Discussion is pointless if you aren’t even getting the terms right.
You are a pretty new player, but constantly refuse to take advice from veterans. What they do is NOT ganking. And it is NOT cheating. If you ever seek a solution to your problem, you have to accept these two facts.
If you cannot do that, you have already lost.
No change the devs can do will save you. You can only
learn to fight
OR
learn to avoid fights
You cannot block fights in any way shape or form in EVE Online. If someone wants to attack you, he CAN attack you. There is no hiding from that, except staying docked in an NPC station.
Technically you can also hide in space…either by staying cloaked or by flying in subwarp out to empty space in a very fast ship with low enough signature to not being able to be scanned down in time and warp there before you have left grid again.
This doesn’t sound like an exploit or a loophole. A corporation / pilot should be able to change alliances even if both were at war with the same target.
Consider what a solution might look like: When declaring war a check against each member would need to be done, prompting the popup One of your members was already at war with this entity, with X cooldown remaining. You’d then have to figure out which member was the culprit (or CCP would need to design something to facilitate this). If you accept an application, a check would need to be done to see if you are currently at war with an entity that the new applicant is currently on cooldown with. This would result in another prompt and a potential end to hostilities if the applicant is accepted.
The real question you should ask is “why is there a cooldown period in the first place?”
Comparing a 20 year old game with cryto driven slop winning argument where?
The tutorials are dangerous for PvE. The tutorial systems have rules against PvP.
Starter systems are safe zones. Pretty sure CCP will dish out a ban for ganking rookie ships and certain locations for a SOE mission. So technically its still a PvP area, only that its a PvP area with rules and more importantly, meaningful consequences and accountability for breaking them.
The lack of both is what is missing here.
Before the current iteration, wars were a 100:1 in favour of attacker with 5 corporations responsible for over half of all the aggressive wars. If that is not a license to print money not sure what is.
Flip this the other way. If they were an aggressing corporation and each time they got a kill timer for a structure, the corporation went to another alliance free of the war? Sounds like an exploit.
Alliance hopping to avoid a war was banned faster than a toilet stop in rattlesnake country. CCP acts very quickly to make changes which impacts destruction and very slowly to make changes which are abusive.
Abuse of game mechanic more so than cheating. If the two week ‘cannot declare war’ was tracked per pilot, ie, ‘if you have any pilot in your alliance that was just at war with X, your alliance cannot be involved in a war with X again until cooldown = 0’ this problem would be significantly reduced.
The argument is wars exist so people can structure bash?
Is PIRAT doing it wrong or is this just a differing of opinion?
The advice is bad and glosses over the rank hypocrisy between offensive and defensive abuse of game mechanics. It should be ignored.
Hiding behind ESS grids should also be an exploit.
Active war is an arguable position. Switching alliances after loosing a war? Completely different.
Yeah, that sounds like a good solution, wish I thought of that.
Pretty sure the original dev post the cooldown was added to limit an attackers ability to just spam war declarations.
The whole point of this thread isn’t about there being war decs, there being pvp, or even about lack of safe places to play. The point I was trying to make is that players are exploiting a loophole in the game mechanism responsible for cool down periods between war decs against the same parties. That the loophole is being exploited for consequence-free ganking in high sec space.
You keep saying this, and we keep saying that this statement is incorrect. A war requires an unfront cost, and the people in the defending corp know that they are in a war, it is NOT ganking and isn’t consequence free. If people don’t want to be fired at in a war, they can drop corp (or use an out of corp alt to move something).
As for the main part of your argument, we do acknowledge it, but the fix will take a long time to implement as it’s just members switching corps and making a whole new wardec. Even if a fix where put in place, people can just use alts to get around that.
At this point you can assume he simply doesn’t want to understand.
He should just realize that he and his group are obviously too weak to hold Citadels. Easy solution: Base onan NPC station, not owning structures. Problem solved…