EVE Search - CSM Inquiry needed on the TEST issue

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

CSM Inquiry needed on the TEST issue

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
BinaryIdiot Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2010.11.03 17:13:00 - [31] Wow, many of you folks are really stupid. The TCUs were destroyed during the downtime. The TCUs setup by others in the same period were not destroyed until enough folks petitioned them AND it was done two hours after the downtime ended (so they were able to take advantage of them for a bit). CCP claims that this new rule is also retroactive. Do you have ANY IDEA how many alliances have used this in the past? If CCP was truly going to apply this retroactively, there would be thousands of systems lost as this was a huge game mechanic when patch downtime occurs. Not only that, but CCP keeps iterating that this is only TCU related. I'm not sure why using timers and patch downtime in other situations (like, timing a POS to come out of reinforcement during downtime or dropping many other types of structures) is perfectly acceptable but, as of the past few days, TCUs are not allowed. This is even more ridiculous because a GM actually has an ALT in IT (the same GM that destroyed all of the TCUs). Very suspicious that these TCUs were immediately destroyed by a GM who has an IT in the space where they were dropped and yet nothing happened to anyone else who dropped TCUs at the same-time until a few hours after downtime.
Othran Brutor tribe	Posted - 2010.11.03 17:19:00 - [32] Every alliance that has deployed sov stuff has used DT (normal or extended) to minimise the risks. If putting an outpost up coincided with an extended DT then if you don't think that was used then I got a bridge for you. They'd have been dumb not to. I'd be willing to bet that if TEST had put up maybe 2 or 3 TCUs then this wouldn't have been any sort of issue at all. Fourteen is the problem. Anyone with half a brain can see TEST did it just to take the pss out of IT and/or CCP. TL;DR if you're going to use dodgy but accepted mechanics then don't rub CCPs face in it by taking the pss. If you do then this is what happens.

CCP Adida C C P C C P Alliance	Posted - 2010.11.03 17:21:00 - [33] Locked as there's already a proposal in the appropriate forum. For all matters you would like to bring to the CSM please use the Assembly hall. This would have been moved if there wasn't already a thread in there regarding this matter. Adida Community Rep CCP Hf, EVE Online


CCP Zymurgist Gallente C C P	Posted - 2010.11.03 20:35:00 - [34] Moved from General Discussion. Zymurgist Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact Us

Alekseyev Karrde Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2010.11.03 20:50:00 - [35] All the TCU that were petitioned and found to have most of their onlining time fall in the extended DT have been taken care of. The TEST ones destroyed were replaced by GMs as were the funds for the sov fees. The argument, if there should be one at all, is whether CCP should allow (or continue to allow if you want to look at it that way) the anchoring during extended DT or if this policy is fine. Either way, there's no scandel here. ---
Agent Known	Posted - 2010.11.03 20:55:00 - [36] Originally by: BinaryIdiot Wow, many of you folks are really stupid. The TCUs were destroyed during the downtime. The TCUs setup by others in the same period were not destroyed until enough folks petitioned them AND it was done two hours after the downtime ended (so they were able to take advantage of them for a bit). CCP claims that this new rule is also retroactive. Do you have ANY IDEA how many alliances have used this in the past? If CCP was truly going to apply this retroactively, there would be thousands of systems lost as this was a huge game mechanic when patch downtime occurs. Not only that, but CCP keeps iterating that this is only TCU related. I'm not sure why using timers and patch downtime in other situations (like, timing a POS to come out of reinforcement during downtime or dropping many other types of structures) is perfectly acceptable but, as of the past few days, TCUs are not allowed. This is even more ridiculous because a GM actually has an ALT in IT (the same GM that destroyed all of the TCUs). Very suspicious that these TCUs were immediately destroyed by a GM who has an IT in the space where they were dropped and yet nothing happened to anyone else who dropped TCUs at the same-time until a few hours after downtime. So basically, they're at fault for not seeing the others when dotlan was flooded with 14 new systems? I doubt CCP would have done anything if 1-2 systems were claimed after downtime. Yes, downtime was abused pre-Dominion for POS timing and that sort of thing, but you could still do something about it when the server came back up. With 14 systems to SBU and shoot at for hours...that's a different story. I think what crossed the line was what I highlighted in my previous point. There is a difference between timing reinforce timers for downtime and a TCU onlining. Abusing the extended downtime so there was nothing anyone could do about the onlining TCUS (unclaimed systems or not) was what CCP saw and thus took action against. As for the other TCUs...they were likely taken down later because it went unnoticed. Yours would have as well if you grabbed maybe 2 systems. But hey, let's all whine about an obvious flaw in the game mechanics that provide unfair advantages shall we? On another note, I also have an annoying sig.
Selma Body Amarr Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2010.11.03 21:08:00 - [37] Originally by: Joe SMASH Until TEST crawls out from under Goon's skirt and survives on it's own, no one will care about them except the members. Your alliance is a joke. Your leadership is a joke. Your membership is a joke. You are a scar on the face of Eve and I hope each and every one of you who spam petitioned gets perma-banned for wasting GM's time from other legit petitions. And before you say it: YES, I AM MAD that I have to shift through one alliances **** posts all over the forums. I KNOW IT IS A COOL STORY, BRO! You sir have hurt my feelings, I demand a apology immediately. I'm crying at the keyboard and I think I may quit Eve.
Dlardrageth ANZAC ALLIANCE IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.11.03 22:15:00 - [38] More TESTy emo tears, please. Makes EVE somewhat interesting again. And yeah, epic idea to have the CSM launch a full-scale investigation and demand from CCP to disclose all relevant facts related to this. Because we all know that is so gonna happen... GL with that TESTy/Goons/Shrubberies/pubbies.
BiggerDangDude	Posted - 2010.11.03 22:23:00 - [39] You guys wanna know how I know you don't care? Everyone keeps posting about how they don't care.
T'Amber www.shipsofeve.com	Posted - 2010.11.04 03:51:00 - [40] insert signature here

TeaDaze	Posted - 2010.11.04 11:14:00 - [41] CSM are discussing this with CCP. Nothing to report yet. TeaDaze.net Blog \| CSM Database
Cyprus Black Caldari Ministry of Destruction SCUM.	Posted - 2010.11.04 14:12:00 - [42] It does seem like a double standard for players. Some alliances are allowed to do this while others are not. __________________________________________________ http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/2084/lolveur2.gif
Cyrus Doul Infinite Covenant	Posted - 2010.11.04 17:44:00 - [43] This is all based on the assumption of point 1 being true 1) Anything that happens over a regular DT is allowed 2) TCU / SBU: This is where my idea is unfounded until now I guess. IIRC you are not able to wardec anyone before an extended dt as they count doing that to rundown the warmup timer as an exploit as it denies the opponent the chance to become prepared. I assume CCP is following the same thing here. TEST did not allow it the chance to fight back. The reason that TEST got their stuff moved and the others didn't is because until now people may not have gamed the extended dt and had their stuff petitioned. CCP looked at it and said its a valid argument and removed test's then when they cried ccp went and took out other TCU/SBUs (These probabally were petitioned too after exact precident was set) 3) Stations: Petition away, CCP will tell you to run away. Stations work by you putting the station up, throwing all the crap in and clicking build. If you were to press the build button at 2 seconds after dt you get to wait til the next dt, if you press it 2 seconds before dt in two seconds your station egg is going to morph. This is due to the fact that one of the scripts that runs at any dt has its sole purpose of looking for any ItemID's registered to eggs and morph them into a station 4) POS's You can anchor these and start their online timer during a standard dt and have it come out done. so doing this during an extended dt does not matter other then you anchor guns at a time different then before. Having them come out of ref during a sov timer is valid too IIRC. Granted it may not be valid to time them to come out at the very beginning of a 15 hour DT as I am not sure if that is enough time for the tower to passively rep its shields back over fifty from twentyfive. Then again this crime could be committed by having the tower set to whatever the dt is going to start at (In this case 500 game time) and your plan is to never even bother during the fight to reinforce so you wouldnt be penilized for passively exploiting due to when you got attacked.
Juan Sezole Darth Marvin's Shrubberies	Posted - 2010.11.04 18:10:00 - [44] Originally by: TeaDaze CSM are discussing this with CCP. Nothing to report yet. TeaDaze Thank you for at least taking a look at this, despite the troll/anti-troll background noise going on there is a fundamental point that seems to be either ignored or not understood by many who have trolled this thread.
Mortimer Civeri Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2010.11.06 02:08:00 - [45] Edited by: Mortimer Civeri on 06/11/2010 02:14:48 It had never been an issue before, when alliances have used this. Now all of a sudden it is an exploit, and people who do that are bad bad people? Please, the gross incompitance of CCP to provide propper documentation for their game, as to what is and is not allowed, is enough. Let's not tarnish their good name by dragging accusations of GM involvement in helping an alliance, (especially BoB/KENZOKU/IT) get rid of a "problem" for them.
Lallante Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.11.11 03:41:00 - [46] Edited by: Lallante on 11/11/2010 03:43:14 Originally by: Nyhlus Originally by: Orion GUardian afaik the other TCUs form other alliances were removed as well so it is no real favourism per se. Because the DT TCU onlining is kind of an exploit TESTs were removed hours before the others. The others were removed after TEST petitioned for fair treatment. This tactic has been used for years and it wasn't a problem until it happened to an alliance that CCP has shown favoritism before. I'm impressed that the tactic has been used for years given that TCUs/SBUs have only existed for 6 months and this is the first long downtime. No other element of eve has ever revolved around the mechanic of a lengthy online time you need to defend them for. Lol at all the people saying "Its never been an issue before" -> It -couldn't- have been, this is literally the first DT over 5 hours since the mechanic was introduced! Lall - THE Vocal Minority - Reikoku
ectweak Amarr 1st Steps Academy Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2010.11.11 17:25:00 - [47] Originally by: Lallante Lol at all the people saying "Its never been an issue before" -> It -couldn't- have been, this is literally the first DT over 5 hours since the mechanic was introduced! except for that huge DT a few months ago when everyone got those bonus skillpoints.
Juan Sezole Foxridge	Posted - 2010.11.16 00:55:00 - [48] Updated title and general aim. In the past few weeks GM activity has raised all sorts of questions regarding their competance and neutrality. CCP IA is basically "our logs show nothing" to the Nth power, and are not independant. Some form of non CCP investigation is needed


Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.