EVE Search - Escaping wars decs - a kill rights based solution

All Channels

Crime and Punishment

Escaping wars decs - a kill rights based solution

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Cmdr Sy	Posted - 2006.06.11 09:42:00 - [1] It kinda sucks when you issue a war dec and find ex-targets with a brand new NPC ticker. So instead of filing exploit petitions (let's be honest, there's no point), how about they stay war-decced for the remaining duration of that week's war fee, until the next bill is due? It would be a character-specific thing, for example a player leaving a corp nine days into a war, would remain a war target for a further five days, even in his NPC corp. I envisage this being the case for anyone joining a new player-corp as well. The war-evading player would be unable to engage his former war enemies until they engage him. It would be rather like Kill Rights in terms of game mechanics, and much of the code could be reused. Thoughts? Please no "omg licence to grief noobs" stuff. I am talking about making people who leave a corp under a war dec a target for the remaining duration of that week's bill - hardly a massive removal of liberties, and payment for that sort of behaviour is years overdue.
Lorth	Posted - 2006.06.11 09:54:00 - [2] Your going to get so flamed for even suggesting a way to force PVP on the unwilling.... Carebear stare.
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.06.11 09:59:00 - [3] Originally by: Lorth Carebear stare. 5 4 3 2 1 ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT! Originally by: Jenny Spitfire EvE is sadistically and masochistically satisfying.
DKDane	Posted - 2006.06.11 10:22:00 - [4] not every1 wanna PvP in this game
Kelron Queldine	Posted - 2006.06.11 10:30:00 - [5] Originally by: DKDane not every1 wanna PvP in this game But we reserve a special circle of hell for them Seriously though, I know not everyone wants to PvP, but it is an unavoidable part of the game, even in an NPC corp in high sec you can still be suicide ganked. I think this is quite a good idea, but maybe just change it to another 2 days after leaving the corp, or something. --------------------------- Signatures are for the weak.
Cmdr Sy	Posted - 2006.06.11 10:37:00 - [6] Edited by: Cmdr Sy on 11/06/2006 10:38:01 I understand that not everyone wants to PVP, and this is NOT a war dec mechanism against NPC corps. My suggestion would simply impose a cost on war-avoiding corp-jumpers. At the moment, there is no drawback whatsoever to leaving a corp to evade a war dec. Resign roles, wait 24 hours, click the button and commence smacktalk. It's all reward, no risk, no penalty. This way if they want to avoid PVP (the consequences of their actions, perhaps?) they can stay docked for those few days longer.
Winged Messenger	Posted - 2006.06.11 10:40:00 - [7] This is a GREAT idea........as long as you make it so that you can only declare war on a corp that has same number of members that you have and that have the same time experience you have. Fair is fair after all.
HippoKing	Posted - 2006.06.11 11:16:00 - [8] Yeah, implement it, but I'd make it a fixed time (i'd probably say 72 hours after leaving) rather than something relative to the war cost. Also, I wouldn't stop them from firing on enemy war targets for the remainder of this time. The carebearism argument in this is pretty much defending corp-hopping exploits: they deserve to get shot for 3days. Also, jenny, carebear stare doesn't suit you
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2006.06.11 11:22:00 - [9] Originally by: Winged Messenger This is a GREAT idea........as long as you make it so that you can only declare war on a corp that has same number of members that you have and that have the same time experience you have. Fair is fair after all. Even then you'd still get whining. Long, long ago I had 2 friends with me and wardecced a more experienced corporation. I had my first battleship and they didn't have much money either. We won easily. Maybe you'll have to test the IQ of everyone in each corporation and average them to make sure they're similar? --Proud member of the [23]-- -WTB Platinum Technite, WTS Nanotransistors, Heavy Electron II, 100mn AB II-
DKDane	Posted - 2006.06.11 11:27:00 - [10] Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: Winged Messenger This is a GREAT idea........as long as you make it so that you can only declare war on a corp that has same number of members that you have and that have the same time experience you have. Fair is fair after all. Even then you'd still get whining. Long, long ago I had 2 friends with me and wardecced a more experienced corporation. I had my first battleship and they didn't have much money either. We won easily. Maybe you'll have to test the IQ of everyone in each corporation and average them to make sure they're similar? or maybe measure the lenght of their manhood
Queen Hades	Posted - 2006.06.11 11:28:00 - [11] Since corp - hopping is our only defense against war decs (which are in fact a pure griefers tool!) I'm strongly against that. In fact the pure existence of the war dec mechanism is the only reason I did not pay a whole year of subscription fee in advance. I want to be able to cancel my account should I ever get wardecced so I don't have to pay for just beeing able to stay docked for weeks or maybe months, just because some 13 year old griefer was bored. In real life I have to work for the money CCP gets. Why should I pay for the griefers?
Leandro Salazar	Posted - 2006.06.11 11:44:00 - [12] So that a griefer can deny a carebear his fun is fine, but that a carebear can do the same to the griefer is not? I sense a bit of a bias here :P --------- Originally by: General Apocalypse the game is very well balanced
Cmdr Sy	Posted - 2006.06.11 11:47:00 - [13] Originally by: Winged Messenger This is a GREAT idea........as long as you make it so that you can only declare war on a corp that has same number of members that you have and that have the same time experience you have. Fair is fair after all. Our current war has us outnumbered 3 to 1, the last major fleet battle we fought saw us outnumbered 3 to 1, the set of wars beforehand had our corp war-decced by 8 others (we got "griefed", they got owned). There were legitimate political reasons in each case. Not every Empire war is a carebear grief. Very few ever are. Being forced to stay docked for weeks or even months is an exaggeration too. I'm talking about corp-jumpers staying flagged as war targets for a week at most. Example: Day 0: Corp A declares war on Corp B Day 2: Lamer leaves Corp B, remains a war target until Day 7 Day 7: War extended for a further week, but Lamer no longer war target It works the same way if a player leaves the corp that issues a war dec. If anyone on either side leaves after CONCORD sends out the mail, they are committed for the remainder of the week, and can be shot at. It's not griefing, it's plugging a confirmed exploit. The only right this removes is one which no-one has anyway.
Ultroth	Posted - 2006.06.11 11:47:00 - [14] Originally by: Queen Hades Since corp - hopping is our only defense against war decs (which are in fact a pure griefers tool!) I'm strongly against that. In fact the pure existence of the war dec mechanism is the only reason I did not pay a whole year of subscription fee in advance. I want to be able to cancel my account should I ever get wardecced so I don't have to pay for just beeing able to stay docked for weeks or maybe months, just because some 13 year old griefer was bored. In real life I have to work for the money CCP gets. Why should I pay for the griefers? Carebearing is an illness, pvp is the cure and i made you an appointment with Dr Tek-Too Amo, please advise on location so a home visit can be arranged "It's better to stay silent and appear stupid, than to open your mouth and leave no doubt!"
Xenios Alfar	Posted - 2006.06.11 11:50:00 - [15] Originally by: Queen Hades Since corp - hopping is our only defense against war decs (which are in fact a pure griefers tool!) I'm strongly against that. In fact the pure existence of the war dec mechanism is the only reason I did not pay a whole year of subscription fee in advance. I want to be able to cancel my account should I ever get wardecced so I don't have to pay for just beeing able to stay docked for weeks or maybe months, just because some 13 year old griefer was bored. In real life I have to work for the money CCP gets. Why should I pay for the griefers? So anyone who wardecs anyone is a griefer now. Go back to Crielere. Hypothetical Scenario: A Member of Corp A annoys a member of Corp B, the member of Corp B is in a position of authority and issues a war dec. Corp B is therefore griefing Corp A by your standards.. Oh please. i should war dec you just for saying that =/.
Queen Hades	Posted - 2006.06.11 11:53:00 - [16] Originally by: Xenios Alfar Originally by: Queen Hades Since corp - hopping is our only defense against war decs (which are in fact a pure griefers tool!) I'm strongly against that. In fact the pure existence of the war dec mechanism is the only reason I did not pay a whole year of subscription fee in advance. I want to be able to cancel my account should I ever get wardecced so I don't have to pay for just beeing able to stay docked for weeks or maybe months, just because some 13 year old griefer was bored. In real life I have to work for the money CCP gets. Why should I pay for the griefers? So anyone who wardecs anyone is a griefer now. Go back to Crielere. Hypothetical Scenario: A Member of Corp A annoys a member of Corp B, the member of Corp B is in a position of authority and issues a war dec. Corp B is therefore griefing Corp A by your standards.. Oh please. i should war dec you just for saying that =/. YOUR example would be a legitimate war dec. But what makes people refrain from just war deccing ANY corp that has younger and fewer members than his own?
Cmdr Sy	Posted - 2006.06.11 11:56:00 - [17] Originally by: Queen Hades YOUR example would be a legitimate war dec. But what makes people refrain from just war deccing ANY corp that has younger and fewer members than his own? Not much, and very few ever do because it's an insanely boring waste of time. It is not in actual fact a real problem in EVE. Most Empire wars have reasons behind them.
Xenios Alfar	Posted - 2006.06.11 12:05:00 - [18] Originally by: Queen Hades Originally by: Xenios Alfar Originally by: Queen Hades Since corp - hopping is our only defense against war decs (which are in fact a pure griefers tool!) I'm strongly against that. In fact the pure existence of the war dec mechanism is the only reason I did not pay a whole year of subscription fee in advance. I want to be able to cancel my account should I ever get wardecced so I don't have to pay for just beeing able to stay docked for weeks or maybe months, just because some 13 year old griefer was bored. In real life I have to work for the money CCP gets. Why should I pay for the griefers? So anyone who wardecs anyone is a griefer now. Go back to Crielere. Hypothetical Scenario: A Member of Corp A annoys a member of Corp B, the member of Corp B is in a position of authority and issues a war dec. Corp B is therefore griefing Corp A by your standards.. Oh please. i should war dec you just for saying that =/. YOUR example would be a legitimate war dec. But what makes people refrain from just war deccing ANY corp that has younger and fewer members than his own? I can understand a corp Deccing a mining corp for profit but why war dec something thats not profitable after all the wardec does cost =/, and plus if its done to turn players away or annoy players then they can get banned
Keta Min	Posted - 2006.06.11 12:41:00 - [19] Make it so.
