CCP: Aggro Extension is a Bug. Just say it.
From my most recent exchange with GMs:
As we have stated in our replies, what you are referring to is not an advertised or supported feature. It may, at our discretion, in the future be declared an exploit. Current available information indicates that this is not as it should be, until we have more information we will not be announcing anything nor taking action against those making use of this.
Our actions have been fully within the boundaries of the EVE Online reimbursement policies which are available to you on our website.
URL: http://www.eve-online.com/pnp/
If you have any further questions or concerns then please do not hesitate to contact us again.
Best regards,
Senior GM Spiral
EVE Online Customer Support Team
CCP Spiral,
So it's a bug. Why all the pussyfooting around? Why state that it's "not an advertised nor supported feature", a statement that is open to interpretation? If it's a bug, call it a damn bug and be done with it. Instead you continually leave us wondering if it's an emergent mechanic that is valid, or something that we really shouldn't be doing. It took a week, thousands of words written on the subject here and elsewhere, and no doubt dozens of petitions that your staff had to deal with, and NOW you give a half-confidence "current information indicates that this is not as it should be". Well, do you know how your game is supposed to work, or not? Do the other GMs?
I strongly suggest a memo to all your GMs informing them that this is a bug and reimbursements are valid for it, because there have been as many different answers to these questions as there have been GMs responding to petitions on it. I know that it only takes a GM 30 seconds to produce a noncommittal answer to an exploit petition, but for us it impacts the core of our gameplay. Next time, hold a damn meeting, decide on a stance, and start responding appropriately. These milquetoast responses from folks that are supposed to be authorities leave a tremendously sour taste in our mouths.
Phew. Sorry you all had to see that.
So if CCP won't say it outright, I will. Aggro extension is a bug, and if taking advantage of it isn't an exploit now, it certainly should be. I'm considering this "resolution" for my purposes, but I'm very unhappy with the way CCP has handled this. Customer service fail, CCP. Maybe the GM training program is taking an 18 month break just like development on your flagship software product?
15 comments
Good job on running this down. It is one thing for bears to complain about how the game works and cry when they lose ships but it is another thing entirely to spend a lot of time using the way the game work, documented or undocumented mechanics to kill a ship only to have all the effort tossed by a GM for a policy that they will not define. I guess until CCP officially calls it an exploit it can still be done for a hollow victory that might get you some decent drops and a kill-mail but I don't really see the point. The whole reason I am attracted to this game is that decisions have long term consequences, even if it is just in the sandbox.
I guess my question is how the hell will they know when to reimburse a MR and when not to? Hell if I am a bear at this point I would petition every aggro loss from here on out.
CCP's lack of commitment might be explained by overall Icelandic business culture:
http://icelandweatherreport.com/2010/08/doing-business-in-iceland-the-insular-and-the-uncommitted.html
http://icelandweatherreport.com/2010/08/more-on-doing-business-with-the-icelanders.html
Wow, those articles were very telling. Great find. (also notice the link to a thread at scrapheap-challenge in the comments of the second article).
Does this mean you will no longer be using this mechanic, yourself?
m
I am interested in why you are so up in arms about CCP making hard and fast rulings. If you feel its a viable tactic... keep using it. if you feel its a bug, stop using it and move on with your life. you all reported it or whatever. time to move on...
They haven't, actually, made a ruling. The GM response translates to "it might be an exploit, but it might not be, and we think something is wrong, but we won't punish anyone using it... for now."
yep, and you didn't comprehend what I wrote correctly. oh well. English comprehension isn't required I guess.
I hope this feature is not removed. Along with the mission nerf, this will make ganking much more difficult. Another decision in favor of mssion runners.
I looked at the re-imbursement section of the link:
Ships may be lost during combat with non-player (NPC) pirates or police forces, player-vs-player (PVP) combat or by self-destruction.
a.Ships lost in NPC combat may be replaced in cases where a bug has been verified through GM investigation as the cause. Such reimbursement would only be done at the discretion of a GM.
b.Ships lost during PVP combat may be replaced only in cases where a bug has been verified as the cause of the loss. Such reimbursement would only be done after an investigation and at the discretion of a GM.
c.Losses caused due to disconnection as a direct result of a server node drop or an unannounced server downtime may be reimbursed pending investigation by, and at the discretion of, a GM. Ships lost due to lag or non-server related disconnection will not be reimbursed.
d.Ships destroyed by use of the "self destruct" feature, whether intentionally or accidentally, cannot be reimbursed.
Only "b." would apply, but the bug would have to directly the cause of the loss, from what I read here, like targeting not working because the range calc is borked or the like. The loss of the ship that has caused all the furor was not directly the cause of a bug, even if the GMs identify it as such. It was indirectly, and only a contributing issue. The GMs are way off here.
Its nice to see the vexer getting vexed.
But too right, they need to give a ruling on this one.
Also I have your tengu loss-mail perpetually open. It makes me smile. Where was your Orca alt this time?
a carebear once told me that salvaging wrecks should trigger aggro....bears play the game to suit themselves. Paul keep doing what your doing dude and extend agro timers to get kills on idiots who are ignorant
Well, even though I don't agree with your methods most (ok pretty much all) of the time, I have to agree with this being an issue. Eve is a sandbox, and it can be a really nasty one too. I use the sandbox to play how I want, you use it how you want. But if there's a problem, it should be fixed. I agree that if I blow up your ship then it's dead and I'd be annoyed if you just cried and got it back. Same for me, you catch me, you get me. That's it.
Well, this is Internet Spaceships... if someone complains and gets a ship back from CCP, what skin is it off your back? Just go try and kill it again... I am not sure why anyone (especially from your side) would even give a crap. You talk about tears, but in this case you are shedding more than the bears.
As I said in your last post, it's likely CCP's version of a "developer fix." Basically, look at it from this perspective.
Shooting someone's wrecks to deny the wreck to them is a valid tactic. It has the unintended effect of extending the aggro timer on that person. So, if you want to deny someone their wrecks, you cannot do so without unintentionally causing aggro extension. So it is impossible to perform this valid gameplay tactic without exploiting a bug. As such, they cannot make this an actionable exploit because it would make a valid gameplay tactic impossible to perform.
So, now that we've established why they can't make it an exploit, let's talk about why they can't come out and call it a bug. If they call it a bug, then anyone using it is exploiting; savvy? Any time a carebear falls victim to it, they'll cry about it in an appeal demanding that the exploiter be banned; but no action can be taken because it's impossible to action for it. On top of that, there'll be much gnashing of teeth and demanding that the bug be fixed.
So, customer support pretty much just pretends the problem doesn't exist, and waits for the developers to fix it, because there isn't dick that CS can do about it. Of course, since it's an internally-verified bug (but not externally confirmed), anyone that loses a ship to it may be eligible to being reimbursed.
Performing some exploring and noticed your website appears somewhat messed up in my K-meleon net browser. But fortunately hardly anyone makes use of it any longer but you may would like to appear into it.