open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Insight into GM workday ...
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

Author Topic

LordInvisible
Gallente
Nova Ardour
Posted - 2011.05.06 09:55:00 - [1]
 

or at least one petition closure.

Yes, I'm mad. I lost a ship due to bug (agressing someone who was agressed against me, docking, undocking, warping around, aggressing !nothing!, getting concorded 25 minutes later idling on safespot) and GM replied me with generic mail about me not knowing how EvE Online works. And I bet I'm playing this game longer than this GM knows about it.

Anyway, can we get an insight on how this petition solving stuff really works? Like some pictures or movie of a screens how the procedure is when it come to "our logs"? It would probably help to understand why we have to escalate every second petition to get it solved correctly. It might also help with understanding why petitions need so long to be responded in first place.

If you need live example, I have few petitions opened and you can use all of them to show people how stuff works in practice.

And no, stuck petitions aren't good example. Give us reimbursement petition due to a bug or something.

ktnxwthsgrontopbai

p.s.: forum mod or whoever, please do not delete any part of my post, since I am not posting any GM correspondence.

NoNah
Posted - 2011.05.06 10:04:00 - [2]
 

To be fair, you seem not to know how eve works. The scenario you describe is indeed a working mechanic. Maybe not working as you, me or anyone else sensible would expect it to, but as long as it's not considered an exploit, it's valid. Maybe that's the windmill you'd want to fight, not how the GM handled what's not officially announced as illegal exploits of game mechanics.

IE you're mad with a result, question WHY that result was obtained rather than HOW. Especially seeing how to much transparency will mean tons of people try to exploit it, meaning more workload for current GM's(or MUCH worse quality) meaning slower response times, lower quality support in the long run.

LordInvisible
Gallente
Nova Ardour
Posted - 2011.05.06 10:52:00 - [3]
 

What?

Spanking Monkeys
Posted - 2011.05.06 10:56:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Spanking Monkeys on 06/05/2011 10:56:12
GM arrives at office
copy paste
copy paste
copy paste
copy paste
copy paste
copy paste
copy paste
copy paste
copy paste
scratches ass
copy paste
copy paste
copy paste
copy paste
copy paste
copy paste
copy paste
copy paste
copy paste
copy paste
GM goes home happy at another productive day

xXxSatsujinxXx
Whacky Waving Inflatable Flailing Arm Tubemen
Posted - 2011.05.06 11:02:00 - [5]
 

Lord has been pvping dodixies undock for literally years, and employs quite a bit of knowhow when it comes to mechanics etc. I very much doubt he is confused on this one...


Destamon
Azure Freelancers
Posted - 2011.05.06 11:17:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: LordInvisible

Anyway, can we get an insight on how this petition solving stuff really works? Like some pictures or movie of a screens how the procedure is when it come to "our logs"?


Sure.

DoughMonster
Posted - 2011.05.06 12:29:00 - [7]
 

Our logs show nothing is a common fave :)

Ania Hyperthron
Posted - 2011.05.06 12:40:00 - [8]
 

This bug is known from YEARS. Actually a lot of players abuse this bug. CCP did nothing with that from around 4 years ...

Kierah Nightstorm
Posted - 2011.05.06 13:12:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Spanking Monkeys
Edited by: Spanking Monkeys on 06/05/2011 10:56:12
GM arrives at office
copy paste
paste
paste
paste
paste
paste
paste
paste
paste
scratches ass
copy paste
paste
paste
paste
paste
paste
paste
paste
paste
GM goes home happy at another productive day


FYP

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.06 13:32:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: NoNah
To be fair, you seem not to know how eve works. The scenario you describe is indeed a working mechanic. Maybe not working as you, me or anyone else sensible would expect it to, but as long as it's not considered an exploit, it's valid.

Sounds delicious. And since it's not an exploit, care to share the recipe with us ? Twisted Evil
Oh, you know, just so many, many more can duplicate the awesome flavour so many times that just maybe somebody somewhere will get fed up with it...

Joe Phoenix
The Commonwealth Federation
Posted - 2011.05.06 13:33:00 - [11]
 

I lost a crane the other day to the "can decloak" exploit, still no reply..

GM Homonoia

Posted - 2011.05.06 14:30:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: GM Homonoia on 06/05/2011 14:30:19
IMPORTANT NOTE: I have not read up on these particular petitions and I will not (unless they end up on my plate naturally); these comments are true in general and not tied to these particular cases.

GMs are human and can make mistakes. If you received a ruling that you are convinced is incorrect, ask for escalation. It is very rare for the same mistake to be made twice in a row. As long as everyone is aware that escalation is not a "second roll of the dice" or a standard procedure to follow (in other words, only ask for escalation when you genuinely think a mistake was made; demanding escalation from the get go, or always demanding escalation is not going to work). All GMs follow the same policies, no matter their seniority.

Originally by: Joe Phoenix
I lost a crane the other day to the "can decloak" exploit, still no reply..


Again, not commenting on this particular case, but about using cans to decloak ships in general. We get a lot of petitions about this, thus let me state this here very clearly:

Using cans, or any other debris, to decloak ship is not an exploit and a fully allowed and valid tactic. Just as long as the amount of debris is not causing significant lag (use your common sense here). In other words, normal game mechanics.

I have no idea if this is what Joe's petition is about; he will have to wait for our official reply to that particular petition to find out. I merely wanted to clear up some confusion about this game mechanic.

Joe Phoenix
The Commonwealth Federation
Posted - 2011.05.06 15:08:00 - [13]
 

Right you say one thing, yep the next GM/MOD/DEV etc will say something different, maybe instead of posting on this forum you could, i don't know, work on the game a little? Just an idea..

Mortania
Minmatar
No Compromise
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2011.05.06 15:11:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Joe Phoenix
Right you say one thing, yep the next GM/MOD/DEV etc will say something different, maybe instead of posting on this forum you could, i don't know, work on the game a little? Just an idea..


Maybe you're unfamiliar with how it works. GMs aren't Devs.

You effectively just asked the Janitor to balance the books. Or have the accountant go infiltrate the bunker.

I guess ignorance runs rampant everywhere, eh Joe?

Joe Phoenix
The Commonwealth Federation
Posted - 2011.05.06 15:13:00 - [15]
 

Did you even read my post?

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.06 15:18:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 06/05/2011 15:19:04
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: NoNah
To be fair, you seem not to know how eve works. The scenario you describe is indeed a working mechanic. Maybe not working as you, me or anyone else sensible would expect it to, but as long as it's not considered an exploit, it's valid.

Sounds delicious. And since it's not an exploit, care to share the recipe with us ? Twisted Evil
Oh, you know, just so many, many more can duplicate the awesome flavour so many times that just maybe somebody somewhere will get fed up with it...

You dont know that one? Sounds like someone kept him agressed by agressing a wreck belonging to him.


Quote:
Lord has been pvping dodixies undock for literally years, and employs quite a bit of knowhow when it comes to mechanics etc. I very much doubt he is confused on this one...



Apparently he does not have that much know-how on docking games

GM Homonoia

Posted - 2011.05.06 15:19:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: GM Homonoia on 06/05/2011 15:18:57
Originally by: Joe Phoenix
Right you say one thing, yep the next GM/MOD/DEV etc will say something different, maybe instead of posting on this forum you could, i don't know, work on the game a little? Just an idea..


This is actually my day off. I am answering a question here in my own time.

Salpun
Gallente
Paramount Commerce
Posted - 2011.05.06 15:21:00 - [18]
 

Thanks

Mortania
Minmatar
No Compromise
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2011.05.06 15:22:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Joe Phoenix
Did you even read my post?


Yes. You just asked a GM to work on the game.

GMs don't work on the game.

Thus the comparisons of asking other professions to do things they don't do either.

Did YOU read your own post?

Myra2007
Millstone Industries
Posted - 2011.05.06 15:25:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer

You dont know that one? Sounds like someone kept him agressed by agressing a wreck belonging to him.



How would that get him concorded after idling for a prolonged time though? Maybe I misunderstand the OP but what you describe doesn't seem like a fitting explanation.

Salpun
Gallente
Paramount Commerce
Posted - 2011.05.06 15:38:00 - [21]
 

Because there are multiple causes of extending aggresion timers and not a clear way of showing that you are still aggressed and why (hidden counters) unless you know the rules. It has been a item for iteration that the timers get a revisit. Hopefully when the new ui gets implemented we can get some changes to the readouts of the timers.

