Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cipher Jones
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 16:24:00 -
[1]
Ever since hulk-o-failin, a lot of people started reading the TOS. Rule #16 was the issue then. Now with all the recent lag rage, p***lw are mis-interpreting rule #17 for nefarious purposes.
Quote: You may not engage in any activity that increases the difficulty and/or expense of CCP in maintaining the EVE Online client, server, web site or other services for the benefit and enjoyment of all its users.
It is CCP's job to deal with the lag from the product the provide., When you fleet up in fleet warefare, you aren't doing it with the intent to lag out and lose your ship. It is CCP's job to make sure your ship loads and you can play the game.
Unfortunately, CCP has unresolved issues with the code deployed with Dominion that are causing them to fail at this task. There is great controversey over the issue at the moment, and consequently a lot of emotion.
However, mis-interpreting the rules does not help anyone. If you fleet up with the intent to blob, you are not violating anything. Blobbing is a legal, legit tactic. It puts strain on the server, but it pust strain on the server that it was intended to handle.
On the other hand, if you have the intent of lagging the server, you are blatantly violating the rule. If you send someone the smae message 100 times consecutively you are in violation. If you have your 200 man fleet already loaded and you all chat bomb at once its a violation.
No, I couldn't have just said it in another thread. This is clearly a signature. |
Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 16:25:00 -
[2]
Posting in a Cipher Jones "I needed a new thread"-Thread. _____________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
Originally by: CCP Fallout Been there. Done that. Need antibiotics.
|
Cipher Jones
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 16:30:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Blane Xero Posting in a Cipher Jones "I needed a new thread"-Thread.
Yeah but getting in before the lock on troll threads generally accomplishes little. This is clearly a signature. |
Richard Christy
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 16:39:00 -
[4]
I felt compelled to quote your post to find out what word got censored.
|
el caido
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 17:59:00 -
[5]
I came in for a discussion about Super Mario Bros. Left disappointed.
|
langaidin
Hakata Group
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 18:39:00 -
[6]
Posting in a Cipher Jones "I needed a new thread"-Thread. oh and IBFL |
Zeke Mobius
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 18:42:00 -
[7]
Is it me or has this thread been heavily modified/posts deleted?
|
Goodwill City
Amarr The Society of Goodwill
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 18:52:00 -
[8]
You have some nerve callin everyone else a troll
|
Cipher Jones
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 19:18:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Cipher Jones on 02/08/2010 19:19:43
Originally by: Goodwill City You have some nerve callin everyone else a troll
Certainly was only calling trolls trolls, not everyone. People CAN have a grown up discussion.
Quote: Posting in a Cipher Jones "I needed a new thread"-Thread. oh and IBFL
It won't be locked, just pruned of off topic posts. This is clearly a signature. |
Saehta
Sigillum Militum Xpisti R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 19:30:00 -
[10]
I do have some confusion over rule 17 thanks to CCPs response, would it actually be against the game to have a large scale high sec war. "Large scale" being about 100 on 100 which is big for empire. -----------------------------------
|
|
Lord XSiV
Amarr Digital Research - Omega Protocol
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 19:34:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Cipher Jones
Certainly was only calling trolls trolls, not everyone. People CAN have a grown up discussion.
Well that would exclude you from participating....
|
Cipher Jones
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 22:57:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Saehta I do have some confusion over rule 17 thanks to CCPs response, would it actually be against the game to have a large scale high sec war. "Large scale" being about 100 on 100 which is big for empire.
What CCP response confused you?
And why would it be against the rules to have a large hisec war? Or do you mean specifically The Jita area? Because you could have one in the other hisec regions.
You were the only one that even questioned it for the record... This is clearly a signature. |
Hulkageddon Jackpot
Amarr Hulkageddon Orphanage
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 23:25:00 -
[13]
I'm agreeing with cipher now? What is the world coming to?
it's true though, given the current quality of TQ, any form of fleet battle could technically be considered against the rules as written.
Which is a great way for CCP to screw with folks that speak too loudly against them.
i'll stop there before i accidentally godwin the whole thread
|
Doctor Ungabungas
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.08.03 00:09:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Cipher Jones If you have your 200 man fleet already loaded and you all chat bomb at once its a violation.
ITT another pubbie who thinks that chat spam causes lag.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.08.03 00:15:00 -
[15]
Anytime anyone logs on to the server or posts on the forum they technically break rule 17.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Sakura Shiro
|
Posted - 2010.08.03 01:14:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Sakura Shiro on 03/08/2010 01:14:51 What I want to know is....lets just say every 0.0 alliance war decced by privateers for the week decides for a change of pace to come to jita...how is this violation of 17? Privateers do not come out and play in delve, pure blind, stain, tribute...0.0 space in general. So....we have to come to them. Technically its not a 17 violation, jita/trade hubs and narjia are the only places to take them up on their offer of good LEGAL fights.
Would happily pop a privateer in 0.0 ccp...but they don't head out that way. So may jsut have to come to them at some point. And since ccp won't fix neut repping...may just have to take up neut killing to invoke a concord cascade. Again not a 17 violation, basic eve tactics : kill the logis or else you are wasting ammo. Unless ccp can tell me of some other way to prevent the repper repping my legit war target I have missed, then I am all ears ofc.
Now if 2 alliances happen to take this up also happen to be at war with each other in jita as well...again, its LEGAL kills. Just happens they would do it while fighting privateers. So it would be a LEGAL 3-way fight.
And if a muppet happens to fire off a smartbomb in 4-4 undock...that is what concord is there the to correct, amiright? CCP bans bombs in empire, lets smartbombs happen though. Soooo....again their use is LEGAL as well. If CCP doesn't like smartbombs in empire, solution is clear. Get rid of them in empire. Seems quite obvious they don't care about them anywhere else. Smartbomb an ice belt filled with afk/macro's....bet isk you won't get a nasty gram from ccp.
|
Cipher Jones
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.08.03 01:15:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Doctor Ungabungas
Originally by: Cipher Jones If you have your 200 man fleet already loaded and you all chat bomb at once its a violation.
ITT another pubbie who thinks that chat spam causes lag.
You would literally have to be daft to think that 200 people messaging you simultaneously would not be a blatant violation of the rule, which is what I said.
ITT another pubbie who makes inferences for the sake of defaming others instead of applying critical thinking. TL;DR RTFM. This is clearly a signature. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |