|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
215
   |
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:40:00 -
[1] - Quote
Ok so let me get this straight.
The OP has a corp that has been in EVE since the beginning. Cudo's to that.
They wanted to get in on some faction warfare and joined an alliance involved in faction warfare. perfectly logical thing to do.
The alliance they joined then declared war on a corp that not only did not belong to one of the opposing miltia, but actually belonged to the same side. The Op's corp did not agree with the alliance war dec as it went against the faction warfare they wanted to participate in and left the alliance.
The war deced corp than made the war mutual within 24 hours locking the OP's corp into a never ending war with an alt corp they can not attack as they are never online.
this mutual war started not by them but by a dumb ass alliance leader they did not agree with is now preventing them from joining another alliance.
I would say this is definitely an exploit and should be addressed. True they may have made a bad choice in joining that alliance, but that is not something they should never be able to recover from.
How is this an Exploit?
Well say for example I used an Alt corp to **** off an alliance I did not like and get them to war dec me. I would then of course make that war mutual to prevent them from taking it back.
I then transfer all my characters out of that corp except for maybe a market or forum alt or two. But keep the corp active to keep that war dec going.
Now any corp in that alliance that choose to leave would carry that mutual war dec with them. That corp would now not be able to join any other alliance due to that active war, and would not be able to fight back against me as no pilot in my little alt corp ever leaves a station. All the corps that were in that alliance would be perma locked into a war dec with an inactive corp and I would not need to shell out any isk to keep it going indefinitely.
And many of you including the GM's involved don't see a problem with this mechanic? This is, no matter how you look at it an exploit. If it is working as intended then every small corp/alliance that has been war deced by the GOONS can make that war mutual, then move all there active characters out of the corp to a new corp leaving only inactive alts to keep the war going. The GOONS could end up with hundreds of mutual wars providing zero targets for their PVPers. This would not cost them anything directly as the mutual war would have zero maintenance costs. But if enough corps did this it would massively increasing their costs of future war decs, and at the same time grieve any corp in the GOONS that choose to leave that alliance.
I only use GOONS as an example as they seem to be the most hated large alliance currently in the game. This could happen to any corp looking for a new alliance.
The fix for this would be simple. A mutual war could still nullify the cost for the aggressor corp. But if the aggressor decides to back out then the defender should have to pay to keep the war going. I am not suggesting having the defender become the aggressor, but perhaps divide the cost of the war between the two sides with the total being reduced to the base 50 mil. This way if the defender choose to keep the aggressor locked in it would cost both sides 25 mil each for as long as the defender choose to keep it going. This would at least put some accountability on the defenders side after making the war mutual. After all a mutual war is no longer aggressor against defender but both sides would now be aggressors as it is now mutual.
If this does not work at least allow for corps who leave an alliance to shed the wars mutual or not after 24 hours. The only exception to this should be if the corp had the war dec on them from before they joined the alliance. they should not be able to shed a war dec by simply joining and leaving an alliance. But at the same time should not be forced to carry the aggression flag from all the wars that alliance was involved in whether they agreed with the wars or not. |
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
217
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:02:00 -
[2] - Quote
Yuri Intaki wrote:Most annoying. I had just inspected records and it does seem RR were in HE for only five days and generally had no part of the whole sorry affair so we were actually willing to drop the dec for a nominal fee of 3b isk (we need plex to activate said account of course, hence the cost) . But if we are threathened in forums and in public then we have to reconsider.
So you admit that this is an inactive corp left only to keep the war going for grieving purposes?
I get that you were a small corp and did not have the numbers to fight back thru PVP. But exploiting a broken mechanic to get back at them through grieving is not acceptable.
This is an exploit used for grieving and absolutely must be fixed. |
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
217
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:09:00 -
[3] - Quote
Bad Messenger wrote:Bugsy VanHalen wrote:Yuri Intaki wrote:Most annoying. I had just inspected records and it does seem RR were in HE for only five days and generally had no part of the whole sorry affair so we were actually willing to drop the dec for a nominal fee of 3b isk (we need plex to activate said account of course, hence the cost) . But if we are threathened in forums and in public then we have to reconsider. So you admit that this is an inactive corp left only to keep the war going for grieving purposes? I get that you were a small corp and did not have the numbers to fight back thru PVP. But exploiting a broken mechanic to get back at them through grieving is not acceptable. This is an exploit used for grieving and absolutely must be fixed. There is nothing exploits , it is working as intended, you should study CCP devblog about this issue and reasons why things are like they are.
That a war can be kept active by a dead corp with all members on inactive accounts is most certainly an exploit. Try reading the EULA you agreed to when you signed up.
Cudos to you for finding a way to exploit the new war dec mechanics. But according to the EULA actually using an exploit you have uncovered is a banable offense. |
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
217
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
Yuri Intaki wrote:Bugsy VanHalen wrote: So you admit that this is an inactive corp left only to keep the war going for grieving purposes?
I get that you were a small corp and did not have the numbers to fight back thru PVP. But exploiting a broken mechanic to get back at them through grieving is not acceptable.
This is an exploit used for grieving and absolutely must be fixed. It's our alt corp and we hardly remember it's existence at best of times. As said, our main corp Nasranite Watch was decced too, war lasted for weeks and you can inspect the records of how it went. for everyone included. Broken mechanic was not even triggered deliberately, it just kept going due to previous events and RR got the brunt of it for joining the alliance that decced Nasranites & Empe. But next time if someone wants to do diplomacy with us, you really should contact Damar, not other guys. I'm actually the "good cop" who can be reasoned with  (Unless you are a member of froggie militia)
Understandable. But now that it has been brought to your attention you want billions of isk to fix it?
You are using an inactive corp to grieve an active corp through exploiting a flawed mechanic. As I understand the EULA that is not acceptable and can get you active account banned. |
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
219
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:21:00 -
[5] - Quote
Bad Messenger wrote:Slasher88 wrote:Bad Messenger wrote:Bugsy VanHalen wrote:Yuri Intaki wrote:Most annoying. I had just inspected records and it does seem RR were in HE for only five days and generally had no part of the whole sorry affair so we were actually willing to drop the dec for a nominal fee of 3b isk (we need plex to activate said account of course, hence the cost) . But if we are threathened in forums and in public then we have to reconsider. So you admit that this is an inactive corp left only to keep the war going for grieving purposes? I get that you were a small corp and did not have the numbers to fight back thru PVP. But exploiting a broken mechanic to get back at them through grieving is not acceptable. This is an exploit used for grieving and absolutely must be fixed. There is nothing exploits , it is working as intended, you should study CCP devblog about this issue and reasons why things are like they are. Comming from a dude that was warned for using exploits to bear. people should really trust you right .... we all are warned about using exploits, just read eula, I have never exploited anything or i have never got personal warning about using exploits, all i have ever done is working as intended and confirmed from ccp. As in this matter route out of situation is to leave corp and make new one, if you are not willing to use it , it does not make me or any other as exploiter. And for Bugsy VanHalen i want to say that CCP hardly can ban you if you have inactive account. EMPE is not even inactive corporation, everyday some of those members log in and even undock.
Then why do you need billions of isk to buy PLEX to reactivate an account to drop the war? And they can ban all accounts linked to your I.P. Not just the inactive one used for the exploit. They know what I.P. are used to access what accounts.Just as you can not log in a trial account and an active account simultaneously from the same I.P. |
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
219
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:35:00 -
[6] - Quote
Bad Messenger wrote:Bugsy VanHalen wrote:Then why do you need billions of isk to buy PLEX to reactivate an account to drop the war? And they can ban all accounts linked to your I.P. Not just the inactive one used for the exploit. They know what I.P. are used to access what accounts.Just as you can not log in a trial account and an active account simultaneously from the same I.P. So you say that CCP will ban me because i have an account that has char at war and account is inactive? 
No they could ban you for exploiting a flawed mechanic for the purpose of grieving.
According to the EULA grieving is a banable offense.
According to the EULA using exploits is also a banable offense.
When CCP imposes a ban they can ban all accounts linked to the same I.P. if they so choose.
You are obviously not using the war mechanics as intended, As your alt character, in your alt corp, who is involved in the war and keeping it active, is on an inactive account.
The fact that their is no mechanic for dealing with this issue makes this an exploit.
The fact that you are using this exploit to grieve an active player on an active account is a violation of the EULA.
The fact that you do not understand this seriously diminishes your credibility. |
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
219
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 14:35:00 -
[7] - Quote
Deen Wispa wrote:This isn't an exploit. While I disagree with BM on many things, they are using the game mechanics to their advantage. Much like how pirates use the Orca mechanic to gatecamp and GTFO when overwhelmed. As for RR being a 10 year old corp full of memories and nostalgia, CCP doesn't take sentimentality into account when trying to fix said issue. The burden falls on RR to do their homework rather than go willy nilly and join any alliance. Clearly RR didn't do their homework. Sorry to be so cold, but that's the truth.
PS - If RR can't negotiate with BM, then just dec his entire alliance and see what happens. Liandri has a 33% KB efficiency. There's so many ways you can force this issue, even if it's through warfare than diplomacy. There are ways to resolve the issue if you want to join an alliance that badly. This is New Eden; Might Makes Right.
The mechanic it self is not an exploit but how they are using it is.
The idea behind the new mechanics is that you better be careful who you declare war on as you may not be able to take it back.
So they were against the war, and left the alliance, but did not get out in time to avoid the mutual war dec. That in itself is fine. working as intended.
But now that war is perpetuated by a corp that is run by inactive alts. They are keeping this war going at zero cost, and zero risk as all their alts that are keeping it active are on inactive accounts. This is where the exploit comes in. They have a corp locked in a permanent war, with zero risk to them selves, while preventing the other corp for accessing game content due to a perpetual war they are unable to fight as the other side is inactive accounts. And yet there is no way to shed this war. Although the mechanic it self is not an exploit, they are using it in a way it was not intended to be used, and in so are grieving another corp at zreo risk and cost to themselves.
When the GOONS made trillions of isk off the new FW mechanics they where using the new mechanic within its limits as it was designed to work. But yet CCP considered that an exploit to the point where accounts where frozen and the earned isk was seized. They were using the mechanic in a way it was not intended to be used, and it was considered an exploit.
As far as I am concerned abusing a mechanic in a way that prevents other players from accessing game content is far worse than what the GOONS did. If what the GOONS did was an exploit then so is this. If not then lift the bans of the GOONS accounts and give them back their isk. |
|
|
| |
|