A miner or industrialist have to fight PvP in 5-6 layers.

Hey Vaerah I have a question: if you're doing so damn well with your "safe niche in low sec," then why are you complaining about high-sec POSes? I mean if it's so safe, and so profitable, then others can just go out and do the same thing, right? Then all the scumbags will just sit around twiddling their thumbs.

The creation of all these small corporations so people can manage their own POS is the result of inadequate granularity in corp role management. I think CCP should fix that problem rather than let it affect how they design the new wardec system.

[quote=Victoria Sefica]Hm, wait I became a miner/industrialist in the first place because PvP didn't appeal to me, and I managed to play the game successfully so far

Oh, you mean those two things that are 100% PvP? Everything in this game is PvP because of its sandbox nature. It is pretty much inevitable when you put the two words GG#multiplayerGG% and GG#sandboxGG% together. In EVE, continuous, unavoidable, non-consensual PvP in its many forms is hard-coded into the game at every step of the way.

This sums up Eve, the game is one big War Machine, everything feeds into PVP, directly or indriectly. All you here is bullshit carebears moan about ISK and there way of life in high-sec, pretty much everything in EVE is PVP.

Which would be? Self taught English is not my forte.

The whole point of having absolutely ZERO drawbacks at distrupting and destroying them is?

- So they get the pew pew they wanted

Nope they have to fight to get their stuff at minimum cost, fight to extract what's missing (miner), be possibly ganked by other though guys merrily exploiting CONCORD anyway, then fight on the market to get their stuff sold. Fight on the market so that they get the best price for their POS fuels...

The wardec system is bound to fail, because the "1 player 1 corp to do anything" is nonsensical.

I typed this up quite a while ago, but I think it's as relevant now as ever:
Now comes the balancing part, and it's really simple: simply multiply the base bill by the ratio of characters in the entity that declares war versus characters in the entity that is declared upon. For example, if corporation A (50 members) declares war, and corporation B receives it, then:

If corporation B has 10 members, the bill becomes [50 * (50/10)] = 250 million ISK.
If corporation B has 50 members, the bill becomes [50 * (50/50)] = 50 million ISK.
If corporation B has 100 members, the bill becomes [50 * (50/100)] = 25 million ISK.

Now, what happens if corporation B has incoming wars from multiple entities? Once again, the answer is simple. Simply adjust the bill by the new ratio of total characters belonging to all entities that declare versus the total character count of the receiving entity. For example, let's say corporations X (10 members) and Y (40 members) join the hostilities by declaring war on corporation B. The base bill now becomes:

If corporation B has 10 members, the bill becomes [100 * (100/10)] = 1,000 million (1 billion) ISK.
If corporation B has 50 members, the bill becomes [100 * (100/50)] = 200 million ISK.
If corporation B has 100 members, the bill becomes [100 * (100/100)] = 100 million ISK.

The wardec system will fail if no wardecs are being generated, or if only griefdecs are being generated

Week 1, start task 1 at site 1. Week 2, start task 2 at site 2. Repeat to fill available sites and slots.

GG*a few times until their corp history is filled up with associative links that show what they're up to, at which point their plan has come to naught and they will no longer be able to extort any money or get any kills.

Exactly. It's all fights, all the time, no layers inbetween what they do and the constant competition. Just like with everyone and everything else.

Your complaint has pretty much nothing to do with wardecs.

- We are constantly revising the war dec cost formula. We're probably not going to adjust price based on aggressor size (simply because this can be so easily gamed), but we'll look into having some sort of diminishing cost based on defender size (nothing nailed down yet).

With small corps much easier to pick on than medium or larger ones and corp hopping not solved, there is all the incentive for griefplay against small corps and what risk for the deccer precisely?

That works for those who can afford 2 structures. I.e. not the CCP "POS lite" targets who I guess will be new players and "casuals".

Because the members of the racketing corp are rooted in it and will never be able to form a new one and thus delete any tracks.

And so, why a sandbox player who prefers to play PvP on markets and industry HAS to fight PvP in their sandbox AND also be put in the sandbox of someone else? Are they better to deserve that?

It's fully relevant. They want to implement a fail feature to replace a fail feature without asking themselves WHY people would want to accept a wardec with the current or future terms.

- Someone asked about the surrender option limitation - you can't lock anyone out of offering surrender here, what this point means is simply that if you've made an offer, you can't make another until the first one has expired or been answered - you can't spam the other side with endless offers.

- We are constantly revising the war dec cost formula. We're probably not going to adjust price based on aggressor size (simply because this can be so easily gamed), but we'll look into having some sort of diminishing cost based on defender size (nothing nailed down yet).

The point I was trying to make is that you should not have to resort to ganking big alliances.

It is also not just about stopping freighters, its also about stopping their members from being able to come into high sec for any reason risk free.

GG*hence why I was quick (in fact, the first) to suggest a ratio-based payment scheme during the roundtable.

You realize how badly this would destroy the mercenary industry, right? Just because you can make money quickly doesn't mean you represent the majority of the player base. There's a whole lot of corporations out there who balk at paying on the lower end of a few hundred million for mercenary services, and that's before even taking the war fee into account.

Hey guys, thanks for many awesome replies.

Just a few comments: ....

It's lovely how the twe two of you are so ready to "Though luck, HTFU, if you can't defend just close shop, just get more members, just hire PvPers" on those who won't be able to defend themselves while you go all comprehensive and lovely to find ways to make it as smooth and affordable as possible for the aggressors.


*engages Tippia schooling voice*

Guess what, if your 3 men docking station games harass corp can't take on a 100 men corp, though luck. ADAPT and OVERCOME, join a 100 men PvP corp, take the COSTS along with the opportunity.

Indeed. And those corps need to be driven out of business because their member base suffers from terribad leadership. Good leadership should be a requirement to be allowed to have a corp. EVE is meant to have winners!

Indeed. And those corps need to be driven out of business because their member base suffers from terribad leadership. Good leadership should be a requirement to be allowed to have a corp. EVE is meant to have winners!

UhmGG* you realise that what you just suggested doesn't make any sense, right? With the current suggestion, that 3-man harassment corp has no reason to join the 100-man corp to do their thing. There's also little reason (and no benefit to) to those defenders to try to work the system to their advantage.

I realise that you are salivating to enforce a one sided deal while being all comprehensive for the strong side.

I also realize that talking about a 3 men bravely assaulting a 100 men corp is something you can sell to someone reading about EvE on an internet ad, while you know too well the 3 men equal to 3 players with 8 RR neut alts each (+ Falcon alt, why not) against 100 scrubs who are more harmless than 1 of those 3 men.

IGGVd like to see consequences of starting a war. From what I understand, the aggressor starts a war and if they donGGVt like the way things are going, they can just let it lapse after the 7 days is up. What IGGVd like to see is the defender be given the option to keep the war going. I know that the defenders could just dec the aggressors back but if the defender is a 10-man corp and the aggressor is a 1,000-man corp, the cost would be over -+ a billion ISK.

Obviously this will give merc groups a way to earn by offering protection to those corps who canGGVt defend themselves. The defenceless corps can protect themselves from decs as aggressors will see that they have allies ready and waiting.

ItGGVll also give high-sec war-dec corps ways of setting up protection rings. They start a war on a corp and as part of the surrender terms, they get their targets to accept (and pay) them as their protectors. So, as long as they pay, they donGGVt get decced by them and they get defended (possibly) if other entities dec them.

- We are constantly revising the war dec cost formula. We're probably not going to adjust price based on aggressor size (simply because this can be so easily gamed), but we'll look into having some sort of diminishing cost based on defender size (nothing nailed down yet).

Then you've realised nothing. Maybe you should go back and read what I've actually written so far, since it's pretty much the exact opposite of what you just said.

So, once again: nice strawman.

By the way, you were the one talking about 3 men bravely assaulting 100 men, not me. So guess what? Nice strawman.

Stuff

This would be akin to implementing RL mafia and racketing in a game. As person forced to live in a country completely infected by both of them, I hate this very concept with my soul.

Just because you personally don't like it, doesn't mean it's bad for the game. Especially when no one forces you to be the bad guy.

The attitude you have shown till now is not conducting with your words.

No I quoted another player talking about it. So guess what, you should also go back and read what others have written so far.

Anyway hi sec failed both as basic retribution system (can be gamed so much to make it pointless).
Bounty system failed as it can be so easily gamed.
Aggression mechanics partially failed because of so many rules and they don't scale up to multiple people.

I can't support a game teaching players the mafia mindset as baseline for new / defensless players, it's an awful cancer for the society and unlike other roleplayed features (i.e. killing somebody in PvP) it does not easily go off once you log off, it sticks.