| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Drem Aldent
   |
Posted - 2011.01.23 01:45:00 -
[1]
Okay, first of all if you are going to troll please include something to improve the thread. I admit this is a very controversial topic, but I personally think the mechanics of this needs to change.
so without further ado...
1. I propose that wardecs are changed so that the corp that started the war pays slightly more isk every week, this will make it so that griefer corps will not be able to continue wars forever and ruin the game experience.
Pros: will stop griefing wars
Cons: will create a new isk sink (this could possibly be under both depending on the way you think about it)
will make legit wars cost far more.
OR
2. Wars can only last a certain amount of time then they need a cooldown period
Pros: again will prevent wars just for the sake of griefing
Cons: will make legit wars end at a certain point
OR.
3. Just increase the war dec cost themselves
Pros and cons: same as the first option.
|
Goose99
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 01:54:00 -
[2]
I'd say 3. Wardec cost 2 mil atm, with a starting point like that, slightly more every week hardly makes a dent. Limiting time artificially wouldn't do much for griefer decs, which usually don't last long anyway, but will interfere with the handful of real wars between large alliances atm.
|
Drem Aldent
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 02:01:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Goose99
I'd say 3. Wardec cost 2 mil atm, with a starting point like that, slightly more every week hardly makes a dent. Limiting time artificially wouldn't do much for griefer decs, which usually don't last long anyway, but will interfere with the handful of real wars between large alliances atm.
The problem with it being 2 million is that I could mine that in a covetor in about an hour, which is nothing. it needs to be more around 10 million for a war-dec
|
Goose99
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 03:31:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Drem Aldent
Originally by: Goose99
I'd say 3. Wardec cost 2 mil atm, with a starting point like that, slightly more every week hardly makes a dent. Limiting time artificially wouldn't do much for griefer decs, which usually don't last long anyway, but will interfere with the handful of real wars between large alliances atm.
The problem with it being 2 million is that I could mine that in a covetor in about an hour, which is nothing. it needs to be more around 10 million for a war-dec
Mine? For an hour? 2 mil is shooting 2 rats. 10 mil is shooting 10 rats. Have to be more than that to even make people pause and blink before dec. |
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 03:47:00 -
[5]
Make wars cost more... make them start immediately. |
Brutus B
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 04:46:00 -
[6]
I admit that 2mil isn't much. But, it does go up by double every single week. My experience is that most wars don't last longer than 2 or 3 weeks before the agressor breaks up, or the victims find allies or disband. And those that start and stop over longer periods of time, do so with infrequency. And it costs much-much more to goto war against alliances, and they get wardecs frequently for all kinds of reasons. So, changing the ammount of isk won't change the fact that wars will be declared... the whole point of EVE is thrashing folks who don't realize they are in your space. Also the 2mil for corp vs corp warfare is to allow a low cost of entry for newb-corps wanting to declare war on other newb corps.
Honestly, I don't see what we'd get out of changing the mechanic in anyway. Less war decs? More war decs? A better user experience for those who want to goto war? A worse experience for those who want to go to war? Or a better or worse experience for those who are getting war declared on them?
As it stands, those who are gearing up for war endure a 3 day process (calling the vote, concluding the vote, starting the war process and waiting) the last day of which the enemy is notified given 24 hours to prepare. After which they aren't gauranteed any conflict because 90 times out of 100 the people getting dec'd do everything in their power to avoid a fight including not logging in, moving to other corps, and staying inside stations (and they can't even walk in stations yet!)
If they get a fight at all it probably will stay inside a station's docking perimeter and that's kinda lame. If you're lucky you might catch someone passing through a gate.
What's really missing is a mechanic to conlude a war without the agressor retracting it willfully (often because the victim corp surrenders informally, or just out of boredom) which is often concluded as an invalidation when they no longer pay the Concord war bill.
What should be added to wardecs is a system of binding contract that offers a terms of surrender, in which the victor can claim isk or assets the other corp has in exchange for the rapid dismissal of the war, and a long prohibition that keeps the agressing corp from declaring war on the surrendered corp again for whatever agreed to time.
A better warbill cost than the current system would be based on how many more members the attacking corp has over the victim corp. (So that even matches would cost less than insanely uneven ones.) But there would need to be a minimum cost as a baseline.
But, it's not about the cost really, and since there isn't much worth taking/getting under the current system--players mostly declare wars for the lols, and the cost is really irrelevant.
As far as griefing wars go, if a corp has earned another corps hatred to the point of griefing... they are playing for your corps extermination, and upping the cost of wars isn't going to change their goal at all. Paying someone else to help you bloddy their noses might, but even that's not a gaurantee.
TLDR; Overall, I go with option 4; create a mechanic for a peace contract that will quickly end a war, declare a winner, and enforce a gauranteed period of time in which the winning corp gains something for the victory, and is prevented from going to war with the victim corp for as long a period as agreed to in the contract. |
Antihrist Pripravnik
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 09:48:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Drem Aldent
1. I propose that wardecs are changed so that the corp that started the war pays slightly more isk every week
This only shows how much you actually know about the game mechanics. Please, learn to play the game and the rules and then propose something. |
Greniard
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 11:09:00 -
[8]
Making wardeccing more expensive won't change anything, same as with every other mechanic. People have a ton of isk, corporations have two tons and alliances have s**ttons so it's not like they'll run out any time soon.
Forcing wars to end won't help much either. Just need to make a secondary corp where members can jump to when the first corp is running out of war time.
And how are these "griefing wars" not legit? Or maybe to word that better which wars are not griefing wars? I bet the answer will be something along the lines of "pvp corps deccing pve corps is griefing" to which I might reply "lol" |
Memcoll
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 11:22:00 -
[9]
Not supported. If someone wants to declare war on you they will pay the price whatever that may be. A high war dec fee might prevent new players from starting a war which would discourage pvp. not a good thing. |
nugget906
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 15:08:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Memcoll
Not supported. If someone wants to declare war on you they will pay the price whatever that may be. A high war dec fee might prevent new players from starting a war which would discourage pvp. not a good thing.
