These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#101 - 2011-10-13 05:18:02 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
In the past, there have been some policies in place within Customer Support that imposed additional rules onto the war mechanics available in game, such as the so called "Alliance Hopping" or the more recent "Dec Shield".

The decision has been made to lift those restrictions that affect war declarations, thereby opening up ways for corporations to avoid unwanted wars via methods that were previously considered exploits of game mechanics.

In other words:
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.

I take it this wasn't run by the CSM?
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#102 - 2011-10-13 05:21:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
I imagine that this change is going to be irrelevant with changes to the War-Dec mechanics.

CCP has announced no changes. If anything, this announcement and change of policy is a test-run to see if they have to invest any time or effort at all into coding a new war declaration system.

The only group of people that complain about the war declaration system is EVE University. If this policy change makes them happy, then mission accomplished.
Aren Dar
EVE University
Ivy League
#103 - 2011-10-13 07:50:24 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:

In other words:
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.


Here's an easy alternate method to make griefer decs expensive, but at the same time not prevent war altogether:

- Fixed price for each war regardlss of numbers of war decs.
- A penalty fee that starts low and doubles for each consecutive day of war during which neither parties aggress each other.
- Make the penalty fee depend on the magnitude difference in the sizes of the corp - to stop the tiny from griefing the large, and the large squishing the tiny.
- Don't allow people to declare war using more than one toon on the same account during some fixed time period (21 days?).
- Don't allow trial accounts to declare war (presumably already in place).

The idea of the fixed price for each war is to remove the objections that everything is too safe. The penalty fee is to avoid un-necessary griefer decs, whilst at the same ensuring that the there is some incentive for the aggressor to actually seek out a fight. The target corp can always stay docked up to increase the fee, but this hits their income - unless they are station trading only.

I'm sure it needs work, and I'm sure with a little thought this or similar would be a fairly robust way of dealing with the current broken situation.
Aren Dar
EVE University
Ivy League
#104 - 2011-10-13 07:58:42 UTC
Aren Dar wrote:

Here's an easy alternate method to make griefer decs expensive, but at the same time not prevent war altogether:



Realise this is a strawman to an extent - the point is that it's possible to think up alternatives if you are willing to give things some thought.
Malken
Sleiipniir
#105 - 2011-10-13 08:07:49 UTC
as i posted in another thread.....


just fix wardec system properly to add timers for leaving a corp that has been wardecced to 48h or something so they will atleast have 24h pvp, if they choose to stay docked then thats it.

wardecced corps should not be able to join a alliance while having a active wardec alternatively leave a alliance with a active wardec until they have stayed the 48h period.
ive always seen targets who jump to a alliance as giving me a free 1week war with lots more targets.

also the limit of 3 wardecs should be removed as to stop the 4corps exploit wich apparently now is not a exploit, silly GM's

dont start overcomplicate things, if people dont want wardecs then you have the npc corps wich one cannot wardec already at the cost of a corptax, cant have cake and eat it you know

☻/ /▌ / \
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#106 - 2011-10-13 08:39:04 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
I imagine that this change is going to be irrelevant with changes to the War-Dec mechanics. Just because CCP hasn't announced them yet is no reason to *worry*.

You're new here, right?

Even if CCP fixed this as soon as next month, you STILL don't repeal the rules setup to stop game breaking mechanics BEFORE you fix the mechanics that are being exploited. Basic logic.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Alvilda Syn
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#107 - 2011-10-13 10:10:26 UTC
A quick question for you all: How many people do you think previously did not use any of the mechanics now available because they were not aware of them, versus them being too time consuming, costly to set up, or otherwise prohibited?

Also, I do find it quite amusing that a few people seems to be quite upset about this, and are drawing attention to this thread while showing their dislike of the change, which increases the probability that someone may notice this who previously would not have, making the situation worse.
Dilaro thagriin
Doomheim
#108 - 2011-10-13 11:46:27 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Kelduum Revaan wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
Cost is a little less than 400 million a week. Then have the 20th corp join your alliance. This does not increase the cost of the 19 wars.


This was a bug, and actually fixed some time ago when the new billing system went in which added automatic payments - as it was, once initially generated a war bill never updated its costs.

A total of 19 wars (from your example) would now cost just over 18 billion ISK to maintain per week, so not really an option that way.


Just so Im sure I understand: Are you saying that a corp that has been war decced can increase the cost of that war from 2 million to 50 million by joining an alliance? What if that alliance already has a war, does the cost of this new one go up to 100 million?


in a word.
Yes.
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#109 - 2011-10-13 11:57:56 UTC
CCP, if you must **** with the war dec mechanics;

change the war mechanic so you 'buy' unlimited killrights on everyone within a target corporation/alliance for a week, this way, even if they leave the corp, you can still shoot them.

no more war dec avoidance!

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#110 - 2011-10-13 13:13:53 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
The only group of people that complain about the war declaration system is EVE University. If this policy change makes them happy, then mission accomplished.

LOL - Look, I know they nuked the old forums, but there is "Eve Search". Check it out, not all the complaints are E-U...

In my experience, a lot of < 1 (or even < 2 ) year old toons complain / have complained about the war-dec mechanics. When I've talked to people in local/chats/w-e, I've tried to encourage them to change their goals from "isk" to fun... because fun > isk, but it takes awhile for some people to wrap their heads around the idea of "potential loss" as fun... Making blanket statements like the above is why your funny...

Khanh'rhh wrote:
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
I imagine that this change is going to be irrelevant with changes to the War-Dec mechanics. Just because CCP hasn't announced them yet is no reason to *worry*.

You're new here, right?

Even if CCP fixed this as soon as next month, you STILL don't repeal the rules setup to stop game breaking mechanics BEFORE you fix the mechanics that are being exploited. Basic logic.

Nope, not new, been playing since Feb '08.

Your new here right? I mean, it *is* CCP, and they just might change the enforcement before everything else! That's not logic, it's experience! Lol

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#111 - 2011-10-13 13:40:28 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Your new here right? I mean, it *is* CCP, and they just might change the enforcement before everything else! That's not logic, it's experience!

And this is a good thing because ...... ?

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Asterith
#112 - 2011-10-13 13:50:45 UTC
I hate to break it to a lot of people, but the reason the game is "dying" isn't so much from people leaving. That's expected. People won't play the same game forever.

In order to stay alive, a game has to bring new players in. Plain and Simple. EVE, as it stands, is one of the LEAST noob friendly MMOs on the market. Back at release this wasn't really a problem, since everyone was more or less starting on nearly the same foot.

Enter current day: People have been playing for years, and say whatever you want, the truth is that they have a huge and undeniable edge over every new player. Its not a bad thing, they should have that edge. They've been playing longer. But the difference is becoming drastic enough that most new players look at EVE, think its cool, try a trial, get ****** with non-stop, and get the hell out. That combined with the high learning curve for the game to begin with, and it becomes too much for them too quickly.

Personally, I'm under 6mil SP, still fairly noob at this game, but I can promise you that the only reason I'm giving this game a chance is because RL friends that have been playing forever are helping me out. MANY new players simply don't have that option.

While this may seem off topic, the reason I'm posting it here is because most of the people complaining about it are complaining that its making Empire too safe. I disagree. I think Empire SHOULD be safe, AND I believe that it should be fleshed out to help newer players come and enjoy what a great game I believe this to be. The solution shouldn't be to make empire LESS safe, it should be to make low- and null-sec far more appealing. I'm not saying cater to the noobs, I'm saying help them come out to try the game, THEN give them heavy incentive to explore the more dangerous space.
L3pp3r
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#113 - 2011-10-13 14:24:36 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
In the past, there have been some policies in place within Customer Support that imposed additional rules onto the war mechanics available in game, such as the so called "Alliance Hopping" or the more recent "Dec Shield".

The decision has been made to lift those restrictions that affect war declarations, thereby opening up ways for corporations to avoid unwanted wars via methods that were previously considered exploits of game mechanics.

In other words:
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.



So without running it by the CSM, or having any discussions about it. You have set up a way to completely ruin a career path that has been in this game since inception. Griefers, mercs, etc have just got nuked.
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#114 - 2011-10-13 15:08:33 UTC
Asterith, this is a PvP game. The only safe place is when you're docked. Highsec empire is sufficiently safer than other places. If even highsec empire feels too dangerous to you, frankly, just quit and find another game that suits you, instead of rationalizing and theorizing why the game should change because of you.

That aside, you missed the point of this discussion.

And the point is that a use of war declaration mechanics in a way not intended by game designers (i.e. decshield) is suddenly declared not an exploit.

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos
Asterith
#115 - 2011-10-13 15:13:59 UTC
I'll give you that, I did say it was a bit off topic Oops

I do know its a PvP game. I've been dabbling in it myself and having a blast losing a ton of ship.

I understand not wanting to change the game. I don't really have any desire to change it myself. I also know that its fine safety wise in empire, 90% of the time. But some people have been using cheap tactics to carebear farm, and I don't think everyone should be blowing a lid now that carebears can use a cheap trick to help prevent that farm What?

Especially since they've stated that they're just letting it slide so they can learn how to fix it as fast as possible.
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#116 - 2011-10-13 15:21:16 UTC
Asterith wrote:
and I don't think everyone should be blowing a lid now that carebears can use a cheap trick to help prevent that farm


Except that it breaks the game, by effectively making highsec PvP consensual. It's not some minor and insignificant issue, it's a MAJOR BLOW to one of the core fundamentals of the game.

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos
Asterith
#117 - 2011-10-13 15:24:16 UTC
I agreed with you, yet you took a single short segment of my post and used it as an argument :/

It IS broken, but now its broken both ways. In the interest of fixing it as fast as possible. What more do you want, instant gratification?
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#118 - 2011-10-13 16:24:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
Asterith wrote:
I agreed with you, yet you took a single short segment of my post and used it as an argument :/

It IS broken, but now its broken both ways. In the interest of fixing it as fast as possible. What more do you want, instant gratification?


It wasn't broken before. The carebear always had a way of not being shot. Usually, this was simply reading the mother-******* message that popped up saying "YOU CAN BE SHOT IF YOU STEAL THIS!" It doesn't take a "new player" to fail to read a blatant in-the-face warning, it takes an idiot.

As it is now, the carebears can hop their corps through alliances, and make it so there are no in-game ways of shooting them, without concord getting involved. Forever. For almost free. It is game breaking, fundamentally. Every POS in highsec is now theoretically IMMUNE to all possible harm, within the game mechanics and rules. Where is the risk:reward there?

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#119 - 2011-10-13 16:25:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Asterith wrote:
Especially since they've stated that they're just letting it slide so they can learn how to fix it as fast as possible.
Where on earth did they state that?

If you're referring to the top of page 3 ... that's standard CCP vagueness. No guarantee of anything being done.
Avon
#120 - 2011-10-13 16:47:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Avon
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.


How is it not normal mechanics?
The game lets it happen, thus it is by definition "normal mechanics". (I assume you know that the mechanics now allow this, as any CEO/Director/Personnel manager trying to get rid of unwanted members can tell you)

I understand the point you are making, and I understand the distinction, but you have to realise that statements like this make it look like you are penalising an agressive playstyle whilst rewarding a defensive one.