HippoKing	Posted - 2006.06.11 12:50:00 - [20] Originally by: Queen Hades Originally by: Xenios Alfar Originally by: Queen Hades Since corp - hopping is our only defense against war decs (which are in fact a pure griefers tool!) I'm strongly against that. In fact the pure existence of the war dec mechanism is the only reason I did not pay a whole year of subscription fee in advance. I want to be able to cancel my account should I ever get wardecced so I don't have to pay for just beeing able to stay docked for weeks or maybe months, just because some 13 year old griefer was bored. In real life I have to work for the money CCP gets. Why should I pay for the griefers? So anyone who wardecs anyone is a griefer now. Go back to Crielere. Hypothetical Scenario: A Member of Corp A annoys a member of Corp B, the member of Corp B is in a position of authority and issues a war dec. Corp B is therefore griefing Corp A by your standards.. Oh please. i should war dec you just for saying that =/. YOUR example would be a legitimate war dec. But what makes people refrain from just war deccing ANY corp that has younger and fewer members than his own? Nothing but boredom. Eve 4tw.
DarkElf	Posted - 2006.06.11 13:32:00 - [21] Edited by: DarkElf on 11/06/2006 13:32:53 Originally by: DKDane not every1 wanna PvP in this game Why not? Sorry but eve is such a basic crappy game without pvp. may as well play space invaders. i like the idea
vile56	Posted - 2006.06.11 15:54:00 - [22] great idea. I think it should not be the full lenght of the war remaining tbh. a couple of days seems good to me. But if they rejoin the corp after the dec is gone, and regain all the previous roles/or even some. A new week of free dec should be awarded.
DarkElf	Posted - 2006.06.11 16:15:00 - [23] Edited by: DarkElf on 11/06/2006 16:16:23 to be honest if the person rejoins the corp after the dec have ended then if you petition them ccp will do something about it as that's blatant war avoidence. the trouble normally is that no1 can prove whether someone is leaving a corp because they want to or because of the war but in that case then it's kinda obvious and devs will take action.
Malthros Zenobia	Posted - 2006.06.11 16:21:00 - [24] Originally by: DKDane not every1 wanna PvP in this game Well you're going to PvP whether you like it or not, and whether you realize it or not. People need to stop thinking PvP only applies to shooting at someone.
Akurion	Posted - 2006.06.11 16:35:00 - [25] Originally by: HippoKing Yeah, implement it, but I'd make it a fixed time (i'd probably say 72 hours after leaving) rather than something relative to the war cost. Also, I wouldn't stop them from firing on enemy war targets for the remainder of this time. The carebearism argument in this is pretty much defending corp-hopping exploits: they deserve to get shot for 3days. Also, jenny, carebear stare doesn't suit you I'm not sure I see how this is an exploit. It's a legitimate use of corporate mechanics. It's certainly no less of an exploit than suicide-ganking in hi-sec and using an alt to collect loot, but the general consensus on the boards seems to be that that is a valid game mechanic. It takes 24 hours to quit a corporation, and frankly if people are quitting the corporation you war-decced, it doesn't sound like it was a very fair match-up to begin with.
HippoKing	Posted - 2006.06.11 16:39:00 - [26] Originally by: Akurion Originally by: HippoKing Yeah, implement it, but I'd make it a fixed time (i'd probably say 72 hours after leaving) rather than something relative to the war cost. Also, I wouldn't stop them from firing on enemy war targets for the remainder of this time. The carebearism argument in this is pretty much defending corp-hopping exploits: they deserve to get shot for 3days. Also, jenny, carebear stare doesn't suit you I'm not sure I see how this is an exploit. It's a legitimate use of corporate mechanics. It's certainly no less of an exploit than suicide-ganking in hi-sec and using an alt to collect loot, but the general consensus on the boards seems to be that that is a valid game mechanic. It takes 24 hours to quit a corporation, and frankly if people are quitting the corporation you war-decced, it doesn't sound like it was a very fair match-up to begin with. If someone corp-hops to avoid you more than once, you can petition them, and they get locked in the last corp you decced to get them. I guess that pretty much means its classified as a exploit. At least thats how it used to work: haven't seen it in a while
DarkElf	Posted - 2006.06.11 16:39:00 - [27] it is an exploit because ccp says it's an exploit. the problem is you can't dec noob corps (obviously has to be this way) so it's too easy to get decc'd, leave corp, join back after dec is over. so war dec avoidence has to be an exploit (which it is). otherwise the pvp element of eve would diminish if it was that easy to avoid war. war forced on ppl is fun
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.06.11 16:39:00 - [28] Originally by: HippoKing Also, jenny, carebear stare doesn't suit you Deep down, I am really a . But repetitive gang ganks in 0.4 can really change a to a . /me needs to read Holy Scriptures to be a again. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT! Originally by: Jenny Spitfire EvE is sadistically and masochistically satisfying.
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.06.11 16:41:00 - [29] War dodging is the most ill-form of alliance warfare. It is almost as bad as all the dirty tactics of Empire warfare. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT! Originally by: Jenny Spitfire EvE is sadistically and masochistically satisfying.
Lil Jess	Posted - 2006.06.11 18:09:00 - [30] Ok so the person hiding in this npc corp really doesn't want to fight you. If this was implemented (which it won't be) said person doesn't log on / undock for 5 days. If that makes you happy as a player theres something wrong with you, it certainly hasn't made the other player happy. This is a game which implies we should all be having fun most (some?) of the time.
Cmdr Sy	Posted - 2006.06.11 18:42:00 - [31] Originally by: Lil Jess Ok so the person hiding in this npc corp really doesn't want to fight you. If this was implemented (which it won't be) said person doesn't log on / undock for 5 days. If that makes you happy as a player theres something wrong with you, it certainly hasn't made the other player happy. This is a game which implies we should all be having fun most (some?) of the time. Wars are part of the game. Few are waged to grief a weak target, often it comes as a result of some affront or (sometimes unintended) territorial / economic competition. Corp-hopping to escape war decs should not be without consequence. There must be a cost. An alternative is some form of NPC-administered buyout, but that's not fair because not everyone has a healthy wallet balance and it would very disproportionally penalise newer players. So, remaining a target for a few days seems reasonable. Then you merely run the risk you would have run for the first week of the war anyway. Also, I cannot regard the people who run off to NPC or new player corps to escape wars, as innocent parties. It may be a genuine expression of a desire to avoid PVP at any cost, but there are rules against dodging wars, so it's not as if I am saying anything new in wishing to see them enforced. If people don't want PVP, they can stay in a noobcorp full time, instead of using them as a temporary refuge when it suits them.
Rabbitgod	Posted - 2006.06.11 22:00:00 - [32] If you don't wan't to PvP in this game and yet you want to be in your own corp and compeat for minnerals, isk, ect ect you should buy a merc contract or pay off the people that want to kill you. But omg!!!one!eleven why should I have to pay them? Beause you DON'T want to fight or die for these resorces the only thing left is isk. Nothing is free you need to learn to eith pay in blood or in isk. It's your pick either way so don't whine about it. Please resize image blah blah ect, ty - Cortes But my animated sig was so cool
Apollo Balthar	Posted - 2006.06.11 23:14:00 - [33] Originally by: Rabbitgod If you don't wan't to PvP in this game and yet you want to be in your own corp and compeat for minnerals, isk, ect ect you should buy a merc contract or pay off the people that want to kill you. But omg!!!one!eleven why should I have to pay them? Beause you DON'T want to fight or die for these resorces the only thing left is isk. Nothing is free you need to learn to eith pay in blood or in isk. It's your pick either way so don't whine about it. QFT. that's how I see it. Empire is riskfree enough how it is allready. Especially for new players who had a lucky BPO drop. Live by the sword, die by my guns...!
Syris Anu	Posted - 2006.06.12 02:04:00 - [34] If we were serious about empire wars being useful, we would extend the 'warring gang' feature to corporation hopping: 1. If I my corporation is at war with your corporation (regardless of who declared it) and I join another player coporation, your corporation can attack me and all members of my new corporation until the war ends, but neither I nor members of my new corporation can attack members of your corporation unless provoked. 2. If my corporation is at war, I cannnot join an NPC corporation until my corporation is not involved in any wars. Another possibility that might simplify things with wars: A. If my corporation is at war with your corporation, until that war ends, I am always attackable by members of your corporation no matter what corporation I join. Since empire wars are a feature built into the fabric of the game, that some people do not want to PvP is not a valid argument because there are many other games available to play that do not have PvP. CCP does not have a monopoly on MMORPGs.
vile56	Posted - 2006.06.12 03:33:00 - [35] Originally by: Syris Anu If we were serious about empire wars being useful, we would extend the 'warring gang' feature to corporation hopping: 1. If I my corporation is at war with your corporation (regardless of who declared it) and I join another player coporation, your corporation can attack me and all members of my new corporation until the war ends, but neither I nor members of my new corporation can attack members of your corporation unless provoked. 2. If my corporation is at war, I cannnot join an NPC corporation until my corporation is not involved in any wars. Another possibility that might simplify things with wars: A. If my corporation is at war with your corporation, until that war ends, I am always attackable by members of your corporation no matter what corporation I join. Since empire wars are a feature built into the fabric of the game, that some people do not want to PvP is not a valid argument because there are many other games available to play that do not have PvP. CCP does not have a monopoly on MMORPGs. never played wow but would love to fly a dread around and kill people there. thats class.
0August0	Posted - 2006.06.12 05:26:00 - [36] I don't think there should be any penalty for people leaving a war decced corp, especially if they do it within the 24 hour waiting period. Players should have a free pass out of any corporation whose leadership has gotten them into a war they did not want, contribute to, nor promote. On the other hand, there should be some penalty for those players rejoining that same corp soon after the war is over, either a time penalty or isk or both. . . . Regards, August Soldier of the Gooch
Queen Hades	Posted - 2006.06.12 08:47:00 - [37] Originally by: Cmdr Sy Edited by: Cmdr Sy on 11/06/2006 11:56:05 Originally by: Queen Hades YOUR example would be a legitimate war dec. But what makes people refrain from just war deccing ANY corp that has younger and fewer members than his own? Not much, but very few ever do because it's an insanely boring waste of time. It is not in actual fact a real problem in EVE. Most Empire wars have reasons behind them. I have no problem with reasonable wars, but I believe that pirates are very likely to wardec a few younger corps (10, 15 at the same time or even more) to get a free gankfest in empire.
DKDane	Posted - 2006.06.12 09:04:00 - [38] Originally by: Queen Hades Originally by: Cmdr Sy Edited by: Cmdr Sy on 11/06/2006 11:56:05 Originally by: Queen Hades YOUR example would be a legitimate war dec. But what makes people refrain from just war deccing ANY corp that has younger and fewer members than his own? Not much, but very few ever do because it's an insanely boring waste of time. It is not in actual fact a real problem in EVE. Most Empire wars have reasons behind them. I have no problem with reasonable wars, but I believe that pirates are very likely to wardec a few younger corps (10, 15 at the same time or even more) to get a free gankfest in empire. lol, 10, 15...good luck WTB 15 war slots
Vamp 1	Posted - 2006.06.12 09:25:00 - [39] An alternative to forcing war is to refund the remainder of the war dec fee when the target changes name as the aggressor has won. The aggressor then has the option of using this money refunded to war dec the targets new corp
Collman	Posted - 2006.06.12 13:15:00 - [40] Originally by: DarkElf Edited by: DarkElf on 11/06/2006 16:16:23 to be honest if the person rejoins the corp after the dec have ended then if you petition them ccp will do something about it as that's blatant war avoidence. the trouble normally is that no1 can prove whether someone is leaving a corp because they want to or because of the war but in that case then it's kinda obvious and devs will take action. I had this happen to me and the gm's did not take any action at all. Chris15, Xan'atos, Rilen and jason rockerfella did a good job of corp hopping, and you can see quite clearly from their history this was the case. Something needs doing about it
DarkElf	Posted - 2006.06.12 13:55:00 - [41] Any devs can correct me on this one if needed but from my understanding. the devs need more than 1 example of war avoidence. if someone leaves a corp mid-war there is no proof to say that they didn't leave for other reasons. if several petitions are made after several corp hops then they will be investigated and if several changes have been made and all corps were dec'd by the same corp then they will act. the thing is they need more than 1 example. also as we all know this is just 1 type of petition they have to go through and every noob petitioning every ship loss takes up more fo their time therefore taking time away from these war dodgers being investigated.
Merdaneth	Posted - 2006.06.12 16:39:00 - [42] Originally by: Cmdr Sy Wars are part of the game. Few are waged to grief a weak target, often it comes as a result of some affront or (sometimes unintended) territorial / economic competition. Well, if it is territorial economic competition, and everyone is leaving the target corp, it seems you have won your war, doesn't it? Why would you want to continue? If it is a personal thing (like an affront), you are griefing if you want to continue to harass the target even if they made clear (by joining an NPC corp in this case) that they don't want anything to do with fighting you. Originally by: Cmdr Sy So, remaining a target for a few days seems reasonable. Then you merely run the risk you would have run for the first week of the war anyway. What would that gain you? Would the territorial dispute be decided if you can attack them for a few days after they have left the corp? Originally by: Cmdr Sy Also, I cannot regard the people who run off to NPC or new player corps to escape wars, as innocent parties. It may be a genuine expression of a desire to avoid PVP at any cost, but there are rules against dodging wars, so it's not as if I am saying anything new in wishing to see them enforced. So, civilians that leave their home and country to flee a warzone are not considered 'innocent parties' by you? You seem pretty brutal and harsh. Originally by: Cmdr Sy If people don't want PVP, they can stay in a noobcorp full time, instead of using them as a temporary refuge when it suits them. Gasp, are there no people who want to be in a small community of like-minded people AND don't want to get shot at by others? I never knew... Just come out and say you want to be able to attack another of your choice anywhere, there's no shame in that. Just don't begin mentioning territorial disputes and such. You seem to be looking for a fight, and when you targets run away you don't like it. Understandable, but has nothing to do with faulty game mechanics or exploits. As some people said, if they cannot/don't want to leave their corps, they will just refuse to log on or sit in a station when you are logged on.
Kolwrath	Posted - 2006.06.12 16:49:00 - [43] Originally by: Queen Hades Originally by: Cmdr Sy Edited by: Cmdr Sy on 11/06/2006 11:56:05 Originally by: Queen Hades YOUR example would be a legitimate war dec. But what makes people refrain from just war deccing ANY corp that has younger and fewer members than his own? Not much, but very few ever do because it's an insanely boring waste of time. It is not in actual fact a real problem in EVE. Most Empire wars have reasons behind them. I have no problem with reasonable wars, but I believe that pirates are very likely to wardec a few younger corps (10, 15 at the same time or even more) to get a free gankfest in empire. Free gankfest or free isk. Its a problem in eve. Its as much an exploit as leaving a wardecd corp.
Tobin Ba'ha	Posted - 2006.06.12 18:22:00 - [44] Originally by: Merdaneth Understandable, but has nothing to do with faulty game mechanics or exploits. Yes it does, as CCCP has declared this an exploit. You lose because you are wrong. Corp hopping to avoid a wardec then rejoining is an exploit, period. You are defending exploiters.
Ren Dition	Posted - 2006.06.12 18:42:00 - [45] Originally by: Tobin Ba'ha Yes it does, as CCCP has declared this an exploit. You lose because you are wrong. Corp hopping to avoid a wardec then rejoining is an exploit, period. You are defending exploiters. But the proposed solution does not address that problem. It just addresses leaving a corp, not rejoining so it punishes the guilty and innocent alike.
Tobin Ba'ha	Posted - 2006.06.12 18:48:00 - [46] I don't disagree with you- I think the proposed solution will create as many problems as it alleviates. The solution is to severely punish those who exploit- sadly CCCP will never do this as it will hurt thier pocketbook. EvE is a business after all.
Emerald Shadow	Posted - 2006.06.12 19:21:00 - [47] avoiding wars is a fair tactic imo ever hear about draft dodgers? or people who fled a certain country because it was about to get bombed back into the stone age? germans diddnt exactly go hunting americans in canada now did they? if joe miner and bob missionman are hippies and dont wanna fight.. who cares
0August0	Posted - 2006.06.12 19:27:00 - [48] Originally by: Tobin Ba'ha Yes it does, as CCCP has declared this an exploit. You lose because you are wrong. Corp hopping to avoid a wardec then rejoining is an exploit, period. Link? I've seen people mention this here a couple times but haven't read anything directly from CCP. . . . Regards, August Soldier of the Gooch
Syris Anu	Posted - 2006.06.12 19:45:00 - [49] Edited by: Syris Anu on 12/06/2006 19:51:45 Originally by: Merdaneth Just come out and say you want to be able to attack another of your choice anywhere, there's no shame in that. I want to be able to attack another of my choice anywhere. Actually, I want to be able to actually do damage to an empire corp I am at war with if they decide to flee and use game mechanics to defend themselves. War is there to resolve territorial and trade disputes the old fashioned way, yet the mechanics of corp hopping and indefinite dockage prevent that. You know what the REAL problem is? It's not corp hopping, dockage, or whatever. It's the fact that corporationa have no attackble infrastructure other than their own ships (aside from those running POS, which are impossible to attack without a large fleet). What's really needed are NPCs running corp infrastructure that can be attacked. Imagine we remove hauling from the game and that everyone can hire NPCs to haul things around. But the NPC ships haul in very small quantities (like 100 meters per NPC hauler) and can defend themselves well (depending on how the corporation configures them, with it costing more to get better guard ships on these convoys). Then I, as pirate, could attack these convoys and either get toasted by the NPCs or intercept some of this. If I can get some of the ships down, I can start impacting the production corp's activities, but not necessarily at the level of total ship and pod losses. The key to find balance is to make is so that if I work really hard, I can hurt the production capabilities of a like size targetted corp by up to, say, 25%. Not enough to bring their production to a standstill, but enough so that they are encouraged, but not required to come out and fight, hire better NPC guard ships (which drop better loot for me IF I can take them on), or player mercs. With no infrastructure to lose, they can just stay in dock indefinitely, corp hop, etc. It's totally risk free war avoidance. I assume in this scenario that I still need to declare war to fire on their NPCs without CONCORD response in high security. * The reason for the small NPC cargo holds is that it should take some effort to get one down, but any one convoy ship going up in flames shouldn't destroy the entire shipment. What we want is resource attrition, not annhilation.
goazer	Posted - 2006.06.12 21:05:00 - [50] think of the griefers. Those poor griefers who cant even get a miner to shoot them in highsec. They have rights to they pay to play just like the rest of us. If those miners didnt upset the moral fabrics of eve noone would bother them. Sitting all pinned up in that place called highsec. It is just a crime for people to be able to hide in highsec and smack harass people who are just passing thru witha bounty. or a -3 ss. honestly if these retards didnt talk so much **** i wouldnt bother with them but they act superior to you and wont even back it up they hide in the station/leave corp. If they werent talk big like this noone would bother them. i think the gms should put them in syndicate region with no instas and a a target on them saying i have a cap recharger 2 bpo in my hold.
Cmdr Sy	Posted - 2006.06.13 01:51:00 - [51] Originally by: Emerald Shadow avoiding wars is a fair tactic imo ever hear about draft dodgers? or people who fled a certain country because it was about to get bombed back into the stone age? germans diddnt exactly go hunting americans in canada now did they? if joe miner and bob missionman are hippies and dont wanna fight.. who cares When people don't want to fight, they're still fair game until they make it across the border. It takes time, and they run a risk as a result of the situation under which they are fleeing. The problem in EVE is, the current mechanic allows people to accomplish this with a few mouse clicks. It's almost instant, cost-free, and no-one runs a risk for a minute. Regarding an earlier post... yeah, I do want to be able to shoot what I want if I have a problem with it. That's what the whole concept of corp wars, so central to EVE, is all about. EVE is not about being left alone to hunt, mine and trade without armed competition.
Scoundrelus	Posted - 2006.06.13 02:21:00 - [52] I agree, this should be implemented. We recently wardecced reknaw latot for massive amounts of smacktalk. Guess what? 2 days later they completely disband and fragment to various different corps, NPC and otherwise. It's way too easy to escape war these days.
goazer	Posted - 2006.06.13 04:21:00 - [53] Originally by: Cmdr Sy Originally by: Emerald Shadow avoiding wars is a fair tactic imo ever hear about draft dodgers? or people who fled a certain country because it was about to get bombed back into the stone age? germans diddnt exactly go hunting americans in canada now did they? if joe miner and bob missionman are hippies and dont wanna fight.. who cares When people don't want to fight, they're still fair game until they make it across the border. It takes time, and they run a risk as a result of the situation under which they are fleeing. The problem in EVE is, the current mechanic allows people to accomplish this with a few mouse clicks. It's almost instant, cost-free, and no-one runs a risk for a minute. Regarding an earlier post... yeah, I do want to be able to shoot what I want if I have a problem with it. That's what the whole concept of corp wars, so central to EVE, is all about. EVE is not about being left alone to hunt, mine and trade without armed competition. This also goes out to those people who leave their corp to avoid a war then continously ram your battleship in a shuttle for an hour while your campign a gate. these people obviously have a vested interest int he war or they would leave the area and not look back.
0August0	Posted - 2006.06.13 05:12:00 - [54] What you guys (and gals) are really talking about here is the ability to declare war on not just corporations, but individuals as well. I don't think CCP would go along with that. . . . Regards, August Soldier of the Gooch
DarkElf	Posted - 2006.06.13 08:52:00 - [55] Originally by: Emerald Shadow avoiding wars is a fair tactic imo ever hear about draft dodgers? or people who fled a certain country because it was about to get bombed back into the stone age? germans diddnt exactly go hunting americans in canada now did they? if joe miner and bob missionman are hippies and dont wanna fight.. who cares The problem is that this is rarely the case. Most ppl who do this are still aiding the war'd corp. I have seen it so many times where the person exploiting is still helping with hauling in supplies, scouting, even helping in combat but getting gate guns on their side now. If someone leaves a corp and leaves the area for good because they have lost the war then fair enough imo. But, if a corp has lost a war they can normally contact the other party and discuss terms of surrender . But as i said previously ccp won't do anything with only 1 example of it because that isn't proof. give them a couple of examples of the same person doing it and they will take action.
Sebroth	Posted - 2006.06.13 11:16:00 - [56] Originally by: DarkElf it is an exploit because ccp says it's an exploit. the problem is you can't dec noob corps (obviously has to be this way) so it's too easy to get decc'd, leave corp, join back after dec is over. so war dec avoidence has to be an exploit (which it is). otherwise the pvp element of eve would diminish if it was that easy to avoid war. war forced on ppl is fun I can't see any problem with allowing people to wardec a noob corp the, noob corp are after all members of a faction and if you want too fight Caldari State in Jita..... But to the point of this tread. The most logic would be to use the same rule that corps leaving an alliance have and that is 24h and both can aggro. 7 days is a to long time and the reason is that you dont know why somone is leaving a corp. The most striking thing here is that everyone is complaining about corp members leaving a corp in war and how thats an exploit but I have never heard a someone complaning about exploit when a corp leving an alliance. The only reasone for this I see is when a corp leaving an alliance you see that as an victory but when a corp member leaving his corp you only see one less target = less fun = you are a greifer (generally speaking). War is about winning not about kills. IMHO if a singel member is leaving a corp its not an exploit but if every singel corp member leaving the corp to a new corp or if they are rejoining the old corp after the war is over then you can speak of exploit. This has happend to me once and it is annoying as hell but on the other hand fighting someone that dont want to fight back is not fun. // yeah my english suck so what? // ----- Never knock on Death's door; ring the doorbell and run (he hates that)
LUKEC	Posted - 2006.06.13 11:36:00 - [57] me wonders when npc corp members cannot use lvl3 and lvl4 agents and mining barges. --------- Dead already?
B0rn2KiLL	Posted - 2006.06.13 11:51:00 - [58] Edited by: B0rn2KiLL on 13/06/2006 11:51:56 Originally by: Cmdr Sy Edited by: Cmdr Sy on 11/06/2006 10:38:01 I understand that not everyone wants to PVP, and this is NOT a war dec mechanism against NPC corps. someone, somecorp, somwhere will find a way to exploit it as such. however i see where your coming from and you do have a point. --- new sig, Hijack it and ill eat u. *Imaran hands B0rn2KiLL a fork - Come get some!11
Jamius	Posted - 2006.06.13 11:57:00 - [59] "I can't see any problem with allowing people to wardec a noob corp the, noob corp are after all members of a faction and if you want too fight Caldari State in Jita....." Hey Sebroth - I like that idea. It would probably mean too large a change to game mechanics to implement but factions should always be at war. For noobs - in their starting factions main space they should still be very safe as the NPC faction ships would protect them and fight and war targets. It would be brilliant deciding that you didn't like a particular NPC faction for role play or other reasons then deccing it but having a h3ll of a time entering their faction space after that due to constant NPC attacks. This game would just be hugely more exiting if this were the case and would make areas of space, local markets and race selection mean much much more. Sorry - off topic but I just really like that idea.
0August0	Posted - 2006.06.13 13:53:00 - [60] So I gather from the lack of replies to my question above that leaving a corp to avoid a war dec is NOT against CCP rules? . . . Regards, August Soldier of the Gooch
Cmdr Sy	Posted - 2006.06.15 17:11:00 - [61] Originally by: 0August0 What you guys (and gals) are really talking about here is the ability to declare war on not just corporations, but individuals as well. No. You can only war dec a corp, not an individual. But the individual is a war target until the current bill expires, if he leaves the warring corp. It is a particular and very temporary condition, and cannot be targeted in any way. I mean come on, you declare war, only minutes remain until it goes live, and a future target undocks in a Freighter, flies off to a hub for some shopping, and returns with an NPC corp ticker. Or a war target jumps into a noobcorp, and keeps bumping your ship while you camp a gate. But of course, silly me, they intended to leave all along. And later when the war is over and they're back in their original corp, well, it's just a coincidence, they discovered EVE just isn't the same without their old friends.
Tristan Acoma	Posted - 2006.06.15 17:41:00 - [62] What is the point of a war? To do damage to another corp - this can be to stop them from doing something, or in retribution for something done. In the real world, countries, entites fight over resources, but when engaging in a war at least one party is defending an asset, property, location, etc that forces confrontation. In EVE empire space, there is none of this - because there really aren't "better" .5 systems in terms of ore or anything that significantly impacts production, corps simply move their mining ops or turtle if losing. The fighter assets, etc, either fight or do not, but there is no penalty for inaction in terms of ISK. So the question is - if wars aren't being fought over territory (mining ops, etc), then what is the fight over? If it's ego, then it's time to call the waaaaaaambulance. One suggstion to what you're talking about would be to simply increase the time for a player to leave a corp that is in a state of war, but I suspect many would find it unacceptable.
0August0	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:26:00 - [63] Originally by: Cmdr Sy Originally by: 0August0 What you guys (and gals) are really talking about here is the ability to declare war on not just corporations, but individuals as well. No. You can only war dec a corp, not an individual. But the individual is a war target until the current bill expires, if he leaves the warring corp. It is a particular and very temporary condition, and cannot be targeted in any way. I mean come on, you declare war, only minutes remain until it goes live, and a future target undocks in a Freighter, flies off to a hub for some shopping, and returns with an NPC corp ticker. Or a war target jumps into a noobcorp, and keeps bumping your ship while you camp a gate. But of course, silly me, they intended to leave all along. And later when the war is over and they're back in their original corp, well, it's just a coincidence, they discovered EVE just isn't the same without their old friends. Well like i said in an earlier post, while i disagree with the idea of making people who have left a corp valid war targets, i do think there should be a penalty if they rejoin it later. Either a time delay penalty (perhaps several weeks) an ISK penalty (say 10 mill isk to rejoin that corp within several weeks) or some combination of both. Besides, I still haven't gotten a response to my request for an offical CCP statement that leaving a corp to avoid a war is against the rules of the game. AFAIK this remains a completely valid thing to do. . . . Regards, August Soldier of the Gooch
Cmdr Sy	Posted - 2006.06.15 20:18:00 - [64] An ISK penalty would unfairly penalise newer players. Can't be done. Forcing players to run the same war risk is egalitarian at least.
Tristan Acoma	Posted - 2006.06.16 20:53:00 - [65] Originally by: 0August0 Besides, I still haven't gotten a response to my request for an offical CCP statement that leaving a corp to avoid a war is against the rules of the game. AFAIK this remains a completely valid thing to do. FYI - a friend of mine petitioned this some tiem ago and the results were basically that you -can- leave a corp to avoid fighting, but leaving and then rejoining (to initate combat when odds are favorable) and then leaving and rejoining during wartime is unacceptable.
Kadreal	Posted - 2006.06.16 22:26:00 - [66] Oh no, now they are flagged for a week if they corp jump. No biggie. Now instead of just Corp Jumping they will corp jump and just play on their alt until their week is up. No change.

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.