These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Customer Support lifting previous restrictions regarding war decs

First post First post First post
Author
Alex Tremayne
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
#61 - 2011-10-11 23:09:02 UTC
pmota wrote:
Alex Tremayne wrote:
pmota wrote:
If you are war dec'd and you don't feel ok being in a war dec'd alliance, why would moving to another corp/alliance be considered a exploit in the first place... ?
I applaud CCP for finaly allowing the obvious. For those wannabee pseudo-pvp'ers who are crying about this change, come to 0.0 if you want to fight. Fighting is not ganking a hauler...



Oh good grief, not everything in EVE is about 0.0 and not everyone uses the war-dec mechanic for cheap indy kills.

Also: as a member of a 0.0 PvP alliance, are you *really* advocating that PvP be *consensual* even if it is in empire space?


Mate, I agree not everything in Eve is 0.0 and I don't know how you can read I advocate anything consensual regarding PvP (unless for my poor English)..
It is exactly because not everything in Eve is 0.0 that I agree that a player that wants to play it safe should have a way of doing so, in hi sec space. That's the whole reason for hi sec to exist imho.


I disagree. EVE has, since its creation, been predicated on the concept that nowhere is "safe" and PvP is primarily non-consensual.

Hisec should be "safer" certainly, but the only place you should be safe from a war-dec is a noobcorp. This is no longer the case.
seany1212
Drunkendis Order
#62 - 2011-10-11 23:24:37 UTC
Shei Hullud wrote:
So to make things clear, highsec will become even safer now, which in turn will make carebears/fat industry corps/macro miners/multiboxers do anything they like, like, like swarming ice fields and finishing it in a day's break, getting gajillions of isk and making tier 1 battleships cost 10mil...
Well good job on ruining the system completely.

Then i predict that highsec will become so safe, that pvp will be restricted and the only pvp you'll get is in low sec which is now a blob generator, and 0.0... which is not pvp... there is no pvp in 0.0, there's just something going on there, and no one sure what, but russkie botter alliances can tell you much more.

Making macro mission running/mining seems legit now, and why not? if my bots being wardecced i can drop/join fake alliance whatever.

I dont see how that benefits eve, im sorry, but i just cant see that


Agreed, soon the eve universe will be surrounded by untouchable bots which not even ganking will resolve after further carebears get there "OMG BUFF CONCORD!", back to wormhole space i think, the only part CCP hasnt ****** up yet but i supposed even thats a matter of time Roll
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#63 - 2011-10-11 23:54:22 UTC
I second the call for a blue tag response on this thread. And for that matter, I'd like to see what the CSM have to say.

The effect of sanctioning war dec work around previously acknowledged as exploits, no matter how spotty enforcement was, radically changes risk/reward in empire and deeply impacts mercenaries, vengeful carebears, and anyone who just plain hates each other.

If this was not run by the CSM, it sounds like Hilmar's letter is just a thrown bone and the march to hollow out EVE's essential characteristics continues. If they DID run it by them, seriously what the ****?

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

ShipToaster
#64 - 2011-10-12 00:57:00 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
or do any other war related things within current normal game mechanics


More detail on this would be useful. What strange non-exploits are now allowed?

.

Blackhuey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#65 - 2011-10-12 00:59:22 UTC
Quote:
If you can leave or declare a war, raise the costs for other entities to declare one to you or do any other war related things within current normal game mechanics, you may do so without having to keep other rules in mind.


Effectively: Alliance hopping and Dec shields are now OK.

I understand the reasoning for wanting the mechanics to take primacy, rather than judgement calls by GMs.

However, legitimising alliance hopping has now made hisec POSes effectively invulnerable. CCP should fix the mechanics to make wardecs stick to corps, regardless of joining and leaving alliances, or the combination of an alliance hop and a long stront timer will 100% protect any hisec POS. And CCP should do this before legitimising alliance hopping.

Dec shields are another matter - the effect now is that large alliances that can afford to maintain a dec shield are protected from decs from small griefer organisations. There is a value to this, but it is effectively diluting the "non-consensual" part of the sandbox and is heading in a direction I don't like.

@blackhuey | soundcloud.com/blackhuey

Velin Dhal
Zeonic CG
#66 - 2011-10-12 02:11:47 UTC
sukmanobov wrote:
pmota wrote:
Alex Tremayne wrote:
pmota wrote:
If you are war dec'd and you don't feel ok being in a war dec'd alliance, why would moving to another corp/alliance be considered a exploit in the first place... ?
I applaud CCP for finaly allowing the obvious. For those wannabee pseudo-pvp'ers who are crying about this change, come to 0.0 if you want to fight. Fighting is not ganking a hauler...



Oh good grief, not everything in EVE is about 0.0 and not everyone uses the war-dec mechanic for cheap indy kills.

Also: as a member of a 0.0 PvP alliance, are you *really* advocating that PvP be *consensual* even if it is in empire space?


Mate, I agree not everything in Eve is 0.0 and I don't know how you can read I advocate anything consensual regarding PvP (unless for my poor English)..
It is exactly because not everything in Eve is 0.0 that I agree that a player that wants to play it safe should have a way of doing so, in hi sec space. That's the whole reason for hi sec to exist imho.



Its Funny the cry's from 0.0 alliances doing the "come to 0.0"
Tell you what i challenge to look at Battleclinic and see my stats on kills you'll see that BS is my highest kills after PODS. I have 0 intrest in haulers because they won't fight back.

Everytime a 0.0 alliance fight back with us its ALWAYS in stupidly large blobs because you can fight with even numbers. I sure even people that we hard wars with i.e. moar tears would agree with my statment! 0.0 players suck at 1v1 oh wait i should calculator because im sure the think 1v1 = 5v1 or 100v20. Hide behined you CCP sheild we'll still be alive and decing you all.


It must be so much fun to camp Jita 4-4 all day.
The Jackhammer
The Darwin Awards Prize Patrol
#67 - 2011-10-12 02:25:28 UTC
Velin Dhal wrote:
It must be so much fun to camp Jita 4-4 all day.


About as fun as waiting to bridge into low-sec on a caracal ...

Thank You,

The Jackhammer

GM Karidor
Game Masters
C C P Alliance
#68 - 2011-10-12 03:07:29 UTC  |  Edited by: GM Karidor
As it has come up:

Changing corps while in space AND online is not considered normal game mechanics (as any CEO/Director/Personnel manager trying to get rid of unwanted members can tell you) and this will still be considered an exploit (no direct relation to the war mechanics other than "surprising war targets"). Either log off shortly or go dock for that.

As for the saving of high Sec POS through leaving an alliance, yes, that's easier now, but there are still ways to still destroy a tower within normal mechanics even after the war cool down due to leaving the alliance has ended (and it has been done successfully already).

GM Karidor | Senior Game Master

Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#69 - 2011-10-12 03:19:44 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
As it has come up:

Changing corps while in space AND online is not considered normal game mechanics (as any CEO/Director/Personnel manager trying to get rid of unwanted members can tell you) and this will still be considered an exploit (no direct relation to the war mechanics other than "surprising war targets"). Either log off shortly or go dock for that.

As for the saving of high Sec POS through leaving an alliance, yes, that's easier now, but there are still ways to still destroy a tower within normal mechanics even after the war cool down due to leaving the alliance has ended (and it has been done successfully already).


The mechanic you are referring, as far as i know. to is aggress the tower continuously for up to 18 hours before being able to shoot it out of RF with whatever chars still had aggression. On a scale of 1-10, how reasonable would you say that way is?

And you reply does not address the other issues created by this ruling. I would like to see comments from beyond the GM department for more information.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Velin Dhal
Zeonic CG
#70 - 2011-10-12 04:07:12 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:
As it has come up:

Changing corps while in space AND online is not considered normal game mechanics (as any CEO/Director/Personnel manager trying to get rid of unwanted members can tell you) and this will still be considered an exploit (no direct relation to the war mechanics other than "surprising war targets"). Either log off shortly or go dock for that.

As for the saving of high Sec POS through leaving an alliance, yes, that's easier now, but there are still ways to still destroy a tower within normal mechanics even after the war cool down due to leaving the alliance has ended (and it has been done successfully already).


The mechanic you are referring, as far as i know. to is aggress the tower continuously for up to 18 hours before being able to shoot it out of RF with whatever chars still had aggression. On a scale of 1-10, how reasonable would you say that way is?

And you reply does not address the other issues created by this ruling. I would like to see comments from beyond the GM department for more information.


+1

The PitBoss
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
#71 - 2011-10-12 04:20:33 UTC  |  Edited by: The PitBoss
GM Karidor wrote:
As it has come up:

Changing corps while in space AND online is not considered normal game mechanics (as any CEO/Director/Personnel manager trying to get rid of unwanted members can tell you) and this will still be considered an exploit (no direct relation to the war mechanics other than "surprising war targets"). Either log off shortly or go dock for that.


Now you're trying to have your cake and eat it too ... Blink

As I see it .. it falls under the same category as 'Log-Offski' ...

Now considering war decs ... i am allowed to move freely between corps to avoid the war ... the burden of proof is now on you to prove i was corp hopping to 'suprise' war targets ...

some random GM wrote:
Hello.

I am sorry to hear about your loss. Unfortunately we are unable to reimburse this loss as our server-side logs do not indicate that a bug/error within the game or a server related problem was the reason for your loss. This does not mean that I doubt your description of events in any way but I'm afraid it keeps my hands tied in regards to reimbursement. Our reimbursement policies are very strict and I can only reimburse if I am able to verify that a bug or server error caused the loss. I hope that you understand our position and that you will recover swiftly from the loss.

Best regards,

Some Random GM
EVE Online Customer Support


... OR IS IT ??? Lol

GM Karidor wrote:
As for the saving of high Sec POS through leaving an alliance, yes, that's easier now, but there are still ways to still destroy a tower within normal mechanics even after the war cool down due to leaving the alliance has ended (and it has been done successfully already).


Enlighten us WITHOUT creative work arounds stretching game mechanics ...
Mithfindel
Zenko Incorporated
#72 - 2011-10-12 06:41:38 UTC
Hate to do backseat moderating, but I do suggest keeping policy discussion on one thread and collecting known exploits & theorycrafting on one thread (for example https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=175249).

As for policy discussion on my part, I assume that GMs have documented discovered exploits this far, right? ("Documentation, documentation... yeah, I've heard of it. Oh, yeah, I watch documents from the TV!") Therefore, this sounds as somewhat an extreme way but perfectly continuing in the tradition of using Tranquility as the open beta testing server for EVE Online. Though I admit that this specific case has a good chance to be quite hilarious. People with a clue will benefit, be they either carebears or yarrbears. Newbies and the clueless might suffer a bit, though.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#73 - 2011-10-12 08:09:29 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
The reactions are mixed, as expected. However, lifting those rules is only the first step. We know that the current war mechanics leave a lot to desire (which is one reason those rules were set down in the first place), and there will be more to come in this regard. When exactly, this I sadly don't know, but lifting those rules will give us a better view on the various loopholes that exist within the mechanics (for both, attackers and defenders).

Having said that, if you have ideas on how to improve war mechanics and make them more sound and useful, it probably is a good time to create (or revive) according threads on the Features and Ideas Discussions forum in this regard.


You're right, the current war mechanics do leave a lot to be desired. You can't possibly think that forcing small mercenary and pirate outfits to pay hundreds of millions per week to declare wars on fat, multi-hundred-member alliances (who essentially lose nothing when employing properly-managed dec-shields) is rational, can you?

Okay, have it your way. I made a writeup in a new post here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=20581 that outlines proposed changes to the war system, both new and old.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Fiberton
StarFleet Enterprises
#74 - 2011-10-12 09:08:46 UTC
You high sec folks really cry about not being able to kill miners. Come down to Delve. We will break you off something.

Shei Hullud wrote:
So to make things clear, highsec will become even safer now, which in turn will make carebears/fat industry corps/macro miners/multiboxers do anything they like, like, like swarming ice fields and finishing it in a day's break, getting gajillions of isk and making tier 1 battleships cost 10mil...
Well good job on ruining the system completely.

Then i predict that highsec will become so safe, that pvp will be restricted and the only pvp you'll get is in low sec which is now a blob generator, and 0.0... which is not pvp... there is no pvp in 0.0, there's just something going on there, and no one sure what, but russkie botter alliances can tell you much more.

Making macro mission running/mining seems legit now, and why not? if my bots being wardecced i can drop/join fake alliance whatever.

I dont see how that benefits eve, im sorry, but i just cant see that

“Out of clutter, find simplicity. From discord, find harmony. In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.” --  Albert  Einstein  "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means,"

Slade Trillgon
Brutor Force Federated
#75 - 2011-10-12 13:12:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Slade Trillgon
The PitBoss wrote:
Being in a CORP -or- ALLIANCE shouldn't be a given ... if they dont want to be dec'd ... stay in an NPC corp Blink

PROBLEM SOLVED with out alienating anyone Bear



Exactly!

It would be even better if CCP could implement the ability to join what ever NPC corp you wanted.

In reality this war deck avoidance option has been around for a good while. In all reality whole alliances could continue, albeit in a cumbersome manner, to operate at similar levels, via private chat rooms, voice coms, etc. while completely avoiding war decks. High sec aggression mechanics are a problem but the only real solution is to revert to the colder days of EVE where people truly had to be responsible for their actions/stuff. Unfortunately going back to the pre-CONCORD days would kill EVE just as fast or faster possibly.


Slade
Lucas Schuyler
Mortis Noir.
#76 - 2011-10-12 14:15:03 UTC
ITTigerClawIK wrote:
Jada Maroo wrote:
This is a good change. If you rely on war deccing carebear nooblet corps to pad your killboard, you suck at Eve.


its not the carebear /nooblet corps that is the ones doing it, its the pecker heads who decide to **** one off and keep hopping around in 1/2 man corps to avoid any reprecussions for there actions.


This doesn't magically shield you from retribution. It just means tactics will evolve.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#77 - 2011-10-12 16:11:42 UTC
Looks like a field repair to me.

What's the ratio of high-sec wardecs for the goal of griefing noob corps to wealthy high-sec corps escaping challenges to their position?


The general idea of the war declaration is to pay off CONCORD to get the rights to blow up some other organizations assets for what purpose? I suspect the intended idea was leverage. If you want to mine all the ore and ice, but someone who is better at it is doing it in the same space you want to do it, you kill them.

Fair enough. That's Eve.


But what is the statistic of high-sec corps being war decced actually being such organizations in a dominating position?

How many are small noob corps simply getting decced so some ass-hats who can't handle low-sec or afford 0.0 rent can pad their killboards?

This reminds me of the hunting rules in the USA. Most of these rules seem dumb and redundant, like not being able to use a high-capacity magazine - but the rules exist because: "Some moron already did something dumb so now there's a rule for it".

So while the concept of the war dec is sound based on the original reason, the USE of the war dec as a utility for griefers has pretty much ruined it for everybody.


So y'all abused the toy and fought over it, now mommie's taking it away.






Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Astrid Stjerna
Sebiestor Tribe
#78 - 2011-10-12 17:02:07 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
GTN wrote:
Maybe this is because some big alliance decided to suicide gank ice miners in empire space, and this will allow them to war dec themselves with alts?

What a coincidence!


This didn't make sense to me. Would someone rephrase or explain it please? Goons are ganking Mackraws but what does this meta game thing have to do with it?


If I understand GTN' post correctly (feel free to correc tme if I don't, btw, GTN), he's making a vague accusation that the Goons use shady tactics to avoid being war-dec'ed for sucide runs.

I can't get rid of my darn signature!  Oh, wait....

Mara Villoso
Long Jump.
#79 - 2011-10-12 19:24:54 UTC
Have you ever heard the expression, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink”? The fundamental issue here is that some people just don’t want to fight. The devs and GMs and mercenaries may wish otherwise and may seek to find ways to force the issue, but those efforts are doomed to failure.

If a dec mechanic locked a corporation into an alliance (or out of one) and locked every single member into that corporation for the duration of the war, it would only lead to people leaving the game. The only result of a push to force people to PvP is that there will be no PvP from those people. It’s just not going to happen. Just like its not happening now, just like it hasn’t been happening for years. This ruling changes nothing in practice. Those people were always avoiding the decs. The only people affected by hisec wardecs are those with an attachment to their corp name, those with a POS that can’t be taken down quickly, and those who don’t know better. That’s it.

CCP should spend a little time gathering information from those players about why they don’t want to fight. Or under what conditions they would.

At the end of the day, this is what we’re really talking about when we’re talking about wardec shields and evasion. Like it or not, you can lead a carebear to war, but you can’t make him fight.
Malken
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#80 - 2011-10-12 19:47:16 UTC
so setting up 4 corps now for the sole purpouse of wasting peoples isk and avoid wardecs is ok?

dec corp1, all jumps to corp2, dec corp2, all jumps to corp3, dec corp3 , all jumps to corp4, to dec #4 you are forced to drop 1 wardec and oops as soon as dec corp4 comes all jumps to the one they dropped.

voila.

id be ashamed to be a GM today if i were you, slackers

☻/ /▌ / \