These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#221 - 2012-11-11 00:36:58 UTC
CCP Punkturis wrote:
I think I'll just stop posting in this thread, too many people just like to be angry and take what I say and twist my words. The initial problem in this thread has been solved (for Retribution), some people like the solution and some people don't, that's how it is with all our changes anyways.

fly safe! o7

Fair enough. I will open a new thread with the issue I raised earlier in the thread in regards to another exploit/abuse of the current war dec mechanics.
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal
#222 - 2012-11-11 01:14:45 UTC
Right now it sounds like CCP have implemented our second best option to solve the wardec issue. "We continue as is, allowing perfect copying/transfer, instead preventing mutual infinite wardecs"

However I'm no longer sure what their intended design for the wardec system is. I thought they wanted declaring wars to be some sort of commitment, such as locking the aggressor in for at least a week. Now it sounds like we can declare war, kill an offline tower, retract the war, move on to next target. This is how it used to be, and I'm actually good with that.

That fix would solve 95% of all the issues. Which is good. But we were hoping to get lots of the smaller features fixed as well (wardec costs, wardec transfers (solved by the fix), exploits related to surprising enemies in space (semi addressed by notifications), dead corp fixes, surrender mechanic loopholes, etc).

However, it is awesome that they implemented notifications to warn deccers that their targets have joined an alliance. That was very much a step in the right direction, and was one of the little things on our list of awesome that they implemented. I hope they continue along this line and continue to push little changes into the game to make the system more intuitive and balanced.
Reticle
Sight Picture
#223 - 2012-11-11 01:48:22 UTC
The Zerg Overmind wrote:
Right now it sounds like CCP have implemented our second best option to solve the wardec issue. "We continue as is, allowing perfect copying/transfer, instead preventing mutual infinite wardecs"

However I'm no longer sure what their intended design for the wardec system is. I thought they wanted declaring wars to be some sort of commitment, such as locking the aggressor in for at least a week. Now it sounds like we can declare war, kill an offline tower, retract the war, move on to next target. This is how it used to be, and I'm actually good with that.

That fix would solve 95% of all the issues. Which is good. But we were hoping to get lots of the smaller features fixed as well (wardec costs, wardec transfers (solved by the fix), exploits related to surprising enemies in space (semi addressed by notifications), dead corp fixes, surrender mechanic loopholes, etc).

However, it is awesome that they implemented notifications to warn deccers that their targets have joined an alliance. That was very much a step in the right direction, and was one of the little things on our list of awesome that they implemented. I hope they continue along this line and continue to push little changes into the game to make the system more intuitive and balanced.

So why didn't you reply to my post?

Do you think Punkturis is lying to you? If not, then you accomplished your goal. Time to drop the decs.

Just admit what we all know, you like the griefing aspect.
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal
#224 - 2012-11-11 02:10:37 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Suvetar
Reticle wrote:

So why didn't you reply to my post?

Do you think Punkturis is lying to you? If not, then you accomplished your goal. Time to drop the decs.

Just admit what we all know, you like the griefing aspect.

Edit: Snipped personal attack. ISD Suvetar

When you can get free on your own means, then the system will be fixed. What part of this is difficult to comprehend?
Challu Ni
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#225 - 2012-11-11 08:12:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Challu Ni
Max Kolonko wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
I think I'll just stop posting in this thread, too many people just like to be angry and take what I say and twist my words. The initial problem in this thread has been solved (for Retribution), some people like the solution and some people don't, that's how it is with all our changes anyways.

fly safe! o7



Just ignore them. Haters gona hate :(


+1

Folks are clearly unhappy, CCP really dropped the ball on this infinite wardec thing, and now they're being forced to patch it with a mechanism that significantly diminishes the original spirit of the dec overhaul.

Kudos to the OP for forcing the issue.

But pls play nice people - Punkturis isn't prob the person who should be at the receiving end of your anger =P
Jake McCord
Greater Metropolis Sanitation Service
#226 - 2012-11-11 08:47:54 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


Isn't one of the CSM's a member of Goons?

They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way! Did I mention, I used to live in Chicago?

Zagdul
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#227 - 2012-11-11 09:23:38 UTC
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


Recruitment for my corp is currently closed. For you however, we may consider an exception.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement

Jake McCord
Greater Metropolis Sanitation Service
#228 - 2012-11-11 09:34:59 UTC
After considerable thought on this subject of the wardec mechanics, I've come to the inevitable conclusion it's totally FUBAR. Even after the fix coming in Retribution.

The idea that corps belonging to an alliance that gets wardecced HAVE to take the wardec with them when they leave, is just dumb.

As it currently stands, I'm either gonna kick everyone out of my alliance, and run it as a one man operation, or I'm gonna just drop out to an NPC corp, and call it a day, until CCP fixes this thing the right way.

They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way! Did I mention, I used to live in Chicago?

Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#229 - 2012-11-11 10:05:17 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.


It was heady days when these wardecs came out. We got the first assist in EVE on a dec which we copped by troll-o-loling some very angry Russians in their wormhole. I can't remember why we dropped it from being mutual, but it did occur to me pretty early on that when alts of Moar Tears were joining Dec Shield something was going wrong with the war dec system. It's the katamari thing, really, decs can be katamari'd into one organisation which never drops a dec ever, so it basically turned the old system on its head; the girefer became the defender except it was free and forever and sticky.

Creating a permadec possibility was stupid. But the idea of consequences is not.

The whole problem with the wardec system is that it is a system which allows non-mutual wars, aka griefing. This isn't a defense of carebearing as a life choice or excoriating people who gain enjoyment from the tears of others (people who know me will know I find tears piquant delicacies). But it's just the way the people who play this game are: intelligent (in the main), cunning (in the minority, but thats all it takes), creative, evil and greedy. If you let an EVE player loose on any system, they will find a hole and strap on a chilli-coated pineapple to exploit the hell out of it, for maximum tears.

In allowing wars, it allows people's griefing to happen. You used to be griefed by 0rphans, More Queers, Pendulum of Dumb and others declaring war on your corp when it was new, was growing (get on to to eve-who's top ten growth corps, its going to be yours), when you spammed Recruitment too much, etc. If your corp was reasonably well run, people were realistic and the leadership were competent and dedicated, it meant absolutely nothing; you'd ride out a week or two and the wars would go away. Month max of blueballing them and they would drop.

Now, the griefing is on the defensive. Perma-mutual is one half the problem, the other half is the katamari problem. Together, you have a giant space dungbeetle pushing a star-sized solar mass of crap into the griefer's corner. It has no doubt stopped the former predatory griefing of noob corps run by noobs, because eventually the serial griefers will get caught by Dec Shield and similar when they run across a CEO with their in-game browser open to the forums instead of cat photos.

The problem is that when the katamari of PVP lands in your lap, leaking a deluge of tears and PVP on tap, of course you won't give it up. You can't ever be blueballed into dropping the katamari dec due to boredom.

So I guess it is back to the old system of opportunistic griefing decs, but with people able to holler for a hand...which is fine, to my mind. Try to gather some tears and pad your killboards with badgers, and if someone taps out for help, run away to shoot noobs.
Travis117
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#230 - 2012-11-11 12:57:09 UTC
Zagdul 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


Recruitment for my corp is currently closed. For you however, we may consider an exception.

Thanks for the Offer but im happy where i am:P
Rellik B00n
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#231 - 2012-11-11 13:57:43 UTC
so, in summary here on page 12:

war decs are now exactly like they were before the war changes except:

they cost stupid amounts more ISK
you can call for allies
[Of a request for change ask: Who Benefits?](https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=199765)
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#232 - 2012-11-11 16:20:23 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
I hope you (all at CCP) don't restrict yourself to just Aleks.


They don't. The reason that is even an issue people are complaining about is because they haven't listened the hundreds of times Punkturis has stated that she's a programmer, not a game designer, and that she codes up what the game designers agree upon. The game designers being the team that interacts with the CSM and the playerbase on the forums. It's perfectly normal not only for the programmer to only have spoken with one individual, its also normal for the programmers to not speak with the CSM at all. Just because a few angry posters here don't understand this doesn't mean that CCP is saying they only get one opinion about an issue before making a decision.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

XavierVE
No Corporation for Old Spacemen
#233 - 2012-11-11 19:53:13 UTC  |  Edited by: XavierVE
Quote:
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.


That isn't a fix, it's removing a feature.

Perhaps a static payment option of oh, 200 million and then either party (the defender who made it mutual or the aggressor) could "buy out" of the mutual war-dec.

Putting it in the hands of the aggressor removes the entire reason to make a war mutual, which is to punish the aggressor for starting a war they could not handle. Now there's literally no reason to make a war mutual since your fix is more amounting to swinging a bat at the feature, smashing it, and calling it done.

Actions should have consequences in EVE, start a war that you can't handle, you should have to pay to get out of it. But I guess that's just pointless carping since the "some people don't like features!" cop-out is being thrown around already.

Lazy, CCP. Just lazy.
Kinis Deren
Mosquito Squadron
D0GS OF WAR
#234 - 2012-11-11 21:08:05 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:
I hope you (all at CCP) don't restrict yourself to just Aleks.


They don't. The reason that is even an issue people are complaining about is because they haven't listened the hundreds of times Punkturis has stated that she's a programmer, not a game designer, and that she codes up what the game designers agree upon. The game designers being the team that interacts with the CSM and the playerbase on the forums. It's perfectly normal not only for the programmer to only have spoken with one individual, its also normal for the programmers to not speak with the CSM at all. Just because a few angry posters here don't understand this doesn't mean that CCP is saying they only get one opinion about an issue before making a decision.



...and yet what happened to the ideals of transparency and consultation that you advocated in your white paper and CSM7 were meant to be championing?

This all appears to have been handled behind closed doors and only involving those that it would benefit most.

First the ally nerf, now this - it smells of something and it isn't roses.
Rellik B00n
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#235 - 2012-11-11 23:48:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Rellik B00n
Kinis Deren wrote:

...and yet what happened to the ideals of transparency and consultation that you advocated in your white paper and CSM7 were meant to be championing?

This all appears to have been handled behind closed doors and only involving those that it would benefit most.

First the ally nerf, now this - it smells of something and it isn't roses.


yes.

the original incarnation of the new system was how I would advertise eve online.

huge numbers of allies could join forces to fight against much larger (and in most cases null sec based) entities in empire space.
Even better the defenders could punish the attackers by locking them into the war through the mutual setting.

then we got screwed because someone decided having huge numbers of people fighting each other in a pvp based game was a bad thing. Entirely my own opinion but i suspect its because we were fighting them in empire not in null.

now we get it again because someone again decided that having huge numbers of people fighting each other in a pvp based game was a bad thing.

the whole thing needs looking at from the bottom up again.

- - - - - -

EDIT: THIS BIT IS ALL LIKE TOTAL FANTASY. LIKE EVER.

my take: we got the flags system now. an added 'pvp' flag is needed. If you are part of a sov holding alliance its turned on. If you choose to, you can turn it on. anyone with this flag on can fight each other, anywhere.

because 'we dont need empire anyway' amirite?
[Of a request for change ask: Who Benefits?](https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=199765)
Istyn
Freight Club
#236 - 2012-11-12 01:15:55 UTC
Kinis Deren wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:
I hope you (all at CCP) don't restrict yourself to just Aleks.


They don't. The reason that is even an issue people are complaining about is because they haven't listened the hundreds of times Punkturis has stated that she's a programmer, not a game designer, and that she codes up what the game designers agree upon. The game designers being the team that interacts with the CSM and the playerbase on the forums. It's perfectly normal not only for the programmer to only have spoken with one individual, its also normal for the programmers to not speak with the CSM at all. Just because a few angry posters here don't understand this doesn't mean that CCP is saying they only get one opinion about an issue before making a decision.



...and yet what happened to the ideals of transparency and consultation that you advocated in your white paper and CSM7 were meant to be championing?

This all appears to have been handled behind closed doors and only involving those that it would benefit most.

First the ally nerf, now this - it smells of something and it isn't roses.


Yeah man, Big War Dec and their buying CCP development priorities, when will the corruption end!?

oh wait...

http://eve-search.com/thread/19148-1/page/1

http://www.eve-search.com/thread/19881-1/page/1
None ofthe Above
#237 - 2012-11-12 05:49:43 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:
I hope you (all at CCP) don't restrict yourself to just Aleks.


They don't. The reason that is even an issue people are complaining about is because they haven't listened the hundreds of times Punkturis has stated that she's a programmer, not a game designer, and that she codes up what the game designers agree upon. The game designers being the team that interacts with the CSM and the playerbase on the forums. It's perfectly normal not only for the programmer to only have spoken with one individual, its also normal for the programmers to not speak with the CSM at all. Just because a few angry posters here don't understand this doesn't mean that CCP is saying they only get one opinion about an issue before making a decision.


Sorry ... but... what?

I brought up the Alex issue as a side note. It has nothing to do with Punkturis. Just responding to how all war dec talk seems to be deferred to Aleks.

But I strongly disagree that he has a grip on all angles of the issue. He is a smart guy and really understands the merc side and perhaps to a lessor extent the pirate side. But many of his ideas are just as ... odd to me and many others as CCPs.

Granted I think he's right about war decs being one of those things is never going to make everyone happy.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#238 - 2012-11-12 13:44:11 UTC
Now that I can finally post after the hurricane took away my internet for half a month, I'll start here.

To all the people who are advocating that aggressors, post-fix, should either be locked in for a certain period of time, or have to pay a fee (or both), to get out of a mutual war, please consider the following to the best of your abilities:

As long as it's possible for wars to be spread in a viral manner, neither of the above options would fix the war system from the broken and exploitable state it is in now.

1. In the case of a timer, it wouldn't work because any period of time that's longer than instantaneous would mean that it will be just as possible to spread mutual wars ad infinitum as it is today.

Observe: Corporation A declares war on Corporation B. Corporation B joins Alliance 01, which proceeds to set the war mutual. Corporation A decides to retract the war, but needs to wait a week for the process to complete. Corporations B-Z leave Alliance 01, and join Alliances 02-26 during this time frame. Alliances 02-26 all set their newly-acquired wars mutual.

This process will continue infinitely, since fresh wars are created for every corporation that leaves an alliance, and the infection continues to spread. Dec Shield would continue to function normally, albeit would need extra corporations and alliances to handle the time-limited load. The only way to avoid this is by either allowing aggressors to instantly revoke wars, or by removing the capacity for a single war to be infinitely transferred to new entities.

2. In the case of a fee, it wouldn't work because as long as the aggressor doesn't immediately pay off the defender when the defender makes a demand, the defender would be able to infinitely spread the war, thus ensuring that the aggressor would have to pay off a potentially-infinite number of other defenders.

Observe: Corporation A declares war on Corporation B. Corporation B sets a buyout price of 1 billion ISK. Corporation A declines this offer. Corporation B joins Alliance 01. Alliance 01 sets the buyout price at fifty trillion ISK. Corporation A wants to retract the war, but can't, because it has to pay a fee that is virtually impossible to pay. Corporations B-Z then proceed to leave Alliance 01, and join Alliances 02-26. Alliances 02-26 proceed to set set their newly-acquired wars mutual and set buyout prices at fifty trillion each.

This process will continue infinitely, since fresh wars are created for every corporation that leaves an alliance, and the infinite war continues to spread, unless the aggressors agree to pay off the defenders. Even if the fees have a hard-coded limit, it's still possible to create so many instances of new wars that it's virtually impossible for the aggressors to ever get out. Dec Shield would continue to function normally, albeit would need extra corporations and alliances to ensure that the aggressors can't pay their way out, even if the monetary limit per individual war is relatively low. The only way to avoid this is by either allowing aggressors to instantly revoke wars, or by removing the capacity for a single war to be infinitely transferred to new entities.

Do you guys understand this? Either wars can be revoked within the period of 24 hours (the same amount of time it takes to join a new alliance), or wars shouldn't be able to spread beyond their original recipients. Any other solution will allow some form of "infinite" Dec Shield to exist.

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

The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal
#239 - 2012-11-12 14:05:52 UTC
I think they are talking about an instantly revokable wardec (aka the old system).

I haven't explicitly tested this yet, but I was under the impression that when a corp is booted from the alliance it starts the wars a new war, and gives it a new 7 day timer. I'm experiencing this on a corp atm, but I'll actually measure it with my new transfer corp. If that's true, and they don't have instantly revokable wars, then all we'd have to do is bounce corps back and forth between a pair of alliances and we'd be able to keep wars permanently active even in unmutual states.

There are also some mutual toggling games I have in mind to preserve wars, but we'll have to wait and see. I am of course open to suggestions on how to break whatever new system they generate. We are of course laying out our thoughts here so they can preemptively counter them if they choose.
CCP Falcon
#240 - 2012-11-12 19:08:08 UTC

Thread cleaned somewhat.

Cut the discussion of CCP Bias, the forums are not the place for it.

If you have genuine concerns about CCP Favouritism, then you need to contact Internal Affairs.

This thread will stay open for now, any more posting of this nature and it gets locked.

Have fun.



CCP Falcon || EVE Universe Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon

Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3