There's low and null if you want pvp. Griefing miners and haulers does not constituted pvp. With the current 2 mil fee, anyone can just go shoot 2 rats and fund a war. |
Quillian Ulant
|
Posted - 2011.02.21 19:20:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Quillian Ulant on 21/02/2011 19:20:09
i agree with this, something HAS to be done about this. Like various posts before me have said, its easy to fund a war as it is now from popping 2 rats. IMHO this makes wardecs horribly underpriced. IMO what a wardec essentially is, is a way to bribe concord who will then allow your corporation to not only destroy ships without consequences, but also pod pilots. This sort of mechanic, while i believe that it is needed to balance the economy, needs to be changed. If this game wants to be as realistic as possible, then a 2mil bribe to concord would be laughed at. imo, a wardec should be a BIG deal...highsec wars should be very few and far between, and have purpose...which right now only includes griefing and preventing other corps from starting up. Right now, the risk associated with declaring a war in High Sec are vastly underscored by the gain/fun of declaring one. Where the potential loss of the decced corp vastly outweigh the cost to the agressor. Increase the amount per week required to declare war, and require a certain standing with either concord or the faction who's soverignty the corp is based in.
PRO: Less Highsec Wars for griefing, a wardec becomes a big deal (even newsworthy). Players who "rage quit" the game would not leave if they were not harassed every time they tried to make something of themselves. Eve player base grows as such. Also the current corporation skillsets allow corporations of thousands of players, but the largest corporations are only 100 (and very well established ones of 200), this would also increase the probability of bigger corporations.
CON: new isk sink, as stated in prior posts...but is that really a bad thing? Less PVP, (not correct...this has nothing to do with lowsec pvp, and is an addition to pvp)
|
Mimiru Minahiro
|
Posted - 2011.02.21 20:51:00 -
[12]
Outside of personal preference there is no reason to nerf war decs.
You think the ability to wardec for long periods is "griefing"...others think of it as a lucrative business model. Many people are ambivalent to current mechanics.
Seems pretty balanced and fair for all players to me!
That being said the best way, imo, to improve the OP's idea is to erase it.
|
Quillian Ulant
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 00:12:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Brutus B
I admit that 2mil isn't much. But, it does go up by double every single week. My experience is that most wars don't last longer than 2 or 3 weeks before the agressor breaks up, or the victims find allies or disband. And those that start and stop over longer periods of time, do so with infrequency. And it costs much-much more to goto war against alliances, and they get wardecs frequently for all kinds of reasons. So, changing the ammount of isk won't change the fact that wars will be declared... the whole point of EVE is thrashing folks who don't realize they are in your space. Also the 2mil for corp vs corp warfare is to allow a low cost of entry for newb-corps wanting to declare war on other newb corps.
Honestly, I don't see what we'd get out of changing the mechanic in anyway. Less war decs? More war decs? A better user experience for those who want to goto war? A worse experience for those who want to go to war? Or a better or worse experience for those who are getting war declared on them?
As it stands, those who are gearing up for war endure a 3 day process (calling the vote, concluding the vote, starting the war process and waiting) the last day of which the enemy is notified given 24 hours to prepare. After which they aren't gauranteed any conflict because 90 times out of 100 the people getting dec'd do everything in their power to avoid a fight including not logging in, moving to other corps, and staying inside stations (and they can't even walk in stations yet!)
If they get a fight at all it probably will stay inside a station's docking perimeter and that's kinda lame. If you're lucky you might catch someone passing through a gate.
What's really missing is a mechanic to conlude a war without the agressor retracting it willfully (often because the victim corp surrenders informally, or just out of boredom) which is often concluded as an invalidation when they no longer pay the Concord war bill.
What should be added to wardecs is a system of binding contract that offers a terms of surrender, in which the victor can claim isk or assets the other corp has in exchange for the rapid dismissal of the war, and a long prohibition that keeps the agressing corp from declaring war on the surrendered corp again for whatever agreed to time.
A better warbill cost than the current system would be based on how many more members the attacking corp has over the victim corp. (So that even matches would cost less than insanely uneven ones.) But there would need to be a minimum cost as a baseline.
But, it's not about the cost really, and since there isn't much worth taking/getting under the current system--players mostly declare wars for the lols, and the cost is really irrelevant.
As far as griefing wars go, if a corp has earned another corps hatred to the point of griefing... they are playing for your corps extermination, and upping the cost of wars isn't going to change their goal at all. Paying someone else to help you bloddy their noses might, but even that's not a gaurantee.
TLDR; Overall, I go with option 4; create a mechanic for a peace contract that will quickly end a war, declare a winner, and enforce a gauranteed period of time in which the winning corp gains something for the victory, and is prevented from going to war with the victim corp for as long a period as agreed to in the contract.
I like your ideas, especially the ingame interface you mentioned about negotiating an end to a declared war, and the prohibition period that would follow
also, however i wouldn't agree about the griefing corporations comment. I was a member of a corporation that had reached around 20 members, and was wardecced for no reason. we had not offended anyone, interacted with any alliances or corporations, we weren't even recruiting in recruitment, we were just wardecced and forced to disband for no reason other than lolz. and i think that is what people want to stop from happening when they talk about grief
|
Obstreperous1
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 08:48:00 -
[14]
OR... Index war dec cost to the corp standing, make standings actually mean something
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
Shadow Confederation
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 18:10:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Drake Draconis on 28/03/2011 18:11:00
I've always said it was too cheap to war-dec.
But then the other side of the coin can get quite alot of ISK to do a war-dec anyway.
Cost change won't be enough I figure.
=========================
CEO of Shadow Cadre
http://www.shadowcadre.com
========================= |
Jerika Bodet
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 23:39:00 -
[16]
This thread just sounds like another, "CareBears Unite" whine thread. This has always and will always be a PvP game. Problem solving any issue that may arrise, in corp, opposing corp or griefer corp, is the very charm of this game... I understand people just want to be in their own little Eve universe, but alas, you're in a great big sand box and things can and will happen beyond your control.
I do admit that a proper "Surrender" terms should always be an option. As stated above, terms of surrender should be provided from the war dec initiator in contract form of ISK or items paid that would enforce "peace" for a certain (set in terms by the initiator) length of time. Of course, CEOs should be able to have a negotiation table to further adjust/accept/decline terms. Cooldown could then be set to "immediate" or a standard 24 hours. Peace time could be 1 month min to a year or indefinite. This feature would enhance gameplay from the "helpless" feeling of a "griefed" corp and also assure the surrendering corp that the aggressor won't pull a fast one and continue killing anyways. Plus, the aggressing corp can validly claim victory for their purpose. This would also help reduce the need for corp jumping. Of course, there can't always be an agreement on terms, but at least there should be a legitimate option.
|
Lord Tarrn
|
Posted - 2011.04.04 23:32:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Lord Tarrn on 04/04/2011 23:34:34
War Decs are too cheap. Up the ISK required || Add a Cooldown period. It ruins game play experience.
|
BattleSister Oryx
|
Posted - 2011.04.05 07:12:00 -
[18]
this whole thread is based around the idea that wardecs ARENT meant to be for greifing.
|
Goose99
|
Posted - 2011.04.05 17:01:00 -
[19]
Originally by: BattleSister Oryx
this whole thread is based around the idea that wardecs ARENT meant to be for greifing.
Well, CCP did state in the past that wardecs weren't designed for griefing, so yeah, that's the right idea.
|
Tarrn
|
Posted - 2011.04.07 02:21:00 -
[20]
War Decs need a refresh.
|
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.04.07 12:22:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Andski on 07/04/2011 12:23:00
Originally by: Pirokobo
Make wars cost more... make them start immediately.
I'm not quite sure how it works for alliances, but corporate war declarations have to be initiated via vote. The minimum voting period is 24 hours, which means that the war declaration wouldn't be issued until 24 hours after the vote (even if one person has 100% of the shares) and another 24 hours after that.
I think it's just "push butan" with alliances, which would be horrible. "Oh hey Bob, lookie here, a freighter carryin' officer mods! War dec the corp!"
|
Lord Tarrn
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 18:01:00 -
[22]
This issue almost went away when the new forums launched. It should remain in light. War Decs need a revamp.
Thanks,
|
J Kunjeh
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 20:43:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Jerika Bodet
This thread just sounds like another, "CareBears Unite" whine thread. This has always and will always be a PvP game. Problem solving any issue that may arrise, in corp, opposing corp or griefer corp, is the very charm of this game... I understand people just want to be in their own little Eve universe, but alas, you're in a great big sand box and things can and will happen beyond your control.
It's not about carebears (such a useless argument...that's a totally valid way to play this game). It's about balance. And yeah, it's too easy to use wardecs to grief without much sweat off the griefer's back. That needs looking into.
~Gnosis~ |
Izo Alabaster
Amarr
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 01:41:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Drem Aldent
1. I propose that wardecs are changed so that the corp that started the war pays slightly more isk every week, this will make it so that griefer corps will not be able to continue wars forever and ruin the game experience.
You seem to not understand the whole purpose of wars is to force players to *gasp* interact with each other, and not to allow them to simply hide under the skirt of CONCORD like a bunch of scared children. So-called griefer corps should rightfully be able to continue wars indefinitely. This forces the aggrieved corp to *gasp* come up with counters. Potential counters include hiring mercenaries, paying off the griefing corp, or *double gasp* manning up and fighting them, or simply pulling up stakes and moving on to a different corp. All are ways to deal with a wardec.
Quote:
2. Wars can only last a certain amount of time then they need a cooldown period
Pros: again will prevent wars just for the sake of griefing
Cons: will make legit wars end at a certain point
Or maybe we could just limit war time to certain zones and times, and require a +/- PVP flag before initiating PVP and change the name of EVE from EVE Online to Carebear-WoW-Loving-Sissies Online. What a terribad idea. 
The people initiating the wardec are real people. Talk to them, reason with them, and if all that fails, then hire reputable mercenaries against them or man up and fight them yourselves.
Quote:
3. Just increase the war dec cost themselves
Yes, let's allow only the elite who can afford to pay exorbitant amounts of isk to actually PVP in EVE.
The wardec costs shouldn't be a barrier to wardecs, the targets should. Learn to quit being such a soft target and you won't get so many wardecs. Learn to actually fight back and they'll quit messing with you altogether. In short, learn to play.
-I can't get the Desu sigs to work. :(
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sig.php
|
Merouk Baas
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 02:08:00 -
[25]
I think the only thing they need to do is help newbie corporations out by giving A LOT more information at the FIRST war declaration that a corp suffers, including:
- links to tutorials or the wikipedia about wars and what their options are
- a list of vulnerable assets (POSes for example) and suggestions about what to do to protect them
- instructions on how to find out info about the wardec corp and its members, including setting them red and locator agents
- reminders to insure ships and/or stockpile some war supplies within the 24 hrs they have
- perhaps extending the 24 hrs to 48 hrs, but only for the first war declaration suffered, so newbies have more time to prepare
- a cost analysis of what ships they could afford to fight in and for how long, perhaps based on the ISK amounts in the corp wallet
|
Alias 6322A
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 05:08:00 -
[26]
Quote:
There's low and null if you want pvp. Griefing miners and haulers does not constituted pvp. With the current 2 mil fee, anyone can just go shoot 2 rats and fund a war.
I myself am a miner, and yes, that is PvP. EVE is what it is because nowhere is truly safe. As with all wardecs, if you can't win, MOVE. Griefing is not 'killing non-combat ships' (considering a covetor can actually kill something).
It might be griefing if the warring corp chases you through three different regions over the course of 3 months for no apparent reason. But then again...you'd have to petition on that one.
I'd be ok with more expensive wardecs. I personally think wars ought to cost 10 million isk per week. Much larger deters smaller corps from ever taking on larger, and potentially ill-organized corps that make lots of isk, but not skilled pilots. Wars serve a purpose in EVE - they actually are best used against miners and haulers. This is how you PvP in hisec (and avoid sec loss in low).
+1 for higher price, but keep it reasonable for small-corp gangs to cause some havoc.
|
Opertone
Caldari
World - of - Empire
Cassiopeia.
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 11:14:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Memcoll
Not supported. If someone wants to declare war on you they will pay the price whatever that may be. A high war dec fee might prevent new players from starting a war which would discourage pvp. not a good thing.
this is bull... high cost war decs will protect new players from war being initiated against them aka griefing the newbies
|
ezthumper
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 17:49:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Opertone
Originally by: Memcoll
Not supported. If someone wants to declare war on you they will pay the price whatever that may be. A high war dec fee might prevent new players from starting a war which would discourage pvp. not a good thing.
this is bull... high cost war decs will protect new players from war being initiated against them aka griefing the newbies
I see a lot of words like "Griefing" in this thread being thrown about.
So are these "Griefer" type corps / individuals getting the ban hammer?
I mean you guys are reporting these "Griefer" corps....right?
If they are truly "griefing" you should be able to correct the action as per terms of agreement upon logging into the game...right?
|
Lord Tarrn
|
Posted - 2011.04.21 05:37:00 -
[29]
Originally by: ezthumper
Originally by: Opertone
Originally by: Memcoll
Not supported. If someone wants to declare war on you they will pay the price whatever that may be. A high war dec fee might prevent new players from starting a war which would discourage pvp. not a good thing.
this is bull... high cost war decs will protect new players from war being initiated against them aka griefing the newbies
I see a lot of words like "Griefing" in this thread being thrown about.
So are these "Griefer" type corps / individuals getting the ban hammer?
I mean you guys are reporting these "Griefer" corps....right?
If they are truly "griefing" you should be able to correct the action as per terms of agreement upon logging into the game...right?
What???
Do you have any idea how many corporations are affected by Grief Wars? Think of the amount of petitions for that category alone.
War Declarations Need to be Reformed
Otherwise the game should have the tag line
- EVE ONLINE -
Everybody's an *******
Join Now
|
Guilliman R
Gallente
Northstar Cabal
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.04.21 09:59:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Guilliman R on 21/04/2011 09:59:34
Make em cost 1m per member in both the target and your own corp. Same for alliance.
Say a corp with 300 people decks a corp with 20 people, the total cost to start the war is 320.000.000 !
Alliance A with 3250 members decks alliance B with 2521 members makes the total cost to start a war by 5.771.000.000
Promotes actual corp growth too.
------
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/4441/evesigr.jpg
|
Ronan Connor
|
Posted - 2011.04.21 10:32:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Guilliman R
Edited by: Guilliman R on 21/04/2011 09:59:34
Make em cost 1m per member in both the target and your own corp. Same for alliance.
Say a corp with 300 people decks a corp with 20 people, the total cost to start the war is 320.000.000 !
Alliance A with 3250 members decks alliance B with 2521 members makes the total cost to start a war by 5.771.000.000
Promotes actual corp growth too.
I like that idea. Though the obvious flaw would be that members would be "forced" to enter their alts (maybe not even used).
But I support the topics op. It is to easy for a deccing corp to have "fun". There is imo no balance for a corp who dont want to have a wardec, cant afford to hire mercs or is to small. Their gameplay suffers in favour of the deccing corp.
There should be at least a way that an alliance could pay concord not to accept a wardec for a period of time. Maybe with the same approach Guilliman R uses. An alliance has 100 members, concord protection is 100.000.000. That would be 5,2 billion a year. To balance it, one could say you can pay only for 26 weeks a year.
|
Korg Tronix
The Mabinogion
|
Posted - 2011.04.21 11:25:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Lord Tarrn
Originally by: ezthumper
Originally by: Opertone
Originally by: Memcoll
Not supported. If someone wants to declare war on you they will pay the price whatever that may be. A high war dec fee might prevent new players from starting a war which would discourage pvp. not a good thing.
this is bull... high cost war decs will protect new players from war being initiated against them aka griefing the newbies
I see a lot of words like "Griefing" in this thread being thrown about.
So are these "Griefer" type corps / individuals getting the ban hammer?
I mean you guys are reporting these "Griefer" corps....right?
If they are truly "griefing" you should be able to correct the action as per terms of agreement upon logging into the game...right?
What???
Do you have any idea how many corporations are affected by Grief Wars? Think of the amount of petitions for that category alone.
War Declarations Need to be Reformed
Otherwise the game should have the tag line
- EVE ONLINE -
Everybody's an *******
Join Now
Being decced for two to three weeks doesnt constitute griefing.
Being permanently decced by the same people no matter what corp you are in all the time is.
|
Baaldor
Igneus Auctorita
Gentlemen's Agreement
|
Posted - 2011.04.21 12:54:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Lord Tarrn
What???
Do you have any idea how many corporations are affected by Grief Wars? Think of the amount of petitions for that category alone.
Do you actually have any real data to support the "many" corps affected or are you are making over reaching statements based on nerd rage.
Originally by: Lord Tarrn
- EVE ONLINE -
Everybody's an *******
Yes, welcome to EvE.
|
Hermosa Diosas
Eve Charity
|
Posted - 2011.04.21 13:22:00 -
[34]
The cost of war decs can be very expensive. All depends on who you war dec, how many wars active, blah blah.
I think to make low sec better they should make wars active only in low sec.
|
Baaldor
Igneus Auctorita
Gentlemen's Agreement
|
Posted - 2011.04.21 14:13:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Hermosa Diosas
The cost of war decs can be very expensive. All depends on who you war dec, how many wars active, blah blah.
I think to make low sec better they should make wars active only in low sec.
Cool, then make all space lo-sec and null sec.
|
Lord Tarrn
|
Posted - 2011.04.22 04:52:00 -
[36]
You boot a corporate spy -- War Dec
You say the wrong thing in local chat -- War Dec
You create a large and popular corporation -- War Dec
It's too easy to declare wars for ridiculous reasons.
Maybe that's the starting point for Reformation.
|
Quillian Ulant
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 18:13:00 -
[37]
i like the idea of having corp wardecs price scale to the number of relative corp members...though as previous people have stated, corps and alliances are generally loaded with isk....the price will make no difference to the largest corporations in the game IE major alliances such as goons or IT or the like...they are rich enough to afford even the highest prices...imho it will not affect low/null sec in any way because obviously you dont need a wardec to fight out there. The current system is basically punishing players who want to form a group, and in a game where grouping together is practically mandatory, this is terrible for the game's evolution. If all the current corporations and alliances remain in their current positions and power bases, the game never changes, and that is also bad.
Basically (as i understand it) the wardec system is a way for player corporations to "bribe" concord (the supposed international police force that keeps peace in the eve universe) in order for concord to look the other way when that corp attacks the decced corp. If the game is trying to be as realistic as possible, then this should be Extremely difficult to do. Im sure if you tried to bribe interpol, you'd get laughed into submission if you offered the equivalent of 2mil isk to them.
on the flipside, corps should be rewarded for thier standings imo. so to balance, id ask that CONCORD standing of the deccing corp give a discount proportionally.
|
Alexander Third
Gallente
Crystal Industries
|
Posted - 2011.04.26 01:36:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Alexander Third on 26/04/2011 01:39:21
Originally by: Lord Tarrn
You boot a corporate spy -- War Dec
You say the wrong thing in local chat -- War Dec
You create a large and popular corporation -- War Dec
It's too easy to declare wars for ridiculous reasons.
Maybe that's the starting point for Reformation.
This, Time to completely reform the Wardec system
Originally by: Memcoll
Not supported. If someone wants to declare war on you they will pay the price whatever that may be. A high war dec fee might prevent new players from starting a war which would discourage pvp. not a good thing.
If they want PVP they can move to null or low
|
Feligast
Minmatar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.04.26 01:52:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Alexander Third
If they want PVP they can move to null or low
If you don't want PVP you can move to Hello Kitty Online.
See? Now we both sound like *******s.
|
Alexander Third
Gallente
Crystal Industries
|
Posted - 2011.04.26 01:54:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Feligast
Originally by: Alexander Third
If they want PVP they can move to null or low
If you don't want PVP you can move to Hello Kitty Online.
See? Now we both sound like *******s.
well, I'm not trying to get rid of wardecs, just get rid of griefing as a profession
|
Feligast
Minmatar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.04.26 02:19:00 -
[41]
Why are you trying to use other MMOs standards for "griefing" in EVE? War decs are not griefing. Even constant, continuous war decs of a corp are not griefing. Suicide gankings are not griefings, in the context of EVE. They might be in other games, but not here.
To paraphrase a movie: "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
|
Gavjack Bunk
Gallente
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2011.04.26 08:51:00 -
[42]
If you want to make war harder to get into, you should have proposal for making it harder to get out of too.
Right now, I can waste 2m isk and 48 hours extremely easily. The 2m isk I don't care about. The 48 hours is a problem. Of course for the low low price of 1bn isk a year, I can trade that in for 50m isk and only 24 hours wasted.
Either way, this concept of "griefing war" is an absolute nonsense, because immunity from war is rolled into the game design, nobody can actually grief you with the war mechanic unless you allow them to.
There is no reason to penalise players for trying to grief you beyond the penalties you can already push onto them using the game mechanics as they exist today. In fact, having to pay 48 hours is a penalty forced onto me so often, I consider it griefing. Since you want to stop griefing, let's do something about this war griefing. No more corp leaving, no more logging out and playing on alts, no more logging out and playing Tanks or League of Legends instead. When you're at war, you're automatically logged in and set adrift at a safe spot. Yeah that should do it.
Sounds ridiculous when it's turned around doesn't it?
|
Natasha Hec
Gallente
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2011.04.26 10:49:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Alexander Third
Originally by: Feligast
Originally by: Alexander Third
If they want PVP they can move to null or low
If you don't want PVP you can move to Hello Kitty Online.
See? Now we both sound like *******s.
well, I'm not trying to get rid of wardecs, just get rid of griefing as a profession
Nothing mentioned in this thread so far consitutes griefing
|
MNagy
|
Posted - 2011.04.26 16:26:00 -
[44]
Sometimes I think a corp that is being war dec'd or that is war dec'ing should not be able to accept or remove any corp members till the war is renewed / or over. ( once a week ).
Too many times you get a 1 person corp do the war dec, then woosh -everyone joins that corp.
On the other hand...you do the war deccing, and then whoosh - all the miners / haulers have left the corp you just war dec'd till the war is over.
-just a thought
|
Nikita Keriget
|
Posted - 2011.04.26 18:05:00 -
[45]
If a war dec is basically bribing Concord to look the other way, how about the defending corp can bribe Concord to not do so? So if the attacking corp pays the initial wardec fee, the defending corp can pay Concord the same amount to nullify the war. The attacking corp can then pay double to reinitiate, and the defending corp can pay that amount to nullify, repeating until one party gives up. Basically, give the defending corp a way to defend with their economic might. Could be a nice isk sink too.
|
MNagy
|
Posted - 2011.04.26 18:38:00 -
[46]
I like that idea Nikita.
|
Baaldor
Igneus Auctorita
Gentlemen's Agreement
|
Posted - 2011.04.26 18:52:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Baaldor on 26/04/2011 18:52:51
Originally by: Nikita Keriget
If a war dec is basically bribing Concord to look the other way, how about the defending corp can bribe Concord to not do so? So if the attacking corp pays the initial wardec fee, the defending corp can pay Concord the same amount to nullify the war. The attacking corp can then pay double to reinitiate, and the defending corp can pay that amount to nullify, repeating until one party gives up. Basically, give the defending corp a way to defend with their economic might. Could be a nice isk sink too.
Actually it would be much more effective to hire a MERC to address the situation rather than rely on some contrived game mechanic. You know support home grown player driven activities that solve player social conflicts with out the use of the CCP hand holding.
|
Nikita Keriget
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 00:17:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Baaldor
Actually it would be much more effective to hire a MERC to address the situation rather than rely on some contrived game mechanic. You know support home grown player driven activities that solve player social conflicts with out the use of the CCP hand holding.
Isn't being able to pay off Concord to look the other way in high security space a contrived game mechanic also? I think 'contrived' is a very loaded word, and not accurate here.
As to the argument that hiring mercs encourages player driven emergent gameplay, I think that is an excellent point. I'm not sure whether that approach would be "much more effective" however - given that it costs 2 million isk to wardec a corporation, I'm not sure what sort of mercs you could hire for that amount who would be able to make the attacking corp retract.
|
Baaldor
Igneus Auctorita
Gentlemen's Agreement
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 11:05:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Nikita Keriget
Isn't being able to pay off Concord to look the other way in high security space a contrived game mechanic also? I think 'contrived' is a very loaded word, and not accurate here.
Maybe "contrived" is a loaded word, but so is the bantering of the word "griefing". Most of the posters here have no clue what that is, in relation to EvE. There is a mechanic already in game to stop wars that fall under Eve's definition of "griefing". And by simply submitting a petition to a third party (CCP) that can not be bribed with game isk, the result of such petition can render a judgement up to and including banning from the game.
Originally by: Nikita Keriget
As to the argument that hiring mercs encourages player driven emergent game play, I think that is an excellent point. I'm not sure whether that approach would be "much more effective" however - given that it costs 2 million isk to wardec a corporation, I'm not sure what sort of mercs you could hire for that amount who would be able to make the attacking corp retract.
The cost is usually very reasonable for the results you get. Not to mention it reinforces the actual game play that was intended in the first place, players actually playing the game with the tools available to them to achieve the desired result.
|
Tarrn
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 18:50:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Nikita Keriget
If a war dec is basically bribing Concord to look the other way, how about the defending corp can bribe Concord to not do so? So if the attacking corp pays the initial wardec fee, the defending corp can pay Concord the same amount to nullify the war. The attacking corp can then pay double to reinitiate, and the defending corp can pay that amount to nullify, repeating until one party gives up. Basically, give the defending corp a way to defend with their economic might. Could be a nice isk sink too.
I like this idea.
|
Elezondo
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 18:51:00 -
[51]
I would like to see part of the war dec fee (~50%?) be put into a pool that the corp/alliance getting dec'ed can earn by destroying the enemy ships, paid out perhaps by insurance value. I.e. If the dec'ed alliance/corp kills an enemy ship, the insurance value(not actual insurance, just the value if it had insurance) would be taken from the pool and given to the dec'ed alliance/corp at the end of the war. Just something to... promote PvP, or give incentive for people who whould have left corp to stay and fight. |
Natasha Hec
Gallente
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 08:57:00 -
[52]
Still no one has given a decent definition of what a 'griefer' war is.
|
Kilaaaa
|
Posted - 2011.05.05 11:23:00 -
[53]
Hey,
I would like to see a complete change of war mechanics...
...away from ISK-based to Sec Status based!!
Why should Concord allow wars in high sec? I would say to allow a corp to punish somebody who did something really terrible to them... That wouldnt happen to many times in corp history i guess.
So:
If a corp is deciding that it wants to dec another corp for revenge then let them do it with no costs at all. Just reduce the Sec status from each corp member from the deccing corp and everybody who is joining that corp while it is in war by -1 or -2 points.
That would automatically stop griefing wars, mercenary wars, fun wars or whatever, as people wouldnt be able to move around in high sec after 2-3 war decs...
No ISK based mechanics will ever stop the actual unfair war deccing mechanics.
fly safe
|
Danika Princip
Minmatar
Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2011.05.05 13:24:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Kilaaaa
Hey,
I would like to see a complete change of war mechanics...
...away from ISK-based to Sec Status based!!
Why should Concord allow wars in high sec? I would say to allow a corp to punish somebody who did something really terrible to them... That wouldnt happen to many times in corp history i guess.
So:
If a corp is deciding that it wants to dec another corp for revenge then let them do it with no costs at all. Just reduce the Sec status from each corp member from the deccing corp and everybody who is joining that corp while it is in war by -1 or -2 points.
That would automatically stop griefing wars, mercenary wars, fun wars or whatever, as people wouldnt be able to move around in high sec after 2-3 war decs...
No ISK based mechanics will ever stop the actual unfair war deccing mechanics.
fly safe
And while you're at it, ban fun!
|
Evanga
Amarr
Trust Doesn't Rust
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2011.05.05 14:10:00 -
[55]
bad idea
|
Alexander Third
Crystal Industries
|
Posted - 2011.05.09 01:59:00 -
[56]
The war dec system needs to change, at the moment, anyone can war a single corp without anything bad happening. maybe some people don't want to constantly be attacked for no apparent reason?
|
Danika Princip
Minmatar
Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2011.05.09 02:17:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Alexander Third
at the moment, anyone can war a single corp without anything bad happening.
That would be the point.
Come up with a better system or STFU.
|
Shiroi Kiba
|
Posted - 2011.05.09 04:14:00 -
[58]
If you can pay concord to look the other while you war dec a corp/alliance then why can't you pay concord to cease a war ?
example
Corp A war decs corp B (2 mil per week)
Corp B pays concord to remove the war dec (4 mil)
Corp A really wants the war dec so war dec again( 8 mil)
Corp B is an industrial corp and pays concord again (16 mil)
This goes on until corp A or B no longer pays concord. Each time concord is involved the fee doubles.
Quite quickly this can lead to a massive isk sink.
I know what people will say, " hire some mercs " but why can't I hire concord ?
|
Taredi Taredi
|
Posted - 2011.05.09 22:44:00 -
[59]
EVE Online was about taking big risks to gain great rewards. What's the point if you're always at risk of non consensual pvp in high sec? What exactly is the gain on either party in high sec?
A one man corp War Decing a bunch of hulks just to pad his stats on battleclinic?
This was the intended result?
|
Danika Princip
Minmatar
Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2011.05.09 23:05:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Taredi Taredi
EVE Online was about taking big risks to gain great rewards. What's the point if you're always at risk of non consensual pvp in high sec? What exactly is the gain on either party in high sec?
A one man corp War Decing a bunch of hulks just to pad his stats on battleclinic?
This was the intended result?
Wait wait wait. let me see if I understand your post.
You start by saying 'EVE Online was about taking big risks to gain great rewards.', then you immediately contradict yourself by asking for the removal of risk? What?
|
Imigo Montoya
Hysterically Unforgiving
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 03:23:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Danika Princip
Originally by: Taredi Taredi
EVE Online was about taking big risks to gain great rewards. What's the point if you're always at risk of non consensual pvp in high sec? What exactly is the gain on either party in high sec?
A one man corp War Decing a bunch of hulks just to pad his stats on battleclinic?
This was the intended result?
Wait wait wait. let me see if I understand your post.
You start by saying 'EVE Online was about taking big risks to gain great rewards.', then you immediately contradict yourself by asking for the removal of risk? What?
I think what he was referring to was that Empire still has the big risks (arbitrary wardecs by anybody) but doesn't have the great rewards (mining veldspar isn't exactly great ISK/hr)
Originally by: Baaldor
Actually it would be much more effective to hire a MERC to address the situation rather than rely on some contrived game mechanic. You know support home grown player driven activities that solve player social conflicts with out the use of the CCP hand holding.
LOL. Players with 50m skillpoint toons wardeccing a startup empire mining corp with 10m skillpoints between them to feel big (and for lols) is hardly a "player social conflict". Aside from the likes of Privatears and 0phanage who predominantly wardec nullsec alliances, there are so many wardecs by long term players on new players for no better reason than wanting some easy cannon fodder to shoot.
I'm all for players being able to resolve conflicts without contrived game mechanics getting in the way, but as mentioned before wardecs are contrived game mechanics themselves.
If you want PvP, go to low/nullsec or join FW or RvB. If you have some beef with some Empire based corp then perhaps a wardec is an appropriate outlet but currently no reason is required to declare war, all you need is to get your corp shareholders to agree to it.
Having said that, I don't think ISK amounts will change anything, so not supporting this topic. Requiring the addition of terms of surrender might (ISK, items, leaving a system etc)
|
ITTigerClawIK
Amarr
Galactic Rangers
Galactic-Rangers
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 16:36:00 -
[62]
can i just throw int he idea that players can not leave a corp for the first week of a war so that the people we actually want to kill dont just leave before the 24 hour notification time is up. so if a war ends after a week, then so be it, they are still there but i think more corp CEO's get ****ed of the fact that as soon as that dec mail comes throuhg 75% of there corp leaves just couse there could be a bit of pew pew,if you join a corp, be expected to help out when times are rough.
Sig space reclaimed in the name of me -courtesy of Tiggy ([email protected]) |
Swynet
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 17:29:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Drem Aldent
Okay, first of all if you are going to troll please include something to improve the thread. I admit this is a very controversial topic, but I personally think the mechanics of this needs to change.
/agree
Originally by: Drem Aldent
1. I propose that wardecs are changed so that the corp that started the war pays slightly more isk every week, this will make it so that griefer corps will not be able to continue wars forever and ruin the game experience.
What about the merc grieffers corp using isk given by the contractual corp?
20M first week then increase by 100% 2nd week, 200% 3rd week and next ones 500%.
Small grieffers couldn't stand the rithm while real big alliances wars yes.
By the way what's the point of wardecc a 2 men corp for ever? -unless grieffers are just stupid, and unfortunately there are too many in this game...
Destroying ships is the purpose of the game every one and his mother are aware of that, but sustain vicious acts with simple game mechanics is bad for every one. Has neutral repp.
|
Baaldor
Igneus Auctorita
Gentlemen's Agreement
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 20:15:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Swynet
Originally by: Drem Aldent
Okay, first of all if you are going to troll please include something to improve the thread. I admit this is a very controversial topic, but I personally think the mechanics of this needs to change.
/agree
Originally by: Drem Aldent
1. I propose that wardecs are changed so that the corp that started the war pays slightly more isk every week, this will make it so that griefer corps will not be able to continue wars forever and ruin the game experience.
What about the merc grieffers corp using isk given by the contractual corp?
20M first week then increase by 100% 2nd week, 200% 3rd week and next ones 500%.
Small grieffers couldn't stand the rithm while real big alliances wars yes.
By the way what's the point of wardecc a 2 men corp for ever? -unless grieffers are just stupid, and unfortunately there are too many in this game...
Destroying ships is the purpose of the game every one and his mother are aware of that, but sustain vicious acts with simple game mechanics is bad for every one. Has neutral repp.
Can you please, explain to me the definition of a "Greifer" within the context of this game.
|
Varrik Kayne
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 22:33:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Izo Alabaster
Originally by: Drem Aldent
1. I propose that wardecs are changed so that the corp that started the war pays slightly more isk every week, this will make it so that griefer corps will not be able to continue wars forever and ruin the game experience.
You seem to not understand the whole purpose of wars is to force players to *gasp* interact with each other, and not to allow them to simply hide under the skirt of CONCORD like a bunch of scared children. So-called griefer corps should rightfully be able to continue wars indefinitely. This forces the aggrieved corp to *gasp* come up with counters. Potential counters include hiring mercenaries, paying off the griefing corp, or *double gasp* manning up and fighting them, or simply pulling up stakes and moving on to a different corp. All are ways to deal with a wardec.
Quote:
2. Wars can only last a certain amount of time then they need a cooldown period
Pros: again will prevent wars just for the sake of griefing
Cons: will make legit wars end at a certain point
Or maybe we could just limit war time to certain zones and times, and require a +/- PVP flag before initiating PVP and change the name of EVE from EVE Online to Carebear-WoW-Loving-Sissies Online. What a terribad idea.
The people initiating the wardec are real people. Talk to them, reason with them, and if all that fails, then hire reputable mercenaries against them or man up and fight them yourselves.
Quote:
3. Just increase the war dec cost themselves
Yes, let's allow only the elite who can afford to pay exorbitant amounts of isk to actually PVP in EVE.
The wardec costs shouldn't be a barrier to wardecs, the targets should. Learn to quit being such a soft target and you won't get so many wardecs. Learn to actually fight back and they'll quit messing with you altogether. In short, learn to play.
Quoted for TRUTH.
All types of player Interaction is CCP's goal, thus war dec's won't change, albeit a Surrender terms option like what Jerika posted would be a good idea. Btw, it's also cheap because it's too damn easy to just leave a corp... And decced corps disband laughing w/o any ill affects on them, saying "u just wasted (whatever wannabe price hike wardec). The low cost allows for less war evassion to a new corp. To be fair, any corp in a War should be locked... Nobody in or out. The 24hrs after notification is for your preperation only. You want out? Time to negotiate a surrender... Again loke Jerika posted (page 1).
I would add though, to apease you balance claimers... The initiator pays a war dec cost, per how much Isk damage they would be satisfied to inflict. I.e. A 2 mil wardec allows you to inflict 500 mil isk damage per avg market value. A 10 mil wardec allows 2.5 bil etc etc. Not saying that's a solution, just a thought, yet better contrived than the drivel "balance" that the 40yr old virgin carebears singing "I want an Oscar Meyer Weiner" have come up with thus far, in a sad attempt to escape PvP altogether.
True story: Corp A has an internal dispute. Some members split to form Corp B. Corp B viciously decs Corp A, but Corp A knows a good Merc corp. Merc corp decs Corp B and deals them heavy casualties. Corp B retracts war on Corp A. Corp B having ruined their ties with Corp A and continue to get hit by Merc Corp, disband. Corp A, very happy with Mercs and establish commerce with them. Mercs happy to get good deals, get paid and had some fun.
In Carebear dreamland, this kind of exciting social interaction wouldn't happen.
|
Swynet
|
Posted - 2011.05.11 14:15:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Baaldor
Can you please, explain to me the definition of a "Greifer" within the context of this game.
There are not several definitions of griefer, just scum that fit it or not.
|
Frank Lonehorn
New Eden's Industral Revolution
New Eden's Industrial Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.05.12 01:48:00 -
[67]
I agree, Random war decs to stop.
|
Vaju Katru
|
Posted - 2011.05.12 12:05:00 -
[68]
Their is only one problem with wardecs, carebears can leave corporations to avoid it.
|
Eperor
|
Posted - 2011.05.12 12:20:00 -
[69]
I agree random war decks need to stop.
And ader ting now member can leave the corp when ever they wanth, if war start that to need to be changed , and my proposal is that they pay leaving fee for leaving corp at all if only they not kicked from corp. aderways payers have free movem ode oll the time, ansd meny CEO wasting his time on them, than they need to pay for that CEO time wath its waisted.
|
Baaldor
Igneus Auctorita
Gentlemen's Agreement
|
Posted - 2011.05.12 12:48:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Swynet
Originally by: Baaldor
Can you please, explain to me the definition of a "Greifer" within the context of this game.
There are not several definitions of griefer, just scum that fit it or not.
Right, you do not know what is considering greifing with in the context of this game.
|
foksieloy
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
|
Posted - 2011.05.13 09:03:00 -
[71]
So the only upper limit to price is the price of creating a new corp to wardec with?
That will *sooooo* fix things.
To avoid cooldown, just wardec with new corp before the war created with old corp expires.
_______________________
The best thing in EvE is Barrage M. |
Bill from Accounting
|
Posted - 2011.05.16 12:48:00 -
[72]
Personally I say make the War Dec's cost more. I'll agree with some of you that War Dec's do get out of handwith people randomly Declaring War on one another, War is alos important as to some extents it keeps the economy rolling and as some of you hvae said, nowhere is safe in EVE, don't fly anything you're not willing to lose right?
I only say make it cost more, because in reality, these Wars would be insanely expensive, declaration of War shouldn't run you 100mil, maybe 10mil is a good starting place. If you up the price, you also make the wars just a bit more meaingful.
While its true no matter how expensive they are, people are still going to declare war, if it costs them a bit more or they have to work a bit more to declare war, well that just shows that the corp or alliance came together and said, "Yeah... these sob's need to go."
Only other thing I can thin of, is if after 2 weeks of war and no shots have been fired between the agressor and the dec'ed corp, why not null the dec or atleast make them pay a much larger fee to continue. I mean if you're gonna war dec, you might as well get out there and fight and die.
Those are just my ideas and opinions, anyone elses thoughts?
|
Matrix Blackstar
|
Posted - 2011.05.16 16:04:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Matrix Blackstar on 16/05/2011 16:06:39
A Corp War Dec should cost no less than 250 million Isk. An Alliance War Dec should cost no less than 500 million Isk. Fighting wars are expensive and thanks to Eve, anyone with an ******* and a couple of Isk can file a War Dec on a Corp, then not fire a shot. There should be very stiff penalties for the aggressing Corp that does not want to fight, but War Decs everyone. Example; Let Us Sleep corp. I fyou are the aggressing corp and you haven't fire a shot at enemy corp during the first week, War Dec fees double. If no shots are fired after the second week, War Decs fees are again doubled, plus war dec is voided. If your not going to fight, then you should not be allowed to continually file war decs. That is the biggest problem in this game.
|
Mithrial Maska
|
Posted - 2011.05.16 21:27:00 -
[74]
Ok so what is concords deal then? For 2mil they turn a blind eye to a wardec. I call bull****. The concord I know and have been killed by, wouldn't give a damn if you paid them or not they would still smoke you and laugh. I had a wardec last over 50days in high sec. It was the most pointless 50days ever. . . ever. The wardec'ing corp would kill noobs during the day, and hide for 6-8 hours in station from the older players logging in. That having been said eve needs its wardecs and its dark, gloomy, god forsaken theme.
Now stay with me on this, concord for a small fee will allow aggression in and around a system, and for extra you can include other other systems, constilations, and regions. Higher sec systems cost more to wardec in, lower sec systems would then cost less. This allows concord to 'monitor' and 'contain' conflict. But at the same time for aggressing corps that really have a reason to fight can pay the premium and have no containment issues. This gives the option for corps and alliances to fight over systems in highsec for any social conflict you can think of. It gives carebears the option of spreading out to make a wardec cost more, but at the risk of going solo.
Now you can still fight outside of the designated fighting zone, but you risk sec status taking regualar sec hits like you would in lowsec, still without concord intervention for either party involved with the wardec. That can be used for the protection of the defending corp, as well as for ambushes for the agressing corp.
Building the mechanic for ending the wardec via contract of some kind is a great idea.
By charging more for a larger area to fight in without penalty would help keep pointless wardecs minimized.
|
Taredi Taredi
|
Posted - 2011.05.21 03:55:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Matrix Blackstar
Edited by: Matrix Blackstar on 16/05/2011 16:06:39
A Corp War Dec should cost no less than 250 million Isk. An Alliance War Dec should cost no less than 500 million Isk. Fighting wars are expensive and thanks to Eve, anyone with an ******* and a couple of Isk can file a War Dec on a Corp, then not fire a shot. There should be very stiff penalties for the aggressing Corp that does not want to fight, but War Decs everyone. Example; Let Us Sleep corp. I fyou are the aggressing corp and you haven't fire a shot at enemy corp during the first week, War Dec fees double. If no shots are fired after the second week, War Decs fees are again doubled, plus war dec is voided. If your not going to fight, then you should not be allowed to continually file war decs. That is the biggest problem in this game.
Supported.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |