These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dec Shield
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
GEEE Man
Doomheim
#1 - 2011-12-16 21:18:28 UTC
Disapointed that this was made to be a non exploit in the recent patch, let me explain the problem.

  • You wait 24hours to be able to begin a war with a corporation.

  • You being the war and have to wait 24hours for the war to go fully active.

  • Your war decced corp then join Dec Shield and then leave, making your war useless in a few hours to come.

  • You are then bombared with surrendering corps, which fill up your slots, and cause you to have to wait 24hours OR even more in some cases.






WHY ccp have you made this possible after being an exploit (iirc) before? Very one sided. no?

I pay for my subscription as much as the surrendering corp monkeys. So could you pretty please change it back, G MAN prefered it the other way!



Thanks
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2011-12-16 22:06:33 UTC
GEEE Man wrote:
Disapointed that this was made to be a non exploit in the recent patch, let me explain the problem.

For the lack of intelligence in the OP, here is reference material

That was 2 months ago. Announced by a GM. No, it wasn't recent and its beyond old news. Keeping up with me or will it take 2 more months to sink in ?

Quote:
WHY ccp have you made this possible after being an exploit (iirc) before? Very one sided. no?

I pay for my subscription as much as the surrendering corp monkeys. So could you pretty please change it back, G MAN prefered it the other way!

1. Its meta gaming. Players have the right to Fck over everyone they want be it you vs them or them avoiding you. Its also an isk sink, you by blowing your 2 mill and they avoid it OR running an internal dec shield that raises the cost using an alliance of their own when you try to dec someone.
2. Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle. You pay a subscription and amazingly the other players pay a subscription. Who has the right of way? The **** throwing out wardecs left and right or the players not interested in it? BTW, wardecs are only needed for highsec so GTFO and go to null/low where a wardec isn't need. Problem with EVE, its a grey area of who has the sandbox and gets to dictate who does what.
GEEE Man
Doomheim
#3 - 2011-12-16 22:44:31 UTC
Aqriue wrote:
GEEE Man wrote:
Disapointed that this was made to be a non exploit in the recent patch, let me explain the problem.

For the lack of intelligence in the OP, here is reference material

That was 2 months ago. Announced by a GM. No, it wasn't recent and its beyond old news. Keeping up with me or will it take 2 more months to sink in ?

Quote:
WHY ccp have you made this possible after being an exploit (iirc) before? Very one sided. no?

I pay for my subscription as much as the surrendering corp monkeys. So could you pretty please change it back, G MAN prefered it the other way!

1. Its meta gaming. Players have the right to Fck over everyone they want be it you vs them or them avoiding you. Its also an isk sink, you by blowing your 2 mill and they avoid it OR running an internal dec shield that raises the cost using an alliance of their own when you try to dec someone.
2. Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle. You pay a subscription and amazingly the other players pay a subscription. Who has the right of way? The **** throwing out wardecs left and right or the players not interested in it? BTW, wardecs are only needed for highsec so GTFO and go to null/low where a wardec isn't need. Problem with EVE, its a grey area of who has the sandbox and gets to dictate who does what.


Thanks for your opinionated post, you sound mad, there's no need to be mad Attention


Was an exploit and now isn't, Why?
Spork Witch
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2011-12-16 22:47:44 UTC
GEEE Man wrote:
Aqriue wrote:
GEEE Man wrote:
Disapointed that this was made to be a non exploit in the recent patch, let me explain the problem.

For the lack of intelligence in the OP, here is reference material

That was 2 months ago. Announced by a GM. No, it wasn't recent and its beyond old news. Keeping up with me or will it take 2 more months to sink in ?

Quote:
WHY ccp have you made this possible after being an exploit (iirc) before? Very one sided. no?

I pay for my subscription as much as the surrendering corp monkeys. So could you pretty please change it back, G MAN prefered it the other way!

1. Its meta gaming. Players have the right to Fck over everyone they want be it you vs them or them avoiding you. Its also an isk sink, you by blowing your 2 mill and they avoid it OR running an internal dec shield that raises the cost using an alliance of their own when you try to dec someone.
2. Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle. You pay a subscription and amazingly the other players pay a subscription. Who has the right of way? The **** throwing out wardecs left and right or the players not interested in it? BTW, wardecs are only needed for highsec so GTFO and go to null/low where a wardec isn't need. Problem with EVE, its a grey area of who has the sandbox and gets to dictate who does what.


Thanks for your opinionated post, you sound mad, there's no need to be mad Attention


Was an exploit and now isn't, Why?


Because no bugs are being exploited, and you can still shoot them. They make these changes, you cry; the change it back, the carebears cry. HTFU and gank them, or move to low/null.
GEEE Man
Doomheim
#5 - 2011-12-16 22:50:27 UTC
Quote:
This is an unintended game mechanic and it will be fixed as soon as possible.
Opertone
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6 - 2011-12-16 23:00:54 UTC
i find it stupid... declare war... so what? you become vulnerable just because someone wants to shoot you? No, you need to accept war for it to go active.

It is like one sided marriage. I will marry you, you just give.

One sided interaction will never go well, people will find ways to avoid it and escape from unwanted stuff.

This post sums up why the 'best' work with DCM inc.

WARP DRIVE makes eve boring

really - add warping align time 300% on gun aggression and eve becomes great again
Spork Witch
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2011-12-16 23:23:19 UTC
Opertone wrote:
i find it stupid... declare war... so what? you become vulnerable just because someone wants to shoot you? No, you need to accept war for it to go active.

It is like one sided marriage. I will marry you, you just give.

One sided interaction will never go well, people will find ways to avoid it and escape from unwanted stuff.

http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/nonconsensualpvp.jpg

'Nuff said.

Geee Man:
They changed the ruling on this particular thing (and even in your -- unsourced -- quote, don't declare it an exploit) so that it is in keeping with standard CCP policy: non-interference unless a bug exploit or crime is involved. One of the only exceptions to saying "don't do this" as opposed to simply changing the game to prevent it / counter it, that I can think of is log-on traps, since there's really no way to code them out. They just fixed logging off to save your ship in the last patch, rather than simply say you can't do it.
Goose99
#8 - 2011-12-16 23:53:12 UTC
GEEE Man wrote:
butthurtOops


U MAD BRO?

and

CAN I HAZ UR STUFFZ?
GEEE Man
Doomheim
#9 - 2011-12-16 23:55:06 UTC
Goose99 wrote:
GEEE Man wrote:
butthurtOops


U MAD BRO?

and

CAN I HAZ UR STUFFZ?



NO

and

NO
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#10 - 2011-12-17 00:09:41 UTC
Spork Witch wrote:
Because no bugs are being exploited, and you can still shoot them.
And yet it was an exploit because it made use of game mechanics to cause unwanted effects — most notably complete safety for corp assets. It doesn't have to be a bug to be an exploit, you know…

…and it is indeed a problem because no, you can't shoot them. This policy change renders game mechanics obsolete, and that is very bad in and of itself — it means they're contradicting their own game play. The fact that it also renders highsec POSes impossible to destroy is even worse because it breaks the economy and industry part of the game.
GEEE Man
Doomheim
#11 - 2011-12-17 00:17:11 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Spork Witch wrote:
Because no bugs are being exploited, and you can still shoot them.
And yet it was an exploit because it made use of game mechanics to cause unwanted effects — most notably complete safety for corp assets. It doesn't have to be a bug to be an exploit, you know…

…and it is indeed a problem because no, you can't shoot them. This policy change renders game mechanics obsolete, and that is very bad in and of itself — it means they're contradicting their own game play. The fact that it also renders highsec POSes impossible to destroy is even worse because it breaks the economy and industry part of the game.


At last!


♥
Goose99
#12 - 2011-12-17 00:22:12 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Spork Witch wrote:
Because no bugs are being exploited, and you can still shoot them.
And yet it was an exploit because it made use of game mechanics to cause unwanted effects — most notably complete safety for corp assets. It doesn't have to be a bug to be an exploit, you know…

…and it is indeed a problem because no, you can't shoot them. This policy change renders game mechanics obsolete, and that is very bad in and of itself — it means they're contradicting their own game play. The fact that it also renders highsec POSes impossible to destroy is even worse because it breaks the economy and industry part of the game.


Go to low & null, problem solved.Cool
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#13 - 2011-12-17 00:27:43 UTC
Goose99 wrote:
Go to low & null, problem solved.Cool
No, that doesn't solve the problem (unless you're suggesting that they should completely disallow all anchoring of… well everything… in highsec).
Spork Witch
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2011-12-17 00:30:40 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Spork Witch wrote:
Because no bugs are being exploited, and you can still shoot them.
And yet it was an exploit because it made use of game mechanics to cause unwanted effects — most notably complete safety for corp assets. It doesn't have to be a bug to be an exploit, you know…

…and it is indeed a problem because no, you can't shoot them. This policy change renders game mechanics obsolete, and that is very bad in and of itself — it means they're contradicting their own game play. The fact that it also renders highsec POSes impossible to destroy is even worse because it breaks the economy and industry part of the game.

Really? Since when am I unable to open fire on whoever and whatever I want in high-sec? Only a matter of time until it runs out of fuel if they can't refill the thing. And a fat lot of good that POS does them if they can't undock without being ganked.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#15 - 2011-12-17 00:35:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Spork Witch wrote:
Really? Since when am I unable to open fire on whoever and whatever I want in high-sec?
You can open fire. It won't have any effect.
Quote:
Only a matter of time until it runs out of fuel if they can't refill the thing. And a fat lot of good that POS does them if they can't undock without being ganked.
Refilling it (and undocking) without being ganked is trivial.

The fact remains: this policy change has made highsec POSes invulnerable. It is therefore inherently a bad change and needs to be reverted and/or requires a drastic change of the mechanics to allow for their destruction again.
GEEE Man
Doomheim
#16 - 2011-12-17 00:36:02 UTC
Goose99 wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Spork Witch wrote:
Because no bugs are being exploited, and you can still shoot them.
And yet it was an exploit because it made use of game mechanics to cause unwanted effects — most notably complete safety for corp assets. It doesn't have to be a bug to be an exploit, you know…

…and it is indeed a problem because no, you can't shoot them. This policy change renders game mechanics obsolete, and that is very bad in and of itself — it means they're contradicting their own game play. The fact that it also renders highsec POSes impossible to destroy is even worse because it breaks the economy and industry part of the game.


Go to low & null, problem solved.Cool



Ruins the whole Empire side of things, the galaxy that is supposed to be cold and unforgiving


No where's safe? It's certainly getting there.
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2011-12-17 15:48:19 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Spork Witch wrote:
Really? Since when am I unable to open fire on whoever and whatever I want in high-sec?
You can open fire. It won't have any effect.
Quote:
Only a matter of time until it runs out of fuel if they can't refill the thing. And a fat lot of good that POS does them if they can't undock without being ganked.
Refilling it (and undocking) without being ganked is trivial.

The fact remains: this policy change has made highsec POSes invulnerable. It is therefore inherently a bad change and needs to be reverted and/or requires a drastic change of the mechanics to allow for their destruction again.

Its a Tippia post, but to prevent her from making alot of one question posts here is one option.

Mother F*cking Ice Belts.

BANG! Problem solved. It worked for Goons and 1/4th of the empire type, get the other 3 involved and shake EVE to the core. Hulkaggeddon comming up....why not buy up alot of isotopes (involves a lot of people working together BTW), get hulkaggeddon pilots to focus on ice belts (don't need a reason to rub one out Rollover barges/exhumers as they die so easy and hey, might as well blow 2 birds with one stone Blink), and extend that for a greater duration. POS are not invulnerable, you just need to stop thinking of AFK shooting one down and hit it below the belt and guess what...it won't be profitable for long to keep running a POS if your fuel costs go up outstripping the income it generates.
Goose99
#18 - 2011-12-17 16:35:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Goose99
Aqriue wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Spork Witch wrote:
Really? Since when am I unable to open fire on whoever and whatever I want in high-sec?
You can open fire. It won't have any effect.
Quote:
Only a matter of time until it runs out of fuel if they can't refill the thing. And a fat lot of good that POS does them if they can't undock without being ganked.
Refilling it (and undocking) without being ganked is trivial.

The fact remains: this policy change has made highsec POSes invulnerable. It is therefore inherently a bad change and needs to be reverted and/or requires a drastic change of the mechanics to allow for their destruction again.

Its a Tippia post, but to prevent her from making alot of one question posts here is one option.

Mother F*cking Ice Belts.

BANG! Problem solved. It worked for Goons and 1/4th of the empire type, get the other 3 involved and shake EVE to the core. Hulkaggeddon comming up....why not buy up alot of isotopes (involves a lot of people working together BTW), get hulkaggeddon pilots to focus on ice belts (don't need a reason to rub one out Rollover barges/exhumers as they die so easy and hey, might as well blow 2 birds with one stone Blink), and extend that for a greater duration. POS are not invulnerable, you just need to stop thinking of AFK shooting one down and hit it below the belt and guess what...it won't be profitable for long to keep running a POS if your fuel costs go up outstripping the income it generates.


But... but... that requires effort. It's not as easy as afk shooting a POS.Lol

Wardec is supposed to be an easy button to shoot whoever I want.Cool