These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#721 - 2014-09-15 03:14:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Veers Belvar wrote:


Lolz...next time I'll be happy to give you the name for 25 mil....give me a ring and we can do business.


It was more fun making you think I was doing one thing, but actually doing something else. I only wish I could have seen the look on your face when you got the "This corporation name is already taken" message. Isk literally means nothing to me. Lrn2meta

“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
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#722 - 2014-09-15 03:15:54 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
From the fact that CCP explicitly allowed dropping to NPC corp, its obvious that the purpose of wardeccs was never to allow you to engage in unrestricted pvp against an individual pilot without any way for them to avoid it.


OK, so by the same logic, the cloak/mwd "trick" hasn't been taken out of the game, therefore if is obvious that it is working as intended, right? The purpose of the cloak/mwd "trick" is to allow a ship without a covert ops cloak the ability to get to warp speed CLOAKED and warp away. This is because of the "server tick" that gives you a second or so to click a second module after clicking your MWD. Since CCP hasn't found a way to offset the server tick function, well what the hell, lets all say it's OBVIOUS that it's working as intended.

Man, your circular logic makes me want to strangle a puppy. Evil







\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#723 - 2014-09-15 03:19:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Veers Belvar
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
From the fact that CCP explicitly allowed dropping to NPC corp, its obvious that the purpose of wardeccs was never to allow you to engage in unrestricted pvp against an individual pilot without any way for them to avoid it.


OK, so by the same logic, the cloak/mwd "trick" hasn't been taken out of the game, therefore if is obvious that it is working as intended, right? The purpose of the cloak/mwd "trick" is to allow a ship without a covert ops cloak the ability to get to warp speed CLOAKED and warp away. This is because of the "server tick" that gives you a second or so to click a second module after clicking your MWD. Since CCP hasn't found a way to offset the server tick function, well what the hell, lets all say it's OBVIOUS that it's working as intended.

Man, your circular logic makes me want to strangle a puppy. Evil




Uhhh....no....the cloak/mwd trick is just a mechanical result of the coding. Specifically not allowing you to wardecc individual pilots, and always allowing them the option of dropping corp is not some accidental mechanical result of wardeccing. It's obviously a key design feature. It's possible that CCP was at one point unhappy with rolling corps to avoid wardeccs. There is no indication that they were unhappy with dropping and staying in an NPC corp to avoid wardeccs. That was always considered a completely viable and healthy option.

Edit - the best evidence of this is that CCP never let you dec an individual player. Why? Obviously because they wanted players to be able to choose to be in NPC corps to avoid wardeccs.
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#724 - 2014-09-15 03:26:32 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
From the fact that CCP explicitly allowed dropping to NPC corp, its obvious that the purpose of wardeccs was never to allow you to engage in unrestricted pvp against an individual pilot without any way for them to avoid it.


OK, so by the same logic, the cloak/mwd "trick" hasn't been taken out of the game, therefore if is obvious that it is working as intended, right? The purpose of the cloak/mwd "trick" is to allow a ship without a covert ops cloak the ability to get to warp speed CLOAKED and warp away. This is because of the "server tick" that gives you a second or so to click a second module after clicking your MWD. Since CCP hasn't found a way to offset the server tick function, well what the hell, lets all say it's OBVIOUS that it's working as intended.

Man, your circular logic makes me want to strangle a puppy. Evil




Uhhh....no....the cloak/mwd trick is just a mechanical result of the coding. Specifically not allowing you to wardecc individual pilots, and always allowing them the option of dropping corp is not some accidental mechanical result of wardeccing. It's obviously a key design feature. It's possible that CCP was at one point unhappy with rolling corps to avoid wardeccs. There is no indication that they were unhappy with dropping and staying in an NPC corp to avoid wardeccs. That was always considered a completely viable and healthy option.

Edit - the best evidence of this is that CCP never let you dec an individual player. Why? Obviously because they wanted players to be able to choose to be in NPC corps to avoid wardeccs.


OK, first of all, I dont know how we got the focus here changed to deccing individual players. That said, I would like you to explain why there is a surrender mechanic if it is intended for people just to drop corp. What's the point of the surrender mechanic and what does it say about CCP's stance on how wardecs should be handled?


\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#725 - 2014-09-15 03:31:30 UTC
Surrender mechanic is intended for large corps where dropping is not practical/desired. The stupid people who decc 1 man corps deserve their 30-1 loss - surrender mechanic is not intended for that scenario, unless for some reason the 1 man corp doesn't want to disband.
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#726 - 2014-09-15 03:33:20 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Surrender mechanic is intended for large corps where dropping is not practical/desired. The stupid people who decc 1 man corps deserve their 30-1 loss - surrender mechanic is not intended for that scenario, unless for some reason the 1 man corp doesn't want to disband.


Citation needed.

\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#727 - 2014-09-15 03:33:24 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Weird logic


If it's so 'obvious' there would be no arguments against that. This is simply not the case. Things that are actually obvious can be very easily proven. For example, it's obvious that 100% of all murderers drink water. It's obvious that a car has four wheels.

What's not obvious is CCP's intent, not until they expressly state that is there intent. This same logic could have been, and was, used many times in the past about exploits in the game by players using them, right up until the point CCP said, "this was not our intent, here's a ban".

“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
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#728 - 2014-09-15 03:40:21 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Weird logic


If it's so 'obvious' there would be no arguments against that. This is simply not the case. Things that are actually obvious can be very easily proven. For example, it's obvious that 100% of all murderers drink water. It's obvious that a car has four wheels.

What's not obvious is CCP's intent, not until they expressly state that is there intent. This same logic could have been, and was, used many times in the past about exploits in the game by players using them, right up until the point CCP said, "this was not our intent, here's a ban".


CCP has already explicitly stated that rolling corps to avoid wardeccs is not an exploit and won't lead to a ban - seems they already have spoken. Now you guys want them to change their minds - fine, but you really need a compelling reason.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#729 - 2014-09-15 03:40:58 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Weird logic


If it's so 'obvious' there would be no arguments against that. This is simply not the case. Things that are actually obvious can be very easily proven. For example, it's obvious that 100% of all murderers drink water. It's obvious that a car has four wheels.

What's not obvious is CCP's intent, not until they expressly state that is there intent. This same logic could have been, and was, used many times in the past about exploits in the game by players using them, right up until the point CCP said, "this was not our intent, here's a ban".

iirc the talk from ccp around the time of inferno was 'wardecs allow you to pay for targets', so there's your intent

makes you wonder why you don't get a refund for having no targets
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#730 - 2014-09-15 03:42:50 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
- fine, but you really need a compelling reason.

oh ho ho ho ho ho did you just say that did you really
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#731 - 2014-09-15 03:46:35 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Weird logic


If it's so 'obvious' there would be no arguments against that. This is simply not the case. Things that are actually obvious can be very easily proven. For example, it's obvious that 100% of all murderers drink water. It's obvious that a car has four wheels.

What's not obvious is CCP's intent, not until they expressly state that is there intent. This same logic could have been, and was, used many times in the past about exploits in the game by players using them, right up until the point CCP said, "this was not our intent, here's a ban".


CCP has already explicitly stated that rolling corps to avoid wardeccs is not an exploit and won't lead to a ban - seems they already have spoken. Now you guys want them to change their minds - fine, but you really need a compelling reason.


First of all, I know it won't lead to a ban. Don't need CCP to explicitly state that. You'll still have to show me WHERE they explicitly stated that, of course.

Secondly, once again, y u no listen? That wasn't even my ******* point. Let me break it down for you:

There's no such thing as obvious until it's obvious to everyone. Any disagreement, any at all, even if it's wrong, means it's not obvious.

“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
Dalto Bane
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#732 - 2014-09-15 04:04:16 UTC
Ah, OP.. hashing out a topic as old as time and as controversial as politics. I have been booed from my soapbox many times in my views of dec dodges and NPC Corps. Much like Sov Mechanics, there is no easy fix for the War Dec system. Well, there is an easy fix, but HS Dwellers, both Carebears and War Mongers alike would scream to high heaven and would most certainly cause a drop in subscriptions. Kill Rights should be granted for the duration of the current dec to the opposing side to anyone who drops corp. Raise the Tax Rate to 30% in NPC Corps. Give a stat and/or Skill Point debuff to anyone dropping corp during a dec for the duration. All of these or even one of these would curve the amount of dec dodgers in game. I have seen many great ideas for a solution to this problem, and I have seen each and every one of the flamed to hell because they don't make every player happy, or someone takes it as being "forced to play the game a certain way". This isn't bittervet sydrome... this is someone who has played the role of Indy Pilot, Pvp duder, victim, and aggressor, and spent less than a week in a NPC Corporation in 4 years of subbing... that isn't to pat myself on the back, but to slap the face of any cowards that use the broken mechanic as a way to circumvent righteous pewpew'ing.

Drops Mic
Cutter John
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#733 - 2014-09-15 04:09:07 UTC
Charax Bouclier wrote:
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.



Like a sort of Corporation Unity Buff, Say boosts to Bounty payout on players and NPC's, Mining Yield, Research times, PI yield, reduced broker's fees, you name it, so long as the buff increases general profit. Make the first upgrade 50M and double it each time for another.

This would make it much more to the player's benefit to stick out the war and will reduce the overall number of closed corps in general. It would also make player corps much more important overall.
Seneca Auran
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#734 - 2014-09-15 04:59:05 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:

I'm not going to ask you for a citation on this because I know there isn't one. The surrender mechanic says, to me, that they could be taking them in a certain direction, much like tiericide and other gradual developments in EVE. Who knows, maybe it's on their list of things to do already.


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=117249#post117249

GM Karidor wrote:
4) Corp recycling to evade war decs
Not an exploit. Players are free to close and recreate corporations as they see fit due to the inconveniences usually involved in closing down a corp and the (miniscule) costs of founding a new one.



Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

The existence of the surrender mechanic displays otherwise.


The existence of the surrender mechanic displays the intent for corporations who actually have something to lose by disbanding to have a means of seeking an end to a war dec.

It does not display an intent to force everyone, regardless of whether or not they have anything to lose, to indulge a war dec because EVE is all about integrity and nobility and rules of genteel honor.
Josef Djugashvilis
#735 - 2014-09-15 06:31:59 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Weird logic


If it's so 'obvious' there would be no arguments against that. This is simply not the case. Things that are actually obvious can be very easily proven. For example, it's obvious that 100% of all murderers drink water. It's obvious that a car has four wheels.

What's not obvious is CCP's intent, not until they expressly state that is there intent. This same logic could have been, and was, used many times in the past about exploits in the game by players using them, right up until the point CCP said, "this was not our intent, here's a ban".


The Reliant Robin, for example, would like a word with you...

Del Boy ran his business empire from one.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=reliant+robin&num=30&es_sm=122&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=h4cWVObkL8fLaIrNgZAD&ved=0CDAQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=955 Smile

This is not a signature.
Trixie Lawless
State War Academy
Caldari State
#736 - 2014-09-15 08:02:18 UTC
Seneca Auran wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:

I'm not going to ask you for a citation on this because I know there isn't one. The surrender mechanic says, to me, that they could be taking them in a certain direction, much like tiericide and other gradual developments in EVE. Who knows, maybe it's on their list of things to do already.


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=117249#post117249

GM Karidor wrote:
4) Corp recycling to evade war decs
Not an exploit. Players are free to close and recreate corporations as they see fit due to the inconveniences usually involved in closing down a corp and the (miniscule) costs of founding a new one.



Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

The existence of the surrender mechanic displays otherwise.


The existence of the surrender mechanic displays the intent for corporations who actually have something to lose by disbanding to have a means of seeking an end to a war dec.

It does not display an intent to force everyone, regardless of whether or not they have anything to lose, to indulge a war dec because EVE is all about integrity and nobility and rules of genteel honor.


Oh look... Not an exploit. Guess the burden falls to wardeccers to pick better targets and put a few minutes research into it instead of just lol'ing and clicking a button. Whodathunkit?!
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#737 - 2014-09-15 08:34:28 UTC
Seneca Auran wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:

I'm not going to ask you for a citation on this because I know there isn't one. The surrender mechanic says, to me, that they could be taking them in a certain direction, much like tiericide and other gradual developments in EVE. Who knows, maybe it's on their list of things to do already.


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=117249#post117249

GM Karidor wrote:
4) Corp recycling to evade war decs
Not an exploit. Players are free to close and recreate corporations as they see fit due to the inconveniences usually involved in closing down a corp and the (miniscule) costs of founding a new one.



Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

The existence of the surrender mechanic displays otherwise.


The existence of the surrender mechanic displays the intent for corporations who actually have something to lose by disbanding to have a means of seeking an end to a war dec.

It does not display an intent to force everyone, regardless of whether or not they have anything to lose, to indulge a war dec because EVE is all about integrity and nobility and rules of genteel honor.


FYI, also from the same post, a few lines down:

(Edited from: Not an exploit per se, but excessively doing so will result in a warning. Don’t want the risk of wars being declared on you? Stay in NPC corps...)

In other words, their intent is ambiguous. Veer's claim was that this was the express purpose of being allowed to do it, that CCP INTENDED there to be an easy way out. What he's actually saying is, you're allowed to do it because it's irritating, but if you keep doing it over and over and over, CCP might have a few words with you about what corp you actually belong in.

I've already said I disagree with Kaarous that it's an exploit, and I already knew what the GM's had to say on the topic back in 2011. I've been around a while longer than you. What's being alluded to is CCP's intent, but none of you can say with certainty what that is. And that was not a citation for the claim Veers made by the way, that was a citation for it not being an exploit.

I never claimed it was one, I just addressed Veer's claims that it 'obviously' was something that it isn't. Let's try to keep up, shall we? I'm going to repost a question below which I asked earlier that only one person has answered so far, but none of you carebears have touched, so, stand by.

“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
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#738 - 2014-09-15 08:35:44 UTC
Posted earlier, and mostly ignored.

Remiel Pollard wrote:
I have thought of a different problem with the ease of which players can drop and roll corps.

Suppose you wardec someone. Doesn't matter who, or why, pretend they're perfectly matched to your ability. A 'fair fight', one might say.

Then, someone assists them. In response, you hire mercs to interrupt the assistance.

And the players all drop the assisting corp, create a new one, and throw up a new assist, undeterred.

If you can't see what's wrong with this, I am at a loss.

And no, I'm not crying about this actually happening, this is an entirely possible hypothetical situation, one I thought of just now as I was preparing an assistance of my own and thinking of redundancy plans if mercs interfere. This is, indeed, an option entirely open to me, as a one man corporation that would cost those mercs 50-mil to dec each time. All I have to do is roll a new corp and throw in a new assist.



“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
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#739 - 2014-09-15 08:38:06 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Weird logic


If it's so 'obvious' there would be no arguments against that. This is simply not the case. Things that are actually obvious can be very easily proven. For example, it's obvious that 100% of all murderers drink water. It's obvious that a car has four wheels.

What's not obvious is CCP's intent, not until they expressly state that is there intent. This same logic could have been, and was, used many times in the past about exploits in the game by players using them, right up until the point CCP said, "this was not our intent, here's a ban".


The Reliant Robin, for example, would like a word with you...

Del Boy ran his business empire from one.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=reliant+robin&num=30&es_sm=122&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=h4cWVObkL8fLaIrNgZAD&ved=0CDAQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=955 Smile


Though not technically a car, I stand corrected. Let me rephrase: it's obvious that cars have wheels.

“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
Solecist Project
#740 - 2014-09-15 08:46:44 UTC
In the context of the above posts I wonder if it's obvious ...
... that I'm not wearing anything.

Didn't believe this thread was serious ... I stand corrected!
As soon as I leave my warm, cozy bed .........

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia