open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked loophole in wardec system. CSM response asked for please
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Shaemell Buttleson
Posted - 2011.01.09 19:28:00 - [1]
 

Current Mechanics

You can wardec an Alliance that has a Corp with a Hi-sec POS that you want to blow up or ransom.

You put the POS into reinforced which exits reinforced 36 hours later.

Just before 24 hours are left on the POS reinforcement timer the Corp leaves the alliance.

So you have 24 hours left to shoot said Corp,
but during this 24 hour period you cannot wardec this corp so as your war ends with the corp the POS comes out of reinforcement and you can no longer agress it without being concorded.

This isn't an exploit as stated by GM's from several petitions.

Ok so you can now wardec the corp and after the 24 hour cooldown period you can commence shooting the fully repaired and often more defendable POS due to them being ready.

Also they can now rejoin the alliance and repeat the whole process.

Apparently not an exploit yet again from GM responses.

This wouldn't be an issue in low-sec or 0.0 but due to our wonderfull Concord officers it unfortunately is since it's in Hi-sec


To me this seems a seriously flawed mechanic and having had a response from 1 CSM member to say they agree with this I'd like to hear what others on the CSM (or even a dev but I won't hold my breath) have to say regarding this loophole which makes a destroyable asset pretty much invulnerable due to current war mechanics.

Thankyou for your time.



TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2011.01.09 22:43:00 - [2]
 

I believe that abusing the timers in this way should be classed as an exploit. It is clearly not working as intended.

There have been a few suggestions for how to stop this specific issue but the whole wardec system could do with some reworking too.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.01.10 11:21:00 - [3]
 

I'm on the same page as TD here.

captain foivos
Posted - 2011.01.10 14:23:00 - [4]
 

Complete overhaul of the wardec system?

I APPROVE

Also, while you're at it, give neutral logis aggro. Kthx.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.10 22:19:00 - [5]
 

I agree that it is an exploit, but several of the high sec wardec rules and mechanics are barely above exploits while others are so "griefer friendly" that it is embarrassing.

Unless the whole mechanic is redone the loopholes are needed as a balancing factor.

The simple fact that someone can declare a war and don't fight for weeks is one of the worst mechanics.




Shaemell Buttleson
Posted - 2011.01.10 23:04:00 - [6]
 

Thanks for your comments so far much apreciated.

There is a thread running on SHC right now and if you take the time to read it you will see there are ways to counter it but it is stupid the lengths you have to go to. Wardec POS loophole

More points of view from other CSM members would be apreciated.




Crazy KSK
Posted - 2011.01.10 23:15:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: captain foivos
Complete overhaul of the wardec system?

I APPROVE

Also, while you're at it, give neutral logis aggro. Kthx.


seconded

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.11 06:14:00 - [8]
 

Honest question, you've talked about GM responses. Did you escalate to a senior GM? That is, is this a problem with broken wardec mechanics or insufficiently trained junior GM's?

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.11 20:50:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Windjammer on 11/01/2011 20:57:11
This is absolutely an exploit, though you may have to run them through at least one more cycle of war dec avoidance to get a clear case to present.

The activity was judged by CCP to be an exploit back when there was a certain alliance offering war dec cleaning as a service. So the judgment is already in. If you have trouble convincing GMís of this, follow the advice of a previous poster in this thread and escalate.

Regards,
Windjammer

P.S. Kudos on your persistence.
P.P.S. Escalation is achieved through choosing the group Rules and Policies, category Game Masters and ISD when filing a petition. Contrary to some of what you may hear, the petition system really does work. Escalation is sometimes necessary because there are inexperienced GMís.

Shaemell Buttleson
Posted - 2011.01.12 02:17:00 - [10]
 

It was escalated and allthough the GM and Senior GM replies have been read on various forums they can't be shown on this one.

Basicly what this 1 corp did is similar to the Wardec cleaning alliance you mentioned but you are allowed to leave an alliance that has a war and you are allowed to rejoin said alliance again later.

I think a fair minded GM or senior GM for that matter could have used discretion in this and deemed it an exploit but I know this isn't a unique case and having dealt with similar cases they have to show consistency even if it is becoming glaringly obvious it's wrong.

I'm still waiting for more CSM viewpoints on this and indeed other aspects of the wardec system.
I'm sure potential voters are as well!Laughing




Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.12 08:59:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Windjammer
Edited by: Windjammer on 11/01/2011 20:57:11
This is absolutely an exploit, though you may have to run them through at least one more cycle of war dec avoidance to get a clear case to present.

The activity was judged by CCP to be an exploit back when there was a certain alliance offering war dec cleaning as a service. So the judgment is already in. If you have trouble convincing GMís of this, follow the advice of a previous poster in this thread and escalate.

Regards,
Windjammer

P.S. Kudos on your persistence.
P.P.S. Escalation is achieved through choosing the group Rules and Policies, category Game Masters and ISD when filing a petition. Contrary to some of what you may hear, the petition system really does work. Escalation is sometimes necessary because there are inexperienced GMís.



Do a bit of research. That ruling was rescinded.

You can find relatively recent tread (2-3 months ago) were there were Senior GM comments stating that leaving a wardecced alliance is non exploit under any circumstance, included a reinforced POS.




EhonVonnre
Posted - 2011.01.12 20:24:00 - [12]
 

I have no experience in wardec mechanics, but would this be a viable patch to current mechanics for this problem:

When a corp A leaves an alliance with an active war vs corp B, corp A is automatically at war with corp B for 24 more hours. The 24 hours are treated like the last day in a war-week.

This may cause problems due to the limit on active wars permitted by corps, but I'm not sure what problems that would cause.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.13 03:04:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Windjammer
Edited by: Windjammer on 11/01/2011 20:57:11
This is absolutely an exploit, though you may have to run them through at least one more cycle of war dec avoidance to get a clear case to present.

The activity was judged by CCP to be an exploit back when there was a certain alliance offering war dec cleaning as a service. So the judgment is already in. If you have trouble convincing GMís of this, follow the advice of a previous poster in this thread and escalate.

Regards,
Windjammer

P.S. Kudos on your persistence.
P.P.S. Escalation is achieved through choosing the group Rules and Policies, category Game Masters and ISD when filing a petition. Contrary to some of what you may hear, the petition system really does work. Escalation is sometimes necessary because there are inexperienced GMís.



Do a bit of research. That ruling was rescinded.

You can find relatively recent tread (2-3 months ago) were there were Senior GM comments stating that leaving a wardecced alliance is non exploit under any circumstance, included a reinforced POS.




Take your own advice. The ruling I referred to covered a repeating trend by the offending corporation. Warning to be issued when the activity is observed on a continuous basis and thereafter stronger sanctions. First offenses were not considered to be indicative nor were situations in which the evasion was not a part of a frequent trend.

This is why I advised a cycling, of the corporation in question, through the process at least one more time to build a case.

Inistis
V i r u s
Pendulum of Doom
Posted - 2011.01.14 18:45:00 - [14]
 

An actual fix for this problem would be this:

Upon declaring war on an alliance the wardec is actually counted against all the individual corps with-in the alliance. If a corp decides to leave alliance the wardec will carry over to the leaving corp. This will encourage a kind of fight together or die alone approach to alliances, encouraging alliances to to actually work together as intended.

Of course the leaving corp is only at war for the duration of the initial wardec - in which case the aggressor has the opportunity to "re-up" the war dec as usual.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.14 22:03:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Windjammer
Edited by: Windjammer on 11/01/2011 20:57:11
This is absolutely an exploit, though you may have to run them through at least one more cycle of war dec avoidance to get a clear case to present.

The activity was judged by CCP to be an exploit back when there was a certain alliance offering war dec cleaning as a service. So the judgment is already in. If you have trouble convincing GMís of this, follow the advice of a previous poster in this thread and escalate.

Regards,
Windjammer

P.S. Kudos on your persistence.
P.P.S. Escalation is achieved through choosing the group Rules and Policies, category Game Masters and ISD when filing a petition. Contrary to some of what you may hear, the petition system really does work. Escalation is sometimes necessary because there are inexperienced GMís.



Do a bit of research. That ruling was rescinded.

You can find relatively recent tread (2-3 months ago) were there were Senior GM comments stating that leaving a wardecced alliance is non exploit under any circumstance, included a reinforced POS.




Take your own advice. The ruling I referred to covered a repeating trend by the offending corporation. Warning to be issued when the activity is observed on a continuous basis and thereafter stronger sanctions. First offenses were not considered to be indicative nor were situations in which the evasion was not a part of a frequent trend.

This is why I advised a cycling, of the corporation in question, through the process at least one more time to build a case.



Wind I repeat, cheek your info, the ruling has been rescinded. Point.

The added part was about the OP specific problem as I was pointing that the new ruling include his problem, but not only that. Leaving and reentering in a alliance multiple times when war decced is no more an exploit. That was clearly stated by a Senior GM some months ago.

Maybe it is a but unclear to you but "under any circumstance" mean exactly that: under any circumstance.


Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.15 01:44:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
Wind I repeat, cheek your info, the ruling has been rescinded. Point.

The added part was about the OP specific problem as I was pointing that the new ruling include his problem, but not only that. Leaving and reentering in a alliance multiple times when war decced is no more an exploit. That was clearly stated by a Senior GM some months ago.

Maybe it is a but unclear to you but "under any circumstance" mean exactly that: under any circumstance.
*Windjammer gets a mirror to check his cheeks, finds nothing wrong and suspects heís the ďbuttĒ of a practical joke.*

CCP made a very big deal when they put forth the ruling Iím citing. They were very rigid, very clear, highly public and most serious. Unless theyíve had a changing of the guard or simply got tired of enforcing their ruling, rescinding it makes no sense.

However, if youíd care to link the information and it supports your claim, Iíll be grateful for the information. If not, Iíll have to believe you mistaken on this issue.

-Windjammer

Laechyd Eldgorn
Caldari
draketrain
Posted - 2011.01.15 11:10:00 - [17]
 

This is should be exploit because in hi sec you cannot shoot pos without wardec.



Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.15 12:17:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Venkul Mul on 15/01/2011 12:21:24
Originally by: Windjammer

However, if youíd care to link the information and it supports your claim, Iíll be grateful for the information. If not, Iíll have to believe you mistaken on this issue.

-Windjammer



I must admit defeat.

I am still pretty sure to have read a GM/DEV statement rescinding that ruling, but after spending really too much time searching for that post I have found nothing, while I have found a recent (June 2010, here) statement by GM Grimmi citing that ruling explicitly.

Taken in contest with the whole thread leaving a alliance while wardecced and with a POS in reinforcement to refuel it and then rejoining the alliance is already a petitionable exploit.

Originally by: Shaemell Buttleson

Ok so you can now wardec the corp and after the 24 hour cooldown period you can commence shooting the fully repaired and often more defendable POS due to them being ready.

Also they can now rejoin the alliance and repeat the whole process.

Apparently not an exploit yet again from GM responses.



Try escalating the petition and point to GM Grimmi post above.
From her words "repeating" the process is a exploit.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.01.17 16:53:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Trebor Daehdoow on 04/02/2011 14:30:17
EDIT: I screwed up. I got some emails confused. The actual reality is that I don't have an answer to this question yet.

Thus, the following is incorrect. My bad.

My spies inside CCP report that this is "working as intended"

Many Bothans died getting you this information, hope it was worth it.


Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.18 21:44:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
I must admit defeat.

I am still pretty sure to have read a GM/DEV statement rescinding that ruling, but after spending really too much time searching for that post I have found nothing, while I have found a recent (June 2010, here) statement by GM Grimmi citing that ruling explicitly.

Taken in contest with the whole thread leaving a alliance while wardecced and with a POS in reinforcement to refuel it and then rejoining the alliance is already a petitionable exploit.
It was gracious of you to admit and a service to the community for you to put in the link to GM Grimmiís June 2010 posting.

This would not be the first time Iíve seen junior GMís say one thing and senior/lead GMís another, so I suspect you actually did see something that at least had the appearance of rescinding the ruling in question.

Best regards,
Windjammer

Sergiiy Kortos
J5 Industries
Posted - 2011.01.19 19:52:00 - [21]
 

Have you tried alphaing said pos?

get 500 tempests - easy peasy.

Arden Elenduil
Minmatar
The League of Extraordinary Mentlegen
Posted - 2011.02.01 08:31:00 - [22]
 

Should definitely be classified as an exploit until the wardec system gets completely overhauled.

As for the GM's response, that's another thing that really should get adjusted. We need more congruency in the rulings of GM's, right now they each have their own opinion and act upon it. We need a general ruleset about the different topics and how they should be handled for the GM's to use.

Larkonis Trassler
Doctrine.
Posted - 2011.02.02 07:52:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Larkonis Trassler on 02/02/2011 07:52:15
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
My spies inside CCP report that this is "working as intended"

Many Bothans died getting you this information, hope it was worth it.




Maybe it is working as intended but is it working the way it should be? This is, essentially, an immunity for Hisec POS. If you and your ALLIANCE (and I realise that many hisec ones are marriages of convenience) can't defend your assets then do you deserve them?

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.02.03 09:20:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Larkonis Trassler
[Maybe it is working as intended but is it working the way it should be?


Ah, well, that is a different question. I would not be surprised if the CSM addressed a well-supported proposal in AH regarding this issue.

It should be clear to everyone that POS's need a ton of work.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.02.04 07:00:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler
[Maybe it is working as intended but is it working the way it should be?


Ah, well, that is a different question. I would not be surprised if the CSM addressed a well-supported proposal in AH regarding this issue.

It should be clear to everyone that POS's need a ton of work.
Whatís wrong with POSís? This is a question of how corps are able to avoid war decs, isnít it? The OP could destroy the POS heís writing about if it werenít for the corp who owns it cleaning the war decs by joining and leaving an alliance.

-Windjammer

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.02.04 11:51:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Trebor Daehdoow on 04/02/2011 14:31:33
Edited by: Trebor Daehdoow on 04/02/2011 11:53:51
Originally by: Windjammer
Whatís wrong with POSís? This is a question of how corps are able to avoid war decs, isnít it?


Yes, but it's an interaction with POS mechanics. There's a lot of support for a real overhaul of POS's, and this might get folded in with that, or used as another example of POS-related things that need to be fixed.

I apologize if insufficient serum caffeine levels rendered me susceptible to imprecise language.

UPDATE: I got some emails confused, so I actually didn't get an answer about this loophole. I actually asked and received an answer about another game-design question. I have re-asked the question.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.02.04 21:29:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: Windjammer
Whatís wrong with POSís? This is a question of how corps are able to avoid war decs, isnít it?


Yes, but it's an interaction with POS mechanics. There's a lot of support for a real overhaul of POS's, and this might get folded in with that, or used as another example of POS-related things that need to be fixed.

I apologize if insufficient serum caffeine levels rendered me susceptible to imprecise language.

UPDATE: I got some emails confused, so I actually didn't get an answer about this loophole. I actually asked and received an answer about another game-design question. I have re-asked the question.
Color me tuned in and eagerly awaiting the referenced answer.

Whereís the POS overhaul discussion being held and which POS mechanics interact with war decs? Inquiring minds need to know.

-Windjammer

Larkonis TrassIer
State Breast Inspectorate
Posted - 2011.02.05 02:22:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: Larkonis TrassIer on 05/02/2011 02:22:18
To be fair, it seems that common a problem that increasing the cooldown time of a wardec carrying over to a corp leaving a decced Alliance should be upped to 48 or even 72 hours. No need to mess with POS mechanics (I'm sure that would make MANY at CCP people happy, not to say that they don't need looking at in the futre) as far as this issue is concerned and it might encourage a bit more of a fight rather than flight response.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.02.20 18:33:00 - [29]
 

Hmmm........still waiting for an answer, Trebor.

-Windjammer

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.02.21 11:26:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Windjammer
Hmmm........still waiting for an answer, Trebor.


Me too... will repoke...


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only