EVE Search - Petition Wars

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

Petition Wars - Sovereignty ??

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Dave Tehsulei 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.10.05 13:13:00 - [1] There is an issue with a station take over that happened yesterday A corporation controlling a conquerable station left their alliance before handing control over of the station to another member corp of the alliance. The controlling alliance still has sovereignty over the system BUT DO NOT OWN THE STATION. So a third party realises the situation and makes a move on the station (a station now owned by a neutral party not an alliance) capturing it and holding it without sovereignty over the system. At amy time the alliance holding sovereignty over the system could attack and retake the station if they were willing to fight for control. It is my understanding that sovereignty control over systems is intended to protect ALLIANCE CONTROLLED stations from attack. The situation now is as follows controlling alliance has petitioned, the attackers have been informed the alliance should never have lost control of the station (despite the controlling corp leaving the alliance). The station is to be handed back to the alliance in control of the system without any shots being fired. Discuss (Mods i have avoided discussion of petitions and gm actions as much as possible i have also avoided names, no matter how obvious it may be, to try and keep the flames away - if i have broken forum rules please edit the post as you see fit but do not lock)
Garramon Gallente Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e	Posted - 2006.10.05 13:25:00 - [2] Edited by: Garramon on 05/10/2006 13:25:29 Well speaking as a player of the game and not as my character, I would say the alliance that was previously in control of the station did not know that it could be lost in the way it was. Therefore they petitioned not necessarily because they wanted to go about things in some sort of underhanded way, but rather to establish precedence on the topic. Think of it kind of like this: "Hey what just happened. I don't know, let's ask." I could see implications of this being abused if it were to work the way it did, and hence see the reason for the alliance in question to ask about it. So, in conclusion, I imagine it was petitioned in needing clarification of a game mechanic. Otherwise, how would anyone ever know that the way it worked was as intended. For some reason the fact that ~50% of the people replying to the thread fail to read and understand the point of the OP is hilarious.
Shalimar Fox 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.10.05 13:26:00 - [3] Personally I don't really care about the whole thing we showen we can do as we please and we can do so again if needed. But honestly GM's. This is the same if a corp that holds a system for an allaince leaves said allaince. system claim drop's and therefor the systems get's claimable by any entety that put's up one tower. With that said the stituation with the station was not different then that Originally by: "Bor'rak" It amazes me how some people can put two and two together and come up with five! And then post it
Danari Amarr Syncore Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.10.05 13:28:00 - [4] I think they successfully petitioned it because you shouldn't have been able to lock the station at all, aka you benefitted from a bug.
Leon Fox hirr	Posted - 2006.10.05 13:31:00 - [5] Originally by: Dave Tehsulei The situation now is as follows controlling alliance has petitioned, the attackers have been informed the alliance should never have lost control of the station (despite the controlling corp leaving the alliance). The station is to be handed back to the alliance in control of the system without any shots being fired. This is quite strange, and probably a change of policy from CCP. A few weeks back a certain conquerable in the north bugged after it was conquered. We planned to hand it over to another in-alliance corp, but the GM's said it was not transferable, and that the only way to transfer it whould be for the corp to leave the alliance, and then shoot it. ____________________ hirr today, gone tomorrow
whisk 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.10.05 13:32:00 - [6] Edited by: whisk on 05/10/2006 13:33:19 ...
KIATolon Black Omega Security The OSS	Posted - 2006.10.05 13:32:00 - [7] Ignorance of game mechanics shouldn't be an excuse for petition. Sure it can be abused, but then so can other things, such as corp hangers. An alliance shouldn't give control of stations it doesn't trust people with. That said, I'm personally unsure as to how an alliance transfers a station to another corp without dropping soverignity and if it's currently impossible to do that then I can understand the petition.
Dave Tehsulei 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.10.05 13:34:00 - [8] Originally by: Danari I think they successfully petitioned it because you shouldn't have been able to lock the station at all, aka you benefitted from a bug. Well why do you say that ? If the station was controlled by the alliance we wouldnt have been able to attack - the key point here seems to be that it wasnt controlled by any alliance . The alliance was in the process of reclaiming the station when it was attacked and the alliance fleet destroyed.
Caldess 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.10.05 13:38:00 - [9] I certainly hope things in this thread can be kept smack free, and I hope both sides are having fun. I can understand why the petition was filed, it seemed at least on the surface that there was a bug and this sort of thing shouldn't have happened. But given the nature of it, with the controlling corp of the station not actually having sovereignty, and given my own understanding of how conquerable stations work (and I could be wrong?) this sort of situation can arise. If the original controlling alliance is able to retake the station (just like they would have to once the original controlling corp left the alliance), then it should be invulnerable again. I'd like to see some sort of official response on this as to the exact intended mechanic since there seems to be some confusion over it. --------------
BirdBleed	Posted - 2006.10.05 13:42:00 - [10] my brain hurts, need to shoot stuff
Garramon Gallente Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e	Posted - 2006.10.05 13:43:00 - [11] Originally by: KIATolon Ignorance of game mechanics shouldn't be an excuse for petition. Sure it can be abused, but then so can other things, such as corp hangers. An alliance shouldn't give control of stations it doesn't trust people with. That said, I'm personally unsure as to how an alliance transfers a station to another corp without dropping soverignity and if it's currently impossible to do that then I can understand the petition. There is no method to transfer station control without shooting the station. The station cannot be shot while your alliance controls the station and sovereignty. Therefore, you have to wait until the holding corp leaves the alliance to attempt to regain the station. Should the holding corp leave the alliance at a bad time, it is vulnerable to being conquered by any entity. That being said, I know RISE does not have an issue with 0utbreak being in control of the station if this is the intended consequences for a station holding corp leaving an alliance. If this is the intended consequence, RISE will fight for its station. That being said, I am glad this thread appeared as now other alliances can see what will happen if a holding corp leaves their alliance...in other words PRECEDENCE will be established. For some reason the fact that ~50% of the people replying to the thread fail to read and understand the point of the OP is hilarious.
Tassi Infinitus Odium	Posted - 2006.10.05 13:43:00 - [12] Seems like the GM's support this ghey POS warfare CCP invented
Hans Roaming Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.10.05 13:49:00 - [13] When back in Huzzah we knew about this and always thought it was as intened i.e. when the station controller has sov of the system then the station shields are invulnerbale and only then. Not that the only people to be able to shoot the station is the entity that has sov, that doesn't make sense. It makes for more interesting times to have it like that anyway.
Calmity Jayne Gallente Jazz Associates R i s e	Posted - 2006.10.05 14:00:00 - [14] In my opinion, once the Corp that owned the station left the Alliance, the Station comes up for grabs. The Corp that left the Alliance should have handed the station over before leaving, simple as that. Handing the station back punishes the conquering Alliance for a mistake made by RISE and that isn't fair. As I'm a member of RISE, this is obviously my opinion and does not reflect the prevailing opinion of those leading RISE at the moment. sigless
Mindlles 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.10.05 14:03:00 - [15] Edited by: Mindlles on 05/10/2006 14:05:52 Well as this has happend before without Gms interfearing im abit supprised they do so now. Other then that, i do with both Hans and daves post in this subject. Tho Gorrman as good ur post are, and it stays on subject im supprised u say it was a question to the GMS, as ur members already made comedy about them pettion for assistance.. Tho thats history now. Good post Dave!
Rod Blaine Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.05 14:06:00 - [16] Ignorance not being an excuse I'd say screw the alliance, they fight for it or lose it. Old blog
arjun Viziam	Posted - 2006.10.05 14:14:00 - [17] station ownership cant be transferd without shooting. souverainity means: the station is invulnerable if it is owned by a corp in the alliance which holds the souvereighnity of the system the station is in. in every other case the station is atackable. if the station owning corp leaves the alliance, its bad luck for the alliance. they better react fast with a big fleet or they can lose the station as it happened here. thats how the gamemechanics work today. the reaction of the gamemaster shows, that he as many others have less knowledge of the mechanics than many players have which have too handle such stuff on a regular basis. many gms are quite knowledgeable though. with which intention the petition was filed seems rather dubious.
Burzhuj REUNI0N Red Alliance	Posted - 2006.10.05 14:20:00 - [18] Originally by: Dave Tehsulei There is an issue with a station take over that happened yesterday A corporation controlling a conquerable station left their alliance before handing control over of the station to another member corp of the alliance. The controlling alliance still has sovereignty over the system BUT DO NOT OWN THE STATION. So a third party realises the situation and makes a move on the station (a station now owned by a neutral party not an alliance) capturing it and holding it without sovereignty over the system. At amy time the alliance holding sovereignty over the system could attack and retake the station if they were willing to fight for control. It is my understanding that sovereignty control over systems is intended to protect ALLIANCE CONTROLLED stations from attack. The situation now is as follows controlling alliance has petitioned, the attackers have been informed the alliance should never have lost control of the station (despite the controlling corp leaving the alliance). The station is to be handed back to the alliance in control of the system without any shots being fired. Discuss (Mods i have avoided discussion of petitions and gm actions as much as possible i have also avoided names, no matter how obvious it may be, to try and keep the flames away - if i have broken forum rules please edit the post as you see fit but do not lock) The third party need to fill petition that for some unknow reason he lost his new station.
Garramon Gallente Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e	Posted - 2006.10.05 14:36:00 - [19] Originally by: Rod Blaine Ignorance not being an excuse I'd say screw the alliance, they fight for it or lose it. Accepting game mechanic as intended game mechanic is what lead to the wonderful situation that was just resolved with the 8/10 angel complexes. I therefore see no reason to question why a petition was filed in the first place, or how it could be considered ignorance. For some reason the fact that ~50% of the people replying to the thread fail to read and understand the point of the OP is hilarious.
thoth foc Destructive Influence	Posted - 2006.10.05 14:39:00 - [20] tbh.. i'm getting on the "ignorance is no excuse" bandwagon.. if alliances dont know by now how POS sovreignty works.. they should just stay in empire >: )
turnschuh Eye of God	Posted - 2006.10.05 14:46:00 - [21] if the corp left who hold the stations leaves the alliance, the station is no longer protected via the alliances sov. and everyone can lock and shoot it. thats how it is intended to work. fill a counter-petition.
whisk 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.10.05 14:51:00 - [22] Edited by: whisk on 05/10/2006 14:53:36 Edited by: whisk on 05/10/2006 14:51:41 Originally by: turnschuh Edited by: turnschuh on 05/10/2006 14:47:38 when the station holding corp leaves the alliance, the station is no longer protected via the alliances sov. and everyone can lock and shoot it. thats how it is intended to work. fill a counter-petition. Theoretically if we were in that situation it would be the first thing that we'd do.
Rod Blaine Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.05 14:52:00 - [23] Edited by: Rod Blaine on 05/10/2006 14:55:21 Edited by: Rod Blaine on 05/10/2006 14:53:50 Originally by: Garramon Originally by: Rod Blaine Ignorance not being an excuse I'd say screw the alliance, they fight for it or lose it. Accepting game mechanic as intended game mechanic is what lead to the wonderful situation that was just resolved with the 8/10 angel complexes. I therefore see no reason to question why a petition was filed in the first place, or how it could be considered ignorance. Well, i find it hard to believe Rise was ignorant of the situation and the fact that mechanics dont allow for station transfers. That means that assuming your holding corp's decision to leave wasn't made an hour before the fact, that you had forewarning of the impending transfer. Seeing how it's been this way for over two years already, I don't see how CCP could consider this broken either. They can't not have been aware of it since some of them must have been involved in the taking of stations in the past. I just consider the risk of losing it during transfer part of the risk of owning it in the first place. It's not like I'd petition it tbh. edit: It's not like I consider it a big deal either btw. Comparing it to the 8/10 sploit is rather skewed logic. Old blog
Sir JoJo Minmatar Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.05 14:54:00 - [24] Edited by: Sir JoJo on 05/10/2006 14:53:58 if that alliance just played the game and start shooting the damn station instead of waiting they deserved the station. some came in before and so imo they should be the rightfully owner of the station. comes first, gets served first snip Don't be nasty [email protected] to discuss mod - Cathath i am not nasty
Kal'Kalagan Takahashi Syndicate Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.10.05 14:54:00 - [25] Would be nice to get a GM comment on this issue.
Rina Shanu Phoenix Knights	Posted - 2006.10.05 14:57:00 - [26] From reading all the post till here and looking a bit arround it seems fair and square that those who conquered the station from the corporation which left the alliance, be the ones that keep it. The corporation left the alliance, resulting in a sov lost as that corporation holding the station had the sov and not the alliance as a generic entity. At this point the station is fair game to any. Who got the station now does not mater anymore given the above happenings. That simple. what has 4 legs and 1 hand? a happy pitbull
Garramon Gallente Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e	Posted - 2006.10.05 14:57:00 - [27] Originally by: thoth foc tbh.. i'm getting on the "ignorance is no excuse" bandwagon.. if alliances dont know by now how POS sovreignty works.. they should just stay in empire I am just wondering how an alliance would learn of the rules if they stayed in empire. From the Stations, Starbases and Outposts, the only area where one would be looking for this info: ----------------------------- Q. How do I claim sovereignty? A. Already been covered, you need to construct and keep powered at least 1 POS. Only 1 POS is required to gain sovereignty if no one else has a POS in the solarsystem. Only Alliances can claim sovereignty. Q. What is the difference between an outpost and a conquerable station? Or are they the same thing? Difference is a conquerable station is already pre-built you just have to pound on it a lot to get it (if an Alliance hasn't claimed sovereignty). How to take over an Outpost I just found out how one would go about taking over an Outpost already built and this seems to be a well asked question that no one really knows the answer to. Basically an Outpost in a solarsystem that the owner has sovereignty over means the Outpost is indestructible and cannot be conquered. What an attacker has to do is to NULL the sovereignty, you can do this by three means: Edited for RMR changes 1) Destroy the current POS(s) 2) Build as many POS(s) in the sector as the sovereign holder 3) Build more POS(s) than the current sovereign holder ----------------------------- Nowhere in there does it mention 4) have the corp holding the station leave the alliance claiming sovereignty. Yes, it does say "solarsystem that the owner has sovereignty over" which is in itself a bit vague. It really should say corporation belonging to an alliance that has sovereignty over. After all, in order to have sovereignty you need to be an alliance. Now, I am just playing devil's advocate here. I don't care what the GM rules. Personally, I believe it is quite obvious that there should be a game mechanic to transfer a station to another corp within the same alliance. For some reason the fact that ~50% of the people replying to the thread fail to read and understand the point of the OP is hilarious.
Rod Blaine Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.05 15:01:00 - [28] Edited by: Rod Blaine on 05/10/2006 15:01:03 It never states that repeated shooting of your ship will result in its destruction either. Logic fills in the gap. What would one expect to happen ? You'd think that the station would randomly choose another Rise corp and make it its new owner ? Tbh, this is moot anyway, Rise isn't new to this. Old blog
Sean Dillon Caldari Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2006.10.05 15:03:00 - [29] I dont really get it, if an emergency like this arise's why con't the controlling alliance of the system jump in a couple dreads/carriers and retake the station? It can be done in a short ammount of time, even though without being able to redock there should be enough people in battleships nearby and able to undock that just logged in to do this. For any real alliance this shouldn't be a problem at all, in my previous alliance they lost sovereingity for a few days of a station where some posses weren't refueled in time. They were on it immeaddly and acted appropriate, although it didn't change ownership the response there was quick enough to prevent it from happening. To the topic, I belive that the GM's hould fix this. Outposts should be an alliance only thing as most single corporations are to weak to hold it their own and can't claim sov themselves. Thus building in some protection that prevents corporation quiting alliances when holding an outpost should be implented.
Voltron Caldari Black Lance Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.10.05 15:03:00 - [30] Petition > Territory Defence Volt

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: 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.