EVE General Discussion

Cost of making a new corp hasnt been changed in years, while the economy has. It's less than a mil.

I think we could all get behind the reasonable change of adjusting that to fit modern EVE and at least have it be measured in millions.

The part where another mechanic exists to fill this function? Oh, and also the part where this exploit is used to bypass the intended mechanic, because this exploit is free and surrender is not?

Yeah, those ways.





They let any and everything go until they either stumble across a solution, or they are forced to fix it.




I see you're still clinging to that lie. This is not about getting more targets, it never has been.

IIRC it *used* to be an exploit to fold a corp and open a new one to avoid wardecs, and now it is not. If true, that should make it painfully obvious that the mechanic is working as intended...like it or not.

Easy ways to "fix" this issue if CCP actually wanted to:

--- make it an exploit again. This would take zero effort.

--- increase the cost of opening a new corp to, say, 50M ISK to discourage this. Would take a couple lines of code, tops, and at the very least make it no better than a draw ISK wise to do this as a war dodge.

--- not allow a character that folded a corp to open or join a new corp for a yet to be determined number of days. While this might not discourage corp folding per se, they'll at least take the tax hit on their activities for the time they're stuck in a NPC corp.

They could also have wardecs follow every member of a corp until the war ends. Might be a coding nightmare, and might generate too many petitions.

CCP wants its' cake, and wants to be able to eat it, too. They spout "HTFU" out one side of their mouth, while enabling 20 account multiboxing fleets to stay in NPC corps to get protection of the omnipotent magic space police.

IMO any account over 30 days old should no longer be allowed in starter NPC corps, and should be dumped into either a FW corp, or a deccable NPC corp until they join or start a player corp. I'd also bump the NPC corp tax rate to 20%.

You don't know that.

It took CCP 4 years to fix the high sec lvl 5 bug. After all these years they still haven't fixed several exploration complex escalation bugs or the epic arc mission standings bug.

It literally is.



It's supposed to be.




And it's an exploit.



Why don't you just suggest that they ban PvP in highsec? Because "teh new playerz" or whatever lie you bought into. It's the functional and eventual result of everything you've been trolling about for the last few weeks.

Just come out and say it already, we all already know.

Nope.
And disbanding is defender controlled, like it's supposed to be.
Nope.
That wasn't a serious suggestion, it was a ridiculous one to point out how incredibly different the two mechanics are.

A consistent rule set in a game we play. As i don't do high sec pve them changing it or not has no affect on me, it doesn't let me kill npcs faster or scan down sigs faster or make me safer (or less safe) in any way.

You've even see people (in this thread) who use Dec-Dodging say "I use it even though I know it's broken". Some of us simply believe in right and wrong, and in a video game environment and inconsistent rule set that leads to loophole activity is wrong.

The only way to avoid war should be the surrender mechanic (or maybe a new 'proxy' mechanic that CCP could develop). This 'use existing mechanics to moot a war then reform the exact some corp" is bad and not in keeping with the spirit of EVE Online. Ditto NPC Corps except the Faction Warfare versions.

Highlighted the word that doesn't apply to Lucas Kell

He isn't reasoning, he's responding to emotion (and prejudice). He doesn't like high sec war dec types, so it doesn't matter to him if other people use a broken feature to avoid it. A kind of flexible morality that can be seen in many aspects of human interaction (like the story of Robin Hood, "hey, robbery is wrong, but hey, they're rich, so that's ok" lol).

lol highsec pvpers living under concords protection and then crying about it when it helps thier prey, If you ask me gate guns should shoot wardeccers who attack because gate guns are owned by the factions not concord. Like they know what deal you have with concord.

As this thread is rapidly devolving into a "NO U!" shouting match between what amounts two groups of kids on a playground (or, you know, the US Congress), I'll try and sum up for those joining us late. It's a shame you didn't tune in on time, you've already missed the free Titan for every reader part of the show.

Some points:
1. People keep tossing around the word exploit. If CCP really considered Dec Dodging an exploit, they would have almost surely done something about it by now since it's been known about, and actively practiced by literally thousands of corporations for several years.

2. People keep saying that dec dodging is an unintended use of the mechanic. CCP have, in the past, point blank said that any character has the right to leave any corporation at any time for any (or no reason) at all. So you have two fundamental design issues in direct competition with one another - which one gets to win? CCP seems to favor the one that increases player freedom in the game, which is completely consistent with other design decisions they have made, so I argue that it's not unintended at all.

3. Limiting corporations to the surrender mechanic would be abused to hell and back, and everyone here knows it. Dec dodging is the only mechanic that keeps me from locking a corporation in an endless cycle of war and surrender until they can no longer meet my surrender demands or, frankly, from making a surrender demand so outrageous they simply can't meet it in the first place, thereby preventing them from ever leaving the war. The fold and reform mechanic preserves the rights of the player to be able to actually end an incoming wardec and not be locked into an unwinnable (and unfun) situation in game.

4. Some people don't like ship to ship combat. Yes, Eve is, at its heart a PvP game. Yes, nearly every aspect of the game is PvP (including something as simple as buying a skill book - some of the resale prices on those are ridiculous). Wardecs are one tool for promoting PvP in highsec. The suspect and criminal mechanics are another. But people who are not interested in ship to ship combat won't allow themselves to be forced into having it if they can prevent it (see ganking). If you force a player into a situation ina game they don't enjoy enough times, they rarely modify their behavior within the game. They just go play another game that they do find fun.

5. They should just learn to fight back. Why? As our beloved friends the Goons have shows us repeatedly, if you give people gudfites, they will keep coming back for more. The best way to avoid future wars is insure that your opponents has as little fun in the current one as possible. Repeated dec dodging is entirely in keeping with that spirit. By increasing our opponent's frustration and lessening their fun as much as we possibly can, we encourage them to find other targets. When the Goons do that sort of thing it's called emergent gameplay. When a highsec indutrial corp does it, it's called an exploit. Hmmm.

6. Finally, I get that people are frustrated. I get that people want to PvP in ships. I am one of them. I like PvP. I don't like fights I have absolutely no hope in hell of winning, no matter how lucky I get - 10 on 1 fights inside a bubble camp in nullsec, for example. So I use every tool at my disposal to make sure I don't find myself in those situations. Why shouldn't the highsec industrial corporations do the same thing?

What it really boils down to is asking people to forgo their inborn human nature to avoid suboptimal situations, and actively engage in a losing proposition. Sometimes you have no choice and you have to - but when you have a choice between losing and not losing, who in their right mind is going to chose losing?