Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
MAX MEXX
|
Posted - 2011.01.18 21:37:00 -
[1]
Test got sov in delve after placing sov sturctures rigth before DT.
BANN THEM!
|
Aerious
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.01.18 23:12:00 -
[2]
Originally by: MAX MEXX Test got sov in delve after placing sov sturctures rigth before DT.
BANN THEM!
WTF is a sturctures? |
Sporked
|
Posted - 2011.01.18 23:13:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Aerious
Originally by: MAX MEXX Test got sov in delve after placing sov sturctures rigth before DT.
BANN THEM!
WTF is a sturctures?
Iunno, why don't you exploit some more SBU/TCUs in an attempt to find out while whining that IT did the same?
|
Aessoroz
Nohbdy.
|
Posted - 2011.01.18 23:18:00 -
[4]
1. The TCUs got removed by CCP and it was a new rule put forth by the GMs about sov structures during downtime 2. SBUs got dropped, CCP did not remove, violates their own rules.
|
Nika Dekaia
|
Posted - 2011.01.18 23:25:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Nika Dekaia on 18/01/2011 23:27:23
Originally by: Aessoroz 1. The TCUs got removed by CCP and it was a new rule put forth by the GMs about sov structures during downtime 2. SBUs got dropped, CCP did not remove, violates their own rules.
To clearify: Dropping TCUs before an extended DT was deemed an exploit 2 months ago. Rules state that anyone using a known exploit is to be banned. IT uses said known exploit and drops TCUs before extended DT.
We'll see if the rules are worth anything.
|
Messoroz
The Scope
|
Posted - 2011.01.18 23:27:00 -
[6]
THIS CALLS FOR FORUM SPAM V23.0!
|
Nika Dekaia
|
Posted - 2011.01.18 23:33:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Messoroz THIS CALLS FOR FORUM SPAM V23.0!
Yes, it does.
If the involved players do not get banned for using an exploit (given CCP investigation - although it's pretty obvious), it only shows CCP does not stick to it's own rules - in favour for some certain players/corps/allainces.
|
Jovan Geldon
Gallente Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire
|
Posted - 2011.01.18 23:39:00 -
[8]
Mmmm, I can almost taste the unwarrented self-entitlement and copious butthurt.
TEST whine best whine
|
Sporked
|
Posted - 2011.01.18 23:39:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Sporked on 18/01/2011 23:43:24
Originally by: Nika Dekaia
Originally by: Messoroz THIS CALLS FOR FORUM SPAM V23.0!
Yes, it does.
If the involved players do not get banned for using an exploit (given CCP investigation - although it's pretty obvious), it only shows CCP does not stick to it's own rules - in favour for some certain players/corps/allainces.
Can you show me where the people who dropped SBUs in delve last time got banned? Not that I like either side in this war but the whole NC 'we can't beat them so we'll spam the forums instead' thing is getting old the 847894th time round.
|
Nika Dekaia
|
Posted - 2011.01.18 23:48:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Sporked
Originally by: Nika Dekaia
Originally by: Messoroz THIS CALLS FOR FORUM SPAM V23.0!
Yes, it does.
If the involved players do not get banned for using an exploit (given CCP investigation - although it's pretty obvious), it only shows CCP does not stick to it's own rules - in favour for some certain players/corps/allainces.
Can you show me where the people who dropped SBUs in delve last time got banned?
When TEST used this meachnic first they did not get banned - it was the first time such a thing happened and therefore not deemed an exploit yet.
Then IT filed a petition and, since it's a lame tactic, it was deemed an exploit and TEST got a warning and the mechanic was said to be an exploit.
But today IT is using the very same, exploit labled, even by IT itself reported tactic. Which has been officially an exploit for two months.
So, if the rules CCP imposed are true - ban for people knowingly using an eyploit is in order.
|
|
Sporked
|
Posted - 2011.01.18 23:51:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Sporked on 18/01/2011 23:55:31
Originally by: Nika Dekaia
Originally by: Sporked
Originally by: Nika Dekaia
Originally by: Messoroz THIS CALLS FOR FORUM SPAM V23.0!
Yes, it does.
If the involved players do not get banned for using an exploit (given CCP investigation - although it's pretty obvious), it only shows CCP does not stick to it's own rules - in favour for some certain players/corps/allainces.
Can you show me where the people who dropped SBUs in delve last time got banned?
When TEST used this meachnic first they did not get banned - it was the first time such a thing happened and therefore not deemed an exploit yet.
Then IT filed a petition and, since it's a lame tactic, it was deemed an exploit and TEST got a warning and the mechanic was said to be an exploit.
But today IT is using the very same, exploit labled, even by IT itself reported tactic. Which has been officially an exploit for two months.
So, if the rules CCP imposed are true - ban for people knowingly using an eyploit is in order.
Awesome, then ban the TEST members that did the same thing retrospectively just like they did with most of the people involved with moongoo duping. It wasn't officially an exploit for several years, then all of a sudden it was one and people got banned in retrospect. If you want fairness and transparancy then I'm sure your all for your own guys getting banhammered, right?
|
Nika Dekaia
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 00:01:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Nika Dekaia on 19/01/2011 00:01:49
Originally by: Sporked Awesome, then ban the TEST members that did the same thing retrospectively just like they did with most of the people involved with moongoo duping. If you want fairness and transparancy then I'm sure your all for your own guys getting banhammered, right?
There is a *slight* difference between obvious ISK gaining exploits - which anyone can clearly see are exploits because you get massive ISK out of thin air - and placing an TCU in a system before an extended DT.
Is the TCU placement before DT lame? Yes. Is the moon goo exploit blatant illegal? Yes. Can those two be compared? NO.
I have no "own guys". I neither care about IT nor TEST. It's just a matter of how CCP should handle stuff in a way not showing bias.
|
Me in Reallife
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 00:04:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Sporked Edited by: Sporked on 18/01/2011 23:55:31
Originally by: Nika Dekaia
Originally by: Sporked
Originally by: Nika Dekaia Yes, it does.
If the involved players do not get banned for using an exploit (given CCP investigation - although it's pretty obvious), it only shows CCP does not stick to it's own rules - in favour for some certain players/corps/allainces.
Can you show me where the people who dropped SBUs in delve last time got banned?
When TEST used this meachnic first they did not get banned - it was the first time such a thing happened and therefore not deemed an exploit yet.
Then IT filed a petition and, since it's a lame tactic, it was deemed an exploit and TEST got a warning and the mechanic was said to be an exploit.
But today IT is using the very same, exploit labled, even by IT itself reported tactic. Which has been officially an exploit for two months.
So, if the rules CCP imposed are true - ban for people knowingly using an eyploit is in order.
Awesome, then ban the TEST members that did the same thing retrospectively just like they did with most of the people involved with moongoo duping. It wasn't officially an exploit for several years, then all of a sudden it was one and people got banned in retrospect. If you want fairness and transparancy then I'm sure your all for your own guys getting banhammered, right?
It was a tactic that had been used by pretty much every single 0.0 alliance since the start of EvE (including IT) Which then magically became an exploit right after we used it on them.
Well, fair enough CCP made their decision to ban anybody in the future who used this exploit, Now someone has, And would you believe? It's the exact same people who clamored and moaned for it to be made an exploit in the first place.
And they're not being punished, even though the rules are in place and have been for the last two months.
Also it's "retroactively"
|
Brannor McThife
Caldari Brotherhood of the Ancients
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 00:28:00 -
[14]
Am truly amazed that IT has committed the same 'crime' that they petitioned a few months back, and then after it had been ruled an exploit and punishable by ban.
So if I understand correctly.
SBUs get dropped in 9R4, 2 minutes before DT. Thereby exploiting the extended downtime in the same way TEST did 2 months ago, however TEST did it with TCUs to claim unclaimed systems.
These SBUs then allowed IT to jump in a cap fleet and start shooting the station in 94R?
Correct?
I mean...isn't it simple to resolve?
1) Remove the SBUs. Check, done already. 2) Move all IT pilots in 94R to somewhere 'safer'. Not done. 3) Ban/Suspend all IT pilots - cap pilots in particular - that were in 94R. Not done.
There is no excuse. They cannot claim no knowledge of the exploit as they themselves were the drivers of these actions being labelled exploits.
Not sided with either faction, but quite easy to see that this kind of thing spoils a game.
-G
|
Sporked
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 00:38:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Me in Reallife
It was a tactic that had been used by pretty much every single 0.0 alliance since the start of EvE (including IT) Which then magically became an exploit right after we used it on them.
Well, fair enough CCP made their decision to ban anybody in the future who used this exploit, Now someone has, And would you believe? It's the exact same people who clamored and moaned for it to be made an exploit in the first place.
And they're not being punished, even though the rules are in place and have been for the last two months.
Also it's "retroactively"
Oshi....my grammar backbone! That's me told. Considering SBUs and TCUs hadn't been around since the start of EVE and the original way to take and claim sov was to have POS spammed in a system long enough to drop the other guys sov, then have them stay alive long enough to claim your sov then the scale of your analogy is vastly incorrect. Several downtimes > onlining and cycle time of SBU.
It wasn't magically deemed an exploit after being used since the dawn of time, it was the first time an extended downtime was used to make an unbeatable sov drop. As you said you knew it was a dodgy tactic but you still did it anyways. I have yet to see any TEST members get any kind of reprimand for doing it, so it should be fair that IT should have their SBUs deleted, have their wrists slapped and have sov restored to you which is what happened to you guys in their case, right? So again I ask if you want IT members banned so badly you must want your own members banned too given the precedent CCP have set for exploit related bans?
TL;DR quit baaawwwwwwwing at IT not being banned when your own people haven't been banned either. People would be a lot more sympathetic if you weren't gigantic hypocrites about the situation.
|
Brannor McThife
Caldari Brotherhood of the Ancients
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 00:43:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Sporked
TL;DR quit baaawwwwwwwing at IT not being banned when your own people haven't been banned either. People would be a lot more sympathetic if you weren't gigantic hypocrites about the situation.
The question is of course... which is worse?
The people who did it first not 100% sure if it was ok. Or the people who did it second, knowing 100% it is not ok.
Riddle me that.
-G
|
Ascendic
Lyonesse. Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 00:59:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Sporked
Originally by: Me in Reallife
It was a tactic that had been used by pretty much every single 0.0 alliance since the start of EvE (including IT) Which then magically became an exploit right after we used it on them.
Well, fair enough CCP made their decision to ban anybody in the future who used this exploit, Now someone has, And would you believe? It's the exact same people who clamored and moaned for it to be made an exploit in the first place.
And they're not being punished, even though the rules are in place and have been for the last two months.
Also it's "retroactively"
Oshi....my grammar backbone! That's me told. Considering SBUs and TCUs hadn't been around since the start of EVE and the original way to take and claim sov was to have POS spammed in a system long enough to drop the other guys sov, then have them stay alive long enough to claim your sov then the scale of your analogy is vastly incorrect. Several downtimes > onlining and cycle time of SBU.
It wasn't magically deemed an exploit after being used since the dawn of time, it was the first time an extended downtime was used to make an unbeatable sov drop. As you said you knew it was a dodgy tactic but you still did it anyways. I have yet to see any TEST members get any kind of reprimand for doing it, so it should be fair that IT should have their SBUs deleted, have their wrists slapped and have sov restored to you which is what happened to you guys in their case, right? So again I ask if you want IT members banned so badly you must want your own members banned too given the precedent CCP have set for exploit related bans?
TL;DR quit baaawwwwwwwing at IT not being banned when your own people haven't been banned either. People would be a lot more sympathetic if you weren't gigantic hypocrites about the situation.
Clearly you are too dense to understand the difference between using tactics that are slimey but legal (nothing had been declared and it had been used before) and abusing the same tactic after CCP explicitly declared it an exploit. You can not reprimand someone for something they did before it was considered illegal. Its like outlawing alcohol then throwing everyone in jail who was drinking at your party a month ago.
Do you understand now? Or do you still require further assistance removing your head from your a$$?
|
Sporked
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 01:26:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Ascendic
Clearly you are too dense to understand the difference between using tactics that are slimey but legal (nothing had been declared and it had been used before) and abusing the same tactic after CCP explicitly declared it an exploit. You can not reprimand someone for something they did before it was considered illegal. Its like outlawing alcohol then throwing everyone in jail who was drinking at your party a month ago.
Do you understand now? Or do you still require further assistance removing your head from your a$$?
Or possibly you could, iunno, maybe learn to read what I put and figure out that what I am talking about is that I am bored of the 90000 'bawwwww BoB/Kenny/IT did something bad and havent visibly been punished for something we did ourselves and didn't visibly get punished for it' thread spam tactic that the NC has been wheeling out at every available opportunity for the past few years. No one whines quite like the NC.
I mean jeebus you did the same thing with IT spamming bubbles on gates, it wasn't an exploit till you petetioned it and you sure as hell have done the same thing as they have since, and on a grander scale. They did it to lag people out, you bring purposely bring numbers that you know will kill the node. I was in favour of the NC until you all started the schoolyard tattle-tale act. Actually scratch that IT have Metal Dude and Kallemad...whoever on their side, you're both as bad as each other tbh.
You may also want to recall the people being banned, and I'm going to repeat myself but it's the best example, for the moongoo duping. Wouldn't that be a case of outlawing alcohol then jailing people for drinking before the law came into effect? C'mon CCP aren't exactly the best people ever to compare real world legal practice to tbh...well unless it's Kim Jong-Il making the laws or something.
Thankfully the whining can stop now seeing as IT have had the exact same punishment handed out to them as TEST got, the SBUs have been deleted and sov has been restored. I trust you don't have a problem with that? Or if you want IT folks banned you're happy with TEST guys being banned too? Ignorance of the law is not an excuse and all that....
|
Seras Athran
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 01:28:00 -
[19]
**** off back to CAOD the lot of you
|
Ascendic
Lyonesse. Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 06:20:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Sporked
Originally by: Ascendic
Clearly you are too dense to understand the difference between using tactics that are slimey but legal (nothing had been declared and it had been used before) and abusing the same tactic after CCP explicitly declared it an exploit. You can not reprimand someone for something they did before it was considered illegal. Its like outlawing alcohol then throwing everyone in jail who was drinking at your party a month ago.
Do you understand now? Or do you still require further assistance removing your head from your a$$?
Or possibly you could, iunno, maybe learn to read what I put and figure out that what I am talking about is that I am bored of the 90000 'bawwwww BoB/Kenny/IT did something bad and havent visibly been punished for something we did ourselves and didn't visibly get punished for it' thread spam tactic that the NC has been wheeling out at every available opportunity for the past few years. No one whines quite like the NC.
I mean jeebus you did the same thing with IT spamming bubbles on gates, it wasn't an exploit till you petetioned it and you sure as hell have done the same thing as they have since, and on a grander scale. They did it to lag people out, you bring purposely bring numbers that you know will kill the node. I was in favour of the NC until you all started the schoolyard tattle-tale act. Actually scratch that IT have Metal Dude and Kallemad...whoever on their side, you're both as bad as each other tbh.
You may also want to recall the people being banned, and I'm going to repeat myself but it's the best example, for the moongoo duping. Wouldn't that be a case of outlawing alcohol then jailing people for drinking before the law came into effect? C'mon CCP aren't exactly the best people ever to compare real world legal practice to tbh...well unless it's Kim Jong-Il making the laws or something.
Thankfully the whining can stop now seeing as IT have had the exact same punishment handed out to them as TEST got, the SBUs have been deleted and sov has been restored. I trust you don't have a problem with that? Or if you want IT folks banned you're happy with TEST guys being banned too? Ignorance of the law is not an excuse and all that....
Clearly you have proven how completely worthless you are. Your head is much, much deeper than I could have imagined. I am unsure if even I, one with such expertise, can remove it.
NC does not bring guys to crash a node. The NC is a large entity. Why would you bring less than you are capable of fielding? Also explain to me the point of crashing a node when you are winning a battle? Or when you have superior numbers? There is no reason to crash. In fact the majority of crashes seem to be to IT benefit, funny how that works.
Fact still remains that IT is losing and has to resort to exploits and GM favours to help turn the tide. Sad state of affairs they have.
|
|
|
CCP Spitfire
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 07:44:00 -
[21]
Offtopic, thread locked.
Spitfire Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |