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) |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
172
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:28:00 -
[181] - Quote
the agressor should be able to call in his first ally when the defender called in his second one, always having one less than the defender. Another idea would be to allow more agressors to join an ongoing war for an isk fee
The defender should be able to grab the agressor by the Balls and somehow take over the war if interrested (the agressor has decided to not the war Fee for the next week, do you want to take over for XXX isk)
I also miss the idea of declaring war only for lowsec (reduced cost) and 00 (very reduced cost and an unlimited number of allies on each side), not sure about WHs, but i don't see a reason Why the wh dwellers should not be allowed to enjoy the war reports |
Nekopyat
Nee-Co
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:28:00 -
[182] - Quote
Karim alRashid wrote:Just make highsec into lowsec and be done with it. Keep it simple, stupid.
Oddly enough, there is merit to that.
There is another game that I play that went that direction, they essentially have low sec and null sec but no equivelent of high sec (except in maybe a few starter systems). Not only that but they make player owned structures cheap and profitable... and interseting thing happens,.. having so many targets available takes the novelty away from 'lets go blow something up' and players only start doing what really profits them. It also has a good 'theft' mechanic so you have levels of attacking.. you don't have to blow all the buildings in order to get loot, so the cost of being attacked can be much lower (which encourages people to have assets to risk).
One of EvE's problems is the 'all or nothing' attacking. Imagine things like piracy if you only had to risk your cargo and not your cargo+ship+implants, or if POSes could be raided without having to destroy everything. Though I guess that would reduce the ISK sinks and manufacturing need.... |
KanashiiKami
96
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:29:00 -
[183] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Possible pricing:
if (defender is larger) = base_fee + totalsize_fee * totalsize^1/4 - diff_fee * diff_size^1/5 if (defender is smaller) = base_fee + totalsize_fee * totalsize^1/4 + diff_fee * diff_size^1/5 Minimum size for attacker/defender is calculated as 20 on each side.
Base Fee = 40M Multiplier based on total size = 80M Multiplier based on size diff = 40M
20 attk 20 = 241M 20 attk 1000 = 334M 20 attk 8000 = 556M
1000 attk 20 = 651M 1000 attk 1000 = 575M 1000 attk 8000 = 584M
8000 attk 20 = 1038M 8000 attk 1000 = 1054M 8000 attk 8000 = 940M
It does mean that wars are more expensive at the low-end of the scale, but the N^1/4 scaling means that wars never get ridiculously expensive.
There should also be some sort of multiplier that additional wardecs on top of what you have are more and more expensive (just like now).
Size difference may also be better calculated as a ratio of attacker/defender, with a minimum of 20 for each.
i really like your total count method
BUT i wonder if CCP created this system to allow merciless killing off of smaller corps ... WUT ??? |
Nekopyat
Nee-Co
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:31:00 -
[184] - Quote
Micheal Dietrich wrote:
Back in my Bear days, one of the corps that we ran in started a small alliance with our training corp and a few other small corps. The biggest requirement that was put on us when we wanted to go ahead with some plans was that we had to get up to a 5.0 sec rating for a pos installation in a 0.6. This lead to some major group mission running. Now you are correct that each corp will vary. My friend and I were allowed to put up a second station along with some manufacturing plants in a neighboring system for our own use but we had to supply our own fuel and whatnot. Other corps may have restriction where a pos can go.
That actually sounds pretty sweet. Did you have trouble with corp members screwing with each other's POSes? |
Bruce Blacky
Blacky Invention Research Development YinYang
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:36:00 -
[185] - Quote
What about war decs by corps with one character 40 jumps away.
Then when they sppot you in space, multiple characxters (lets say 4) join that war party (the agressor), kill the defender and leave the corp again. Leaving the defender with no means to kill his (real) agressor?
Will you adress that?
(in case you need details see petition i posted about that incident)
Cheers Bruce |
Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
153
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:38:00 -
[186] - Quote
Bruce Blacky wrote:What about war decs by corps with one character 40 jumps away.
Then when they sppot you in space, multiple characxters (lets say 4) join that war party (the agressor), kill the defender and leave the corp again.
I believe this is declared an exploit.
PS. Well, depends: f https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=427917#post427917 |
Avila Cracko
275
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:38:00 -
[187] - Quote
Thnx to CCP for looking for every possible way to destroy EVE. truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
212
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:39:00 -
[188] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Hey guys, thanks for good comments, I'll try to answer a few of your questions here. I'm paraphrasing many of the questions
Q: Price of war A: The current formula is 20 mill (for corp, 50 for alliance) base price plus 500.000 per member in target corp. We're looking into some sorts of diminishing returns/cap, but nothing has been decided yet. We will not modify cost based on aggressor size as it is too easily gamed
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
Everything is great except for pricing as it relates to the quotes above.
Why did you decide that it was a good idea that large player entities could wardec small ones at trivial costs, but small player entities to wardec large ones would equate to astronomical costs? What's the motivation for this?
If you think you're going to drive High Sec players into power blocks like Eve Uni or Null Sec alliances I think you'll be disappointed, most are in High Sec precisely because their too independent minded or casual to fit in with large organized player structures. You may get some giant warshield alliance, but there won't be any meaningful social aspect to it that adds to gameplay
Wardecs cost should be based on the number of attackers not defenders. Fees should be just enough that going to war isn't overly trivial, but it shouldn't be used as a means to restrict players from declaring war, especially the current system which empowers blob entities and the very rich while completely disenfranchising small corps, casuals, and the ISK poor
To avoid gaming the system I offer you a solution
When a War is declared or renewed the wardecing party must purchase a war declaration contract based on how many members it wants to be allowed to participate. When purchased this cannot be lower than the current members of the wardecing party. If during that week the Wardecing party exceeds the number purchased through recruitment the defender may if they choose end the war at any time up until the war is renewed the following week
So this system allows flexibility in the payment scheme, is based on number of attackers, and the defending party can drop the war at no cost should the attackers abuse the system. In my view it's a much more balanced payment system than the one proposed by you (CCP)
|
KanashiiKami
96
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:41:00 -
[189] - Quote
Bruce Blacky wrote:What about war decs by corps with one character 40 jumps away.
Then when they sppot you in space, multiple characxters (lets say 4) join that war party (the agressor), kill the defender and leave the corp again. Leaving the defender with no means to kill his (real) agressor?
Will you adress that?
(in case you need details see petition i posted about that incident)
Cheers Bruce
yes ... attack and leave corp .... this is still not solved aint it
but the inferno thingy is just encouraging more wars, and big war blobs that will blot out all smaller corps
WUT ??? |
Avila Cracko
275
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:43:00 -
[190] - Quote
Xorv wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Hey guys, thanks for good comments, I'll try to answer a few of your questions here. I'm paraphrasing many of the questions
Q: Price of war A: The current formula is 20 mill (for corp, 50 for alliance) base price plus 500.000 per member in target corp. We're looking into some sorts of diminishing returns/cap, but nothing has been decided yet. We will not modify cost based on aggressor size as it is too easily gamed
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
Everything is great except for pricing as it relates to the quotes above. Why did you decide that it was a good idea that large player entities could wardec small ones at trivial costs, but small player entities to wardec large ones would equate to astronomical costs? What's the motivation for this? If you think you're going to drive High Sec players into power blocks like Eve Uni or Null Sec alliances I think you'll be disappointed, most are in High Sec precisely because their too independent minded or casual to fit in with large organized player structures. You may get some giant warshield alliance, but there won't be any meaningful social aspect to it that adds to gameplay Wardecs cost should be based on the number of attackers not defenders. Fees should be just enough that going to war isn't overly trivial, but it shouldn't be used as a means to restrict players from declaring war, especially the current system which empowers blob entities and the very rich while completely disenfranchising small corps, casuals, and the ISK poor To avoid gaming the system I offer you a solution When a War is declared or renewed the wardecing party must purchase a war declaration contract based on how many members it wants to be allowed to participate. When purchased this cannot be lower than the current members of the wardecing party. If during that week the Wardecing party exceeds the number purchased through recruitment the defender may if they choose end the war at any time up until the war is renewed the following week So this system allows flexibility in the payment scheme, is based on number of attackers, and the defending party can drop the war at no cost should the attackers abuse the system. In my view it's a much more balanced payment system than the one proposed by you (CCP)
They want to protect EVE Uni and make large ISK sink so they are ******* everybody else.
@ CCP Why you don't want money from ppl that like to make something and not destroy??? truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. |
|
Bruce Blacky
Blacky Invention Research Development YinYang
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:45:00 -
[191] - Quote
Karim alRashid wrote:Bruce Blacky wrote:What about war decs by corps with one character 40 jumps away.
Then when they sppot you in space, multiple characxters (lets say 4) join that war party (the agressor), kill the defender and leave the corp again.
I believe this is declared an exploit. PS. Well, depends: f https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=427917#post427917
well the petition was denied and i was NOT reimbursed: reason...there was a session change (the chars were changing corp in a station) I still feel that it is an exploit, but CCP/The GMs decided against my opinion.
still curious if that will still work with the new mechanics? IMHO the agressor should not be able to accept new corp memebers once war is declared. Members should however be able to leave the war (unless they did partake in war actions)
cheers Bruce |
gfldex
426
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:47:00 -
[192] - Quote
It may be wise to base the fees on the mineral basket. Buying a battleship BPO used to be a big deal. The 8 million gold problem, you know. Goons are the 3%. |
Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
153
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:48:00 -
[193] - Quote
Avila Cracko wrote: Why you don't want money from ppl that like to make something and not destroy???
Because that would dilute the uniqueness of EvE among the thousands of other MMORPGs. Because the current formula has proven successful for almost ten years already, while countless other games just fizzled.
PS. Btw, I like to make something (I have an industrial alt) and CCP do take quite a bit of money from me. So ... |
killertoaster
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:53:00 -
[194] - Quote
oh my god CCP havent you learnt any thing yet first the fail on walk-in-station and the nex shop and now you found a new thing that impact you player base = real money income. i see some stocks that will fall when all small corps stops there sub's because of this war crap you have in plan now didn you learn from last time, do we really have to blow up jita 4-4 up again and maybe take the 3 other trade hubs to before you learn to listen, at the concerned player base that actual keep you job running by subscript. but ok im not the guy to judge that its you ceo that needs to make a new sorry player speech thats all from me and i will unsubscript all i got in this game because i dont want to take part in this havoc of stupidity. and guys im not great at gramma so if you want to troll this its ok i dont care i just want ccp to step back and look at the big picture off eve and not only the box-of-war they got going on here |
Micheal Dietrich
Standards and Practices
168
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:53:00 -
[195] - Quote
Nekopyat wrote:Micheal Dietrich wrote:
Back in my Bear days, one of the corps that we ran in started a small alliance with our training corp and a few other small corps. The biggest requirement that was put on us when we wanted to go ahead with some plans was that we had to get up to a 5.0 sec rating for a pos installation in a 0.6. This lead to some major group mission running. Now you are correct that each corp will vary. My friend and I were allowed to put up a second station along with some manufacturing plants in a neighboring system for our own use but we had to supply our own fuel and whatnot. Other corps may have restriction where a pos can go.
That actually sounds pretty sweet. Did you have trouble with corp members screwing with each other's POSes?
No, our corp (20 total) were pretty tight with each other. The first POS had several manufacturing plants and each plant had a players name on it so that was his plant. If you wanted to use it you had to ask that player. We set up the second POS because my friend wanted several more bays to use. We also gave one other corpie the PW for him to set up a few more bays as well if he helped cover the cost. My only role was really just to anchor and fuel it since I've got the skills, I can't actually build anything for ****. I should note that the 'training' corp we had was for alts and new players going through the test period (watching for spies and all). They could join us on missions but were restricted from the POS's. |
gwabakk
Magwanz Mining Nostradamus Effect
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 19:11:00 -
[196] - Quote
Very bad ideas indeed. The assumption here is that persons or corps wanting to avoid war are the problem. But the most basic problem of wardeccing is of aggressors using the mechanism for nothing more that grieving and/or easy kills against corps that choose a non-fighting way of eve live and are therefore by definition underskilled in pvp fighting (i.e. industrials corps). This very basic flaw of war deccing is not addressed at all: wars can still be declared for no reason whatsoever. All it does (wardeccing) is forcing a playstyle upon corps that they do no want to persue, i.e. it is fundamentally ignoring the right to choose your own way of eve live. Which for me is one of the most important aspects that made me addicted to eve. You want pew-pew, go low-sec or null-sec, or become a pirate and risk being CONCORded.
Also, though comparing eve with real life mechanics is not always relevant, think about this: in which countries can you go to the police and say: "hey, here you've got 10000 us dollars, now let beat up my neighbours for a week without you guys interveninh". Well, certainly not in the countries we can consider as being "high-sec". Really, war-deccing is a flawed, uneccessary concept. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
172
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 19:12:00 -
[197] - Quote
What about region or constellation based wars |
ShadowMaster
37
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 19:15:00 -
[198] - Quote
For the most part I really like what I see in this. A few edge cases to maybe consider though.
RvB has a permanent mutual war going. If someone attacks Blue, Blue should still be able to call on Red as an ally even though we are at war with them.
We often have members switching sides to help keep the war between RvB balanced. We need a way to do this even when a third party war decs us.
Those are my two main concerns and the first one can be solved just by having Reds war dec the third party, just might cost us a fair bit when it maybe shouldn't. |
M'nu
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 19:19:00 -
[199] - Quote
killertoaster wrote:oh my god CCP havent you learnt any thing yet first the fail on walk-in-station and the nex shop and now you found a new thing that impact you player base = real money income. i see some stocks that will fall when all small corps stops there sub's because of this war crap you have in plan now didn you learn from last time, do we really have to blow up jita 4-4 up again and maybe take the 3 other trade hubs to before you learn to listen, at the concerned player base that actual keep you job running by subscript. but ok im not the guy to judge that its you ceo that needs to make a new sorry player speech thats all from me and i will unsubscript all i got in this game because i dont want to take part in this havoc of stupidity. and guys im not great at gramma so if you want to troll this its ok i dont care i just want ccp to step back and look at the big picture off eve and not only the box-of-war they got going on here
Only three periods got used in your ramblings. |
Fyremayden
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 19:25:00 -
[200] - Quote
My 2 cents
I understand that EvE is a sandbox game and that the idea is to allow people to pretty much whatever their hearts desire. My issue comes from the fact that only one portion of the GÇ£potentialGÇ¥ community gets to play in the sandbox. There is a large casual or GÇ£carebearGÇ¥ portion of the community and they are a part that gets a lot of crap in game. casual corporations tend to get a disproportionate number of war decks, they have issues transitioning to living in 0.0 if they can get out there at all. there are also a lot of people that enjoy industry, high sec mining, marketing or even running missions these people are not necessarily interested in PvP and being forced to PvP ruins their enjoyment of the game.
The new War Deceleration system hurts a lot of the aforementioned people. there needs to be a way for the casuals, industrialists to have relative safety in high sec. Either make a type of corporation where they pay some fee and they cant be war decked or make an NPC corporation that is for them or something.
I belonged to a corporation that I loved it was a missioning and production corporation. I enjoyed running with the people in it and had fun, but there was a 5 man corporation that insisted on war decking it constantly they would sit outside the stations we used and use a neutral orca to do whatever they did so we could never seem to kill us, then if we got enough people to actually fight them they would simply run and hide in station, we tried hiring mercenaries but they simply played on their alts until our mercenary contract ran out then war decked us again. I have herd too many stories like this.
I am not against PvP I love PvP in eve and when a war deck is mutual it is a lot of fun, but too many people simply use it as a griefing tool and in the long run this runs off customers from the game, perhaps not lots of customers but I would think that CCP would value all their paying customers.
|
|
Danny Centauri
Real Time Industries
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 19:33:00 -
[201] - Quote
Inferno - Fueled by the tears of carebears.
Have to admit the amount of ********Gäó in this thread is quite impressive on the side of the carebears. Apparently the phrase adapt or die doesn't apply if it makes you sad .
If you can't handle a war, leave the corporation. NPC corporations can not be war dec'd and are full of friendly people. If that isn't enough then start to form a corporation within said NPC corporation (after all for most people corp is just a chat channel which you can create in game anyway). This should cover the vast majority of cases of casual players there are bound to be loads of inventive ways of surviving that will come up which is how it should be.
If you are a more serious PvE or indy corporation then awesome you have ISK right, if not then you are really bad at EVE or actually casual players. Hire mercs! Its quite simple and the new system will increase competition in the merc industry and drive down prices as people try to get all the new contracts.
Honestly EVE is meant to be difficult it doesnt matter whether you are in highsec or in 0.0 there should always remain risk, and yes I do a lot of indy stuff yet I still believe this is the right way forward. Without war in EVE the market will remain stagnant these mechanics increase the velocity of money which is good for industry players meaning faster turn over of products.
Mercs get contract --> Spend on ships --> You sell ships --> You profit.
EVE is a life cycle some times you end up on the **** end of it... deal with it.
Warning: Carebear tear may be flamable. |
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics Bringers of Death.
704
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 19:34:00 -
[202] - Quote
Derkata wrote: Gotta protect null blocs and eve Uni. I only play a few times a month but have kept my account running because I love following the changes and seeing what this game can become. This war dec "rework" doesn't fix any of the issues other than indy players getting away from griefers. How dare they.
Pretty much. This is just a mega alliance protection racket sanctioned by CCP. All this does is herd people into them at the expense of smaller operations trying to escape mega alliance drama. What a bunch of Uni butt-lickers CCP has become. |
bornaa
GRiD.
145
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 19:34:00 -
[203] - Quote
@ CCP
Scrap this ****** changes and back to drawing board!!!
This is worse then Incarna that you gave us. At least Incarna did not screw up the game for many many people. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
610
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 19:39:00 -
[204] - Quote
gwabakk wrote:Very bad ideas indeed. The assumption here is that persons or corps wanting to avoid war are the problem. But the most basic problem of wardeccing is of aggressors using the mechanism for nothing more that grieving and/or easy kills against corps that choose a non-fighting way of eve live and are therefore by definition underskilled in pvp fighting (i.e. industrials corps). . They are the problem because they feel entitled to not defend themselves and inject commodities and isk into the game endlessly without cost, while competing with individuals and organizations that do. It's an unfair advantage that stifles emergent content and the best solution is one that puts all organizations on equal footing so that the most lucrative targets are gone after. This means the elimination of decshields and NPC corps.
I don't like the idea of rewarding big corps and alliances for bunching up together by penalizing those who wardec them. Being part of a huge group should carry its own rewards by having the ability to defend themselves. If they are terrified of some 10-man corp wardec then they don't deserve to exist. |
Arrs Grazznic
Poena Executive Solutions
25
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 19:42:00 -
[205] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Possible pricing:
if (defender is larger) = base_fee + totalsize_fee * totalsize^1/4 - diff_fee * diff_size^1/5 if (defender is smaller) = base_fee + totalsize_fee * totalsize^1/4 + diff_fee * diff_size^1/5 Minimum size for attacker/defender is calculated as 20 on each side.
Base Fee = 40M Multiplier based on total size = 80M Multiplier based on size diff = 40M
20 attk 20 = 241M 20 attk 1000 = 334M 20 attk 8000 = 556M
1000 attk 20 = 651M 1000 attk 1000 = 575M 1000 attk 8000 = 584M
8000 attk 20 = 1038M 8000 attk 1000 = 1054M 8000 attk 8000 = 940M
It does mean that wars are more expensive at the low-end of the scale, but the N^1/4 scaling means that wars never get ridiculously expensive.
There should also be some sort of multiplier that additional wardecs on top of what you have are more and more expensive (just like now).
Size difference may also be better calculated as a ratio of attacker/defender, with a minimum of 20 for each.
I was thinking of something like this while driving home. I like this and it seems nice and balanced to me. Well done!
|
Evil Incarn8
Fates Unwritten Consortium Guardians of Serenity
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 19:43:00 -
[206] - Quote
CCP you have totally missed the point.
The problem with wars is not the shedding/shielding, that is the workaround to the problem.
The problem is that the wardec system as it is now is a "pay to grief button"
It is true that the system needs changes, but the solutions you have presented show that devs do not understand the PvE player at all.
Yes wars should be possible, yes any and every player corp should be targetable, but you have to allow a way for the defender (95% of the time a non pvp corp of younger players than the aggressor) to win.
As it is now when an indy corp is decced you have very few options; 1) Fight back, not really viable, the aggressor chose you because they think they can win, hence they are older, better equipped, more knowledgable, have intel on you, have an army of remote rep and scouting alts and possibly spies in your corp. By fighting back you give the aggressor exactly what they want, entertainment, fights and kills. Nobody wins a war by giving the enemy what they want.
2) Stay docked up, why exactly do you pay a subscription to sit staring at a docked spaceship? but this is often the most effective solution to a war, deny the enemy what he wants, do not engage, do not entertain them, bore them into going away.
3) Pay a ransom, lol, seriously? if you pay a ransom you deserve the redec you get each and every one of them.
The new system as proposed has a few decent features, the ally system looks good I like that, as is making war a committment, however you have only made it a committment for the defender, the aggressor is still free to do as they want. Increasing the cost of war is good, the way it has been done will encourage roster stuffing and discourages decs against the major power blocs which is bad.
I like a few of the player suggestions in this thread, the pot of cash for meeting a predetermined victory condition, one that is viable for the defender (non pvp corp remember) to achieve.
For ex, war is won if the aggressor can destroy 1 bil isk worth of shipping, or if the defender can make 10 kills of any kind against the aggressor. (dont let the aggressor chose the victory conditions for the love of God)
If the war turns in the favour of the defender+ allies then control of the war should automatically swap to them, control should be determined by being closer to the victory conditions than your opponent.
Either way wars need fixing, your current solution although showing potential is woefully aggressor biased and in need of changes.
Thanks Evil Incarn8.
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
612
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 19:49:00 -
[207] - Quote
Evil Incarn8 wrote:CCP you have totally missed the point.
The problem with wars is not the shedding/shielding, that is the workaround to the problem.
The problem is that the wardec system as it is now is a "pay to grief button" The reason it's a "pay to grief button" is because the griefers keep their PVE assets/alts in decshielded corps or in NPC corps - making conflicts safe for the aggressor. |
Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
153
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 19:52:00 -
[208] - Quote
I heard once that WoW had fishing. There you go. |
Jessie-A Tassik
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 19:53:00 -
[209] - Quote
Danny Centauri wrote:Inferno - Fueled by the tears of carebears. Have to admit the amount of ********Gäó in this thread is quite impressive on the side of the carebears. Apparently the phrase adapt or die doesn't apply if it makes you sad . If you can't handle a war, leave the corporation. NPC corporations can not be war dec'd and are full of friendly people. If that isn't enough then start to form a corporation within said NPC corporation (after all for most people corp is just a chat channel which you can create in game anyway). This should cover the vast majority of cases of casual players there are bound to be loads of inventive ways of surviving that will come up which is how it should be. If you are a more serious PvE or indy corporation then awesome you have ISK right, if not then you are really bad at EVE or actually casual players. Hire mercs! Its quite simple and the new system will increase competition in the merc industry and drive down prices as people try to get all the new contracts. Honestly EVE is meant to be difficult it doesnt matter whether you are in highsec or in 0.0 there should always remain risk, and yes I do a lot of indy stuff yet I still believe this is the right way forward. Without war in EVE the market will remain stagnant these mechanics increase the velocity of money which is good for industry players meaning faster turn over of products. Mercs get contract --> Spend on ships --> You sell ships --> You profit. EVE is a life cycle some times you end up on the **** end of it... deal with it. Warning: Carebear tear may be flamable.
So, Null Bear, will you continue hiding in your Mega Corp, immune from War Decs?
Yes?
That's what I thought. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
90
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:02:00 -
[210] - Quote
So the message I get from this is stay in NPC or get in as large a groups as possible? |
|
|
|
|
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 |