| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Qayos
Eve Defence Force
Ascendant Frontier
   |
Posted - 2006.11.16 18:24:00 -
[61]
If reinforced PoSs claim sov, then it has changed in the last 2-3 days without any notice. I think the case is just that both the first GM and the senior GM are just wrong.
|
nync
UA Industry
Red Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 18:42:00 -
[62]
 Originally by: Qayos
If reinforced PoSs claim sov, then it has changed in the last 2-3 days without any notice. I think the case is just that both the first GM and the senior GM are just wrong.
There are 2 rules in this game:
1. GM is always right.
2. If GM is not right see rule #1.
RA senior pos manager |
Raste
Shinra
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 18:59:00 -
[63]
Originally by: nync
Wahhhhhhhh
Glad to see you're still wearing out the petition button. Wish I had some Cyrillic handy to send you into another meltdown.
|
nync
UA Industry
Red Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 19:04:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Raste
Originally by: nync
Wahhhhhhhh
Glad to see you're still wearing out the petition button. Wish I had some Cyrillic handy to send you into another meltdown.
and you are my favourite forum whorior
RA senior pos manager |
Rod Blaine
Evolution
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 19:05:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Rod Blaine on 16/11/2006 19:08:09
Stop whining about them petitioning for an explanation LV, you know as wel as anyone involved in pos warfare that he was right in his assumption about the game mechanics involved.
We've been taking ASCN stations based on the same mechanic (altho we do remove their pos afterwards, so the end result would be the same).
If it changed, then it was done silently, and RA cannot be blamed for petitioning it untill things have been made clear by someone that actually confirms that is was changed, rather then someone that only confirms that this is how it is. Because for all we know they're simply wrong, it wouldn't exactly be the first time would it ?
If you want to flame RA, keep it for when it's their due. That's not now.
In the mean time this particular patch of uncertainty (ffs CCP how hard is it to write stuff like this down for your gm's, not to mention us ?), will only lead to extended petition queues whenever a new station is taken somewhere in Eve.
Old blog |
Buxaroo
Black Dwarf
Caldari Deep Space Industral
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 19:22:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Fi T'Zeh
That's exactly what he said...
Yeah, I reread the post by DBP and went to edit it and low and behold, they moved the topic and I could nto edit it.....then lunch was over rofl.
|
Ediz Daxx
FinFleet
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 21:36:00 -
[67]
Maybe theres a rogue programmer running around at CCP. 
|
The Mittani
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 21:44:00 -
[68]
From what I hear, there's been wackiness in the NPC markets today, and reports of asteroid belts not spawning normally. I wonder if we just had another bout of our usual POS-luck, such as the infamous KZF assault where every tower went into 'double reinforced' due to an inconvenient server crash.
My appeal to CCP: If you have a bug that borks the code, bloody well up and admit it. If your GMs cover for a bug by claiming that the 'rules have changed' or that the 'rule has always been this way', you lose all credibility as a company. Likewise, it is poor business practice to change major game mechanics in a completely unannounced way, if this has in fact occured.
The least :tinfoil: option is merely that the GMs in question are incomptent and know approximately zero about POS warfare in 0.0. Occam's razor.
|
Sathrai
Unlimited Blade Works
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 00:43:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Sathrai on 17/11/2006 00:43:46
Uhh, well, this is an interesting change. During my time in Huzzah, we always had to deal with losing sov after the following downtime if all of the claiming POSes were in reinforced at the time - we had this work both for and against us. Hell, it even sorta made a crazy sort of sense. And now the GMs are saying that this is an exploit, a bug, or somesuch? 
I bet if you petition this question again and get another GM, you'll get a different answer. The EVE GM team is absolutely terrible at being consistent in their responses.
|
Sebo Darrens
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 02:26:00 -
[70]
Not being able to take a station without actually taking down the sov POS doesn't sound like a bug to me, more like a bug-fix.
Any tactic that involves an assault that takes advantage of proximity to DT is inherently flawed and methods to circumvent such tactics are commendable.
|
|
|
chromer one
FinFleet
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 06:42:00 -
[71]
Maybe nync was selected the most efficient way to spread the news.
|
Plutoinum
German Cyberdome Corp
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 10:17:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Plutoinum on 17/11/2006 10:19:53
Well, somehow this even makes sense.
Example for the old ruleset:
Alliance A has superior number a few hours before and after downtime
Alliance B during the rest of the time
=> alliance A can shoot all poses into reinforced before DT and take the station after DT. Then alliance B has lost the station, can't access their equipment etc.
=> alliance B can't do that, because you can only do it around downtime
=> massive timezone advantage for alliance A
If players want to play station ping-pong this way, it should be always possible and not depend on who has more people around DT. That's at least how I see it now.
cdt/con-loss vs. regular log-out. A proposal ...
|
Zeoliter
Shinra
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 17:20:00 -
[73]
Whatever the case, the coalition has firm control over 1v- and the Goons fled the scene after we broke their camp on the station. They only outnumbered us 3:1 which is of course nowhere near enough. But the second engagement did crash the whole system. Fleet battles with 400 ships - schweeeeeeet.
|
Triest
GoonWaffe
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 18:34:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Triest on 17/11/2006 18:34:17
Just so you all know, -V- did not have sovereignty this morning after downtime. So it appears that it was simply a bug, and the GMs (either out of ignorance or because they knew they couldn't fix the problem without a server reboot) incorrectly disputed what most of you already know: That towers in reinforced should not count toward sovereignty.
|
The Mittani
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 19:18:00 -
[75]
Indeed, after a 'normal' reboot, sovereignty in 1v- is neutral with towers in reinforced.
This leads us to the disturbing situation of a GM and a Senior GM telling us an explicitly incorrect ruling to cover for a bug/database error, when they simply should have announced the obvious truth of a code screwup.
|
zykerx
Pegasus Mining and Securities
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 22:34:00 -
[76]
had some chat with a gm and he also sayed reinforced towers should claim sov
so posses have always been bugged allrdy and nobody knew it yet 0.o
|
zykerx
Pegasus Mining and Securities
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2006.11.18 13:18:00 -
[77]
Edited by: zykerx on 18/11/2006 13:21:08
ok i did had some mails with GM FAOLCHU who did say the towers still claim sov when into reinforced
as this doesnt hapen ingame i petitioned it and got reply from GM Q
he told me it does not claim sov when into reinforced
told him about GM FAOLCHU and he talked with some other people and the answer still was they do not claim sov
gm will talk with eachother to clarify this between each other and i hoop they also make a post in this thread wich i did send a link to them and asked them todo if posseble to clear this thinghy
|
|
Sharkbait
|
Posted - 2006.11.18 14:15:00 -
[78]
i do not have alot of information on this atm, but it will be fixed in kali.
i will try and keep you updated with information.
Spank You later |
|
Domalais
Equilibrium LLC
United Confederation of Corporations
|
Posted - 2006.11.19 02:37:00 -
[79]
Thanks for showing interest, Shark.
If I may ask, what is the intended behavior? It would be nice to know what "fixed" means.
|
Halkin
Euphoria Released
Euphoria Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.11.19 11:31:00 -
[80]
Originally by: nync
Originally by: Eleese
Originally by: nync
Just got reply from senior GM stating that tower keeps claiming sovereignty while it
is online, even in reinforced mode.
thks for your replies.
cya in space
Thats nice but it doesnt. lol
I can't post full GM's FATE reply , since it's forbidden, but he clearly states that it does.
I've seen the opposite happen in the past few weeks more than once.
Originally by: Hygelac
"There's three sides to every story, your side, our side and the Truth!"
|
|
|
Pastora
Russian SOBR
Red Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.21 14:16:00 -
[81]
So, are we due to get an answer from devs or anybody who controls GMs, why GM Fate and GM Q have blatantly lied on the given issue?
_______________________________________________
If ifs and ands were pots and pans,
I would grow mushrooms in my pants. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |