These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

CCP HTFU

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
#1 - 2012-02-22 15:51:31 UTC
Why does not CCP enforce the gamechanges as the occur?

When something is removed from the game or some criteria is changed for where items etc. are allowed, why is this not retroactive making the game-mech the same for everyone?

One example is carriers in high-sec which used to be allowed but now it ain't. Technicly it is extreemly simple for CCP to move these to an area which they in fact are allowed.


So CCP, mind explaining to me using very simple language (I'm a bit dense as you might have noticed) why you don't clean up your mess?
Professor Alphane
Les Corsaires Diable
#2 - 2012-02-22 15:55:06 UTC
Yes tidy up your room CCP or there'll be no milk and cookies before bedtime, please I ask you Roll

[center]YOU MUST THINK FIRST....[/center] [center]"I sit with the broken angels clutching at straws and nursing our scars.." - Marillion [/center] [center]The wise man watches the rise and fall of fools from afar[/center]
Mokokan
Transtar Services
#3 - 2012-02-22 16:12:57 UTC
You keep arguing a point you haven't made. Why is this a problem for you or anybody else, and why does it need to be fixed?

I mean other than tidying things up? Smile
Florestan Bronstein
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2012-02-22 16:18:14 UTC
Mokokan wrote:
You keep arguing a point you haven't made. Why is this a problem for you or anybody else, and why does it need to be fixed?

I mean other than tidying things up? Smile

there are thing in EVE that he will never have, no matter how hard he tries!!!!!


(sales of high-sec capitals are forbidden)
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
#5 - 2012-02-22 16:20:56 UTC
Mokokan wrote:
You keep arguing a point you haven't made. Why is this a problem for you or anybody else, and why does it need to be fixed?

I mean other than tidying things up? Smile


It's quite simple. You are not allowed to build carriers in hi-sec. You are not allowed to jump a carrier into hi-sec. Ergo, you are not allowed to have a carrier in hi-sec.

It's not about what's it to me and what's it to you or whatever. It's about CCP following their own god dam gameplay rules.

Move them to low-sec, they have no business in hi (not arguing but stating a point). What does that mean to you?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#6 - 2012-02-22 16:28:28 UTC
CCP rules say capitals cannot do missions or engage in pvp if they are in high sec.

So in short, the high sec capital relics are not breaking any rules simply by being in high sec if they were built there.
Mokokan
Transtar Services
#7 - 2012-02-22 16:30:57 UTC
I've tried to keep my replies light-hearted. I bear no malice toward you or your argument. Convince me there's a problem and I'll jump on your bandwagon.

For some reason, I find some of the illogical bits and pieces of EVE to be some of the more interesting. It shows there is a history, a flavor, ......I find character in the flaws, I guess.Cool
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#8 - 2012-02-22 16:35:06 UTC
CCP never added a rule that disallowed carriers in high sec. What they did was add these rules:

Carriers may not enter high sec after a specific date,
Carriers may not be built in high sec after a specific date.

But they never made a rule that prohibits them from being in high sec. As there is no rule that prohibits them from existing in high sec, there is no mess to clean up.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
TheBlueMonkey
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2012-02-22 16:41:39 UTC
I like how quickly you get angry\offensive with people.

Firstly,
Your logic fails.
You're not allowed to build caps in high sec + you're not allowed to jump caps into high sec doesn't = you're not allowed caps in high sec.

Secondly,
They're not doing anything, you can't fit them for aggression and you can't sell them so they're effecively just a bragging right. So where's the hard.

Lets here your rational well constructed argument for wht T2 BPOs must be removed from the game.
Taking into account that they're not respionsible for there "being no profit in T2 invention" as things like Damage Control II's used to run around 20-30mil before invention and the low profit margins have been proven time and again to be a mix of inventards not working things out, the "I R MINE IT SO R IS FREE" crew and the "right click sell, whatever" brigade.

There is always a way for you to get this though, get the isk, buy the bpos, destroy them yourself.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#10 - 2012-02-22 17:00:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Corina Jarr
Capitals are allowed in HS as long as they were there before the change (and hence can never leave if the pilot wishes to use them in that system) and do not fit any weapons.

I see no problem here.


Also it is not for you to decide whether they should or should not be there. They are there and CCP lets them be there, therefore, they should be there. As long as they follow the rules.
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
#11 - 2012-02-22 17:06:32 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
Capitals are allowed in HS as long as they were there before the change (and hence can never leave if the pilot wishes to use them in that system) and do not fit any weapons.

I see no problem here.


Also it is not for you to decide whether they should or should not be there. They are there and CCP lets them be there, therefore, they should be there. As long as they follow the rules.


Thisd is exactly what I'm talking about. CCP let's them stay there... WHY?
Danfen Fenix
#12 - 2012-02-22 17:07:22 UTC
Schmacos tryne wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
Capitals are allowed in HS as long as they were there before the change (and hence can never leave if the pilot wishes to use them in that system) and do not fit any weapons.

I see no problem here.


Also it is not for you to decide whether they should or should not be there. They are there and CCP lets them be there, therefore, they should be there. As long as they follow the rules.


Thisd is exactly what I'm talking about. CCP let's them stay there... WHY?


Because it's not breaking any rules
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#13 - 2012-02-22 17:08:41 UTC
Danfen Fenix wrote:
Schmacos tryne wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
Capitals are allowed in HS as long as they were there before the change (and hence can never leave if the pilot wishes to use them in that system) and do not fit any weapons.

I see no problem here.


Also it is not for you to decide whether they should or should not be there. They are there and CCP lets them be there, therefore, they should be there. As long as they follow the rules.


Thisd is exactly what I'm talking about. CCP let's them stay there... WHY?


Because it's not breaking any rules

Or even better, because as long as they follow the rules, CCP doesn't give a ****.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#14 - 2012-02-22 17:10:10 UTC
I see my post was ignored. Perhaps I posted too many factsUgh
Zag'mar Jurkar
Legion Du Lys
#15 - 2012-02-22 17:25:07 UTC
If they were meant to be "removed" from hi-sec they would have been removed from there, but as I see it, they just changed the rules to "prohibit" them from hi-sec, not moving them out.
Some people left their cap ship there, CCP could have just moved them out if that was their intentions, but it wasn't and they made "special rules" for those willing to "sacrifice" a cap ship close to uselessness.
Flaming Head
Doomheim
#16 - 2012-02-22 17:38:06 UTC
Schmacos tryne wrote:
Mokokan wrote:
You keep arguing a point you haven't made. Why is this a problem for you or anybody else, and why does it need to be fixed?

I mean other than tidying things up? Smile


It's quite simple. You are not allowed to build carriers in hi-sec. You are not allowed to jump a carrier into hi-sec. Ergo, you are not allowed to have a carrier in hi-sec.

It's not about what's it to me and what's it to you or whatever. It's about CCP following their own god dam gameplay rules.

Move them to low-sec, they have no business in hi (not arguing but stating a point). What does that mean to you?


You still haven't said why this is necessary.

Hi sec carriers can't be sold, used for aggression, be undocked while a friendly fleet is active in system, etc...

The only adverse effect they have is causing other ships to bounce off them when they undock.

At the moment your original post reads like this to the majority of visitors to this thread: 'Wah! I can't have a high sec carrier! Wah!'
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
#17 - 2012-02-22 17:43:27 UTC
Flaming Head wrote:
Schmacos tryne wrote:
Mokokan wrote:
You keep arguing a point you haven't made. Why is this a problem for you or anybody else, and why does it need to be fixed?

I mean other than tidying things up? Smile


It's quite simple. You are not allowed to build carriers in hi-sec. You are not allowed to jump a carrier into hi-sec. Ergo, you are not allowed to have a carrier in hi-sec.

It's not about what's it to me and what's it to you or whatever. It's about CCP following their own god dam gameplay rules.

Move them to low-sec, they have no business in hi (not arguing but stating a point). What does that mean to you?


You still haven't said why this is necessary.

Hi sec carriers can't be sold, used for aggression, be undocked while a friendly fleet is active in system, etc...

The only adverse effect they have is causing other ships to bounce off them when they undock.

At the moment your original post reads like this to the majority of visitors to this thread: 'Wah! I can't have a high sec carrier! Wah!'


If you continued reading you'll see my motive is quite different.

It is neccessary bacause I want to be able to trust CCP to make fair and thoroughly executed changes to the game in the future.
Velvet Eva
Be Nice Inc.
Prismatic Legion
#18 - 2012-02-22 18:20:17 UTC
It seems to be pretty clear that the only one who has a problem with this is the OP.

What are you hoping to accomplish with this? Since you are the only one who seems to be in favour of this change, this thread will accomplish absolutely nothing.
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
#19 - 2012-02-22 18:29:17 UTC
Velvet Eva wrote:
It seems to be pretty clear that the only one who has a problem with this is the OP.

What are you hoping to accomplish with this? Since you are the only one who seems to be in favour of this change, this thread will accomplish absolutely nothing.


Good question.


I bet you wish that sometimes there would be someone who took the bull by the horns and adressed certain problems which usually is 'shusshed' down when it comes to politics.

I am that "someone" and I am adressing the problem in a metaphorical sence.

IF CCP acknowledged it was a misstake and unintentional to keep a small hand of unintended cap's in Hi and actually do something about it..... What does this mean Blink

Well for one, it would mean that they preferr to be seen as a company which provides a game which offers the same to all who wishes and chooses to pay for it. Secondly it means any future descicions regarding gameplay changes will be made cut throat precises and no more fooling around.

Last but not least, it would be a clear message to everyone that in this game, CCP makes the rules and that no "democratic elected" player counsil may affect the execution of gameplay changes.

As it is today I do not trust CCP to do this in a proper way and I demand that they show their alegiance is towards all players and not some few.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#20 - 2012-02-22 18:36:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Schmacos tryne wrote:
I bet you wish that sometimes there would be someone who took the bull by the horns and adressed certain problems which usually is 'shusshed' down when it comes to politics.
I wish that sometimes, people who took the bull by the horns explained what problems they were trying to solve…

Quote:
IF CCP acknowledged it was a misstake and unintentional to keep a small hand of unintended cap's in Hi and actually do something about it.
…and that's a big if because the question remains: why would they do that? It's not like it actually was a mistake or unintentional.

Quote:
As it is today I do not trust CCP to do this in a proper way and I demand that they show their alegiance is towards all players and not some few.
They can do that by simply not listening to you… vOv

Quote:
Bacause you don't understand the fact that I don't want one.
Whether you want one or not is irrelevant. It's about applying your invented principle. Are you now saying that you don't want to do that either?
123Next page