How To Wardec Non-War-Eligible Corps

[Xeux]

You are the fool that is ignoring all of the evidence you have about reality.

Maybe you need a space lawyer to help you with your case.

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Nevyn_Auscent

That role should do it’s job.

And it does. It determines who can use stations and other major structures. Remember, the role is “structures”, not “determine war eligibility”. This is a situation that is easily fixed by minor documentation changes to clarify which structures the “structures” role applies to.

Or, as I said, we could go back to the old system where every corp is war eligible. Limit wars of aggression to three per corp or five per alliance, make a character’s war status apply to them for the duration of the war even if they leave the corp, restore the old watch list behavior, problem solved.

[Nevyn_Auscent]

@Merin_Ryskin

“structures”, not “determine war eligibility”.

Structures do determine war eligibility though, And POCO’s are a structure.
By all means go and petition CCP to change the war dec system (And I’ll bother disagreeing with you in that thread with reasons why at that stage), but in the mean time roles should actually do what they say they do. Not have giant gaping holes in them.

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Nevyn_Auscent

Structures do determine war eligibility though

Yes, but that is an implicit assumption and not the title of the role. Fix the documentation so it clarifies that not all war-eligibility structures are included in the role, problem solved. Any character can flag a corp as war eligible at any time, only characters with the role can deploy/configure stations or other major structures.

[Merin_Ryskin]

Now, is this an ideal solution? No. But it’s the best we’ve got until CCP fixes the war system in a more comprehensive way.

[Nevyn_Auscent]

Or they could… Fix the role.

[Merin_Ryskin]

Which would then require additional changes to the war system to allow a means for any corp member to duplicate the current functionality and volunteer their corp for war eligibility. It’s easier to just document the current system properly.

[Nevyn_Auscent]

@Merin_Ryskin

Which would then require additional changes to the war system

No it wouldn’t. It just needs the role fixed to include POCO Gantries.
Anything else is a change to the current system. the POCO is a gap/flaw/exploit.
If you want to claim any corp member is meant to be able to volunteer their corp for war eligibility, then please go and find a CCP quote saying so from a Dev Blog, prove it or shut up.

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Nevyn_Auscent

prove it

Despite extensive public discussion of the so-called exploit (including detailed instructions for how to use it) no changes have been made and no “stop doing this or get banned” notifications have been issued, despite similar warnings being given prior to fixing previous exploits. It is clear CCP policy at this point that, regardless of what design intent may have been months ago, the current functionality is as it should be.

And yes, changes to duplicate the current functionality would be necessary. It is so obviously good for the game that failure to maintain the current functionality would be a massive error in judgement.

[Nevyn_Auscent]

@Merin_Ryskin

It is so obviously good for the game

No it’s not good for the game.
Hidden mechanics that can be “Exploited” are always bad for the game.
You just want to be able to abuse it so you call it good.

I also note a lack of proof, thanks for admitting that there is none.

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Nevyn_Auscent

Hidden mechanics that can be “Exploited” are always bad for the game.

Thus I believe that CCP should document the feature properly, at which point it is no longer hidden.

I also note a lack of proof, thanks for admitting that there is none.

I provided indisputable proof, you just don’t like it. If this was actually an exploit CCP would not be permitting open discussion of it on their forums, complete with full instructions on how to use the feature.

[Dimitryy]

So just to be clear Merin, you truly believe that it is in the game’s best interest for the documentation on wardecs to say one thing but the ingame mechanics to do another thing entirely?

That is good for the game?

Because while obviously we would like the wardec system to function as advertised, we are only actually asking for a response. Are you saying that CCP’s silence is the right choice?

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Dimitryy

So just to be clear Merin, you truly believe that it is in the game’s best interest for the documentation on wardecs to say one thing but the ingame mechanics to do another thing entirely?

No, that’s not what I said. It is in the game’s best interest for every member of a corp to be able to volunteer their corp for war eligibility, even if the means for doing so is a bit less than elegant. I am fully in agreement with the idea that CCP should document this feature properly.

I am not, of course, in agreement with ICANP leadership’s pathetic evasion of responsibility and insistence that they shouldn’t have to take measures to prevent (or even win!) the war by force because it’s an “exploit”.

[Destiny_Alar]

@Merin_Ryskin

Yes, it is 100% a coincidence that one of the most hated people on the forums got his corp hit with a war dec as soon as people figured out a way to do it…

your argument is flawed because it isnt just us they are doing it to EVERYONE

@Max_Deveron

In My opinion, considering that your CEO has abandoned ICANP and run away from EvE…
You all should just drop corp, create new one and inform Sabus to go get bent and put him all his known alts on a black list.

he hasnt abandoned us? he is on daily, constantly communicating with us, and interacting. your information is bad about sabus XD

@Nevyn_Auscent

So yeah… You don’t have a viable vetting procedure for recruiting in game. Just as I thought.

our recruiting policy shouldnt have bearing as its a BUG. if its NOT a bug the players should be informed in tickets and then we would adjust our policies

@Mevatla_Vekraspek

You are running a newb friendly corp, that’s your job to teach them… or maybe you are just here for the taxes…

Sabus spends 90% of his time in game teaching and doing ■■■■ for the corp and its members.

To Everyone here bitching about ICANP, if we were such a toxic corp that uses people dont you think we would have died by now? instead we are one of the largest High Sec Corps around and growing.
and once again it shouldnt matter what our recruiting policies are or what yall think of us, exploiting a bug is exploiting a bug and should be PUNISHED. or if its not a bug TELL US when we open tickets that its not a bug so that we can make adjustments. instead the only REACTION from CCP we have had was WE HEARD WE ARE LOOKING INTO IT PRIVACY blah blah blah. but its simple, either its broken, and therefore an exploit, and therefore actionable under terms of service, OR its NOT broken and we need to change our policies. fixing it and punishing people for exploiting it are 2 different jobs. Devs fix, GMs punish.

[Destiny_Alar]

@Merin_Ryskin

I am not, of course, in agreement with ICANP leadership’s pathetic evasion of responsibility and insistence that they shouldn’t have to take measures to prevent (or even win!) the war by force because it’s an “exploit”.

we have started to take measures, but how many times is WeR4 going to be allowed to do this to EVERYONE (guys pay attention its not just us) before they get punished (if its an exploit) (it is)
if its not an exploit it needs to be documented

[Nevyn_Auscent]

Learn to read.
Go back and read what you quoted me saying again, then work out who it was talking to and what it was talking about.

Though honestly Sabus, your alts are obvious and I shed no tears for your corp getting wrecked, you guys have asked for it.
But that doesn’t mean it isn’t an exploit, just that people are going to screw you regardless.

[Destiny_Alar]

wait you think im sabus?

[Nevyn_Auscent]

You sound just like Sabus.
You use the same terrible arguments.
Sabus is 99% Narian, who also loves to use a million obvious alts.
So… Honestly, yeah.

However, that still has no bearing on your inability to read.

[Destiny_Alar]

@Nevyn_Auscent

You sound just like Sabus.
You use the same terrible arguments.
Sabus is 99% Narian, who also loves to use a million obvious alts.
So… Honestly, yeah.

not the first time i have heard this actually. im am in fact, not Sabus, and the arguments we use are not terrible, you just dont like them. and you dont like them because they came from ICANP. if ANY other corp was here saying this then people wouldnt be reacting this way.
my ability to read seems intact, i went back and read what i quoted and my replies i dont see a miscommunication. your argument about it being because of sabus is incorrect. WeR4 actually didnt start war deccing us until about a week ago. they started with SICO alliance about 3 weeks ago and we left, just to be out of it, and it took them about 2 weeks to get to us. these guys arent doing this because they dont like sabus, they are doing it to EVERYONE because they CAN.

though granted, peoples “love” of ICANP would definitely make us an appealing target, but that isnt WeR4’s agenda

[Scipio_Artelius]

@Nevyn_Auscent

So yeah… You don’t have a viable vetting procedure for recruiting in game. Just as I thought.

Having been a recruiter for a long time, I think the only real approach guaranteed to work is:

1. Don’t be a dick
2. Don’t vet new applicants
3. Don’t give any roles or expose the corp to large losses
4. Vet people when they are being considered for a position that brings risk with it

Really, just following rule 1 makes a corp a non-target anyway for the most part.

Sabus breaks rule 1, hence rules 2-4 no longer apply because being a dick has consequences. So there is no vetting process he could implement at this point.