Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Har Harrison
Amarrian Retribution
116
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 03:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
So CCP changed the corp jumping mechanics to allow people to leave corps and not deem it an exploit.
But what about people forcing a war dec that lets them shoot without the 24 hour notice period??
Notification 1
AAA Destruction Declares War Against BBB From: CONCORD Sent: 2012.01.04 23:43
AAA has declared war on BBB. Fighting can legally occur between those involved.
Notification 2
AAA Retracts War Against BBB From: CONCORD Sent: 2012.01.04 23:43
The war between AAA and BBB is coming to an end.AAA has retracted the war against BBB. The war will be declared as being over after approximately 24 hours.
Corp management tab shows
Started 2012.01.01 00:00:05 Issued By AAA Against BBB Finished 2012.01.04 23:43:00 Can Fight Yes Retracted 2012.01.04 23:43:00 Mutual No
So explain to me, how a dec can made, immediately pulled, and they get 24 hours to shoot someone???
This was is on an alt, but the same thing happened to this corp a few months back. I thought it was noobs being silly initially, but now I realised that a number of corps are doing this to get legal pew in high sec without their targets realising they have started a war and don't have the 24 hours grace period.
Oh, there is also a typo in the retraction notification - no space between the period and the name of the deccer
coming to an end.[war deccer] has retracted
Fix Faction Warfare CCP!!! |
Brock Nelson
229
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 03:45:00 -
[2] - Quote
Against All Authories is still in this game? |
Tiberius Sunstealer
Phantom Soulreavers
30
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 03:55:00 -
[3] - Quote
Brock Nelson wrote:Against All Authories is still in this game? Big Breasted Bastards are still in this game?
(Only thing I could think that worked with BBB...) |
Har Harrison
Amarrian Retribution
116
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 04:01:00 -
[4] - Quote
I used AAA and BBB to hie the corps/alliances involved...
Fix Faction Warfare CCP!!! |
Morganta
Peripheral Madness The Midget Mafia
765
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 04:09:00 -
[5] - Quote
its meaningless unless you actually tried to shoot a WT
did you? The American public's reaction to the change was poor and the new cola was a major marketing failure. The subsequent reintroduction of Coke's original formula, re-branded as "Coca-Cola Classic", resulted in a significant gain in sales, leading to speculation that the introduction of the New Coke formula was just a marketing ploy |
Har Harrison
Amarrian Retribution
116
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 04:56:00 -
[6] - Quote
They decced us - no idea if they have found anyone yet and tried to shoot them...
The issue is that they can shoot without the 24 hour notice occuring
Fix Faction Warfare CCP!!! |
Brock Nelson
229
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 05:10:00 -
[7] - Quote
So...how you know that they can shoot you without the 24 hours notice occuring? |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1138
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 05:44:00 -
[8] - Quote
Brock Nelson wrote:So...how you know that they can shoot you without the 24 hours notice occuring?
^^^^ This.
OP, are you really expecting EVE to have correct documentation on how Anything works? If so, you must be really new here. |
Har Harrison
Amarrian Retribution
116
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 08:38:00 -
[9] - Quote
Brock Nelson wrote:So...how you know that they can shoot you without the 24 hours notice occuring? Can Fight = Yes
Or is the game so broken that this flag says that they can fight, when it actual fact they can't???
Fix Faction Warfare CCP!!! |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1138
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 08:54:00 -
[10] - Quote
Har Harrison wrote:Brock Nelson wrote:So...how you know that they can shoot you without the 24 hours notice occuring? Can Fight = Yes Or is the game so broken that this flag says that they can fight, when it actual fact they can't???
Probably, yeah. Plenty of stuff in the game that says one thing, but acts differently. |
|
ShipToaster
91
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 09:27:00 -
[11] - Quote
Anything except joining a corp within space is allowed according to the big wardec thread. Gosh CCP are so darn nice and CCP Guard is the best of all... |
Mara Tessidar
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
323
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 09:38:00 -
[12] - Quote
CCP doesn't give a rat's ass about highsec war dec mechanics anymore, so if the problem that you say exists actually exists don't expect some kind of solution.
I could be nice and say "I hope they fix it" but it's been 6 years since the mechanics were adjusted so I'm not holding my breath. Notify: You are eaten by the Whumpus
http://goo.gl/uX5vk |
KrakizBad
Eve Defence Force Fatal Ascension
171
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 09:49:00 -
[13] - Quote
This is worth a Sisi login. Griefing alliance jumpers sounds like fun. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/39006524/DumbHiseccers.jpg |
|
GM Lelouch
Game Masters C C P Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 09:52:00 -
[14] - Quote
A corporation/alliance will always have to wait for 24 hours before aggressions can begin at the start of a war, there is no way to bypass this timer, war retraction shenanigans will not actually achieve this.
A corporation will however continue to be involved in a war for 24 hours after leaving a warring alliance. Notifications such as the ones in this thread are sent out in such an event, but they are sadly not very descriptive at all so it is quite easy to mistake them for an exploit while everything is actually in order.
In this particular instance, AAA (corporation) was a member of CCC (alliance), an alliance which was at war with BBB (alliance). AAA left CCC at 2012.01.04 23:43 (the time at which the notifications were sent) and will therefore continue to be at war with any entities CCC was at war with for a period of 24 hours. Note that AAA was already at war with these entities before through their membership of CCC.
Finally, if any of CCC's wars had started less than 24 hours ago, it would mean that AAA would not be at war with them until that stasis period ends. For example, if CCC had declared war on DDD at 2012.01.04 23:00, both CCC and AAA wouldn't be able to fire upon DDD targets until 2012.01.05 23:43. AAA would in other words only be at war for 43 minutes before their involvement ends as they left the CCC alliance the day before. Best regards, Senior GM Lelouch EVE Online Customer Support |
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
1948
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 10:02:00 -
[15] - Quote
LAWYERED!
|
|
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1138
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 10:16:00 -
[16] - Quote
Chribba wrote:LAWYERED!
So GM and CCP posts also notify you, I guess. |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
334
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 10:27:00 -
[17] - Quote
GM Lelouch wrote:A corporation/alliance will always have to wait for 24 hours before aggressions can begin at the start of a war, there is no way to bypass this timer, war retraction shenanigans will not actually achieve this. What about the target of a wardec joining an alliance after the war is active? That causes an instant war between the agressors and the alliance the target joined:
- Corp A declares war on Corp B.
- Corp B applies to alliance C.
- 24 hours pass while the alliance application is processed.
- Corp A is at war with Alliance C the instant the notifications arrive.
What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644 |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1138
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 10:29:00 -
[18] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:GM Lelouch wrote:A corporation/alliance will always have to wait for 24 hours before aggressions can begin at the start of a war, there is no way to bypass this timer, war retraction shenanigans will not actually achieve this. What about the target of a wardec joining an alliance after the war is active? That causes an instant war between the agressors and the alliance the target joined: - Corp A declares war on Corp B.
- Corp B applies to alliance C.
- 24 hours pass while the alliance application is processed.
- Corp A is at war with Alliance C the instant the notifications arrive.
The Alliance can see Corp B's incoming wardec, IIRC. |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
334
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 10:37:00 -
[19] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Jack Dant wrote:GM Lelouch wrote:A corporation/alliance will always have to wait for 24 hours before aggressions can begin at the start of a war, there is no way to bypass this timer, war retraction shenanigans will not actually achieve this. What about the target of a wardec joining an alliance after the war is active? That causes an instant war between the agressors and the alliance the target joined: - Corp A declares war on Corp B.
- Corp B applies to alliance C.
- 24 hours pass while the alliance application is processed.
- Corp A is at war with Alliance C the instant the notifications arrive.
The Alliance can see Corp B's incoming wardec, IIRC. Only by explicitly searching for wars (no automated notification). And Corp A has no warning at all. What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644 |
Valei Khurelem
House Khurelem
114
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 10:49:00 -
[20] - Quote
GM Lelouch wrote:A corporation/alliance will always have to wait for 24 hours before aggressions can begin at the start of a war, there is no way to bypass this timer, war retraction shenanigans will not actually achieve this.
A corporation will however continue to be involved in a war for 24 hours after leaving a warring alliance. Notifications such as the ones in this thread are sent out in such an event, but they are sadly not very descriptive at all so it is quite easy to mistake them for an exploit while everything is actually in order.
In this particular instance, AAA (corporation) was a member of CCC (alliance), an alliance which was at war with BBB (alliance). AAA left CCC at 2012.01.04 23:43 (the time at which the notifications were sent) and will therefore continue to be at war with any entities CCC was at war with for a period of 24 hours. Note that AAA was already at war with these entities before through their membership of CCC.
Finally, if any of CCC's wars had started less than 24 hours ago, it would mean that AAA would not be at war with them until that stasis period ends. For example, if CCC had declared war on DDD at 2012.01.04 23:00, both CCC and AAA wouldn't be able to fire upon DDD targets until 2012.01.05 23:43. AAA would in other words only be at war for 43 minutes before their involvement ends as they left the CCC alliance the day before.
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. |
|
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1138
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 11:08:00 -
[21] - Quote
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.
CCP Has. You just have to pay an 11% Tax and are unable to set up a POS.
The reason player corps can't block war decs are many. 1. Eve embraces nonconsensual PvP 2. If I could turn off wardecs, I'd put an offline POS on Every Single Hisec Moon and sell them at exorbitant prices. (If you need a resource a competitor has, EVE is meant to allow you to take it) 3. Many other reasons.
Full Disclosure: I have never been in a Corp with an offensive wardec active. I have advised some friends on how to war dec another corp in order to take down their POS, but that was after I moved to Null.
EDIT: Actually, staying in station 24/7 is another valid way of blocking wardecs. |
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
132
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 11:28:00 -
[22] - Quote
I was going to post something really rude and demeaning, but the guy above me put it so succinctly I simply lost the ability to post in a mean tone. So I'll simply go with "What he said!" "Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."
"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1138
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 11:32:00 -
[23] - Quote
Ancy Denaries wrote:I was going to post something really rude and demeaning, but the guy above me put it so succinctly I simply lost the ability to post in a mean tone. So I'll simply go with "What he said!"
Now I should Edit the post to totally reverse my position.
The Edit feature's why I quote so many posts I respond to. |
Xtover
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
46
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 11:33:00 -
[24] - Quote
Wait we wardecced who? |
Tallian Saotome
Casa Del Wombat
321
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 11:48:00 -
[25] - Quote
Joining an alliance while wardecced is the best. If your about to join an alliance, you should always try and gather as many tiny little corps wardeccing you as possible, just to laugh while they frantically cancel their decs when they get the massive spam of being decced suddenly to an alliance. o/`-á Lord, I want to be a gynecologist.. KY, rubber gloves, and a flashlight.-á o/` |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1138
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 14:49:00 -
[26] - Quote
Xtover wrote:Wait we wardecced who?
Lonetrek, from what I hear. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
4278
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 14:59:00 -
[27] - Quote
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. Because making yourself a target for wardecs means you're also given access to a number of features and functions that comes in direct competition with the activities of other players, and those other players need to have a way to stop you from making use of those features.
You can't take part in the motor race if you don't want to face the risk of driving head-long into a wall at high speed and exploding. It's the cost of doing business. Don't want to pay the cost? Then you don't get to do business. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2554
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 15:07:00 -
[28] - Quote
Valei Khurelem wrote:GM Lelouch wrote:A corporation/alliance will always have to wait for 24 hours before aggressions can begin at the start of a war, there is no way to bypass this timer, war retraction shenanigans will not actually achieve this.
A corporation will however continue to be involved in a war for 24 hours after leaving a warring alliance. Notifications such as the ones in this thread are sent out in such an event, but they are sadly not very descriptive at all so it is quite easy to mistake them for an exploit while everything is actually in order.
In this particular instance, AAA (corporation) was a member of CCC (alliance), an alliance which was at war with BBB (alliance). AAA left CCC at 2012.01.04 23:43 (the time at which the notifications were sent) and will therefore continue to be at war with any entities CCC was at war with for a period of 24 hours. Note that AAA was already at war with these entities before through their membership of CCC.
Finally, if any of CCC's wars had started less than 24 hours ago, it would mean that AAA would not be at war with them until that stasis period ends. For example, if CCC had declared war on DDD at 2012.01.04 23:00, both CCC and AAA wouldn't be able to fire upon DDD targets until 2012.01.05 23:43. AAA would in other words only be at war for 43 minutes before their involvement ends as they left the CCC alliance the day before. 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.
Why haven't they given Pvpers the option to buy everything at NPC price? I want to hear the reasoning from CCP on this and not just carebears who want things to stay they same so they can get easy industrial profits in high sec. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Jaldard
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 15:45:00 -
[29] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Valei Khurelem wrote:GM Lelouch wrote:A corporation/alliance will always have to wait for 24 hours before aggressions can begin at the start of a war, there is no way to bypass this timer, war retraction shenanigans will not actually achieve this.
A corporation will however continue to be involved in a war for 24 hours after leaving a warring alliance. Notifications such as the ones in this thread are sent out in such an event, but they are sadly not very descriptive at all so it is quite easy to mistake them for an exploit while everything is actually in order.
In this particular instance, AAA (corporation) was a member of CCC (alliance), an alliance which was at war with BBB (alliance). AAA left CCC at 2012.01.04 23:43 (the time at which the notifications were sent) and will therefore continue to be at war with any entities CCC was at war with for a period of 24 hours. Note that AAA was already at war with these entities before through their membership of CCC.
Finally, if any of CCC's wars had started less than 24 hours ago, it would mean that AAA would not be at war with them until that stasis period ends. For example, if CCC had declared war on DDD at 2012.01.04 23:00, both CCC and AAA wouldn't be able to fire upon DDD targets until 2012.01.05 23:43. AAA would in other words only be at war for 43 minutes before their involvement ends as they left the CCC alliance the day before. 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. Why haven't they given Pvpers the option to buy everything at NPC price? I want to hear the reasoning from CCP on this and not just carebears who want things to stay they same so they can get easy industrial profits in high sec. Why haven't they given unicorn ponies the option to dance on rainbows? I want to hear the reasoning from CCP on this and not just awkward analogies from people who want things to stay they same and keep the common sense out of this game.
but seriously, although I can understand the necessity of allowing players to destroy high-sec POS and stuff, war-decs are still a lame and ridiculously wrong solution, not to mention the role-play inconsistencies. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2555
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 15:57:00 -
[30] - Quote
Non consensual PvP - whether conducted with guns or over the market screen - is a core tenet of the game.
I'd be the last to disagree that the whole wardec system is horribly broken and needs to be completely reworked, but not at the price of just allowing corps to say "nuh-uh, don't wanna".
As said above, the risk of a wardec goes with the reward of having corp facilities. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
|
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1138
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 16:11:00 -
[31] - Quote
Jaldard wrote:but seriously, although I can understand the necessity of allowing players to destroy high-sec POS and stuff, war-decs are still a lame and ridiculously wrong solution, not to mention the role-play inconsistencies.
What RP inconsistencies? You bribe CONCORD to look the other way while you murder the shit out of people. CONCORD gives people notice to allow them to keep some semblance of legitimacy.
CONCORD is colluding with the NPC corps to run a protection racket, and the dumb muscle is paying for the privilege of being the racket's stick.
And EVE is, always has been, and is meant to be a lawless game universe. The fact that the only rule in Hisec is not to violence people's boats, and that rule can be sidestepped and its consequences mitigated emphasizes that.
Out of Game, *All* of the Eve advertising focuses on the PvP content of the game. You can try to play EVE in pure PvE mode, but it's not officially supported or endorsed. |
Xtover
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
46
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 16:19:00 -
[32] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Xtover wrote:Wait we wardecced who? Lonetrek, from what I hear. Aye, that we have
Then again my sec status has dropped like a rock. (+4 to pushing -2) |
Jaldard
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 17:57:00 -
[33] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Jaldard wrote:but seriously, although I can understand the necessity of allowing players to destroy high-sec POS and stuff, war-decs are still a lame and ridiculously wrong solution, not to mention the role-play inconsistencies. What RP inconsistencies? You bribe CONCORD to look the other way while you murder the s hit out of people. CONCORD gives people notice to allow them to keep some semblance of legitimacy. CONCORD is colluding with the NPC corps to run a protection racket, and the dumb muscle is paying for the privilege of being the racket's stick. And EVE is, always has been, and is meant to be a lawless game universe. The fact that the only rule in Hisec is not to violence people's boats, and that rule can be sidestepped and its consequences mitigated emphasizes that. Out of Game, *All* of the Eve advertising focuses on the PvP content of the game. You can try to play EVE in pure PvE mode, but it's not officially supported or endorsed. I have to admit you nailed it rather well by comparing concord and organised crime.
But in that case, I have to disagree with the "lawless" thing, it's certainly not a "lawless" universe, it's a universe where laws are used to piss off, annoy, steal, and "murder the shit" out of people. And, to top it all, law enforcement officers are invincible demigods, making EvE the most law-regulated existing game universe (at least outside null-sec space). |
Jaldard
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 17:59:00 -
[34] - Quote
nvm |
Jaldard
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 17:59:00 -
[35] - Quote
nvm, two time in a row, this must be a world record. :/ |
Michael Turate
The Bembridge Mining Company
35
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 18:33:00 -
[36] - Quote
No war, no Eve. Conflict is the beating heart of the experience and you are part of the great adventure. You can react and respond to aggression in any way you see fit, it's an on-going opportunity to expand the experience not a restriction of your rights to stack things in little piles. Sandbox means that sometimes other people will want to kick over your sandcastles, perhaps they're also clever and they'll wait to do it until the playground monitor is busy putting a plaster on the fat boy with the bowl haircut. You need your own clever, when the smelly man who hangs around the fence comes back and asks if any one wants to see some puppies, go over to the bad boy and tell him the smelly man is giving out free ice cream. You get the idea. |
ShipToaster
91
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 18:51:00 -
[37] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:You bribe CONCORD to look the other way while you murder the shit out of people. CONCORD gives people notice to allow them to keep some semblance of legitimacy.
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. Gosh CCP are so darn nice and CCP Guard is the best of all... |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1140
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 19:17:00 -
[38] - Quote
Jaldard wrote:]I have to admit you nailed it rather well by comparing concord and organised crime.
But in that case, I have to disagree with the "lawless" thing, it's certainly not a "lawless" universe, it's a universe where laws are used to piss off, annoy, steal, and "murder the shit" out of people. And, to top it all, law enforcement officers are invincible demigods, making EvE the most law-regulated existing game universe (at least outside null-sec space).
The only law enforcement officers who are invincible are CONCORD who enforce one rule, and one rule only. Don't violence each other's boats when you're not supposed to. The Faction police are tankable, killable, and indeed farmable for tags. They cover hunting baddies.
So unless you're including Game mechanics in the "Laws" part of the game, the only Law that I can think of is don't shoot people unless X. The X marks the slightly complex part.
And if it's law-regulated, why are Fraud, Awoxing, Theft, Scamming, Spamming, and Market manipulation all perfectly unregulated in Eve's Hisec (in fact, most of them are celebrated).
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. |
Mara Villoso
Big Box
62
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 19:25:00 -
[39] - Quote
Quoting myself from the original GM thread:
Mara Villoso wrote:Have you ever heard the expression, GÇ£You can lead a horse to water, but you canGÇÖt make him drinkGÇ¥? The fundamental issue here is that some people just donGÇÖt want to fight. The devs and GMs and mercenaries may wish otherwise and may seek to find ways to force the issue, but those efforts are doomed to failure.
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. ItGÇÖs just not going to happen. Just like its not happening now, just like it hasnGÇÖt 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 canGÇÖt be taken down quickly, and those who donGÇÖt know better. ThatGÇÖs it.
CCP should spend a little time gathering information from those players about why they donGÇÖt want to fight. Or under what conditions they would.
At the end of the day, this is what weGÇÖre really talking about when weGÇÖre talking about wardec shields and evasion. Like it or not, you can lead a carebear to war, but you canGÇÖt make him fight.
|
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1140
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 19:27:00 -
[40] - Quote
Xtover wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Xtover wrote:Wait we wardecced who? Lonetrek, from what I hear. Aye, that we have Then again my sec status has dropped like a rock. (+4 to pushing -2)
I keep waiting for another Jita protest, so I can try to hit -10 in one GCC, but CCP keeps not failing. I am disappoint.
Good luck in Low. We'll be down here puttering around Feyth, tidying up after you. Hopefully you'll all come back for some fights.
*mutter*Such messy people, just look at all these systems all left in disarray*muttermutter* |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
4279
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 19:30:00 -
[41] - Quote
Mara Villoso wrote:At the end of the day, this is what weGÇÖre really talking about when weGÇÖre talking about wardec shields and evasion. Like it or not, you can lead a carebear to war, but you canGÇÖt make him fight. GǪand that's very nice and all, but there's a clear distinction to be made between GÇ£not wanting to fightGÇ¥ and GÇ£getting all the benefits without having to pay for themGÇ¥.
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.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1141
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 19:38:00 -
[42] - Quote
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. ItGÇÖs just not going to happen. Just like its not happening now, just like it hasnGÇÖt 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 canGÇÖt be taken down quickly, and those who donGÇÖt know better. ThatGÇÖs 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. |
ShipToaster
91
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 15:40:00 -
[43] - Quote
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. Gosh CCP are so darn nice and CCP Guard is the best of all... |
Roosterton
Shattered Star Exiles SpaceMonkey's Alliance
233
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 16:27:00 -
[44] - Quote
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. |
David Grogan
The Motley Crew Reborn
295
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 16:34:00 -
[45] - Quote
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.
658
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 16:40:00 -
[46] - Quote
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... ) Edit: Big Breasted Bandits is better.
Backdoor Bandit's Buggers
Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori. |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1146
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 23:22:00 -
[47] - Quote
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. |
ShipToaster
91
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 19:43:00 -
[48] - Quote
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. The only contact I want to have with eve university is if I can have them all ****** to death by space robo donkeys.
Griefing CCP - Bounties for E-Uni Ganking: action continues. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=343354#post343354 |
Morganta
Peripheral Madness The Midget Mafia
768
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 19:55:00 -
[49] - Quote
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 The American public's reaction to the change was poor and the new cola was a major marketing failure. The subsequent reintroduction of Coke's original formula, re-branded as "Coca-Cola Classic", resulted in a significant gain in sales, leading to speculation that the introduction of the New Coke formula was just a marketing ploy |
Rellik B00n
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers The 0rphanage
123
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 19:56:00 -
[50] - Quote
saw redpost, expected news on reworked war mechanics, left disappointed. my war dec solution |
|
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1162
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 21:02:00 -
[51] - Quote
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. |
Feligast
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
930
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 21:35:00 -
[52] - Quote
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. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |