EVE General Discussion

Shadow CSM, btw. In full glorious effect. Why lobby the CSM for some changes you want, when you can step around them, discuss directly with CCP, making the case how much good you do for the game and that you need protection to keep doing those things. All the while bloating beyond your original educational mission statement.


Wardecs need to be fixed. I don't think that's what you want at all, though. You did cheer and put up a congratulatory thread the moment this wardec policy change was made. Going to "war" only when the University wants to go to "war" is your only concern. (And I quote war, because arranged three-day battles every few months are not wars.)

Always the revisionist history from eve university. Fake killmails, fake killboard and now fake history.

Look at this thread http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1104927 from 2009.06.25 check out post 26 and see a GM state that decshields were an exploit and this was communicated clearly to the players: "Using alt corps to increase the cost of wars against your corporation or alliance is prohibited", cannot get much clearer than this.

The change from known exploit to not-an-exploit that was communicated only to eve university by senior GM's in April or May of 2011 is where the problem arose. This fundamental change was not communicated to the players but was instead only given to eve university.

I asked in a petition for any information on when the change happened and why but am still waiting for a response, checked and the petition is now closed. CCP give us the answers: when did this exploit change, why, and why was no one told about the change except eve university? This is not the way EVE should be: this issue identifies a serious problem in the methodology of communicating such decisions to the players that CCP must improve.

Here is my dates and times list.

2009.06.25 self deccing to increase costs declared an exploit. eve university knows fine well that this is an exploit
2011.05.XX eve university gets "special permission" from an unnamed senior GM, or GM's, to bypass a known exploit, no one else told (I always thought senior GM's were CCP employees, were fully accountable to and spoke for CCP but could be wrong)
2011.09.XX Petition asking about this being an exploit or not submitted, this results in:
2011.10.10 This thread where it is finally communicated to everyone that things have actually changed
2011.10.12 Eve becomes a consensual PvP game and CCP fully become :ccp:

Post 32 in that thread is by Kelduum Revaan and is also notable, "and after lengthy discussions with the GM's its not going to happen again" ("its" refers to decshields, yeah, right!), seems this GM group knew their stuff unlike whoever you got to agree to let eve university force attacker war costs up in April or May last year without telling anyone else. Guess we, and by this I mean the rest of EVE, are not important enough to have long conversations with senior GM's about how to exploit the system for our own benefit.

This is the problem with eve university now as any group that gets special privileges, special permissions or even sandbox rules modified to help them and them alone is game breaking. If one group gets special treatment then why should this not apply to all groups? If you get rules modified to help you then I want {insert my personal demand list here} rules should apply equally to all with no exceptions.

CCP need to get wardecs fixed so I can wardec an alliance called Ivy League that has eight hundred and twenty two players over one year old.; I have a legitimate in game grievance that can only end with their total destruction. How the **** any corp with over eight hundred players over a year old is considered a noob corp or a noob training corp escapes me but leaving that aside for the moment by their in game actions have eve university offended me and. like every other group in EVE, I should have the same mechanics available to me to chastise them.



I would be interested in seeing the source for this.

The best I could find was this http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=819325 where a CCP employee expressed this opinion (and was then slapped down hard for being a 'tard) but I cannot find anything where CCP as an organisation state this.

I did find http://massively.joystiq.com/2008/08/10/eve-evolved-is-eve-online-going-soft/ and CCP did to some degree distance themselves from this opinion here: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=905941&page=1#19 It is funny how you accuse PS of misquoting you but you just fail to mention the important parts here in your revisionist Pravda.



Cheating their way out of wardecs is synonymous with eve university.

Every one I talk to thinks that any revised rules will make eve university virtually immune to wardecs while doing **** all to help anyone else.

The predominant claim is that eve university will either have the "new player" training corp tag applied to them or will have some sort of de facto massive ISK cost to dec them that will seriously discourage people from deccing them. These seem to be the most likely methods to give eve university immunity while still maintaining the fine fiction of CCP impartiality in this matter.

It is a pity that eve university is not a new player training corp now (as you noted, and as I pointed out months ago, and this was confirmed when eve university edited the new player part from their mission statement) but eve university is simply a massive carebear corp with a side order of teaching.

Again, we pay to dec one corp or one alliance not the number of members in that corp or alliance. This change will be a bad change for so many reasons.

War decs are fine as they are. High sec griefers need to come to low sec and learnt2play. Or wardec people who want to fight.

My alt corp fights high sec wars. They know how to PvP. They do low sec and null sec as well sometimes. Doesn't change the fact that the war dec mechanic is BS and needs fixing!!!

A) Bump
B) Bolded bit will never happen
C) They train n00bs - who the **** are you to tell them they can't have x,y,z number of characters over any age? What's the cut-off? Who decides?
D) Post with your main
edit to add:
"Quick! Someone call the whaaaa-mbulance!"

If they're asking for and receiving special protections on the basis of their claim that their purpose is to train new players, then a high percentage of relatively old characters (who are not actively teaching) would tend to work against that claim. In addition asking for special protections and receiving special protections would seem to me to work against their stated mission of training new players in all aspects of EvE; a game where nobody's special and nobody's safe.

If they weren't asking for nor receiving special protections, then the decision would be moot, and the community would decide if they wanted to punish those who attacked E-Uni.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=67445 another wardec suggestion posted here.

Is it true that a corp that drops from an alliance can't be wardecced until after the following downtime?

Dont want to pvp stay in npc corp. You want to have a corp and have corp assets be prepard to defend them. The only valid way to dodge a dec should be hide in npc corp.

How it is now works better than your solution.

If you make people "hide in npc corp" they will forever be excluded from wardecs (i.e. no way to fight them).

If you make them do like now, they are subject to at least 1 day of wardec, which enables you both to kill them and have a shot to their assets.

If they use dec shield you have them subject to wardec for 2+ days.

Once again, it's "on paper" vs what happens for real.