These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Possible exploit in proposed war dec mechanics
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dutarro
Ghezer Aramih
#1 - 2012-03-28 15:29:42 UTC
The proposed war dec rules presented at Fanfest allow for a possible exploit by the defender:
- Create several dummy corporations
- The dummy corporations, and the original defender, join the same alliance
- The dummy corporations quit the alliance

The attacker now has several non-mutual wars outstanding, rather than one. This drives up the renewal cost for the attacker, and counts against the limit on outgoing decs. The exploit is not feasible today, because the attacker can just retract wars against the dummy corps, but the new rules will not allow the attacker to retract.

It's easy enough to fix this. When a corp inherits a war from an alliance that it quits, or when an alliance inherits a war from a corp that it accepts, the war should become mutual.
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#2 - 2012-03-28 15:31:41 UTC
Forcing people into mutual war is a very very bad idea. Most people that get wardecced don't want to be wardecced at all, much less make it mutual.
Dutarro
Ghezer Aramih
#3 - 2012-03-28 16:09:21 UTC
mxzf wrote:
Forcing people into mutual war is a very very bad idea. Most people that get wardecced don't want to be wardecced at all, much less make it mutual.


They are not forced. The war would only become mutual if the defender joins or quits an alliance, which they can choose not to do.
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2012-03-28 22:49:41 UTC
GTFO of highsec ?!?!?!?! Shocked

No really, it is the all practical answer to every whine how something is unfair when it comes to wardecs. So by avoiding the use or need for a wardec, you don't need to change mechanics! Want to wardec someone, then by all rights the other guy should do everything in their power to annoy you!

Logic at work my friends, you are welcome!
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#5 - 2012-03-29 08:05:35 UTC
well spotted, OP.

I guess its a caveat emptor deal for the aggressor, given it is a risk that your target alliance might be made up of dastardly cads who can pull an ostrich-necking on you and leave you with massive war debts. Bawwww.

~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Lady Ayeipsia
BlueWaffe
#6 - 2012-03-29 14:19:06 UTC
Dutarro wrote:
mxzf wrote:
Forcing people into mutual war is a very very bad idea. Most people that get wardecced don't want to be wardecced at all, much less make it mutual.


They are not forced. The war would only become mutual if the defender joins or quits an alliance, which they can choose not to do.


But doesn't that hurt a small corp who may find that war decs are the final straw that drives them to permenantly join an alliance?

Sorry, but forcing a mutual war Dec seems to benefit griefers it the deccers more than any one else. We would need a solution that grants no clear advantage.
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#7 - 2012-03-29 16:15:24 UTC
I don't see a problem.

When the corporations leave the alliance, the war is continued for no extra cost. Only when the war-bill comes up the aggressor would have to pay for the additional wardecs. But there's no reason they could just let all the dummy-wars lapse and only pay for the corporation/alliance with actual players in it.

Automatically mutual wars are bad, because, if I understood it correctly, the only way to end one of those is through formal surrender from either side. Which means you're stuck with a war ad infinitam with the dummy corps.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
Dutarro
Ghezer Aramih
#8 - 2012-03-29 17:12:34 UTC
Tobiaz wrote:
I don't see a problem.

When the corporations leave the alliance, the war is continued for no extra cost. Only when the war-bill comes up the aggressor would have to pay for the additional wardecs. But there's no reason they could just let all the dummy-wars lapse and only pay for the corporation/alliance with actual players in it.


It depends how the renewal dates are timed. If a corp at war joins an alliance, then quits, what are the respective renewal dates of the original dec and the one the alliance inherited? If they're on the same day, then there's no issue, but if one comes due before the other it could be exploited.

In a worst case scenario, you could have a network of a few alliances and several dozen dummy corps that continually quit and join the alliances. Eventually, the original defender's "war cooties" will spread to all of them like a virus, and the original attacker will find it difficult to declare war on anyone else, even if he never pays any of the war bills. Each spawned war dec will only last a week maximum, but in that week it could spawn dozens more decs.

Quote:
Automatically mutual wars are bad, because, if I understood it correctly, the only way to end one of those is through formal surrender from either side. Which means you're stuck with a war ad infinitam with the dummy corps.


Perhaps those inherited wars shouldn't be mutual, then, but somehow they should be flagged so that they don't count toward war costs and dec limits.
Kalestra Cable
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#9 - 2012-03-30 07:14:01 UTC
But you'd only ever have to pay for the one war dec against that one corp that you wanted to continue so I can't see how this is a problem at all.
Lady Ayeipsia
BlueWaffe
#10 - 2012-03-30 14:34:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Ayeipsia
Edited to correct prices:

Alliances cost 1 bil isk to for, 2 mil per corp per month upkeep. I was wrong on my initial post as it may be possible to drop corps from an alliance to keep up keep low. Still, you are suggesting a 2-4 bil one time cost, plus upkeep to increase costs of incoming war decs. Why not hire mercs for the first few decs?

Seems like a large setup cost for nor a big gain.
Dutarro
Ghezer Aramih
#11 - 2012-03-30 15:16:53 UTC
Lady Ayeipsia wrote:
Edited to correct prices:

Alliances cost 1 bil isk to for, 2 mil per corp per month upkeep. I was wrong on my initial post as it may be possible to drop corps from an alliance to keep up keep low. Still, you are suggesting a 2-4 bil one time cost, plus upkeep to increase costs of incoming war decs. Why not hire mercs for the first few decs?

Seems like a large setup cost for nor a big gain.


You are correct. There have been a few good points in this thread; the alleged exploit is not as easy or useful to the defender as I had first thought, nor as harmful to the attacker.
ZANE VOIDSTALKER
Space Wizards.
Tactical Narcotics Team
#12 - 2012-03-31 17:26:33 UTC
well i watched the vid lastnight on new war dec mechanics. and by 3 mounths after start of inferno there will be no more high sec wardec. so really no more war dec's. if you want to fight it will be all null. the reason is simple. the cost

CCP said they wanted to stop war shielding sheding one example the listed was getting bunch dumby corps to dec you drive up cost. ex " eve university " does this now. but by raising the rate per person what they did is give the same result to but now they dont have to pay anything for it rofl. i understand its hard to see every angel when you hustling to give us a better war dec experience ccp but you missed one thing.

If you dont put a reasonable cap on war dec cost what is going to happen is people will just form 2000-5000 man allaince in high sec and there goes all high sec war dec's lol . they will just cost to much to put on. and why shoulld big allaince like test and goons or eve uni be immune to war dec's.



so to sum up if you dont put a cap liit on cost of war dec's there over and all your hard work for inferno will be for nothing.
no more high sec wars no more missions ship loses no more carebears buying plex's for thsoe faction fittted ships i just blew up lol.



thank you for your time
zane voidstalker
director "cevl"
El Geo
Warcrows
THE OLD SCHOOL
#13 - 2012-03-31 17:30:13 UTC
ZANE VOIDSTALKER
Space Wizards.
Tactical Narcotics Team
#14 - 2012-03-31 19:34:08 UTC
and another thing the new suspect flag will end solo pvp challanges. if you can figure out a way to make a challenge system. were a challenge is issued and excepted 2 people can 1 v 1 and any one interfering would get suspect flag. that way we dont kill solo pvp in high sec and make it were its a true 1 v 1 that would be great!!!!!
Elinea Marcutz
#15 - 2012-04-02 19:15:35 UTC
I can't see this ending highsec wars, it simply means that wars will be engaged in for strategic reasons that serve the attacker better than grabbing a few lawls. Disrupting another alliances trade routes, mining ops, mission hubs, etc so you can take over the gap left in the market by their absence for examples.

THIS IS A FORUM ALT!
Dradius Calvantia
Lip Shords
#16 - 2012-04-03 00:49:14 UTC
ZANE VOIDSTALKER wrote:
and another thing the new suspect flag will end solo pvp challanges. if you can figure out a way to make a challenge system. were a challenge is issued and excepted 2 people can 1 v 1 and any one interfering would get suspect flag. that way we dont kill solo pvp in high sec and make it were its a true 1 v 1 that would be great!!!!!


EVE does not need a dueling system. You can go get ******.