| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pan Crastus
Anti-Metagaming League
   |
Posted - 2009.04.06 11:51:00 -
[1]
Wardecs have an increasing cost depending on the number of existing wardecs of both sides.
Considering the huge napfests we've seen lately and this bearing practically no real disadvantage, why not make it a bit pricey so that Alliances and Corporations have at least a small motivation to reconsider their nap lists every now and then?
Example/Suggestion:
* base cost per blue standing: 1m ISK monthly
* scaling factor: 1.25 per additional blue standing
=> cost for 4 blue: 5.76m monthly
=> cost for 20 blue: approx. 343m monthly
=> cost for 50 blue: approx. 280b monthly
To implement this properly, the number of personal standings would also need a low limit (or it could be circumvented).
How to PVP: 1. buy ISK with GTCs, 2. fit cloak, learn aggro mechanics, 3. buy second account for metagaming
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 11:57:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Destination SkillQueue on 06/04/2009 11:57:25
Last time I checked I can set people to negative standing without paying a fee, so why would giving someone positive standing cost money?
EDIT: Didn't make sense.
|
Buga Buga
Sajuuk Fleet
Crimson Dragons
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 12:03:00 -
[3]
That's stupid. You want some big corporation to run out of funds? 
|
WarlockX
Amarr
Free Trade Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 12:11:00 -
[4]
pay who??
you are talking about 0.0 right?
-----------------------------------------------
Free Trade Corp - Flash page
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 12:25:00 -
[5]
EVE is so unfriendly you have to pay to like people.
Hmm...
-
DesuSigs |
Dark Soldat
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 12:26:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Dark Soldat on 06/04/2009 12:26:32
So what, if you were the leader of a big alliance i dont think you would propose this 
|
Another Forum'Alt
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 12:49:00 -
[7]
lol.
-24.9/10
Guide to forum posting |
Pan Crastus
Anti-Metagaming League
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 13:09:00 -
[8]
 Originally by: Buga Buga
That's stupid. You want some big corporation to run out of funds?
If I wanted big corporations to run out of funds, I'd propose a huge cost per member for all corporations.
Learn to read people and think before you answer...
How to PVP: 1. buy ISK with GTCs, 2. fit cloak, learn aggro mechanics, 3. buy second account for metagaming
|
Pan Crastus
Anti-Metagaming League
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 13:10:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Dark Soldat
Edited by: Dark Soldat on 06/04/2009 12:26:32
So what, if you were the leader of a big alliance i dont think you would propose this
Only if I did not like PVP much and tried to win a "cultural victory" in EVE...
How to PVP: 1. buy ISK with GTCs, 2. fit cloak, learn aggro mechanics, 3. buy second account for metagaming
|
But Sects
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 13:10:00 -
[10]
ITT, OP makes a stealth napfest whine.
Q______Q
|
|
|
Pan Crastus
Anti-Metagaming League
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 13:12:00 -
[11]
Originally by: But Sects
ITT, OP makes a stealth napfest whine.
Q______Q
C, but it's a constructive post nevertheless. I could write a long post about how napfests have a negative effect on EVE, esp. for small/medium corps and alliances etc. but most people know it anyway.
How to PVP: 1. buy ISK with GTCs, 2. fit cloak, learn aggro mechanics, 3. buy second account for metagaming
|
Discrodia
Gallente
Independent Miners Guild
Guild Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 13:23:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Pan Crastus
Originally by: But Sects
ITT, OP makes a stealth napfest whine.
Q______Q
C, but it's a constructive post nevertheless. I could write a long post about how napfests have a negative effect on EVE, esp. for small/medium corps and alliances etc. but most people know it anyway.
*Cough*
Constructive? LOL
Greatest... lie... EVER!
Seriously OP, why do you want to do this? I mean other than you hate corps / alliances *gasp* working together?
______________________________________________
Discrodia > SILENCE! I KILL YOU!
Northern Fall > They're just sleepers disc... |
Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 13:35:00 -
[13]
Despite all the flaming here the op has a valid point
Why do people huggle each other and have HUGE blue lists instead of killing each other and slicing their throats?
Why for example is it necessary for corps with several thousand members to have tens of thousands more people napped?
Why aren't there more incentives to fight? Why is it more rewarding to nap each other than to kill each other?
The answers are not easy to give, a lot depends also on CCP and how dark they want their universe to be.
But in any case, simple suggestions like 'increasing fee for every new blue standing' is the wrong answer and wouldn't change anything. Only some fundamental change of game mechanics can change things - and then there is the question if that is desired.
|
Pan Crastus
Anti-Metagaming League
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 13:54:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Pan Crastus on 06/04/2009 13:54:30
Originally by: Discrodia
Seriously OP, why do you want to do this? I mean other than you hate corps / alliances *gasp* working together?
Is it really that hard to understand? See posting above and also: I simply don't want EVE to turn from "empire is carebear heaven" to "all of EVE is carebear heaven" just because everyone can nap everyone else with no penalty of any sort.
As for Gnulpie's post: my suggestion is the simplest change that would accomplish at least some weeding-out of nap lists. Ideally, some broader change of game mechanics would facilitate this, such as e.g. some negative effect of a Corp/Alliance's growth on all other Corps/Alliances regardless of standings, especially on direct neighbours. I don't have any good ideas for that though (perhaps sovereignty could "leak" onto neighbouring areas, giving even friendly neighbours disadvantages, as is the case e.g. in GalCivII?).
One often overlooked disadvantage of nap lists is also that in order to become part of a particular power bloc, you can just join any decent corp in that napfest, so highly succesful/well-run corps/alliances do not get the share of new players they would deserve.
How to PVP: 1. buy ISK with GTCs, 2. fit cloak, learn aggro mechanics, 3. buy second account for metagaming
|
Rathelm
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 14:05:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Gnulpie
Despite all the flaming here the op has a valid point
Why do people huggle each other and have HUGE blue lists instead of killing each other and slicing their throats?
Why for example is it necessary for corps with several thousand members to have tens of thousands more people napped?
Why aren't there more incentives to fight? Why is it more rewarding to nap each other than to kill each other?
The answers are not easy to give, a lot depends also on CCP and how dark they want their universe to be.
But in any case, simple suggestions like 'increasing fee for every new blue standing' is the wrong answer and wouldn't change anything. Only some fundamental change of game mechanics can change things - and then there is the question if that is desired.
Oh these are easy questions to answer. :)
Because as most of you guys have so eloquently stated earlier about other types of proposed carebear changes is that CCP is more interested in fostering a real type environment instead of trying to facilitate certain types of game play. Just like in the real world, in Eve war is expensive. Giant alliances in particular will pay huge war costs with the loss of ships and other economic strains brought on by the conflict. So instead people engage in diplomacy because it's cheaper than the alternative. Everybody wins minus the people that want carnage.
|
Pan Crastus
Anti-Metagaming League
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 14:30:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Pan Crastus on 06/04/2009 14:30:34
Originally by: Rathelm
Just like in the real world, in Eve war is expensive. Giant alliances in particular will pay huge war costs with the loss of ships and other economic strains brought on by the conflict. So instead people engage in diplomacy because it's cheaper than the alternative. Everybody wins minus the people that want carnage.
A logic consequence would be that everyone becomes blue to (almost) everyone else since war is just too expensive and becomes even more expensive when smaller entities fight bigger power blocs - the former will usually have more losses at a higher relative cost (to their income).
So, with the current environment, alliance PVP will become nearly extinct at some point, provided enough players are reasonable about it. Just like real world, where large-scale conflicts are scarce (and require crazy leaders), eh? But why play a PVP game then.
How to PVP: 1. buy ISK with GTCs, 2. fit cloak, learn aggro mechanics, 3. buy second account for metagaming
|
Faife
Federation of Freedom Fighters
Aggression.
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 14:54:00 -
[17]
you can't solve a social problem with technology. hth, hand.
--
|
Bolt Zapper
Gallente
Coalition of Nations
DEFI4NT
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 14:58:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Faife
you can't solve a social problem with technology. hth, hand.
Agreed. If you nerf the use of positive standings, people will simply use more cumbersome methods (e.g. lists of friendly corps/alliances on forums, in mailing lists etc) to maintain good relations.
Setting people to blue is merely a vehicle to facilitate an existing social propensity, not the cause thereof.
|
Rathelm
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 15:04:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Rathelm on 06/04/2009 15:06:48
Originally by: Pan Crastus
Edited by: Pan Crastus on 06/04/2009 14:30:34
Originally by: Rathelm
Just like in the real world, in Eve war is expensive. Giant alliances in particular will pay huge war costs with the loss of ships and other economic strains brought on by the conflict. So instead people engage in diplomacy because it's cheaper than the alternative. Everybody wins minus the people that want carnage.
A logic consequence would be that everyone becomes blue to (almost) everyone else since war is just too expensive and becomes even more expensive when smaller entities fight bigger power blocs - the former will usually have more losses at a higher relative cost (to their income).
So, with the current environment, alliance PVP will become nearly extinct at some point, provided enough players are reasonable about it. Just like real world, where large-scale conflicts are scarce (and require crazy leaders), eh? But why play a PVP game then.
