These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Remember When I Said Alts Were The New Wardec Shield?

First post
Author
ShipToaster
#21 - 2012-04-26 02:37:31 UTC
Tippia wrote:
…yes, I remember when I brought it up as the first question at the fanfest wardec roundtable.

Decshielding is now the default mechanic for wardecs — nothing surprising here. It's completely contrary to the intention, but it is still (somehow) the intended design. vOv


Did you hear the question asked about why declaring war for a month should cost up to 320 times more than the default operating costs for an alliance per month? Still no answer on that.

.

Montevius Williams
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2012-04-26 02:40:33 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
from http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.ca/2012/04/remember-when-i-said-alts-were-new.html

With wardec costs based on the target alliance/corporation's membership numbers, it seemed a no-brainer that alts would become the new decshield.

A lot of people scoffed.

Kelduum has just announced, on the EVE University forums (members-only section), a new Ivy League corporation devoted solely to alts and ex-members of the University.

For no other reason than to pad the membership totals, to increase the cost to declare war on the University. Woo! Way to go CCP Greyscale, Carebear Defender. Look at all the logged out targets one gets to go to war with when they pay the inflated fee. You did say after all that the costs were a reflection of the war targets you'd get to fight.

I'll let Kelduum speak for himself though, because as a CSM member, looking out for everybody, he speaks writes so eloquently.

Quote:
Hi all,
With the wardec changes coming up in May, the situation where we do what we can to keep the membership numbers down to avoid attention is counter-productive, so we will be launching the Ivy League Hall of Residence in the next few days.

This is an alt corporation for any current/past E-UNI members, recruitment of which will be semi automated - this will require the Unista to decare their alts characterID via a special hidden forum field, which will then be matched to the applications and then accepted/denied.

As members of Ivy League, alts in that corporation will not be given any roles or titles (at least initially), and therefore will have no corp hangar access or similar, but will still be able to fly in E-UNI fleets.

If you have an alt which wishes to join, then please have them apply now and I will post more details later with the full recruitment process when its been completed.

Thanks,
--
Keld



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???

"The American Government indoctrination system known as public education has been relentlessly churning out socialists for over 20 years". - TravisWB

Cosmic Fart
Doomheim
#23 - 2012-04-26 02:50:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Cosmic Fart
While I really don't care one way or the other about pvp.

It is of my opinion everyone has a right or should have a right to play EVE as they want with their $15 USD.

However.... for you PVP minded individuals, here's an idea I'd like to suggest. It may or may not have already been suggested.

Keep in mind I'm not a programmer so as to how hard this idea would be to implement is beyond me. Might even be impossible.


Why not implement a system where the corporation declaring war is required to put up collateral. The collateral would relate with the amount of active players in recent days or week(s) of the corp the aggressor declares war on. Much like what one poster said earlier.

However - If the corporation declaring war fails to kill a predetermined number of players, collateral is lost.

But

IF -the corporation being attacked kills more players of the corporation declaring war, the collateral is then paid to the corporation who actully fought back.

or

IF -the aggressing corporation kills a predetermined number of ACTIVE players the collateral is then returned to them.


Ok... This is just an idea and as I said, it may have already been discussed as well as it may be impossible to implement. Just an idea is all.
ShipToaster
#24 - 2012-04-26 03:00:49 UTC
Cosmic Fart wrote:
idea


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

.

Endeavour Starfleet
#25 - 2012-04-26 03:04:21 UTC
Ah so next you want to force people to remain in corp so that one can continue to use the wardec system to get virtually free ganks.

Won't happen... EVER. CCP would be absolutely insane to force people to accept that a war = stuck. That is crap. I thought you wanted wardecs back because you wanted to go POS busting? NOPE it was about easy ganks all along as anyone could have suspected.
Digital Messiah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2012-04-26 03:06:38 UTC
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.

Something clever

Eidric
Private Shelter for Mad People
#27 - 2012-04-26 03:10:08 UTC
Sigh...And this is exactly why I wanted the war-dec price to be modified by member number of offensive corporation\alliance.
Cosmic Fart
Doomheim
#28 - 2012-04-26 03:13:26 UTC
ShipToaster wrote:
Cosmic Fart wrote:
idea


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



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.
Perramas
DreddNaut
#29 - 2012-04-26 03:23:05 UTC
If the aggressor corp/alliance has more players than the target corp then the fee should be high, the more players the higher the fee. If the aggressor corp/alliance has fewer members then the fee should be lower, the greater the disparity between the two the lower the fee.

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people- Eleanor Roosevelt

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Doomheim
#30 - 2012-04-26 03:25:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Sigurd Sig Hansen
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

Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Ah so next you want to force people to remain in corp so that one can continue to use the wardec system to get virtually free ganks.

Won't happen... EVER. CCP would be absolutely insane to force people to accept that a war = stuck. That is crap. I thought you wanted wardecs back because you wanted to go POS busting? NOPE it was about easy ganks all along as anyone could have suspected.


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.

Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game

Ocih
Space Mermaids
Somethin Awfull Forums
#31 - 2012-04-26 03:35:27 UTC
Having done my sentence in Null sec I can say this content is strictly for people like Moonswarm who even with all thier might are forced to use alts to run industrial logistics with alts because station camping war dec fleets camp Jita 4 IV.

Of course the untold side is, even they don't see it as practical to escort said Industrial maneuvers so they have convinced CCP to buffer them out by sheer blob value.

I suspect it will backfire.
Simetraz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#32 - 2012-04-26 03:36:48 UTC
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 Big smileBig smileBig smile

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

RollRollRoll
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#33 - 2012-04-26 04:01:45 UTC
ShipToaster wrote:
Vaal Erit wrote:
Lol you mean remember when the guy at Fanfest brought this up? Or when everybody brought this up?

Anyways nothing is set in stone about the cost and CCP has had quite a bit of time to think about it since Fanfest. It's really way too early too start gathering alts or whining about people gathering alts. I'll give CCP the benefit of the doubt until they release the official new wardec cost formula.


All I will say is look at how bad vg's have been ****** up and think about ccp's recent track record on big changes and not the trivial.

Benefit of the doubt to :ccp:? No chance after last years multiple balls ups.


Counter point: The Titan tracking change is nice. They were gonna nerf all XL turrets at first but only applied it to Titans which was the right move imo.

I prefer a simple cap on war dec cost per week in addition to a formula that scales on aggressor corp size vs defender corp size. Real easy. Hard to mess up even for CCP.
Kelduum Revaan
The Ebon Hawk
#34 - 2012-04-26 06:14:33 UTC
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.
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
#35 - 2012-04-26 06:25:11 UTC
I have to laugh at this.. . It's not like you have a dozen alts per account like in some games. I suspect that many players will opt not to put alts in a the same corp for reasons of preserving their anonymity.. but even should this become a trend, so what..

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]

Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#36 - 2012-04-26 07:25:31 UTC
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. Smile

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.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Bubanni
Corus Aerospace
#37 - 2012-04-26 07:40:31 UTC
Someone mentioned at the fanfest... that it should only be based on active accounts, and not alts... or trail accounts.... CCP carebear failed to hear the guy say that, but it was on the fanfest footage...

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934

Cerple
#38 - 2012-04-26 07:59:50 UTC
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?
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#39 - 2012-04-26 08:02:06 UTC
Personally, I never know when PS says anything.

Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook 

Patient 2428190
DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School
#40 - 2012-04-26 09:00:35 UTC
Kelduum Revaan wrote:
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.


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!!!"
Previous page123Next page