These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dodging Wardecs

First post
Author
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2014-09-09 09:30:50 UTC
Sisohiv wrote:
And I'm sure corporations that make a business of War dec'ing never use NPC corp alts to scout targets or remote rep or run assets to strategic locations during war.

Do as I say, don't do as I do?


You mean, just like a defending corp could do? How about that....

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Kaely Tanniss
Black Lotus Society.
#22 - 2014-09-09 09:31:21 UTC
Sisohiv wrote:
And I'm sure corporations that make a business of War dec'ing never use NPC corp alts to scout targets or remote rep or run assets to strategic locations during war.

Do as I say, don't do as I do?


Of course they do, like anyone can. :)

If I had a nickel for every time someone said women don't play eve, I'd have a bag of nickels to whack the next person who said it..

Reldor Silverheart
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2014-09-09 09:44:20 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
*Snip* Removed off-topic part of the post. ISD Ezwal.

Folding a corp upon getting wardecced and then recreating it is utter BS, there should be a cost or penalty. Or even be blocked from closing it for the duration of the war.
DJentropy Ovaert
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#24 - 2014-09-09 09:51:38 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
*Snip* Removed off-topic part of the post. ISD Ezwal.

As things stand right now - anyone is free to exist in a NPC corp and never even have to get involved in corporate level warfare. They get that advantage by never joining or creating a player corp. Of course, the disadvantage they get is having to lose a chunk of their income into NPC corp taxes, which are ISK that is (as far as I understand) effectively removed from the game. It's money they could have for themselves, or for their friends. Also, things like running a POS, PI, and other options are difficult or not even possible for them (Correct me if I am wrong, never played around with PI and only know the basics of POS operations).

I'm probably missing a few points here, but I am sure other players can help me out!

Now, let's talk player run corps.

As things stand right now - once you create or join a player corp, the CEO of that corp is free to set a tax rate (including 0%!) that applies to all members. Generated money is not lost, but is kept inside the corp to be used for whatever the heck the CEO has decided it should be used for. Options for POS use and PI open up. Working together with friends who are also in the corp gets easier, communication with said friends gets easier.

Another corporation can declare war against you, and smash apart your shiny POS / PI stuff. This is good, after all - this is EVE - anything that creates more conflict is good.

So, assuming I am at least mostly right up to this point we have:

NPC Corp
Advantage: Safe from corporate level warfare
Disadvantage: Tax rate / Use of POS / Use of PI

Player corp
Advantage: Teamwork / Income generation via taxes / POS use / PI money
Disadvantage: None imposed by the system

Which brings me (Finally, sorry to take you on a long journey) to my actual point - something does not seem to quite add up here. Creating or joining a player corp has major advantages over sitting in a newbie corp, and aside from disadvantages that are 100% controlled by players (Letting awoxers into corp, getting decced, etc) - I'm not seeing any actual system based downside of being in a player corp. If someone drops a dec on you, simply have everyone drop roles and leave corp, delete corp, and 120 seconds later create a new corp with the same name, invite everyone back into corp, re-anchor all the stuff hanging in space and boom - it's like it never happened. This is how it is, so I assume CCP intends it to be this way - but I have a hard time grasping the logic behind it.

Proposed solution: Make membership in a player corp something that has very real weight and meaning. Remind players new and old that any corp that does not have the ability to even defend itself or players that understand game mechanics well enough to operate under war-dec conditions is a corp they should probably not join. Upon applying for a corp, warn members that if the corp they joined comes under war - they will be part of that war for the duration (not subject to renewal, of course) and not allowed to join another player corp until the end of whatever week the war in on.

Yeah, it sounds harsh - but just think about it (Just being honest, as this would cut into my income - horriable corps with clueless CEO's pretty much fund 100% of everything I do in eve) - we would suddenly see a huge drop in what I personally feel does more harm to the new player then any other thing in the game - clueless rookie CEO's who know nothing of the game, give their members horrid advice, and set them up for nothing but misery and failure. I've seen this so much it's not even funny (well, actually, sometimes it's quite funny - I'm sure Cannibal Kane has some better stories then I do on this matter) and I really think that if being in a player corp carried more weight it would be a good thing.

Just my long winded ranting, of course. :) Flame on!
DJentropy Ovaert
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#25 - 2014-09-09 09:57:57 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Reldor Silverheart wrote:
*Snip* Removed off-topic part of the post. ISD Ezwal.

Folding a corp upon getting wardecced and then recreating it is utter BS, there should be a cost or penalty. Or even be blocked from closing it for the duration of the war.


Reldor, you miss the point.

Simply using every single mechanic at your disposal does not imply that one thinks that mechanic could not be improved on or changed at all is a logical folly.

Example: I personally think the MWD/Cloak trick should probably be taken a closer look at, it seems a little overpowered and a touch silly to me. Now, when I am warping my HAC through a few low sec jumps to get to the rest of my fleet, do you think I refuse to use this trick out of some sense of e-honor? Hell no, I use every game mechanic I can. *)

Sometimes to call attention to an issue you need to use the heck out of it, and show CCP just how effortless it really is. *)


*) = *Snip* Removed references to an edited out part of the quoted post. ISD Ezwal.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#26 - 2014-09-09 11:00:29 UTC
You may not realize this, but all you're doing is laying out excellent examples of why NPC corps need savagely nerfed.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Dave Stark
#27 - 2014-09-09 11:06:30 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You may not realize this, but all you're doing is laying out excellent examples of why NPC corps need savagely nerfed.


I'd rather like to think I'm pointing out that player corps aren't living up to their potential and could/should be better and actually worth being in - I think that would be better for eve's overall health than savaging NPC corps.
Sharise Dragonstar
Big Strong
Hisec Miners
#28 - 2014-09-09 11:15:05 UTC
Avoiding war Dec's as a 1 man Corp is a little to easy at the moment. I think someone mentioned it earlier to have a minimum number of people to form a Corp which I think is a good idea. However disbanding a Corp should be as easy as it is now. This may cause players who got there Corp disbanded suddenly a bit disgruntled and averse to reforming with same Corp. It will also cause the Corp who is war decking to think whether the outlay is worth the risk of the Corp disbanding and wasting their money. Bigger problem is corps decking a 1 man Corp just to greif or lols. Not against the rules but you can understand why people complain.
Milan Nantucket
Doomheim
#29 - 2014-09-09 11:57:22 UTC
Kaely Tanniss wrote:
I'm not one to call for changes in the war mechanics of Eve as I believe they are fine with the exception of one thing. This has been brought up numerous times in discussions with other players and is an annoying mechanic that many feel is "exploited", so to speak. If this topic has been addressed, I appologize..but I wasn't able to find any thread that specifically deals with this subject. Since none of the people who have voiced their opinions on the matter have opened a thread on it, I figured I'd do it.

Many corps use the current war mechanics to dodge wardecs. I'm sure many of you have experienced this, especially merc corps. The ability for a single man corp to close corp, dodge a war, and immediately reopen the same or a new corp seems a bit odd. When a corp leaves an alliance, it cannot rejoin said alliance for a week or until the war ends, which ever comes first..the same goes for a single member that leaves a corp. Why then can a single member corp be allowed to close corp and recreate it immediately?

Some suggestions that have been thrown out there seem pretty viable as a "remedy" for "exploiting" this mechanic to purposefully dodge wardecs at the cost of another corp. Some of these suggestions are as follows:

When a single member corp is wardeced, the corp should:

1: not be allowed to close the corp for the duration of the war (now this opens up placing an alt to hold the corp, which is annoying, but a far more acceptable alternative than outright dodging)

2: be allowed to close the corp, however, any wardec cost incurred by the agressing corp/alliance to initiate the war should be refunded to said corp, under the conditions there are no kills on the war report (ie. there are kills, you got what you paid for)..ALSO, the member who closed the corp cannot open or join a new corp for 1 week (or the remaining duration of the war, had it continued, if time has already passed when the corp was closed)

There were other suggestions as well for remedies to this but I felt these two option were the most viable. If others want to voice their suggestions or opinions, they may do so themselves and are welcomed, and encouraged to do so.

I'm sure there are many who will not agree with this, as there will be many who do..the point is, there are many mercs and wardec corps who know how annoying this can be..even though 50mil isn't a lot of isk, it's the point. Those who wish to be "immune" from wars should stay in NPC corps and not create corps just to dodge npc taxes and incur costs on a wardeccing corp by closing corp and reforming it seconds later. Eve is a social game intended for interaction, some unwanted and unwelcome...like in real life. This is what makes Eve so great. Giving the ability to purposefully dodge such interaction without some sort of cost or recourse seems a bit strange. I won't use the "unfair" word...life is unfair..it is, however, an issue that, in my opinion and the opinions of others, should be remedied and considered.

Anyways...enough of this...fly dangerously P


The solution is fairly simple. The bears screamed about wardecs so CCP increased the cost of wardecs...

Seems fair they should increase the cost of creating a corp as well... maybe 50 to 100 mil.
Algarion Getz
Aideron Corp
#30 - 2014-09-09 12:58:05 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
you have two scenarios.

Wardecs being trivially dodged.
Wardecs being exploitable to the point of abusive harrassment.

pick one, and only one. It's obvious which one we'll end up with.

Err, we already have scenario 2? Most wardecs are used for griefing and harrassing. The 50m wardec cost is pocket change for veteran players.

Dave Stark
#31 - 2014-09-09 12:59:57 UTC
Algarion Getz wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
you have two scenarios.

Wardecs being trivially dodged.
Wardecs being exploitable to the point of abusive harrassment.

pick one, and only one. It's obvious which one we'll end up with.

Err, we already have scenario 2? Most wardecs are used for griefing and harrassing. The 50m wardec cost is pocket change for veteran players.



except we don't, we have scenario 1. hence this thread.

know what else is pocket change for most players, veteran or not, the less than 50m it costs to reform a corporation.
Charax Bouclier
Silvershield Universal
#32 - 2014-09-09 13:02:26 UTC
Perhaps one idea might be to grant some sort of benefit to players of player corporations that is earned over a period of time that they are in said corporation. If you drop corp, you start from ground zero again. This might encourage players to stick it out through a wardec if they are derivng a decent benefit from doing so.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#33 - 2014-09-09 13:05:44 UTC
There is so much I think that is a personal interpretation here


Now in my opinion only. (Stressed). A Wardec is placed upon the Corp only. You might be WDing a Corp to get at a specific person, But all you are doing is Wd'ing the Corp, NOT the person.

By that definition alone. I see no reason why people cannot leave the Corp during the WD.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2014-09-09 13:10:34 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:
There is so much I think that is a personal interpretation here


Now in my opinion only. (Stressed). A Wardec is placed upon the Corp only. You might be WDing a Corp to get at a specific person, But all you are doing is Wd'ing the Corp, NOT the person.

By that definition alone. I see no reason why people cannot leave the Corp during the WD.


Because when you join one to begin with, you acknowledge the possibility of arbitrary wardecs.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

malcovas Henderson
THoF
#35 - 2014-09-09 13:28:13 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
malcovas Henderson wrote:
There is so much I think that is a personal interpretation here


Now in my opinion only. (Stressed). A Wardec is placed upon the Corp only. You might be WDing a Corp to get at a specific person, But all you are doing is Wd'ing the Corp, NOT the person.

By that definition alone. I see no reason why people cannot leave the Corp during the WD.


Because when you join one to begin with, you acknowledge the possibility of arbitrary wardecs.


Yes I agree with you, but that does not mean I should be restricted to that corp. As I have said, The WD is aimed at the corp. not the Player. The Corp is still WD'd,( if not rolled. ).


The WD is still Valid to that Corp. Just useless Evil but then you could argue that when you go to WD a corp, you acknowledge that as a possible outcome




Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2014-09-09 13:30:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
malcovas Henderson wrote:
There is so much I think that is a personal interpretation here


Now in my opinion only. (Stressed). A Wardec is placed upon the Corp only. You might be WDing a Corp to get at a specific person, But all you are doing is Wd'ing the Corp, NOT the person.

By that definition alone. I see no reason why people cannot leave the Corp during the WD.


Because when you join one to begin with, you acknowledge the possibility of arbitrary wardecs.


Yes I agree with you, but that does not mean I should be restricted to that corp. As I have said, The WD is aimed at the corp. not the Player. The Corp is still WD'd,( if not rolled. ).


The WD is still Valid to that Corp. Just useless Evil but then you could argue that when you go to WD a corp, you acknowledge that as a possible outcome






That's a good point, touche. I will have some stuff to think about on this topic myself when it concludes, I'm sure.

EDIT: I thought some more, and what I think this is about is, why should that be allowed to be a possible outcome?

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

HollyShocker 2inthestink
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#37 - 2014-09-09 13:33:24 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
you have two scenarios.

Wardecs being trivially dodged.
Wardecs being exploitable to the point of abusive harrassment.

pick one, and only one. It's obvious which one we'll end up with.


*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

What actually needs to happen is people who make corps agree to the consequence of making a corp - "you can now be pee-vee-pee'd by anyone, anywhere, anytime, and this is how it works...". You tick a little box saying "I accept" and it lets you make a corp. I know on the surface this looks like a "but then everyone will just stay on NPC corps." I agree that's a possibility, but I also disagree that there's no alternative outcome. What if, by virtue of that checkbox, people aspire more to PVP?

Not to mention how many newbs it could stop from creating arbitrary corps as if they're WOW guilds and then recruiting other newbs with no ability to lead at all. And then, I still think it should cost isk to fold a corp.

Just like the consequence of wardecing a corp and they close shop. You picked a small corp you felt you could bully yet they were small enuff to disband and use available game mechanics to make you waste isk.

Those are your consequences.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#38 - 2014-09-09 14:03:42 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
malcovas Henderson wrote:
There is so much I think that is a personal interpretation here


Now in my opinion only. (Stressed). A Wardec is placed upon the Corp only. You might be WDing a Corp to get at a specific person, But all you are doing is Wd'ing the Corp, NOT the person.

By that definition alone. I see no reason why people cannot leave the Corp during the WD.


Because when you join one to begin with, you acknowledge the possibility of arbitrary wardecs.


Yes I agree with you, but that does not mean I should be restricted to that corp. As I have said, The WD is aimed at the corp. not the Player. The Corp is still WD'd,( if not rolled. ).


The WD is still Valid to that Corp. Just useless Evil but then you could argue that when you go to WD a corp, you acknowledge that as a possible outcome






That's a good point, touche. I will have some stuff to think about on this topic myself when it concludes, I'm sure.

EDIT: I thought some more, and what I think this is about is, why should that be allowed to be a possible outcome?


I am tempted to say "risk Vs reward" but that achieves nothing Twisted.

I am not sure if it should be "allowed" TBH. But until such a time as WD's are directed at Players and not Corps, player movement within these WD'd corps should not be restricted (please read "my opinion"). Remember if a player, or Alliance is stupid enough to join the WD'd Corp, they become WT's too. Although this is very unlikely to happen, and is a poor argument, having WD'd Corp movement two way, validates being able to leave, and as such, becomes a "possible outcome"

Dave Kitaro
Doomheim
#39 - 2014-09-09 14:03:43 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Drago Shouna wrote:


A massive amount of players have no interest in pvp, get over it.


Then they're playing the wrong game.


I disagree. People who enjoy PvE activities such as mining and missioning, and who have no interest in looking for fights with other players, are not playing the wrong game. They are enjoying their preferred activity in the sandbox environment. That they might not like the fact that PvP can be forced onto them also does not mean they are playing the wrong game.

My 2 ISK worth on the subject of wardec avoidance: incorporate the wardec system into a new tiered dispute resolution system, a system whereby you can inform CONCORD of a dispute between yourself and one other capsuleer - whether or not they are in an NPC corp - or if you are a CEO, between your corp and another. It could work as follows:

1) You apply for a dispute resolution permit which, when granted, is valid for x amount of hours/days.

2) If the permit is granted against a single capsuleer (a Tier 1 permit) the permit's validity period applies to the amount of time the target is undocked. Present rules apply to permits granted against a corp (a Tier 2 permit).

3) If the permit is granted against a single capsuleer the applicant doesn't receive immunity from CONCORD. CONCORD merely looks the other way for a set amount of time after you initiate combat. If the target's ship is destroyed before the timer ends, CONCORD will consider the dispute resolved and will not intervene. If you take too long, CONCORD will step in. If the target docks or leaves the system the combat timer is reset. If the permit is granted against a corp, present rules apply.

4) Only the capsuleer who receives a Tier 1 permit has the associated kill rights, except:

5) If any capsuleer in a disputed corp quits, all members of the enemy corp will automatically gain a Tier 1 permit against them. If a target is engaged by multiple permit holders, the combat timer will begin from the moment the target is engaged and will apply to all related permit holders in the system.

6) A capsuleer can only be subject to a dispute every x amount of days, with a similar restriction imposed on permit applications.

There are probably all sorts of things wrong with this, but whatever.
Dave Stark
#40 - 2014-09-09 14:31:33 UTC
I can appreciate wanting to lower the start time on wars, but 6 hours certainly isn't long enough. most people are asleep for longer than that every day.

drop a wardec at 2am, by 8am it's live and most people would log in to a live war and would have had 0 warning/chance to prepare. at that point, they may as well be instant and that's a bad idea and the reasons for that have been done to death.