EVE General Discussion

There is no final blow in this kind of war, its one of attrition. Its never been advertised by CFC leadership as anything different to that.

The point of this is, its not what was lost or not lost, its the fact that we never got to find out. A mistake was made that could easily have been mitigated. CFC could have lost that fight and we'd still all say "i was there when..." and joke about the FC who bungled the cap escalation.

Said the pot while calling the kettle black.

that seems like a good idea, considering the amount of 'interested parties' there are in this war.

Lol and that clue being? It really isn't important that some coalition get's some computer generated place to park there pixelated ships. In the end when all is done, you just go to work/sleep/dinner have a life.

You all do realise that you're doing the bidding of a single person being it Mittani or Montolio or whatever right? So ONE person is dictating all your'e playstyle. This to me seems weird. Investing hundreds of hours just to do what 1 person says. The more i type about it, the more rediculous i find it.

Oh well..... Carry on i guess

to summarize this debacle up by a fanfest 2009 quote from Darius Johnson (ex-CEO Goonswarm, Ex-CCP)

"We're not here to ruin THE game. We're here to ruin YOUR game."

Learn how to write English ....Tard

Don't bother, it's too hard for the players to do it, CCP sometimes has to step in

Remember the GM shield extenders?

I can tell from an IT Leadership perspective this looks like the failure in change control process or a lack of will to enforce the process that is there. In other words when a node is down you have a couple really smart guys going cowboy on it fixing it by hacking away at various control points in the system. That gives you the fastest and best result in most cases but then you will have outliers like this that are devastating to your reputation. What we don't see is how many times and how much engineers 'going cowboy' to make the game better real time has actually made the game better--I bet they are unsung heroes in this regard.

It is a fairly simple matter to establish a process that will prevent this kind of mistake, but I can tell you that CCP's technical staff will despise and ridicule being constrained in this way. You also have to put teeth behind process compliance even if it means letting someone go that does not get it. In the end, you will probably end up exchanging a fast response for stability but change control mistakes are too much of a liability when they are so public and significantly affect so many players. This is a PR disaster for CCP, and I expect it will be reported in the broader gaming press soon.

How you say? Rather then genius cowboys hacking away at the CLI until you get the result needed, change commands have to be explicitly written and approved by multiple senior technical leaders and a t least one senior manager/VP who's involvement insures that everyone is taking it seriously enough. The exact players in this reflect the risk involved in a change.

The 'soft' remapping of a node is a common affair so a template procedure and set of commands should be put in place that is adapted to each situation. Upon full approval, the commands are executed with a script (or cut and paste). If there are significant errors the change is failed, queued for later review by a Problem Management process and if the change is still needed, the writing and approval process must start over. Yes it sucks but this is how companies that wear big boy pants do it

Zagdul is on record saying it would have been a deathblow (and he may be right).

PL and N3 are on record as saying they would have poured everything into this fight until it all burned down.

This is the Eve we deserve. Sadly, even without the mistake by CCP, the server probably couldn't handle the scale of fight it was going to escalate to anyway.

Their complaint was don't have bad algorithms and poor management design that encourages human mistakes.

Anyone who is a programmer or admin in a real enterprise would know that this kind of human mistake is entire unacceptable and would normally result in a firing. These kinds of problems are easily avoidable.

How does a tool that handles system moves, offer nary a complaint when someone tries to erroneously shutdown and transfer a critical system?

Here's an analogy. Say you're in the medical field and on your chart that you're supposed inject embalming fluid into your live patient? Would that send up a red flag and be like... hmm.. that might kill someone. Or do you just blindly keep on trucking and be like... ooops, human error.