Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
|
CCP Tallest
C C P C C P Alliance
382
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 16:02:00 -
[31] - Quote
stabmag wrote:CCP do you believe that 1 alliance should be able to permanently trap a corp or alliance in a wardec whether or not they started the dec. Either by exploits or doddgy mechanics. This is a yes or no question. I am not asking if the mechanics are working properly or not. I would just like an official company stance on if wardecs are intended to be permanent.
Yes we all know the wardec system is broken and before i get trolls coming in and saying "htfu" and "learn to pew" my post is neither questioning the valadity of hisec wars or a slight on someones playstyle be it carebear or pvper, anyone who isn't an idiot knows eve needs both to live.
So please CCP, I would like you to answer with either a "yes we support wars being permanent." or "no, it is not our intention that wars started by any means be made to last forever."
* A mutual war should last as long as both parties want to be at war * A non-mutual war should last as long as the aggressor is willing to pay the recurring war bill Gÿà EVE Game Designer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ |
|
stabmag
Republic University Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 16:23:00 -
[32] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:stabmag wrote:CCP do you believe that 1 alliance should be able to permanently trap a corp or alliance in a wardec whether or not they started the dec. Either by exploits or doddgy mechanics. This is a yes or no question. I am not asking if the mechanics are working properly or not. I would just like an official company stance on if wardecs are intended to be permanent.
Yes we all know the wardec system is broken and before i get trolls coming in and saying "htfu" and "learn to pew" my post is neither questioning the valadity of hisec wars or a slight on someones playstyle be it carebear or pvper, anyone who isn't an idiot knows eve needs both to live.
So please CCP, I would like you to answer with either a "yes we support wars being permanent." or "no, it is not our intention that wars started by any means be made to last forever." * A mutual war should last as long as both parties want to be at war * A non-mutual war should last as long as the aggressor is willing to pay the recurring war bill
Thank you for responding. But what about war decs that are flipped between mutual and non mutual or refreshed with dodgy mechanics so that the agressor never pays the bill but the war is never retracted. |
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan Pax Romana Alliance
137
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 17:45:00 -
[33] - Quote
FnStrabo wrote:Aria Ta'Rohk wrote:It's in the game, so of course they support it It's not a question of supporting war. It's a matter of the mechanics working correctly or as intended. The recent patch was supposed to address the war mechanics. Many corps are still yet to see what is to come of it, as it was not an immediate fix, and the wars (Dec Shield) still persist apparently.
Yup, our alliance is still embroiled in stacks of wars after getting trapped by the dec shield exploit. It's endless fun, I tells ya.
It's annoying, but if they don't fix it we'll just have to adapt won't we. "Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom." |
Val'Dore
PlanetCorp InterStellar
263
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 18:58:00 -
[34] - Quote
stabmag wrote:...what about war decs that are flipped between mutual and non mutual or refreshed with dodgy mechanics so that the agressor never pays the bill but the war is never retracted.
Does that actually happen?
|
Silk daShocka
Greasy Hair Club
173
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 19:10:00 -
[35] - Quote
stabmag wrote:
Thank you for responding. But what about war decs that are flipped between mutual and non mutual or refreshed with dodgy mechanics so that the agressor never pays the bill but the war is never retracted.
Then maybe the defender should stop flipping between mutual and non mutual?
IS there some new way to trap people in mutual war decs now that I'm unaware of? |
stabmag
Republic University Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 19:14:00 -
[36] - Quote
Val'Dore wrote:stabmag wrote:...what about war decs that are flipped between mutual and non mutual or refreshed with dodgy mechanics so that the agressor never pays the bill but the war is never retracted. Does that actually happen?
According to zerg it does. I suppose we wl just have to wait until the 12th to see if todays patch fixed it or not. |
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
684
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 19:23:00 -
[37] - Quote
How did Dec Shield trap an NPC corp? Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings? |
stabmag
Republic University Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 19:40:00 -
[38] - Quote
Since we already have heard from the king of eve are you the prince? Or perhaps the queen maybe. This is a non affilated alt. If you bothered to read the thread youd know why. Otherwise please dont troll my thread. |
Murk Paradox
Dvice Shipyards No Value
64
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 20:10:00 -
[39] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:stabmag wrote:CCP do you believe that 1 alliance should be able to permanently trap a corp or alliance in a wardec whether or not they started the dec. Either by exploits or doddgy mechanics. This is a yes or no question. I am not asking if the mechanics are working properly or not. I would just like an official company stance on if wardecs are intended to be permanent.
Yes we all know the wardec system is broken and before i get trolls coming in and saying "htfu" and "learn to pew" my post is neither questioning the valadity of hisec wars or a slight on someones playstyle be it carebear or pvper, anyone who isn't an idiot knows eve needs both to live.
So please CCP, I would like you to answer with either a "yes we support wars being permanent." or "no, it is not our intention that wars started by any means be made to last forever." * A mutual war should last as long as both parties want to be at war * A non-mutual war should last as long as the aggressor is willing to pay the recurring war bill
Is that dev legalese for when the current mechanic gets manipulated for 0 isk cost wars? Or is it possible to get clarification of a positive monetary value? (underlined the word for referrence).
I understand that if one side is willfully paying out of their wallet to keep a war alive, but I also understand that the Dec Shield exploit makes the war 0 cost, so if there is no withdrawal out of the wallet, there is no way to pay right? Or should there be a 0 isk withdrawal to justify keeping the war live? "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url] for details. |
Caviar Liberta
Moira. Villore Accords
32
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 01:14:00 -
[40] - Quote
Patch notes for EVE Online: Retribution 1.0.3
To be released on Monday, December 10, 2012
Wars:
Wars that are now made mutual will always be able to be retracted by the aggressor, even if the war is made non-mutual |
|
Hulemand
Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate
12
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 12:10:00 -
[41] - Quote
Caviar Liberta wrote: Patch notes for EVE Online: Retribution 1.0.3
To be released on Monday, December 10, 2012
Wars:
Wars that are now made mutual will always be able to be retracted by the aggressor, even if the war is made non-mutual
This is not working as intended, we are unable to retract out war vs. Dec Shield, we are still getting bills for it, but are you paying them, yet by exploiting game mechanics the war is kept going. Admiral Hulemand Core Operations Overseer
|
JC Anderson
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
810
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 13:28:00 -
[42] - Quote
Hulemand wrote:Caviar Liberta wrote: Patch notes for EVE Online: Retribution 1.0.3
To be released on Monday, December 10, 2012
Wars:
Wars that are now made mutual will always be able to be retracted by the aggressor, even if the war is made non-mutual This is not working as intended, we are unable to retract out war vs. Dec Shield, we are still getting bills for it, but are you paying them, yet by exploiting game mechanics the war is kept going.
Dec Shield announced that it is coming to end and they are no longer able to work through the exploits and loopholes to perma dec that once worked. |
Hulemand
Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate
12
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 15:44:00 -
[43] - Quote
Our war with them was made non-mutual on December 4th, resulting in a war bill we did not pay. Now we had a new war bill today on December 11th. Seems like the war is not ending. Admiral Hulemand Core Operations Overseer
|
|
CCP Paradox
643
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 16:07:00 -
[44] - Quote
Hulemand wrote:Our war with them was made non-mutual on December 4th, resulting in a war bill we did not pay. Now we had a new war bill today on December 11th. Seems like the war is not ending.
What happened in the last week, that the bills for the wars were cancelled before Dec 4th which created new bills for a 7 day war. Additionally after the Retribution release, this could also happen. So bills were cancelled again, and this was resolved yesterday. This created new 7 day ways for everyone from Dec 11th. This is the last week. The bills cannot be cancelled and created again, resulting in another 7 day war. If a war is made mutual and then non mutual, you will always have the option to retract the war, from then on out. If a corp joins an alliance, you will have a bill for just the alliance. If a corp leaves an alliance, you will have a bill for the alliance and corp that left. Both of these bills will always carry the same status as the original bill. If the original bill had a due date of 16th December, and had not been paid. Then both the Corp that left, and Alliance will have the same values. You would see both of them in the wallet as due on the 16th, and that have not been paid yet.
I hope this clears it up for now. CCP Paradox | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Super Friends @CCP_Paradox |
|
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
546
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 16:33:00 -
[45] - Quote
CCP Paradox wrote: If a corp leaves an alliance, you will have a bill for the alliance and corp that left. Both of these bills will always carry the same status as the original bill.
This doesn't exactly seem to be the case.
If you wardec an alliance, and then pay the bill, and then a corp leaves, you get issued a new bill for that corp which seems to ignore the extended war payment that you had just made against the alliance.
A wardecs Dec Shield A pays the bill to extend the war for a second week B drops from Dec Shield A is issued a new bill for B at 7 days from point of original dec
Thus the bill for B is not carrying the same status as the bill that was against the alliance Burn Highsec Griefers |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
546
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 16:43:00 -
[46] - Quote
Just finished reading the thread. Wardecs were never intended by CCP to be used as a griefing mechanic against the aggressors, only the defenders. Permadecs were never an intended consequence, and they've been working to stop them. Believe me, they have been. You've seen the expansion notes, and the patch notes. Those are all aimed at stopping this.
Inferno introduced 3 unique methods of perma-wardecs:
1.) Set mutual and they cannot retract 2.) Bounce corps in/out of alliance so they cannot escape 3.) Toggle mutual/unmutual so it marks their war bill as being paid
Right now all 3 methods are patched. So within 7 days everyone who wants to escape will escape. At that time I'll set everything remaining to mutual to hold the stragglers as long as possible, and then we'll go dormant until the galaxy needs us again
Burn Highsec Griefers |
|
CCP Paradox
645
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 18:49:00 -
[47] - Quote
The Zerg Overmind wrote:CCP Paradox wrote: If a corp leaves an alliance, you will have a bill for the alliance and corp that left. Both of these bills will always carry the same status as the original bill.
It seems that a paid splintered war is inheriting the billing status of the parent war (no bill for the second week if it was already paid for parent alliance's war before the drop). But it's incorrectly sending out a notification to the aggressor that says there's a bill to be paid when there isn't. CorpA wardecs an Alliance CorpA pays the bill to extend the war for a second week CorpB drops from the Alliance CorpA is sent a notification that there is a new bill to be paid (using incorrect information from the parent war). However the actual bill seems to be correct. The notification is just incorrect. There are a few notifications and pop-ups that are incorrect with the new war system because things have been changing so rapidly. These are the three I've found so far: 1.) The above one 2.) The war declaration message is now incorrect. It states that outgoing wardecs increase in cost based on the number of outgoing wardecs you have. 3.) The message for booting a corp out of alliance is misleading. It implies that booting a corporation from the alliance will retract the wars, when that isn't the case. There are also some bugs right now that are preventing code changes from affecting people. Downtimes seem to help correct the issue though. It seems that some mutual wars and mutuals made unmutual don't present the retraction option until after a DT. We're seeing this on Buckingham as well
Thanks for the feedback ! :) It is sending an incorrect notification, however the bill is correct in the database. You are right in us messing up notifications in the recent fixes.
I will give this information to the designers in a defect form, so we can add them to a backlog item we currently have to redo the war notifications.
CCP Paradox | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Super Friends @CCP_Paradox |
|
Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
444
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 21:05:00 -
[48] - Quote
END OF AN ERA. RIP. |
AnzacPaul
Invictus Australis
109
|
Posted - 2012.12.12 02:41:00 -
[49] - Quote
This still is not fixed |
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
230
|
Posted - 2012.12.12 02:51:00 -
[50] - Quote
The Zerg Overmind wrote:Just finished reading the thread. Wardecs were never intended by CCP to be used as a griefing mechanic against the aggressors, only the defenders.
which is damned funny how fast they react to this http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
|
fukier
244
|
Posted - 2012.12.12 04:15:00 -
[51] - Quote
i dont know why but every time i read the title of the op for a second i read does CCP support Paramedics...
damn dyslexia... At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Oopsy Bear
Massively Masochistic Machos
21
|
Posted - 2012.12.12 07:11:00 -
[52] - Quote
Johan Civire wrote: Use your main to post serieuse threats....
Or this is QQ dec shield post.
As long as there are groups within the game who have a stated goal of griefing people for forum posts they don't like then you will see people post with alts. The people who throw out the "post on your main" line are those who either don't have any point left to argue or those who enjoy stifling opinions they don't agree with through their in-game "power". Not everyone has the time, isk, desire, or masochistic tendencies to fight forum warriors. |
Junko Sideswipe
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
99
|
Posted - 2012.12.12 18:01:00 -
[53] - Quote
Still not fixed, we retracted our mutual wars when the expansion hit. Then we retracted all the non-mutual wars we could after the subsequent patch fixes. Our original mutual/non-mutual war with Dec Shield finally ended a few minutes ago, but before that even ended they got another dec on us this morning, so now Dec Shield has yet another dec on us and I can't even retract it.
ccp plz Confederation of xXPIZZAXx CEO TRUE and HONEST boyfriend-free girl gamer |
Emu Meo
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
16
|
Posted - 2012.12.12 18:40:00 -
[54] - Quote
People saying still not fixed are showing their lack of reading comprehension. Try reading the Dev responses again. |
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
233
|
Posted - 2012.12.12 18:43:00 -
[55] - Quote
CCP Paradox wrote:The Zerg Overmind wrote:CCP Paradox wrote: If a corp leaves an alliance, you will have a bill for the alliance and corp that left. Both of these bills will always carry the same status as the original bill.
It seems that a paid splintered war is inheriting the billing status of the parent war (no bill for the second week if it was already paid for parent alliance's war before the drop). But it's incorrectly sending out a notification to the aggressor that says there's a bill to be paid when there isn't. CorpA wardecs an Alliance CorpA pays the bill to extend the war for a second week CorpB drops from the Alliance CorpA is sent a notification that there is a new bill to be paid (using incorrect information from the parent war). However the actual bill seems to be correct. The notification is just incorrect. There are a few notifications and pop-ups that are incorrect with the new war system because things have been changing so rapidly. These are the three I've found so far: 1.) The above one 2.) The war declaration message is now incorrect. It states that outgoing wardecs increase in cost based on the number of outgoing wardecs you have. 3.) The message for booting a corp out of alliance is misleading. It implies that booting a corporation from the alliance will retract the wars, when that isn't the case. There are also some bugs right now that are preventing code changes from affecting people. Downtimes seem to help correct the issue though. It seems that some mutual wars and mutuals made unmutual don't present the retraction option until after a DT. We're seeing this on Buckingham as well Thanks for the feedback ! :) It is sending an incorrect notification, however the bill is correct in the database. You are right in us messing up notifications in the recent fixes. I will give this information to the designers in a defect form, so we can add them to a backlog item we currently have to redo the war notifications. that one? http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Junko Sideswipe
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
99
|
Posted - 2012.12.12 18:58:00 -
[56] - Quote
Emu Meo wrote:People saying still not fixed are showing their lack of reading comprehension. Try reading the Dev responses again.
Won't believe it till I see it. This has been going on way too long and has been handled pretty poorly overall. Apologies to the devs that work really hard on EVE and want to fix stuff for the playerbase, you guys are awesome. Confederation of xXPIZZAXx CEO TRUE and HONEST boyfriend-free girl gamer |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1893
|
Posted - 2012.12.12 20:36:00 -
[57] - Quote
The Zerg Overmind wrote:Wardecs were never intended by CCP to be used as a griefing mechanic against the aggressors, only the defenders. Permadecs were never an intended consequence, and they've been working to stop them. Believe me, they have been. You've seen the expansion notes, and the patch notes. Those are all aimed at stopping this.
Inferno introduced 3 unique methods of perma-wardecs:
1.) Set mutual and they cannot retract 2.) Bounce corps in/out of alliance so they cannot escape 3.) Toggle mutual/unmutual so it marks their war bill as being paid
Right now all 3 methods are patched. So within 7 days everyone who wants to escape will escape. At that time I'll set everything remaining to mutual to hold the stragglers as long as possible, and then we'll go dormant until the galaxy needs us again Keep on doing your best if something else crops up ! Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
AnzacPaul
Invictus Australis
110
|
Posted - 2012.12.12 20:56:00 -
[58] - Quote
Emu Meo wrote:People saying still not fixed are showing their lack of reading comprehension. Try reading the Dev responses again.
From: CONCORD Sent: 2012.12.12 20:42
Invictus Australis has declared war on Dec Shield Ambassador 27.0. Fighting can legally occur between those involved.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1893
|
Posted - 2012.12.12 20:59:00 -
[59] - Quote
AnzacPaul wrote:Emu Meo wrote:People saying still not fixed are showing their lack of reading comprehension. Try reading the Dev responses again. From: CONCORD Sent: 2012.12.12 20:42 Invictus Australis has declared war on Dec Shield Ambassador 27.0. Fighting can legally occur between those involved. Man, those ambassadors don't have diplomatic immunity in our cold and harsh EVE ONLINE. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Art Gallery
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.12 21:40:00 -
[60] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:AnzacPaul wrote:Emu Meo wrote:People saying still not fixed are showing their lack of reading comprehension. Try reading the Dev responses again. From: CONCORD Sent: 2012.12.12 20:42 Invictus Australis has declared war on Dec Shield Ambassador 27.0. Fighting can legally occur between those involved. Man, those ambassadors don't have diplomatic immunity in our cold and harsh EVE ONLINE.
Corporation you are at war with is joining an alliance From: CONCORD Sent: 2012.12.12 21:00
EVE Corporation 8675342 is joining Dec Shield alliance. Since you are at war with EVE Corporation 8675342, in 24 hours you will also be at war with Dec Shield. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |