|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Price Check Aisle3
102
   |
Posted - 2012.06.27 13:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
The mantra from CCP is that you are paying for targets. If those targets are allowed to leave corp and deprive you of a target, they shouldn't be allowed back in until the war is over and you should receive a refund on your war costs.
- Karl Hobb IATS |
Price Check Aisle3
105
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 17:27:00 -
[2] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Well we're currently playing a game where the largest alliance in space is currently protected from a hisec coalition 1/20th of its size by a 20 Trillion ISK ($300,000 dollar) wardec ally shield. The game designers have told us that war is not supposed to be fair. Compared to that obscenity of game design one might consider that a bit of wardec evasion by individuals slithering through the gaps is pretty small beer in the grand scheme of things.
The best part is that you can just go to Goonswarm's sov area and fight them without paying. If you war-dec them you're only going get a few targets anyway, so what's the point? They have neutral alts for hauling anyway, not like you're going to disrupt their supply chain with a war-dec... 
- Karl Hobb IATS |
Price Check Aisle3
105
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 17:28:00 -
[3] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:jade why dont you just add all those former allies to your alliance? that way they can still fight for you?
For once this guy has an excellent point. Create new alliance, join up, dec for cheap.
- Karl Hobb IATS |
Price Check Aisle3
105
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 18:05:00 -
[4] - Quote
Marconus Orion wrote:So did the war dec change bring the merc world back into the spot light?
No, it brought on Jade whining about the costs to defend against the 30 Goons bored enough to go to Empire.
- Karl Hobb IATS |
Price Check Aisle3
107
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 22:59:00 -
[5] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Because there are many reason to go to war aside from seeking a "goodfite." It's just another "I don't have enough easy targets in high-sec" whines. It's so boring.
Ptraci alt detected.
- Karl Hobb IATS |
Price Check Aisle3
109
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 15:22:00 -
[6] - Quote
Personally, I think the costs for war before this change should have been retained (or maybe 25mil/50mil corp/alliance). You want to promote war? Make it cheap. This paying for targets business is bullshit and it doesn't work in practice.
Next, CCP should define what a Rookie is and dump them from their NPC corp when their time is up to never again be let in. They become "unemployed". The unemployed have the same tax rate as an NPC corp and an increased market transaction tax to boot. Unemployed individuals should be war-dec-able for something like 2mil. To retain NPC corp help (griefing) channels, give the unemployed a regional chat. This should help take care of the null-sec NPC hauler alts.
Dropping corp during a war should flag you in some way and the war should follow you for at least 24 hours, preferably 48+. You should retain the flag in your corp history, a stain on your "resume".
Keep allies and allowed the unemployed to use allies as well. Drop the base cost before doubling for allies to 2mil or something. It can still get stupid expensive but it's not the "let's dogpile the entirety of EVE onto thirty bored guys from null-sec" insanity that we had before.
vOv
- Karl Hobb IATS |
Price Check Aisle3
109
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 16:18:00 -
[7] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Call it a penalty fee for deserting. (If CCP want their filthy isk sink have 10% of the total end up in concord taxes)
If the cost for war was reduced (let's face it, it's ******* stupid right now), I could see the deserter paying, say, half of the price of a war dec. I also agree with the ISK sink, but maybe just treat it like a normal market transaction.
Jade Constantine wrote:More practical purpose is that when wardecing a Goonswarm hauler alt corp (seeing as how their haulers are no longer allowed in npc corps) you'd at least get 50m isk back from the wardec evading goons skipping corp again to cover the 50m isk you needed to pay in the first place.
A hauler alt corp isn't going to be part of their alliance. You'd be stupid to do so, amirite?
Theorycrafting aside, there should be some penalty for dropping corp during a war considering the current scheme is to pay for targets. Even right now a 10mil penalty buyout (with market tax?) would go a long way, I think.
- Karl Hobb IATS |
Price Check Aisle3
110
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 16:38:00 -
[8] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:This pay to leave is just crazy. Would this affect people booted? If not then people could just request to be booted to avoid. If so then a corp can't boot a spai unless the spai pays? Not to mention the space-broke being stuck in corp cause they can't pay to leave. Kick em while they are down. Way to make sure people leave the game.
That's a very good point. I think you could make a case for booting someone being free; this would also be a nod to purely carebear corps. However, if we continue with the "pay for targets" paradigm any future war payments should be retroactively reduced (kick ten dudes, get next week's war costs at 10 dudes + 10 dudes cheaper, then any subsequent weeks are 10 dudes cheaper).
Also, anyone booted during a war should have a mark on their corp history as well.
The point being, there should always be some sort of penalty for leaving a war.
- Karl Hobb IATS |
Price Check Aisle3
110
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 17:40:00 -
[9] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I don't think that screwing that guy over with game mechanics for being kicked because I told lies to his CEO, or because he was doing something that he thought was completely okay that I, as a griefing asshat, took offense to is particularly fair.
Fair enough, I hadn't thought of that angle (thankfully I'm not designing this game).
- Karl Hobb IATS |
|
|
| |
|