Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ChinDownEyesUp Arkaral
United Wolfs Nations
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 15:23:32 -
[1] - Quote
my GÇ£qualificationsGÇ¥: been in wardec corps of my own making for over a year. being in both small wardec corps and larger more organized ones as well as interacting with the biggest and most popular wardec corps on a regular basis. Honestly, it doesnGÇÖt take a veteran to understand the business and its current flaws and stagnation.
Goals:
A wardec system that encourages small or medium sized corps to engage targets for potential isk.
A re-vamp of the bounty system and wardec cost scaling couples together to create an environment where corporation/alliance bounties encourage wardecs for monetary gain while maintaining the ability to dec anyone for any reason.
Wardec cost changes:
As many have pointed out in the past the current system encourages large entities to dec small ones in mass quantities due to the cost of the wardec going up as per the player count of the corp being decced. This should be reversed so that deccing an corp larger than the one you are in results in a cheaper dec and deccing an corp that you are larger than results in a high cost.
I also feel that the lowermost values for decs should be lowered from what they are currently to a minimum of 25mil rather than 50mil to further lower the barrier of entry for small wardec corps and also lower the rate at which a bounty will be accrued (explained next). On the subject of wardec costs I have no strong feeling one way or the other towards them and feel that they can be raised and lowered without any real drastic effect. With that said if anyone posts something that convinces me of the importance of changing the prices it will still fit within the new system. |
ChinDownEyesUp Arkaral
United Wolfs Nations
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 15:23:42 -
[2] - Quote
Bounty changes:
Any time an corp/alliance declares war on another corp/alliance, the cost of that wardec is placed as a bounty on the deccing corp/alliance with a limit of 10 bil.
the primary benefit of this change is to encourage decs for all entities. by adding the ability for all wardec costs to be at minimum made back should the deccing corp kill enough isk during the war. This will take away much of the necessity for other players to pay for content through contracts. Also, the current need for large alliances with the ability to pay the upfront dec costs is lessened.
The hard cap of 10 bil isk is to dissuade dog piling on the corp with the highest bounty while still giving a large potential return on successful wars. The upper limit also means that at it would take 400 minimum cost deccs to reach the cap or 20 maximum cost deccs. This will mean large wardec alliances will have to risk the attention of the entire wardec community if they choose to dec corps/alliances much smaller than themselves as their bounty will go up much faster.
Since the cost of the dec is added as a bounty to the deccing corp, the entities with the highest bounties will inevitably be wardec corps. meaning that the juiciest targets will be other wardeccers rather than corps that lose the most ships. This removes what some see as the griefing mechanic of the current system where corps that lose ships are decced by every wardec corp looking to get in on good kills. while this system disincentivizes deccing weak or GÇ£badGÇ¥ corps/alliances it does not remove it as an option. also, it will mean that a corp that chooses to do this can still do so even better than before as they will always be able to make the dec cost back at minimum.
Another complaint from the carebears is that the wardec players that currently participate use extremely blingy ships along with neutral logi, links, and eyes that give them an extremely unbalanced advantage against their opponents. Given that wardec corps will quickly acquire bounties, any corp or alliances that is being harassed by bling wielding wardeccers will have an incentive to fight back in the form of monetary gain. While I understand that this will not be enough of an incentive for many highsec corps to fight back, I donGÇÖt think they should be given any special treatment for essentially being unwilling combatants and i think i can say that the majority of GÇ£badGÇ¥ highsec corps that donGÇÖt participate in PVP donGÇÖt participate because they absolutely donGÇÖt want to rather than because of some skewed reward mechanic. If baiting and blobbing a blinged out ship for not only a high bounty payout but for the chance to GÇ£winGÇ¥ the war and have some fun is not enough of an incentive than i doubt anything will shake that mindset. At the very least, this change will put more eyes on the wardeccers with large bounties so the highsec corps and alliances will be more likely to go unnoticed.
Since this system will bring attention to the bounty system, players looking to pay for wardec services can simply place a bounty on the corp they wish to have decced. Wardeccers constantly looking for juicy targets will see an corp that is not another wardec corp with a bounty they can extract. All they need to do is put up the initial wardec cost and they can potentially make back more than they paid in without having to be paid by other players directly through negotiations. |
ChinDownEyesUp Arkaral
United Wolfs Nations
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 15:25:10 -
[3] - Quote
TLDR Rundown:
change wardec scaling to give the lowest cost to small wardecing large and the highest cost to large deccing small.
have every wardecGÇÖs cost be added to the deccing corp as a bounty.
benefits:
corps must balance skill with numbers since every additional pilot reduces dec costs against you and raises dec costs against others which then adds to your corp/alliances bounty
wardec corps can now choose targets exactly as they have been with the potential to make back the entire dec cost. low risk low reward
they can also choose to fight each other for the potentially highest payout as wardec corps will quickly rack up large bounties. high risk high reward.
players that choose to put large decs on non-wardec corps/alliances can tip the risk/reward balance of entities they want to be decced to ensure visibility among wardec corps.
wardecced entities that fight back can kill blingy wardec ships to get large bounty payouts since wardec corps will always have large bounties.
wardec corps will rely less on contracts where they feel they have to perform well in order to continue to get contracts which could take the toxic attitude of kb efficiency and risk aversion out of the current mentality. |
Leto Aramaus
Spiritus Draconis Spaceship Bebop
253
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 15:36:54 -
[4] - Quote
Quote: change wardec scaling to give the lowest cost to small wardecing large and the highest cost to large deccing small.
This makes sense right?
Why isn't it already like that? Am I missing something?
The UI update we deserve
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out
8716
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 15:57:16 -
[5] - Quote
Hmmmm... not bad.
How did you Veterans start?
The Skillpoint System and You
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2260
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 17:24:13 -
[6] - Quote
Leto Aramaus wrote:Quote: change wardec scaling to give the lowest cost to small wardecing large and the highest cost to large deccing small.
This makes sense right? Why isn't it already like that? Am I missing something?
I think it was because it was though around the fact that deccing larger corps gave you a larger target selection thus was worth more money than deccing smaller corps.
Not saying I agree with that train of though but I think that's where it came from.
As for the OP's idea, I'm not sure the bounty being put on the deccers will really push other to declare on them. Will people really go after season vet just for a little more ISK when they know the ships they would kill right now are bling fit anyway thus kill can alraedy be profitable? Will PoH for example be more tempted to declare war on marmitte because of a bounty? |
Ecrir Twy'Lar
Federation Navy 3rd Fleet
16
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 18:07:08 -
[7] - Quote
I am not really sure the price of the wardec has much to do with anything. Is a 25m cost difference really going to bother anyone? I really don't like the wardec system in general as it gives people a nice safe place to legally gank other players. Most of these wardec's appear to be towards corporations with pilots who tend to not fight back. Seems to me that if you want a real fight, just go out into low and null. |
ChinDownEyesUp Arkaral
United Wolfs Nations
1
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 18:09:10 -
[8] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Leto Aramaus wrote:Quote: change wardec scaling to give the lowest cost to small wardecing large and the highest cost to large deccing small.
This makes sense right? Why isn't it already like that? Am I missing something? I think it was because it was though around the fact that deccing larger corps gave you a larger target selection thus was worth more money than deccing smaller corps. Not saying I agree with that train of though but I think that's where it came from. As for the OP's idea, I'm not sure the bounty being put on the deccers will really push other to declare on them. Will people really go after season vet just for a little more ISK when they know the ships they would kill right now are bling fit anyway thus kill can alraedy be profitable? Will PoH for example be more tempted to declare war on marmitte because of a bounty?
i never expect marmite PoH or forsaken to ever really dec each other, nor do i think these changes will do that.
what im hoping is that the changes in dec cost will make smaller groups more efficient than the large groups we have now. after the playing field has more small groups who can pay for their own content through wars i would expect to see a few groups who "specialize" in going after other wardec groups.
in the end, it is my primary goal to make wardecs more sustainable as a "profession" without having to join one of the major groups. even if after these changes those big dec alliances stay exactly the same, it will not mean a failure of the system. after all i think they have more than earned their titles and size |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14479
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 18:27:11 -
[9] - Quote
The only thing that needs "fixed" about wars right now is that they can be dodged trivially, the exploit used for which defeats wars' intended purpose.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
ChinDownEyesUp Arkaral
United Wolfs Nations
1
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 18:35:49 -
[10] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:The only thing that needs "fixed" about wars right now is that they can be dodged trivially, the exploit used for which defeats wars' intended purpose.
Honestly in the time that i spent declaring wars, i would say around 15% actually roll corp.
If the target you dec rolls corp to avoid your dec, that means you didn't do your research. it should be very obvious beforehand the kind of resources and effort that goes into maintaining the target corp and if they can roll then they aren't worth deccing anyway. |
|
ChinDownEyesUp Arkaral
United Wolfs Nations
1
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 18:41:54 -
[11] - Quote
Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote:I am not really sure the price of the wardec has much to do with anything. Is a 25m cost difference really going to bother anyone? I really don't like the wardec system in general as it gives people a nice safe place to legally gank other players. Most of these wardec's appear to be towards corporations with pilots who tend to not fight back. Seems to me that if you want a real fight, just go out into low and null.
i've been waiting for this response
as for the wardec cost, remember that currently 50mil is the lowest and i agree its not a devastating amount. but the price for deccing large alliances can go as high as 500mil, and i think we can both agree that is far more significant.
as you stated many decs are against targets that cannot or will not fight back, but most of the time i feel this is because those targets also stay in small corporations where the dec cost is low. if this was the opposite, i think you would find wardec corps far more willing to dec larger and more active targets due to the reduced isk cost.
i know from experience that plenty of major dec alliances will dec a large volume of cheap decs to provide content for their members while telling them to focus on the contract decs. basically, if the cheap decs were also the targets that can fight back, then you have solved that problem.
i personally have decced targets that were weak just to give myself something to do because the targets i wanted to fight were too expensive. i can tell you that if deccing alliances was cheaper than the small ones that roll corp, i would change instantly |
Zhaceera Armerarram
World Traders Guild Channel
19
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 22:00:16 -
[12] - Quote
Wardec is said to be a hard topic because it is underused. From CCP to people with real points, not personal views, all say that the problem of wardec is that it is not used for what it is made.
There is one simple thing that is in the way of any rule about how the wardec is paid, the way wardec is conducted.
So the simplest way to circumvent wardecs is to make a new corp anytime you receive one. That prevents a cost effective >0 price for a wardec. And that would be easy to solve, by putting deserter "debuff" in people. that would solve a problem but create another, as people would simply refrain from making the corp instead. Reason being, corp gives you advantages, but no way to avoid war makes it a hard gamble. Better make up alts and avoid it altogether.
The more intrincate way to avoid wars is to make a docked corporation and leave all flying chars out of them or ready to leave. So you place alts on strategic points and use contracts to allow to conduct the same business you would with all of them in a corp. Still, it can be prevented by more restriction on what someone can do for you, but still, another change that will not change people's mindset, just make them stop using the feature altogether.
If from all of that, you start taxing people more to stay in NPC corps and prevent hoping or shielding, those who dont just stop playing, will endure the taxes and reflect it in the prices of what they do. Not sure if many will actually just try to earn more.
So, after all that sorted out and made so wardec has any effect on savvy small corps, you are faced then with the problem of prices and systems to make it viable to live off of war mongering.
But I can asure you, as the player base shape up as it did with can flipping and jettisoning, there will be little to no room for people using wardecs as a system of extortion. As of today wardec only affects corps with no mobility. In the future, those may not even exist anymore.
All you get left with is wars among people who will fight, not pay.
"If justice is not for everyone, it is for no one."
|
Amber Starview
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 22:21:15 -
[13] - Quote
Another complaint by the carebears --- Quote from OP
Glad you listened too and respected both sides of the argument before arguing a fair case for change . |
ChinDownEyesUp Arkaral
United Wolfs Nations
2
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 22:37:39 -
[14] - Quote
Amber Starview wrote:Another complaint by the carebears --- Quote from OP
Glad you listened too and respected both sides of the argument before arguing a fair case for change .
thats funny considering if my idea works as intended the carebears would be much safer than they are now since killing them would have no chance for isk making.
unlike Zhaceera Armerarram my way allows the carebears to be safer by being low priority targets rather than forcing them to play the game like I do.
i get targets that fight and earn me isk, they get to afk farm and do boring things all day. everyone wins.
if it works of course. |
Zhaceera Armerarram
World Traders Guild Channel
19
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 22:55:39 -
[15] - Quote
ChinDownEyesUp Arkaral wrote:Amber Starview wrote:Another complaint by the carebears --- Quote from OP
Glad you listened too and respected both sides of the argument before arguing a fair case for change . thats funny considering if my idea works as intended the carebears would be much safer than they are now since killing them would have no chance for isk making. unlike Zhaceera Armerarram my way allows the carebears to be safer by being low priority targets rather than forcing them to play the game like I do. i get targets that fight and earn me isk, they get to afk farm and do boring things all day. everyone wins. if it works of course.
I didnt stated any idea, I just said what happens right now.
If it was for me to devise something, the wardec concept would go down the tubes altogether.
"If justice is not for everyone, it is for no one."
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
547
|
Posted - 2015.09.26 15:08:07 -
[16] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:The only thing that needs "fixed" about wars right now is that they can be dodged trivially, the exploit used for which defeats wars' intended purpose. Get better at selecting your targets. As long as you have the right to war dec whoever you want, whenever you want and for whatever reason you want CCP needs to provide those you war dec with options to get out of the dec. If for no other reason than as a way of protecting their subscriber base. |
Zhaceera Armerarram
World Traders Guild Channel
21
|
Posted - 2015.09.26 19:46:01 -
[17] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:The only thing that needs "fixed" about wars right now is that they can be dodged trivially, the exploit used for which defeats wars' intended purpose. Get better at selecting your targets. As long as you have the right to war dec whoever you want, whenever you want and for whatever reason you want CCP needs to provide those you war dec with options to get out of the dec. If for no other reason than as a way of protecting their subscriber base.
The thing is that people do not understand the aim of wardec. No wonder, most Caldari States natives do not understand that a State Constitution do not control the people, but limits the power of those in command of the people.
Wardec is not aimed to regulate conflict in order to control how the attacking party will behave. It is a tool to limit the behavior of an aggressor. If wardec were to provide rights to the aggressor, the simplest way to solve everything were to eliminate wardec and simply let people shoot whoever they want.
So, after you understand that wardec is a "limiter" to the agressor on behalf of the defender, then you understand why it goes the way it goes.
So it is basically that mentality CCP did not promoted, but the people are used to understand. But the true thing is: "You are not free to wardec anyone you want. You restricted to only engage people you wardec, and only under its terms."
"If justice is not for everyone, it is for no one."
|
Decarthado Aurgnet
Imperial Combat Engineers Empire of Arcadia
21
|
Posted - 2015.09.26 21:56:41 -
[18] - Quote
So, here's the difficult part - in the Game of Alts, you can't hard-code differentiation between somebody who's making isk for your enemies and somebody who's just flying a freighter in their spare real-world time. What this means is that any control executed in the attempt to protect people who want to play Spreadsheets Online for a couple hours every few days will also inherently restrict a warlike entity's ability to kneecap their opponents' resource lines.
My suggestion - don't change anything related to the costs of doing war. Until you get up to a couple hundred million per war mark, the costs are trivial and we all know it. Instead, add a contract-like mechanic for conflict where a party can accept joining/creating a fight in exchange for XYZ per isk value &/or quantity of kills &/or type of kills. Example: Some guy declares war on me but I just don't feel like fighting that week. So, I create a private, "conflict," contract for some mercenary group to go shoot the guys who don't like me because I'm ugly or whatever. The contract stipulates that they get X up front, they get Y for each kill (defined by either count, by total value, or by specific type of kills possibly as specific as being in a certain solar system), and they get Z after the conclusion of the agreed period of time if a quantity of Y rewards are awarded during the conflict. Whether they're added to the war as allies or whether they're part of a war at all wouldn't be relevant for this kind of contract, so the flexibility it creates in the approach of the mercenaries would be pretty wide. The same system could also be implemented as a form of assassination agreement against a particular individual who just needs to die while flying something worth at least X isk.
Expand the contract system to enable indy-types to feel that anyone they hire will actually be fighting for them while giving the mercenaries peace of mind that they'll be paid under this kind of agreement. It'll make random wardeccers add another consideration to their strategy since they know people with fat wallets and thin hulls might still give them a challenge.
Remove T2 BPO's or make them inventable at extreme cost.
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
548
|
Posted - 2015.09.27 14:55:38 -
[19] - Quote
Zhaceera Armerarram wrote:[quote=Donnachadh]"You are not free to wardec anyone you want. You restricted to only engage people you wardec, and only under its terms." Someone needs to go back to war decs 101.
Any player corporation can war dec any other player corporation at any point in time. As the aggressor there are no limits to how many war decs you can file at one time, it is not uncommon to find several that have 100 or more war decs active active at a single time. As the defender there are no limits to how many other corporations can war dec you at the same time.
Any player corporation can war dec any other player corporation for any reason they choose even something as trivial as the do not like the looks of your characters portrait or they do not like your corporations name.
Cost is supposed to be the limiting factor iin the war dec mechanic, however like every where and everything else in this game cost is rarely a limiting factor. In other WD threads around here lately players have been complaining about spending as much as 3 billion ISK a week for war decs and never having a single target to shoot at.
|
Gladrielle
AdAstra. Drama Sutra
1
|
Posted - 2015.11.07 18:26:20 -
[20] - Quote
ChinDownEyesUp Arkaral wrote:
Wardec cost changes:
As many have pointed out in the past the current system encourages large entities to dec small ones in mass quantities due to the cost of the wardec going up as per the player count of the corp being decced. This should be reversed so that deccing an corp larger than the one you are in results in a cheaper dec and deccing an corp that you are larger than results in a high cost.
High sec wardec corps are just using the system to get easy kills. its not about about doing war, its all about getting that t1 industrials or that 1 month noob who dont know any better. In fact, faced with any resistance, in my experience, all high sec wardec corps dock up, thats why they are mostly in dock range of the stations they are camping. If there was something that should be changed, it's upping the price of wardecs, so that the potential isk gains be equal to the potential war costs. Asking for lower costs while hiding in high sec, with no restrictions at all with the possibility to avoid all combat is madness. |
|
Gladrielle
AdAstra. Drama Sutra
1
|
Posted - 2015.11.07 18:30:17 -
[21] - Quote
And if you actually believe that 100mil or 500 mill is too high a price in eve actually, you maybe need a reality check. Those prices were decided when plex didnt cost 1.2 b a piece, it's high time they go up XD |
Faxat
13
|
Posted - 2015.11.07 18:40:09 -
[22] - Quote
Wow, someone necroed a thread that hasn't been locked about wardecs.
I don't really understand why this issue is being discussed to death lately. Decrease cost of wardec to a static random number - 50mill, a mutual war will remove the cost and continue indefinately. If one corp receedes from the war, it can be converted to a normal war again, with a cost.
BUT! In order to declare war on a target, the aggressor and the defender need to have anchored structures in space. Once this is no longer the case CONCORD will invalidate the war.
This will in effect make all corporations without any structures into social corps, and remove a lot of the portal camping / newbie griefing from the game.
Faxat out! o/
|
Gladrielle
AdAstra. Drama Sutra
1
|
Posted - 2015.11.07 18:58:07 -
[23] - Quote
Its being discussed so much because: a- Too many troll wardecs from corps who say they want to do war but cant bother to wardec people who are asking for war, they ll just wardec nullsec alliance/corps who just dont care enough to mount a response to these small game fish b-wardec trolls who just go after noob corps or people who dont care about pvp (i think there is a good portion of eve players who play for the pve experience) c-all these wardec corps do, is camp stations/gates, so i guess, they dont have much to do beside asking for more stupid concesion in this forum and crying about how unjust the system is to them. d-wardec a corp or 2 or 5 is ok but when you see a corp with +2000 active wardec against alliances and corps, you can just conclude that the current system is kinda stupid. And it just means that the wardec costs are too low and the isk gains are too huge at the moment. e-please wardec trolls, stop crying about how unjust/unfair the system is, and stop docking up at the first sign of resistance at the first sigh of resistance. AND PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT HOW ELITE PVP YOU ARE (we all saw it in your forums and recruitment posts lol) cause there is nothing elite about about ganking badgers with t3 blobs. f- peace |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
3597
|
Posted - 2015.11.07 19:18:08 -
[24] - Quote
Leto Aramaus wrote:This makes sense right?
Why isn't it already like that? Am I missing something? Because large groups with CSM representation like nullsec alliance and E-uni at the time when the last set of changes happened convinced CCP that large groups deserved more concord protection than small groups just because they are large, even though logically large groups should be more capable of defending themselves than small ones. |
Gladrielle
AdAstra. Drama Sutra
1
|
Posted - 2015.11.07 19:48:08 -
[25] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Leto Aramaus wrote:This makes sense right?
Why isn't it already like that? Am I missing something? Because large groups with CSM representation like nullsec alliance and E-uni at the time when the last set of changes happened convinced CCP that large groups deserved more concord protection than small groups just because they are large, even though logically large groups should be more capable of defending themselves than small ones.
If you want to declare war on nullsec alliances, why dont you go fight them in nullsec instead of ganking new players. and pls dont say that you fear you ll be blobbed in nullsec, first not all nullsec alliances have the numbers to blob, and second wardec troll corps are just blobs with more protection and less restrictions in high sec. And last of all, id like to hear how you propose nullsec alliances could defend themeselfs against high sec wardecs? lol should they form a fleet once they have intel then do +30/40 jumps just to have you dock up? Be realistic for once, its impossible to respond to high sec wardecs and thats why you do it cause you dont expect any resistance from your targets... |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14945
|
Posted - 2015.11.07 21:41:50 -
[26] - Quote
The "problem" with wardecs has nothing to do with the actual mechanic.
It's all related to player corps vs NPC corps, and incentives for the former to justify the increased risk that wars bring. It's corp mechanics as a whole.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Justin Cody
Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens
325
|
Posted - 2015.11.07 22:42:15 -
[27] - Quote
ChinDownEyesUp Arkaral wrote:TLDR Rundown:
change wardec scaling to give the lowest cost to small wardecing large and the highest cost to large deccing small.
have every wardecGÇÖs cost be added to the deccing corp as a bounty.
benefits:
corps must balance skill with numbers since every additional pilot reduces dec costs against you and raises dec costs against others which then adds to your corp/alliances bounty
wardec corps can now choose targets exactly as they have been with the potential to make back the entire dec cost. low risk low reward
they can also choose to fight each other for the potentially highest payout as wardec corps will quickly rack up large bounties. high risk high reward.
players that choose to put large decs on non-wardec corps/alliances can tip the risk/reward balance of entities they want to be decced to ensure visibility among wardec corps.
wardecced entities that fight back can kill blingy wardec ships to get large bounty payouts since wardec corps will always have large bounties.
wardec corps will rely less on contracts where they feel they have to perform well in order to continue to get contracts which could take the toxic attitude of kb efficiency and risk aversion out of the current mentality.
1) The system would be better off using the contracts system allowing conditions to be set (surrender penalties/buyouts) as well as a victory condition - whoever surrenders allows the other to get the war dec cost that would be in escrow. Escrow prevents scamming.
2) Population base costs are there to allow small entities to enter into wars easily against other similar sized corps. Don't protect the small guys this is bad.
3) We were under a war dec for over a month and just avoided the station campers. Most "war dec" corps are just terrible. Hi Marmite Collective! And they don't hunt you down. Just move to low sec or w-space.
4) Bounty system is just a scammer dream...just ignore it. It is a terrible feature as implemented. Again contract system so I can put out hits on people. (allow me to even specify a ship class they must be flying for the full bounty - no noobship scamming - also podding condition)
5) Use of in-game contract system would be better than current "hand-shake" merc contracts. War decs should paralyze corps - members can neither join nor leave during the dec. After a war is over there should be a cooldown period for the corp that was dec'd for a week to prevent griefing. Multiple corps war deccing at is fine since people can neither leave nor join during a war. Again an anti-scam measure.
6) Surrender penalties can apply to both sides - discouraging the aggressor from cancelling a war 7) Surrenders and Victories should show up in corp/alliance war history.
|
Valkin Mordirc
1608
|
Posted - 2015.11.07 23:32:41 -
[28] - Quote
Gladrielle wrote:[quote=Vimsy Vortis]
If you want to declare war on nullsec alliances, why dont you go fight them in nullsec instead of ganking new players. and pls dont say that you fear you ll be blobbed in nullsec, first not all nullsec alliances have the numbers to blob, and second wardec troll corps are just blobs with more protection and less restrictions in high sec. And last of all, id like to hear how you propose nullsec alliances could defend themeselfs against high sec wardecs? lol should they form a fleet once they have intel then do +30/40 jumps just to have you dock up? Be realistic for once, its impossible to respond to high sec wardecs and thats why you do it cause you dont expect any resistance from your targets...
:Troll Warning Claxons:
Not sure you are just trolling, or had a particularly bad time in Highsec...
But not to nit pick but could PLEASE format your posting a little bit better? It's really hard to figure out what your trying to say when all you post is a wall of text.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Gladrielle
AdAstra. Drama Sutra
1
|
Posted - 2015.11.07 23:36:37 -
[29] - Quote
Valkin Mordirc wrote:Gladrielle wrote:[quote=Vimsy Vortis]
If you want to declare war on nullsec alliances, why dont you go fight them in nullsec instead of ganking new players. and pls dont say that you fear you ll be blobbed in nullsec, first not all nullsec alliances have the numbers to blob, and second wardec troll corps are just blobs with more protection and less restrictions in high sec. And last of all, id like to hear how you propose nullsec alliances could defend themeselfs against high sec wardecs? lol should they form a fleet once they have intel then do +30/40 jumps just to have you dock up? Be realistic for once, its impossible to respond to high sec wardecs and thats why you do it cause you dont expect any resistance from your targets... :Troll Warning Claxons: Not sure you are just trolling, or had a particularly bad time in Highsec... But not to nit pick but could PLEASE format your posting a little bit better? It's really hard to figure out what your trying to say when all you post is a wall of text. sorry but english is not my main language, ill try to do better next time XD |
ChinDownEyesUp Arkaral
Back Door Sluts 9
3
|
Posted - 2015.11.12 22:19:15 -
[30] - Quote
Justin Cody wrote:ChinDownEyesUp Arkaral wrote:TLDR Rundown:
change wardec scaling to give the lowest cost to small wardecing large and the highest cost to large deccing small.
have every wardecGÇÖs cost be added to the deccing corp as a bounty.
benefits:
corps must balance skill with numbers since every additional pilot reduces dec costs against you and raises dec costs against others which then adds to your corp/alliances bounty
wardec corps can now choose targets exactly as they have been with the potential to make back the entire dec cost. low risk low reward
they can also choose to fight each other for the potentially highest payout as wardec corps will quickly rack up large bounties. high risk high reward.
players that choose to put large decs on non-wardec corps/alliances can tip the risk/reward balance of entities they want to be decced to ensure visibility among wardec corps.
wardecced entities that fight back can kill blingy wardec ships to get large bounty payouts since wardec corps will always have large bounties.
wardec corps will rely less on contracts where they feel they have to perform well in order to continue to get contracts which could take the toxic attitude of kb efficiency and risk aversion out of the current mentality. 1) The system would be better off using the contracts system allowing conditions to be set (surrender penalties/buyouts) as well as a victory condition - whoever surrenders allows the other to get the war dec cost that would be in escrow. Escrow prevents scamming. 2) Population base costs are there to allow small entities to enter into wars easily against other similar sized corps. Don't protect the small guys this is bad. 3) We were under a war dec for over a month and just avoided the station campers. Most "war dec" corps are just terrible. Hi Marmite Collective! And they don't hunt you down. Just move to low sec or w-space. 4) Bounty system is just a scammer dream...just ignore it. It is a terrible feature as implemented. Again contract system so I can put out hits on people. (allow me to even specify a ship class they must be flying for the full bounty - no noobship scamming - also podding condition) 5) Use of in-game contract system would be better than current "hand-shake" merc contracts. War decs should paralyze corps - members can neither join nor leave during the dec. After a war is over there should be a cooldown period for the corp that was dec'd for a week to prevent griefing. Multiple corps war deccing at is fine since people can neither leave nor join during a war. Again an anti-scam measure. 6) Surrender penalties can apply to both sides - discouraging the aggressor from cancelling a war 7) Surrenders and Victories should show up in corp/alliance war history.
WOW SOMEONE NECROED MY THREAD
honestly i dont understand how contracts would be more scam proof. if win conditions are set to surrender couldn't a persons alt create a corp, declare war by taking the contract and then surrender?
the current bounty system requires ship death and only gives a % of the kill as bonty so i have no idea how that is scammable.
im thinking you forgot the bounty system was upgraded a while ago. also half of what you have in 5 already exists which makes me think you don't really know wardec mechanics either
as for "protecting the little guys" i suppose that is true in some sense but i dont understand how that is "bad" necessarily and you gave no reason why it would be. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |