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) |
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam Amarr Empire
112
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:22:00 -
[91] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote: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. Alright, I'll file my petition then. Seems like I need to cover my ass. Support showing T2 and faction frequency crystal damage in the info window! |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1164
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:29:00 -
[92] - Quote
Rindon Callsar 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. Actually, on the rare occasion I go out to null, I'm dodging bubble camps and, given the opportunity, will risk getting 10v1'ed myself in order to kill a straggler after his gang has warped away. I'm not one of the cowards you're ranting about.
Rindon Callsar 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.
High sec isn't an "opt out" zone. If you think it is, you've missed out on one of the basic tenets of the game. 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. |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
564
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:31:00 -
[93] - Quote
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) Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
225
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:42:00 -
[94] - Quote
I wouldn't go so far to say you'll get a permaban for exploiting right off. A warning most likely, and a ban if the behavior continues. Hell, the botters are getting 3 strikes. (though I've not seen a single one get dealt with yet at all...)
As far as argument goes, 'if I can do it, its not an exploit'...
Well, that doesn't fly. Until recently you could evade Concord by simply ejecting and scooping it into an Orca. This has been possible since the Orca was introduced, but it always been an exploit, and subject to penalty from CCP. The actual mechanic wasn't fixed until last week. Why? Likely because use of this exploit was not serious enough until now.
The duplicating moon goo trick from a few years ago led to a large number of permabans once found out. it was 'possible' to do, but once CCP discovered it, they X'd the account of everyone directly involved in that particular scam.
If it IS theoretically possible to gank and then warp for 15 minutes in an 0.5 system, CCP likely would simply punish anyone discovered doing it. However if that enforcement becomes too burdensome, they'd probably dedicate resources towards a patch.
|
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam Amarr Empire
114
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:54:00 -
[95] - Quote
Yep, the full evasion is an exploit.
In retrospect the "if I can do it it's not an exploit" makes a little bit less sense, especially now that I know the GMs certainly don't view it that way. Support showing T2 and faction frequency crystal damage in the info window! |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
143
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:03:00 -
[96] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:
However, evading concord for a short time is not an exploit.
Is this known to be true?
If so, what is considered a "short time"? |
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam Amarr Empire
114
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:06:00 -
[97] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Tallian Saotome wrote:
However, evading concord for a short time is not an exploit.
Is this known to be true? Isn't that what this thread is for?
Following my example, you could petition. Literally, there's a section for exploits, and you don't even have to be reporting one, you can just describe a scenario and ask if it's an exploit. It's better to be safe than have to self-report and ask for forgiveness (I was, I think, lucky in doing this) or worse be banned.
It would seem that as long as CONCORD blows up your ship before the GCC runs out, you're in the clear. The fuzzy parts involve multiple ganks under one GCC or unloading your modules into an Orca. Support showing T2 and faction frequency crystal damage in the info window! |
Kelvan Hemanseh
Starwinders The Unwilling.
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:08:00 -
[98] - 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. |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
565
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:10:00 -
[99] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Tallian Saotome wrote:
However, evading concord for a short time is not an exploit.
Is this known to be true? If so, what is considered a "short time"? No, not til someone asks CCP directly instead of talking about it where they expect CCP to overhear like this thread is doing.
General CCP stance usually tends to favor the person exploiting til they make an announcement.
And a 'Short time' is less than a GCC. If CONCORD stops chasing you, you have a clear and present exploit. Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
143
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:19:00 -
[100] - Quote
That's still open to interpretation, since a GCC can be increased by simply committing another crime. So "short time" could mean 15 minutes, 30 minutes, an hour, or longer even. Or it could mean five minutes. Or, evading Concord at any time after committing a crime could be considered an exploit.
|
|
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
570
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:25:00 -
[101] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:That's still open to interpretation, since a GCC can be increased by simply committing another crime. So "short time" could mean 15 minutes, 30 minutes, an hour, or longer even. Or it could mean five minutes. Or, evading Concord at any time after committing a crime could be considered an exploit.
The way I always learned to interpret it, in my time in game since 2006, is that evading CONCORD meant they stopped chasing you.
CCPs new carebear friendly stance may have changed this, which is why I am slightly non-committal on it Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
143
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 23:17:00 -
[102] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:CCPs new carebear friendly stance may have changed this, which is why I am slightly non-committal on it Interesting way to look at it, considering that the ones that have changed the rule (as you view it) are the hi sec gankers extending their own GCC (and Concord destruction times) by using the boomerang technique. Seems they can go on indefinitely with this technique.
They (hi sec suicide gankers) can keep Concord chasing them by extending the GCC. If the rule was as you say then it is not carebears that have changed it. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
617
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:15:00 -
[103] - Quote
I think this is awesome. Makes ganking (effectively) a lot of work, with a big payoff potentially.
You can bet the one Mack that isn't afk/botting will leave very fast the second time he sees you warp and gank... if he lives that long. |
Kelvan Hemanseh
Starwinders The Unwilling.
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:18:00 -
[104] - 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. |
Katarina Reid
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
133
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:34:00 -
[105] - Quote
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
|
Kelvan Hemanseh
Starwinders The Unwilling.
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:40:00 -
[106] - 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. |
Katarina Reid
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
133
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:51:00 -
[107] - Quote
well there fixing it so i guess they see it as a problem so enjoy while u can |
Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:53:00 -
[108] - Quote
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. |
Rindon Callsar
Viziam Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:22:00 -
[109] - 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.
In my opinion 99% of the PvP in this game is one sided ganks. It is sad really. I have been wandering through null for the past few days and all you see are 5-10 people sitting at bubbles on gates waiting for someone to stumble in. That or the same size gank groups roaming around looking for a target.
Makes me miss Pirates of the Burning Seas pvp where it takes actual skill instead of numbers. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1169
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:31:00 -
[110] - Quote
Ban Bindy wrote: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. I've done plenty of solo mining. It's boring as hell. I don't understand how you could enjoy it...it was a means of passive income for me, something I could do while watching movies or studying.
As for war decs, if you're going to operate a corp, be prepared to fight. If not, join one that is. War is a core part of Eve and if your corp is a soft target, you WILL be exploited.
Ban Bindy wrote: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. If you come in to Eve expecting it to be a safe, friendly environment, then you never heard of the game before you came here. When I started playing, I'd heard of massive corp thefts, the dismantling of BoB, the 30 billion isk Palladin gank, and various other craziness that has gone on over the years. That was what drew me to the game: Eve is a player-driven universe where we write our stories. One person can make a difference. A dozen people can drive major, news-making events. That's how Eve works, that's how it's always worked, and if you come here expecting anything else, I can only wonder how you ever found this game without knowing what you were getting into.
I spent the first year of gameplay mining, running missions, and generally being a highsec carebear. And I loved the chaos that surrounded me. 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. |
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
1346
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:41:00 -
[111] - Quote
"real safety" in this game comes more from how you play rather then where you play. Location is a factor when you choose to mission or mine in the "mainstream" areas where every noob gankaholic and ninja salvager goes.
I once met a miner in a backwater Amarr high sec system who never heard of Hulkageddon. At that time there were already three of them. The same miner had not trained a new skill since 2006.
If the expectation is that you should just sit there and let Concord deliver the no-lube treatment, it's kind of dumb. It makes as much sense as an insurance payout for losing a ship to criminal activity.
Running from Concord seems like a logical thing to do, because if you RP or act out criminal intent, running from the law is part of being a criminal. To have to sit there and wait for it does not make sense.
|
Kelvan Hemanseh
Starwinders The Unwilling.
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:43:00 -
[112] - 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.
|
Tauren Tom
Order of the Silver Dragons Eternal Evocations
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:48:00 -
[113] - Quote
Should have gone to fanfest so you could badger greyscale and heckle him on stage. Naga stole my bike!
Talos, the official Pizza Wedge of the Gallente Federation. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1169
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:58:00 -
[114] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Running from Concord seems like a logical thing to do, because if you RP or act out criminal intent, running from the law is part of being a criminal. To have to sit there and wait for it does not make sense.
Exactly.
In real life, running from the law results in escalations by the law. More cops, helicopters, road blocks, et cetera. Concord should mimic that behavior. This new "death ray" idea that I've heard was suggested is just BAD. 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. |
Savannah Zateki
CASCADE OF SPECTRES Comic Mischief
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 20:23:00 -
[115] - Quote
Here's the thing. You guys are trying to using loopholes to make this 'boomerang technique' seem legit. Just because it doesn't say it explicitly on the rules doesn't mean that it's allowed.
The purpose of CONCORD retaliation in highsec is so illegal aggressors get their ship popped. Evading CONCORD is an exploit. Warping away from CONCORD is technically, evading CONCORD. Therefore, warping away from CONCORD is an exploit. Simple as that.
Furthermore, using an Orca's fittting services to reduce the blow to your wallet should also be considered an exploit, since once again, THE PURPOSE OF CONCORD IN HIGHSEC IS TO DESTROY PILOTS COMMITING ILLEGAL AGGRESSION! That includes losing EVERYTHING they had in their ship, not just what they couldn't swap out in time. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
231
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 07:16:00 -
[116] - Quote
I interpret it differently.
Evading Concord is not 'evading' in the temporary sense of simply warping away. Warping away from a ganksite is simply common sense self preservation when other players are free to engage (and pod) you at will.
Evading is escaping the destruction of your ship. (ie former Black ops jump or Orca stash maneuver)
Likewise, its perfectly legal to unfit your ship after ganking. Because CCP does not require your mods to be destroyed during a GCC - only the ship.
How do I know this? Your mods survive the explosion.....
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
231
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 08:27:00 -
[117] - Quote
Oh, and based on their lack of an official response and recent 'Crimewatch' insights...
I interpret it this way:
It is not 'an exploit' in the generally accepted sense that will earn a ban or a warning. No reasonable person could come to that conclusion.
But CCP is planning on turfing out out high-sec aggression anyway, and will likely patch it out anyway, much like high-sec insurance.
So locking the thread followed by.........nothing...........is merely a tactic to cause confusion until they patch it out of the game.
So make use of it while you can....I know I will be.
Still have 102 Tornados staged, and built to destroy.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
416
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 09:54:00 -
[118] - Quote
Serenity Frye wrote: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.
It's always about Knowing Thy Limits.
As long as it's a very limited group of peeps doing that, CCP will close 1, 2 or even 3 eyes on that. It's a PvP game after all.
But once you get some smart ass beginning to publish detailed tutorials about how to scientifically do it, maybe making videos, posting everywhere on the forums about it... then everybody start doing it and then CCP have to stop it before it goes out of control.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
416
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 09:59:00 -
[119] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote: 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....
Selective thinking here:
Herr Wilkus wrote: 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 surprise you but given a choice, the ganked guy would have preferred to not lose ship and pod to you. Yet he's the carebear and you aren't one?
Herr Wilkus wrote: 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.
Again, this is risk aversion. If you do a gank you take the responsibility that comes with it. Else you are as carebear and actually cheating because you gank with a setup not with an empty hull thus you shall lose the setup or get castigated by a GM.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Prince Kobol
275
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 10:00:00 -
[120] - Quote
Read the the OP's post, couldn't be bothered ready the replies.
Short answer... No
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |