These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Reppyk
The Black Shell
#261 - 2012-11-13 23:26:11 UTC
The Zerg Overmind wrote:
There's much bitterness in this thread and the main thread due to ruined gameplay for thousands. It's to be expected.
I'm a bit bitter not because of the "ruined gameplay" (I wasnt even affected, meh Sad ) but because it was a bad display of a lack of communication for many months, excessive duration for a fix, wrong answer to the problem (I want my mutual wardecs back please) and it looks a bit like a ninja-patch (where is the devblog ? Instead of a 3-lines post).

The Zerg Overmind wrote:
But you know... if CCP accepted one of my wardec transfer corps into CCP Alliance... I could catch those griefers for you... just saying...
We can be friends again. ♥

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

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

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#262 - 2012-11-14 00:57:00 UTC
Mocam wrote:
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.


It seems to me that we're both in agreement, mainly about the validity of the second option I presented. However, you need to understand why preventing corporations with outgoing mutual wars from joining alliances is objectively bad game design.

All the defender has to do to trap the aggressor is create a new corporation, and leave one person in the old one to make sure that the aggressor is screwed forever. Why do we want to punish players for using valid game features, such as wars? This type of design could severely punish old, established corporations that declare wars.

Do you think it's fair to force old, well-known corporations with rich combat and alliance histories to reform, just because they can never join an alliance again? I personally don't think so. The defenders, in the case of war, have the option to leave their corporations temporarily, to try to wait out the war, for which the aggressor has to pay, and thus is unlikely to maintain forever. The aggressor, on the other hand, has no option but to disband if caught in a perpetual war, which is free for the defenders to maintain.

That is not balance. How would you feel if the defenders could never leave their corporations to join new ones? I ask, because with the current movement restrictions, the aggressors are subject to a very similar experience.

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

Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#263 - 2012-11-14 15:32:09 UTC
Reppyk wrote:
[quote=The Zerg Overmind]where is the devblog ? Instead of a 3-lines post).

As i said when this whole party kicked off, dev blogs are released on a schedule. A war one will be coming when it's the war ones turn.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Haulus Bitchus
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#264 - 2012-11-14 15:45:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Haulus Bitchus
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.


Okay starting up, Alexi would you mind answering how you were able to quote from a Gm deleted post 2 1/2 hours AFTER it was deleted .. going to errr on the side of non tin foil and say it was on your screen and not updated otherwise ... well we will wait for your relpy.

As for communication, yes there was a vague promise of iterating war decs back in the spring, along the lines of Soon(tm). We all know that statements like that cannot be taken seriously.

CSM minutes, really? Does anyone actually read them or just gets the TL;DR summaries from various news sites.

There are only 2 official forms of communication, CCP news article or dev blog. The rest is just candy.

As for the change, can we please get confirmation of the cooldown timers post withdrawl and how a withdrawn dec would afftect a character that left while the war was active? Would they still be locked out of returning to the agressor corp for 1 week?
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#265 - 2012-11-14 16:53:39 UTC
Haulus Bitchus wrote:
As for communication, yes there was a vague promise of iterating war decs back in the spring, along the lines of Soon(tm). We all know that statements like that cannot be taken seriously.

CSM minutes, really? Does anyone actually read them or just gets the TL;DR summaries from various news sites.

There are only 2 official forms of communication, CCP news article or dev blog. The rest is just candy.

As for the change, can we please get confirmation of the cooldown timers post withdrawl and how a withdrawn dec would afftect a character that left while the war was active? Would they still be locked out of returning to the agressor corp for 1 week?


Yes, plenty of folks who are interested in upcoming changes, CCP/CSM planning, and who care enough to want to be part of the process of improvement, do actually take the time to read the summit minutes. Every page of them. If someone chooses to skim them or read a summary instead, that's great, but it hardly leaves them room to complain if they missed something.

Keep in mind - dev blogs are usually used for items that are actively in the development pipeline, and nearing release. There are always exceptions of course, but its highly unusual for CCP to release a dev blog regarding something they might do but are unsure of.

As for the vague promises in Spring, of course they aren't to be taken seriously. CCP is very careful about making hard and fast commitments to feature changes until they've gone through the process of evaluating their need, the feasibility of implementatoin, and of course whether there is room in the Sprint cycle to complete such changes. Until you see patch notes, nothing is ever certain. Back in spring, release planning for the work to be done in Fall / Winter hadn't even started (that takes place after summer vacation) so it was all subject to change.

CCP is still looking into the state of wardecs and evaluating whether or not they can fit any other fixes into the initial Dec. 4 release. I know its frustrating not knowing exactly what's coming months and months ahead of time, but that's just the reality of the development process.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#266 - 2012-11-15 17:57:50 UTC
Haulus Bitchus wrote:
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.


Okay starting up, Alexi would you mind answering how you were able to quote from a Gm deleted post 2 1/2 hours AFTER it was deleted .. going to errr on the side of non tin foil and say it was on your screen and not updated otherwise ... well we will wait for your relpy.

As for communication, yes there was a vague promise of iterating war decs back in the spring, along the lines of Soon(tm). We all know that statements like that cannot be taken seriously.

CSM minutes, really? Does anyone actually read them or just gets the TL;DR summaries from various news sites.

There are only 2 official forms of communication, CCP news article or dev blog. The rest is just candy.

As for the change, can we please get confirmation of the cooldown timers post withdrawl and how a withdrawn dec would afftect a character that left while the war was active? Would they still be locked out of returning to the agressor corp for 1 week?

You probably err correctly. But tell me your conspiracy theory anyway, we're all so invested!

Wasn't along the line of Soon, it was along the lines of between now and Winter. Admittedly there's going to be a fair bit of changes that will have to be in Retribution followup patches due to Bounty Hunting but they're close to the mark (in response to None ofthe Above) and serious about iterating on it.

Yes, really CSM Minutes. If you don't read them (or at least know how to skip to the chapter you care about) that's your problem, and the rest of the community gets to call you an idiot.

If you say so.

Guess you need to wait for an official dev blog! ;p

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

DeathEngine
Scythe Enterprises
#267 - 2012-11-21 14:20:03 UTC
Why is it so expensive to war dec large alliances? I cannot believe it costs over 150mill isk a week to war dec the Goons, for example.

It seems counter-intuitive as larger alliances are in a better position (theoretically at least) to defend themselves against war decs due to larger numbers, better organisation (?) and potentially, presuming they have access to 0.0, avoiding them altogether.

It could work (and seems more equitable) to make the cost of war-decs inverse to the number of people in an alliance/Corp - though if there is any truth to the rumour that CCP wants social aggregation, it is unlikely to happen as it encourages smaller Corps (ceteris parabis).

Idea Rather how would it be if the cost of war-deccing was based on the number of players in the aggressing Corp or alliance? To prevent single man Corps deccing and then inviting the hoards to join them, the mechanic would adjust the amount of isk based on the new (changed) number of folk in the aggressing Corp/alliance multiplied by the proportion of the week left and if this was not paid (could be auto-debited from wallet) the war was automatically terminated (unless mutual) with the aggressor forfeiting his isk.

Easy.

This way, it facilitates smaller Corps engaging much larger ones while disincentivizing larger ones from blobbing the bejesus out of the small. As it stands, it protects the larger Corps/alliances who technically don't or shouldn't need that protection.

I would like to hear any comments as to why this proposal could not or should not work. As I'm not expecting a CCP answer, please consider and reply (tools welcome).









Musiaba Schenoly
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#268 - 2012-11-22 03:04:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Musiaba Schenoly
CCP Tallest wrote:
Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution.


mhhh following ccp's latest dev blog ( http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73578 ) they were NOT able to understand the problems described here - and will not fix permanent war decs, I guess?

The main issue is copying wars unlimited - and "refreshing" them to new 7 days of lifetime doing it (instead to remaining payed lifetime for example) among other things.

In my impression - and following just the letters written down, not their intention quoted above - their fix will not fix it?

ZO needs just copy the wars between two entitys, to make em perma again, right?

Dunno if I shall cry or laugh about such unsophisticated game designers.
AssassinationsdoneWrong
Deep Core Mining Inc.
#269 - 2012-11-22 13:20:38 UTC  |  Edited by: AssassinationsdoneWrong
Musiaba Schenoly wrote:
CCP Tallest wrote:
Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution.


mhhh following ccp's latest dev blog ( http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73578 ) they were NOT able to understand the problems described here - and will not fix permanent war decs, I guess?

The main issue is copying wars unlimited - and "refreshing" them to new 7 days of lifetime doing it (instead to remaining payed lifetime for example) among other things.

In my impression - and following just the letters written down, not their intention quoted above - their fix will not fix it?

ZO needs just copy the wars between two entitys, to make em perma again, right?

Dunno if I shall cry or laugh about such unsophisticated game designers.


This.

Unless a corp joining the DecShield alliance does NOT have it's own cooldown period on Mutual war setting then this "fix" will not work. You have got to stop the wars dragging around by alliance joining dropping and timers resetting because of these moves for any of this to be effective.

The Nexus 7's

What we fall short of in numbers we more than make up for in stupidity

Musiaba Schenoly
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#270 - 2012-11-22 21:07:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Musiaba Schenoly
Musiaba Schenoly wrote:
CCP Tallest wrote:
Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution.


mhhh following ccp's latest dev blog ( http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73578 ) they were NOT able to understand the problems described here - and will not fix permanent war decs, I guess?

The main issue is copying wars unlimited - and "refreshing" them to new 7 days of lifetime doing it (instead to remaining payed lifetime for example) among other things.

In my impression - and following just the letters written down, not their intention quoted above - their fix will not fix it?

ZO needs just copy the wars between two entitys, to make em perma again, right?

Dunno if I shall cry or laugh about such unsophisticated game designers.


So its confirmed.

CCP SoniClover wrote:
The Zerg Overmind wrote:

The intention here seems to be to shift wardec favor back towards the aggressors because there are no longer consequences for biting off more than they can chew. Is the 24hr retraction timer a final solution or a stopgap measure for something else?

The retract war option is only available if the war is made mutual by the defender. So declaring a war is always going to lock you in that war for 7 days, unless a surrender (or this new mutual/retract) option is used, but that is not a one-sided decision by the aggressor.



If ZO would just make the wars unmutual before the patch works he could further trap everybody as long as he wants because he can copy the wars between two entitys again after a week, like now I guess... .

The main issue is STILL creating (new 7 days) outgoing wars against entiys the "aggressor" never has known before - just by copying wars dodging the ally-system!

So has the "fix" just removed an inferno feature for a defender but really has nothing changed concerning the dec shield issue what it was originally made for?
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal
#271 - 2012-11-24 10:24:24 UTC
Yes, with the current wording I do believe that I will still be able to keep everyone trapped. Using a method I publcly outlined for them almost 2 weeks ago. I believe that I'll be able to set all the wars unmutual, and then just constantly eject corps from the alliance and rejoin with them (or bounce between two alliances). I have yet to test this, but I'm pretty sure it'll work like that. And people got all uppity when I mentioned a disbelief that CCP would fix these issues...

I'm surprised they only plan to let mutual wars get retracted... because in my mind that says "The aggressors is trapped, until the defender wants to trap them, then they go free". Once again failing to balance the system. Aggressors will once again have absolute control over the system.

We'll see if I have to make this thread a 3rd time.
Cyprus Black
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#272 - 2012-11-25 03:45:32 UTC
Hi Zerg. I doubt the wardec changes will see the light of day anytime soon. May I join your alliance with my one man corp to partake in yummy mutal wardec goodness?

Summary of EvEs last four expansions: http://imgur.com/ZL5SM33

Malchristus
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#273 - 2012-11-25 13:52:16 UTC
So the question is, are CCP and the CSM listening since the dev blog came out and the expected exploits to be exposed have been published here?

Alekseyev Karrde < Who has taken so much time to ridicule, big up his role in all of this and tell everyone that "this is not the place to contact the CSM" are you out there?

Do you agree with these changes? Is this the product of your summits? Was it all that you hoped for?

You spend so much time telling people to shut up and stop being idiots. Give us a progress report man. Or have you even looked at it yet?
nat longshot
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#274 - 2012-11-27 01:53:18 UTC  |  Edited by: nat longshot
Brib Vogt wrote:


I talk for at least 160 Accounts alone in my alliance and i know some of the alliance leaders stuck in dec shield too which feel the same. And i do all the writing here, because i want that only one guy from my alliance is answering here.


No your talking for your self not 160 other accounts your been a outright jerk and more to the point if you act like a jerk csm and gm and dev are likey to fire back.

You have no clue what there working on and whats comeing.

CCP Punkturis has all the right to fire back and if you ask me she was down right nice about it i have seen other post were shes fired back alot hard then she has.

If you as a paying for a product were i work and act like that to me my friend one i would have open fired at you alot worse the ccp and the csm have trust me on that and after i would boot you right out on your butt and told you never to return.

If your a jerk and you pay for something paying for the product does not give you the right to act like a jerk to anyone.

 [13:12:18] CCP Punkturis nat longshot you're a cutie.. OH YAH I WIN!!

Musiaba Schenoly
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#275 - 2012-11-27 07:59:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Musiaba Schenoly
Sry dude, ...

nat longshot wrote:
Brib Vogt wrote:


I talk for at least 160 Accounts alone in my alliance and i know some of the alliance leaders stuck in dec shield too which feel the same. And i do all the writing here, because i want that only one guy from my alliance is answering here.


No your talking for your self not 160 other accounts your been a outright jerk and more to the point if you act like a jerk csm and gm and dev are likey to fire back.

You have no clue what there working on and whats comeing.

CCP Punkturis has all the right to fire back and if you ask me she was down right nice about it i have seen other post were shes fired back alot hard then she has.



... but thats what you wrote is ****** bs.

Its not the point whats coming, the point was that ccp has designed key features of LAST whole add on full of flaws.

Think about THIS

Reppyk wrote:
But wasn't the "last expansion" all about wardecs ? They planned it for months, they worked on it for months, they had 4 months after the release to fix it a bit, and... Nothing.
Most of the exploits were found very shortly after Inferno (but nobody had the idea to use them at ZO's scale). And the "mutual wardecs are trapping the agressors meeeeeeh" tears has been around for the last two years (maybe more, I wasn't playing before that).

How can they miss that badly the main goal of an expansion ?

Dominion : about SOV mechanism (wait, it's as worst as it was, shooting SBUs instead of POSes).
Incarna : about Walking in Station (it didn't happen).
Inferno : about wardecs (which are so exploitable that nobody but a throwable alt would start a wardec).

What's in Retribution ?


So there is no necessity to defend ccp in that case in my opinion!

And CCP Punkturis didn't "fire back". As the first CCP employee stating after 7 weeks in this serious thread she had nothing more to write than trolling other players.

For my own I m still very disapointed about this behaviour, and I fully agreed with Brib Vogt in that way!

Especially because the fix CCP Tallest annouced some hours after CCP Punkturis dubious "I promise you Alexeyev is giving it proper attention and we're also making plans, stuff just doesn't happen on the forums all the time" will NOT work, too - as we get presented it now from CCP SoniClover... .

The whole thread here told em nothing else than there is an issue because of UNLIMITED COPYING WARS.

ZO writes nearly professional articles here since months till his fingers are bleeding.

They ignore it ...and implemented obviously a fix which will remove a feature and will not fix the issue.

And people like you give em candy for burning our money. Unbelieveble... !
Musiaba Schenoly
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#276 - 2012-11-29 11:00:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Musiaba Schenoly
In addition to explain what I meant btw:
Here the last quote from current thread about recent Dev Blog "Bounties, Kill rights, new modules and war in Retribution" - concerning other issues but the same problmem with ccp's quality control! ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174504&p=15 )

Our issue was posted by some ppl already there also and of course not valued with a comment - like even other things .


James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Cordo Draken wrote:
Vilnius Zar wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
"We're not going to bother explaining why we did it this way even though we've been asked multiple times by multiple people. We're just going to ask you to trust us even though we've often demonstrated in the past that we screw new features up in ways players predict prior to launch."



CCP: new feature!
players: lol, that's gonna cause these and these problems, we'll bug report it
BH: working as intended!
players: CCP, honestly... that's just gonna go wrong because of A and B reasons
CCP: nah looks good, lets do it!


:launch:
:3 months later:
tiny dev blog: it looks as if this new feature has gone slightly wrong because of A and B reasons and completely messes up players/market/balance (pick two). We didn't realise this, sorry guys
players: NO ****


A certain Dev a while back gave me crap because I suggested editing their OP to link an important update they posted which was buried within a 60 page plus thread, because I didn't have the time to wade through to find that post. Yet it's funny how they pick and choose what they'll somewhat answer here, blatantly ignoring major issues that we, the paying community, bring up in advance. They only answer the simple question while sidestepping what we know to be a broken mechanic. Is it Pride? I truly don't understand the neglegence... Especially when a issue is known far in advance. Any non-snide honest detailed answer to the major issues slated in this thread Devs?



I posted this because I m bit worried about the follow-up if the fix wont work like assumed here already weeks ago ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2219240#post2219240 ) and 13k ppl would be still trapped - without communication from ccp that they have understand what the REAL problems with the war dec mechanics are.

Because only then we could hope about betterments in the near future.

I feel already since some days much less activity in some of the stucked alliances because of the enduring war-spam and really fading anticipation about upcoming Retribution features.
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal
#277 - 2012-11-30 10:24:08 UTC
So here's how it's going to go:

When a corp joins/leaves the alliance it makes a "copy" of that war which is "transferred" to the new entity. This "copy" isn't a copy, but a new war. It sets the start date of that war as the moment that the corp joined/left the alliance. That means all I have to do is set all the wars unmutual (so they can't instant retract them), and then cycle corps in/out of alliance constantly (thus renewing an inescapable 7 day war timer), and when the corp rejoins the alliance, the alliance's dropped wars will get restored by the new war copy. A completely inescapable non-mutual trap.

Dec Shield Non-Mutual Exploit

The above photo is taken from a corp that left Dec Shield on the 26th. It was with 250+ wars. Now 4 days later not a single war has ended (when 4/7ths of the wars should have ended by now by random distribution). You'll note the two wars that "started" on the 30th. Those are corps that dropped out of an alliance and have received fresh 7 day war timers against me as a result.

The solution to this problem is pretty straight forward. Set the start time of each war to the start time of the original parent war it spawned from.
LordShazbot
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#278 - 2012-11-30 10:39:53 UTC
So this will still not be fixed come Dec 4th?
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal
#279 - 2012-11-30 10:54:08 UTC
LordShazbot wrote:
So this will still not be fixed come Dec 4th?

No, it will not be fixed.

I would like to take this moment to thank people for white knighting for CCP. But like I said. You will all go free when you can get free on your own. I am not releasing any of you early because the system is not fixed. And it is not fixed until it is. I've not been hiding any of the methods I'm using from anyone. There is no reason it shouldn't be fixable.

LordShazbot
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#280 - 2012-11-30 11:46:49 UTC
The Zerg Overmind wrote:
LordShazbot wrote:
So this will still not be fixed come Dec 4th?

No, it will not be fixed.

I would like to take this moment to thank people for white knighting for CCP. But like I said. You will all go free when you can get free on your own. I am not releasing any of you early because the system is not fixed. And it is not fixed until it is. I've not been hiding any of the methods I'm using from anyone. There is no reason it shouldn't be fixable.



That is so not tight butthole. I dislike the constant notifications, it hurts my eyes.