EVE Search - Outbreak Status Report. 9-4

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

Outbreak Status Report. 9-4

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Nez Perces Amarr Black Spot.	Posted - 2006.10.06 17:49:00 - [1] Edited by: Nez Perces on 06/10/2006 17:52:25 Originally by: vache Here are the facts that have occured: The corp that held the station for RISE was leaving the alliance to go elsewhere. When they left the alliance officially, they were still the station managers because if they were automaticllay removed and no one installed the station would have no manager, therefore the station could not be conquered by game mechanics because you need someone to take it from. Now this is where the bug comes in. Outbreak fired upon the station before RISE did and somehow claimed it. The reason RISE did not rush to fire first was becasue, according to game mechanics, no entity other than the alliance holding sovereignty of the system (if sovereignty has been established) may fire upon and conquer the station. Upon realising that a corp had taken the station that was not under the umbrella of sovereignty that RISE has in the system, it was petitioned to get it changed back into Rise hands since it was an exploit of a game bug. For a corp that says they want nothing to do with alliance warfare / POS warfare, ye sure are doing alot of complaining. Edit for spelling Well after reading this it has suddenly become very very clear what the problem is ... RISE have no business whatsoever in 0.0 dealing with the awful complexities of station management. FACTS 1. A corporation does not have to be in an alliance to shoot at a station belonging to another corporation not in an alliance. 2. If a corporation is not in an alliance but owns a station, it matters not who has sovereignty in the system 3. When TOA left RISE without giving the station to a RISE corp, the station no longer belonged to RISE and therefore RISE's sovereignty of the system was no longer part of the equation. 4. Since TOA took the station, it seems that no other RISE corp has shot at that station to gain it for another RISE corp. RISE as if by magic have not had to take the shields down at all. This should never be possible even if Outbreak were not involved in this affair. Conclusion** RISE must have given false information to the GM, in order for him to come up with such a screwed up decision. RISE have now joined the hall of shame to become one of the lamest alliances in the game. You are a disgrace. Outbreak may have got screwed over by a faulty GM decision here, but you RISE, you have guranteed your place in history, "the alliance that never should have been". RISE is not greater than the sum of its parts, it is less.... you were better off as Norad and FA.
Nez Perces Amarr Black Spot.	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:24:00 - [2] Originally by: Stamm How it works (as I understand it) A station can be shot if A) Nobody has sovereignty. B) If the station is not owned by a corporation in the alliance that has sovereignty. While it would be desirable for it to work like this - 1) You have sovereignty 2) There is no sovereignty And I think many people incorrectly assume it is this way, it's not codable (or isn't easily codable). Simply because it would result in a situation where some players could shoot a station, and others couldn't. --- I've been told this is wrong. Nothing I've seen ingame points to anything different that what I've said, but I'm no expert, so I'm posting here so someone can point out what I've got wrong. I hate not knowing stuff. First we need some definitions : Sovereignty - Game mechanic whereby an alliance gets reduction in POS fuel usage, and added protection for their Outpost/Conquerable station by putting up POS Station Ownership - Simply the act of having your Corp's name appear as the owner of the station. Sovereignty is NOT a requirement for Station Ownership K.. now we have some definitions... Lets pretend Alliance X has a conquerable station with 2 L POS in system and thus Sovereign Station Ownership. If a Coporation A, brings in dreads and shoots down all POS it can then shoot the station to become the Station Owner, without sovereignty. Likewise if a Corporation Z leaves Alliance X without first handing over the corporation to an Alliance X corporation, Corporation Z would remain the Station Owner, but without Sovereignty. This would allow anybody to shoot at that station wether they are in an alliance or not and wether or not Alliance X has sovereignty in the system. Net effect is this: 1. Sovereignty means that POS can protect your station from being locked.. but only as long as the corporation owning the station is part of the sovereign alliance. 2. Anybody can lock and shoot at a station if the station owner, does not have sovereignty of the system. In the RISE example... TOA relinquished the Sovereignty game mechanics when they left RISE, meaning the station was lockable and claimable by any party, including RISE and Outbreak. There was no breakdown in game mechanics. RISE, probably peeved off that they dropped the ball... petitioned telling the GM some rubbish.. (as they clearly don't understand how sovereignty works)... and the GM made a bad decision. = RISE sucks donkey balls.
Nez Perces Amarr Black Spot.	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:28:00 - [3] Edited by: Nez Perces on 06/10/2006 18:35:39 Originally by: Treamer ..true stuff.. yeah you got it.. lets imagine if the GM decison was right.. It would effectively mean that nobody would ever have to shoot at a station ever again.. All you would need to do is put up more POS than the other guy... and hey presto you automatically become the station owner... You know perhaps thats how CCP are gonna deal with the LAG.. No more shooting at Stations guys.. thats a thing of the past... !!!!! [edit:typo]
Nez Perces Amarr Black Spot.	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:32:00 - [4] Originally by: Stamm I'm really puzzled now. Your definition exactly matches mine... yeah actually we may be saying exactly the same thing in the end.... correct me if I am wrong, but you are also saying that the GM decision is wrong... because it would mean that some corps could shoot at a station and others not?
Nez Perces Amarr Black Spot.	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:42:00 - [5] Originally by: Stamm I am, however, not convinced that RISE should be flamed here. shouldn't have. RISE could have asked for the GM to close the petition down... or simply let Outbreak have the station back. RISE are hiding behind this GM petition to get thier station back unfairly.. thre are no two ways about it. Either they give the station back to Outbreak.. or they deserve what they get. And it very much seems like RISE have completely dispensed with any sense of fairplay or honour, in exchange for that station. Well .. you reap what you sow.
Nez Perces Amarr Black Spot.	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:43:00 - [6] Originally by: Solwolf Nez, You're not anywhere near Cloud Ring so it'd be tough for you to judge what's going on. you don't have to be in Cloud Ring to realise that something has gone horribly wrong ..

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.