Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Ki Tarra
Caldari Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 15:44:00 -
[121]
Edited by: Ki Tarra on 09/02/2009 15:51:53
Originally by: GM Spiral As a side note we do welcome all and any pointers regarding errors or mistakes made in our knowledge base articles.
As a side note, there are other defects that have been ignored, even after they have been reported.
I filed a bug report (#62899) in September pointing out that "The criminal flagging system" was inaccurate.
The section titled "Gang aggression" has not matched actual or intended game mechanics since Empyrean Age was released in June.
So what is the effective means for us to provide pointers regarding errors and mistakes in your knowledge base articles?
|
Doc Punkiller
Caldari Section XIII Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 15:46:00 -
[122]
Originally by: GM Spiral Hello everybody.
You should have our apologies for not replying to this sooner. We wanted to double check on things before we put anything out regarding this. The results of our investigation into this claim is as follows.
Investigation into this has not revealed any foul play, exploits or other unintended issues affecting the sovereign status of the alliance KenZoku. The allianceÆs current sovereign status is the result of current and intended game mechanics.
Why is the article in blatant contrast with what happened?
The article was revised in early December 2008. Due to some unfortunate misunderstanding during this process the paragraph which has been quoted here was added to the article when it should not have. The article has now been reviewed again and this inconsistency removed and further clarification on this mechanic added.
You can find the updated article in our knowledge base here
This affects the alliance KenZoku in such a manner that in any systems which their member corporations have control towers where they were previously contributing to Band of Brother sovereignty, the towers now contribute to KenZoku sovereignty. They start claiming at sovereignty level 1 and have to hold out the timers as described in the article. All previous sovereignty levels attributed to Band of Brothers is permanently lost.
All in all, this is derived from a mistake in the review of a knowledge base article. As a side note we do welcome all and any pointers regarding errors or mistakes made in our knowledge base articles.
If there are still any concerns regarding this then please by all means ask.
Best regards, Senior GM Spiral EVE Online Customer Support Team
hello gm,
Can you provide a full list of documentation that have also this "unfortunate misunderstanding" in it ?
Signature removed. Inappropriate. Navigator |
Daviclond
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 15:57:00 -
[123]
Originally by: GM Spiral
All in all, this is derived from a mistake in the review of a knowledge base article. As a side note we do welcome all and any pointers regarding errors or mistakes made in our knowledge base articles.
talk about opening the sluice gates
|
Faife
Federation of Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 16:15:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Daviclond talk about opening the sluice gates
i believe that was GM speak for "lrn2eve noob", actually.
|
ElCoCo
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 16:23:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Faife
Originally by: Daviclond talk about opening the sluice gates
i believe that was GM speak for "lrn2eve noob", actually.
There's no lrn2eve to do here. Why would anyone test this to know if it works differently from what is said in the "documentation"? You'd only know if you stumbled upon it by accident.
I would also say that even common sense would dictate it should work as the knowledgebase said it did. But as we all know, common sense and eve don't go well together sometimes Boink! |
Ki Tarra
Caldari Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 16:29:00 -
[126]
Originally by: ElCoCo You'd only know if you stumbled upon it by accident.
...and even if you did stumble across it by accident and reported it to CCP, and they were able to reproduce the issue, odds are low that they would update the KB artical before it became a significantly public issue.
Notice how earlier in this thread veterns were quick to point out a) that the documentation is often wrong, b) that many already knew how the game mechanics really worked.
|
Sentinel Eeex
Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 16:36:00 -
[127]
Originally by: GM Spiral Hello everybody.
blah, blah, ...
In other words:
"We have no idea how it works, but we've just got few people together to try to decipher it. Because we have no idea how to change that part of code, nor who originally wrote it, there is no way in hell we're gonna touch it, so we're just gonna change the article in knowledge base."
Seriously, you have the most awesome game, and the most horrible documentation - ever
|
DiaBlo UK
Killer Koalas Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 18:32:00 -
[128]
Edited by: DiaBlo UK on 09/02/2009 18:31:49
Originally by: Sentinel Eeex
Originally by: GM Spiral Hello everybody.
blah, blah, ...
In other words:
"We have no idea how it works, but we've just got few people together to try to decipher it. Because we have no idea how to change that part of code, nor who originally wrote it, there is no way in hell we're gonna touch it, so we're just gonna change the article in knowledge base."
Seriously, you have the most awesome game, and the most horrible documentation - ever
F**k off to WoW then
Originally by: CCP Navigator Pretty sure someone is selling tinfoil hats. You should buy one
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Trollin' with my homies!
|
Jack Gilligan
Dragon's Rage Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 19:12:00 -
[129]
Unpublished changes to the game mechanics.. That just HAPPEN to benefit TAFKABits.
How unexpected.
|
Tipz NexAstrum
Celestial Horizon Corp. Celestial Industrial Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 19:15:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Sentinel EeexIn other words:
"We have no idea how it works, but we've just got few people together to try to decipher it. Because we have no idea how to change that part of code, nor who originally wrote it, there is no way in hell we're gonna touch it, so we're just gonna change the article in knowledge base."
Seriously, you have the most awesome game, and the most horrible documentation - ever [:lol:
Close, the Devs know how it works; check the sov maps back in October when CCP Tanis recreated his alliance after forgetting to pay the bill. This mechanic has been in the game since the inception of sov, later whoever writes the KB articles got it wrong. Since the Devs are too busy making new broken stuff they never take the time to check something as silly as the documentation to their game. |
|
Atlas Oracle
Minmatar Colossus Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 19:28:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Tipz NexAstrum Since the Devs are too busy making new broken stuff
this made me lol IRL. there is at least a grain of truth there. |
ElCoCo
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 20:13:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Tipz NexAstrum Close, the Devs know how it works; check the sov maps back in October when CCP Tanis recreated his alliance after forgetting to pay the bill. This mechanic has been in the game since the inception of sov ...
So because a DEV recreated his alliance to start claiming instantly one should assume it works the same for everyone?
Originally by: Tipz NexAstrum Since the Devs are too busy making new broken stuff ...
You do get points for this though
Boink! |
Jenny' JoJo
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 20:17:00 -
[133]
Edited by: Jenny'' JoJo on 09/02/2009 20:18:00 Lol. Even when bob no longer exists, people claim they are cheating from the grave.
P.S Knowledgebase says the Maller is the "Toughest" cruiser in game. Please fix this.
Refresh to see next real life CCP Sig(25 total) |
sooperkool
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 23:28:00 -
[134]
This complaint seems a bit irrelevant, as goons failure lies in in their refusal to accept a well-documented game mechanic.
You gotta kill and replace enemy towers with your own to claim sov.
Pretty soon, goon allies are gonna get tired of throwing away their battleships(while the goons sit back ready to tower-spam and claim sov?), and the Goons will have to take their failboat fleet back to whats left of their homeland.
Grats on taking what could be the metagaming victory of the year, and turning it into a massive failure of Goonswarm proportion.
Well Done
|
Gramtar
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 16:27:00 -
[135]
Edited by: Gramtar on 12/02/2009 16:28:49 Edited by: Gramtar on 12/02/2009 16:27:49
Originally by: GM Spiral -snip-
You can find the updated article in our knowledge base here
This affects the alliance KenZoku in such a manner that in any systems which their member corporations have control towers where they were previously contributing to Band of Brother sovereignty, the towers now contribute to KenZoku sovereignty. They start claiming at sovereignty level 1 and have to hold out the timers as described in the article. All previous sovereignty levels attributed to Band of Brothers is permanently lost.
All in all, this is derived from a mistake in the review of a knowledge base article. As a side note we do welcome all and any pointers regarding errors or mistakes made in our knowledge base articles.
If there are still any concerns regarding this then please by all means ask.
Best regards, Senior GM Spiral EVE Online Customer Support Team
Can this mechanic be used to legitimately bypass the 5 tower per days limit currently placed on alliances engaged in "POS spam" (typically only in high moon count systems)?
For example: 1. System held by Alliance A has 80 moons, and that alliance has 6 towers present holding Sov.
2. Alliance B attacks, and starts placing towers at the rate of 5 per day. Alliance A "counterspams" to stay ahead in the Sov count until Alliance A has 21 towers and Alliance B has 20, after 4 days.
3. Enter Alliance C, who are allies with Alliance B. Alliance B has an alt logistics corp within Alliance C, and drops 3 towers. Target system moon count is now: Alliance A: 21 towers Alliance B: 20 towers Alliance C: 5 towers
4. 7 downtimes pass. Alt corp in Alliance C leaves that alliance, and joins Alliance B as soon as it's able (24 hours, 1 downtime, whatever that limit is).
5. Next downtime Target system moon count is: Alliance A: 21 towers Alliance B: 23 towers
Alliance B holds sov, and Alliance A is now unable to "counterspam" to regain sov.
Question 1: To reiterate: Is this a legitimate tactic to bypass the 5 tower per day per alliance limit? Can alliance A petition alliance B or alliance C for exploit?
Question 2: If this is not a legitimate tactic, what would CCP's response be if this were employed? Remove towers dropped by the alt-logistics corp?
Question 3: If this is not a legitimate tact, and if Alliance A previously held Sov 2, 3, or 4, would that Sov level be reinstated at the next downtime?
