| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Octoven
   |
Posted - 2009.07.11 14:28:00 -
[1]
One of the major advantages to being in high sec is security of CONCORD, but when two corps get involved in a war CONCORD looks the other way.....for a nice little fee. The idea I am proposing would eliminate the constant and spur of the moment war decs. One of the many reasons for empire war is intimidation of an indy corp either to prevent them from mining somewhere or shut them down all together. However, there is the pvp coprs who do like a war every now and again. As of current I believe the fee of going to war is 2 mil isk. Now when a corp gets war dec we know there is an option to mutual agree to the war and to disagree to it. If you disagree the fees of the war fall to the aggressor only. What if the fee was based upon mutual agreement. Have the agreement of a war to remain as is fee wise. If the defending corp disagrees to a war have the fee none, but the aggressing corp gets charged 25-50 mil a week. We all know 2 is pennies to corps though 25-50 would do a bit of an impact. Empire wars serve their purpose but in most cases they are not mutual. This is just a way to keep rampant war decs down and make corps seriously consider the ramifications of going to war. If they fight a mutual war there is no fuss but if the fight a non-mutual war they will pay hefty for the war dec. Let me know what you think, I know to some high sec indy corps this change would be a blessing. The corps who love to fight can keep on fighting each other without any changes and the ones who donĘt care for war to much get a little relief in the amount of time it will take place.
|
Bibbleibble
|
Posted - 2009.07.11 14:32:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Octoven
One of the major advantages to being in high sec is security of CONCORD, but when two corps get involved in a war CONCORD looks the other way.....for a nice little fee.
The idea I am proposing would eliminate the constant and spur of the moment war decs. One of the many reasons for empire war is intimidation of an indy corp either to prevent them from mining somewhere or shut them down all together. However, there is the pvp coprs who do like a war every now and again.
As of current I believe the fee of going to war is 2 mil isk. Now when a corp gets war dec we know there is an option to mutual agree to the war and to disagree to it. If you disagree the fees of the war fall to the aggressor only. What if the fee was based upon mutual agreement. Have the agreement of a war to remain as is fee wise. If the defending corp disagrees to a war have the fee none, but the aggressing corp gets charged 25-50 mil a week.
We all know 2 is pennies to corps though 25-50 would do a bit of an impact. Empire wars serve their purpose but in most cases they are not mutual. This is just a way to keep rampant war decs down and make corps seriously consider the ramifications of going to war. If they fight a mutual war there is no fuss but if the fight a non-mutual war they will pay hefty for the war dec.
Let me know what you think, I know to some high sec indy corps this change would be a blessing. The corps who love to fight can keep on fighting each other without any changes and the ones who donĘt care for war to much get a little relief in the amount of time it will take place.
That was painful. Paragraphs anyone? 
And anyhow, no. EVE is supposed to be about people competing, and one of the few ways of competing in high sec is wardecs.
________________________________________________
For changes to Minmatar Battleships click here (also with a review of the Muninn!) |
Octoven
|
Posted - 2009.07.11 14:33:00 -
[3]
Not saying elliminate them...just make aggressor think more before war dec for no apparent reason.
|
Bibbleibble
|
Posted - 2009.07.11 14:35:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Octoven
Not saying elliminate them...just make aggressor think more before war dec for no apparent reason.
What appears to you to be a war dec for no reason can be a really important war dec for the aggressor.
The whole point of wardecs is to provide some competition, and some people actually enjoy this competition. If you can't handle the randomly agressive mindset of some EVE players then I suggest that you play something else.
________________________________________________
For changes to Minmatar Battleships click here (also with a review of the Muninn!) |
Octoven
|
Posted - 2009.07.11 14:39:00 -
[5]
As said, I do not oppose war decs, just more intense penalties to those who declare on a corp who does not want to go to war. It does not elliminate the war decs in high sec it would however distigusih it from war in a mutual sense. Right now all the mutual option is for is if you want to share in the 2 mil cost.
|
Bibbleibble
|
Posted - 2009.07.11 14:54:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Octoven
As said, I do not oppose war decs, just more intense penalties to those who declare on a corp who does not want to go to war. It does not elliminate the war decs in high sec it would however distigusih it from war in a mutual sense. Right now all the mutual option is for is if you want to share in the 2 mil cost.
I oppose higher penalties for non-consensual wars, as the non-consensual nature of EVE PVP in all its aspects is what sets this game apart from most others.
________________________________________________
For changes to Minmatar Battleships click here (also with a review of the Muninn!) |
Darwin's Market
|
Posted - 2009.07.11 15:55:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Darwin''s Market on 11/07/2009 15:55:09
I think wardeccing a corp/alliance should bear the same cost (100m), and people should be unable to leave those corps/alliances during the dec which can only last 2 weeks max, then they get 1 day reprieve no one can dec them.
|
Octoven
|
Posted - 2009.07.12 01:36:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Darwin's Market
Edited by: Darwin''s Market on 11/07/2009 15:55:09
I think wardeccing a corp/alliance should bear the same cost (100m), and people should be unable to leave those corps/alliances during the dec which can only last 2 weeks max, then they get 1 day reprieve no one can dec them.
This works too, I suppose this idea to me is more about war fees then agreement or not to a war 100M certainly would be nice. 2M is absolutely nothing compared to what corps make. Actually 100 isnt very big but a fair number. People leaving corp eh idk about I suppose I dont have a major opinion on that.
|
Stealthbug
|
Posted - 2009.07.12 04:26:00 -
[9]
Why are people QQ'ing over highsec wars?
What's next? Low-sec gives advantages to the older players?
High-sec warfare is fine >_>
There doesn't need to be mutually decided aggression, that would be stupid. It may make some level of sense, however it simply wouldn't be fun. There are a lot of grief players out there, but there's also a lot of PvP'ers who would suffer from this.
|
Octoven
|
Posted - 2009.07.12 14:46:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Stealthbug
Why are people QQ'ing over highsec wars?
What's next? Low-sec gives advantages to the older players?
High-sec warfare is fine >_>
There doesn't need to be mutually decided aggression, that would be stupid. It may make some level of sense, however it simply wouldn't be fun. There are a lot of grief players out there, but there's also a lot of PvP'ers who would suffer from this.
It probably wouldnt be fun from a pvp point of view, although the 2M fee is still laughable and should be increased to a higher number or gotten rid of all together aas it stands 2 is just a number there to look good its most certainly not there to benifit or even to turn the tides of war.
Why have a war cost if it does not impact the war at all?
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |