|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Leither Yiltron
Ahrendee Mercenaries
860
   |
Posted - 2014.04.16 17:52:00 -
[1] - Quote
Zatara Rought wrote:The really damning issue for me is that a few months ago I sniped 2 KEQ districts on the same day. KEQ ticketed CCP when our battle fell last in the order (the one which would have been efficacious and would have resulted in their previous battles being nullified) because we didn't hit it first so CCP refunded the pack and said try again.
And then DID NOT REPORT it when the later battle on the same day had us going first but was obviously nullified due to a battle that occurred after.
Of course, having no knowledge at the time...I reported it to CCP but was unable to articulate exactly what happened, I blame myself for not recognizing the insidious nature of why they would report one set of clone packs hitting....but not report the other in the same manner. Now it seems to make perfect sense.
It was assumed I simply hadn't tried to re-attack after the win, and CCP only changed the clone count to reflect their battle loss.
KEQ reported the bug when it benefited them...and did not when they knew it favored them and that our win wouldn't count due to the glitch.
You're completely incorrect on what went down, Zat, which is understandable because you were able to see all of 1/3 of the information related to the corporations involved. I own the corporation which was locking KEQ's districts at the time, and which was party to many of the attacks in this particular instance.
The multiple attacks which engaged were completely unintentional. The attempt was to prevent you from sniping the lock from the districts, so naturally there were multiple directors online in the locking corporation who were spamming attacks immediately when the districts became unlocked. You, similarly, had multiple people online. This was obvious since Fatal Absolution registered two attacks simultaneously against at least one of the districts (the thing which prompted you to report anything in the first place). The way this particular mechanic works, simultaneous attacking of a single district instigates it. Simultaneously attacking a single district is also the most efficient sniping/locking/attacking strategy under conventional mechanics.
Two characters reported everything that went on that night- a director character from KEQ and the CEO character of the locking corporation. Your ticket and ours weren't touched until about 8 hours before the battles were set to occur. When they were, the intervention was mishandled. It turns out that battle SCHEDULING and district LOCKING are handled by two different parts of the infrastructure. Typically these pieces are interlinked in such a way that a district is always deemed UNDER ATTACK if a subsequent battle is scheduled on it.
When GM's intervened, the districts were all but one rescheduled so that only one corp was attacking them. Additionally, each of those districts was forced into ONLINE status by the GM despite battles being scheduled on them. This allowed other corps to schedule MORE battles. This was rather early in the day- STB managed to attack one of the onlined districts, the rest were simply re-locked. Again, we had multiple battles from multiple corporations scheduled on each district.
I filed a SUBSEQUENT ticket immediately and attempted to contact CCP personnel to further resolve these issues. In fact I actually skipped a class that day so that I could do it as fast as possible in order to give everyone (FA, KEQ, and our alliance mates) the best chance of resolving the issue quickly. No additional administrative action was taken that day.
There were two battles which involved Fatal Absolution. The first had been rescheduled in such a way that FA's attack was the only one against that district. You lost.
The second battle was on a district which had been onlined by GM's. My corp was used to attack the district after it had been onlined in the middle of the day since STB had already attacked a district onlined in this way. Thus there was a battle subsequently scheduled on it for the NEXT day. This nullified the results of the match on that district, which we lost.
That night I filed a THIRD ticket reporting all of these results. The district which STB had attacked didn't have any FA battles on it in the first place. The GM's decided to nullify STB's scheduled attack against that district. For whatever reason, their decision on the second district in line was to allow the current state to hold. Obviously we didn't file any more tickets because this was their last ruling on the entire thing.
So yeah Zatara, it'd be best if you didn't go talking about situations where you know less than 1/3rd of the story. The only thing which was intentional, and ever has been, is using multiple directors to lock districts because it's the only strategy that makes sense. What else are people supposed to do? Allow their opponents to have a head start in aggressive, competitive scenarios because the background mechanics are bugged?
Have a pony
|
Leither Yiltron
Ahrendee Mercenaries
869
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 04:11:00 -
[2] - Quote
Zatara Rought wrote:Leither Yiltron wrote:
I didn't report anything about the first one because before I could the next morning I was contacted my a GM saying I would be refunded for both of the packs.
I received notification at around 10am, noticed it around 12pm. At that time I was told that exactly ONE of my corp's battles were incorrectly allowed through. Whatever the case, by the time I got to my apartment at 1230 to sacrifice my day sorting it out, the described rescheduling and onlining had already happened.
This is incorrect. I was, as previously stated contacted the next day, I can grab a pic of the communication if you'd like proof.
It wasn't my intent to say that you were reporting as well, this is merely my side of the situation. You weren't part of the defending corp, so how can you possibly claim that what the GM's told you about rescheduling proves anything about what actually happened to the districts?
I'm really intrigued how you know this. Should discuss this with me sometime what proof you have that lead to this statement.
I don't have proof to provide. When I made it home, STB had attacked one of KEQ's districts which was newly onlined. There were two battles on it. KEQ's officers immediately moved to attack the other ones with the locking corp because we had no idea what was going on, but didn't want more attacks from STB or similar hitting the districts.
So you relocked a district that had an attack on it when they had rescheduled it once already. :/
There were two battles which involved Fatal Absolution. The first had been rescheduled in such a way that FA's attack was the only one against that district. You lost.
This is incorrect. I was given a message that both clone packs would be refunded, and both were later, because it was not the first attack scheduled.
the battle that was first in the que, and thus should have been the only one to occur, was the 2nd battle to happen that night for us. That battle we did indeed win while losing 34 clones in the process. The district remained 'under attack' in the same manner as last night and the clones lost were not reflected on the star map.
I said the battles involved FA- whether or not they "should have" happened I have no idea after all the GM intervention.
This is incorrect. Because our battle was the first to be scheduled, it was allowed to go through, according to the GM. We won that battle but due to you locking it again after first 'losing' the locking war by coming in AFTER our battle, the battle you later scheduled should have been nullified as well.
Proof that this was the intention is documented in the ticket I filed. He reduced the district by the amount of clones lost (around 130) and nullified the results of your battle later. However he didn't understand that I was unable to send a reup after the win BECAUSE of your later attacks.
Which is what I reported in the following paragraph. All I know is that the battle fought there was nullified. Our accounts jibe. Again, we had launched and attack on this district because it was online after GM intervention.
So this portion has nothing to do with my post because it was on a separate unrelated district? Awesome sauce.
Yes, because it explains the situation in full, especially in regards to how much GM intervention was going on.
Less than a 1/3 now? 
Our accounts on this jibe- I'll apologize for being incendiary about the situation. It rustled my jimmies that you leaped to accusations of cheating and selective petitioning without the whole scenario, especially after the work I put in that day to try to get things fixed before the battles happened. A scenario, mind, that I didn't intend to have a gigantic public discussion over before today since it entailed a game-breaking bug. It's incredible to me that Kane wouldn't let this situation be handled properly by the GM's and instead decided to attempt to make it some political pissing match.
Have a pony
|
Leither Yiltron
Ahrendee Mercenaries
872
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 04:46:00 -
[3] - Quote
Stiddlefaxq wrote:
If anyone is to blame for the **** storm, it is me. I tried to get everything resolved as privately as possible, but got told off by KEQ directors. I then said "**** it, if they don't want to make this right privately, we are going to do it publicly", and urged everyone involved on. Maybe not the right way to go about it, but I am still pretty sure you guys were doing this intentionally.
I usually don't discuss this kind of thing on public forums, but it's important to note that I was kicked from KEQ after more than a year of service. I have absolutely no motivation for defending them arbitrarily.
Like I said in my post, I personally own the corporation KEQ originally used to lock their districts. I set up the procedures they use for locking and sniping districts originally. This allows me to say without reservation that the way they lock districts with clone packs and snipe locked districts is to my knowledge the most efficient strategy under the conventional mechanics. It is also, like I described, prone to causing these multiple battle scenarios by accident. They are not advantageous, and are in fact annoying and stupid. They cost additional ISK and gain nothing. Just like someone posted in another thread, this can happen even when completely unrelated corps attack the same district as well.
If they were rude to you in your meeting that's not fun, but it doesn't change the fact that they've been playing the game the only way they know how. When you contacted them whatever your offer was, it almost certainly sounded like it was to the tune of "please let us attack your district for free" to them. Considering that it's one of the last districts in Molden Heath that DNS doesn't own, they're probably zealous over its defense. Kane has been egging this whole thing on without acknowledging the full breadth of the way this mechanic works. If you want to I'll gladly talk to you about how this whole thing works in game. Send me a mail, I'm online right now.
Overall though, I'd think as a community it'd be a lot more graceful if we'd all stop and take time to understand the entirety of how these types of mechanics work before trying to play finger pointing games. In the end CCP will resolve the situation to the best of their ability, and there's literally nothing this forum thread or any other is going to change that.
Have a pony
|
|
|
| |
|