Cry exploit, use exploit, eat popcorn

**Sansa Comfrey** · 2011-01-21

Its tough to get any kind of consensus on problems when there are multiple critical flaws and fixes to one will reverberate with the others, possibly making it worse.

It would be better to just try to eliminate what one can and then proceed from there. There's three horrid problems wrecking the 0.0 game right now:

1. the sov structures all have stupid amounts of hp
2. jumpbridge sprawl is allowing fast blob reaction time
3. supercaps online

The nerfdown of motherships into t3 carriers might take care of #3. Restrictions on jumpbridges, regardless of the howls from peeps who, IMO, are trying to throw around "won't someone think of the casuaaaals!" to stop it, seem to be on their way and might do something about #2. I haven't heard anything about #1 but it should be self-evident.

Fix those three things and then we can start finding ways of buffing up the 0.0 game.

**Bubba** · 2011-01-21

Originally Posted by Vonqueesha Shenaynay

I know absolute dick about wormholes vs kspace

You are aware that the cloaking delay is measuring in all of 2-3 seconds when you move off of a gate, right?

Then that cloaking person can flit around your system and you wouldn't be the wiser.

All of a sudden, he lands in belt, uncloaks, tackles, and you get covert hot dropped, and then all of them recloak and saunter off.

**MpozoY** · 2011-01-21

Originally Posted by Teh Ashen

So basically, since everyone has a titan and cap fleet in their back pocket, hot drops have ruined small gang pvp?

This is exactly the fundamental scaling problem I mentioned; when even highsec chumps can afford capital characters and hulls, and taking/holding 0.0 space absolutely necessitates not only a capfleet but at least a nascent supercap blob, no one's going to give two shits toward trying to goodfights a 6-man HAC gang, if they can't just ignore it they'll nuke it from orbit

Originally Posted by Sansa Comfrey

Its tough to get any kind of consensus on problems when there are multiple critical flaws and fixes to one will reverberate with the others, possibly making it worse.

It would be better to just try to eliminate what one can and then proceed from there. There's three horrid problems wrecking the 0.0 game right now:

1. the sov structures all have stupid amounts of hp
2. jumpbridge sprawl is allowing fast blob reaction time
3. supercaps online

The nerfdown of motherships into t3 carriers might take care of #3. Restrictions on jumpbridges, regardless of the howls from peeps who, IMO, are trying to throw around "won't someone think of the casuaaaals!" to stop it, seem to be on their way and might do something about #2. I haven't heard anything about #1 but it should be self-evident.

Fix those three things and then we can start finding ways of buffing up the 0.0 game.

1 and 3 reinforce each other and render 2 irrelevant, nothing you push through bridges can take/rep a station in remotely a reasonable timeframe or scratch the supercap blob countering you

**MpozoY** · 2011-01-21

Also Sansa your justification for jumpbridge nerfing in the Goonfleet thread was exactly the same "I'm not getting enough easy hauler kills" that has dickall nothing to do with the sov system and you're just trying to ride a bandwagon to get any irrelevant tweak you hope will grant you the killboard circlejerking you dreamily remember from your MC days when this was a completely different fucking game

**Krutoj** · 2011-01-21

On a related topic, I want my DD animation back CCP

**smg77** · 2011-01-21

Originally Posted by Sansa Comfrey

howls from peeps

You didn't get smacked around enough in the gf.com thread so now you are trying this bullshit here? I guess I have to commend your perseverance. Or your tolerance for humiliation.

Also for the people wailing and gnashing teeth about local...CCP will *never* remove local chat. To pin your hopes and dreams of goodfites in Eve Online on it is just retarded.

**Naesi** · 2011-01-21

heh

IT dropped some more SBUs before the extended downtime today in J5A. Gunna assume they did so elsewhere as well.

**smg77** · 2011-01-21

Originally Posted by Naesi

heh

IT dropped some more SBUs before the extended downtime today in J5A. Gunna assume they did so elsewhere as well.

IT keepin it classy.

**Hav** · 2011-01-21

Originally Posted by Naesi

heh

IT dropped some more SBUs before the extended downtime today in J5A. Gunna assume they did so elsewhere as well.

They forgot and/or didn't realize that it was an exploit. They have a hell of an Alzheimer's epidemic going down.

**Dr Cheeto** · 2011-01-21

Originally Posted by Hav

They have a hell of an Alzheimer's epidemic going down.

That actually would explain a lot.

**Sansa Comfrey** · 2011-01-21

Originally Posted by MpozoY

1 and 3 reinforce each other and render 2 irrelevant, nothing you push through bridges can take/rep a station in remotely a reasonable timeframe or scratch the supercap blob countering you

Agreed. No one fix solves everything. Also, I don't think industrial logistics should be made more annoying - perhaps more vulnerable, by making the jumpbridges themselves either more vulnerable or just less of them, but not a direct nerf to them, since no sane person would want to make industrial logistics even duller than it already is. A group like PL can (and is) isolate an area by knocking back enough jumpbridges like they are in Pure Blind, but that's PL; how many other groups could manage it? Even PL was unable to stop the UMI based network, and if they couldn't, probably no one could.

You want supercaps to deal with the stupid sov hp. Supercaps massed can mostly laugh off a subcap fleet. No change to JBs will do anything about this, they are their own separate problems. If you bring down the supercap problem by forcing them to actually need to rely on subcap support, though (any nerf to supercaps encourages more blobbing of subcaps), then you need to address the fast-blob issue too.

Originally Posted by smg77

You didn't get smacked around enough in the gf.com thread so now you are trying this bullshit here? I guess I have to commend your perseverance. Or your tolerance for humiliation.

Actually 'here' came first (or SHC at least). GF has a different opinion on what should be and made it clear they did not wish to debate it with me (and I've been banned from it anyways). They might be right. It's hard to trust CCP to make any change that won't mess things up even more; in that case its probably better to stick with what we have.

**snsmasta** · 2011-01-21

Originally Posted by Hav

They forgot and/or didn't realize that it was an exploit. They have a hell of an Alzheimer's epidemic going down.

I got nothing for this one.....You'd think first time you are told "IT'S an exploit you will get banned" they might learn....Only thing i know is that it was on lining 2hrs before the extended DT hit.

**DaiTengu** · 2011-01-21

Originally Posted by snsmasta

I got nothing for this one.....You'd think first time you are told "IT'S an exploit you will get banned" they might learn....Only thing i know is that it was on lining 2hrs before the extended DT hit.

30 minutes isn't 2 hours. (they were onlined around 09:30, Downtime was at 10:00)

**DaiTengu** · 2011-01-21

SBUs are gone though, and the ihub is still reinforced.

**Grath** · 2011-01-21

Originally Posted by smg77

CCP will *never* remove local chat.

Remove it no, but they do intend to remove its intel capabilities. Don't blame me, came straight from them.

Also why do goons play EVE, you don't like "goodfights", you literally hate the game, you hate all the people that play the game who aren't in your group, I mean christ, you're literally wasting your time.

**Vonqueesha Shenaynay** · 2011-01-21

Originally Posted by Grath

Remove it no, but they do intend to remove its intel capabilities. Don't blame me, came straight from them.

Also why do goons play EVE, you don't like "goodfights", you literally hate the game, you hate all the people that play the game who aren't in your group, I mean christ, you're literally wasting your time.

They need a place where they can be cool v0v

**snsmasta** · 2011-01-21

CCP needs stop being retarded and pause the timer during DT :|

**Stahlregen** · 2011-01-21

Alternatively; stop being retarded and trying to exploit when specifically told not too v0v

**NUXI** · 2011-01-21

Originally Posted by snsmasta

So how difficult would it be for them to actually implement a change where if something was on-lining during DT it's paused and continued after the DT?

I don't think anyone else has tackled this question directly, so I'll bite. I don't think the technical aspect is hard, but this is a specific case of a more general issue that might be more complex than that.

First, don't think of it as a timer because its probably not implemented as something thats actually ticking downwards that can just be paused. Think of it as an alarm clock, and to fix it, they'd have to run a script right before the end of DT adjusting the alarms forward by however long DT lasted. This probably isn't all that hard to do from a coding standpoint, although the QA might be. Again, it depends on their exact implementation of the timers.

The complicated part is if you pause anchoring/onlining timers, what else do you pause? Reinforcement timers? Capital ship construction? Sov index improvement? If we are going to stop everything, should POSes still consume fuel? For people in hi-sec, I've heard that wardecs where the warm-up period overlaps extended DT is petitionable, should that 24-hour timer also be paused? Coming to an agreement on this aspect may take time.

Now as for my $0.02. I don't think its good policy to declare what is otherwise normal in-game behavior an exploit just because it coincides with your maintenance windows. Either modify the game mechanics so that it is not an issue, or just allow the behavior anyway. The policy of declaring it an exploit raises questions about what they will do to TCUs and SBUs that are onlined during unplanned DT.

**Bubba** · 2011-01-21

But it was an accident.

Twice.

Come on man, you gotta see that it was an accident.

PS I'm going to assert that the SBU's were onlining for x time before DT even though I don't know what I'm talking about because I'm retarded.

**Hav** · 2011-01-22

Originally Posted by DaiTengu

30 minutes isn't 2 hours. (they were onlined around 09:30, Downtime was at 10:00)

Short term memory lapses and number dyslexia. Oh, the humanity.

**Lord Gabriell** · 2011-01-22

Originally Posted by NUXI

I don't think anyone else has tackled this question directly, so I'll bite. I don't think the technical aspect is hard, but this is a specific case of a more general issue that might be more complex than that.

First, don't think of it as a timer because its probably not implemented as something thats actually ticking downwards that can just be paused. Think of it as an alarm clock, and to fix it, they'd have to run a script right before the end of DT adjusting the alarms forward by however long DT lasted. This probably isn't all that hard to do from a coding standpoint, although the QA might be. Again, it depends on their exact implementation of the timers.

The complicated part is if you pause anchoring/onlining timers, what else do you pause? Reinforcement timers? Capital ship construction? Sov index improvement? If we are going to stop everything, should POSes still consume fuel? For people in hi-sec, I've heard that wardecs where the warm-up period overlaps extended DT is petitionable, should that 24-hour timer also be paused? Coming to an agreement on this aspect may take time.

Now as for my $0.02. I don't think its good policy to declare what is otherwise normal in-game behavior an exploit just because it coincides with your maintenance windows. Either modify the game mechanics so that it is not an issue, or just allow the behavior anyway. The policy of declaring it an exploit raises questions about what they will do to TCUs and SBUs that are onlined during unplanned DT.

The timer is a simple date/time reference in a database, so it's not overly complicated to reference the daily maintenance time to the anchoring/onlining time of an anchorable object. My primary job isn't database management, but that's an easy thing to fucking write.

On anchoring event, is the anchoring/onlining time overlap the maintenance window date/time value? If yes, don't allow anchoring/onlining and pop up a message.

It's not neurosurgery....

**Bubba** · 2011-01-22

Haha you think CCP can read their own code.

**MpozoY** · 2011-01-22

Originally Posted by Grath

Remove it no, but they do intend to remove its intel capabilities. Don't blame me, came straight from them.

Also why do goons play EVE, you don't like "goodfights", you literally hate the game, you hate all the people that play the game who aren't in your group, I mean christ, you're literally wasting your time.

Your posts make it all worthwhile

**Hratli Smirks** · 2011-01-22

Originally Posted by Grath

Also why do goons play EVE, you don't like "goodfights", you literally hate the game, you hate all the people that play the game who aren't in your group

This is actually all true I just want to point that out

**smg77** · 2011-01-22

Originally Posted by Grath

Also why do goons play EVE, you don't like "goodfights", you literally hate the game, you hate all the people that play the game who aren't in your group

You're wrong. We hate each other just as much as we hate everybody else who plays. Maybe more.

**jimmychrist** · 2011-01-22

Did someone petition the second attempt?

**Pripyat** · 2011-01-22

Originally Posted by Grath

Also why do goons play EVE, you don't like "goodfights", you literally hate the game, you hate all the people that play the game who aren't in your group, I mean christ, you're literally wasting your time.

Because of people like you.

**Hav** · 2011-01-23

Originally Posted by smg77

You're wrong. We hate each other just as much as we hate everybody else who plays. Maybe more.

Fuck Sigma. Oh, and Merchi. Rho are a waste of skin.

**Hratli Smirks** · 2011-01-23

Originally Posted by Hav

Fuck Sigma.

Counterpoint: Fuck You.

**Lorax** · 2011-01-23

Originally Posted by Hratli Smirks

Counterpoint: Fuck You.

Counterpoint: This is now a WIDOT fuckage

**Lake** · 2011-01-23

So, not to interrupt the 3,417th rehash of the same arguments about the sov system, but I do have another data point on the whole downtime/sov thing.

R3W-XU's Dotlan link

Talos dropped Sov, as they had been in other systems. We promptly placed a TCU and, once it was online, a hub.

Apparently two days after we claimed someone noticed that our TCU started onlining before the extended DT. I think it's pretty funny that our very by-the-book logistics dude, who onlined the TCU, now has a ban warning.

It's all academic now as the Hub is again online, but Talos did have a TCU and hub in system so it wasn't necessarily going to be trivial.

Anyway, here's my counter petition, originally filed under 'exploit', but now under "Player Owned Structures", and not yet replied to. It was originally filed before we had recovered sov, to get the record straight before any potential issues cropped up.

Originally Posted by Lake's Counter Petition

With the preface that I'm understanding of the position these sov structure petitions put the GM team in:

I am petitioning to contest the removal of the <GENTS> [PRAX] Sov in R3W-XU.

According to Dotlan, Talos Coalition dropped sovereignty in the system at or slightly before 2011.1.17 22:51. About seven hours before the extended downtime at 0600 on the 18th.

Upon noticing this, we promptly deployed a TCU, which took 8 hours to online. Our recollection is that there were roughly 6 of those 8 hours remaining before the server went down.

Not deploying a TCU in a contested system as promptly as possible would be counter to established gameplay.

We have since further established our sovereignty in that system by deploying and onlining an Infrastructure Hub.

More than two days of progress in highly contested space have been undone by GM action because of Talos (presumably) declining to pay their sov bill for the system coincidentally within 8 hours of an extended DT.

While I appreciate that the default response is to undo any action that occurred overlapping downtime, you must consider that given the actions of our opponents we had no choice in our timing of actions.

As the timing was chosen by our opponents, their petition is evidently in bad faith.

**Hav** · 2011-01-23

Originally Posted by Lake

Anyway, here's my counter petition, originally filed under 'exploit', but now under "Player Owned Structures", and not yet replied to. It was originally filed before we had recovered sov, to get the record straight before any potential issues cropped up.

Needs img-timeline.jpg

I'm now wondering exactly how easy it would be to get an alt into the GM team just to see. I'm guessing that they do a background check against your account details to verify identity, but I do wonder if the people 'hired' actually know game mechanics.

**Hav** · 2011-01-23

Originally Posted by Hratli Smirks

Counterpoint: Fuck You.

Can we at least agree on Merchi?

**NUXI** · 2011-01-23

Originally Posted by Serj Darek

On anchoring event, is the anchoring/onlining time overlap the maintenance window date/time value? If yes, don't allow anchoring/onlining and pop up a message.

I'll pretend I'm at work giving design feedback, here is my feedback to yours:

1. It does not fix the problem for unplanned DT
2. There is now a window during which structure X can be onlined, but structure Y cannot simply because they have different onlining delays.
3. DT should be more transparent to gameplay, not less transparent.
4. Apart from onlining and anchoring, what other wall clock based timers should be affected by this change?

**Hork** · 2011-01-23

Originally Posted by Grath

Remove it no, but they do intend to remove its intel capabilities. Don't blame me, came straight from them.

citation needed

**Vonqueesha Shenaynay** · 2011-01-24

Originally Posted by Hav

Can we at least agree on Merchi?

All goons are shit.

**Teh Ashen** · 2011-01-24

Why Mr. George Clooney, why?!?

100th post, :OHGOD: RL, how I have missed thee.

**Vonqueesha Shenaynay** · 2011-01-24

Originally Posted by Teh Ashen

Why Mr. George Clooney, why?!?

100th post, :OHGOD: RL, how I have missed thee.

It's ok... just stare into his eyes and it makes everything feel okay.

**Hav** · 2011-01-24

Originally Posted by Vonqueesha Shenaynay

All goons are shit.

Nice to see you skipped the whole vet thing and went straight for the 'bitter'. Of course, I do have my suspicions...

**DurrHurrDurr** · 2011-01-24

They shouldn't be offlining a TCU that has 25% of its timer sitting in an extended DT.

Hell, if we're doing it percentage-wise, someone tell me what 1/6 is, because you can stuff that much of an SBU into a daily DT.

This is why CCP purposely leaving their rules vague is retarded, because a few of their GMs happen to be even more retarded.