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

Reader Comments (61)

Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 9:58PM pcgneurotic said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
What kind of crazy, insane name is Test Alliance Please Ignore anyway? It sounds horrible and completely un-gamey in all possible ways. Bleee.

Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 10:26PM Tez said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Band of Brothers was already taken.
Reply

Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 10:20PM Anulla said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I'm just a poor Rifter pilot, but to me, this smacks of an exploit. I don't have a dog in this hunt so I don't care if any alliance wins or loses here. However, CCP let this turn into a problem by not addressing it sooner. It's a mechanic ripe for abuse, which is why it's been a sore point with players for a while. Perhaps they should give these TCUs back in this case and let them fight it out for territory, but CCP should address this, as someone will do it again and someone else will complain about it.

Perhaps a moratorium on TCUs being placed before an extended downtime/patch? Hate away.

Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 10:32PM Mikx said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
This is a stupid controversy. there may be something to spotty enforcement but they clearly circumvented the intended fuctioning of the game by exploiting the downtime.

Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 11:56PM Graill440 said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
This is like eating to much cheesecake, its just to rich. (grin)

Posted: Nov 3rd 2010 5:43PM Graill440 said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Sad little people in their sad little game. Corrupt CCP devs wishy washy, news at 11:00. Bahahaha.
Reply

Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 11:57PM Ozmodan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Cry me a river. You used a known exploit and got caught at it. Saying you did not know it was an exploit is ridiculous! When you circumvent the rules, you are committing an exploit, no ifs ands or buts. You got caught and you want to whine about it?

Granted CCP needs to be more specific about rule enforcement sometimes, but they did the right thing.



Posted: Nov 3rd 2010 12:26AM Aetrix said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Snagging sov over downtime when the defenders can't even log in?

Cowards...

Posted: Nov 3rd 2010 12:30AM GaaaaaH said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Prepare for a massive flood of comments and trolling which will make the entire EVE community look bad.


...Wait a sec...

Posted: Nov 3rd 2010 12:45AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why does Eve count offline time as in-game time? Shouldn't the game world and the time in the game world be halted when the server is offline?

Posted: Nov 3rd 2010 5:55AM SGNExcaliber said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Because of EVE's skill system and PI, the game clock keeps rolling, it's a 24 hour, real-time clock. The world progresses while you (and sometimes the server) sleeps.
Reply

Posted: Nov 3rd 2010 12:59AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Has no one thought of this yet...really.

How about instead of bitching about corruption they place those towers back where they were but reset the timer to +1 hour due to the usual downtime thereby people have 5 hours to then intervene.

On the flipside they have deliberately used extended server downtime as an exploit and should be punished in some way.

Posted: Nov 3rd 2010 11:45AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Call me a clueless empire-dweller if you want, but doesn't station eggs ~require~a downtime to turn into full stations? In which case an extended DT offers no advantage at all, as there is no vulnerability timer that has to tick down before it becomes operational.

In the case of POS, taking advantage of an extended DT, which is an irregular event, for deployment offers little to no advantage over the normal daily DT (depends on if you're an optimist and consider normal DT as less than half an hour) due to the relatively short online timer for a POS

And yeah, POS bowling - Taking advantage of quirks in the games physics engine to bypass the intended function of a POS shield to gain a major tactical advantage - ~clearly~ not an exploit. And it's just because it was used against CCP's pet alliance and has nothing at all to do with it being used against a major entity, which translates into a large amount of people effected by it, and a high probability that atleast one of them is competent enough to push the issue until a lead GM takes a look at it?

It should be no surprise that there is a minimal amount of GM's capable of handling stuff that actually relates to a games mechanics, regardless of what game it is.
So if you accept a low level GM's green light to use a mechanic that conflicts or completely bypasses vital game design elements (TCU's & Extended downtime, POS Bowling, Infinite moongoo, and the more recent infinite tracking under certain circumstances in some wormholes just to mention some eve-related exploits) then you just got yourself to blame. (Or to congratulate your own clever wording which managed to confuse the GM in question)

Not that I'm without any form of sympathy for TEST alliance, having the GM's remove the TCU's from space, giving them back to them, making all those months of preparing for a major offensive, losing tons of capital ships (and I'm sure, killing a fair share!) and ~playing the game~ for countless hours to obtain a foothold in Delve be for naught.
Reply

Posted: Nov 3rd 2010 1:05AM ChromeBallz said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
In short: People are whining that they were being cheap by abusing game mechanics and they want to be rewarded for it.

Hell yes, that's how i want to be known. God knows i can't win by actually playing the game.



"Exploit used for years" - Show me a TCU from before Dominion, which is now 11 months and 2 days old.

"Why haven't others been removed" - Because they haven't been reported.

Why do people insist on being complete jerks about this? The reason i barely play EVE anymore is because the vast majority of players are sorely bad losers and utterly asocial outcasts. This proves it yet again. And it's always complaining about BoB/It being cheaters.

You know what BoB did when they were disbanded and lost all their space? They reformed and fought hard for over 2 months to take it back, and eventually got it back.

You know what every single other alliance who lost space did? They disbanded in a hissyfit and complained about cheaters, hacks, exploits and whatever. Hell, one major(!) alliance disbanded because they lost a single titan.

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

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
""Exploit used for years" - Show me a TCU from before Dominion, which is now 11 months and 2 days old."

BoB, and in fact, every major 0.0 alliance has done this with POS and station eggs for years.

Suddenly it's an exploit when TEST tries to do it in empty space in Delve. Much like POS bowling, it only became an "exploit" when it's used against BoB.

It's yet another case of upset developers and GMs using their powers to defend their space empire.
Reply

Posted: Nov 3rd 2010 7:34AM DrewIW said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
"You know what BoB did when they were disbanded and lost all their space?"

Yes I remember, they got a GM to change their alliance name without having to drop sov.

No favouritism here folks.
Reply

Posted: Nov 3rd 2010 1:32AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Second page, doubt anyone will read this... but I feel this is an important point to make.

"Exploit" is a strong term, and people are throwing it around carelessly - and incorrectly - in this case. No one prior to today considered it an exploit, or even a possible exploit. It only uses well-known and clearly understood game mechanics, does not rely on glitches or bugs, and does not go outside of standard game functionality in any way.

The Eve GMs themselves were very careful to avoid it in their correspondence - they didn't use the word "exploit" even ONCE. The strongest condemnation of the practice, in the GM's own words, is: "This rather ingenious timing on your part did give you an unfair advantage of sorts".

It's basically "not nice" to do, and they decided it should no longer be allowed in the future. As further evidence that they don't consider it an exploit, all costs were refunded to TEST alliance in full, and no warnings were given to any players.

Lastly, if TEST had even the smallest suspicion that CCP would disallow it, they wouldn't have bothered to put in the significant time and financial investment for what was, in the end, meant as nothing more than a stunt.

I suspect this only became an issue today because of the large number of systems involved, and (allegations of collusion aside) because IT decided to take a shot in the dark and petition it just in case, before they have to spend a few hours shooting TCUs.

CCP's decision came as a complete surprise to everyone in nullsec, and posters who indicate otherwise are at best uninformed about sovereignty mechanics, and at worst being disingenuous simply because they happen to be "enemies" in the game.

Posted: Nov 3rd 2010 4:10AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The truth is, sov mechanics are still broken and it takes an airing of laundry and GM petitioning and some BoB/IT drama thrown into the mix to bring it to attention.

Being a member of the Greater BoB Coalition a few years back, fighting against them and now being in an Alliance closely allied with IT doesn't mean squat. Alliance names can be switched around in this situation and the same drama will still unfold. CCP needs to fix sov gameplay and mechanics. Should have CCP done what it did to fix the problem? No..I think not, they should have addressed the issue another way, heck even letting us defend that space and just delaying the TCU deployment enought to let us mobilize some troops.

But at the same time it can be a much different story for a smaller alliance trying to defend it's space. Exploit? No, but a realy pain in the a** it is, yes EvE is a cutthroat mentality when it comes to gameplay, but the whole Idea behind the TCU's is giving the other side time to mobilize and defend the contested area. Im sure either side can agree to the fact that magically loosing your space right after DT with a crippled ingame mechanic just makes no sense, I hope CCP actually aknowledges its a broken mechanic for once instead of trying to save face. Hats of to the Test alliance guys, it would have been a hella of a good fight had the TCU's stuck around.

Posted: Nov 3rd 2010 8:12AM Tez said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
No one lost "their space," the systems TEST took were unclaimed and had been that way for a long time.
Reply

Posted: Nov 3rd 2010 6:08AM DancingCow said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Why not just code territorial claim units not to tick over during server downtime?

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW