such my alliance counter blobbed. You should really take more time to do research before you open your pie hole.
Also, it's not my fault when my corpmates want to ***** in on killmails, or when I ***** in on there's. We are almost always in a fleet and they can warp-in on me at any time. You'll probably also see where some people where on the killmail but little to no damage in comparison to what I did...which means I was there for awhile before they arrived on-grid. Post with your main or GTFO! |
Rindon Callsar
Viziam Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:08:00 -
[82] - Quote
Daemon Ceed wrote:Rindon Callsar wrote:Daemon Ceed wrote:Rindon Callsar wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: The GM's are forced to place rules on certain aspects because of the complete and utter asshattery that you guys come up with to grief people who try to opt out of PvP or just don't want to deal with the hassles of getting into low/null. While I could care less if you suicide AFK farmers (and I wish there were more killing done) you guys end up targeting people who are trying to opt out of PvP by staying in high sec. This is EVE. You can't "opt-out" of PVP in this game, and trying is futile. You can reduce your chances of encountering it by not being an idiot, but you cannot opt-out anymore than you can opt-out of being a victim of crime IRL. I really hope I run into you sometime so that I can give you some very unconsensual pvp to drive the point home. Edited to add: You sound mad. U mad bro? Not mad at all, but by your "I'm a hard ass" attitude you fall into the "let's 10 v 1 a person and then talk ****" category. Edit: and from looking at your kill board I am exactly correct. Your only solo kills are against haulers. GG. I see that you didn't bother looking at related kills. In many instances I was blobbed when I went in solo and as such my alliance counter blobbed. You should really take more time to do research before you open your pie hole. Also, it's not my fault when my corpmates want to ***** in on killmails, or when I ***** in on there's. We are almost always in a fleet and they can warp-in on me at any time. You'll probably also see where some people where on the killmail but little to no damage in comparison to what I did...which means I was there for awhile before they arrived on-grid.
Ohhh Tommy Toughnuts, you truly are the best! |
Daemon Ceed
Crushed Ambitions Reckless Ambition
46
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:10:00 -
[83] - Quote
Rindon Callsar wrote:
Ohhh Tommy Toughnuts, you truly are the best!
Your woman says the same thing to me ;) Post with your main or GTFO! |
Kazacy
BACKFIRE Squad S O L A R I S
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:54:00 -
[84] - Quote
Rindon Callsar wrote:
stuff
While I could care less if you suicide AFK farmers (and I wish there were more killing done) you guys end up targeting people who are trying to opt out of PvP by staying in high sec.
When you undock you already opt in for pvp and even if you don't undock you can enjoy market pvp. If you don't like this it's better for everyone to leave this game, and if you wanna leave pls be kind and contract all your stuff to me. thx in advance for the stuff. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
225
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:56:00 -
[85] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:On TQ: Ganked a covetor in 0.5 in an oracle, warped around until 15 minute GCC ran out, left system Re-entered system, concord didn't pursue or attack.
Carebear: -1 Covetor Me: No loss Exploit? TBD I suppose.
Yes. Its an exploit because you didn't lose your ship. Thought we went over this already. |
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam Amarr Empire
111
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:58:00 -
[86] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:On TQ: Ganked a covetor in 0.5 in an oracle, warped around until 15 minute GCC ran out, left system Re-entered system, concord didn't pursue or attack.
Carebear: -1 Covetor Me: No loss Exploit? TBD I suppose. Yes. Its an exploit because you didn't lose your ship. Thought we went over this already. Seems other people differ on this.
Furthermore: again, if it's an exploit, why am I able to do it? I shouldn't be able to do it if it's considered an exploit.
It's not even like I used a bug or some hidden game mechanics that few people know about. If what I did is an exploit then that needs to be both clarified and changed so I can't do it. It would be quite easy to do, literally take maybe a minute of dev time. Support showing T2 and faction frequency crystal damage in the info window! |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
564
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:05:00 -
[87] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:On TQ: Ganked a covetor in 0.5 in an oracle, warped around until 15 minute GCC ran out, left system Re-entered system, concord didn't pursue or attack.
Carebear: -1 Covetor Me: No loss Exploit? TBD I suppose. Yes. Its an exploit because you didn't lose your ship. Thought we went over this already. Seems other people differ on this. Furthermore: again, if it's an exploit, why am I able to do it? I shouldn't be able to do it if it's considered an exploit. It's not even like I used a bug or some hidden game mechanics that few people know about. If what I did is an exploit then that needs to be both clarified and changed so I can't do it. It would be quite easy to do, literally take maybe a minute of dev time. If you don't die, its an exploit. Nothing says it has to be right away, but if it doesn't happen its punishable by perma-ban with no warnings.
And exploit, just to be clear, is where you can do things that should be able to be done. If you can do it, and are not supposed to be able to do it, its an exploit, that simple.
However, evading concord for a short time is not an exploit.
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).
There is no room to differ. CCP has clearly stated that failing to die after incurring CONCORD wrath is an immediately bannable offense. The question is whether its legit to delay that wrath to get a few more ganks in.
Real question, CCP. Why are highsec players so dumb they think that an exploit isn't possible? Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam Amarr Empire
111
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:12:00 -
[88] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:There is no room to differ. CCP has clearly stated that failing to die after incurring CONCORD wrath is an immediately bannable offense. The question is whether its legit to delay that wrath to get a few more ganks in. Mine is the logical extent of the exact same thing you're doing. I never incurred their wrath either, merely delayed it indefinitely.
Tallian Saotome wrote:Real question, CCP. Why are highsec players so dumb they think that an exploit isn't possible? Why shouldn't something bannable in game be changed to make it impossible to do in the first place?
CCP doesn't want players doing A Players do A because the game lets them, knowing (or not) that it's a bannable offense CCP bans players doing A
alternatively:
CCP doesn't want players doing A CCP makes simple change to prevent A being possible Players don't do A or get banned Support showing T2 and faction frequency crystal damage in the info window! |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
564
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:18:00 -
[89] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Tallian Saotome wrote:There is no room to differ. CCP has clearly stated that failing to die after incurring CONCORD wrath is an immediately bannable offense. The question is whether its legit to delay that wrath to get a few more ganks in. Mine is the logical extent of the exact same thing you're doing. I never incurred their wrath either, merely delayed it indefinitely. Tallian Saotome wrote:Real question, CCP. Why are highsec players so dumb they think that an exploit isn't possible? Why shouldn't something bannable in game be changed to make it impossible to do in the first place? CCP doesn't want players doing A Players do A because the game lets them, knowing (or not) that it's a bannable offense CCP bans players doing A alternatively: CCP doesn't want players doing A CCP makes simple change to prevent A being possible Players don't do A or get banned They can, and usually do alter the game to make it impossible.
General rule, an exploit is a possibility they had figured was impossible(CCP is good at this) or a bug(afaik, intended CONCORD functionality is to chase you til you die, 15 min or not).
In the first case, its actually legit til CCP says otherwise(They have already stated that coming up with a way to survive concord is an exploit, very broadly) and in the second case, abusing a bug is a bannable offense.
If you found a way to survive concord, you can do it once on TQ as a proof of concept, and if you don't file a exploit report once you prove it(it has its own petition category) you can be banned. If its a bug, same story.
Any other exploit, report it and you can keep doing it til a GM tells you no, but surviving CONCORD is a flat ban, period, if you abuse it.
Is that clear?
Edit: your second example is ********. Thats like saying you can die from making your computer levitate through hamster power. If the devs make it impossible, you can't get banned for it because its can't be done. Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
Kelvan Hemanseh
Starwinders The Unwilling.
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:22:00 -
[90] - 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. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |