|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Seether Kaan
The Resurgent Insurgent
   |
Posted - 2010.05.07 03:47:00 -
[1]
So our humble crew of 7 pilots declared war on an alliance consisting of 17 corporations, one hour after the dec email went out 15 of their corporations left the alliance presumably to avoid the dec. Is this a legitimate tactic? Looking at their alliance history it doesn't appear to be the first time many of them have left and rejoined. Thoughts or suggestions anyone?
For name and shame purposes it was MPA alliance. |
Seether Kaan
The Resurgent Insurgent
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 04:05:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Gregor Vernof
... oh and you wanted a petition of this nature to have a concise and measurable effect on their behavior in future war decs...? 
]
I assumed it would be considered legitimate as there is no way to really prove their intentions. Was hoping for suggestions to combat this tactic if you have any. Deccing each corp individually is obviously not an option, and after their rather ridiculous response to the first dec I must admit my interest in turning their ships into space dust has been elevated.
Know any good ways to continue the fight that seems to have been effectively brushed off to the side?
|
Seether Kaan
The Resurgent Insurgent
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 04:10:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Roastedpot
Edited by: Roastedpot on 07/05/2010 04:05:23
leaving the alliance is not an exploit, the exploit is the creation of a pattern that every time you get dec'd you leave and then rejoin when the dec is gone. how many times = a pattern? dunno. noir. got yelled at for it even though we were the ones dec'ing and it was to extend a war in order to take out the contract pos.. so.. it is pretty random
Do you think it would be worth it to drop our dec, let them all rejoin, then redec them in the hopes that they would do the same thing so that a petition could possible change their behavior on the third attempt?
We have patience, and like I said they are much more satisfying targets after this stunt. |
Seether Kaan
The Resurgent Insurgent
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 05:09:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Lady Spank
Notably passable quality. Packaging was pedestrian. Immensely decent delivery. C+
I assume this is a troll rating, I had considered that it would be taken that way. Thanks for the feedback on any future attempts at trolling I may make.
Not trolling this time though, not a stealth nerf this mechanic thread I promise. We have decided to dec the largest corp that left and continue with them while we wait for the alliance to reform so that we may re-dec them for documentation purposes.
Anything else you might recommend as far as a course of action? |
Seether Kaan
The Resurgent Insurgent
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 22:51:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Christophe Boisvert
Seems to me, that if you want to play pvp, you should wardec an alliance that will shoot back.
It really doesn't take any balls to wardec a carebear does it?
It sounds like this alliance it just trying to leave a bad taste in your mouth so that they can go on playing the game they want to play, and you can move on and play the game you want to play. It's a pretty big universe after all.
So the guy I quoted sounded really whiny and butt-hurt... I'll be honest, that's a quality we often look for in our decs because it usually leads to lots of fun. So I looked him up and was getting ready to dec him instead with our open slot and low and behold he is of the MPA evaders. I particularly like how you say "It sounds like this alliance" making it sound like you are some sort of objective third party.
Anyway, Christophe Boisvert.... I choose you. |
Seether Kaan
The Resurgent Insurgent
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 23:08:00 -
[6]
Originally by: CCP Shadow
Quoted for truth.
Petitioned for justice |
Seether Kaan
The Resurgent Insurgent
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 01:14:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Christophe Boisvert
Edited by: Christophe Boisvert on 09/05/2010 00:54:11
I was speaking in third person because Seether Kaan didn't mention the alliance. Secondly, I'm not an officer of the corp, so I really can't speak about ITAB's policy. Tell you what, since you think I'm a worthy target, I'll just hop to my personal corp, and you can war dec that.
As for whining, it was nothing of the kind. I was simply making the suggestion that if he wants a war, there are many corp out there that do like to shoot back, and he might have more fun with them. Now that Seether has war deced the corp, I'll just fly a viator while the war is hot.
I've been at this nearly two years now, I know how I like to handle war.
At Tycoon III, I hardly need to undock, so I doubt you'll do me any damage. So keep flushing your isk down the toilet if you like. If that's what you call fun .. go for it.
Ad Jesum per Mariam,
Chris
Notably, his "hop" into his personal corp suggestion came minutes after his current corp was decced. Almost like there is some sort of pattern going on with him..... crazy.... |
Seether Kaan
The Resurgent Insurgent
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 02:24:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Christophe Boisvert
Which should most people will understand, but for the benefit of people like Seether, the game I like to play is the uber trader that sells arms to both sides of a war.
For your own benefit, I would like to point out that nobody was contesting that, and I'm pretty sure the only person who felt that it needed any clarification was you. The topic at hand is about 15 corps, one of which was yours, leaving the alliance every time it gets decced. Your desired career in EVE is irrelevant to the discussion.
We are talking about what constitutes use versus abuse of some game mechanics and how they apply to declarations of war. My assertion is that you are an abuser of these mechanics as your corporation left the alliance with the others upon our arrival and have done so repeatedly to avoid one of the risks associated with an alliance. I also commented that I feel you likely view corp jumping to avoid a dec in the same light, albeit less tactfully than I have stated it now.
Once again to clarify this for you so that you don't fall behind and go an another irrelevant tangent while ironically implying I didn't understand something, the topic is war dec mechanics and how you are using them.
|
Seether Kaan
The Resurgent Insurgent
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 15:46:00 -
[9]
An update on the in game situation for our readers: One of the corporation that we have re-decced has now rejoined the alliance invalidating our second attempt at deccing them after a 24 hr period. We wonder if this is so they can leave the alliance and nullify the war again, forcing us to pay again after having only been given a handful of hours war time against them for our combined first and second payments to concord.
Originally by: Christophe Boisvert
Is the object of war to make the opponent pay enough in blood and treasure that he then ceases to make war?
If so, using the current game mechanics, as they stand, allows for an alliance to cause an attacker to spend money in war declaration fees without providing a tangible benefit to the attacker. In this way, MPA is simply being a passive resistor to your attack. They hope you will get tired of it, and have fun with a corporation or alliance that does shoot back.
Thank you for your reply.
You raise a valid point, the game does in fact allow for it and in the event leaving and rejoining your alliance is the best move for your corporation, why not take that action? It has the bonus of not only being the safest course of action for you and yours, but results in the aggressor receiving no benefit as you have stated.
I would be foolish to argue that your corporation should not take the best course of action for themselves, so I wont. I do however take issue with the mechanic. As you have stated, XVNT has now paid Concord for the rights to war upon your alliance and some of the corporations involved and received nothing in return, I feel that this is broken. Do you feel that it is acceptable in a well balanced game for a group to pay for rights to something and be given nothing?
I also feel that the use of this mechanic is absurd. The act of changing flags so to speak should in no way invalidate a war. If two groups went to war and one group changed their name midway through the war, this would not stop the other group from attacking them anywhere but in EVE. One of the options suggested by Zeta Zhul seems much more reasonable.
Originally by: Zeta Zhul
Alternatively the wardec is initially applied to a corp or alliance and is tagged to each *character* in that corp or alliance, depending on which type was wardec'd. So it won't matter which corp or alliance you shift to, *you* are still under the wardec.
|
|
|
| |
|