| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lei'Ta Idee'Ats
   |
Posted - 2005.03.30 13:03:00 -
[1]
Whats this Yulai incident I keep hearing about, and does anyone have any links to old threads?
|
Ray Laria
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 13:10:00 -
[2]
it was called the siege of yulai and some players came in and killed everyone who was there or who entered for a couple of hours and ccp banned all of them from eve
|
Mr MadCap
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 13:13:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Mr MadCap on 30/03/2005 13:14:00
L1nkY
"Zombie attacks Yulai"
Enjoy
|
K'thang
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 13:14:00 -
[4]
From the EVE-I boards (couldn't find it here):
"Regarding the mass killings in Yulai last night (3rd of March 2004)
As a lot of you are aware, a certain corp willingly exploited a fault in the game mechanics and managed to kill over a 100 people in the supposedly secure Yulai system last night. We have decreed that those who were the recipiants of this heinous crime will be fully reimbursed for their loss. If you are one of those who lost your belongings and still haven¦t petitioned us, please do so and we will see to it that your possessions are returned to you. The exploiters have received a ban for their efforts and anyone thinking of following their example should be aware that the same fate awaits them. - The GM Team"
I still remember it, I almost got killed myself 
|
Nyphur
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 13:25:00 -
[5]
This is what makes Eve great. The players doing something that everyone remembers, something that puts a system or a corporation or even a single player on the map. Something the devs didn't count on, the events team didn't plan and there are no eve chronicles about. It's the players that make a game like eve great :).
|
Ray Laria
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 13:29:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: Nyphur
This is what makes Eve great. The players doing something that everyone remembers, something that puts a system or a corporation or even a single player on the map. Something the devs didn't count on, the events team didn't plan and there are no eve chronicles about. It's the players that make a game like eve great :).
agreed but i don't see y they got banned i mean the m0o did the same but on an even bigger scale but yet i don't believe any of them got banned for it
|
Polaris Lumine
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 13:38:00 -
[7]
Tbh I never understood why they were banned either. From what I remember they did nothing more than tank the damage from the turrets and concord (using ships to do remote shield and armour boosting). It seemed to be well planned and well executed. The response by CCP was imo heavy handed.
A few days later an event in the system of Abudban took place where the event hostiles (played by CCP) disabled turret and concord response while they sat at the gate destroying player ships! 
--
Polaris Lumine
|
Hellspawn01
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 13:48:00 -
[8]
Killing ppl in high sec without getting killed by concord is an exploit. That clearly happend at the yulai incident. End of story.
---------------------------------------------
Eve is not game, it¦s a way of life! |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 13:51:00 -
[9]
They weren't banned for the act itself, but for refusing to stop when so instructed by a GM.
Lesson:
Always do what GM's tell you.
Not that we can discuss this here anyway.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Muddy FunkStar
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 13:52:00 -
[10]
The problem/exploit has since been rectified, as the only reason CONCORD could not kill Zombie is that the ships providing shields to the main smartbomb ship were not flagged, if they had been all Zombies ships would have been destroyed fairly quickly.
|
Matthew
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 13:55:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Ray Laria
agreed but i don't see y they got banned i mean the m0o did the same but on an even bigger scale but yet i don't believe any of them got banned for it
Wasn't the difference that m0o did it in reletively low sec systems (like 0.4's and such), wheras zombie took it too far in going to the most central, most used system in eve, and creating as much disruption as they possibly could.
Of course, the bans could also have to do with their reactions to the GM's who were trying to deal with it - if the GM's asked them to desist, and zombie gave them the collective finger, that would probably have been enough to tip it from a warning into a ban. But we'll never know about that either way.
Also, I seem to remember that CCP were fighting a running battle at that stage, with people finding ways around concord. Zombie making such a high-profile statement with the Yulai massacre were really asking to be made an example of, and they were.
|
Latex Mistress
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 13:56:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Avon
Not that we can discuss this here anyway.
Yup! In before....
Yeah, you know what's next. 
If ECM is an act of aggression, why am I not on kill mails?
|
Ray Laria
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 14:00:00 -
[13]
yea i can see it comin any time now
|
Val Amon
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 14:02:00 -
[14]
Probably banned them because 1/4 of the petitions said, "How do I cancel my eve subscription"
_
_
How many pilots does it take to wire a Flux Capacitor?
3, 1 to wire it and 2 to talk about how the old one was better. |
Andrue
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 14:25:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Nyphur
This is what makes Eve great. The players doing something that everyone remembers, something that puts a system or a corporation or even a single player on the map. Something the devs didn't count on, the events team didn't plan and there are no eve chronicles about. It's the players that make a game like eve great :).
I agree - it was good. It was role playing. It made travel that night quite exciting.
The problem (and where the GMs were right IMO) was that the perpetrators were asked to stop doing it. They ignored the requests from GMs and got banned. From what I recall they weren't banned for all the killing they were banned for ignoring GM instructions.
--
(Battle hardened miner)
[Brackley, UK]
WARNING:This post may contain large doses of reality. |
Discorporation
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 14:26:00 -
[16]
Yeah, coz like, exploiting game mechanics is soooo RP.
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|
Paw Sandberg
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 14:29:00 -
[17]
they where Banned because they used a exploit
they where made aware they where exploiting and cont doing it after being asked to stop
did they deserve it ... Proberly
Thank You
Paw Sandberg
for all your BPC needs see
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=55706&page=1
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 14:36:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Paw Sandberg
they where Banned because they used a exploit
they where made aware they where exploiting and cont doing it after being asked to stop
did they deserve it ... Proberly
Just to clarify, it wasn't deemed an exploit until after they did it.
The ban was for disobeying a GM, not for exploiting per se.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Aleyna
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 15:58:00 -
[19]
imo they shouldnt have been banned
simply because the GMs coulda jumped in their titans and wiped them out then proceeded to ask concord to increase their defenses in the higher secs
then something could've been worked into the story.
-like-
"breaking news, after the mass xenocide caused by the rogue pirates Zombie, Concord scientist have developped a new system wide response team outfited with top secret technologies. The new weapons and ships are to be deployed soon (tm). In other news, the search continues for the rogues who escaped...."
i mean sure they didnt listen but you know something? if i'm pirating the high seas in the 21st century and i capture, loot and sink a bunch of cargo ships, you think im going to listen to the World's nations asking me to cease my actions? i think not.
CCP imo handled that wrong. It was a perfect setup for a story which would've probably kept many players on their toes and would've added much to the Eve universe.
as it stands, i don't think CCP is doing that great a job with the events. (im still waiting for my Fleet Issued Tempest/Phoon). The events as it stands are far too rare and hard to find. People like Zombie tried spicing it up, CCP banned them... oh well
 4 life
|
Ray Laria
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 16:02:00 -
[20]
agreed there has been an uber shortage of offical events the last one i believe was the collous (sorry about the spelling and correct me if i'm wrong)race which was in feb come on where hav all the events gone.
|
Abraxus
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 16:08:00 -
[21]
Why is this going to be locked? Aren't we allowed to talk about things that happen in EVE? 
|
Jaabaa Prime
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 16:22:00 -
[22]
If I remeber rightly the exploit was that the character had a -10.0 sec rating, and CONCORD only reacted to a drop of security rating. This couldn't happen to someone that was already at -10.0 so CONCORD ignored the assault.
That piece of code was fixed and the security level of a system was there after used to define what sec status could enter there, i.e. no more -10.0 sec status people in >= 0.5.
So I think they were banned for exploiting a game bug related to CONCORD reactions.
--
Intergalactic Teeth Pullers
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein |
Paw Sandberg
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 16:24:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Paw Sandberg
they where Banned because they used a exploit
they where made aware they where exploiting and cont doing it after being asked to stop
did they deserve it ... Proberly
Just to clarify, it wasn't deemed an exploit until after they did it.
The ban was for disobeying a GM, not for exploiting per se.
hmm IF that is true I will have to say that CCP went over the line with banning them
I dont know the full story although it does seam to me that a exploit is anything that exploits the game mechanics to do something you know you are not suppose to do (like killing peoble in a 1.0 with no penalty from Concord)
Thank You
Paw Sandberg
for all your BPC needs see
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=55706&page=1
|
rowbin hod
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 16:32:00 -
[24]
Edited by: rowbin hod on 30/03/2005 16:33:08
Originally by: Paw Sandberg
hmm IF that is true I will have to say that CCP went over the line with banning them
How can you say that? They were told to stop and they didn't. I don't see any problem with it at all. They were using an exploit, CCP said "yeah, fine, well done, now stop" and they didn't. They knew what they were doing right from the start was wrong (concord is not there to be tanked) and IMO ccp were quite leniant in all the warnings before they were banned. |
Paw Sandberg
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 16:39:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Paw Sandberg on 30/03/2005 16:39:19
Originally by: rowbin hod
Edited by: rowbin hod on 30/03/2005 16:33:08
Originally by: Paw Sandberg
hmm IF that is true I will have to say that CCP went over the line with banning them
How can you say that? They were told to stop and they didn't. I don't see any problem with it at all. They were using an exploit, CCP said "yeah, fine, well done, now stop" and they didn't. They knew what they were doing right from the start was wrong (concord is not there to be tanked) and IMO ccp were quite leniant in all the warnings before they were banned.
notice what I say in the line below it
IF it is true though I still feel that a warning would heve been more prober than a Ban
again though no one will be able to tell me that they did not know they where exploiting even before the GM told them and exploiting is a banneble offense
Thank You
Paw Sandberg
for all your BPC needs see
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=55706&page=1
|
Nostradamu5
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 16:40:00 -
[26]
What surprises me is that this thread is still alive, normally posting is killed off and a semi-warning of not rehashing old incidents.
Then again this could just be the pendulum swinging back to the lenient side.
Those of you that remember the incident wasn't there a posting storm that followed?
Stop griping about server instability and go buy an EVE mug!
Additionally with the purchase of each mug you will receive two(2) invisible Elves.
|
Viceroy
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 16:41:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Jaabaa Prime
If I remeber rightly the exploit was that the character had a -10.0 sec rating, and CONCORD only reacted to a drop of security rating. This couldn't happen to someone that was already at -10.0 so CONCORD ignored the assault.
That piece of code was fixed and the security level of a system was there after used to define what sec status could enter there, i.e. no more -10.0 sec status people in >= 0.5.
So I think they were banned for exploiting a game bug related to CONCORD reactions.
That was fixed way before this particular event.
-
|
Paw Sandberg
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 16:45:00 -
[28]
I am also (pleasently) surprised this thread has not been locked yet :-)
Thank You
Paw Sandberg
for all your BPC needs see
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=55706&page=1
|
Xavier Arron
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 17:10:00 -
[29]
Heres a link to one of the threads:
Linkage
Originally by: drunkenmaster
Had a few people or a corp actually done something about this, their names would be almost as well known as Zombies now are. Can you imagine the carebear respect you would get for ending a situation like this? People would be sending you fur samples for a month...
lol - 
|
Skinman
|
Posted - 2005.03.30 17:11:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Paw Sandberg
IF it is true though I still feel that a warning would heve been more prober than a Ban
again though no one will be able to tell me that they did not know they where exploiting even before the GM told them and exploiting is a banneble offense
I think the point is that they WHERE warned while still in the process of exploiting. Therefore, the warning was already given, and was ignored. Next step for GM's (remember, GM's = God (unless your Amarrian, in which case they're slightly below the Emperor)), is a ban.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |