These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Discussion] Dec Shield is an exploit
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Thryson
Riemannian Manifold Torus
#1 - 2012-01-19 07:29:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Thryson
I would like to open this up to everyone opinion,

First off I believe that every corp should KEEP their right to join/leave an alliance at will (free war dec for Thryson \o/)

Dec Shield is a really interesting idea, even if can prove disruptive I don't have anything against it directly, what I do have a problem with is if you target a corp for what ever reason you have Lets say they have a POS you want to take down, then they should NOT be allowed to endlessly jump in and out of any alliance to avoid the conflict it is so obviously cheating the way the system works that it should not even need to be brought up in discussion yet I find myself here after getting rejected petitions to see what the rest of you think.
Smiling Menace
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2012-01-19 07:39:15 UTC
Hey Thryson.

Sucks having the Orca exploit changed on you dude. No more T3's ejected when fighting, eh? You have a bit of a cheek whining about exploits dude.

Also your post is a bit contradictory.

You say first that you believe that corps should keep the right to join/leave alliances at will then go on to whine that they shouldn't be allowed to do this when you want to kill a POS?

Personally I am ok with the Dec Shield idea. Why should some carebears that you've griefed give you free kills on their POS's?

This sounds more like a whine thread that you are being denied kills in hi sec.

Move to low/null sec and you don't even need a wardec to remove a POS. Simples.
Thryson
Riemannian Manifold Torus
#3 - 2012-01-19 07:56:26 UTC
Well I would like to behave like and an adult here as we are not in game and you seem to be taking you loss pretty hard even MONTHS later.

Now the ORCA "exploit" was never an exploit however the majority of people felt like it was and was changed accordingly I never complained after it was changed because it could be used in an unfair way, like dodging a fight completely.

Also if you would read in context what I wrote you would understand you should be able to join and leave alliances but to do it over and over is where I have the problem. What it comes down to is if you have a POS set up be prepared to defend it not hide behind a game mechanic that needs attention.

Fighting is not just for Low and Null High sec is as free game as anywhere else just with a slightly different set of rules. Concord dose not exist to protect it is there to punish.
Smiling Menace
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2012-01-19 10:56:56 UTC
Still a contradiction.

If you believe that corps should be allowed to leave/join alliances at will, why have a restriction on how many times they can do it?

Again, you are just butthurt that you can't grief a carebear corp and rack up some easy kills.

One more point, if CCP have already answered your petitions and knocked you back, why are you wasting our time with this?

CCP aren't going to do anything so seems lame that you come here whining when you already have the answer.
Blatant Forum Alt
Doomheim
#5 - 2012-01-19 10:59:48 UTC
This is bullcrap. Only pussies go after high sec corps recruiting noobs for easy kills, grow a pair.
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2012-01-19 15:13:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Drake Draconis
I'm with the peanut gallery.... this smells bull#### all over it...soundly rejecting.

You cannot and will not make changes to war decs without balancing the books.

Both the agressor and the agressed must gain equal benefits/drawbacks...not only one party.


CCP has clearly stated it...."Dec sheild" is NOT an exploit. *not to say I approve...but I'm not about to rock the boat on this subject either*

Don't like it?

I'm sorry...I'm fresh out of tissues.

I hear there's this game called hello kitty online...

PS: Smiling Menace...I'm starting to really enjoy your posts.Cool

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152
Smiling Menace
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-01-19 15:19:21 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
PS: Smiling Menace...I'm starting to really enjoy your posts.Cool


lol thanks dude Cool
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2012-01-19 17:12:57 UTC
Simple. Introduce a cooldown timer that increases the time it takes for a person joins a corporation within the span of a month. Then do away with NPC corps and make people individually deccable. After 3-4 corp hops the time it'll take for the guy to rejoin another corp and invalidate the war will be longer then the reinforcenment timer.
Thryson
Riemannian Manifold Torus
#9 - 2012-01-19 17:24:02 UTC
See that is an actual soultion nicolo it is not about what you believe about high sec war decs, what it comes down to is that it is n aspect of the game that many people enjoy it.
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal
#10 - 2012-01-19 18:08:14 UTC
Firstly. I am Dec Shield. I run Dec Shield. Dec Shield SHOULD be considered an exploit. What we do is wrong, and I don't agree with CCP's decision to let it be legal. The ability for highsec towers to be made invulnerable through the exploit/loophole that we abuse is completely unfair and imbalanced.

And yes I am completely serious.

Burn Highsec Griefers
Doctor Dremo
Registered Amateur Mathematicians
#11 - 2012-01-19 18:17:32 UTC
The Zerg Overmind wrote:
Firstly. I am Dec Shield. I run Dec Shield. Dec Shield SHOULD be considered an exploit. What we do is wrong, and I don't agree with CCP's decision to let it be legal. The ability for highsec towers to be made invulnerable through the exploit/loophole that we abuse is completely unfair and imbalanced.

And yes I am completely serious.



This is literally genius. Become the thing you hate to highlight how terribly, terribly wrong it is. CCP take note.

*golfclap*
Thryson
Riemannian Manifold Torus
#12 - 2012-01-19 18:28:44 UTC
Second *golf clap*
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#13 - 2012-01-19 18:34:45 UTC
So you don't much care for having more people to shoot, but want it declared an exploit again because you don't get to grind static EHP with limited returns except against absolute beginners who don't know that BPO's never have to leave a station?

Suggestion: Hire yourself out to the next offensive null entity that invades a region with lots of infrastucture .. that way you get all the EHP grind you could ever want and a bit of spending money on top.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#14 - 2012-01-19 18:39:42 UTC
Nothing wrong with dec shield, except that I've heard that some people are able to maintain them at a fraction the cost they SHOULD be. If you want to spend your own money on wardecs to raise the cost of wardecs against you, that's fine. If you game the system so that you aren't spending the required money to maintain your own wardecs, then you're exploiting the game and doing something that obviously is against the intent of the game design.

Scraping, however, should be considered an exploit. When a corp is able to raise the cost of a wardec against themselves AND immediately invalidate that wardec by joining and leaving an alliance, it gives them the ability to not only completely evade wars, but to also cost any would-be enemies a substantial amount of isk.

I've posted my solution many times: make the wardec follow the intended party. Don't pass it off on an alliance. Problem solved.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Mara Villoso
Long Jump.
#15 - 2012-01-19 18:39:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Villoso
This discussion invariably breaks into the same lines of argument. Quoting myself from similar threads:
Mara Villoso wrote:
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. The change to wardec policing 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.


Mara Villoso wrote:
Wardecs have always been and will always be pointless. As long as they follow the corp and not the player, they can and will be evaded. In effect, this means wardecs affect only people who care about their corp name, have a POS they can't take down quickly, and the clueless. Any change to wardecs that makes them against individuals will lead to those people leaving the game. They don't want to fight. They aren't going to fight. There is nothing you or CCP can do to make them. Period. The End. There is no fix for wardecs. Just get rid of them.
Ganking is, was, and will always be the only way to get individuals.

The only failing of the change to wardec policing by the GMs is POS destruction. The only solutions that are needed are ones that make POS bashing in hisec possible.

Whenever I hear about extending decs to individual pilots, I just shake my head in amazement. What is it that you think will happen? People avoid decs for a reason. They're not interested in fighting. So what happens when the war gets tagged on to the character? Do these people magically decide to change several year's worth of behavior and playstyle and come out with guns blazing? The potential for never ending griefing that goes with putting decs (or kill rights) on individuals is simply too great and its effect is all too predictable.

If you want to kill something, get your ass to losec/nosec. PvP'ers in hisec are making a paradoxical argument: they want to kill whomever they please, but they don't want non-consensual PvP from anyone else. Choose one or the other; you're either for non-consensual PvP for all or for none.
Thryson
Riemannian Manifold Torus
#16 - 2012-01-19 18:42:53 UTC
Here is an easy soultion maybe not the best but ill take a shot.

You drop an alliance that is at war the Dec stays with you for the same time left on the alliance Dec, this allows individual corps to come to terms with the aggressor on a small scale.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#17 - 2012-01-19 19:03:48 UTC
Thryson wrote:
Here is an easy soultion maybe not the best but ill take a shot.

You drop an alliance that is at war the Dec stays with you for the same time left on the alliance Dec, this allows individual corps to come to terms with the aggressor on a small scale.


I prefer my idea of "sticky" wardecs: allow corps to be directly targeted, even inside an alliance. If they drop or are kicked from the alliance, the alliance gets the 24 hour cooldown period.

This way if my corp wardecs a rival corp, they can't scrape it off onto an alliance. And if the goal is to destroy certain POS towers in high sec, the corp owning them can be targeted and would be unable to evade the wardec by dropping.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Thryson
Riemannian Manifold Torus
#18 - 2012-01-19 19:07:16 UTC
To build on what mara said, yea you cannot make a bear fight, but that is their choice and I don't believe that needs any attention I find plenty of pvp in high sec and when there r no wars we roam low and wormholes. Nothing reply needs to be changed in that respect but to have a game mechanic that allows someone to completely avoid ANY fighting ever is wrong. War stinulats the economy in eve with out losses there is no demand and all types of pvp drive this large scale wars in null are good for mass orders low and high sec skirmishes drive a demand for specialized ships bot often used in large fleets eve gqnks drive the demand for replacement faction gear and mining ships.
Thryson
Riemannian Manifold Torus
#19 - 2012-01-19 19:15:38 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Thryson wrote:
Here is an easy soultion maybe not the best but ill take a shot.

You drop an alliance that is at war the Dec stays with you for the same time left on the alliance Dec, this allows individual corps to come to terms with the aggressor on a small scale.


I prefer my idea of "sticky" wardecs: allow corps to be directly targeted, even inside an alliance. If they drop or are kicked from the alliance, the alliance gets the 24 hour cooldown period.

This way if my corp wardecs a rival corp, they can't scrape it off onto an alliance. And if the goal is to destroy certain POS towers in high sec, the corp owning them can be targeted and would be unable to evade the wardec by dropping.



How would war Dec fees work?
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#20 - 2012-01-19 19:56:40 UTC
Thryson wrote:
How would war Dec fees work?


Just as they do now (or at least, any changes would be independent of my idea): If you dec a member of an alliance--or the entire alliance--then you pay alliance-level fees.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.