open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked CCP: No TCUs before downtime anymore.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Author Topic

Full Bowl
Posted - 2010.11.02 18:14:00 - [1]
 

I wonder why they made this precedent?

Yuki Kulotsuki
Posted - 2010.11.02 18:56:00 - [2]
 


Max Wilson
Posted - 2010.11.02 19:30:00 - [3]
 

It's not a new rule. They just don't like TEST. There are multiple other TCU's that went online during this dt. TEST was not the only ones. TEST was just the only ones that got their TCU's removed.

Hertford
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2010.11.02 19:33:00 - [4]
 

A consistent GM policy is purely optional.

Orb Lati
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2010.11.02 19:35:00 - [5]
 

awwww......not able to sneak in a bunch of sov claims over the extended DT.
How about actually defending your next batch of TCU's when you deploy them.

Tom Sasaki
Posted - 2010.11.02 19:44:00 - [6]
 

Well as I see it was an extended DT, but lets be honest here cleaning those out is just a 10+ hours job of anchoring 50+ SBU's and brining out ships to take them down.

Ofc its unprecendented to anchor that way during an extended DT which gives the defenders no chance to take them down while they are onlining and I do have this lingering feeling that if a southern had done in the north it would have had the same result.

TLDR; It was better under the old sov system.

Hertford
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2010.11.02 19:59:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Orb Lati
awwww......not able to sneak in a bunch of sov claims over the extended DT.
How about actually defending your next batch of TCU's when you deploy them.


We're only after the gOoD fIgHtS

Blazde
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.11.02 20:10:00 - [8]
 

The GMs have a very strict - if completely unjustifiable - policy of not intervening in 0.0 sovereignty matters.

I think you must have just carelessly mislaid your TCUs and forged GMs mails about them being removed

Narisa Bithon
Caldari
The Motley Crew Reborn
Posted - 2010.11.02 20:18:00 - [9]
 

give test back their tcu's in delve.... just shows how much gm's still have it alliance alts.

Etil DeLaFuente
Posted - 2010.11.02 20:22:00 - [10]
 

Hi, i'd like to offer my help to all TEST pubbies. I have plenty of space to stock their stuff before they leave. Free of charge of course.

Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
Posted - 2010.11.02 20:25:00 - [11]
 

Trying to be clever, failing hard and now crying?

Pretty funny Laughing

Tradeslave1
Posted - 2010.11.02 20:29:00 - [12]
 

Removing the TCU wasn't the mistake but remove ONLY the TEST ones was. There were a few alliances trying to do it and succeeding. Only TEST was "punished". That is the bad thing here

sweikewa
Posted - 2010.11.02 20:31:00 - [13]
 

What do you want.
This is CCP Quality Petiton Assurance.....

From the last CSM report you can read....
"..
A client-side fix for the “stuck” entering a system issue is on TQ, awaiting a safe time to enable. Team Gridlock fixes are deployed disabled, then they can enabled on a node-by-node basis for battle-testing before being enabled cluster-wide.
..."

SO what do you think CCP is realy fighting with the lag ???. Who is so samrt to fix somthing and not turn it on ..... 1st palce in programers Darwin prize goes to ...



Hrin
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.11.02 20:34:00 - [14]
 

This has never before been the policy of CCP, in the entire history of this game, to remove items that onlined during an extended downtime be it POS, station eggs, TCUs, or SBUs.

It would have been nice if they had mentioned this policy change to the players.

Hari Markkus
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2010.11.02 20:35:00 - [15]
 

Is there no part of the game that the cheats and exploiters who play this game won't abuse?

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.11.02 20:36:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Hari Markkus
Is there no part of the game that the cheats and exploiters who play this game won't abuse?



I hope this was a rhetorical question.

Levarr Burton
B0rthole
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2010.11.02 20:48:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Hrin
This has never before been the policy of CCP, in the entire history of this game, to remove items that onlined during an extended downtime be it POS, station eggs, TCUs, or SBUs.

It would have been nice if they had mentioned this policy change to the players.


This. CCP has never before made extended downtimes special, and it has never been petitionable for items to be anchored and onlined during an ordinary downtime to be removed, even if their onlining time is less than downtime. Dropping station eggs, POSes, iHubs, SBUs, etc so that their timers are effectively shortened by downtime has never been disallowed before. Fiddling with reinforcement timers so that they end during downtime has never been disallowed before. In fact, all previous petitions relating to structures onlining or coming out of reinforce during downtime have been denied. The accepted precedent amongst GMs was to not interfere with the timers or 0.0 sov warfare.

Narisa Bithon
Caldari
The Motley Crew Reborn
Posted - 2010.11.02 20:51:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Narisa Bithon on 02/11/2010 20:54:44
test didnt do anything wrong

tcu's were only anchored in UNCLAIMED space

CCP should not have removed them because IT Alliance petitioned it... IT Alliance didnt have any tcu's online there b4 the dt either

this is a blatent misuse of GM powers

had test put sov blockades into IT claimed space then yes it would be fair for ccp to remove them but they didnt put sov blockade units in IT space they put tcu's in UNCLAIMED space.

Hyveres
Caldari
Resilience.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.11.02 21:07:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Hyveres on 02/11/2010 21:08:56
hmms dunno odd decision

Zeke Mobius
Posted - 2010.11.02 21:18:00 - [20]
 

obvious dev/gm ties to major powerbloc...

ITS NEVER CHANGED WE JUST HEAR ABOUT IT LESS! THEY GOT THE BPO's ON LOCK!

Tom Sasaki
Posted - 2010.11.02 21:21:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Zeke Mobius
obvious dev/gm ties to major powerbloc...

ITS NEVER CHANGED WE JUST HEAR ABOUT IT LESS! THEY GOT THE BPO's ON LOCK!
IT a major powerblock?

WTF are you smoking, IT is a small player and does not really matter.
When you look at the big picture they havent mattered since 2007 or earlier.

Leksi Bar'zuk
Posted - 2010.11.02 21:25:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Tom Sasaki
Originally by: Zeke Mobius
obvious dev/gm ties to major powerbloc...

ITS NEVER CHANGED WE JUST HEAR ABOUT IT LESS! THEY GOT THE BPO's ON LOCK!
IT a major powerblock?

WTF are you smoking, IT is a small player and does not really matter.
When you look at the big picture they havent mattered since 2007 or earlier.


rofl

Kaurapa
Posted - 2010.11.02 21:41:00 - [23]
 

This raises a number of issues that CCP need to create formal policy around and ensure they are consistent over time:

1. Deploying TCUs in unclaimed systems has resulted in a petition being filed by a nearby alliance. The systems in question were not owned by any one. By responding to the petition at all CCP are implying that alliances who do not claim specific space have a right to lay claim to that space.

2. The previous precedent for sovereignty items has been very hands off. GM's policy has been pretty clear - we will not interfere in 0.0 gameplay and tactics. How are CCP justifying a change in this policy and how far reaching is this change?

3. Timers have always made use of downtime. Every single 0.0 entity has utilised downtime to minimise risk when placing sov items. Whether this is right or improper gameplay has not been addressed by CCP. The actions of TEST Alliance are simply the continuation of that prevalent 0.0 policy. Why has CCP chosen to react to the movements of a relatively new alliance in such an abrupt manner?

4. The TCU's in question were not simply offlined. They were destroyed by a gm. If the main issue is of fairness of opportunity to defend and attack - why did CCP simply not offline them and allow the process of normal sov battle to commence?

The actions of CCP in regards to this situation seem dubious from the outside - I hope they make a public statement in the very near future stating the rules clearly and fairly for all - the current situation smells of favouritism.

Rhenntyl
Posted - 2010.11.02 21:47:00 - [24]
 

Ehh, how do we even know if IT petitioned?

Leksi Bar'zuk
Posted - 2010.11.02 21:50:00 - [25]
 

It's quite obviously a grey area and open to gm uh... "interpretation."

Also, IT/BoB getting favoritism (regardless of how much "power" anyone wants to claim they have or not in-game) is not new.

Kash Jatte
Gallente
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2010.11.02 22:08:00 - [26]
 

If game mechanics allow it then it's not an exploit or against the rules. If they felt it is unfair then they should have fixed it in another patch instead of just destroying 14 TCU's or at least made an announcement of it being against the rules first.

You shouldn't punish an alliance for just using game mechanics. They didn't do anything to the people using the perfect tracking bug in WH's why would they do something like this ?

Zeke Mobius
Posted - 2010.11.02 22:18:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Kash Jatte
.... why would they do something like this ?



bcuz IT=ccp

Doctor Ungabungas
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.11.02 22:35:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Rhenntyl
Ehh, how do we even know if IT petitioned?


They wouldn't need to, they just need to pick up the bat phone.

egegergergsdgedgege
Posted - 2010.11.02 22:58:00 - [29]
 

Oh cool.

I just decided not to renew my subscription. I sugest you do the same if you want a statement from CCP. You know there is that small little text box where you can enter the reason why you did cancel.

That doesent mean you realy have to, but what you write into that text box someone more important than a GM will read.

ege

Moutoku
Posted - 2010.11.02 22:59:00 - [30]
 

Silly Goons


Pages: [1] 2 3 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only