Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Gfy Trextron
Soul Takers
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.20 03:04:00 -
[1] - Quote
While I was not on for this, it has come to my attention one of our corp members has been perma banned. With CCP flip flopping over everything I would like an opinion from the elected CSM members. THIS IS NOT ABOUT CYNO BUMPING.
The simple question is, Is this titan fair game to bump? http://clip2net.com/s/iTZKyX
The nose is clearly out of the pos and doing 0ms.
It was then bumped (by the part out of the shields) out with tornados and killed.
CCP has since returned the titan and permabanned one of our pilots.
If there is a rule about ships out of shields, I would like to see it. If CCP's logs show something (for the first time ever) outside of my understanding of the events, I would like the CSM to be notified of what they show and posted here.
This way we all have a better understanding of what the CCP rules are (for today) on this issue.
Gfy "goofy" Soul Takers CEO
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
2835
|
Posted - 2014.09.20 03:28:00 -
[2] - Quote
bumping stuff which is inside the forcefield is seen as an exploit AFAIR. There should be a GM response to this topic in this forum somewhere (1 year ago or so). eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
itiniti
TunDraGon Cynosural Field Theory.
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.20 09:35:00 -
[3] - Quote
The rules have been notoriously unclear regarding this, with most members believing exposed titans being fair game. I have seen several players requesting CCP to make an additional post to clear the situation out, but I have not seen any official responses. To get permabanned in this manner, under these circumstances, must be an error, and I hope the situation can be resolved happily. The life tree. The death tree. The moon tree. The sun tree. |
Zion Maldor
Soul Takers
11
|
Posted - 2014.09.20 15:29:00 -
[4] - Quote
I believe it is unfortunate that CCP take the approach of Perma-Ban and ask questions after. The format of "you are perma-banned unless you would like to respond to us" seems silly. It's as if every engagement must be fraps'd in case you have to go back and prove you weren't breaking today's rule. Suddenly we are like the police and have to video record everything? Silly. There needs to be a better process.
- Zion |
W0wbagger
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
88
|
Posted - 2014.09.20 17:40:00 -
[5] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:bumping stuff which is inside the forcefield is seen as an exploit AFAIR. There should be a GM response to this topic in this forum somewhere (1 year ago or so).
The part bumped wasn't inside the forcefield and was able to be interacted with, multiple titans have been killed by this method due to going too far out of the shield and being bumped further, this is completely different to what you're referring to where titans were being bumped while fully inside
A perma ban for this and the reimbursement of a titan lost due to the pilots mistake is crazy.
|
Tirelion
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
22
|
Posted - 2014.09.20 19:05:00 -
[6] - Quote
This should, in no way, be seen as an "exploit" bump. It is tragic that, an irresponsible titan pilot, who had obviously left himself vulnerable, should be reimbursed and that a player should be permabanned for what should have been a legal bump using a Tornado. CCP has, at this point, completely removed any element of risk to owning a "POS titan", which is counter to the spirit of the game as we know it. If this kill was not a "legal" kill, then EVERYONE must know that they cannot, EVER, try and touch a titan in a pos in any way that would lead to it's destruction (unless it is an Awox apparently). Even if the Titan (or any ship for that matter) is sticking out of the shields. This along with the new change to cynoing on a tower will make having a titan in lowsec absolutely risk free. That's really just what we need (#sarcasm). |
Marsha Mallow
1535
|
Posted - 2014.09.20 22:22:00 -
[7] - Quote
The playerbase have been roaring over the POS bumping issue as a potential exploit for weeks with no response from CCP.
For some reason you've now decided to address it, badly.
Instead of acknowledging that there was an issue - and that ignoring it was an error - you've chosen to perma-ban someone who was likely acting in good faith based on current mechanics. If you are going to mix this kill in with the other (two?) TitanPosBumped kills when it is clearly not in the same bracket, I'd like to see the list of other people perma-banned.
You don't have to accept eyewitness accounts, or 3rd party vids, but you could engage a shred of common sense and a bit of decency when dealing with these issues. Seriously, this is a grossly unfair punishment directed at the wrong individual(s).
Please stop retrospectively permabanning people for flawed gameplay mechanics which are strenuously reported - then ignored. DON'T BE RIDICULOUS! |
Sly Ship
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.21 00:22:00 -
[8] - Quote
I would love to hear from the developers how anyone would have know that bumping a ship sitting outside of a POS would be considered an exploit. I fully expect CCP to make this right. |
Eldwinn
SomeWhat SophiSticateD Shadow Cartel
14
|
Posted - 2014.09.21 00:23:00 -
[9] - Quote
In regard to this particular thread Nulli seems to have taken this issue and went on a parade with this. It is a bit of an insult that they go out in public and wave around their new titan. The link to their thread . It is of course in Japanese. You will need to translate that of course. |
Eldwinn
SomeWhat SophiSticateD Shadow Cartel
14
|
Posted - 2014.09.21 15:32:00 -
[10] - Quote
Was there any particular response from the CSM or possibly someone with CCP that would be able to assist on this matter or is this a dead thread? |
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
2836
|
Posted - 2014.09.21 19:00:00 -
[11] - Quote
W0wbagger wrote:Bienator II wrote:bumping stuff which is inside the forcefield is seen as an exploit AFAIR. There should be a GM response to this topic in this forum somewhere (1 year ago or so). The part bumped wasn't inside the forcefield and was able to be interacted with, multiple titans have been killed by this method due to going too far out of the shield and being bumped further, this is completely different to what you're referring to where titans were being bumped while fully inside A perma ban for this and the reimbursement of a titan lost due to the pilots mistake is crazy.
it all depends how CCP defines "inside the forcefield". Is it "you can not lock it" = inside? Ship center inside = inside? Everything inside = inside? I don't know.
I only posted what i think was the last official GM response on the topic. eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
Eldwinn
SomeWhat SophiSticateD Shadow Cartel
14
|
Posted - 2014.09.21 22:02:00 -
[12] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:
it all depends how CCP defines "inside the forcefield". Is it "you can not lock it" = inside? Ship center inside = inside? Everything inside = inside? I don't know.
I only posted what i think was the last official GM response on the topic.
The problem is this information flips all the time. One GM will say someone else and another GM will say something against what the other GM just said. |
Koz Katral
Sanctuary of Shadows Honorable Third Party
56
|
Posted - 2014.09.21 22:21:00 -
[13] - Quote
Do the GM's even play this game and understand how it works?
How can one pilot receive a perma ban for what has been regarded as a legitimate tactic for the longest time, when the pilots performing the actual exploit elsewhere walk away unpunished?
Pretty sloppy work from the GM team at the very least. |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
marooned.
8
|
Posted - 2014.09.21 23:33:00 -
[14] - Quote
So, bumping titans which are completely inside the POS shield by means of a mass super jump to a nearby cyno is ok, but bumping one left sticking out of the shield is permabannable offense?? This has to be one of the stupidest things I've heard in a while. |
Foxstar Damaskeenus
Soul Takers
206
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 02:08:00 -
[15] - Quote
It doesn't fit within the spirit of the "sandbox" style of this game for a ship that has several KM sticking out of a force field to be not bumpable. If the player in question had of used some sort of hack or had even been within the forcefield like they said maybe I would feel different.
Also to permanently ban someone that has spent years training a character over a rule that is not well known or known at all is outrageous. |
raging star
Circle Of Chaos
9
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 05:15:00 -
[16] - Quote
Gfy Trextron wrote:While I was not on for this, it has come to my attention one of our corp members has been perma banned. With CCP flip flopping over everything I would like an opinion from the elected CSM members. THIS IS NOT ABOUT CYNO BUMPING. The simple question is, Is this titan fair game to bump? http://clip2net.com/s/iTZKyXThe nose is clearly out of the pos and doing 0ms. It was then bumped (by the part out of the shields) out with tornados and killed. CCP has since returned the titan and permabanned one of our pilots. If there is a rule about ships out of shields, I would like to see it. If CCP's logs show something (for the first time ever) outside of my understanding of the events, I would like the CSM to be notified of what they show and posted here. This way we all have a better understanding of what the CCP rules are (for today) on this issue. Gfy "goofy" Soul Takers CEO After some thought (and sleep), I came up with another possibility leading to another question. Is it possible that the titan could have bounced the high velocity tornado through the pos shields after one of the bumps? How would that be read by the logs? I would then argue that a player/ship with proper permissions caused a player without to enter the POS in a circumstance out of his control. It may seem like I am reaching here but we simply do not understand why this was not a fair bump. UPDATE EDIT: The player was notified that if the ship is not lockable then it is in the POS. Can someone please show me the rule, post, etc. that states this?
If i had being flying around and seen said titan, i would have thought it was fair game. I think ccp got this one wrong and said player should have never being band for his actions. |
Maccian
Soul Takers
14
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 05:17:00 -
[17] - Quote
Quote:Suspension and Ban Policy
1. EXPLOITS
An immediate permanent ban of an account may result if:
a. Investigation shows that a player has employed the use of an exploit tactic despite a public announcement being made to alert players they will be banned for using it. b. A player who has been previously warned for exploiting and continues to exploit, whether using the same exploit or another. c. An account holder guilty of employing GÇ£dupingGÇ¥ exploits. Players found to have received the benefits of this exploit may also face reprimand, from removal of the items in question up to, and including, banning of their accounts. d. A player has engaged in activity that intentionally causes others to lose connection, suffer latency issues (lag) or to crash to desktop (CTD). e. A player renders himself invulnerable through the use of a bug. f. A player has created, distributed or advertised an illegal 3rd party program (i.e. macro or cheat program) that disrupts game mechanics, is considered unfriendly or gives an unfair advantage by misusing game features in a way for which they were not intended.
When and where was the public announcement made that this was an exploit and would result in a ban? |
Hitman 001
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
6
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 09:56:00 -
[18] - Quote
i call this BS. Are the NC. guys baned for using the cyno and titans to bump the titan out? no. so what the actual f... |
Detalist
Soul Takers
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 13:01:00 -
[19] - Quote
I have now had 4 groups of people we shoot at regularly (people with a legit interest in there being one less of us) convo me to say aglon got an unfair deal- fix this CCP. |
Vulfen
Snuff Box
139
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 14:16:00 -
[20] - Quote
CCP have really over reacted on this but because this isnt a big 0.0 aliance Shadow Cartel & Soul takers are unlikely to get any luck.
I'm with them on this the titan sticking out like that is fair game to bump. If you can't safely park your titan in a Large POS then you really shouldn't be flying one in the first place.
CCP need to reinstate the account of Aglon. And provide clearer clarification on the rules. |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4133
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 16:32:00 -
[21] - Quote
Two things I'd like to points out:
CCP has a policy of NOT commenting or sharing GM communications. There are probably details we are unaware of, and won't become aware of.
If a guy was perma banned for simply bumping a titan ship out of the POS, without forewarning and/or a chance to toe the line of CCP's fairly ambiguous precedent, I'd support getting that permabanned removed. It seems pretty severe. However, I really wonder if there is much more to this story than is being made public! |
Kristoffon Ellecon
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
116
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 16:52:00 -
[22] - Quote
It is completely ridiculous that a game that serves as a vehicle to form friendships and into which people pour years of their lives may see a player's existance wiped out without warning and at the whim of a person that is unnaccountable and his interpretation of undisclosed rules despite ample previous accepted practice to the contrary. |
Whirl
Eve Rejects Effort.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 17:06:00 -
[23] - Quote
A really great article written by Evenews24, which includes detailed information and interviews from both sides of this:
http://evenews24.com/2014/09/21/nulli-titan-reimbursed-soul-taker-pilot-banned/
Even the titan pilot himself thinks the perma ban is ridiculous. Also the 130+ comments from the eve community about this issue is a clear sign that the current "exploit" notification that CCP published is seriously flawed, and far too vague and open to anyones interpretation of what "inside the forcefield means".
The sheer amount of confusion and contradictory knowledge posted by members of the community back this, as well as several recent responses from CCP to different groups/individuals that are completely contradictory to each other, all which can be found reading the article and the comments from capusleers.
The titan was re-inbursed, a pilot acted on a "rule" that is completely open to interpretation, a maneuver that has been done dozens of times before to kill super caps, with no consequence, and then gets a PERMA ban on an account he has invested years of time and money into, because CCP doesn't properly clarify rules, and just swings the ban hammer because thats what they want to do that day.
Nulli got the Titan back, now you are going to completely destroy something an individual has built over many years because of vague rule writing and inconsistent responses to the eve community. Seriously? |
Juicescro
Mont Argent
9
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 21:05:00 -
[24] - Quote
Yo, CCP, take de dam ban down mon! |
Surya Kruul
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 22:14:00 -
[25] - Quote
CCP has to revoke the ban or deliver an explanation for this other than 'has not entered force field password'.
To me it looks like in order to bump the titan, entering the force field of the pos was not necessary. I suspect the log 'clearly' shows the titan inside the force field not considering the whole hitbox. If thats the case apologies are in order.
Even if the bump happened inside the force field, permaban is still overkill.
PS: i'm not affiliated to any of the partys involved, other than them propably being red to me. |
Tirelion
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
24
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 23:35:00 -
[26] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Two things I'd like to points out:
CCP has a policy of NOT commenting or sharing GM communications. There are probably details we are unaware of, and won't become aware of.
If a guy was perma banned for simply bumping a titan ship out of the POS, without forewarning and/or a chance to toe the line of CCP's fairly ambiguous precedent, I'd support getting that permabanned removed. It seems pretty severe. However, I really wonder if there is much more to this story than is being made public! Being personally involved in this (I got the final blow on the Titan) and knowing the involved parties, I can tell you that no, there is nothing relevant that you have not been made aware of. This issue has been completely transparent on the Soul Takers/Shadow Cartel side. The GM who banned Aglon is, to put it bluntly, being lazy (not paying attention) at best, or at worst, incompetent. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4134
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 00:03:00 -
[27] - Quote
Tirelion wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Two things I'd like to points out:
CCP has a policy of NOT commenting or sharing GM communications. There are probably details we are unaware of, and won't become aware of.
If a guy was perma banned for simply bumping a titan ship out of the POS, without forewarning and/or a chance to toe the line of CCP's fairly ambiguous precedent, I'd support getting that permabanned removed. It seems pretty severe. However, I really wonder if there is much more to this story than is being made public! Being personally involved in this (I got the final blow on the Titan) and knowing the involved parties, I can tell you that no, there is nothing relevant that you have not been made aware of. This issue has been completely transparent on the Soul Takers/Shadow Cartel side. The GM who banned Aglon is, to put it bluntly, being lazy (not paying attention) at best, or at worst, incompetent.
I hope he can escalate the situation to a more senior GM, and find a more reasonable resolution then. |
Whirl
Eve Rejects Effort.
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 05:05:00 -
[28] - Quote
Another article about this on themittani: http://themittani.com/news/pos-cyno-bumping-now-considered-exploit
Quote:CCP appears to have backpedaled on an initial statement from Senior GM Arcade regarding a POS bumping tactic. At the time, Arcade indicated that the tactic was not considered an exploit, but CCP's attitude seems to have changed since that statement, as evidenced by the apparent reimbursement of the STFU titan lost on September 8 and the recent permaban of a pilot for bumping a Nulli titan.
With some great insight from Innominate:
Quote:The only good answer here is to state categorically that an unlockable ship is considered inside the POS. This new definition of "part of the ship was out therefore it's fair game" is not supported by any other mechanic and only works as a usable definition with the addition of new functions to support verifying the status of the ships inside the POS.
We have a pile of nullsec pilots, lead by a well known personality who began doing this knowing full well that it was in violation of public statements by CCP about POS bowling. They did so anyways, apparently intending to argue on the technicality of the victim not actually being 100% inside the POS, that unlockable was not actually the definition of "inside the pos". After the kill of Mister Vee's titan, the GMs declared that it was not an exploit.
Assuming this is what the banned pilot did(If the ban is false or for something else, then none of this applies obviously), it was done under the environment of CCP saying it's not an exploit and banning him for it is absurd. It's even worse that he faces a ban for bumping during a period when it was publicly considered "not an exploit", while the people who began this in direct contravention of CCPs public statements.
At this point, the whole thing has been so horribly mishandled by CCP that bans for anyone are only going to make things worse. The whole situation has been so poorly handled all the way up the chain that right now nobody(including CCP) seems to know where this whole thing stands. This is one of those moments where CCP needs to unban and compensate and fix their GM department.
Back and forth, no consistency, its fair game, its an exploit!! and a pilot get perma banned because there is no clear definition, and is screwed in the cross-fire.
Reverse the ban, make a statement, and save yourself from this PR disaster |
JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman Southern Federation
282
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 09:48:00 -
[29] - Quote
Surya Kruul wrote:CCP has to revoke the ban or deliver an explanation for this other than 'has not entered force field password'.
To me it looks like in order to bump the titan, entering the force field of the pos was not necessary.
The exploit notification doesn't say anything about entering the force field, or anything of that sort. It says -
"Bumping ships, that are located within password protected starbase force-fields, out of the force-field from outside without having the correct password or corporation/alliance permissions as configured in the tower settings, is considered an exploit. "
It's UNCLEAR when exactly is a ship considered within the force-field and when it's considered outside it. Some think (and thought for years) that once a portion of the ship protrudes from the field - it's fair game to bump it outside. Heck, i'll bet a toe even CCP thought that for some time, and they policed the game accordingly. Others think that a ship is outside the field when it's lockable, and while it's not - it's a no no. That's what CCP seem to think at the moment, and they police the game accordingly.
All this mess could be easily avoided with CLEAR PHRASING OF OFFICIAL STATEMENTS, leaving no room for interpretation.
Either way, Aglon made a scapegoat is ridiculous, given the fact that Travis Musgrat seemed to walk away from his cyno-bump - it only shows the double standards at work, something that doesn't add to experience of doing business with CCP.
So, to sum it up - CLEAN UP THE OFFICIAL EXPLOIT NOTIFICATIONS and un-ban the guy. |
Surya Kruul
Aliastra Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 13:30:00 -
[30] - Quote
JIeoH Mocc wrote: The exploit notification doesn't say anything about entering the force field, or anything of that sort. It says -
"Bumping ships, that are located within password protected starbase force-fields, out of the force-field from outside without having the correct password or corporation/alliance permissions as configured in the tower settings, is considered an exploit. "
Of course you are completely right about that. I was trying to make a point. I am perfectly aware of the mechanics and also of the notifications. But to any player that isn't , the titan is clearly partially exposed. When you don't need to enter the force field in order to bump, how can this be an exploit?
The problem is not the lack of awareness of exploit notifcations, or incomplete understanding of game mechanics. Its the game client, that shows a ship, thats supposed to be inside the force field to be outside.
How can you ban someone for getting misleading information from the client?
Next they release an exploit notification, saying there is a speed limit on high sec undocks and start banning people not slowing down immediatly. well the client doesn't say anything about it, but there has been a notification somewhere on the website... ?
CCP needs to get this right. |
|
Targanoth
Soul Takers
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 15:08:00 -
[31] - Quote
The sandbox of eve is for players to build, explore and create without limits. From time to time players have been know to find and abuse exploits, This was not one of those times. Aglon was faced with a Titan showing a vulnerability and he had the skills required to capitalize on the situation. No exploits were used to gain entry into a force field. No cynoGÇÖs were used to knock the titan out. Please do the correct thing CCP, Unban Aglon. Someone has put years of hard work into the making of that character, Don't wipe it away like it was nothing.
|
Chandaris
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
614
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 15:13:00 -
[32] - Quote
Confirming everything Targ said above.
Do the right thing here CCP. |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
661
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 17:13:00 -
[33] - Quote
and now a word from the other side of this debate.
*camera pans over to the empty seats across the table as a tumbleweed rolls by*
there you have it folks, not even your own elected representatives have stepped up to say anything about this. Something to remember come election day I am sure, unless there is a scandal involving a rubber duck, a bag of strange white powder and your favorite politician. We now take you live to Jita where another scammer has promised double ISK back.. over to our live commentator.. in JITA! |
Eldwinn
SomeWhat SophiSticateD Shadow Cartel
19
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 18:35:00 -
[34] - Quote
Lady Naween wrote:and now a word from the other side of this debate.
*camera pans over to the empty seats across the table as a tumbleweed rolls by*
there you have it folks, not even your own elected representatives have stepped up to say anything about this. Something to remember come election day I am sure, unless there is a scandal involving a rubber duck, a bag of strange white powder and your favorite politician. We now take you live to Jita where another scammer has promised double ISK back.. over to our live commentator.. in JITA!
trolol. Been about 4 days with no CSM or a CCP response. However I am not surprised from CSM. As a majority of the members just represent null sec. Kinda begs the question, what is the point? From this verdict how it stands now POS titans would not have any risk other than axowing or spies. Suppose it is a good time to resub a spy alt and get a proxy again. |
Jazz Caden
Convicts and Savages Shadow Cartel
9
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 20:01:00 -
[35] - Quote
Let's hope CCP do the right thing here. So let's try to get as much support for this thread as possible!
#FreeAlgon |
Anabaric
The Grumpy Bastards The Bastards.
80
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 20:22:00 -
[36] - Quote
This really needs a response from a GM with a definitive answer to the exploit situation. Community Manager www.Battleclinic.com @battleclinic Loadouts + Killboards + Forums Twitter @anabaric_eve www.the-bastards.net Recruitment: OPEN |
Kazruw Drol
Hoover Inc. Pandemic Legion
11
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 20:36:00 -
[37] - Quote
JIeoH Mocc wrote:Surya Kruul wrote:CCP has to revoke the ban or deliver an explanation for this other than 'has not entered force field password'.
To me it looks like in order to bump the titan, entering the force field of the pos was not necessary.
The exploit notification doesn't say anything about entering the force field, or anything of that sort. It says - "Bumping ships, that are located within password protected starbase force-fields, out of the force-field from outside without having the correct password or corporation/alliance permissions as configured in the tower settings, is considered an exploit. " It's UNCLEAR when exactly is a ship considered within the force-field and when it's considered outside it. Some think (and thought for years) that once a portion of the ship protrudes from the field - it's fair game to bump it outside. The exploit notification was clarified: "It is considered an exploit to bump ships that are located within starbase force-fields by any means that bypasses the requirement for a correct password or access permissions, as configured in the starbase tower settings, to achieve the bump. If a password or access permission would not normally be required to achieve the bump, the action is not covered by this notification."
The clarification doesn't leave much room for interpretation: if you bump a part that's sticking out of the force field, you obviously won't need any kind of access permission etc. to achieve the bump and your actions are not covered by the exploit notification. The GMs can still of course ban you for it, because the game is a sandbox - their sandbox. ;) I may or may not be impersonating one of my alts or vice versa. |
Jazz Caden
Convicts and Savages Shadow Cartel
9
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 20:53:00 -
[38] - Quote
Well said Kaz. While we may all be at the mercy of what mood CCP are in on any given day we do have a valid point here. The rules aren't clear AND players like Algon should not be made to take pictures and fraps of their actions preemptively to defend themselves from possible bans. CCP PR department- pay attention to this post and respond. It looks and feels very much like you are trying to sweep this under the rug. Unless you plan to ban entire alliances you should realize by now we are not going to leave this subject alone until we receive a logical response. Respectfully, Jazz. |
Tirelion
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
27
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 20:59:00 -
[39] - Quote
I would just like to point out that it is literally disgusting that this has gone on this long with no official GM/Dev/CSM response to this thread. Certainly none of our current CSM will be getting my vote at this point. |
Saltire
Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 21:35:00 -
[40] - Quote
This has not been handled correctly at all, that rug at your HQ must be getting real bumpy.
This needs a clear CCP response, not the usual under the counter backdoor "kept quiet for security reasons" excuses.
I don't envy the CCP reps at Vegas when Aglon gets there.
Salt |
|
Drakan290
Soul Takers
8
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 21:44:00 -
[41] - Quote
I too find the lack of CSM interest bothersome, even a ''Hey, we see how this sucks''.
Aglon did what anyone else would do. Titan was vulnerable due to pilot error, and he took the opportunity presented. This heavy handed banning is ridiculous, and should be addressed ASAP.
|
Bob TSlob
Happy Endings. Happy Endings
7
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 22:14:00 -
[42] - Quote
The way I see it, we have 2 major problems. I would like to address them separately.
1- The rules regarding this bump are unclear. While CCP has announced that bumping ships inside a pos wiothout a password is bannable, this titan appears outside the pos. If a ship is considered inside a pos when it's model appears outside, then this needs to be clarified and the game mechanics need to be fixed. A perma ban for unenforced, unclear rules is absurd IMHO
2- The enforcement of this rule is very biased the way I see it. This pilot has been perma banned yet in other recent titan pos bumping activities I have not heard of a single punishment. In NCdot's recent kill that seems to meet the same exploit criterea I have not heard of a single pilot being banned. If the rules are to be forced fairly, shouldn't every pilot who exploits be punished the same? If our tornado jockey stays banned but the entire NCdot titan fleet that performed a similar exploit go unbanned, I will see this as BOB mk 1 era favoratism. |
Morrigan Malkavian
Malkavian Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 22:24:00 -
[43] - Quote
just curious is there a certain percentage of the ship that has to stick out of the shields to make it fair gain or can I just have it touch the shields for me to get crying right when it's get shot.
Also am I to understand that only npc ships can freely engage any target anywhere, or can I get the serpentis belt rats banned for harressment?
maybe something silly but it seems to me that if you wish to change a certain behavior it helps to explain what it is you wish to change, not just ban and make a guessing game out of the reason.
|
Amaya Rei
Soul Takers
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 22:38:00 -
[44] - Quote
Morrigan Malkavian wrote:just curious is there a certain percentage of the ship that has to stick out of the shields to make it fair gain or can I just have it touch the shields for me to get crying right when it's get shot.
Also am I to understand that only npc ships can freely engage any target anywhere, or can I get the serpentis belt rats banned for harressment?
maybe something silly but it seems to me that if you wish to change a certain behavior it helps to explain what it is you wish to change, not just ban and make a guessing game out of the reason.
That is what everyone is trying to convey to CCP, their "official" statement is:
"Bumping ships, that are located within password protected starbase force-fields, out of the force-field from outside without having the correct password or corporation/alliance permissions as configured in the tower settings, is considered an exploit."
1) Please define "within" 2) Do parts that hang out, that players CAN interact with as allowed by the game engine count as "within" 3) Is it "within" if its not lockable, and "outside" if it is lockable?
There is no clear definition that a player can use as a reference to know if he is playing in the "sandbox" the way CCP wants them to play.
So in this case, a titan hanging out of the POS shield, which can be interacted with (and doesn't need a password) because on the client side its exposed, and bumpable, somehow falls under this rule? And gets a player perma banned...
what a joke. |
Heavenseed
Penumbra Institute Ineluctable.
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 22:47:00 -
[45] - Quote
I agree with most of posters wrote above. The permanent ban is quite ridiculous and harsh, those reasons behind it is unclear. Also this whole affair is kinda ruining 'sand-box' nature of this game. How can we create content in this game, if some developers or gms ban the actions of a capsuleer with unclear reasons? |
Ariada Valentine
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 23:58:00 -
[46] - Quote
There really needs to be some major clarification on what is an exploit and what is allowed when it comes to bumping at POSs. The lack of consistency on these type of rulings is troubling. |
Centurion Utama
Exiled Kings The Fearless Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 02:31:00 -
[47] - Quote
I don't even know the pilot in question but I do have to agree with pretty much all the previous posters, the way the rules are being used arbitrarily to punish one pilot whereas another group used an obvious exploit yet none of their pilots were banned. I say revoke the permaban of Aglon and there should be a recognized and set decision on what consists of legitimate and illegitimate bumping of ships within the region of a POS. Otherwise arbitrary decisions like this may set a precedent that may lead to a mass exodus of all pilots who are not able to fly a titan because they see that they are treated as second class citizen compared to those who are able to. Those who are able to seem to be viewed as somehow special and granted special powers it seems compared to the rest of us. They are able to light a cyno right next to a post and jump dozens of their ships in knowing that the game will cause some of them to spawn inside the shields before being ping ponged out and thus bowling a ship that is fully inside the shields out and suffering absolutely no punitive punishments whereas a player without a titan used a legal tactic to get a ship to move in a way that he wanted and yet he is permabanned. Fix this CCP and make a clear statement to players and GMs as to what is considered or is not considered an exploit. |
Gfy Trextron
Soul Takers
12
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 02:43:00 -
[48] - Quote
5 days and no word publicly from CCP. Only the original ban and the denial of the first reply to the ban. No word from the CSM. The only info that we have in writing is that he was banned because the ship was not lockable. And not a single piece of published information that supports any exploit revolving around ships being lockable.
I understand that we are a small insignificant corp, but this is completely unreasonable in any sense of the term. Currently inside includes outside and banable offence only applies to small groups "when the logs show nothing". |
Fellsworn
Penumbra Institute Ineluctable.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 04:02:00 -
[49] - Quote
Everything I've read so far regarding POS bumping does not seem to apply to this situation. Were the opportunity to present itself in this way again i think many people including myself even after hearing of this incident would take the same action.
I agree with most of the other posts here that we need some actual clear information how to play your game CCP without getting the proverbial ban-hammer smack to the nuts.
Its got to be bad for business to have conflicting rules that can be loosly interpreted by a GM with the authority to drop the banhammer. In this situation it seems to have been done without much thought, and that is troubling. Please explain.
|
JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman Southern Federation
284
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 06:05:00 -
[50] - Quote
Kazruw Drol wrote:[ The GMs can still of course ban you for it, because the game is a sandbox - their sandbox. ;)
This.
So i suppose it's not the clarification we need, it's the clarification we deserve, meh. |
|
JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman Southern Federation
284
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 10:24:00 -
[51] - Quote
Gfy Trextron wrote:5 days and no word publicly from CCP. Only the original ban and the denial of the first reply to the ban. No word from the CSM. The only info that we have in writing is that he was banned because the ship was not lockable. And not a single piece of published information that supports any exploit revolving around ships being lockable.
I understand that we are a small insignificant corp, but this is completely unreasonable in any sense of the term. Currently inside includes outside and banable offence only applies to small groups "when the logs show nothing".
Did you escalate your ticket to a Senior GM? Do it, if you haven't. |
Talon Draygo
Capsuleer Outfitters Bad Intention
49
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 10:30:00 -
[52] - Quote
CCP you should be ashamed of yourselves. You built this game based on a sandbox and encouraged its players to think outside the box and find unique ways to kill eachother yet everytime we do and someone cries about it, it is now an exploit and you give some half assed excuse as to why you are nerfing or banning something.
This pilot did what any of us would of done if the situation presented itself so you might as well ban all of us because its a stupid, half defined rule and goes against the spirit of the game itself.
Its time you guys remembered its the players that keeps this game going and money in your pockets so maybe you should show them a bit more care. |
Koz Katral
Sanctuary of Shadows Honorable Third Party
58
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 11:53:00 -
[53] - Quote
I would be interested to hear what the CSM has to say on this absurd and inconsistent permanent ban, considering none of them have seen fit to post on the issue so far. |
Hitman 001
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
6
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 14:13:00 -
[54] - Quote
Koz Katral wrote:I would be interested to hear what the CSM has to say on this absurd and inconsistent permanent ban, considering none of them have seen fit to post on the issue so far.
same |
corebloodbrothers
Volition Cult The Volition Cult
643
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 14:56:00 -
[55] - Quote
first off: GM support tickets are considered private. releasing them is bannable, look at BLINK.
personally i can agree that banning someone without a warning is hard for the people involved. Even the titan pilot bumped expressed the hope that the ban woudl be temporarily.
CCP is fixing in the next release bumping by cyno, and removing stuff from a pos withotu having the password, through which ever means. If u look at other incidents then there is a wide variation in interpretabel rules and actions. from banns, to reimbursting titans, to not doing stuff.
i posted it internally th brign it under attention, but CSM wont take a stand nor pick a side or order CCP nor a GM how to operate, especially not in single cases. we like to look at the mechanism itself and improve eve, so dont interpet my post as a, unbann him ffs.
personally i hope ofc the pilot can enjoy eve again,
goodluck all |
Chandaris
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
615
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 15:10:00 -
[56] - Quote
except this was not a case of bumping by cyno. this was a case of smashing a 100mn mwd tornado into a part of the ship fully exposed from the shield, and pointing it / cynoing in dreads well after fully out of the shield.
the tactic has been used many times before.
all tactics used during this operation will continue to work perfectly fine after the changes CCP are implementing in oceanus. |
Eldwinn
SomeWhat SophiSticateD Shadow Cartel
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 15:39:00 -
[57] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote: CCP is fixing in the next release bumping by cyno, and removing stuff from a pos withotu having the password, through which ever means. If u look at other incidents then there is a wide variation in interpretabel rules and actions. from banns, to reimbursting titans, to not doing stuff.
Sounds like you didn't really read the post. Algon was banned for bumping a titan outside of the POS shields. The titan was not lockable and he used a 100MN tornado to do it. The Oceanus fixes do nothing for this. This form of bumping will still exist.
The question was,
The player was notified that if the ship is not lockable then it is in the POS. Can someone please show me the rule, post, etc. that states this?
That may have not be worded extremely well, however it gets the point across. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
821
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 15:45:00 -
[58] - Quote
gj csm |
Talon Draygo
Capsuleer Outfitters Bad Intention
49
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 16:52:00 -
[59] - Quote
Not to mention the whole if its not lockable its in the pos thing is bullshit. If its sticking out of the shields it should be fair game. |
Jazz Caden
Convicts and Savages Shadow Cartel
9
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 18:11:00 -
[60] - Quote
And so the laziness and incompetence continues... All I can say is keep posting and supporting the issue, hopefully if we make enough noise about this CCP will actually take a look at the case and do the right thing.
#FreeAlgon |
|
Targanoth
Soul Takers
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 20:30:00 -
[61] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote: i posted it internally th brign it under attention, but CSM wont take a stand nor pick a side or order CCP nor a GM how to operate, especially not in single cases. we like to look at the mechanism itself and improve eve, so dont interpet my post as a, unbann him ffs.l
I am sure that with the upcoming patch CCP and the CSM's have been more then busy with Oceanus. I hope now that corebloodbrothers has brought it to attention with the CSM we will see a swift response to this topic. |
Detalist
Soul Takers
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 22:23:00 -
[62] - Quote
Hopefully now after: a mittani.com article, an Eve news 24 post with over 160 comments, and 2 Reddit posts with over 100 comments each we are gaining some traction. Please don't write us off with no response CCP- that would be very disappointing for a group that has, on average, invested 4 years into this game. |
Gfy Trextron
Soul Takers
16
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 22:27:00 -
[63] - Quote
Well I would like to thank a CSM for making a reply. At least I know one of them is alive.
As the debaters and politicians of eve debate over all of the debatable things, I would like to point out that my only question was "Is this titan fair to bump". The overwhelming response from the community has been yes. But no word from CCP to clarify.
The reason it was asked in this forum is that most of eve is under the impression the only real purpose of the csm is to voice major player community issues to CCP and help to resolve them. This is all I have asked for. I in no way expect the CSM to be responsible for getting Aglon unbanned.
What I expect from the csm is to:
1) Confirm that Aglon was banned for bumping this Titan out of the POS shields in a manner a large portion of the community considers fair gameplay. 2) Provide the community with clear details of why it was illegal, where it is stated, and when it was posted.
The previous postings that only state "IN a POS" are unacceptable (Since we understand this one to be out of the pos), unless detailed information is included that states what constitutes as "IN" other than the obvious assumption of at least the model being 100% inside.
If I unzip and have 5% of my thing poking through my zipper and grab it, is it in my pants or in my hand? Most people would argue hand or both, not just pants.
The arbitrary ban of Aglon without questioning, proof, or even a stated policy to be broken, only indicates that CCP has no stable policy on customer relations. And I do not feel that any of us are surprised by that.
I would assume that straightening out the clarification on the banable offence would either justify or reverse it. |
Talon Draygo
Capsuleer Outfitters Bad Intention
50
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 22:58:00 -
[64] - Quote
Not to mention assuming that the ban was legit, shouldnt CCP tell the person why with a cut and paste excerpt of the supposed rule be broke?
Perma banning someone is a big deal, take the time and explain to him why. |
Tirelion
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
28
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 00:06:00 -
[65] - Quote
I certainly do appreciate that a CSM member finally saw fit to comment on this. Thank you. What I do not appreciate however is a comment that is blind and un-informed. Clearly the CSM member who did respond has no real understanding of how the Titan was bumped, or what the circumstances were at all. Since he sited a an upcoming change that would in NO WAY have effected this situation were it in effect at the time. C'mon CSM I really do expect more from you, and I think everyone else does as well. We are not asking you to pick sides, we ARE asking you to advocate for the player base who wants a clear resolution to this issue. I think you all should be able to handle that. |
Jazz Caden
Convicts and Savages Shadow Cartel
10
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 00:47:00 -
[66] - Quote
Yet another day passes... #FreeAlgon |
Maccian
Soul Takers
15
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 01:06:00 -
[67] - Quote
Quote:i posted it internally th brign it under attention, but CSM wont take a stand nor pick a side or order CCP nor a GM how to operate, especially not in single cases. we like to look at the mechanism itself and improve eve, so dont interpet my post as a, unbann him ffs.
Thanks for the reply corebloodbrothers and I am glad you can at least admit you personally find the ban excessive, we also much appreciate you raising it internally.
Hopefully you take on the responsibility of representing our interests in this matter and fight our corner as a CSM for the greater good of the players who elected you. |
firefly5000
Dragonfly Of The Cylon Elation
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 01:50:00 -
[68] - Quote
CCP should revoke the ban this is uncalled for and no why to treat your customers as no warning was given first to this players about this before hand |
Fisty McSpankalot
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 01:52:00 -
[69] - Quote
So let me get this straight.
Besides overcoming a huge learning curve, I am supposed to know about a list of rules that are scattered about various forums and dev blogs? That the rules are sometimes not very specific and can be interpreted differently depending on the person who happens to get the ticket. That the accused is asked no questions before being banned from the game. That there is a possibility CCP has no logs of the events? So the ban was based on what evidence? Leading me to surmise that a person can be banned for simply being accused of something? That when asked for a clarification on a rule that can get you banned CCP chooses to completely ignore everyone.
What is CCP afraid of? Obviously something other than basic customer relations.
I am now also unclear of exactly what the purpose of the CSM is? The only one to reply in what seems to be days, was clearly afraid to support anything. But at least had the courage to be seen.
Unless I am completely wrong about what is going on. |
ChessKiller
Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 02:13:00 -
[70] - Quote
So Does it count as inside the shield when half of it is hanging out? does it count as inside if 1/4 of it is hanging out? does that apply if its lockable, or not, there needs to be a definite rule and line stated by CCP so there is no confusion. Based on the screenshot there was a section of a titan hanging OUTSIDE of the shield bubble that players could interact with, and the attempt was made, and was successful. Had the rules been explained by CCP in more detail, for example: if it is lockable or not, players could rely on that to make the decisions on their actions - and this mess could have been avoided. |
|
Jaeseth Trimmack
New Crimson Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 02:21:00 -
[71] - Quote
I wouldn't rule out that the pilot has other appeal-able offenses against him to receive the ban hammer.
Clarification would be appreciated though, from this new pilot perspective. |
Gfy Trextron
Soul Takers
21
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 04:43:00 -
[72] - Quote
Did you escalate your ticket to a Senior GM? Do it, if you haven't.[/quote]
Senior GM said you have our previous response and closed the ticket |
JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman Southern Federation
285
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 06:18:00 -
[73] - Quote
Gfy Trextron wrote:JIeoH Mocc wrote: Did you escalate your ticket to a Senior GM? Do it, if you haven't.
Senior GM said you have our previous response and closed the ticket
=( |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3785
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 07:00:00 -
[74] - Quote
Gfy Trextron wrote:I in no way expect the CSM to be responsible for getting Aglon unbanned.
What I expect from the csm is to:
1) Confirm that Aglon was banned for bumping this Titan out of the POS shields in a manner a large portion of the community considers fair gameplay. 2) Provide the community with clear details of why it was illegal, where it is stated, and when it was posted.
Even if you don't expect the CSM to be responsible for getting your pilot unbanned, you've still got a pretty wildly unrealistic idea of what the CSM can or can't do as far as specific individual support cases go.
Just sayin'.
In any case, while I don't really give a **** about your pilot as an individual case I am a wee bit concerned about what appears (edit for clarity: based on information that's come to me one way or another from other players) to be somewhat inconsistent handling of various titan bumping cases and am doing what I can in that regard. Aglon happens to fall under that particular umbrella, so hey, maybe he'll get lucky, we'll see what happens. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
max meridian
Convicts and Savages Shadow Cartel
6
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 09:10:00 -
[75] - Quote
Gfy Trextron wrote:JIeoH Mocc wrote: Did you escalate your ticket to a Senior GM? Do it, if you haven't.
Senior GM said you have our previous response and closed the ticket
I think it is time to step it up a notch or two, Roll the twitter feeds and the forum posts. #FREEAGLON. What rubbish that the CSM can't do anything about it what the hell were you voted in for. To be the players voice so do something about it. You guys are in constant contact with CCP. This ban is a bloody joke and any sane person know this. Pull your fingers out.
|
orashnic
Penumbra Institute Ineluctable.
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 09:15:00 -
[76] - Quote
On an extremely related note:
If a titan poking out of a shield is not a valid bump target, then SHOULD IT NOT FOLLOW that bridging capsuleers situated outside a POS shield with a titan that is UNLOCKABLE is also on the list of no goes? This should be a bannable offense by association.
I have been bridged in this manner before. Members waiting to be bridged have accidentally bumped the titan. Sadly, this did not result in a killmail, so obviously a ban wouldn't happen. But if a killmail did happen...who would get banned? The accidental bumper, or the people doing the killing? Where precisely is the line? |
Sugar Kyle
Snuff Box
694
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 12:05:00 -
[77] - Quote
max meridian wrote: What rubbish that the CSM can't do anything about it what the hell were you voted in for. To be the players voice so do something about it. You guys are in constant contact with CCP.
The day in and day out contact the CSM has is with the development staff.
That does not mean that nothing has been said, done, or brought up. It is that our normal daily communication pathways do not involve speaking with the GMs about player bannings. This processes does not often have the speed those involved would like to see.
There is also a question of clarity. There is a News Article from June of 2013 about starbase force field ship bumping that states it is an exploit. This information is accessible but buried and these scattered rules and policies about the website and forums need cohesion. A central location of some sort. It is also why I am pointing out the policy but not saying, "Oh well" because that policy is buried under almost a year and a half of information. I do not consider that reasonably accessible.
I will also be at Eve Vegas. Low Sec Lifestyle - A Blog |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3785
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 12:18:00 -
[78] - Quote
max meridian wrote:Gfy Trextron wrote:JIeoH Mocc wrote: Did you escalate your ticket to a Senior GM? Do it, if you haven't.
Senior GM said you have our previous response and closed the ticket I think it is time to step it up a notch or two, Roll the twitter feeds and the forum posts. #FREEAGLON. What rubbish that the CSM can't do anything about it what the hell were you voted in for. To be the players voice so do something about it. You guys are in constant contact with CCP. This ban is a bloody joke and any sane person know this. Pull your fingers out.
mynnna wrote: Even if you don't expect the CSM to be responsible for getting your pilot unbanned, you've still got a pretty wildly unrealistic idea of what the CSM can or can't do as far as specific individual support cases go.
Not empty quoting. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
koral123
Soul Takers
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 12:55:00 -
[79] - Quote
Sugar Kyle wrote:max meridian wrote: What rubbish that the CSM can't do anything about it what the hell were you voted in for. To be the players voice so do something about it. You guys are in constant contact with CCP.
The day in and day out contact the CSM has is with the development staff. That does not mean that nothing has been said, done, or brought up. It is that our normal daily communication pathways do not involve speaking with the GMs about player bannings. This processes does not often have the speed those involved would like to see. There is also a question of clarity. There is a News Article from June of 2013 about starbase force field ship bumping that states it is an exploit. This information is accessible but buried and these scattered rules and policies about the website and forums need cohesion. A central location of some sort. It is also why I am pointing out the policy but not saying, "Oh well" because that policy is buried under almost a year and a half of information. I do not consider that reasonably accessible. I will also be at Eve Vegas.
This article still does not answer the question that we are all asking. What the community is wanting to know is what the definition of "inside a force field". Is it targetable, is it a certain percentage of the ship out, is it totally out of the shield. That is what the community wanting to know and what this thread is about. We all know that the CSM doesn't having anything to do with that ban but we need clarification on what we are aloud to do in the game. We need to not be scared of what we are seeing/doing when we see a ship is exposed and not think back and ask ourselves "are we going to get banned for this". This game is about acting before thinking sometimes. |
Deucaliona
Penumbra Institute Ineluctable.
10
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 13:35:00 -
[80] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Gfy Trextron wrote:I in no way expect the CSM to be responsible for getting Aglon unbanned.
What I expect from the csm is to:
1) Confirm that Aglon was banned for bumping this Titan out of the POS shields in a manner a large portion of the community considers fair gameplay. 2) Provide the community with clear details of why it was illegal, where it is stated, and when it was posted. Even if you don't expect the CSM to be responsible for getting your pilot unbanned, you've still got a pretty wildly unrealistic idea of what the CSM can or can't do as far as specific individual support cases go. Just sayin'. In any case, while I don't really give a **** about your pilot as an individual case I am a wee bit concerned about what appears (edit for clarity: based on information that's come to me one way or another from other players) to be somewhat inconsistent handling of various titan bumping cases and am doing what I can in that regard. Aglon happens to fall under that particular umbrella, so hey, maybe he'll get lucky, we'll see what happens.
What everyone else but the CSM folks here seem to not understand is that this is not limited to one case. This could happen again Today. Or tomorrow. Noone knows definitively knows what the rules are in this scenario. So i think your particular umbrella could be catching some rain on this one.
' The purpose of the CSM is to represent society interests to CCP. This requires active engagement with the player community to master EVE issue awareness, understanding, and evaluation in the context of the greatest good for the greater player base.'
You have 'Access to an internal forum which only the CSM and CCP staff have access to, where discussions regarding various topics can be brought up by either group in a less formal manner than the summits.'
Thanks for fighting for the little people at any rate. Or not giving a **** like you say. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNcM4YjzgHY
|
|
Zion Maldor
Soul Takers
14
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 13:41:00 -
[81] - Quote
"The Council of Stellar Management (CSM) is a player-elected council to represent the views of the players to CCP."
CCP's definition not ours.
The views of the players are being voiced so represent.
CCP has a long history of being consistently inconsistent. This is just one small example of the type of inconsistency that causes the player base to ask that question....why I am paying for this again? This isn't "bitter vet" syndrome but just another example of the CORE player base of Eve going "huh?"
- Zion
|
Talon Draygo
Capsuleer Outfitters Bad Intention
51
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:18:00 -
[82] - Quote
Its ok guys, We have consistently had low numbers logged in to eve for weeks. Let CCP keep screwing us and maybe the game will die and we can all win eve together.
Seriously though, any pvper in this game worth his salt would of bumped that Titan if it had its nose sticking out. Id do it right now if the situation presented itself.
For once in your life CCP, be clear on something. |
Koz Katral
Sanctuary of Shadows Honorable Third Party
59
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:26:00 -
[83] - Quote
Talon Draygo wrote: Seriously though, any pvper in this game worth his salt would of bumped that Titan if it had its nose sticking out. Id do it right now if the situation presented itself. .
Thats ultimately why I feel so strongly about this - any one in this thread would of probably done it too given the opportunity - until now it has been completely acceptable, and we still have no official idea whether it is or not because of GM incompetence and their inability to publish clear guidelines.
Its like changing the speed limit on a road from 40 to 30, and the prosecuting the people who travelled at 40 before the change for speeding - It's just mind boggling stupid. |
Whirl
Eve Rejects Effort.
6
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:36:00 -
[84] - Quote
An interesting post from ONI Industries website (The corp that lost the Titan - which has been reimbursed by CCP)
It's in Japanese but can easily be translated, it's a little broken but even they claim that indeed the nose of the titan was hanging out, after they had finished bridging a fleet. See link below (japanese), or the image for translation...
http://oniindustry.com/archives/4011
Translation: http://i.imgur.com/uAeli2m.jpg
So... They bridged a fleet, "part of the hull had come out" as the provided screenshot by gfy clearly shows, which ONI are confirming in that post, they thought it was safe, the pilot alt tabbed to his main, and only switched back to see when his armour alarm went off...
I wonder what the details of the reimbursement petition were... If he was outside the forcefield as they themselves claim, how does this land under the exploit notification that its illegal to bump ships out of the shields, FROM THE INSIDE. Their own news posting confirms that the ship was exposed.
Obviously, the point of contention here is, no one knows what "inside" means, because CCP's own documentation is completely vague.
And the consequence of this vague rule, has resulted in a reimbursed titan, and a player losing his entire account for something he should NOT be perm banned for... |
Bob TSlob
Happy Endings. Happy Endings
11
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:00:00 -
[85] - Quote
I am glad a number of CSM members have commented here. As you all may not be GMs or have direct contact, you do have a louder voice to speak to the GMs if you see that there is an issue that needs to be dealt with. Hopefully the outcry from so many pilots and possible the support from a number of CSM members will get CCP to re evaluate their actions. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
825
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:25:00 -
[86] - Quote
nobody is even talking about the possibility of the titan guy getting un-reimbursed :( |
Zion Maldor
Soul Takers
14
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:03:00 -
[87] - Quote
My perspective is it is really less about the reimbursement of the titan, and more about player interaction with CCP. One minute they take no action, the next minute it's a Senior GM banning a player for something that was ok a few months ago? A player never knows from one minute to the next which side of the coin you are going to fall on as CCP never makes anything clear.
Flawed game mechanic and the guy gets his titan back? Ok, whatever.
Ban a player because of the flawed mechanic suddenly because today was your day to have a bug up your butt about titan bumping? Ok for some people to do and others not to do? Silly.
We all know we can go out and pick up another character but who knows what you'll do next that was ok yesterday that someone decides isn't ok today and you are back to square one. Silly.
- Zion |
Talon Draygo
Capsuleer Outfitters Bad Intention
53
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:25:00 -
[88] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:nobody is even talking about the possibility of the titan guy getting un-reimbursed :(
CCP wont do that cause it will make them look like ****. But they can unban someone fairly easily. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
826
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:28:00 -
[89] - Quote
Talon Draygo wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:nobody is even talking about the possibility of the titan guy getting un-reimbursed :( CCP wont do that cause it will make them look like ****. But they can unban someone fairly easily.
makes them look less bad than not doing it. |
Jazz Caden
Convicts and Savages Shadow Cartel
10
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:31:00 -
[90] - Quote
It is honestly just unfair treatment being displayed. Simple as that, no questions about it. The CSM probably think whatever they are currently doing is more important than this single pilots issue, but what they don't understand is what we have all been screaming about in here for a while now. This could (and probably will) happen again very soon. And players want to know the details of what will get you banned and what is fair game simple as that. So there are two options for CCP in my opinion: 1. Clarify the rules well enough for even the newest players to understand it. Or... 2. Make a statement to the players explaining why favoritism towards large nullsec groups is continually shown and allows players in those groups to play the game on a separate set of rules than others.
Simple enough I think.
Respectfully, Jazz |
|
Doominator
Eve Rejects Effort.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 09:37:00 -
[91] - Quote
Can someone just answer the question being asked here... Is this titan fair game? And what is CCP's definition of "inside" |
Isadie
suddenly nyx Cap Stable.
8
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 13:34:00 -
[92] - Quote
Doominator wrote:Can someone just answer the question being asked here... Is this titan fair game? And what is CCP's definition of "inside"
if i would seen a titan partialy out of pos shields i would bump it to. so make the rule clear. and unban aglon . |
Chandaris
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
617
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 13:44:00 -
[93] - Quote
How long does this need to drag on for before we get a straight answer from CCP on this matter? |
Anabaric
The Grumpy Bastards The Bastards.
80
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 13:55:00 -
[94] - Quote
Doominator wrote:Can someone just answer the question being asked here... Is this titan fair game? And what is CCP's definition of "inside"
Not empty quoting.
Community Manager www.Battleclinic.com @battleclinic Loadouts + Killboards + Forums Twitter @anabaric_eve www.the-bastards.net Recruitment: OPEN |
Targanoth
Soul Takers
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 14:55:00 -
[95] - Quote
Mistakes are always forgivable, if one has the courage to admit them.
CCP Step up and speak. |
Jazz Caden
Convicts and Savages Shadow Cartel
16
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 17:06:00 -
[96] - Quote
At this point I think "blah blah logical statement, unban Algon" will suffice. CCP- making 5+ year veterans consider unsubbing bc we would rather make decisions based on our mood rather than use common sense or actually put effort into something...
You see if this were a small issue and we were all crying about it in this thread i would understand CCP ignoring it... but come on, this guy was Perma banned... without good reason plus we all want a freaking question answered that could get even more people Perma banned. That is not alot to ask, just give us a clear answer.
#FreeAlgon |
Eldwinn
SomeWhat SophiSticateD Shadow Cartel
23
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 17:10:00 -
[97] - Quote
Still waiting for a reply that actually answers the question. Could we at least get an acknowledgement that you are even paying attention? Something like, "hey". |
Foxstar Damaskeenus
Soul Takers
210
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 19:16:00 -
[98] - Quote
Our player is still unfairly banned at this moment. At least half the people in this thread have played Eve for 5 years and gone to fan fest.
Hundreds or thousands of dollars spent on PLEX an subscriptions and years of dedicated play and CCP bans someone on a whim.
I sense a severe lack of empathy on the part of the game management department. |
Talon Draygo
Capsuleer Outfitters Bad Intention
57
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 19:44:00 -
[99] - Quote
Well we are already averaging 21,000 people online in US prime time as opposed to the usuall 35 to 40,000.
Keep ignoring your player base CCP. Soon you wont have one. |
Drakan290
Soul Takers
9
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 20:42:00 -
[100] - Quote
Absolutely stunning in the lack of communication, even when petitioned about the situation again.
If you're not going to unban Aglon, then you might as well start banning some Titan pilots, and don't flap your gums about ''Risk'' being the mitigating factor. That's almost as ridiculous as the permaban handed out here.
Clarity and even handedness, all we're asking for.
|
|
Talon Draygo
Capsuleer Outfitters Bad Intention
58
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 20:50:00 -
[101] - Quote
If you were in a null sec power bloc and used supers instead of tornados, this wouldnt be an issue. What were you thinking? |
Tirelion
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
30
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 01:45:00 -
[102] - Quote
#freeaglon I'd have bumped it too. So would any of you @ CCP. |
Amaya Rei
Soul Takers
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 06:49:00 -
[103] - Quote
Still Waiting.
Let the view count climb. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
832
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 16:16:00 -
[104] - Quote
council of nullsec more like |
Jazz Caden
Convicts and Savages Shadow Cartel
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 18:36:00 -
[105] - Quote
On an unrelated note... How did you get so many likes Trouser? #FreeAlgon |
Liquid Spacerich
Mont Argent
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 20:30:00 -
[106] - Quote
Last I heard Aglon is still banned and now after 4 or 5 years of playing he is going to unsubscribe his other two accounts.
Do they really hate their players this much. |
Drakan290
Soul Takers
9
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 01:17:00 -
[107] - Quote
Liquid Spacerich wrote:
Do they really hate their players this much.
Unless you are part of a multi-thousand player power bloc, probably. |
Empress Sarum
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 07:45:00 -
[108] - Quote
I spent the last 20 minutes reading this entire thread [and the evenews24 article], and I'm at a loss for words
It's a shame to see that even after a passionate outcry from a community that seems to care alot about their game, that the developer doesn't not even bother to respond to topic which obviously alot of people have vested interest in.
An unfortunate display from CCP's side, a true shame that a wonderful game is tainted by a lack of community relations from the developers side. |
Weston Doshu
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 08:50:00 -
[109] - Quote
If you can't control your titan you should get relieved of it. Next up everyones gonna store en in a small pos because you can't lock it.
Unban the man ccp. You won't lose face anyways, there isnt any left. |
Deucaliona
Penumbra Institute Ineluctable.
10
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 15:00:00 -
[110] - Quote
I'm a little disappointed to come back to this thread and not see a response yet -.- It has been 8 days. I thought there might be a 'working on this issue' or some kind of feedback that maybe this situation is getting a second look. Or a response shutting this down and saying it is not getting another look.
I don't think in any way that the ban is going to deter someone from attempting this again if the situation presented itself because still no one knows what the rules are. Please respond.
Respectfully, Deuc |
|
Tirelion
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
31
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 17:12:00 -
[111] - Quote
This is going to sound like a broken record, but I am not going to stop until something is done. CCP please, it isn't funny, it isn't a joke. You are literally spitting in the face of every lowsec alliance, corp, and pilot and showing us that we are all worthless to you. We are your customers. We pay subscription fees. We need you to actually look at and respond to this in a serious and meaningful manner. According to the policy that you yourself laid out, Aglon should not be banned. It makes me question whether or not I want to continue giving you my money. Thus far you have been detestable, both in your lack of clarification and your lack of response and attention. CCP, you must realize the damage that you are causing here, please, please fix this. |
Jazz Caden
Convicts and Savages Shadow Cartel
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 18:09:00 -
[112] - Quote
Tirelion wrote:This is going to sound like a broken record, but I am not going to stop until something is done. CCP please, it isn't funny, it isn't a joke. You are literally spitting in the face of every lowsec alliance, corp, and pilot and showing us that we are all worthless to you. We are your customers. We pay subscription fees. We need you to actually look at and respond to this in a serious and meaningful manner. According to the policy that you yourself laid out, Aglon should not be banned. It makes me question whether or not I want to continue giving you my money. Thus far you have been detestable, both in your lack of clarification and your lack of response and attention. CCP, you must realize the damage that you are causing here, please, please fix this.
Yep... pretty much this^ |
Demeter Corinth
Basgerin Pirate
7
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:39:00 -
[113] - Quote
CCP,
This decision you made to permaban Aglon is based on flawed logic. What you deem as an exploit is in fact a spatial mechanic that your game allows for. Your coding/programming allows for ships to be 'bumped' which extend past the safety of a POS shield. If a pilot doesn't want to be bumped, all he/she has to do is 'not' exit the POS shield. Pretty straight forward.
Your ban hammer is misplaced and is a terrible precedent to set for the game at large.
I am not a political animal, I don't hang around the forums. This is by choice. So in the two years I have played this game, if I do not know something is an exploit, would you ban me if I did it? If all I did was bump a ship that is bumpable because your coding is flawed? Effectively that's what you have done. You have banned someone for doing something the game allows by its nature. If you don't want people bumping ships outside of a POS shield, then put code into the game that prevents it.
Instead, you made Aglon your programmers' scapegoat. Rather than have your own staff held accountable to fix the real issue, you blame the players for doing what the game allows in its current state.
You have also changed the face of POS warfare with this decision. People will be afraid to bump ships that 'are' lockable, which IS a legal mechanic per your recent statements, because maybe at the instant the bump occurs, the ship is now far enough back inside the shield that it is no longer lockable. Is that ban worthy?
What if enterprising corps put a fleet of capitals on the POS edge, half lockable, half not, but able to pop out on a moment's notice. If you bump the lockable ones, the unlockable ones get bumped too. Is that ban worthy?
Rather than have your players' creativity stymied, fix your frigging code. Then no one (not you, not the players) has to worry about it. And for goodness sake, unban Aglon. He should not be held accountable because of the game's inherent programming flaws. If you want to reimburse the Titan, sure whatevs. But the permaban is unreasonable, not warranted, and masks the real underlying issue.
-D |
Valkin Mordirc
294
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 11:43:00 -
[114] - Quote
No offence to ccp, this reminds me of a joke I heard a while back.
How many Dev's does it take to fix a toaster?
One to say it not broken, one to say it is broken and they will fix it soon, one to work on developing an action plan to fix the toaster. One to yell at the other devs for not getting the action plan together fast enough, one to actually fix the toaster, one to write a release about the fixed toaster, and one to actually release the fixed toaster into the game.
Then all the CCP Devs gather round and wonder how the players managed to make the toaster turn on a light bulb.
Only in this case, one player turning on the light bulb gets permabanned, as the rest tentatively turn the lights on and off.
CCP needs to respond to this, they NEED to unban the player in question. And most of all if this is an Exploit, they need to make an official statement about it, and fix THEIR mistake.
#DeleteTheWeak |
Anabaric
The Grumpy Bastards The Bastards.
81
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 12:17:00 -
[115] - Quote
@CCP, You really need to make an open clarification about this issue.
There is still no official statement about bumping a ship that is partiality outside of the POS shields.
We all accept that deliberately exploiting the server mechanics to get a ship inside of the forcefield is an exploit, either by bridging/jumping a large amount of ships to a cyno lit directly on the target POS's forcefield, or by using an absurdly fast ship to penetrate the POS field prior to the server tick throwing it out.
Everyone agree's that these are exploits and should now deserve warnings/bans.
However that is not the issue on the table, the issue comes from the tactic of bumping a ship which for whatever reason is not entirely inside the POS forcefields. Various situations like this occur on a daily basis, without clear guidance we all risk crossing an invisible line that doesn't seem static from what has been suggested previously in the loose explanations of DEV/GM staff.
If a ship/titan or otherwise is partially out of the shield but unlockable I can still interact with it's hull by hitting it with another ship. If I bump the ship far enough out of the shield so that I can lock, fire, board & steal is that classed as an exploit?
We can't use the "un-interactable" test as it's possible to use (interact) a titan bridge from well outside of a POS field whilst the titan itself is "safe" inside. It is also still clear from other threads (mining bumping) that normal bump tackle/bumping is an acceptable policy elsewhere within the EVE universe, so is it now unacceptable in terms of POS mechanics?
The ban itself isn't the issue now, the issue is clarification of the rules. Can you (CCP) explain the rules so we can learn NOT to break them by using a mechanic that is known to be perfectly acceptable elsewhere within the game.
The rest of us would like to learn from the transgression, rather than get caught out and banned by what is now an extremely gray area. Community Manager www.Battleclinic.com @battleclinic Loadouts + Killboards + Forums Twitter @anabaric_eve www.the-bastards.net Recruitment: OPEN |
Targanoth
Soul Takers
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:31:00 -
[116] - Quote
CCP your lack of action on this post speaks loudly to many players. People have invested many years and dollars into this game myself included. Does each player now need to be worry about set of changing rules? Shall there be a daily post of what is and is not acceptable that day?
This kind of attitude to the smaller low sec community is disconcerting to me. In the grand picture we are just a small part of the picture of eve, not even worth taking some time away from your day to day tasks. It angers me that you will not even acknowledge our voice. We are the little kid throwing a temper tantrum at the mall in your eyes. Just ignore him and he will calm down the parents say.
Why should I continue to invest time and money if the scenario comes up I am going to be guilty until proven innocent.
#Freeaglon
|
Chandaris
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
619
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:56:00 -
[117] - Quote
I'm quickly running out of the patience required to keep pouring money into a game where I may be arbitrarily banned for undefined reasons.
This is impacting our alliances playstyle, and forcing us to second guess any engagements that occur in or around the edge of a POS shield, which is a sizeable part of our content.
The lowsec community is requesting a response from CCP on this thread and it's subject matter. This issue needs to be fully clarified.
#freeaglon |
Arth Lawing
Penumbra Institute Ineluctable.
14
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:19:00 -
[118] - Quote
Ships that come out of stations are unlockable and yet bumpable, as are ships that land just outside of docking range and have their warp-in immunity before they move. Titans are big ships, if someone stupid leaves a large amount of it outside a shield then its very bumpable, lockable or not. This ban and reimbursement is a massive steaming pile and both should be reversed. From the past decade lack of any word from CCP usually means they know they did something stupid and are trying to think of a way out of it by doing something else stupid. |
Jazz Caden
Convicts and Savages Shadow Cartel
19
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:59:00 -
[119] - Quote
And so another day passes, as the alliances and coalitions of nullsec continue to play the game without a care. We here in lowsec continue to stand up for each other and wonder if we will be banned for what used to be one of the most enjoyable and fulfilling endeavours a solo lowsec pilot could embark upon.
#FreeAlgon |
Foxstar Damaskeenus
Soul Takers
213
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 00:12:00 -
[120] - Quote
I wonder when/if we will hear anything and if Aglon will get his account back. Unban Aglon! -áhttp://evenews24.com/2014/09/21/nulli-titan-reimbursed-soul-taker-pilot-banned/ |
|
Koz Katral
Sanctuary of Shadows Honorable Third Party
60
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 11:56:00 -
[121] - Quote
It seems to be at this point the official line from CCP is to "Say nothing and hope everyone forgets about this"
Not gonna happen - unban Aglon, clarify your rules and make your inconsistent GM team accountable for their flawed actions. |
Itachi XIII
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 12:31:00 -
[122] - Quote
Demeter Corinth wrote:CCP,
This decision you made to permaban Aglon is based on flawed logic. What you deem as an exploit is in fact a spatial mechanic that your game allows for. Your coding/programming allows for ships to be 'bumped' which extend past the safety of a POS shield. If a pilot doesn't want to be bumped, all he/she has to do is 'not' exit the POS shield. Pretty straight forward.
Your ban hammer is misplaced and is a terrible precedent to set for the game at large.
I am not a political animal, I don't hang around the forums. This is by choice. So in the two years I have played this game, if I do not know something is an exploit, would you ban me if I did it? If all I did was bump a ship that is bumpable because your coding is flawed? Effectively that's what you have done. You have banned someone for doing something the game allows by its nature. If you don't want people bumping ships outside of a POS shield, then put code into the game that prevents it.
Instead, you made Aglon your programmers' scapegoat. Rather than have your own staff held accountable to fix the real issue, you blame the players for doing what the game allows in its current state.
You have also changed the face of POS warfare with this decision. People will be afraid to bump ships that 'are' lockable, which IS a legal mechanic per your recent statements, because maybe at the instant the bump occurs, the ship is now far enough back inside the shield that it is no longer lockable. Is that ban worthy?
What if enterprising corps put a fleet of capitals on the POS edge, half lockable, half not, but able to pop out on a moment's notice. If you bump the lockable ones, the unlockable ones get bumped too. Is that ban worthy?
Rather than have your players' creativity stymied, fix your frigging code. Then no one (not you, not the players) has to worry about it. And for goodness sake, unban Aglon. He should not be held accountable because of the game's inherent programming flaws. If you want to reimburse the Titan, sure whatevs. But the permaban is unreasonable, not warranted, and masks the real underlying issue.
-D
this.
|
Naughty Cargo
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
43
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 13:29:00 -
[123] - Quote
Posted to try and get their attention on twitter. Might do a blog post next time sharing my true feelings. >.>
'And so another day passes, as the alliances and coalitions of nullsec continue to play the game without a care. We here in lowsec continue to stand up for each other and wonder if we will be banned for what used to be one of the most enjoyable and fulfilling endeavours a solo lowsec pilot could embark upon.' -Jazz
'I'm quickly running out of the patience required to keep pouring money into a game where I may be arbitrarily banned for undefined reasons. This is impacting our alliances playstyle, and forcing us to second guess any engagements that occur in or around the edge of a POS shield, which is a sizeable part of our content. The lowsec community is requesting a response from CCP on this thread and it's subject matter. This issue needs to be fully clarified.' -Chand
#freeaglon |
a newbie
Inner Shadow The Big Dirty
46
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 13:31:00 -
[124] - Quote
Pretty easy here, if you cannot lock the ship its IN THE SHEILD. If you were obnoxious enough to bump it out and someone got banned, well, ban earned.
Blowing up on twitter about something because you can't get an EXACT case answer for semantics is a useless and annoying behavior because someone was punished.
If you can't lock it, you're not supposed to. Bumping is allowed for things like LOCKABLE targets, to-from stations, gates, etc. If its inside a pos, enjoy the ban. ...um.. fire? |
Naughty Cargo
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
43
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 13:50:00 -
[125] - Quote
a newbie wrote:Pretty easy here, if you cannot lock the ship its IN THE SHEILD. If you were obnoxious enough to bump it out and someone got banned, well, ban earned.
Blowing up on twitter about something because you can't get an EXACT case answer for semantics is a useless and annoying behavior because someone was punished.
If you can't lock it, you're not supposed to. Bumping is allowed for things like LOCKABLE targets, to-from stations, gates, etc. If its inside a pos, enjoy the ban.
But titan bowling is alright yeah?
Also, there is so much wrong with this comment I can't even bear it.
|
Itachi XIII
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:07:00 -
[126] - Quote
a newbie wrote:. Bumping is allowed for things like LOCKABLE targets, to-from stations, gates, etc. If its inside a pos, enjoy the ban.
did you know you can bump ships on gates stations that are not lockable? and the model of the titan was half way outside pos shields. |
Itachi XIII
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:15:00 -
[127] - Quote
double post |
Eldwinn
SomeWhat SophiSticateD Shadow Cartel
25
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 15:13:00 -
[128] - Quote
Still waiting for a response. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
835
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 16:41:00 -
[129] - Quote
is there actually any way to kill a pos titan now? |
Chandaris
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
621
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 16:47:00 -
[130] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:is there actually any way to kill a pos titan now?
Assuming 'lockable/not lockable' is the transitioning condition, which is the clarification we are requesting
- get the password, bump him out, or have a spy do it - wait for him to screw up and poke out the shields enough to lock him, then bump him out - kill the pos and hope it's not stronted - RF/kill the pos and the storage array housing the titan - RF/kill the pos with the titan logged out, and setup a HIC login trap for it
would be the only options I can envision. |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
835
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 16:51:00 -
[131] - Quote
Chandaris wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:is there actually any way to kill a pos titan now? Assuming 'lockable/not lockable' is the transitioning condition, which is the clarification we are requesting - get the password, bump him out, or have a spy do it - wait for him to screw up and poke out the shields enough to lock him, then bump him out - kill the pos and hope it's not stronted - RF/kill the pos and the storage array housing the titan - RF/kill the pos with the titan logged out, and setup a HIC login trap for it would be the only options I can envision.
so basically no |
Zion Maldor
Soul Takers
22
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 17:42:00 -
[132] - Quote
Apparently some people are allowed to bump them out. We won't really know because no one seems to want to address the question.
- Zion |
Naughty Cargo
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
43
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 17:46:00 -
[133] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Chandaris wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:is there actually any way to kill a pos titan now? Assuming 'lockable/not lockable' is the transitioning condition, which is the clarification we are requesting - get the password, bump him out, or have a spy do it - wait for him to screw up and poke out the shields enough to lock him, then bump him out - kill the pos and hope it's not stronted - RF/kill the pos and the storage array housing the titan - RF/kill the pos with the titan logged out, and setup a HIC login trap for it would be the only options I can envision. so basically no
Unless you're part of a null blob. Then all bets are off. |
Anabaric
The Grumpy Bastards The Bastards.
82
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 18:13:00 -
[134] - Quote
I think you're pretty safe to bump it out as long as the pilot doesn't petition.
Downside I think it is now standard practice to petition all Titan losses, just in case some random GM got laid the previous night. Community Manager www.Battleclinic.com @battleclinic Loadouts + Killboards + Forums Twitter @anabaric_eve www.the-bastards.net Recruitment: OPEN |
Jazz Caden
Convicts and Savages Shadow Cartel
23
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 20:25:00 -
[135] - Quote
Now let's not go living in a fantasy world Anabaric lol. But on a serious note, CCP is really taking too long to respond to this. So many good points and genuine concern from players with not even so much as a "hey guys were looking into it". Sad times...
#FreeAlgon |
Sgt LoveDragon
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
47
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 22:43:00 -
[136] - Quote
Jazz Caden wrote:Now let's not go living in a fantasy world Anabaric lol. But on a serious note, CCP is really taking too long to respond to this. So many good points and genuine concern from players with not even so much as a "hey guys were looking into it". Sad times...
#FreeAlgon
Perhaps it is because of the new cloaking effect from Oceanus preventing CCP from seeing it. |
Tirelion
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
37
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 01:38:00 -
[137] - Quote
a newbie wrote:Pretty easy here, if you cannot lock the ship its IN THE SHEILD. If you were obnoxious enough to bump it out and someone got banned, well, ban earned.
Blowing up on twitter about something because you can't get an EXACT case answer for semantics is a useless and annoying behavior because someone was punished.
If you can't lock it, you're not supposed to. Bumping is allowed for things like LOCKABLE targets, to-from stations, gates, etc. If its inside a pos, enjoy the ban.
Would you like to go ahead and show me where in the policy that an unlockable ship is considered to be "in" the shields, or how in any way that was clarified? Want to field this one for me? Because right now you sound like an uneducated imbecile. There a many situations where a ship may be "unlockable", perhaps a jammer on the tower has you jammed, how would you know? Don't go pontificating on a topic you obviously know nothing about just to make your pedantic little self sound smarter than you actually are.
#freeaglon |
Mr Spaxi
The Bastards The Bastards.
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 10:07:00 -
[138] - Quote
It's nice to see there's cohesion and serenity between CCP members and a very developed communication bridge between players and the GMs. I'm glad that the money I'm paying monthly is going for a good cause.
/sarcasm_off
Anabaric wrote: Downside I think it is now standard practice to petition all Titan losses, just in case some random GM got laid the previous night.
This. |
Jeven HouseBenyo
Paper Brigade Resonance.
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 11:40:00 -
[139] - Quote
Okay, now I have to ask a few questions at this point.
Where is the gigantic list of exploits that are not acceptable, in one location? I'll take the time to read them as soon as I can find this list. Link please. Also the "polite agreements outside official rules" list and location.
What does count as inside/outside bubble due to bad parking job and therefore bumpable in situations like these? Some clarification please.
I don't know any of the pilots involved on either side, but I find it vaguely disturbing the lack of across the board GM communication and enforcement on specific decisions, how what's acceptable in one Region is a complete No-Go in another, etc.
Is there a "House Rules" book from one place to another I need to get ahold of so I don't get in trouble while learning Eve and not wanting to bail as a Rookie? What are the variations of rules and their enforcement from highsec, lowsec, and nullsec? Are there differences? If so, please clearly explain as I don't understand that. Part of that whole sauce for the goose upbringing I had beat into my skull growing up.
If I don't know the sandbox arbitrary rules here and there, I'm going to run into something that'll get me banned and I won't know it until it's too late.
The perma-ban, in my opinion, at this point either needs to be lifted of some reasons for it remaining passed to the player base. The "it's an internal affair" simply isn't going to fly on this one, considering no clarification on the bumping in this Titan's situation has been released as WHY this is exploit when it does appear it's occurred elsewhere and there was NOT a perma-ban handed out for those instances.
Even the bestest peeps have Kender moments. This is sounding like one, and the continuing silence reeks of, if we ignore it long enough, it'll go away.
Thank you for your time this morning.
>Jeven |
Gfy Trextron
Soul Takers
27
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 14:17:00 -
[140] - Quote
Aglon has received a reply and was reduced to a 30 day ban. (Still Horse ****)
His letter states
"POS Bowling' is not a single exploit but an umbrella term covering a variety of different methods which achieve the same goal: bumping a ship out of the confines of a starbase forcefield. Utilization of any of these variants is considered a very serious breach of the EULA/ToS."
They further state stuff about not being clear on circumstances, so giving him the benefit of the doubt, yada yada.
So, is this the latest rule? NO ship bumping unless lockable first? Still no clear post or word from CCP to the community.
I will write off the lack of banning of the 0.0 guys as typical CCP favoritism.
Gfy (Goofy)
P.S. Thanks for all of the support and effort put into this by so many people. |
|
Itachi XIII
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 14:33:00 -
[141] - Quote
i would still love to see what GM mails got the NC. titan pilots.. :P |
Chandaris
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
621
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 16:36:00 -
[142] - Quote
Good news that the ban is no longer permanent. Still heavy handed I feel but we'll take it I guess.
the bumping/pos bowling exploit notification still requires clarification, or other groups will attempt to this down the road and this drama will repeat itself.
A central location listing all bannable exploits was a suggestion someone made earlier in the thread, and is an excellent idea. |
Fellsworn
Penumbra Institute Ineluctable.
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 16:46:00 -
[143] - Quote
Glad to hear Aglon will have the option to come back if he still wants to.
I'm not sure if anyone has gained any knowledge on the issue though. I actually have a few more questions now that Aglon's sentence has been reduced and what that may mean.
|
Eldwinn
SomeWhat SophiSticateD Shadow Cartel
25
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 17:28:00 -
[144] - Quote
Snip, double posted. |
Eldwinn
SomeWhat SophiSticateD Shadow Cartel
25
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 17:35:00 -
[145] - Quote
Fellsworn wrote:Glad to hear Aglon will have the option to come back if he still wants to.
I'm not sure if anyone has gained any knowledge on the issue though. I actually have a few more questions now that Aglon's sentence has been reduced and what that may mean.
Unfortunately no. The question was never answered. The point of the thread was to clarify upon the vague documentation about bumping a ship that is inside of a POS. I am glad to see that Algon had his ban reduced. Then again though I feel like the point of the thread was overlooked.
For any CCP members or GM members lurking in the thread or maybe monitoring the thread the question was,
"The player was notified that if the ship is not lockable then it is in the POS. Can someone please show me the rule, post, etc. that states this?" |
Gfy Trextron
Soul Takers
27
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 18:03:00 -
[146] - Quote
Eldwinn wrote:Fellsworn wrote:Glad to hear Aglon will have the option to come back if he still wants to.
I'm not sure if anyone has gained any knowledge on the issue though. I actually have a few more questions now that Aglon's sentence has been reduced and what that may mean.
Unfortunately no. The question was never answered. The point of the thread was to clarify upon the vague documentation about bumping a ship that is inside of a POS. I am glad to see that Algon had his ban reduced. Then again though I feel like the point of the thread was overlooked. For any CCP members or GM members lurking in the thread or maybe monitoring the thread the question was, "The player was notified that if the ship is not lockable then it is in the POS. Can someone please show me the rule, post, etc. that states this?"
I agree. Having seen the mail sent to Aglon, I can say the latest official response "to one player" is that unless it is lockable, it is banable.
Now if they would just post that someplace for everyone the rule would be clear. Completely stupid but clear. Nice to know I can now bridge people with 40% of a titan sticking out of the POS and be safe. Make sense right? FFS
|
Jazz Caden
Convicts and Savages Shadow Cartel
25
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 18:14:00 -
[147] - Quote
Just wait until someone gets bumped out and killed and is not reimbursed and the bumper doesn't get banned. I give this about 3 or 4 weeks before it happens, anyways glad he is not Perma banned. Now we can finally shift our efforts over to the real issue of getting CCP to change this completely unrealistic and idiotic rule. "Lockable" may seem like a good way to define in or out for a newbie, but we all know just how many situations can prevent you from locking a ship. This is especially true when dealing around POS' s. So CCP... you gonna use some logic today or just continue making ship skins for the lol's? Only time will tell I suppose... |
Tear Jar
Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch
127
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 18:47:00 -
[148] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:The playerbase have been roaring over the POS bumping issue as a potential exploit for weeks with no response from CCP.
For some reason you've now decided to address it, badly.
Instead of acknowledging that there was an issue - and that ignoring it was an error - you've chosen to perma-ban someone who was likely acting in good faith based on current mechanics. If you are going to mix this kill in with the other (two?) TitanPosBumped kills when it is clearly not in the same bracket, I'd like to see the list of other people perma-banned.
You don't have to accept eyewitness accounts, or 3rd party vids, but you could engage a shred of common sense and a bit of decency when dealing with these issues. Seriously, this is a grossly unfair punishment directed at the wrong individual(s).
Please stop retrospectively permabanning people for flawed gameplay mechanics which are strenuously reported - then ignored.
I know CCP doesn't want to draw clear line for fear of people exploiting that, but it would be nice if they at least told us things that are bannable.
And preferably issue temp bans and warnings when someone enters the grey area. I don't understand why CCP permabans players when the rules aren't clear. |
Drakan290
Soul Takers
10
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 23:27:00 -
[149] - Quote
Well, that's better than expected....CCP, please surprise me and clarify the ruling in a way that makes legitimate sense. |
Maccian
Soul Takers
17
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 00:25:00 -
[150] - Quote
Thank ****. I was loosing faith in CCP for a moment due to the utter madness in perma-banning a player who has been playing and contributing to the game for so long out of the blue like that.
We still desperately need clarification on the "exploit" at hand though.
Thanks to all who expressed their concern at Aglon's ban and spoke up about it! |
|
|
GM Lelouch
Game Masters C C P Alliance
102
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 10:16:00 -
[151] - Quote
Hello. I apologize for the long wait. I've read every post in this thread and I'm going to comment on some of the major concerns raised.
I can not make any comment on the outcome of individual reimbursement tickets or specific account suspensions, this is a matter of policy and I'm sorry that some of your questions might go unanswered.
POS bowling First off, here is the clarification you've all requested:
If a ship can be locked and fired upon, it can be legitimately bumped. If a ship cannot be locked due to it's position within a forcefield, it should be protected by said forcefield. Such a ship can only be legitimately bumped out of the forcefield with proper access rights to enter the forcefield.
Cyno bumping was also considered an exploit until it was fixed with the Oceanus release.
Public exploit notifications I acknowledge that there's been a lack of clarity concerning the exploit status of this particular nuance of POS bowling. This was our failure, we haven't done a good job communicating about this exploit and I humbly apologize for this mistake on our part. We will make an effort to react more quickly to requests for clarification of this sort in the future.
We will also take steps to improve visibility of public exploit announcements that are still in effect, it is a very reasonable complaint that exploit announcements are currently only found buried under months or even years of news items. Moving forward, we will per suggestions in this thread and from the CSM maintain an archive of some sort of publicly announced exploits still in effect.
Do keep in mind however that this will not be a comprehensive list of prohibited activity within the game. Such a list is not realistic as exploits are often not known to us until they're abused.
The drone damage exploit from this summer is a good example of this. The bug enabling this exploit had potentially existed for a long time before it became known to us. It should however have been very clear to anyone abusing that exploit that they were utilizing a game bug to increase the damage output of their drones beyond what was intended by the game.
Some exploits are also discovered and fixed before they see widespread abuse. In such cases we deem it best not to publicly announce the existence of the exploit since it could very well backfire and result in widespread abuse before the bug is addressed.
In short: Lack of an official CCP announcement regarding is not a free license to abuse game bugs without repercussions. Abuse of an bug/exploit is not okay just because we haven't yet publicly stated that abuse of this particular exploit won't be tolerated.
If in doubt, file a support ticket and ask if what you're doing/intending to do is prohibited or not, we do not punish players who stumble on an exploit and report it to us in good faith.
I want to clearly state that the variant of POS bowling this thread covers is a special case. Clarification was absolutely necessary and we fully admit our mistake in this regard. It wasn't clear to you, our players, that this was an exploit and it is therefore a different case than, to make a hypothetical example, an item duping exploit which hasn't been publicly announced.
Exploits and account suspensions We take exploit abuse extremely seriously, especially when the exploit in question has been publicly designated as such. Action is taken when a player is verified to have exploited a game bug to his/her advantage. The severity of the exploit and the player's warning/ban history are both factors in determining which action is taken.
Account suspensions are not a luck of the draw as some have suggested. All GMs operate under the same processes and procedures and we do not make any distinction based on a player's corporation/alliance affiliation. The same ruleset applies to all EVE players.
We will not suspend a player's account based on player testimony, Youtube videos or player-submitted screenshots alone. A decision to suspend a player's account must always be backed up by information in our server-side logs, we do not arbitrarily ban players. That is not to say that we never make mistakes, we are after all human. There are however strict internal guidelines regarding account suspension and we don't ban players for exploit abuse without evidence. Best regards, Lead GM Lelouch CCP Customer Support | EVE Online | DUST 514 |
|
Mag's
the united
17888
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 10:41:00 -
[152] - Quote
All the players require quite often, is clarity. It's nice to see you put your hands up to failings in this instance and it seems a wrong from those failings has been rectified.
Nice post GM Lelouch.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Itachi XIII
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
5
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 11:05:00 -
[153] - Quote
GM Lelouch wrote:Account suspensions are not a luck of the draw as some have suggested. All GMs operate under the same processes and procedures and we do not make any distinction based on a player's corporation/alliance affiliation. The same ruleset applies to all EVE players.
if so whay warent the NC. titan pilots baned? im not talking about a perma ban.
|
Alyssa Severasse
C.Q.B Bohica Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 12:04:00 -
[154] - Quote
GM Lelouch wrote: POS bowling First off, here is the clarification you've all requested:
If a ship can be locked and fired upon, it can be legitimately bumped. If a ship cannot be locked due to it's position within a forcefield, it should be protected by said forcefield. Such a ship can only be legitimately bumped out of the forcefield with proper access rights to enter the forcefield.
Cyno bumping was also considered an exploit until it was fixed with the Oceanus release.
Then please make it so that said ship is lockable if it's partly sticking out of the forcefield. Having looked at the image of the original titan and bubble I'd have gone for the bump as well (and would happily have whored on the resultant km if I'd been online).
I get cyno bumping is an exploit as clearly you can bump something out which is inside the forcefield completely. I get awoxing the pos password and/or corp is legit.
But if your titan is sticking out of the POS and isn't lockable then that is a game play / visual issue, not an exploit issue. Eve is hard enough to play without having to worry about exploits, especially when you feel you *are* playing within the rules. Should we take a screen shot and ask which titans we are allowed to bump out of the POS? How much needs to be sticking out before it becomes lockable?
I know, for instance, that if you are repping a POS with a carrier and you are aligned along the shield line horizontally you are lockable (and therefore a legitimate bump target), however the second you turn into the POS your carrier is not lockable (as the targetable zone is a cuboid, and turns into the POS shield). Your ship *does not need to move* for this effect to happen, it just needs to turn! Is this not abusing the same game exploit but from the opposite way?
Then what happens if someone is powering towards you in their Machariel as you turn into the POS shield? They lose target lock in the last 2 seconds before they hit you, hey presto instant banhammer! Especially if that bump *does* put the carrier out of the shield. Technically the Mach pilot has done nothing wrong here,but they have used an 'exploit' just as much as you have by turning into the POS shield.
Yes, I know this is edge case scenario, but FFS make POS shields and bumping work sensibly.
IMHO it should be quite simple - ship model inside shields, ship safe. Ship model partly outside shields, ship targetable, bumpable and shootable. It should not be that hard to make that code work(!) If it is that hard give me a call and I'll write it for you...
This case specifically
As to the outcome - I get you can't comment as a GM but it seems every player that has looked at this has the same opinion - and when your entire player base (including plenty of Shadow Cartel's reds I hasten to add) is on one side and one GM is on the other then perhaps that GM is wrong? Reduction to a timed ban is progress, but really the ban should be revoked totally.
Fundamentally the underlying question is was this person trying to abuse an exploit? |
Chandaris
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
627
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 14:07:00 -
[155] - Quote
Thankyou for the clarification and follow up GM Lelouch. |
Eldwinn
SomeWhat SophiSticateD Shadow Cartel
25
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 14:36:00 -
[156] - Quote
Indeed thank you for the clarification. It is not exactly the answer I assume all of us were wanting however an answer never less. |
Hoshiko Rei
Soul Takers
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 15:16:00 -
[157] - Quote
Thanks for the clarification CCP Lelouch, and thanks for looking into the situation about the ban and remedying it!
Cheers, |
Anabaric
The Grumpy Bastards The Bastards.
86
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 15:53:00 -
[158] - Quote
Thank you for the clarification, see that wasn't hard was it.
*put's pliers away*
Now that it's confirm unacceptable (exploiting) to interact with a titan from OUTSIDE of the POS field, when the titan is unlockable (thus effectively making all POS/bridge titans unkillable). I think you also look into the other potential exploit / unfair game mechanic which allows titans to interact with ships OUTSIDE of the POS field whilst themselves being protected by the same.
IE: Bridging through the shield.
Thanks Community Manager www.Battleclinic.com @battleclinic Loadouts + Killboards + Forums Twitter @anabaric_eve www.the-bastards.net Recruitment: OPEN |
Arch Stanton's Neighbour
Forceful Resource Acquisition Inc
81
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 17:05:00 -
[159] - Quote
Itachi XIII wrote:if so whay warent the NC. titan pilots baned? im not talking about a perma ban.
I believe the word you're looking for is suspended, as banning implies something permanent. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
843
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 18:15:00 -
[160] - Quote
so how is one supposed to kill a pos titan? there's no actual way to do it, is there.
seems like a bug to me. |
|
Eldwinn
SomeWhat SophiSticateD Shadow Cartel
25
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 18:18:00 -
[161] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:so how is one supposed to kill a pos titan? there's no actual way to do it, is there.
seems like a bug to me.
You don't. I did not agree with the GM's response. |
Eldwinn
SomeWhat SophiSticateD Shadow Cartel
167
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 18:18:46 -
[162] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:so how is one supposed to kill a pos titan? there's no actual way to do it, is there.
seems like a bug to me.
You don't. I did not agree with the GM's response. |
Tear Jar
Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch
134
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 18:55:00 -
[163] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:so how is one supposed to kill a pos titan? there's no actual way to do it, is there.
seems like a bug to me.
Kill the pos. |
Tear Jar
Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch
198
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 18:55:37 -
[164] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:so how is one supposed to kill a pos titan? there's no actual way to do it, is there.
seems like a bug to me.
Kill the pos. |
Eldwinn
SomeWhat SophiSticateD Shadow Cartel
25
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 19:00:00 -
[165] - Quote
Tear Jar wrote: Kill the pos.
We live in low sec. **** caging does not exist. |
Eldwinn
SomeWhat SophiSticateD Shadow Cartel
167
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 19:00:39 -
[166] - Quote
Tear Jar wrote: Kill the pos.
We live in low sec. **** caging does not exist. |
Arth Lawing
Penumbra Institute Ineluctable.
15
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 20:43:00 -
[167] - Quote
So if the ban has been overturned as a mistake is it safe to assume the reimbursement has been taken away/reduced to the same amount? |
Arth Lawing
Penumbra Institute
17
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 20:43:32 -
[168] - Quote
So if the ban has been overturned as a mistake is it safe to assume the reimbursement has been taken away/reduced to the same amount? |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6298
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 21:54:00 -
[169] - Quote
GM Lelouch wrote:We will not suspend a player's account based on player testimony, Youtube videos or player-submitted screenshots alone. A decision to suspend a player's account must always be backed up by information in our server-side logs, we do not arbitrarily ban players.
Huh, that is really interesting.... I put it to you that your colleague Senior GM Karidor does not share this ethic. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6433
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 21:54:14 -
[170] - Quote
GM Lelouch wrote:We will not suspend a player's account based on player testimony, Youtube videos or player-submitted screenshots alone. A decision to suspend a player's account must always be backed up by information in our server-side logs, we do not arbitrarily ban players.
Huh, that is really interesting.... I put it to you that your colleague Senior GM Karidor does not share this ethic.
This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
|
Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
167
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 21:58:00 -
[171] - Quote
GM Lelouch wrote:We will not suspend a player's account based on player testimony, Youtube videos or player-submitted screenshots alone. A decision to suspend a player's account must always be backed up by information in our server-side logs I assume this only applies to bans for exploiting? Otherwise, how does this mesh with your policy on out-of-game harassment, which by its nature has to rely on player-submitted evidence? Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |
Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
167
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 21:58:41 -
[172] - Quote
GM Lelouch wrote:We will not suspend a player's account based on player testimony, Youtube videos or player-submitted screenshots alone. A decision to suspend a player's account must always be backed up by information in our server-side logs I assume this only applies to bans for exploiting? Otherwise, how does this mesh with your policy on out-of-game harassment, which by its nature has to rely on player-submitted evidence?
Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm.
|
Gfy Trextron
Soul Takers
31
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 05:06:00 -
[173] - Quote
Thank you for the reply.
That answers all of my questions asked.
I personally appreciate the public apology for the circumstances, our corp member is happy to be playing again.
Gfy
|
Gfy Trextron
Soul Takers
31
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 05:06:45 -
[174] - Quote
Thank you for the reply.
That answers all of my questions asked.
I personally appreciate the public apology for the circumstances, our corp member is happy to be playing again.
Gfy
|
Naughty Cargo
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
45
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 16:05:00 -
[175] - Quote
Thanks for the reply :) Makes me feel a lot better. And yay for Aglon!
Might have made some people annoyed, but seems clear enough.
Cheers. |
Naughty Cargo
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
45
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 16:05:45 -
[176] - Quote
Thanks for the reply :) Makes me feel a lot better. And yay for Aglon!
Might have made some people annoyed, but seems clear enough.
Cheers. |
Maccian
Soul Takers
18
|
Posted - 2014.10.04 00:50:00 -
[177] - Quote
Gfy Trextron wrote:Thank you for the reply.
I personally appreciate the public apology for the circumstances, our corp member is happy to be playing again.
+1 What Gfy Said.
Good job.
Back to flying spaceships
|
Maccian
Soul Takers
20
|
Posted - 2014.10.04 00:50:43 -
[178] - Quote
Gfy Trextron wrote:Thank you for the reply.
I personally appreciate the public apology for the circumstances, our corp member is happy to be playing again.
+1 What Gfy Said.
Good job.
Back to flying spaceships
|
Demeter Corinth
Basgerin Pirate
16
|
Posted - 2014.10.04 06:04:00 -
[179] - Quote
It's not ideal, but it will do.
Thanks for listening to folks, CCP.
-D |
Demeter Corinth
Basgerin Pirate
20
|
Posted - 2014.10.04 06:04:56 -
[180] - Quote
It's not ideal, but it will do.
Thanks for listening to folks, CCP.
-D |
|
Jeven HouseBenyo
Paper Brigade Resonance.
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.06 00:56:00 -
[181] - Quote
Thank you for both the clarification and the upcoming (hopefully very soon!) consolidation and easy to find current exploits=trouble for Youse! Listing.
That really was what I've been after and though there was something of a delay in getting an official reply on this instance in particular and some other complaints posted here in general, there was a reply and I do thank you for that.
You're right, mistakes do happen, we're human.
And we all have our Kender Oops! moments as well.
Thank you for owning this Kender moment and taking the initial steps to keep this particular oops from happening again.
>Jeven |
Jeven HouseBenyo
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.06 00:56:49 -
[182] - Quote
Thank you for both the clarification and the upcoming (hopefully very soon!) consolidation and easy to find current exploits=trouble for Youse! Listing.
That really was what I've been after and though there was something of a delay in getting an official reply on this instance in particular and some other complaints posted here in general, there was a reply and I do thank you for that.
You're right, mistakes do happen, we're human.
And we all have our Kender Oops! moments as well.
Thank you for owning this Kender moment and taking the initial steps to keep this particular oops from happening again.
>Jeven |
Dr Loveless
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.13 16:39:25 -
[183] - Quote
GM Lelouch wrote: If a ship can be locked and fired upon, it can be legitimately bumped.
What about ships which are undocking and are under 30 seconds invulnerability timer?
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |