These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Proposal] Fix Wardec Exploits

First post First post First post
Author
Arduemont
The State of War.
#241 - 2012-11-12 20:15:25 UTC
XavierVE wrote:
Quote:
Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution.
We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war.
And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so.


That isn't a fix, it's removing a feature.

Perhaps a static payment option of oh, 200 million and then either party (the defender who made it mutual or the aggressor) could "buy out" of the mutual war-dec.

Putting it in the hands of the aggressor removes the entire reason to make a war mutual, which is to punish the aggressor for starting a war they could not handle. Now there's literally no reason to make a war mutual since your fix is more amounting to swinging a bat at the feature, smashing it, and calling it done.

Actions should have consequences in EVE, start a war that you can't handle, you should have to pay to get out of it. But I guess that's just pointless carping since the "some people don't like features!" cop-out is being thrown around already.


Pretty much this.

Don't like the idea of a static payment though. I think that the aggressors, if wanting to drop out of a mutual war, should have a 1 week timer, so that they are stuck for at least that long. The war should not be transferable in any way during that time.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf

Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
#242 - 2012-11-12 22:49:46 UTC
Mutual wars having a 1 week cooldown would be a decent compromise, I'd think. It keeps the element of at least a little consequence for declaring war when you shouldn't, while fixing the core issue.

Also, I pity whoever's monitoring the Internal Affairs reports this week. ... well, unless they're just relegating anything referencing the wardec mechanics to the trash, which is entirely likely at this point.

But I'm not CCP Soundwave, so what do I know?

None ofthe Above
#243 - 2012-11-13 01:32:14 UTC
The Zerg Overmind wrote:
Right now it sounds like CCP have implemented our second best option to solve the wardec issue. "We continue as is, allowing perfect copying/transfer, instead preventing mutual infinite wardecs"

However I'm no longer sure what their intended design for the wardec system is. I thought they wanted declaring wars to be some sort of commitment, such as locking the aggressor in for at least a week. Now it sounds like we can declare war, kill an offline tower, retract the war, move on to next target. This is how it used to be, and I'm actually good with that.

That fix would solve 95% of all the issues. Which is good. But we were hoping to get lots of the smaller features fixed as well (wardec costs, wardec transfers (solved by the fix), exploits related to surprising enemies in space (semi addressed by notifications), dead corp fixes, surrender mechanic loopholes, etc).

However, it is awesome that they implemented notifications to warn deccers that their targets have joined an alliance. That was very much a step in the right direction, and was one of the little things on our list of awesome that they implemented. I hope they continue along this line and continue to push little changes into the game to make the system more intuitive and balanced.


"However I'm no longer sure what their intended design for the wardec system is."

Not sure they are either.

Small improvements are welcome, but there is still a far larger conversation to have. Thank you for appropriate stick poking to bring this need to light.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

None ofthe Above
#244 - 2012-11-13 01:39:36 UTC
Jarin Arenos wrote:
Mutual wars having a 1 week cooldown would be a decent compromise, I'd think. It keeps the element of at least a little consequence for declaring war when you shouldn't, while fixing the core issue.
...


I always thought that the mutual war "flag" should be considered a counter-wardec, making both parties the aggressor (and simultaneously defender? I've proposed before that both parties in a mutual war should be able to call in allies). War was maintenance free while both parties are agreed. When the original attacker rescinds, he becomes just a defender and the counter-aggressor (originally the defender) needs to pay for the upkeep of the war as if he started it, if he wants it to continue (probably should get a one week cool down for free).

Just throwing this out there.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

Chanina
ASGARD HEAVY INDUSTRIES
#245 - 2012-11-13 08:03:59 UTC
CCP Punkturis wrote:
I think I'll just stop posting in this thread, too many people just like to be angry and take what I say and twist my words. The initial problem in this thread has been solved (for Retribution), some people like the solution and some people don't, that's how it is with all our changes anyways.

fly safe! o7


You wouldn't work on the right topic if you won't get fire from both sides. If you happen to get no bad feedback you simply work on something most people don't care about. As soon as you do get that feedback, you know something is right because people care. Blink

In order to retreat from a mutual war the aggressor might simply pay concord again to drop the case. But some cost wouldn't harm since concord has to do some additional paperwork right?
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#246 - 2012-11-13 10:31:02 UTC
oh well, good for the aggressors. Now they'll never have the tables turned and be forced into something *they* don't want.

I mean of course the infinite mutual decs were stupid, but the fix is a hamfisted one
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#247 - 2012-11-13 12:58:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
oh well, good for the aggressors. Now they'll never have the tables turned and be forced into something *they* don't want.

I mean of course the infinite mutual decs were stupid, but the fix is a hamfisted one

1. - Aggressor can withdraw wars at any time.
OR
2. - Wars are non-transferable.
- Aggressor corporations can join alliances while having active outgoing wars.

Pick either option one or option two in order to fix the system.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

CCP Eterne
C C P
C C P Alliance
#248 - 2012-11-13 14:25:01 UTC
Deleted more CCP bias trolling. Seriously people. We work on these changes weeks or months in advance before announcing them.

EVE Online/DUST 514 Community Representative ※ EVE Illuminati ※ Fiction Adept

@CCP_Eterne ※ @EVE_LiveEvents

NorthCrossroad
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#249 - 2012-11-13 14:28:59 UTC  |  Edited by: NorthCrossroad
Just a suggestion about mutual war and consequences.

Corp A decs B and pays wardec fees. Corp B wants to punish corp A and thinks that has abilities to do it (so want to create consequences for attacker). Corp B makes war mutual with simple rules:
1. Each corp pays a highest of two wardec fees +50% each week (or maybe each corp pays it's own fee), but only 10-20% goes to CONCORD. Main part goes to war ISK pool.
2. Each week mutual war goes pool increases by fees.
3. Corp which wins the war (by accepting surrender or if war was retracted) gets everything from the pool.

So corps involved in mutual dec will have to put ISK into it. Commit into the war. And defenders - have a chance to get something from it.

North
CCP Dolan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#250 - 2012-11-13 15:59:40 UTC
Dear Community,

Stop making me delete bad rumor posts. Bad posts cause me physical pain.

Forever Yours,
CCP "Good Poster" Dolan

CCP Dolan | Community Representative

Twitter: @CCPDolan

Gooby pls

CCP Falcon
#251 - 2012-11-13 16:06:36 UTC
CCP Dolan wrote:
Dear Community,

Stop making me delete bad rumor posts. Bad posts cause me physical pain.

Forever Yours,
CCP "Good Poster" Dolan


Dolan, pls.

CCP Falcon || EVE Universe Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon

Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3

Reppyk
The Black Shell
#252 - 2012-11-13 16:54:02 UTC
CCP Eterne wrote:
Deleted more CCP bias trolling. Seriously people. We work on these changes weeks or months in advance before announcing them.
I need ZO's quote when he met the 2 CCP devs not a long time ago and had to explain them that 1) how the main exploit was working and 2) there was some kind of problem in the current wardecs... Because they were totally clueless.

Ugh

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !

Arduemont
The State of War.
#253 - 2012-11-13 17:47:29 UTC
Reppyk wrote:
CCP Eterne wrote:
Deleted more CCP bias trolling. Seriously people. We work on these changes weeks or months in advance before announcing them.
I need ZO's quote when he met the 2 CCP devs not a long time ago and had to explain them that 1) how the main exploit was working and 2) there was some kind of problem in the current wardecs... Because they were totally clueless.

Ugh


Your not helping. Try saying something constructive, about war decs.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf

Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#254 - 2012-11-13 18:45:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde
Haulus Bitchus wrote:
And yes there has been NO communication regarding this change from CCP prior to the mittani whine.

You know, aside from announcing War Decs would receive another round of iterations in Retribution just like Faction Warfare. Back in the spring.

And the CSM minutes.

Other than that though.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#255 - 2012-11-13 20:04:51 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
oh well, good for the aggressors. Now they'll never have the tables turned and be forced into something *they* don't want.

I mean of course the infinite mutual decs were stupid, but the fix is a hamfisted one

1. - Aggressor can withdraw wars at any time.
OR
2. - Wars are non-transferable.
- Aggressor corporations can join alliances while having active outgoing wars.

Pick either option one or option two in order to fix the system.


I'd go with:

- Mutual = both agree. No 1-sided crap. Declining a mutual would be no different than declining a surrender.

- No joining an alliance while your corporation has a mutual wardec going. That must be resolved prior to joining a new alliance. War = OK, mutual war = not OK.

- Dissolving of a corporation/alliance = purged issue. "Last man standing" = them. (the old "reform" avoidance gig)

As for "scraping off" a war declared on a corporation:

If that corporation joins and leaves an alliance, the war follows them - not staying on the alliance. An inheritance attributed attached to the war -- source style -- with a notice to the parties that the alliance level war with that aggressor will end in 24 hours upon that corporation leaving (a war follows the original target). "Leaves" meaning for any reason - kicked or voluntary or dissolved. Any "not in it" means a war enters 'cooldown' phase.

That should end most scraping off issues and any concerns about someone bouncing through alliances. If you want to keep a war on a given alliance, your CEO would have to file to keep that war against said alliance. If not, 24 hours after your target leaves that alliance, the alliance level war ends but the target corp retains that war status.

If you step into a trap, you stepped into it - suck it up and fix it by dissolving your organization yet such a trap needs consent. As such, both groups would need to agree to a mutual war -- you know... "mutual" as in more than 1 agreeing to something?

Turning a "last team standing" contest into a "we're losing so we'll just drop it" by those that started a fight is poor form. Their actions should hold consequences, not more lulz, but this current situation is pretty lame, with the proposed "fix" being on par with the problem it attempts to resolve.

None ofthe Above
#256 - 2012-11-13 20:25:01 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Haulus Bitchus wrote:
And yes there has been NO communication regarding this change from CCP prior to the mittani whine.

You know, aside from announcing War Decs would receive another round of iterations in Retribution just like Faction Warfare. Back in the spring.

And the CSM minutes.

Other than that though.


Other iterations? The only thing WarDec I am aware of going into Retribution is this quickfix, which wasn't planned.

So from that I would deduce there is work planned for follow up patches?

I remember talk of it I think, but it seemed to fall off the dev roadmap. Is there is something still relevant around saying what they might do? (I suppose RR changes and crimewatch might qualify.)

Not meaning to argue with you here, but I thought you went to badger them because you saw communication fall off to near nothing on this topic. So Haulus Bitchus would seem to have a point even if perhaps he overstated his case.

PS - Not a subscriber to any bias or tinfoil hat theories in this case. It was a problem that needed to be fix that dragged on too long and effected too many people. It eventually hit goons & co, which is unsurprising considering how many people that represents. It is entirely plausible that there was no communication or bias here. And even if there was, so what? It clearly needed to be fixed, many people were lobbying hard. If CFC added their voice to the chorus at the end, is that really something to be concerned about?

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

Maraner
The Executioners
#257 - 2012-11-13 21:15:21 UTC
Could a DEV please answer my question?

I can see your all enjoying deleting posts that troll CCP but whilst your at it......

If a war dec is dropped by the corp that created it in the first place is this immediate or is there a week long timer?

Thanks

The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal
#258 - 2012-11-13 22:29:39 UTC
Reppyk wrote:
CCP Eterne wrote:
Deleted more CCP bias trolling. Seriously people. We work on these changes weeks or months in advance before announcing them.
I need ZO's quote when he met the 2 CCP devs not a long time ago and had to explain them that 1) how the main exploit was working and 2) there was some kind of problem in the current wardecs... Because they were totally clueless.

Ugh

Nonsense. They weren't clueless. They were chaotic neutral about it. They thought the abuses were clever and insightful, and wanted me to share details with them. I did, and they were forwarded to others. They have known about this stuff for quite some time, and it's pretty obvious that they've also been working on it for quite some time. Changes don't crop up overnight, they require planning and documentation.

CCP have been really good sports about the whole thing. We're all on the same team about getting wardecs working properly. There's much bitterness in this thread and the main thread due to ruined gameplay for thousands. It's to be expected.

But you know... if CCP accepted one of my wardec transfer corps into CCP Alliance... I could catch those griefers for you... just saying...
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
#259 - 2012-11-13 22:49:59 UTC
CCP Dolan wrote:
Dear Community,

Stop making me delete bad rumor posts. Bad posts cause me physical pain.

Forever Yours,
CCP "Good Poster" Dolan



That's counterproductive. Now I want to post bad posts.

None ofthe Above
#260 - 2012-11-13 23:25:37 UTC
CCP Dolan wrote:
Dear Community,

... Bad posts cause me physical pain...

Forever Yours,
CCP "Good Poster" Dolan


Citation needed.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.