Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Titan fair to bump or not?

First post First post
Author
Shadow Cartel
#141 - 2014-10-01 14:33:59 UTC
i would still love to see what GM mails got the NC. titan pilots.. :P
Shadow Cartel
#142 - 2014-10-01 16:36:30 UTC
Good news that the ban is no longer permanent. Still heavy handed I feel but we'll take it I guess.

the bumping/pos bowling exploit notification still requires clarification, or other groups will attempt to this down the road and this drama will repeat itself.

A central location listing all bannable exploits was a suggestion someone made earlier in the thread, and is an excellent idea.
#143 - 2014-10-01 16:46:42 UTC
Glad to hear Aglon will have the option to come back if he still wants to.

I'm not sure if anyone has gained any knowledge on the issue though. I actually have a few more questions now that Aglon's sentence has been reduced and what that may mean.



Shadow Cartel
#144 - 2014-10-01 17:28:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Eldwinn
Snip, double posted.
Shadow Cartel
#145 - 2014-10-01 17:35:42 UTC
Fellsworn wrote:
Glad to hear Aglon will have the option to come back if he still wants to.

I'm not sure if anyone has gained any knowledge on the issue though. I actually have a few more questions now that Aglon's sentence has been reduced and what that may mean.





Unfortunately no. The question was never answered. The point of the thread was to clarify upon the vague documentation about bumping a ship that is inside of a POS. I am glad to see that Algon had his ban reduced. Then again though I feel like the point of the thread was overlooked.

For any CCP members or GM members lurking in the thread or maybe monitoring the thread the question was,

"The player was notified that if the ship is not lockable then it is in the POS. Can someone please show me the rule, post, etc. that states this?"
#146 - 2014-10-01 18:03:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Gfy Trextron
Eldwinn wrote:
Fellsworn wrote:
Glad to hear Aglon will have the option to come back if he still wants to.

I'm not sure if anyone has gained any knowledge on the issue though. I actually have a few more questions now that Aglon's sentence has been reduced and what that may mean.





Unfortunately no. The question was never answered. The point of the thread was to clarify upon the vague documentation about bumping a ship that is inside of a POS. I am glad to see that Algon had his ban reduced. Then again though I feel like the point of the thread was overlooked.

For any CCP members or GM members lurking in the thread or maybe monitoring the thread the question was,

"The player was notified that if the ship is not lockable then it is in the POS. Can someone please show me the rule, post, etc. that states this?"


I agree. I can say the latest official response (not seen by anyone or even read by the player in question because he is scared of getting banned even uttering the contents in his own head) "to one player" is that unless it is lockable, it is banable.

Now if they would just post that someplace for everyone the rule would be clear. Completely stupid but clear. Nice to know I can now bridge people with 40% of a titan sticking out of the POS and be safe. Make sense right? FFS
Shadow Cartel
#147 - 2014-10-01 18:14:02 UTC
Just wait until someone gets bumped out and killed and is not reimbursed and the bumper doesn't get banned.
I give this about 3 or 4 weeks before it happens, anyways glad he is not Perma banned.
Now we can finally shift our efforts over to the real issue of getting CCP to change this completely unrealistic and idiotic rule. "Lockable" may seem like a good way to define in or out for a newbie, but we all know just how many situations can prevent you from locking a ship. This is especially true when dealing around POS' s.
So CCP... you gonna use some logic today or just continue making ship skins for the lol's?
Only time will tell I suppose...
#148 - 2014-10-01 18:47:34 UTC
Marsha Mallow wrote:
The playerbase have been roaring over the POS bumping issue as a potential exploit for weeks with no response from CCP.

For some reason you've now decided to address it, badly.

Instead of acknowledging that there was an issue - and that ignoring it was an error - you've chosen to perma-ban someone who was likely acting in good faith based on current mechanics. If you are going to mix this kill in with the other (two?) TitanPosBumped kills when it is clearly not in the same bracket, I'd like to see the list of other people perma-banned.

You don't have to accept eyewitness accounts, or 3rd party vids, but you could engage a shred of common sense and a bit of decency when dealing with these issues. Seriously, this is a grossly unfair punishment directed at the wrong individual(s).

Please stop retrospectively permabanning people for flawed gameplay mechanics which are strenuously reported - then ignored.


I know CCP doesn't want to draw clear line for fear of people exploiting that, but it would be nice if they at least told us things that are bannable.

And preferably issue temp bans and warnings when someone enters the grey area. I don't understand why CCP permabans players when the rules aren't clear.
#149 - 2014-10-01 23:27:33 UTC
Well, that's better than expected....CCP, please surprise me and clarify the ruling in a way that makes legitimate sense.
#150 - 2014-10-02 00:25:36 UTC
Thank ****. I was loosing faith in CCP for a moment due to the utter madness in perma-banning a player who has been playing and contributing to the game for so long out of the blue like that.

We still desperately need clarification on the "exploit" at hand though.

Thanks to all who expressed their concern at Aglon's ban and spoke up about it!
C C P Alliance
#151 - 2014-10-02 10:16:45 UTC
Hello. I apologize for the long wait. I've read every post in this thread and I'm going to comment on some of the major concerns raised.

I can not make any comment on the outcome of individual reimbursement tickets or specific account suspensions, this is a matter of policy and I'm sorry that some of your questions might go unanswered.

POS bowling
First off, here is the clarification you've all requested:

If a ship can be locked and fired upon, it can be legitimately bumped. If a ship cannot be locked due to it's position within a forcefield, it should be protected by said forcefield. Such a ship can only be legitimately bumped out of the forcefield with proper access rights to enter the forcefield.

Cyno bumping was also considered an exploit until it was fixed with the Oceanus release.

Public exploit notifications
I acknowledge that there's been a lack of clarity concerning the exploit status of this particular nuance of POS bowling. This was our failure, we haven't done a good job communicating about this exploit and I humbly apologize for this mistake on our part. We will make an effort to react more quickly to requests for clarification of this sort in the future.

We will also take steps to improve visibility of public exploit announcements that are still in effect, it is a very reasonable complaint that exploit announcements are currently only found buried under months or even years of news items. Moving forward, we will per suggestions in this thread and from the CSM maintain an archive of some sort of publicly announced exploits still in effect.

Do keep in mind however that this will not be a comprehensive list of prohibited activity within the game. Such a list is not realistic as exploits are often not known to us until they're abused.

The drone damage exploit from this summer is a good example of this. The bug enabling this exploit had potentially existed for a long time before it became known to us. It should however have been very clear to anyone abusing that exploit that they were utilizing a game bug to increase the damage output of their drones beyond what was intended by the game.

Some exploits are also discovered and fixed before they see widespread abuse. In such cases we deem it best not to publicly announce the existence of the exploit since it could very well backfire and result in widespread abuse before the bug is addressed.

In short: Lack of an official CCP announcement regarding is not a free license to abuse game bugs without repercussions. Abuse of an bug/exploit is not okay just because we haven't yet publicly stated that abuse of this particular exploit won't be tolerated.

If in doubt, file a support ticket and ask if what you're doing/intending to do is prohibited or not, we do not punish players who stumble on an exploit and report it to us in good faith.

I want to clearly state that the variant of POS bowling this thread covers is a special case. Clarification was absolutely necessary and we fully admit our mistake in this regard. It wasn't clear to you, our players, that this was an exploit and it is therefore a different case than, to make a hypothetical example, an item duping exploit which hasn't been publicly announced.

Exploits and account suspensions
We take exploit abuse extremely seriously, especially when the exploit in question has been publicly designated as such. Action is taken when a player is verified to have exploited a game bug to his/her advantage. The severity of the exploit and the player's warning/ban history are both factors in determining which action is taken.

Account suspensions are not a luck of the draw as some have suggested. All GMs operate under the same processes and procedures and we do not make any distinction based on a player's corporation/alliance affiliation. The same ruleset applies to all EVE players.

We will not suspend a player's account based on player testimony, Youtube videos or player-submitted screenshots alone. A decision to suspend a player's account must always be backed up by information in our server-side logs, we do not arbitrarily ban players. That is not to say that we never make mistakes, we are after all human. There are however strict internal guidelines regarding account suspension and we don't ban players for exploit abuse without evidence.

Best regards, Lead GM Lelouch CCP Customer Support | EVE Online | DUST 514

#152 - 2014-10-02 10:41:29 UTC
All the players require quite often, is clarity. It's nice to see you put your hands up to failings in this instance and it seems a wrong from those failings has been rectified.

Nice post GM Lelouch. Cool

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Shadow Cartel
#153 - 2014-10-02 11:05:53 UTC
GM Lelouch wrote:
Account suspensions are not a luck of the draw as some have suggested. All GMs operate under the same processes and procedures and we do not make any distinction based on a player's corporation/alliance affiliation. The same ruleset applies to all EVE players.


if so whay warent the NC. titan pilots baned? im not talking about a perma ban.
Shadow Cartel
#154 - 2014-10-02 12:04:47 UTC
GM Lelouch wrote:

POS bowling
First off, here is the clarification you've all requested:

If a ship can be locked and fired upon, it can be legitimately bumped. If a ship cannot be locked due to it's position within a forcefield, it should be protected by said forcefield. Such a ship can only be legitimately bumped out of the forcefield with proper access rights to enter the forcefield.

Cyno bumping was also considered an exploit until it was fixed with the Oceanus release.


Then please make it so that said ship is lockable if it's partly sticking out of the forcefield. Having looked at the image of the original titan and bubble I'd have gone for the bump as well (and would happily have whored on the resultant km if I'd been online).

I get cyno bumping is an exploit as clearly you can bump something out which is inside the forcefield completely. I get awoxing the pos password and/or corp is legit.

But if your titan is sticking out of the POS and isn't lockable then that is a game play / visual issue, not an exploit issue. Eve is hard enough to play without having to worry about exploits, especially when you feel you *are* playing within the rules. Should we take a screen shot and ask which titans we are allowed to bump out of the POS? How much needs to be sticking out before it becomes lockable?

I know, for instance, that if you are repping a POS with a carrier and you are aligned along the shield line horizontally you are lockable (and therefore a legitimate bump target), however the second you turn into the POS your carrier is not lockable (as the targetable zone is a cuboid, and turns into the POS shield). Your ship *does not need to move* for this effect to happen, it just needs to turn! Is this not abusing the same game exploit but from the opposite way?

Then what happens if someone is powering towards you in their Machariel as you turn into the POS shield? They lose target lock in the last 2 seconds before they hit you, hey presto instant banhammer! Especially if that bump *does* put the carrier out of the shield. Technically the Mach pilot has done nothing wrong here,but they have used an 'exploit' just as much as you have by turning into the POS shield.

Yes, I know this is edge case scenario, but FFS make POS shields and bumping work sensibly.

IMHO it should be quite simple - ship model inside shields, ship safe. Ship model partly outside shields, ship targetable, bumpable and shootable. It should not be that hard to make that code work(!) If it is that hard give me a call and I'll write it for you...

This case specifically

As to the outcome - I get you can't comment as a GM but it seems every player that has looked at this has the same opinion - and when your entire player base (including plenty of Shadow Cartel's reds I hasten to add) is on one side and one GM is on the other then perhaps that GM is wrong? Reduction to a timed ban is progress, but really the ban should be revoked totally.

Fundamentally the underlying question is was this person trying to abuse an exploit?
Shadow Cartel
#155 - 2014-10-02 14:07:14 UTC
Thankyou for the clarification and follow up GM Lelouch.
Shadow Cartel
#156 - 2014-10-02 14:36:41 UTC
Indeed thank you for the clarification. It is not exactly the answer I assume all of us were wanting however an answer never less.
#157 - 2014-10-02 15:16:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Hoshiko Rei
Thanks for the clarification CCP Lelouch, and thanks for looking into the situation about the ban and remedying it!

Cheers,
#158 - 2014-10-02 15:53:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Anabaric
Thank you for the clarification, see that wasn't hard was it.

*puts pliers away*

Now that it's confirmed unacceptable (exploiting) to interact with a titan from OUTSIDE of the POS field, when the titan is unlockable (thus effectively making all POS/bridge titans unkillable). I think you also look into the other potential exploit / unfair game mechanic which allows titans to interact with ships OUTSIDE of the POS field whilst themselves being protected by the same.

IE: Bridging through the shield.

Thanks Cool

Community Manager www.Battleclinic.com @battleclinic Loadouts + Killboards + Forums Twitter @anabaric_eve www.the-bastards.net Recruitment: OPEN

#159 - 2014-10-02 17:05:28 UTC
Itachi XIII wrote:
if so whay warent the NC. titan pilots baned? im not talking about a perma ban.

I believe the word you're looking for is suspended, as banning implies something permanent.
Shadow Cartel
#160 - 2014-10-02 18:15:37 UTC
so how is one supposed to kill a pos titan? there's no actual way to do it, is there.

seems like a bug to me.
Forum Jump