| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Reply to Topic | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aka Sachi
State War Academy
Caldari State
0
    |
Posted - 2012.05.20 02:13:00 -
[1] - Quote
Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere, but I couldn't see it anywhere in the devblog.
Is the only way for an ally to "leave" a war is for the attacker or defender to surrender/stop paying the bills? (From this devblog the answer seems to be "yes". http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=28542 )
What are the ROE for allies? If they're in the same fleet, is there any concord intervention for "accidental" shooting, or are they treated like a Corp member and there are no penalties?
If so, what's to stop Corp A (say a group of 50 player) declaring war on Corp B (who are 3-5 alts of Corp A) then
Corp B begs/scams/hire's Corp C (say a group of 200 players) to join the war.
Corp A now has an perpetual war with Corp C so long as they are willing to pay the 50mil to wardec B. Corp C has no way of getting out of this war as well. Even better, Corp A has now effectively wardeced Corp C for the minimum cost of 50mil.
If there is no Concord intervention, Corp B can even join in and provide war intel/cause some purple on purple carnage (perhaps only once).
As to why a 50 member corp would want to wardec a 200 member merc corp who wants to engage in pvp, well maybe the 50 member corp will suddenly become 300 after C become allies of B.
As it is, I can't see anyone wanting to risk being permanently at war with a 3rd party. Useful for people like RvB, but ripe for exploits. |
Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
24
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 02:17:00 -
[2] - Quote
Yes, it has more holes than swiss cheese for players to exploit. You can see many of them already being pointed out in the devblog thread. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
445
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 15:18:00 -
[3] - Quote
Corp C got what it deserved for having 200 members and still unable to do some proper intel on their allies and enemies. And if Corp C is a proper PvP corp (carebear corps are not likely to risk any war) the 50 player corp are idiots for baiting something they can't hope to defeat.
That said, CCP already acknowledged the problem of mercs not liking contracts that will only end when one side surrenders. It might not make it to Inferno, because of the pressing deadline, but I'm betting this will be one of the first things CCP will add in the following patches.
Until then, the ally mechanic will likely remain unused.
Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-a Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt
Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Caellach Marellus
Aideron Robotics
Darkmatter Initiative
554
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 17:55:00 -
[4] - Quote
Corp A decs Corp B, pays 50 mil.
Corp B mutual's the war, war is now free and locked in until surrender.
Corp B recruits Corp C for allies. Corp C is now locked in to war with Corp A at no cost.
Corp B backstabs Corp C, while A grows in numbers. Corp C is stuck in a war that Corp A can leave any time by quickfixing a surrender with B.
Basically, if you're going to be mercs, make sure you're good ones.
Enjoy your gaming.
http://northern-goblin.blogspot.com |
Marsan
Production N Destruction INC.
30
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 00:40:00 -
[5] - Quote
Caellach Marellus wrote:Corp A decs Corp B, pays 50 mil.
Corp B mutual's the war, war is now free and locked in until surrender.
Corp B recruits Corp C for allies. Corp C is now locked in to war with Corp A at no cost.
Corp B backstabs Corp C, while A grows in numbers. Corp C is stuck in a war that Corp A can leave any time by quickfixing a surrender with B.
.
This won't work as when corp B makes the war mutual it kicks out the allies.
Edit Hmm maybe I'm wrong they are just thinking about that
"Another thing weGGVre looking into is to exclude the ally system from mutual wars GGt if a war has been made mutual, then no allies can be involved and existing ally contracts are cancelled. This mitigates a little the fact that now when a war is made mutual the only way for it to end is by surrender. WeGGVll monitor the early experience with the system post-Inferno and make a decision whether this change is needed/wanted." |
mxzf
Shovel Bros
1637
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 17:51:00 -
[6] - Quote
Already mentioned in the Ally devblog:
Devblog wrote:Setting a fixed contract length to ally contracts is one thing we want to do. While the current implementation is fine for the most part, there are a few edge cases where the eternal ally bond can become an issue. It should also make negotiations smoother, when the knowledge of the exact length of the contract is known beforehand.
So, yes, they're aware of this potential exploit, but it isn't a significant enough up-front issue to delay the launch. What you're describing is an edge case which they're planning on fixing, but isn't a wide-spread enough problem for them to put off everything else and delay the launch for it. I'll bet that they patch it within a month or so and reset all ongoing allies to let people re-make the allies with timers attached.
tl;dr: they know, they're working on it |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
337
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 19:33:00 -
[7] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:Until then, the ally mechanic will likely remain unused.
Oh, how wrong you are.
The skilful employer of men will employ the wise man, the brave man, the covetous man, and the stupid man.
Sun Tzu
localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
Deen Wispa
Screaming War Eagles Incorporated
260
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 20:00:00 -
[8] - Quote
Eternal Error wrote:Yes, it has more holes than swiss cheese for players to exploit. You can see many of them already being pointed out in the devblog thread.
Goon decs Corp XYZ. You ally with XYZ. You get a free wardec against Goons and get some nice ganks. What's not to like?
Anyways, yes there are definitely exploits. But some are there for a reason. You will see scams such as Corp A deccing Corp B. And then Corp C promising to help Corp B in exchange for isk but in reality, there are in cahoots with Corp A. CCP's response will be; "Working As Intended" . Aka C'est La Eve :)
C'est La Eve :)
Gallente Militia -aPVP Corp. Selective recruitment open.
http://iamsheriff.com/eagle.html |
Karl Planck
Heretic Army
Heretic Nation
167
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 20:01:00 -
[9] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:Tobiaz wrote:Until then, the ally mechanic will likely remain unused. Oh, how wrong you are.
hush sir! armchair generals are never wrong, NEVER!!!!
If you don't like it, you should go and ride your Emo high-horse all the way back to WoW.
|
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
1013
|
Posted - 2012.05.23 18:02:00 -
[10] - Quote
There's actually a worse scenario at the moment - which I'm not sure how this will play out.
1) Corp A belongs to alliance X, who are wardec'd by M & P for 5 more days
2) Corp A drops from the alliance
3) M & P now get wars against A
Now, point #3 sounds like it makes sense. That wars follow along when you drop from a wardec'd alliance. The problem is that those wars aren't setup with the same conditions (i.e. 5-day expiration to match the conditions of the alliance war), instead they are created as "mutual" wardecs from (M and P) to A. |
|
Maxpie
Metaphysical Utopian Society Explorations
128
|
Posted - 2012.05.24 00:20:00 -
[11] - Quote
Yeah, this whole perma-dec thing seems kind of wrong. I foresee lots of alt corps keeping high sec corps perma dec'ed. |
|
|
| |
Reply to Topic |
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |