| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (61)

Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 8:52PM DrewIW said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
So if CCP wants to follow up with their precedent today, and continue to retroactively enforce their new rule, there are literally hundreds of POS that they need to destroy.

This is at least the third major time that CCP has directly intervened in the game for BoB/KenGoku/IT.

Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 9:02PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You know the MORE I hear about things going in EVE Online the more I'm SO glad I don't play that silly game anymore.
I just thought WoW had drama...this is ridiculous

Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 9:23PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
If they destroyed all the TCUs and never refunded any of the money many people in TEST would still play. CCP has a great sandbox going, and beyond that the TEST community is just too great to give up. If you've never tried, give it a chance. It's rough, can be annoying, and there are all sorts of issues, yet it holds enough appeal to make thousands of people log on daily. Beyond that if you ever wanted to carve out a slice for yourself in a virtual world, this is the place. Alliances rise and fall, space is taken and lost, thousands of dollars worth of ships are destroyed over rivalry, or just for fun.

There are very few games that give a comparable experience, none that i know of with a comparably sized userbase.
Reply

Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 9:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Your article is good, but is missing a few points.

1. Goonswarm are our allies, however they did not drop any TCUs for this operation. This was TEST only.

2. This is not an exploit as it has been done by countless other alliances since TCUs (the unit to gain sovereignty) were added to the game. Looking over old map history you will see many changes in this way.

One of the major points of contention, that is not touched on by this article and the source of the discontent among TEST is that this not only a sudden change, but a completely unnannouced one. If we were told before the patch this common and widely used tactic was an exploit, we would not have done it, had we been informed after that we could not do it again, we would have complied.

CCP did not take either of these routes, instead they deleted all the TCUs in the space and 3 of the 5 others also onlined in that period. Why 2 other TCUs are allowed to remain is beyond me, but that is beside the main point.

The main point is a mechanic in game, used for years, is suddenly declared to be an "exploit" when used against IT alliance, which is comprised in large parts of the ex- Band of Brothers, an alliance with which the developers had previous PR issues with collusion. If this mechanic is an "exploit" then CCP would need to look through their logs and remove a large number of currently owned systems, as again we were not the first to pull this well known stunt.

We enjoy EVE, CCP has made a great game, they simply made a mistaken ruling followed by a storm of public outcry. Retroactive changes to the rules makes an unhappy playerbase and we look forward to a fair resolution to this matter.


Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 9:24PM Brendan Drain said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Thanks for the correction, I have edited the article to reflect that this was a Test Alliance venture and Goonswarm weren't directly involved.
Reply

Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 10:31PM Sean D said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Just because the tactic has been used before without reprisal does not mean it is a valid tactic and not an exploit. It is an exploit because it seeks to subvert the intentions behind the sovereignty system. Those utilizing the tactic in the past knew it was an exploit, which is why they utilized it.

I agree that since this is an exploit that CCP was aware of prior to the scheduled downtime (since it's been used 'countless' times in the past), CCP should have made some kind of announcement of their intentions prior to the downtime.

I'm glad that CCP has taken the stand that they have on the matter and look forward to them acting in a consistent manner with the precedent they've set today. As they are working toward eliminating downtime altogether, I see this as becoming a matter of history for the game - another refinement of the game that ultimately improves it.

I believe that the perceived tie to BoB is purely coincidental.
Reply

Posted: Nov 3rd 2010 8:48AM Not THAT Matt said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
@Ylca

You sound like a prick to me.
Reply

Posted: Nov 3rd 2010 10:40AM kobeathris said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Why on Earth does CCP not just stop the clock on things like this during downtimes? Wouldn't that make more sense then destroying/crediting retroactively?
Reply

Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 9:02PM ScottishViking said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Oh wow, Goonwankers are upset at something? Who would have thought.

This is a pretty clear exploit. Looks cut and dry to me.

Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 9:05PM DrewIW said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Why wasn't in an exploit every other time everyone else did it?

Why is it only an exploit when it happens to BoB?
Reply

Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 9:09PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Goonswarm isn't upset about anything, they did not participate in this operation.

If this was an exploit it has been going on for *years* as a well known strategy in alliance warfare. This is not the first incidence of pre-patch sov shenanigans, in fact we did another the last patch for fun when we had no possibility of controlling the space. If CCP wanted to label this an exploit, they could have done so during one of the numerous times the practice was used before, yet they finally respond during this instance. Creating rules *after* the fact is not helpful, and when players hard work can be removed by a click of a button and a "you can't do that now" with no forewarning is not good policy.

I'm fully confident this matter will be resolved in a suitable manner for all parties, however.
Reply

Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 9:12PM ScottishViking said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I can't comment on how many times this happened before. But a lack of precedent action on the issue doesn't change the fact that it is an exploit. But I agree with you, Yica, that "Creating rules after the fact is not helpful." You'll get no argument from me here. Still, can we all at least agree that this "sov shenanigan," as you so aptly put it, does in itself constitute an exploit? (Putting aside the fact that others have done it before.)
Reply

Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 9:16PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
1. Goonswarm did not participate in this operation.

2. If it was an exploit, it has been openly used for years with nary a peep from CCP. This isn't some obscure trick, alliances have been doing this since TCUs came on the scene. Beyond that retroactively making proclamations about game mechanics that were up until that day considered perfectly acceptable does not seem to be good policy. If that is the case we will end up with more incidents like this one that could have been easily prevented by CCP publicly stating that the practice is considered exploiting *before* the event, or that the practice is no longer allowed but leaving the TCUs in place after the event.

For all we know this could be a miscommunication on the dev team and the particular GMs part, and they are working on resolving it internally and preventing occurrences in the future. Like I said before CCP are reasonable and i'm sure this will be resolved in a matter acceptable for all parties.
Reply

Posted: Nov 3rd 2010 7:33AM Dirame said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@YLCA

Did anyone report it as an exploit to CCP before now? Because it seems the pattern here is everytime someone reports an exploit to CCP it then becomes apparent to them and when they take action everyone is up in arms saying the same thing over and over again "we've been using it for ages CCP should have told us it was an exploit", "if it was an exploit why didn't CCP stop all those other guys" If YOU knew it was an exploit waaay back then and you didn't report it well, you have no one to blame but yourself 'cos someone just did and are receiving the benefits of that.
Reply

Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 9:07PM FritzFricia said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Whine whine whine. no matter what happens in the game those who are complaining will just find something else when the issue is resolved. Obviously it was a short sight on the timer starting on those claim sites. Boo hoo, just go destroy those things and stop blaming the GM's for programmer error.

Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 9:06PM Ashen Spiral said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
TEST alliance followed game rules to the letter here when they placed those TCUs. Nobody could have predicted that a GM would decide to make up a ridiculous new rule today that flies in the face of precedent and apply it retroactively. The systems in question were unclaimed! IT alliance (Band of Brothers) could have easily prevented them from being taken by paying some minor sovereignty bills. While this reeks of favoritism and corruption by the GM, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say it was simply an extremely bad call that needs to be reversed during the next downtime. Give TEST back the systems they took fairly and let IT alliance remove them like any other alliance that doesn't get special treatment would.

Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 9:23PM notuba said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
So, is this kind of stuff (cheats, exploits, rogue devs, and similar) all part of the supposed 'big politics' draw in EVE? Really, is this sort of unfun supposed to be a big draw for new player to EVE? Or is this why CCP is making a console MMOFPS based on EVE (DUST 514)? Really, is EVE that far gone that it's literal-politics-based aka who you know aka massively corrupt?

THIS is how MMOs are marketed to players? Like no grind, but we has politiks for yous to dabble in! Does Planet Blago exist as part of New Eden?

Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 9:28PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Of course the timing was made to get maximum benefit from the downtime, but as Ylca stated, this was not the first time players have done this, nor has CCP ever stated that this is an illegal exploit.

I'm privy to the exchange of mail between the GM and the CEO of TEST, and the reasons given for the takedown are actually quite valid. The onlining of TCU's is not supposed to be done without protecting them during the process. Secondly it's not prudent to give the players a list of all possible exploits and their legality as that would turn to chaos. Better to handle them retroactively in response to petitions.

Having said that, I'm totally for spinning this as a huge injustice towards the poor members of TEST. Regular sov warfare can be mind numbingly boring as anyone who has shot structures can attest to. TEST has brought a breath of fresh air to the stagnant politics of 0.0 and hopefully we will be able to continue trolling everybody from blues to CCP.

(Regarding the 2 TCU's allowed to stay up, it has to do with Dotlan timestamps being off due to the server being down. They were actually almost online when downtime started.)

Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 10:20PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
>The onlining of TCU's is not supposed to be done without protecting them during the process.

One could say that high sec exists as a safe zone, yet suicide attacks are not uncommon, nor is Hulkageddon, yearly event that brings pvpers to high sec with the specific intent of destroying miners. Eve is a game of information, if you don't know how to fit you will fight poorly, if you don't know mechanics you are a disadvantage, if CCP wants to claim one of their mechanics an exploit it's their prerogative, but to do so retroactively after literally years of allowing other alliances to practice the same tactics is not in good faith. If it is an exploit i'm fine with the TCUs not being replaced as long as every other alliance who has done the same gets the *exact* same treatment.

I could also say that an unclaimed system belongs to no one and as such TEST TCUs should still be sitting in the unclaimed space as no alliance has the rights to a system until the place their own TCUs there. IT did not place TCUs due to a change in sov mechanics that made holding sov mechanics more expensive. Why then should TEST be punished because IT refused to adequately protect their space. 1 IT TCU and TEST would have been forced to use a Sovereignty Blockade Unit before even thinking about attacking the system for the first of two attacks to take it over.

Is it really fair to say that just because a system is adjacent to an alliance they own it by default?

> Secondly it's not prudent to give the players a list of all possible exploits and their legality as that would turn to chaos. Better to handle them retroactively in response to petitions.

As the punishment for exploiting involves being banned i believe it is quite prudent to allow alliances to know what their members cannot do. An invisible list of rules is never useful for rules enforcement.
Reply

Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 10:44PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Ylca

The difference between previous instances of dropping TCU's before downtime and this was explained to be the length of downtimes. Regular dt's last about 15-45minutes and in reality doesn't affect sov mechanics. This time it was an extended downtime and it was scheduled to last longer than the period where TCU's are most vulnerable. I think that's a fair difference.

Regarding handling of exploits, it's definitely something that should be discussed and I see CCP's side as well as the unwitting player getting caught up in unforeseen consequences. However in this instance no warnings or bans were given out. The TCU's have been returned to TEST, and all costs have been reimbursed.

Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW