| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
| 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. |
Gregor Vernof
Gallente Isk Relocation Services
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 03:54:00 -
[2]
Unfortunately it seems that it is, however rejoining right after a war dec has dropped and a documented pattern of this activity EVERY SINGLE TIME the Alliance is dec'd may be petition-able... may be being the operative phrase there....
... oh and you wanted a petition of this nature to have a concise and measurable effect on their behavior in future war decs...? 
|
Roastedpot
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 04:03:00 -
[3]
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
|
Seether Kaan
The Resurgent Insurgent
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 04:05:00 -
[4]
 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 -
[5]
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. |
Lady Spank
Amarr
Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 05:02:00 -
[6]
Notably passable quality. Packaging was pedestrian. Immensely decent delivery. C+
~_~
(Retired from ship toasting. Now a professional.)
|
Seether Kaan
The Resurgent Insurgent
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 05:09:00 -
[7]
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? |
Grohalmatar
The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 05:38:00 -
[8]
Suicide gank their Hulk pilots. Since they left the alliance, you won't flash in local, and they won't see you coming. You can make over 150m a suicide gank!!!
. . . unless you are afraid of taking the sec hit (pansy)
|
Nika Dekaia
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 08:29:00 -
[9]
I guess it's the same like with corps. Corpmembers are free to drop out any time to form a new corp. You are free to dec those new corps.
|
Lana Torrin
Minmatar Republic Military Skool
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 10:11:00 -
[10]
This of it this way.. Your 7 man corp pretty much decimated that alliance. now move on.
|
John Caffeine
Empire Assault Corp
Dead Terrorists
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 10:12:00 -
[11]
Seems like a good tactic on their part. And you guys really should have seen it comming .
|
Suitonia
Gallente
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 10:15:00 -
[12]
Dec some of the corps that have fled the alliance, and let the alliance dec drop. If the corps you decced rejoin the alliance, then leave again, then its pretty obvious they're exploiting the alliance mechanic.
---
|
Space Pinata
Amarr
Discount Napkin Industries
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 10:19:00 -
[13]
Hire some mercs on some of the corps, perhaps try to find some other PVP corps willing to dec a few of the corps for you.
A co-operative effort to harvest such flighty carebears could be amusing indeed. |
Roastedpot
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 07:57:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Seether Kaan
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.
if you have the money and time, and you really want to shoot those corps dec the corps as well. you'll have the vote +24hrs of course but they either rejoin the alliance (insta-shooty) or you can shoot them after 48hrs. the only other option for them is to bail out of the corp (likely what will happen) or join another alliance that wants the dec to try to shoot you while they hide. either way it is gunna be boring for you. if you wait and repeat and they drop again definitely petition although it is just a 50/50 shot. what i have seen happen is they get pushed back into the alliance by the GM and locked in there for the duration of the war which is pretty nice.
|
Christophe Boisvert
Gallente
Independent Traders and Builders
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 16:35:00 -
[15]
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.
|
Urn Keller
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 19:05:00 -
[16]
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.
It's not like they have no recourse. They could find the ISKs to make an alliance. They can afford to pay decent mercs for a counter dec. Or pay off the other corp/alliance.
|
|
CCP Shadow
C C P
C C P Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 19:40:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Roastedpot
... if you want to know, create a petition and get a gm to decide if they are abusing the mechanic or not
Quoted for truth.
|
|
Whiny McEmokid
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 19:45:00 -
[18]
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.
even i don't cry this much.
|
Seether Kaan
The Resurgent Insurgent
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 22:51:00 -
[19]
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 -
[20]
Originally by: CCP Shadow
Quoted for truth.
Petitioned for justice |
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 23:37:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Le Skunk on 08/05/2010 23:38:42
Originally by: CCP Shadow
Originally by: Roastedpot
... if you want to know, create a petition and get a gm to decide if they are abusing the mechanic or not
Quoted for truth.
To be fair, on this, and other wardec issues (of which there is is a whopping great big list), you'll get half a dozen different answers depending on which GM you get.
This isn't the fault of the GMS, who in all my dealings with them have been nothing short of excellent, and are in my opinion the shining jewel in the CCP crown.
Its the fault of shoddy wardec mechanics, and arbitrary and non consistent decisions by CCP on the implementation on them.
The simple fact of the matter is, asking on the forums, is probably the best thing to do in this case, as people who have been tracking the whole "wardec thing" for years know five times more then anyone at CCP does.
You could quite easily petition, get an answer, and carry on your merry way - where as an escalation of the petition would get you a judgement totally different.
SKUNK
(o)
|
Christophe Boisvert
Gallente
Independent Traders and Builders
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 00:46:00 -
[22]
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
|
Seether Kaan
The Resurgent Insurgent
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 01:14:00 -
[23]
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.... |
Christophe Boisvert
Gallente
Independent Traders and Builders
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 01:26:00 -
[24]
Oh good you can recognize patterns!
Yes in fact, I learned to do this in my first few weeks with Eve University. It's very common practice with them.
Anyway, I've hit my eject button with ITAB to give up my research lab access. so in less than 24 hours I'll be in Red Brangus Unlimited [RBU] if you care to war dec that early.
Also anyone who cares to waste isk may war dec my one man corp too.
Again, you won't ever get a chance to shoot me, as I can accomplish a lot with my viator and arazu.
|
Pankas Carter
Photon Technologies
Obsidian Order.
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 01:32:00 -
[25]
Some days C&P reminds me so much of Jerry Springer.
You know you shouldn't watch, you know it's ****ty drama-queenery... but you just can't look away. Call it morbid fascination.
-- (start sig) --
Quote:
A great city is not to be confounded with a populous one.
- Aristotle
|
Christophe Boisvert
Gallente
Independent Traders and Builders
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 01:57:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Pankas Carter
Some days C&P reminds me so much of Jerry Springer.
You know you shouldn't watch, you know it's ****ty drama-queenery... but you just can't look away. Call it morbid fascination.
Hehe, well in a perverse sort of way I guess I'm pleased I'm providing so much entertainment.
Before this thread, I never really participated in the forums, but maybe that will change now.
If anyone were to read the bio on my toon, you'd find it begins with an allusion to Star Trek notably:
34. Peace is good for business.
35. War is good for business.
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. Maybe thatÆs depraved, but itÆs how I have my fun.
In my early days with Eve University, war decs from the privateers were very common, and the leadership would set the tax rate to 100% to keep people from missioning. So I quickly developed trade skills so I could make good ISK without ever undocking.
When it comes to actually fighting, I am probably the worst fitter in existence, so I donÆt bother fighting anymore. Lest we forget, historical characters like Mahatma Ghandi, and Martin Luther King Jr. have demonstrated that you can accomplish a political aim without returning violence for violence.
In Eve terms, yes, you can war dec me, but donÆt expect me to shoot back. If thatÆs the way you like to spend your isk, well the game mechanics allow for it donÆt they?
Ad Jesum per Mariam,
Chris
|
Harrigan VonStudly
Gallente Isk Relocation Services
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 02:05:00 -
[27]
Ewww the arrogant carebear stink is high from Chriswhatshisface in this one.
So I understand Chrissy ol' boy. You play a game designed and intended to be pvp based only to not want to shoot back.
You consider war decs a waste of isk. I take it you save and save and save and do nothing with yours.
And why did you join Eve Uni if you weren't going to pvp ever?
OP I'd say the fact that a 17 corp alliance emo rage quits from a 7 man corp dec'ing it is fail I'd name and shame them if I was you.
|
Pankas Carter
Photon Technologies
Obsidian Order.
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 02:22:00 -
[28]
I have to say my opinion of you (which was 0.0 neutral) just dropped a few points for using the word "toon" outside of a fantasy RPG MMO...
Even in that context it's childish and makes no sense. What's it a shortening of? Char, alt, etc - those all make sense. Cartoon - wait, what?
Anyways. I didn't mean to derail the thread. Just making an observation about all the finger-pointery and crying all around.
-- (start sig) --
Quote:
A great city is not to be confounded with a populous one.
- Aristotle
|
Seether Kaan
The Resurgent Insurgent
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 02:24:00 -
[29]
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.
|
Baillif
Red Mist Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 02:26:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Roastedpot
Edited by: Roastedpot on 07/05/2010 04:06:32
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
and i should clarify, players leaving corps and rejoining is not at any time considered an exploit since you are targeting the corporation, not the individuals within (technically, even if your attempting to get a single pilot as your target)
one more edit, if you want to know, create a petition and get a gm to decide if they are abusing the mechanic or not
The funny part is one of the corps in MPA was also in that alliance that left the alliance to try to avoid the POS loss that you are talking about
|
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] |