EVE Search - [Proposal] Fix Wardec Exploits

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Proposal] Fix Wardec Exploits

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 .. 12 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 16 post(s)
NorthCrossroad EVE University Ivy League 28	Posted - 2012.11.13 14:28:00 - [271] - Quote Just a suggestion about mutual war and consequences. Corp A decs B and pays wardec fees. Corp B wants to punish corp A and thinks that has abilities to do it (so want to create consequences for attacker). Corp B makes war mutual with simple rules: 1. Each corp pays a highest of two wardec fees +50% each week (or maybe each corp pays it's own fee), but only 10-20% goes to CONCORD. Main part goes to war ISK pool. 2. Each week mutual war goes pool increases by fees. 3. Corp which wins the war (by accepting surrender or if war was retracted) gets everything from the pool. So corps involved in mutual dec will have to put ISK into it. Commit into the war. And defenders - have a chance to get something from it. North
Haulus Bitchus Inappropriate Contact Infinite Improbabilities 0	Posted - 2012.11.13 15:11:00 - [272] - Quote CCP Eterne wrote: Deleted more CCP bias trolling. Seriously people. We work on these changes weeks or months in advance before announcing them. To take from real world parlance, you guys have form. The problem is simple, you have a CSM that is heavily weighted towards large alliances (its a problem with your selection methods) and when there is a coincidental coming together of certain ... events ... the playerbase has a right to question why an action that benefits those large alliances. Timetable is irrelevant at the moment, the fact that you "suddenly" implement a band aid solution in the same time frame as a large alliance is raising the problem in a public fashion leads to what you have here. Sterilizing the thread removing those posts is very Sony-like, it seems the teaming up with them over Dust is rubbing off. Oh and paying subscribers are not allowed to troll, but CCP employees are CELEBRATED for trolling .... proffesional much?

CCP Dolan C C P C C P Alliance 102	Posted - 2012.11.13 15:59:00 - [273] - Quote Dear Community, Stop making me delete bad rumor posts. Bad posts cause me physical pain. Forever Yours, CCP "Good Poster" Dolan CCP Dolan \| Community Representative Twitter: @CCPDolan Gooby pls


CCP Falcon 722	Posted - 2012.11.13 16:06:00 - [274] - Quote CCP Dolan wrote: Dear Community, Stop making me delete bad rumor posts. Bad posts cause me physical pain. Forever Yours, CCP "Good Poster" Dolan Dolan, pls. CCP Falcon -á-á\|\|-á-áEVE Community Team -á\|\| -á-áEVE Illuminati -á \|\| -á-á@CCP_Falcon -á \|\| -á-á@EVE_LiveEvents -á-- Disciple Of The Delicious Tea --

Reppyk The Black Shell 205	Posted - 2012.11.13 16:54:00 - [275] - Quote CCP Eterne wrote: Deleted more CCP bias trolling. Seriously people. We work on these changes weeks or months in advance before announcing them. I need ZO's quote when he met the 2 CCP devs not a long time ago and had to explain them that 1) how the main exploit was working and 2) there was some kind of problem in the current wardecs... Because they were totally clueless.
Arduemont Rotten Legion Ops 654	Posted - 2012.11.13 17:47:00 - [276] - Quote Reppyk wrote: CCP Eterne wrote: Deleted more CCP bias trolling. Seriously people. We work on these changes weeks or months in advance before announcing them. I need ZO's quote when he met the 2 CCP devs not a long time ago and had to explain them that 1) how the main exploit was working and 2) there was some kind of problem in the current wardecs... Because they were totally clueless. Your not helping. Try saying something constructive, about war decs. "In the age of information, ignorance is a choice."
Alekseyev Karrde Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group 733	Posted - 2012.11.13 18:45:00 - [277] - Quote Haulus Bitchus wrote: And yes there has been NO communication regarding this change from CCP prior to the mittani whine. You know, aside from announcing War Decs would receive another round of iterations in Retribution just like Faction Warfare. Back in the spring. And the CSM minutes. Other than that though. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com
Mocam EVE University Ivy League 183	Posted - 2012.11.13 20:04:00 - [278] - Quote Destiny Corrupted wrote: TheGunslinger42 wrote: oh well, good for the aggressors. Now they'll never have the tables turned and be forced into something they don't want. I mean of course the infinite mutual decs were stupid, but the fix is a hamfisted one 1. - Aggressor can withdraw wars at any time. OR 2. - Wars are non-transferable. - Aggressor corporations can join alliances while having active outgoing wars. Pick either option one or option two in order to fix the system. I'd go with: - Mutual = both agree. No 1-sided crap. Declining a mutual would be no different than declining a surrender. - No joining an alliance while your corporation has a mutual wardec going. That must be resolved prior to joining a new alliance. War = OK, mutual war = not OK. - Dissolving of a corporation/alliance = purged issue. "Last man standing" = them. (the old "reform" avoidance gig) As for "scraping off" a war declared on a corporation: If that corporation joins and leaves an alliance, the war follows them - not staying on the alliance. An inheritance attributed attached to the war -- source style -- with a notice to the parties that the alliance level war with that aggressor will end in 24 hours upon that corporation leaving (a war follows the original target). "Leaves" meaning for any reason - kicked or voluntary or dissolved. Any "not in it" means a war enters 'cooldown' phase. That should end most scraping off issues and any concerns about someone bouncing through alliances. If you want to keep a war on a given alliance, your CEO would have to file to keep that war against said alliance. If not, 24 hours after your target leaves that alliance, the alliance level war ends but the target corp retains that war status. If you step into a trap, you stepped into it - suck it up and fix it by dissolving your organization yet such a trap needs consent. As such, both groups would need to agree to a mutual war -- you know... "mutual" as in more than 1 agreeing to something? Turning a "last team standing" contest into a "we're losing so we'll just drop it" by those that started a fight is poor form. Their actions should hold consequences, not more lulz, but this current situation is pretty lame, with the proposed "fix" being on par with the problem it attempts to resolve.
None ofthe Above 358	Posted - 2012.11.13 20:25:00 - [279] - Quote Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Haulus Bitchus wrote: And yes there has been NO communication regarding this change from CCP prior to the mittani whine. You know, aside from announcing War Decs would receive another round of iterations in Retribution just like Faction Warfare. Back in the spring. And the CSM minutes. Other than that though. Other iterations? The only thing WarDec I am aware of going into Retribution is this quickfix, which wasn't planned. So from that I would deduce there is work planned for follow up patches? I remember talk of it I think, but it seemed to fall off the dev roadmap. Is there is something still relevant around saying what they might do? (I suppose RR changes and crimewatch might qualify.) Not meaning to argue with you here, but I thought you went to badger them because you saw communication fall off to near nothing on this topic. So Haulus Bitchus would seem to have a point even if perhaps he overstated his case. PS - Not a subscriber to any bias or tinfoil hat theories in this case. It was a problem that needed to be fix that dragged on too long and effected too many people. It eventually hit goons & co, which is unsurprising considering how many people that represents. It is entirely plausible that there was no communication or bias here. And even if there was, so what? It clearly needed to be fixed, many people were lobbying hard. If CFC added their voice to the chorus at the end, is that really something to be concerned about? EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
Maraner The Executioners Capital Punishment. 222	Posted - 2012.11.13 21:15:00 - [280] - Quote Could a DEV please answer my question? I can see your all enjoying deleting posts that troll CCP but whilst your at it...... If a war dec is dropped by the corp that created it in the first place is this immediate or is there a week long timer? Thanks

The Zerg Overmind Rule Reversal Dec Shield 448	Posted - 2012.11.13 22:29:00 - [281] - Quote Reppyk wrote: CCP Eterne wrote: Deleted more CCP bias trolling. Seriously people. We work on these changes weeks or months in advance before announcing them. I need ZO's quote when he met the 2 CCP devs not a long time ago and had to explain them that 1) how the main exploit was working and 2) there was some kind of problem in the current wardecs... Because they were totally clueless. Nonsense. They weren't clueless. They were chaotic neutral about it. They thought the abuses were clever and insightful, and wanted me to share details with them. I did, and they were forwarded to others. They have known about this stuff for quite some time, and it's pretty obvious that they've also been working on it for quite some time. Changes don't crop up overnight, they require planning and documentation. CCP have been really good sports about the whole thing. We're all on the same team about getting wardecs working properly. There's much bitterness in this thread and the main thread due to ruined gameplay for thousands. It's to be expected. But you know... if CCP accepted one of my wardec transfer corps into CCP Alliance... I could catch those griefers for you... just saying... Burn Highsec Griefers
Irregessa Obfuscation and Reflections 14	Posted - 2012.11.13 22:49:00 - [282] - Quote CCP Dolan wrote: Dear Community, Stop making me delete bad rumor posts. Bad posts cause me physical pain. Forever Yours, CCP "Good Poster" Dolan That's counterproductive. Now I want to post bad posts.
None ofthe Above 358	Posted - 2012.11.13 23:25:00 - [283] - Quote CCP Dolan wrote: Dear Community, ... Bad posts cause me physical pain... Forever Yours, CCP "Good Poster" Dolan Citation needed. EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
Reppyk The Black Shell 206	Posted - 2012.11.13 23:26:00 - [284] - Quote The Zerg Overmind wrote: There's much bitterness in this thread and the main thread due to ruined gameplay for thousands. It's to be expected. I'm a bit bitter not because of the "ruined gameplay" (I wasnt even affected, meh ) but because it was a bad display of a lack of communication for many months, excessive duration for a fix, wrong answer to the problem (I want my mutual wardecs back please) and it looks a bit like a ninja-patch (where is the devblog ? Instead of a 3-lines post). The Zerg Overmind wrote: But you know... if CCP accepted one of my wardec transfer corps into CCP Alliance... I could catch those griefers for you... just saying... We can be friends again. GÖÑ
Destiny Corrupted Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company 1485	Posted - 2012.11.14 00:57:00 - [285] - Quote Mocam wrote: Destiny Corrupted wrote: TheGunslinger42 wrote: oh well, good for the aggressors. Now they'll never have the tables turned and be forced into something they don't want. I mean of course the infinite mutual decs were stupid, but the fix is a hamfisted one 1. - Aggressor can withdraw wars at any time. OR 2. - Wars are non-transferable. - Aggressor corporations can join alliances while having active outgoing wars. Pick either option one or option two in order to fix the system. I'd go with: - Mutual = both agree. No 1-sided crap. Declining a mutual would be no different than declining a surrender. - No joining an alliance while your corporation has a mutual wardec going. That must be resolved prior to joining a new alliance. War = OK, mutual war = not OK. - Dissolving of a corporation/alliance = purged issue. "Last man standing" = them. (the old "reform" avoidance gig) As for "scraping off" a war declared on a corporation: If that corporation joins and leaves an alliance, the war follows them - not staying on the alliance. An inheritance attributed attached to the war -- source style -- with a notice to the parties that the alliance level war with that aggressor will end in 24 hours upon that corporation leaving (a war follows the original target). "Leaves" meaning for any reason - kicked or voluntary or dissolved. Any "not in it" means a war enters 'cooldown' phase. That should end most scraping off issues and any concerns about someone bouncing through alliances. If you want to keep a war on a given alliance, your CEO would have to file to keep that war against said alliance. If not, 24 hours after your target leaves that alliance, the alliance level war ends but the target corp retains that war status. If you step into a trap, you stepped into it - suck it up and fix it by dissolving your organization yet such a trap needs consent. As such, both groups would need to agree to a mutual war -- you know... "mutual" as in more than 1 agreeing to something? Turning a "last team standing" contest into a "we're losing so we'll just drop it" by those that started a fight is poor form. Their actions should hold consequences, not more lulz, but this current situation is pretty lame, with the proposed "fix" being on par with the problem it attempts to resolve. It seems to me that we're both in agreement, mainly about the validity of the second option I presented. However, you need to understand why preventing corporations with outgoing mutual wars from joining alliances is objectively bad game design. All the defender has to do to trap the aggressor is create a new corporation, and leave one person in the old one to make sure that the aggressor is screwed forever. Why do we want to punish players for using valid game features, such as wars? This type of design could severely punish old, established corporations that declare wars. Do you think it's fair to force old, well-known corporations with rich combat and alliance histories to reform, just because they can never join an alliance again? I personally don't think so. The defenders, in the case of war, have the option to leave their corporations temporarily, to try to wait out the war, for which the aggressor has to pay, and thus is unlikely to maintain forever. The aggressor, on the other hand, has no option but to disband if caught in a perpetual war, which is free for the defenders to maintain. That is not balance. How would you feel if the defenders could never leave their corporations to join new ones? I ask, because with the current movement restrictions, the aggressors are subject to a very similar experience. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
Alekseyev Karrde Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group 735	Posted - 2012.11.14 15:32:00 - [286] - Quote Reppyk wrote: [quote=The Zerg Overmind]where is the devblog ? Instead of a 3-lines post). As i said when this whole party kicked off, dev blogs are released on a schedule. A war one will be coming when it's the war ones turn. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com
Haulus Bitchus Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 0	Posted - 2012.11.14 15:45:00 - [287] - Quote Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Haulus Bitchus wrote: And yes there has been NO communication regarding this change from CCP prior to the mittani whine. You know, aside from announcing War Decs would receive another round of iterations in Retribution just like Faction Warfare. Back in the spring. And the CSM minutes. Other than that though. Okay starting up, Alexi would you mind answering how you were able to quote from a Gm deleted post 2 1/2 hours AFTER it was deleted .. going to errr on the side of non tin foil and say it was on your screen and not updated otherwise ... well we will wait for your relpy. As for communication, yes there was a vague promise of iterating war decs back in the spring, along the lines of Soon(tm). We all know that statements like that cannot be taken seriously. CSM minutes, really? Does anyone actually read them or just gets the TL;DR summaries from various news sites. There are only 2 official forms of communication, CCP news article or dev blog. The rest is just candy. As for the change, can we please get confirmation of the cooldown timers post withdrawl and how a withdrawn dec would afftect a character that left while the war was active? Would they still be locked out of returning to the agressor corp for 1 week?
Hans Jagerblitzen Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance 3322	Posted - 2012.11.14 16:53:00 - [288] - Quote Haulus Bitchus wrote: As for communication, yes there was a vague promise of iterating war decs back in the spring, along the lines of Soon(tm). We all know that statements like that cannot be taken seriously. CSM minutes, really? Does anyone actually read them or just gets the TL;DR summaries from various news sites. There are only 2 official forms of communication, CCP news article or dev blog. The rest is just candy. As for the change, can we please get confirmation of the cooldown timers post withdrawl and how a withdrawn dec would afftect a character that left while the war was active? Would they still be locked out of returning to the agressor corp for 1 week? Yes, plenty of folks who are interested in upcoming changes, CCP/CSM planning, and who care enough to want to be part of the process of improvement, do actually take the time to read the summit minutes. Every page of them. If someone chooses to skim them or read a summary instead, that's great, but it hardly leaves them room to complain if they missed something. Keep in mind - dev blogs are usually used for items that are actively in the development pipeline, and nearing release. There are always exceptions of course, but its highly unusual for CCP to release a dev blog regarding something they might do but are unsure of. As for the vague promises in Spring, of course they aren't to be taken seriously. CCP is very careful about making hard and fast commitments to feature changes until they've gone through the process of evaluating their need, the feasibility of implementatoin, and of course whether there is room in the Sprint cycle to complete such changes. Until you see patch notes, nothing is ever certain. Back in spring, release planning for the work to be done in Fall / Winter hadn't even started (that takes place after summer vacation) so it was all subject to change. CCP is still looking into the state of wardecs and evaluating whether or not they can fit any other fixes into the initial Dec. 4 release. I know its frustrating not knowing exactly what's coming months and months ahead of time, but that's just the reality of the development process. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
Alekseyev Karrde Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group 737	Posted - 2012.11.15 17:57:00 - [289] - Quote Haulus Bitchus wrote: Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Haulus Bitchus wrote: And yes there has been NO communication regarding this change from CCP prior to the mittani whine. You know, aside from announcing War Decs would receive another round of iterations in Retribution just like Faction Warfare. Back in the spring. And the CSM minutes. Other than that though. Okay starting up, Alexi would you mind answering how you were able to quote from a Gm deleted post 2 1/2 hours AFTER it was deleted .. going to errr on the side of non tin foil and say it was on your screen and not updated otherwise ... well we will wait for your relpy. As for communication, yes there was a vague promise of iterating war decs back in the spring, along the lines of Soon(tm). We all know that statements like that cannot be taken seriously. CSM minutes, really? Does anyone actually read them or just gets the TL;DR summaries from various news sites. There are only 2 official forms of communication, CCP news article or dev blog. The rest is just candy. As for the change, can we please get confirmation of the cooldown timers post withdrawl and how a withdrawn dec would afftect a character that left while the war was active? Would they still be locked out of returning to the agressor corp for 1 week? You probably err correctly. But tell me your conspiracy theory anyway, we're all so invested! Wasn't along the line of Soon, it was along the lines of between now and Winter. Admittedly there's going to be a fair bit of changes that will have to be in Retribution followup patches due to Bounty Hunting but they're close to the mark (in response to None ofthe Above) and serious about iterating on it. Yes, really CSM Minutes. If you don't read them (or at least know how to skip to the chapter you care about) that's your problem, and the rest of the community gets to call you an idiot. If you say so. Guess you need to wait for an official dev blog! ;p "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com
DeathEngine Scythe Enterprises 0	Posted - 2012.11.21 14:20:00 - [290] - Quote Why is it so expensive to war dec large alliances? I cannot believe it costs over 150mill isk a week to war dec the Goons, for example. It seems counter-intuitive as larger alliances are in a better position (theoretically at least) to defend themselves against war decs due to larger numbers, better organisation (?) and potentially, presuming they have access to 0.0, avoiding them altogether. It could work (and seems more equitable) to make the cost of war-decs inverse to the number of people in an alliance/Corp - though if there is any truth to the rumour that CCP wants social aggregation, it is unlikely to happen as it encourages smaller Corps (ceteris parabis). Rather how would it be if the cost of war-deccing was based on the number of players in the aggressing Corp or alliance? To prevent single man Corps deccing and then inviting the hoards to join them, the mechanic would adjust the amount of isk based on the new (changed) number of folk in the aggressing Corp/alliance multiplied by the proportion of the week left and if this was not paid (could be auto-debited from wallet) the war was automatically terminated (unless mutual) with the aggressor forfeiting his isk. Easy. This way, it facilitates smaller Corps engaging much larger ones while disincentivizing larger ones from blobbing the bejesus out of the small. As it stands, it protects the larger Corps/alliances who technically don't or shouldn't need that protection. I would like to hear any comments as to why this proposal could not or should not work. As I'm not expecting a CCP answer, please consider and reply (tools welcome).

Musiaba Schenoly FIRST AID SERVICE GROUP 2	Posted - 2012.11.22 03:04:00 - [291] - Quote CCP Tallest wrote: Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. mhhh following ccp's latest dev blog ( http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73578 ) they weren't NOT able to understand the problems described here - and will not fix permanent war decs, I guess? The main issue is copying wars unlimited - and "refreshing" them to new 7 days of lifetime doing it (instead to original payed lifetime for example). In my impression - and following just the letters written down, not their intention quoted above - their fix will not fix it? ZO needs just copy the wars between two entitys, to make em perma again, right? Dunno if I shall cry or laugh about such unsophisticated game designers.
AssassinationsdoneWrong The Nexus 7's 18	Posted - 2012.11.22 13:20:00 - [292] - Quote Musiaba Schenoly wrote: CCP Tallest wrote: Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. mhhh following ccp's latest dev blog ( http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73578 ) they were NOT able to understand the problems described here - and will not fix permanent war decs, I guess? The main issue is copying wars unlimited - and "refreshing" them to new 7 days of lifetime doing it (instead to remaining payed lifetime for example) among other things. In my impression - and following just the letters written down, not their intention quoted above - their fix will not fix it? ZO needs just copy the wars between two entitys, to make em perma again, right? Dunno if I shall cry or laugh about such unsophisticated game designers. This. Unless a corp joining the DecShield alliance does NOT reset it's own cooldown period on Mutual war setting then this will not work. EVELOAN -áchannel is no longer attended. Contact me directly over secured loans needed. AdW
Musiaba Schenoly FIRST AID SERVICE GROUP 2	Posted - 2012.11.22 21:07:00 - [293] - Quote Musiaba Schenoly wrote: CCP Tallest wrote: Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. mhhh following ccp's latest dev blog ( http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73578 ) they were NOT able to understand the problems described here - and will not fix permanent war decs, I guess? The main issue is copying wars unlimited - and "refreshing" them to new 7 days of lifetime doing it (instead to remaining payed lifetime for example) among other things. In my impression - and following just the letters written down, not their intention quoted above - their fix will not fix it? ZO needs just copy the wars between two entitys, to make em perma again, right? Dunno if I shall cry or laugh about such unsophisticated game designers. So its confirmed. CCP SoniClover wrote: The Zerg Overmind wrote: The intention here seems to be to shift wardec favor back towards the aggressors because there are no longer consequences for biting off more than they can chew. Is the 24hr retraction timer a final solution or a stopgap measure for something else? The retract war option is only available if the war is made mutual by the defender. So declaring a war is always going to lock you in that war for 7 days, unless a surrender (or this new mutual/retract) option is used, but that is not a one-sided decision by the aggressor. If ZO will just makes the wars unmutual before the patch works he could further trap everybody as long as he wants because he can copy the wars between two entitys again after a week, I guess... . The main issue is STILL creating (new 7 days) outgoing wars against entiys the "aggressor" never has known before - just by copying wars dodging the ally-system! So imho the "fix" has just removed the inferno mutual possibility for a defender but has nothing changed concerning the dec shield issue what it was originally made for.
The Zerg Overmind Rule Reversal Dec Shield 460	Posted - 2012.11.24 10:24:00 - [294] - Quote Yes, with the current wording I do believe that I will still be able to keep everyone trapped. Using a method I publcly outlined for them almost 2 weeks ago. I believe that I'll be able to set all the wars unmutual, and then just constantly eject corps from the alliance and rejoin with them (or bounce between two alliances). I have yet to test this, but I'm pretty sure it'll work like that. And people got all uppity when I mentioned a disbelief that CCP would fix these issues... I'm surprised they only plan to let mutual wars get retracted... because in my mind that says "The aggressors is trapped, until the defender wants to trap them, then they go free". Once again failing to balance the system. Aggressors will once again have absolute control over the system. We'll see if I have to make this thread a 3rd time. Burn Highsec Griefers
Cyprus Black No Flux Given 399	Posted - 2012.11.25 03:45:00 - [295] - Quote Hi Zerg. I doubt the wardec changes will see the light of day anytime soon. May I join your alliance with my one man corp to partake in yummy mutal wardec goodness? Too busy playing The Secret World. EvE has gone stale and boring.
Malchristus Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 8	Posted - 2012.11.25 13:52:00 - [296] - Quote So the question is, are CCP and the CSM listening since the dev blog came out and the expected exploits to be exposed have been published here? Alekseyev Karrde < Who has taken so much time to ridicule, big up his role in all of this and tell everyone that "this is not the place to contact the CSM" are you out there? Do you agree with these changes? Is this the product of your summits? Was it all that you hoped for? You spend so much time telling people to shut up and stop being idiots. Give us a progress report man. Or have you even looked at it yet?
nat longshot solo and loveing it 128	Posted - 2012.11.27 01:53:00 - [297] - Quote Brib Vogt wrote: I talk for at least 160 Accounts alone in my alliance and i know some of the alliance leaders stuck in dec shield too which feel the same. And i do all the writing here, because i want that only one guy from my alliance is answering here. No your talking for your self not 160 other accounts your been a outright jerk and more to the point if you act like a jerk csm and gm and dev are likey to fire back. You have no clue what there working on and whats comeing. CCP Punkturis has all the right to fire back and if you ask me she was down right nice about it i have seen other post were shes fired back alot hard then she has. If you as a paying for a product were i work and act like that to me my friend one i would have open fired at you alot worse the ccp and the csm have trust me on that and after i would boot you right out on your butt and told you never to return. If your a jerk and you pay for something paying for the product does not give you the right to act like a jerk to anyone. now play nice or i will back ccp baning your butt in the forums and the game just for beeing a true life buttclown.
Musiaba Schenoly FIRST AID SERVICE GROUP 2	Posted - 2012.11.27 07:59:00 - [298] - Quote nat longshot wrote: Brib Vogt wrote: I talk for at least 160 Accounts alone in my alliance and i know some of the alliance leaders stuck in dec shield too which feel the same. And i do all the writing here, because i want that only one guy from my alliance is answering here. No your talking for your self not 160 other accounts your been a outright jerk and more to the point if you act like a jerk csm and gm and dev are likey to fire back. You have no clue what there working on and whats comeing. CCP Punkturis has all the right to fire back and if you ask me she was down right nice about it i have seen other post were shes fired back alot hard then she has. ****. Its not the point whats coming, the point is that ccp has designed key features of LAST whole add on full of flaws. Think about THIS Reppyk wrote: But wasn't the "last expansion" all about wardecs ? They planned it for months, they worked on it for months, they had 4 months after the release to fix it a bit, and... Nothing. Most of the exploits were found very shortly after Inferno (but nobody had the idea to use them at ZO's scale). And the "mutual wardecs are trapping the agressors meeeeeeh" tears has been around for the last two years (maybe more, I wasn't playing before that). How can they miss that badly the main goal of an expansion ? Dominion : about SOV mechanism (wait, it's as worst as it was, shooting SBUs instead of POSes). Incarna : about Walking in Station (it didn't happen). Inferno : about wardecs (which are so exploitable that nobody but a throwable alt would start a wardec). What's in Retribution ? So there is no necessity to defend ccp in that case in my opinion! And CCP Punktoris didn't "fire back". As the first CCP employee stating after 7 weeks in this serious thread she hasn't nothing more to write than trolling other players. For my own I m still very disapointed about this behaviour, and I fully agreed with Brib Vogt in that way! Especially because the fix CCP Tallest annouced some hours after CCP Punktoris dubious "I promise you Alexeyev is giving it proper attention and we're also making plans, stuff just doesn't happen on the forums all the time" will NOT work, too. The whole thread here told em nothing else then there is an issue because of COPYING WARS. ZO writes professional articles here sice months till his fingers are bleeding.** They ignore it ...and implemented a fix what will remove a feature and will not fix the issue. And people like you give em candy for burning our money. Unbelieveble... !
Musiaba Schenoly FIRST AID SERVICE GROUP 2	Posted - 2012.11.29 11:00:00 - [299] - Quote In addition to explain what I meant btw: Here the last quote from current thread about recent Dev Blog "Bounties, Kill rights, new modules and war in Retribution" - where our issue is posted by some ppl also and of course not valued with a comment - like other things ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174504&p=15). James Amril-Kesh wrote: Cordo Draken wrote: Vilnius Zar wrote: James Amril-Kesh wrote: "We're not going to bother explaining why we did it this way even though we've been asked multiple times by multiple people. We're just going to ask you to trust us even though we've often demonstrated in the past that we screw new features up in ways players predict prior to launch." CCP: new feature! players: lol, that's gonna cause these and these problems, we'll bug report it BH: working as intended! players: CCP, honestly... that's just gonna go wrong because of A and B reasons CCP: nah looks good, lets do it! :launch: :3 months later: tiny dev blog: it looks as if this new feature has gone slightly wrong because of A and B reasons and completely messes up players/market/balance (pick two). We didn't realise this, sorry guys players: NO ** A certain Dev a while back gave me crap because I suggested editing their OP to link an important update they posted which was buried within a 60 page plus thread, because I didn't have the time to wade through to find that post. Yet it's funny how they pick and choose what they'll somewhat answer here, blatantly ignoring major issues that we, the paying community, bring up in advance. They only answer the simple question while sidestepping what we know to be a broken mechanic. Is it Pride? I truly don't understand the neglegence... Especially when a issue is known far in advance. Any non-snide honest detailed answer to the major issues slated in this thread Devs? I posted this because I m bit worried about the follow-up if the fix wont work like assumed here already weeks ago and 13k ppl still trapped - without communication from ccp that they have understand what the REAL problems with the war dec mechanics are. Because only then we could hope about betterments in the near future.** I feel already since some days much less activity in some of the stucked alliances because of the enduring war-spam and really fading anticipation about upcoming Retribution features.
The Zerg Overmind Rule Reversal Dec Shield 465	Posted - 2012.11.30 10:24:00 - [300] - Quote So here's how it's going to go: When a corp joins/leaves the alliance it makes a "copy" of that war which is "transferred" to the new entity. This "copy" isn't a copy, but a new war. It sets the start date of that war as the moment that the corp joined/left the alliance. That means all I have to do is set all the wars unmutual (so they can't instant retract them), and then cycle corps in/out of alliance constantly (thus renewing an inescapable 7 day war timer), and when the corp rejoins the alliance, the alliance's dropped wars will get restored by the new war copy. A completely inescapable non-mutual trap. Dec Shield Non-Mutual Exploit The above photo is taken from a corp that left Dec Shield on the 26th. It was with 250+ wars. Now 4 days later not a single war has ended (when 4/7ths of the wars should have ended by now by random distribution). You'll note the two wars that "started" on the 30th. Those are corps that dropped out of an alliance and have received fresh 7 day war timers against me as a result. The solution to this problem is pretty straight forward. Set the start time of each war to the start time of the original parent war it spawned from. Burn Highsec Griefers



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 .. 12 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.