Myra2007
Millstone Industries
Posted - 2011.05.06 15:47:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Salpun
Because there are multiple causes of extending aggresion timers and not a clear way of showing that you are still aggressed and why (hidden counters) unless you know the rules. It has been a item for iteration that the timers get a revisit. Hopefully when the new ui gets implemented we can get some changes to the readouts of the timers.


Which would leave him vulnerable to attacks by those players. But how did he get concorded? Granted my knowledge of hisec agression rules is negligible but pretty sure you don't just get concorded because someone has agression on you.

Salpun
Gallente
Paramount Commerce
Posted - 2011.05.06 16:07:00 - [23]
 

He might have thought he still had aggression but did not. Still the same cause bad indicaters is the cause.

Jack Tronic
Posted - 2011.05.06 16:09:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: Jack Tronic on 06/05/2011 16:09:51
Originally by: GM Homonoia
Edited by: GM Homonoia on 06/05/2011 14:30:19
IMPORTANT NOTE: I have not read up on these particular petitions and I will not (unless they end up on my plate naturally); these comments are true in general and not tied to these particular cases.

GMs are human and can make mistakes. If you received a ruling that you are convinced is incorrect, ask for escalation. It is very rare for the same mistake to be made twice in a row. As long as everyone is aware that escalation is not a "second roll of the dice" or a standard procedure to follow (in other words, only ask for escalation when you genuinely think a mistake was made; demanding escalation from the get go, or always demanding escalation is not going to work). All GMs follow the same policies, no matter their seniority.

Originally by: Joe Phoenix
I lost a crane the other day to the "can decloak" exploit, still no reply..


Again, not commenting on this particular case, but about using cans to decloak ships in general. We get a lot of petitions about this, thus let me state this here very clearly:

Using cans, or any other debris, to decloak ship is not an exploit and a fully allowed and valid tactic. Just as long as the amount of debris is not causing significant lag (use your common sense here). In other words, normal game mechanics.

I have no idea if this is what Joe's petition is about; he will have to wait for our official reply to that particular petition to find out. I merely wanted to clear up some confusion about this game mechanic.


But it was ruled using 100+ abandoned drones was a exploit to decloak ships in gate camps but somehow having 5x600 drones in a fleet fight is not? (let's not forget the full flight of fightbombers from one mom that can lag up entire systems singlehandedly which CCP refuses to admit).

Florestan Bronstein
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2011.05.06 16:17:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Florestan Bronstein on 06/05/2011 16:25:58
Originally by: GM Homonoia
Using cans, or any other debris, to decloak ship is not an exploit and a fully allowed and valid tactic. Just as long as the amount of debris is not causing significant lag (use your common sense here). In other words, normal game mechanics.

that will never work.

Looking for loopholes in the game mechanics & rules is a central part of playing EVE and submitting carefully crafted petitions to GMs to cover one's use of borderline-exploitative tactics is part of the game.

People don't want to know whether a tactic could be considered an exploit by a sane & neutral observer or not (they usually know that before writing a petition), they want to know if they can get away with using that tactic anyways and they want a piece of exculpatory GM correspondence that they can point towards once their abuse of game mechanics gets petitioned by hostiles (and of course they will try to play the GM lottery until they get what they want^^).

Saying "just use your common sense" as an answer will always get ignored because it is at complete odds with the motives for writing the petition.

edit: and no, I have no idea how a "good" answer would look like

GM Homonoia

Posted - 2011.05.06 16:19:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: GM Homonoia on 06/05/2011 16:29:07
Originally by: Jack Tronic
Edited by: Jack Tronic on 06/05/2011 16:09:51
Originally by: GM Homonoia
Edited by: GM Homonoia on 06/05/2011 14:30:19
IMPORTANT NOTE: I have not read up on these particular petitions and I will not (unless they end up on my plate naturally); these comments are true in general and not tied to these particular cases.

GMs are human and can make mistakes. If you received a ruling that you are convinced is incorrect, ask for escalation. It is very rare for the same mistake to be made twice in a row. As long as everyone is aware that escalation is not a "second roll of the dice" or a standard procedure to follow (in other words, only ask for escalation when you genuinely think a mistake was made; demanding escalation from the get go, or always demanding escalation is not going to work). All GMs follow the same policies, no matter their seniority.

Originally by: Joe Phoenix
I lost a crane the other day to the "can decloak" exploit, still no reply..


Again, not commenting on this particular case, but about using cans to decloak ships in general. We get a lot of petitions about this, thus let me state this here very clearly:

Using cans, or any other debris, to decloak ship is not an exploit and a fully allowed and valid tactic. Just as long as the amount of debris is not causing significant lag (use your common sense here). In other words, normal game mechanics.

I have no idea if this is what Joe's petition is about; he will have to wait for our official reply to that particular petition to find out. I merely wanted to clear up some confusion about this game mechanic.


But it was ruled using 100+ abandoned drones was a exploit to decloak ships in gate camps but somehow having 5x600 drones in a fleet fight is not? (let's not forget the full flight of fightbombers from one mom that can lag up entire systems singlehandedly which CCP refuses to admit).


There is a huge difference between those two scenarios. I should not have to explain this (everyone who takes an honest look at this should know why), but the most important reason is that in a fleet engagement everyone knows what they are getting into. There will be lag, there will be tons of other issues. Setting up a gate camp (when there aren't hundreds of players involved) and causing lag by littering the area with too much debris is deliberately causing lag to catch unsuspecting players. This is not cool and, to be more precise, is a breach of the EULA. (By the way, dropping a thousand empty shuttles in a fleet engagement is also not allowed; a fleet engagement is not a free pass to be a douche). We could have a discussion about the dozens of other details and differences between the two scenarios, but this is not the place for it. Everyone should know the difference and we are appealing on your common sense here (I know, always a dangerous thing, but you have to draw the line somewhere).

GM Homonoia

Posted - 2011.05.06 16:26:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Florestan Bronstein
Edited by: Florestan Bronstein on 06/05/2011 16:18:11
Originally by: GM Homonoia
Using cans, or any other debris, to decloak ship is not an exploit and a fully allowed and valid tactic. Just as long as the amount of debris is not causing significant lag (use your common sense here). In other words, normal game mechanics.

that will never work.

Looking for loopholes in the game mechanics & rules is a central part of playing EVE and submitting carefully crafted petitions to GMs to cover one's use of borderline-exploitative tactics is part of the game.

People don't want to know whether a tactic could be considered an exploit by a sane & neutral observer or not (they usually know that before writing a petition), they want to know if they can get away with using that tactic and they want a piece of exculpatory GM correspondence that they can point towards once their abuse of game mechanics gets petitioned by hostiles (and of course they will try to play the GM lottery until they get what they want^^).


We will never tell you X amount of cans are allowed and Y amount is not allowed. There is a very simple reason for this; the amount of cans is not the sole factor. In fact, there are so many factors contributing to this that it is not possible to detail all the possible scenarios. If you refuse to use your common sense and insist on skirting the lines so close that you often end up having a GM intervene, then you are taking the risks of possible consequences voluntarily. You are allowed to play the meta game (and lets be honest, the meta game can be quite awesome), but you do so at your own risk.

A special note here: Writing a petition just to see if you can get away with it, even if you know you are wrong, is abuse of the petition system. Do this at your own peril. The petition system is NOT a valid tool to use in the meta game. If a GM finds out that the petition system is specifically used to try and gain an in game advantage over your adversaries we could respond with extreme prejudice.

J Kunjeh
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.06 16:34:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Joe Phoenix
Right you say one thing, yep the next GM/MOD/DEV etc will say something different, maybe instead of posting on this forum you could, i don't know, work on the game a little? Just an idea..


Can someone just do us all a favor and please POD this guy? Thank you.

knobber Jobbler
Holding Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.06 16:43:00 - [29]
 

One day CCP will remember we're customers, not children to scold.

Lady Spank
Amarr
In Praise Of Shadows
Posted - 2011.05.06 16:52:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: knobber Jobbler
One day CCP will remember we're customers, not children to scold.


One day the loudest amongst us will learn not to act like children that need scolding.

Regardless of their faults; I actually like when CCP tell people to HTFU.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only