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. 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.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.
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.
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.
So you relocked a district that had an attack on it when they had rescheduled it once already. :/
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. 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. 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.
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. 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 this portion has nothing to do with my post because it was on a separate unrelated district? Awesome sauce.
Let's focus on the 2 districts being referenced bud.
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?