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) |
Dubaschu
BJ TitsnEvE
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 15:48:00 -
[61] - Quote
I and our merc corp welcome these changes. Best changes in two years CCP. +1 CCP! |
Fearless M0F0
Incursion PWNAGE Asc
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 15:51:00 -
[62] - Quote
I think the RATIO of aggresor members vs target members should be factored in the wardec cost more than just the members in target corp. This would take care of 10 member wardec grieving corps from deccing big alliances just for the easy kills while keeping reasonable costs for a 500 member ally deccing another 500 member ally
The formula for the cost of declaring a war could be something like
Cost = Base Fee + ( Cost per target member * Number of members in target * Aggressor vs target ratio
Aggressor vs target ratio = Max ( Target Members / Aggressor Members, Aggressor Members / Target Members
So for a 10 member grieving corp, declaring war against a 1000 member alliance will cost base fee + 1000*Member cost*10
Likewise a 100 member merc corp deccing a 10 member noob carebear corp will cost 10*Member Cost*1
Something like this might make the issue of padding corps with alts, rookies and inactive accounts less relevant
|
Shandir
Ferocious Felines
91
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 15:52:00 -
[63] - Quote
1-week wars are not a commitment on the attackers side by any means.
There must be a downside to the attacker for losing a war.
You have fixed all the problems on the attackers side, but almost none of the problems on the defender's side.
You provide no incentive at all for defenders to undock, any time they undock they simply increase the odds of another week of war, risk losing ships, and can gain nothing.
You have not fixed docking games in high-sec wars.
You have not fixed the underlying alt-problem in high-sec wars. (Defenders are usually playing on mains and cannot escape the war - good; attackers are usually playing on alts and can escape the war - bad)
The war system needs to provide incentive for combat, a penalty for sucking, and a penalty for non-engagement.
PS: For those complaining about the cost scaling not including the aggressor corp? It does - a larger aggressor corp has a bigger wallet because it has more members and more opportunity for income. It does not need to be *cheaper*. If anything, it should be more expensive again the more members the aggressor has. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
392
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 15:53:00 -
[64] - Quote
Severian Carnifex wrote:@ CCP Please HEAR THE WORRIED PLAYERS and what they say/ask at the end of your FanFest presentation.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u0H3WA_UYAWe are all worried by the same things. You are making it to easy to grief other players, smaller corps/alliances, industry players and all others that just do not want to PvP. Do you want to make that ppl quit? You did not give any love to indy players, you just make their lives harder. For years no any new things or balancing, and making easier to gank indy players and now this... But this is not the problem of only indy players, this is problem of all "little persons" in the EVE.
I am just wondering wether they are trolling us or what, can't believe they could be that idiotic on purpose. This drivel would be dooming every last trader, miner, PvE or industrialist corporation out there, let alone players with a one-man corp. EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Dirk Space
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 15:53:00 -
[65] - Quote
I appreciate the effort involved in changing a long standing feature of the game but I do not understand why the war dec mechanic even exists.
PvP is available in this game in low-sec and null-sec for those that choose to travel to those locations. Just because some people want to bully the little guy, the carebear, someone who just wants to log on and make stuff, how does that make the war dec system justifiable?
If I enjoy mining and industry, why should I be forced to train up combat skills to defend myself, or sit in a station afraid to undock, or even spend my hard earned isk on hiring mercenaries or enlist people into my corp to 'protect' me while I play the game my way?
Are you going to implement a game mechanic that forces people in 0.0 to mine and manufacture and train the relevant skills?
Why don't you remove the war dec system completely and see what solutions the playerbase come up with to harass those that want no part of the "you have to pvp or else" mentality? You will probably be suprised at the ingenuity.
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
392
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 15:56:00 -
[66] - Quote
Karim alRashid wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: You mean that as long as someone wants to grief any smallholder, he can do so by just paying the bill, even if the war is non-consensual?
Not at all. Just paying the bill does not constitute "griefing". Actually undocking and shooting their ships also does not constitute "griefing", it's just non-consensual PvP. I hope this makes it clear.
Non consensual PvP as in shooting defenseles miners, yes, very "leet" and not "griefing" at all... EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
eidenjunior
Nor-rigs
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 15:57:00 -
[67] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:some drunkard CCP wrote:Q: How long will wars last? A: As long as the aggressor pays every week and no one surrenders (or no surrender offer is accepted), then a war can last forever. Are you serious with this puta mierda? You mean that as long as someone wants to grief any smallholder, he can do so by just paying the bill, even if the war is non-consensual? Are you kidding us, or is just that you still are intoxicated after Fanfest?
well if you keep undock and give me target to shot at then yes i will keep paying the bill. But if your corp outsmart/outnumber my corp. I don't wanted to keep paying for somthing that i see as lost. Or you corp takes a vacation for the week. i don't wanted to pay for something i don't get anything out of. |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
576
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 15:57:00 -
[68] - Quote
Marshiro wrote:I like Dierdra Vaal's line of incentive thinking, but I would make the incentives this way:
1. There are multiple levels of wardec, corresponding to intended scale of conflict and isk cap for ending the war in #2 2. If the Defender inflicts enough damage to the attacker (regardless of efficiency), the defenders then are given the right to end the war if wanted. They could end the war immediately after this is done, without waiting until the end of the week or whatever counts as wardec cycles.
This way, defenders have some incentives in undocking and quickly ending the war, while attackers have to attack carefully to keep the wardec alive.
These ideas are great but it doesn't stop the war deccer from just reinitiating the war right away again.
Ending it immediately is a no though. At the end of the week, if the defenders have a better efficiency by a noticeable margin (not 1% efficiency), then they can get a cesssation of fire for 1 week or something if they so choose.
I don't like that allies can join in as a freebie. There should be some cost for pulling an ally into the war on the game mechanics side. In my time as a merc, it's actually pretty common for deccers to hire counter-mercs out of sheer ego trip. So, the implied cost of mercs shouldn't be assumed since anyone can just join as an ally. Unless you're limiting this by forcing Mercs to pay a registration fee to be on the merc list in the first place or something.
The 2 effects of the system are going to be a mega privateer alliance deccing all the little corps, and then mega alliances protecting themselves from privateer alliances. So, maybe this will be inferno. ;p Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
392
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 15:58:00 -
[69] - Quote
Dirk Space wrote:I appreciate the effort involved in changing a long standing feature of the game but I do not understand why the war dec mechanic even exists.
PvP is available in this game in low-sec and null-sec for those that choose to travel to those locations. Just because some people want to bully the little guy, the carebear, someone who just wants to log on and make stuff, how does that make the war dec system justifiable?
If I enjoy mining and industry, why should I be forced to train up combat skills to defend myself, or sit in a station afraid to undock, or even spend my hard earned isk on hiring mercenaries or enlist people into my corp to 'protect' me while I play the game my way?
Are you going to implement a game mechanic that forces people in 0.0 to mine and manufacture and train the relevant skills?
Why don't you remove the war dec system completely and see what solutions the playerbase come up with to harass those that want no part of the "you have to pvp or else" mentality? You will probably be suprised at the ingenuity.
Completely +1.
This is the most idiotic thing i've ever seen proposed in this game. It makes the NEx prices look sane and sensible by comparison. EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Micheal Dietrich
Standards and Practices
166
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 16:00:00 -
[70] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Karim alRashid wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: You mean that as long as someone wants to grief any smallholder, he can do so by just paying the bill, even if the war is non-consensual?
Not at all. Just paying the bill does not constitute "griefing". Actually undocking and shooting their ships also does not constitute "griefing", it's just non-consensual PvP. I hope this makes it clear. Non consensual PvP as in shooting defenseles miners, yes, very "leet" and not "griefing" at all...
Putting aside the fact that the only thing making you defenseless is you, under the new wardec guidelines you can look up and hire a not so defenseless merc corp to guard you right through the wardec tab. |
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
392
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 16:00:00 -
[71] - Quote
eidenjunior wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:some drunkard CCP wrote:Q: How long will wars last? A: As long as the aggressor pays every week and no one surrenders (or no surrender offer is accepted), then a war can last forever. Are you serious with this puta mierda? You mean that as long as someone wants to grief any smallholder, he can do so by just paying the bill, even if the war is non-consensual? Are you kidding us, or is just that you still are intoxicated after Fanfest? well if you keep undock and give me target to shot at then yes i will keep paying the bill. But if your corp outsmart/outnumber my corp. I don't wanted to keep paying for somthing that i see as lost. Or you corp takes a vacation for the week. i don't wanted to pay for something i don't get anything out of.
And you can just keep paying to deny me from playing the game at all, to collect tears and being a jerk. EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Halycon Gamma
Judian Peoples Front
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 16:00:00 -
[72] - Quote
How to phrase this in a nice consistent well thought out manner, instead of the rage I want to spew...
This change is bad. Not only is this change bad, I'm willing to say this is the worst change ever to come down the pipe from CCP's R&D skunkworks of game design
Highsec needed a nerf, but this isn't it. The economic blog basically said that the amount of money in game is going up and that ship/module prices aren't keeping pace with the rate of inflation. That means people have billions in their wallets not being used. Wardec costs are nothing. At 200mil start price and 500k per member I can afford to declare war on goons right now solo. And I doubt I'm the only person in the game with that sort of income sitting around unused. On small to medium sized corps i could keep the fight going till the end of time out of spite and griefing. Wardec costs are a non issue. So if you're hoping it'll act as some sort of shield, you might wanna rethink that
And that's only the start of what's wrong with this mechanic
It does not reward fair gameplay, and yeah, EvE isn't fair. At some point though, there has to be checks and balances. You would not put in a module or ship without some sort of counter to it. Yet if this goes through, you've just been perfectly willing to put in an entire unbalanced system without any sort of obstacle to keep it from being abused. At the fanfest panel you said you don't want to try and balance it toward edge cases, you've also said you're constantly surprised by how players use features to grief each other. Trust me, someone keeping a war going for lulz isn't an edge case with the current amount of money in the game. It's going to happen, and it's going to happen a lot. With the defending side having no way out of it
So maybe, could you please sit down with a few of the money men and ask them what sort of amounts you'd need for it to truly be a deterrent, keeping in mind the reason we make the money is to pew people in the face, so we're probably willing to pay a constant tax to do it. And after they quote a nice astronomically high number.. rethink this whole thing. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
392
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 16:02:00 -
[73] - Quote
Micheal Dietrich wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Karim alRashid wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: You mean that as long as someone wants to grief any smallholder, he can do so by just paying the bill, even if the war is non-consensual?
Not at all. Just paying the bill does not constitute "griefing". Actually undocking and shooting their ships also does not constitute "griefing", it's just non-consensual PvP. I hope this makes it clear. Non consensual PvP as in shooting defenseles miners, yes, very "leet" and not "griefing" at all... Putting aside the fact that the only thing making you defenseless is you, under the new wardec guidelines you can look up and hire a not so defenseless merc corp to guard you right through the wardec tab.
Well, of course, if i choose to be a miner, it is my fault solely!! WHY NOT!!!!
EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Valkyrs
Deep Vein Trading
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 16:02:00 -
[74] - Quote
Maybe wardecs should follow the players as well as the corporation? If a player hops corps, the player is still a valid target for the wardec, and can also assist and be assisted by people in the war. The members of the players new corp/alliance wouldn't get kill rights on the enemy ship, but aiding the members ship could trigger kill rights and that could escalate like anything else. |
Athena Momaki
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 16:04:00 -
[75] - Quote
Can we add one more thing?
Make it so the aggressive corp cannot dock when under fire. I am tiered of the aggressors decking the corp i am in just to play docking games, or undock and then redock when they find out that they made a mistake on how much force we can bring. They made the war. They should have to surrender or fight, and not be able to hide.
(yes this player is in an NPC corp. I am not that crazy to put my corp out there like that.) |
Scapogo
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 16:05:00 -
[76] - Quote
Fearless M0F0 wrote:I think the RATIO of aggresor members vs target members should be factored in the wardec cost more than just the members in target corp. This would take care of 10 member wardec grieving corps from deccing big alliances just for the easy kills while keeping reasonable costs for a 500 member ally deccing another 500 member ally
The formula for the cost of declaring a war could be something like
Cost = Base Fee + ( Cost per target member * Number of members in target * Aggressor vs target ratio
Aggressor vs target ratio = Max ( Target Members / Aggressor Members, Aggressor Members / Target Members
So for a 10 member grieving corp, declaring war against a 1000 member alliance will cost base fee + 1000*Member cost*10
Likewise a 100 member merc corp deccing a 10 member noob carebear corp will cost 10*Member Cost*10
Something like this might make the issue of padding corps with alts, rookies and inactive accounts less relevant
I agree that it shuld be something like this. Difference in size should be taken in consideration when calculating price.
Only big corp and alliances will be happy with your solution. Corp should wardec other corp with aprox. same size or larger. Other way around is only about harrasment nothing else. |
Nevryn Takis
University of Caille Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 16:05:00 -
[77] - Quote
I'm going to re-iterate on how bad this is .. After this change you'll have 3 large alliances and 4 npc corps because anything else won't be sustainable way to go to kill small industrial corps and casual players .. looks like I'll be un-subbing and seeing how far Perpetuum has developed. |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1298
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 16:06:00 -
[78] - Quote
Dev Blog wrote:Wars are tracked, with all losses shown in a War Report, viewable by all participants. This lists clearly all losses on both sides in the war. To get this to work properly, weGÇÖve (with help from team Game of Drones) added everything to the market and fixed a few items that didnGÇÖt have a price (like Titans), with the price being based on material ingredients. Here is a mockup of the war report. This is a work in progress.
Wait what? You mean to tell me that you did something this awesome and didn't make a special blog post about it?!?!
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
151
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 16:06:00 -
[79] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Karim alRashid wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: You mean that as long as someone wants to grief any smallholder, he can do so by just paying the bill, even if the war is non-consensual?
Not at all. Just paying the bill does not constitute "griefing". Actually undocking and shooting their ships also does not constitute "griefing", it's just non-consensual PvP. I hope this makes it clear. Non consensual PvP as in shooting defenseles miners, yes, very "leet" and not "griefing" at all...
Perhaps we should not use this thread as a venue for argument, so I'm gonna only say this:
The game does not favor any specific individual - the game mechanisms are available equally to everyone.
From that point on, everything is a matter of making choices and bearing the consequences of these choices.
I have never claimed that shooting defenseless miners is "leet" - no, it is not "leet" and it does not take skill. But it may be necessary, it may be profitable, it may be expedient, it may be fun - and all these are valid reasons for doing it.
Quote:Well, of course, if i choose to be a miner, it is my fault solely!! WHY NOT!!!!
Fault?! I would never say it is your "fault". It is your choice and if you enjoy being a miner I fully support you in being a miner. |
Micheal Dietrich
Standards and Practices
166
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 16:06:00 -
[80] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Micheal Dietrich wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Karim alRashid wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: You mean that as long as someone wants to grief any smallholder, he can do so by just paying the bill, even if the war is non-consensual?
Not at all. Just paying the bill does not constitute "griefing". Actually undocking and shooting their ships also does not constitute "griefing", it's just non-consensual PvP. I hope this makes it clear. Non consensual PvP as in shooting defenseles miners, yes, very "leet" and not "griefing" at all... Putting aside the fact that the only thing making you defenseless is you, under the new wardec guidelines you can look up and hire a not so defenseless merc corp to guard you right through the wardec tab. Well, of course, if i choose to be a miner, it is my fault solely!! WHY NOT!!!!
I'm not talking about your choice on becoming a miner, I'm talking about your choice on being defenseless. You can be anything you want in this game that you so choose, including helpless and at the mercy of others. The choice is yours. |
|
Raneru
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
43
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 16:06:00 -
[81] - Quote
Regarding the ally system, would it not be better to allow people to take a contract for a set period rather than the duration of a wardec. My thinking behind this is that a whole corp could play with RvB for a set period rather than forever as the war is mutual.
The other thing is, could we have an ally contract that isn't related to a wardec so a merc corp/alliance can formally negotiate a contract for a set period for other things like attacking a target in 0.0, defending a pos, etc? |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
2017
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 16:15:00 -
[82] - Quote
These are good changes overall and a drastic improvement over the mess we have today as evidenced by the tears of the people currently abusing the loopholes in the system. The exact cost formula would be nice to know, but I would advice against including too many variables in it or use it to force your ideal engagements on us. Just implement some form of dimisinshing returns to exclude the worst abuse scenarios from the cost forumula. This would include the cost increase of member counts and the increase caused by multiple aggressive wars. This way you can negate any cost based dec shields and make deccing a large number of small corps very expensive. That should keep things somewhat in check, while providing a loose enough framework as to not limit what we want to do with the system too much. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
392
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 16:15:00 -
[83] - Quote
Nevryn Takis wrote:I'm going to re-iterate on how bad this is .. After this change you'll have 3 large alliances and 4 npc corps because anything else won't be sustainable way to go to kill small industrial corps and casual players .. looks like I'll be un-subbing and seeing how far Perpetuum has developed.
Yay, apparently CCP just figured they got too many saitisfied customers already and is about time to fukk off them. EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
gfldex
425
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 16:16:00 -
[84] - Quote
Dirk Space wrote:I appreciate the effort involved in changing a long standing feature of the game but I do not understand why the war dec mechanic even exists.
It's there to force bad corps out of business.
Dirk Space wrote: If I enjoy mining and industry, why should I be forced to train up combat skills to defend myself, or sit in a station afraid to undock, or even spend my hard earned isk on hiring mercenaries or enlist people into my corp to 'protect' me while I play the game my way?
Nobody an declare war on any NPC corp.
Dirk Space wrote: Are you going to implement a game mechanic that forces people in 0.0 to mine and manufacture and train the relevant skills?
Yes, it's called wardec without decshield. You are aware of the fact that you can make more ISK mining in 0.0 do you? Margin are much better there as well.
What exactly are you whining about? You can completely opt-out of wardecs by staying in NPC corps or you can go to 0.0 where you don't care about wardecs.
Goons are the 3%. |
Harimata
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 16:21:00 -
[85] - Quote
There are a couple issues that I have with the current design of the war dec system. There are some areas which it does reasonably well, and falls short in others.
First and foremost, there is no direct motivation for defender to undock/fight back. The devblog hints that "(or docking for a week)" is part of the design. I (personally) am against this because any mechanic that encourages people to basically not play for a week is bad in the long-term
My proposed solution to this is for the aggressor, in addition to the Concord fees, to place a sizeable sum of ISK into an escrow account that goes to the "winner" of the war. This implies that there will be a way to determine a "winner" of each war, which brings me to my next point
For all wardecs, specify objectives, success/failure criteria and scope. This was hinted at before, but I didn't see much about this in the devblog. Some ideas - The current standard metric for wars is ISK destroyed. The objective can be to inflict 1b of ISK damage. First side to reach that threshold will "win" the war. This can be extended to ships destroyed, etc. This is essentially "economic warfare" - One new mechanic could be to destroy a certain strategic asset (eg, POS, Orca, Freighter, etc). This is "strategic warfare"
Now, to make things more interesting, all player-types should have a chance to win a war. The goal of economic warfare is to inflict ISK damage on your enemy. How can a carebear stand a chance vs a dedicated pvp corp to do more ISK damage? Well... why not reward them for doing what they do best? Why can't a corp *mine* or *mission* their way to victory? If they can make 1B ISK while being war decced without losing anything, to me that sounds like a victory. And as a reward for mining/missioning during a wardec, they getim the ISK that the aggressor put up as escrow.
For strategic asset wars, if the defender can successfully defend a POS, that should count for something. This is where the whole merc system can come into play. Lets say the reward for defending a POS is 200m and they can negotiate a merc contract for 150m. The defender and the merc actually have a direct financial incentive to participate in the war
One flaw with the specifics of this is that it is relatively easy to hide across the entire universe to make some ISK in order for the defender to "win" the economic war. How can one fix this? Well, for starters why do war decs have to be universe-wide? Why not limit them to fixed regions/constellations/etc? Or just highsec/lowsec? Or specific systems for strategic objectives
For example, there is a missioning corp that runs level 4s out of one system. A PVP corp war decs them, with the criteria to inflict 1b of economic damage in that one system. They place 500m in escrow. If the missioning corp can sneak in enough missions to make 1b, they will claim the prize AND end the dec early. Of course, the PVP corp will have to make sure that doesn't happen and be forced to actually participate in the war (as opposed to just swinging by once a day to kill something)
So, to summarize this wall of text - The aggressor has to place a non-trivial amount of ISK into escrow for whoever "wins" the war - Objectives for war. They can be economic (inflict X ISK damage to win, or for the defender, earn X ISK to win), or strategic (destroy a fixed asset to win, or defend it to win) - Limit the scope for war to the entire universe/region/constellation/system. Also, options for high-sec/low-sec
This model actually solves a bunch of other problems. My #1 complaint about low-sec is that it is impossible to use small ships due to station guns/gate guns and a full-fledged war dec will also affect high-sec activities. Why not make it really cheap to have low-sec war decs? This will allow use of all ships without GCC in low-sec, while keeping high-sec activities safe
You can also have very interesting new game modes with this. For example, capture the flag in high-sec? That is just a strategic war in a single system, where each team has one fixed asset that they must protect and one that they must attack. All you have to do is have some mechanic for how to "capture" a flag, and bam! CTF in EvE. This can open the door for casual/arena-style PVP in the same vein as RvB
Apologies for the wall of text, but I had a lot to say.
tl;dr - The aggressor has to place a non-trivial amount of ISK into escrow for whoever "wins" the war - Objectives for war. They can be economic (inflict X ISK damage to win, or for the defender, earn X ISK to win), or strategic (destroy a fixed asset to win, or defend it to win) - Limit the scope for war to the entire universe/region/constellation/system. Also, options for high-sec/low-sec. |
Sturmwolke
153
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 16:22:00 -
[86] - Quote
1) There needs to be a) a minimum amount and b) maximum cap for the wardec fees, irrespective of corp size. The devil's in the details.
2) Ending wars should result in 3 simple outcomes - defender surrender or aggressor give-up/return-home ... or a mutual draw (however remotely). These outcomes should therefore be noted in the war history. For the latter case, simply by not choosing to pay the wardec fees should mean an automatic give-up/return home.
3) When corps are in an active at war, any changes to member count i.e. those leaving or joining should be slapped with a Concord levy ... which increases exponentially (not linearly, mind you).
4) I think neutral RR could be handled similarly as in 3). Anyone trying to neutral rep warring parties will need to bribe Concord to look the other way, per offence. Implement a standard stack nerf to discourage multiple neutral RR through raising the cost exponentially. You'll need a counter that keeps track of the neutral RR violations for each of those corps at war.
|
Arrs Grazznic
Poena Executive Solutions
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 16:23:00 -
[87] - Quote
Generally very welcome, however I'd like to see this
Quote:Change the war dec cost formula so that the cost is no longer increased by the number of wars target corp is in. Instead, the cost is modified by the number of players in target corp replaced with a formula that takes into account both the size of the target AND aggressor corps. Otherwise you can have a large corp with, say, 5000 members, permanently wardec literally hundreds of small crops at relatively little cost.
|
Athena Momaki
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 16:26:00 -
[88] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Nevryn Takis wrote:I'm going to re-iterate on how bad this is .. After this change you'll have 3 large alliances and 4 npc corps because anything else won't be sustainable way to go to kill small industrial corps and casual players .. looks like I'll be un-subbing and seeing how far Perpetuum has developed. Yay, apparently CCP just figured they got too many satisfied customers already and is about time to fukk off them.
Both you guys are just complaining for the fact of complaining. this is going to be no different then the current system in place now. Exp it will cost more for the aggressor, and the aggressor can not call for back up. only the defender can.
I do agree with other post that there should be a revers price on the aggressor that takes into account of how many members they have over the defender's corp and charge the average of players also.
To add my main is an Indy. I fly Indy. I do have skills for pvp on my Indy also. Do i want to fight? No, but sometimes you have to pull a hard six, and punch the bully in the face. You may get the crap beat out of you, or you may find out that they will leave you alone after they find out your going to fight back.
Also if your quitting the game because of this can i have your stuff, and thank for helping me make more isk with less competition on the market. |
Derkata
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 16:28:00 -
[89] - Quote
Micheal Dietrich wrote: I'm not talking about your choice on becoming a miner, I'm talking about your choice on being defenseless. You can be anything you want in this game that you so choose, including helpless and at the mercy of others. The choice is yours.
If there was a way for indy corps to declare "war" on a merc corp or a nullsec corp that forced them to mine or log off for a week, you know people would be up in arms and the "lul you chose to pvp and I support that, soz u dont want to mine" would never fly.
This is without a doubt an anti indy move and anyone who can't see that is likely going to be shooting miners. I don't see why war decs are needed in the first place, there are plenty of people who want to pvp in low sec and null sec. |
Nekopyat
Nee-Co
25
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 16:31:00 -
[90] - Quote
Dierdra Vaal wrote: Now I do admit the ease of getting out of wars currently is a big issue, one only justified by the broken system we currently have. But forcing players into a war they didn't chose should come with an ability for the defender to take control of the wardec, and giving them the direct ability to end the war and enforce a temporary peace.
Hrm... you know, one way for the defender to 'take control' would be to require both the attacker AND defender to sign off on a war ending, otherwise the upkeep fee continues to be deducted from the aggressor's account till the defender agrees to stop, including going into negative isk territory. This would add a real element of economic risk to the aggressor and change the waiting game into something the agressor needs to worry about too. |
|
|
|
|
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 |