well i dont care how many pos you shoot and how many bobits you kill CCP denied to some ppl things like this but no to bob but wee all pay the same subscription
what advantage does it give? i dunno, what sov level were they allowed to keep? they'd have been what? sov1 if they'd have paid a billion isk and restarted the alliance again?
who else gets a billion isk discount and a total rename, whilst keeping whatever sov level they have?
guess some people should stfu?
plus, it's cheating, by ccp employees, again -- what other alliances (who have petitioned before & after the introduction of the sov mechanic) has ccp simply changed their name, without forcing them to reform the alliance (plus a billion isk, plus loss of sov)?
none.
sorry if you guys felt the need to just troll the thread with uber nonunderstanding... i hear there's this new game that's pretty simple -- darkfall... give it a go, eve is too complicated it seems, for some.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
lol is strange to see you ppl supporting this because goons disband them bla bla bla
ad you are ignoring that fact that CCP changed the name of a player alliance
that thing was denied to stain when the made stian and they had to remake the alliance but no is ok for kenzuko to get the name changed to bob reloaded whit out paying 1 bn isk and remaking the alliance you hate to goons blind your eyes
Actually, I've always been part of the northern alliance, fought in goon lead fleets against BOB, killed dozens of BOB POS's the hard way, and yet, I can't find it in myself to care about this move.
Such a minor thing, not worth my time to get worked up about it I guess.
BOB consists of players, just like me trying to have fun playing a game. I don't see this as a threat but I guess I can understand why others might.
so, you're in an alliance with a little bit of time built up in sov, are ya?
so how about your alliance disband tonight and then reform... no one would mind the time you lost on sov? everyone would be cool with sov1?
oh wait, the napped north would fall five minutes later cuz.... sov3+ is what kept it safe from the lame max damage campaign?
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
Ehh tbh While I always wanted BoB blown out of Null sec I never wanted them to lose their name. It's good to see them with a .BoB. tag again. Hell their already almost totally blown out of Delve (the last time I checked anyway). Personally I just wished BoB got owned the right way, With a big alliance WTF pwning them out of Delve not some newb Director disbanding them. The whole thing is weak imo and the goons taking credit for all of it is just as weak, waiting for them to go down next then eve will be perfect.
so... bob doing stuff like what you're calling weak, and many many many other e-dis-honourable things ... that's good by you? it's just NOT good by you when it happened to ccp-cheating-bob?
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
the T20 issue is no less important today to keep remembering it. Just because it happened a while ago is no reason to start ignoring it, that's not how to learn from history.
{ Mod Edit }
Point is not to forget it happened, but at some point it becomes irrelevant for current situations. I would say it's irrelevant now.
*edit* Also I think they could have accomplished this by just creating a new alliance, and then moving the current corps over to the new alliance, although they would drop to sov 1 again, just like the first time they 'changed alliance names'.
so hundreds of years ago in irl is comparable to repeated cheating for the same alliance for several years running? so, how about you give me a billion isk and set me up with a personal alliance with some sov built up?
i mean, it's not showing a continuing pattern (of cheating by ccp for bob)... it's completely isolated incidents and all previous history is irrelevant right?
so hook me up already.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
Ok heres my opinion on it. It is not fair that BoB got special treatment by getting their name changed when others could not Because it was against policy and they did get special treatment here. At the same time I do believe the BoB name and legacy for bad or good should be left either in the hands of the proper owners or in some permanant way in the game (which is the way I would chose to see it done). In the end I have to weigh one vs the other and I think the latter is more important to the game and a name change is hardly game breaking no matter how unfair it is to those who cannot get the same treatment.
Ok heres my opinion on it. It is not fair that BoB got special treatment by getting their name changed when others could not Because it was against policy and they did get special treatment here. At the same time I do believe the BoB name and legacy for bad or good should be left either in the hands of the proper owners or in some permanant way in the game (which is the way I would chose to see it done). In the end I have to weigh one vs the other and I think the latter is more important to the game and a name change is hardly game breaking no matter how unfair it is to those who cannot get the same treatment.
actually, building/losing sovereignty IS game breaking... if you have no sov, it's much easier to kick you out of space... if you've held space long enough to get halfway to sov 3 and have to start that over from day 1... that is a HUGE thing.
the name itself is not the bad part, the game-breaking cheating is the bad part.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
Was BoB given sov as well or did they have that already and then just got the name changed ? If they were given sov as well then fuck em but if BoB had sov and just got the name change then I don't really care. Sorry,
What the main issue is for people is the fact that what CCP has done is violate their own rules with this name change.
This was something that they promised they would never do again, and the whole reason the Internal Affairs Department, and the player CSM council was established...... to ensure that CCP nor any of its employees/official groups would never again cheat, or violate their game/eula/tos rules to help/hurt players in eve online.
Name changes are not allowed unless they violate the name rules. This name did not.
Names cannot be over 24 characters long, including spaces. This one is 25 long.
All other alliance to change a name must reform. This costs 1 billion ISK, and resets Sov. This did not happen in this case, sov stayed same, and no bill was charged.
Now I'm not blaming either side in this, but i do believe CCP owes answers , and the internal affairs dept needs to investigate. The percieved bias off CCP needs to stop, as this is starting to become all to common. I will stop short of calling this cheating by a DEV/GM, but the perception by many in the eve community is such an act has happened once again, do to the fact of blatent breaking of the name policy/sov rules in this event.
While I do belive the BoB name should remain in the game somehow for game history and not in Goon hands. CCP should not break their own rules and they should answer to the CSM which is the reason it was made in the first place was it not ?
While I do belive the BoB name should remain in the game somehow for game history and not in Goon hands. CCP should not break their own rules and they should answer to the CSM which is the reason it was made in the first place was it not ?
but but but... you said, just two posts above, that if bob didn't get sov added; then, it was ok with you.
oooooooooooooooo kay...
gbtd (darkfail).
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
Was BoB given sov as well or did they have that already and then just got the name changed ? If they were given sov as well then fuck em but if BoB had sov and just got the name change then I don't really care. Sorry,
this is what i just referred to...
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
OMG!!! I love the tears...Cry me a river .. Internet spaceships is serious business...hahahahaha
yes, it's tears to want to see someone get in tons of trouble, fired for cheating, and their alliance disbanded AGAIN...
i guess reading with comprehension isn't for everyone. hahahahahahah. reading is serious business... hahahahahaha.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
The Sov is probably one of the bigger issues. This in effect gave sov 3 to a reformed alliance, which has never been allowed.
By violating their own rules and granting a name change they allowed them to keep sov 3. Any other alliance would have been forced back to sov 1 and forced to reform to get a name change.
This has always been the rule, and many times CCP has stated they do not allow name changes on request. Much of the reason is do to sov, standings, pos mechanics, wardec issues ect ect. They have posted these rules time and again when people/corps/alliances ask for a name change.
BoB is destroyed first off. No more. If CCP really helped them do you think they would let the whole alliance get destroyed with the act of betrayal from 1 person?
Do you realize how much assets, and isk BoB lost with this?
Really...It doesn't matter what you call them, they were robbed blind, and then invaded
BoB has a unfair advantage from CCP? BoB is destroyed first off. No more. If CCP really helped them do you think they would let the whole alliance get destroyed with the act of betrayal from 1 person? Do you realize how much assets, and isk BoB lost with this? Really...It doesn't matter what you call them, they were robbed blind, and then invaded
To be honest although it sucks that a BoB holding corp director kicked the corps and then let the alliance default and disband.... because it does suck...but it was all done with legal game mechanics.
These are the same mechanics that both sides have used to offline towers, disband corps, and rob each side blind. These are the same game mechanics that CCP has defended from day 1.
However the perception that the name change was and is rule breaking on CCP's side.
There is nothing wrong with Kenzuko asking for a name change, the problem is that every other player/corp/allience in game has always been denied this same thing do to its against the rules. Yet here we sit with what seems to the average player as bias by CCP, and perhaps rule breaking at that.
You brought up Chribba's and his high sec cap. CCP allows all caps from the pre fix era to stay in highsec as long as they follow a set of golden rules. Chribba is not the only one, all the others that are still in high sec and have not agressed are still there, thats why they sell for so much on the auction forums. Should any of them violate the agress rules they are moved out of high sec or destroyed by concord.
1 rule for high sec caps apllies to all players..even Chribba. I think that all anyone in Eve is asking. They just want the rules followed by CCP, and all players equally. If CCP has changed the rules for name changes perhaps they need to make that public.
BoB has a unfair advantage from CCP? BoB is destroyed first off. No more. If CCP really helped them do you think they would let the whole alliance get destroyed with the act of betrayal from 1 person? Do you realize how much assets, and isk BoB lost with this? Really...It doesn't matter what you call them, they were robbed blind, and then invaded
ok, but it was alright with you, all the times BOB did this type of things to others?
if it is ok, we call that hypocrisy. there's a special place in hell for hypocrites.
if it's not ok, then why are you defending someone that's only now STARTING to get bad karma returned unto them?
you can NEVER point out anything bad done to bob; that they haven't either 1 alread done to someone else, or 2 already tried to do to someone else.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
Originally posted by mmo4life You brought up Chribba's and his high sec cap. CCP allows all caps from the pre fix era to stay in highsec as long as they follow a set of golden rules. Chribba is not the only one, all the others that are still in high sec and have not agressed are still there, thats why they sell for so much on the auction forums. Should any of them violate the agress rules they are moved out of high sec or destroyed by concord. 1 rule for high sec caps apllies to all players..even Chribba. I think that all anyone in Eve is asking. They just want the rules followed by CCP, and all players equally. If CCP has changed the rules for name changes perhaps they need to make that public.
That's getting really funny.
Rules 1) All capital ships are not allowed to high sec EXCEPT ones that were built and present at the time zero because they are important value to EVE lore.
2) All corp/alliance name changes are not allowed EXCEPT those that are important value to EVE lore.
Both rules have their exceptions for the exact same reasons and none of them is giving any unfair advantage over other players.
You brought up Chribba's and his high sec cap. CCP allows all caps from the pre fix era to stay in highsec as long as they follow a set of golden rules. Chribba is not the only one, all the others that are still in high sec and have not agressed are still there, thats why they sell for so much on the auction forums. Should any of them violate the agress rules they are moved out of high sec or destroyed by concord.
1 rule for high sec caps apllies to all players..even Chribba. I think that all anyone in Eve is asking. They just want the rules followed by CCP, and all players equally. If CCP has changed the rules for name changes perhaps they need to make that public.
That's getting really funny.
Rules
1) All capital ships are not allowed to high sec EXCEPT ones that were built and present at the time zero because they are important value to EVE lore.
2) All corp/alliance name changes are not allowed EXCEPT those that are important value to EVE lore.
Both rules have their exceptions for the exact same reasons and none of them is giving any unfair advantage over other players.
Your 1st point is the same as i just said and you quoted.
Your 2nd point is fine , but if this is the case then why doesnt CCP just say we changed it cause BoB is part of the game lore and to important to lose its name, so we changed it?
Comments
well i dont care how many pos you shoot and how many bobits you kill CCP denied to some ppl things like this but no to bob but wee all pay the same subscription
BestSigEver :P
well, if that's the case, that is cheating.
what advantage does it give? i dunno, what sov level were they allowed to keep? they'd have been what? sov1 if they'd have paid a billion isk and restarted the alliance again?
who else gets a billion isk discount and a total rename, whilst keeping whatever sov level they have?
guess some people should stfu?
plus, it's cheating, by ccp employees, again -- what other alliances (who have petitioned before & after the introduction of the sov mechanic) has ccp simply changed their name, without forcing them to reform the alliance (plus a billion isk, plus loss of sov)?
none.
sorry if you guys felt the need to just troll the thread with uber nonunderstanding... i hear there's this new game that's pretty simple -- darkfall... give it a go, eve is too complicated it seems, for some.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
Actually, I've always been part of the northern alliance, fought in goon lead fleets against BOB, killed dozens of BOB POS's the hard way, and yet, I can't find it in myself to care about this move.
Such a minor thing, not worth my time to get worked up about it I guess.
BOB consists of players, just like me trying to have fun playing a game. I don't see this as a threat but I guess I can understand why others might.
so, you're in an alliance with a little bit of time built up in sov, are ya?
so how about your alliance disband tonight and then reform... no one would mind the time you lost on sov? everyone would be cool with sov1?
oh wait, the napped north would fall five minutes later cuz.... sov3+ is what kept it safe from the lame max damage campaign?
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
"you hate to goons blind your eyes"
cosy what does this mean? You are speaking mysteries tonight. It's like you're speaking in tongues
so... bob doing stuff like what you're calling weak, and many many many other e-dis-honourable things ... that's good by you? it's just NOT good by you when it happened to ccp-cheating-bob?
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
{ Mod Edit }
Point is not to forget it happened, but at some point it becomes irrelevant for current situations. I would say it's irrelevant now.
*edit* Also I think they could have accomplished this by just creating a new alliance, and then moving the current corps over to the new alliance, although they would drop to sov 1 again, just like the first time they 'changed alliance names'.
so hundreds of years ago in irl is comparable to repeated cheating for the same alliance for several years running? so, how about you give me a billion isk and set me up with a personal alliance with some sov built up?
i mean, it's not showing a continuing pattern (of cheating by ccp for bob)... it's completely isolated incidents and all previous history is irrelevant right?
so hook me up already.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
Ok heres my opinion on it. It is not fair that BoB got special treatment by getting their name changed when others could not Because it was against policy and they did get special treatment here. At the same time I do believe the BoB name and legacy for bad or good should be left either in the hands of the proper owners or in some permanant way in the game (which is the way I would chose to see it done). In the end I have to weigh one vs the other and I think the latter is more important to the game and a name change is hardly game breaking no matter how unfair it is to those who cannot get the same treatment.
actually, building/losing sovereignty IS game breaking... if you have no sov, it's much easier to kick you out of space... if you've held space long enough to get halfway to sov 3 and have to start that over from day 1... that is a HUGE thing.
the name itself is not the bad part, the game-breaking cheating is the bad part.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
Was BoB given sov as well or did they have that already and then just got the name changed ? If they were given sov as well then fuck em but if BoB had sov and just got the name change then I don't really care. Sorry,
I'm hoping that english isn't their first langauge...
What the main issue is for people is the fact that what CCP has done is violate their own rules with this name change.
This was something that they promised they would never do again, and the whole reason the Internal Affairs Department, and the player CSM council was established...... to ensure that CCP nor any of its employees/official groups would never again cheat, or violate their game/eula/tos rules to help/hurt players in eve online.
Name changes are not allowed unless they violate the name rules. This name did not.
Names cannot be over 24 characters long, including spaces. This one is 25 long.
All other alliance to change a name must reform. This costs 1 billion ISK, and resets Sov. This did not happen in this case, sov stayed same, and no bill was charged.
Now I'm not blaming either side in this, but i do believe CCP owes answers , and the internal affairs dept needs to investigate. The percieved bias off CCP needs to stop, as this is starting to become all to common. I will stop short of calling this cheating by a DEV/GM, but the perception by many in the eve community is such an act has happened once again, do to the fact of blatent breaking of the name policy/sov rules in this event.
While I do belive the BoB name should remain in the game somehow for game history and not in Goon hands. CCP should not break their own rules and they should answer to the CSM which is the reason it was made in the first place was it not ?
but but but... you said, just two posts above, that if bob didn't get sov added; then, it was ok with you.
oooooooooooooooo kay...
gbtd (darkfail).
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
this is what i just referred to...
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
OMG!!! I love the tears...Cry me a river ..
Internet spaceships is serious business...hahahahaha
yes, it's tears to want to see someone get in tons of trouble, fired for cheating, and their alliance disbanded AGAIN...
i guess reading with comprehension isn't for everyone. hahahahahahah. reading is serious business... hahahahahaha.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
What's this? CCP invovled in unethical behaviour in their game management? Who would've thought it?
www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/2629404#2629404
The Sov is probably one of the bigger issues. This in effect gave sov 3 to a reformed alliance, which has never been allowed.
By violating their own rules and granting a name change they allowed them to keep sov 3. Any other alliance would have been forced back to sov 1 and forced to reform to get a name change.
This has always been the rule, and many times CCP has stated they do not allow name changes on request. Much of the reason is do to sov, standings, pos mechanics, wardec issues ect ect. They have posted these rules time and again when people/corps/alliances ask for a name change.
Why there is no whine about Chribba's Veldnaught when it is obvious rules violation?
It's always funny to watch CAO(D) and funny to see how are people unaware that CAO(D) is a part of EVE lore.
BoB has a unfair advantage from CCP?
BoB is destroyed first off. No more. If CCP really helped them do you think they would let the whole alliance get destroyed with the act of betrayal from 1 person?
Do you realize how much assets, and isk BoB lost with this?
Really...It doesn't matter what you call them, they were robbed blind, and then invaded
SHOHADAKU
To be honest although it sucks that a BoB holding corp director kicked the corps and then let the alliance default and disband.... because it does suck...but it was all done with legal game mechanics.
These are the same mechanics that both sides have used to offline towers, disband corps, and rob each side blind. These are the same game mechanics that CCP has defended from day 1.
However the perception that the name change was and is rule breaking on CCP's side.
There is nothing wrong with Kenzuko asking for a name change, the problem is that every other player/corp/allience in game has always been denied this same thing do to its against the rules. Yet here we sit with what seems to the average player as bias by CCP, and perhaps rule breaking at that.
You brought up Chribba's and his high sec cap. CCP allows all caps from the pre fix era to stay in highsec as long as they follow a set of golden rules. Chribba is not the only one, all the others that are still in high sec and have not agressed are still there, thats why they sell for so much on the auction forums. Should any of them violate the agress rules they are moved out of high sec or destroyed by concord.
1 rule for high sec caps apllies to all players..even Chribba. I think that all anyone in Eve is asking. They just want the rules followed by CCP, and all players equally. If CCP has changed the rules for name changes perhaps they need to make that public.
ok, but it was alright with you, all the times BOB did this type of things to others?
if it is ok, we call that hypocrisy. there's a special place in hell for hypocrites.
if it's not ok, then why are you defending someone that's only now STARTING to get bad karma returned unto them?
you can NEVER point out anything bad done to bob; that they haven't either 1 alread done to someone else, or 2 already tried to do to someone else.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
That's getting really funny.
Rules
1) All capital ships are not allowed to high sec EXCEPT ones that were built and present at the time zero because they are important value to EVE lore.
2) All corp/alliance name changes are not allowed EXCEPT those that are important value to EVE lore.
Both rules have their exceptions for the exact same reasons and none of them is giving any unfair advantage over other players.
Where are these rules posted? So far, I've only seen the "name changes aren't allowed"-rule.
http://www.eveonline.com/pnp/namepolicy.asp
Only character names that are deemed as inappropriate are eligible for a possible name change. Names will not be changed for any other reason.
And later down on the same page:
Player-run corporations, factions, organizations and player-owned items within the EVE Online game world are also subject to these rules and policies.
Follow my tweet (:
That's getting really funny.
Rules
1) All capital ships are not allowed to high sec EXCEPT ones that were built and present at the time zero because they are important value to EVE lore.
2) All corp/alliance name changes are not allowed EXCEPT those that are important value to EVE lore.
Both rules have their exceptions for the exact same reasons and none of them is giving any unfair advantage over other players.
Your 1st point is the same as i just said and you quoted.
Your 2nd point is fine , but if this is the case then why doesnt CCP just say we changed it cause BoB is part of the game lore and to important to lose its name, so we changed it?