Welcome to Jester's Trek.
I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.
You can follow along, if you want...

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Ironic self-reference to the QOTW

My favorite quote so far from the newly released CSM Summit Minutes:
Seleene: The question is, how do you [make the minutes more transparent] without literally doing a transcript.
Two step: If it were up to me, I'd hire a court stenographer, and then X out the stuff that's NDA, and then you'd have your minutes.
CCP Xhagen: That would be horrible reading material.
I'm only about 15 pages in, so I'm not sure I agree with CCP Xhagen.  Yet.  ;-)

Anyway, needless to say, I'm reading the thing today between my other responsibilities.

Oh, in other CSM news, there's this goofy little accusation leveled at Hans Jagerblitzen.  Short version: the poster is accusing Hans of exploiting a badly-designed game mechanic that allows you to avoid getting tackled in a low-sec PvP situation by using factional warfare site acceleration gates to break the tackle.  The poster is then attempting to judge Hans guilty of exploiting game mechanics for personal gain in direct violation of CCP Sreegs's request that players not do that.

OK granted, I've made jokes about this before.  Well, Garth has, anyway.

That said, "tempest in a teapot" doesn't even begin to characterize this accusation.  If I had a dollar for every time some FW player exploited some badly-designed, little-understood game mechanic for gain in PvP, I'd be a very rich man.  Hell, I'd venture to say that a good percentage of FW PvP relies solely on one side or the other's ability to manipulate game mechanics for personal gain.  Is it right?  You could argue it either way, but at the end of the day it's not worth getting into a tizzy over except in a joking way.

Most players with a sense of humor cheerfully say "You know, that's bullshit!  But I'm sure the logs show nothing." and then they go on with their lives.  This guy decided to take it seriously.  Fine, that's his right.  But this ain't exactly Watergate, you know?

End of speech, back to reading.


  1. The first 30 pages were mildly amusing, and mentioned The Mittani at least a dozen times (sometimes just as Alex), but at the end of it I had to wonder if that whole section would have been better published on its own as an "out take" rather than taking up something like the first 20% of the document.

  2. "I'd be a very rich man. Hell, I'd venture to say that a good percentage of FW PvP relies solely on one side or the other's ability to manipulate game mechanics for personal gain."

    Citation needed.

    1. It doesn't need a citation if its an opinion. Derp.

    2. I've encountered it myself quite a bit. Here's one example:


    3. It also references another couple of incidents we'd run into prior to that fight, with FW groups using grid lines around FW sites to hide their numbers, and the general goofiness of cyno-jamming around FW sites. Don't think I blogged about those two incidents, though.

  3. I hope you're enjoying the minutes, Jester, and finding the extra detail helpful.

    As for the "exploit", it is my understanding that this is how acceleration gates work, and that the mechanic is as it was designed. It's not even a faction warfare - specific "issue" to my knowledge, as it applies to all acceleration gates (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about any of this).

    Especially in Faction Warfare, where the gates exist as an anti-blobbing measure, there are actually a fair amount of players that appreciate the fact that this mechanic allow a gang of proper size to enter regardless of the size of the blob on the gate. Some would take issue with this simply being filed under "poorly designed".

    Its sad because DurrHurrDurr could have just approached me and initiated a meaningful discussion about whether acceleration gates should work like this, and chose instead to spark a misinformed lynch mob.

    1. When I read it I couldn't help but compare to a gate. If you're close to a gate and press jump... You jump. If you're close to an acceleration gate and press accelerate, you get accelerated.

      So go Hans. I read the minutes and it's my opinion you should've been in reykjavik. Thanks for your hard work!

    2. Indeed I think this is the expected behaviour of acceleration gates.... Ive never done it myself, and have missed kills because of it, but there are ways around it... Just have a tackler jump to the other side and greet the escapist when he lands.. No big deal, move along

  4. Riverini has been deleting my comments over at EVE News 24. I am guessing he is still a bit butt-hurt about how badly he did in the CSM elections.

    1. And you are who?

    2. I'm the guy who understands how acceleration gates work.

  5. The player posting the Hans complaint is DurrHurrDurr, who plays in Fweddit's faction war via the cleverly named DurrDurrDurr alt.

    I mention this only to put context on the original poster's ability to build mountains out of molehills.

  6. If exploiting game mechanics for personal gain were not allowed in any circumstance, then ultimately the only non-eula-breaking gameplay would be getting scammed and ganked.

    You kill a rat in your pve boat, you just exploited a game mechanics. You tackled a tornado in a frig, you just exploited half a dozen game mechanics.

  7. http://i.imgur.com/TChs1.jpg

    The problem is when the logs clearly show something. I'm pretty sure DHD was testing this on SISI earlier. A abaddon with 5 plates could do this, whilst being pointed by a infinipoint HIC.

    Interestingly enough, this only works when the ship leaves warp in the same tick that the ship activates the gate. It sounds a lot like a bug to me much like triple webbing freighters with a vindi, and we all know what happened to THAT pilot, don't we?

    1. Yes. Absolutely nothing happened to that pilot.

      I agree it's an issue. But you bug report it, not try to make a scandal out of it. This one just doesn't strike me as scandal-worthy, that's all.

  8. Gold on page 6:

    "CCP Xhagen agreed, and also noted that running under real names filters out a lot of 'dicks on the


  9. Good lord. On page 44:

    "Seleene commented, at this time in the discussion, that he was still waiting for the ‘money-shot’, what about Technetium, POSes, sovereignty? CCP Soundwave’s reply was that these topics were not on the schedule for the Winter 2012 release, but they would be covered in more detail in the next session about EVE Future, i.e. the release/s beyond Winter 2012."

    This is the best thing in the minutes as it confirms my current plan to take a break from Eve for a while. The upcoming Winter Expansion sounds like it's going to be much ado about nothing. Again.

  10. If this is a repost don't publish it, I just fucked up but anyway

    The reason people are turning it into a scandal is because a lot of people that locked him as he went invulnerable are people who voted for him to improve FW on the CSM. Coupled with what he said in the minutes with regards to amarr and FW, a lot of people aren't happy with him at the moment.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.