These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Proposal] Fix Wardec Exploits

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Thorvik
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#161 - 2012-11-09 19:42:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Thorvik
Marlona Sky wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
Travis117 wrote:
They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something


as the person who implemented this fix I must admit I had no idea the goons were war decced or had any problems with it. The only person I've been talking to about war decs is Alekseyev Karrde

v0v

maybe I should spend less time working on the expansion and more time getting involved in corp/alliance politics in EVE P

How long have you been working on a fix and when did you clue in the players and/or CSM?


Wow...

Thread started out on topic about a bad game mechanic, ...

continued on for a while with good input and some worthy ideas and opinions.

reached its apex and is rapidly approaching terminal velocity in it's fall.



Let me direct you here to the important part: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2159028#post2159028
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#162 - 2012-11-09 19:42:48 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
Travis117 wrote:
They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something


as the person who implemented this fix I must admit I had no idea the goons were war decced or had any problems with it. The only person I've been talking to about war decs is Alekseyev Karrde

v0v

maybe I should spend less time working on the expansion and more time getting involved in corp/alliance politics in EVE P

How long have you been working on a fix and when did you clue in the players and/or CSM?

War dec iterations have been on the docket for Retribution since the summer iirc. The CSM Spring minutes were rife with these issues brought up to CCP "in person" by my floating head and you can see CCP Soundwave and others commit to taking action. So...a while.

The frustration on the CSM has been the Bounty feature having to be nailed down before war dec fixes could be talked about and scheduled in detail. To the point that, like i said, i was about to take this to the players for fear it had gotten cut. But no, I met with CCP Soniclover for over an hour and their user stories are strong.

Expect CSM (and my personal) engagement on this to continue on through the CSM Summit and beyond till these items get finalized.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
AssassinationsdoneWrong
Deep Core Mining Inc.
#163 - 2012-11-09 19:51:52 UTC
Slutty Underwear wrote:
What is wrong is not how the current wardec mechanics work but the wording of it.

"Mutual" should be changed to "All or Nothing mode".

And it goes like this.

"Aggressor Corp/Alliance" wardecs "Nasty Corp". Now "Nasty Corp" ticks box "All or Nothing mode". "Aggressor Corp/Alliance" now has the option to drop the wardec (24h cool down) or tick the box "All or Nothing mode".

"Aggressor Corp/Alliance" ticks the box also and now both corps/alliance are in "All or Nothing mode".

At this point the only way to get out of the war is for "Surrender terms" (in game mechanics) to be agreed or one of the crops/Alliance disbands


Now "Nasty Corp" feels he needs some friends. So he goes of to "Silly Bear Alliance" and joins them. Now the wardec is on for "Aggressor Corp/Alliance" and "Silly Bear Alliance". At this point, Same thing/option can happens. "Silly Alliance" ticks the box "All or Nothing mode". "Aggressor Corp/Alliance" can again drop the wardec (24h cool down) or tick the box "All or Nothing mode". Same rules as before to end the war remain. But with one exception. If "Nasty Corp" or it's CEO resigns and leaves the "Nasty Corp" and or "Silly Bear Alliance", The wardecs goes with them.

End result is the same. Somebody has to Disband or agree to "Surrender terms" (in game mechanics).

The fact that Corp/Alliances can Wardec with out consequentness is a bitter pill to swallow for most folk. And with this up coming change. They get that back again.

I Must say that I do feel like some of the rest posting here.

Seems that if Goons say jump. CCP do say how high please Mr. Goon CEO


If the goons don't like the wardecs, Then they should not make them on folks. And if they don't want to fight the wardecs, Stay out of high sec. They have all that nice SOV. They can make their own trade hubs in null. They can make everything they need in Null sec. They don't need Jita. and if they feel like they do need Jita. Then maybe they should do more escort run when they go there.


The best post in the entire thread (save the announcement of the permadec withdrawal). It allows CEO's to over-ride a tic'd off Director's over zealous snap decision, gives the CEO t a chance to say "ooops", keep's the option to have the permawar KNOWING its consequences.

All encompassing, well thought out and +10 to you Slutty.

The Nexus 7's

What we fall short of in numbers we more than make up for in stupidity
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#164 - 2012-11-09 20:10:03 UTC
AssassinationsdoneWrong wrote:
Slutty Underwear wrote:
If the goons don't like the wardecs, Then they should not make them on folks. And if they don't want to fight the wardecs, Stay out of high sec.


The best post in the entire thread (save the announcement of the permadec withdrawal). It allows CEO's to over-ride a tic'd off Director's over zealous snap decision, gives the CEO t a chance to say "ooops", keep's the option to have the permawar KNOWING its consequences.

All encompassing, well thought out and +10 to you Slutty.


I would agree with you except that there are no consequences for the dec shield alliance to do this. The consequences for the other alliance extend outside empire space, which seems strange.
Slutty Underwear
Ephesians trading and farming
#165 - 2012-11-09 20:22:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Slutty Underwear
Bagehi wrote:



I would agree with you except that there are no consequences for the dec shield alliance to do this. The consequences for the other alliance extend outside empire space, which seems strange.



It would not matter. If "Nasty Corp" or it's CEO leaves "Silly Bear Alliance". Then "Silly Bear Alliance" gets removed from the wardec. The Wardec stays with "Nasty Corp" and its CEO. What this means is that "Nasty Corp" and it's CEO are the key to the wardec, Where they go. The wardec follows. If the CEO resigns. The "All or Nothing mode" switches off. And i would say that the toon that was the CEO would have to have some sort of consequences. Fine details to be look at latter

End result is that for all members of "Nasty Corp" have 2 choices if they want out of the "all or Nothing Mode" wardec.. Leave "Nasty Corp" Or fight (or stay docked). Now if all of "Nasty Corp" leave and only the CEO remains (one man corp). Then "Aggressor Corp/Alliance" is just locked into a one man corp wardec. And I would say that there would have to be a some sort of mechanic that states that if no activity happens from "Nasty Corp" Then the wardec drops. But that's for fine details to be worked out at a latter point should my idea get some backing.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#166 - 2012-11-09 20:33:27 UTC
CCP Punkturis wrote:
We clued in the players today with Tallest's post.

Does this answer your questions? P

Yup.

What are the odds of you looking at corps and alliances bloating their numbers with alts to keep war decs against them extremely high? Any chance you guys could have the war dec fee only calculate based on characters currently training a skill?
Slutty Underwear
Ephesians trading and farming
#167 - 2012-11-09 20:34:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Slutty Underwear
Marlona Sky wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
We clued in the players today with Tallest's post.

Does this answer your questions? P

Yup.

What are the odds of you looking at corps and alliances bloating their numbers with alts to keep war decs against them extremely high? Any chance you guys could have the war dec fee only calculate based on characters currently training a skill?



What a smart idea


Oh and on a side note. I Would like to point that I was wrong before. The up coming fix for mutual wardecs is needed for the likes of RvB and so on. What I should have said is that my idea is in addition to the current wardec system. It's just way to call your bluff. "Do you really want to got to WAR and die. Come at me bro, Lets see whose standing last"
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#168 - 2012-11-09 20:41:58 UTC
Bagehi wrote:
The consequences for the other alliance extend outside empire space, which seems strange.

Just like how a war dec fee includes all alliance members no matter where they are for the sake of 'plethora of targets' when a tiny fraction are only in/visit high sec. Strange indeed.
Slutty Underwear
Ephesians trading and farming
#169 - 2012-11-09 20:48:32 UTC
Slutty Underwear wrote:
If the CEO resigns. The "All or Nothing mode" switches off. And i would say that the toon that was the CEO would have to have some sort of consequences. Fine details to be look at latter


Maybe the consequences would be say a negative wallet for say 1b. And the Corp loses say 50% of it's corp wallet also. And banned from joining any corps for 4 months?

Meh, That won't work. Smart folks will move the isk around to stop that. But you would still burn a toon.
Brib Vogt
Doomheim
#170 - 2012-11-09 21:04:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Brib Vogt
Just one thing which is stuck in my head.

Is it possible, because now it is officially something which needs to be fixed, [Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution.], that all stuck corps and alliances could be freed? I mean we are still stuck in many wars but everyone hides.

Even if the system is flawed, dec shield is still online using an acknowledged exploit. So my question goes to CCP, the GMs and the Zerg guy: Could you shut it down now? You got what you wanted - end it. The official statment should finallly show some consequences for Zerg if he does not stop the crap.

Otherwise i have to add one more month of doing nothing to the most of my ally members, which means something about >2000€.
Destru Kaneda
Arzad Police Department
#171 - 2012-11-09 21:38:13 UTC
Dasquirrel715
Aurora.
The Initiative.
#172 - 2012-11-09 21:46:40 UTC
Travis117 wrote:
They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something



You realize that most null-sec alliances, especially one like goons are ALWAYS wardecced. Being in a permanent war is nothing new to them
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#173 - 2012-11-09 21:51:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Adriel Malakai
CCP Tallest wrote:
Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution.
We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war.
And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so.


While from the standpoint of someone who is damn near always the aggressor in wars, this change greatly helps me, I cannot say that this is the proper way to fix mutual decs.

The problem with your 'fix' is that you're going back on the whole concept of "consequences for aggressors" that you touted so much in inferno. As it stands, I will have just as much (if not more) control over the dec if my target makes it mutual. In fact, you've made it so that there is literally no point to ever set a war mutual unless you are RvB.

Here's how you should actually fix mutual wars, so that they're still worth using as a defender, but aren't completely broken as they are now:

Step 1: The first step is to make mutual wars a cost burden that the defender must carry (ie someone has to pay CONCORD for the dec). This should be implemented such that when a war is declared mutual by the defender, it is stuck that way for 7 days, without charge. The defender will receive a bill (much like a run-of-the-mill aggressive dec) to continue the mutual war into a second week, etc. The 'mutual fee' will use the same cost mechanics current dec fees use. As with current mutual mechanics, the two sides must agree to a surrender offer in order to end the mutual war prior to the end of any given 7-day mutual war period. (Obviously one of the two sides can completely disband as they can now).

Step 2: The second step is to make it so that mutual wars count as "aggressive decs" for the original defenders. If the defender is a single corp, this means they cannot spread the war to others via an alliance as they cannot join it. If the defenders are originally an alliance, and the alliance declares the war mutual, the war will be considered mutual for corps that leave the alliance for 7-days.

Step 3: In order to maintain groups such as RvB that want a permanent forever war with each other, implement an option for the aggressor, once the defender has made the war mutual, to confirm the war being mutual. This can be made with a similar flagging system as current surrender offers. If the aggressor confirms the war to be mutual, it is free for both sides and requires a surrender offer to end.

Obviously, there is still room to spread wars around as long as the war is not declared mutual (and could be still used to keep an aggressor at war for a very long period of time). This process of dropping corps in and out of an alliance with proper timing is rather tedious (but can obviously be done). While it may be exploited, I doubt it will be to the extent (both in terms of time and the number of involved parties) that it is currently.

I apologize for the wall of text, but would greatly appreciate both player and dev feedback.

Thanks.

Adriel
GODUN
Blueprint Haus
Blades of Grass
#174 - 2012-11-09 22:43:01 UTC  |  Edited by: GODUN
I think you are making it a lot more complicated than it needs to be. "It should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler".

The whole problem is the wardeck propagation up the organization tree, I think it should only propagate down. E.g. If corp A wardecks Corp B and the corp B joins alliance X, the wardeck should not propagate to all of the alliance X members, it should still stay with Corp B. If Alliance feels like protecting corp B, then it should declare it's own war against corp A.
Once the wardeck ends due to it's natural timer, then Corp A has an option to redeclare it against Alliance, but not against the Corp B.


Scenario: Corp A declares wardeck on Corp B, Corp B joins Alliance X, Alliance X decleares war on Corp A

Corp A will have 2 wardecks: 1 outgoing
Corp B will have 2 wardecks: 1 incoming and 1 outgoing inherited from Alliance X
Alliance X will have 1 wardeck: 1 outgoing against Corp A


To deal with the griefing corps, the wardeck cost for the outgoing decks should exponentially increase over time, unless it's declared mutual. The number of the outgoing decks should not be part of the equation calculating the cost, what should be is the time the wardeck has been going on and the recency of the last war deck. As in the cost will not reset to 0 once the wardeck is over but rather decrease overtime, so there is no incentive to stop the wardeck and immediately redeclare it again.


Adriel Malakai wrote:
CCP Tallest wrote:
Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution.
We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war.
And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so.


While from the standpoint of someone is damn near always the aggressor in wars, this change greatly helps me, I cannot say that this is the proper way to fix mutual decs.

The problem with your 'fix' is that you're going back on the whole concept of "consequences for aggressors" that you touted so much in inferno. As it stands, I will have just as much (if not more) control over the dec if my target makes it mutual. In fact, you've made it so that there is literally no point to ever set a war mutual unless you are RvB.

Here's how you should actually fix mutual wars, so that they're still worth using as a defender, but aren't completely broken as they are now:

Step 1: The first step is to make mutual wars a cost burden that the defender must carry (ie someone has to pay CONCORD for the dec). This should be implemented such that when a war is declared mutual by the defender, it is stuck that way for 7 days, without charge. The defender will receive a bill (much like a run-of-the-mill aggressive dec) to continue the mutual war into a second week, etc. The 'mutual fee' will use the same cost mechanics current dec fees use. As with current mutual mechanics, the two sides must agree to a surrender offer in order to end the mutual war prior to the end of any given 7-day mutual war period. (Obviously one of the two sides can completely disband as they can now).

Step 2: The second step is to make it so that mutual wars count as "aggressive decs" for the original defenders. If the defender is a single corp, this means they cannot spread the war to others via an alliance as they cannot join it. If the defenders are originally an alliance, and the alliance declares the war mutual, the war will be considered mutual for corps that leave the alliance for 7-days.

Step 3: In order to maintain groups such as RvB that want a permanent forever war with each other, implement an option for the aggressor, once the defender has made the war mutual, to confirm the war being mutual. This can be made with a similar flagging system as current surrender offers. If the aggressor confirms the war to be mutual, it is free for both sides and requires a surrender offer to end.

Obviously, there is still room to spread wars around as long as the war is not declared mutual (and could be still used to keep an aggressor at war for a very long period of time). This process of dropping corps in and out of an alliance with proper timing is rather tedious (but can obviously be done). While it may be exploited, I doubt it will be to the extent (both in terms of time and the number of involved parties) that it is currently.

I apologize for the wall of text, but would greatly appreciate both player and dev feedback.

Thanks.

Adriel
Lucy Ferrr
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#175 - 2012-11-09 22:44:40 UTC
I wrote this yesterday wrote:
So I am confused, are Goons/TEST trapped or not? I really hope they are, it would be great news for us all. If Goons are trapped in Dec Shield, expect a quick-fix patch fixing the broken war dec mechanics by down time tomorrow. Remember how speedy the 'fix' for Inferno war-dec dog piling came?


I guess I am a psychic. The great and mysterous Lucy Ferrr will answer all your questions and remove the great mysteries of life, only 25mil isk the first min, and 10mil isk for every minute after.
CCP Punkturis
C C P
C C P Alliance
#176 - 2012-11-09 22:48:42 UTC
Lucy Ferrr wrote:
I wrote this yesterday wrote:
So I am confused, are Goons/TEST trapped or not? I really hope they are, it would be great news for us all. If Goons are trapped in Dec Shield, expect a quick-fix patch fixing the broken war dec mechanics by down time tomorrow. Remember how speedy the 'fix' for Inferno war-dec dog piling came?


I guess I am a psychic. The great and mysterous Lucy Ferrr will answer all your questions and remove the great mysteries of life, only 25mil isk the first min, and 10mil isk for every minute after.


heh I implemented this way before yesterday, sorryBlink also it won't be out until Retribution with all our other changes

edit: sorry if I'm ruining your psychic business P

♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis ♥
GODUN
Blueprint Haus
Blades of Grass
#177 - 2012-11-09 22:48:54 UTC  |  Edited by: GODUN
Blawrf McTaggart
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#178 - 2012-11-09 23:01:14 UTC
CCP could you fix the bug that stops anyone not from the CFC from logging on now? thanks xxx
Delegado Cero
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#179 - 2012-11-09 23:10:09 UTC
Looks like we don't even need a seat in the CSM to fix this game.
You're welcome.
Kinis Deren
Mosquito Squadron
D0GS OF WAR
#180 - 2012-11-09 23:12:06 UTC
CCP Tallest wrote:
Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution.
We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war.
And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so.



Just out of interest, any other potential war dec changes that might make it for Retribution or is this a "special snowflake" hotfix?