Question 4: If this is not a legitimate tactic, and if the corp that dropped towers as a member of Alliance C weren't just a shell, alt-logistics corp, would that change the legitimacy? If so, what are the membership requirements? 100 characters? 200 characters?
Question 5: What if a corp in Alliance A left that alliance, and joined alliance B, essentially "defecting" from A to B? Could alliance A petition that to regain sov?
I can think of many other scenarios. It ultimately boils down to, can alt-corps, or corps within other alliances be used to bypass the 5 tower per day per alliance drop limit?
|
Aladdin Insane
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 23:26:00 -
[136]
Edited by: Aladdin Insane on 12/02/2009 23:34:50
Originally by: GM Spiral Due to some unfortunate misunderstanding during this process the paragraph which has been quoted here was added to the article when it should not have. The article has now been reviewed again and this inconsistency removed and further clarification on this mechanic added.
i don't believe you.
Regardless of CCP's "other" motivations, bla bla whatever, the simple fact is eve has been breaking user records since this big war with ken.
if the 7 day sov thing was in place, i'm willing to bet there'd be far fewer users logged on.
Strange how this U-turn comes about as we are nearing the launch of another MMO.
Edit : How is it possible to get one of THE most important game rules wrong? The sov section in the database has a vast impact on the shape, direction and userbase of the whole of eve, therefore the popularity & commercial success.
Are you seriously telling us that the team of guys working and the team approving the sov system didn't read the manual?
P.S. i'm loving the current fight with ken, not bashing ccp for the sake of it _____________________ Eve is not a sandbox Sandboxes always have kitty poo in them
|
Zantrei Kordisin
FinFleet KenZoku
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 00:04:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Aladdin Insane
i don't believe you.
Regardless of CCP's "other" motivations, bla bla whatever, the simple fact is eve has been breaking user records since this big war with ken.
if the 7 day sov thing was in place, i'm willing to bet there'd be far fewer users logged on.
Strange how this U-turn comes about as we are nearing the launch of another MMO.
Edit : How is it possible to get one of THE most important game rules wrong? The sov section in the database has a vast impact on the shape, direction and userbase of the whole of eve, therefore the popularity & commercial success.
Are you seriously telling us that the team of guys working and the team approving the sov system didn't read the manual?
P.S. i'm loving the current fight with ken, not bashing ccp for the sake of it
:tinfoil: _________________________________________________________
|
Gonada
Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 00:10:00 -
[138]
poor goonies, their master-stroke turned into a circle-jerk
Please, jump into traffic
|
Kellyl
Gallente Integrity.
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 00:30:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Gramtar
Can this mechanic be used to legitimately bypass the 5 tower per days limit currently placed on alliances engaged in "POS spam" (typically only in high moon count systems)?
For example: 1. System held by Alliance A has 80 moons, and that alliance has 6 towers present holding Sov.
2. Alliance B attacks, and starts placing towers at the rate of 5 per day. Alliance A "counterspams" to stay ahead in the Sov count until Alliance A has 21 towers and Alliance B has 20, after 4 days.
3. Enter Alliance C, who are allies with Alliance B. Alliance B has an alt logistics corp within Alliance C, and drops 3 towers. Target system moon count is now: Alliance A: 21 towers Alliance B: 20 towers Alliance C: 5 towers
4. 7 downtimes pass. Alt corp in Alliance C leaves that alliance, and joins Alliance B as soon as it's able (24 hours, 1 downtime, whatever that limit is).
5. Next downtime Target system moon count is: Alliance A: 21 towers Alliance B: 23 towers
Alliance B holds sov, and Alliance A is now unable to "counterspam" to regain sov.
Question 1: To reiterate: Is this a legitimate tactic to bypass the 5 tower per day per alliance limit? Can alliance A petition alliance B or alliance C for exploit?
Question 2: If this is not a legitimate tactic, what would CCP's response be if this were employed? Remove towers dropped by the alt-logistics corp?
Question 3: If this is not a legitimate tact, and if Alliance A previously held Sov 2, 3, or 4, would that Sov level be reinstated at the next downtime?
Question 4: If this is not a legitimate tactic, and if the corp that dropped towers as a member of Alliance C weren't just a shell, alt-logistics corp, would that change the legitimacy? If so, what are the membership requirements? 100 characters? 200 characters?
This.
In changing the rules yet again to suit (ex)BoB, CCP leave a large loophole to be exploited. I understand though, CCP alts want their alliances sovereignty back eh?
|
Armoured C
Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 00:39:00 -
[140]
/put tin foil hat i am now protected ... where to start
This week EvE Life: Wormhole Wars 01/Feb
|
|
Aladdin Insane
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 00:50:00 -
[141]
Don't need foil, just join the fight and wonder at this unique opportunity for pew. _____________________ Eve is not a sandbox Sandboxes always have kitty poo in them
|
Armoured C
Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 00:56:00 -
[142]
Originally by: Aladdin Insane Don't need foil, just join the fight and wonder at this unique opportunity for pew.
the pew pew is big and large , like in WALL.E
This week EvE Life: Wormhole Wars 01/Feb
|
Overlord Anubis
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 15:32:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Gramtar Edited by: Gramtar on 12/02/2009 16:28:49 Edited by: Gramtar on 12/02/2009 16:27:49
Originally by: GM Spiral -snip-
You can find the updated article in our knowledge base here
This affects the alliance KenZoku in such a manner that in any systems which their member corporations have control towers where they were previously contributing to Band of Brother sovereignty, the towers now contribute to KenZoku sovereignty. They start claiming at sovereignty level 1 and have to hold out the timers as described in the article. All previous sovereignty levels attributed to Band of Brothers is permanently lost.
All in all, this is derived from a mistake in the review of a knowledge base article. As a side note we do welcome all and any pointers regarding errors or mistakes made in our knowledge base articles.
If there are still any concerns regarding this then please by all means ask.
Best regards, Senior GM Spiral EVE Online Customer Support Team
Can this mechanic be used to legitimately bypass the 5 tower per days limit currently placed on alliances engaged in "POS spam" (typically only in high moon count systems)?
For example: 1. System held by Alliance A has 80 moons, and that alliance has 6 towers present holding Sov.
2. Alliance B attacks, and starts placing towers at the rate of 5 per day. Alliance A "counterspams" to stay ahead in the Sov count until Alliance A has 21 towers and Alliance B has 20, after 4 days.
3. Enter Alliance C, who are allies with Alliance B. Alliance B has an alt logistics corp within Alliance C, and drops 3 towers. Target system moon count is now: Alliance A: 21 towers Alliance B: 20 towers Alliance C: 5 towers
4. 7 downtimes pass. Alt corp in Alliance C leaves that alliance, and joins Alliance B as soon as it's able (24 hours, 1 downtime, whatever that limit is).
5. Next downtime Target system moon count is: Alliance A: 21 towers Alliance B: 23 towers
Alliance B holds sov, and Alliance A is now unable to "counterspam" to regain sov.
Question 1: To reiterate: Is this a legitimate tactic to bypass the 5 tower per day per alliance limit? Can alliance A petition alliance B or alliance C for exploit?
Question 2: If this is not a legitimate tactic, what would CCP's response be if this were employed? Remove towers dropped by the alt-logistics corp?
Question 3: If this is not a legitimate tact, and if Alliance A previously held Sov 2, 3, or 4, would that Sov level be reinstated at the next downtime?
Question 4: If this is not a legitimate tactic, and if the corp that dropped towers as a member of Alliance C weren't just a shell, alt-logistics corp, would that change the legitimacy? If so, what are the membership requirements? 100 characters? 200 characters?
Question 5: What if a corp in Alliance A left that alliance, and joined alliance B, essentially "defecting" from A to B? Could alliance A petition that to regain sov?
I can think of many other scenarios. It ultimately boils down to, can alt-corps, or corps within other alliances be used to bypass the 5 tower per day per alliance drop limit?
I am on the edge of my seat waiting for an answer. |
Gramtar
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 17:33:00 -
[144]
Edited by: Gramtar on 13/02/2009 17:34:06 To be clear, I pose the question above simply to understand if the tactic is legitimate or not, and to know if it's something my alliance should be on guard against.
I fully expected KenZoku to gain Sov 1 in systems where member corps had sov claiming towers, after downtime following their joining the alliance. Sov has worked for this way for as long as it has existed, to my knowledge. At least, it's worked this way since June 2006, and older Goons know this well from our first foray into conquerable space against You-What and D2 in Cloud Ring.
edit: regardless of documentation on CCP's website - everyone that held a basic understand of sov claiming mechanics knew this would happen.
The main things I'm trying to understand are:
1. Does CCP see a distinction between obviously legitimate moves by corps from one alliance to another (recent examples include the creation of Red Overlord and KenZoku alliances, and the move of some former Red Alliance corps to Against All Authorities) and a hypothetical situation (clear intent to get around 5 per day drop limit) that could occur in the future?
2. My big question - Does CCP even have the ability to restore Sov count timers towards gaining, holding, or breaking Sov 2/3/4?
Goons also know well that when bugs occur (tower killmails not being generated, apparently due to server lag issues), CCP did not step in to restore Sov 3 (most recently in R2TJ in December 2008). |
Tiger's Spirit
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 17:36:00 -
[145]
Jerk Kensuxers, u will lost this fight, the GM-s not enough for cheating. Yarrrr |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |