These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

BANNED ACCOUNT REMOVED Vs. TIME DATES ON TITANS-SUPERS!

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
BEPOHNKA
Ner Vod Fleet Systems
Goonswarm Federation
#1 - 2013-01-14 15:21:47 UTC
Hello! other VS.. topic!!!

Currently when a account gets banned, can we have that toon removed and reused for future use? face it the game is growing...

Currently I was wondering if CCP would ever place times when titans supers were made... 12/25/2005! what rank it was made in 15,000 out of 14,000 rank.
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#2 - 2013-01-14 15:26:37 UTC  |  Edited by: masternerdguy
I support "Date of Construction" on ships.

EDIT: It would also be cool if ships constructed before a nerf / buff were unaffected by that change. Relics from another era.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#3 - 2013-01-14 15:36:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
[quote=masternerdguy]I support "Date of Construction" on ships.[/quote

I'd like date of construction and who made the ship (if they choose to "sign" their name so to speak). That we we could see which ship builder built the most ships that get blown up.

"Date of Construction" would also give us a way to measure the average life of a given type of ship.
Dr No Game
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2013-01-14 15:42:37 UTC
We should also have an option to buy a variety of wines from the store, to christen our new ships :P
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2013-01-14 15:47:22 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
[quote=masternerdguy]I support "Date of Construction" on ships.[/quote

I'd like date of construction and who made the ship (if they choose to "sign" their name so to speak). That we we could see which ship builder built the most ships that get blown up.

"Date of Construction" would also give us a way to measure the average life of a given type of ship.


This comes up rather frequently. In the current iteration of the database, it won't work because until a ship is assembled, it has no unique properties from any other ship of the same type (i.e. name, damage applied, etc). When they're packaged, they're no different that a bullet, a probe, or a missile - just a random "ship" type item in a stack of 0 or more other ship type items. The game has no way of distinguishing one item in a stack from any other - as far as the code is concerned, they are all identical.

Changing that would introduce special edge cases to the handling of items in inventory that are not worth the risk just for what amounts to a vanity item.

IMO, of course.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
fukier
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2013-01-14 15:49:44 UTC
Dr No Game wrote:
We should also have an option to buy a variety of wines from the store, to christen our new ships :P


think you just found a new use for the festive launcher...
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Doddy
Excidium.
#7 - 2013-01-14 15:51:53 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
[quote=masternerdguy]I support "Date of Construction" on ships.[/quote

I'd like date of construction and who made the ship (if they choose to "sign" their name so to speak). That we we could see which ship builder built the most ships that get blown up.

"Date of Construction" would also give us a way to measure the average life of a given type of ship.


A date of construction on all ships would not make much sense. It would need to be wiped on repackaging unless you wanted to a) kill the database and b) disallow stacked ships. A date of assembly could work but seems pointless. If you care name your ship with the date you assemble it.

On supercaps which cannot be repackaged or stacked it makes much more sense.
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#8 - 2013-01-14 15:56:33 UTC
Doddy wrote:

On supercaps which cannot be repackaged or stacked it makes much more sense.

Agreed - And frankly, who cares when mayfly frigates and crusisers were made? They die in job-lots every day, and their lives and deaths are nearly meaningless, even to those who die in them.

Supercaps, though... People notice those.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
baltec1
Bat Country
The Initiative.
#9 - 2013-01-14 15:57:36 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:
I support "Date of Construction" on ships.

EDIT: It would also be cool if ships constructed before a nerf / buff were unaffected by that change. Relics from another era.


One of my retributions still has large rigs.
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#10 - 2013-01-14 15:58:27 UTC
silens vesica wrote:
Doddy wrote:

On supercaps which cannot be repackaged or stacked it makes much more sense.

Agreed - And frankly, who cares when mayfly frigates and crusisers were made? They die in job-lots every day, and their lives and deaths are nearly meaningless, even to those who die in them.

Supercaps, though... People notice those.


They only notice them because eve-kill puts them in the +5b category of exclusivity where all the trolls hide.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#11 - 2013-01-14 16:09:56 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:
silens vesica wrote:
Doddy wrote:

On supercaps which cannot be repackaged or stacked it makes much more sense.

Agreed - And frankly, who cares when mayfly frigates and crusisers were made? They die in job-lots every day, and their lives and deaths are nearly meaningless, even to those who die in them.

Supercaps, though... People notice those.


They only notice them because eve-kill puts them in the +5b category of exclusivity where all the trolls hide.
As may be. Noticable is noticable, for whatever reason.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#12 - 2013-01-14 16:17:51 UTC
silens vesica wrote:



All quotes are taken from comments on recent super losses on EVE-Kill.net to illustrate my point that there is such a thing as bad publicity.

Technically, I can fly a Wyvern, but I never will. I don't want to be in a super coffin. But if I did want to be a super coffin, which some people truly enjoy, I doubt they want to be remembered for this:

Quote:

CFC fail again, sigh • 4 days ago

I too like to try jumping through gates with a nyx when PL are in the system.
Stupid CFC ******, what a stupid loss



Quote:


Duh • 5 days ago

Bloated Legion 2013, congrats on your new recruits Elo. Hi5 R&K, there should be more trying to move north- keep your eyes peeled everyone



Quote:


-a- corps:
dragging "is ****" with them whatever alliance they join



Quote:


Hi, that fail mittani gewnewb propaganda is out of date by -100 years, **** yourself ******



Those are the tamer ones.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
Karak Terrel
Foundation for CODE and THE NEW ORDER
#13 - 2013-01-14 16:19:35 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
masternerdguy wrote:
I support "Date of Construction" on ships.

EDIT: It would also be cool if ships constructed before a nerf / buff were unaffected by that change. Relics from another era.


One of my retributions still has large rigs.

Got a Buzzard with large rigs. But now it just collects dust because i'm afraid to loose that relict.
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#14 - 2013-01-14 16:22:11 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:
Those are the tamer ones.

So?

I say again - whatever the reason, noticable is noticeable. Whether or not the hull is signed, the trolls will still be trolls. Presence or abscence of a 'construction plaque' won't change that one whit.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#15 - 2013-01-14 16:22:49 UTC
Herpderp.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Kathern Aurilen
#16 - 2013-01-14 16:37:02 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
[quote=masternerdguy]I support "Date of Construction" on ships.[/quote

I'd like date of construction and who made the ship (if they choose to "sign" their name so to speak). That we we could see which ship builder built the most ships that get blown up.

"Date of Construction" would also give us a way to measure the average life of a given type of ship.
LOL be able to tell where shoddy construction comes from

No cuts, no butts, no coconuts!

Forum alt, unskilled in the ways of pewpew!
Stoogie
Cadre Assault Force
#17 - 2013-01-14 17:22:06 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:


This comes up rather frequently. In the current iteration of the database, it won't work because until a ship is assembled, it has no unique properties from any other ship of the same type (i.e. name, damage applied, etc). When they're packaged, they're no different that a bullet, a probe, or a missile - just a random "ship" type item in a stack of 0 or more other ship type items. The game has no way of distinguishing one item in a stack from any other - as far as the code is concerned, they are all identical.

Changing that would introduce special edge cases to the handling of items in inventory that are not worth the risk just for what amounts to a vanity item.

IMO, of course.


This wouldn't actually be an issue with supers and titans because they can't be ever repackaged. Cos they can't dock.
ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#18 - 2013-01-14 18:18:20 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Suvetar
Hi,

I don't think we'll ever just allow banned accounts to be removed just like that.

1) it's punitive and it shows that an account's been banned - something we don't discuss openly.
2) precludes the chance of appeal and creates more paper-work.
3) Gaming the system to get a name you like/someone deleted you don't like.

I do like the idea of a 'Laid Down' date on Super's though, that's a nice idea!

[b]ISD Suvetar Captain/Commando Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]
Vince Snetterton
#19 - 2013-01-14 18:45:57 UTC
ISD Suvetar wrote:
Hi,

I don't think we'll ever just allow banned accounts to be removed just like that.

1) it's punitive and it shows that an account's been banned - something we don't discuss openly.
2) precludes the chance of appeal and creates more paper-work.
3) Gaming the system to get a name you like/someone deleted you don't like.

I do like the idea of a 'Laid Down' date on Super's though, that's a nice idea!


How is it punitive if the account owner has exhausted all appeals and CCP has made a final decision on an account?

And how can anyone "game the system" regarding bans? CCP I assume follows a strict protocol/procedure regarding banning an account, and if you are saying that a player can get CCP to ban another player in order to acquire a name, well, that terrifies me.
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#20 - 2013-01-14 19:10:26 UTC
Vince Snetterton wrote:
ISD Suvetar wrote:
Hi,

I don't think we'll ever just allow banned accounts to be removed just like that.

1) it's punitive and it shows that an account's been banned - something we don't discuss openly.
2) precludes the chance of appeal and creates more paper-work.
3) Gaming the system to get a name you like/someone deleted you don't like.

I do like the idea of a 'Laid Down' date on Super's though, that's a nice idea!


How is it punitive if the account owner has exhausted all appeals and CCP has made a final decision on an account?

And how can anyone "game the system" regarding bans? CCP I assume follows a strict protocol/procedure regarding banning an account, and if you are saying that a player can get CCP to ban another player in order to acquire a name, well, that terrifies me.

Agreed on the 'final decision' bit. IRT 'gaming the system, I suspect the reference is to anticipated manipulation and social engineering to get someone to commit a bannable offense, motivated by desire to gain a highly desireable name.
Seems specious to me, but who knows what shenanigans the insiders have seen, that are not obvious to us?

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
12Next page