These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

[Proposal] Fix Wardec Exploits

First post First post First post
Author
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal
#1 - 2012-09-26 09:13:37 UTC  |  Edited by: The Zerg Overmind
Why do I keep having to make threads with this title...

There is something terribly wrong with wardec mechanics which horribly punishes the aggressor. Whenever an aggressor declares a war they can and will be permanently trapped in that war and made to permanently fight an unlimited number of opponents.

Formal definition of problem:
The defender in a war can set the war to mutual, and the aggressor is permanently trapped in the war.

How to transfer wardecs:
A wardecced corporation joins an alliance, that alliance sets the war mutual, TRANSFERRED
A corporation joins an alliance, then leaves, they have a perfect copy of all alliance wars, TRANSFERRED
A corporation leaves an alliance, joins another alliance. TRANSFERRED

That's right, we can transfer wars from ANY entity to ANY other entity. What questions does this raise:

  • Why would you ever use the defender system in wardecs when you could just transfer an exact copy of your war to an infinite number of entities?
  • Why pay for defense when you can gain infinite allies for free using war-duping?
  • Why let your enemy ever escape? Tired of fighting the war? Store it on a 1 man alt corp that you can use to revive it years down the road completely out of the blue to continue your revenge.

I promise to do all these things and make everyone regret the poor design decision. I will be at Eve Vegas to personally argue this case before the devs, but player support is muchly appreciated, even if just for the lulz.

The goal of the wardec revamp was to make wars popular and fun, now you've accomplished the opposite by making war an unthinkable crime that can only be waged with disposable alt corps.

You must fix this exploit before I ruin highsec for everyone for all time. Because, I will.

Link to original Dec Shield thread
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#2 - 2012-09-26 10:26:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
+1 to the OP.

It seems that CCP's intent to "promote" empire warfare has, surprise surprise, resulted in the concept's total destruction. Although we didn't have the tools to publicly see all wars before Inferno, I'd be willing to bet good money that the volume of wars has decreased significantly since the expansion was released. I see less than two full pages of new wars per day, and a big chunk of those are "transfer" wars that are created when a corporation leaves or joins an alliance. I'd ballpark the decrease to have stabilized at less than a fifth of pre-Inferno daily war volume.

I could barely believe my eyes at how quickly CCP responded to the "boomerang exploit," going as far as to implement new gameplay mechanics (and deploy code changes) within hours of the "exploit" being revealed to the public. Yet the ability to shed wars at zero liability whatsoever, despite, per CCP's own words, aggressors having to pay by-the-character for the privilege of shooting at people in empire, still hasn't even been mentioned by anyone in the company.

How is the ability to duplicate and shed wars, with no liabilities, any less of an exploit than warping during the GCC? How could anyone justify being able to lock an aggressive entity into a permanent war with another party, while allowing the defender to escape hostilities, at no cost whatsoever, as a valid gameplay mechanic?

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with the concept of mutual wars. But why should the original recipients of a war be able to leave an alliance, if the alliance decided to set the war mutual? Does it not make sense to either prevent corporations from leaving alliances during mutual wars, or at the very least giving the aggressors the ability to control outgoing wars in cases where they acquire new targets through no volition of their own?

We don't even get refunds when targets immediately disband and reform upon the reception of wars. Nor are we able to cancel wars, even when their recipients have bailed from their corporations and alliances, locking us into higher price brackets for weeks at a time, despite those corporations and alliances being memberless. Is this the kind of "risk" you advocate for players who are willing to fight others in your "pvp-centric" game?

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

Reppyk
The Black Shell
#3 - 2012-09-26 11:46:42 UTC
The Zerg Overmind wrote:
Why do I keep having to make threads with this title...

There is something terribly wrong with wardec mechanics which horribly punishes the aggressor. Whenever an aggressor declares a war they can and will be permanently trapped in that war and made to permanently fight an unlimited number of opponents.

Formal definition of problem:
The defender in a war can set the war to mutual, and the aggressor is permanently trapped in the war.

How to transfer wardecs:
A wardecced corporation joins an alliance, that alliance sets the war mutual, TRANSFERRED
A corporation joins an alliance, then leaves, they have a perfect copy of all alliance wars, TRANSFERRED
A corporation leaves an alliance, joins another alliance. TRANSFERRED

That's right, we can transfer wars from ANY entity to ANY other entity. What questions does this raise:

  • Why would you ever use the defender system in wardecs when you could just transfer an exact copy of your war to an infinite number of entities?
  • Why pay for defense when you can gain infinite allies for free using war-duping?
  • Why let your enemy ever escape? Tired of fighting the war? Store it on a 1 man alt corp that you can use to revive it years down the road completely out of the blue to continue your revenge.

I promise to do all these things and make everyone regret the poor design decision. I will be at Eve Vegas to personally argue this case before the devs, but player support is muchly appreciated, even if just for the lulz.

The goal of the wardec revamp was to make wars popular and fun, now you've accomplished the opposite by making war an unthinkable crime that can only be waged with disposable alt corps.

You must fix this exploit before I ruin highsec for everyone for all time. Because, I will.

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !

Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2012-09-30 04:15:46 UTC
Reppyk wrote:

You must fix this exploit before I ruin highsec for everyone for all time. Because, I will.

[/quote]

Are you aware that if CCP decides that you went against the rules you will probably get punished?
Arduemont
The State of War.
#5 - 2012-09-30 12:33:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Arduemont
Being able to transfer wars from one alliance to another by alliance hopping is obviously an exploit and needs to be fixed.

However, the defenders should be able to make a war permanent. Because that's what the aggressor deserves. If they want war, they can have war. Otherwise starting wars as an aggressor is a no lose situation. "Not like the way the war is going? Pull out" is not a good way for the war system to work, especially for the aggressor. The mutual mechanic needs to stay.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf

The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal
#6 - 2012-09-30 13:07:19 UTC  |  Edited by: The Zerg Overmind
I'm the single largest abuser of these current game mechanics, and I absolutely believe this is NOT how wardecs were intend to be.

As I see it, CCP intended wardecs to be a commitment from the aggressor for at least a week at a time. No more declare war, fight until it's inconvenient, then drop the war 24hrs later. CCP tried to accomplish this "commitment" through the various new mechanics:

  • increasing wardec costs
  • restricting player corp hopping (7 day rule)
  • removing the ability for the aggressor to revoke the war
  • allowing a defender to mutual a war to prevent the aggressor from ending it
  • corps that leave an alliance receive identical copies of its wars

Let's talk about ending wars for a minute...

As of right now the mechanics for ending a war are equivalent to ending your phone service by stopping payment. That's really what it is. You have to default on the war bill to end the war. If some corp in your alliance goes through the alliance bill list and pays them all like an upstanding citizen, then your alliance is unwillingly hooked into another week of war regardless of your intentions. There is no off button. Why is there no off button?

Furthermore, the defender in a war has the ability to permanently lock the aggressor in this war by setting it mutual. Obviously the intend consequence was to prevent aggressors from just ending a bad war and escaping. But the horrifying side-effects of this are people like me, trapping as many people as we can in wars. If this was somehow CCP's intention, then it would have been prudent to review how this played out with other war mechanics, but they didn't. A corporation that is in an outgoing wardec is forbidden by game mechanics from joining an alliance. This might make sense, but it no longer makes sense if the wardec has been declared mutual. Aggressor corps in mutual wars should not suffer this restriction since the defender has thrown down and agreed to face them in open war.

The natural mechanic here is to have an off-button for wardecs. When an aggressor declares they're no longer interested in maintaining the war, and then the war ENDS at the end of that week interval, regardless of whether or not it's paid. If the war is mutual there are three options as I see it:

  1. The war is retracted. If defenders want to continue, they can counter wardec (traditional)
  2. The war continues, aggressors are trapped (current)
  3. The defenders become the aggressors and assume billing responsibilities for the war


Okay, so let's talk about starting wars...

The current system calculates the cost of a wardec based on the number of players in the target corp/alliance. This is a mistake that protects the large nullsec alliances from highsec harassment. A more equitable system would calculate the cost of a war based on the difference in member count between two entities. In other words, it should cost the same for a 1 man corp to wardec a 5000 man alliance as it does for a 5000 man alliance to wardec a 1 man corp. Likewise, it should be considerably cheaper for a 5000 man alliance to wardec another 5000 man alliance.

The old wardec system cost 2mil base for a corp to dec another corp, and 50mil base for any wars an alliance were involved in. The old system increased the cost of declaring war based on how many wars you were in, and how many the target was in. The current system only cares about how many wars you're in, and the base cost is 50mil across the board.

While it'd be nice to maintain those 2mil wardecs for long abandonned highsec offline structure clearing - setting up a system to calculate active subscribers in a target entity is generally beyond a simple fix. But such a solution would be more optimal to prevent obvious abuses such as packing your corp/alliance with 51-day trial accounts to fluff your numbers and inflate wardec costs. 51-day trial accounts are the 21 day buddy invite trials, plex'd once to give them 51 days of play time, while giving a plex to the recruiter. These accounts don't technically count as "trial accounts", and thus do contribute to inflated wardec costs, and I will slap anyone who claims otherwise because we've tested it. The goal here is to remove loopholes related to wardec costs.

Continued below...
Lexar Mundi
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2012-10-01 02:01:41 UTC
So thats why I see like 80 people in a mutual war with the new Dec Shield.... I was wondering about this lol
Lexar Mundi
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2012-10-01 02:05:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexar Mundi
Arduemont wrote:
Being able to transfer wars from one alliance to another by alliance hopping is obviously an exploit and needs to be fixed.

However, the defenders should be able to make a war permanent. Because that's what the aggressor deserves. If they want war, they can have war. Otherwise starting wars as an aggressor is a no lose situation. "Not like the way the war is going? Pull out" is not a good way for the war system to work, especially for the aggressor. The mutual mechanic needs to stay.

However the defenders should then have to pay for the dec. (unless both sides choose to be mutual)
Cyprus Black
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#9 - 2012-10-02 03:43:57 UTC
Playerbase - 1
CCP - 0

The playerbase thoroughly and adequately warned CCP that the wardec changes would do little or nothing to combat what was already broken about the system. Sure enough, the wardec mechanics were left to one employee who didn't listen to external criticism in the typical Pre-Incarna style.

We've gone from an inexpensive broken wardec system to an expensive yet still broken wardec system. That's all. Nothing was ever truly fixed and here we sit with the exact same problems as we had before the "wardec revamp".

Summary of EvEs last four expansions: http://imgur.com/ZL5SM33

Rico Minali
Sons Of 0din
#10 - 2012-10-02 08:33:56 UTC
The easiest fix would be to remove the ability to make wars mutual. Let ALL wars play out while being paid for by the aggressor, so you get 7 days of open warfare, the defender can call in assistance just like now (this is one I totally agree with) but after the 7 days war, the aggressor either pays again or the war ends. If the defending side then wants to take revenge they can wardecc the aggressor back, possibly paying wartime allies to assist and wardecc the original aggressor too.

An answer to the transfering of wars may be to make so it just doesnt happen. The corp who is decced continues to be at war but teh alliance they join are unafected. Corps leaving alliances however should carry the war with them until the original 7 day term is over.

I also think that for every entity the defending side brings into a war, the aggressor can ALSO bring in that many allies but make it so that any allies the aggressor may call in can not bring the total number of pilots to above the number of total defending pilots including allies.


In short, defenders being able to call in aid in a war is right. Wars should however not be able to be made mutual, thereby locking peple into wars that may well end up with people not bothering to log in. Revenge can be taken in many ways without silly mechanics.


These simple changes would (I think) stop the exploitation of war mechanics but still leave war as a viable and extremely fun part of Eve.




Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.

The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal
#11 - 2012-10-02 11:00:03 UTC
...continued from above

Great, so the next major problem is wardec copying/transferring....

Right now, any entity can transfer a defensive war to any other entity. This is NOT how wars were intended. I merge this unintended mechanic with the infinite mutual wardec to trap people indefinitely. Sadly, CCP will read this sentence and think "awesome, all we have to do is stop one of those activities and wardecs will be fixed" which is absolutely not the case.

  • To transfer a war from a corp to an alliance, have that corp join the alliance
  • To transfer a war from an alliance to a corp, have that corp join the alliance, and then leave
  • To transfer a war from an alliance to an alliance, have a corp drop the wardec'd alliance and join the other

I KNOW this is not how CCP intended the game mechanics to be, because otherwise they wouldn't have spent so long creating a mercenary marketplace. With this ability to transfer copies of wars there is no longer a reason to ever be a mercenary when you can literally just join the war, with an infinite number of defenders again, for free. This completely renders the mercenary defender system obsolete, congratulations.

Wardec copying was implemented to create that concept of "commitment" for entities at war. You can no longer escape a war just by leaving the alliance. Obviously this isn't working as intended. This allows for wardec copying/transferring as described, and also an "octopus defense" where an alliance breaks into individual corps, thus increasing the effective cost of wardeccing the members of that alliance by many fold. This is rare, but it's an obvious defense.

We don't want corps to escape wars by dropping out of alliances (hereby known as "droppers" for brevity), but we don't want them to be able to join other alliances with these wars either. So these are our options in order of my preference:

  • We forbid droppers from joining another alliance for a week (consider it analogous to corp hopping restrictions)
  • We continue as is, allowing perfect copying/transfer, instead preventing mutual infinite wardecs
  • We retract the war against the dropper after X time (72hrs perhaps)
  • We allow the war to continue against the dropper, but don't transfer it to a new alliance they join (this is unlikely because it lets a corp in an alliance be in a war independent of the alliance)
  • We retract the war against the dropper (old system - bad)
  • We prevent dropping from a wardecced alliance (very bad)

There are more variations on these themes, but the goal here is to prevent infinite wardec copying

As for wardec'd corporations joining alliances... this is probably fine with a few notes. First, it should inform the aggressor that the target has joined an alliance, the moment they're application is accepted into that alliance. This gives the aggressor a 24hr forewarning. Also, as mentioned above, we should also be removing the restriction preventing corps from joining alliances while in a mutual wardec - as it no longer makes sense.

Surprising your enemies while in space:

These are considered exploits so don't do them. But let's code the rules into the game to make it impossible and save the GMs lots of time:

  • You're sitting in space next to a target who's at war with a corporation you have an application in to. The CEO accepts your application and you instantly begin shooting the target - he had no possible warning or defense. Exploit.
  • You're in a corporation that's had their application accepted to join an alliance who's at war. You're in open space next to one of their war targets, the application goes live, you instantly begin shooting the target. Exploit.
  • You're at war with an enemy, you drop from your corp so you're not at war, undock next to them, their UI isn't updated yet, they shoot you and get concorded without warning. Exploit.

Any variation of these are considered exploits due to the lack of possible warning to the opponent. The barely legal work-around is to dock, get accepted, undock, start shooting. It basically only adds seconds to your case, and your opponent's local list won't have updated, but the GMs consider it legal.

The solutions to these are pretty simple.

  • If a corp applies to join the alliance you're at war with, it should send a notification out to the aggressors the moment the application was accepted, warning that in 24hrs they'll be facing a whole new set of targets thanks to them absorbing your target's war.
  • Don't allow a corporation at war to accept an application for a member while they're in space. Or at least have it queue up the acceptance for the next time they're docked or offline.
  • Force an update on the local list whenever a local member joins or leaves the war against you. This would prevent much confusion and grey areas with the abuse.
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal
#12 - 2012-10-02 11:00:13 UTC  |  Edited by: The Zerg Overmind
Wars with dead corps...

Wars with dead entities are theoretically impossible, but still totally possible. Dec Shield is currently at war with a closed corp. Whenever the last member of a corp leaves that corp all wars against that corp end.

[Removed text]

It's also kind of foolish that a corp can disband and then reform 10 seconds later. Corp hopping is limited to not being able to rejoin for 7 days, so why can we reform new corps instantly? This has led to a large number of aggressive wars being fought with only alt corps - especially now that any real corp would be trapped infinitely.

More dead corps...

It seems it's still possible to leave dead corps floating all over the place, including inside an alliance.

This could potentially be very useful for us, as we could keep a bunch of dead corps in alliance to maintain majority vote for executorship, without actually dedicating any characters to it. We'll have to test whether or not their votes actually still contribute to ownership of an alliance...

The procedure for re-creating this bug is to have a corp apply to join the alliance, then have them close out the corp, and it will join the alliance as a dead corp. Downtime does not wipe the corp from existence. You can also boot these dead corps from alliance, they'll have copies of the alliance's wars. And if those wars were mutual then you've suddenly locked everyone into a mutual outgoing war with a dead corporation (which no player can ever correct this problem - so be prepared for mass GM petitions).

Surrender mechanics...

Any surrenders offered to an alliance are easily flouted. Have a corporation drop from the alliance, accept the surrender from the alliance, re-apply with dropped corp to alliance, resume war. This is easily fixed with my top suggestion to the fix to wardec transferring. Unknown what surrenders to corps that join an alliance do - I will investigate...

With the toggling mutual option, the right click mutual menu doesn't function at all. This has led to much confusion for people that leave Dec Shield. The only option that does work is to use the drop down menu at the far right side and to uncheck the mutual box:

http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/1210/togglingUnmutual.jpg

The same thing goes for declaring wars mutual, the right click option doesn't work.

Inflated wardec costs...

When a corp leaves an alliance it's not supposed to contribute to increased wardec costs on the part of the aggressor (aka the octopus defense).

http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=42269

"As before, the number of non-mutual wars the aggressor has declared acts as a multiplier (for each war). New wars are created now when a corporation leaves an alliance (to get rid of the dec shield exploit), but these new wars are not counted as cost multiplier"

Right now these wars ARE being reported as counting as a cost multiplier. So the system is not implemented as intended here either.

Summary:

The current state of wardec mechanics leave wars in a terrible state with many loopholes that we abuse on a daily basis in unfair ways. The goal was to make wars popular and fun for players to engage in, but the current rules have twisted that dream into a nightmare by making the consequences of wars impossibly high and unavoidable. In short, we're now seeing fewer wars between real entities and a LOT more abuse than before the wardec changes. Dec Shield used to be an annoyance wardeccers. Now we're 10x worse thanks to the new rules.
Reppyk
The Black Shell
#13 - 2012-10-02 14:19:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Reppyk
The Zerg Overmind wrote:
The current state of wardec mechanics leave wars in a terrible state with many loopholes that we abuse on a daily basis in unfair ways. The goal was to make wars popular and fun for players to engage in, but the current rules have twisted that dream into a nightmare by making the consequences of wars impossibly high and unavoidable. In short, we're now seeing fewer wars between real entities and a LOT more abuse than before the wardec changes. Dec Shield used to be an annoyance wardeccers. Now we're 10x worse thanks to the new rules.
Wardecs pre-Inferno were very annoying because of the POS exploit.
But...
The system was better.

Better.

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !

Arduemont
The State of War.
#14 - 2012-10-02 14:43:31 UTC
Reppyk wrote:
The Zerg Overmind wrote:
The current state of wardec mechanics leave wars in a terrible state with many loopholes that we abuse on a daily basis in unfair ways. The goal was to make wars popular and fun for players to engage in, but the current rules have twisted that dream into a nightmare by making the consequences of wars impossibly high and unavoidable. In short, we're now seeing fewer wars between real entities and a LOT more abuse than before the wardec changes. Dec Shield used to be an annoyance wardeccers. Now we're 10x worse thanks to the new rules.
Wardecs pre-Inferno were very annoying because of the POS exploit.
But...
The system was better.

Better.


It really wasn't better. Fix the transfer of wars and the system we have no will be pretty much perfect as far as I'm concerned. At the moment the only people (generally) who think the old system was better was highsec wardec bully-boys who dont know how to PvP against people who actually want to fight.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf

Teiresias
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#15 - 2012-10-05 18:51:26 UTC
Signed.

This mechanic is severely broken now.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#16 - 2012-10-10 00:56:38 UTC
Copy-paste from my post in this thread:

A very painful realization.

Being at war with Dec Shield makes us no longer able to declare new wars.

You might say "sure, you can still declare wars!" Technically, you're right. But each corporation that leaves Dec Shield creates its own war. And each new war that is created raises the price of declaring a new war by 50 million ISK. Today, about seven corporations left Dec Shield. When I went to declare war on a separate target, I noticed that the cost to do so would be 400 million.

This is already in the realm of impossibility to be able to afford. But the worst part is, that if this continues, we will no longer be able to take mercenary jobs, since clients will not pay such high war fees even if we do the actual work for free.

So, Zerg, what this essentially means is that if you cycle about 20 alt corporations in and out of your alliance on a weekly basis, all of Dec Shield's currently-trapped targets will have war bills so expensive that they won't be able to declare new wars.

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

De'Veldrin
Hoover Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#17 - 2012-10-10 13:58:19 UTC
Zerg, it's obvious you and your fellows have put a lot of time and efforts into finding and using the broke-ass mechanics CCP has foisted on us (yet again) concerning War-Decs. What I want to know is how long it is going to take them to fix this c-f so that wars can actually be useful again?

Has there been ANY conversation between the CSM and CCP about this?

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.

The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal
#18 - 2012-10-10 14:37:18 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
Zerg, it's obvious you and your fellows have put a lot of time and efforts into finding and using the broke-ass mechanics CCP has foisted on us (yet again) concerning War-Decs. What I want to know is how long it is going to take them to fix this c-f so that wars can actually be useful again?

Has there been ANY conversation between the CSM and CCP about this?

I talked to Veritas and Soundwave in Vegas this last weekend, and went over many of the major loopholes and the such. Soundwave gave me his business card and asked me to email him more information. I'm currently working on a more concise write up so I can mail it off to him, was planning to do so today.

As far as urgency, they were all of the mindset that it wasn't a pressing enough issue yet, and there weren't enough complaints or public outcry to warrant shifting gears to address the issues quicker. So at least in the short term I wouldn't expect anything to change, but we'll continue to push for fixes anyways.
De'Veldrin
Hoover Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#19 - 2012-10-10 15:29:48 UTC
The Zerg Overmind wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:
Zerg, it's obvious you and your fellows have put a lot of time and efforts into finding and using the broke-ass mechanics CCP has foisted on us (yet again) concerning War-Decs. What I want to know is how long it is going to take them to fix this c-f so that wars can actually be useful again?

Has there been ANY conversation between the CSM and CCP about this?

I talked to Veritas and Soundwave in Vegas this last weekend, and went over many of the major loopholes and the such. Soundwave gave me his business card and asked me to email him more information. I'm currently working on a more concise write up so I can mail it off to him, was planning to do so today.

As far as urgency, they were all of the mindset that it wasn't a pressing enough issue yet, and there weren't enough complaints or public outcry to warrant shifting gears to address the issues quicker. So at least in the short term I wouldn't expect anything to change, but we'll continue to push for fixes anyways.


Not what I wanted to hear, but thanks for the answer and for continuing to push the issue. Keep fighting the good fight.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.

Bethesda
The Wooden Nest
#20 - 2012-10-12 17:50:24 UTC
+1

Well this topic has made for good reading.

Although now tangled in this I agree with the Op.

My suggestions to fix would be as follows -

* Any war transferred would only ever stay on the same time scale and/or outcome of the original war.

*Any transferred wars do not have the option of making wars mutual (As theoretically they aren't anyway).


Beth
123Next pageLast page