EVE Search - [Proposal] LOOPHOLE: Alliance Wardec Dodging

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Proposal] LOOPHOLE: Alliance Wardec Dodging

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mistress Suffering Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.08.21 20:30:00 - [1] ITEM: Corporation level wardecs can be freely shed in Empire by joining/leaving an Alliance. SOLUTION: When a Corporation departs an alliance, any wardec against the Alliance is carried onto the Corporation and lasts for its natural duration. These 'leftover' wardecs do not count towards wardec costs for other wardecs. THOUGHTS: Using an Alliance to shed wardecs was previously classified as an exploit by CCP, but I think they didn't want to take the time to enforce it and thus reclassified it as not being one later. This now means that any corporation can shed empire wardecs within 48 hours simply by joining/leaving an alliance, and getting the added bonus of increased wardec cost (both against the original target and against the alliance) for the attacker. This is even more dodgy when used to protect empire POS. Example - Let's say you wardec my corporation to attack a highsec POS I own. Ok, you reinforce the POS so it will come out of reinforced 1.5 days from now. I now go ahead and have my corp leave the alliance. 24 hrs later it is untargetable, and you were not able to declare a new wardec against me because you still had the leftover one from before that was expiring. When you finally can re-wardec my corp, my POS will have already come out of reinforced and been fully repped, ready for me to simply rejoin my alliance and repeat the process. The attacker's only real workaround here is to use secondary corps with pre-voted wardec proposals ready to be dropped on the defending corp the moment it hits the 'leave' button on its alliance. Now this corp can join the attacking alliance (you were an alliance weren't you, sorry if you're a corp you have no recourse at all) and share its wardec with that alliance. That's a huge amount of extra work, cost, and rules juggling to accomplish what should have been simple in the first place. You wanted to wardec a corp and kill it for a week, which is exactly what a wardec is supposed to pay for. Make it do exactly that.
Mr Vrix Vrix Nation	Posted - 2009.08.21 20:38:00 - [2] fully support this1 . ______________________________________________ Better to Die many times Then to Never Lived atall
Tortugan F9X	Posted - 2009.08.21 20:50:00 - [3] Edited by: Tortugan on 21/08/2009 20:51:21 Supported. When you pay to declare war on an alliance for a week, you are paying to declare war on ALL the corporations in an alliance for a week- if they leave the alliance after war has been declared, they should be subject to the same week of war. The current mechanic makes no sense- anyone who knows what they're doing can make their high-sec POS invulnerable by continuously joining/leaving alliances. If you want to defend your high-sec POS during a wardec, either deathstar it (which is already OP enough in high-sec), or take it down for the duration of the wardec. This is a very big issue for anyone PVPing in empire, and I hope that the CSM gives it high priority.
Drake Draconis Minmatar Shadow Cadre	Posted - 2009.08.21 20:56:00 - [4] Last I heard this was a petition-able offense if abused. I suggest you explore that route. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com =========================
Hickock Caldari Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.08.21 20:59:00 - [5] Originally by: Drake Draconis Last I heard this was a petition-able offense if abused. I suggest you explore that route. Nope, we already petitioned and they said it was legal, even though they have a dev blog about it being illegal -------------- Visit http://extremepredators.com/ for more information.
Tortugan F9X	Posted - 2009.08.21 21:07:00 - [6] Originally by: Drake Draconis Last I heard this was a petition-able offense if abused. I suggest you explore that route. I'll quote a petition of mine when I get home- but no, this is no longer considered an exploit.
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.08.21 21:09:00 - [7] Originally by: Hickock Originally by: Drake Draconis Last I heard this was a petition-able offense if abused. I suggest you explore that route. Nope, we already petitioned and they said it was legal, even though they have a dev blog about it being illegal That's consistency. We've had similar discussions about this before (corp-hopping etc to avoid war decs) - I'd frankly like to see the entire War Dec mechanic overhauled to be more functional. I think it should be possible to withdraw from a war (surrending or what have you) but it should involve some kind of sacrifice aside from just making a new corp or leaving the one you're in. Here's an idea - Alliance A war decs Alliance B. Corp C leaves Alliance B to dodge War Dec. War dec follows C, and they gain a new (free) War Dec from B for being deserters. Now everyone from A and B can shoot them. Meh, it may be my meds talking. I'm really not feeling well today. --Vel You're killing me Smalls!
Tortugan F9X	Posted - 2009.08.21 21:15:00 - [8] Originally by: De'Veldrin Originally by: Hickock Originally by: Drake Draconis Last I heard this was a petition-able offense if abused. I suggest you explore that route. Nope, we already petitioned and they said it was legal, even though they have a dev blog about it being illegal That's consistency. We've had similar discussions about this before (corp-hopping etc to avoid war decs) - I'd frankly like to see the entire War Dec mechanic overhauled to be more functional. I think it should be possible to withdraw from a war (surrending or what have you) but it should involve some kind of sacrifice aside from just making a new corp or leaving the one you're in. Here's an idea - Alliance A war decs Alliance B. Corp C leaves Alliance B to dodge War Dec. War dec follows C, and they gain a new (free) War Dec from B for being deserters. Now everyone from A and B can shoot them. Meh, it may be my meds talking. I'm really not feeling well today. That could be fun :) Though it reminds me a bit to much of the Lofty scam- I have the feeling someone would find a way to abuse it.
Baaldor Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.08.21 21:16:00 - [9] Originally by: Drake Draconis Last I heard this was a petition-able offense if abused. I suggest you explore that route. U mad?
Drake Draconis Minmatar Shadow Cadre	Posted - 2009.08.21 21:17:00 - [10] Originally by: Baaldor Originally by: Drake Draconis Last I heard this was a petition-able offense if abused. I suggest you explore that route. U mad? I was fine until you posted. :) ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com =========================
Brock Dillinger Gallente University of Caille	Posted - 2009.08.21 21:19:00 - [11] There's already a solution to this: wardec the corp that left the alliance. If you want to blow up ships so badly, what's a few million more? Don't support it.
JZIM Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.08.21 21:19:00 - [12]
Dibsi Dei Salamyhkaisten kilta	Posted - 2009.08.21 21:19:00 - [13] Edited by: Dibsi Dei on 21/08/2009 21:19:19 Have had experience of this. Since tower reinforce can last two days corporations may easily save their towers with the current 24 hour wardecs.
Hai Gaise	Posted - 2009.08.21 21:22:00 - [14] Originally by: Brock Dillinger There's already a solution to this: wardec the corp that left the alliance. If you want to blow up ships so badly, what's a few million more? Don't support it. From the OP: Originally by: Mistress Suffering This is even more dodgy when used to protect empire POS. Example - Let's say you wardec my corporation to attack a highsec POS I own. Ok, you reinforce the POS so it will come out of reinforced 1.5 days from now. I now go ahead and have my corp leave the alliance. 24 hrs later it is untargetable, and you were not able to declare a new wardec against me because you still had the leftover one from before that was expiring. When you finally can re-wardec my corp, my POS will have already come out of reinforced and been fully repped, ready for me to simply rejoin my alliance and repeat the process. Please read the arguments put forward before dismissing them.
Tortugan F9X	Posted - 2009.08.21 21:22:00 - [15] Originally by: Brock Dillinger There's already a solution to this: wardec the corp that left the alliance. If you want to blow up ships so badly, what's a few million more? Don't support it. And in the time it takes you to wardec them, they've joined and left another alliance, thus invalidating your wardec and making their POS invulnerable. They can do this as often as the please, costing the wardeccing corp significant amounts of ISK, and precious time. Don't get me wrong- if this mechanic wasn't being utterly abused in its current state, I'd have no problem with it, but for now, high sec POSes are invincible to those who know how to bend the rules.
Xing Fey	Posted - 2009.08.21 22:27:00 - [16] Fully supported!
Bob Mc Shade. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.08.21 23:20:00 - [17] Supported.
Lucas Avidius Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.08.22 00:44:00 - [18] Needs fixing, or at e absolute very least enforcement/clarification by the GMs.th
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.08.22 01:22:00 - [19] Something needs to be done about this, yes.
Ev0rz	Posted - 2009.08.22 01:35:00 - [20] frustrating loophole to say the least.
Jazzadanub Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.08.22 01:53:00 - [21] /signed
Don Pellegrino	Posted - 2009.08.22 01:58:00 - [22] Originally by: Brock Dillinger There's already a solution to this: wardec the corp that left the alliance. If you want to blow up ships so badly, what's a few million more? Don't support it. There is indeed a solution. But does it mean the current system is perfect? No. It can be improved and that's why we're here.
Raith Dresden Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.08.22 03:10:00 - [23] Edited by: Raith Dresden on 22/08/2009 03:10:28 Supported. The War Dec should stay with the original entity and not be shed like a snake skin when you join / leave an alliance 24hrs later.
Mevadem Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.08.22 03:52:00 - [24] /signed... and fully support a review and overhaul of these flawed "game mechanics". As stated by OP... previously identified and commented on by CCP as a "loophole" that "Repeated offenses of this nature may also result in a ban"... CCP Post From CCP (linked above): alliance hopping to avoid wars is not allowed reported by CCP Wrangler \| 2008.01.10 16:32:33 "Presently, there is a loophole that some corporations are using to avoid wars that have been declared on them. As soon as a war has been declared on the corporation, they join an alliance and, once admitted, they immediately leave the alliance again. The result is that they are only involved in an active war for 24 hours and not a week as should be the case according to normal war game-play mechanics. Bogus alliances have even been created for the sole purpose of giving corps a way out of wars. 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. " CCP now states the following (from a recent petition): "Hi, senior GM Spiral here. Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding back to your petition. The issue that you were reporting here to us within this petition is not considered an exploit given it is how the game mechanics currently function within the game. This may be somewhat against the spirit of EVE and we assure that we will have this brought up with our game design team to see if they wish to take this mechanic under review. We apologize for the time it has taken to respond to this and hope that the final decision presented to you here will be to your satisfaction. If you have any further questions or concerns then please do not hesitate to ask. Best regards, Senior GM Spiral EVE Online Customer Support Team " And followed up with by this.... "Thank you for your update. The news update from January 2008 is no longer applicable as it was sent out in response to another issue which was declared an exploit at the time. That was later resolved. The current issue is simply a factor of the current game mechanics and will only be altered with changes made to those mechanics. Best way to voice your concerns with those mechanics is to make yourself heard through the EVE Online forums. As stated, we have informed the game developers of the concerns expressed to us through the petition system and that is unfortunately all that we can do at this time. Best regards, Senior GM Spiral EVE Online Customer Support Team " /signed again!
Didier Oriol Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.08.22 05:09:00 - [25] Mistress says if I don't support this thread she'll cut me off from the veld roids... NOT my precious veld roids! P.S. I do actually support this
Micia Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.08.22 05:40:00 - [26] Signed.
Mr Bright Shade. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.08.22 10:14:00 - [27] Supporting.
Venkul Mul	Posted - 2009.08.22 10:25:00 - [28] Edited by: Venkul Mul on 22/08/2009 10:27:30 Originally by: Mevadem /signed... and fully support a review and overhaul of these flawed "game mechanics". GM replies 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.
Suitonia Genos Occidere	Posted - 2009.08.22 11:03:00 - [29] support --- Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist
Jazzadanub Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.08.22 11:05:00 - [30] 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
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.
XoPhyte Black Nova Corp	Posted - 2009.08.25 18:09:00 - [61] Supported I love when CCP is aware of a loophole, implements a policy against exploiting it, then changes their mind without telling anyone and without fixing the loophole. Consistency was never CCP's strong point tbh.
General Minos Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.08.25 20:36:00 - [62] Not much else needed to be said, supported.
thatboydc GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.08.26 01:14:00 - [63] Supported.
Zaisig Murakk Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.08.26 01:28:00 - [64] Supporting this.
Zaisig Murakk Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.08.26 01:28:00 - [65] welp forgot to actually sipport
Neo Koki	Posted - 2009.08.26 05:44:00 - [66] Supported. CCP please do the right thing and fix this loophole. Risk free empire POS by abusing game mechanics is wrong.
Nota Ero Flipmode Industries	Posted - 2009.08.26 07:09:00 - [67]
Alivi Hek Frozen Industries	Posted - 2009.08.26 07:41:00 - [68] Supported.
Peasant John	Posted - 2009.08.26 09:41:00 - [69] Signed.
Anna Martinov Hek Frozen Industries	Posted - 2009.08.26 10:06:00 - [70]
ToonS Goldstein Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.08.29 01:44:00 - [71]
Saithe Heretic Army Heretic Nation	Posted - 2009.08.29 09:28:00 - [72] Edited by: Saithe on 29/08/2009 09:30:30 This is like saying Country A declares war against Country B, so Country B joins forces with Countries C, D, and E. Now, Country A can no longer shoot Country B, nor can they shoot Country C, D, or E. There needs to be a permanently temporary timer on wardecs. For example, lets say Alliance A declares war against Alliance B on 8/20/2009 20:00. From that day until the day the wardec ends, EVERY member corp of the alliance at that specific time is affected, even if a member corp of Alliance B leaves. Subsequently, every new member corp that joins the alliance has instant access to the wardec after 24 hours. Lets look at a different scenario. Alliance/Corporation A delcares war against CORPORATION B. Corporation B decides to join an alliance to dodge the dec. To solve this, no matter where Corporation B goes, the wardec affects then for the duration of the dec. If they do join an alliance, after the first week of war goes against Corporation B, Corporation A would then have to wardec the Alliance. I get extremely ****ed off when a corporation dodges a wardec. Owing to lack of Eve-related content, signature removed. If you would like to discuss this, please mail [email protected] - Mitnal(lovespinkfont)
I SoStoned	Posted - 2009.08.29 09:29:00 - [73] As I've said for years... war declarations should flag each and every individual pilot in an alliance/corp. Corp jumps alliance, war sticks with them. Player jumps corp, war sticks with them (though does not escalate to their new corp... but new corp members can assist *after the new member comes under attack by his legitimate war opponents*). Either way, once the initial war duration expires the corp/player flags terminate and they have to be declared against individually as entities (corp/alliance). Now, as for these join/jump exploiters, in the short term this can be fixed easily by CCP: Petition filed. GM examines petition, examines Corp's behavior, and deems it to be a purposeful alliance dodge, and initiates an immediate declaration of war from the original declarer to the jumper. No time duration to wait out, no need for the petitioning corp to vote again. If the corp continues to do this their CEO faces a possible ban... or, simply enough, all of the corp's POSs are immediately put offline.
Roastedpot Blutkinder	Posted - 2009.08.31 12:09:00 - [74]
Irongut H A V O C Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.08.31 12:46:00 - [75] War dec mechanics are a total mess and need reworking. Ways to avoid war decs need to be closed. -- Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist
Nika Dekaia	Posted - 2009.08.31 13:51:00 - [76] GoGo inconsistency. This clearly is an exploit and should be handled that way. Plug those damn holes. I so hope for a overhaul of the wardec mechanics. But then again I'm not sure if CCP might make it worse (as in carebearish).
Psi Klone	Posted - 2009.09.02 22:10:00 - [77] Implement this idea immediately. This can make empire wars against a reluctant party almost impossible.
Oh Takashawa Child Head Injury and Laceration Doctors	Posted - 2009.09.03 16:13:00 - [78] Fully supported.
Reef Skywalker	Posted - 2009.09.05 11:45:00 - [79]
Captain Baccus Snuggle Muffins	Posted - 2009.10.22 01:41:00 - [80]
Jason Edwards Internet Tough Guy	Posted - 2009.10.22 01:53:00 - [81] Currently if you do this. You get in **** for breaking game mechanics. So meh. ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. ------------------------ Life sucks and then you get podded.
Disposeble Alt	Posted - 2009.10.22 09:07:00 - [82] Supported, Corps leaving an alliance should get a copy of every active alliance war. And While I know it would be hard to arrange, Every corp member leaving a corp with active wars should get something similar to a personal wardec as well. Posts by alts hide political affiliation and history. No political statement by any alt should be taken seriously.
Thanatomania Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.10.22 10:58:00 - [83]
Hun Jakuza 24th Imperial Guard	Posted - 2009.10.22 11:35:00 - [84] /supported
Tiger's Spirit	Posted - 2009.10.22 11:36:00 - [85] signed
LlamaOfDoom Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.11.16 01:05:00 - [86] Edited by: LlamaOfDoom on 16/11/2009 01:05:44 Friendly bump to keep this on the minds of the Eve Devs and new CSM candidates.
Foulque	Posted - 2009.11.16 01:27:00 - [87] Originally by: Xing Fey Fully supported! ________
FU22 Imperium Signal Corps Underworld Excavators	Posted - 2009.11.16 13:32:00 - [88] Supported.
Isan'na	Posted - 2009.11.29 16:14:00 - [89] Supported!
I SoStoned Caldari	Posted - 2009.11.29 19:25:00 - [90] Whole lotta thumbs up, but zero movement or even a vote in the last... er... any CSM meetings.
Maxsim Goratiev Imperium Technologies	Posted - 2009.11.29 19:57:00 - [91] Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 29/11/2009 19:57:19 hell yeas!
Oscardoodle	Posted - 2009.11.29 22:32:00 - [92] Unbelievable that CCP reversed their original ruling. CCP, you want me to keep playing right? Well keep doing what you're doing and I'll be saving some cash each month /signed
Anewb N'eve	Posted - 2009.11.30 01:12:00 - [93] support
Alpha195	Posted - 2009.11.30 01:49:00 - [94] supported

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.