These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Customer Support lifting previous restrictions regarding war decs

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
ShipToaster
#521 - 2012-01-03 14:52:01 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Just re-iterating that I think this change is good. It gives people a defence against griefing and more freedom of choice.

Griefing is illegal... and enforced by CCP

Hi-sec wars aren't greifing.

And you can bet your last isk, war-decs are being looked at.


Depends on how you gauge griefing. In terms of the EULA and harassment it has to be very clear cut and extreme cases as CCP is a business. However, there are a lot of grey areas.


Deja Vu all over again.

Harassment is nothing to do with griefing please dont claim these things are in any way linked in EVE. The TOS and EULA say nothing about griefing and wardecs. There are no grey areas regarding griefing in EVE as what is griefing is stated here http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Griefing

EVE WIKI wrote:
Griefer war decs

"Griefer war decs" refers to the practice of declaring a war, typically in high-security, against a party who is not your competitor in politics, regional control, industry, or anything else, and does not want the war. Such wars are often, but not always, declared with the intent to extort money from the victim for termination of the war. While they are sometimes used for actual griefing (ie, declared only for the malicious enjoyment of seeing the victim suffer), they can also be seen as a valid playstyle, and are used by many for simple isk-making and/or combat training.

War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature.


The first paragraph gives us a definition of what people term "Griefer war decs". The second says CCP will not intervene.

The "never officially considered griefing" means wardecs are not considered griefing by CCP ever under any circumstance. They wont stop wars on you just because you have been decced for a few weeks, months or years and people who have petitioned on this ground have got a HTFU message back from :ccp: when they were CCP.

Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Griefing much like trolling is done when some pathetic little creature uses a mechanic in a game to deliberately sabotage the playing of another gamer with the purpose of obtaining an emotional response. They make no gain within the game and they usually feel a little more significant and in control of their screwed up lives. Sadly, since this all occurs in the game, it does nothing to fix the roots of their problems, so they continually perpetuate this activity in order to get another "fix."


Again we see a carebear resort to pre-school psych, what is it with these people that makes them think they have any clue about this subject? Why do they imagine that how people play a game and how they live in real life are related?

.
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#522 - 2012-01-04 13:15:07 UTC
it just occured to me how to 'fix' this

as a war dec costs isk, there is a value attached to the war, and by extension, each pilots worth in the war.

To leave a corp during war, and in so doing leaving the war, you should pay a fee that is returned to the aggressor corp that paid for the war.

the cost of he war dec, divided by the amount of pilots in corp when the war dec was paid should be the fee paid to escape the war.

this seems the simplest way of automatically policing wars and claims of 'corp hopping' and the like.

The result of all this is that the aggressor corp gets reimbursed if the corp / alliance they attack dissolves on purpose to avoid the war, and the people being aggressed have a method of leaving the fight without 'cheating'.

please discuss

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#523 - 2012-01-04 14:02:43 UTC
Skippermonkey wrote:
it just occured to me how to 'fix' this

as a war dec costs isk, there is a value attached to the war, and by extension, each pilots worth in the war.

To leave a corp during war, and in so doing leaving the war, you should pay a fee that is returned to the aggressor corp that paid for the war.

the cost of he war dec, divided by the amount of pilots in corp when the war dec was paid should be the fee paid to escape the war.

this seems the simplest way of automatically policing wars and claims of 'corp hopping' and the like.

The result of all this is that the aggressor corp gets reimbursed if the corp / alliance they attack dissolves on purpose to avoid the war, and the people being aggressed have a method of leaving the fight without 'cheating'.

please discuss


Alt corp wardecs alt corp 2. Flood Alt Corp 2 with Alts. All alts in Alt corp 2 hav 0 isk. Alts in alt corp 2 leaves Corp, goes negative isk. Free Isk. (This is if you calculate the reward when the Dec is announced)

Incoming wardec. Flood the Corp with alts. Make it ludicrously cheap to leave whenever. (This is if you calculate the reward when the Dec is live).

I don't see any other time to calculate those. Any method of tying Wardecs to corp size is hugely vulnerable to abuse by Alts (Expired Trial alts stay on the corp rolls until purged).

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#524 - 2012-01-04 15:58:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Skippermonkey
make it impossible to leave unless you have sufficient isk

and just limit the payback to 100% of the weekly cost for the wardec

that was easy

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
ShipToaster
#525 - 2012-01-04 16:24:44 UTC
Realised today that wardec mechanics have been known by CCP to have been broken for four years now without any fixes, and thanks to the OP here that EVE has officially been a consensual PvP game for almost three months now.

Skippermonkey wrote:
stuff about one of the six commonly perceived problems with wardecs


Already been discussed a lot.

Individuals dropping corp solutions mentioned so far: cant drop until war ends, cant drop for first seven days, can drop but pay a fee equal to wardec cost to CONCORD per pilot as a personal surrender fee, can drop buy pay a fee equal to clone cost to aggressors (mine), can drop but pay a small fee which continues as long as the war you dropped for lasts, can drop but pay a nominal fee (your suggestion would be in this area), and can only drop in the warmup period of wars, can drop without penalty at anytime (current).

There were a lot of others but they are variants of cant drop, cant drop for a limited time period, can drop but pay for the privilege , or can drop but dont pay anything.

.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#526 - 2012-01-05 03:05:44 UTC
Skippermonkey wrote:
make it impossible to leave unless you have sufficient isk

and just limit the payback to 100% of the weekly cost for the wardec

that was easy


So poor players in small corps get shafted.

And for the second one, I can still massively inflate my corp size so that it costs nothing to leave.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
ShipToaster
#527 - 2012-01-15 19:56:09 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
So poor players in small corps get shafted.


This is a rule of EVE. Big sharks eat small fish.

Joining a corp should have some sort of consequence and allowing players to join and leave at will has some pretty irritating side effects.

.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#528 - 2012-01-15 21:58:24 UTC
ShipToaster wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
So poor players in small corps get shafted.


This is a rule of EVE. Big sharks eat small fish.

Agreed. EVE is not the European social welfare state. It's Libertarian.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#529 - 2012-01-15 23:10:58 UTC
ShipToaster wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
So poor players in small corps get shafted.


This is a rule of EVE. Big sharks eat small fish.

Joining a corp should have some sort of consequence and allowing players to join and leave at will has some pretty irritating side effects.


I prefer it to letting Corps duck their decs at will.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
ShipToaster
#530 - 2012-01-15 23:21:59 UTC
Must be having a bad forum day. Forum ate my post and I meant to have this link in last post.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=57596&find=unread why dropping corp with no consequence is irritating.

.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#531 - 2012-01-15 23:26:50 UTC
ShipToaster wrote:
Must be having a bad forum day. Forum ate my post and I meant to have this link in last post.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=57596&find=unread why dropping corp with no consequence is irritating.


1. He didn't show up red and flashy in their overview
2. They got the concord warning
3. The got concorded for shooting him

Working as intended.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Elessa Enaka
Doomheim
#532 - 2012-01-15 23:45:14 UTC
Question regarding Wardecs

Say Corp A declares on Corp B, Corp B proceeds to join DecShield. After 24-25 hours, Corp B is officially in DecShield, they leave after the following downtime thereby shedding the wardec. At the first possible opportunity, Corp A declares on Corp B once again and the whole process starts over again and again and again and again.

At what point does this become griefing if at all?

Is it possible that Corp A could wardec Corp B again every 48-72 hours ad infinitum without it ever becoming griefing?

Devour to survive, so it is, so it's always been Eve is a great game if you can get past all of the asshats....
ShipToaster
#533 - 2012-01-16 00:14:46 UTC
Elessa Enaka wrote:
At what point does this become griefing if at all?

Is it possible that Corp A could wardec Corp B again every 48-72 hours ad infinitum without it ever becoming griefing?


There is no point when it becomes griefing. Wardecs, according to the devs, are never considered griefing.

RubyPorto wrote:
ShipToaster wrote:
Must be having a bad forum day. Forum ate my post and I meant to have this link in last post.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=57596&find=unread why dropping corp with no consequence is irritating.


1. He didn't show up red and flashy in their overview
2. They got the concord warning
3. The got concorded for shooting him

Working as intended.


Read the rest.

.
ShipToaster
#534 - 2012-01-16 00:20:26 UTC
Elessa Enaka wrote:
At what point does this become griefing if at all?


Should have just linked you to this post. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=599923#post599923


.
Elessa Enaka
Doomheim
#535 - 2012-01-16 00:20:56 UTC
So, simply because it is a "wardec", harassment of this nature is never considered to be griefing?

I'd really like an official confirmation or denial of this by a GM or a Dev before I move forward with any ideas I may have.....

Devour to survive, so it is, so it's always been Eve is a great game if you can get past all of the asshats....
ShipToaster
#536 - 2012-01-16 00:26:52 UTC
Deja vu again, again, and again.

If you dont believe the official wiki or any of the dev and gm statements made over the years on this and the old forum then petition it.

.
Elessa Enaka
Doomheim
#537 - 2012-01-16 00:29:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Elessa Enaka
Well, I just want to make sure that so long as I can afford to do so, I could (with absolutely no recourse from the victim) harass someone by way of wardec for the foreseeable future of my time playing eve

Devour to survive, so it is, so it's always been Eve is a great game if you can get past all of the asshats....
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#538 - 2012-01-16 00:38:16 UTC
ShipToaster wrote:
Elessa Enaka wrote:
At what point does this become griefing if at all?

Is it possible that Corp A could wardec Corp B again every 48-72 hours ad infinitum without it ever becoming griefing?


There is no point when it becomes griefing. Wardecs, according to the devs, are never considered griefing.

RubyPorto wrote:
ShipToaster wrote:
Must be having a bad forum day. Forum ate my post and I meant to have this link in last post.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=57596&find=unread why dropping corp with no consequence is irritating.


1. He didn't show up red and flashy in their overview
2. They got the concord warning
3. The got concorded for shooting him

Working as intended.


Read the rest.


I did. Looks like my analysis was spot on. If they didn't receive the Concord warning, that's the bug they should have petitioned. Otherwise PEBCAK. Namely, if you're going to fight a war (emigrating is perfectly legit to run from incoming decs), read up on the rule's you're going to fight it under.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Milla Lekarariba
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#539 - 2012-01-16 11:22:37 UTC
This is just terrible and wrong...

Yet another blow for the new player, and those trying to start a new corp.

Why?

Think about it, the only people that are going to be able to afford this 'dec shield' are the larger corporations with the isk to spare or those with a lot of support from other corporations / alliances.

New corps do not have tons of isk to waste on things like this, it is already difficult enough to recruit new players, and this latest move is just going to make it even more difficult to get a new corp off the ground as most people will obviously prefer to go to those with a dec shield.

Bad move CCP, very bad move, a move to towards a more stale eve which only favours the vets
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#540 - 2012-01-16 12:09:15 UTC
Milla Lekarariba wrote:
This is just terrible and wrong...

Yet another blow for the new player, and those trying to start a new corp.

Why?

Think about it, the only people that are going to be able to afford this 'dec shield' are the larger corporations with the isk to spare or those with a lot of support from other corporations / alliances.

New corps do not have tons of isk to waste on things like this, it is already difficult enough to recruit new players, and this latest move is just going to make it even more difficult to get a new corp off the ground as most people will obviously prefer to go to those with a dec shield.

Bad move CCP, very bad move, a move to towards a more stale eve which only favours the vets


Decshield Alliance doesn't charge atm.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon