I'm about to submit a petition regarding a corp who's members drop and then rejoin corp during war. Is this an exploit I've read so many posts saying it is and so many saying it's not?

Why does CCP not simply lock corps when they are dec'd to prevent such exploits? or place a 7 day timer on leaving corp so the War Dec'r gets his war dec for the full 7 days.

Another option would be for CCP to charge ISK to move corporations to prevent people war dodging.

I'm about to submit a petition regarding a corp who's members drop and then rejoin corp during war. Is this an exploit I've read so many posts saying it is and so many saying it's not?

Why does CCP not simply lock corps when they are dec'd to prevent such exploits? or place a 7 day timer on leaving corp so the War Dec'r gets his war dec for the full 7 days.

Another option would be for CCP to charge ISK to move corporations to prevent people war dodging.

Wahh?

Posting in "i'm a real bad dude so I harass indys , and it's wrong that they can get away from me thread...."







Oh, and when did the bricks go full pansy?

A war declaration (war dec) is a formal state of war between two player corporations or alliances.

Quoting an "I'm an undeccable NPC alt keyboard warrior" post.

griefing in the sense that one single player can use this mechanic to intimidate another single player.

You should get suicide ganking removed too then. And sending eve-mails, because someone might threaten you! Those scary EVE players, no one should be able to threaten another in highsec!

There is no difference between a shell corp which folds because of a wardec and one that forms seconds afterwards and contains the same players. Or a corp with 20 members then when a wardec hits has 1 member and 19 "friends and allies", then when the wardec ends has a recruitment spree.

Sounds like a game mechanics problem then. If an entity has no will to fight and no territory or assets to protect, of course it'll just surrender.

When you are wardecced there are things you can do to fight back, like hire mercenaries, find recruit PVPers to shoot them, make amends with the person griefing you, move to a lower security status space so they can't bother you as easily, or undock in a PVP ship and fight them yourself. You have many, many options to take if you are wardecced.

There is no option for someone who spends 50m to wardec you to fight you because you can just ditch the war at your leisure. The fact that there are no options available for that person means that it's an exploit.

The problem is that the 'person' wardeccing the other 'person' has no clue what a war is. If you want consensual highsec PvP then you can invite someone to a duel. if you use the war dec mechanic to do this then you may be disappointed, and that's all there is to it. a corp with no anchored assets has no reason to defend anything.

I'm about to submit a petition regarding a corp who's members drop and then rejoin corp during war. Is this an exploit I've read so many posts saying it is and so many saying it's not?

Why does CCP not simply lock corps when they are dec'd to prevent such exploits? or place a 7 day timer on leaving corp so the War Dec'r gets his war dec for the full 7 days.

Another option would be for CCP to charge ISK to move corporations to prevent people war dodging.

Wardecs are meant to be non-consensual. When you corrupt wardecs using corp hopping exploits you are fundamentally changing the way they were designed to be. Take away the exploit and they are fine the way they are.

A corp with no anchored assets has no reason to defend anything because the human resources the corp has are immune from the war if they or the corp chooses them to be. Take away the immunity and people suddenly have reasons to defend themselves.

If you could bypass CONCORD for a measly wardec fee there'd be precious little point to having them at all.

or not bother forming a corp in the first place which also grants players immunity with few drawbacks. that's pretty obvious.

i suppose that's a 'problem' too.

of course you could actually use the war dec mechanic to clear rival corp's assets out of systems you want. call me conventional if you will.

Wardecs are meant to be non-consensual. When you corrupt wardecs using corp hopping exploits you are fundamentally changing the way they were designed to be. Take away the exploit and they are fine the way they are.

A corp with no anchored assets has no reason to defend anything because the human resources the corp has are immune from the war if they or the corp chooses them to be. Take away the immunity and people suddenly have reasons to defend themselves.

[http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Wars



it's not there so players can grief other players.

It is. The fees and taxes on NPC corps should increase because you receive a ton of benefit for being in an NPC corp for very little cost. It hurts player corps because they have to compete with the low tax rate and risk-free NPC corp.

If by assets you mean POS, then yes, that is one way to use a wardec. It's not the only thing that wardecs were designed for though.

A rival corp with no POS can just re-create their corp and their members (their other corp assets) would still be out in space doing what they please, making your wardec completely worthless.

Non-consensual PvP isn't griefing.

Part of EVE's stated goal at the beginning of its formation is they don't want life to be unbearable for more peaceful and unexperienced players (notice the word peaceful. Not just unexperienced). A corp war can very much do that for both. I can link you to the quote if you want. Though its an old quote its still something that shows in their design sometimes, such as war decs. They could easily do what you're asking in under an hour. So the question you should be asking yourself is if that's the way they were purely meant to be designed, why don't they. Answer? Because that's not the entire basis of their design despite it being what you want. Now I'm not saying there shouldn't be things to encourage them to stick around, but trying to claim what you believe in is the intended design when there is evidence against that? Not very well educated. You're welcome to your views, but I'd stop with the mind reading.

it always was completely worthless and that is the risk you take in targeting groups of players. if they have no skin in the game they can quite legitimately disband. if you wasted 50M on that then you should have done your homework better. perhaps you shouldn't target people because that's not what wardecs specify. maybe you should check their war history, see if they have POS up etc.