These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP do you support permadecs?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#21 - 2012-12-09 19:39:34 UTC
stabmag wrote:
This is not even a thread about if the mechanics are good or bad. Just if ccp supports the ability of 1 aliance to keep another corp or aliance locked in a perma-dec.
…and the answer is simple: yes. Yes they do.
stabmag
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2012-12-09 20:17:27 UTC
Tippia wrote:
stabmag wrote:
This is not even a thread about if the mechanics are good or bad. Just if ccp supports the ability of 1 aliance to keep another corp or aliance locked in a perma-dec.
…and the answer is simple: yes. Yes they do.


Can you point me to the quote from a ccp dev that confirms this please? Honestly it would make everything so much easier if they just came out and said yes we support perma decs. carebears wouldn't be able to ***** about it and griefers would have to think twice before they war decced someone. but I don't believe I have ever seen such a quote. Thus any opinions coming from players are simply speculation.

I appreciate the argument that if it's in the game and people aren't getting banned for it then ccp must support it. However given that they made changes to the war dec system last patch that limited the ability of an alliance to keep a corp / alliance perma-decced one could infer that this means they don't want corps / alliances to be trapped by perma deccs. Why spend time and resources to try to limit perma decs if its something ccp wants in the game. Further more if they really supported perma decs why not just make it a feature. Hell it could be a great isk sink. "for X amount of isk you can perma trap a corp / alliance." and make X some ridiculous amount.

However absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The only way this is going to get a decent answer is if CCP responds with an official position.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#23 - 2012-12-09 22:16:30 UTC
Tippia wrote:
stabmag wrote:
This is not even a thread about if the mechanics are good or bad. Just if ccp supports the ability of 1 aliance to keep another corp or aliance locked in a perma-dec.
…and the answer is simple: yes. Yes they do.

I love highsec pvp mechanics. Three cheers for decshield, leading the way forward in highsec ~

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
stabmag
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2012-12-10 12:18:08 UTC
why do the guys that were bumping miners get an answer but the bigger issues get glossed over?

Yes i read the patch notes. No this still doesn't answer the question of if ccp supports perma decs.

Once again heading off a bit of the troll bait: This is not a thread about mechanics. This is a thread about concepts. bumping ships is allowed by mechanics but a bunch of miners got whiny when it was used to bump thier afk ships off the rocks. ccp in turn answered whether or not that was considered griefing.

This is not a miner bumping thread. I don't care about that. Just mentioned it to make a comparison of ccps actions in 1 area but not another.
Emu Meo
Doomheim
#25 - 2012-12-10 12:25:08 UTC
Its amusing to still see all the so called "smart asses" claiming that this is working as intended, when if they actually did know what they were talking about then they would realise that CCP has already stated this is an exploit and they have already taken steps to fix it, with another update in the patch today.
Gary Bell
Therapy.
The Initiative.
#26 - 2012-12-10 13:19:42 UTC
Nex apparatu5 wrote:
FnStrabo wrote:
Aria Ta'Rohk wrote:
It's in the game, so of course they support it Big smile


It's not a question of supporting war. It's a matter of the mechanics working correctly or as intended. The recent patch was supposed to address the war mechanics. Many corps are still yet to see what is to come of it, as it was not an immediate fix, and the wars (Dec Shield) still persist apparently.


So petition it, because the recent expansion did fix it. Still don't see the issue.


Quoting for the stupid.. Fixed.. I THINK NOT!

DECSHIELD FOREVER!
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#27 - 2012-12-10 14:43:37 UTC
Gary Bell wrote:
Nex apparatu5 wrote:
FnStrabo wrote:
Aria Ta'Rohk wrote:
It's in the game, so of course they support it Big smile


It's not a question of supporting war. It's a matter of the mechanics working correctly or as intended. The recent patch was supposed to address the war mechanics. Many corps are still yet to see what is to come of it, as it was not an immediate fix, and the wars (Dec Shield) still persist apparently.


So petition it, because the recent expansion did fix it. Still don't see the issue.


Quoting for the stupid.. Fixed.. I THINK NOT!

DECSHIELD FOREVER!

... until the patch. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#28 - 2012-12-10 14:46:11 UTC
Tippia wrote:
stabmag wrote:
This is not even a thread about if the mechanics are good or bad. Just if ccp supports the ability of 1 aliance to keep another corp or aliance locked in a perma-dec.
…and the answer is simple: yes. Yes they do.

I have to disagree this time Tippia, they were pretty clear in allowing a way out for the aggressing corp in case of a mutual war... although apparently it's not working as intended at the moment.

Is there more to the story I am unaware of? (I don't hit the crime and punishment forums much.)

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Emu Meo
Doomheim
#29 - 2012-12-10 14:59:44 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Is there more to the story I am unaware of? (I don't hit the crime and punishment forums much.)


Nope. Most the people on here are just trolling or unaware that CCP has been considering these permadecs exploits for quite some time now. A fix was released in retribution, and a new fix was released in todays patch.
stabmag
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2012-12-10 15:44:47 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Gary Bell wrote:
Nex apparatu5 wrote:
FnStrabo wrote:
Aria Ta'Rohk wrote:
It's in the game, so of course they support it Big smile


It's not a question of supporting war. It's a matter of the mechanics working correctly or as intended. The recent patch was supposed to address the war mechanics. Many corps are still yet to see what is to come of it, as it was not an immediate fix, and the wars (Dec Shield) still persist apparently.


So petition it, because the recent expansion did fix it. Still don't see the issue.


Quoting for the stupid.. Fixed.. I THINK NOT!

DECSHIELD FOREVER!

... until the patch. Smile


Assuming the patch works.. and assuming its target is the new exploit . Or untill he finds a new exploit. This is why it is important for ccp to make thier intentions clear. Game mechanics still allow for concord evasion and canflipping / scamming in the newbie systems however because ccp is clear on thier position of these actions we all know what happens why you try it.
CCP Tallest
C C P
C C P Alliance
#31 - 2012-12-10 16:02:50 UTC
stabmag wrote:
CCP do you believe that 1 alliance should be able to permanently trap a corp or alliance in a wardec whether or not they started the dec. Either by exploits or doddgy mechanics. This is a yes or no question. I am not asking if the mechanics are working properly or not. I would just like an official company stance on if wardecs are intended to be permanent.

Yes we all know the wardec system is broken and before i get trolls coming in and saying "htfu" and "learn to pew" my post is neither questioning the valadity of hisec wars or a slight on someones playstyle be it carebear or pvper, anyone who isn't an idiot knows eve needs both to live.

So please CCP, I would like you to answer with either a "yes we support wars being permanent." or "no, it is not our intention that wars started by any means be made to last forever."


* A mutual war should last as long as both parties want to be at war
* A non-mutual war should last as long as the aggressor is willing to pay the recurring war bill

[b]★ EVE Game Designer ★ ♥ Team Super Friends ♥[/b]
stabmag
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2012-12-10 16:23:50 UTC
CCP Tallest wrote:
stabmag wrote:
CCP do you believe that 1 alliance should be able to permanently trap a corp or alliance in a wardec whether or not they started the dec. Either by exploits or doddgy mechanics. This is a yes or no question. I am not asking if the mechanics are working properly or not. I would just like an official company stance on if wardecs are intended to be permanent.

Yes we all know the wardec system is broken and before i get trolls coming in and saying "htfu" and "learn to pew" my post is neither questioning the valadity of hisec wars or a slight on someones playstyle be it carebear or pvper, anyone who isn't an idiot knows eve needs both to live.

So please CCP, I would like you to answer with either a "yes we support wars being permanent." or "no, it is not our intention that wars started by any means be made to last forever."


* A mutual war should last as long as both parties want to be at war
* A non-mutual war should last as long as the aggressor is willing to pay the recurring war bill


Thank you for responding. But what about war decs that are flipped between mutual and non mutual or refreshed with dodgy mechanics so that the agressor never pays the bill but the war is never retracted.
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan
#33 - 2012-12-10 17:45:13 UTC
FnStrabo wrote:
Aria Ta'Rohk wrote:
It's in the game, so of course they support it Big smile


It's not a question of supporting war. It's a matter of the mechanics working correctly or as intended. The recent patch was supposed to address the war mechanics. Many corps are still yet to see what is to come of it, as it was not an immediate fix, and the wars (Dec Shield) still persist apparently.


Yup, our alliance is still embroiled in stacks of wars after getting trapped by the dec shield exploit. It's endless fun, I tells ya.

It's annoying, but if they don't fix it we'll just have to adapt won't we.

"Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom."
Val'Dore
PlanetCorp InterStellar
#34 - 2012-12-10 18:58:27 UTC
stabmag wrote:
...what about war decs that are flipped between mutual and non mutual or refreshed with dodgy mechanics so that the agressor never pays the bill but the war is never retracted.


Does that actually happen?

Star Jump Drive A new way to traverse the galaxy.

I invented Tiericide
Silk daShocka
Greasy Hair Club
#35 - 2012-12-10 19:10:57 UTC
stabmag wrote:


Thank you for responding. But what about war decs that are flipped between mutual and non mutual or refreshed with dodgy mechanics so that the agressor never pays the bill but the war is never retracted.


Then maybe the defender should stop flipping between mutual and non mutual?

IS there some new way to trap people in mutual war decs now that I'm unaware of?
stabmag
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2012-12-10 19:14:33 UTC
Val'Dore wrote:
stabmag wrote:
...what about war decs that are flipped between mutual and non mutual or refreshed with dodgy mechanics so that the agressor never pays the bill but the war is never retracted.


Does that actually happen?


According to zerg it does. I suppose we wl just have to wait until the 12th to see if todays patch fixed it or not.
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#37 - 2012-12-10 19:23:23 UTC
How did Dec Shield trap an NPC corp?

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
stabmag
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#38 - 2012-12-10 19:40:33 UTC
Since we already have heard from the king of eve are you the prince? Or perhaps the queen maybe. This is a non affilated alt. If you bothered to read the thread youd know why. Otherwise please dont troll my thread.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#39 - 2012-12-10 20:10:28 UTC
CCP Tallest wrote:
stabmag wrote:
CCP do you believe that 1 alliance should be able to permanently trap a corp or alliance in a wardec whether or not they started the dec. Either by exploits or doddgy mechanics. This is a yes or no question. I am not asking if the mechanics are working properly or not. I would just like an official company stance on if wardecs are intended to be permanent.

Yes we all know the wardec system is broken and before i get trolls coming in and saying "htfu" and "learn to pew" my post is neither questioning the valadity of hisec wars or a slight on someones playstyle be it carebear or pvper, anyone who isn't an idiot knows eve needs both to live.

So please CCP, I would like you to answer with either a "yes we support wars being permanent." or "no, it is not our intention that wars started by any means be made to last forever."


* A mutual war should last as long as both parties want to be at war
* A non-mutual war should last as long as the aggressor is willing to pay the recurring war bill



Is that dev legalese for when the current mechanic gets manipulated for 0 isk cost wars? Or is it possible to get clarification of a positive monetary value? (underlined the word for referrence).

I understand that if one side is willfully paying out of their wallet to keep a war alive, but I also understand that the Dec Shield exploit makes the war 0 cost, so if there is no withdrawal out of the wallet, there is no way to pay right? Or should there be a 0 isk withdrawal to justify keeping the war live?

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Caviar Liberta
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2012-12-11 01:14:16 UTC
Patch notes for EVE Online: Retribution 1.0.3

To be released on Monday, December 10, 2012

Wars:

Wars that are now made mutual will always be able to be retracted by the aggressor, even if the war is made non-mutual