Ah yes. I seem remember Kaarous alluding to what I think is that exploit years ago. Glad CCP knows about it and it is always good to raise awareness of such prohibited behaviour.
Funny enough, I’ve had a cousin of that quirk of CrimeWatch mechanics bite me on multiple occasions. It is possible to land a point on a mining barge about to enter warp, get your Criminal flag, yet still have it warp off and you get CONCORDed. Presumably this is because they enter warp on the same server tick you go criminal but before your point lands.
Sometimes I am amazed this game works as well as is does considering how many people have worked on it over so long on what must be a schizophrenic code base to say the least.
Can someone answer this for me? Specifically, if I align, lock up the webber alt and jam them in a Blackbird, eat some sentry fire, but warp off before concord spawns so they deck me at my new safespot destination, rather than at the imminent gate-gank location, is that Kosher or not?
Sometimes Eve seems to have a more convoluted legal system than real law!
Curious: did it happen because you opened fire first and only after engaged point?
Or it’s just some random order of processing commands by the server? Thus making this situation more likely?
It can happen either way around. I’ve had situations where my point registers on a freighter and then it warps off and I get concorded. It’s an artefact of the game being coded to allow some slack in ping difference for players, a must if you’re going to put aussies and euros on the same shard. It happens rarely enough that you just shrug and move on (for those interested in stats it’s well under 1% from an informal review among people i know).
Now this has only happened two or three times out of many, many criminal actions, but I was following my standard operating procedure where both blasters and the warp scrambler are pre-activated so activate as soon as the target lock is complete. I don’t know which the server processes first, although I don’t remember the guns actually firing but I could be wrong on that. What seems to happen is the target gets locked, you get a criminal flag as normal, but the target still enters warp a fraction of a second later leaving you to await the arrive of CONCORD alone in the belt.
For the record, even if both actions arequeued before you lock, the server processes them in the order you pressed them. Yuo can test this by using a passive targetter and some other module like a ship scanner. If you click passive targetter, then cargo scanner then lock a ship, you will not alert your target, if you click cargo scanner, then passive targetter, then lock, you will show up as targetting them to the opposing player, even though to you the activation will look identical. It shouldn’t make a difference in the scenario you outline above, but best practise is probably to activate scrams first.
I remember the warp trick from 2013. CCP never managed to fix it, despite petitioning it several times. I once even sent a GCC fleet mate into warp that way, but they failed to reproduce it. Some delicate timing issues right there. CONCORD evasion, btw, is fun when you hunt down and kill a pod just seconds before downtime. Then i petitioned myself. I’m a good boy.
I’d like to add something. From shooting undockers (and getting shot at undocking) i’ve learned that all modules affecting physics (in this case movement) add a delay. So when it comes to points and turrets, the point has priority due to it affecting the physics of the game, which helps i staundockers getting away. Unlike, as counter example, Target Painters, which get applied together with pre-targetted turrets immediately. (though it doesn’t hurt to click the painters first)
No kills are done by actual people, and no actual people are killed.
We use the mark ‘kill’ to signify one character in a game has destroyed the assets of another character.
It may never be clear who is alt of who, this merely adds another level of complexity to the sandbox, deal with it, or not, exploit it, or seek a way to prevent others from exploiting it if you feel that is what they are doing?
No actual players are prevented from making their own character GANK capable and effective, by CODE, or any other entity. The mechanics of the game, the mechanics that stop ganking from being ridiculously over powered, and which make hauling a relatively safe activity if one attends to details and does not merely seek to maximise afk time and minimise effort expended for maximum reward.
Indeed, there is nothing stopping @Rivr_Luzade from:
a) Forming an in game organisation with attainable in game goals- this can still be a solo corp if his platform is the ‘civilising impact of one player-one char’. It could perhaps be an alliance of solo corps- with simple rules like ‘no alts’- with the declared aim of targeting those who mulii-box.
b )Using RP to further and express those goals, and as propaganda to gain support for his activities, even if he wants to ‘gank alone’- just as all entities in New Eden must if they are to succeed.
c) Running for CSM on the basis of this platform- whether successful or not, the attempt to run would give him a political platform to share his views, and see if others would follow.
d)Using diplomacy as other eve entities must, to find allies and funding streams.
YOU have the same tools as James315,
what are you the saviour of again?
Someone should just declare in clear and unambiguous words what the exploit is
how it works
then we can petition the ‘EXPLOIT’ not make endless petitions that may not be a result of the ‘EXPLOIT’ making unnecessary work for GMS
CCP can then publically declare it an exploit
And we can stop talking about it from every angle except the front.
If there is an exploit, petition the exploit, no need to petition ghost farmers, just petition that ghost farming is going on and is an exploit, CCP clarify it is an exploit, now it IS an exploit.
EDIT: If we cant ‘out’ an exploit on the forums, despite ghost farming being discussed before CCP confirmed, then we can ONLY petition the exploit, those people who know about it of course.
If it has been petitioned many times, and CCP have not declared it an exploit, then it is not an exploit?
If they have declared it an exploit, then for the good of the community it would break no forum rules to link to the post,dev blog, or other source where they made such declaration?
