| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
Blood Blind
   |
Posted - 2008.01.02 12:59:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Drasked
Originally by: Le Donkey
Originally by: Drasked
Ok so what the GM said in this thread can be considered void because the loophole it opens is so fricking huge its not even "lollerskates" anymore.
Erm, he didn't open a loophole, he attempted to make clear that ppl shouldn't use this already open loophole.
If you fail or don't want to accept it, that's your problem.
But what if my corp is wardecced and i actually want to join imune but leave seconds after because one of their members called me "party boy" in alliance chat.
Then the corp that dec'd me notices this and redecs my corp, but seconds after that the leader of imune convos me to talk with me about my sudden departure and convinces me to join back up again and mute the person that called me party boy, but the guy that called me party boy has an alt and called me party boy again, so i leave again.
At what point is it a cheat? if a GM can't be clear about this then its pretty save to stay away from statements like this alltogether.
At the exact point that you get reported for it and a GM gives you a nice little warning or ban.
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
Blood Blind
|
Posted - 2008.01.02 13:35:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Arctur Ceti
It's funny how this is considered an exploit but using the gang mechanic to group up as a team can be used to gank victims in high security space without concord intervention. Talk about double standard.
Its not a double standard because the "victim" of this "exploit" can simply NOT join the gang and thus be completly immune to it.
The "victim" of the iMune aliance scheme (i.e. the Merc / agrieved / ganker corp that initiated the wardec), can do absolutely nothing to avoid it, except spending even more ISK to continue the wardec that could be as easilly voided as the first one...
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
Blood Blind
|
Posted - 2008.01.02 14:28:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Angel DeMorphis
But until CCP calls it such, it is not an exploit.
CCP has already called it an exploit (not exactly an exploit, but "cheating that can get you banned", so same thing actually)
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
Blood Blind
|
Posted - 2008.01.04 14:41:00 -
[4]
Originally by: McEivalley
You want to make wars an official matter? fine, make sure they stay official. Letting a 4 members merc corp to be a front of a much larger group just so the other characters can get away from being shot at back on whenever the corp that got WDed wants to pay them back a visit is a game-mechanics-sin on a much grander proportions than the immune exploit.
WTH does this has anything to do with this tread's discussion?! Or indeed what does this mean?!
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
Blood Blind
|
Posted - 2008.01.04 14:44:00 -
[5]
Originally by: 000Hunter000
By the ferocity of the GM's response i'm starting to wonder if the GM itself has any benefit in it beeing called an exploit.
I'm guessing that not completly destroying the gameplay of the hundreds or possible thousands of paying customers that play EVE as empire Mercs / corp warfare / whatever else depends on this game mecanic must have something to do with the speed of CCPs reply...
To all you carebears on this tread, just think of this as the equivalent to CCP placing all lvl4+ missions exclusively in low-sec / 0.0! 
|
| |
|