Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
gfldex
428
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 14:57:00 -
[391] - Quote
Halycon Gamma wrote:Nullsec and Lowsec account for 23% of all accounts in EvE. So says what passes for QEN these days. So if every nullsec and lowsec character had an alt dedicated to highsec, you'd get 43% of all players.
You Sir are wrong. The QEN referes to characters, not accounts. On top of that I wouldn't count trial accounts (a few thousand) into that figure. And you ignore alts accounts. Look at all those 2 char corps that run a highsec research POS. Guess where the main sits. The QEN further doesn't look at botters. As the tragedy that was the alliance panel has made clear there are botters ... err ... unfortunate players with 22 accounts.
Bring me reliable figures about actual _players_ with actual subscriptions. Anything else is just speculation.
Goons are the 3%. |
Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
163
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 15:01:00 -
[392] - Quote
Halycon Gamma wrote: They are not the vocal minority. They are the silent majority
Nullsec and Lowsec account for 23% of all accounts in EvE. So says what passes for QEN these days. So if every nullsec and lowsec character had an alt dedicated to highsec, you'd get 43% of all players. Highsec accounts for 72% of the player base. Subtracting that second 23% from highsec nets them 49% of the toons. They outnumber you. They've outnumbered you since null became a wasteland of dead systems owned by a constantly shrinking number of power blocks
You are mixing up characters, accounts and subscribers. You calculations are unreliable.
|
Valkyria Caeli
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
53
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 15:07:00 -
[393] - Quote
[quote=Chanina]Quote:Q: War dec cost, target corp member modifier? A: The war dec cost formula will not take aggressor size into account and will not count trial account members in target corp. But the formula is constantly being revised, so nothing is set in stone.
You should probably also make sure that only one character from an account is being counted as well as not counting members from accounts that have lapsed.
Also, while an aggressor cannot call mercs directly, it doesn't seem like that would really matter. All they need to do is get a merc corp or a friend's corp to simply declare on the defender. It seems like very little would be lost in not being formal allies.
Also, I agree with whoever suggested that surrender should be a formal contract that could include either items or isk, also in that, make the terms flexible. Let the defender negotiate more cash for more weeks of peace if that is what they want. In fact, that would give defenders are good reason to mutually declare. A decs B, B makes it mutual. B does well against A. A drops their dec after first week. B chooses to continue until A is forced to surrender to them. B then demands a 2 months of peace from A in addition to a fat payout. A lot could be added to this system in time. Demands that a corp not fly in certain systems for certain time frames. Or in place of a single payout, force a corp pay tribute every month, either in isk or minerals, maybe even finished ships. The possibilities are endless. |
Halycon Gamma
Judian Peoples Front
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 15:15:00 -
[394] - Quote
gfldex wrote:Halycon Gamma wrote:Nullsec and Lowsec account for 23% of all accounts in EvE. So says what passes for QEN these days. So if every nullsec and lowsec character had an alt dedicated to highsec, you'd get 43% of all players. You Sir are wrong. The QEN referes to characters, not accounts. On top of that I wouldn't count trial accounts (a few thousand) into that figure. And you ignore alts accounts. Look at all those 2 char corps that run a highsec research POS. Guess where the main sits. The QEN further doesn't look at botters. As the tragedy that was the alliance panel has made clear there are botters ... err ... unfortunate players with 22 accounts. Bring me reliable figures about actual _players_ with actual subscriptions. Anything else is just speculation.
You do know that's a circular argument? Right?
Currently I have an account in Null, and an account in High. The difference here is, my Null account is my alt. I spend the vast majority of my time in high. Occasionally I'll log into the other account to to swap skills and for a change of pace. I can go round and round and round on who lives where. And no, I do not ignore alt accounts, because alt accounts are in the QEN figure, and like it or not. QEN is the official numbers.
Also, dude with 22 accounts wasn't a bot. A bot means not at keyboard having a program do it for him. He was very much at keyboard. Might have had the god of all keyboard macros to make it work, but he was there and playing. |
Orisa Medeem
Hedion University Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 15:20:00 -
[395] - Quote
I'm not convinced that once you implement these changes you will put significant effort in this system again for the next X years. So, before you stop playing with this code for the time being, put an isk collateral in the war dec (about four or five times the initial cost).
If the defender surrenders in any amount of weeks, the attackers get the collateral back. Otherwise, if the attackers decide to stop paying the bills they loose the collateral to Concord. :sand: -áover -á:awesome: |
gfldex
428
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 15:29:00 -
[396] - Quote
Halycon Gamma wrote:Also, dude with 22 accounts wasn't a bot. A bot means not at keyboard having a program do it for him. He was very much at keyboard. Might have had the god of all keyboard macros to make it work, but he was there and playing.
Sure. And goons never did any botting. Goons are the 3%. |
SilverTrav
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 15:36:00 -
[397] - Quote
I'm not sure if I can agree with the direction they are wanting to take the war dec system... If the price of a war dec is based on the number of players, how many billions will it take per week to war dec the larger alliances in New Eden? How are these changes going to be any better than the existing system if no one can afford to declare war against the oppressive power-blocs like that?
This will likely be the death of small corps/alliances in hi-sec.
If anything, the system should be based on the disparity of the number of members between the aggressor and the defender. Say for instance, if a huge alliance of 6000 members wanted to war dec an alliance of 40 members then their price could be 6000 (number of aggressors) / 40 (number of defenders) x base war dec price. Making it more painful for an huge alliance that can STILL likely afford the cost if they really want to go to war with the small corp. On the flip side, if the 40 man alliance wanted to dec the huge alliance... 40 / 6000 x base war dec price would make it so the smaller corp would actually be able to afford to go to war. While such a huge disparity would make the war dec cost to the smaller alliance trivial, perhaps the base price for war deccing could be modified in such situations to implement both a price ceiling and price floor. I know my suggestion obviously isn't perfect, but what they are proposing will make it impossible for smaller groups to independently exist without getting wiped out by huge alliances that barely have to pay a pittance for the right to obliterate them.
While 40 people may not actually be able to do more than annoy the huge alliance, they should still be able to declare war against them if they want. The greater portion of New Eden's population is made up of these smaller corporations/alliances and I hate to see such an unfair advantage handed to the power blocs. I don't care if I fall, so long as someone picks up my guns and keeps shooting. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
457
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 16:07:00 -
[398] - Quote
Adriel Malakai wrote: 1) In addition to any contract between the defender and the ally (in terms of ISK), the defender must also pay an 'ally fee' equivalent to the dec fee the aggressor paid to bring in an allied entity. This price increases with the appropriate modifier (20m if defender is a corp, 50m if defender is an alliance) for every ally brought in. This has the handy side effect of adding more ISK sinks \o/
2) Put a strict limit on the number of allies a defender can bring into the war. I'm thinking three (3) is a pretty fair number.
1) Why? So the ally can send it right back?
2) Why? So it's easier for the attacker to not get trapped in their own arrogance? |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
1835
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 16:17:00 -
[399] - Quote
All in all I like the system. Only problem with the existing fee structure is it makes the very large alliances effectively wardec immune by pricing smaller entities out of the game.
I'd suggest a cap of 500m per week no matter how large the target is. (ie above 1000 members it doesn't get any more expensive to dec).
This would still allow a multiplier to happen with a single entity declaring multiple wars but wouldn't make it relatively impossible for a smallish aggressor to dec a large alliance (as is the effective case without a cap) since 3b+ per week is clearly a crazy charge to dec the largest alliances.
As a point of principle large alliances must count their membership and ability to form pvp defense gangs to be their defense against hostile wardecs ratherr than simply hiding behind inflated fees.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom. Jericho Fraction is Recruiting! |
Arthello
D00M. Northern Coalition.
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 16:21:00 -
[400] - Quote
Remove neutral's ability to remote rep altogether and I'm fine with whatever you decide to do. That's the sole reason I never engage wartargets in low- or high-sec anymore. Every single time it seems like you have an interesting fight on your hands, so you decide to engage, the fight is ruined by neutral logistics.
Kudos to Mercs for using the game mechanics to their advantage. I'd do it myself too if I was a merc. It doesn't take away the fact that the game-mechanics are preventing good fights though.
Please fix. Make neutral RR a criminal offense if any of the recipients are in a war with someone. It will level the playing field somewhat. |
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
458
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 16:24:00 -
[401] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote: "Once youGÇÖre an ally, youGÇÖre committed to the war until it ends."
This is problematic. It means that a mercenary corporation could find itself drawn into a very long-term contract with now way to force the ally who hired them to continue paying each week. Ally contracts should be auto-renewing and if the employer does not pay the fee to the mercenary each week, the mercenary is allowed to leave.
The point of the new system is so people commit to their actions. Also, having the merc corp be able to collect recurring fees encourages them to prolong the war, which is not what the defender hired them to do in the first place. It also reduces the attractiveness of being a ally to random unrelated corps, just to "get on a war and get some free kills" for no fee at all, as that becomes a commitment as well. |
VegasMirage
Instant Reaction Corp Dec Shield
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 16:26:00 -
[402] - Quote
how does one conduct Jihad with these mechanics
you must allow for more randomness as with corp hopping, so the fat cats continue to be frustrated |
bornaa
GRiD.
156
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 16:28:00 -
[403] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:
The point of the new system is so people commit to their actions.
This is bullshit!!! Because attacker does not have commitment at all. He just don't pay and its over.
This all is one big bullshit. |
sankoku
Twilight Ephemeris
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 16:35:00 -
[404] - Quote
bornaa wrote: What ever you think you will accomplish with this - it will ruin the game for majority of players and you know what comes with that.
Layoffs. |
Zedrik Cayne
Standards and Practices
99
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 16:36:00 -
[405] - Quote
The whole thing needs an overhaul:
1) Wardecs need a goal. Holy god do they need a goal. Infinite cheap warfare just isn't cool. a) Goals need to be well defined..Damage inflicted in isk. (required)..Isk Exchanged (optional)..Time Limit (required) vacating space (optional) b) Mutual warfare needs to be supported as it is, and in this case war is not so much 'declared' as 'asked nicely' But mutual wars may have any of the above goals.
2) How to get end a war. a) Wars go away when the aggressor meets one of his stated goals (Damage inflicted, space cleared, or time limit reached as calculated at downtime) b) The defender 'wins' the war. By achieving a percentage of the stated goal. The higher the percentage required for the defender to win the war, the more expensive the war. c) Wars can be mutually ended through the surrender mechanic. d) War time ends. e) Note, after 'war time ends' war goes into 'cooldown' for 7 days. Even in the event of a surrender. This prevents immediate redeclarations as well as preventing corporation movement as the war will still be 'active'. (See the next section) f) Mutual wars may be ended by either side at any time unless goals are enforced, at which point a surrender must be negotiated.
3) Corp hopping, corp movement. a) Membership in both corps needs to controlled. 24 hours to join and leave for all parties (You need to give time for the extra paperwork to go through concord to include/exclude the pilot from the original bribe) (Doesn't count if wars are mutual) b) No re-joining during an active war! You leave a corp at war, you cannot rejoin anyone associated with that war until that war ends. (Again, the guy you are bribing will not be pleased about more paperwork) (Doesn't count if war is mutual) c) Free movement between corporations at war in the same 'wardec' on either side. d) Attacking corporations may not join an alliance while they have an active wardec. e) Defending corporations may join an alliance at any time with the current join alliance mechanics. f) Corporations in a defending alliance may *not* leave the alliance if they have hard assets in space to be vacated.
4) Getting help. a) Defenders may hire on mercs to 'join the war' using the discussed contract methods. b) Mercs joining in this fashion are stuck in the war until it is finished just like the defending entity. c) Extra defending mercs do not effect the size of the goals, but kills on the mercs do count towards meeting the goals. As do kills by the mercs add to the defenders totals towards ending the war.
4) War and More War Details a) Once the war gets taken to an alliance level. Corporations leaving the alliance will inherit the war, as well as a percentage of the goals by size (size by pilot (active (logged in in the past month), non-slot-alt, non-trial)). If part of the stated goal is to vacate space, the corporations leaving will immediately succeed in that goal. b) As corporations leave the alliance. The alliance level goal (the initial goal) does not drop.
5) Tax. a) Both corps/alliances are slapped with a 10% tax on top of their corp tax. All fundage goes into escrow per pilot. Tax also takes from insurance payouts (Because of this, corporation tax is capped at 90% during war, no wallet draining please) and buy/sell orders. (Made or adjusted post wardec including corp orders) b) Corporations who leave alliances forfeit the escrow of all their members taxes and the corporate tax to the opposing team. c) Players who leave corporations forfeit their escrow to the opposing team. d) The 'winner' of the war gets the 'losers' escrow. e) If war time ends, whoever is closer to their stated goals is declared the winner. In the event of a tie, the aggressor wins. f) This tax is optional for mutual wars. g) New defenders (As per the newly discussed contract mechanics) do *not* pay this tax. But the cost of the contract is taxed of course and added to the escrow. h) Joining alliance *does* cause the alliance to get the new tax...so watch out!
6) Vacating space a) Space is 'vacated' if no hard assets (POS, TCU) are anchored in target system and no 'active' pilots are docked/present in the system at downtime.
6) Costs. a) Mutual wars are free. b) Base 2 million per corporation...*PER DAY* For a war at which the defender must meet 25% of the stated goal for it to win. c) Add 500k per 5% increase in goal. *PER DAY* d) Space clearing goals add extra charges. 5 mil/system/day 10mil/constellation/day 50mil/region/day
You are the internet equivalent of a Mars bar filled with stupid. |
Nekopyat
Nee-Co
39
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 16:43:00 -
[406] - Quote
gfldex wrote: May I ask where you get your knowledge from? I wonder because if the pure PVE fraction is the majority, why are there so many chars listen on killboards? And why are there so many player in mission hubs with a sec status below 0.0? Did they all shoot random bypasser by accident?
Well, if we want the simplest example, we can look at the event that spawned EvE, when UO had both a null-like environment and a high-sec like one.
Originally UO was a lot like null sec, politics and police actions were generally player driven. They opened up a high-sec like area after a while due to complaints about the PvP region and shrinking subscriptions. So many people transitioned to the 'safe' server that the nullsec game was left pretty much empty.. so no governments, no economy, no targets, just wasteland.
That is the lesson CCP learned and did a really good job with in EvE, they built a game where not only can the two extremes co-exist, but all the play styles in between, which creates a richer economy and player experience.
Unfortunately, lessons tend to fade over time or at minimal when something works people have a bad habit of wanting to remove what did so well under the idea of 'it did well, it didn't need this after all!' (you see this all the time in arguments about government regulations)... so they get these twinges of remembering how much they like the PvP server when it was the only option and want to take EvE back that direction.
Though the sky never falls and there is never a mass exodus, usually either the changes get mitigated as they test them out or people find new ways to go right back to what they enjoy doing. It would, however, be nice if they STARTED from the idea of 'how can we make the game better across play styles' rather then these moments of 'oh dear, people still are not playing the way we wanted to play when we made EvE, how can we balance to make them?' |
Zedrik Cayne
Standards and Practices
99
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 16:50:00 -
[407] - Quote
So let's add some concrete examples:
I want to take over a couple moons in a highsec system because it would be convenient. Hire a merc:
Merc selects a large damage inflicted amount. And 'clear space' of the system in particular. They think they will only need a few days to blow the towers even with max stront.
So they pick four days. And they are convinced that the defenders are not going to put up much of a fight and leave the 'defender win' at 25%
War costs 2 mil for base...Plus 2 mil for clearing out a system... for four days. 4 mil x 4 days = 16 mil wardec fee...all up front.
War is declared. The R&D corp immediately clears the moons out and all their members bug out of system and go and hide. War ends 24 hours after. Client happy...Merc happy..Guys who had to move their tower aren't happy. But since the war was short, the extra 10% tax probably did not ruffle a feather and is extra bonus for Merc.
Now, let's say the defenders yell FFFFFUUUUU! and hire on mercs. And the mercs #2 start wiping the floor with the original mercs. Even if they are just holding their own, they only need to inflict 25% of the damage they are receiving to break even on the 'winning the war' front.
After four days, the defenders win because they are 'closer' to the stated goals. All the escrow amounts go to the defenders. Every battleship kill, 10% surtax on every replacement ship, module, and ammo purchased. (That 10% can go to pay merc #2 their damage bonus if they negotiated one.)
Another scenario:
Want to do corp war brackets? Sure. Two corps agree they are going to duke it out for GLORY and PRIZES!
Mutual wardec so it is free...Reasonable damage goal set for 7 days. 100% of stated goal is selected for the defender to 'win'. And it is a race. First corp to make damage wins. Or the one who is closer wins at the end of seven days.
Since CCP is going through all the trouble to make war reports. Let's do something with the data.
Adding goals gives a sieged corp a way out, and a light at the end of the tunnel. I can't just keep declaring on them over and over and over with the same corporation. (Now, if you're going to 'Mirage' it and have a dozen corporations chain decing the same entity...well...Maybe a harassment petition is in order.)
I won't lie. I've got some problems with my own solution. Mostly because it doesn't give me a nice free-form 'I'm going to keep investigating you because you are awful and I want to make sure you never lead another set of guys again' option.
And of course. I just thought of a probably common scenario regarding the 10% tax. Which involves multiple decs at once. And of course, you cannot just continually stack 10% taxes. So the escrow amounts get paid out at war 'end' time. The percentage of the escrow is dependent on comparing the goals and how much damage was caused. So someone cannot just start a short war in the middle of yours to steal the escrow amounts. (Unless they come in and completely annihilate the target). You are the internet equivalent of a Mars bar filled with stupid. |
Avila Cracko
283
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 17:14:00 -
[408] - Quote
bornaa wrote:I found one good proposal, please CCP, read it!!!!Form Eve News24 comments: "Take the Killboards of the aggressor and the defender as base for the calculation. The bigger the difference the more expensive the wardec must be. Will protect mining-corps or R&D-corps better then the membercount." And bind corp killboards with member kill boards so that there can't be infinite number of corps only for one or two war decs and then killed. Killboards of corps will be combined killboards of its members. (your record goes with you in the new corp you join.) I think it would be perfect.
Please consider this!!! truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
423
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 17:52:00 -
[409] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Q: Tiny entities deccing large entities? A: The fact this makes this harder is a conscious decision. We don't want to ban this activity of course, but see no reason to support it. So you guys don't see a reason to support merc corps. Thanks for making that clear. |
Har Harrison
Amarrian Retribution Amarr 7th Fleet
158
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 18:16:00 -
[410] - Quote
Glad to see that CCP is looking at the idea I suggested at the round table - not allowing a corp member to rejoin the corp if they drop while the war is still active. This will fix many leave/join exploits.
Fix Faction Warfare CCP!!!
Vote Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM 7 |
|
Akiro Tukana
Heavy Metal Industrial Supply
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 18:40:00 -
[411] - Quote
The new war dec costs bring an abrupt end to the ability of smaller corps to impact 0.0 corps/alliances who have operations in high/low sec.
Once upon a time, a dedicated 10 man corp could annoy the hell out of a 0.0 alliance by attacking high/low sec supply lines. Guess that's too bothersome to the 0.0 blocks, so must be done away with.
Also, RvB gets raped badly by this. |
ChickenandWatermelon
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 18:50:00 -
[412] - Quote
Akiro Tukana wrote:The new war dec costs bring an abrupt end to the ability of smaller corps to impact 0.0 corps/alliances who have operations in high/low sec.
Once upon a time, a dedicated 10 man corp could annoy the hell out of a 0.0 alliance by attacking high/low sec supply lines. Guess that's too bothersome to the 0.0 blocks, so must be done away with.
Also, RvB gets raped badly by this.
Pretty much this. CCP apparently wants to arrange merc corps like null alliances. Only a few giant power blocs. Small **** will continue, but only against the smallest corps with the most ransomable/expensive stuff.
I don't think CCP thinks this ISK sink will actually affect the mercs, I think they expect 100% of the costs to be passed to nullsec alliances who are going to 100% be all for paying them. I think it's a bit naive. |
killertoaster
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 19:08:00 -
[413] - Quote
CALLING FOR ARMS
to all small and medium manufactor and miners lets show cpp what happens when we arent getting heard so if the war mechanism gets launched the way they want it to work lets stop all productions on ships and mineral grinding and se how far the game will be affected by us stop selling and production in 14days after expansion launch
maybe we even see eve invated by shuttles |
Dead Loss
Sweet Capsuleer Tears
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 19:16:00 -
[414] - Quote
I would like to say that for small corps, declaring war on major alliances is a revenue stream like mining for others.
It allows us to be able to strike at the heart of much larger corps, in a type of skirmish way. If declaring war on Goonswarm or Red Alliance or any other types of corps that have thousands of members, or even 500+, means we have to pay hundreds of millions, this is going to kill a very interesting part of the game.
Think of it this way. A 4 man corp realizes that a major alliance uses a specific route for logistics, and their freighters always resupply in the same spot, etc. It's up to that alliance to protect its logistic and provide escort. If they can't do this, and a 4 man gang can come down on a Freighter in high sec because they have declared war on that alliance, and if in a time of war the alliance freighter members are too stupid to get protection then it's their fault.
But this is going to become increasingly difficult if we have to pay 500 million isk a week based on the large numbers of members of target alliance. |
gfldex
430
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 19:18:00 -
[415] - Quote
Dear Internet Spaceship Historians,
I went back in time to 2004 and found who's members barely left their trial and as such where not overly capable. Just to find out what wardecs (no decshield back then) are about. The forum back then is quite different from what we see today. The general consensus was that a wardec is simply something that happens to corps and that they just mount some frigs and fight back. Seams that was actually working for them.
There is something wrong with EVE but it's not the wardec system.
EDIT: I would like to add that because you could declare war on noobs the game never made any profit and CCP went bankrupt at the end of 2004. Goons are the 3%. |
Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
165
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 19:19:00 -
[416] - Quote
killertoaster wrote:CALLING FOR ARMS
to all small and medium manufactor and miners lets show cpp what happens when we arent getting heard so if the war mechanism gets launched the way they want it to work lets stop all productions on ships and mineral grinding and se how far the game will be affected by us stop selling and production in 14days after expansion launch
maybe we even see eve invated by shuttles
Do eeeeeeeeet!!!! Naooooo!
Oh, sweet, sweet iskies, come to daddy!
|
Darnok Iksnibiks
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 19:30:00 -
[417] - Quote
Hello
After watching the Fanfest War Dec presentation and reading blog i gave one problem with wining/loosing wars.
The concept is that, war report states only kills/loses ratio to the public which is cool. My problem is that war not always resolves around pawning poor noobs but rather completing set of goals. For example: pirate corp want to spoil enemy PVE, and get as many kills as possible. Defender corp objective would be to protect assets (hi sec POS can be expensive at time), save PVE capabilities, while not really care about losses.
Large 0.0 alliance want to conquer star system that is important propaganda wise. They may want to loose few fleets just to brag that they can dine in middle of enemy territory. On the flip side defender may want to kill a titan, take expensive moon or sth as counter measure.
I would like to see a list of predefined yes/no goals that server can easily track. System were conquered? POS survived war? scored more kills? Killed marked character? Titan was destroyed? list can go on... Corp can select many goals but those wold be counted as less important.
When war is declared and fee paid both sides would receive survey. Goals selected would be confidential (at least till spy do his job).Results - goal scored or not - would be written on final report and war result is evaluated from that.
Discuss
Darnok Iksnibiks |
ChickenandWatermelon
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 19:33:00 -
[418] - Quote
So, just a mental excersize.
What's the difference isk wise between decing goons and decing every single incursion corp in new eden? |
None ofthe Above
160
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 19:35:00 -
[419] - Quote
Arthello wrote:Remove neutral's ability to remote rep altogether and I'm fine with whatever you decide to do. That's the sole reason I never engage wartargets in low- or high-sec anymore. Every single time it seems like you have an interesting fight on your hands, so you decide to engage, the fight is ruined by neutral logistics.
Kudos to Mercs for using the game mechanics to their advantage. I'd do it myself too if I was a merc. It doesn't take away the fact that the game-mechanics are preventing good fights though.
Please fix. Make neutral RR a criminal offense if any of the recipients are in a war with someone. It will level the playing field somewhat.
Criminal seems a little harsh, but they sure as hell should be engageable as a new war target (probably on a timer) by the opposing side. (Suspect flag means engageable by everyone under new crimewatch.)
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
96
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 19:35:00 -
[420] - Quote
gfldex wrote:Dear Internet Spaceship Historians, I went back in time to 2004 and found who's members barely left their trial and as such where not overly capable. Just to find out what wardecs (no decshield back then) are about. The forum back then is quite different from what we see today. The general consensus was that a wardec is simply something that happens to corps and that they just mount some frigs and fight back. Seams that was actually working for them. There is something wrong with EVE but it's not the wardec system. EDIT: I would like to add that because you could declare war on noobs the game never made any profit and CCP went bankrupt at the end of 2004. I wasn't around for this time, so I guess I'd have to request a bit of perspective. How long had the game been out at that time? How far were the older players from the new ones? What were people flying; is all the bittervet talk about mining in frigs for ages to afford cruisers true? What tech 2 mods and ships existed at that time?
Not to say that wardecs are the thing that keeps eve from growing, but it seems the difference between new players and older ones then and now is a world apart. Drawing parallels would be difficult at best. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |