Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Divine Entervention
Hunters Elite Krab Republic
834
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 10:17:12 -
[31] - Quote
Memphis Baas wrote:Zappity wrote:The reason a deployable structure which can be attacked to end the war dec would be a good idea is because there is currently no practical way to force a fight with highsec wardec corps.
This would give a small indy corp a way (likely via mercs which would be healthy) to attack the dec itself. Well, the entity that declares the war spends some money to create the war dec. Would only be fair for the other party to be able to pay the wardec fee (to the NPCs) to abort the war dec, don't you think? Would also be just about the biggest ISK sink... pay for safety. To avoid the "it's on, no it's not, it's on, no it's not" spam, CCP should change it so the entity that declares war has the option to pay the base fee + whatever extra amount they want, with the defenders having to match the total to cancel the wardec. Even bigger ISK sink.
This is great |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25998
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 10:17:47 -
[32] - Quote
Payne Dakara wrote:Avoiding war targets is pretty easy for a defending corp you just have to follow few simple rules in regards to trade hubs and work as a team to gather intelligence if a war target is close.
On the other hand pirates don't like to fight they want an easy kill so if you try to fight them they just dock.
It is however possible to setup traps and kill some of them but it usually does not worth the effort especially for small industrial corp.
So in order to annoy so called MERCS I'll just list the measures needed so that they have hard time finding targets and switch to low sec or null sec pvp where they will loose some ships instead of harassing defenseless targets . ;)
1. Corporation Safe spot locations in all trade hubs (Jita, Amarr, Dodixie, Hek) also in home systems. - instant warp after undock safe spot - instant dock for trade station
2. Avoid main trade route systems like Uedama when traveling with slow ships, use frigate with propulsion upgrades for 2s warp time when you have to travel to trade hubs during war.
3. Use alts in NPC corp to transport large shipments.
4. Add war deck corp with red standing and watch local, don't mine AFK and if you see them dock.
5. Watch opposing corp kill board and see if they are close to where you are, if you have standing use locator agents for same purpose. That list is hardly likely to annoy any of the merc groups, they've been telling people the exact same things for years; such a shame that most of their targets are so self absorbed that anything that smacks of the slightest bit of effort is an anathema and the advice ignored, just as yours will be.
I took their advice a long time ago, so I'm going to take great pleasure in watching the various merc groups burn everybody that hasn't.
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Right, and that's where an alliance like ours would come in.
We would find you in your little hidy holes , grab one of your lads and hold him till you came to rescue him and then brutalise the rescue force, we would follow you into holes and low and it's us this is effecting.
We do want fights we will jump down other mercs throats in a heartbeat we are known for it and its our tools that got removed, now many groups like us (hell even the bloodhounds in marmite and the like)are faced with two options ,
an inordinate amount of scouting ,intel gathering and infiltration just to find online targets
Or
Sit in a hub and deck everything with a pulse
Most don't have the time or patients for the former and now you are seeing the results
We told ye this would happen if we didn't get something to balance out the watch list removal. Summarised simply, we told ya so
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Zappity
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
2748
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 10:28:36 -
[33] - Quote
Memphis Baas wrote:Zappity wrote:The reason a deployable structure which can be attacked to end the war dec would be a good idea is because there is currently no practical way to force a fight with highsec wardec corps.
This would give a small indy corp a way (likely via mercs which would be healthy) to attack the dec itself. Well, the entity that declares the war spends some money to create the war dec. Would only be fair for the other party to be able to pay the wardec fee (to the NPCs) to abort the war dec, don't you think? Would also be just about the biggest ISK sink... pay for safety. To avoid the "it's on, no it's not, it's on, no it's not" spam, CCP should change it so the entity that declares war has the option to pay the base fee + whatever extra amount they want, with the defenders having to match the total to cancel the wardec. Even bigger ISK sink. I'd much prefer a solution that involves people being out in space shooting each other. Paying an NPC doesn't create content, paying a merc (or trying themselves) does.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
|
PAPULA
Black Aces I N F A M O U S
80
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 11:24:39 -
[34] - Quote
ImYourMom wrote:
Marmite - 136 wars Pirat - 171 wars Archtype - 77 wars Vendetta Merc - 181 wars Complaints Dept - 129 wars Caldari State Police - 116 wars
Well pirat currently has 200 active wars, and in total they had 7155 wars. This is beyond wardecs, it's wardecing for no purpose, they all sit in station and camp gates, if bigger fleet comes they all dock up and do nothing.
And that's it. And PVE people will leave the game for duration of wardec. |
Geronimo McVain
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 11:29:28 -
[35] - Quote
The idea with the structure in space is IMHO a good one because a wardec destroys the normal routine of the wardecced corp while the attacker does what he always does: PVP. With this structure within the attackers home system they too have to watch out. If the structure is destroyed the money for the wardec goes to the winner.
If you make a formula which takes the ships people fly into account for calculating the fee it would even out. If you attack a industry corp it will be very expansive because they are flying miners/freighters. If you attack some mercs it will be cheap because they fly combat ships. Salt with size and age of the corp members and you get a formula that will easily pitch mercs against each other while "fighting" industry corps will be very expansive. And with the structure it might even be profitable for the defender to hire mercs to destroy it because you get rid of the wardecc and you get a lot of money. Corps that have 300 wardec running will have to defend 300 targets....... Of cause you would need to get back the watch list or maybe you get a heat map of the decced companies activities.
This will sort out the people that dec for a fight from the people that dec just for a gank and dock if the gank isn't guaranteed |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
26000
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 11:33:04 -
[36] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:Well pirat currently has 200 active wars, and in total they had 7155 wars. This is beyond wardecs, it's wardecing for no purpose, they all sit in station and camp gates, And are thus easy to avoid if you're halfway competent.
Quote: if bigger fleet comes they all dock up and do nothing. So what's your problem? Bring a bigger fleet.
Quote:And that's it. And PVE people will leave the game for duration of wardec. No, a carebear will leave the game for the duration of the wardec, a PvE player may hire other mercs, or move their area of operations, or change their playstyle to compensate, or use the ingame mechanics to actively avoid being pewpew'd etc, etc.
Carebears and PvE players are not the same thing.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Skarner Kondur
Ricturn Resources
1
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 11:46:23 -
[37] - Quote
Easiest way to fix this right now would be to change the cost mechanism. The price should start at 100 million ISK, and double every consecutive week of war. After the conclusion of the war in any manner, the last paid fee would remain as the "starting price" of any future war declarations, and decay slowly each following week. Additionally, the fee must be paid 3 days in advance. This tackles multiple issues that currently make war declarations so profitable:
Pointless "war" can be maintained perpetually. A single player could run one mission a day, for a week, and earn 50 million ISK. With a few hundred players, you could easily maintain war declarations on a few hundred corporations, by playing less than an hour a day. This lacks any logic as a war should have some sort of objectives; obtaining ISK through destroying ships, taking down POS', and so on. With an exponentially increasing cost to maintain war, fruitless war is deterred.
The cost of war to aggressors is always less than the cost of war to a defending non-PvP corp. This is factoring in opportunity costs, such as how much ISK you could be making if you were to mine or run missions rather than hiding in station. The aggressors pay a fee of 50 million ISK to potentially blockade an arbitrary number of players from earning any ISK for a week, on that specific character. If the defending corp decides to fight back, the aggressors can safely dock up and still be inflicting implicit costs, due to forcing the defending corp to engage in activities other than their usual. These are just a few examples of the many scenarios where the aggressors simply come out on top. Increasing the cost of war in any way would better balance the equation.
No decision making required to press the red button. Mercenary corps have the luxury of a full 7 days to determine if a carebear corp is worth pursuing. This is not factoring in that there is no pressure to make the decision in that time span, because you can just wait out an additional 2 days to declare war again. Moving the deadline for war renewal back would force aggressors to actually have to decide whether the war is profitable and risk the cost doubling, rather than shrugging away the question until the last day comes around with no penalty. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
14748
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 11:50:54 -
[38] - Quote
Actually something like locators no longer working on offline players would probably be enough.
Better the Devil you know.
=]|[=
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
26001
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 11:54:56 -
[39] - Quote
Skarner Kondur wrote:Easiest way to fix this right now would be to change the cost mechanism. The price should start at 100 million ISK, and double every consecutive week of war. After the conclusion of the war in any manner, the last paid fee would remain as the "starting price" of any future war declarations, and decay slowly each following week. Additionally, the fee must be paid 3 days in advance. This tackles multiple issues that currently make war declarations so profitable:
Pointless "war" can be maintained perpetually. A single player could run one mission a day, for a week, and earn 50 million ISK. With a few hundred players, you could easily maintain war declarations on a few hundred corporations, by playing less than an hour a day. This lacks any logic as a war should have some sort of objectives; obtaining ISK through destroying ships, taking down POS', and so on. With an exponentially increasing cost to maintain war, fruitless war is deterred.
The cost of war to aggressors is always less than the cost of war to a defending non-PvP corp. This is factoring in opportunity costs, such as how much ISK you could be making if you were to mine or run missions rather than hiding in station. The aggressors pay a fee of 50 million ISK to potentially blockade an arbitrary number of players from earning any ISK for a week, on that specific character. If the defending corp decides to fight back, the aggressors can safely dock up and still be inflicting implicit costs, due to forcing the defending corp to engage in activities other than their usual. These are just a few examples of the many scenarios where the aggressors simply come out on top. Increasing the cost of war in any way would better balance the equation.
No decision making required to press the red button. Mercenary corps have the luxury of a full 7 days to determine if a carebear corp is worth pursuing. This is not factoring in that there is no pressure to make the decision in that time span, because you can just wait out an additional 2 days to declare war again. Moving the deadline for war renewal back would force aggressors actually have to decide whether the war is profitable and risk the cost doubling, rather than shrugging away the question until the last day comes around with no penalty.
Wardecs used to cost 2 million isk, a subset of players demanded that the prices were increased to the current level in order to curtail the activities of merc corps and CCP obliged.
The result was that the smaller merc corps banded together in order to be able to afford the cost of wars and carried on killing the greedy, the lazy and the feckless. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth and rending of stuff when the changes didn't give rise to a curtailment in the activities of merc corps, instead making them stronger and more organised.
TL;DR your approach has already been tried, and it has been found wanting. The easily predictable result of CCP implementing such change would be the rise of merc super corps against whom there would be no defence.
Be careful what you wish for.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Iain Cariaba
2797
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 11:57:47 -
[40] - Quote
Zappity wrote:The reason a deployable structure which can be attacked to end the war dec would be a good idea is because there is currently no practical way to force a fight with highsec wardec corps. They just dock up. This would give a small indy corp a way (likely via mercs which would be healthy) to attack the dec itself. As soon as there's a mechanic to force a fight with the defender, so they can't not log on for a week, drop and reform corp, or any of the other popular methods they use to avoid wardecs.
All you people trying to get wardecs changed to "force the agressors to fight" ***** and moan about how they dock up when they might lose. Well, don't you do the same thing? Everybody in this game does. You get a way to force the agressors to fight as soon as the agressors get a way to force the defenders to fight.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
|
|
PAPULA
Black Aces I N F A M O U S
80
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 12:04:33 -
[41] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote: So what's your problem? Bring a bigger fleet.
Then i would do space spinning and station watching all day and do nothing.
Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Carebears and PvE players are not the same thing.
Then i don't understand what carebear means.
|
Tora Bushido
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
3292
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 12:05:17 -
[42] - Quote
It's simple. We changed our ways about 6 months ago, from trade hub huggers with many wars, to more dedicated hunters, with half the wars, who use watch lists to focus on targets. CCP ****** up the WL, introduced with without talking to the players who know. Not talking about the two CSM members who have been crying for this for years now or the nulsec CSM members, who are clueless how highsec works.
So no watch list = no more targeted wars = back to mass war deccing. Sad, but true.
DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !
Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.
TORA BUSHIDO FOR CSM XI
|
Tora Bushido
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
3292
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 12:10:45 -
[43] - Quote
ImYourMom wrote:and thats fine but how are they even affording to have so many wardecs? it cant be sustainable surely. the pricing structure wqs supposed to stop all that and making it just far too expensive to war dec so many We have many clients, I run 16 posses (not highsec) on my alts and I have alts who are nasty little ******* and who will steal everything from you (Fedo's first!).
DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !
Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.
TORA BUSHIDO FOR CSM XI
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
274
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 12:11:41 -
[44] - Quote
Wouldn't a simple fix to be to have the dec cost scale with number of wars? The first war could cost a standard amount and every additional war costs X% more than the last putting an upper limit on the amount of active wars a corp can afford to have. There's no legitimate gameplay reason to have 200 active wars.
For example if the scaling factor was 5% (can be fine tuned) then the cost of new wars would go as below: First war, standard cost Second war, 1.05x standard cost 10th war, 1.63x standard 50th war, 18.42x standard 200 wars, 339.3x standard
This way "elite dec corps" would have to actually choose their targets if they want to hunt in the target rich highsec. Wardecs were not intended by CCP as a way to turn highsec into a more populated lowsec, in their current form they just allow these wardec corps to negate concord.
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
26004
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 12:14:29 -
[45] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Carebears and PvE players are not the same thing.
Then i don't understand what carebear means. That's pretty obvious.
I'll make it simple for you
Expect CCP to provide you with safety and that the game change to suit your playstyle? You're a carebear.
Provide your own safety and change your playstyle to suit the game? You're not a carebear.
There's plenty of PvE players, who solely do PvE, that provide for their own safety. There's also plenty of PvP players that also indulge in the PvE playstyle to provide them with standings for locator agents, isk to buy that next shiny Loki explosion etc. Neither group are carebears.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Geronimo McVain
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 12:18:14 -
[46] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:[quote=Zappity]All you people trying to get wardecs changed to "force the agressors to fight" ***** and moan about how they dock up when they might lose. Well, don't you do the same thing? Everybody in this game does. You get a way to force the agressors to fight as soon as the agressors get a way to force the defenders to fight. The difference is, that the aggressor choose to fight and the defender doesn't. If the defender needs to use Hauler alts, disband/reform the corp or stop the normal mining activities that's putting all the pressure on the defender while the agressor can dock up although HE choose to fight. If you can't swallow the bite you have to pay for it.
So if you choose to wardec you should better do the intel if you can stand the heat. At the moment you can keep up a wardec as long as you just pay each week without any way for the defender to end the wardec except for surrender. With something to defend an industry corp can pay some mercs to do the dirty work for them. So you will think about it if a 10 member corp really wants to tackle the multi-trillion industry corp. If you are in for the fight: go for it even if they can dish out a multi billion contract to flaten you. If you are not: think again.
|
Tora Bushido
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
3292
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 12:22:24 -
[47] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:Wouldn't a simple fix to be .... You lost me after simple fix. If one thing has been proven the last years, is that there isnt a simple fix for this. Main reason we setup the war dec Google doc with carebears, mercs and dedicated players.
DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !
Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.
TORA BUSHIDO FOR CSM XI
|
Skarner Kondur
Ricturn Resources
1
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 12:27:10 -
[48] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Wardecs used to cost 2 million isk, a subset of players demanded that the prices were increased to the current level in order to curtail the activities of merc corps; CCP obliged and it backfired on the people who demanded it.
The result was that the smaller merc corps banded together in order to be able to afford the cost of wars and carried on killing the greedy, the lazy and the feckless. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth and rending of stuff when the changes didn't give rise to a curtailment in the activities of merc corps, instead making them stronger and more organised.
Incidentally, the same thing happened with gankers, as mechanics have changed and made their chosen profession more difficult to maintain, they have become stronger and more organised.
TL;DR your approach has already been tried, and it has been found wanting. The easily predictable result of CCP implementing such change would be the rise of merc super corps against whom there would be no defence.
Be careful what you wish for.
The issue clearly was that CCP didn't hit them hard enough with the correct solution. Again as I've said above, 2 million or 50 million, the point is that it's a joke of a cost. One player can easily sustain that, barely playing at all. Not to mention running missions and profiting from war which easily pays for itself.
Nothing you said really counters the fact that increasing the cost of war declaration is a viable solution. Going by the logic of "they'll band together to mitigate costs" is faulty; until what point can they merge? When the entire player base is one corp?
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Rabble Inc. A Few Brave Men
2725
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 12:30:15 -
[49] - Quote
ImYourMom wrote:So in the past we had problems because it was too easy and cheap to war dec. That got changed to be more expensive dependent on size of people you were deccing in some cases 500mill a pop. This led to alliances like Privateers, Orphanage etc closing. But now i see even more war dec alliances sprouting out with an incredible amount of war decs
Marmite - 136 wars Pirat - 171 wars Archtype - 77 wars Vendetta Merc - 181 wars Complaints Dept - 129 wars Caldari State Police - 116 wars
and thats just a few, i dont think most of these are offering assistance but actually the ones deccing. How can this be happening as its clearly not solved the problem its seems it just got worse. I am not convinced either this is all merc work either, as this costs billions per week as well.
Can someone explain if im missing something here?
Well wars got too expensive for small entities so large ones formed to bear the costs which meant more people came to them for the volume of decs which meant they could afford more decs which caused more decs which brought more people etc etc etc
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
ISD Max Trix favourite ISD
'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King-Griffin
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2258
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 12:32:30 -
[50] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:Wardecs were not intended by CCP as a way to turn highsec into a more populated lowsec, in their current form they just allow these wardec corps to negate concord. Yes they were, negating CONCORD is the purpose of wardecs:
CCP wrote:The first question we asked ourselves is why touch the war dec system at all? IsnGÇÖt it functioning fine? The answer to that is yes, and no. The system is not broken, itGÇÖs not useless (though underutilized) and it does what itGÇÖs supposed to do (allow people to fight legally in hi sec).
I highlighted the relevant bit from the last wardec devblog. Wars are just the mechanism to allow real fighting in highsec; that's all. They limit the number of opponents and give you some warning, but highsec is not, and never was intended to be free of PvP or made perfectly safe by CONCORD. You are expected to defend your stuff.
Scaling war costs would just limit the viability of the profession of mercenary (while easily being circumvented with alternate corps if need be) which would seem counter-productive to CCPs goal to increase the number of wars and make mercenaries a real profession stated in the last devblog.
I have no problem increasing social options (like corp lite) to allow players to group up and play the game free of wardecs, but real corporations, especially those with in-space assets like POCOs and Citadels need to be at risk to the other players. |
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
26008
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 12:55:09 -
[51] - Quote
Skarner Kondur wrote:The issue clearly was that CCP didn't hit them hard enough with the correct solution. Go ahead, post in the features and ideas forum with your proposal and ask CCP to implement it. If it ever comes to pass, I, and many others, have tear collection arrays standing by to harvest the resulting saline explosion when it all goes hilariously wrong.
Quote:Again as I've said above, 2 million or 50 million, the point is that it's a joke of a cost. One player can easily sustain that, barely playing at all. Not to mention running missions and profiting from war which easily pays for itself. You do realise that merc groups are forced by game mechanics to wardec multiple targets at once in order to get a fight? For every 10 corps they wardec (a minimum of a 500 million isk investment) they are likely to get maybe 1 or 2 that don't roll corp, log off for the duration or otherwise evade the war.
Any proposals that involve increasing the cost of wardecs must also increase the chances of the merc corps actually getting a fight for their isk by curtailing the ability to evade a war at little or zero cost.
Quote:Nothing you said really counters the fact that increasing the cost of war declaration is a viable solution. You've yet to explain the how and why of it being viable beyond stating that "wardecs are too cheap"
Merc corps are willing to admit that wardecs need attention, the problem is that nobody knows how to actually fix them; 100% of the "solutions" that have been implemented and the suggestions that have been made over the years have failed to do so, what makes yours better?
Quote:Going by the logic of "they'll band together to mitigate costs" is faulty; until what point can they merge? When the entire player base is one corp?
Imagine a future where a majority of the hisec merc corps are gathered under 1 or 2 banners; where CODE.s numbers have increased exponentially due to the remaining mercs joining them because they can't afford to wardec people or don't get on with the merc supercorps.
It's not only the numbers you have to worry about, it's the collective years of experience and knowledge, the pre-existing intel networks, the tactics and all the other things that come together when you force a gathering of specialists.
To use a crap analogy; the current merc corps are colleges of destruction, when all of them gather in 1 or 2 places they become universities of devastation.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Skarner Kondur
Ricturn Resources
2
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 12:57:25 -
[52] - Quote
If this was the case then I would fully support wardecs as they are. However, that isn't the case. The low difficulty of declaring war and profiting is abused for a ton of purposes other than mercenary work, such as killboards and legal hisec ganking.
If this is the case, there's a simple fix for the system. A war declaration costs substantially more than it does currently, and scales on the number of players in the target. However, it can be subsidized. This can be done by some form of contract system where the client creates a contract with a specific pay and all war fees implicitly subsidized. The mercenary can browse and accept these contracts. |
Payne Dakara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 13:22:29 -
[53] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote: Right, and that's where an alliance like ours would come in.
We would find you in your little hidy holes , grab one of your lads and hold him till you came to rescue him and then brutalise the rescue force, we would follow you into holes and low and it's us this is effecting.
We do want fights we will jump down other mercs throats in a heartbeat we are known for it and its our tools that got removed, now many groups like us (hell even the bloodhounds in marmite and the like)are faced with two options ,
an inordinate amount of scouting ,intel gathering and infiltration just to find online targets
Or
Sit in a hub and deck everything with a pulse
Most don't have the time or patients for the former and now you are seeing the results
We told ye this would happen if we didn't get something to balance out the watch list removal.
Allow me to disagree that you want fights maybe you wanted to say you want easy kills that look nice on the kill board.
If you wanted fights you will go low or null and will not even care to open war against high sec care bear corp since war only matters in high sec.
|
Giaus Felix
Hedion University Amarr Empire
122
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 13:23:29 -
[54] - Quote
Skarner Kondur wrote:If this was the case then I would fully support wardecs as they are. However, that isn't the case. The low difficulty of declaring war and profiting is abused for a ton of purposes other than mercenary work, such as killboards and legal hisec ganking. That's the whole point of them, wardecs were designed to do exactly that; legalise hisec ganking, the fee is a bribe for Concord to look the other way.
Killboard padding is just a bonus.
I am Ralph's junk DNA.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2262
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 13:27:36 -
[55] - Quote
Skarner Kondur wrote:If this was the case then I would fully support wardecs as they are. However, that isn't the case. The low difficulty of declaring war and profiting is abused for a ton of purposes other than mercenary work, such as killboards and legal hisec ganking.
If this is the case, there's a simple fix for the system. A war declaration costs substantially more than it does currently, and scales on the number of players in the target. However, it can be subsidized. This can be done by some form of contract system where the client creates a contract with a specific pay and all war fees implicitly subsidized. The mercenary can browse and accept these contracts. It only cost 2M ISK to declare war on a corporation before the last revamp where CCP said they thought wardecs were underutilized, and they raised it 25-fold. Why should they raise it again if they are trying to get players to actually use the mechanic?
Wardecs are just there to turn off CONCORD - that's all. They cannot really be "abused" because that is their primary purpose. Eve is a game about shooting spaceships, and this includes shooting them for reasons you seem to look down upon like gaining killboard numbers or ganking industrial ships.
Can wars be made more fun/fair/interesting? I have no doubt. But cranking up the cost so that only large organizations can afford to use them is not the path to that I am sure. If CCP has gone to the effort to code in the war declaration mechanic, players should be able to use it. All players. Not just rich veterans or members of large groups. If CCP decides that wars are too disruptive or unbalanced, there are much better ways to tweak the mechanic than just making it prohibitively expensive to most groups. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2673
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 13:37:45 -
[56] - Quote
Giaus Felix wrote:Payne Dakara wrote:If you wanted fights you will go low or null and will not even care to open war against high sec care bear corp since war only matters in high sec. lol this old chestnut; hisec is just as much a PvP area as lowsec, nullsec and whspace. In fact it's probably even more so because it's A: where 70% of the targets are, B: where the majority of the money is made and C: where 90% of the nullsec supply lines begin.
What I don't get is why aren't you all deccing other war deccers all the time. You'd keep getting fights after fights since you keep saying you do it to get fights. I'm entirely willing to accept the notion you currently dec left, right and center in the hope of getting a fight at some point through sheer number of potential targets but why don't you also go with arguably safe bets? |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
26008
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 13:39:40 -
[57] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Giaus Felix wrote:Payne Dakara wrote:If you wanted fights you will go low or null and will not even care to open war against high sec care bear corp since war only matters in high sec. lol this old chestnut; hisec is just as much a PvP area as lowsec, nullsec and whspace. In fact it's probably even more so because it's A: where 70% of the targets are, B: where the majority of the money is made and C: where 90% of the nullsec supply lines begin. What I don't get is why aren't you all deccing other war deccers all the time. You'd keep getting fights after fights since you keep saying you do it to get fights. I'm entirely willing to accept the notion you currently dec left, right and center in the hope of getting a fight at some point through sheer number of potential targets but why don't you also go with arguably safe bets? Saline content
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3789
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 13:40:53 -
[58] - Quote
Divine Entervention wrote:Memphis Baas wrote:Zappity wrote:The reason a deployable structure which can be attacked to end the war dec would be a good idea is because there is currently no practical way to force a fight with highsec wardec corps.
This would give a small indy corp a way (likely via mercs which would be healthy) to attack the dec itself. Well, the entity that declares the war spends some money to create the war dec. Would only be fair for the other party to be able to pay the wardec fee (to the NPCs) to abort the war dec, don't you think? Would also be just about the biggest ISK sink... pay for safety. To avoid the "it's on, no it's not, it's on, no it's not" spam, CCP should change it so the entity that declares war has the option to pay the base fee + whatever extra amount they want, with the defenders having to match the total to cancel the wardec. Even bigger ISK sink. This is great Except the decced corp that just bought off the dec will be immediately decced again by a third corp (who just happens to be filled with alts of the original deccer). You stillget the "it's on, no it's not, it's on, no it's not" cycle, just with new decs. What? Give the decced corp a week of immunity once they buy off a war? Then two indy corps will get together, one will dec the other for the minimum fee, the other will buy it off, and get immunity.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Memphis Baas
1331
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 13:51:55 -
[59] - Quote
Zappity wrote:I'd much prefer a solution that involves people being out in space shooting each other. Paying an NPC doesn't create content, paying a merc (or trying themselves) does.
Does it? All I'm seeing is people docking up or disbanding their corps during the wardec. Where exactly is the content?
Paying taxes to get out of it (you only have the brief 24 hr warning period to do it, once the fighting starts it can't be canceled) simply delays the inevitable; it's not like the target 2-3 man corps will have the ISK to compete with Marmite's bank. And it creates an ISK sink that takes advantage of this spamming of wardecs.
Ralph: Locator agents not working on a target means they're in a wormhole. This is (one reason) why I prefer that the locator gives the last known address for offline people. But anyway, we've argued both sides before, so I guess we'll see if CCP does anything, and what.
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
3683
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 13:59:47 -
[60] - Quote
Ibutho Inkosi wrote: bored, juvenile players who just can't be bothered to play the deeper game offered by EVE's design. . Show us on the doll where the bad man touched you.
You're clearly so biased against this particular choice of Eve gameplay that your impression of it is irrelevant.
Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |