| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
   |
Posted - 2009.06.04 14:46:00 -
[1]
I have heard a most disturbing rumour and I would really like CCP to either confirm or deny it.
I heard that CCP changed alliance disbanding mechanism secretly upon pressure from some CSM members, big 0.0 alliances and other people.
I heard that the mechanics which lead to the insta-disbanding of the Band of Brothers (BoB) alliance got changed so that this cannot happen in the same way to other alliances any more.
I heard that this game mechanic is now deemed an exploit/bug and was therefore removed and is impossible to apply now.
Is that true? |
Sun Clausewitz
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 14:50:00 -
[2]
WTS T2 Tin Foil Hat
Pick Three:
Caldari/PVP/Solo/Success |
Khemul Zula
Amarr
Keisen Trade League
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 14:53:00 -
[3]
I heard the staff of CCP are actually Lizard People and that EVE was designed as a simulation to train their military leaders in how to take over the galaxy.
<Insert sig here>
|
Sirius Snape
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 14:53:00 -
[4]
If CCP deemed insta-disbanding to be unintended use of game mechanics and changed it, what's the big deal?
There aren't rolling back servers to before the BoB disband. They would just have decided they don't want that happening in future and implemented changes to prevent it.
So?
|
Wilja Anrick
Caldari
XIII Interstellar Legion
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 14:56:00 -
[5]
Paranoia wakes,
Hungry minds that need answers,
Who has killed Mitnal? |
Faife
Federation of Freedom Fighters
Aggression.
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 15:01:00 -
[6]
better idea: any alliance has a 0.3% chance of disbanding any given day. most will last about a year, then have to rebuild sov all over
less titans, less cynojammers, all win all the time
--
|
Adeline Grey
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 15:05:00 -
[7]
It would be a good change...
I mean, who wants all their hardwork disbanded by some metagaming idiot?
|
ThrashPower
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 15:08:00 -
[8]
Why is this a disturbing rumour?
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 15:10:00 -
[9]
 Originally by: Gnulpie
I have heard a most disturbing rumour and I would really like CCP to either confirm or deny it.
I'm not CCP, but I was on the CSM when this whole thing took place.
The CSM talked to CCP about the whole incident briefly. However, there was put no pressure on CCP to change it, other than giving our brief advice on the whole situation.
And as far as I'm aware, it's not even changed.
|
Chris Liath
Gallente
Nex Exercitus
Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 15:10:00 -
[10]
I, for one, welcome our new alliance disbanding overlords.
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. |
Myra2007
Shafrak Industries
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 15:10:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Myra2007 on 04/06/2009 15:13:06
I am pretty sure it was in the patch notes (don't ask me which one though) - so nothing secret about it.
And whats so disturbing about it anyway? 
edit: isn't it this one?
"An executor corporation of an alliance will be unable to leave the alliance as long as other corporations remain as active members. For example, if Corporation A and Corporation B form an alliance and Corporation A tries to leave they will receive a message stating that the executor cannot quit while there are other members. Should Corporation B leave the alliance then Corporation A can quit the alliance and that alliance is disbanded. "
Patch 86756
--
Originally by: Jasper Dark
I agree! Lets go back into caves and lick rocks!
|
Kir'ian
Minmatar
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 15:17:00 -
[12]
No no... I don't think you understand the meaning of the phrase "most disturbing"...
For example, *the* most disturbing rumor would be that CCP has given up on EVE since it is becoming harder and harder to implement truly wonderful new features that would grow the play base and so will be closing down the game in the next few months.
Now *THAT* would be TRULY the "most disturbing"... Please get your priorities straight. Thank you.
=)
/carebearstare  |
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation
Apotheosis of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 15:18:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Wilja Anrick
Paranoia wakes,
Hungry minds that need answers,
Who has killed Mitnal?
LOL nice haiku 
{...and they will respect a line drawn in the sand more than forgiveness} |
Eventy One
Magellan Exploration and Survey
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 15:21:00 -
[14]
Where exactly did you hear this?
(Wikipedia doesn't count)
|
Random Womble
Minmatar
Emo Rangers
Electric Monkey Overlords
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 15:38:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Random Womble on 04/06/2009 15:46:21
Edited by: Random Womble on 04/06/2009 15:39:30
Originally by: Myra2007
Edited by: Myra2007 on 04/06/2009 15:13:06
I am pretty sure it was in the patch notes (don't ask me which one though) - so nothing secret about it.
And whats so disturbing about it anyway?
edit: isn't it this one?
"An executor corporation of an alliance will be unable to leave the alliance as long as other corporations remain as active members. For example, if Corporation A and Corporation B form an alliance and Corporation A tries to leave they will receive a message stating that the executor cannot quit while there are other members. Should Corporation B leave the alliance then Corporation A can quit the alliance and that alliance is disbanded. "
Patch 86756
Actually that does not change the disbanding of alliances issue as the executor corp can still kick all members then leave itself. That change only actually fixes in a rather bad way an issue we came across where an executor corp could leave an alliance yet still remain the executor in name because corps in an alliance cannot change their vote as to who they want to be the executor for the intial week after joining a new alliance. Unfortunately for us this happened right as the sign ups for the last alliance tourny opened  (and no the corp that was executor in name due to that mechanic could not apply for the alliance to join the tourny we got the CEO to try).
A better solution would just have been to have the vote of any new corps switched automatically to the oldest serving member corp of the alliance or something so the executor could still leave rather than being trapped either untill the intial week of those new corps are up or untill they have kicked them out.
Edit: Explanation of basically what that change affects (effects? i can never get them the right way around) in hopefully less confusing way
If my wording confuses you say theres 5 corps A, B, C, D and E
A and B intially start off in the alliance and have been in it for a few months A is executor. Then corps C, D and E all join withing a day they get set to automatically vote for current executor. Then 2 days later A decides to leave in the past A would leave and C, D and E would continue voting for A since they cant change votes for 5 more days and so since they cant change as far as the game is concerned A remains the executor however also since they are no longer in the alliance Directors/CEO of A dont get the options that an alliance executor corp would get in the corp and alliance management tab.
Now however instead if A decides to leave after 2 days they either have to wait the remaining 5 days for C, D and E to be able to change their votes or they have to kick C, D and E from the alliance.
|
Myra2007
Shafrak Industries
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 16:07:00 -
[16]
Ahh thanks didn't know that. Well in that case i'd still like to know from the op why he suspects anything changed.
--
Originally by: Jasper Dark
I agree! Lets go back into caves and lick rocks!
|
Eventy One
Magellan Exploration and Survey
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 16:15:00 -
[17]
The rumour I heard, and want confirmed is that CCP is restricting mission running to Faction Warfare people only.
|
Winterblink
Body Count Inc.
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 16:49:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Eventy One
The rumour I heard, and want confirmed is that CCP is restricting mission running to Faction Warfare people only.
Oh my god... if true, be sure to spread out the tear buckets enough so we catch enough to power the game for another six years. :D
|
Eventy One
Magellan Exploration and Survey
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 16:52:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Winterblink
Originally by: Eventy One
The rumour I heard, and want confirmed is that CCP is restricting mission running to Faction Warfare people only.
Oh my god... if true, be sure to spread out the tear buckets enough so we catch enough to power the game for another six years. :D
QFT.
|
Micia
Minmatar
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 16:55:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Eventy One
The rumour I heard, and want confirmed is that CCP is restricting mission running to Faction Warfare people only.
That's not a rumour about CCP doing anything, at all.
Any numpty can make proposals in Assembly Hall.  |
Eventy One
Magellan Exploration and Survey
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 16:56:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Micia
Originally by: Eventy One
The rumour I heard, and want confirmed is that CCP is restricting mission running to Faction Warfare people only.
That's not a rumour about CCP doing anything, at all.
Any numpty can make proposals in Assembly Hall.
Guilty as charged. I'm a numpty - but the idea is sound nonetheless.
Any numpty can also hurle insults about.
Mission running should be only available to faction warfare participants.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 17:03:00 -
[22]
Why would this be disturbing?
This is like the yahoos complaining because CCP put words at the end of contract to make them less confusing.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 17:12:00 -
[23]
People ask why this would be disturbing rumours.
Disturbing:
Because lead GMs confirmed after weeks of research and discussion that disbanding an alliance (BoB) like this was all fine and normal gameplay, in essence just perfectly okay. But it seems that some players didn't want to risk their alliances getting disbanded the same way - maybe as revenge - and asked hard for a change in the mechanics, which then happened.
Rumour:
Because this is all hear-say and could be completely wrong and just misinformation.
Therefore 'disturbing rumuor'.
To clear any misunderstandings I ask if CCP can just confirm or deny those words, that would be very nice. Thanks!
|
Sirius Snape
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 17:20:00 -
[24]
Yeah, they did say it was all fine at the time as there was no rule breaking involved. But maybe they'll decide that alliances should be protected from rogue members and don't want to see an alliance disbanded in the way BoB was again.
I'd welcome the change for one. Seems a bit silly that one player can dissolve all that work and effort. A spy raiding a corp hangar is one thing, but disbanding the corp is another? Yeah?
|
Myra2007
Shafrak Industries
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 17:31:00 -
[25]
They also said that Privateers was all fine (because no rules were broken) and then still went ahead and changed the mechanics. There is a difference between something being within the rules and being intended gameplay.
I think this is a tinfoil troll now and rate it 3/10.
--
Originally by: Jasper Dark
I agree! Lets go back into caves and lick rocks!
|
Ghaelsto Kakram
Mindgamers
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 17:46:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Myra2007
I think this is a tinfoil troll now and rate it 3/10.
The OP is just clueless like usual. |
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 17:47:00 -
[27]
1600mm Reinforced Layered Aluminum Plating
Because you never know who wants to control your mind.
--------
Ideas for: Mining
|
Karlemgne
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 17:59:00 -
[28]
Interesting. Perhaps you should take this concern to the makers of this television show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2yVZCVLK3E&feature=PlayList&p=E4466D08492C0774&index=5
My sig don't fracking work. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 18:07:00 -
[29]
If this is what is alluded to then it can hardly be called secret.
Originally by: PatchNotes
An executor corporation of an alliance will be unable to leave the alliance as long as other corporations remain as active members. For example, if Corporation A and Corporation B form an alliance and Corporation A tries to leave they will receive a message stating that the executor cannot quit while there are other members. Should Corporation B leave the alliance then Corporation A can quit the alliance and that alliance is disbanded.
From the patch notes for 86756.
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 18:15:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
If this is what is alluded to then it can hardly be called secret.
Originally by: PatchNotes
An executor corporation of an alliance will be unable to leave the alliance as long as other corporations remain as active members. For example, if Corporation A and Corporation B form an alliance and Corporation A tries to leave they will receive a message stating that the executor cannot quit while there are other members. Should Corporation B leave the alliance then Corporation A can quit the alliance and that alliance is disbanded.
From the patch notes for 86756.
Thank you for looking this up, but that is not what was the trouble as pointed out earlier by some other people already.
The patch you mentioned is related to a different thing which was not okay with alliance executor corps.
|
SpaceSquirrels
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 18:24:00 -
[31]
It's spelled rumor..... Silly UK.
_________________________
"You know how I know you're a nerd?"
What the frak are you talking about?
"You make it so easy"
|
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
KenZoku
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 19:38:00 -
[32]
It's spelt rumour, it's our language.
OT: If the mechanic was changed I'm sure no-one would think that a bad thing. I certainly wouldn't be upset to see some good come of the whole episode.
It is a bad mechanic when one person can, at a whim, reverse the efforts of thousands of people over several years, no matter who it happens to. I wouldn't like to see any other alliance endure that, friend or foe.
アニメ漫画です
|
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 19:40:00 -
[33]
*gets his t3 tin foil hat*
|
Kir'ian
Minmatar
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 19:56:00 -
[34]
I've wondered quite a bit about what happened to BOB and how CONCORD and the other factions might see it. My thinking, which may be totally different then CCP's, is that capsuleer corporations and alliances really have no coorelation to "ancient earth" corporations and/or aliances. They are simply the way the major factions have decided to recognize relationships between capsuleers and corporations.
SO... One "director level" member of an executor corporation of an alliance could kick all the corps and disband the alliance. No skin off CONCORD's pointy nose. What would they care? That's how they set it up; ie. "So these childish demi-gods of space mess with each other, eh. That's life as a capsuleer."
The "hard work" of a capsuleer is as delicate and fleeting as the vapor trail their ships leave behind. And so are their relationships.
Just random thinking. =P
/carebearstare |
Dr Slaughter
Minmatar
Rabies Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 20:16:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Faife
better idea: any alliance has a 0.3% chance of disbanding any given day. most will last about a year, then have to rebuild sov all over
less titans, less cynojammers, all win all the time
I support this idea along with a 1% chance (very 6 minutes) that anyone docked up in a station for more than 5 minutes might randomly undock in their currently selected ship or pod IF there are hostile's in the system. |
ShadowMaiden
Amarr
Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 20:42:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Eventy One
but the idea is sound nonetheless and yes it is a nice rumour.
CCP will decide if it is a sound idea not you.
|
Amarrlookindude
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 22:43:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Khemul Zula
I heard the staff of CCP are actually Lizard People and that EVE was designed as a simulation to train their military leaders in how to take over the galaxy.
LOL ever watched that TV series "V"?  
|
Eventy One
Magellan Exploration and Survey
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 22:46:00 -
[38]
Originally by: ShadowMaiden
Originally by: Eventy One
but the idea is sound nonetheless and yes it is a nice rumour.
CCP will decide if it is a sound idea not you.
Agreed. That is obvious.
Thankfully however, players can influence their thinking by means of the CSM.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |