Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kaaii
Caldari Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 11:34:00 -
[1]
Greets
I'm writing in behalf of the half a dozen or so previous owners of LSAA's (Large Ship assembly arrays) that were abruptly removed (unanchored ) in high sec, Empire space. As you probably are aware, Chribba, myself, and several other corporations have been quietly building cap ships in Empire, with the strictest of guidelines to jump them out once completed, as requested, and confirmed in various GM conversations in the past.
I would like to know why in this post you specifically addressed our concerns when the nerf was announced back in December. In it you are plainly stating that those in empire would stay
And now, much to our surprise, our LSAA's are suddenly offlined and unanchored, with no warning, no advance posting of the likes, "we are thinking about doing this", nothing. Forgetting for the moment that the amount of logistics that are currently in place to support corps working these, being in place, with huge sums of money tied up in equipment, minerals on hand, in one stroke you see fit to cripple, selectively a very small portion of an unobtrusive industry base.
Will future "guarantees" by you (and your staff) have an undisclosed expiration date as well, because if so, id like to know. Maybe you could post every time you make a promise you don't intend to honor, so we as the paying customer base, can take it for what its really worth......
Kaaii
"Id rather fall beside 10 Lions, than stand with 1000 sheep.."
|
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 11:36:00 -
[2]
Why do you think you should continue to benefit from something that other corporations and individuals have no chance of doing?
Proud steward of more public ISK than Motivated Prophet. Ask me about Secured ISK Loans. |
Waxau
Mortis Angelus The Church.
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 11:39:00 -
[3]
I very much so agree with the OP - If there are guidelines as to moving capitals out, the only harm is that they're secure from hostiles. Which lets face it...the corps that own (owned) them were pure carebears ^^ No offence chribba
I say let them keep them. Theyve done no harm in the past, and technically its direct GM interaction with the market :P
|
Kaaii
Caldari Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 11:39:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Ray McCormack Why do you think you should continue to benefit from something that other corporations and individuals have no chance of doing?
Every corporation with a char with one character with anchoring lvl 3 from 2003, to 11/27200 6 had the exact same chance of doing. Failing to recognize your own ability is not a problem of mine...
"Id rather fall beside 10 Lions, than stand with 1000 sheep.."
|
Frances Ducoir
Bounty Hunter - Dark Legion
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 11:43:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Kaaii
Originally by: Ray McCormack Why do you think you should continue to benefit from something that other corporations and individuals have no chance of doing?
Every corporation with a char with one character with anchoring lvl 3 from 2003, to 11/27200 6 had the exact same chance of doing. Failing to recognize your own ability is not a problem of mine...
grats on the most selfish post today... wtb anchored LSAA for players who joined after 11/27/2006
*snip* Signiture remoted because it contained profanity - hutch |
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 11:44:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Kaaii Every corporation with a char with one character with anchoring lvl 3 from 2003, to 11/27200 6 had the exact same chance of doing. Failing to recognize your own ability is not a problem of mine...
That's not even a logical argument. You could, the ability was stopped. Your arrays have been removed in a long overdue move.
Proud steward of more public ISK than Motivated Prophet. Ask me about Secured ISK Loans. |
Kaaii
Caldari Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 11:44:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Waxau I very much so agree with the OP - If there are guidelines as to moving capitals out, the only harm is that they're secure from hostiles. Which lets face it...the corps that own (owned) them were pure carebears ^^ No offence chribba
I say let them keep them. Theyve done no harm in the past, and technically its direct GM interaction with the market :P
And yes, there were strict guidelines.
I was petitioned once for mine. Someone felt as the above poster, was not fair. but, after lengthy mails and convos with a senior GM who consulted the very thread linked, they honored the statement made in the post.
In short we were told we werre not allowed to keep them in high sec, only build and jump out. No using them for defense, logistics or any form that constitutes "exploit" I was told it was a bannable offense, which I have honored since the incident....
Kaaii
"Id rather fall beside 10 Lions, than stand with 1000 sheep.."
|
Ifni
Applied Eugenics
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 11:47:00 -
[8]
The fact of the matter is that you were building Capital ships with what essentially amounted to immunity. Since you can't field Capital ships in highsec, it would take a huge force of Battleships to down a large POS with said LSAA anchored at it.
The rules changed, you should be glad you had so long to build them when all newcomers to the market had to deal with harsher environments and logistics problems by hauling all the materials out to low sec.
You take what is offered. And that must sometimes be enough. |
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 11:48:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Kaaii In short we were told we werre not allowed to keep them in high sec, only build and jump out. No using them for defense, logistics or any form that constitutes "exploit" I was told it was a bannable offense, which I have honored since the incident....
That is fair enough, and someone owes you some clarification on why the decision has been changed. But you cannot expect to have continued building ships this way relatively risk free while all other producers have to face the risks of production in low-sec. It is an unfair advantage not open to everyone (ie, they have no conceivable method of gaining the same advantage).
Proud steward of more public ISK than Motivated Prophet. Ask me about Secured ISK Loans. |
Kaaii
Caldari Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 11:48:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Frances Ducoir
Originally by: Kaaii
Originally by: Ray McCormack Why do you think you should continue to benefit from something that other corporations and individuals have no chance of doing?
Every corporation with a char with one character with anchoring lvl 3 from 2003, to 11/27200 6 had the exact same chance of doing. Failing to recognize your own ability is not a problem of mine...
grats on the most selfish post today... wtb anchored LSAA for players who joined after 11/27/2006
Shall we award skill points too? I mean everyone starting after 11/27/06 is clearly at a disadvantage...
"Id rather fall beside 10 Lions, than stand with 1000 sheep.."
|
|
Kaaii
Caldari Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 11:53:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Kaaii on 04/09/2007 11:55:24
Originally by: Ifni The fact of the matter is that you were building Capital ships with what essentially amounted to immunity. Since you can't field Capital ships in highsec, it would take a huge force of Battleships to down a large POS with said LSAA anchored at it.
The rules changed, you should be glad you had so long to build them when all newcomers to the market had to deal with harsher environments and logistics problems by hauling all the materials out to low sec.
I think pos were introduced long before dreads and carriers though. In doing so, the pos's then were taken down, albeit a lengthy and boring process (and costly) it was not "impossible". Just took an extreme amount of desire to do so.
And yes, I'm glad we did have the time we had. But I think most are missing the bigger picture. Its the "we said this" go ahead and spend billions setting up your industry, and infostructure, but we didn't mean it...
"Id rather fall beside 10 Lions, than stand with 1000 sheep.."
|
Gaven Blands
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 11:55:00 -
[12]
Going out on a common limb here, but are we to assume that BoB's alt corps no longer have a need for highsec arrays?
|
Frances Ducoir
Bounty Hunter - Dark Legion
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 11:57:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Kaaii
Shall we award skill points too? I mean everyone starting after 11/27/06 is clearly at a disadvantage...
of course, but they can keep up when they specialize and gather numbers. but they werent able to anchor the LSAA...
be glad you still have the t2 BPOs you might own (if you have any). thats another thing which newer players will never be able to reach. honestly, who would sell them ever, except a few rare ppl who quit the game. (and who could afford to buy these rare ones?)
*snip* Signiture remoted because it contained profanity - hutch |
Ladyah Liandri
A GmbH
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 12:03:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Kaaii
Originally by: Frances Ducoir
Originally by: Kaaii
Originally by: Ray McCormack Why do you think you should continue to benefit from something that other corporations and individuals have no chance of doing?
Every corporation with a char with one character with anchoring lvl 3 from 2003, to 11/27200 6 had the exact same chance of doing. Failing to recognize your own ability is not a problem of mine...
grats on the most selfish post today... wtb anchored LSAA for players who joined after 11/27/2006
Shall we award skill points too? I mean everyone starting after 11/27/06 is clearly at a disadvantage...
Sorry you failed to see the point twice.
If I started say January 1st, 2007 and skilled anchoring level 3 I'd never be able to have a high-sec LSAA.
|
Kaaii
Caldari Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 12:04:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Gaven Blands Going out on a common limb here, but are we to assume that BoB's alt corps no longer have a need for highsec arrays?
My main says your alt looses..
Save your tin hat for CAOD.
"Id rather fall beside 10 Lions, than stand with 1000 sheep.."
|
Kaaii
Caldari Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 12:09:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Ladyah Liandri
Originally by: Kaaii
Originally by: Frances Ducoir
Originally by: Kaaii
Originally by: Ray McCormack Why do you think you should continue to benefit from something that other corporations and individuals have no chance of doing?
Every corporation with a char with one character with anchoring lvl 3 from 2003, to 11/27200 6 had the exact same chance of doing. Failing to recognize your own ability is not a problem of mine...
grats on the most selfish post today... wtb anchored LSAA for players who joined after 11/27/2006
Shall we award skill points too? I mean everyone starting after 11/27/06 is clearly at a disadvantage...
Sorry you failed to see the point twice.
If I started say January 1st, 2007 and skilled anchoring level 3 I'd never be able to have a high-sec LSAA.
No I don't.
you never be able to have T2 bpo either, as pointed out above You would not be able to own mine bpos (unless you bought them) You would'nt have secure cans anchored in hi sec Or kestrels with cruse missle launchers et etc etc
Theres no equaling the playing field for those starting the game later. No game provides this for any newer player base, and how could they.
Whats done in the past stays there...unless its an lsaa...
"Id rather fall beside 10 Lions, than stand with 1000 sheep.."
|
Cersin
Der blutige Pfad Gottes
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 12:11:00 -
[17]
Well it was about time for this. Thinking about my removal out of my beloved Caldari Navy Corp a few months back, the statement from CCPs side was that joining this NPC Corp was never intended and isnt possible any more ... so about the same thing with all those Caps in highsec and the LSAA.
Removing of old mistakes from CCPs side is a good thing (kinda) as long as all mistakes get addressed and not only a few. So i vote for all hig sec capital ships to get removed from there too. OR leave it as it was ( YES PUT ME BACK INTO MY BELOVED CALDARI NAVY!!!)
But by fixing SOME of the mistakes which were made and leaving others unaddressed is in my opinion just plain stupid. Either all or nothing!
|
Gaven Blands
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 12:15:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Kaaii My main says your alt looses..
Save your tin hat for CAOD.
Thanks for the sentiment.
Careful chief, I hear that your second alt's 3rd petcorp's is undercutting the price on Hulks of your 4th main's 3rd pierate alt's highsec slave corp. Pay more attention to the bookkeeping.
And there's a shuttle in your nbsi space. Launch the Vagabonds.
|
William Alex
Viscosity
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 12:19:00 -
[19]
The issue here isn't that the OP had a competitive advantage. I think that's clear enough for everyone to see. I'm also not of the mindset that the OP should have continued to enjoy a competitive advantage, however what I do believe is that if the OP along with the others who did possess LSAA were guaranteed by CCP Staff that they would be able to operate the arrays, then why was their ability to operate it taken away without warning?
It seems a foresight to me, as I persontally don't belive that CCP is "Out to get us all" but it still should have been preceded with some kind of warning.
Please give us a 1 depth skill queue CCP.
|
Sorted
High Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 12:19:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Sorted on 04/09/2007 12:23:06 LSAA's in highsec. I didnt have chance to deploy them and I couldnt get them unless it was a corporate take over.
While we are balancing fairness:
T2 BPOS- I'll never "earn" one (unless I steal it or buy it from a current owner). So I would have an unfair disadvantage in the market - I'd have to invent to compete meh - unfair - remove them. I wasn't here when CCP did the lottery.
Rare Faction Ships (Gaurdian Vexor for example) - Same as above - not gonna get my hands on one by the orgional means. Meh - ufair. I wasnt playing when they were handed out. Remove them.
and Skill points, Whats that about? that guy has an advantage over me as he started playing before me. Even it out pls CCP.
Eve isnt about fairness, its all about advantages and foresight. (and numbers)
Maybe theres a very good and as yet undisclosed reason those LSAA's should of been removed, but the owners should of had a warning. As far as I can see the owners where following the guidlines set out by CCP after they changed the game (again) - and its the LSAA owners who have been shafted by yet another change in heart by CCP.
EDIT: With all the changes to eve recently, some that have altered things which have been in the game for many years it seems to me like there is a drunk monkey in the driving seat. Maybe he's on loan from SOE?
|
|
Mashie Saldana
Hooligans Of War
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 12:20:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Ifni The fact of the matter is that you were building Capital ships with what essentially amounted to immunity. Since you can't field Capital ships in highsec, it would take a huge force of Battleships to down a large POS with said LSAA anchored at it.
Not to mention up until the patch in June you couldn't even attack a highsec POS without getting concorded regardless of wardec. So that's 6 months of 100% riskfree capship manufacturing that the LSAA owners has enjoyed. Just be happy CCP didn't unanchor them back in November.
Light Assault Launchers & Defender FoF ideas |
William Alex
Viscosity
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 12:22:00 -
[22]
I think you are all missing the big picture here.
Everyone can see that the OP had an advantage that was unfair and NO one seems to be sad that it was taken away.
That's not the point. The point is that if CCP Staff tell you something's ok, then do something like this how much can you trust their rulings in the future?
Please give us a 1 depth skill queue CCP.
|
Level4
Minmatar Red Frog Investments Blue Sky Consortium
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 12:25:00 -
[23]
So how many rorqual's were beeing build ? :)
join channel "Profit".
|
Kaaii
Caldari Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 12:26:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Kaaii on 04/09/2007 12:26:49
Originally by: Level4 So how many rorqual's were beeing build ? :)
2
"Id rather fall beside 10 Lions, than stand with 1000 sheep.."
|
Ruffio Sepico
Minmatar Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 12:29:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Kaaii Edited by: Kaaii on 04/09/2007 11:55:24
Originally by: Ifni The fact of the matter is that you were building Capital ships with what essentially amounted to immunity. Since you can't field Capital ships in highsec, it would take a huge force of Battleships to down a large POS with said LSAA anchored at it.
The rules changed, you should be glad you had so long to build them when all newcomers to the market had to deal with harsher environments and logistics problems by hauling all the materials out to low sec.
I think pos were introduced long before dreads and carriers though. In doing so, the pos's then were taken down, albeit a lengthy and boring process (and costly) it was not "impossible". Just took an extreme amount of desire to do so.
And yes, I'm glad we did have the time we had. But I think most are missing the bigger picture. Its the "we said this" go ahead and spend billions setting up your industry, and infostructure, but we didn't mean it...
Yes, be happy about what you got out of it while it lasted. You did benefit from flaw in the game mechancis. We was never supposed to build capital ships in high sec. CCP should have removed this ability as soon as they changed the ability to use LSAA's in high sec, but they didn't and some (like you) did benefit from this.
Imho there wasn't really any problem before the Rorqual did enter the arena. When you see on the WTS forum people sell/acution these and use high sec as a selling argument, it will create waves. Also chewing out these ships at a 10 day phase at a high sec pos with no risk, compared to do it in low sec, or longer at a station factory in low sec, isn't exactly fair. EVE isn't about being fair, but at least everyone should have the same chances to do things based on current game mechancis.
Be happy with what you gained of have the LSAA for the time it lasted, and adapt to the ways other cap builders who haven't had a LSAA in high sec does.
Home: http://www.hidden-agenda.co.uk
|
Fenella
Caldari Dangermouse Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 12:31:00 -
[26]
Next logical step will be to expel all current capital ships from high sec.
Don't mind them being there personally, but wouldn't surprise me to see it happen soon.
|
Frug
Zenithal Harvest
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 12:31:00 -
[27]
They should have warned you ahead of time.
You should not get special privileges though.
- - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles |
Kaaii
Caldari Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 12:33:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Mashie Saldana
Originally by: Ifni The fact of the matter is that you were building Capital ships with what essentially amounted to immunity. Since you can't field Capital ships in highsec, it would take a huge force of Battleships to down a large POS with said LSAA anchored at it.
Not to mention up until the patch in June you couldn't even attack a highsec POS without getting concorded regardless of wardec. So that's 6 months of 100% riskfree capship manufacturing that the LSAA owners has enjoyed. Just be happy CCP didn't unanchor them back in November.
A somewhat valid point.
It was not however 100% risk free. For those that think outside the box, a war dec would have crippled the abilty to load said lsaa. Consider for a moment the number of componets that we had to load. Up until just recently it could only be done by agonisely slow multiple run with indys,, even with rigs carrying a max of 4 componets at a time. Divide 200+ by that. A war dec would not have put the structure at risk but certainly a steady stream of indys, undocking and docking for hours would put these assets at risk, no? Then freighters were given the ability to dock with pos structures, about 3 months ago, or less. So in effect upping the risk of a war dec, and loosing a freigther with 90+ componets in it. Hardly risk free........
"Id rather fall beside 10 Lions, than stand with 1000 sheep.."
|
Cornucopian
Gallente Dutch Omega United Freemen Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 12:38:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Kaaii
moan moan moan rabble rabble whine whin whinge whinge...sissy fit.
Dude, you had something unique, that was outside of normal game rules. now you dont. your char is now effectively legal again. rejoice. stop whining.
Chribba should still get his rorqual though.
/flame off ----------------------------------------------- "post with your main. delete your alt, you sad little exploiting metagamer."
Originally by: Royaldo
complete win by Cornucopian!
|
Matthew
Caldari BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 12:42:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Kaaii you never be able to have T2 bpo either, as pointed out above
The restricted nature of T2 BPO's were part of their design. That does not apply to LSAAs.
Originally by: Kaaii You would not be able to own mine bpos (unless you bought them)
Of course, there is zero in-game benefit of owning bpos to an item that no longer does anything. So unless you particualrly wanted your LSAA to be given the "snowball launcher" treatment...
Originally by: Kaaii You would'nt have secure cans anchored in hi sec
I assume here you only mean 0.8+, rather than all of high-sec. These really should all have gone long ago. Though I suspect LSAA churning out streams of capital ships would be further up the balance priority list than a pile of cans of limited usefulness.
Originally by: Kaaii Or kestrels with cruse missle launchers
I believe the GM's will spank you mightily if you actually use one though.
Originally by: Kaaii Theres no equaling the playing field for those starting the game later. No game provides this for any newer player base, and how could they.
Whats done in the past stays there...unless its an lsaa...
Or an infinite run blueprint copy.
Removing the high-sec LSAA was the right thing to do. However I do acknowledge that the way it has been done leaves something to be desired. The handling of the infinite run BPC's should have been the model followed - ensure removal occurs, but in a manner that allows those dependant on them to make alternative arrangements. In this situation I would have given 4-6 weeks notice of the unanchoring, and mineral reimbursement on any jobs unifinished at the point of unanchoring. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |