These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#181 - 2011-10-15 17:54:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
rufeno wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
rufeno wrote:
Irval Penken wrote:
rufeno wrote:
the 19 corps dec-shield is pretty easy, and cost around 200m. per week. it just take time...

3-4 people can do it in 2h, splited over 2-3 days..

even small alliance can do that. it only requires 1 paid character slot. (trial account can declare wars..)


Could you share this "pretty easy" way? I would still consider it broken, but the knowledge also better should be available to everybody (and I am damn curious, too :-)


3 corps wardec another one. cost: 1.6m x 3 +2+4+6m. (you can use a trial account to form those 3 attacking corp)

the wardecced corp join in the alliance. boom! 3 wars on the alliance, next war on the alliance cost 200m.

Based on what you describe, EVE University would have to be a stand-alone corporation for this to work, and I don't believe that they are leaving Ivy League when their 19 corp decshield is applied.


no, you don't get it.

the decced corp join in the alliance where Eve-U (or the corp you want to protect) is already in.

I get it dude. I know how to keep the costs down for a corporation that isn't in an alliance.

The question is ... how is the Ivy League keeping their costs down. As their CEO has already stated, they are paying nowhere near 72B ISK per month to keep their nineteen corporation decshield up and running. They aren't bouncing EVE University in and out of Ivy League to do this. It's, as I understand it, more along the lines of toggling the mutual/non-mutual aspect of the wardec/decshields, keeps Ivy League's costs down while ensuring a wardeccer pays maximum cost to wardec Ivy League.
rufeno
Black Frog Logistics
Red-Frog
#182 - 2011-10-15 17:59:02 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:

I get it dude. I know how to keep the costs down for a corporation that isn't in an alliance.

The question is ... how is the Ivy League keeping their costs down. As their CEO has already stated, they are paying nowhere near 72B ISK per month to keep their nineteen corporation decshield up and running. They aren't bouncing EVE University in and out of Ivy League to do this. It's, as I understand it, more along the lines of toggling the mutual/non-mutual aspect of the wardec/decshields, keeps Ivy League's costs down while ensuring a wardeccer pays maximum cost to wardec Ivy League.


you create all the corp and wardec before they join into the alliance. when those are done, they just create another set of corp and wardec.

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#183 - 2011-10-15 18:14:34 UTC
rufeno wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:

I get it dude. I know how to keep the costs down for a corporation that isn't in an alliance.

The question is ... how is the Ivy League keeping their costs down. As their CEO has already stated, they are paying nowhere near 72B ISK per month to keep their nineteen corporation decshield up and running. They aren't bouncing EVE University in and out of Ivy League to do this. It's, as I understand it, more along the lines of toggling the mutual/non-mutual aspect of the wardec/decshields, keeps Ivy League's costs down while ensuring a wardeccer pays maximum cost to wardec Ivy League.
you create all the corp and wardec before they join into the alliance. when those are done, they just create another set of corp and wardec.

I get what you're saying now. The decshield corps don't wardec Ivy League ... they all wardec an allianceless Corp A ... so 18 corps wardec Corp A, then Corp A joins Ivy League. So this is one reasonably effective method.

Strangely, though, there are no new members in Ivy League. It's the same four members, the youngest of which is 107 days old.

Which still leads me to believe they are doing something completely different.
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#184 - 2011-10-15 21:53:42 UTC
Arron Samar wrote:
On a more serious note....

I'm not sure why people are bitching and moaning so much as the whole WD mechanics are stupid. Living in empire high sec space you have the protection of CONCORD and the empire you are residing in. A griefer corp can then pay x amount to circumnavigate the rules and this is seen as being OK while any attempt by the aggressed parties to avoid it is an exploit..... lol wut?

If you can bribe concord why can't I bribe them more to ignore you and protect me?


But that's the whole point of capsuler corporations though - you are a semi-sovereign entity and aren't part of the empire you reside in, nor party to the same protection as an Empire citizen (NPC corporation).

(Otherwise why would you be allowed to deploy starbases).

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
rufeno
Black Frog Logistics
Red-Frog
#185 - 2011-10-15 23:14:56 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
rufeno wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:

I get it dude. I know how to keep the costs down for a corporation that isn't in an alliance.

The question is ... how is the Ivy League keeping their costs down. As their CEO has already stated, they are paying nowhere near 72B ISK per month to keep their nineteen corporation decshield up and running. They aren't bouncing EVE University in and out of Ivy League to do this. It's, as I understand it, more along the lines of toggling the mutual/non-mutual aspect of the wardec/decshields, keeps Ivy League's costs down while ensuring a wardeccer pays maximum cost to wardec Ivy League.
you create all the corp and wardec before they join into the alliance. when those are done, they just create another set of corp and wardec.

I get what you're saying now. The decshield corps don't wardec Ivy League ... they all wardec an allianceless Corp A ... so 18 corps wardec Corp A, then Corp A joins Ivy League. So this is one reasonably effective method.

Strangely, though, there are no new members in Ivy League. It's the same four members, the youngest of which is 107 days old.

Which still leads me to believe they are doing something completely different.


well, once the war is active on the alliance, there's no reason for the corp to stay in.

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#186 - 2011-10-16 03:35:44 UTC
Gheng Kondur
Serva Fidem
#187 - 2011-10-16 09:15:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Gheng Kondur
I'm a noob, but still here and do not want hi sec to be 100% safe.

But I have seen many people start this game and leave as they see no way they can build to a level where they can start their own corps and build something without being hit by what are in effect hi sec griefers who would dec them. I've seen some try, get dec'd for no reason, and without the isk to hire mercenaries have no choice other than return to NPC corps or stop playing.

Not everybody wants to join established corps, not everybody wants to PVP, this is after all supposed to be a sandbox. Some see this as 'must be pvp' which would fail the sandbox description. I don't agree that EVE is a PVP game or there is no sandbox, but accept that EVE is a sandbox that does (and should) include PVP, whether with consent or not, so you live with that risk.

What we need is a dec system that removes the option for griefers who like to find and blast noobie corps simply as they can and it makes their killboards look good, yet allow for wars over game related goals, rather than just laughing at another noobie killed.

This doesn't get us there as any corp that can afford the shield could afford the mercenary corps, but something needs to change to allow new players to enter, build, grow and move out of high sec in ways other than simply becoming a drone in a massive alliance.
CCP Spitfire
C C P
C C P Alliance
#188 - 2011-10-16 09:48:14 UTC
Please keep the discussion civil and refrain from personal attacks.

CCP Spitfire | Marketing & Sales Team @ccp_spitfire
Norrin Ellis
Doomheim
#189 - 2011-10-16 10:09:23 UTC
I always considered it a bit draconian to declare the only defense against war griefing to be an exploit. The targets are usually folks who can't defend themselves and have no other means to escape harassment. As long as the game mechanics favor bullies, it's perfectly reasonable to allow people the choice to avoid them.

CEO, Venture Racing

Manager, EVE Online Hold'Em
Dave Day
Universal Freelance
#190 - 2011-10-16 11:49:16 UTC
Gheng Kondur wrote:
I'm a noob, but still here and do not want hi sec to be 100% safe.

But I have seen many people start this game and leave as they see no way they can build to a level where they can start their own corps and build something without being hit by what are in effect hi sec griefers who would dec them. I've seen some try, get dec'd for no reason, and without the isk to hire mercenaries have no choice other than return to NPC corps or stop playing.

Not everybody wants to join established corps, not everybody wants to PVP, this is after all supposed to be a sandbox. Some see this as 'must be pvp' which would fail the sandbox description. I don't agree that EVE is a PVP game or there is no sandbox, but accept that EVE is a sandbox that does (and should) include PVP, whether with consent or not, so you live with that risk.

What we need is a dec system that removes the option for griefers who like to find and blast noobie corps simply as they can and it makes their killboards look good, yet allow for wars over game related goals, rather than just laughing at another noobie killed.

This doesn't get us there as any corp that can afford the shield could afford the mercenary corps, but something needs to change to allow new players to enter, build, grow and move out of high sec in ways other than simply becoming a drone in a massive alliance.


I completely agree
Dirk Decibel
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#191 - 2011-10-16 13:10:33 UTC
John Rothman wrote:

Cost of war goes up and up every week.

This, it should grow exponentially too as far as I'm confirmed and after war is over it should decrease at the same rate again. This way nobody will be able to perma-dec any other corp. Also: it makes for a proper isk sink!

Best idea evar, why am I not a dev? Cool
Darius III
Interstellar eXodus
The Initiative.
#192 - 2011-10-16 15:30:08 UTC
I think this thread is dildos and this is a bad move.


Selene D'Celeste wrote:
That's .... random.


ALSO: Posting in a Selene D'Celeste thread. Hi Selene o/

Hmmm
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#193 - 2011-10-17 05:45:51 UTC
so is this basically?

"after further review we have determined that the exploit cannot be fixed and cannot be enforced so we have decided to allow it"
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#194 - 2011-10-17 08:36:11 UTC
Morganta wrote:
so is this basically?

"after further review we have determined that the exploit cannot be fixed and cannot be enforced so we have decided to allow it"

With the devs remaining completely silent on the change, yes, I would have to say this is the answer.

"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,

Just Another Toon
Doomheim
#195 - 2011-10-17 09:50:50 UTC
Kengutsi Akira wrote:
Buruk Utama wrote:
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.



Anyone else find it funny that the blog he links to states that the issue will "soon be fixed" yet the blog is dated: 2008.01.10. It has been almost 4 years since that "soon" promise ShockedLol


Well it takes a while to get to fixing things here lol


IF InCurrentWar = Yes and IwantToLeaveAlliance = Yes THEN CorpWarDecEndDate = AllianceWarDecEndDate

Not that hard to fix really...
Mukutep
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#196 - 2011-10-17 13:29:32 UTC
Some enterprising person or entity needs to setup an alliance for wardec shielding and charge corporations x-amount to join them, or leave them, or whatever the hell you do to avoid wardecs since this is a legal mechanic now. I bet there's some good money to be made in a service like this.

Alternately, some of the merc corps could start espionage services (I'm sure some already do). In addition or instead of wardec'ing corps for people, you infiltrate them and destroy/rob them from within.
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#197 - 2011-10-17 16:21:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
In reality if you could pay concord to "let you kill someone"
You could also probably pay them more to "Not let someone kill you"




Now that being said, the current wardec system is a travesty. It has been used as a pay for grief system for as long as it has existed. There is no goal, easily discernible winners or an ending beyond "I am bored". 99% of wardecs have no strategic value, or any kind of worth while cause and effect outside of pissing people off and laughing at them.



So this change is bad...
But it is also good...


It is good because as more and more people begin to abuse this former exploit, it will eventually compel an outcry loud enough that will FINALLY revamp the wardec system. So... no tears from me. Give us better and more meaningful wardecs.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#198 - 2011-10-17 16:51:13 UTC
The solution to this is remarkably simple. All you need to do is stop any changes to the corp/alliance in the first 7 days of any war.

If at war: cannot join alliance.
If alliance at war: corps cannot leave.

No need to ******* read petitions, GMs!

7 days after the first attempt to leave or join an alliance is made, the corp can 'bribe' CONCORD to allow the transfer if there is a war on. It should be the same as the wardec fee. This means if someone is 'greifing' then the aggressed corp can still join/leave an alliance if a second party (an alt etc) lands a wardec. This, surely, is a fair way of doing it.

Lets leave aside whether or not you think corps SHOULD be allowed to avoid any war they don't want, as this is a discussion about policing it, not game design. CCP policy has been that this is an unintended game mechanic so until I hear otherwise it is just ******* lazy, to change a game mechanic based on the fact you don't want to a) fix it or b) police it.

"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,

Jita Bloodtear
Bloodtear Labs
#199 - 2011-10-17 21:15:08 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.

Unbelievable. Once again you have made the wrong decision and decided to shirk responsibility for your own game mechanics bugs. You are only moving to deregulate these bugs because you no longer want to spend man-hours fixing what you should have hardcoded into the game to prevent in the first place.

Furthermore, there are bugs the general public does not yet seem to be aware of. If a corp drops from alliance, it is immune to incoming wardecs until the next downtime. Period. This helpful bug, combined with alliance wardec wiping, can render a corporation mostly immune to multiple groups of attacking forces (even if staggered wardecs), and completely immune to a single attacking entity.
Shaft Vain
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#200 - 2011-10-17 21:44:29 UTC
Sorry I'm against this. In fact what I think should happen is that everyone that was in the corp at the time of the war dec should have the war flag follow them. The only way out would be either the original target corp surrenders or if an individual leaves the corp or moves into an alliance then that individual submits a personal surrender.

A compromise would be if you leave during the 24 hour start up one would not get flagged.