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) |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
185
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 09:13:00 -
[1] - Quote
Why do I keep having to make threads with this title...
There is something terribly wrong with wardec mechanics which horribly punishes the aggressor. Whenever an aggressor declares a war they can and will be permanently trapped in that war and made to permanently fight an unlimited number of opponents.
Formal definition of problem: The defender in a war can set the war to mutual, and the aggressor is permanently trapped in the war.
How to transfer wardecs: A wardecced corporation joins an alliance, that alliance sets the war mutual, TRANSFERRED A corporation joins an alliance, then leaves, they have a perfect copy of all alliance wars, TRANSFERRED A corporation leaves an alliance, joins another alliance. TRANSFERRED
That's right, we can transfer wars from ANY entity to ANY other entity. What questions does this raise:
- Why would you ever use the defender system in wardecs when you could just transfer an exact copy of your war to an infinite number of entities?
- Why pay for defense when you can gain infinite allies for free using war-duping?
- Why let your enemy ever escape? Tired of fighting the war? Store it on a 1 man alt corp that you can use to revive it years down the road completely out of the blue to continue your revenge.
I promise to do all these things and make everyone regret the poor design decision. I will be at Eve Vegas to personally argue this case before the devs, but player support is muchly appreciated, even if just for the lulz.
The goal of the wardec revamp was to make wars popular and fun, now you've accomplished the opposite by making war an unthinkable crime that can only be waged with disposable alt corps.
You must fix this exploit before I ruin highsec for everyone for all time. Because, I will. Burn Highsec Griefers |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
928
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 10:26:00 -
[2] - Quote
+1 to the OP.
It seems that CCP's intent to "promote" empire warfare has, surprise surprise, resulted in the concept's total destruction. Although we didn't have the tools to publicly see all wars before Inferno, I'd be willing to bet good money that the volume of wars has decreased significantly since the expansion was released. I see less than two full pages of new wars per day, and a big chunk of those are "transfer" wars that are created when a corporation leaves or joins an alliance. I'd ballpark the decrease to have stabilized at less than a fifth of pre-Inferno daily war volume.
I could barely believe my eyes at how quickly CCP responded to the "boomerang exploit," going as far as to implement new gameplay mechanics (and deploy code changes) within hours of the "exploit" being revealed to the public. Yet the ability to shed wars at zero liability whatsoever, despite, per CCP's own words, aggressors having to pay by-the-character for the privilege of shooting at people in empire, still hasn't even been mentioned by anyone in the company.
How is the ability to duplicate and shed wars, with no liabilities, any less of an exploit than warping during the GCC? How could anyone justify being able to lock an aggressive entity into a permanent war with another party, while allowing the defender to escape hostilities, at no cost whatsoever, as a valid gameplay mechanic?
Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with the concept of mutual wars. But why should the original recipients of a war be able to leave an alliance, if the alliance decided to set the war mutual? Does it not make sense to either prevent corporations from leaving alliances during mutual wars, or at the very least giving the aggressors the ability to control outgoing wars in cases where they acquire new targets through no volition of their own?
We don't even get refunds when targets immediately disband and reform upon the reception of wars. Nor are we able to cancel wars, even when their recipients have bailed from their corporations and alliances, locking us into higher price brackets for weeks at a time, despite those corporations and alliances being memberless. Is this the kind of "risk" you advocate for players who are willing to fight others in your "pvp-centric" game? (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Reppyk
The Black Shell
177
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 11:46:00 -
[3] - Quote
The Zerg Overmind wrote:Why do I keep having to make threads with this title... There is something terribly wrong with wardec mechanics which horribly punishes the aggressor. Whenever an aggressor declares a war they can and will be permanently trapped in that war and made to permanently fight an unlimited number of opponents.Formal definition of problem:The defender in a war can set the war to mutual, and the aggressor is permanently trapped in the war. How to transfer wardecs:A wardecced corporation joins an alliance, that alliance sets the war mutual, TRANSFERRED A corporation joins an alliance, then leaves, they have a perfect copy of all alliance wars, TRANSFERRED A corporation leaves an alliance, joins another alliance. TRANSFERRED That's right, we can transfer wars from ANY entity to ANY other entity. What questions does this raise:
- Why would you ever use the defender system in wardecs when you could just transfer an exact copy of your war to an infinite number of entities?
- Why pay for defense when you can gain infinite allies for free using war-duping?
- Why let your enemy ever escape? Tired of fighting the war? Store it on a 1 man alt corp that you can use to revive it years down the road completely out of the blue to continue your revenge.
I promise to do all these things and make everyone regret the poor design decision. I will be at Eve Vegas to personally argue this case before the devs, but player support is muchly appreciated, even if just for the lulz. The goal of the wardec revamp was to make wars popular and fun, now you've accomplished the opposite by making war an unthinkable crime that can only be waged with disposable alt corps. You must fix this exploit before I ruin highsec for everyone for all time. Because, I will.
|
Alx Warlord
Security Task Force
169
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 04:15:00 -
[4] - Quote
Reppyk wrote: You must fix this exploit before I ruin highsec for everyone for all time. Because, I will.
[/quote]
Are you aware that if CCP decides that you went against the rules you will probably get punished? [Discussion] - New POS system ( Construction Block Built - Starbasecraft) <<< Please CCP read this! |
Arduemont
Lords 0f Justice Fidelas Constans
288
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 12:33:00 -
[5] - Quote
Being able to transfer wars from one alliance to another by alliance hopping is obviously an exploit and needs to be fixed.
However, the defends should be able to make a war permanent. Because that's what the aggressor deserves. If they want war, they can have war. Otherwise starting wars as an aggressor is a no lose situation. "Not like the way the war is going? Pull out" is not a good way for the way system to work, especially for the aggressor. The mutual mechanic needs to stay. |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
213
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 13:07:00 -
[6] - Quote
I'm the single largest abuser of these current game mechanics, and I absolutely believe this is not how wardecs were intend to be. I'll update this with a suggestion list after I get some sleep :P Burn Highsec Griefers |
Lexar Mundi
DYNAMIC INTERVENTION ORPHANS OF EVE
22
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 02:01:00 -
[7] - Quote
So thats why I see like 80 people in a mutual war with the new Dec Shield.... I was wondering about this lol |
Lexar Mundi
DYNAMIC INTERVENTION ORPHANS OF EVE
22
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 02:05:00 -
[8] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:Being able to transfer wars from one alliance to another by alliance hopping is obviously an exploit and needs to be fixed.
However, the defenders should be able to make a war permanent. Because that's what the aggressor deserves. If they want war, they can have war. Otherwise starting wars as an aggressor is a no lose situation. "Not like the way the war is going? Pull out" is not a good way for the war system to work, especially for the aggressor. The mutual mechanic needs to stay. However the defenders should then have to pay for the dec. |
Cyprus Black
360
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 03:43:00 -
[9] - Quote
Playerbase - 1 CCP - 0
The playerbase thoroughly and adequately warned CCP that the wardec changes would do little or nothing to combat what was already broken about the system. Sure enough, the wardec mechanics were left to one employee who didn't listen to external criticism in the typical Pre-Incarna style.
We've gone from an inexpensive broken wardec system to an expensive yet still broken wardec system. That's all. Nothing was ever truly fixed and here we sit with the exact same problems as we had before the "wardec revamp". Too busy playing The Secret World. EvE has gone stale and boring. |
Rico Minali
Sons Of 0din Dark Therapy
1057
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 08:33:00 -
[10] - Quote
The easiest fix would be to remove the ability to make wars mutual. Let ALL wars play out while being paid for by the aggressor, so you get 7 days of open warfare, the defender can call in assistance just like now (this is one I totally agree with) but after the 7 days war, the aggressor either pays again or the war ends. If the defending side then wants to take revenge they can wardecc the aggressor back, possibly paying wartime allies to assist and wardecc the original aggressor too.
An answer to the transfering of wars may be to make so it just doesnt happen. The corp who is decced continues to be at war but teh alliance they join are unafected. Corps leaving alliances however should carry the war with them until the original 7 day term is over.
I also think that for every entity the defending side brings into a war, the aggressor can ALSO bring in that many allies but make it so that any allies the aggressor may call in can not bring the total number of pilots to above the number of total defending pilots including allies.
In short, defenders being able to call in aid in a war is right. Wars should however not be able to be made mutual, thereby locking peple into wars that may well end up with people not bothering to log in. Revenge can be taken in many ways without silly mechanics.
These simple changes would (I think) stop the exploitation of war mechanics but still leave war as a viable and extremely fun part of Eve.
Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing. |
|
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
217
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 11:00:00 -
[11] - Quote
...continued from above
Great, so the next major problem is wardec copying/transferring....
Right now, any entity can transfer a defensive war to any other entity. This is NOT how wars were intended. I merge this unintended mechanic with the infinite mutual wardec to trap people indefinitely. Sadly, CCP will read this sentence and think "awesome, all we have to do is stop one of those activities and wardecs will be fixed" which is absolutely not the case.
- To transfer a war from a corp to an alliance, have that corp join the alliance
- To transfer a war from an alliance to a corp, have that corp join the alliance, and then leave
- To transfer a war from an alliance to an alliance, have a corp drop the wardec'd alliance and join the other
I KNOW this is not how CCP intended the game mechanics to be, because otherwise they wouldn't have spent so long creating a mercenary marketplace. With this ability to transfer copies of wars there is no longer a reason to ever be a mercenary when you can literally just join the war, with an infinite number of defenders again, for free. This completely renders the mercenary defender system obsolete, congratulations.
Wardec copying was implemented to create that concept of "commitment" for entities at war. You can no longer escape a war just by leaving the alliance. Obviously this isn't working as intended. This allows for wardec copying/transferring as described, and also an "octopus defense" where an alliance breaks into individual corps, thus increasing the effective cost of wardeccing the members of that alliance by many fold. This is rare, but it's an obvious defense.
We don't want corps to escape wars by dropping out of alliances (hereby known as "droppers" for brevity), but we don't want them to be able to join other alliances with these wars either. So these are our options in order of my preference:
- We forbid droppers from joining another alliance for a week (consider it analogous to corp hopping restrictions)
- We continue as is, allowing perfect copying/transfer, instead preventing mutual infinite wardecs
- We retract the war against the dropper after X time (72hrs perhaps)
- We allow the war to continue against the dropper, but don't transfer it to a new alliance they join (this is unlikely because it lets a corp in an alliance be in a war independent of the alliance)
- We retract the war against the dropper (old system - bad)
- We prevent dropping from a wardecced alliance (very bad)
There are more variations on these themes, but the goal here is to prevent infinite wardec copying
As for wardec'd corporations joining alliances... this is probably fine with a few notes. First, it should inform the aggressor that the target has joined an alliance, the moment they're application is accepted into that alliance. This gives the aggressor a 24hr forewarning. Also, as mentioned above, we should also be removing the restriction preventing corps from joining alliances while in a mutual wardec - as it no longer makes sense.
Surprising your enemies while in space:
These are considered exploits so don't do them. But let's code the rules into the game to make it impossible and save the GMs lots of time:
- You're sitting in space next to a target who's at war with a corporation you have an application in to. The CEO accepts your application and you instantly begin shooting the target - he had no possible warning or defense. Exploit.
- You're in a corporation that's had their application accepted to join an alliance who's at war. You're in open space next to one of their war targets, the application goes live, you instantly begin shooting the target. Exploit.
- You're at war with an enemy, you drop from your corp so you're not at war, undock next to them, their UI isn't updated yet, they shoot you and get concorded without warning. Exploit.
Any variation of these are considered exploits due to the lack of possible warning to the opponent. The barely legal work-around is to dock, get accepted, undock, start shooting. It basically only adds seconds to your case, and your opponent's local list won't have updated, but the GMs consider it legal.
The solutions to these are pretty simple.
- If a corp applies to join the alliance you're at war with, it should send a notification out to the aggressors the moment the application was accepted, warning that in 24hrs they'll be facing a whole new set of targets thanks to them absorbing your target's war.
- Don't allow a corporation at war to accept an application for a member while they're in space. Or at least have it queue up the acceptance for the next time they're docked or offline.
- Force an update on the local list whenever a local member joins or leaves the war against you. This would prevent much confusion and grey areas with the abuse.
Burn Highsec Griefers |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
217
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 11:00:00 -
[12] - Quote
Reserved Burn Highsec Griefers |
Reppyk
The Black Shell
182
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 14:19:00 -
[13] - Quote
The Zerg Overmind wrote:The current state of wardec mechanics leave wars in a terrible state with many loopholes that we abuse on a daily basis in unfair ways. The goal was to make wars popular and fun for players to engage in, but the current rules have twisted that dream into a nightmare by making the consequences of wars impossibly high and unavoidable. In short, we're now seeing fewer wars between real entities and a LOT more abuse than before the wardec changes. Dec Shield used to be an annoyance wardeccers. Now we're 10x worse thanks to the new rules. Wardecs pre-Inferno were very annoying because of the POS exploit. But... The system was better.
Better. |
Arduemont
Lords 0f Justice Fidelas Constans
288
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 14:43:00 -
[14] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:The Zerg Overmind wrote:The current state of wardec mechanics leave wars in a terrible state with many loopholes that we abuse on a daily basis in unfair ways. The goal was to make wars popular and fun for players to engage in, but the current rules have twisted that dream into a nightmare by making the consequences of wars impossibly high and unavoidable. In short, we're now seeing fewer wars between real entities and a LOT more abuse than before the wardec changes. Dec Shield used to be an annoyance wardeccers. Now we're 10x worse thanks to the new rules. Wardecs pre-Inferno were very annoying because of the POS exploit. But... The system was better. Better.
It really wasn't better. Fix the transfer of wars and the system we have no will be pretty much perfect as far as I'm concerned. At the moment the only people (generally) who think the old system was better was highsec wardec bully-boys who dont know how to PvP against people who actually want to fight. |
Teiresias
Rage For Order Nihil-Obstat
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 18:51:00 -
[15] - Quote
Signed.
This mechanic is severely broken now. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
1053
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 00:56:00 -
[16] - Quote
Copy-paste from my post in this thread:
A very painful realization.
Being at war with Dec Shield makes us no longer able to declare new wars.
You might say "sure, you can still declare wars!" Technically, you're right. But each corporation that leaves Dec Shield creates its own war. And each new war that is created raises the price of declaring a new war by 50 million ISK. Today, about seven corporations left Dec Shield. When I went to declare war on a separate target, I noticed that the cost to do so would be 400 million.
This is already in the realm of impossibility to be able to afford. But the worst part is, that if this continues, we will no longer be able to take mercenary jobs, since clients will not pay such high war fees even if we do the actual work for free.
So, Zerg, what this essentially means is that if you cycle about 20 alt corporations in and out of your alliance on a weekly basis, all of Dec Shield's currently-trapped targets will have war bills so expensive that they won't be able to declare new wars. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
De'Veldrin
East India Ore Trade Intrepid Crossing
394
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 13:58:00 -
[17] - Quote
Zerg, it's obvious you and your fellows have put a lot of time and efforts into finding and using the broke-ass mechanics CCP has foisted on us (yet again) concerning War-Decs. What I want to know is how long it is going to take them to fix this c-f so that wars can actually be useful again?
Has there been ANY conversation between the CSM and CCP about this? Unsub or don't.-á I don't care what your reasons are, and neither does anyone else.-á Just click the button and go away - or don't. |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
246
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 14:37:00 -
[18] - Quote
De'Veldrin wrote:Zerg, it's obvious you and your fellows have put a lot of time and efforts into finding and using the broke-ass mechanics CCP has foisted on us (yet again) concerning War-Decs. What I want to know is how long it is going to take them to fix this c-f so that wars can actually be useful again?
Has there been ANY conversation between the CSM and CCP about this? I talked to Veritas and Soundwave in Vegas this last weekend, and went over many of the major loopholes and the such. Soundwave gave me his business card and asked me to email him more information. I'm currently working on a more concise write up so I can mail it off to him, was planning to do so today.
As far as urgency, they were all of the mindset that it wasn't a pressing enough issue yet, and there weren't enough complaints or public outcry to warrant shifting gears to address the issues quicker. So at least in the short term I wouldn't expect anything to change, but we'll continue to push for fixes anyways. Burn Highsec Griefers |
De'Veldrin
East India Ore Trade Intrepid Crossing
394
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 15:29:00 -
[19] - Quote
The Zerg Overmind wrote:De'Veldrin wrote:Zerg, it's obvious you and your fellows have put a lot of time and efforts into finding and using the broke-ass mechanics CCP has foisted on us (yet again) concerning War-Decs. What I want to know is how long it is going to take them to fix this c-f so that wars can actually be useful again?
Has there been ANY conversation between the CSM and CCP about this? I talked to Veritas and Soundwave in Vegas this last weekend, and went over many of the major loopholes and the such. Soundwave gave me his business card and asked me to email him more information. I'm currently working on a more concise write up so I can mail it off to him, was planning to do so today. As far as urgency, they were all of the mindset that it wasn't a pressing enough issue yet, and there weren't enough complaints or public outcry to warrant shifting gears to address the issues quicker. So at least in the short term I wouldn't expect anything to change, but we'll continue to push for fixes anyways.
Not what I wanted to hear, but thanks for the answer and for continuing to push the issue. Keep fighting the good fight. Unsub or don't.-á I don't care what your reasons are, and neither does anyone else.-á Just click the button and go away - or don't. |
Bethesda
Unknown Test RELOADED DOT
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 17:50:00 -
[20] - Quote
+1
Well this topic has made for good reading.
Although now tangled in this I agree with the Op.
My suggestions to fix would be as follows -
* Any war transferred would only ever stay on the same time scale and/or outcome of the original war.
*Any transferred wars do not have the option of making wars mutual (As theoretically they aren't anyway).
Beth |
|
time 3290
Unknown Test RELOADED DOT
22
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 17:52:00 -
[21] - Quote
Bethesda wrote:+1
Well this topic has made for good reading.
Although now tangled in this I agree with the Op.
My suggestions to fix would be as follows -
* Any war transferred would only ever stay on the same time scale and/or outcome of the original war.
*Any transferred wars do not have the option of making wars mutual (As theoretically they aren't anyway).
Beth
+1 |
Nagapito
Unknown Test RELOADED DOT
16
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 18:10:00 -
[22] - Quote
+1 |
Sweet Trader
The Hollow Men
24
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 18:54:00 -
[23] - Quote
Yup, spot on. +1 |
Chump Bucket
Destinations Unknown
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 19:02:00 -
[24] - Quote
Yup +1 marvellous |
J A Aloysiusz
Precision Strike Brigade Pirate Coalition
12
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 22:57:00 -
[25] - Quote
Bethesda wrote:+1
Well this topic has made for good reading.
Although now tangled in this I agree with the Op.
My suggestions to fix would be as follows -
* Any war transferred would only ever stay on the same time scale and/or outcome of the original war.
*Any transferred wars do not have the option of making wars mutual (As theoretically they aren't anyway).
Beth
agreed. and for god's sake, if a war is supposed to be "mutual", then should either party be able to back out at any time? |
TooFast TooFunky
State Protectorate Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 23:28:00 -
[26] - Quote
Alx Warlord wrote:Reppyk wrote: You must fix this exploit before I ruin highsec for everyone for all time. Because, I will.
Are you aware that if CCP decides that you went against the rules you will probably get punished? Why? he works according to rules CCP implemented. I knew few other corps that exploited that earlier.
My suggest : Agressor Defender Mutual helper - A and D can invite M`s paying fee according to their size - and pay that fee every war-payment cycle - A stops paying - war ends in 24h for D and M - untill on of them pays and A becomes automaticly D and D becomes A with M`s staing on their sides - D surrenders - M`s war ends in 24h - M stops supporting A or D - he is still involved for 24h - M wants to separate from current war but start own combat as A - can do instant - just need to pay bill |
radecz3k
The Cursed Navy
17
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 07:29:00 -
[27] - Quote
ccp -9999999999999 for not taking care since so long time to do anything with stuff you have broken +1 to idea of fixing this exploit
Who cares about winter expansions shiny stuff, first fix game then add new things. |
Furian Warrior
REPUBLIKA ORLA C0VEN
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 08:26:00 -
[28] - Quote
+1 |
Bethesda
Unknown Test RELOADED DOT
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 11:36:00 -
[29] - Quote
Just reading the CSM CCP meetings dated June 2012 and extracted the following:
"Aleks continues by emphasizing again that this added-risk element to the war dec system makes using it to achieve objectives impossible. Since the wardec system is designed for limited-use engagements, (like taking down a POS or similar objective), unlimited allies pushes all war dec conflicts to absurd levels. War decs should be about a group, deccing another group, and maybe some of their friends GÇô not against everyone in EVE."
Well thats FAIL...
"Aleks explains that in the future this might be a neat idea, but under the current system anyone can be locked into a mutual war forever, and this discourages anyone from wanting to risk allying with someone even if they are being paid for their work."
And thats just been amplified. |
Mystic Bull
Chaos From Order Manifest Destiny.
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 13:34:00 -
[30] - Quote
+1
We too are stuck in an endless cycle of awesome wars, not of our choosing. Hard to take paying contracts now. Easy to kill loads of ships though. |
|
Joe Din
The Hollow Men
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 15:25:00 -
[31] - Quote
+1 |
Captain Kanki
ReSpawners Choke Point
5
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 15:37:00 -
[32] - Quote
+1 |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1330
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 02:58:00 -
[33] - Quote
+1
This is another case of the players saying "wait that bit won't turn out good" and CCP going on with it. |
amidaros veleta
Unfortunate Soldiers
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 08:52:00 -
[34] - Quote
i think that they should just fix it by allowing the agressor to retract the war, and make it so that once a corp is dec'd it can join an alliance but that alliance cannot have corps drop while it is at war... Basically if the defender wants help (from an alliance) the alliance has to man up and take responsibility for the war. thus no corps dropping |
NP Complete
Valkyrie Industries Valkyrie Coalition
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 09:39:00 -
[35] - Quote
+1
This needs to be fixed. |
Cpt Roghie
Deadly Shadow Clan Silent Infinity
60
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 09:53:00 -
[36] - Quote
Not working as intended, but hilarious nonetheless.
Maybe our current wardeckers feel like welping more tengus This could be fun. |
Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA C0VEN
22
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 06:45:00 -
[37] - Quote
+1 |
Viktor Fel
Viziam Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 15:27:00 -
[38] - Quote
+ 9001 |
Mangala Solaris
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
323
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 18:30:00 -
[39] - Quote
+1.
Would be nice if they looked at mutual wars allowing free wars too, while rvb loves pew, all these wars soon add up. Mangala is not FC, yet another randomly updated EVE blog.
http://mangala.rvbganked.co.uk/ |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
691
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 00:18:00 -
[40] - Quote
Locking a wardeccing corporation by making the war mutual is IMHO a very important feature. The 'biting-off-more-then-you-can-chew' risk provides crucial balance to the initiative advantage the aggressor has and THIS NEEDS TO STAY!
This is also why it should be possible to hire allies or join an alliance, even in a mutualized war, rewarding those few defending corporations that decide to fight back properly instead of hiding in newbie corporations and whining about it on the forums how wardecss are 'unfair'.
As an agressor, being locking into a mutual war with a corp that then goes into hibernation is simply the risk of agression. But I do think mutual wars should be 'confirmed' every month or so, to end wars with corporations that are completely dead. The test-server showed that there are still wars going on from 2005 of corps that are now long dead and forgotten.
The fixed need though (and it seems like an easy one) is to simple make the war follow the original defender, extending to any alliance it joins, but not remaining 'copied' there (except for a cool-down period) when the original defender leaves again.
Why isn't this fixed yet, CCP? Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
|
Zwo Zateki
Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 18:17:00 -
[41] - Quote
Remove non-mutual wardecs altogether. Paying wardec fee is bribing CONCORD. I don't know how THIS is supposed to fit into highsec lore and essence. |
DarhtVaderrin
Rorqual Industry Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 08:50:00 -
[42] - Quote
My suggestion would be to rebuild the war system so that it is the defender Corp. also not allowed to join an alliance, so you can prevent the Free duplicate wars, further in the case of a mutual war, Members of the Defenders Corp. does not leave the Corporation. To prevent that the old chars parked in the Corporation so that the war can be kept on the run. If you already take a mutual war so you should also take the blood flowing. With usage of the option of mutual war, should the war until after the period of 7 days, can be removed again.
and check this lolz Mail from my mutal Target _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Von: FleetAdmiralHarper Gesendet: 2012.10.22 04:53 An: DarhtVaderrin,
so i see you left dabrid. and you know i was being serious when i said i would destroy your corp.
NOW its good that you left dabrid. how ever. you still need to pay me 2.5b, i wont have you publically apologise for your insolence, i think you losing your corp was an adequate substitute.
after i get the 2.5b i will let you drop the war from CINR and accept your surrender. as an added bonus ill see if i can get 1 or 2 corps off you : )
i cant get them all, because some are random. but i can pull atleast 2 off you. if not ill just hunt you, and your members and bring war and chaos to your new corps =) fun and lulz for every one =)))))))!!!
what are your intentions? ____________________ |
Reppyk
The Black Shell
188
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 10:48:00 -
[43] - Quote
DarhtVaderrin wrote:My suggestion would be to rebuild the war system so that it is the defender Corp. also not allowed to join an alliance, so you can prevent the Free duplicate wars, further in the case of a mutual war, This is bad and you should feel bad. Corps in a wardec should be able to join an alliance. CCP isn't allowing it for agressors because :game design failure: but removing it for the defender is even worst.
Easy fix : remove the mutual wardec mechanism, lower the wardec fees (so RvB can still pewpew without paying billions of isks each month) and allow a defender to pay the wardec fee itself (so if you want to counter-grief the "griefers", feel free to do so) maybe at a lower cost [half cost ?]. |
DarhtVaderrin
Rorqual Industry Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 11:44:00 -
[44] - Quote
This is bad and you should feel bad. Corps in a wardec should be able to join an alliance. CCP isn't allowing it for agressors because :game design failure: but removing it for the defender is even worst.
are you ******* kidding me ? i have many wars not targets all targtes jion a alliance left the alliance and leave the corp , this is not a war this is bullshit all wt`s go into a npc corp and i can not jion a alliance you tell me this is a good wardec mechanism ? |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
316
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 21:20:00 -
[45] - Quote
I'm editing the original post to add another bug. With the toggling mutual option, the right click mutual menu doesn't function at all. This has led to much confusion for people that leave Dec Shield. The only option that does work is to use the drop down menu at the far right side and to uncheck the mutual box:
http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/1210/togglingUnmutual.jpg Burn Highsec Griefers |
Junko Sideswipe
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
83
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 00:27:00 -
[46] - Quote
Being brought into the Dec Shield mutual war circle jerk by a Dec Shield Ambassador corp has educated us on how broken the new war system is. Please fix this broken mechanic.
Also being told by a GM this is working is intended is pretty silly, I'd be really surprised if they didn't fix this in december. Confederation of xXPIZZAXx CEO A TRUE and HONEST girl gamer. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
710
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 09:56:00 -
[47] - Quote
Junko Sideswipe wrote:Being brought into the Dec Shield mutual war circle jerk by a Dec Shield Ambassador corp has educated us on how broken the new war system is. Please fix this broken mechanic.
Also being told by a GM this is working is intended is pretty silly, I'd be really surprised if they didn't fix this in december.
Well be ready to surprised then. Considering the mess he made, CCP SoniClover probably isn't up to task. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
De'Veldrin
East India Ore Trade Intrepid Crossing
431
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 14:10:00 -
[48] - Quote
Zwo Zateki wrote:Remove non-mutual wardecs altogether. Paying wardec fee is bribing CONCORD. I don't know how THIS is supposed to fit into highsec lore and essence.
I look at it as being similar to obtaining a Letter of Marque and Reprisal from a government here on Earth. Basically, you're getting Concord's permission to be a little naughty, and as long as you do so within the rules they give you, they won't OMGWTFBBQPWN you for it. Unsub or don't.-á I don't care what your reasons are, and neither does anyone else.-á Just click the button and go away - or don't. |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
320
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 08:47:00 -
[49] - Quote
The message for booting corps from alliance conveys incorrect information as well:
"If you kick this corporation out of the alliance they will still be in all wars, that are currently ongoing for the alliance. The wars will be copied over to the corporation being kicked out and they will be automatically retracted. Are you sure you want to throw them out?"
The wars are not automatically retracted. That's the old system that auto retracted the wars. The text message needs to be updated.
http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/1210/retracted.jpg Burn Highsec Griefers |
Viktor Fel
Dred Nots
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:01:00 -
[50] - Quote
Fixing the DEC Shield/War Dec exploits should be a priority I believe. |
|
Tetsuigablm
Lianowar Legion
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 10:18:00 -
[51] - Quote
When the leader of the abusers is saying it needs to get fixes, it should probably get fixed, just saying, get on it ccp, seriously... filed a petition today, the only way they are going to wake up is if we stand together with one voice
EVERYONE file petitions, 1-5 a day is swept under the rug make it hundreds, thousands, and they will listen.
Or they can give up my corps sub fees, and im sure others as well, its up to them really. |
NinjaTurtle
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 20:50:00 -
[52] - Quote
+1 |
JitaPriceChecker2
State War Academy Caldari State
180
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 11:13:00 -
[53] - Quote
I wonder how long it will take CCP to fix the freaking game.
Right now the corp that decced someone and got into infinite war bug cant join alliance ever. But hey we will got round HUD targets , that surely counts for something ?? |
BigBelly Jackles
CareBear Financial Associates The Foundation To Protect Endangered CareBears
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 02:11:00 -
[54] - Quote
Our Alliance has been forced into a war with Dec Shield. We got into this mess after War Decing a bot mining corporation. After bumping their ships, after mining over top of them for months, they still bot. We thought about ganking them, but didnt want to hurt our security status. A war dec seemed like the logical choice. Now the war will end for them, they will go back to botting and we are stuck in a war we don't want to be in.
I have read the proposed changes and I think they make sense. We should not be forced into a never ending war like this.
While I have been typing, a corporation just left Dec Shield and we are now at war with someone we never declared war on(octopus).
These mechanics need to change. I'm afraid that even if CCP bans these bot miners, our war (which should be over at that point) will continue and cause our young member to leave us and move on.
The more pressure we can put on this issue, the better chance we have of getting something changed.
Please support Dec Shields drive to make a change.
BigBelly |
Malchristus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 01:57:00 -
[55] - Quote
Where are the CSM and the Devs on this?
This is the singularly most abused and broken continual gameplay mechanic in the game and yet they are never anywhere to be seen on the topic.
+1 to the OP -10 to the CSM (we still have one right?) and -100 AGAIN to CCP for trying to achieve one goal and by not thinking it through property, AGAIN, achieving exactly the opposite effect AGAIN! |
Malchristus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 01:59:00 -
[56] - Quote
Malchristus wrote:Where are the CSM and the Devs on this?
This is the singularly most abused and broken continual gameplay mechanic in the game and yet they are never anywhere to be seen on the topic.
+1 to the OP -10 to the CSM (we still have one right?) and -100 AGAIN to CCP for trying to achieve one goal and by not thinking it through property, AGAIN, achieving exactly the opposite effect AGAIN!
BTW I don't want to walk around in stations, fight a fail fight on a PS3 or see pretty trails coming out of the back of my ship, I just want you to fix what is broken NOW before you go on to make something else that will be broken. |
Gate Green
Unity Holdings Ushra'Khan
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 22:55:00 -
[57] - Quote
I happen to agree at the moment that the "aggressor" needs to be able to shut down a wardec like this. I will +1 dec shield for catching U'K in the wardec, and -infinity to CCP on two fronts:
1. Allowing this to happen in the first place. 2. Being unable to deal with the wardec as a harassment complaint, when it's clearly stated, that this is mechanic abuse, done deliberately, nothing can be done by the GM's. Gogo CCP! |
Tinja Soikutsu
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
229
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 00:16:00 -
[58] - Quote
Yeah, month and a half old here, been away from a week and about to log in, find out that the FW based wardec we had going has now gone into a meltdown of decshield, with the original party STILL not even at mutual war with us, and now I can't even THINK of undocking unless I want to deal with every ******** who uses decshield for lulzkills gunning for me whenever I undock at any time, in any ship, anywhere for any reason.
Yeah ******* good game CCP. |
Ragnar STS
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
47
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 00:46:00 -
[59] - Quote
+1 to OP for actually working out the mechanics and finding the exploit -infinity to CCP for not contemplating this mechanic
In general I like shooting at people and being shot at. This is kind of dumb though. Ragnar can stand....but my $$ paying alt-army might lapse for a while come december if they can't undock.
Though I do look forward to the bounty system going into action on the OP. :) |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
356
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 12:23:00 -
[60] - Quote
It seems it's still possible to leave dead corps floating all over the place, including inside an alliance.
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/corp/Wong_Wing_Corporation
This could potentially be very useful for us, as we could keep a bunch of dead corps in alliance to maintain majority vote for executorship, without actually dedicating any characters to it. We'll have to test whether or not their votes actually still contribute to ownership of an alliance...
The procedure for re-creating this bug is to have a corp apply to join the alliance, then have them close out the corp, and it will join the alliance as a dead corp. Downtime does not seem to wipe the corp from existence. Burn Highsec Griefers |
|
Mangala Solaris
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
327
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 10:57:00 -
[61] - Quote
Supporting this also.
This whole thing is just a massive fiasco - especially the mutual war side of it which is seeing RvB get into mutual wars with 1 man nobodies we never even wanted to dec in the first place.
And massively increasing war costs too... Mangala is not FC, yet another randomly updated EVE blog.
http://mangala.rvbganked.co.uk/ |
croakroach
World Domination Inc Nobilium Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 15:30:00 -
[62] - Quote
Supporting also.
With the new bounty hunting payouts, wardecs are going to be a strong mechanism for collecting bounties. This issue and the new system and pricing in general has driven out some of the good mercenary corps and alliances.
A simple fix, as probably proposed already, is to lock corporations at war from joining alliances so transfer cannot occur.
However the price of wars also needs to be addressed as many clients cannot afford the costs to obtain their goals, this is another aspect I see that is leading to the loss of many mercs in the market place.
Perhaps bounties will fix that? Especially POS bounties if ever implemented, but the price has to be right; for example, when it costs more to wardec than the cost of the POS, why bother, who would pay to have this removed? IMO bring back the old cost of wars; it worked fine. |
Arduemont
Lords 0f Justice Fidelas Constans
575
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 15:54:00 -
[63] - Quote
I'm surprised CCP haven't commented on this yet.
It so obviously needs doing. Don't think I've seen anyone disagree yet.
Tobiaz wrote:Locking a wardeccing corporation by making the war mutual is IMHO a very important feature. The 'biting-off-more-then-you-can-chew' risk provides crucial balance to the initiative advantage the aggressor has and THIS NEEDS TO STAY! This is also why it should be possible to hire allies or join an alliance, even in a mutualized war, rewarding those few defending corporations that decide to fight back properly instead of hiding in newbie corporations and whining about it on the forums how wardecss are 'unfair'. As an agressor, being locking into a mutual war with a corp that then goes into hibernation is simply the risk of agression. But I do think mutual wars should be 'confirmed' every month or so, to end wars with corporations that are completely dead. The test-server showed that there are still wars going on from 2005 of corps that are now long dead and forgotten. The fixed need though (and it seems like an easy one) is to simple make the war follow the original defender, extending to any alliance it joins, but not remaining 'copied' there (except for a cool-down period) when the original defender leaves again. Why isn't this fixed yet, CCP?
Also, this ^^. "In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." |
Bethesda
Unknown Test RELOADED DOT
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 14:05:00 -
[64] - Quote
Mangala Solaris wrote:Supporting this also.
And massively increasing war costs too...
I shall laugh if you haven't unclicked auto pay.... |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
380
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 20:05:00 -
[65] - Quote
So a new variation of exploit based on dead corporations:
1.) Get a dead corporation into alliance 2.) Have all the wars set mutual in the alliance 3.) Boot dead corp from alliance 4.) Laugh maniacally as everyone is now trapped in mutual outgoing wars against a dead corporation
There is no escape, there is no way to reason or talk your way out of it. You are literally screwed forever and no one but GMs can help you. As of writing this, all 169 wars we're in are at war with a dead corporation, you cannot be set free, ever. Burn Highsec Griefers |
De'Veldrin
East India Ore Trade Intrepid Crossing
463
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 20:13:00 -
[66] - Quote
The Zerg Overmind wrote:So a new variation of exploit based on dead corporations: 1.) Get a dead corporation into alliance2.) Have all the wars set mutual in the alliance 3.) Boot dead corp from alliance 4.) Laugh maniacally as everyone is now trapped in mutual outgoing wars against a dead corporation There is no escape, there is no way to reason or talk your way out of it. You are literally screwed forever and no one but GMs can help you. As of writing this, all 169 wars we're in are at war with a dead corporation, you cannot be set free, ever.
Now, if you want them to fix it, have every one of those 169 corporations/alliances submit a petition to the GM staff. If a flood of "**** you and your game mechanic for this ****" doesn't get their attention, nothing will. Unsub or don't.-á I don't care what your reasons are, and neither does anyone else.-á Just click the button and go away - or don't. |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
380
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 20:16:00 -
[67] - Quote
Concord wrote:Corporation you are at war with is joining an alliance From: CONCORD Sent: 2012.11.02 00:04
Barnim Libertines is joining Dec Shield alliance. Since you are at war with Barnim Libertines, in 24 hours you will also be at war with Dec Shield. It seems that CCP did change wardec mechanics slightly recently.
Now when you're at war with a corporation, it'll send you a notification the moment they get accepted into an alliance. We've gotten multiple reports of this today, and I've never seen it before. Pretty sure this wasn't here a few days ago. This was one of our suggested fixes ^^
See, CCP does love us Burn Highsec Griefers |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
53
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 04:51:00 -
[68] - Quote
When I first saw Dec Shield I assumed you were just another player trying to break EVE, Kudos for actually trying to fix this issue though +1 and a bump. "Don't count on others for help. In the end each of us is in this alone. The survivors are those who know how to look out for themselves." |
Ben Youssef Noban
Sons of the Prophet
9
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 13:03:00 -
[69] - Quote
The Zerg Overmind wrote:De'Veldrin wrote:Zerg, it's obvious you and your fellows have put a lot of time and efforts into finding and using the broke-ass mechanics CCP has foisted on us (yet again) concerning War-Decs. What I want to know is how long it is going to take them to fix this c-f so that wars can actually be useful again?
Has there been ANY conversation between the CSM and CCP about this? I talked to Veritas and Soundwave in Vegas this last weekend, and went over many of the major loopholes and the such. Soundwave gave me his business card and asked me to email him more information. I'm currently working on a more concise write up so I can mail it off to him, was planning to do so today. As far as urgency, they were all of the mindset that it wasn't a pressing enough issue yet, and there weren't enough complaints or public outcry to warrant shifting gears to address the issues quicker. So at least in the short term I wouldn't expect anything to change, but we'll continue to push for fixes anyways.
Get Goonswarm trapped in Dec Shield mechanic and there will be some kind of a fix within three weeks. |
Musiaba Schenoly
FIRST AID SERVICE GROUP
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 16:10:00 -
[70] - Quote
btw another thread in "Features & Ideas Discussion": https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2131149#post2131149
|
|
Tinja Soikutsu
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
237
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 19:56:00 -
[71] - Quote
is CCP even going to acknowledge this at all? |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
380
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 20:25:00 -
[72] - Quote
Tinja Soikutsu wrote:is CCP even going to acknowledge this at all? They've acknowledged it privately, and are actively debating it internally. They did roll out one of the proposed fixes in the last few days, so someone is doing something, we think. I'll send Burn Highsec Griefers |
Nymeria Wolff
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 06:17:00 -
[73] - Quote
its sad that legitimate wars are being ruind because of this group tbh |
Musiaba Schenoly
FIRST AID SERVICE GROUP
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 09:15:00 -
[74] - Quote
The Zerg Overmind wrote:Tinja Soikutsu wrote:is CCP even going to acknowledge this at all? They've acknowledged it privately, and are actively debating it internally. They did roll out one of the proposed fixes in the last few days, so someone is doing something, we think. I'll send
It seems more, that they don't want to know anything about this, I assume now. Customer service says thats everything working like intended and forum posts where devs are maybe watching were deleted ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2132121#post2132121) |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
393
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 10:17:00 -
[75] - Quote
Exploit of the day:
Building off the previous bug of allowing dead corporations into alliance, apparently you can make identical copies of those corporations at the same time.
Step 1.) Make a corporation Step 2.) Apply to join alliance Step 3.) Alliance hits accept on your application Step 4.) Disband the corporation Step 5.) Reform the corporation with identical name, ticker, etc Step 6.) Repeat steps 2-5 as many times as desired Step 7.) Enjoy your clones
The test corp used was "Unstable Mitosis [XPLTR]" founded by "The Cloner"
http://mobileinfantry.free.fr/pics/would-you-like-to-know-more.jpg Burn Highsec Griefers |
Nymeria Wolff
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 21:46:00 -
[76] - Quote
after waiting 4 days for my petition to be answered (i know of others that were sent after mine but answered sooner) i get this
Hi
The tactics used to generate perpetual wars using the mutual war option are at this time considered a normal use of the game mechanics and not an exploit or harassment.
If you feel this is a matter that needs to be addressed, your best route is to either make a post in the Features and Ideas Discussion section of the EVE Online forums, or you can bring the matter up before the CSM in the Assembly Hall section. We realise this is not an ideal solution, however we are unfortunately not able to discuss ideas and suggestions for game improvement via the petitions system.
Best regards,
as i responded...
so disbanding my corp to get out of a war dec isnt against the rules??? thats not what ive heard ..... so to avoid a "working" mechanic is to break a rule?
I dont need the bs response as i know that they have admitted to war decs being broken and missused....
their response....
While players may say they are exploiting or abusing game mechanics, CCP is the ultimate authority on what consists of an exploit or abuse of game mechanics. At this time, the mutual war declaration mechanics are not broken and using them in this manner is not an exploit.
As this is the case, there is no further action we may take in this instance. You may leave the war through normal game mechanics by either offering surrender terms or, if your surrender is declined, you may unconditionally surrender by disbanding your corporation; this will end the war immediately, and afterwards you may re-form the corporation under the same name. Leaving a war by this method is fully permissible by the game mechanics and is not an exploit.
Best regards,
Doing a bit of research of my own it has been stated that it is ok to disban abd reform up with the same corp name etc etc.... this is some talk about it being done too much can result in hammers dropping.... So pretty much CCP has made it undesireable to war dec anyone which in turn means if you want to fight go to low and null sec or wait for some random corp to war dec you then just join dec shield for a day...
As the GM closed this petition i didnt get a chance to go into the fact that we cant join an alliance and are getting spammed by newb corps joining dec shield to catch other corps in this trap.... So please hurry up and catch goons in this trap so it can be considered an exploit...... Better yet, CCP put in a damn retract war option..... how hard is it? |
Musiaba Schenoly
FIRST AID SERVICE GROUP
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 06:28:00 -
[77] - Quote
Nymeria Wolff wrote: as i responded...
so disbanding my corp to get out of a war dec isnt against the rules??? thats not what ive heard ..... so to avoid a "working" mechanic is to break a rule?
I dont need the bs response as i know that they have admitted to war decs being broken and missused....
their response....
While players may say they are exploiting or abusing game mechanics, CCP is the ultimate authority on what consists of an exploit or abuse of game mechanics.
Fail! The customer is the "ultimate authority" @ccp
And more and more I begin to regret for paying my accounts in the light of such answers concerning obvious exploits of one of the most importat game mechanic and denying of all what about addon Inferno was annouced before. |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
415
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 08:01:00 -
[78] - Quote
I actually don't advise cancelling your accounts. CCP are working on the issue, and they do intend to stop me. They will fix wardecs "soon". They're just working hard to make sure the Retribution expansion goes off without any major bugs before they start tweaking interrelated game mechanics that could interact in unexpected ways. One step at a time, and it's likely that we're the next step. Burn Highsec Griefers |
Musiaba Schenoly
FIRST AID SERVICE GROUP
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 08:14:00 -
[79] - Quote
The Zerg Overmind wrote:I actually don't advise cancelling your accounts. CCP are working on the issue, and they do intend to stop me. They will fix wardecs "soon". They're just working hard to make sure the Retribution expansion goes off without any major bugs before they start tweaking interrelated game mechanics that could interact in unexpected ways. One step at a time, and it's likely that we're the next step.
Maybe they work on this issue, maybe not - but they are unable to comunicate with the comunity about such an important and obvious issue, ...again after Incarna |
Reppyk
The Black Shell
200
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 09:54:00 -
[80] - Quote
The Zerg Overmind wrote:I actually don't advise cancelling your accounts. CCP are working on the issue, and they do intend to stop me. They will fix wardecs "soon". They're just working hard to make sure the Retribution expansion goes off without any major bugs before they start tweaking interrelated game mechanics that could interact in unexpected ways. One step at a time, and it's likely that we're the next step. Oh cool, new exploits incoming \\// |
|
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc
495
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 11:24:00 -
[81] - Quote
Ben Youssef Noban wrote:The Zerg Overmind wrote:De'Veldrin wrote:Zerg, it's obvious you and your fellows have put a lot of time and efforts into finding and using the broke-ass mechanics CCP has foisted on us (yet again) concerning War-Decs. What I want to know is how long it is going to take them to fix this c-f so that wars can actually be useful again?
Has there been ANY conversation between the CSM and CCP about this? I talked to Veritas and Soundwave in Vegas this last weekend, and went over many of the major loopholes and the such. Soundwave gave me his business card and asked me to email him more information. I'm currently working on a more concise write up so I can mail it off to him, was planning to do so today. As far as urgency, they were all of the mindset that it wasn't a pressing enough issue yet, and there weren't enough complaints or public outcry to warrant shifting gears to address the issues quicker. So at least in the short term I wouldn't expect anything to change, but we'll continue to push for fixes anyways. Get Goonswarm trapped in Dec Shield mechanic and there will be some kind of a fix within three weeks.
more like within three days |
Jason Quixos
Dead Pod Syndrome MORE.DPS
3
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 13:57:00 -
[82] - Quote
Any chance ccp going to fix this war system?
Seems like petitions get ignored, posts get deleted/edited, and seems like political answers from GM's.
Is this kind of thing CCP endorsed then? |
AssassinationsdoneWrong
The Nexus 7's
18
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 14:42:00 -
[83] - Quote
Jason Quixos wrote:Any chance ccp going to fix this war system?
Seems like petitions get ignored, posts get deleted/edited, and seems like political answers from GM's.
Is this kind of thing CCP endorsed then?
Yes. Petitions get answered "Contact the CSM" which kind of makes it a "closed loop" process because the CSM won't even make their own comment about it.
EVELOAN -áchannel is no longer attended. Contact me directly over secured loans needed. AdW
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3301
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 17:41:00 -
[84] - Quote
Hello guys, thanks for the mail, and I'm happy to give you an update on the situation here. Essentially the issue is this - the team that was responsible for the wardec system overhaul was never allowed the room in their sprint schedule for proper through on the wardec system following Inferno's release. They were assigned Bounty Hunting as the headline feature for Winter, and the pressure on them has been to finish and deliver Bounty Hunting first and foremost.
This leaves wardecs in a completely unacceptable state in the meantime, and this has been a major point of contention between the CSM and CCP, ever since they were given their assignments this fall. We've asked time and time again when this issue was going to be addressed, and basically told the same thing each time, priority was finishing the new items (Bounty Hunting, salvage drones, and microjumpdrives) before wardecs would be revisited. Obviously this is not the priority the CSM would have preferred, as it is a poor example of CCP following through on their commitment to iteration before new features. Not to mention many of us still think microjumpdrives are useless.
So in otherwords, for most of the summer and fall, there really hasn't been any news to report other than "We're aware of the issue and speaking to CCP about it". Is that the answer anyone wants to hear? Of course not, as reflected by your current email. But its the truth nonetheless, we've just been up against a resource allocation issue that was beyond our ability to control.
That is not to say in any way that the fight is over, recently Alekseyev Karrde successfully landed a 1 on 1 meeting with CCP Soniclover to review this situation and once again deliver the message that wardecs are in a completely unacceptable state and that the situation continues to worsen and threaten the usefulness of even having a wardec system in the first place. Aleks felt the session was productive, in terms of making sure that the development team understands exactly what needs to be done, but this doesnt resolve the short-term issue of lack of time being devoted to fixing this.
Since Retribution is about at the "hardening" phase where its all about polishing finished code, it's extremely unlikely this will be addressed in the Dec. 4 release. From the meeting with CCP Soniclover, Aleks was able to confirm that not only is wardecs #1 on the teams own backlog, but that they will attempt to work on this in point releases following Retribution's initial release. We'll keep you posted as things develop, but thats about all there is to share on the news front where wardecs are concerned.
I appreciate everyone's patience, this affects all of us (most of us on the CSM are involved in this through one war or another) and I know how frustrating it is to not have an end in sight. Just understand that we've been in the dark as much as you regarding when this will be addressed, and are continuing to hammer this as one of the most critical pieces of unfinished business from the last couple of expansions.
At the upcoming summit, we'll not only bring up this issue once again, but will also be emphasizing the importance of follow-through on broken systems in the future, as this is one of the low points in the road to iterative development when compared to say, Faction Warfare, where proper resources have been allocated to add the needed polish for the system to function properly.
Don't hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions, email is fastest as the Assembly Hall is essentially a redundant version of Features and Ideas discussion section of the forums, and we've been long lobbying for them to remove it completely and consolidate the two so players aren't posting in a relatively inactive part of the forum.
o7 Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
DeT Resprox
T.R.I.A.D
76
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 17:53:00 -
[85] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Hello guys, thanks for the mail, and I'm happy to give you an update on the situation here. Essentially the issue is this - the team that was responsible for the wardec system overhaul was never allowed the room in their sprint schedule for proper through on the wardec system following Inferno's release. They were assigned Bounty Hunting as the headline feature for Winter, and the pressure on them has been to finish and deliver Bounty Hunting first and foremost.
This leaves wardecs in a completely unacceptable state in the meantime, and this has been a major point of contention between the CSM and CCP, ever since they were given their assignments this fall. We've asked time and time again when this issue was going to be addressed, and basically told the same thing each time, priority was finishing the new items (Bounty Hunting, salvage drones, and microjumpdrives) before wardecs would be revisited. Obviously this is not the priority the CSM would have preferred, as it is a poor example of CCP following through on their commitment to iteration before new features. Not to mention many of us still think microjumpdrives are useless.
So in otherwords, for most of the summer and fall, there really hasn't been any news to report other than "We're aware of the issue and speaking to CCP about it". Is that the answer anyone wants to hear? Of course not, as reflected by your current email. But its the truth nonetheless, we've just been up against a resource allocation issue that was beyond our ability to control.
That is not to say in any way that the fight is over, recently Alekseyev Karrde successfully landed a 1 on 1 meeting with CCP Soniclover to review this situation and once again deliver the message that wardecs are in a completely unacceptable state and that the situation continues to worsen and threaten the usefulness of even having a wardec system in the first place. Aleks felt the session was productive, in terms of making sure that the development team understands exactly what needs to be done, but this doesnt resolve the short-term issue of lack of time being devoted to fixing this.
Since Retribution is about at the "hardening" phase where its all about polishing finished code, it's extremely unlikely this will be addressed in the Dec. 4 release. From the meeting with CCP Soniclover, Aleks was able to confirm that not only is wardecs #1 on the teams own backlog, but that they will attempt to work on this in point releases following Retribution's initial release. We'll keep you posted as things develop, but thats about all there is to share on the news front where wardecs are concerned.
I appreciate everyone's patience, this affects all of us (most of us on the CSM are involved in this through one war or another) and I know how frustrating it is to not have an end in sight. Just understand that we've been in the dark as much as you regarding when this will be addressed, and are continuing to hammer this as one of the most critical pieces of unfinished business from the last couple of expansions.
At the upcoming summit, we'll not only bring up this issue once again, but will also be emphasizing the importance of follow-through on broken systems in the future, as this is one of the low points in the road to iterative development when compared to say, Faction Warfare, where proper resources have been allocated to add the needed polish for the system to function properly.
Don't hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions, email is fastest as the Assembly Hall is essentially a redundant version of Features and Ideas discussion section of the forums, and we've been long lobbying for them to remove it completely and consolidate the two so players aren't posting in a relatively inactive part of the forum.
o7
Well said :)
DeT Resprox T.R.I.A.D CEO Ushra'Khan 2nd -áIn Command Founding Member of Ushra'Khan INGAME CHANNEL: TRIAD AGENCY |
qDoctor Strangelove
TaskF0rce Executive Vice Empire
43
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 18:20:00 -
[86] - Quote
So.. As long as you START no wars, there is no trappings and no issues, right? |
Tinja Soikutsu
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
248
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 19:34:00 -
[87] - Quote
qDoctor Strangelove wrote:So.. As long as you START no wars, there is no trappings and no issues, right? Yes, as long as none of the companies in your entire alliance starts a war, you're safe..... |
Thorvik
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
48
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 20:22:00 -
[88] - Quote
+1 to get rid of current system |
Brib Vogt
DC-centre Destiny's Call
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 20:31:00 -
[89] - Quote
DeT Resprox wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Hello guys, thanks for the mail,............rt of the forum.
o7 Well said :)
Well said? Kidding me? Do you mean his pronunciation? This is crap.
My whole alliance is stuck. The "Major" improvement of the last patch keeps us nothing else but waiting. High sec mining, industry and incursions are forbidden. Billions of ISK lost every day. My members became told by any GM to disband the alliance and reform a new corp.
What should i say. F.uck off came in my mind. I seriously think about answering for a reimbursement of lost playtime for every char stuck in my alliance. This is not a play for free game. I pay for everything they announce. Fixing the War-Dec system was the bigtime project of last summer. I extended my Accounts because i was happy to read this. Now i spend my money to NOT play the game properly.
Every time you point out that the problem is the copy mechanism of the wars a GM tells you that the mutual war is okay and then they close the petition. No one answers me directly about the copying. As i stated before, CCP Wrangler said about the last dec shield that the multiplication of wars can end in a ban and is not accepted at all.
TO CCP:
Before you add new crap FIX the old stuff!!!! |
Musiaba Schenoly
FIRST AID SERVICE GROUP
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 21:11:00 -
[90] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Hello guys, thanks for the mail, and I'm happy to give you an update on the situation here. Essentially the issue is this - the team that was responsible for the wardec system overhaul was never allowed the room in their sprint schedule for proper through on the wardec system following Inferno's release. They were assigned Bounty Hunting as the headline feature for Winter, and the pressure on them has been to finish and deliver Bounty Hunting first and foremost.
This leaves wardecs in a completely unacceptable state in the meantime, ... o7
Ok, first of all ty for an update on this issue finally. Second: This all seem reflect (once again), that ccp dont understands what could happen:
Not only the most advertised feature of Inferno addon but also a key gamemechanic of Retribution is obviously a "trap" for everyone in this mmo who wants to use it:
So fixing it not till Retribution would be rediculous and cant be intended seriously.
This - in combination with an completely floping "customer support" would even mean that ppl cant use key-properties of eve-online for more than a half year.
After presenting this in our circles I heard for the first time of my 4 years eve carrer more than one thinkings about demanding back money through complaints for these months till it would be fixed finally.
Brib Vogt seems to foretell already something like that, too.
Ppl WILL unsub if they get furtherhin suggested to reform their corps for every war which they have to declare as mercs for the next time. Not the mechanics of mutual wars is the problem thereby, but the fact that there is so less to fix to get it running well combined with ccp's behavior and prioritys makes so many ppl angry and frustrated again.
After 6 weeks of no information there IS no patience anymore tbh - everybody is thinking hard about his next steps. |
|
Musiaba Schenoly
FIRST AID SERVICE GROUP
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 21:16:00 -
[91] - Quote
qDoctor Strangelove wrote:So.. As long as you START no wars, there is no trappings and no issues, right? lol as long you are not use Inferno features u are (still) save... true |
Mangala Solaris
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
328
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 21:31:00 -
[92] - Quote
qDoctor Strangelove wrote:So.. As long as you START no wars, there is no trappings and no issues, right?
Yes.
However RvB's issue with this is, we are now "trapped" in mutual wars we actually never started in the first place - and that we have to pay the initial weeks cost for as the "aggressor".
The wars themselves do not bother us as 90% of the 3rd parties are bears who were simply trying to hide from another war by joining DS in the first place and we have too much fun shooting ourselves to hunt them down. The rest are annoying but usually consist of epic fail groups hoping to leet pvp us to death or who leet pvp camp hubs as rvb space is scary for them.
But yes this whole thing is broken. Mangala is not FC, yet another randomly updated EVE blog.
http://mangala.rvbganked.co.uk/ |
Destriouth Hollow
Star-Destroying-Warlords Destiny's Call
5
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 22:06:00 -
[93] - Quote
@Hans Jagerblitzen Your text is informative and well written. But what i read out of it is this: CSM seems to be totally powerless and therefore has no reason to exist. All you can do is talk to CCP. And CCP on the other hand just ignores it and use their resources on prettier suns and talking pirates. The new Bounty-System is a neat feature but we can do without it and it will not work with the currently buggy War-Dec-System anyway. Please stop wasting your resources on neat little goodies and make it possible for over 10.000 people to join alliances with their corp, declare affordable wars and recruit members. The current allocation is not acceptable.
regards Destriouth Hollow
Here my full text about the issue: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=170237&find=unread |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
702
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 22:41:00 -
[94] - Quote
The team working on war decs is the same one that is charged with making Bounty Hunting for Retribution, which is one of the highlight features for that expansion (it's looking pretty good too). No amount of posting will get that priority switched up.
Thankfully you DO have a few members on the CSM not content to just sit on their hands. As Hans mentioned, I talked one on one with CCP Soniclover, specifically to confront him about the lack of attention to war dec iteration and the numerous problems facing the system. To my pleasant surprise, that meeting actually went very well and has been diligently followed up on. I can confirm there will be some, probably minor, war-related items in the initial Retribution release with many more to come shortly there after. I've seen the list as it stands; there's still going to be room for improvement (ie it's not everything we need imo) but several of the changes represent significant improvements over the status quo.
Keep your eye out for a war-related dev blog in the not too distant future with lots of details on what Team Super Friends has in mind. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Musiaba Schenoly
FIRST AID SERVICE GROUP
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 23:21:00 -
[95] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:The team working on war decs is the same one that is charged with making Bounty Hunting for Retribution, which is one of the highlight features for that expansion (it's looking pretty good too). No amount of posting will get that priority switched up.
So sry for bothering you and thx for helping ccp to keep the forums clean, dude. From first post to first statement of you guys 44 days were gone and you want to tell us something about amounts of postings?? This ISN'T a sign that you r even NOT sitting on your hands, even every peti-reply I heard about ends with the demand to post it on the forums.
I guess you do also not understand how serious some ppl that issue take concerning trust in ccp's ability to care for money worth quality in the future.
Nevertheless beyond the impression csm is to tame representing player bases interests thx for the further informations. |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
427
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 23:37:00 -
[96] - Quote
Aleks, Hans, and Kelduum have all been actively involved in fixing these issues from the start. Just because it hasn't been public knowledge does not mean they've been sitting on their hands. What you should be asking yourself is, what are the other CSM members doing? Where have they been all this time? Burn Highsec Griefers |
Destriouth Hollow
Star-Destroying-Warlords Destiny's Call
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 23:50:00 -
[97] - Quote
The Zerg Overmind wrote:Aleks, Hans, and Kelduum have all been actively involved in fixing these issues from the start. Just because it hasn't been public knowledge does not mean they've been sitting on their hands. What you should be asking yourself is, what are the other CSM members doing? Where have they been all this time?
This War-Dec-System has such obvious flaws: It should not even be on the CSMs to report it to CCP. CCP should have known before they "patched" it. Not seeing this was already sad. After people showed the issue it should have been fixed it right away and been done. Not doing this is even more sad. Needing 2 months to finish it and pissing off the player base in this manner just takes the cake.
This is much too important and obvious to oversee and the critique has to go to CCP directly. No player-concil should be needed. I'm waiting for a fix every day.
regards Destriouth Hollow |
Brib Vogt
DC-centre Destiny's Call
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 23:51:00 -
[98] - Quote
Maybe they have not been sitting on their hands, but they haven't got their fingers on their keyboards either. As musiaba wrote: In my second answer a a GM wrote: Thank you for your feedback on the war declaration system, but I am afraid we are unable to address potential changes to game systems through the petition system.
He wrote FEEDBACK!!!!!
AND: We recommend such suggestions be posted to the Features & Ideas Discussion part of the EVE Online forums, as the developers frequently read that forum section for feedback on existing systems as well as ideas for new ones.
They RECOMMEND posts, many posts.
I do not pay my money to the CSM crew. I pay it to CCP. There should be a responsible writing something himself instead sending a negotiator with news like: They heard it, they know, but they give a f.uck. It is not important, but please be patient and pay your friggin money.
I am a customer of a product. This product had a lot of advertisement. This advertisement was big about war dec.
Let me say it in capital letters: ALL CRAP
Come out where ever you are, show yourself and defend your actions, or better your priorities. |
Brib Vogt
DC-centre Destiny's Call
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 00:24:00 -
[99] - Quote
One questions no GM wants to answer directly:
Is the multiplication of wars and the avoiding of assists an exploit or a wanted feature.
I would like to here CCP here, but i would even start with a CSM member.
|
None ofthe Above
353
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 02:40:00 -
[100] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:The team working on war decs is the same one that is charged with making Bounty Hunting for Retribution, which is one of the highlight features for that expansion (it's looking pretty good too). No amount of posting will get that priority switched up.
Thankfully you DO have a few members on the CSM not content to just sit on their hands. As Hans mentioned, I talked one on one with CCP Soniclover, specifically to confront him about the lack of attention to war dec iteration and the numerous problems facing the system. To my pleasant surprise, that meeting actually went very well and has been diligently followed up on. I can confirm there will be some, probably minor, war-related items in the initial Retribution release with many more to come shortly there after. I've seen the list as it stands; there's still going to be room for improvement (ie it's not everything we need imo) but several of the changes represent significant improvements over the status quo.
Keep your eye out for a war-related dev blog in the not too distant future with lots of details on what Team Super Friends has in mind.
To be honest Aleks, unless you are commenting on refinements not available to us mere players, Bounty Hunting promises to be about as broken as War Decs. A lot of "we couldn't spend the time to get it anywhere near right so here's what you get", in spite of the fact that all they have to do really is not implement the features everyone is telling them are crazy (ie: kill-rights as suspect flag).
Perpetual war lock-in, in this case. How hard could that possibly be to remove? Would fix most of this right quick. (Edit- In fact, I don't see why this should have to wait till retribution. Should be much simpler than the recent FW fixes.)
A bunch of other improvements are possible, true. But killing the lock-in would make this largely go away. Only effect of mutual should probably be no cost for RvB style wars.
Its just very frustrating to watch CCP drag its heels yet again on another game-breaking bug they where told would happen but proceeded with anyway. How many times do they have to burn their fingers before they learn?
And what software engineering company doesn't let engineers work on fixing bugs on their old code even as they deal with new projects? I work in the industry and that doesn't sound right to me.
Anyway Alex, kudos to you and Hans for keeping on this. EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
|
None ofthe Above
353
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 02:49:00 -
[101] - Quote
Destriouth Hollow wrote:@Hans Jagerblitzen Your text is informative and well written. But what I really read out of it is this: CSM seems to be totally powerless and therefore has no reason to exist. All you can do is talk to CCP. And CCP on the other hand just ignores it and use their resources on prettier suns and talking pirates. The new Bounty-System is a neat feature but we can do without it and it will not work with the currently buggy War-Dec-System anyway. Please stop wasting your resources on neat little goodies and make it possible for over 10.000 people to join alliances with their corp, declare affordable wars and recruit members again. The current allocation is not acceptable. I am a programmer myself and I can't understand how this can be complicated to fix. It should not take more than a couple hours to think of a system that works better than the current one. I proved this in my thread below. There are many other ways to fix this too. Just select one and impliment it in a couple more hours. Should work by adjusting some functions. After the next DT it could be better. The people who designed the current (bad) system should still know their way arround in these mechanics. This is NOT THAT COMPLICATED. regards Destriouth Hollow Here my full text about the issue: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=170237&find=unread
I understand your frustation, but don't get the "CSM seems to be totally powerless and therefore has no reason to exist." Which really translates into "CSM can't get done what I want done right now, so what good is it?"
CSM is not and never will be all powerful at dictating priorities and policies to CCP.
That being said, I do see a tendency to give up when faced with a stubborn CCP. Lessons from Incarna apparently forgotten. Of course you do have to pick your battles, but when it's important -- CSM needs to come together with the player base to call attention to something that is not getting fixed in a timely fashion.
PS - The rest of the post I am largely in agreement with. EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
Astroyka
Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan
90
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 04:18:00 -
[102] - Quote
Seriously, this is getting beyond a joke now...
CCP please for the love of anything holy fix this mess! Astroyka - A Mirkur Draug'Tyr pilot, fighting against slavery in New Eden www.astroyka.net |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
706
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 07:08:00 -
[103] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Destriouth Hollow wrote:@Hans Jagerblitzen Your text is informative and well written. But what I really read out of it is this: CSM seems to be totally powerless and therefore has no reason to exist. All you can do is talk to CCP. And CCP on the other hand just ignores it and use their resources on prettier suns and talking pirates. The new Bounty-System is a neat feature but we can do without it and it will not work with the currently buggy War-Dec-System anyway. Please stop wasting your resources on neat little goodies and make it possible for over 10.000 people to join alliances with their corp, declare affordable wars and recruit members again. The current allocation is not acceptable. I am a programmer myself and I can't understand how this can be complicated to fix. It should not take more than a couple hours to think of a system that works better than the current one. I proved this in my thread below. There are many other ways to fix this too. Just select one and impliment it in a couple more hours. Should work by adjusting some functions. After the next DT it could be better. The people who designed the current (bad) system should still know their way arround in these mechanics. This is NOT THAT COMPLICATED. regards Destriouth Hollow Here my full text about the issue: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=170237&find=unread I understand your frustation, but don't get the "CSM seems to be totally powerless and therefore has no reason to exist." Which really translates into "CSM can't get done what I want done right now, so what good is it?" CSM is not and never will be all powerful at dictating priorities and policies to CCP. That being said, I do see a tendency to give up when faced with a stubborn CCP. Lessons from Incarna apparently forgotten. Of course you do have to pick your battles, but when it's important -- CSM needs to come together with the player base to call attention to something that is not getting fixed in a timely fashion. PS - The rest of the post I am largely in agreement with. It's definitely about picking your battles. When CCP went quiet on war dec improvements for weeks, CSM got concerned. I took action. When i say "confront" CCP Soniclover i mean that, i was ready to create a thread calling out War Decs as an abandoned feature. Fortunately we DID have a meeting and coming out of that i feel that such a step is no longer necessary.
Wars will never be everyone ideas of perfect but SuperFriends plans to address a nice sized list of issues which is showing me real progress and commitment to making the system work. It's not as simple as "just fix it in a few hours" like a couple above posters seem to think it is. We're not dealing with spell checking lol, this is a complicated game mechanic which is currently and has always historically been prone to exploiting, and it has to not only be well thought out but also be properly balanced between the interests of defenders and attackers.
CCP not taking the time to think things through, on wars and other things, has caused enough problems. The reason they hot fixed FW ahead of schedule was not planning out how LP distribtion worked was causing violent economic distortion that was literally forcing people to unsubscribe due to high PLEX costs. Trust me, Noir. is "trapped" by Dec Shield; it's not really that serious. I'd rather encourage CCP to take the time and get it right. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Destriouth Hollow
Star-Destroying-Warlords Destiny's Call
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 11:18:00 -
[104] - Quote
Quote:Wars will never be everyone ideas of perfect but SuperFriends plans to address a nice sized list of issues which is showing me real progress and commitment to making the system work. It's not as simple as "just fix it in a few hours" like a couple above posters seem to think it is. We're not dealing with spell checking lol, this is a complicated game mechanic which is currently and has always historically been prone to exploiting, and it has to not only be well thought out but also be properly balanced between the interests of defenders and attackers.
Pay my trip to Island, give me from 1 to 3 days to get to get to know the current game-system and where to change what and which language is used. After that annother day to talk to everybody about all the balancing-concerns to get it right for everybody (I think the system i thought of and mentioned earlier would work just fine though). And annother day to implement the code.
Thats when I do it without any knowledge of the current code. I would bet all of current belongings that I could fix it to most people's liking in far below a week. I have almost no knowledge about graphics-designing but implenting complex theoretical systems is something I really enjoy (: |
Musiaba Schenoly
FIRST AID SERVICE GROUP
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 11:44:00 -
[105] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Trust me, Noir. is "trapped" by Dec Shield; it's not really that serious. I'd rather encourage CCP to take the time and get it right.
So if this is what you really mean - we don't have to wonder.
Encourage ccp to take time developing new stuff is in our best interest, telling em not to fix hot used exploits in key gamemechanics of current AND upcoming addons are not.
May there a "nice sized list of issues which is showing me real progress" what you said - isnt THAT the problem again: Hole alliances are stucked in current gamemechanics exploits, players cant earn their plexes, corps cant join new alliances, ppl will unsub because of no progress ingame and in ccp's policys - and we shall wait for NEW development steps - fixing (maybe) old probs and creating new ones?
Yea you may have to pick your battles but the biggest issue with ccp, I guess the whole community agrees is
Brib Vogt wrote: TO CCP:
Before you add new crap FIX the old stuff!!!!
So Alekseyev, I would respectfully suggest you may even lead that battle here and not maybe somewhere in future may (or may not) next major issues coming up and your own entity cannot deal so well with then. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
707
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 12:09:00 -
[106] - Quote
Destriouth Hollow wrote:Quote:Wars will never be everyone ideas of perfect but SuperFriends plans to address a nice sized list of issues which is showing me real progress and commitment to making the system work. It's not as simple as "just fix it in a few hours" like a couple above posters seem to think it is. We're not dealing with spell checking lol, this is a complicated game mechanic which is currently and has always historically been prone to exploiting, and it has to not only be well thought out but also be properly balanced between the interests of defenders and attackers. Pay my trip to Island, give me from 1 to 3 days to get to get to know the current game-system and where to change what and which language is used. After that annother day to talk to everybody about all the balancing-concerns to get it right for everybody (I think the system i thought of and mentioned earlier would work just fine though). And annother day to implement the code. Thats when I do it without any knowledge of the current code. I would bet all of current belongings that I could fix it to most people's liking in far below a week. I have almost no knowledge about graphics-designing but implenting complex theoretical systems is something I really enjoy (: Since you can't spell "Iceland," I'll take that bet. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
3548
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 12:14:00 -
[107] - Quote
Destriouth Hollow wrote:Quote:Wars will never be everyone ideas of perfect but SuperFriends plans to address a nice sized list of issues which is showing me real progress and commitment to making the system work. It's not as simple as "just fix it in a few hours" like a couple above posters seem to think it is. We're not dealing with spell checking lol, this is a complicated game mechanic which is currently and has always historically been prone to exploiting, and it has to not only be well thought out but also be properly balanced between the interests of defenders and attackers. Pay my trip to Island, give me from 1 to 3 days to get to get to know the current game-system and where to change what and which language is used. After that annother day to talk to everybody about all the balancing-concerns to get it right for everybody (I think the system i thought of and mentioned earlier would work just fine though). And annother day to implement the code. Thats when I do it without any knowledge of the current code. I would bet all of current belongings that I could fix it to most people's liking in far below a week. I have almost no knowledge about graphics-designing but implenting complex theoretical systems is something I really enjoy (:
I wish I was as smart as you Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
246
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 12:32:00 -
[108] - Quote
If things were so simple I'd vote this dude for world president!! |
Arduemont
Rotten Legion Ops
620
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 12:34:00 -
[109] - Quote
Nice to see the War Dec mechanics are seeing some CCP and CSM attention.
I are satisfied. /me happy face. "In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." |
Musiaba Schenoly
FIRST AID SERVICE GROUP
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 12:40:00 -
[110] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Since you can't spell "Iceland," I'll take that bet.
CCP Punkturis wrote:I wish I was as smart as you
???????????????? 7 weeks after posting an exploit here came csm and dev finally - to barrack a player more committed than other in that game?
What is that here - election campaign and local smack during drink time???
Here he posted his suggustions you "DEV" https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2149824#post2149824 I like em more than your analysis here...oh wait which? |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
3549
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 12:49:00 -
[111] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:Nice to see the War Dec mechanics are seeing some CCP and CSM attention.
I are satisfied. /me happy face.
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 Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
544
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 13:28:00 -
[112] - Quote
Mutual war dec should have the bill split in 50/50 Christmas wish list https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134275 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |
Brib Vogt
DC-centre Destiny's Call
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 13:28:00 -
[113] - Quote
I follow this channel --> I see CCP at the left side --> I think AWESOME! Finally someone from the most wanted crew in this forum. --> I read his post --->
My reaction!
Are you kiddin' me? WTF. I pay for your product sir and you come to me like this? If you would work in my company and you would write something so offensive in our Internet forum it would end up in harsh consequences for you.
Alekseyev Karrde is CSM and a player of EVE. I do not know if he gets payed for what he is doing. His comment makes me angry, but i can understand it. What you sir, CCP Punkturis, write here in this forum speaks for itself.
First you **** off people waiting to solve a problem within a product they buy from you. Then you tell us that a guy who can't change anything (GM: CCP is the ultimate authority) gives it the proper attention, rather then CCP is doing it. And at last you tell us you make plans.
WOW now i am so relieved. I love it when a plan comes together, as much as the next guy. Get on you arses and fix the damn problems. If I would react in my customer support like you do my company becomes sued.
Work on it dammit. DO NOT PLAN on working on it. |
Musiaba Schenoly
FIRST AID SERVICE GROUP
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 13:42:00 -
[114] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote: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
In other words: You heard of it the first time...? |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
707
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 14:33:00 -
[115] - Quote
Brib Vogt wrote:Alekseyev Karrde is CSM and a player of EVE. I do not know if he gets payed for what he is doing. I do not. I don't even get to go on a plane. But troll tears *are* an excellent fringe benefit...
Also, they ARE working on it (edit, as in right now while you type at them and distract them with laughter). *read* before you *type*
I may not get payed at all but Punkturis doesn't get paid enough to make good code and show deference to such rude behaviour. Why anyone would white knight such an obvious and breathless troll against one of CCP's hardest working devs is beyond me. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Brib Vogt
DC-centre Destiny's Call
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 14:50:00 -
[116] - Quote
... but Punkturis doesn't get paid enough to make good code and show deference to such rude behaviour. Why anyone would white knight such an obvious and breathless troll against one of CCP's hardest working devs is beyond me.[/quote]
Sorry dude, but about what are you talking right now. I do not know CCP Punkturis. I do not know what he does and what he doesn't. And do you know why? Because no one talks to me in this forum. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
707
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 15:27:00 -
[117] - Quote
Brib Vogt wrote:Quote: ... but Punkturis doesn't get paid enough to make good code and show deference to such rude behaviour. Why anyone would white knight such an obvious and breathless troll against one of CCP's hardest working devs is beyond me. Sorry dude, but about what are you talking right now. I do not know CCP Punkturis. I do not know what he does and what he doesn't. And do you know why? Because no one talks to me in this forum. But what CCP Punktaris writes is trollin on high level. At least it looks like it to me. I wait for a fix. I wait for an official to talk to me. Do you understand that i am really worried about his comment? Someone gives a suggestion. From his point of view a problem can be repaired in a short time. If it can be repaired or not is not important, because it is his opinion! Instead of explaining the actual situation to him a CCP official writes offensive in the first post. In my business, my customers would get all the money back, plus a bonus, if I would act like this. A one-liner is always seen as most offensive! If my daughter would answer a reply like this we had a discussion! 1. Maybe you should pay attention more to those official posts to so desperately crave? First of all, CCP Punkturis is a woman. That's a good place to start.
2. No, the last 2 pages of this thread are trolling on a high level. Punkturis made a little joke, and if you can't see why it's funny it's probably because the joke is on posters like you. Take your own advice and wait for a fix.
3. His opinion is objectively unrealistic and subjectively dumb. I already explained the actual situation, he just continued to make a fool of himself. Be thankful someone in CCP got some laughs out of it.
4. Punkturis isn't your daughter and you're not the boss. If you can't buy products from a company which employs highly skilled, creative people with a sense of humor willing to engage with even the most intransigent elements of their customer base then go play another game. CCP might miss the subscription, but the community will improve and become more attractive with the absence of players like you and Destriouth so I wager it'll balance out in the long run. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Musiaba Schenoly
FIRST AID SERVICE GROUP
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 15:35:00 -
[118] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Brib Vogt wrote:Alekseyev Karrde is CSM and a player of EVE. I do not know if he gets payed for what he is doing. I do not. I don't even get to go on a plane. But troll tears *are* an excellent fringe benefit... Also, they ARE working on it (edit, as in right now while you type at them and distract them with laughter). *read* before you *type* I may not get payed at all but Punkturis doesn't get paid enough to make good code and show deference to such rude behaviour. Why anyone would white knight such an obvious and breathless troll against one of CCP's hardest working devs is beyond me.
sry man, but from a player to you: this reply is poor and turns the facts upside down. |
Dahc Harbinger
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 16:07:00 -
[119] - Quote
A new capsuleer's perspective:
Been playing this game for under a week. Immersing myself in the forums as much as possible to assist with learning curve. Read every post in this thread, and while I don't completely understand the mechanics of the problem being a new pilot, it's apparent there is enough evidence to support it being a fairly serious issue.
Then I came across the very first CCP post in-thread and was very disappointed. If you have the time to follow a thread and then troll a customer who is obviously passionate about this particular situation and the game itself, regardless of how he expresses that passion, then maybe you could find the additional 30min to post a proper response on exactly what CCP is doing? I expect the game company and it's employees to take the high road in these situations, because when you resort to acting in a childish manner such as this I begin to lose confidence in said company.
Anyway, that's my opinion.
Cheers. |
Brib Vogt
DC-centre Destiny's Call
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 16:07:00 -
[120] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde everything you write is very offensive. I tried to state the actual conditions.
1.) I do not care about a gender. If she is a woman she still writes poor comments on the wrong place.
2.) All posts here have their respective necessity. And all are welcome by any GM i contacted. And what do you mean by posters like me? From one EVE player and Alliance leader to maybe another: Do you think you are worth more then any other "grunt"? You, as CSM, should fight for us instead of being the defender of the poor CCP.
3.) Again you trollin and you are very offensive. He stated his opinion and you are going to make a fool of yourself by criticizing him in such a rude way. And i am not thankful for the laughs. CCP members are payed by his money too.
4.) Do you know what examples are made for? And about which compromise are you talking? CCP never gave me anything to choose from?
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.
I feel very offended and i hope you apologize for your arrogant behavior. I even start: If i hurt someones feeling by writing improper language i now apologize for it. But it doesn't change the fact, that i feel left alone. |
|
|
CCP Tallest
C C P C C P Alliance
328
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 16:17:00 -
[121] - Quote
Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so. |
|
Brib Vogt
DC-centre Destiny's Call
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 16:23:00 -
[122] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so.
Thank you so much. And I mean for your reply not for the message. Even if you had said that you can't fix it until then i would be happy.
You both, Punkturis and you, are my personal heroes of the day. I still do not like Punkturis way of acting and the arrogance of the CSM member, but now i have something i can tell the angry mob, which is called my alliance members. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
711
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 16:32:00 -
[123] - Quote
Brib Vogt wrote:Alekseyev Karrde everything you write is very offensive. I tried to state the actual conditions.
1.) I do not care about a gender. If she is a woman she still writes poor comments on the wrong place.
2.) All posts here have their respective necessity. And all are welcome by any GM i contacted. And what do you mean by posters like me? From one EVE player and Alliance leader to maybe another: Do you think you are worth more then any other "grunt"? You, as CSM, should fight for us instead of being the defender of the poor CCP.
3.) Again you trollin and you are very offensive. He stated his opinion and you are going to make a fool of yourself by criticizing him in such a rude way. And i am not thankful for the laughs. CCP members are payed by his money too.
4.) Do you know what examples are made for? And about which compromise are you talking? CCP never gave me anything to choose from?
I talk for at least 160 Accounts alone in my alliance and i know some of the alliance leaders stuck in dec shield too.
I feel very offended and i hope you apologize for your arrogant behavior. 1. Kinda sounded like you felt you could talk down to CCP Punkturis if she was a woman from your patriarchal comment. I'm ready to say I read it wrong, but that was my initial impression.
2. From one player to another, yes I think some contributions to the community and the forums are worth more than others. I feel every person is entitled to contribute and can do so in many ways. There's the thoughtful proposals, the interesting story, the insightful or just plain "Hi, I'm new what is this warp scrambler message" new guy questions, and there's funny trolls which keep things lively.
Aaaand then there's people choosing to communicate in ways both obnoxious AND uninteresting. I think the contributions of players in the former category are to be championed, and I have fought tirelessly for them. I think players choosing to do the latter should be pointed out and given some merciless honesty till they decide to make different choices, become laughably discredited through their own words, or simply get out. I've been this way for years; my voters appreciate someone willing to fight for them and not give their sincere concerns the same weight of someone shouting for attention. There's a difference, that difference is important, and filtering out the noise is one of a CSM's most useful roles as a player advocate to CCP.
3. Life must be very hard for someone with your sensitivities. "Unrealistic," "fool," and "dumb" were polite understatements. I thought my point got across without having to get really nasty and unreasonable, and it seems like it has.
4. Not sure what your question is here but I'm having fun so if you can rephrase it I'd be happy to try to answer. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
711
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 16:33:00 -
[124] - Quote
Brib Vogt wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so. Thank you so much. And I mean for your post not for the message. Even if you said that you can't fix it until 4th of december i would be happy. You both, Punkturis and you, are my personal heroes of the day. I still do not like Punkturis way of acting and the arrogance of the CSM member, but now i have something i can tell the angry mob, which is called my alliance members. Learn to swallow your pride man, jeez. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Brib Vogt
DC-centre Destiny's Call
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 16:40:00 -
[125] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde, i think we both should end it here. Maybe we do not understand each other, or we don't want to. Don't feed the troll. Could be me could be you. |
Travis117
Project Maverick IMPERIAL LEGI0N
24
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 16:43:00 -
[126] - Quote
They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something |
Brib Vogt
DC-centre Destiny's Call
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 16:45:00 -
[127] - Quote
Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something
Don't believe that and do not want to! |
Destriouth Hollow
Star-Destroying-Warlords Destiny's Call
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 16:55:00 -
[128] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so.
Thanks a lot for this. It happens to be the same way of fixing it as I suggested, which I think is a good thing. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=170237&find=unread Now I at least know how long I have to live with it and when i can start recruiting again.
Quote:Alekseyev Karrde: 3. His opinion is objectively unrealistic and subjectively dumb. I already explained the actual situation, he just continued to make a fool of himself. Be thankful someone in CCP got some laughs out of it. Calling my judgement unrealistic may not be realistic itself but is understandable. But becoming personal and calling me dumb and a fool on the other hand is not how an official CSM-Member should behave.
Quote:Alekseyev Karrde: Learn to swallow your pride man, jeez. Is also not very polite.
Quote:2. No, the last 2 pages of this thread are trolling on a high level. Punkturis made a little joke, and if you can't see why it's funny it's probably because the joke is on posters like you. Take your own advice and wait for a fix. And I think you yourself have lost all right to call anyone else a troll by now. I know that in a partly official position I would not start to call people names. |
ShenanigansBus
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
34
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 16:56:00 -
[129] - Quote
So we're back to War Dec's without consequences and the system itself is still inherently worthless... Ok. Preventing everyone who got into bed with an alliance from inheriting all of their targets and the other way around would have been step in the right direction but I guess this is way better than the current hell storm. |
Katrina Bekers
Rim Collection RC Test Alliance Please Ignore
141
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 17:03:00 -
[130] - Quote
Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something
10058. << THE RABBLE BRIGADE >> |
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1847
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 17:03:00 -
[131] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so. Anything to make sure goons stays free of war decs right? This is a good thing though. Now the rest of the play base knows that if we want immediate fast action on an issue, we just have to have whatever it is affect goons.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Destriouth Hollow
Star-Destroying-Warlords Destiny's Call
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 17:03:00 -
[132] - Quote
ShenanigansBus wrote:So we're back to War Dec's without consequences and the system itself is still inherently worthless... Ok. Preventing everyone who got into bed with an alliance from inheriting all of their targets and the other way around would have been step in the right direction but I guess this is way better than the current hell storm.
This only fixes half of the problem. If you declare a war on anybody they should still mutual it and leave only one unneeded char in that corp. You would still forever have an ongoing war where u are the agressor and all you can do is petition. This possibility is flawed by design. |
ShenanigansBus
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
34
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 17:11:00 -
[133] - Quote
Destriouth Hollow wrote:ShenanigansBus wrote:So we're back to War Dec's without consequences and the system itself is still inherently worthless... Ok. Preventing everyone who got into bed with an alliance from inheriting all of their targets and the other way around would have been step in the right direction but I guess this is way better than the current hell storm. This only fixes half of the problem. If you declare a war on anybody they could still mutual it and leave only one unneeded char in that corp. You would still forever have an ongoing war where u are the agressor and all you can do is petition. The inactive corp would never have to pay even a single ISK. This possibility is flawed by design. A good system is one that is well thought out and doesn't need constant "special cases" to keep working. Especially in a sandbox where everything possible is wanted to be allowed. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=170237&find=unread (need to put this to my signature ^^)
Didn't read that link yet but I agree completely with the final sentence before it... one draw back is that EvE players are notorious for figuring out how to make a special case . |
Thorvik
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
48
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 17:18:00 -
[134] - Quote
Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something
/me puts on tinfoil hat... |
Musiaba Schenoly
FIRST AID SERVICE GROUP
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 17:19:00 -
[135] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so.
Thank you for the first clear state of ccp after 7 weeks, seriously.
I liked the new wardec / mutual mechanic and would really appreciate an further development in that direction (ofc without the exploit) in the future.
But as I wrote before: I guess its better to have an older but well working gamemechanic than a new and more attractive but broken one.
So I m thankful for your decision finally and thx for telling us here. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
714
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 17:34:00 -
[136] - Quote
Destriouth Hollow wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so. Thanks a lot for this. It happens to be the same way of fixing it as I suggested, which I think is a good thing. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=170237&find=unreadNow I at least know how long I have to live with it and when i can start recruiting again. Quote:Alekseyev Karrde: 3. His opinion is objectively unrealistic and subjectively dumb. I already explained the actual situation, he just continued to make a fool of himself. Be thankful someone in CCP got some laughs out of it. Not agreeing with me might be unrealistic itself but is understandable. But becoming personal and calling me dumb and a fool on the other hand is not how an official CSM-Member should behave. Quote:Alekseyev Karrde: Learn to swallow your pride man, jeez. Is also not very polite. Quote:2. No, the last 2 pages of this thread are trolling on a high level. Punkturis made a little joke, and if you can't see why it's funny it's probably because the joke is on posters like you. Take your own advice and wait for a fix. And I think you yourself have lost all right to call anyone else a troll by now. I know that in a partly official position I would not start to call people names. :s and Brib ended things so well, here you go make things fun again.
Perhaps dumb *was* a poor choice of words. Willfully ignorant would have been more nuanced. As far as you appearing foolish, well it's certainly just my opinion but i think it stands quite nicely given this post.
Man I was sooo happy to just let it end with Brib's rather tactful post. You two should really coordinate better.
And you should never ever say this: "Now I at least know how long I have to live with it and when i can start recruiting again." when slinging mud at someone who does war decs for a living.
"Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Thorvik
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
48
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 17:41:00 -
[137] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:[quote=Destriouth Hollow]
-snip -
And you should never ever say this: "Now I at least know how long I have to live with it and when i can start recruiting again." when slinging mud at someone who does war decs for a living.
|
OMGFRIGATES WARPOUT
Article 47
43
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 17:44:00 -
[138] - Quote
Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something
http://barbaricthoughts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/tin-foil-hat-e1303319730252.jpg |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1116
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 17:50:00 -
[139] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote: And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so.
cpt. picard approves a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Slutty Underwear
The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 17:56:00 -
[140] - Quote
What is wrong is not how the current wardec mechanics work but the wording of it.
"Mutual" should be changed to "All or Nothing mode".
And it goes like this.
"Aggressor Corp/Alliance" wardecs "Nasty Corp". Now "Nasty Corp" ticks box "All or Nothing mode". "Aggressor Corp/Alliance" now has the option to drop the wardec (24h cool down) or tick the box "All or Nothing mode".
"Aggressor Corp/Alliance" ticks the box also and now both corps/alliance are in "All or Nothing mode".
At this point the only way to get out of the war is for "Surrender terms" (in game mechanics) to be agreed or one of the crops/Alliance disbands
Now "Nasty Corp" feels he needs some friends. So he goes of to "Silly Bear Alliance" and joins them. Now the wardec is on for "Aggressor Corp/Alliance" and "Silly Bear Alliance". At this point, Same thing/option can happens. "Silly Alliance" ticks the box "All or Nothing mode". "Aggressor Corp/Alliance" can again drop the wardec (24h cool down) or tick the box "All or Nothing mode". Same rules as before to end the war remain. But with one exception. If "Nasty Corp" or it's CEO resigns and leaves the "Nasty Corp" and or "Silly Bear Alliance", The wardecs goes with them.
End result is the same. Somebody has to Disband or agree to "Surrender terms" (in game mechanics).
The fact that Corp/Alliances can Wardec with out consequentness is a bitter pill to swallow for most folk. And with this up coming change. They get that back again.
I Must say that I do feel like some of the rest posting here.
Seems that if Goons say jump. CCP do say how high please Mr. Goon CEO
If the goons don't like the wardecs, Then they should not make them on folks. And if they don't want to fight the wardecs, Stay out of high sec. They have all that nice SOV. They can make their own trade hubs in null. They can make everything they need in Null sec. They don't need Jita. and if they feel like they do need Jita. Then maybe they should do more escort run when they go there. |
|
Destriouth Hollow
Star-Destroying-Warlords Destiny's Call
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:07:00 -
[141] - Quote
@Slutty Underwear Just my point (:
But you gave me an idea (: The Faction that sends out the "All or Nothing mode" they could name an amount of ISK. The war can now only end if both parties agree to it or the looser pays the winner that amount of isk. The agressor would have to agree to this or drop the war. It's like betting an amount of ISK onto your victory (:
Still wouldn't solve the "1-man-corp screws u over forever"-issue (: At least now you could pay to remove it though. |
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
824
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:08:00 -
[142] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so.
It is a sad day then, inb4 more annoying highsec wars with no consequence. you should make it so they have to wait 1month to end it or something, or pay an amount equal to 2 more weeks of the wardec or something. |
Brib Vogt
DC-centre Destiny's Call
3
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:08:00 -
[143] - Quote
Quote:Man I was sooo happy to just let it end with Brib's rather tactful post. You two should really coordinate better.
He is a corp CEO and therefore has to talk for his people. If you are happy to end it, then just end it. Stop being personal. If you want to dec us you can dec us, but please not because you feel that my real me or destris real himself stepped on your foot. We had some wars we lost a lot, but as long as you really come for us it would be a change very welcoming compared to our current situation.
You have a CSM next to your name here in the forum which has nothing to do with your ingame character. Please consider it an official position here in the forum. I respect you as long as you talk to me as you are supposed to.
Nobody is slinging mud here. I think we all want to be this game a better one. It looks like it is pushed in the right direction, so end all personal disputes. |
Slutty Underwear
The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:09:00 -
[144] - Quote
Destriouth Hollow wrote:@Slutty Underwear
Still wouldn't solve the "1-man-corp screws u over forever"-issue (: At least now you could pay to remove it though.
But it does. As long as "Nasty Corp" and it's CEO stay in "Silly Bear Alliance". Then it's fine. Somebody has to disband |
Emrys Ap'Morgravaine
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
44
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:16:00 -
[145] - Quote
Now see, if you wanted -real- tinfoil...
Goons prompted CCP to make the original mechanic to force all other alliances to dissolve and reform, making everyone else's life complicated. Breaking sov hold all across New Eden and giving them an easy path to the open and public domination of the universe.
/tinfoil |
Frankster Ijonen
Fly-Tippers
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:24:00 -
[146] - Quote
Destriouth Hollow wrote:
Pay my trip to Island, give me from 1 to 3 days to get to get to know the current game-system and where to change what and which language is used. After that annother day to talk to everybody about all the balancing-concerns to get it right for everybody (I think the system i thought of and mentioned earlier would work just fine though). And annother day to implement the code.
Thats when I do it without any knowledge of the current code. I would bet all of current belongings that I could fix it to most people's liking in far below a week. I have almost no knowledge about graphics-designing but implenting complex theoretical systems is something I really enjoy (:
No you couldn't. Seriously, you either have no experience of software or are deluded! |
Destriouth Hollow
Star-Destroying-Warlords Destiny's Call
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:26:00 -
[147] - Quote
@Emrys Ap'Morgravaine Goonswarm is not even stuck in Dec Shield (:
@Frankster Ijonen I have programed enough in my life to know what takes time to implement and what does not. And if Eve is programmed in an anyway usefull way (and I strongly beleave it is) this should only be a couple lines. There might be a little more to it but: You only need to give the Aggressor access to the same functions the Defender has already. Implement that button, maybe change the Agressor-class a bit so it supports the regular features in addition to the new one give him access to a "De-Mutual"-button. Maybe even write a graphic for it. Link that button to the same function that already exists (maybe with a little change, depending on how it's written). Spread it out on your servers. I really don't see the problem here. |
Emrys Ap'Morgravaine
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
45
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:29:00 -
[148] - Quote
Destriouth Hollow wrote:@Emrys Ap'Morgravaine Goonswarm is not even stuck in Dec Shield.....
As if that somehow matters? Eve isn't eve without the tinfoil. |
Brib Vogt
DC-centre Destiny's Call
3
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:31:00 -
[149] - Quote
Emrys Ap'Morgravaine wrote:Destriouth Hollow wrote:@Emrys Ap'Morgravaine Goonswarm is not even stuck in Dec Shield..... As if that somehow matters? Eve isn't eve without the tinfoil.
Nailed it!! |
Emrys Ap'Morgravaine
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
45
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:34:00 -
[150] - Quote
Brib Vogt wrote:Emrys Ap'Morgravaine wrote:Destriouth Hollow wrote:@Emrys Ap'Morgravaine Goonswarm is not even stuck in Dec Shield..... As if that somehow matters? Eve isn't eve without the tinfoil. Nailed it!!
I usually do. |
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1849
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:41:00 -
[151] - Quote
What he means is not a peep out of CCP about the current state of the war dec mechanics and it was not until goons were griefed hard by it interfering with people transferring sov to them and only 45 minutes after they posted a QQ article on mittins website, magically CCP is on the case.
Maybe if CCP had addressed the issue, well I don't know, some time since the current expansion was released and prior to goons being meta gamed via the war dec this would not have been such an eye brow raiser. You know just like when goons war dec'd a couple alliances a while back and many alliances came to their aid and goons cried to CCP to change the mechanic then.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Bad Messenger
Nasranite Watch Liandri Covenant
288
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:45:00 -
[152] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so.
Bye bye player based consequences on your actions. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1117
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:52:00 -
[153] - Quote
Bad Messenger wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so. Bye bye player based consequences on your actions. hmm. why are there no consequences for trolls a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
WInter Borne
Cold Station 12 Surely You're Joking
11
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:56:00 -
[154] - Quote
Remove wardecs and remove concord. War dec mechanics solved! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
3560
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:57:00 -
[155] - Quote
Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something
as the person who implemented this fix I must admit I had no idea the goons were war decced or had any problems with it. The only person I've been talking to about war decs is Alekseyev Karrde
v0v
maybe I should spend less time working on the expansion and more time getting involved in corp/alliance politics in EVE Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
TuonelanOrja
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
204
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 19:00:00 -
[156] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something as the person who implemented this fix I must admit I had no idea the goons were war decced or had any problems with it. The only person I've been talking to about war decs is Alekseyev Karrde v0v maybe I should spend less time working on the expansion and more time getting involved in corp/alliance politics in EVE Perhaps somebody in ccp told you to do it. Not a veteran, just bitter.. |
Bagehi
Kaesong Kosmonauts Test Alliance Please Ignore
126
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 19:01:00 -
[157] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something as the person who implemented this fix I must admit I had no idea the goons were war decced or had any problems with it. The only person I've been talking to about war decs is Alekseyev Karrde v0v maybe I should spend less time working on the expansion and more time getting involved in corp/alliance politics in EVE
EVE IS REAL! |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
723
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 19:02:00 -
[158] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:What he means is not a peep out of CCP about the current state of the war dec mechanics and it was not until goons were griefed hard by it interfering with people transferring sov to them and only 45 minutes after they posted a QQ article on mittins website, magically CCP is on the case.
Maybe if CCP had addressed the issue, well I don't know, some time since the current expansion was released and prior to goons being meta gamed via the war dec this would not have been such an eye brow raiser. You know just like when goons war dec'd a couple alliances a while back and many alliances came to their aid and goons cried to CCP to change the mechanic then. If you really want to get tinfoily, I joined themittani.com writing staff two weeks ago just a few days after meeting with CCP Soniclover to confirm that they were going to be able to address War Decs this winter.
CONVENIENT TIMING EH?!
"Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1851
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 19:06:00 -
[159] - Quote
If the shoe fits.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
cBOLTSON
Star Frontiers THORN Alliance
87
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 19:11:00 -
[160] - Quote
Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something
A while ago I would have read this and laughed. Not too long ago I would have posted that you are crazy but I think you have a point. It is some coincidence. Then again CCP arent squaky clean with this sort of thing are they.... "Were not elitists, were just tired of fail" - The Sorn |
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1851
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 19:12:00 -
[161] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something as the person who implemented this fix I must admit I had no idea the goons were war decced or had any problems with it. The only person I've been talking to about war decs is Alekseyev Karrde v0v maybe I should spend less time working on the expansion and more time getting involved in corp/alliance politics in EVE How long have you been working on a fix and when did you clue in the players and/or CSM?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts. Break-A-Wish Foundation
241
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 19:32:00 -
[162] - Quote
The fix should have been the inability to join a new alliance while declared mutual, not let the aggressor retract the war while it is mutual. That literally makes no sense for using the mutual status unless you are RvB or a group with a similar approach to war PVP. What possible reason would a defender make a war mutual with this fix, since all it does is keep the aggressor from paying fees. This isn't a fix, this is making the mutual status practically useless.
Whereas, if you prevent a corporation that has the war set mutual from joining a new alliance, you stop the space herpes. In order to prevent the circumvention of this system by toggling mutual off, joining an alliance, and toggling it on again, if the war was EVER set mutual, then there would need to be an inability to turn mutual on again until a new war is actually declared. (This attribute would have to carry with the war itself, not with the entity) |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
3561
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 19:41:00 -
[163] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something as the person who implemented this fix I must admit I had no idea the goons were war decced or had any problems with it. The only person I've been talking to about war decs is Alekseyev Karrde v0v maybe I should spend less time working on the expansion and more time getting involved in corp/alliance politics in EVE How long have you been working on a fix and when did you clue in the players and/or CSM?
We have a backlog of war dec stories that the CSM is fully aware of (and Alekseyev has been super helpful with), they for example saw it at their last visit to the office. We have been aware of these war dec exploit threads since they started popping up and been concerned about them, naturally. The reason the fix was implemented now is simply because I had time to implement it (we are also working on bounties and war decs) - it doesn't really matter if things are implemented at the beginning of a release or closer to release date since it's going to be released at the same day either way.
We clued in the players today with Tallest's post.
Does this answer your questions? Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
Thorvik
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
49
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 19:42:00 -
[164] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something as the person who implemented this fix I must admit I had no idea the goons were war decced or had any problems with it. The only person I've been talking to about war decs is Alekseyev Karrde v0v maybe I should spend less time working on the expansion and more time getting involved in corp/alliance politics in EVE How long have you been working on a fix and when did you clue in the players and/or CSM?
Wow...
Thread started out on topic about a bad game mechanic, ...
continued on for a while with good input and some worthy ideas and opinions.
reached its apex and is rapidly approaching terminal velocity in it's fall.
Let me direct you here to the important part: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2159028#post2159028 |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
724
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 19:42:00 -
[165] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something as the person who implemented this fix I must admit I had no idea the goons were war decced or had any problems with it. The only person I've been talking to about war decs is Alekseyev Karrde v0v maybe I should spend less time working on the expansion and more time getting involved in corp/alliance politics in EVE How long have you been working on a fix and when did you clue in the players and/or CSM? War dec iterations have been on the docket for Retribution since the summer iirc. The CSM Spring minutes were rife with these issues brought up to CCP "in person" by my floating head and you can see CCP Soundwave and others commit to taking action. So...a while.
The frustration on the CSM has been the Bounty feature having to be nailed down before war dec fixes could be talked about and scheduled in detail. To the point that, like i said, i was about to take this to the players for fear it had gotten cut. But no, I met with CCP Soniclover for over an hour and their user stories are strong.
Expect CSM (and my personal) engagement on this to continue on through the CSM Summit and beyond till these items get finalized. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
AssassinationsdoneWrong
The Nexus 7's
18
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 19:51:00 -
[166] - Quote
Slutty Underwear wrote:What is wrong is not how the current wardec mechanics work but the wording of it.
"Mutual" should be changed to "All or Nothing mode".
And it goes like this.
"Aggressor Corp/Alliance" wardecs "Nasty Corp". Now "Nasty Corp" ticks box "All or Nothing mode". "Aggressor Corp/Alliance" now has the option to drop the wardec (24h cool down) or tick the box "All or Nothing mode".
"Aggressor Corp/Alliance" ticks the box also and now both corps/alliance are in "All or Nothing mode".
At this point the only way to get out of the war is for "Surrender terms" (in game mechanics) to be agreed or one of the crops/Alliance disbands
Now "Nasty Corp" feels he needs some friends. So he goes of to "Silly Bear Alliance" and joins them. Now the wardec is on for "Aggressor Corp/Alliance" and "Silly Bear Alliance". At this point, Same thing/option can happens. "Silly Alliance" ticks the box "All or Nothing mode". "Aggressor Corp/Alliance" can again drop the wardec (24h cool down) or tick the box "All or Nothing mode". Same rules as before to end the war remain. But with one exception. If "Nasty Corp" or it's CEO resigns and leaves the "Nasty Corp" and or "Silly Bear Alliance", The wardecs goes with them.
End result is the same. Somebody has to Disband or agree to "Surrender terms" (in game mechanics).
The fact that Corp/Alliances can Wardec with out consequentness is a bitter pill to swallow for most folk. And with this up coming change. They get that back again.
I Must say that I do feel like some of the rest posting here.
Seems that if Goons say jump. CCP do say how high please Mr. Goon CEO
If the goons don't like the wardecs, Then they should not make them on folks. And if they don't want to fight the wardecs, Stay out of high sec. They have all that nice SOV. They can make their own trade hubs in null. They can make everything they need in Null sec. They don't need Jita. and if they feel like they do need Jita. Then maybe they should do more escort run when they go there.
The best post in the entire thread (save the announcement of the permadec withdrawal). It allows CEO's to over-ride a tic'd off Director's over zealous snap decision, gives the CEO t a chance to say "ooops", keep's the option to have the permawar KNOWING its consequences.
All encompassing, well thought out and +10 to you Slutty.
EVELOAN -áchannel is no longer attended. Contact me directly over secured loans needed. AdW
|
Bagehi
Kaesong Kosmonauts Test Alliance Please Ignore
126
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 20:10:00 -
[167] - Quote
AssassinationsdoneWrong wrote:Slutty Underwear wrote:If the goons don't like the wardecs, Then they should not make them on folks. And if they don't want to fight the wardecs, Stay out of high sec. The best post in the entire thread (save the announcement of the permadec withdrawal). It allows CEO's to over-ride a tic'd off Director's over zealous snap decision, gives the CEO t a chance to say "ooops", keep's the option to have the permawar KNOWING its consequences. All encompassing, well thought out and +10 to you Slutty.
I would agree with you except that there are no consequences for the dec shield alliance to do this. The consequences for the other alliance extend outside empire space, which seems strange. |
Slutty Underwear
The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 20:22:00 -
[168] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:I would agree with you except that there are no consequences for the dec shield alliance to do this. The consequences for the other alliance extend outside empire space, which seems strange.
It would not matter. If "Nasty Corp" or it's CEO leaves "Silly Bear Alliance". Then "Silly Bear Alliance" gets removed from the wardec. The Wardec stays with "Nasty Corp" and its CEO. What this means is that "Nasty Corp" and it's CEO are the key to the wardec, Where they go. The wardec follows. If the CEO resigns. The "All or Nothing mode" switches off.
End result is that for all members of "Nasty Corp" have 2 choices if they want out of the "all or Nothing Mode" wardec.. Leave "Nasty Corp" Or fight (or stay docked). Now if all of "Nasty Corp" leave and only the CEO remains (one man corp). Then "Aggressor Corp/Alliance" is just locked into a one man corp wardec. And I would say that there would have to be a some sort of mechanic that states that if no activity happens from "Nasty Corp" Then the wardec drops. But that's for fine details to be worked out at a latter point should my idea get some backing.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1851
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 20:33:00 -
[169] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:We clued in the players today with Tallest's post. Does this answer your questions? Yup.
What are the odds of you looking at corps and alliances bloating their numbers with alts to keep war decs against them extremely high? Any chance you guys could have the war dec fee only calculate based on characters currently training a skill?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Slutty Underwear
The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 20:34:00 -
[170] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:We clued in the players today with Tallest's post. Does this answer your questions? Yup. What are the odds of you looking at corps and alliances bloating their numbers with alts to keep war decs against them extremely high? Any chance you guys could have the war dec fee only calculate based on characters currently training a skill?
What a smart idea |
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1852
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 20:41:00 -
[171] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:The consequences for the other alliance extend outside empire space, which seems strange. Just like how a war dec fee includes all alliance members no matter where they are for the sake of 'plethora of targets' when a tiny fraction are only in/visit high sec. Strange indeed.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Slutty Underwear
The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 20:48:00 -
[172] - Quote
Slutty Underwear wrote: If the CEO resigns. The "All or Nothing mode" switches off. And i would say that the toon that was the CEO would have to have some sort of consequences. Fine details to be look at latter
Maybe the consequences would be say a negative wallet for say 1b. And the Corp loses say 50% of it's corp wallet also. And banned from joining any corps for 4 months?
Meh, That won't work. Smart folks will move the isk around to stop that. But you would still burn a toon. |
Brib Vogt
DC-centre Destiny's Call
3
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:04:00 -
[173] - Quote
Just one thing which is stuck in my head.
Is it possible, because now it is officially something which needs to be fixed, [Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution.], that all stuck corps and alliances could be freed? I mean we are still stuck in many wars but everyone hides.
Even if the system is flawed, dec shield is still online using an acknowledged exploit. So my question goes to CCP, the GMs and the Zerg guy: Could you shut it down now? You got what you wanted - end it. The official statment should finallly show some consequences for Zerg if he does not stop the crap.
Otherwise i have to add one more month of doing nothing to the most of my ally members, which means something about >2000Gé¼. |
M5 Tuttle
The Shadow Plague Fidelas Constans
47
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:05:00 -
[174] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:What he means is not a peep out of CCP about the current state of the war dec mechanics and it was not until goons were griefed hard by it interfering with people transferring sov to them and only 45 minutes after they posted a QQ article on mittins website, magically CCP is on the case.
Maybe if CCP had addressed the issue, well I don't know, some time since the current expansion was released and prior to goons being meta gamed via the war dec this would not have been such an eye brow raiser. You know just like when goons war dec'd a couple alliances a while back and many alliances came to their aid and goons cried to CCP to change the mechanic then.
I've been on goon coms for about a year now and I don't think I've heard one of them say the phrase "war dec" a single time. I think people in high sec might be exaggerating the affect they apparently have on us. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1854
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:34:00 -
[175] - Quote
M5 Tuttle wrote:I think people in high sec might be exaggerating the affect they apparently have on us. Yet the CFC website says otherwise.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Destru Kaneda
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
121
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:38:00 -
[176] - Quote
You guys are nuts. Music for robots, geeks, hackers, and nerds. Nerdiest homepage on the internet? |
Dasquirrel715
Universalis Imperium Tactical Narcotics Team
19
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:46:00 -
[177] - Quote
Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something
You realize that most null-sec alliances, especially one like goons are ALWAYS wardecced. Being in a permanent war is nothing new to them |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
101
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:51:00 -
[178] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so.
While from the standpoint of someone is damn near always the aggressor in wars, this change greatly helps me, I cannot say that this is the proper way to fix mutual decs.
The problem with your 'fix' is that you're going back on the whole concept of "consequences for aggressors" that you touted so much in inferno. As it stands, I will have just as much (if not more) control over the dec if my target makes it mutual. In fact, you've made it so that there is literally no point to ever set a war mutual unless you are RvB.
Here's how you should actually fix mutual wars, so that they're still worth using as a defender, but aren't completely broken as they are now:
Step 1: The first step is to make mutual wars a cost burden that the defender must carry (ie someone has to pay CONCORD for the dec). This should be implemented such that when a war is declared mutual by the defender, it is stuck that way for 7 days, without charge. The defender will receive a bill (much like a run-of-the-mill aggressive dec) to continue the mutual war into a second week, etc. The 'mutual fee' will use the same cost mechanics current dec fees use. As with current mutual mechanics, the two sides must agree to a surrender offer in order to end the mutual war prior to the end of any given 7-day mutual war period. (Obviously one of the two sides can completely disband as they can now).
Step 2: The second step is to make it so that mutual wars count as "aggressive decs" for the original defenders. If the defender is a single corp, this means they cannot spread the war to others via an alliance as they cannot join it. If the defenders are originally an alliance, and the alliance declares the war mutual, the war will be considered mutual for corps that leave the alliance for 7-days.
Step 3: In order to maintain groups such as RvB that want a permanent forever war with each other, implement an option for the aggressor, once the defender has made the war mutual, to confirm the war being mutual. This can be made with a similar flagging system as current surrender offers. If the aggressor confirms the war to be mutual, it is free for both sides and requires a surrender offer to end.
Obviously, there is still room to spread wars around as long as the war is not declared mutual (and could be still used to keep an aggressor at war for a very long period of time). This process of dropping corps in and out of an alliance with proper timing is rather tedious (but can obviously be done). While it may be exploited, I doubt it will be to the extent (both in terms of time and the number of involved parties) that it is currently.
I apologize for the wall of text, but would greatly appreciate both player and dev feedback.
Thanks.
Adriel |
M5 Tuttle
The Shadow Plague Fidelas Constans
47
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 22:33:00 -
[179] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:M5 Tuttle wrote:I think people in high sec might be exaggerating the affect they apparently have on us. Yet the CFC website says otherwise.
What CFC website are you referring to? |
GODUN
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 22:43:00 -
[180] - Quote
I think you are making it a lot more complicated than it needs to be. "It should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler".
The whole problem is the wardeck propagation up the organization tree, I think it should only propagate down. If corp A wardecks Corp B and the corp B joins alliance X, the wardeck should not propagate to all of the alliance X members.
Corp A and Corp B would still be targets to each other, but not Corp C which is also part of the Alliance X.
If corp B seeks protection, then it needs to ask Alliance X to wardeck on Corp A separately, then there would be two wardecks going for Corp A: Wardeck 1 outgoing toward Corp B and Wardeck 2 incoming from Alliance X.
To deal with the griefing corps, the wardeck cost for the outgoing corps should exponentially increase over time, unless it's declared mutual.
Adriel Malakai wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so. While from the standpoint of someone is damn near always the aggressor in wars, this change greatly helps me, I cannot say that this is the proper way to fix mutual decs. The problem with your 'fix' is that you're going back on the whole concept of "consequences for aggressors" that you touted so much in inferno. As it stands, I will have just as much (if not more) control over the dec if my target makes it mutual. In fact, you've made it so that there is literally no point to ever set a war mutual unless you are RvB. Here's how you should actually fix mutual wars, so that they're still worth using as a defender, but aren't completely broken as they are now: Step 1: The first step is to make mutual wars a cost burden that the defender must carry (ie someone has to pay CONCORD for the dec). This should be implemented such that when a war is declared mutual by the defender, it is stuck that way for 7 days, without charge. The defender will receive a bill (much like a run-of-the-mill aggressive dec) to continue the mutual war into a second week, etc. The 'mutual fee' will use the same cost mechanics current dec fees use. As with current mutual mechanics, the two sides must agree to a surrender offer in order to end the mutual war prior to the end of any given 7-day mutual war period. (Obviously one of the two sides can completely disband as they can now). Step 2: The second step is to make it so that mutual wars count as "aggressive decs" for the original defenders. If the defender is a single corp, this means they cannot spread the war to others via an alliance as they cannot join it. If the defenders are originally an alliance, and the alliance declares the war mutual, the war will be considered mutual for corps that leave the alliance for 7-days. Step 3: In order to maintain groups such as RvB that want a permanent forever war with each other, implement an option for the aggressor, once the defender has made the war mutual, to confirm the war being mutual. This can be made with a similar flagging system as current surrender offers. If the aggressor confirms the war to be mutual, it is free for both sides and requires a surrender offer to end. Obviously, there is still room to spread wars around as long as the war is not declared mutual (and could be still used to keep an aggressor at war for a very long period of time). This process of dropping corps in and out of an alliance with proper timing is rather tedious (but can obviously be done). While it may be exploited, I doubt it will be to the extent (both in terms of time and the number of involved parties) that it is currently. I apologize for the wall of text, but would greatly appreciate both player and dev feedback. Thanks. Adriel |
|
Lucy Ferrr
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
211
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 22:44:00 -
[181] - Quote
I wrote this yesterday wrote:So I am confused, are Goons/TEST trapped or not? I really hope they are, it would be great news for us all. If Goons are trapped in Dec Shield, expect a quick-fix patch fixing the broken war dec mechanics by down time tomorrow. Remember how speedy the 'fix' for Inferno war-dec dog piling came?
I guess I am a psychic. The great and mysterous Lucy Ferrr will answer all your questions and remove the great mysteries of life, only 25mil isk the first min, and 10mil isk for every minute after. |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
3564
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 22:48:00 -
[182] - Quote
Lucy Ferrr wrote:I wrote this yesterday wrote:So I am confused, are Goons/TEST trapped or not? I really hope they are, it would be great news for us all. If Goons are trapped in Dec Shield, expect a quick-fix patch fixing the broken war dec mechanics by down time tomorrow. Remember how speedy the 'fix' for Inferno war-dec dog piling came? I guess I am a psychic. The great and mysterous Lucy Ferrr will answer all your questions and remove the great mysteries of life, only 25mil isk the first min, and 10mil isk for every minute after.
heh I implemented this way before yesterday, sorry also it won't be out until Retribution with all our other changes
edit: sorry if I'm ruining your psychic business Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
GODUN
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 22:48:00 -
[183] - Quote
derp, double post. text removed. |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1478
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 23:01:00 -
[184] - Quote
CCP could you fix the bug that stops anyone not from the CFC from logging on now? thanks xxx |
Delegado Cero
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
153
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 23:10:00 -
[185] - Quote
Looks like we don't even need a seat in the CSM to fix this game. You're welcome. |
Kinis Deren
EVE University Ivy League
78
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 23:12:00 -
[186] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so.
Just out of interest, any other potential war dec changes that might make it for Retribution or is this a "special snowflake" hotfix? |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
2040
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 23:38:00 -
[187] - Quote
Destriouth Hollow wrote:Pay my trip to Island, give me from 1 to 3 days to get to get to know the current game-system and where to change what and which language is used. After that annother day to talk to everybody about all the balancing-concerns to get it right for everybody (I think the system i thought of and mentioned earlier would work just fine though). And annother day to implement the code.
Thats when I do it without any knowledge of the current code. I would bet all of current belongings that I could fix it to most people's liking in far below a week. I have almost no knowledge about graphics-designing but implenting complex theoretical systems is something I really enjoy (:
What software have you written? Which projects have you worked on where you were able to divine the function of the code within 3 days?
Those of us who are actually programmers are looking at your post and wondering whether you have actually ever touched someone else's code in your life.
Then there's your claim that you can nut out all the issues inside the three day window while you're still reviewing code and determining which piece of spaghetti connects to which other piece.
Have you actually ever talked to another person in your life, outside of the "do you want fries with that?" upsell question?
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Gutpela Taim
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 00:43:00 -
[188] - Quote
It Saddens me that from 4th December my main/s will not be to shoot goons as ccp have finally decided that goons in a mutual war is not allowed to happen....It's a shame that it took this to fix a very ****** up war dec system. And as for goons complaining that it makes it a pain atm for their sov changes..well i'm afraid i lmao at this http://themittani.com/news/wardecs-complicate-ev0ke-sov-handover.HAVING to shoot their own stations to transfer them. bet that really hacked them off. |
im mrmessy
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 02:20:00 -
[189] - Quote
M5 Tuttle wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:M5 Tuttle wrote:I think people in high sec might be exaggerating the affect they apparently have on us. Yet the CFC website says otherwise. What CFC website are you referring to?
I didn't know the CFC had a website? Maybe you could link it to me |
im mrmessy
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 02:21:00 -
[190] - Quote
Gutpela Taim wrote:It Saddens me that from 4th December my main/s will not be able to shoot goons as ccp have finally decided that goons in a mutual war is not allowed to happen....It's a shame that it took this to fix a very ****** up war dec system. And as for goons complaining that it makes it a pain atm for their sov changes..well i'm afraid i lmao at this http://themittani.com/news/wardecs-complicate-ev0ke-sov-handover .HAVING to shoot their own stations to transfer them. bet that really hacked them off.
Are you so risk-averse that you can't come to nullsec? |
|
Wacktopia
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
284
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 02:45:00 -
[191] - Quote
Thanks for the publicity, Zerg. Sure you helped get this raised up the priorities.
CCP Punkturis best Punkturis <3 The bottom line is that now I have one of those annoying signatures. |
None ofthe Above
353
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 02:48:00 -
[192] - Quote
Musiaba Schenoly wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Since you can't spell "Iceland," I'll take that bet.
first ccp state in this threat CCP Punkturis wrote:I wish I was as smart as you ???????????????? I cant get it, really wtf 7 weeks after posting an exploit here came csm and dev finally - to barrack a player who is more committed than other in that game? What is that here - election campaign and local smack during drink time??? Here he posted his suggustions you "DEV" https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2149824#post2149824I like em more than your analysis anywhere...oh wait which?
First, Aleks is CSM, a player representative to CCP, and that wasn't the first CSM response.
Secondly, Punkturis' trolls are considered an Icelandic national treasure.
While it might seem a bit rude and/or shocking, its only recently that we've had the devs been able to post as much as they've had, and that is a good thing.
I swear once you get used to it, you'll feel honored when Punkturis trolls you.
Added to that: she does get things done. She'll laugh at you one minute and fulfill your wildest (coding) dreams the next.
So can understand why someone might be upset about her comment, take it in stride. Part of the uncommon culture EVE has (and there are far worse things you can get properly upset about).
Anyway, thanks Punkturis!
EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
Reppyk
The Black Shell
202
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 02:50:00 -
[193] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so. Mutual wardecs are now pointless in every valid cases but RvB. Are you lazy or what ? This is not a proper fix, it's "remove this feature because we can't repair it". Seriously ? CCP Punkturis is a UI designer, she probably added a button "Retract that so-called mutual war". But where is the damn game designer ? I'm happy to see the end of a wardec exploit (mind you, a lot of them are still possible) and a reaction of CCP after MONTHS of inaction, but you're doing it just wrong.
CCP Punkturis wrote:it doesn't really matter if things are implemented at the beginning of a release or closer to release date since it's going to be released at the same day either way. Yes, because we never saw a ninja patch (anyone remembering the boomerang-suicide-tornado nerf ? It was 3 days (not 3 months) after the publication of the exploit and don't even tell me that adding a damn button is more complicated than dealing with the Concord code).
I'm disappointed. |
None ofthe Above
353
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 02:53:00 -
[194] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: It's definitely about picking your battles. When CCP went quiet on war dec improvements for weeks, CSM got concerned. I took action. When i say "confront" CCP Soniclover i mean that, i was ready to create a thread calling out War Decs as an abandoned feature. Fortunately we DID have a meeting and coming out of that i feel that such a step is no longer necessary.
Wars will never be everyone's ideas of perfect but SuperFriends plans to address a nice sized list of issues which is showing me real progress and commitment to making the system work. It's not as simple as "just fix it in a few hours" like a couple above posters seem to think it is. We're not dealing with spell checking lol, this is a complicated game mechanic which is currently and has always historically been prone to exploiting, and it has to not only be well thought out but also be properly balanced between the interests of defenders and attackers.
CCP not taking the time to think things through, on wars and other things, has caused enough problems. The reason they hot fixed FW ahead of schedule was not planning out how LP distribtion worked was causing violent economic distortion that was literally forcing people to unsubscribe due to high PLEX costs. Trust me, Noir. is "trapped" by Dec Shield; it's not really that serious. I'd rather encourage CCP to take the time and get it right.
Well have to admit I am a bit impressed. It's good to see some gumption.
I agree about CCP not working all the way through, although they get plenty of feedback. I have a theory about this being development by strawman, releasing deliberately broken things and slowly trying to come to some working system through feedback.
Anyway thanks for getting in there. And keep it up (although I don't always agree with your viewpoint). This is clearly just a stop gap to fix the worst of it. Needs more work. EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
None ofthe Above
353
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 02:57:00 -
[195] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so. Mutual wardecs are now pointless in every valid cases but RvB. Are you lazy or what ? This is not a proper fix, it's "remove this feature because we can't repair it". Seriously ? CCP Punkturis is a UI designer, she probably added a button "Retract that so-called mutual war". But where is the damn game designer ? I'm happy to see the end of a wardec exploit (mind you, a lot of them are still possible) and a reaction of CCP after MONTHS of inaction, but you're doing it just wrong. CCP Punkturis wrote:it doesn't really matter if things are implemented at the beginning of a release or closer to release date since it's going to be released at the same day either way. Yes, because we never saw a ninja patch (anyone remembering the boomerang-suicide-tornado nerf ? It was 3 days (not 3 months) after the publication of the exploit and don't even tell me that adding a damn button is more complicated than dealing with the Concord code). I'm disappointed.
Personally I think the whole War Dec system could use a rethink from the ground up, and that's not going to happen as a quick fix.
On one level you are right, but I don't think its realistic for them to really redesign the system as an add-on to a nearly baked expansion. EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
Malchristus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 02:58:00 -
[196] - Quote
im mrmessy wrote:Gutpela Taim wrote:It Saddens me that from 4th December my main/s will not be able to shoot goons as ccp have finally decided that goons in a mutual war is not allowed to happen....It's a shame that it took this to fix a very ****** up war dec system. And as for goons complaining that it makes it a pain atm for their sov changes..well i'm afraid i lmao at this http://themittani.com/news/wardecs-complicate-ev0ke-sov-handover .HAVING to shoot their own stations to transfer them. bet that really hacked them off. Are you so risk-averse that you can't come to nullsec?
OMG! ............ your toon ............. Talk to me Goose! |
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
182
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 03:03:00 -
[197] - Quote
not that I would care about war dec sys but LOL
"Also, your boobs " -á CCP Eterne, 2012
|
Reppyk
The Black Shell
202
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 03:07:00 -
[198] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:On one level you are right, but I don't think its realistic for them to really redesign the system as an add-on to a nearly baked expansion. 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 ? Bounties claimable by my own alts and a rupture with 14 turret slots and enough PWG to fit a 9000mm plate ? |
Rellik B00n
Lethal Death Squad Dec Shield
169
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 03:07:00 -
[199] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so.
What is it with u people?
Literally everytime i find a reason to log in again you fuckin take it away.
I didnt want that game anyway :(
qfmjt-1 |
Malchristus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 03:25:00 -
[200] - Quote
The real question now is, is Zerg (having proven his point and gotten the Devs to post a "fix" in writing that he will have a chance to work out the exploits on) now going to release the current PermaDecs?
That gesture only will prove either it was a genuine attempt to help players by generating the fuss and hubbub needed or if it was just a clown looking to grief and soak up tears.
My money is seriously on the latter. |
|
tengen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 05:27:00 -
[201] - Quote
Rellik B00n wrote: What is it with u people?
Literally everytime i find a reason to log in again you fuckin take it away.
I didnt want that game anyway :(
Aren't you in an alliance that was literally created to advocate for this very change?
|
Zakn Tawate
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
19
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 07:24:00 -
[202] - Quote
What if Dec Shield was a CFC OP? |
Rellik B00n
Lethal Death Squad Dec Shield
170
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 10:08:00 -
[203] - Quote
tengen wrote:Rellik B00n wrote: What is it with u people?
Literally everytime i find a reason to log in again you fuckin take it away.
I didnt want that game anyway :(
Aren't you in an alliance that was literally created to advocate for this very change?
Yes. However i was relying on :CCP:
Usually they take years to fix this stuff.
What can i say: i like logging in and being at war with half of eve, the original war changes allowed this, dec shield allowed this.
The new crimewatch does not allow this in any remotely sensible form. Tres pants. qfmjt-1 |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
3573
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 10:11:00 -
[204] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so. Mutual wardecs are now pointless in every valid cases but RvB. Are you lazy or what ? This is not a proper fix, it's "remove this feature because we can't repair it". Seriously ? CCP Punkturis is a UI designer, she probably added a button "Retract that so-called mutual war". But where is the damn game designer ? I'm happy to see the end of a wardec exploit (mind you, a lot of them are still possible) and a reaction of CCP after MONTHS of inaction, but you're doing it just wrong. CCP Punkturis wrote:it doesn't really matter if things are implemented at the beginning of a release or closer to release date since it's going to be released at the same day either way. Yes, because we never saw a ninja patch (anyone remembering the boomerang-suicide-tornado nerf ? It was 3 days (not 3 months) after the publication of the exploit and don't even tell me that adding a damn button is more complicated than dealing with the Concord code). I'm disappointed.
I'm a programmer, not a designer.. Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
Malchristus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 11:03:00 -
[205] - Quote
Rellik B00n wrote:tengen wrote:Rellik B00n wrote: What is it with u people?
Literally everytime i find a reason to log in again you fuckin take it away.
I didnt want that game anyway :(
Aren't you in an alliance that was literally created to advocate for this very change? Yes. However i was relying on :CCP: Usually they take years to fix this stuff. What can i say: i like logging in and being at war with half of eve, the original war changes allowed this, dec shield allowed this. The new crimewatch does not allow this in any remotely sensible form. Tres pants.
Busted. You spend and average of 9 1/2 hours a day and nearly all of them docked up 1-2 jumps from Jita in Lonetrek. You think you haven't been marked and scouted?
|
Sycho Pathic
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
67
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 11:41:00 -
[206] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Any chance you guys could have the war dec fee only calculate based on characters currently training a skill?
Now that is a good idea. |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
440
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 11:48:00 -
[207] - Quote
Malchristus wrote:The real question now is, is Zerg (having proven his point and gotten the Devs to post a "fix" in writing that he will have a chance to work out the exploits on) now going to release the current PermaDecs?
That gesture only will prove either it was a genuine attempt to help players by generating the fuss and hubbub needed or if it was just a clown looking to grief and soak up tears.
My money is seriously on the latter. Of course we enjoy the tears and anguish of our enemies, but we also very strongly desire a functioning wardec system. I have written pages of analysis, highlighted all the flaws, made suggestions of feasible solutions, waged a massive awareness campaign, gone to Vegas to talk to devs in person, and explained everything to anyone who's asked. You cannot claim we have not worked to improve the wardec system. We have enjoyed the ride, and we'll enjoy the solution.
However, we will not be scammed or fooled into releasing people prematurely. You are free when the wardec mechanics are fixed and you can get free on your own, that's always been the goal. If I release you now they couldl half-ass the solution, and then we'll be back at this point in a few months.
Nothing is fixed, until it is fixed. And then we will celebrate together, and non-trivial wardecs can commence once again. Burn Highsec Griefers |
|
ISD TYPE40
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
2875
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 12:30:00 -
[208] - Quote
Thread has been cleaned of some troll and rumour posts.
Forum Rules wrote:
7. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is the word used to describe a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting the players. Posts of this nature are disruptive and do not contribute to the sense of community we want for our forums.
30. Rumor threads and posts
Rumor threads and posts which are based off no actual information and are designed to either troll or annoy other users will be locked and removed. Players who engage in these type of threads can expect to receive a warning and ban.
Please stay on topic, thank you - ISD Type40. ISD Type40 Lt. Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Arduemont
Rotten Legion Ops
629
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 12:42:00 -
[209] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so.
First, I want to say a big thank you to CCP, Punkturis especially, for listening to the players and helping to fix this. This is another great example of CCP listening to its players. Something that most games companies fail to accomplish quite regularly.
Now, however, comes constructive criticism. I can't help but feel that the aggressors just being able to retract the war makes it a win win situation for them. It gets rid of all of the risk. If they don't like the way the war is going, they can just retract it. There should, at the very least, be a very long time for them to retract once the war has become mutual. For example, a one month timer. If they're going around greifing people (which is their choice and I wholly support it), they should at the very least have consequences.
As it stands, if they find out they're not doing as well as they hoped they will be able to pull out with a days notice without giving the defender any time to fight back, even when the war has been declared mutual. I'm not just some whiner, in fact, I plan to be the aggressor quite regularly once Retribution comes out, but at the least it should take the aggressor 1 week to pull out of a mutual war. At least. "In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." |
Hrothgar Nilsson
Black Core Federation Black Core Alliance
156
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 14:01:00 -
[210] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something as the person who implemented this fix I must admit I had no idea the goons were war decced or had any problems with it. The only person I've been talking to about war decs is Alekseyev Karrde v0v maybe I should spend less time working on the expansion and more time getting involved in corp/alliance politics in EVE Eh, should have put it off until the expansion was released. A revamp to the war dec system is entirely consistent with the theme of the expansion (Retribution 1.1?), but the first public word from a dev a mere 45 minutes after an article was thrown up that mittani guy's website complaining about it, the timing of it looked quite bad.
That being said, I'd hope the devs would consider a change to the multiplier for each additional ally in war decs. 2x is quite high, 1.5x would be more reasonable. At 2x, the 10th ally would pay 102bil for a war dec that started out at 100mil, whereas at 1.5x it would be about 6bil for the 10th ally.
And maybe throw in some other sort of calculation besides just the size of the alliance/corp to be decced, maybe some sort of point between the size of the pilot roster the deccer and the deccee and those that follow as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTzA_xesrL8 |
|
HVAC Repairman
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
248
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 14:14:00 -
[211] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something as the person who implemented this fix I must admit I had no idea the goons were war decced or had any problems with it. The only person I've been talking to about war decs is Alekseyev Karrde v0v maybe I should spend less time working on the expansion and more time getting involved in corp/alliance politics in EVE for a 500 isk deposit i can sponsor you into goonswarm
do not under any circumstances accept any recruitment from the HBC it is scam. i am legit ok
Follow me on twitter |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
1041
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 14:50:00 -
[212] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote: I'm a programmer, not a designer..
Demoted from Brogrammer already? That's disappointing.
Where I am. |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
3575
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 15:07:00 -
[213] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Musiaba Schenoly wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Since you can't spell "Iceland," I'll take that bet.
first ccp state in this threat CCP Punkturis wrote:I wish I was as smart as you ???????????????? I cant get it, really wtf 7 weeks after posting an exploit here came csm and dev finally - to barrack a player who is more committed than other in that game? What is that here - election campaign and local smack during drink time??? Here he posted his suggustions you "DEV" https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2149824#post2149824I like em more than your analysis anywhere...oh wait which? First, Aleks is CSM, a player representative to CCP, and that wasn't the first CSM response. Secondly, Punkturis' trolls are considered an Icelandic national treasure. While it might seem a bit rude and/or shocking, its only recently that we've had the devs been able to post as much as they've had, and that is a good thing. I swear once you get used to it, you'll feel honored when Punkturis trolls you. Added to that: she does get things done. She'll laugh at you one minute and fulfill your wildest (coding) dreams the next. So can understand why someone might be upset about her comment, take it in stride. Part of the uncommon culture EVE has (and there are far worse things you can get properly upset about). Anyway, thanks Punkturis!
reading your post on a Saturday morning made me soooo happy! thank you! This will be a great weekend
Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
Frankster Ijonen
Fly-Tippers
3
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 15:18:00 -
[214] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Destriouth Hollow wrote:Pay my trip to Island, give me from 1 to 3 days to get to get to know the current game-system and where to change what and which language is used. After that annother day to talk to everybody about all the balancing-concerns to get it right for everybody (I think the system i thought of and mentioned earlier would work just fine though). And annother day to implement the code.
Thats when I do it without any knowledge of the current code. I would bet all of current belongings that I could fix it to most people's liking in far below a week. I have almost no knowledge about graphics-designing but implenting complex theoretical systems is something I really enjoy (: What software have you written? Which projects have you worked on where you were able to divine the function of the code within 3 days? Those of us who are actually programmers are looking at your post and wondering whether you have actually ever touched someone else's code in your life. Then there's your claim that you can nut out all the issues inside the three day window while you're still reviewing code and determining which piece of spaghetti connects to which other piece. Have you actually ever talked to another person in your life, outside of the "do you want fries with that?" upsell question?
Noticeably absent is any time allocated for testing and fixing the inevitable issues,as the chances of it working correctly first time given unfamiliarity with the code-base are so close to zero that I would bet all of Destrouth's current belongings... |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
441
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 17:18:00 -
[215] - Quote
Frankster Ijonen wrote: Noticeably absent is any time allocated for testing and fixing the inevitable issues,as the chances of it working correctly first time given unfamiliarity with the code-base are so close to zero that I would bet all of Destrouth's current belongings...
We'll test the new system together, live :P
I bet there will still be bugs and loopholes. I would bet all of Destroth's current belongings ^^ Burn Highsec Griefers |
Legion Reaver
Crimson Collective The Obsidian Cartel
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 17:31:00 -
[216] - Quote
If the original aggressors can now withdraw from a now mutual war then whats the point in declaring it mutual in the first place? How are defenders supposed to ransom their former aggressors now turned victims if they're allowed to leave any time they want? If anything there should be a set fee = to a % of the losses of the defenders required by the aggressors to withdraw from the war. Say 10-25% That way there are still consequences to the aggressors for declaring the war and to make all things mutual defenders who would like to withdraw from a war should have to surrender and meet the demands of the aggressor. |
Rellik B00n
Lethal Death Squad Dec Shield
170
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 17:39:00 -
[217] - Quote
Malchristus wrote:Rellik B00n wrote:tengen wrote:Rellik B00n wrote: What is it with u people?
Literally everytime i find a reason to log in again you fuckin take it away.
I didnt want that game anyway :(
Aren't you in an alliance that was literally created to advocate for this very change? Yes. However i was relying on :CCP: Usually they take years to fix this stuff. What can i say: i like logging in and being at war with half of eve, the original war changes allowed this, dec shield allowed this. The new crimewatch does not allow this in any remotely sensible form. Tres pants. Busted. You spend and average of 9 1/2 hours a day and nearly all of them docked up 1-2 jumps from Jita in Lonetrek. You think you haven't been marked and scouted?
you are a combination of the worst spy and the worst troll ever!
You will in fact mainly find me in Jita shooting stuff as I see fit. I work as a null sec enforcer stopping errant null seccers from straying into using the far inferior empire market in jita.
Doesnt change the fact that once again come the start of December im going to run out of things to shoot/be shot at :( qfmjt-1 |
Malchristus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 19:21:00 -
[218] - Quote
Rellik B00n wrote:Malchristus wrote:Rellik B00n wrote:tengen wrote:Rellik B00n wrote: What is it with u people?
Literally everytime i find a reason to log in again you fuckin take it away.
I didnt want that game anyway :(
Aren't you in an alliance that was literally created to advocate for this very change? Yes. However i was relying on :CCP: Usually they take years to fix this stuff. What can i say: i like logging in and being at war with half of eve, the original war changes allowed this, dec shield allowed this. The new crimewatch does not allow this in any remotely sensible form. Tres pants. Busted. You spend and average of 9 1/2 hours a day and nearly all of them docked up 1-2 jumps from Jita in Lonetrek. You think you haven't been marked and scouted? you are a combination of the worst spy and the worst troll ever!You will in fact mainly find me in Jita shooting stuff as I see fit. I work as a null sec enforcer stopping errant null seccers from straying into using the far inferior empire market in jita. Doesnt change the fact that once again come the start of December im going to run out of things to shoot/be shot at :(
LOL! Sorry had to go three pages deep on that link to find something bigger than a cruiser. My apologies. You are pro.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1864
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 19:35:00 -
[219] - Quote
Sycho Pathic wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Any chance you guys could have the war dec fee only calculate based on characters currently training a skill? Now that is a good idea. If only the Icelandic Treasure would bless my post with a response on this subject. Just trying to help point out other loop holes and exploits if they are going to be trying to fix the war dec mechanic.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Rellik B00n
Lethal Death Squad Dec Shield
170
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 19:53:00 -
[220] - Quote
Malchristus wrote:LOL! Sorry had to go three pages deep on that link to find something bigger than a cruiser. My apologies. You are pro.
back under your bridge!!! baaaack
google wrote:Your search - battleclinic Malchristus - did not match any documents.
Suggestions: GÇóMake sure all words are spelled correctly. GÇóTry different keywords. GÇóTry more general keywords. GÇóTry fewer keywords.
ps. Ill even bite and say: you try killing things by yourself in the busiest system in the entire EvE cluster, Id like to see you do better.
pps. post with your main
ppps. suggest you stay on topic, which is the war dec situation and not the 'my **** is bigger than yours' situation.
pppps. you're someone I killed arent you? HAHAHAHA qfmjt-1 |
|
Maraner
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
221
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 20:44:00 -
[221] - Quote
So once the wardec is withdrawn is the war ended immediately or is there a cool down / 1 week timer?
Likely this is already posted somewhere apologies if already asked/answered. |
Marian Devers
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 21:09:00 -
[222] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:as the person who implemented this fix I must admit I had no idea the goons were war decced or had any problems with it. The only person I've been talking to about war decs is Alekseyev Karrde v0v maybe I should spend less time working on the expansion and more time getting involved in corp/alliance politics in EVE
Let me get this straight. You IMPLEMENTED a fix WITHOUT examining all the current problems with the system? And the only person you ever discussed it with is Alekseyev Karrde? No second opinion or anything, no research on your part? That's some quality effort on your part, that is. I know that Alekseyev Karrde is smart, well-informed, etc., but there's a reason the CSM is more than one person - to get several opinions before acting.
|
Reticle
Sight Picture
78
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 21:17:00 -
[223] - Quote
proving once again that the only way to get things fixed by CCP is to gash a gaping wound in game mechanics.
good job Zerg or Goons or whoever the **** |
Jason Quixos
Dead Pod Syndrome MORE.DPS
3
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 21:35:00 -
[224] - Quote
Rellik makes me lol. You do stay docked, and redock. You almost lost a muninn 2 days ago if I remember. |
Rellik B00n
Lethal Death Squad Dec Shield
170
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 21:40:00 -
[225] - Quote
Jason Quixos wrote:Rellik makes me lol. You do stay docked, and redock. You almost lost a muninn 2 days ago if I remember.
I did lose it :(
and a pod :(
total loss of about 400m for a ship that had done well in excess of 2bn damage so I was like 'meh'!
I get killed like everyone else, only I kill 9 ships or pods before i go :) qfmjt-1 |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
3579
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 21:40:00 -
[226] - Quote
Marian Devers wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:as the person who implemented this fix I must admit I had no idea the goons were war decced or had any problems with it. The only person I've been talking to about war decs is Alekseyev Karrde v0v maybe I should spend less time working on the expansion and more time getting involved in corp/alliance politics in EVE Let me get this straight. You IMPLEMENTED a fix WITHOUT examining all the current problems with the system? And the only person you ever discussed it with is Alekseyev Karrde? No second opinion or anything, no research on your part? That's some quality effort on your part, that is. I know that Alekseyev Karrde is smart, well-informed, etc., but there's a reason the CSM is more than one person - to get several opinions before acting.
lol you can read that out of it if you like but no that's not how it works.
if you want me to be clearer on what I said I'll say Alekseyev was the only person outside of CCP that I talked to on how to fix war decs (and he of course is the CSM's main war dec guy but I talk all of them sort of every day). I don't implement game design fixes without the game designers at CCP telling me what to do and they read the forums and talk to each other blablabla..
so now that's gotten straight. Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
3579
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 21:43:00 -
[227] - Quote
I think I'll just stop posting in this thread, too many people just like to be angry and take what I say and twist my words. The initial problem in this thread has been solved (for Retribution), some people like the solution and some people don't, that's how it is with all our changes anyways.
fly safe! o7 Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
Rellik B00n
Lethal Death Squad Dec Shield
170
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 21:47:00 -
[228] - Quote
oooo
I was just about to praise you for your communication....when you stopped communicating.
I dont mind - you guys just work here, its just everytime something like this happens I get squeezed out of EvE until something else 'breaks''.
The problem is that for about the last 3 years CCPs idea of broken has been my idea of 'fixed'.
im an eve dinosaur with limited playtime - where do I go from here? qfmjt-1 |
None ofthe Above
355
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 22:17:00 -
[229] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Marian Devers wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:as the person who implemented this fix I must admit I had no idea the goons were war decced or had any problems with it. The only person I've been talking to about war decs is Alekseyev Karrde v0v maybe I should spend less time working on the expansion and more time getting involved in corp/alliance politics in EVE Let me get this straight. You IMPLEMENTED a fix WITHOUT examining all the current problems with the system? And the only person you ever discussed it with is Alekseyev Karrde? No second opinion or anything, no research on your part? That's some quality effort on your part, that is. I know that Alekseyev Karrde is smart, well-informed, etc., but there's a reason the CSM is more than one person - to get several opinions before acting. lol you can read that out of it if you like but no that's not how it works. if you want me to be clearer on what I said I'll say Alekseyev was the only person outside of CCP that I talked to on how to fix war decs (and he of course is the CSM's main war dec guy but I talk all of them sort of every day). I don't implement game design fixes without the game designers at CCP telling me what to do and they read the forums and talk to each other blablabla.. so now that's gotten straight.
Beat me to it. Clearly people are angry and misdirecting it at you Punkturis.
There is a larger discussion to be had about the design of the system. While I am sure Punkturis could contribute some valuable insight to that, that discussion needs to be had with Soniclover and perhaps Soundwave (nothing personal guys, just not happy with some of these designs you pushed out).
Forum warriors, please stop venting at the person implementing the fixes and save it (or preferably rational well constructed discussions) for the people designing the broken systems. Cause we don't want her to stop posting. Aside from missing her sparkling personality, this communication is invaluable to both parties.
I don't always white knight... but when I do, I white knight for CCP Punkturis. (I realize I seem to be white-knighting hard here, but really we do need to get to the heart of the matter and get this back on track. These attacks are deeply misplaced.)
PS - Also a side note: While I am very glad Aleks is involved, I am afraid that although he's really good at representing the pirate/merc's point of view, he's not very good at dealing with the others. He can sympathize with them just enough to represent what keeps them being good targets.
I hope you (all at CCP) don't restrict yourself to just Aleks. EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
206
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 23:19:00 -
[230] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:I think I'll just stop posting in this thread, too many people just like to be angry and take what I say and twist my words. The initial problem in this thread has been solved (for Retribution), some people like the solution and some people don't, that's how it is with all our changes anyways.
fly safe! o7
Just ignore them. Haters gona hate :( Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
|
Reticle
Sight Picture
78
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 23:26:00 -
[231] - Quote
The Zerg Overmind wrote:However, we will not be scammed or fooled into releasing people prematurely. You are free when the wardec mechanics are fixed and you can get free on your own, that's always been the goal. If I release you now they couldl half-ass the solution, and then we'll be back at this point in a few months.
Nothing is fixed, until it is fixed. And then we will celebrate together, and non-trivial wardecs can commence once again. Are you suggesting that Punkturis is lying to you for the purpose of getting you to drop war decs?
You proved your point. You got the fix. Done deal. Drop the decs.
Or you can admit that you were just getting in on some high quality griefing. Which is exactly what you were doing. |
Rellik B00n
Lethal Death Squad Dec Shield
170
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 23:30:00 -
[232] - Quote
Reticle wrote:Or you can admit that you were just getting in on some high quality griefing. Which is exactly what you were doing.
he wasnt, I was.
but as has been noted on many previous occasions everyone at war with Dec Shield STARTED A WAR.
These are no innocents.
he already said he was gonna drop them once this is implemented, you sound like you have a personal axe to grind tbh. qfmjt-1 |
Reticle
Sight Picture
78
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 00:20:00 -
[233] - Quote
Rellik B00n wrote:Reticle wrote:Or you can admit that you were just getting in on some high quality griefing. Which is exactly what you were doing. he wasnt, I was. but as has been noted on many previous occasions everyone at war with Dec Shield STARTED A WAR. These are no innocents. he already said he was gonna drop them once this is implemented, you sound like you have a personal axe to grind tbh. weak. just weak. very very very weak.
tbh? I'm smart enough not to get caught up in bullshit like this. He's stated his goal as getting a fix. The fix has been announced. End of discussion.
Or did you mean to post as Zerg. I know it can be hard to keep your story straight with so many alts. |
Rellik B00n
Lethal Death Squad Dec Shield
170
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 00:28:00 -
[234] - Quote
Reticle wrote: tbh? I'm smart enough not to get caught up in bullshit like this.
plainly....
Reticle wrote: He's stated his goal as getting a fix. The fix has been announced. End of discussion.
see, here is your problem:
goal: getting a fix outcome: fix announced BUT NOT IMPLEMENTED.
I said that really loud just in case you are reading impaired.
ergo its not the end of the discussion but im sure you would be bang to rights calling him once the fix is actually implemented, if it ever is.
Reticle wrote: Or did you mean to post as Zerg. I know it can be hard to keep your story straight with so many alts.
poor Zerg, until about a week ago he never heard of me. Ive been playing since 2005 and what i mostly like doing in 2012 is logging in and shooting people in empire: its quick, its easy and I dont need one of the 'M's in 'MMO'.
you should check these things before you make yourself look like a tool...
..oh wait. qfmjt-1 |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1864
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 00:36:00 -
[235] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:I think I'll just stop posting in this thread, too many people just like to be angry and take what I say and twist my words. The initial problem in this thread has been solved (for Retribution), some people like the solution and some people don't, that's how it is with all our changes anyways.
fly safe! o7 Fair enough. I will open a new thread with the issue I raised earlier in the thread in regards to another exploit/abuse of the current war dec mechanics.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
445
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 01:14:00 -
[236] - Quote
Right now it sounds like CCP have implemented our second best option to solve the wardec issue. "We continue as is, allowing perfect copying/transfer, instead preventing mutual infinite wardecs"
However I'm no longer sure what their intended design for the wardec system is. I thought they wanted declaring wars to be some sort of commitment, such as locking the aggressor in for at least a week. Now it sounds like we can declare war, kill an offline tower, retract the war, move on to next target. This is how it used to be, and I'm actually good with that.
That fix would solve 95% of all the issues. Which is good. But we were hoping to get lots of the smaller features fixed as well (wardec costs, wardec transfers (solved by the fix), exploits related to surprising enemies in space (semi addressed by notifications), dead corp fixes, surrender mechanic loopholes, etc).
However, it is awesome that they implemented notifications to warn deccers that their targets have joined an alliance. That was very much a step in the right direction, and was one of the little things on our list of awesome that they implemented. I hope they continue along this line and continue to push little changes into the game to make the system more intuitive and balanced. Burn Highsec Griefers |
Reticle
Sight Picture
79
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 01:48:00 -
[237] - Quote
The Zerg Overmind wrote:Right now it sounds like CCP have implemented our second best option to solve the wardec issue. "We continue as is, allowing perfect copying/transfer, instead preventing mutual infinite wardecs"However I'm no longer sure what their intended design for the wardec system is. I thought they wanted declaring wars to be some sort of commitment, such as locking the aggressor in for at least a week. Now it sounds like we can declare war, kill an offline tower, retract the war, move on to next target. This is how it used to be, and I'm actually good with that. That fix would solve 95% of all the issues. Which is good. But we were hoping to get lots of the smaller features fixed as well (wardec costs, wardec transfers (solved by the fix), exploits related to surprising enemies in space (semi addressed by notifications), dead corp fixes, surrender mechanic loopholes, etc). However, it is awesome that they implemented notifications to warn deccers that their targets have joined an alliance. That was very much a step in the right direction, and was one of the little things on our list of awesome that they implemented. I hope they continue along this line and continue to push little changes into the game to make the system more intuitive and balanced. So why didn't you reply to my post?
Do you think Punkturis is lying to you? If not, then you accomplished your goal. Time to drop the decs.
Just admit what we all know, you like the griefing aspect. |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
445
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 02:10:00 -
[238] - Quote
Reticle wrote: So why didn't you reply to my post?
Do you think Punkturis is lying to you? If not, then you accomplished your goal. Time to drop the decs.
Just admit what we all know, you like the griefing aspect.
I'm sorry little man, did you want something?
When you can get free on your own means, then the system will be fixed. What part of this is difficult to comprehend? Burn Highsec Griefers |
Challu Ni
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 08:12:00 -
[239] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:I think I'll just stop posting in this thread, too many people just like to be angry and take what I say and twist my words. The initial problem in this thread has been solved (for Retribution), some people like the solution and some people don't, that's how it is with all our changes anyways.
fly safe! o7 Just ignore them. Haters gona hate :(
+1
Folks are clearly unhappy, CCP really dropped the ball on this infinite wardec thing, and now they're being forced to patch it with a mechanism that significantly diminishes the original spirit of the dec overhaul.
Kudos to the OP for forcing the issue.
But pls pay nice people - Punkturis isn't prob the person who should be at the receiving end of your anger =P
|
Jake McCord
Greater Metropolis Sanitation Service Barbarian Wine and Cheese Society
38
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 08:47:00 -
[240] - Quote
Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something
Isn't one of the CSM's a member of Goons? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way! Did I mention, I used to live in Chicago? |
|
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
1090
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 09:23:00 -
[241] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something as the person who implemented this fix I must admit I had no idea the goons were war decced or had any problems with it. The only person I've been talking to about war decs is Alekseyev Karrde v0v maybe I should spend less time working on the expansion and more time getting involved in corp/alliance politics in EVE
Recruitment for my corp is currently closed. For you however, we may consider an exception. Dual Pane idea: Click!
CCP Please Implement |
Jake McCord
Greater Metropolis Sanitation Service Barbarian Wine and Cheese Society
38
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 09:34:00 -
[242] - Quote
After considerable thought on this subject of the wardec mechanics, I've come to the inevitable conclusion it's totally FUBAR. Even after the fix coming in Retribution.
The idea that corps belonging to an alliance that gets wardecced HAVE to take the wardec with them when they leave, is just dumb.
As it currently stands, I'm either gonna kick everyone out of my alliance, and run it as a one man operation, or I'm gonna just drop out to an NPC corp, and call it a day, until CCP fixes this thing the right way. They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way! Did I mention, I used to live in Chicago? |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery Swift Angels Alliance
521
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 10:05:00 -
[243] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so.
It was heady days when these wardecs came out. We got the first assist in EVE on a dec which we copped by troll-o-loling some very angry Russians in their wormhole. I can't remember why we dropped it from being mutual, but it did occur to me pretty early on that when alts of Moar Tears were joining Dec Shield something was going wrong with the war dec system. It's the katamari thing, really, decs can be katamari'd into one organisation which never drops a dec ever, so it basically turned the old system on its head; the girefer became the defender except it was free and forever and sticky.
Creating a permadec possibility was stupid. But the idea of consequences is not.
The whole problem with the wardec system is that it is a system which allows non-mutual wars, aka griefing. This isn't a defense of carebearing as a life choice or excoriating people who gain enjoyment from the tears of others (people who know me will know I find tears piquant delicacies). But it's just the way the people who play this game are: intelligent (in the main), cunning (in the minority, but thats all it takes), creative, evil and greedy. If you let an EVE player loose on any system, they will find a hole and strap on a chilli-coated pineapple to exploit the hell out of it, for maximum tears.
In allowing wars, it allows people's griefing to happen. You used to be griefed by 0rphans, More Queers, Pendulum of Dumb and others declaring war on your corp when it was new, was growing (get on to to eve-who's top ten growth corps, its going to be yours), when you spammed Recruitment too much, etc. If your corp was reasonably well run, people were realistic and the leadership were competent and dedicated, it meant absolutely nothing; you'd ride out a week or two and the wars would go away. Month max of blueballing them and they would drop.
Now, the griefing is on the defensive. Perma-mutual is one half the problem, the other half is the katamari problem. Together, you have a giant space dungbeetle pushing a star-sized solar mass of crap into the griefer's corner. It has no doubt stopped the former predatory griefing of noob corps run by noobs, because eventually the serial griefers will get caught by Dec Shield and similar when they run across a CEO with their in-game browser open to the forums instead of cat photos.
The problem is that when the katamari of PVP lands in your lap, leaking a deluge of tears and PVP on tap, of course you won't give it up. You can't ever be blueballed into dropping the katamari dec due to boredom.
So I guess it is back to the old system of opportunistic griefing decs, but with people able to holler for a hand...which is fine, to my mind. Try to gather some tears and pad your killboards with badgers, and if someone taps out for help, run away to shoot noobs. Taking submissions for "Trinkets friendly Advice Column" via evemail or private convo in-game. Anonymity sorta guaranteed.
|
Travis117
Project Maverick IMPERIAL LEGI0N
29
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 12:57:00 -
[244] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something as the person who implemented this fix I must admit I had no idea the goons were war decced or had any problems with it. The only person I've been talking to about war decs is Alekseyev Karrde v0v maybe I should spend less time working on the expansion and more time getting involved in corp/alliance politics in EVE Recruitment for my corp is currently closed. For you however, we may consider an exception. Thanks for the Offer but im happy where i am:P |
Rellik B00n
Lethal Death Squad Dec Shield
171
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 13:57:00 -
[245] - Quote
so, in summary here on page 12:
war decs are now exactly like they were before the war changes except:
they cost stupid amounts more ISK you can call for allies qfmjt-1 |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3310
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 16:20:00 -
[246] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote: I hope you (all at CCP) don't restrict yourself to just Aleks.
They don't. The reason that is even an issue people are complaining about is because they haven't listened the hundreds of times Punkturis has stated that she's a programmer, not a game designer, and that she codes up what the game designers agree upon. The game designers being the team that interacts with the CSM and the playerbase on the forums. It's perfectly normal not only for the programmer to only have spoken with one individual, its also normal for the programmers to not speak with the CSM at all. Just because a few angry posters here don't understand this doesn't mean that CCP is saying they only get one opinion about an issue before making a decision. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
XavierVE
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
174
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 19:53:00 -
[247] - Quote
Quote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so.
That isn't a fix, it's removing a feature.
Perhaps a static payment option of oh, 200 million and then either party (the defender who made it mutual or the aggressor) could "buy out" of the mutual war-dec.
Putting it in the hands of the aggressor removes the entire reason to make a war mutual, which is to punish the aggressor for starting a war. Now there's literally no reason to make a war mutual since your fix is more amounting to swinging a bat at the feature, smashing it, and calling it done.
Actions should have consequences in EVE, start a war that you can't handle, you should have to pay to get out of it.
Lazy, CCP. Just lazy. |
Kinis Deren
EVE University Ivy League
78
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 21:08:00 -
[248] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:None ofthe Above wrote: I hope you (all at CCP) don't restrict yourself to just Aleks. They don't. The reason that is even an issue people are complaining about is because they haven't listened the hundreds of times Punkturis has stated that she's a programmer, not a game designer, and that she codes up what the game designers agree upon. The game designers being the team that interacts with the CSM and the playerbase on the forums. It's perfectly normal not only for the programmer to only have spoken with one individual, its also normal for the programmers to not speak with the CSM at all. Just because a few angry posters here don't understand this doesn't mean that CCP is saying they only get one opinion about an issue before making a decision.
...and yet what happened to the ideals of transparency and consultation that you advocated in your white paper and CSM7 were meant to be championing?
This all appears to have been handled behind closed doors and only involving those that it would benefit most.
First the ally nerf, now this - it smells of something and it isn't roses. |
Rellik B00n
Lethal Death Squad Dec Shield
172
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 23:48:00 -
[249] - Quote
Kinis Deren wrote: ...and yet what happened to the ideals of transparency and consultation that you advocated in your white paper and CSM7 were meant to be championing?
This all appears to have been handled behind closed doors and only involving those that it would benefit most.
First the ally nerf, now this - it smells of something and it isn't roses.
yes.
the original incarnation of the new system was how I would advertise eve online.
huge numbers of allies could join forces to fight against much larger (and in most cases null sec based) entities in empire space. Even better the defenders could punish the attackers by locking them into the war through the mutual setting.
then we got screwed because someone decided having huge numbers of people fighting each other in a pvp based game was a bad thing. Entirely my own opinion but i suspect its because we were fighting them in empire not in null.
now we get it again because someone again decided that having huge numbers of people fighting each other in a pvp based game was a bad thing.
the whole thing needs looking at from the bottom up again.
my take: we got the flags system now. an added 'pvp' flag is needed. If you are part of a sov holding alliance its turned on. If you choose to, you can turn it on. anyone with this flag on can fight each other, anywhere.
because 'we dont need empire anyway' amirite? qfmjt-1 |
Istyn
Tactical Knightmare
154
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 01:15:00 -
[250] - Quote
Kinis Deren wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:None ofthe Above wrote: I hope you (all at CCP) don't restrict yourself to just Aleks. They don't. The reason that is even an issue people are complaining about is because they haven't listened the hundreds of times Punkturis has stated that she's a programmer, not a game designer, and that she codes up what the game designers agree upon. The game designers being the team that interacts with the CSM and the playerbase on the forums. It's perfectly normal not only for the programmer to only have spoken with one individual, its also normal for the programmers to not speak with the CSM at all. Just because a few angry posters here don't understand this doesn't mean that CCP is saying they only get one opinion about an issue before making a decision. ...and yet what happened to the ideals of transparency and consultation that you advocated in your white paper and CSM7 were meant to be championing? This all appears to have been handled behind closed doors and only involving those that it would benefit most. First the ally nerf, now this - it smells of something and it isn't roses.
Yeah man, Big War Dec and their buying CCP development priorities, when will the corruption end!?
oh wait...
http://eve-search.com/thread/19148-1/page/1
http://www.eve-search.com/thread/19881-1/page/1 |
|
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
439
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 02:06:00 -
[251] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so. GOONSWARM DICTATED IT TOO US AFTER GETTING WARDECC'D & TRAPPED SO CCP HAS CAPITULATED YET AGAIN
FIXED Meta-gaming for NULL SECCers: Whine on the forums like a little ***** until CCP gets sick of you and hands you everything you ask for just to shut you up.-á Typical NULL seccer whine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u299-o66wo&feature=related |
None ofthe Above
355
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 05:49:00 -
[252] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:None ofthe Above wrote: I hope you (all at CCP) don't restrict yourself to just Aleks. They don't. The reason that is even an issue people are complaining about is because they haven't listened the hundreds of times Punkturis has stated that she's a programmer, not a game designer, and that she codes up what the game designers agree upon. The game designers being the team that interacts with the CSM and the playerbase on the forums. It's perfectly normal not only for the programmer to only have spoken with one individual, its also normal for the programmers to not speak with the CSM at all. Just because a few angry posters here don't understand this doesn't mean that CCP is saying they only get one opinion about an issue before making a decision.
Sorry ... but... what?
I brought up the Alex issue as a side note. It has nothing to do with Punkturis. Just responding to how all war dec talk seems to be deferred to Aleks.
But I strongly disagree that he has a grip on all angles of the issue. He is a smart guy and really understands the merc side and perhaps to a lessor extent the pirate side. But many of his ideas are just as ... odd to me and many others as CCPs.
Granted I think he's right about war decs being one of those things is never going to make everyone happy. EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
1472
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 13:44:00 -
[253] - Quote
Now that I can finally post after the hurricane took away my internet for half a month, I'll start here.
To all the people who are advocating that aggressors, post-fix, should either be locked in for a certain period of time, or have to pay a fee (or both), to get out of a mutual war, please consider the following to the best of your abilities:
As long as it's possible for wars to be spread in a viral manner, neither of the above options would fix the war system from the broken and exploitable state it is in now.
1. In the case of a timer, it wouldn't work because any period of time that's longer than instantaneous would mean that it will be just as possible to spread mutual wars ad infinitum as it is today.
Observe: Corporation A declares war on Corporation B. Corporation B joins Alliance 01, which proceeds to set the war mutual. Corporation A decides to retract the war, but needs to wait a week for the process to complete. Corporations B-Z leave Alliance 01, and join Alliances 02-26 during this time frame. Alliances 02-26 all set their newly-acquired wars mutual.
This process will continue infinitely, since fresh wars are created for every corporation that leaves an alliance, and the infection continues to spread. Dec Shield would continue to function normally, albeit would need extra corporations and alliances to handle the time-limited load. The only way to avoid this is by either allowing aggressors to instantly revoke wars, or by removing the capacity for a single war to be infinitely transferred to new entities.
2. In the case of a fee, it wouldn't work because as long as the aggressor doesn't immediately pay off the defender when the defender makes a demand, the defender would be able to infinitely spread the war, thus ensuring that the aggressor would have to pay off a potentially-infinite number of other defenders.
Observe: Corporation A declares war on Corporation B. Corporation B sets a buyout price of 1 billion ISK. Corporation A declines this offer. Corporation B joins Alliance 01. Alliance 01 sets the buyout price at fifty trillion ISK. Corporation A wants to retract the war, but can't, because it has to pay a fee that is virtually impossible to pay. Corporations B-Z then proceed to leave Alliance 01, and join Alliances 02-26. Alliances 02-26 proceed to set set their newly-acquired wars mutual and set buyout prices at fifty trillion each.
This process will continue infinitely, since fresh wars are created for every corporation that leaves an alliance, and the infinite war continues to spread, unless the aggressors agree to pay off the defenders. Even if the fees have a hard-coded limit, it's still possible to create so many instances of new wars that it's virtually impossible for the aggressors to ever get out. Dec Shield would continue to function normally, albeit would need extra corporations and alliances to ensure that the aggressors can't pay their way out, even if the monetary limit per individual war is relatively low. The only way to avoid this is by either allowing aggressors to instantly revoke wars, or by removing the capacity for a single war to be infinitely transferred to new entities.
Do you guys understand this? Either wars can be revoked within the period of 24 hours (the same amount of time it takes to join a new alliance), or wars shouldn't be able to spread beyond their original recipients. Any other solution will allow some form of "infinite" Dec Shield to exist. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
446
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 14:05:00 -
[254] - Quote
I think they are talking about an instantly revokable wardec (aka the old system).
I haven't explicitly tested this yet, but I was under the impression that when a corp is booted from the alliance it starts the wars a new war, and gives it a new 7 day timer. I'm experiencing this on a corp atm, but I'll actually measure it with my new transfer corp. If that's true, and they don't have instantly revokable wars, then all we'd have to do is bounce corps back and forth between a pair of alliances and we'd be able to keep wars permanently active even in unmutual states.
There are also some mutual toggling games I have in mind to preserve wars, but we'll have to wait and see. I am of course open to suggestions on how to break whatever new system they generate. We are of course laying out our thoughts here so they can preemptively counter them if they choose. Burn Highsec Griefers |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3318
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 15:07:00 -
[255] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so. GOONSWARM DICTATED IT TO US AFTER GETTING WARDECC'D & TRAPPED SO CCP HAS CAPITULATED YET AGAIN WITHIN A WEEK FIXED http://themittani.com/news/wardecs-complicate-ev0ke-sov-handoverDamn looking at the timstamps it took CCP a whole 45 minutes to jump after the Goons said jump Seriously CCP's timing of these annoucements about the War Decc changes absolutely stink to high heaven of catering to the Goons. How many more 'coincidences' do you really expect Eve subscriber/customers to swallow?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Haulus Bitchus
Inappropriate Contact Infinite Improbabilities
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 17:22:00 -
[256] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:I think I'll just stop posting in this thread, too many people just like to be angry and take what I say and twist my words. The initial problem in this thread has been solved (for Retribution), some people like the solution and some people don't, that's how it is with all our changes anyways.
fly safe! o7
Hey little history lesson.
A long long time ago CCP forced out a steaming turd called Incarna. How'd that go for you guys?
After the dust had settled there were promises of better communication, and a listen to the players policy (for clarity Krapade and the muppets that make up the CSM are not the players just winners of a who has the biggest alliance/coalition game).
I get that the response to your "fix" is not what you were expecting but to be honest it is not really a fix. The much vaulted changes to war decs, of consequences for your actions just got WTFed into a dumpster like a prom night baby.
Personally I love the new flashy UI buttan you have coded in and the OLD code that some script monkey has either reactivated (delete those # signs guys!!!) or put back in. Calling it a fix however is laughable.
Oh and on the subject of how long it takes to release ... yeah right calling complete BS on it taking until December. You accelerated the FW changes (oh wait wasnt that ANOTHER Goonwhine fix?), you can Fast Foward this code addition and ui buttan. Or you could give the project some serious thought and not kneejerk, work out what wardecs need to be and get it done.
|
Haulus Bitchus
Inappropriate Contact Infinite Improbabilities
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 17:23:00 -
[257] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so. GOONSWARM DICTATED IT TO US AFTER GETTING WARDECC'D & TRAPPED SO CCP HAS CAPITULATED YET AGAIN WITHIN A WEEK FIXED http://themittani.com/news/wardecs-complicate-ev0ke-sov-handoverDamn looking at the timstamps it took CCP a whole 45 minutes to jump after the Goons said jump Seriously CCP's timing of these annoucements about the War Decc changes absolutely stink to high heaven of catering to the Goons. How many more 'coincidences' do you really expect Eve subscriber/customers to swallow? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
Reliant on goon support to get voted onto the CSM ... therefore invalid arguement is invalid.
|
|
CCP Falcon
691
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 19:08:00 -
[258] - Quote
Thread cleaned somewhat.
Cut the discussion of CCP Bias, the forums are not the place for it.
If you have genuine concerns about CCP Favouritism, then you need to contact Internal Affairs.
This thread will stay open for now, any more posting of this nature and it gets locked.
Have fun.
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 -- |
|
Arduemont
Rotten Legion Ops
653
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 20:15:00 -
[259] - Quote
XavierVE wrote:Quote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so. That isn't a fix, it's removing a feature. Perhaps a static payment option of oh, 200 million and then either party (the defender who made it mutual or the aggressor) could "buy out" of the mutual war-dec. Putting it in the hands of the aggressor removes the entire reason to make a war mutual, which is to punish the aggressor for starting a war they could not handle. Now there's literally no reason to make a war mutual since your fix is more amounting to swinging a bat at the feature, smashing it, and calling it done. Actions should have consequences in EVE, start a war that you can't handle, you should have to pay to get out of it. But I guess that's just pointless carping since the "some people don't like features!" cop-out is being thrown around already.
Pretty much this.
Don't like the idea of a static payment though. I think that the aggressors, if wanting to drop out of a mutual war, should have a 1 week timer, so that they are stuck for at least that long. The war should not be transferable in any way during that time. "In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." |
Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
47
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 22:49:00 -
[260] - Quote
Mutual wars having a 1 week cooldown would be a decent compromise, I'd think. It keeps the element of at least a little consequence for declaring war when you shouldn't, while fixing the core issue.
Also, I pity whoever's monitoring the Internal Affairs reports this week. ... well, unless they're just relegating anything referencing the wardec mechanics to the trash, which is entirely likely at this point. |
|
None ofthe Above
356
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 01:32:00 -
[261] - Quote
The Zerg Overmind wrote:Right now it sounds like CCP have implemented our second best option to solve the wardec issue. "We continue as is, allowing perfect copying/transfer, instead preventing mutual infinite wardecs"However I'm no longer sure what their intended design for the wardec system is. I thought they wanted declaring wars to be some sort of commitment, such as locking the aggressor in for at least a week. Now it sounds like we can declare war, kill an offline tower, retract the war, move on to next target. This is how it used to be, and I'm actually good with that. That fix would solve 95% of all the issues. Which is good. But we were hoping to get lots of the smaller features fixed as well (wardec costs, wardec transfers (solved by the fix), exploits related to surprising enemies in space (semi addressed by notifications), dead corp fixes, surrender mechanic loopholes, etc). However, it is awesome that they implemented notifications to warn deccers that their targets have joined an alliance. That was very much a step in the right direction, and was one of the little things on our list of awesome that they implemented. I hope they continue along this line and continue to push little changes into the game to make the system more intuitive and balanced.
"However I'm no longer sure what their intended design for the wardec system is."
Not sure they are either.
Small improvements are welcome, but there is still a far larger conversation to have. Thank you for appropriate stick poking to bring this need to light. EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
None ofthe Above
356
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 01:39:00 -
[262] - Quote
Jarin Arenos wrote:Mutual wars having a 1 week cooldown would be a decent compromise, I'd think. It keeps the element of at least a little consequence for declaring war when you shouldn't, while fixing the core issue. ...
I always thought that the mutual war "flag" should be considered a counter-wardec, making both parties the aggressor (and simultaneously defender? I've proposed before that both parties in a mutual war should be able to call in allies). War was maintenance free while both parties are agreed. When the original attacker rescinds, he becomes just a defender and the counter-aggressor (originally the defender) needs to pay for the upkeep of the war as if he started it, if he wants it to continue (probably should get a one week cool down for free).
Just throwing this out there.
EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
443
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 02:11:00 -
[263] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote: Thread cleaned somewhat.
Cut the discussion of CCP Bias,
When was CCP Bias hired I hope he's the one that will take up the slack left when CCP Diagoras left & we get some statistics tweets again along with an economic DEV blog which is months deliquent
Meta-gaming for NULL SECCers: Whine on the forums until CCP gets sick of you and hands you everything you ask for just to shut you up. Typical NULL SEC arguement to NERF HI SEC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csPPqdbcVwM |
Chanina
ASGARD HEAVY INDUSTRIES Tribal Band
19
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 08:03:00 -
[264] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:I think I'll just stop posting in this thread, too many people just like to be angry and take what I say and twist my words. The initial problem in this thread has been solved (for Retribution), some people like the solution and some people don't, that's how it is with all our changes anyways.
fly safe! o7
You wouldn't work on the right topic if you won't get fire from both sides. If you happen to get no bad feedback you simply work on something most people don't care about. As soon as you do get that feedback, you know something is right because people care.
In order to retreat from a mutual war the aggressor might simply pay concord again to drop the case. But some cost wouldn't harm since concord has to do some additional paperwork right? |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
443
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 08:50:00 -
[265] - Quote
Looks to me now that between the big NULL SEC alliances & the HEAVILY WEIGHTED NULL SEC CSM that the HIGH SEC war decc system has been whittled down to a way for BIG ALLIANCES TO GRIEF the little guy with impunity even though that was not your intentions DEVs/DESIGNERS that is nowwhat we got & either you got played or you let it happen There is the perception that no one looking out for HI SEC interests presently and rightfully so
If you are not in a spacerich NULL/lo/WH alliance even though you are the majority subscription wise you are becomming the whipping boy in many eyes Meta-gaming for NULL SECCers: Whine on the forums until CCP gets sick of you and hands you everything you ask for just to shut you up. Typical NULL SEC arguement to NERF HI SEC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csPPqdbcVwM |
Ghazu
273
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 08:52:00 -
[266] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:Looks to me now that between the big NULL SEC alliances & the HEAVILY WEIGHTED NULL SEC CSM that the HIGH SEC war decc system has been whittled down to a way for BIG ALLIANCES TO GRIEF the little guy with impunity even though that was not your intentions DEVs/DESIGNERS that is nowwhat we got & either you got played or you let it happen There is the perception that no one looking out for HI SEC interests presently and rightfully soIf you are not in a spacerich NULL/lo/WH alliance even though you are the majority subscription wise you are becomming the whipping boy in many eyes uh because lol~highsec. http://www.minerbumping.com/ |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc
504
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 10:31:00 -
[267] - Quote
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 |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
1482
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 12:58:00 -
[268] - Quote
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. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc
504
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 14:03:00 -
[269] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:Looks to me now that between the big NULL SEC alliances & the HEAVILY WEIGHTED NULL SEC CSM that the HIGH SEC war decc system has been whittled down to a way for BIG ALLIANCES TO GRIEF the little guy with impunity even though that was not your intentions DEVs/DESIGNERS that is nowwhat we got & either you got played or you let it happen There is the perception that no one looking out for HI SEC interests presently and rightfully soIf you are not in a spacerich NULL/lo/WH alliance even though you are the majority subscription wise you are becomming the whipping boy in many eyesA middling alliance in HI SEC acually is way worse off then a small corp though becuase now it becomes a target that can't fight back with the agressor consequences of dogpiling or mutual decc'ing which got eviscerated. The way the war dec system is now growing a large HI SEC alliance capable of challenging any NULL alliance has too many barriers of entry & there will NEVER be a large enough HI SEC alliance that can put a loud enough voice into the CSM thus HI SEC politically will be too fragmented to ever have a say in CSM politics again
A few things, DarthSimpleton
I'd wager everyone on the csm - even those nullseccers you are so scared of - regularly does things in highsec or have alts who only ever sit in highsec. There's plenty of knowledge about highsec mechanics and issues are discussed. I don't think thats a problem.
If you do though, well feel free to vote in high sec focused representatives. You claim highsec has the vast majority of subscriptions, so you guys should be able to roll the csm with ease thanks to your greater numbers. Oh whats that, you're all terrible and wont put in the miniscule amount of ~effort~ to cast a single vote? Then shut up.
Anyway, CCP have been jumping through all kinds of hoops specifically for highsec. Incursions, war decs, massive buffs to mining, crimewatch 2.0, etc all offer massive benefits to highseccers and very little to anyone else. Highsec is the pampered little favourite of CCP and has been for a while, and like the spoiled brat it so clearly is, it still demands more and acts like it is the one who is hard done by.
Also I thought you unsubscribed after they fixed vanguards |
|
CCP Eterne
C C P C C P Alliance
350
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 14:25:00 -
[270] - Quote
Deleted more CCP bias trolling. Seriously people. We work on these changes weeks or months in advance before announcing them. CCP Eterne | Community Representative
@CCP_Eterne |
|
|
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 |
|
LordShazbot
Fleet of Fail Usurper.
23
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 10:39:00 -
[301] - Quote
So this will still not be fixed come Dec 4th? |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
465
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 10:54:00 -
[302] - Quote
LordShazbot wrote:So this will still not be fixed come Dec 4th? No, it will not be fixed.
I would like to take this moment to thank people for white knighting for CCP. But like I said. You will all go free when you can get free on your own. I am not releasing any of you early because the system is not fixed. And it is not fixed until it is. I've not been hiding any of the methods I'm using from anyone. There is no reason it shouldn't be fixable.
Burn Highsec Griefers |
LordShazbot
Fleet of Fail Usurper.
23
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:46:00 -
[303] - Quote
The Zerg Overmind wrote:LordShazbot wrote:So this will still not be fixed come Dec 4th? No, it will not be fixed. I would like to take this moment to thank people for white knighting for CCP. But like I said. You will all go free when you can get free on your own. I am not releasing any of you early because the system is not fixed. And it is not fixed until it is. I've not been hiding any of the methods I'm using from anyone. There is no reason it shouldn't be fixable.
That is so not tight butthole. I dislike the constant notifications, it hurts my eyes. |
Nguhnn Rama
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:08:00 -
[304] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:I wish I was as smart as you
|
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
813
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 04:48:00 -
[305] - Quote
The Zerg Overmind wrote:LordShazbot wrote:So this will still not be fixed come Dec 4th? No, it will not be fixed. There is no reason it shouldn't be fixable. welcome to my hell. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
473
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 21:54:00 -
[306] - Quote
So RvB - RED Federation has just disbanded (3000 players), and we just stole their alliance name so they can't reform. If only there were some mechanic in place to prevent these alliances from being permanently trapped in wars. I'm not even sure they can reform into a new alliance because they're still stuck in outgoing wars. Burn Highsec Griefers |
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts. Break-A-Wish Foundation
256
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 23:00:00 -
[307] - Quote
10 isk says it becomes an "extenuating circumstance" and they get their alliance back. |
Xamiakas
Galactic Industries Inc. BRABODEN
3
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 23:22:00 -
[308] - Quote
Tah'ris Khlador wrote:10 isk says it becomes an "extenuating circumstance" and they get their alliance back.
would surprise me if ccp would actually grow a pair and.. it wouldn`t happen :D
|
|
CCP Tallest
C C P C C P Alliance
365
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 11:01:00 -
[309] - Quote
The Zerg Overmind wrote:LordShazbot wrote:So this will still not be fixed come Dec 4th? No, it will not be fixed. I would like to take this moment to thank people for white knighting for CCP. But like I said. You will all go free when you can get free on your own. I am not releasing any of you early because the system is not fixed. And it is not fixed until it is. I've not been hiding any of the methods I'm using from anyone. There is no reason it shouldn't be fixable. Try it on Buckingham. You might be surprised. |
|
AssassinationsdoneWrong
The Nexus 7's
18
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 11:17:00 -
[310] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:The Zerg Overmind wrote:LordShazbot wrote:So this will still not be fixed come Dec 4th? No, it will not be fixed. I would like to take this moment to thank people for white knighting for CCP. But like I said. You will all go free when you can get free on your own. I am not releasing any of you early because the system is not fixed. And it is not fixed until it is. I've not been hiding any of the methods I'm using from anyone. There is no reason it shouldn't be fixable. Try it on Buckingham. You might be surprised.
I was hoping an announcement an announcement like this was going to be coming on the day before deployment. Well played CCP. Not sure what I think about the Red Fed thing Zerg. You're basically think-tank griefing now. I've noticed corps aren't getting proper instructions on what to do when they join DecShield or on how many players they can be legally shot by. (The surrender list and the begging that comes with it just for us to let some bears out of a mistake they made by misguidedly joining DecShield bear this out).
I came into this experience thinking the only annoyance for us was the constant notifications (maybe even get some pew out of it) and that you were doing this solely based on philanthropic reasons but the Red Fed name steal and the lack of any kind of movement on your side suggests there is more to this and you're getting a little too much enjoyment out of being the hand on the mixing spoon.
Give Red Fed back their alliance name. You're actually affecting the new player base subbing on a game you claim to be an advocate for.
EVELOAN -áchannel is no longer attended. Contact me directly over secured loans needed. AdW
|
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
922
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 11:34:00 -
[311] - Quote
Tah'ris Khlador wrote:10 isk says it becomes an "extenuating circumstance" and they get their alliance back. The chance of this happening is pretty close to 100%. Got to grant special protections to groups that CCP likes. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
331
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 13:43:00 -
[312] - Quote
screwing up low entry PvP IS a good reason to force someone to change their alliance name |
Reppyk
Yarrbear Inc. BricK sQuAD.
213
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 14:33:00 -
[313] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:The chance of this happening is pretty close to 100%. Got to grant special protections to groups that CCP likes. Even another alliance couldn't get this from the devs.
I'm really curious what will happen next ! |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
490
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 20:36:00 -
[314] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:The Zerg Overmind wrote:LordShazbot wrote:So this will still not be fixed come Dec 4th? No, it will not be fixed. I would like to take this moment to thank people for white knighting for CCP. But like I said. You will all go free when you can get free on your own. I am not releasing any of you early because the system is not fixed. And it is not fixed until it is. I've not been hiding any of the methods I'm using from anyone. There is no reason it shouldn't be fixable. Try it on Buckingham. You might be surprised. Sweet. So you guys changed the rules at the last moment to stop the new loophole? I'm downloading Buckingham now, but I doubt there's enough time left for me to actually verify things before Retribution goes live ^^ Burn Highsec Griefers |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
504
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 23:32:00 -
[315] - Quote
So an update on what we're seeing so far:
1.) We're not sure if the situation has been fixed.
2.) Wars that are set mutual by the defender can start a 24hr retraction by the aggressor. We set all our wars unmutual right before the expansion to avoid this (and rightfully so, a dropped corp experienced 74 retractions in under 8hrs by staying mutual)
3.) No wars against Dec Shield have ended in the past 48hrs (by random distribution of our 286 wars around 81 should have naturally ended by now), so something is going on
4.) We proposed a new method of maintaining infinite war by a repeating multi-day staggered sequence of dropping corps out of alliance and rejoining a few days later to restore any dropped wars. Under the old rules this would have been effective because the start date of wars were set fresh when a corp joined/left an alliance. Two devs have sworn this is fixed, but not how they fixed it. Our proposed fix was to inherit the start date from the parent war when making a copy to prevent the 7 day extensions.
5.) Corps dropping out of an alliance still do not inherit the start dates of their parent wars. Because of the dev insistence that this loophole won't work we've concluded that all wars have a hidden end-date that isn't visible to the players. It is possible that copied wars now inherit this hidden end-date timer from the parent wars. Thus it's very possible the loophole is closed and we won't know until it's too late.
6.) But using evidence from point 3 above, something has changed with wardec mechanics. Or it's a "feature" we never knew about before because we had never unmutualed wars. As I said, we should of had 81 retractions by now and we've had none. Therefore we've come to believe that the act of unmutualing a war sets the hidden end-date timer back by at least 48hrs (probably 7 days). Therefore, since it's possible to instantly mutual/unmutual a war we've begun tests along these lines to see if unmutualing extends the end-date. We will know for sure in 5 days the results of these tests.
Burn Highsec Griefers |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
506
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 04:22:00 -
[316] - Quote
Burn Highsec Griefers |
Reppyk
Yarrbear Inc. BricK sQuAD.
214
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 09:36:00 -
[317] - Quote
So nobody really understands the "simple wardec mechanisms introduced in Inferno/Retribution". |
Brib Vogt
DC-centre Destiny's Call
4
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 17:35:00 -
[318] - Quote
I haven't wrote something in a while. I was hoping for CCP to end it well, but i doubted it. I had so many petitions about the "Copy" mechanism being the root of the problem, but no GM nor any CCP member answered them in a satisfying way. Last petition ended in"It will be fixed".
I am so disappointed by CCP responses in this forum. I do not know if you, ZERG, are in direct contact with CCP, but responses like "Try it on Buckingham. You might be surprised" show no professionalism.
I started another petition, my last one on this matter, to answer for and to explain the current changes.
I have to say, I am not surprised by the actual outcome.
To end it i will use some words from my favorite EVE movie
crap Crap MEGA CRAP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnKk2ysyNrA |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
506
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 00:38:00 -
[319] - Quote
We're still investigating whether or not it's fixed. I could use information from our trapped people:
What timestamp is your bill set for these entities?
Dec Shield Wardec Flopper Wardec Flipper Wardec Flapper Zerg Hatchery RvB - Red Federation Burn Highsec Griefers |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3427
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 01:05:00 -
[320] - Quote
The Zerg Overmind wrote:We're still investigating whether or not it's fixed. I could use information from our trapped people:
What timestamp is your bill set for these entities?
Dec Shield Wardec Flopper Wardec Flipper Wardec Flapper Zerg Hatchery RvB - Red Federation
Dec Shield: 2012.12.04 05:16 Wardec Flopper: 2012.12.05 20:54 Wardec Flipper: 2012.12.05 07:55 Wardec Flapper: 2012.12.06 04:26 Zerg Hatchery: 2012.12.04 03:29 RvB - Red Federation: 2012.12.07 00:46 Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
|
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
506
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 01:07:00 -
[321] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:The Zerg Overmind wrote:We're still investigating whether or not it's fixed. I could use information from our trapped people:
What timestamp is your bill set for these entities?
Dec Shield Wardec Flopper Wardec Flipper Wardec Flapper Zerg Hatchery RvB - Red Federation Dec Shield: 2012.12.04 05:16 Wardec Flopper: 2012.12.05 20:54 Wardec Flipper: 2012.12.05 07:55 Wardec Flapper: 2012.12.06 04:26 Zerg Hatchery: 2012.12.04 03:29 RvB - Red Federation: 2012.12.07 00:46 That seems to be when the notifications were sent out. What's the timestamp of when the bill is set for? Burn Highsec Griefers |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3427
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 01:09:00 -
[322] - Quote
Derp, one moment. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3427
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 01:18:00 -
[323] - Quote
Found the due dates, my bad:
Dec Shield: 2012.12.11 05:16 Wardec Flipper: 2012.12.11 05:16 Zerg Hatchery: 2012.12.11 03:29 RvB - Red Federation: 2012.12.11 05:16 Wardec Flapper: *war not listed in bills* Wardec Flopper: *war not listed in bills* Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
537
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 01:23:00 -
[324] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Found the due dates, my bad:
Dec Shield: 2012.12.11 05:16 Wardec Flipper: 2012.12.11 05:16 Zerg Hatchery: 2012.12.11 03:29 RvB - Red Federation: 2012.12.11 05:16 Wardec Flapper: *war not listed in bills* Wardec Flopper: *war not listed in bills* This is as we feared. The information I'm receiving from other aggressors is about the same. There is a hidden end-date variable to all the wars, and child wars are inheriting parent war's end-date. This means our proposed exploit of corp dropping and rejoining won't be effective. Both devs were correct in their assessment that this loophole is closed (or at least very hard to time it appropriately to use it).
Burn Highsec Griefers |
Emu Meo
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
12
|
Posted - 2012.12.09 11:16:00 -
[325] - Quote
Why do you fear? This is good news then as you have forced CCP to fix the exploit. |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
537
|
Posted - 2012.12.09 23:13:00 -
[326] - Quote
I fear that I found a new exploit to keep everyone trapped. I will know for certain on the 12th Burn Highsec Griefers |
Emu Meo
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
12
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 12:20:00 -
[327] - Quote
It looks like CCP is clamping down on it from the patch notes today. But now is a bug which stops us from accessing wardec options. Looks like the fun will soon be over though. |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
543
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 08:51:00 -
[328] - Quote
Ya, they're after us hard. Except I don't think they implemented the patch correctly because from our tests no one was able to escape, even after toggling mutuality Burn Highsec Griefers |
Malgarin
Invictus Australis
2
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 09:20:00 -
[329] - Quote
The Zerg Overmind wrote:Ya, they're after us hard. Except I don't think they implemented the patch correctly because from our tests no one was able to escape, even after toggling mutuality
Luckily you are chased by retards so you prob have another month of griefing! :) |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
543
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 09:29:00 -
[330] - Quote
Malgarin wrote:The Zerg Overmind wrote:Ya, they're after us hard. Except I don't think they implemented the patch correctly because from our tests no one was able to escape, even after toggling mutuality Luckily you are chased by retards so you prob have another month of griefing! :) We do have a corp that's sitting on the sideline just holding mutual wars to see how many we can retain. So far it seems to be in the hundreds. Eventually it'll drop off though. Once everyone who wants to escape has escaped we'll just leave things as mutual and then go into a dormant state until we're needed again.
I'll update the main thread with the ruleset for the current wardec system as I understand it shortly Burn Highsec Griefers |
|
Jabbawok
Griff-Co
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 10:44:00 -
[331] - Quote
So is it an exploit if hi sec noob mining corp for example, forms an alliance with its own disposable , one-man alt -corp; which in the advent of war can quit the alliance, taking with it a copy of the original corps war with it to another alliance, lets say dec shield and adding that war to their ever growing list . Thus entrapping the aggressor in their now famous/infamous perma-war without the original corp being lumbered with the dec shield war list?
If not then would it not be prudent for all corps and alliances to install such a beast.Of course this game-destroying weapon of mass destruction would only be unleashed if attack and with a colourful corp name and description would serve as a powerful deterrent.
Welcome back to the Cold War. |
Reppyk
Yarrbear Inc. BricK sQuAD.
226
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 11:33:00 -
[332] - Quote
It's not an exploit. |
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts. Break-A-Wish Foundation
287
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 14:09:00 -
[333] - Quote
Jabbawok wrote:So is it an exploit if hi sec noob mining corp for example, forms an alliance with its own disposable , one-man alt -corp; which in the advent of war can quit the alliance, taking with it a copy of the original corps war with it to another alliance, lets say dec shield and adding that war to their ever growing list . Thus entrapping the aggressor in their now famous/infamous perma-war without the original corp being lumbered with the dec shield war list?
If not then would it not be prudent for all corps and alliances to install such a beast.Of course this game-destroying weapon of mass destruction would only be unleashed if attack and with a colourful corp name and description would serve as a powerful deterrent.
Welcome back to the Cold War.
Dec Shield offered this service for the duration of the chaos. They were labelled "Dec Shield Ambassador X.X" |
Jabbawok
Griff-Co
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 15:12:00 -
[334] - Quote
Thanks for that, I was unaware that was the case, but these ' ambassadors', are they not generated by dec shield ?.Cannot a single corp/alliance generate there own?And have them function in exactly the same way? I mean no disrespect and agree that the current war dec system is broken; just trying to get a handle on the whole thing. And once again thank you.Any and clarification is most appreciated
|
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts. Break-A-Wish Foundation
287
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 16:34:00 -
[335] - Quote
At this point the current issues with war decs have actually been patched, so while decs are transferable, the length is also transferring. Mutual wars are now retractable by the aggressors.
And yes to your main question. Non-Dec shield entities could utilize the same mechanics to spread wars around. |
Emu Meo
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2012.12.21 05:08:00 -
[336] - Quote
This is still broken, there is no way to end the mutual wars still and new wars are still accruing. |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
555
|
Posted - 2012.12.21 05:15:00 -
[337] - Quote
Emu Meo wrote:This is still broken, there is no way to end the mutual wars still and new wars are still accruing. It seems that mutual wars cannot be retracted until after the next downtime. Check again at that time. Don't ask me why it was implemented this way Burn Highsec Griefers |
Emu Meo
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2012.12.21 22:53:00 -
[338] - Quote
Ok that is strange. I thought CCP had failed yet again but hopefully this is minor issue then. Thanks |
Cyprus Black
Perkone Caldari State
449
|
Posted - 2012.12.22 06:56:00 -
[339] - Quote
This exploit renders the Diplomatic Relations skill completely worthless. Who can I petition for an SP refund? Insert Witty Signature Here |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: [one page] |