Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 24 post(s) |
Satyra Eventide
Koshaku Gentlemen's Agreement
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 14:39:00 -
[421] - Quote
put like, a 3 hour timer on drones, just like you did with probes? no, seriously. ban bots and bad people, but if you didn't make the game the way you wanted, then fix it. |
Achaiah7
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 14:53:00 -
[422] - Quote
Protip: next time you post something that's going to affect a huge population of EVE be explicit about what you mean. There are all kinds of AFK activities that are OK .... why not state exactly that you're targeting one plex that keeps respawning over and over so people can abuse it. *facepalm* |
Zapson
The Companionship Test Alliance Please Ignore
13
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 14:59:00 -
[423] - Quote
dexington wrote:Zapson wrote:The funny thing is you don't have to be afk that long the make the same amount of money with a fleet of miners. Mining is semi-afk you come back every once and again. If you do the same with COSMOS afking you would say it's legit? You just don't get it, they did not discover a new profession. Someone found a way to afk grind isk, and decided to exploited the best he could, when what he should have done was inform ccp of the problem. I really don't care if people cheat and exploit, i can do **** all about it. It is just ******** to try and make CCP the bad guys for enforcing a rule everyone knows exist, exploit a bug and you risk perma ban. And it was pretty obvious this was not working as intended, why else would it be the only place in the game it was possible. If you can't see what effect it would have on the economy of eve if everyone did this, then you clearly do not understand eve.
There are not enough sites to exploit it on a very high level. Many mining OPS have a larger influence on the market on this, especially since this "exploit" was only done by a few people.
It's hard-limited by the amount of COSMOS sites, with the right rats and bounty.
I am not blind, but the "if everyone does this"-argument is a very bad one, since if really everyone would do this, everyone would get the exact same amount of money out of it.^^ And as I said before, there are hard-limits on doing this. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1013
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 15:10:00 -
[424] - Quote
For all you "Sreegs is a lone wolf dictator" fans, let me re-quote one of his replies:
CCP Sreegs wrote:The system is doing precisely what it's supposed to do. The GMs are aware and were a part of this decision. Human people have reviewed each of the instances where this has already occurred. This instance fit within those rules because... IT ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BE HAPPENING IT IS NOT NORMAL AND IT IS EVEN SPELLED OUT IN THE EULA AS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
One person communicating the rules and warnings to you is not one person making the decision.
Get a clue people. Here's your sign... |
AnonyTerrorNinja
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 15:27:00 -
[425] - Quote
Suggestion in case it has not been mentioned already; for affected complexes, have the beacon despawn and respawn elsewhere in the system when it has been completed.
Despawning should occur as soon as the objective has been completed AND there are no players on grid to the 'final' pocket OR
Despawning should occur as soon as everything that has any value in all rooms have been cleared AND
Despawning should occur when the objective has been completed but all of the complexes entities have not been destroyed within a reasonable amount of time.
Respawning should be able to occur in different systems on the same constellation, with it being possible that, where there are multiple beacons for the same complex in the constellation, they can all appear in the same system simultaneously. Respawning of entities within the complexes should not occur.
This functionality has the dual benefit of denying people absolute power of farming since they might not be in the system where the complex has respawned, as well as preventing AFK farming from being possible. A high respawn rate could still be possible, but people would need to actively find and re-start the process of getting set up to 'farm' their isk.
As far as making known COSMOS and DED statics possible to find, simply change the current function of labeling individual stars with the items to highlighting the entire constellation with mouseover information showing the quantity of and 'level' of items within the constellation.
Tada, issue resolved, EVE's complex-farming becomes a dynamic, competitive experience. At this point, for anyone to consistently farm the things for 23 hours, they'd definitely need to utilize a bot.
|
Bossodor
Zombie Miners Team
16
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 15:27:00 -
[426] - Quote
I can not understand why the players should be responsible for errors of CCP |
daddi0
Brooklyn Tax Dodgers
22
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 15:44:00 -
[427] - Quote
Lone wolf or not, exactly what words in the EULA spell this out as not acceptable. I'm not a lawyer, but as a software vendor, I'm not too bad with contract language. If there is wording in the EULA that defines this behavior, I don't see it, and I'm willing to bet many others don't either. If its there, its so obtuse as to (almost?) be mis-representation of the use and purpose of the game. If its not, then all the justification for this action is smoke and mirrors. Either way overlooks the actual presentation of this decision which is a subplot in itself.
Take PI for instance. If I discover that my extraction yields are higher with shorter time periods than longer ones, am I the one to decide this is a bug, an exploit or the intended game design, or do I just use shorter extraction times. If I want to use 7 days as my time period, am I being put at an unfair disadvantage from those using a 4 hour period? In either case, AFK ISK is taking place, and for 24/7 not 23/7. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4290
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 15:58:00 -
[428] - Quote
Sylver Nyte wrote:CCP Has basiclly NEVER Policed EvE. That would be WHY its called "Sandbox". I mean if they wanna start POLICEING, they could start with HiSec Gate Ganks, NulSec AFK Cloakers, or even just give freighters/Jumpfreighters the ability to defend themself. Lets not go to the fall back, its your responsability to supply an escort BS, because seriously, when the NPC Gaurds wont do thier task then perhaps some of the original code is broken. I mean HIGH Security does infact mean its ment to be policed. Granted these actions can be considered "exploiting" a un-planned Game mechanic interaction, but IMO, there are things that need fixing FAR FAR worse than a simple ISK Exploit.
"Sandbox" didn't mean that the Faction Five were allowed to keep the trillions of ISK worth in LP that they created. "Sandbox" didn't mean that AHARM went unpunished for using tracking disruptors in a way they were never meant to be used. "Sandbox" didn't mean that using 3 FN webs on a jump freighter to effectively paralyze it, making it unable to dock or enter warp, went unpunished. "Sandbox" doesn't mean that you should be allowed to abuse a poorly designed complex in a way that allows you to AFK farm ISK 23/7 with absolutely no action beyond launching sentries, repping them and going to work.
So yes, CCP has always policed the game. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
dexington
124
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 16:02:00 -
[429] - Quote
daddi0 wrote:Lone wolf or not, exactly what words in the EULA spell this out as not acceptable.
From the TOS
You may not exploit any bug in EVE Online to gain an unfair advantage over other players. You may not communicate the existence of any exploitable bug to others directly or through a public forum. Bugs should be reported through the bug reporting tool on our website. GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥-á |
Zapson
The Companionship Test Alliance Please Ignore
14
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 16:13:00 -
[430] - Quote
dexington wrote:daddi0 wrote:Lone wolf or not, exactly what words in the EULA spell this out as not acceptable. From the TOS You may not exploit any bug in EVE Online to gain an unfair advantage over other players. You may not communicate the existence of any exploitable bug to others directly or through a public forum. Bugs should be reported through the bug reporting tool on our website.
Unfair advantage? I don't see it. They make money with nearly no effort, but active players can make much more, with less time invested. Bug? This is not a bug, so there is nothing to report or prohibited to talk about.
Run the numbers. Just because someone made 29B/Month with god knows how many accounts it does not mean it's a lot of money. The money gained per character versus time of the character online seems pretty pretty bad to me.
And again, this discussion is not primarily about this being a exploit or not, it's about HOW stuff gets treated by CCP. |
|
Caldari Acolyte
Naari LLC
30
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 16:13:00 -
[431] - Quote
highonpop wrote:CCP could just get rid on infinite respawns
TADA!
Problem solved Common sense is best sense, also bought a pail to put by my desk just in case . |
Cyxopyc
hirr Against ALL Authorities
4
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 16:15:00 -
[432] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Game Design will also be looking at changing our complex systems so that this is no longer possible in the near future. This always has been the solution. Fix those things in EVE that don't work well for game play. Also, pay attention and act on feedback from your testers on the test server.
coolzero wrote:lol wth...
...
...
now since you made this statement about you cant do them afk anymore, WILL THAT MEAN AFK CLOAKING IN A SYSTEM TO DISRUPT OPERATIONS WILL BE BANNABLE ALSO........ Cloaking is one of those things that doesn't work well with game play. I feel it has always been overpowered. Feel free to EVEmail me for ideas on solutions.
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1014
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 16:16:00 -
[433] - Quote
Andski wrote: "Sandbox" didn't mean that the Faction Five were allowed to keep the trillions of ISK worth in LP that they created. "Sandbox" didn't mean that AHARM went unpunished for using tracking disruptors in a way they were never meant to be used. "Sandbox" didn't mean that using 3 FN webs on a jump freighter to effectively paralyze it, making it unable to dock or enter warp, went unpunished. "Sandbox" doesn't mean that you should be allowed to abuse a poorly designed complex in a way that allows you to AFK farm ISK 23/7 with absolutely no action beyond launching sentries, repping them and going to work.
So yes, CCP has always policed the game.
Not empty quoting for justice! Here's your sign... |
Kyle Frost
Atlantean Defense Fleet In Umbra Mortis
10
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 16:18:00 -
[434] - Quote
daddi0 wrote:Lone wolf or not, exactly what words in the EULA spell this out as not acceptable. I'm not a lawyer, but as a software vendor, I'm not too bad with contract language. If there is wording in the EULA that defines this behavior, I don't see it, and I'm willing to bet many others don't either. If its there, its so obtuse as to (almost?) be mis-representation of the use and purpose of the game. If its not, then all the justification for this action is smoke and mirrors. Either way overlooks the actual presentation of this decision which is a subplot in itself.
Take PI for instance. If I discover that my extraction yields are higher with shorter time periods than longer ones, am I the one to decide this is a bug, an exploit or the intended game design, or do I just use shorter extraction times. If I want to use 7 days as my time period, am I being put at an unfair disadvantage from those using a 4 hour period? In either case, AFK ISK is taking place, and for 24/7 not 23/7.
Adding lazy to ignorant, are we? Please, read my previous post, right here. Number 384. I am very interested in what your response will be.
Let the gun do the talking! |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1014
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 16:25:00 -
[435] - Quote
Zapson wrote: Unfair advantage? I don't see it. They make money with nearly no effort, but active players can make much more, with less time invested. Bug? This is not a bug, so there is nothing to report or prohibited to talk about.
Run the numbers. Just because someone made 29B/Month with god knows how many accounts it does not mean it's a lot of money. The money gained per character versus time of the character online seems pretty pretty bad to me.
And again, this discussion is not primarily about this being a exploit or not, it's about HOW stuff gets treated by CCP.
9 accounts.
So 3.2 billion isk/month or roughly 100M a day for the effort it takes to login every morning and set one character up in 5 minutes.
What active player profession can regularly start out with a battleship and 5 sentry drones in starting assets and make 100M/day with 5 minutes of effort?
A real life job of only $25k per year sounds like utter crap - but if it only takes you 5 minutes a day to earn that 25k, would you do it in addition to your regular job?
Here's your sign... |
Kyle Frost
Atlantean Defense Fleet In Umbra Mortis
11
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 16:36:00 -
[436] - Quote
Zapson wrote: Unfair advantage? I don't see it. They make money with nearly no effort, but active players can make much more, with less time invested. Bug? This is not a bug, so there is nothing to report or prohibited to talk about.
Run the numbers. Just because someone made 29B/Month with god knows how many accounts it does not mean it's a lot of money. The money gained per character versus time of the character online seems pretty pretty bad to me.
And again, this discussion is not primarily about this being a exploit or not, it's about HOW stuff gets treated by CCP.
Inappropiate: EDIT: Holy ****, asked a german lawyer. EULA ain't worth **** in germany lawlawlawlawlawlawl^^
I have underlined the interesting part in your post. Let's agree on one thing - AFK complex camping doesn't require a regular time investment, other than 30-40 minutes per day, for setting up your characters in the proper rooms.
So let's compare - which player activity, can get you 29 bil per month, with less than 30-40 minutes active playing per day? Let the gun do the talking! |
Anslo
The Scope Gallente Federation
70
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 16:40:00 -
[437] - Quote
Is Screegs in here taking on players too? I hope so... /popcorn |
daddi0
Brooklyn Tax Dodgers
23
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 16:55:00 -
[438] - Quote
Kyle Frost wrote:daddi0 wrote:Lone wolf or not, exactly what words in the EULA spell this out as not acceptable. I'm not a lawyer, but as a software vendor, I'm not too bad with contract language. If there is wording in the EULA that defines this behavior, I don't see it, and I'm willing to bet many others don't either. If its there, its so obtuse as to (almost?) be mis-representation of the use and purpose of the game. If its not, then all the justification for this action is smoke and mirrors. Either way overlooks the actual presentation of this decision which is a subplot in itself.
Take PI for instance. If I discover that my extraction yields are higher with shorter time periods than longer ones, am I the one to decide this is a bug, an exploit or the intended game design, or do I just use shorter extraction times. If I want to use 7 days as my time period, am I being put at an unfair disadvantage from those using a 4 hour period? In either case, AFK ISK is taking place, and for 24/7 not 23/7. Adding lazy to ignorant, are we? Please, read my previous post, right here. Number 384. I am very interested in what your response will be.
Lazy, ignorant, let's get serious. I wouldn't be writing such detailed explanantions that almost anyone can understand if I were lazy. I'd be vaguely refering to language that is very subjective, or doesn't even exist.
To that end: I don't see your point. Yes bots are prohibited.
This, however, is human behavior, not aided by ANY outside means, mechanical or software. It just happens to be performed non-interactively; but you can't know if it is for certain. The EULA is a CONTRACT that both parties abide by. IT DOES NOT contain language that outlaws this behavior. Please stop being vague and show the EXACT words that you claim do so. And then, if they exist, how they exclude the very similar profit inducing activities such as BP copying, manufacturing, POS operation, etc, ALL of which involve somoe setup, and then doing nothing for perhaps months, until the finished item is delivered. It that's too close to the kind of rgument you like to leave to the lawyers, please keep in mind that this IS A TRIAL of the gamers, with an ill-handled, misunderstood, at best, and seletive and secretive, at worst, judgement process, with an appeal process that has a reputation of being unresponsive.
I don't happen to benefit from this practice, and I actually applaud the creativity of turning the farming into a protection racket, that was profitable, seemingly within the rules, and did not affect those who were mission running. Isn't this the idea of an "open-ended" game? Isn't it what corporations do on a large scale everywhere they can?
And that is the crux of my problem with all of this. At what point is it acceptable or not, how can we be sure we're doing the right thing, and how can we be sure we will be fairly heard on appeal if we are unjustly banned? Shouldn't I be repaid for my banned time if the ruling is overturned? That doesn't sound like its the case. Would you accept that from any other service vendor; I'm sorry your phone didn't work for a month, but we're going to bill you anyway???
I have a programmable mouse I use for hotkeys in almost every game I play. It substitutes mouse buttons for keyclicks; no multiples, no repeat, just simple substituion so I don't have to go to the keyboard. Is that legal in EVE or not?? Show me the language that gives a definitive answer? If the EVE hotkey tab can accept the codes from a gaming keypad does that mean its acceptable and the intended game design, or is it an oversight, or unintended , left-over artifact of the past, that will now be ruled illegal??
If I'm on the wrong path here folks, please everyone jump donw my throat, but until we have concrete, definite answers to how this will handled going forward, I'll continue to pretend I'm the ACLU, and defend against the revocation of previously grants rights without due course or clear "legal" definitions.
Thanks to all for you for your serious interest in the future of the GAME |
Anslo
The Scope Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 17:09:00 -
[439] - Quote
btw if you don't like the change, vote with your wallet. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
912
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 17:38:00 -
[440] - Quote
Bossodor wrote:I can not understand why the players should be responsible for errors of CCP They are not. CCP is responsible for CCP's errors. The players are responsible for exploiting the situation.
Even if someone forgets to lock their door it is not legal to steal their stuff. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
|
highonpop
Void.Tech Fatal Ascension
203
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 18:00:00 -
[441] - Quote
I have rethought my last suggestion
Have the perma-spawn PLEX's have set # of waves. Have the next spawn cycle only be able to trigger until all parties involved in the previous spawn cycle have left. Make them at least have to warp out and back every 10 minutes or so. That way there is 'less' AFK. It wont kill the AFKer totally, but it will not allow him to just sit there all day without moving.
edit:
PS, I didnt read the posts betwen my last post (page 8) and this one. too many. not enough time. sorry If I have repeated anything someone else already mentioned.
http://www.soundboard.com/sb/Very%20best%20of%20Makalu%20Zarya |
Bossodor
Zombie Miners Team
18
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 18:01:00 -
[442] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Bossodor wrote:I can not understand why the players should be responsible for errors of CCP They are not. CCP is responsible for CCP's errors. The players are responsible for exploiting the situation. Even if someone forgets to lock their door it is not legal to steal their stuff.
#48Posted: 2012.08.09 12:44 "Why doesn't CCP just change the ******* mission then instead of threatening players? What the **** you assholes (CCP)." |
highonpop
Void.Tech Fatal Ascension
203
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 18:02:00 -
[443] - Quote
Bossodor wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:Bossodor wrote:I can not understand why the players should be responsible for errors of CCP They are not. CCP is responsible for CCP's errors. The players are responsible for exploiting the situation. Even if someone forgets to lock their door it is not legal to steal their stuff. #48Posted: 2012.08.09 12:44 "Why doesn't CCP just change the ******* mission then instead of threatening players? What the **** you assholes (CCP)."
CCP Sreegs wrote:highonpop wrote:CCP could just get rid on infinite respawns
TADA!
Problem solved That would certainly fix this particular issue yes.
/thread? i dont get why CCP will acknowledge that the could fix the problem with a simple fix. but wont.
http://www.soundboard.com/sb/Very%20best%20of%20Makalu%20Zarya |
Caellach Marellus
Aideron Technologies Sspectre
581
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 18:22:00 -
[444] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Caellach Marellus wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote: He isn't talking about missions
Pity, AFK missioners should get whacked with the same thing. Missions are clearly static and their NPCs clearly respawn...
Because that's clearly what I said right?
I'm just big on the whole "nerf passive isk income" Especially when you're undocked and in space doing it through automation. Enjoy your gaming.
http://northern-goblin.blogspot.com |
Nizou
Nizou Heavy Industries Corp
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 18:39:00 -
[445] - Quote
Why doesn't CCP just fix the broken mechanics, instead of threatening their players.
|
Ensign X
40
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 18:53:00 -
[446] - Quote
Nizou wrote:Why doesn't CCP just fix the broken mechanics, instead of threatening their players.
Because people who bot or knowingly exploit game mechanics deserve to be threatened or banned.
Why do you have a problem with CCP threatening or banning botters or exploiters? |
Nizou
Nizou Heavy Industries Corp
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 19:08:00 -
[447] - Quote
Ensign X wrote:Nizou wrote:Why doesn't CCP just fix the broken mechanics, instead of threatening their players.
Because people who bot or knowingly exploit game mechanics deserve to be threatened or banned. Why do you have a problem with CCP threatening or banning botters or exploiters?
Why don't they just fix their broken mechanics? |
Ensign X
41
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 19:10:00 -
[448] - Quote
Nizou wrote:Ensign X wrote:Nizou wrote:Why doesn't CCP just fix the broken mechanics, instead of threatening their players.
Because people who bot or knowingly exploit game mechanics deserve to be threatened or banned. Why do you have a problem with CCP threatening or banning botters or exploiters? Why don't they just fix their broken mechanics?
You read the thread, right?
As they've mentioned many times previously in this thread, they intend to. In the meantime, until a fix is implemented engaging in this behavior will be considered an exploit and a bannable offense. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1018
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 19:17:00 -
[449] - Quote
Ensign X wrote:Nizou wrote:Ensign X wrote:Nizou wrote:Why doesn't CCP just fix the broken mechanics, instead of threatening their players.
Because people who bot or knowingly exploit game mechanics deserve to be threatened or banned. Why do you have a problem with CCP threatening or banning botters or exploiters? Why don't they just fix their broken mechanics? You read the thread, right? As they've mentioned many times previously in this thread, they intend to. In the meantime, until a fix is implemented engaging in this behavior will be considered an exploit and a bannable offense.
But reading is hard. It takes time. And then you have to think about what you read.
Thinking is hard.
It's faster to just get upset and type things, amirite?! Here's your sign... |
Gawain Edmond
Selective Hearing Nearly Feared
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 19:39:00 -
[450] - Quote
i don't know if it's been brought up yet but
Quote:You may feel free to feed yourself while playing EVE Online without threat of punishment.
just made me laugh |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |