| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
CrazzyEddie
   |
Posted - 2009.02.05 16:49:00 -
[1]
hi, frist off this is not a troll in any way and i mean what im saying.
I realy do feel bad about this, it was cheep and under handed.
GL to all Bob members and sorry this happen! |
Concorduck
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 16:50:00 -
[2]
hi, frist off this is not a troll in any way and i mean what im saying.
I realy do feel bad about this, it was cheep and under handed.
GL to OP and sorry this happen!
IBTL |
Scarlet Pimpdaddy
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 17:14:00 -
[3]
Cheep? Like a canary?
Haha BoB!
|
Feral Lady
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 17:19:00 -
[4]
In the larger sense, CCP are careless game designers for constructing an interface that lets this happen. No vote, no cooling off period, nothing. Pathetic
|
Lt Angus
Caldari
End Game.
The Crimson Federation
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 17:23:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Feral Lady
In the larger sense, CCP are careless game designers for constructing an interface that lets this happen. No vote, no cooling off period, nothing. Pathetic
Yea looks like disbanding an alliance is easier then creating shares or declaring war |
GateScout
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 17:29:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Feral Lady
In the larger sense, CCP are careless game designers for constructing an interface that lets this happen. No vote, no cooling off period, nothing. Pathetic
Nanny state now! Protect us from our own actions!
CCP you horrible, horrible designers. Why don't you protect us?!
When we give the authority to others to control our corporations and alliances, you must protect us from their actions. We cannot be held accountable. We should not have to compartmentalize our resources. We cannot be expected to be subjected to the actions of others.
On a more serious note: I think this is an outstanding game design. There shouldn't be votes or cooling off periods. If you give someone the authority to control an alliance or even disband it, you better be damn sure you want to extend that authority. |
Lt Shard
Shoot To Thrill
Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 17:29:00 -
[7]
Originally by: CrazzyEddie
hi, frist off this is not a troll in any way and i mean what im saying.
I realy do feel bad about this, it was cheep and under handed.
GL to all Bob members and sorry this happen!
Attempting to scan down eddies rookie ship in local. 
Ontopic:
I'm still confused on what really happened. |
Armoured Gamer
Gallente
Federation of Freedom Fighters
Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 17:34:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Concorduck
hi, frist off this is not a troll in any way and i mean what im saying.
I realy do feel bad about this, it was cheep and under handed.
GL to OP and sorry this happen!
IBTL
hi there farham o/ |
Atnal
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 17:42:00 -
[9]
IBTL
|
Meeogi
Amarr
Lone Star Privateers
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 18:10:00 -
[10]
This is how it works...bob placed an Immoral and unloyal member in charge of all the keys. They are the reason this happened and the blame goes to them. This is why it is a sandbox...This was a coup...from inside bob...and this happens all the time in real countries. This is why this game is different than all of the others. C.C.P would ruin it if they stepped in.
Go back to wow...all who can't understand this
Wax on Wax off |
Irida Mershkov
Gallente
Noir.
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 18:18:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Irida Mershkov on 05/02/2009 18:18:43
Originally by: Feral Lady
In the larger sense, CCP are careless game designers for constructing an interface that lets this happen. No vote, no cooling off period, nothing. Pathetic
Edit: Meeogi covered it pretty well actually, it's BOB's fault for trusting someone who shouldn't, in their eyes, been trusted.
|
Price McChecker
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 18:21:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Feral Lady
In the larger sense, CCP are careless game designers for constructing an interface that lets this happen. No vote, no cooling off period, nothing. Pathetic
Haaar haaaaaaaaaar! |
Concorduck
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 18:23:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Armoured Gamer
Originally by: Concorduck
hi, frist off this is not a troll in any way and i mean what im saying.
I realy do feel bad about this, it was cheep and under handed.
GL to OP and sorry this happen!
IBTL
hi there farham o/
hi there armored c o/ |
Da Jiling
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 18:36:00 -
[14]
1 month of CAOD chest beating/cyber-gangsta stupidity from the Goons will turn into much nerd rage when they realise that 'oh noes.. no one aktually lieks us! :( '
There are several laughable points to this utter shower
a) The user of this account (hacker or no) could disband an entire (and it has to be said, the best pvp alliance in teh history of EvE) with one keystroke.
b) The comments from the Goons of 'OMG WE WIN WE KILLED BOB!'... lame/pathetic/beyond words.. take your pick. We all know what happens/happened when Goonswarm and BoB met in combat.. we all knew who would win which makes their 'victory' a very, very hollow one indeed.
But this all leads to some very worrying facts.. how secure is the game? If, as has been speculated, an account has been hacked and then exploited... will their be any due punishment?
From my perspective it puts CCP in a very difficult position and will lead to a great loss of trust in teh developers and admins if nothing is done to prevent this kind of 'Grand Theft Alliance' occuring again.
After all... if you spent a great deal of personal time playing this, only to see all of that time swallowed up by somone hellbent on making other peoples life miserable would you erally want to pay for that?
|
Navtiqes
Englebarna
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 18:39:00 -
[15]
To all former BOB members:
Take better care of your directors. Directors have feelings too. |
Untana
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 21:04:00 -
[16]
As others have said and it really is the main point.
Goon never could beat BOB in PVP. thats a proven fact.
They had to hack to win... thats .. sad lol |
Odeweaver
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 21:24:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Untana
As others have said and it really is the main point.
Goon never could beat BOB in PVP. thats a proven fact.
They had to hack to win... thats .. sad lol
The BoB director randomly turned traitor after some corp drama and joined goonswarm and took as much stuff as could with him.
While BoB had a habit of turning directors in other corps traitor through bribes and spies. |
SCAM CEO
Minmatar
S.C.A.M.
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 21:27:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Untana
As others have said and it really is the main point.
Goon never could beat BOB in PVP. thats a proven fact.
They had to hack to win... thats .. sad lol
Was no hack, was a trust and respect issue. As with all things, in the end you reap what you sow. I think CCP mean this as an intentional no I mean integral part of eve, trust, respect and reputation can go along way here, BOB made a mistake end of. |
Gaston Navarre
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 23:37:00 -
[19]
Originally by: GateScout
On a more serious note: I think this is an outstanding game design. There shouldn't be votes or cooling off periods. If you give someone the authority to control an alliance or even disband it, you better be damn sure you want to extend that authority.
I agree with your last sentence but not the first two. The purpose of alliances is to help corps organise and co-operate for mutual benefit. It is hard to see how a design which allows one disgruntled director to dissolve the alliance with a few mouse clicks, against the wishes of all others involved, best serves the implicit purpose of the Alliance - to help the member corps.
More security (such as multiple votes, cooling off periods, notifications of other directors/CEOs) would in no way stop an Alliance dissolving if that is what the members wish - there are no downsides. Non-existent or weak failsafes and security, as we have seen, allow an Alliance to be dissolved by one person immediately on a whim, which is clearly against the purpose of the Alliance. The downside to not having these safety measures is enormous. When something has no downside and huge upside, it is a better choice than an alternative with huge downside and no upside, wouldn't you agree?
A design with total freedom and no failsafes is extremely insecure and dangerous, yet has no real benefits to offset those dangers. Do you really think that is good design?
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |