EVE General Discussion

Make sure you include the other large 0.0 alliances that do/will do the same thing, you know, just to be fair. Or is this just a high sec rant???

Fail corps and alliances will just dock up for a week.

I always enjoyed the war dec system in other games. One guild wars another they both decide to do it. Mutual pvp, is non surprise buttzeks pvp.

Maybe so...


However... if the collateral is large enough it might (MIGHT) entice the attackee to be more motivated. The system as is offers no motive for the war-dec'd corporation to even fight. Also... the bigger and more active your corp is, the bigger the pay out might be.


Again, just an idea.

y'know what might be fun?

If you wardec someone, you should be abnle to bring any fleet assets into the fight but JUST for fighting in fights relating to the war.

Think of it, you drop a wardec, catch then om an op or something and hotdrop titans into high sec to destroy them



I do believe that IS the new wardec system. The aggressor can keep the war going indefinitely as long as they have the isk, Hell theres no mechanic even in place that would allow the defenders to win a war waged on them.

This whole post just made me laugh.

Lets see if I got this right.
A bunch of players who have no interest in PvPing decided to ban together to so that they don't have to PvP.
And the supposed PvP'rs are whining cause then can't get free kills without paying more for a war dec

To funny, just find someone who actually wants to fight.

Or take a hint from how many gankers out there that figured out you don't need a war dec to kill someone in high-sec

A few inaccuries, as is fairly common with Poetics blogs:
1. I formed the corp about 3 weeks ago, and started accepting people 2 weeks ago.
2. I've strongly suggested that the new wardec mechanics (which I don't believe CCP Greyscale had anything to do with) only count characters who have logged in within the last week/month - this is already tracked in the corp interface.
3. There's something like 65 alts in the corp, out of the 2000+ E-UNI members. That's not a massive take-up if I was ordering everyone to put their alts in the corp.
4. We used to allow as many alts as someone wanted until 2009 or so when people needed a really good reason - the idea was that we were tring to keep the numbers down as it seemed to attract more wars from small corporations who never fought.

tl;dr - nothing to see here, move along.

I wonder if this one will prove to be a legal or illegal exploit? Not the first time Kelduum has seen such an opportunity and taken advantage of it, but I do have to point out the Uni is already sizeable. I'm not sure higher numbers are really needed to discourage wardecs by upping the cost even more

Also, before I go about forgiving Kelduum, the E-Uni directors, and even Irdalth Delrar, (Mutliple posts in E-Uni getting people to pay for his EVE time with PLEX, claiming trouble with citizenship, etc.. I don't really believe it, particularly in light of recent posting here, but I digress.)... yeah, I forgot whatever it was I was thinking of before that brief explanation.

Anyway, I'm willing to forgive and move on. Heck, it's not like it's doing me any good to hold a grudge against them. E-Uni pissed me off about this same time last year, (the directors, not the students), or a little earlier in the year at any rate, but it took me awhile to forget about it and let it go.

This year I'm going to change the rules, (helps that I wasn't the subject this time), and just forgive the whole lot of them for all those things that pissed me off so much that I felt the need to unleash my wrath in a forum thread so recently.

E-Uni does a lot of good so far as providing documentation and explanation through their wiki, as well as providing centralization for getting new players involved in various aspects of the game as well as providing that place where they can get to know one another while learning the game.

All their shenanigans aside, the fundamental role of the Uni remains and appears to be working as intended.

Honestly, I still find it very unsettling to even give them this much. I feel that it is wrong and in light of that I have to at least add this disclaimer.

I don't trust them, nor do I feel that their collective actions as directors of E-Uni are honest or even altruistic. I believe they have well disguised intentions and I am unsure that anything they do in interaction with truly new players or even somewhat veteran players who come to have an interest in them, (like myself at one time), is truly beneficial to that player.

That said, I am well good and finished with that. Hopefully the next time something like this comes up I don't fall into another relapse like I did this time.

And so, I'll formally declare my forgiveness for their actions in this and other matters more directly related to me, though I will note this is more for me than it is for them. I can't honestly be bothered to dislike anyone this much; particularly in a game, and especially one that I don't even truly play at this time.

Ironic maybe, but there it is. All of you lot, (directors), at E-Uni, (as I know you are reading this; you always do for various reasons), are considered to have a second chance. I have no expectation that you'll prove anything to me or change in the slightest, but as far as I'm concerned your previous transgressions, (for those who were involved), are forgiven and as good as forgotten.

Everyone knows E-UNI is corrupt, recieves dev favortism and teaches noobs horrible lessons like station hugging.

But does anyone really care?

It's more about roleplaying and a group of internet predators with pedophelia playing teachers and abusing their pupils, making them do humiliating tasks like comment on their loss mails. Would you prefer if they were abusing real kids? What about the students? A bunch of people most likely born without a father roleplaying a child, getting some dicipline in their lives. What's wrong with that?

1. You formed it within days of the wardec presentation at fanfest. Okay, so the NDA thing is misinformation by an idiot blogger making a pathetic reach attempt. Sure, maybe you always dreamed of having alts in Ivy League for secret squirrel reasons # 3 and #12, but the timing is fairly suspect. Going on your past history of using (formerly ruled) wardec evasion exploits, somebody could easily draw the conclusion its only there for this specific purpose, to artificially inflate wardec costs on your attackers. Again, that is just speculation but I'd imagine its pretty close to the truth.

2. Look at this way. In the height of the 2011's summer of rage, the phrase "Watch what they do, not what they say" was thrown around a lot.

I'm sure you could bore the world to death with your riveting ideas to make the "wardec system work", how you really want wardecs to be "positive PvP that's not a grief tactic", how you are "in favor of wardecs that mean something" and anything else you want to throw into it. That's a healthy amount of :words:

Here is one way to look at your in-game actions and what that could possibly mean for what you personally believe in.

"Wardecs should only occur on my terms, my conditions entirely or you will pay an incredibly dire price for it otherwise. I may let it down to prove a point to whiners inside my organization, to have a gentleman war, or to promote an argument that I'm not completely against wars in general. I really have no qualms with having extended months of peace that is (most likely) happening due to the outrageous prices to wardec my organization. I will shield my corporation with a tactic previously ruled an exploit, but the ramifications of appearing to be so publicly pro-exploit (albeit a former one) either doesn't bother me or concern me. I care not for any "alternative uses of the wardec system", I do not recognize the people who used my (old) wardec rules to effectively dock my entire alliance as a valid tactic. I will use examples from (sic)faildecs to rationalize why I can exploit, but I will tend to overlook or downplay the ability it would have to defend me against targets who wish us legitimate harm."

If you want to indulge me, feel free to answer my question honestly. Did you ever have contingency plans to alliance hop should the ability to defend yourself ingame from wardeccers prove to not be feasible/desirable for E-Uni? I would imagine the pain of having it on the your alliance history and the stigma that tactic brings probably would put this as a last ditch effort.

3. Are we supposed to believe you never intended for this to be bigger, or that you don't think you could easily get X amount of alts scrambling in if you bellowed out for it?

If you care to indulge me again, What is the maximum amount of corp members you can have in your alt corporation?

4. Not entirely sure what a policy from ~3 years ago, from a radically different game world, is supposed to mean in the context of your current argument?

tl:dr Here's an absolutely terrible misleading blog title "Eve University, via actions taken by their CEO and their CSM representative, supports exploiting and you should too!!!"