| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
F'nog
Amarr
Celestial Horizon Corp.
Valainaloce
   |
Posted - 2007.09.04 21:15:00 -
[121]
 Originally by: Frug
They should have warned you ahead of time.
You should not get special privileges though.
Once again this all comes down to CCP's lack of communication. If, as in so many instances before hand, they had simply posted: "On X date (or even: Tomorrow)we'll be removing all LSAAs from high-sec space" this would have been avoided. Is it so difficult to inform the playerbase of what's going on instead of dropping a bomb on the us?
And, no, I didn't have one. I don't even have a single POS anywhere. But I'm a bit miffed that CCP didn't think it was a good idea to inform everyone of the change prior to doing it, especially when they previously stated that it wouldn't happen.
I used to get It.
Then It changed.
Now I don't even know what It is.
|
Hamfast
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 21:47:00 -
[122]
CCP's policy has never to call attention to what it has determined to be an exploit until after that exploit has been fixed... then they tell us that they fixed the following exploits and list them...
With the advent of the Rorqual, CCP decides that the LSAA in High Sec Space have become an exploit (or have that potential) and must therefore be removed... after making this decision they look at their options, set a date and fix the potential exploit...
Prior to the announcement that this potential exploit has been fixed, this thread and others spring up...
Please note that there is no proof that any of the former owners of the High Sec LSAA's were planning to exploit this beyond the offer listed for the Rorqual built in High Sec Space, and even that one may not have been.
The problem as I see it is what happens if one of these Rorqual's fail to leave the system, CCP knows where it was built, but swinging the ban stick at the exploiter (Rorqual Driver) would not really be correct in that it was the builder that failed to live up to the agreement to jump all Capital ships to low sec after they are built.
--------*****--------
It takes 43 muscles to frown and 17 to smile, but it doesn't take any to just sit there with a dumb look on your face.
|
Illyria Ambri
RennTech
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 22:02:00 -
[123]
Originally by: F'nog
Once again this all comes down to CCP's lack of communication. If, as in so many instances before hand, they had simply posted: "On X date (or even: Tomorrow)we'll be removing all LSAAs from high-sec space" this would have been avoided. Is it so difficult to inform the playerbase of what's going on instead of dropping a bomb on the us?
Wouldn't have worked.. all those corps with the arrays would have been posting here anwyays whining about the supposed promise oveur gave them and crying foul...
Thats why CCP did it w/o notice..
They can ignore the whines after the fact.. if they start whining first.. CCP has to pretend to listen rather then just ignore.. which do you think is easier and more natural to them?
------------
This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek
Here come the Drums!! - The Master |
Bluemaxs
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 22:08:00 -
[124]
Its kinda funny that people start to think about advantages they got due playing to a certain time and getting something that others cant like LSAA in high sec or having the lottery luck to get a T2 BPO that this advantages are something that they ¦earned¦ or ¦worked for¦ or anything compared to it and so they shall stay like it is until the end of time.
Now as another defense arguement that players that play longer should have naturaly advantages over people that play later of this nature it should simply be recognized that at a certain point LSAA couldnt be deployed in high sec anymore and all people that joined that game after this change are subject to this (and all old players who did not have a LSAA before the change)..well now we have a new change that also the old LSAA are forbidden as well..hmmz now you guys are subject to a change..like the other had to get used to the change get used to your own change and stop whining. You had an advantage for some time and be happy about it..now its over.
|
Terror Rising
Death Of Fallen Angels
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 23:23:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Illyria Ambri
Originally by: F'nog
Once again this all comes down to CCP's lack of communication. If, as in so many instances before hand, they had simply posted: "On X date (or even: Tomorrow)we'll be removing all LSAAs from high-sec space" this would have been avoided. Is it so difficult to inform the playerbase of what's going on instead of dropping a bomb on the us?
Wouldn't have worked.. all those corps with the arrays would have been posting here anwyays whining about the supposed promise oveur gave them and crying foul...
Thats why CCP did it w/o notice..
They can ignore the whines after the fact.. if they start whining first.. CCP has to pretend to listen rather then just ignore.. which do you think is easier and more natural to them?
No they wouldnt post.. Why? because it would draw attention to themselves..
CCP made a capital mining ship .. and THEN realised... "ah crap, you know what we forgot..." ...
So rorquals didnt get nerfed so that they cant use X skill in 0.5> (YES capitals are nerfed in empire in the code, you cannot assign fighters etc).. Instead, EVERYTHING gets nerfed.
As I have said before, it is not an issue, but from the timeline you can tell that CCP screwed up.. Why? Becuase if they had REALLY thought it out they would have nerfed the Arrays ON the patch and incuded it in the notes. But no, they realised at the Xth minute that they had made a loophole and had to close it.
So, all those corps that had obeyed the rules and had followed the policies they were given, they got spanked without notice.
Fair? no... Capitals in high sec fair? no ... (of course not)... But a mail maybe even 1 week before it was done or a mention in the patch notes... surely that would have been professional? No?
|
Feng Schui
Minmatar
The Ninja Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 00:50:00 -
[126]
Personally, I would have set the date to when 2.3 came out, max PE, max Manufactoring skills.. however long it takes to manufacture from this - 1 day = the day we take them down.
Then release a small devblog saying, we're taking down all high sec LSAA's, so please do not add any capital ships to the production.
Boom.. no one would have added Rorquals to the production, people could have offlined them / moved them, all would have been good.
The Beginning <-- crap quality, need to redo, sorry :( |
Varrakk
Chosen Path
FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 08:22:00 -
[127]
Edited by: Varrakk on 05/09/2007 08:25:07
Up to a few days ago, I was the happy owner of a High-sec LSAA. As with Kaaii, my lsaa was also shut down by a GM when someone petitioned it. It was onlined again with the agreement that all capitals had to be jumped out as soon as possible.
The unannounced unanchoring of the LSAA was handled pretty bad. And we was promised to keep these jewels.
The more elegant sollution I would have picked, prevent acticvation of Industrial Core, Siege Mode and Triage in high-sec.
(fixd speeling)
|
Vardemis
Tabula Rasa Systems
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 09:12:00 -
[128]
Keeping LSAA in high security systems operational without the chance to anyone to do so is not acceptable in my oppinion. It creates differences in the risk versus reward equation for the very same production process on various levels.
Access and hauling of minerals and fuel, safety of the structures because captial ships cannot be used to assault them, the need of a declaration of war to start assaulting them, giving the owner an advanced warning.
There is no penalty at all and a lot worse then the mentioned t2 bpo lottery, since there was always the option to just buy the bpo, however you cannot buy such a pos.
Capital production should bring the same risk to any producer, without any exceptions.
-Vardemis |
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Frontier Trade League
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 09:29:00 -
[129]
I don't think they should have unanchored them without telling folks since previously they said they would remain and be grandfathered into the game.
At the same time I don't really think Kieron is in a position that could actually help the situation. The community managers I've seen in the MMOs I've player are all pretty much yes men, those that aren't don't last long at their jobs.
Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. |
Valacirca
Caldari
Perkone
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 14:49:00 -
[130]
It looks like Kaaii has a fair case that warrants at least a Dev response on the issue. While we can't assume every promise is true, and I'm sure if the dev's reply months ago was well known that this wouldn't have suddenly occurred, I think some sort of recompense should be made to those owners of LSAAs who have followed Kieron's order to the letter.
|
dor amwar
Foundation
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 15:24:00 -
[131]
the first mistake was that they allowed you to have it so long. bad...really bad. removing it without telling you ahead of time, second mistake. but that is ccp. you were fortunate and benefited, losing it now is not a loss on your part, you still gained where others couldn't. stop the whine.
|
Jennai
The Silent Rage
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 15:55:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Vardemis
Keeping LSAA in high security systems operational without the chance to anyone to do so is not acceptable in my oppinion. It creates differences in the risk versus reward equation for the very same production process on various levels.
highsec LSAA were not acceptable for the balance reasons you mentioned, but telling the owners that they'd be grandfathered in and then unanchoring them all with no notice whatsoever is horrible customer service. it would have taken maybe half an hour to get someone to look up contact info for all the highsec LSAA and send a mail saying "we changed our minds, move your thing in the next 3 days or it'll be unanchored".
|
Clorthos
Gallente
Tau Ceti Global Production
Angels Of Discord
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 17:00:00 -
[133]
Originally by: dor amwar
the first mistake was that they allowed you to have it so long. bad...really bad. removing it without telling you ahead of time, second mistake. but that is ccp. you were fortunate and benefited, losing it now is not a loss on your part, you still gained where others couldn't. stop the whine.
The problem for me is they grandfathered it in, they stated that and then without warning took it away. I had not done too much work at mine, mainly building what was needed for corp and alliance mates that wanted to pick it up down in empire.
Most of my builds were Freighters, and indeed we had a ore ship about to go into build for a corpie as well.
If in the last november patch discussion they said " we will take this away sometime in the future " I would not of been working for the past 9 months on building the ships there but set a low sec pos up closer to my 0.0 logistics route.
Building cap ships for 0.0 in empire space is not really that convenient, and I have almsot lost a couple to cynoing on the odd transist station here and there with other carriers and dreads moving about or pirates with capitals.
CCP needs to face the music on this in an official capacity and publicly say to everyone not just the ceo's since mroe than them were effected by this.
1) sorry to the gaming community for not giving everyone the chance to do this.
2) sorry to the Large ship array owners for giving no warning on this action, seeing as we were following your stated words on the LSaa'a you owe us that.
3) Don't treat us like scum for following a game mechanic in place, you glorified the Privateers with interviews posted in forum and in charater selection screen, and then told them 2 weeks before you were going to nerf them in patch notes.
4) since we can no longer start our jobs where we intended to do them, through no fualt of our own, some of us are left with a fairly sizable ammount of capital parts in high sec areas, bpo's and bpc's as well. CCP should move the parts and bpo's to the location of the CEO's of that corp's choosing so they incur no risk of loss of materials for following the rules as in place. You are already doing it with the ships that are in production so we know it can and should be done with the assets left in a uesless area due to this.
To the player that is looking at this issue and saying "good ridance", fine you deserve the right, but don't think for one second that everyone of us read the rules as stated by the patch team.
Rearead them, and then again before we asked gm's again if it was ok, and thier blessing on the ships being build in place were given. At no point, and I can assure you this since for my corp I am the one that was doing the work, would I of started this path of production in place if the GM's response would of been .... we may take it away without warning ....
In fact the response was never let it run out of fuel and never offline it because we will not turn it back on for you ever.
~so angry I have sharted myself and flung poo at the screen~
|
Meek also
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 17:02:00 -
[134]
I'll throw my 2 cents in..
If the ORE cap ship was not introduced, I would have no problem with the LSAA's in empire staying..
However, I think that someone having a ORE industrial in .5 + space, protected by concord is not balanced..
Since they cannot limit you from building one at a LSAA in empire, then the LSAA has to go..
I think CCP was on the ball on this one, even if it's not a popular decision from those that had them..
Time to start building capital in a .4 or lower system like everyone else..
|
dor amwar
Foundation
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 17:39:00 -
[135]
Originally by: Clorthos
Originally by: dor amwar
the first mistake was that they allowed you to have it so long. bad...really bad. removing it without telling you ahead of time, second mistake. but that is ccp. you were fortunate and benefited, losing it now is not a loss on your part, you still gained where others couldn't. stop the whine.
The problem for me
i just cannot believe you thought they would let you continue as the only cap producers in highsec. poor business planning. i agree that that ccp has done a leeroy here, what else have you come to expect from them in these situations. but you had your exclusive time to benefit from their mistake and i have no pity on your arguments.
|
Ogul
Caldari
ZiTek Deepspace Explorations
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 18:53:00 -
[136]
No you can't rely on CCP's word.
EVE rule number one applies here: Do not trust anyone any further than blaster range.
---
This is a war declaration, issued from your alt corp. It is used to gank people in high sec. |
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
Free Traders
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 19:41:00 -
[137]
After reading the OP. I'd expect the inteligent people to agree with him/her.
Seems there are very few inteligent people in this thread.
There is not a single word that they want the LSAA's back. They just wanted a prior warning that something will happen.
Next time when YOU cry after a stealth nerf to your ship/module/whatever, you deserver the same treatment you gave the OP.
It IS FAIR WHAT was done. It is NOT FAIR HOW it was done.
Originally by: Aravel Thon
Originally by: Nith Batoxxx
Hi my alt just leanred to fly the ferox...............
I am so so terribly sorry...
|
Haradgrim
Caldari
The Wild Bunch
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 20:00:00 -
[138]
CCP should have never left your LSAA in high sec, they also should have notified you.
CCP should also remove all unlimited run t2 bpos from the game without exchanging them for ones with massive amounts of runs, they should also notify players before doing this.
No player should have a greater advantage over another due to having started their character earlier (aside from SP). CCP messed this one up pretty bad in my opinion, after all the stuff (especially as it relates to BoB) that happened over the last year they should be making an effort to appear consistent and fair in all of their interaction with the player base, this would be an example of the complete opposite.....
-
Haradgrim
[-WB-]
That.which.does.not.bend.breaks |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |