|
|
Hyrule19268 Posts
On April 19 2011 01:30 Byzantium wrote:There is both a distinct presence of cargo and a lack of Guristas rats on the killmail.
Both were needlessly destroyed.
|
"Alex youre burning towards them" "no im not" "yes you are" "no im not...oh shit im webbed"
|
On April 18 2011 22:55 Valenius wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 22:37 Mumbleskates wrote:On April 18 2011 21:58 KwarK wrote:
Widders was a griefer who was actively abusing exploits in the game to kill hatchery members before joining tl and joined tl with absolutely no interest in either the site or starcraft. He was the very definition of a malicious user and is in no way comparable to a community member who joins because they want to be a part of the community and then finds the eve thread. If he was exploiting then why wasn't he banned from EVE? There are petitions for that sort of thing. From the combat records that I came across on killboards it just looks like he was killing your guys, yes, but unless he's using some kind of magical exploits that I've never heard of why couldn't you kill him back? And by the way, I don't know what you mean by "griefing," but in EVE when someone complains about griefers, 99% of the time they are just complaining that they are losing ships (i.e. "griefing" = PVP). Killing mining ships just because they are in lowsec is "griefing." Canflipping and then killing missioners when they shoot at you is "griefing." There are almost no things that you can do that, in my mind, genuinely count as real griefing in EVE. And you guys should be no strangers to this idea; you are constantly getting excited over finding missioners and killing them, and miners, and all this stuff. There's nothing wrong with that, but if you can see why that's fun, it's a shame you have to label someone as hateful and evil because they do the same thing to you. Again, maybe I am missing something. A Corp called 'Dark Horses.' war-decced us and we had a few scarse fights in the first few weeks. Then it descended into him leaving his corp, and re-joining when he had found one of our missioning ships in high-sec. His employment history throughout this time was ridiculous, but i'm sure someone will explain it better than me. I was very new at the time. I guess we labeled it as Griefing, because unless we had people ready to go on a minutes notice throughout the day, there was absolutely fuck all we could do.
Looks to me like he never left the corp, like Warri said... and he was never even IN Dark Horses. So... not the whole story.
He also killed you in several systems. Also on the undock?
On April 19 2011 01:15 Sard Caid wrote:
The way this becomes "legit" is when the exploiter waits down a session timer between accepting the application and pewing your ship. Even then, a friend of a friend who used to abuse this mechanic was temp banned after talking to a GM about what's legal and what's not.
Honestly if you get enough people petitioning, you'll probably see the exploiter temp banned for some duration.
No, I do know about this. It's not that you have to wait 30 seconds for a session timer, it's that you have to go through an actual session change, which is different. A lot of people mess this up on the first attempt because it is not very clearly defined anywhere.
And it has nothing to do with how many people petition the guy at once, and everything to do with prior warnings for the same offense.
But apparently he can't have done this more than once. That doesn't explain how you weren't able to kill him, unless he was just choosing his fights wisely.
|
United States44439 Posts
Jed found a gang chilling in bosena. They had 3 scorps, geddon, domi, rapier, phobos, pilgrim, malediction and rifter so we got 3 drakes, 2 canes and 3 rifters and went for it (like a boss). Unfortunately our plans to alpha the rapier went awry when it turned out they had massive amounts of RR on the battleships. However that tied them to one spot, they had no mobility so a standoff ensued.
All was going well until nejota misclicked and then failed hard.
On April 19 2011 05:04 Warri wrote:
"Alex youre burning towards them" "no im not" "yes you are" "no im not...oh shit im webbed"
Instead of immediately ctrl spacing the guy tried to argue and practically rammed the rapier before he worked it out. He made a good run for escaping but the malediction got him and they eventually droned him down. However I headshotted the malediction in reply so it wasn't so bad.
Meanwhile I'd put the word out on MH intel and for the first time ever it looked like it might actually work. We had a clear enemy, a lot of us already had MH comms, we had a fleet already up and they had the people we needed. It only took about 15 minutes to get everyone on the same TS in the same fleet and with working squad commanders and so forth which was fine because they started warping their fleet around. Karah probed like a hero getting them in single cycles after dscanning and we began to save their safes until eventually we caught a scorpion. They came back to get their guy out and we called in gunpoint.
Unfortunately we were so busy making sure we had our points spread that we left only one guy pointing the primary scorpion which can backfire with nanocanes that aren't fitting ECCM. Unfortunately this happened.
+ Show Spoiler [scorpion's health bar] +
However we were able to get a scorpion, domi, geddon, rapier, pilgrim and rifter which when you add in the earlier malediction kill and cane loss put us at a total of 93% efficiency. I'll take it.
Ari (gunpoint FC (maybe?)) kindly let us keep the loot because we called in the targets and they sustained no losses.
|
We moved on and we are bigger and better pvp:ing in low sec.
|
Im still eagerly awaiting to know who that mumbles guy is in game, just you know, curiosity, but I somehow doubt its going to happen since hes already been asked by Kizu and didnt do so... I can sort of guess why.
On a different note nice fight, sucks i missed it.
|
On April 19 2011 05:32 Mumbleskates wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 22:55 Valenius wrote:On April 18 2011 22:37 Mumbleskates wrote:On April 18 2011 21:58 KwarK wrote:
Widders was a griefer who was actively abusing exploits in the game to kill hatchery members before joining tl and joined tl with absolutely no interest in either the site or starcraft. He was the very definition of a malicious user and is in no way comparable to a community member who joins because they want to be a part of the community and then finds the eve thread. If he was exploiting then why wasn't he banned from EVE? There are petitions for that sort of thing. From the combat records that I came across on killboards it just looks like he was killing your guys, yes, but unless he's using some kind of magical exploits that I've never heard of why couldn't you kill him back? And by the way, I don't know what you mean by "griefing," but in EVE when someone complains about griefers, 99% of the time they are just complaining that they are losing ships (i.e. "griefing" = PVP). Killing mining ships just because they are in lowsec is "griefing." Canflipping and then killing missioners when they shoot at you is "griefing." There are almost no things that you can do that, in my mind, genuinely count as real griefing in EVE. And you guys should be no strangers to this idea; you are constantly getting excited over finding missioners and killing them, and miners, and all this stuff. There's nothing wrong with that, but if you can see why that's fun, it's a shame you have to label someone as hateful and evil because they do the same thing to you. Again, maybe I am missing something. A Corp called 'Dark Horses.' war-decced us and we had a few scarse fights in the first few weeks. Then it descended into him leaving his corp, and re-joining when he had found one of our missioning ships in high-sec. His employment history throughout this time was ridiculous, but i'm sure someone will explain it better than me. I was very new at the time. I guess we labeled it as Griefing, because unless we had people ready to go on a minutes notice throughout the day, there was absolutely fuck all we could do. Looks to me like he never left the corp, like Warri said... and he was never even IN Dark Horses. So... not the whole story. He also killed you in several systems. Also on the undock? Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 01:15 Sard Caid wrote:
The way this becomes "legit" is when the exploiter waits down a session timer between accepting the application and pewing your ship. Even then, a friend of a friend who used to abuse this mechanic was temp banned after talking to a GM about what's legal and what's not.
Honestly if you get enough people petitioning, you'll probably see the exploiter temp banned for some duration. No, I do know about this. It's not that you have to wait 30 seconds for a session timer, it's that you have to go through an actual session change, which is different. A lot of people mess this up on the first attempt because it is not very clearly defined anywhere. And it has nothing to do with how many people petition the guy at once, and everything to do with prior warnings for the same offense. But apparently he can't have done this more than once. That doesn't explain how you weren't able to kill him, unless he was just choosing his fights wisely.
Really? Because the only way I've seen to consistently get GMs to look at botters and other exploiters was with 1) #s of petitions 2) language of petitions (PvEer pleas vs PvPer pleas).
@ session change: if this is the same thing as jumping from one system to another, or undocking, then yeah, that's what I'm referring to. But even then, after discussing through a convo at length about what's safe to do and what's not said friend of friend was temp banned. So the vagueness of it all indeed makes it stupid, and anyone looking at the mechanic should just take it as an exploit when wondering about GM repercussions.
On April 19 2011 05:48 TurpinOS wrote:
Im still eagerly awaiting to know who that mumbles guy is in game, just you know, curiosity, but I somehow doubt its going to happen since hes already been asked by Kizu and didnt do so... I can sort of guess why.
On a different note nice fight, sucks i missed it.
I would like to see who you are on BC or something, to back up all this talk you have.
|
On April 19 2011 06:18 Sard Caid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 05:32 Mumbleskates wrote:On April 18 2011 22:55 Valenius wrote:On April 18 2011 22:37 Mumbleskates wrote:On April 18 2011 21:58 KwarK wrote:
Widders was a griefer who was actively abusing exploits in the game to kill hatchery members before joining tl and joined tl with absolutely no interest in either the site or starcraft. He was the very definition of a malicious user and is in no way comparable to a community member who joins because they want to be a part of the community and then finds the eve thread. If he was exploiting then why wasn't he banned from EVE? There are petitions for that sort of thing. From the combat records that I came across on killboards it just looks like he was killing your guys, yes, but unless he's using some kind of magical exploits that I've never heard of why couldn't you kill him back? And by the way, I don't know what you mean by "griefing," but in EVE when someone complains about griefers, 99% of the time they are just complaining that they are losing ships (i.e. "griefing" = PVP). Killing mining ships just because they are in lowsec is "griefing." Canflipping and then killing missioners when they shoot at you is "griefing." There are almost no things that you can do that, in my mind, genuinely count as real griefing in EVE. And you guys should be no strangers to this idea; you are constantly getting excited over finding missioners and killing them, and miners, and all this stuff. There's nothing wrong with that, but if you can see why that's fun, it's a shame you have to label someone as hateful and evil because they do the same thing to you. Again, maybe I am missing something. A Corp called 'Dark Horses.' war-decced us and we had a few scarse fights in the first few weeks. Then it descended into him leaving his corp, and re-joining when he had found one of our missioning ships in high-sec. His employment history throughout this time was ridiculous, but i'm sure someone will explain it better than me. I was very new at the time. I guess we labeled it as Griefing, because unless we had people ready to go on a minutes notice throughout the day, there was absolutely fuck all we could do. Looks to me like he never left the corp, like Warri said... and he was never even IN Dark Horses. So... not the whole story. He also killed you in several systems. Also on the undock? On April 19 2011 01:15 Sard Caid wrote:
The way this becomes "legit" is when the exploiter waits down a session timer between accepting the application and pewing your ship. Even then, a friend of a friend who used to abuse this mechanic was temp banned after talking to a GM about what's legal and what's not.
Honestly if you get enough people petitioning, you'll probably see the exploiter temp banned for some duration. No, I do know about this. It's not that you have to wait 30 seconds for a session timer, it's that you have to go through an actual session change, which is different. A lot of people mess this up on the first attempt because it is not very clearly defined anywhere. And it has nothing to do with how many people petition the guy at once, and everything to do with prior warnings for the same offense. But apparently he can't have done this more than once. That doesn't explain how you weren't able to kill him, unless he was just choosing his fights wisely. Really? Because the only way I've seen to consistently get GMs to look at botters and other exploiters was with 1) #s of petitions 2) language of petitions (PvEer pleas vs PvPer pleas). @ session change: if this is the same thing as jumping from one system to another, or undocking, then yeah, that's what I'm referring to. But even then, after discussing through a convo at length about what's safe to do and what's not said friend of friend was temp banned. So the vagueness of it all indeed makes it stupid, and anyone looking at the mechanic should just take it as an exploit when wondering about GM repercussions. Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 05:48 TurpinOS wrote:
Im still eagerly awaiting to know who that mumbles guy is in game, just you know, curiosity, but I somehow doubt its going to happen since hes already been asked by Kizu and didnt do so... I can sort of guess why.
On a different note nice fight, sucks i missed it. I would like to see who you are on BC or something, to back up all this talk you have.
We already know that TurpinOS is Caelum Terra.
Also, time and time again GMs have been proven to have a very tenuous grasp on what is and isn't legal in EVE. Just because you can change the probable immediate outcome with various whines and appeals doesn't make you right, or the punishment permanent.
|
On April 19 2011 06:18 Sard Caid wrote:
I would like to see who you are on BC or something, to back up all this talk you have.
edit : yeah, pretty sure you meant mumbles too, couldnt believe you didnt know that I was caelum.
^ still hasnt told us who he is.
+ Show Spoiler +It's not that you have to wait 30 seconds for a session timer, it's that you have to go through an actual session change, Id really like to be informed on the difference
|
No, I'm referring to your name in game, Mumble.
|
On April 19 2011 06:22 Mumbleskates wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 06:18 Sard Caid wrote:On April 19 2011 05:32 Mumbleskates wrote:On April 18 2011 22:55 Valenius wrote:On April 18 2011 22:37 Mumbleskates wrote:On April 18 2011 21:58 KwarK wrote:
Widders was a griefer who was actively abusing exploits in the game to kill hatchery members before joining tl and joined tl with absolutely no interest in either the site or starcraft. He was the very definition of a malicious user and is in no way comparable to a community member who joins because they want to be a part of the community and then finds the eve thread. If he was exploiting then why wasn't he banned from EVE? There are petitions for that sort of thing. From the combat records that I came across on killboards it just looks like he was killing your guys, yes, but unless he's using some kind of magical exploits that I've never heard of why couldn't you kill him back? And by the way, I don't know what you mean by "griefing," but in EVE when someone complains about griefers, 99% of the time they are just complaining that they are losing ships (i.e. "griefing" = PVP). Killing mining ships just because they are in lowsec is "griefing." Canflipping and then killing missioners when they shoot at you is "griefing." There are almost no things that you can do that, in my mind, genuinely count as real griefing in EVE. And you guys should be no strangers to this idea; you are constantly getting excited over finding missioners and killing them, and miners, and all this stuff. There's nothing wrong with that, but if you can see why that's fun, it's a shame you have to label someone as hateful and evil because they do the same thing to you. Again, maybe I am missing something. A Corp called 'Dark Horses.' war-decced us and we had a few scarse fights in the first few weeks. Then it descended into him leaving his corp, and re-joining when he had found one of our missioning ships in high-sec. His employment history throughout this time was ridiculous, but i'm sure someone will explain it better than me. I was very new at the time. I guess we labeled it as Griefing, because unless we had people ready to go on a minutes notice throughout the day, there was absolutely fuck all we could do. Looks to me like he never left the corp, like Warri said... and he was never even IN Dark Horses. So... not the whole story. He also killed you in several systems. Also on the undock? On April 19 2011 01:15 Sard Caid wrote:
The way this becomes "legit" is when the exploiter waits down a session timer between accepting the application and pewing your ship. Even then, a friend of a friend who used to abuse this mechanic was temp banned after talking to a GM about what's legal and what's not.
Honestly if you get enough people petitioning, you'll probably see the exploiter temp banned for some duration. No, I do know about this. It's not that you have to wait 30 seconds for a session timer, it's that you have to go through an actual session change, which is different. A lot of people mess this up on the first attempt because it is not very clearly defined anywhere. And it has nothing to do with how many people petition the guy at once, and everything to do with prior warnings for the same offense. But apparently he can't have done this more than once. That doesn't explain how you weren't able to kill him, unless he was just choosing his fights wisely. Really? Because the only way I've seen to consistently get GMs to look at botters and other exploiters was with 1) #s of petitions 2) language of petitions (PvEer pleas vs PvPer pleas). @ session change: if this is the same thing as jumping from one system to another, or undocking, then yeah, that's what I'm referring to. But even then, after discussing through a convo at length about what's safe to do and what's not said friend of friend was temp banned. So the vagueness of it all indeed makes it stupid, and anyone looking at the mechanic should just take it as an exploit when wondering about GM repercussions. On April 19 2011 05:48 TurpinOS wrote:
Im still eagerly awaiting to know who that mumbles guy is in game, just you know, curiosity, but I somehow doubt its going to happen since hes already been asked by Kizu and didnt do so... I can sort of guess why.
On a different note nice fight, sucks i missed it. I would like to see who you are on BC or something, to back up all this talk you have. We already know that TurpinOS is Caelum Terra. Also, time and time again GMs have been proven to have a very tenuous grasp on what is and isn't legal in EVE. Just because you can change the probable immediate outcome with various whines and appeals doesn't make you right, or the punishment permanent.
It does, however, work.
@ Cael: session timer is any time you get the 30 second timer for doing something, such as switching ships, undocking, jumping through a system, so on.
|
On April 19 2011 06:22 Mumbleskates wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 06:18 Sard Caid wrote:On April 19 2011 05:32 Mumbleskates wrote:On April 18 2011 22:55 Valenius wrote:On April 18 2011 22:37 Mumbleskates wrote:On April 18 2011 21:58 KwarK wrote:
Widders was a griefer who was actively abusing exploits in the game to kill hatchery members before joining tl and joined tl with absolutely no interest in either the site or starcraft. He was the very definition of a malicious user and is in no way comparable to a community member who joins because they want to be a part of the community and then finds the eve thread. If he was exploiting then why wasn't he banned from EVE? There are petitions for that sort of thing. From the combat records that I came across on killboards it just looks like he was killing your guys, yes, but unless he's using some kind of magical exploits that I've never heard of why couldn't you kill him back? And by the way, I don't know what you mean by "griefing," but in EVE when someone complains about griefers, 99% of the time they are just complaining that they are losing ships (i.e. "griefing" = PVP). Killing mining ships just because they are in lowsec is "griefing." Canflipping and then killing missioners when they shoot at you is "griefing." There are almost no things that you can do that, in my mind, genuinely count as real griefing in EVE. And you guys should be no strangers to this idea; you are constantly getting excited over finding missioners and killing them, and miners, and all this stuff. There's nothing wrong with that, but if you can see why that's fun, it's a shame you have to label someone as hateful and evil because they do the same thing to you. Again, maybe I am missing something. A Corp called 'Dark Horses.' war-decced us and we had a few scarse fights in the first few weeks. Then it descended into him leaving his corp, and re-joining when he had found one of our missioning ships in high-sec. His employment history throughout this time was ridiculous, but i'm sure someone will explain it better than me. I was very new at the time. I guess we labeled it as Griefing, because unless we had people ready to go on a minutes notice throughout the day, there was absolutely fuck all we could do. Looks to me like he never left the corp, like Warri said... and he was never even IN Dark Horses. So... not the whole story. He also killed you in several systems. Also on the undock? On April 19 2011 01:15 Sard Caid wrote:
The way this becomes "legit" is when the exploiter waits down a session timer between accepting the application and pewing your ship. Even then, a friend of a friend who used to abuse this mechanic was temp banned after talking to a GM about what's legal and what's not.
Honestly if you get enough people petitioning, you'll probably see the exploiter temp banned for some duration. No, I do know about this. It's not that you have to wait 30 seconds for a session timer, it's that you have to go through an actual session change, which is different. A lot of people mess this up on the first attempt because it is not very clearly defined anywhere. And it has nothing to do with how many people petition the guy at once, and everything to do with prior warnings for the same offense. But apparently he can't have done this more than once. That doesn't explain how you weren't able to kill him, unless he was just choosing his fights wisely. Really? Because the only way I've seen to consistently get GMs to look at botters and other exploiters was with 1) #s of petitions 2) language of petitions (PvEer pleas vs PvPer pleas). @ session change: if this is the same thing as jumping from one system to another, or undocking, then yeah, that's what I'm referring to. But even then, after discussing through a convo at length about what's safe to do and what's not said friend of friend was temp banned. So the vagueness of it all indeed makes it stupid, and anyone looking at the mechanic should just take it as an exploit when wondering about GM repercussions. On April 19 2011 05:48 TurpinOS wrote:
Im still eagerly awaiting to know who that mumbles guy is in game, just you know, curiosity, but I somehow doubt its going to happen since hes already been asked by Kizu and didnt do so... I can sort of guess why.
On a different note nice fight, sucks i missed it. I would like to see who you are on BC or something, to back up all this talk you have. Also, time and time again GMs have been proven to have a very tenuous grasp on what is and isn't legal in EVE. Just because you can change the probable immediate outcome with various whines and appeals doesn't make you right, or the punishment permanent.
Not sure if I'm misunderstanding you here, but whether or not some Ultimate Authority at CCP thinks something is legal or whether or not there is some Ultimate Rulebook that GMs are supposed to follow at CCP is irrelevant. AFAIK players never deal with some higher authority, only low-level GMs who use common noise-filtering when reading petitions - that means that more petitions are more likely to get something done than fewer petitions.
Because the only authority that players can interact with is the GMs, it's to our benefit to petition early and often as we can since whether something is ultimately Allowed or Disallowed means very little when dealing with GMs.
|
On April 19 2011 06:52 DefMatrixUltra wrote:
Not sure if I'm misunderstanding you here, but whether or not some Ultimate Authority at CCP thinks something is legal or whether or not there is some Ultimate Rulebook that GMs are supposed to follow at CCP is irrelevant. AFAIK players never deal with some higher authority, only low-level GMs who use common noise-filtering when reading petitions - that means that more petitions are more likely to get something done than fewer petitions.
Because the only authority that players can interact with is the GMs, it's to our benefit to petition early and often as we can since whether something is ultimately Allowed or Disallowed means very little when dealing with GMs.
Actually you just make a petition to contest it, and keep escalating the petition until you find someone who actually knows what the rules are. Senior GMs don't just sit around drinking vodka all day, they also have jobs and do them. It just takes a while to get to them.
|
United States44439 Posts
Eve uni finally showed and the hatchery in true form went 7 v 50 on them and killed two blackbirds with no losses before they got bored of us and went into Atlar. Once there they were confronted by Gunpoint who, lacking our drakes+links, were less eager to suicidally engage. However we quickly got on comms with each other and got a warpin on them starting the biggest fight I've been in (I think). Local was 72 of which almost all were in the fight and only 27 were us (including alts+linkboats).
Vandarie was FCing which I was very glad about because 27 is way larger than anything I've FCed before and I have no wish to try. We were popping things with a decent ratio but Gunpoint were losing pilots whereas our guys had fitted up knowing we'd have links + nanos so were sniping and keeping distance more. I'm sure they're better pilots but our role in the fleet naturally placed us less in harms way. As a result a gtfo order was called while the majority of the fleet was still intact which is unfortuante but I guess an inevitable result of increasing fleet sizes. People reshipped and we regrouped but eve uni seemed unwilling to hang around for round 2.
Kills stood at 1 drake, 2 canes, 4 blackbirds, 1 caracal, 4 t2 frigates, 7 t1 frigates while losses (I believe) were at 1 harb, 2 canes and 2 rifters. Of that, only the 2 rifters were hatchery.
|
I always miss these things
|
On April 19 2011 06:39 Sard Caid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 06:22 Mumbleskates wrote:On April 19 2011 06:18 Sard Caid wrote:On April 19 2011 05:32 Mumbleskates wrote:On April 18 2011 22:55 Valenius wrote:On April 18 2011 22:37 Mumbleskates wrote:On April 18 2011 21:58 KwarK wrote:
Widders was a griefer who was actively abusing exploits in the game to kill hatchery members before joining tl and joined tl with absolutely no interest in either the site or starcraft. He was the very definition of a malicious user and is in no way comparable to a community member who joins because they want to be a part of the community and then finds the eve thread. If he was exploiting then why wasn't he banned from EVE? There are petitions for that sort of thing. From the combat records that I came across on killboards it just looks like he was killing your guys, yes, but unless he's using some kind of magical exploits that I've never heard of why couldn't you kill him back? And by the way, I don't know what you mean by "griefing," but in EVE when someone complains about griefers, 99% of the time they are just complaining that they are losing ships (i.e. "griefing" = PVP). Killing mining ships just because they are in lowsec is "griefing." Canflipping and then killing missioners when they shoot at you is "griefing." There are almost no things that you can do that, in my mind, genuinely count as real griefing in EVE. And you guys should be no strangers to this idea; you are constantly getting excited over finding missioners and killing them, and miners, and all this stuff. There's nothing wrong with that, but if you can see why that's fun, it's a shame you have to label someone as hateful and evil because they do the same thing to you. Again, maybe I am missing something. A Corp called 'Dark Horses.' war-decced us and we had a few scarse fights in the first few weeks. Then it descended into him leaving his corp, and re-joining when he had found one of our missioning ships in high-sec. His employment history throughout this time was ridiculous, but i'm sure someone will explain it better than me. I was very new at the time. I guess we labeled it as Griefing, because unless we had people ready to go on a minutes notice throughout the day, there was absolutely fuck all we could do. Looks to me like he never left the corp, like Warri said... and he was never even IN Dark Horses. So... not the whole story. He also killed you in several systems. Also on the undock? On April 19 2011 01:15 Sard Caid wrote:
The way this becomes "legit" is when the exploiter waits down a session timer between accepting the application and pewing your ship. Even then, a friend of a friend who used to abuse this mechanic was temp banned after talking to a GM about what's legal and what's not.
Honestly if you get enough people petitioning, you'll probably see the exploiter temp banned for some duration. No, I do know about this. It's not that you have to wait 30 seconds for a session timer, it's that you have to go through an actual session change, which is different. A lot of people mess this up on the first attempt because it is not very clearly defined anywhere. And it has nothing to do with how many people petition the guy at once, and everything to do with prior warnings for the same offense. But apparently he can't have done this more than once. That doesn't explain how you weren't able to kill him, unless he was just choosing his fights wisely. Really? Because the only way I've seen to consistently get GMs to look at botters and other exploiters was with 1) #s of petitions 2) language of petitions (PvEer pleas vs PvPer pleas). @ session change: if this is the same thing as jumping from one system to another, or undocking, then yeah, that's what I'm referring to. But even then, after discussing through a convo at length about what's safe to do and what's not said friend of friend was temp banned. So the vagueness of it all indeed makes it stupid, and anyone looking at the mechanic should just take it as an exploit when wondering about GM repercussions. On April 19 2011 05:48 TurpinOS wrote:
Im still eagerly awaiting to know who that mumbles guy is in game, just you know, curiosity, but I somehow doubt its going to happen since hes already been asked by Kizu and didnt do so... I can sort of guess why.
On a different note nice fight, sucks i missed it. I would like to see who you are on BC or something, to back up all this talk you have. We already know that TurpinOS is Caelum Terra. Also, time and time again GMs have been proven to have a very tenuous grasp on what is and isn't legal in EVE. Just because you can change the probable immediate outcome with various whines and appeals doesn't make you right, or the punishment permanent. It does, however, work. @ Cael: session timer is any time you get the 30 second timer for doing something, such as switching ships, undocking, jumping through a system, so on.
-.-
Yes, but the guy seemed to say that theres a difference between session timer of 30 secs. (what you brought up and everyone is used to) and ''session change'' which I have no clue what it is. (for now it looks to be a mystical concept only he knows about as seen from the post I quoted)
|
damn.. i have to get active
|
On April 19 2011 07:29 TurpinOS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 06:39 Sard Caid wrote:On April 19 2011 06:22 Mumbleskates wrote:On April 19 2011 06:18 Sard Caid wrote:On April 19 2011 05:32 Mumbleskates wrote:On April 18 2011 22:55 Valenius wrote:On April 18 2011 22:37 Mumbleskates wrote:On April 18 2011 21:58 KwarK wrote:
Widders was a griefer who was actively abusing exploits in the game to kill hatchery members before joining tl and joined tl with absolutely no interest in either the site or starcraft. He was the very definition of a malicious user and is in no way comparable to a community member who joins because they want to be a part of the community and then finds the eve thread. If he was exploiting then why wasn't he banned from EVE? There are petitions for that sort of thing. From the combat records that I came across on killboards it just looks like he was killing your guys, yes, but unless he's using some kind of magical exploits that I've never heard of why couldn't you kill him back? And by the way, I don't know what you mean by "griefing," but in EVE when someone complains about griefers, 99% of the time they are just complaining that they are losing ships (i.e. "griefing" = PVP). Killing mining ships just because they are in lowsec is "griefing." Canflipping and then killing missioners when they shoot at you is "griefing." There are almost no things that you can do that, in my mind, genuinely count as real griefing in EVE. And you guys should be no strangers to this idea; you are constantly getting excited over finding missioners and killing them, and miners, and all this stuff. There's nothing wrong with that, but if you can see why that's fun, it's a shame you have to label someone as hateful and evil because they do the same thing to you. Again, maybe I am missing something. A Corp called 'Dark Horses.' war-decced us and we had a few scarse fights in the first few weeks. Then it descended into him leaving his corp, and re-joining when he had found one of our missioning ships in high-sec. His employment history throughout this time was ridiculous, but i'm sure someone will explain it better than me. I was very new at the time. I guess we labeled it as Griefing, because unless we had people ready to go on a minutes notice throughout the day, there was absolutely fuck all we could do. Looks to me like he never left the corp, like Warri said... and he was never even IN Dark Horses. So... not the whole story. He also killed you in several systems. Also on the undock? On April 19 2011 01:15 Sard Caid wrote:
The way this becomes "legit" is when the exploiter waits down a session timer between accepting the application and pewing your ship. Even then, a friend of a friend who used to abuse this mechanic was temp banned after talking to a GM about what's legal and what's not.
Honestly if you get enough people petitioning, you'll probably see the exploiter temp banned for some duration. No, I do know about this. It's not that you have to wait 30 seconds for a session timer, it's that you have to go through an actual session change, which is different. A lot of people mess this up on the first attempt because it is not very clearly defined anywhere. And it has nothing to do with how many people petition the guy at once, and everything to do with prior warnings for the same offense. But apparently he can't have done this more than once. That doesn't explain how you weren't able to kill him, unless he was just choosing his fights wisely. Really? Because the only way I've seen to consistently get GMs to look at botters and other exploiters was with 1) #s of petitions 2) language of petitions (PvEer pleas vs PvPer pleas). @ session change: if this is the same thing as jumping from one system to another, or undocking, then yeah, that's what I'm referring to. But even then, after discussing through a convo at length about what's safe to do and what's not said friend of friend was temp banned. So the vagueness of it all indeed makes it stupid, and anyone looking at the mechanic should just take it as an exploit when wondering about GM repercussions. On April 19 2011 05:48 TurpinOS wrote:
Im still eagerly awaiting to know who that mumbles guy is in game, just you know, curiosity, but I somehow doubt its going to happen since hes already been asked by Kizu and didnt do so... I can sort of guess why.
On a different note nice fight, sucks i missed it. I would like to see who you are on BC or something, to back up all this talk you have. We already know that TurpinOS is Caelum Terra. Also, time and time again GMs have been proven to have a very tenuous grasp on what is and isn't legal in EVE. Just because you can change the probable immediate outcome with various whines and appeals doesn't make you right, or the punishment permanent. It does, however, work. @ Cael: session timer is any time you get the 30 second timer for doing something, such as switching ships, undocking, jumping through a system, so on. -.- Yes, but the guy seemed to say that theres a difference between session timer of 30 secs. (what you brought up and everyone is used to) and ''session change'' which I have no clue what it is. (for now it looks to be a mystical concept only he knows about as seen from the post I quoted)
Your usual biting sarcasm aside, you're actually right. Very few people know the difference, because CCP and the GMs often don't know it themselves. A session TIMER is a timer that keeps you from changing sessions; these can be created by changing ships, doing stuff with fleets, and all that. A session change is when you do one of the things that Sard listed. Just waiting for the timer isn't enough when you switch corps, you have to actually get a session change.
|
On April 19 2011 07:42 Mumbleskates wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 07:29 TurpinOS wrote:On April 19 2011 06:39 Sard Caid wrote:On April 19 2011 06:22 Mumbleskates wrote:On April 19 2011 06:18 Sard Caid wrote:On April 19 2011 05:32 Mumbleskates wrote:On April 18 2011 22:55 Valenius wrote:On April 18 2011 22:37 Mumbleskates wrote:On April 18 2011 21:58 KwarK wrote:
Widders was a griefer who was actively abusing exploits in the game to kill hatchery members before joining tl and joined tl with absolutely no interest in either the site or starcraft. He was the very definition of a malicious user and is in no way comparable to a community member who joins because they want to be a part of the community and then finds the eve thread. If he was exploiting then why wasn't he banned from EVE? There are petitions for that sort of thing. From the combat records that I came across on killboards it just looks like he was killing your guys, yes, but unless he's using some kind of magical exploits that I've never heard of why couldn't you kill him back? And by the way, I don't know what you mean by "griefing," but in EVE when someone complains about griefers, 99% of the time they are just complaining that they are losing ships (i.e. "griefing" = PVP). Killing mining ships just because they are in lowsec is "griefing." Canflipping and then killing missioners when they shoot at you is "griefing." There are almost no things that you can do that, in my mind, genuinely count as real griefing in EVE. And you guys should be no strangers to this idea; you are constantly getting excited over finding missioners and killing them, and miners, and all this stuff. There's nothing wrong with that, but if you can see why that's fun, it's a shame you have to label someone as hateful and evil because they do the same thing to you. Again, maybe I am missing something. A Corp called 'Dark Horses.' war-decced us and we had a few scarse fights in the first few weeks. Then it descended into him leaving his corp, and re-joining when he had found one of our missioning ships in high-sec. His employment history throughout this time was ridiculous, but i'm sure someone will explain it better than me. I was very new at the time. I guess we labeled it as Griefing, because unless we had people ready to go on a minutes notice throughout the day, there was absolutely fuck all we could do. Looks to me like he never left the corp, like Warri said... and he was never even IN Dark Horses. So... not the whole story. He also killed you in several systems. Also on the undock? On April 19 2011 01:15 Sard Caid wrote:
The way this becomes "legit" is when the exploiter waits down a session timer between accepting the application and pewing your ship. Even then, a friend of a friend who used to abuse this mechanic was temp banned after talking to a GM about what's legal and what's not.
Honestly if you get enough people petitioning, you'll probably see the exploiter temp banned for some duration. No, I do know about this. It's not that you have to wait 30 seconds for a session timer, it's that you have to go through an actual session change, which is different. A lot of people mess this up on the first attempt because it is not very clearly defined anywhere. And it has nothing to do with how many people petition the guy at once, and everything to do with prior warnings for the same offense. But apparently he can't have done this more than once. That doesn't explain how you weren't able to kill him, unless he was just choosing his fights wisely. Really? Because the only way I've seen to consistently get GMs to look at botters and other exploiters was with 1) #s of petitions 2) language of petitions (PvEer pleas vs PvPer pleas). @ session change: if this is the same thing as jumping from one system to another, or undocking, then yeah, that's what I'm referring to. But even then, after discussing through a convo at length about what's safe to do and what's not said friend of friend was temp banned. So the vagueness of it all indeed makes it stupid, and anyone looking at the mechanic should just take it as an exploit when wondering about GM repercussions. On April 19 2011 05:48 TurpinOS wrote:
Im still eagerly awaiting to know who that mumbles guy is in game, just you know, curiosity, but I somehow doubt its going to happen since hes already been asked by Kizu and didnt do so... I can sort of guess why.
On a different note nice fight, sucks i missed it. I would like to see who you are on BC or something, to back up all this talk you have. We already know that TurpinOS is Caelum Terra. Also, time and time again GMs have been proven to have a very tenuous grasp on what is and isn't legal in EVE. Just because you can change the probable immediate outcome with various whines and appeals doesn't make you right, or the punishment permanent. It does, however, work. @ Cael: session timer is any time you get the 30 second timer for doing something, such as switching ships, undocking, jumping through a system, so on. -.- Yes, but the guy seemed to say that theres a difference between session timer of 30 secs. (what you brought up and everyone is used to) and ''session change'' which I have no clue what it is. (for now it looks to be a mystical concept only he knows about as seen from the post I quoted) Your usual biting sarcasm aside, you're actually right. Very few people know the difference, because CCP and the GMs often don't know it themselves. A session TIMER is a timer that keeps you from changing sessions; these can be created by changing ships, doing stuff with fleets, and all that. A session change is when you do one of the things that Sard listed. Just waiting for the timer isn't enough when you switch corps, you have to actually get a session change.
Call it a ''ahdfvhasyergweyrgaewr'' if you want, its still the exact same thing.
Also Sard listed changing ship, so is it a session timer or a session change ? oh wait, its the same thing.
edit : still dont know who you are ingame
|
pfff cael.. u such an ignorant.... go eat caribus
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img857.imageshack.us/i/43076343.jpg/)