Well that's a valid question. In order to facilitate PvP like you're requesting you have to attack the root of the problem. Which would be the large mega corporations that are allowed to form and I don't know if there's any in or out of game mechanism that would make this possible.
EDIT:
Actually there is one thing today that threatens world peace and that is energy. If CCP started taking drastic steps to reduce the ability to obtain resources then perhaps you can fuel fights. If there's not enough to go around people will fight over the few remaining resources.
|
Intense Thinker
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 15:21:00 -
[20]
Blue standings usually do cost isk anyway 
Pomp FTW!!! |
|
|
Dominious
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 15:32:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Gnulpie
Despite all the flaming here the op has a valid point
Why do people huggle each other and have HUGE blue lists instead of killing each other and slicing their throats?
Why for example is it necessary for corps with several thousand members to have tens of thousands more people napped?
Why aren't there more incentives to fight? Why is it more rewarding to nap each other than to kill each other?
This game is just as much about diplomacy as it is about "slashing each others' throats". Actually, it's about making it what you want to make it. If alliances want to NAP each other, their choice, their decision. Don't like it? Form your own and set every one red. Not that hard, really. The problem as I see it is some kind of individual infatuation by a few to force others to play the style they want, which in this case is your desire for others to stop building empires and instead start destroying them. Let alliances decide what kind of politics they want to live by. Worry about your own.
|
Taedrin
Gallente
Nabaal Engineering of Haarsuk
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 15:38:00 -
[22]
This is either a stealth napfest whine, or a stealth NBSI whine
|
Markius Proxim
Free Market Enterprizes
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 15:52:00 -
[23]
You have 0.0 concept of 0.0 Politics =)
Standings do often cost isk. Just not straight from the wallet. Typically people help out their blues with engagements. Keeping pvp pilots happy requires things to shoost. So there is a balance b/t pew pew and making isk for ships to pew pew with. Paying for blue standings by helping allies shoot other is better than straight isk.
On a more fundamental level, blue standings is really just a suggestion, condord doesn't pop u if you violate it. I've been in *GASP* NRDS alliances, etc. Your solutions is poorly thought out, and hardly deserves my time except i'm bored waiting for someone to respond to :http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1043435
yay responces |
Kahega Amielden
Minmatar
Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 16:05:00 -
[24]
In which case alliances would just get a giant list of corps/alliances they are friendly with rather than using the ingame system.
|
stoicfaux
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 16:27:00 -
[25]
Normal, happy, well adjusted people have no reason to fight. You have to create one. One way to get normal, happy, well-adjusted people to start happily slashing each others throats is to get them all to want the same scarce resource.
Figure out what corps desire most in eve, and then find a way to create a shortage of that desire. Human nature will do the rest.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 16:29:00 -
[26]
OP is a twit.
Adding complicated rules to to make the game suit a narrow group is the reason for most the problems we already have.
Seriously why would there a be a limit on little signs that say "We are friends>'
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
z0de
Gallente
The Bastards
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 16:34:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Crumplecorn
EVE is so unfriendly you have to pay to like people.
Hmm...
only good thing in this thread.
á
á
|
Dr Karsun
Gallente
Empire News
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 16:45:00 -
[28]
To me it seems normal that settings standings costs nothing, it's the 'getting standings from someone' part that cost a lot of money, at least sometimes.
But someone said that 'why is it better to hug than to kill', look at the REAL world, it's also better to have friends and then kill other enemies with them than kill everyone in sight your self, right?
------------------------
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 16:52:00 -
[29]
If only we had a forum for those ideas...all those poor people who have to post them in gd..
Oh by the way, the suggestion wouldn't even work. People would just use light red for friends, and deep red for hostiles.
Or just create Powerblock-Alliances, or just use blue status for hostiles, or just set nobody to hostile and set everyone currently on your blue list to red...
----------------------------------------------
Originally by: CCP Prism X
In New Eden, EVE wins you.
|
Bary OBama
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 17:42:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Gnulpie
Despite all the flaming here the op has a valid point
Why do people huggle each other and have HUGE blue lists instead of killing each other and slicing their throats?
Why for example is it necessary for corps with several thousand members to have tens of thousands more people napped?
Why aren't there more incentives to fight? Why is it more rewarding to nap each other than to kill each other?
The answers are not easy to give, a lot depends also on CCP and how dark they want their universe to be.
But in any case, simple suggestions like 'increasing fee for every new blue standing' is the wrong answer and wouldn't change anything. Only some fundamental change of game mechanics can change things - and then there is the question if that is desired.
Have you ever left empire? Fly down to Delve and see how happy everyone is.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |