Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lady Whipcrack
The Monocled Elite
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 18:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
Currently the cost of war is based on the size of the entity you are declaring war on.
Example:
You are a 10 man corp. You declare war on a 2000 man corp. Cost = 500m You are a 2000 man corp. You declare war on a 2000 man corp. Cost = 500m You are a 2000 man corp. You declare war on a 10 man corp. Cost = almost nothing
This creates the following issues:
1) An ISK barrier for smaller corporations who may have valid reasons (revenge, etc) for wanting to wardec a larger corp 2) An RP issue. If you are paying for CONCORD war licences, why is the cost the same for a 2 man corp as a 2000 man corp? 3) Protection for larger entities in the form of ISK barriers - entities who least need the protection 4) No such disincentive for large organisations to declare war on smaller ones - i.e. entities based in empire who can be genuinely hurt or destroyed by a wardec 5) It cannot be reasonable for a 2000 man corp to pay nothing to wardec a 10 man corp, but if the small corps wants to do the same thing in return, they have to pay 500m.
I propose the following simple change:
The cost of wardecs should be based on the size of the corp or alliance declaring war. This makes sense because...
* Cost will scale with ability to pay * Larger corps/alliances should pay more on an RP level, i.e. more CONCORD war licences for their pilots * Smaller entities will no longer be placed at a significant disadvantage by this game mechanic * It will remove ISK barriers and encourage more war declarations against large entites who are well placed to deal with them (and no doubt enjoy them) * It gives a boost to small corporations who are more free to go to war from a financial perspective * It will encourage larger entites to think carefully about their wardecs due to the higher costs involved * It provides a disincentive against blobbing
Example of how this will work:
Wardecs cost 1m per member, per week. Each simultaneous wardec increases in cost by 50%.
So, if you are a 10 man corp: The first wardec costs you 10m ISK per week. The second 15m. The third 22.5mm etc. You may declare war on up to 5 entities at any one time. If you're an 2000 man alliance, the first wardec costs 2000m per week, the second 3000m, and so on.
Obviously these figures could be adjusted - that's open for debate. But the principal is that wardec costs scale with ability to pay, and do not place smaller entities at a significant disadvantage to larger ones. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
204
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 18:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
I think a hybrid of the two systems would be best. Instead of paying for your members to have targets, or paying for more targets, pay for your members having more targets.
Cost of war should scale with AgressorCorpMembers+DefendingCorpMembers. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks The Marmite Collective
2217
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 19:45:00 -
[3] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Cost of war should scale with AgressorCorpMembers+DefendingCorpMembers.
This is what I've advocated for a long time. It's silly that a major alliance can dec a tiny corp for 50 mil, but that corp can't initiate the same war without paying 500 mil.
Wardec cost should be the same regardless of which entity is the aggressor. The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
Lady Whipcrack
The Monocled Elite
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 12:13:00 -
[4] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Cost of war should scale with AgressorCorpMembers+DefendingCorpMembers. It's silly that a major alliance can dec a tiny corp for 50 mil, but that corp can't initiate the same war without paying 500 mil.
I think this is the crux of the issue. The current system is blatantly skewed against smaller entities.
|
Jint Hikaru
OffWorld Exploration Inc
268
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 15:03:00 -
[5] - Quote
Lady Whipcrack wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Cost of war should scale with AgressorCorpMembers+DefendingCorpMembers. It's silly that a major alliance can dec a tiny corp for 50 mil, but that corp can't initiate the same war without paying 500 mil. I think this is the crux of the issue. The current system is blatantly skewed against smaller entities.
Totally agree... its a messed up system that greatly favors the larger entities.
Jint Hikaru - Miner / Salvager / Explorer / SpaceBum In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. |
Lady Whipcrack
The Monocled Elite
13
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 14:59:00 -
[6] - Quote
I'd love to hear the rationale for the changes and why smaller entities must pay vastly more for the SAME WAR than the larger entity.... |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
932
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 15:16:00 -
[7] - Quote
If the cost depends on the size of the aggressor:
Aggressor corp has everyone drop to get a small size. Aggressor declares war. Everyone who dropped re-joins aggressor corp.
Alternative: Have two corps, one of which is just a one man corp. That corp makes the war dec, then everyone else jumps from one corp to the other.
If the rules allow the aggressor corp to control the cost of the war, they will take actions that minimize the cost.
However this would work if:
While at war you declared, adding a member to your corp incurs an additional charge to CONCORD for that war. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
35
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 15:21:00 -
[8] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:If the cost depends on the size of the aggressor:
Aggressor corp has everyone drop to get a small size. Aggressor declares war. Everyone who dropped re-joins aggressor corp.
Alternative: Have two corps, one of which is just a one man corp. That corp makes the war dec, then everyone else jumps from one corp to the other.
If the rules allow the aggressor corp to control the cost of the war, they will take actions that minimize the cost.
However this would work if:
While at war you declared, adding a member to your corp incurs an additional charge to CONCORD for that war.
This seems like a good compromise. |
Lady Whipcrack
The Monocled Elite
13
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 15:45:00 -
[9] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:
However this would work if:
While at war you declared, adding a member to your corp incurs an additional charge to CONCORD for that war.
Yes, if there is a cost per member, this would seem to make sense |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
166
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 15:49:00 -
[10] - Quote
ive always thought the war dec mechanic was a lil screwwed up, i do understand the higher number of people in the corp being war dec'd = higher cost cause you are essentially bribing Concord officials to 'look the other eay' in hisec when u initiate a fight.
BUT, i do feel its horrendously simplistic currently, and makes no use of some deep routed mechanics that could well be used to make war decs much more sensible, less prone to abuse and more realistic and imersive. Ill explain...
war decing a corp is effectively bribing official police to look the other way. now... if you were the one being war dec'd and u were really good m8's with the police, ud think itd cost more to 'persuade' him to ignore that someones come over and tried to knife you, for example. so bringing that out of RL and back into the game... shouldnt a corps standings to both concord and the 4 hisec factions come in to play?
and if so.. can we also have options where we can war dec someone in just a certain area of hisec.. like amarr space? or caldari space?
itd also make pursuits cool too, with a war target trying to get to the border b4 being caught, and you and a few friends in hot persuit?
wouldnt that be cool? =) |
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
933
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 23:03:00 -
[11] - Quote
Supposedly the war fee is not a bribe. The war dec mechanic is part of the treaty that set up CONCORD. When CONCORD was proposed, the corps of eve said they would oppose it unless there was a mechanism that allowed for resolution of differences via force of arms. The result was the ability to formally declare war. The fee is to help pay for CONCORD day to day expenses. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1509
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 23:15:00 -
[12] - Quote
Lady Whipcrack wrote:I'd love to hear the rationale for the changes and why smaller entities must pay vastly more for the SAME WAR than the larger entity.... Because in actual game use, the purpose that players were paying for wardecs was to purchase targets to shoot at in highsec. Not to contest resources or deny services or even inflict meaningful damage to the defender, but just paying for targets. Hence, the larger alliances dealt with an unending flood of insignificant wardecs from highsec (because it was cost-effective for the station hub campers while meaningless on a large alliance level) while actual highsec PVP was replaced largely with suicide ganking.
With that rationale, instead of expanding the scope and capacity of what highsec wardecs meant and were capable of, CCP retained the 'pay for targets' essence of highsec wardecs and merely changed it so that wardec'ing large alliances was less cost-effective.
The problem with your suggestion is that it restores the main problem with the old wardec system; the frivolously-made wardec. Wardecs return to their old purpose of 'ganking nullsec pilots too lazy to use a NPC hauling alt via alliance contracting service' and not actual highsec PVP.
What could be done is that wardec costs could be calculated on the total number of players both attacking and defending. That way both large and small alliance would be paying the same wardec fee for the same war. |
Herping yourDerp
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
639
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 06:20:00 -
[13] - Quote
Lady Whipcrack wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Cost of war should scale with AgressorCorpMembers+DefendingCorpMembers. It's silly that a major alliance can dec a tiny corp for 50 mil, but that corp can't initiate the same war without paying 500 mil. I think this is the crux of the issue. The current system is blatantly skewed against smaller entities.
actually you are sorta wrong for a big reason. free allies..
go to the forum "XXX 2000 man alliance war decced us, who wants to be my allie and get free kills"
everyone and their mom will be your ally, though they wouldn't exactly defend you, any highsec pvp/grief corp would probably join in.
|
Lady Whipcrack
The Monocled Elite
13
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 09:35:00 -
[14] - Quote
Herping yourDerp wrote:
actually you are sorta wrong for a big reason. free allies..
go to the forum "XXX 2000 man alliance war decced us, who wants to be my allie and get free kills"
everyone and their mom will be your ally, though they wouldn't exactly defend you, any highsec pvp/grief corp would probably join in.
We haven't really discussed the ally system here, but I think this would also need addressing. The current system is, again, very expensive if lots of smaller entities try to band together against a larger one who declared war.
Again, the system is skewed massively in favour of large entities by design. That can't be right, it simply isn't fair or logical. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |