These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

War Dodge Clarification Needed

Author
Takseen
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2013-02-24 20:12:02 UTC
If you could bypass CONCORD for a measly wardec fee there'd be precious little point to having them at all.
Pewty McPew
EVE Corporation 2357451
#22 - 2013-02-24 20:24:01 UTC
0Lona 0ltor wrote:
I'm about to submit a petition regarding a corp who's members drop and then rejoin corp during war. Is this an exploit I've read so many posts saying it is and so many saying it's not?

Why does CCP not simply lock corps when they are dec'd to prevent such exploits? or place a 7 day timer on leaving corp so the War Dec'r gets his war dec for the full 7 days.

Another option would be for CCP to charge ISK to move corporations to prevent people war dodging.


Working as intended. Corp dropping/hopping during war is a valid tactic.
Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#23 - 2013-02-24 20:34:18 UTC
EI Digin wrote:
Skeln Thargensen wrote:

The problem is that the 'person' wardeccing the other 'person' has no clue what a war is. If you want consensual highsec PvP then you can invite someone to a duel. if you use the war dec mechanic to do this then you may be disappointed, and that's all there is to it. a corp with no anchored assets has no reason to defend anything.
Wardecs are meant to be non-consensual. When you corrupt wardecs using corp hopping exploits you are fundamentally changing the way they were designed to be. Take away the exploit and they are fine the way they are.

A corp with no anchored assets has no reason to defend anything because the human resources the corp has are immune from the war if they or the corp chooses them to be. Take away the immunity and people suddenly have reasons to defend themselves.


or not bother forming a corp in the first place which also grants players immunity with few drawbacks. that's pretty obvious.

i suppose that's a 'problem' too.

of course you could actually use the war dec mechanic to clear rival corp's assets out of systems you want. call me conventional if you will.

forums.  serious business.

EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#24 - 2013-02-24 20:35:34 UTC
Takseen wrote:
If you could bypass CONCORD for a measly wardec fee there'd be precious little point to having them at all.


CONCORD tries to protect you from everyone else who doesn't pay to wardec you. Sounds like a good reason to still have them to me, because there are a lot of people out there who aren't valid targets to you.

Besides, when you pay for the wardec you don't necessarily know for sure what's going to happen to you when the war starts. They might come out guns blazing and annihilate you, making you look weak to other PVP corps when they look at your war history. They might receive a ton of ally requests from people in their defense pact or people who generally like them and blob you every time you come close to them. They might put a gigantic bounty on your corp, enough that people will want to wardec you to and chase you around for that money. That 50m you spent to wardec someone might cost you dearly.

None of these in-game mechanics brought to us in Retribution will ever be used to their fullest potential unless you make wardecs meaningful.
EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#25 - 2013-02-24 20:43:13 UTC
Skeln Thargensen wrote:
or not bother forming a corp in the first place which also grants players immunity with few drawbacks. that's pretty obvious.

i suppose that's a 'problem' too.
It is. The fees and taxes on NPC corps should increase because you receive a ton of benefit for being in an NPC corp for very little cost. It hurts player corps because they have to compete with the low tax rate and risk-free NPC corp.

Skeln Thargensen wrote:

of course you could actually use the war dec mechanic to clear rival corp's assets out of systems you want. call me conventional if you will.
If by assets you mean POS, then yes, that is one way to use a wardec. It's not the only thing that wardecs were designed for though.

A rival corp with no POS can just re-create their corp and their members (their other corp assets) would still be out in space doing what they please, making your wardec completely worthless.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2013-02-24 20:53:36 UTC
EI Digin wrote:
Skeln Thargensen wrote:

The problem is that the 'person' wardeccing the other 'person' has no clue what a war is. If you want consensual highsec PvP then you can invite someone to a duel. if you use the war dec mechanic to do this then you may be disappointed, and that's all there is to it. a corp with no anchored assets has no reason to defend anything.
Wardecs are meant to be non-consensual. When you corrupt wardecs using corp hopping exploits you are fundamentally changing the way they were designed to be. Take away the exploit and they are fine the way they are.

A corp with no anchored assets has no reason to defend anything because the human resources the corp has are immune from the war if they or the corp chooses them to be. Take away the immunity and people suddenly have reasons to defend themselves.


Part of EVE's stated goal at the beginning of its formation is they don't want life to be unbearable for more peaceful and unexperienced players (notice the word peaceful. Not just unexperienced). A corp war can very much do that for both. I can link you to the quote if you want. Though its an old quote its still something that shows in their design sometimes, such as war decs. They could easily do what you're asking in under an hour. So the question you should be asking yourself is if that's the way they were purely meant to be designed, why don't they. Answer? Because that's not the entire basis of their design despite it being what you want. Now I'm not saying there shouldn't be things to encourage them to stick around, but trying to claim what you believe in is the intended design when there is evidence against that? Not very well educated. You're welcome to your views, but I'd stop with the mind reading.
Joran Dravius
Doomheim
#27 - 2013-02-24 20:54:10 UTC
Skeln Thargensen wrote:
[http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Wars

Quote:
A war declaration (war dec) is a formal state of war between two player corporations or alliances.


it's not there so players can grief other players.

Non-consensual PvP isn't griefing.
Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#28 - 2013-02-24 20:59:58 UTC
EI Digin wrote:
Skeln Thargensen wrote:
or not bother forming a corp in the first place which also grants players immunity with few drawbacks. that's pretty obvious.

i suppose that's a 'problem' too.
It is. The fees and taxes on NPC corps should increase because you receive a ton of benefit for being in an NPC corp for very little cost. It hurts player corps because they have to compete with the low tax rate and risk-free NPC corp.

Skeln Thargensen wrote:

of course you could actually use the war dec mechanic to clear rival corp's assets out of systems you want. call me conventional if you will.
If by assets you mean POS, then yes, that is one way to use a wardec. It's not the only thing that wardecs were designed for though.

A rival corp with no POS can just re-create their corp and their members (their other corp assets) would still be out in space doing what they please, making your wardec completely worthless.


it always was completely worthless and that is the risk you take in targeting groups of players. if they have no skin in the game they can quite legitimately disband. if you wasted 50M on that then you should have done your homework better. perhaps you shouldn't target people because that's not what wardecs specify. maybe you should check their war history, see if they have POS up etc.

I mean if you actually want a fair fight. complain about people running away too much and that might come in to doubt.

forums.  serious business.

Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#29 - 2013-02-24 21:03:45 UTC
Joran Dravius wrote:
Skeln Thargensen wrote:
[http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Wars

Quote:
A war declaration (war dec) is a formal state of war between two player corporations or alliances.


it's not there so players can grief other players.

Non-consensual PvP isn't griefing.


who said it was?

forums.  serious business.

EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#30 - 2013-02-24 21:33:20 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:

Part of EVE's stated goal at the beginning of its formation is they don't want life to be unbearable for more peaceful and unexperienced players (notice the word peaceful. Not just unexperienced). A corp war can very much do that for both. I can link you to the quote if you want. Though its an old quote its still something that shows in their design sometimes, such as war decs. They could easily do what you're asking in under an hour. So the question you should be asking yourself is if that's the way they were purely meant to be designed, why don't they. Answer? Because that's not the entire basis of their design despite it being what you want. Now I'm not saying there shouldn't be things to encourage them to stick around, but trying to claim what you believe in is the intended design when there is evidence against that? Not very well educated. You're welcome to your views, but I'd stop with the mind reading.
Highsec would still be peaceful. Vastly more so than any other section or playstyle in the game. You just won't necessarily receive peace all of the time for free and you actually have to work towards it if you tend to do things that affect other people's gameplay. A lot less work involved compared to anywhere else, mind you.

You ask me why they haven't changed it yet. I say it's because it's coming soon because the Retribution expansion (the one about fixing crimewatch and wardecs) isn't over and done with yet, and it's only a matter of time before CCP listens to their playerbase. Blink

Skeln Thargensen wrote:

it always was completely worthless and that is the risk you take in targeting groups of players. if they have no skin in the game they can quite legitimately disband. if you wasted 50M on that then you should have done your homework better. perhaps you shouldn't target people because that's not what wardecs specify. maybe you should check their war history, see if they have POS up etc.

In most cases they're not legitimately disbanding. They're disbanding to drop the wardec, then have all of their corp assets come back together in a new corp. There's fundamentally no difference between the two corps, they're using an unstoppable loophole (also known as an exploit) to evade the wardec.
Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#31 - 2013-02-24 21:45:06 UTC
EI Digin wrote:
In most cases they're not legitimately disbanding. They're disbanding to drop the wardec, then have all of their corp assets come back together in a new corp. There's fundamentally no difference between the two corps, they're using an unstoppable loophole (also known as an exploit) to evade the wardec.


Not according to CCP. And by 'corp assets' you mean members. corp assets aren't people too, so try and find a corp that owns some and they maybe won't leave you holding the sleeve of an empty coat. just sayin'!

forums.  serious business.

Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2013-02-24 21:48:39 UTC
EI Digin wrote:
You ask me why they haven't changed it yet. I say it's because it's coming soon because the Retribution expansion (the one about fixing crimewatch and wardecs) isn't over and done with yet, and it's only a matter of time before CCP listens to their playerbase. Blink


For something that'd literally be copy, paste, adjust, I really doubt that's something they'd wait on.
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#33 - 2013-02-24 21:51:13 UTC
If you think it is an exploit, then petition it. Once you get the response back from the GMs saying "Working as Intended", then you need to HTFU. Geez, it's only 50mil isk. Roll
EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#34 - 2013-02-24 22:09:11 UTC
Skeln Thargensen wrote:
Not according to CCP. And by 'corp assets' you mean members. corp assets aren't people too, so try and find a corp that owns some and they maybe won't leave you holding the sleeve of an empty coat. just sayin'!


http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Exploit wrote:

"An exploit is when someone bypasses normal game mechanics, such as by utilizing a bug in the game, allowing him to take advantage of other players without them having any means of preventing it whatsoever."
Sounds like an exploit to me, unless you can tell me how I can prevent someone from duplicating their corp to evade a wardec.

And yes, human resources (the players in your corp) are corp assets. If they weren't corp assets, why would they be valid wardec targets?

Aren Madigan wrote:
For something that'd literally be copy, paste, adjust, I really doubt that's something they'd wait on.
All the months spent on balancing could be done in a couple of hours by some guy who can edit the game settings. It's not as easy to make a game or fix issues as you think it is, and usually the devs have other things on their plate to deal with too. It also doesn't help that the playerbase tries to cover this issue up because they think it's beneficial to them.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2013-02-24 22:11:23 UTC
EI Digin wrote:
All the months spent on balancing could be done in a couple of hours by some guy who can edit the game settings. It's not as easy to make a game or fix issues as you think it is, and usually the devs have other things on their plate to deal with too. It also doesn't help that the playerbase tries to cover this issue up because they think it's beneficial to them.

Balance issues also involve QA testing... something like you describe? Effects wouldn't be fully known until its introduced.
Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#36 - 2013-02-24 22:24:13 UTC
EI Digin wrote:
Skeln Thargensen wrote:
Not according to CCP. And by 'corp assets' you mean members. corp assets aren't people too, so try and find a corp that owns some and they maybe won't leave you holding the sleeve of an empty coat. just sayin'!


http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Exploit wrote:

"An exploit is when someone bypasses normal game mechanics, such as by utilizing a bug in the game, allowing him to take advantage of other players without them having any means of preventing it whatsoever."
Sounds like an exploit to me, unless you can tell me how I can prevent someone from duplicating their corp to evade a wardec.

And yes, human resources (the players in your corp) are corp assets. If they weren't corp assets, why would they be valid wardec targets?


it's just a bit odd calling them assets unless you're trying to talk up the significance of their corp. it's just a group full of members with a name. And it's not very helpful insisting something is an exploit (corp hopping) when it clearly isn't considered such as it's hard to get advice on this bar asking on the forums, like the OP did.

my advice would be to stop hassling highsec nubs who don't want to fight you or swap tactics to ganking them which isn't considered an exploit either. clearly wardeccing them is a poor strategy if they don't want to fight you.

forums.  serious business.

EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#37 - 2013-02-24 22:36:50 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:

Balance issues also involve QA testing... something like you describe? Effects wouldn't be fully known until its introduced.


It's kind of clear that they didn't do any sort of QA testing with regards to wardec evasion being a legitimate mechanic because there are plenty of unwanted consequences (like joining a non-NPC corp being a mistake in highsec) that result from this exploit being in the game.

It's something they need to address in the future because CCP is slowly running out of easy things to fix. When they realize that none of the mechanics that they've changed this expansion have done anything to fix highsec's stagnation problem and have been ineffective and worthless in general, they will understand that changes like I have suggested need to be made.

Skeln Thargensen wrote:

And it's not very helpful insisting something is an exploit (corp hopping) when it clearly isn't considered such as it's hard to get advice on this bar asking on the forums, like the OP did.

It's about time we used the proper terminology for major game problems that have been swept under the rug for years. Exploit.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2013-02-24 22:43:04 UTC
EI Digin wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:

Balance issues also involve QA testing... something like you describe? Effects wouldn't be fully known until its introduced.


It's kind of clear that they didn't do any sort of QA testing with regards to wardec evasion being a legitimate mechanic because there are plenty of unwanted consequences (like joining a non-NPC corp being a mistake in highsec) that result from this exploit being in the game.

It's something they need to address in the future because CCP is slowly running out of easy things to fix. When they realize that none of the mechanics that they've changed this expansion have done anything to fix highsec's stagnation problem and have been ineffective and worthless in general, they will understand that changes like I have suggested need to be made.

If it was completely unintended, it'd be considered an exploit by the staff. It isn't. You may not like it, but it wasn't on accident that people could jump ship to avoid wardecs.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#39 - 2013-02-24 23:28:13 UTC
EI Digin wrote:

It's about time we used the proper terminology for major game problems that have been swept under the rug for years. Exploit.


Until you find something to back up your claim, it can't really be labeled as an exploit. One would think that if it was not intended to be possible, they would of prevented any corp member at war from leaving thier corp insetad of groing through the hassle of having a check to see if you are on the wrong side of the wardec to prevent you or not from leaving your corp.

It does not really look like a good feature to me but if you look into it, for now at least, it looks pretty darn intended...
celebro
Ember Inc.
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#40 - 2013-02-24 23:35:07 UTC
Estella Osoka wrote:
If you think it is an exploit, then petition it. Once you get the response back from the GMs saying "Working as Intended", then you need to HTFU. Geez, it's only 50mil isk. Roll



Only 50m isk to force players out of corp, why didn't anyone tell me ?