Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Providence is burning

2

Comments

  • hoppy87hoppy87 uniontown, OHPosts: 29Member
    Originally posted by nurgles


     

    Originally posted by hoppy87
     
    DG probably was lost. however CCP's actions on that night, and refusal to make things right, has led to 9uy being uncontested and what else?  they handed you that, and subsequent fights. how is that not biased?

     

     



    A Word from Customer Support

     

    Support's intervention in large fleet engagements in even a remotely fair manner is very problematic due to the complexity of the situation.

    Under circumstances where lag is involved or elusive bugs that are difficult to establish as the deciding factor, CCP cannot justify passing judgment on who should have won or who should have lost. While a problem such as the one in focus here is known to affect some players in certain situations, the evidence available in server-side logs, when available at all, can be haphazard and arbitrary. As such, intervention on CCP's part would risk being arbitrary as well.

    What this means is that CCP will not be granting reimbursement for fleet fight losses.

    Please understand that fleet fight reimbursement has always been very controversial and few issues have been discussed and argued in more detail within CCP. The conclusion has, however, always been to leave fleet battles alone rather than reimbursing them as a whole. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and we appreciate your patience as we work diligently towards resolving this issue.



     

    CCP do not have the ability to sort out what ifs and might have beens. As such they have a blanket policy that requires fleet commanders to work within the limits of the game technology.

     

     

    how is a fleet commander sposed to know that CCP is actively tinkering with the system? or that ships will actually show on grid over an hour after the fleet logged off? and yes, people in system at the time of the cap deaths called out on comms when the cap fleet showed up and began to be attacked, and it was over an hour after all cap pilots had logged.  CCP's intentions *may* have been good, but there lies the road to hell.

     

  • qazymanqazyman round rock, TXPosts: 1,785Member

    Never fly a ship you can't afford to lose, and never expect a fair fight......hmmmm. Where have I heard that ?

  • batolemaeusbatolemaeus SchellhornPosts: 2,061Member


    Originally posted by nurgles
    CCP do not have the ability to sort out what ifs and might have beens. As such they have a blanket policy that requires fleet commanders to work within the limits of the game technology. This means that when a bad call is made by a commander and it subsequently wipes out their ships due to an unreasonable expectation of the game or simply due to a lack of knowledge, it is the fleet commanders problem.


    You're happy you had a one sided slaughter. Understandable. However, stop and think for a minute and imagine what would happen if you lost a truckload of capitals that stayed in system hours after their pilots logged off.

    Yes, i know you're ignoring this. You're trying to spin and spin to make it seem like everything is working fine and well. If you had lost, there would be pages of whine on this forum like in other instances when lag didn't work in your favour.

    CCP created a policy so they didn't have to offer support for their fuckups. They screwed up in several cases but do not want to take responsibility for it. How people can support this is unbelievable..

  • cosycosy ColentinaPosts: 3,304Member
    Originally posted by batolemaeus

     
     How people can support this is unbelievable.


    just make pvp if they pay u for that (merc) and retire in low sec Veto is a good option

     

    BestSigEver :P
    image

  • nurglesnurgles BaselPosts: 840Member


    Originally posted by hoppy87

    how is a fleet commander sposed to know that CCP is actively tinkering with the system?



    Battle in D-GTMI (Providence), 28-01-2010 (14:05 - 12:53)


    28/01/2010

    EVE Online Dominion 1.1.1 has been deployed

    So the facts, since the Dominion expansion the lag in large fleet battles had gotten worse. Every day the log in message was, if you are planning a fleet battle contact CCP so that we can tinker with the system your fight is in. The final battle for D-GTMI was on a patch day. CCP had been calling for stress testers on the test server all that week.

    Maybe one of these facts might have given the fleet commander pause for thought.

  • nurglesnurgles BaselPosts: 840Member


    Originally posted by batolemaeus

    Yes, i know you're ignoring this. You're trying to spin and spin to make it seem like everything is working fine and well. If you had lost, there would be pages of whine on this forum like in other instances when lag didn't work in your favour.


    You do not know me but you call me a hypocrite without evidence. I have lost plenty of ships in fleet engagements outside my control. I don't see a point in whining about lost pixels. I take exception to people blaming a conspiracy instead of looking at the poor decisions that were made by their executive.

    I lernt one thing at the fall of Unity, you have to play the game within the game mechanic even if it is broken. This is not the game I want to play, we lost Unity station without a face to face fight, it was won by CVA with POS spamming just before it was declared an exploit.

    I am not going to spin that the D-GTMI was fair, or fun. I would have loved for CVA to have been able to re-deploy their cap fleet, or simply have been able to shoot back. I want to be siege green cap fleet against another siege green cap fleet. They were outnumbered and we had a substantial super-carrier(just boosted that day) and titan advantage, so i am sure they would have lost the battle, but it would not have been the disappointing rout that it was.

    Unfortunately, this is the game we are given, limited by the rules and the available technology.

    Do you really want CCP to open up the reimbursement policy? This will simply lead to people deploying with the intent of loosing ships due to lag/ghosting. It will become the new warfare without cost.

    CCP love CVA, they really do, look at how quickly they responded after the loss of sov. Everyone also sees the work that has been done to make the largest area of NRDS in the game and respects that effort. I am actually saddened to see my goals be fulfilled, watching CVA and the proviblock fail cascade is just disappointing. It seems such a pity that the providence block was shown to be that fragile.

  • TyphadoTyphado BrisbanePosts: 177Member

    didn't CVA recently have a hack attack where someone disbanded their entire alliance? didn't CCP then fix this despite similar claims of hacking in the bob case (though bob couldn't confirm).

     

    And now you claim there is a ccp conspiracy to bring about the downfall of CVA???

     

    /tinfoil

    Into the breach meatbags

  • qazymanqazyman round rock, TXPosts: 1,785Member
    Originally posted by nurgles


     
    Do you really want CCP to open up the reimbursement policy? This will simply lead to people deploying with the intent of loosing ships due to lag/ghosting. It will become the new warfare without cost.
    CCP love CVA, they really do, look at how quickly they responded after the loss of sov. Everyone also sees the work that has been done to make the largest area of NRDS in the game and respects that effort. I am actually saddened to see my goals be fulfilled, watching CVA and the proviblock fail cascade is just disappointing. It seems such a pity that the providence block was shown to be that fragile.



     

    I also think CCP has really dropped the ball, and I'm not talking about this one incident.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,680Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nurgles


     
     
     
     
     


     
    So the facts, since the Dominion expansion the lag in large fleet battles had gotten worse. Every day the log in message was, if you are planning a fleet battle contact CCP so that we can tinker with the system your fight is in. The final battle for D-GTMI was on a patch day. CCP had been calling for stress testers on the test server all that week.
    Maybe one of these facts might have given the fleet commander pause for thought.
     

     

    The fleet notification message has been posted to the MOTD and listed in the newsletter on and off for the past two years that I know of. The system itself has been in place for years, though.

     

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • Rockgod99Rockgod99 Manhatten, NYPosts: 4,640Member

    Nothing lasts forever.

    image

    Playing: Rift, LotRO
    Waiting on: GW2, BP

  • RavingRabbidRavingRabbid Virginia beach, VAPosts: 1,128Member Uncommon

    To me the all in all is that CCP gave BOB some very valuable blurprints and many of CCP's personel were in BOB. So anything is possible. grudges can last a while especially with what Goons did to BOB. CCP imo should not be allowing thier employees to play the game at all as it can cause future problems or consipacies theories to exist. It doesnt matter what speculation may exist on which side CCp is on at any given moment. The problems in Providence are a great example of this.

    Ive lost a few ships defending Providence and do not agree with agressive stance in catch areas. I have not joined any fleets going into catch.

    Life in Eve is a female dog! LOL

    (BBBBBBBBBBWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH raises plunger in salute to Hot Khanid chicks!)

    All my opinions are just that..opinions. If you like my opinions..coolness.If you dont like my opinion....I really dont care.
    Playing: SWTOR, ESO, WOT, and Marvel Heroes

  • SlysarSlysar bethel, OHPosts: 18Member
    Originally posted by RavingRabbid


    To me the all in all is that CCP gave BOB some very valuable blurprints and many of CCP's personel were in BOB. So anything is possible. grudges can last a while especially with what Goons did to BOB. CCP imo should not be allowing thier employees to play the game at all as it can cause future problems or consipacies theories to exist. It doesnt matter what speculation may exist on which side CCp is on at any given moment. The problems in Providence are a great example of this.
    Ive lost a few ships defending Providence and do not agree with agressive stance in catch areas. I have not joined any fleets going into catch.
    Life in Eve is a female dog! LOL
    (BBBBBBBBBBWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH raises plunger in salute to Hot Khanid chicks!)

     

    Players of EVE still have not forgotten CCP... We have not forgotten that CCP players cheated legit players by giving their corps BPOs and other valuable things not available to the general public. True it has been many years since this occurred but we have not forgotten. You did the right thing by removing the offense including all your employee characters (that the public knew about openly) and I personally forgive but... time has not removed the stain completely.

      You're not doing so bad though CCP, keep your chin up and remember to make honor a way of life in the universe.

  • hoppy87hoppy87 uniontown, OHPosts: 29Member

    its also amazing that its starting to come to light that in every instance where the gridlock bug has really shown itself -a- has benefitted from it.

  • MalcanisMalcanis LondonPosts: 3,191Member
    Originally posted by hoppy87


    its also amazing that its starting to come to light that in every instance where the gridlock bug has really shown itself -a- has benefitted from it.

     

    Yes, one might almost conclude that the -A- FCs have the faintest idea of what the fuck they're doing.

    There are a number of things that one can do to mititgate the effects of lag on big fleet actions. -A- & co did them; Provibloc largely didn't. -A- "cheated" to gain an unfair advantage in much the same way that a student who revises his material before an exam has an advantage over one who doesn't.

    Give me liberty or give me lasers

  • MalcanisMalcanis LondonPosts: 3,191Member
    Originally posted by Malcanis

    Originally posted by hoppy87


    its also amazing that its starting to come to light that in every instance where the gridlock bug has really shown itself -a- has benefitted from it.

     

    Yes, one might almost conclude that the -A- FCs have the faintest idea of what the fuck they're doing.

    There are a number of things that one can do to mitigate the effects of lag on big fleet actions. -A- & co did them; Provibloc largely didn't. -A- "cheated" to gain an unfair advantage in much the same way that a student who revises his material before an exam has an advantage over one who doesn't.

     

    Give me liberty or give me lasers

  • hoppy87hoppy87 uniontown, OHPosts: 29Member
    Originally posted by Malcanis

    Originally posted by Malcanis

    Originally posted by hoppy87


    its also amazing that its starting to come to light that in every instance where the gridlock bug has really shown itself -a- has benefitted from it.

     

    Yes, one might almost conclude that the -A- FCs have the faintest idea of what the fuck they're doing.

    There are a number of things that one can do to mitigate the effects of lag on big fleet actions. -A- & co did them; Provibloc largely didn't. -A- "cheated" to gain an unfair advantage in much the same way that a student who revises his material before an exam has an advantage over one who doesn't.

     

    vs PL, vs WI vs CVA. yeah noone knows what they are doing to exploit bugs in eve like -a- does.  instead of being banned you act like you deserve a medal for using exploits.

  • MalcanisMalcanis LondonPosts: 3,191Member

    Sorry buddy, but that's a lot of bullshit. It's possible to defend space - ask Batolemeus. But not if you dont actually fight for it. Lord knows that I'm no fan of the NC, but the record is there for all to see.

    The space that they didn't fight for: they lost it

    The space that they did fight for: they kept (or regained) it.

     

    The fact is that the CVA FCs fucked up. Everyone has a "welp day" now and then - you can't possibly expect to win a sov war vs a major alliance without losing several major battles, and the fact is - as anyone who has fought in such wars could tell you - sometimes the lag monster giveth and sometimes it taketh away. Build a bridge and get over it. If you abandon an entire region because you lost one fight then you dont deserve to have it.

    Give me liberty or give me lasers

  • MalcanisMalcanis LondonPosts: 3,191Member

    And I might add that, much as I oppose Morsus Mihi, even though they got spanked several times in Pure Blind, they put a lot more effort into preparing for and fighting the next battle then they did whining on the forums about losing the previous one.

    Give me liberty or give me lasers

  • batolemaeusbatolemaeus SchellhornPosts: 2,061Member


    Originally posted by hoppy87

    vs PL, vs WI vs CVA. yeah noone knows what they are doing to exploit bugs in eve like -a- does.  instead of being banned you act like you deserve a medal for using exploits.


    What the heck are you talking about?


    Originally posted by Malcanis
    Yes, one might almost conclude that the -A- FCs have the faintest idea of what the fuck they're doing.
    There are a number of things that one can do to mititgate the effects of lag on big fleet actions. -A- & co did them; Provibloc largely didn't. -A- "cheated" to gain an unfair advantage in much the same way that a student who revises his material before an exam has an advantage over one who doesn't.

    It's a sad state of the game though, that fights are not won due to superior strategy, numbers, commitment, coordination or anything that you'd expect to have an impact on warfare. Wars are only won by two means: Knowing how lag works and how to make it work in your favour. That and the stubbornness to go through a war of attrition, maybe.

    I have been optimizing my fittings towards lag situations, changing them over the years as lag changed. I know I'm not the only one who is doing that.
    However, I do not envy people who don't know the ins and outs of lag reduction. They lose battles like WI did, or CVA. Not because of superior strategy, but because they had no experience with the lag involved in sov warfare.

  • Toquio3Toquio3 LisbonPosts: 1,074Member
    Originally posted by batolemaeus


     

    Originally posted by hoppy87
     
    vs PL, vs WI vs CVA. yeah noone knows what they are doing to exploit bugs in eve like -a- does.  instead of being banned you act like you deserve a medal for using exploits.

     

    What the heck are you talking about?

     

    Michael Wincott !!!

    =D

    image
    If you stand VERY still, and close your eyes, after a minute you can actually FEEL the universe revolving around PvP.

  • MalcanisMalcanis LondonPosts: 3,191Member
    Originally posted by batolemaeus


     

    Originally posted by hoppy87
     
    vs PL, vs WI vs CVA. yeah noone knows what they are doing to exploit bugs in eve like -a- does.  instead of being banned you act like you deserve a medal for using exploits.

     

    What the heck are you talking about?

     



    Originally posted by Malcanis

    Yes, one might almost conclude that the -A- FCs have the faintest idea of what the fuck they're doing.

    There are a number of things that one can do to mititgate the effects of lag on big fleet actions. -A- & co did them; Provibloc largely didn't. -A- "cheated" to gain an unfair advantage in much the same way that a student who revises his material before an exam has an advantage over one who doesn't.

     

    It's a sad state of the game though, that fights are not won due to superior strategy, numbers, commitment, coordination or anything that you'd expect to have an impact on warfare. Wars are only won by two means: Knowing how lag works and how to make it work in your favour. That and the stubbornness to go through a war of attrition, maybe.

    I have been optimizing my fittings towards lag situations, changing them over the years as lag changed. I know I'm not the only one who is doing that.

    However, I do not envy people who don't know the ins and outs of lag reduction. They lose battles like WI did, or CVA. Not because of superior strategy, but because they had no experience with the lag involved in sov warfare.

     

    I think you overstate the case a little when you say that knowledge of lag mitigating techniques is all that counts. Of course the FC still needs to employ good strategy, tactics, communications and so forth. It's just that they're of little use if you dont employ antilag methods as well.

    However, from all accounts CVA didn't employ good tactics or antilag techniques.

    Now when you get defeated you can either learn from your mistakes, or you can refuse to fight and instead whine about "cheating" "metagaming "blobs" et cetera et ad infinitum. One course of action may or may not lead to eventual victory. The other will definitely result in defeat. You rightly say that CVA lost because they lacked experience. Well now they have had that experience, but it rather sounds as if they'll continue to lose because they're commiting the most basic of EVE sins; they've refused to learn from that experience and instead they're crying on the forums like a ex-WoW player who took his Caracal in to Rancer for the first time.

    Give me liberty or give me lasers

  • batolemaeusbatolemaeus SchellhornPosts: 2,061Member


    Originally posted by Malcanis
    I think you overstate the case a little when you say that knowledge of lag mitigating techniques is all that counts. Of course the FC still needs to employ good strategy, tactics, communications and so forth. It's just that they're of little use if you dont employ antilag methods as well.

    Your best tactics won't do anything if you can't shoot. At all. Because nobody told you that auto repeat and grouped guns don't work too well (read: not at all) in lag.

  • MalcanisMalcanis LondonPosts: 3,191Member
    Originally posted by batolemaeus


     

    Originally posted by Malcanis

    I think you overstate the case a little when you say that knowledge of lag mitigating techniques is all that counts. Of course the FC still needs to employ good strategy, tactics, communications and so forth. It's just that they're of little use if you dont employ antilag methods as well.

     

    Your best tactics won't do anything if you can't shoot. At all. Because nobody told you that auto repeat and grouped guns don't work too well (read: not at all) in lag.

     

    Yes, of course I agree. But being able to shoot wont help you much if your FC warps your sniper-fit BS fleet at 0Km on to short-range RR BS

    Give me liberty or give me lasers

  • XennithXennith BirminghamPosts: 1,244Member

    Speaking of which, we got caught out by a CVA + pets RR bs fleet the other day and got a very bloody nose. Or at least our sniper BS did.

     

    Today, the server crashed when we had a hostile station into structure, when the server came up it had gained half its shield and armour, instantly wiping out about 3 hours work for our small fleet, and that gave CVA time to rally a couple of its pilots and a big group of pets and come to try to take out our TCU. Crying doesnt help, shooting the other guy until he dies does. If you want to sit there and blame all your mistakes on lag or exploits rather than learn and get better, feel free. Means I lose less ships.

     

    Edit: For the interested, with the help of Atlas the provi attack was beaten back, SBUs destroyed and the station is now liberated.

  • hoppy87hoppy87 uniontown, OHPosts: 29Member

    regardless of how you want to spin it, all of the systems you have taken, either from the NC or CVA have been taken using game breaking exploits. cudos for you since you know how to intentionally break the game so that you can act while your opponents cant i guess, at least thats CCP's opinion. apparently exploiters are the customers they are after. and by exploit i do mean someone who uses a known bug to gain an advantage, which you have freely admitted is your battleplan. if CCP were any other company your entire powerblock would have been punished in some way. instead your operatives inside CCP make sure that you keep that node up for as long as possible so you can continue to use the exploit.

     

    great for you, guess metagaming ftw in eve online, cause it sure as hell has nothing to do with ingame fights.

2
Sign In or Register to comment.