These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

[Proposal] Fix wardec exploits
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2011-11-17 23:21:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Drake Draconis
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:

You can do that without a wardec, just ask the goonies and all the blue ice miners in empire.
i don't miss the point, i get the point that its currently a way for cowards and greifers to get their rocks off. Whats the matter, don't like the mark fighting back? well tough. Carebears have teeth, and when you figure that out, you run and hide, and we want our chance to bite back, were hungry for your pod too. but concord wont let us crack you out of a station, so, no risk, no reward as you PvP'rs like to say.



Again...you completely missed the point.

1: War Decs are a legitimate means of being allowed to kill and pod repeatedly without CONCORD intervention... its cheap means of getting business done.

2: Goonies are doing what they do because they can and they dont give a crap about cost....they are likely not evenly sweating the cost as it is.

3: This has nothing to do with carebears fighting back or PVP'ers throwing a fit.


The bottom line - This is about war dec mechanics.... your assumption is nothing more than a foolish attempt to troll me.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152
Mara Villoso
Long Jump.
#22 - 2011-11-18 16:51:55 UTC
Mara Villoso wrote:
Have you ever heard the expression, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink”? The fundamental issue here is that some people just don’t want to fight. The devs and GMs and mercenaries may wish otherwise and may seek to find ways to force the issue, but those efforts are doomed to failure.

If a dec mechanic locked a corporation into an alliance (or out of one) and locked every single member into that corporation for the duration of the war, it would only lead to people leaving the game. The only result of a push to force people to PvP is that there will be no PvP from those people. It’s just not going to happen. Just like its not happening now, just like it hasn’t been happening for years. The change to wardec policing changes nothing in practice. Those people were always avoiding the decs. The only people affected by hisec wardecs are those with an attachment to their corp name, those with a POS that can’t be taken down quickly, and those who don’t know better. That’s it.

CCP should spend a little time gathering information from those players about why they don’t want to fight. Or under what conditions they would.

At the end of the day, this is what we’re really talking about when we’re talking about wardec shields and evasion. Like it or not, you can lead a carebear to war, but you can’t make him fight.


Mara Villoso wrote:
Wardecs have always been and will always be pointless. As long as they follow the corp and not the player, they can and will be evaded. In effect, this means wardecs affect only people who care about their corp name, have a POS they can't take down quickly, and the clueless. Any change to wardecs that makes them against individuals will lead to those people leaving the game. They don't want to fight. They aren't going to fight. There is nothing you or CCP can do to make them. Period. The End. There is no fix for wardecs. Just get rid of them.
Ganking is, was, and will always be the only way to get individuals.

The only failing of the change to wardec policing by the GMs is POS destruction. The only solutions that are needed are ones that make POS bashing in hisec possible.

Whenever I hear about extending decs to individual pilots, I just shake my head in amazement. What is it that you think will happen? People avoid decs for a reason. They're not interested in fighting. So what happens when the war gets tagged on to the character? Do these people magically decide to change several year's worth of behavior and playstyle and come out with guns blazing? The potential for never ending griefing that goes with putting decs (or kill rights) on individuals is simply too great and its effect is all too predictable.

If you want to kill something, get your ass to losec/nosec. PvP'ers in hisec are making a paradoxical argument: they want to kill whomever they please, but they don't want non-consensual PvP from anyone else. Choose one or the other; you're either for non-consensual PvP for all or for none.

Quoting myself from similar threads.
Dutarro
Ghezer Aramih
#23 - 2011-11-18 16:58:48 UTC
The original post suggests common sense fixes. Supported.

Quote:
2.) Wardecced corporations may join and leave an alliance to escape any wardec. This is commonly used to save reinforced towers without the attackers having any chance.
Fix - There is much debate how to fix this. Possibilities include corporations do not drop wardecs upon leaving alliance. Corporations with reinforced towers take longer to drop wardecs. An added delay for corporations to leave their alliance if at war, etc.


Here's another possible fix. Every war is assigned an 'original target', which may be an alliance, corporation or even a single character. If the original target is a corp, then it follows that corp as it joins and leaves alliances. If the original target is a character, it follows when that character changes corp. If the character joins an NPC corp, the war is still there, but reverts to a 'cannot fight' status until such time as the character rejoins a player corp.
Mara Villoso
Long Jump.
#24 - 2011-11-18 17:16:16 UTC
Dutarro wrote:
Here's another possible fix. Every war is assigned an 'original target', which may be an alliance, corporation or even a single character. If the original target is a corp, then it follows that corp as it joins and leaves alliances. If the original target is a character, it follows when that character changes corp. If the character joins an NPC corp, the war is still there, but reverts to a 'cannot fight' status until such time as the character rejoins a player corp.

And it will never ever be misused by someone willing to permanently pay the wardec fee. Never. It is simply impossible. Roll
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2011-11-18 17:16:30 UTC
Nicely said Mara V.


People confuse station games with the fact that common sense is simply this -

No One said I had to go out there and risk my equipment on the obvious fact I'd lose it gaurenteed.


War Decs deny the ability to play the game the way you want too at the behest of threat of losing your ship and likely your pod.

Valid mechanic to be sure...works as intended.

But War Dec's do not force you to lose that ship....you CHOOSE to lose that ship by undocking.



War Dec'ing corporations/alliance complain about that particular bit.

Which therein lies the paradox pointed out by Mara V...if not implied.


You force something on a "Carebear"

Yet you scream when said carebear refuses to grant you that pleasure of killing.

Unless they are foolish enough to cross.

And then you have the people who are hyporcritical enough to accuse everyone else of the same games when they commit same act themselves.


I don't care how good you get at proposing.... until THAT paradox is solved....war-decs are likely gonna be as they are...if not worse...for a long tmie to come.


I may hate them...but they are necessary.

And once that carebear knows how to fight....that war dec becomes your worst nightmare.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152
Anshio Tamark
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#26 - 2011-11-20 10:40:24 UTC
The Zerg Overmind wrote:
3.) Dec Shields (a dec shield is when you have many alt corporations wardec your shielded corp such that any future incoming wardec costs against you will be inflated substantially). These are fine if the incoming wardecs are actually being paid (as then it actually costs ISK to maintain, but that's not how they're used. You can toggle a war mutual right before the bill comes and the incoming attacker does not have to pay for that week, and then untoggle mutual to restore the shield. This allows dec shields of infinite size to be maintained for free, while still costing new attacks much money.
Fix - If a war is set to unmutual then the aggressor has to pay the bill within X time or the war is declared invalid.

Or: Have a 24-hour cool-down before wars become "mutual" and another 24-hour cool-down before they become "non-mutual"

Not that I can see any reason anyone would make a war mutual, when they can just let their aggressors waste ISK...
Endovior
PFU Consortium
#27 - 2011-11-20 10:44:47 UTC
Anshio Tamark wrote:
Not that I can see any reason anyone would make a war mutual, when they can just let their aggressors waste ISK...


Refer to Red vs Blue. Some people just like to pew pew, and they should totally be allowed to without charging extra fees or whatnot.
Sadario
Know-Nothings
Negative Feedback
#28 - 2011-11-21 10:32:39 UTC
Signing thread.
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal
#29 - 2011-11-26 04:06:05 UTC
Mutual wardecs have their reasons. I'm glad they fixed it so mutual wardecs no longer contributed to a rise in price of incoming wardec prices. But there's still a lot left to be fixed.

Burn Highsec Griefers
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#30 - 2011-11-26 06:02:49 UTC
Should just make Wardecs a set price irrespective of how many wars either corp/alliance has, removing the limitations on number of active wars. Then it doesn't matter if people jump/switch corps, there's no such thing as a dec-shield, and players still have the option individually of avoiding a war by joining an NPC corp for which they are rightly charged a tax as a consequence.
Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2011-11-26 17:56:07 UTC
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:
An easy solution to war dec greifing.


A corp or alliance has to have an in space destroyable resource to declare war on another corp or alliance. Pos, or TCU. This asset becomes broadcast to the other party involved in a wardec. And the asset can only be used in one wardec at a time. if you wish to wardec more than one organization, additional assets need to be allocated for declaration.

If the said target is destroyed, then the war dec is over at that instant. if in the case of an alliance. If the corp that owns that resource leaves the alliance, the war dec follows the tower or TCU.

This could be expanded further, to high sec and null sec war decs. but null sec would need a lot more "resources" and give and take to make it useful.

This will allow the receiving corp/alliance an opportunity to turn the tables on a corp or alliance that declares war only to turtle up in a station. let the organization declaring war put up something of value as a risk.


I for one really love this idea .... would raise the immersion factor immensely and give the defenders something to fight for rather than just removing all BPO's and supplies from their POS and docking up for the duration of the wardec.
McOboe
Viscosity
#32 - 2012-01-28 03:51:38 UTC  |  Edited by: McOboe
I support this thread. First off, shooting at a POS should be like shooting at a wreck or a can. By shooting at it, you are granting the owners kill rights against you. It would mean that POS owners would need to protect their POSes at all times. It would also mean that a large group of pilots would be required to maintain a POS. This is to greater enable the ability to fight over resources.

Second, "conditional" war-decs. My opinion- war-decs should be about a fight over resources (and sometimes revenge). Basically, when you declare war against a corp/alliance, you pay for a number of "conditions". For instance, if your alliance feels that another alliance is mining "your" ore in a system, you can declare a "conditional" war-dec that grants you priviledges to kill any mining ships from the enemy alliance that are found in the target system. Similarly, if your alliance desires trading rights within a system, you can declare a "conditional" war-dec against an opponent, granting you kill rights against any industrial/freighter ships that are brought into the system. Of course, if those mining ships or industrials are escorted by PvP ships, then you have to weigh your options on whether to shoot at them or not. Note- they would not be able to fire upon you first unless they declare the war "mutual" (which then removes the costs that your corp/alliance would have paid).

The more "conditions" you pay for, the more expensive the war-dec will be. A conditional war-dec that targets multiple systems will cost more than one that targets just one system (perhaps a constellation would be the next step up, followed by a region). Furthermore, conditions not related to "resources", would cost significantly more. For instance, if you want total revenge war, the war-dec will cost an arm and leg (potentially upwards of 100s of millions), but could allow for full-on combat anywhere in space.

Conditions would expire 15 minutes after leaving the target system(s). For instance, a cargo ship is shot at, and successfully runs through a gate. The aggressor can still pursue, and maintain kill rights for 15 minutes after the cargo ship leaves the target system(s). This is similar to the 15 minute kill-rights timer from shooting a can/wreck.

What's the point of all this? 1.) War-decs would still allow all-out war, for a price, 2.) POSes in high-sec would have to be supported by large corps/alliances to fight off both ad-hoc and organized assaults, 3.) corps/alliances that wish to push out the competition from a region can do so, and 4.) suicide ganking is still just fine.

Follow-on thoughts: The ability to "see corp members in space" would be a priviledge granted only by the CEO to trusted players. I would further suggest removing pilots from LOCAL unless they have spoken recently. D-scan and combat probes would rule the day.
Myxx
The Scope
#33 - 2012-01-28 05:42:05 UTC
McOboe wrote:
I support this thread. First off, shooting at a POS should be like shooting at a wreck or a can. By shooting at it, you are granting the owners kill rights against you. It would mean that POS owners would need to protect their POSes at all times. It would also mean that a large group of pilots would be required to maintain a POS. This is to greater enable the ability to fight over resources.

Second, "conditional" war-decs. My opinion- war-decs should be about a fight over resources (and sometimes revenge). Basically, when you declare war against a corp/alliance, you pay for a number of "conditions". For instance, if your alliance feels that another alliance is mining "your" ore in a system, you can declare a "conditional" war-dec that grants you priviledges to kill any mining ships from the enemy alliance that are found in the target system. Similarly, if your alliance desires trading rights within a system, you can declare a "conditional" war-dec against an opponent, granting you kill rights against any industrial/freighter ships that are brought into the system. Of course, if those mining ships or industrials are escorted by PvP ships, then you have to weigh your options on whether to shoot at them or not. Note- they would not be able to fire upon you first unless they declare the war "mutual" (which then removes the costs that your corp/alliance would have paid).

The more "conditions" you pay for, the more expensive the war-dec will be. A conditional war-dec that targets multiple systems will cost more than one that targets just one system (perhaps a constellation would be the next step up, followed by a region). Furthermore, conditions not related to "resources", would cost significantly more. For instance, if you want total revenge war, the war-dec will cost an arm and leg (potentially upwards of 100s of millions), but could allow for full-on combat anywhere in space.

Conditions would expire 15 minutes after leaving the target system(s). For instance, a cargo ship is shot at, and successfully runs through a gate. The aggressor can still pursue, and maintain kill rights for 15 minutes after the cargo ship leaves the target system(s). This is similar to the 15 minute kill-rights timer from shooting a can/wreck.

What's the point of all this? 1.) War-decs would still allow all-out war, for a price, 2.) POSes in high-sec would have to be supported by large corps/alliances to fight off both ad-hoc and organized assaults, 3.) corps/alliances that wish to push out the competition from a region can do so, and 4.) suicide ganking is still just fine.

Follow-on thoughts: The ability to "see corp members in space" would be a priviledge granted only by the CEO to trusted players. I would further suggest removing pilots from LOCAL unless they have spoken recently. D-scan and combat probes would rule the day.

Thats kind of lame, if anything, wardecs should cost less if anything because the more they cost, the more they'll be evaded.
Daniel Dalegor
Federal Freight Service
#34 - 2012-03-06 08:44:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniel Dalegor
In my opinion whole war declaration system should be change, or rather split.
1) If target corporation have HQ, office or POS in low sec. Should be totally free war zone there, its outlands, where law dont exist. Or are just rules of borderlands where you must take care about yourself by self. Where everyone fight for they place, resorces, systems and defend they interest by own without empires above.
2) If target corporation have HQ, POS in high sec. Aggresor should get standing hit to faction under what target have HQ or POS. Also hit into security standing, because you start war in zone where law exist.
3) Casus Belli system, if someone steal something, kamikaze you or do other stupid activity than your corp get casus belli to punish such corporation. Even in high sec without restriction of point 2.

Because if some corporation waste time to upgrade standing to some faction, and start POS "under they wings" so why some bored people can easy declare war to us? For silly small price, let be more war declaration restrictions. If someone want to fight and test his PvP abilities, why he dont search equal fight in low sec? Mainly this high sec wars looks like this, that bunch of old bored EVE veterans killing some random carebear fresh players. Not everyone have hard "lower of backs" or so many isk at start to handle heavy loss.

Sorry for bad english.
Kaylana Kavees
StarFire Industrialist Exchange
#35 - 2012-03-06 13:21:25 UTC
Dutarro wrote:
Be careful what you ask for. If CCP revisits the war-dec system, they may not just close a few loopholes, but overhaul war-dec mechanics entirely. This may or may not be to your advantage, depending on your play style.

Also, you forgot the biggest war dec exploit of all ... hiding your ISK-earning high sec alts in NPC corporations.


I would not really call that an exploit but instead smart thinking and planning. It is always a good idea to keep your isk earning toon in a npc so it can not be wardeced so it can support the toon in the corp being wardeced. That is just smart business management there.

The young never do as they are told, The old never do as they say.
Previous page12