| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Christophe Boisvert
Gallente
Independent Traders and Builders
   |
Posted - 2010.05.09 04:14:00 -
[31]
Please forgive me Seether, you are correct, I have a poor tendancy to introduce many non-germane tangents.
But let me ask you this question of warfare in general:
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.
You may consider this a smug, and distasteful behavior, but by all appearances, the game allows for it.
The question Harrigan VonStudly poses to me, or the comment by Pankas Carter will not be answered in this thread, as I will try to keep better focus on Seether KaanÆs original thread.
|
Zeta Zhul
Caldari
Grunt Slackers
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 12:16:00 -
[32]
Hmmmm.
Frankly all this is really the fault of CCP for allowing corps to flee alliances that get wardec'd and for allowing players to flee corps that get warddec'd.
Wouldn't the simplest answer be that a wardec "locks" players into a corp and corps into an alliance? Let's say for 1 week for the initial wardec and another week for each extension.
Otherwise what is the point?
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. Another alternative would be for each individual character to be individually wardec'd along withe corp or alliance and to carry that wardec, for free, to any new corp or alliance that character joins.
*shrug* this has probably been hashed out a million times and I'm repeating what has already be done over endlessly. I just don't see the logic of the current system.
-- place witty signature line here |
Tightass Trixie
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 13:33:00 -
[33]
rumor i heard from my main corp was that MPA alliance mgmt kicked those corps out of the alliance, not the other way around - i think that's why all those drops happened so quickly after the wardec. Our corp mgmt when went WTF and it sounds like we're not the only ones -- now there's discussion about why MPA takes that tactic upon the wardec. I've seen it happen 2 times in the past month.
|
Seether Kaan
The Resurgent Insurgent
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 15:46:00 -
[34]
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.
|
Dylan McDermit
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 16:17:00 -
[35]
What if alliance membership was done as a monthly contract? A corp joins an alliance it is then a member of the alliance for a month, and cannot leave before the month is up. When the alliance maintenance bill is mailed out other mails are sent to sign on to the alliance for another month. These could even be automated the same way the alliance maintenance bills are.
|
Gregor Vernof
Gallente Isk Relocation Services
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 22:37:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Gregor Vernof on 09/05/2010 22:39:50
Originally by: Zeta Zhul
Wouldn't the simplest answer be that a wardec "locks" players into a corp and corps into an alliance? Let's say for 1 week for the initial wardec and another week for each extension.
I would agree with the first part of this statement, however the last point (underlined for clarity) would be far too burdensome even in EVE I'd think.
|
Sarnto
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 22:41:00 -
[37]
The original post was questioning the game mechanic of leaving an alliance to avoid war. The answer is.... its fine until CCP changes the game.
Just like can flipping and suicide ganking is part of the game until it is changed.
Anyone that is offended by any of these tactics but still employes others that are personally benificial is nothing but a hypocrite.
I dont relish the ensuing war but I am ready for it regardless. And if I go down in flames so be it.
Sarnto.
|
Khamasar
|
Posted - 2010.05.10 02:08:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Seether Kaan
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.
You mean more absurd than paying the police to look the other way so you can engage in your private little war?
|
Grikath
Caldari
SWARTA
|
Posted - 2010.05.10 02:29:00 -
[39]
Confirming that OP is whingeing about his intended targets not sitting still and bending over like good little carebears should.
What's next, complaining that they actually shoot back at him? 
|
Brangus Weir
|
Posted - 2010.05.10 02:58:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Brangus Weir on 10/05/2010 02:59:49
Originally by: Dylan McDermit
What if alliance membership was done as a monthly contract? A corp joins an alliance it is then a member of the alliance for a month, and cannot leave before the month is up. When the alliance maintenance bill is mailed out other mails are sent to sign on to the alliance for another month. These could even be automated the same way the alliance maintenance bills are.
I agree that for some, this is an annoying mechanic.
In fact, now that I am in my own corp I can speak freely and admit .. yep this probably should be considered an abuse. However, I also believe that if the mechanic exists, it is fair to exploit it.
Now, while what you propose Dylan, remedies this problem, it creates another:
Shouldn't an alliance have the right to boot a corporation because said corporation violated a policy or contract? Or perhaps the corporation was not properly vetted, and the alliance owner changes his mind, because the corporation is hostile to the aims of the alliance?
I think youÆd agree that an alliance should be able to eject an errant corp.
EDIT û wups: Brangus Weir is an alt of Christophe Boisvert à oh well I goofed.
|
|
|
Zeta Zhul
Caldari
Grunt Slackers
|
Posted - 2010.05.10 03:03:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Gregor Vernof
Edited by: Gregor Vernof on 09/05/2010 22:39:50
Originally by: Zeta Zhul
Wouldn't the simplest answer be that a wardec "locks" players into a corp and corps into an alliance? Let's say for 1 week for the initial wardec and another week for each extension.
I would agree with the first part of this statement, however the last point (underlined for clarity) would be far too burdensome even in EVE I'd think.
I think what I wrote was bit cumbersome. How about this:
A wardec "locks" characters into their corps and corps into their alliance for as long as the wardec is in place.
So you could add new corps to an alliance or characters into a corp but nobody could be dropped. Would that be better? There are some possibilities implicit in this:
1. You could grief using wardecs because that would lock players and corps into place preventing people and corps from leaving. But wardecs aren't exactly a minor deal or rather they shouldn't be minor.
2. You can still recruit even if you're under a wardec so this would apply to both the instigator of the wardec and the target(s).
-- place witty signature line here |
Christophe Boisvert
Gallente
Red Brangus Unlimited
|
Posted - 2010.05.10 03:42:00 -
[42]
I wonder if any here is familiar with G÷delÆs Incompleteness Theorem. Simply stated, all systems have holes, and every time you try to plug a hole, all you get is more holes.
A simple example: First come natural numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. and you have basic operatiors like addition and subtraction. But what happens if you subtract 5 from 5 ?
Oh no! We donÆt have a number for that, ok, weÆll create zero, and that solves the problem. But what happens if you subtract 6 from 5 ? Oh dear, we have to invent negative integers. Uhhh, what happens if we divide 6 into 5 equal parts? Ok, letÆs invent rational numbers. What if we take the square root of a negative number ?
And it goes on forever.
I think weÆre doing the same to ask if this hole needs to be plugged. You should also understand that for MPA to temporarily dissolve is in fact disruptive to the allianceÆs operations, but it is a price that they are willing to pay. In the final analysis, itÆs an inexpensive defense but it does cost some time.
Sarnto makes the valid point that can flipping and suicide ganking are probably unintended mechanics of the game, but they are there, and itÆs a fact of life.
So now that we know 1) alliances can do what MPA has done (at least by present rules) , and 2) MPA will likely do this again, is this really an alliance you WANT to war dec?
|
Laura Draconi
|
Posted - 2010.05.10 04:53:00 -
[43]
One problem with locking players/corps into an alliance upon wardec is Spys and Greifers within the alliance. What would you do about the guy you accepted who last week was in the corp that declared war on your alliance?
Best solution I can think of off the top of my head is for CONCORD to give pro-rated refunds when decced Alliances/Corps lose large amounts of members, so the money can be spent on re-deccing the new targets.
Would be a ***** to code tho.
|
Gregor Vernof
Gallente Isk Relocation Services
|
Posted - 2010.05.10 05:10:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Zeta Zhul
A wardec "locks" characters into their corps and corps into their alliance for as long as the wardec is in place.
As much as I love the smell of a scared carebear, this would be going too far. There have been complaints about "non-PvP'ers" forcing PvP'ers into a style of play they do not want, denying the PvP'er of their ability to force a fight. The same would be true of this action in the reverse.
Yes, EVE is about PVP, whether it is about direct ship combat or under cutting a trade on the market, it's all Player versus Player. However force one style of PvP or another essentially narrows and restricts the sandbox.
Making this game work is alot about the compromises, and although the current War Dec system does have it's problems and could do with an over-haul to take it too far would be as offensive has making High Sec "safe."
The idea that a War Dec halts Corp or Member movement for the 1st week of a war seems to meet some of the requirements for change.
Not to mention would bring about the possibilities for all sort of Machiavellian deliciousness.
|
Grikath
Caldari
SWARTA
|
Posted - 2010.05.10 08:36:00 -
[45]
Yes, quite machiavellian... Then again, it's amazing how people can argue to leave the Sandbox alone, yet at the same time cherry-pick another restriction on pure mayhem value.
One of the charms of EVE is the fact that it's really hard to actually pin people down, on all levels of play. You suggest to severely inhibit the Shadow Game, simply to combat what at most is a minor annoyance?
|
Jint Hikaru
OffWorld Exploration Inc
|
Posted - 2010.05.10 11:51:00 -
[46]
Quote:
The idea that a War Dec halts Corp or Member movement for the 1st week of a war seems to meet some of the requirements for change.
While I agree the wardec system needs some changes, mainly to discourage the behavior that the OP is seeing in his targets...
Locking people in may allow bigger exploits than jumping ship to avoid a dec.
All it takes is a corp thief or greafer to have his alt dec the corp he has joined, then he can steal/greaf/whatever and the corp cant boot him for a week.
------------------------
Jint Hikaru - Miner / Salvager / Explorer
"I've got a couple of Strippers on my ship... and they just love to dance!"
------------------------ |
Diradore
|
Posted - 2010.05.10 12:05:00 -
[47]
Our alliance, MPA, consists of many small corporations and a few larger ones. We all share one thing: we are industrialists. Most of our members are casual players who login a few times a week for a bit of mining and industry, and most of these pilots have specialised skill sets in this area. To a pvp minded pilot, mining may be a boring chore (and some of our members actually think so too :) but for most of us, it's just a nice break from real life duties.
As an alliance CEO, I see it as my duty to protect these (essentially vulnerable) member corps from war. As soon as a new wardec arrives, I have chosen to remove these corps from the alliance. As a wardec is often the result of a conflict between an alliance pilot and someone else, usually a new wardec will follow, addressed to the specific alliance pilots' corp alone. This allows the other (now former) alliance members to continue their operation free of wardecs.
From our perspective, this is a valid game mechanic (see http://www.eve-search.com/thread/1156352/page/1 for instance). Game mechanics are often used to allow pilots to inflict damage (or limit loss while doing so), for instance when can baiting or suicide ganking. These (and similar) tactics are commonly regarded as valid, especially by those who like to pvp. In our case, being discussed here, it's industrialists using game mechanics which allow them to avoid damage. In both cases parties use game mechanics to achieve a certain goal with regards to violence and damage, and frankly we fail to see any moral difference between the two.
Of course there are other tactics we can use. Some of us stay put in a wormhole, but you can't keep that up if a wardec stands for weeks. We also have, in the past, employed mercs to counter wardec, but this doesn't remove the actual wardec and leaves our pilots vulnerable. Plus, in the past, this hasn't stopped industrial corps and alliances from being serially wardecced into oblivion (causing subscription players to cancel their accounts too, btw). Paying off wardecs also isn't a valid long term survival strategy as we'd become a virtual ATM to wardeccing corps. Finally, 'dock & turtle' is a valid survival strategy, but it's no fun for either party. Yet, it's what we will mostly be doing as long as we're at war.
We don't expect CCP to render us invulnerable to violence; we don't expect to be protected at our every move. There's no security in New Eden, we know and accept that. But both parties should be free to use existing and validated game mechanics to achieve their respective goals.
Diradore - MPA Alliance Exe
|
Zeta Zhul
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.05.10 13:50:00 -
[48]
Hmm.
Then perhaps the solution would not include any form of "locking" but instead apply the wardec mechanic to all pilots of the affected corp/alliance irrespective of what corp/alliance they belong to after the wardec has been brought?
*shrug* as has already been pointed out on this thread the Law of Unintended Consequences does reign supreme regardless of what ultimately happens.
-----
place witty signature line here |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |