Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Biggess Boobess
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 11:41:00 -
[1]
So is there actually any point in the war decleration system, if all you do is leave corp to get past the war.
Surely a 5 day period where you can't leave corp or at least a 100 mill fine for leaving corp. I know the Forum mods locked another thread about macro mining war dec....don't lock this one as I'm not on about that!
So basically I can do whatever I want with a corp and no one can do anything about it in empire, because I'll just dissolve corp before a war dec 24 hrs.
|
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 11:47:00 -
[2]
The point of a wardec is to damage the corporation you are wardeccing.
If the corporation dissolves, have you not completed your goal in full? -- Proud member of the [23].
The Tachikomas are DEAD! Click sig for video.
|
Flyyn
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 11:48:00 -
[3]
So your going to sit there when a tank division starts heading your way with the goal of destroying your town? I may stay but the non combatants will be heading the other way.
Same thing here. You war dec a non combative corp, of course they are going to run away...give me a break.
You people complain when they wont log on to die under your guns and now your complaining they wont stay in the corp you want to destroy.
|
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 11:52:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Rod Blaine on 20/01/2006 11:51:58 you arent allowed to leave and recreate your corp upon being war decced.
Its not easy to act on for GM's, but if you can show a target doing it repeatedly then the GM should be acting.
If not, please let me know and I will be glad to raise hell on these forums about it.
|
Fester Addams
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 11:55:00 -
[5]
Lets see, you are asking why a person can leave a corp before a war goes hot to avoid getting caught in it?
A war is there to allow one corp to take bloody action against a second one, the possibility to leave a corp that is declared upon is there so that you dont get caught in a war you dont want to be in.
The declaring corp can have people who dont want to be in the war leave before they declare it so why should not people in the target corp get to bail out too.
At present the only "leaving a corp to avoid war" action that is considered an exploit is if you leave the corp to get out of a trap, ie you leave the corp, get out past the people trying to catch you and then rejoin.
In short, leaving is almost always acceptable, rejoining however is a different matter.
As for disolving a corp that has been declared on, yes it is a possibility and a good countermeasure to the random war declarations done by some players to get to gank weak corps in empire.
|
Gariuys
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 11:55:00 -
[6]
War is about destroying the corporation you're attacking for some reason, if you achieve this without fighting, have you not achieved your goal and then some...
Or was your wardec more about getting too loot some easy victims cause you can't cut fighting people that might fight back? Guess you're fat outta luck then. Might I suggest farming oh BoB, hear they got some good modules equiped, might be a bit hard at your lvl though. ~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~ A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool |
Nyphur
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 11:56:00 -
[7]
It's an exploit to disband and recreate a corp to nullify wardecs or to all leave and join another corp any time you get wardecced. But there's nothing wrong with jumping ship when you get wardecced.
Eve-Tanking.com - For the ultimate tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Gariuys
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 11:57:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Gariuys on 20/01/2006 11:57:51
Originally by: Rod Blaine Edited by: Rod Blaine on 20/01/2006 11:51:58 you arent allowed to leave and recreate...
Didn't see anything mentioned in the OP that would suggest anything of the sort, so you're being a bit overeager. Edit: And you ain't the only one. ~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~ A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool |
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 12:09:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Gariuys Edited by: Gariuys on 20/01/2006 11:57:51
Originally by: Rod Blaine Edited by: Rod Blaine on 20/01/2006 11:51:58 you arent allowed to leave and recreate...
Didn't see anything mentioned in the OP that would suggest anything of the sort, so you're being a bit overeager. Edit: And you ain't the only one.
This isnt the first thread about this particular case
|
Cypherous
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 12:11:00 -
[10]
I have to agree with the OP, while its not an exploit to leave the corp you are deccing its very frustrating, there should be some sort of penalty to it to atleast allow you a few days to shoot at them.
Yes i know there will be much flaming but consider this, if the USA (an example justdue to size) were to war dec the UK (just an example dont get any funny ideas) could the UK just jump to france to escape?
|
|
Gariuys
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 12:15:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Cypherous I have to agree with the OP, while its not an exploit to leave the corp you are deccing its very frustrating, there should be some sort of penalty to it to atleast allow you a few days to shoot at them.
Yes i know there will be much flaming but consider this, if the USA (an example justdue to size) were to war dec the UK (just an example dont get any funny ideas) could the UK just jump to france to escape?
We ain't roleplaying countries but corporations, and reallife comparisons are useless. And this whole mentatility of: If I want too kill, you should have no option but die, extremely annoying.
And apologies wasn't aware of the previous discussion regarding this case. ~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~ A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool |
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 12:20:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Gariuys
We ain't roleplaying countries but corporations, and reallife comparisons are useless. And this whole mentatility of: If I want too kill, you should have no option but die, extremely annoying.
And apologies wasn't aware of the previous discussion regarding this case.
I don't have a problem with people quitting a corp to avoid dying, but comming back afterwards should not be easy. Either you think the corp is worth fighting for, or you don't
When you quit a corp it should be a big descision, with consequences, not a quick and easy way to avoid a fight.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Gariuys
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 12:22:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Avon I don't have a problem with people quitting a corp to avoid dying, but comming back afterwards should not be easy. Either you think the corp is worth fighting for, or you don't
When you quit a corp it should be a big descision, with consequences, not a quick and easy way to avoid a fight.
300% agreed ~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~ A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool |
Nyphur
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 12:24:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Gariuys
We ain't roleplaying countries but corporations, and reallife comparisons are useless. And this whole mentatility of: If I want too kill, you should have no option but die, extremely annoying.
And apologies wasn't aware of the previous discussion regarding this case.
I don't have a problem with people quitting a corp to avoid dying, but comming back afterwards should not be easy. Either you think the corp is worth fighting for, or you don't
When you quit a corp it should be a big descision, with consequences, not a quick and easy way to avoid a fight.
Consequenes in Eve are player-driven. It's a social game. Don't expect them to add in punishments by way of a game mechanic for doing something morally ambiguous and completely objective.
Eve-Tanking.com - For the ultimate tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 12:30:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Nyphur
Consequenes in Eve are player-driven. It's a social game. Don't expect them to add in punishments by way of a game mechanic for doing something morally ambiguous and completely objective.
Why not? Shooting n00bs in Kisogo is morally ambiguous, but concord and sentry guns are certainly game mechanics, not player consequences.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Nyphur
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 12:39:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Nyphur
Consequenes in Eve are player-driven. It's a social game. Don't expect them to add in punishments by way of a game mechanic for doing something morally ambiguous and completely objective.
Why not? Shooting n00bs in Kisogo is morally ambiguous, but concord and sentry guns are certainly game mechanics, not player consequences.
Leaving a corp is hardly a core game mechanic. PvP is a universal constant for which there are universal rules. They're required rules, we really don't need a game penalty for leaving a corp, especially considering how varied the reasons for doing so are. Are we to be penalised for switching from one friend's corp to his new corp when he decides to change the name? Will we be flagged as exploiting corp-jumpers for moving from one corp to their PVP/mining sister-corp?
Face it, a mechanic to punish people for corp jumping does mroe bad than good.
Eve-Tanking.com - For the ultimate tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 12:43:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Nyphur
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Nyphur
Consequenes in Eve are player-driven. It's a social game. Don't expect them to add in punishments by way of a game mechanic for doing something morally ambiguous and completely objective.
Why not? Shooting n00bs in Kisogo is morally ambiguous, but concord and sentry guns are certainly game mechanics, not player consequences.
Leaving a corp is hardly a core game mechanic. PvP is a universal constant for which there are universal rules. They're required rules, we really don't need a game penalty for leaving a corp, especially considering how varied the reasons for doing so are. Are we to be penalised for switching from one friend's corp to his new corp when he decides to change the name? Will we be flagged as exploiting corp-jumpers for moving from one corp to their PVP/mining sister-corp?
Face it, a mechanic to punish people for corp jumping does mroe bad than good.
lol, either consequences in Eve should be player driven or they should not - stop fence hopping.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Gariuys
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 12:44:00 -
[18]
RE;Nyphur, so what we end up with is a system that has no game mechanics in place for it, but GMs that can quite easily check into this. Not exactly cost effective, but think it's the only just way to do it.
As long as people stop complaining that their targets flee if they have absolutely no wish to fight, or ability to fight. ~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~ A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool |
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 12:46:00 -
[19]
The subjectisnt corp hopping, but dissolving a corp under threat of war with the intent to simply reform it under another name.
Its not about individuals leaving corps for other corps or even npc corps, its about groups evading the war mechanic by using a game mehcanic in a way it isnt intended to be used.
Wait, what is that the definition of again ?
|
Nyphur
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 12:47:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Avon lol, either consequences in Eve should be player driven or they should not - stop fence hopping.
Read what I typed. Thanks.
Eve-Tanking.com - For the ultimate tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
|
Andrue
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 12:49:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Cypherous I have to agree with the OP, while its not an exploit to leave the corp you are deccing its very frustrating, there should be some sort of penalty to it to atleast allow you a few days to shoot at them.
It is also very frustrating (and stressful) for a non-combatant to lose their ship and equipment or to take a forced, weeks long sabatical from Eve because they can't risk undocking. That's how you lose people from Eve.
What is wrong (IMO) would be leaving when the war starts then rejoining as soon as it's over. I would favour some kind of cooling off period that prevents prior members returning too soon - but that's a little tricky to implement.
It would have to prevent a player that left during a wardec period from rejoining within a certain time of the end of the wardec.
It has to be quite specific because you only want to inhibit non-combatants, specifically those that left when they realised they were at war. -- (Battle hardened miner)
[Brackley, UK]
WARNING:This post may contain large doses of reality. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 12:53:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Nyphur
Originally by: Avon lol, either consequences in Eve should be player driven or they should not - stop fence hopping.
Read what I typed. Thanks.
I did.
Your initial premise was that consequences should be player driven, not enforced by game mechanics.
I put forward a situation where the consequences are handled by game mechanics.
You then moved to a position where some situations should require a player response, and other should require a game mechanic response.
I think that as leaving and rejoining a corp is an abuse of game mechanics, to avoid the consequence of player actions, it should be restricted via game mechanics.
My position has not changed. Yours however...
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Virida
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 12:53:00 -
[23]
An problem with an hardcore game as eve, is its so hardcore it can become unplayable in periods.
95% of the pvp system is so unusual it dont exist anyplace else, and some of the most interesting aspects of eve, is forbidden by permanent ban penalties other place.
If its no way to "carebear" out of anything, eve would be unplayable.
|
Marcus Tedric
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 12:53:00 -
[24]
As soon as I read the rules on War Declarations I thought I immediately understood what it was for.
Being able to Declare War on a Corporation prevented that Corp from hiding in Empire (where it gets Concord security) after having 'done something to warrent the war' outside empire.
If there was a way to prevent the blackmail/harrassment/grief War Decs that keep happening, then this wouldn't be a problem. If that could be done, then I'd certainly support penalties, or prevention, of people leaving Corps.
The one thing I've never understood is why paying Concord to 'look the other way' cannot be countered by paying them equally to re-establish the security?
Then a bidding war could start!
|
Gariuys
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 12:59:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Rod Blaine The subjectisnt corp hopping, but dissolving a corp under threat of war with the intent to simply reform it under another name.
Its not about individuals leaving corps for other corps or even npc corps, its about groups evading the war mechanic by using a game mehcanic in a way it isnt intended to be used.
Wait, what is that the definition of again ?
Oh oh I know, I know.... pick me pick me.... The answer is EXPLOIT!! ~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~ A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool |
Fester Addams
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 13:02:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Cypherous Yes i know there will be much flaming but consider this, if the USA (an example justdue to size) were to war dec the UK (just an example dont get any funny ideas) could the UK just jump to france to escape?
Bad example, a better example would be that USA plans to for example have a major operation against Nabulus and gives the non combat inhabitants 24hrs to leave the city before they attack.
If memory serves me the US did exactly this, sadly their defenition of combatant was any male between the age of 15 to 70 or somthing silly like that meening lots and lots of civilians remained in the city.
|
Antic
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 13:26:00 -
[27]
If someone declares on an empire corp that has absolutely no wish at all to PVP, wich is why they are in empire probably, or are too new at the game to dare to even venture into PVP and the costs it bears with it, then they should not be disapointed and come here complaining when the target people do whatever they can to avoid fighting.
Sure its your invested time in the game where you want to have fun PvPing. But its the same situation for them with their time, and for them dying in PVP may not be their cup of tea.
So if you make it impossible to corp jump to avoid war, the only thing that would happen is that the corp would just not be online or play alts for the duration of the war, and ergo you would still not get your targets.
So why not declare war on another PVP corp isntead? Or alternaly come join the meleT in 0.0 with the rest of us? There you wont have to get bored to death ganking newbs, industrials and miners, instead you get to face people who are ready to fight. Winning in such conditions is much more gratifying belive me. And its also what distinguishes the men from the wimps and wannabes.
|
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 14:05:00 -
[28]
Oh, I agree that there are issues with undesirable wars too.
But there are also more ways then dissolving and reforming your corp to "run" from a wardec.
Eve after all remains a darwinian game. If you cannot surivive you need to evolve or die. That goes for corporations in particular. A corp not able to deal with the correct use of the war declaration system in high sec has no right of existence. They should evolve, i.e. merge with another corp, organise better, hire protection, run to the other end of eve, etc. etc.
But, on the other hand there is a fair point to make that declarations of war against corproations just for the hell of it are not "correct use of the war declaration system", adn tehrefore need adressing too.
I could agree with that. The problem is that both are issues that are exremely hard to adress while keeping within the spirit of the game as CCP means it.
|
000Hunter000
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 14:12:00 -
[29]
So we got wardeclared last week (and it's allready over now hehe) and we started moving our non combat members to other locations or out of the corp, but a contingent remained to fight... would u consider that an exploit then? I think not!
Oh btw, they retracted the war after a week or so, cause they found out we were not the pushovers they were lead to believe, so imo figthing the war is worth it, first for your own selfesteem, 2nd to make people think twice about wardeclaring u again.
Actually this war was pretty usefull as some of our members got their needed pvp training from it, and sure we lost some ships, but we had fun as well
|
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2006.01.20 14:22:00 -
[30]
Actually, removing your non-comabt memebrs from the corp and then getting them back in after is indeed an epxloit, if CCP can be believed.
Wether it'll be enforced is another issue it seems.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |