These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

War dec exploit - CCP comment???

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#41 - 2012-01-05 19:30:45 UTC
Mara Villoso wrote:
At the end of the day, this is what we’re really talking about when we’re talking about wardec shields and evasion. Like it or not, you can lead a carebear to war, but you can’t make him fight.
…and that's very nice and all, but there's a clear distinction to be made between “not wanting to fight” and “getting all the benefits without having to pay for them”.

If they don't want to fight, they don't have to. In exchange, they shouldn't gain access to the stuff they have to fight for. The policy change removes this trade-off.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#42 - 2012-01-05 19:38:15 UTC
Mara Villoso wrote:
If a dec mechanic locked a corporation into an alliance (or out of one) and locked every single member into that corporation for the duration of the war, it would only lead to people leaving the game. The only result of a push to force people to PvP is that there will be no PvP from those people. It’s just not going to happen. Just like its not happening now, just like it hasn’t been happening for years. This ruling changes nothing in practice. Those people were always avoiding the decs. The only people affected by hisec wardecs are those with an attachment to their corp name, those with a POS that can’t be taken down quickly, and those who don’t know better. That’s it.


I'm fine with people dropping corp in the face of a Wardec. It provides the attacker with a clear indication of their success in hurting the Corp they are attacking. See, Corps don't wardec People, they wardec Corps. Having a Corp fold in the face of your onslaught would be pretty satisfying. Having an entire corp stay docked in fear is also satisfying. (These also tend to break up newbie only corps which are a really terrible idea for newbies to form, because EVE is ridiculously complex and has terrible manuals)

If my intention is to take down a POS, it's either because I want the moon (so the Corp unanchoring the POS is a win(and opportunity to ninja it)), or I want the loot, in which case it's an offline POS whose owners are assumed to be away from the game. Nobody shoots at POSes for shits and giggles.

EVE has a rich tradition of picking on the stupid, unwary, and uneducated. So tearing those who don't know better a new one fits right in.


I'm fine with people avoiding some non-consensual PvP. I just think it should be expensive (11%), inconvenient (dropping corp), or both.

"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
#43 - 2012-01-06 15:40:28 UTC  |  Edited by: ShipToaster
Make people pay a fee to drop as this is a penalty without locking people into wars.

RubyPorto wrote:
ShipToaster wrote:
This is a common misconception. You dont bribe CONCORD at all, but instead pay them the fee required under the Yulai Convention then CONCORD sanction your war.


In very few cases in corrupt countries will you hear bribes being called bribes. They will usually be called "Fees", "Processing Charges", "Expedited Service Charges"(with the understanding that it's expedited from never to sometime), etc.

So, Bribe, Fee, whatever. You pay 11% to be wardec-immune, or you can suffer at the hands of people paying the whatever to shoot you. It's a wonderful protection racket, that's perfectly in EVE's style, because CONCORD (and it's NPC corp co-conspirators) makes out like bandits on both ends.


You are assuming that CONCORD are corrupt but the fact that you cant counter bribe or pay them not to shoot you when you go GCC are both signs they are honest.

.
Roosterton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#44 - 2012-01-06 16:27:42 UTC
I'm all for corps allowing themselves to be exempt from a war... As long as they pay an 11% protection tax to CONCORD, and lose the ability to steal the empire's moons by anchoring/using POSes.

Oh, wait. Lol
David Grogan
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2012-01-06 16:34:35 UTC
BBB = Band of Brothers spelt by a dyslexic person

Everytime you buy something that says "made in china" you are helping the rising unemployment in your own country unless you are from china, Buy locally produced goods and help create more jobs.
Rodj Blake
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#46 - 2012-01-06 16:40:03 UTC
Tiberius Sunstealer wrote:
Brock Nelson wrote:
Against All Authories is still in this game?

Big Breasted Bastards are still in this game?

(Only thing I could think up that worked with BBB...What?)

Edit: Big Breasted Bandits is better.


Backdoor Bandit's Buggers

Dolce et decorum est pro Imperium mori
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#47 - 2012-01-06 23:22:09 UTC
ShipToaster wrote:
Make people pay a fee to drop as this is a penalty without locking people into wars.

RubyPorto wrote:
ShipToaster wrote:
This is a common misconception. You dont bribe CONCORD at all, but instead pay them the fee required under the Yulai Convention then CONCORD sanction your war.


In very few cases in corrupt countries will you hear bribes being called bribes. They will usually be called "Fees", "Processing Charges", "Expedited Service Charges"(with the understanding that it's expedited from never to sometime), etc.

So, Bribe, Fee, whatever. You pay 11% to be wardec-immune, or you can suffer at the hands of people paying the whatever to shoot you. It's a wonderful protection racket, that's perfectly in EVE's style, because CONCORD (and it's NPC corp co-conspirators) makes out like bandits on both ends.


You are assuming that CONCORD are corrupt but the fact that you cant counter bribe or pay them not to shoot you when you go GCC are both signs they are honest.


Or they find it hilarious when ships go BOOM. I know I do. Either they're honest or crooked, the mechanics are the same and I like the old wardec mechanics.

"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
#48 - 2012-01-09 19:43:16 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Either they [CONCORD] are honest or crooked, the mechanics are the same


This is one of these really picky things where, at first glance, as you say "honest or crooked, the mechanics are the same"; this is good enough for almost all situations, but there is a sneaky problem here and it can become a bigger issue than wardecs itself.

Just to make this point about CONCORD being corrupt or not corrupt 100% clear for those who dont realise the implications of why this distinction is important I will elaborate. A few threads have touched on this but none have taken it to the logical conclusion.

If CONCORD are in any way corrupt then the push must be for more options to exploit this corruption. The most obvious example posted before is to bribe CONCORD to allow you to avoid suicide ganking repercussions.Why pay for wardecs to be exempt from CONCORD in limited situations when you can instead pay directly for absolute immunity?

If CONCORD are seen as honest then this will never be an issue. The so called "counter bribes" ideas by carebears introduce corruption into CONCORD and we get the problem in the previous paragraph and anyone asking for more avenues to exploit this corrupt CONCORD is fully legitimised to do so, and they will.

.
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#49 - 2012-01-09 19:55:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Morganta
point being conflicting default text that is issued when the state of the dec changes does not mean the mechanic has changed

if I try and shut down a computer that is still booting up, I will get the message that the machine is shutting down, but it doesn't actually start shutting down until it finishes or reaches a break point in the start up routine.

you got a default message, but it didn't change the mechanic.
this is why I said its meaningless unless you can actually shoot a WT under those conditions

also a message does not always indicate a flag state changing, so be clear about the differences between notification text and flagging, the two are not necessarily connected in the way you think
Rellik B00n
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#50 - 2012-01-09 19:56:10 UTC
saw redpost, expected news on reworked war mechanics, left disappointed.
[Of a request for change ask: Who Benefits?](https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=199765)
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#51 - 2012-01-09 21:02:57 UTC
ShipToaster wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Either they [CONCORD] are honest or crooked, the mechanics are the same


This is one of these really picky things where, at first glance, as you say "honest or crooked, the mechanics are the same"; this is good enough for almost all situations, but there is a sneaky problem here and it can become a bigger issue than wardecs itself.

Just to make this point about CONCORD being corrupt or not corrupt 100% clear for those who dont realise the implications of why this distinction is important I will elaborate. A few threads have touched on this but none have taken it to the logical conclusion.

If CONCORD are in any way corrupt then the push must be for more options to exploit this corruption. The most obvious example posted before is to bribe CONCORD to allow you to avoid suicide ganking repercussions.Why pay for wardecs to be exempt from CONCORD in limited situations when you can instead pay directly for absolute immunity?

If CONCORD are seen as honest then this will never be an issue. The so called "counter bribes" ideas by carebears introduce corruption into CONCORD and we get the problem in the previous paragraph and anyone asking for more avenues to exploit this corrupt CONCORD is fully legitimised to do so, and they will.


Really good points. I was going with Corrupt CONCORD because it made me giggle, but you're right. CONCORD being played straight as honest cops is better for the future of EVE and stemming the onslaught of the age of the Carebear Stare.

"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
Feligast
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#52 - 2012-01-09 21:35:10 UTC
Valei Khurelem wrote:

Why haven't you given peaceful corporations the option of blocking war declarations? I want to hear the reasoning from CCP on this and not just gankers who want things to stay the same so they can get easy industrial kills in high sec.


There's no such thing as a peaceful corporation. You making ships? You're feeding the war machine. Modules? Same. Moving things for other players? Same. POS fuels? Same. Your actions are helping other corporations make war, therefore you are a valid target as well.
Previous page123