EVE Search - Outbreak Status Report. 9-4

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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Murukan Minmatar The Priory	Posted - 2006.10.06 17:51:00 - [91] Originally by: Lucretia De'Way OMG have you ever seen such massive whining from any corp that matches Outbreak? I mean they are just amazingly whining, they can fill a whole thread answering and commenting eachother the other whining harder than the first. Don't you guys have a corp channel or forum or something where you can sit and moan all day? You are the most tiring corp I've ever come across. Totally ruining your die-hard-core pvp image in my opinion. Congrats on making yourself look like a tool. If you took a station over and spent hours waiting for a fight to defend it, wouldn't you be **ed if all of a sudden the gm's gave the station to your enemy because the enemy was too big of a noob to take it by force? In rust we trust!!!**
djNME DAB RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:09:00 - [92] Well, Like most **** ups...waiting for gm's to actually respond publicly is like watching a cactus grow another arm. ccp 4tw djNME
Stamm Amarr Three Holdings Rule of Three	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:10:00 - [93] 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.
maGz The Priory	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:21:00 - [94] Originally by: djNME Well, Like most ** ups...waiting for gm's to actually respond publicly is like watching a cactus grow another arm. ccp 4tw djNME QFT... I personally can't be bothered with who petitioned who, who ed what and what got ed. Problem is that CCP has made an absolutely huge up here and they're keeping completely silent. Not sure if I've said this before, but don't be a bunch of bloody pussies; get out, admit you **** up badly and get done with it! ____________ The Priory Killboard
Lucretia De'Way Amarr Space Law	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:22:00 - [95] Originally by: Murukan Congrats on making yourself look like a tool. If you took a station over and spent hours waiting for a fight to defend it, wouldn't you be ****ed if all of a sudden the gm's gave the station to your enemy because the enemy was too big of a noob to take it by force? Well you are the obvious tool here Outbreak-fanboy... I'm not saying it wasn't annoying for them to spend lots of time on something and not get the desired result, this is EVE though it happens a lot. I was commenting on the level Outbreak are whining back and forth to eachother even, what will that accomplish? Problem with game-mechanics? send a mail to CCP or file a petition. Whining like a bunch of sissy schoolgirls on the forum about it? Bad choice.
Nez Perces Amarr Black Spot.	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:24:00 - [96] 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.
Treamer	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:25:00 - [97] Post with your main please. Posting with an unidentified alt in this forum is prohibited, if you wish to participate in the discussions here, be sure to have your corporation and or alliance status ticked in your forum settings. - Karass Sayfo
Stamm Amarr Three Holdings Rule of Three	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:26:00 - [98] I'm really puzzled now. Your definition exactly matches mine...
Nez Perces Amarr Black Spot.	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:28:00 - [99] 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 - [100] 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?
Nebuli Caldari Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:36:00 - [101] Disgrace. CEO - Art of War
Stamm Amarr Three Holdings Rule of Three	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:37:00 - [102] Originally by: Nez Perces 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? From what I understand neither Stamm's first nor second rules of outposts applied, so the station was shot, should have been able to be shot and no GM involvement should have taken place. (I like that, Stamms rules of outpost ownership, all pod pilots should learn it in Industry 101) I am, however, not convinced that RISE should be flamed here. Petition is the recognised (and only real) way of asking the GMs to look at something if you aren't sure. It perhaps shows that whoever sent the petition was either fed the wrong facts or simply doesn't know enough about it... And the GM who switched the station back over... shouldn't have.
Randay 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:37:00 - [103] I feel like playing World of Warcraft. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Originally by: Reddari Now just be nice before I start to make life for the BOB devs (yes you have some) harder by exposing their player characters.
Randay 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:38:00 - [104] Someone cast thier intellect buff on me please, these boars are kicking my ass! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Originally by: Reddari Now just be nice before I start to make life for the BOB devs (yes you have some) harder by exposing their player characters.
Solwolf Gallente BIG Advanced Assault R i s e	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:40:00 - [105] Nez, You're not anywhere near Cloud Ring so it'd be tough for you to judge what's going on. Outbreak is a fine PvP corp, I have a lot of respect for them. They're here bringing the fight to us. Thank you for sharing your opinion though. Solwolf Recruitment
Nez Perces Amarr Black Spot.	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:42:00 - [106] 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 - [107] 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 ..
Azriel Dregg Caldari The Taining corp Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:45:00 - [108] Originally by: Nez Perces stuff about sovereignty Leaving everything else aside (as I for one do not know what might or might not have been writted down on the petition and subsequent messaging), the key issue here is that Station conquering has worked as described here and in other testimonials on this thread and others for a long time. Thus -- the key question here is 1) Did CCP change how the Conquarable Station capture game logic works or 2) Was the GM incorrect in his/her judgement. If it's 2 -- then fine, the GM should have probed harder to get to bottom of the situation. No matter what might or might not have been put to the petition, the GM should have looked deeper into something as fundemental as station capture. But ok -- mistakes happen to all of us. If it's 1 -- then we need account from CCP of a) when this change was made and b) what the new rules of the game are.
Kodos Caldari 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:47:00 - [109] Originally by: EnglishBob Looks like this thread is well and truely done. Lock pse, Forum-mod types. You need to send them an e-mail.
Ban Tier Times of Ancar	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:47:00 - [110] 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. Well I can only support your question. As far as we understood the sov, as soon as an entity has sov in a system, they are the only ones able to attack the station. So no more station ping pong - setup POS(ses), claim sov and take the station. Obviously the game does not work this way and obviously due to a bug, otherwise RISE would not have been given the station by GMs. So I am afraid, Outbreak has to proofe now, that they can do more than camp a station. Do all the needed logistic stuff (oh this game is more then PvP, I am shocked) to get the station in the way, it was (IMHO) intended. I am looking foward to read about your progress. But as I quoted, I am also looking foward, if someone could explain, where the mistake in understanding sov is. What is sov good for, if not for protecting the station from being ping ponged ? Ban CEO Times-of-Ancar [orange]Your signature is too large. Please see the http://www.eve-online.com/pnp/forumrules.as
Stamm Amarr Three Holdings Rule of Three	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:49:00 - [111] Originally by: Nez Perces 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. That's a fair point. I'm saying that the petition by itself is no reason to hate RISE. If they, however, keep the station as a result then it is good reason. Then again - the way sovereignty is they currently CANNOT hand it over to Outbreak. The best thing RISE could do is apologise for the situation, state that they only asked the GMs a question, and petition again and ask the GMs to fix it, if they can.
Argard	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:51:00 - [112] Post with your main please. Posting with an unidentified alt in this forum is prohibited, if you wish to participate in the discussions here, be sure to have your corporation and or alliance status ticked in your forum settings. - Karass Sayfo

Serathu Forum Moderator Interstellar Services Department	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:57:00 - [113] Locked at the OP's request. \| Forum Rules \| CAOD Rules \| CRC Website \| [email protected] \|


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: 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.