Cry exploit, use exploit, eat popcorn

[Vonqueesha Shenaynay]

Is this basically what is happening right now?

Is CCP really not going to nerf these SBUs? If they don't do anything, what happens then?

Discuss.

[Belloche]

I have no clue about what sbu's you are talking about. More info needed please.

[Zenofmoo]

I have no clue about what sbu's you are talking about. More info needed please.

I'm sure it's one of those "The people who need to know what I'm talking about, know what I'm talking about" threads.

[Evil punk]

putting SBUs up in your own systems so hostiles have to shoot them before onlining their own?

[rottenb]

Apparently IT dropped sbu's at dt in 9r4 and maybe somewhere else, testies dropped tcu(s) in delve again before dt. Testies tcu's got nuked and they were warned for exploiting, IT's sbu's have gone unmolested so far... :caod:

[Vonqueesha Shenaynay]

According to this IT dropped SBU's in PNQY two minutes before the extended downtime.

Due to COAD's reliability, I wanted to find out if it's actually true or just a TEST troll.

[CCP Nozh]

IT onlined SBUs in 9r4 (fountain station system) two minutes before downtimes. They are now shooting the said station with a fleet (im not ingame but i was told thats what is happening now). Montolio petitioned and CCP told him they will look into it. Also TALOS onlined a TCU during the down time as well, not sure if someone petitioned that yet (there is a small thread in TEST forums)

edit:

in last patch TEST onlined buch of TCUs in delve but CCP removed them as soon as the servers came online.

[Zagdul]

No, IT dropped SBU's in a TEST Sovereign system (9R4) just before downtime.

[fulis]

Understandable if you get upset but I don't care
I mean it, I would if it happened to me but..

[CCP Nozh]

Hello everyone. SBUs found violating the rules regarding extended downtime were removed; thank you for the petitions with information regarding this incident. Remember that in the event something happens along these lines the best thing to do is file an exploit petition with information about the situation and where it's taking place. Take care and fly safe everyone.

Best regards,
Senior GM Nythanos
The EVE Online Customer Support Tea

[snsmasta]

I think it was only 9r4. The person in question I think forgot/didn't know that it was a no-no to do that. Since TEST used a similar tactic with TCU's in Delve during the last extended DT and CCP removed them because they considered it an "unfair" mechanic, i.e. exploit.

There was only I think 1-2 SBU's that were actually dropped right before the extended DT, not 100% on it, but the SBU's in question have been removed.

[Grim]

Im still at work. How long was the DT? And did the SBUs online during DT, or did they change them so that doesnt happen anymore?

[Vonqueesha Shenaynay]

CCP also labeled the tactic as an 'exploit' and threatened to ban anyone who continues to use it. Last time, TEST hurf blurfed hardcore on CAOD and other alliances were punished as well.

[Vonqueesha Shenaynay]

Im still at work. How long was the DT? And did the SBUs online during DT, or did they change them so that doesnt happen anymore?

No idea... I'm downloading this massive patch at a mindnumbingly fast rate of 35kb/sec

[snsmasta]

Im still at work. How long was the DT? And did the SBUs online during DT, or did they change them so that doesnt happen anymore?

Yeah, there were 2 SBU's that onlined during the extended DT and 2 more were onlined after the extended DT. But in either case I don't think the person who dropped them used judgement or the person simply forgot that it was considered an exploit. CCP should actually really make it so if you are onlining a structure during a DT it pauses the timer and continues it after the DT.....but I'm sure they'd find a way to fuck that up.

CCP also labeled the tactic as an 'exploit' and threatened to ban anyone who continues to use it. Last time, TEST hurf blurfed hardcore on CAOD and other alliances were punished as well.

I don't remember any Alliance being punished per se, I just remember CCP destroying any SBU/TCU that onlined during the extended DT. The only difference was that TEST was the only alliance that made a 20 page hurf durf whine thread after they were being so smug right before the DT with that plan.

No idea... I'm downloading this massive patch at a mindnumbingly fast rate of 35kb/sec

Use the torrent link, the auto-patcher is slow.

[snsmasta]

double post.......

[snookie]

Who actually gives a shit?

[Vonqueesha Shenaynay]

Who actually gives a shit?

The people posting ITT faggot

[Vonqueesha Shenaynay]

Yeah, there were 2 SBU's that onlined during the extended DT and 2 more were onlined after the extended DT. But in either case I don't think the person who dropped them used judgement or the person simply forgot that it was considered an exploit. CCP should actually really make it so if you are onlining a structure during a DT it pauses the timer and continues it after the DT.....but I'm sure they'd find a way to fuck that up.



I don't remember any Alliance being punished per se, I just remember CCP destroying any SBU/TCU that onlined during the extended DT. The only difference was that TEST was the only alliance that made a 20 page hurf durf whine thread after they were being so smug right before the DT with that plan.



Use the torrent link, the auto-patcher is slow.

Where is said torrent link?

And other alliances who abused the tactic got their shit rolled back too

[snsmasta]

So how difficult would it be for them to actually implement a change where if something was on-lining during DT it's paused and continued after the DT?

[Iratus]

Yeah, there were 2 SBU's that onlined during the extended DT and 2 more were onlined after the extended DT. But in either case I don't think the person who dropped them used judgement or the person simply forgot that it was considered an exploit.

Completely plausible... if you forget to take into account the conveniently logged off fleet in system.

[Manfred Hideous]

Now that it's settled, can I bitch about the new character portrait creator? Holy crap it's lagging for me.

[Vonqueesha Shenaynay]

Now that it's settled, can I bitch about the new character portrait creator? Holy crap it's lagging for me.

Are you shocked?

And tbh, I'd like some more hurf blurf here.

[snookie]

The people posting ITT faggot

Remember when TEST threads use to be funny?

neh neither do I

[Vonqueesha Shenaynay]

Remember when TEST threads use to be funny?

neh neither do I

I guess that'd be funny if I was test, huh.

Now get out.

[snookie]

I'm just mad cause my pc ctds on the new portrait thang.

[Vonqueesha Shenaynay]

I can't see the fucking thing because my connection is shit and it's taking the installer literally forever. Is the new patch still buggy?

[snsmasta]

Completely plausible... if you forget to take into account the conveniently logged off fleet in system.

We didn't have one logged off there....We still had to anchor 2x sbu's post DT to shoot anything(you need 3xsbu for station to be vul), what we did have how-ever was a fleet repping stuff in 6vdt this morning that you guys were shooting last night.

[White Tree]

snookie get out

[The Bunny]

The EVEWiki page (written and maintained by CCP) specifically says "It does not matter who launches the SBU; an alliance can even disrupt their own sovereignty claim by onlining SBUs in their own system. "

This has also been confirmed by multiple GMs that it is a perfectly valid tactic, much like the fact that MM (still to this day) has hundreds of offline (anchored) small towers on every moon in their station systems which effectively (at the time) provided the same type of sovereignty protection when it was 'all about the towers/moons'.

As far as exploiting the extended down times to online sovereignty structures, that has been consistently classed as an exploit of the sov. mechanics since it does not provide (effectively) the period of vulnerability during the full on-lining period-- a crucial part of the mechanics according to CCP.

For the record, -A- also tried on-lining TCUs in catch last night before the extended dt. The fact that they (at least on dotlan--haven't dl'd the update yet to log on) don't have sov in those systems yet shows that at least CCP are being consistent with their application of their previous rulings against offending TCUs.

Maybe the fact that SBUs (unlike TCUs) don't change system sovereignty, only disrupt it temporarily, is the reason why they deal with them differently, albeit-- you'd have to ask CCP specifically why, I'm just theorycrafting on that point

[Perseus Kallistratos]

Completely plausible... if you forget to take into account the conveniently logged off fleet in system.

What logged off fleet? lol

Two were onlined-one was not. System was not vulnerable after DT. SBUs were removed. No fleet was shooting a station. Why? Because 51% of system sbu'd had not been achieved and there was never any fleet.

TCUs on the other hand, are one and done after they online. Oh well.

[Malcanis]

Apparently IT dropped sbu's at dt in 9r4 and maybe somewhere else, testies dropped tcu(s) in delve again before dt. Testies tcu's got nuked and they were warned for exploiting, IT's sbu's have gone unmolested so far... :caod:

Ah, the circle of EVE life continues.

It's almost comforting in a way.

[Vonqueesha Shenaynay]

by the way...

where the fuck is this torrent for incursion?

[OMFGBBQWTF]

Yeah, there were 2 SBU's that onlined during the extended DT and 2 more were onlined after the extended DT. But in either case I don't think the person who dropped them used judgement or the person simply forgot that it was considered an exploit.

Not that I'm there or involved in any of this but from what I've read (not the most reliable) on caod forums is that IT had a cap fleet right after DT start shooting the station.

Now if this is true then I could understand the person who tossed out those SBU's minutes before DT might not of known it was an exploit, but having capitals log on in system right after the extended DT to shoot at the station? Really, none of those people knew it was an exploit, cause if its true then it sounds like allot of people were in on the exploit.

Not that I was there or was told, just saying. Maybe someone can confirm this cause if it is true, I'll send a petition over to CCP regarding this.

[snookie]

by the way...

where the fuck is this torrent for incursion?

think chribba has one up http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard...50466&page=1#1

[Vonqueesha Shenaynay]

think chribba has one up http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard...50466&page=1#1

thanks

[snsmasta]

Not that I'm there or involved in any of this but from what I've read (not the most reliable) on caod forums is that IT had a cap fleet right after DT start shooting the station.

Now if this is true then I could understand the person who tossed out those SBU's minutes before DT might not of known it was an exploit, but having capitals log on in system right after the extended DT to shoot at the station? Really, none of those people knew it was an exploit, cause if its true then it sounds like allot of people were in on the exploit.

Not that I was there or was told, just saying. Maybe someone can confirm this cause if it is true, I'll send a petition over to CCP regarding this.

Yep, if that were the case.But as it stands, that was not the case. Only 2x SBU's were onlined in the system during the extended DT, after the servers went up, the system was still not vulnerable as it only had 2x SBU's and the system has 4 gates, so you need 51% of the gates covered which means we needed a 3rd SBU, which was dropped after the extended DT was over. But CCP removed the other 2x SBU's and took the system back to invulnerable.

We also had no fleet logged off in the 9r4 system as the goons claim. We only had 1 fleet that was up and that was after the extended DT to rep up 6VDT as goons were shooting it during their US Prime.

[The Bunny]

You guys are really over thinking this shit tbh.

If a sovereignty-class (offensive or defensive) module is onlined to either come online during a DT or onlined shortly before a DT (so as to have a large portion of its vulnerable state of 'onlining' happen during a DT where they are effectively NOT vulnerable since players can't log in-- CCP deems this as exploiting the mechanics of downtimes and how they affect the sovereignty system and can/will be removed.

This is especially true for extended downtimes, but (in theory) would be the same for a normal dt. I would assert that CCP sees a 'quick' (20-30minute) downtime as having a dramatically reduced effect so I can see them letting that slide.

[Dr Cheeto]

This is especially true for extended downtimes, but (in theory) would be the same for a normal dt. I would assert that CCP sees a 'quick' (20-30minute) downtime as having a dramatically reduced effect so I can see them letting that slide.

This was essentially the answer from Senior GM Lalouche when the issue came up with the TEST TCUs.

[Vonqueesha Shenaynay]

This was essentially the answer from Senior GM Lalouche when the issue came up with the TEST TCUs.

Yeah I remember this.

[Vonqueesha Shenaynay]

oops I mean this

[Vonqueesha Shenaynay]

Also, triplepoast for #101

[The Bunny]

Ok then, yeah. Seems logical that 25 minutes isn't a big deal on an 8 hour timer, whereas 18 minutes of vulnerability on an 8 hour timer (aka what -A- tried last night) does make a difference

I guess the underlying point I'm trying to make is CCP doen't give a shit if you have a fleet in system, if said SBU/s actually make the system vulnerable, who put those SBUs up, or anything else. Its pretty clear its just a clear cut "does the dt reduce the timer of vulnerability enough to give an unfair advantage".

Again asserting the perfect world of a completely politically neutral CCP, removing ALL changes to a system back to the state it was at before any offending structures were placed seems the logical thing to do, be it invulnerable or (in the case of TCUs) unclaimed.

[luvcuminbum]

cry more bitches

[Arrador]

Test Topics, please ignore.

[OMFGBBQWTF]

Yep, if that were the case.But as it stands, that was not the case. Only 2x SBU's were onlined in the system during the extended DT, after the servers went up, the system was still not vulnerable as it only had 2x SBU's and the system has 4 gates, so you need 51% of the gates covered which means we needed a 3rd SBU, which was dropped after the extended DT was over. But CCP removed the other 2x SBU's and took the system back to invulnerable.

We also had no fleet logged off in the 9r4 system as the goons claim. We only had 1 fleet that was up and that was after the extended DT to rep up 6VDT as goons were shooting it during their US Prime.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Hav]

cry more bitches

I don't think there's much crying involved, just that whole level playing field thing, given how much trouble TEST got into when they tried it and the subsequent bannings due to the threadnaught. Pre-downtime deploys used to be the norm for POS spamming, if I recall correctly...Test's rap on the knuckles was the first time it'd been mentioned as an 'exploit'.

[RansomList]

if I recall correctly...Test's rap on the knuckles was the first time it'd been mentioned as an 'exploit'.

You do

[luvcuminbum]

what trouble did test get into for putting up sbus before downtime? bannings for forum/petition spam is totally separate issue

[Teh Ashen]

so tl;dr - bunch of ppl used the extended DT exploit for SBU and TCU onlining, and CCP punished all parties (including IT) equally?

Wow, this thread IS a ground-breaker.