| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dutarro
Matari Munitions
   |
Posted - 2011.06.07 13:19:00 -
[1]
There are many actions a player can take that CONCORD considers 'criminal' ... like stealing or shooting at a neutral in low sec. You can do these things without being instantly crushed by CONCORD, but your security status drops. If you do these things often, you become an outlaw and cannot enter some high sec systems.
I propose that high sec attacks made under offensive war declarations should also result in a security status drop for the attacker. The penalty should not apply if the target shot at or stole from you first, or if the war has been made mutual.
The objective of this proposal is to maintain an element of danger in high sec, since unlimited empire wars can still be waged, but at the same time to enforce consequences for habitual war dec'ers. CONCORD should regard a player who frequently wages offensive war in empire the same as one who frequently steals or pirates.
|
Kaelie Onren
|
Posted - 2011.06.07 14:02:00 -
[2]
Interesting.
But some questions linger,
It makes sense as if you continually make offensive non-mutual wars decs then the 'global population' should see you in a more negative light.
It gives a natural ceiling to habitual wardekers besides a monetary one. -I'm on the fence on this point, as there already is a increasing cost structures for continual war deking.
But if the declarer will always get this penalty, then what incentive would anyone have to make wars mutual?
|
Dutarro
Matari Munitions
|
Posted - 2011.06.07 14:08:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Kaelie Onren
...But if the declarer will always get this penalty, then what incentive would anyone have to make wars mutual?
The same incentive as exists now ... when you make a war mutual, you force your attacker to stay at war. This is used when the defending corp decides to launch a counter-attack, so they are expecting to score more kills than their enemies anyway.
|
Kaelie Onren
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 07:12:00 -
[4]
Bumping this one back to the top, as there is another 'fix wardec' thread which is that wardeking should cost more.
I think that this proposal mixed with that one, may be viable.
Make it cost more for subsequent non-mutual wardek's, the lower the avg standing of the members of the corp are.
So if the avg of the members of the corp is a -5 secstatus, then, it costs them a lot more to wardek than a positive standing corp.
What this does:
1) encourages more legitamate wars, and makes it harder for griefer corps to use wardeking to just prey on innocents without secstatus penalty.
2) griefers will be forced to grind standings back up after a cycle of mindless killing, allowing the carebear industry to recover.
This mechanic will force a break in the contiuous sequence of wardeking. It will encourage even PvPers to be more positive in standing over all, as it costs their corp more, which will make corp CEOs encourage members to have not too low standings so that they can continue their PvPing activities.
Add an exponential decay to the corp avg standing. Don't publicize the formula. This will keep CEOs from dropping low sec members before a war just to reduce their costs, only to add them back again after it is paid.
|
Mr R4nd0m
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 10:04:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Kaelie Onren
Bumping this one back to the top, as there is another 'fix wardec' thread which is that wardeking should cost more.
I think that this proposal mixed with that one, may be viable.
Make it cost more for subsequent non-mutual wardek's, the lower the avg standing of the members of the corp are.
So if the avg of the members of the corp is a -5 secstatus, then, it costs them a lot more to wardek than a positive standing corp.
What this does:
1) encourages more legitamate wars, and makes it harder for griefer corps to use wardeking to just prey on innocents without secstatus penalty.
2) griefers will be forced to grind standings back up after a cycle of mindless killing, allowing the carebear industry to recover.
This mechanic will force a break in the contiuous sequence of wardeking. It will encourage even PvPers to be more positive in standing over all, as it costs their corp more, which will make corp CEOs encourage members to have not too low standings so that they can continue their PvPing activities.
Add an exponential decay to the corp avg standing. Don't publicize the formula. This will keep CEOs from dropping low sec members before a war just to reduce their costs, only to add them back again after it is paid.
Make it cost more! You serious? It already costs a sily amount, If you dec 4 alliances your looking at a huge weekly bill..
this is not low sec, you cant putting sec status hits on war deccers lol, whats the point, they pay crap loads of isk for the dec, they could actually lose, there is NOTHING stopping the other side shooting back you know.
and then no one will ever do war decs, it will just kill it completely.
Yes I think 2 mill for a corp to dec a corp is cheap and perhaps that should be the same as 50 mill alliance dec.
But leave the alliance bills alone, its can cost billions for JUST ONE WEEK! Yes its only ONE week for god sake lol.
Seriously this has got to be a whine thread cos someone decced you...fight back...
However there could be some options rather than sec hit, thats for pirates!
1. I believe high should be safe. so, war decs should only be performed in low sec. This way low sec gets busier and ppl will have to look for targets. However, then jump frieghters should then be like other caps low sec only - You then have to move your stuff from low to high in a freighter. So it still gives and element of risk and something the war deccers can hit as well. So it benefits both sides to some extent.
|
The Offerer
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 10:07:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Dutarro
The objective of this proposal is to maintain an element of danger in high sec
An element of danger? By protecting highsec residents? Cool
Btw. CCP nerfed 90% of 0.0 space because there's too much ISK in the system. Stuff should be blown up more often.
|
Lykouleon
Bad Kitty Inc.
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 13:54:00 -
[7]
No
Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER SO THAT I CAN HIT THEM WITH MY SWORD |
Takseen
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 15:53:00 -
[8]
Wardecs aren't perfect, but this isn't the way to fix them.
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 17:11:00 -
[9]
Originally by: The Offerer
Stuff should be blown up more often.
This. More of this.
This signature is useless, but it is red.
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 17:37:00 -
[10]
Originally by: The Offerer
Btw. CCP nerfed 90% of 0.0 space because there's too much ISK in the system. Stuff should be blown up more often.
Blowing stuff up doesn't get rid of isk. In fact, it increases inflation.
Grief a PVP'er. Run a mission today! |
|
|
LordElfa
Golden Lyon Warriors
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 18:24:00 -
[11]
Edited by: LordElfa on 09/06/2011 18:25:06
Supported. Raising the cost of War Dec's is a pointless endeavor as where this idea would be a step towards making War Dec's what they should have been from the beginning, a means by which to settle grievances between corps and alliances in high Sec, not a free high sec grief button.
Now this solution wouldn't curve Ward Dec's altogether but it would make the offending corp or alliance have to work harder by making them do things to keep their sec status positive.
It's not too much and not too little.
Make it so.
ттттттт
CSM6-Hated by fools for who they are; Loved by the knowledgeable for what they will do. |
Saxton Hale
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 18:28:00 -
[12]
Don't much care, as long as the sec hit is small (significantly smaller than for lowsec GCC actions) and it doesn't occur in lowsec.
|
LordElfa
Gallente
Golden Lyon Warriors
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 18:35:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Saxton Hale
Don't much care, as long as the sec hit is small (significantly smaller than for lowsec GCC actions) and it doesn't occur in lowsec.
I'm pretty sure this would be a High Sec war action only hit. If not, that's the only kind I support. Low Sec guys don't really need to Dec in order to grief though, so little change either way.
Of course, they could always make it so that the declaring corp or alliance incurs a one time sec penalty hit for all members with every Dec they make. Hell, that would be even better.
ттттттт
CSM6-Hated by fools for who they are; Loved by the knowledgeable for what they will do. |
Feligast
Minmatar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 19:14:00 -
[14]
Why should there be a penalty for attacking a war target? Explain to me how attacking someone that you are at war with is a criminal act.
|
Montevius Williams
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 21:16:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Montevius Williams on 09/06/2011 21:17:56
Originally by: Feligast
Why should there be a penalty for attacking a war target? Explain to me how attacking someone that you are at war with is a criminal act.
I think he is saying that HABITUAL war deccers should be punished. From a RP perspective it makes sence. Im sure the Amarrians would want to know why the same Corp has been in 10 Non mutual war decs in their empire space in the last week alone and Concord is just turning a blind eye. If I'm the Amarrians, Gallente, Caldari or Minmatar, why would I fund you if you're not doing your job?
I think this idea could work but it needs some fleshing out. Like maybe if your Corp declares 1 non mutual war, there is no penalty. The more non mutual wars you have, the more scrutiny is placed on your corp until you reach a threshold where Concord AND the Space owning empire would say, WTF is going on here and start taking away sec status from your corp or not take sec status away but they would say "You can still declare your wars, but its gonna cost you more cause we're getting heat from the Gallente over this."
Just some ideas.
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 21:29:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Feligast
Why should there be a penalty for attacking a war target? Explain to me how attacking someone that you are at war with is a criminal act.
One hi sec war by itself doesn't mean much. But I think the OP is referring to corps that make a habit of wardeccing indy corps in hi sec (hint: self-proclaimed hi sec pirates).
A change like this would make hi-sec pirates kick, scream, and squeal like pigs. See, they want to be called pirates, but without the consequences that come with the title.
Grief a PVP'er. Run a mission today! |
Goose99
|
Posted - 2011.06.10 03:59:00 -
[17]
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
A change like this would make hi-sec pirates kick, scream, and squeal like pigs.
I support this.
|
Amy Garzan
|
Posted - 2011.06.10 12:18:00 -
[18]
This actually makes sense. Supported.
--------------------------------------------------
101010 The Answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything |
Lin-Young Borovskova
|
Posted - 2011.06.10 12:48:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Lin-Young Borovskova on 10/06/2011 12:52:20
Originally by: The Offerer
Originally by: Dutarro
The objective of this proposal is to maintain an element of danger in high sec
An element of danger? By protecting highsec residents? Cool
Btw. CCP nerfed 90% of 0.0 space because there's too much ISK in the system. Stuff should be blown up more often.
No doesn't protect High sec residents, just throws scum against scum, this would even make more killed stuff since you like that much to blow players ships.
Ho wait, you don't have the balls to fight vs confirmed pvp boys...I understand now why you live IN HIGH SEC.
What a dumb this one....
Edit: Self proclaimed "pirates" and "pvpeers" like you are the breakfast pussies in low sec. Come get some in low if you have some balls to shoot other thing then defenceless players like noobs indys and small industrials.
THIS would be a HUGE step from CCP to make low sec more interesting and bring us interesting targets: ubber piwates
Would like to see how much time they need to leave the game or start missioning to be able to return in high sec 
Thickens !!
"Cancer killed thousands and keeps killing hundreds.Aids killed thousands and keeps killing hundreds. And human economics kill how many every day?" |
Dutarro
Matari Munitions
|
Posted - 2011.06.10 13:20:00 -
[20]
Thanks for all the responses to this proposal. I want to clarify one point, that I meant the security status penalty for offensive war attacks to apply to characters, not corporations. High skill-point characters can easily be moved between corporations, but skills cannot be moved between characters.
|
|
|
Darth Helmat
|
Posted - 2011.06.11 10:56:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Kaelie Onren
Bumping this one back to the top, as there is another 'fix wardec' thread which is that wardeking should cost more.
I think that this proposal mixed with that one, may be viable.
Make it cost more for subsequent non-mutual wardek's, the lower the avg standing of the members of the corp are.
So if the avg of the members of the corp is a -5 secstatus, then, it costs them a lot more to wardek than a positive standing corp.
What this does:
1) encourages more legitamate wars, and makes it harder for griefer corps to use wardeking to just prey on innocents without secstatus penalty.
2) griefers will be forced to grind standings back up after a cycle of mindless killing, allowing the carebear industry to recover.
This mechanic will force a break in the contiuous sequence of wardeking. It will encourage even PvPers to be more positive in standing over all, as it costs their corp more, which will make corp CEOs encourage members to have not too low standings so that they can continue their PvPing activities.
Add an exponential decay to the corp avg standing. Don't publicize the formula. This will keep CEOs from dropping low sec members before a war just to reduce their costs, only to add them back again after it is paid.
This. Also the cost should be related to the size of the corps involved (including the defending corp - it should be cheap to dec 1 man corps who are just trying to avoid the npc tax rate).
|
Ranka Mei
|
Posted - 2011.06.11 11:41:00 -
[22]
Originally by: LordElfa
Edited by: LordElfa on 09/06/2011 18:25:06
Supported. Raising the cost of War Dec's is a pointless endeavor as where this idea would be a step towards making War Dec's what they should have been from the beginning, a means by which to settle grievances between corps and alliances in high Sec, not a free high sec grief button.
^ This. Supported. +1
--
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |