| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
MitchPT
Shade.
Cry Havoc.
   |
Posted - 2009.08.22 13:34:00 -
[31]
signed,this is just lamme, grow a pair and actually defend the POS'es instead of messing with dodgy game mechanics.
|
Mevadem
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2009.08.23 01:24:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Mevadem on 23/08/2009 01:23:59
My petition regarding this subject... the responses can be read in my post on page one of this thread.
Original petition:
I have recently spent much time with my alliance, Cry Havoc, working on a war dec against XXXXXXX. During the war dec, XXXXXXX joined an Alliance (YYYYYYYYY). Upon Cry Havoc re-inforcing a XXXXXXX Large tower in ZZZZZZZZZZZ, XXXXXXX immediately resigned from the alliance to escape the War Dec.
This is a known exploit, please see the following CCP link:
http://www.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=1719&tid=1
The time spent killing a large POS in empire is considerable. The exploit has been a known issue to CCP for some time. Can CCP re-enstate the War Dec againsts XXXXXXX without allowing a gap in time, so we can continue with the removal of the said POS? Can CCP remove the POS in question? The downfall of XXXXXXX tower is inevetible, as Cry Havoc will prevail, but CCP needs to address issues of this nature and punish those who exploit the system. Please advise as to how this will be addressed and what Cry Havoc's next point of contact within CCP should be to have this issue corrected in a timely maner,
thank you for your time...
Sincerely
Mev.
-------------------------------------------------------------
See the first reply from CCP in my orginal post on Page one
-------------------------------------------------------------
GM XXXXX,
Please forgive my ignorance, maybe I my comprehsion of the english language is a bit off, from where it should be, considering English is my first language, but please read the follow quote from CCP and posted 2008.01.10 16:32:33:
"This is an unintended game mechanic and it will be fixed as soon as possible. Until then we are putting a stop to this situation and anyone found abusing this loophole will receive a warning for their trouble. Repeated offenses of this nature may also result in a ban."
you can find the information here:
http://www.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=1719&tid=1
Now, I'm pretty sure it specifically states "this loophole" and yes, "unintended game mechanic", please emphasize "unintended".
This is wrong and needs to be addressed. It is also my understanding the corporation in question has utilized this "loophole" in the past.
Wgen will the seriously be looked at, and addressed?
-------------------------------------------------------------
See the second CCP reply in my post on page 1
-------------------------------------------------------------
|
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2009.08.23 08:43:00 -
[33]
yessss
---
Zombie Apocalypse Guitar-Wielding Superteam |
lockinvar
Einherjar Rising
|
Posted - 2009.08.23 10:00:00 -
[34]
signed. Annoying as hell.
|
rEvolutionTU
Liquid Inc.
Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.08.23 11:03:00 -
[35]
Full support.
|
Nur AlHuda
Callide Vulpis
|
Posted - 2009.08.23 11:19:00 -
[36]
support
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.08.23 13:13:00 -
[37]
 Originally by: Jazzadanub
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Beside the:
"don't post GM replies" rule
can you post the QUESTION you made?
From the sound of those replies I have a doubt your petition was unclear about the exploit used.
From what I know leaving a wardecced corporation in allowed, joining a Alliance when wardecced and then leaving, giving the wardec to the alliance and shedding it from the corporation was declared an exploit and never "un-declared" as such.
If really that was changed and it is not an effect of miscommunication, yes the ruling must me changed.
The original petition, which I submitted was,
Quote:
Our alliance declared war against Corp. XXXXXXXXXX on 2009.06.17 02:28 to enable us to kill their high sec POSes. They then joined Alliance XXXXXXXX on 2009.06.18 04:53 which bought our current wardec to the alliance. We have just reinforced two of the XXXXXXXXXXX POSes in Muvolailen (both come out of reinforced in over 30 hours) and straight after they have left the alliance at 2009.06.19 07:31 so that the current wardec we have against them runs out (24 hours) before the two POSes come out of reinforced. This is clearly an attempt for them to use the wardec mechanics to avoid Cry Havoc being able to finish their POSes off. I am aware that CCP deems this conduct as an exploit. Can you tell me how we are going to be able to continue to have a current wardec against Corp XXXXXXXXXXXXXX to enable us the opportunity to finish the POSes off.
Given I also linked the post CCP said doing such actions were an exploit, I found it quite humorous that they now choose it to be normal game play mechanics
Textbook perfect petition. And the times cited make it very clear.
Even if I mostly a carebear in my eyes it is an exploit and I find strange that it is no more ruled as such.
Already supported and worth of an explanation in the icelanding meeting.
|
Arcturus Io
Shade.
Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2009.08.23 15:50:00 -
[38]
+1
MS for CSM
also
MS for YMCA
|
Izo Alabaster
Friendly Neighbourhood Extortion Company
|
Posted - 2009.08.23 16:37:00 -
[39]
Completely agree with the OP and those frustrated by corps exploiting joining/leaving an alliance to save a POS.
I've had this happen to me several times: We attack a hisec POS. The defending corp (who is in an alliance) doesn't bother to show up, knowing full well they can simply leave the alliance to save it. Once we put the tower into reinforced, they leave the alliance, and in the time that it takes us to dec the corp (which has now become very expensive to dec because we're already at war with the alliance), they rep it up, remove the goodies, and put more defenses on it.
Petitioning yields poor results at best.
This game mechanic seriously needs to be addressed.
|
Tryptic Photon
Mad Bombers
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.08.23 17:04:00 -
[40]
signed
|
Ikoma Sunblazer
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 11:08:00 -
[41]
Bamp
|
Yarael5
Total Mayhem.
Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 11:53:00 -
[42]
+1
|
lucifers widow
3rd Kador lancers
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 12:16:00 -
[43]
Edited by: lucifers widow on 24/08/2009 12:21:09
Originally by: MitchPT
signed,this is just lamme, grow a pair and actually defend the POS'es instead of messing with dodgy game mechanics.
While I do think that people who really not want or have the capability to fight a war do need a way to not fight apart from the dock for a week method just to pander to the big boys who want to beat down on easy targets I think mitch has brushed upon an important thing, a POS.
Once a corp has hung a tower it has basically left the play EVE with no commitments stage behind and planted themselves in the target corp bracket by "holding space", even if it is just a moon in high sec for a tower.
From that point on they should be wardeccable with no escape from it, wether they leave an alliance or join one the war sticks until the deccing corp stops paying or accepts surrender.
This from a carebear btw
|
LlamaOfDoom
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 12:18:00 -
[44]
|
Mistress Suffering
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 22:24:00 -
[45]
Originally by: lucifers widow
While I do think that people who really not want or have the capability to fight a war do need a way to not fight apart from the dock for a week method just to pander to the big boys who want to beat down on easy targets I think mitch has brushed upon an important thing, a POS.
Once a corp has hung a tower it has basically left the play EVE with no commitments stage behind and planted themselves in the target corp bracket by "holding space", even if it is just a moon in high sec for a tower.
From that point on they should be wardeccable with no escape from it, wether they leave an alliance or join one the war sticks until the deccing corp stops paying or accepts surrender.
This from a carebear btw
Your point about having a POS making you truly playing EVE at the multiplayer level (prior to that you can basically just belong to an NPC corp, sit in empire, and play EVE single-player) is a good one.
I think more in terms of player-owned corps as the breakpoint for the same thing. As long as you're in an NPC corp, you're pretty much not yet playing the game with other folks (or perhaps more accurately, dodging much of the accountability of doing so). Once out, wardecs should, as I believe they were designed, stick.
|
Rogerano
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 04:48:00 -
[46]
First it's an exploit, then it's not... Nice
---
Not happy with something in EVE? An emo whine will doubtless help your cause. |
Matting
NQX Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 06:31:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Matting on 25/08/2009 06:31:28
Supported!
We had this happen to us and it was pointless to try again after they re-joined the alliance as they had removed all their industrial mods and just fitted it out a lot more defensibly. I also feel its not fair to single corps out there who are war dec'd and don't get this second chance those in alliances do.
We are a corp so its even worse that we HAVE to do a 24 hour vote before even getting to start the 24 hours period.
|
ElanMorin6
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 07:03:00 -
[48]
please fix this.
|
Smiska Grizzel
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 07:09:00 -
[49]
I fully support this.
The existing mechanics can easily be exploited to save POSes that otherwise would legitimately die, and can be exploited ad nauseum.
If a corporation leaves an alliance, any wardecs should stay with them for the full remainder of the week's wardec. If a corporation joins an alliance, then that alliance should be at war for the remainder of the week. The latter option still gives a large boost of defensive capabilities to the decced corp in question, but at least provides the declaring corp with the ability to continue their campaign against their original target.
Surely CONCORD would want to see the spirit of the Yulai Convention upheld, would they not? |
AlphaMeridian
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 07:25:00 -
[50]
Support. Clarify either whether it is an exploit (which I hope it to be found to be) or not an exploit, and then alter game mechanics such that you can warm up on any corp IN an alliance and not just the alliance itself. When the they drop the alliance, you should then be able to dec on the corp. However, this is not currently possible because it is impossible to warm up a war declaration on an corp in an alliance, which is all shades of bull****, really. With all of that "and fixed exploits that made Eve a better game for all" that inevitably comes out every time a patch comes out one would HOPE something as easily fixable as this "exploit" would make the list.
|
Amy Wang
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 09:19:00 -
[51]
Fully support this!
Moreover I would say that the extra wardec on the corp(s) leaving the alliance should not count to the active wardec count which is both relevant for wardec fees on additional decs as well as for the three wardec limit for corporations.
e.g. atm if you dec an alliance as a corp and two corps leave the alliance your three wardec slots are effectively filled because of that adding injustice to insult pretty much
|
Mister Xerox
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 09:54:00 -
[52]
Fixes for this have been proposed for years and CCP avoids them, allowing exploiters to continue their exploits without repercussion.
War declarations should flag all members of the corp/alliance declared upon. Jumping alliance should not be a defacto escape clause, the war flag should maintain through the current war cycle and expire only when that period ends. Likewise jumping corp should not be an individual's escape clause... they (and they alone) should be flagged for that current war period.
End of story.
Mechanics should be put in place that enables an individual/corp/alliance to avoid or terminate a war prior to the cycle end... the current contract system is perfectly suited to that use.
|
MeatyBites
Shade.
Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 10:32:00 -
[53]
+1
|
Phillipe d'Rothschild
Discrete Solutions Ltd.
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 11:21:00 -
[54]
Supported because this is an exploit that CCP should fix asap.
|
Julius Lincinius
Ex Coelis
The Bantam Menace
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 11:21:00 -
[55]
I support this proposal
|
RahSun
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 11:23:00 -
[56]
Voting in support of something CCP knows about and should have fixed a long time ago.
|
Dalanya
Malevolent Intentions
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 11:35:00 -
[57]
Supported. |
Kalvor Azrael
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 12:22:00 -
[58]
Supported
|
Molock Saronen
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 13:06:00 -
[59]
|
Priscilla Pegasus
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 15:59:00 -
[60]
Signed this has happened all to often and the fact it still it allowed to happen due to the game mechanics I'm sure a solution should be in place already.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |