These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

HOW TO ABUSE THE LEGIT WARDEC EXPLOITS

Author
Dai DIEDIEDIE
Doomheim
#41 - 2011-11-16 19:07:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Dai DIEDIEDIE
/sigh forum
Dai DIEDIEDIE
Doomheim
#42 - 2011-11-16 19:08:48 UTC
Dai DIEDIEDIE wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
So how many actual high sec wardecs were motivated by leverage, revenge, and conquest?

And how many of them were "for the kills" and done against small corps of noobs?


I expect this to be another thread there griefers try to deny who and what they are, while they pretend they want to save the game from bad mechanics or exploits, and that it's all in the spirit of how the game should be played, etc.

In the end, we all know what this is really about because the word of the results - the endless line of "I don't know why these guys with years of experience decced us" - is hard to deny.

For those who will not admit to who and what they are, and continue to hide behind some idea of what this sandbox is supposed to be (and at the same time forget they are pushing "the sandbox" that is not supposed to be anything), the deception is part of the act. If I wanted to be lied to by a sociopath I can tune into C-SPAN and watch a politician make promises.


Hello special space friend. The Eve wikia is wonderful place.

Griefing In Eve

Please note:

In general, "griefing" is a term that means action against another player that makes the target feel like being targeted on purpose or for the sake of harassment only.

In EVE, "griefing" refers to various activities, some of which can be argued not to be "griefing" in the classic sense, but parts of valid gameplay.

Read and understand.

Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#43 - 2011-11-16 19:20:23 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

See above.


Once again we sit on opposite sides of the table. I have a POS anchored in high sec, amongst other things. Right now I am on the receiving end of a war dec from a PvP corp. I have no idea why they decced me, they haven't written to me, threatened me or attempted to extort anything from me.

The consequences for them? Pay a few million ISK.

The consequences for me? I've had to take down most of the modules for my POS's, online my hardeners, ECM/Neuts and guns. I have significantly altered my EVE activities and I can't do a lot of the things I did before. Freighter runs are now a no-no unless I have heavy escort. Mining is pretty much out of the question when there are war targets online.

Now, don't take this as tears - if I had really wanted to get out of it, it costs nothing to make another corp like OP said, and move everyone there. But honestly I can't be that bothered - in fact I wanted to try out some POS gunnery but it looks like that's not going to happen. However I merely want to point out that a low sec/null sec corp that declares war on a high sec corp suffers absolutely no consequences. The payment is trivial. High sec corps usually are not combat oriented. Their low sec counterpart's behavior is not going to change. On the other hand the high sec corp a) had to grind standing for god knows how long for most of its members just to be able to anchor in high sec b) is prohibited from most of its activities (hauling/mining/manufacturing/research) during war time and c) is probably in no shape to try to bring the other party to the surrender table through military force.

So really the high sec corporation has a lot more to lose than the low sec one during a war. Therefore considering it's absolutely trivial to be a major PITA to someone just by deccing them, why would you want to prevent those who really don't want to fight to try to avoid a fight? What's next - forcing people to play EVE to get shot at and not be able to quit instead of logging out and coming back once the war is over? Let the people who don't want to fight run away, and fight people who are prepared to make a stand.

I'm sitting here right now waiting for a fight, and no one shows up. So who exactly is taking advantage of game mechanics here?
Jenshae Chiroptera
#44 - 2011-11-16 19:39:01 UTC
Scout where the POS is.

War Dec them.
When they try to evade.
Shoot it into reinforced mode
Declare war again.
Blow it up.

If you are determined and make the effort, it is still possible

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal
#45 - 2011-11-16 19:56:00 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Scout where the POS is.

War Dec them.
When they try to evade.
Shoot it into reinforced mode
Declare war again.
Blow it up.

If you are determined and make the effort, it is still possible

That is entirely the point of this thread. That is not possible. There is a game bug that prevents you from wardeccing any corporation that has left an alliance until after the next downtime. On the chart where it shows the red and green for (war/peace) those really are times of absolutely peace. There is NOTHING any entity can do to touch you in that time.

The proposed CCP solution is to maintain aggression against the tower by shooting a POS mod at least once every 15 minutes to prolong your aggression past the end of the wardec. But if the tower has no defensive mods that is entirely impossible since you cannot find anything to lock onto to aggress.

There is one possible alternative which is insane and would be EXTREMELY hard to do if the owning corp was on the ball. You could theoretically have a fleet logged off on top of the tower, and sign in seconds before the wardec drops. And then you proceed to maintain aggression and kite the tower (keep it below 50% shields so they can't adjust the stront timer) but a full 23hrs and reinforce it right before downtime. In this way it's theoretically possible, but it'd require extreme coordination and dedication.

For all intensive purposes the tower is COMPLETELY immune. You cannot get around this.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#46 - 2011-11-16 20:02:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Ptraci wrote:
considering it's absolutely trivial to be a major PITA to someone just by deccing them, why would you want to prevent those who really don't want to fight to try to avoid a fight?
Because if you are allowed to dodge a dec without any ill effects because you “really don't want to”, then others will be able to do the same thing and it will be impossible to disrupt their activities even when there is a thoroughly legitimate reason to do so.

Your not wanting to fight is not a sufficient reason not to attack you.

Being dec:able and having to protect your resources is the price you pay for the many conveniences that come with having a corp. Don't want to pay the price? Then you don't get the benefits either.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#47 - 2011-11-16 20:08:31 UTC
Takseen wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Thorn Galen wrote:
It should cost billions to finance a war. 50 Million is a joke.




It should cost billions to fight a war. Just declaring it shouldn't cost much more than the cost of a registered delivery, or maybe a taxi if you're delivering the notification by hand.


I thought the wardec fee was a bribe to Concord to look the other way, no? Its not unreasonable to expect the costs to go up after so many years of ISK inflation.


It's equally reasonable to expect the bribed cops to stay bribed but that no longer applies, it seems.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Jenshae Chiroptera
#48 - 2011-11-16 20:17:28 UTC
The Zerg Overmind wrote:
... That is entirely the point of this thread. That is not possible. There is a game bug that prevents you from wardeccing any corporation that has left an alliance until after the next downtime. ...


Time it right and when you are next able to attack them, their stront will have just run out.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal
#49 - 2011-11-16 20:32:22 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
The Zerg Overmind wrote:
... That is entirely the point of this thread. That is not possible. There is a game bug that prevents you from wardeccing any corporation that has left an alliance until after the next downtime. ...


Time it right and when you are next able to attack them, their stront will have just run out.

If the owners of the tower fail to set their stront timer correctly then they can be killed yes. If they set it correctly they're invulnerable. Just because someone is terrible at the game doesn't mean the mechanics aren't broken.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#50 - 2011-11-16 20:53:15 UTC
Ptraci wrote:
The Zerg Overmind wrote:
Every day we aid more corporations evade wardecs.


Maybe you start deccing real corporations in low/null sec instead of carebears in high sec and stop having these problems.


"my high-sec towers should be totally immune to everything!!!"

get out

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#51 - 2011-11-16 21:17:50 UTC
The Zerg Overmind wrote:
This picture will show you exactly the step by step process on how to achieve highsec immunity from wardecs, and to save any of your towers infinitely. Your highsec towers will be completely invulnerable, no amount of wardecs will be able to destroy them, ever.

The exploit

For more information about the legality of this, visit this thread here, and see the GM ruling here.

CCP loves the mission bears, now go forth and use their exploits to enhance your gameplay. I will aid any of you with these abuses, Dec Shield will stand for the people. If you wish to promote a change to the current system of legal abuse, please give your support here.

To see a list of people we've aided with this in the past please visit our Dotlan listing. Every day we aid more corporations evade wardecs.


You can kill a POS in hisec if you are diligent and crafty. The only thing you cant do, and should not be able to do, is war dec a PERSON. And that's what the issue REALLY is. People are pissed that they cant GRIEF other individuals now.

I

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it

Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#52 - 2011-11-16 21:36:02 UTC
DarkAegix wrote:
So, Dec Shield hates the service it claims to give people?
Yeah, sounds like a scam.

Change your corp to 'OUTRAEG ANGREE' or something.


Im guessing Dec Shield started as a proof-of-concept to show how broken things are, i doubt they expected CCP to actually make it a legal tactic...

"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." - CCP

Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#53 - 2011-11-16 21:42:28 UTC
Ptraci wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

See above.


Once again we sit on opposite sides of the table. I have a POS anchored in high sec, amongst other things. Right now I am on the receiving end of a war dec from a PvP corp. I have no idea why they decced me, they haven't written to me, threatened me or attempted to extort anything from me.

The consequences for them? Pay a few million ISK.

The consequences for me? I've had to take down most of the modules for my POS's, online my hardeners, ECM/Neuts and guns. I have significantly altered my EVE activities and I can't do a lot of the things I did before. Freighter runs are now a no-no unless I have heavy escort. Mining is pretty much out of the question when there are war targets online.

Now, don't take this as tears - if I had really wanted to get out of it, it costs nothing to make another corp like OP said, and move everyone there. But honestly I can't be that bothered - in fact I wanted to try out some POS gunnery but it looks like that's not going to happen. However I merely want to point out that a low sec/null sec corp that declares war on a high sec corp suffers absolutely no consequences. The payment is trivial. High sec corps usually are not combat oriented. Their low sec counterpart's behavior is not going to change. On the other hand the high sec corp a) had to grind standing for god knows how long for most of its members just to be able to anchor in high sec b) is prohibited from most of its activities (hauling/mining/manufacturing/research) during war time and c) is probably in no shape to try to bring the other party to the surrender table through military force.

So really the high sec corporation has a lot more to lose than the low sec one during a war. Therefore considering it's absolutely trivial to be a major PITA to someone just by deccing them, why would you want to prevent those who really don't want to fight to try to avoid a fight? What's next - forcing people to play EVE to get shot at and not be able to quit instead of logging out and coming back once the war is over? Let the people who don't want to fight run away, and fight people who are prepared to make a stand.

I'm sitting here right now waiting for a fight, and no one shows up. So who exactly is taking advantage of game mechanics here?


This type of thinking right here is the problem.

"he can extort me for isk, but all i can do is take down all my POS stuff and hide"

Welcome to eve. Your POS is not supposed to be happy-funtime immunity. Anchoring a POS is placing that POS at risk. If your corp is unable to maintain that POS through wardecs then it doesnt deserve to have the POS.

This is a mechanic and feature of eveonline, the videogame which you signed up for. It is working as intended, in this case.

Nobody is supposed to be able to anchor a POS and be immune to wardecs

"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." - CCP

Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#54 - 2011-11-16 21:44:28 UTC
Andski wrote:
Ptraci wrote:
The Zerg Overmind wrote:
Every day we aid more corporations evade wardecs.


Maybe you start deccing real corporations in low/null sec instead of carebears in high sec and stop having these problems.


"my high-sec towers should be totally immune to everything!!!"

get out




Would you support a dialed in system to system warp capability for all ships so your 0.0 towers can be more easily reached without having to endure these gank/blob pipelines?

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Jita Alt666
#55 - 2011-11-16 21:44:41 UTC
I'm guessing some loud voices got into the ears of CCP members, complaining about how broken things were, and CCP responded.
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#56 - 2011-11-16 21:44:56 UTC
The Zerg Overmind wrote:
There seems to be a lack of reading comprehension in this thread by a fair number of people. We (Dec Shield) are not declaring wars against anyone, ever. We're absorbing wars from other people. We usually have 5-10 incoming wars. Everyone here making arguments that we should "move to low/nullsec" or stop griefing carebears doesn't even make sense since we're not doing any fighting ourselves. We're the ones saving these people.

It's not what you're writing that I question. It's how you're writing. And it seems quite clear that you are upset with CCP over the recent ruling with the war dec mechanics. So upset, in fact, that you've made it your own personal mission to "abuse" this mechanic because I suspect you think that will get it changed back to the status quo.

So yes, the argument for you to go pick on players that do want to fight is quite appropriate in this case.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#57 - 2011-11-16 21:48:17 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
So yes, the argument for you to go pick on players that do want to fight is quite appropriate in this case.
If you don't want to fight, don't plant a POS. In fact, don't create a corp. Doing either means you're in it for the competitive advantage, and robbing you of that advantage should always be an option.
Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#58 - 2011-11-16 21:49:53 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
The Zerg Overmind wrote:
There seems to be a lack of reading comprehension in this thread by a fair number of people. We (Dec Shield) are not declaring wars against anyone, ever. We're absorbing wars from other people. We usually have 5-10 incoming wars. Everyone here making arguments that we should "move to low/nullsec" or stop griefing carebears doesn't even make sense since we're not doing any fighting ourselves. We're the ones saving these people.

It's not what you're writing that I question. It's how you're writing. And it seems quite clear that you are upset with CCP over the recent ruling with the war dec mechanics. So upset, in fact, that you've made it your own personal mission to "abuse" this mechanic because I suspect you think that will get it changed back to the status quo.

So yes, the argument for you to go pick on players that do want to fight is quite appropriate in this case.


You see? Another kid who thinks he is entitled to be 100% invulnerable in Highsec.

These are the people who CCP are listening to now. Its their game now. In a year or two this will be Hello Kitty Online (Paintable pink ships here we come)

"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." - CCP

The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal
#59 - 2011-11-16 22:04:16 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
It's not what you're writing that I question. It's how you're writing. And it seems quite clear that you are upset with CCP over the recent ruling with the war dec mechanics. So upset, in fact, that you've made it your own personal mission to "abuse" this mechanic because I suspect you think that will get it changed back to the status quo.

So yes, the argument for you to go pick on players that do want to fight is quite appropriate in this case.

You can question my motives all you want. Ad hominem responses don't make me wrong. I've been very clear from the beginning that we want CCP to change the game mechanics to prevent the sorts of abuses that I promote. Player corps should be vulnerable to wardecs. Anchored towers should be vulnerable to wardecs.

We raise awareness by abusing this loophole loudly in public. I really hope CCP changes things to prevent what we're doing.
mkint
#60 - 2011-11-16 22:18:37 UTC
The Zerg Overmind wrote:
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
It's not what you're writing that I question. It's how you're writing. And it seems quite clear that you are upset with CCP over the recent ruling with the war dec mechanics. So upset, in fact, that you've made it your own personal mission to "abuse" this mechanic because I suspect you think that will get it changed back to the status quo.

So yes, the argument for you to go pick on players that do want to fight is quite appropriate in this case.

You can question my motives all you want. Ad hominem responses don't make me wrong. I've been very clear from the beginning that we want CCP to change the game mechanics to prevent the sorts of abuses that I promote. Player corps should be vulnerable to wardecs. Anchored towers should be vulnerable to wardecs.

We raise awareness by abusing this loophole loudly in public. I really hope CCP changes things to prevent what we're doing.

Aggressors in wardecs abuse the mechanics way more than defenders. Often aggressors pick corps too small and new to afford the alliance formation fees needed to create dummy alliances to shed wardecs, yet take advantage of those very same loopholes. I approve of your alliance because it helps balance the playing field. If there is to be an adjustment of the wardec mechanics/rules it needs to not just be a flat out nerf to defenders. The defenders are often usually at a fundamental disadvantage anyway as they typically do not have the experience, assets, skillpoints, intel/spies, or any other of the inherent advantages the aggressor gets (including the ability to pick their opponents.) I would love for something like "no local for aggressors" or something to help balance the fundamental advantages they otherwise have, plus more difficulty for both parties to corp/alliance hop.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.