EVE Search - Make War Declarations More Dynamic - Counter Bribery and Attrition W...

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Make War Declarations More Dynamic - Counter Bribery and Attrition W...

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 216	Posted - 2015.05.09 17:12:54 - [1] - Quote All right, let's face it - war declarations as a mechanic are incredibly counter intuitive, rage inducing, and generally stupid. I say this as the CEO of a corp that is constantly at war, both on the offense and defense. From a "lore" point of view, the idea of a wardec is simple: your corporation is bribing CONCORD to "look the other way" so you can shoot whomever you wish in the "defending" corporation. But if this were true, why is it that a pirate corporation can pay 50 million ISK to bribe CONCRD, but the defending (and high security standings) industrial corporation can't COUNTER-BRIBE CONCORD to do their goddamn job? For instance, a 5-person merc corp can wardec a 100-person mining corp for a piddling amount of ISK. Is it not reasonable that mining corp could offer CONCORD double to go back to work? GENERAL, VAGUE, TOP-LEVEL MECHANICS Starting a war works exactly how it works now, except the offensive side chooses how much to bribe CONCORD for (starting at the current price as a minimum) The defending corp can pay 2x the current offensive cost incurred (over however long the war has run) to cancel the war A war cooldown timer is started. During that cooldown, the offending corp can re-declare war, at double the rate of the previous war declaration. The timer gets longer the higher the multiplier is. This could go back and forth until one side chooses not to pay, offers surrender, or if the offensive corp doesn't renew the war during its cooldown. This kind of mechanic would do a few things: Force corps to wardec "reasonable" targets Change wardecs to being a more dynamic war with military, fiscal, and time management considerations Give "defender" corps multiple options for ending a war, including offering surrender fees if the CONCORD bribes become too expensive. Prevent corps from deccing dozens or hundreds of entities it has no real interest in engaging. Give a real reason for surrendering, in that the costs associated with surrender will eventually pale in comparison to CONCORD bribes. You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12936	Posted - 2015.05.09 17:31:02 - [2] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: But if this were true, why is it that a pirate corporation can pay 50 million ISK to bribe CONCRD, but the defending (and high security standings) industrial corporation can't COUNTER-BRIBE CONCORD to do their goddamn job? Because then it's not non consensual PvP at all. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 216	Posted - 2015.05.09 18:25:31 - [3] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Chance Ravinne wrote: But if this were true, why is it that a pirate corporation can pay 50 million ISK to bribe CONCRD, but the defending (and high security standings) industrial corporation can't COUNTER-BRIBE CONCORD to do their goddamn job? Because then it's not non consensual PvP at all. It is fiscal PvP, or the threat of it. It is also a bargaining chip. You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12938	Posted - 2015.05.09 19:35:05 - [4] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Chance Ravinne wrote: But if this were true, why is it that a pirate corporation can pay 50 million ISK to bribe CONCRD, but the defending (and high security standings) industrial corporation can't COUNTER-BRIBE CONCORD to do their goddamn job? Because then it's not non consensual PvP at all. It is fiscal PvP, or the threat of it. It is also a bargaining chip. You can already PvP in the market. But an outright isk shield? I would think that rather unfriendly to new players, especially new players who are interested in piracy. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Zepheros Naeonis TinklePee 34	Posted - 2015.05.09 19:40:13 - [5] - Quote I agree that Wardecs need to be revamped, but I'm not sure an isk war is the way to do it.
Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3352	Posted - 2015.05.09 20:13:55 - [6] - Quote Well, it'd be nice to never, ever have to worry about a wardec again. Wait, no. If you want wardecs removed, which is what this suggestion actually is, then why the hell are you on the CSM? You cannot remove PVP from a PVP game. Deal. With. It.
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 216	Posted - 2015.05.09 20:16:22 - [7] - Quote Danika Princip wrote: Well, it'd be nice to never, ever have to worry about a wardec again. Wait, no. If you want wardecs removed, which is what this suggestion actually is, then why the hell are you on the CSM? You cannot remove PVP from a PVP game. Deal. With. It. Your comment implies that any possible war target has infinitely more ISK and patience than you do. If that were true, they could already laugh at your wardecs through funding infinite ships for you to blow up and dealing with infinite stress of your aggression. You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3352	Posted - 2015.05.09 20:21:30 - [8] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: Danika Princip wrote: Well, it'd be nice to never, ever have to worry about a wardec again. Wait, no. If you want wardecs removed, which is what this suggestion actually is, then why the hell are you on the CSM? You cannot remove PVP from a PVP game. Deal. With. It. Your comment implies that any possible war target has infinitely more ISK and patience than you do. If that were true, they could already laugh at your wardecs through funding infinite ships for you to blow up and dealing with infinite stress of your aggression. No, we have more ISK and patience than any possible war target, and are therefore going to be totally and utterly immune to wardecs, which we shouldn't be. (Seriously, look at my corp.) A highsec industry corp with anyone remotely capable of market trading is going to be able to throw up more money to block decs than anyone short of marmite and the other big wardec groups is going to be able to counter, thus buying themselves immunity to any casual wardec, which is bad. Can you explain why ANYONE should be immune to wardecs? And yes, buying immunity to decs does count.
Zimmer Jones Aliastra Gallente Federation 196	Posted - 2015.05.09 20:21:34 - [9] - Quote multi line bad idea ahead corp declares war, bribes concord. defender counterbribes, concord wavers, sets up conflict beacon in ( wherever, outside of station with corp offices, random .5/.6 system, etc). Corps use entosis on conflict beacon, t1 only. all on grid with beacon are fair game, aggressors must have at least a quarter of the defenders forces ( 5 aggressors can counter 19 defenders). War continues as long as aggressors have the beacon, or if it goes uncontested. If contested for the full entosis cycle, war is suspended. If the defenders successfully defend for over half of the wardec period, war is over early, OR wardec can not be extended. Gives defenders a reason to undock, and agressors someone to shoot if the defenders try to man up. Also partially limits the ratio of aggressors to defenders. Still possible even if the aggressors are much less numerous, unless the defenders get their **** together. no help for wars between groups of similar size. end of bad idea You are content to be content. This is not a jedi mind trick, its just a game
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 2054	Posted - 2015.05.09 20:25:22 - [10] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: You can already PvP in the market. But an outright isk shield? I would think that rather unfriendly to new players, especially new players who are interested in piracy. These arguments cut both ways. You can already PvP in lowsec/nullsec/wormholes. Wardecs are unfriendly to new players. I think wardecs need an overhaul but I don't like the solution in the OP because there is not enough player interaction involved. I would prefer a more creative solution. Perhaps doubling the wardec fee should set the aggressor corp suspect for the duration of the dec. This wouldn't be a direct shield but would add risk for the wardec corp and provide opportunities for interaction. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.

Atomeon The Scope Gallente Federation 33	Posted - 2015.05.09 21:14:54 - [11] - Quote The general idea of OP is correct, you should be able to have a counter option. Maybe Concord is too much for some ppl (but i like the idea). One Counter Option is pay double the Faction police to set the as Criminal suspect, so faction police are after them, for the duration of the war. Not ALL 4 faction police will "treat with love" those ones, but only the one you have at its space your HeadQuarters. So if you have Dodixie as HQ the Gallente navy will be after you. A second option is set a mercenary corp (for example) at "Brothers/Sisters in War" Status (at 1 specific war, not all) and they can assist you with a given war. Of course you should pay the merc a fixed price. This option could be abused as the Merc Corp can wardec with alts and "offer help" with main Corp. Maybe the payment price comes as a % from kills they made. Merc Corp killed 2 cruisers, 5 frigates till the end of war and they get paid 25% of they value (ship +fit ).
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 216	Posted - 2015.05.09 21:37:57 - [12] - Quote Danika Princip wrote: Chance Ravinne wrote: Danika Princip wrote: Well, it'd be nice to never, ever have to worry about a wardec again. Wait, no. If you want wardecs removed, which is what this suggestion actually is, then why the hell are you on the CSM? You cannot remove PVP from a PVP game. Deal. With. It. Your comment implies that any possible war target has infinitely more ISK and patience than you do. If that were true, they could already laugh at your wardecs through funding infinite ships for you to blow up and dealing with infinite stress of your aggression. No, we have more ISK and patience than any possible war target, and are therefore going to be totally and utterly immune to wardecs, which we shouldn't be. (Seriously, look at my corp.) A highsec industry corp with anyone remotely capable of market trading is going to be able to throw up more money to block decs than anyone short of marmite and the other big wardec groups is going to be able to counter, thus buying themselves immunity to any casual wardec, which is bad. Can you explain why ANYONE should be immune to wardecs? And yes, buying immunity to decs does count. By your logic you are already immune to wardecs because the losses incurred on your ships are a drop in the bucket compared to your cash reserves. I personally have a great deal of ISK and therefore my losses to war targets don't affect me in a significant personal way. You could say that I am personally IMMUNE TO WARDECS. I also live in w-space so I guess I am DOUBLE IMMUNE to wardecs! However it also means I could literally wardec 100 corporations tomorrow for no reason. That is ridiculous and shows how stupid the system is. It doesn't make logical sense, in-game/lore sense, and it is hugely tilted in favor of the aggressor, even though the war is meant to be "mutual" in some sense. You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12939	Posted - 2015.05.09 22:12:32 - [13] - Quote Zappity wrote: These arguments cut both ways. You can already PvP in lowsec/nullsec/wormholes. Wardecs are unfriendly to new players. And do wardecs need to be more, or less accessible to new players? Conflict in general needs to be more accessible in highsec as a general rule. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 2058	Posted - 2015.05.09 22:17:18 - [14] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Zappity wrote: These arguments cut both ways. You can already PvP in lowsec/nullsec/wormholes. Wardecs are unfriendly to new players. And do wardecs need to be more, or less accessible to new players? Conflict in general needs to be more accessible in highsec as a general rule. I agree. That is why I like the idea of more flashy yellow pilots in highsec. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1171	Posted - 2015.05.09 22:42:15 - [15] - Quote Zappity wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: You can already PvP in the market. But an outright isk shield? I would think that rather unfriendly to new players, especially new players who are interested in piracy. These arguments cut both ways. You can already PvP in lowsec/nullsec/wormholes. Wardecs are unfriendly to new players. I think wardecs need an overhaul but I don't like the solution in the OP because there is not enough player interaction involved. I would prefer a more creative solution. Perhaps doubling the wardec fee should set the aggressor corp suspect for the duration of the dec. This wouldn't be a direct shield but would add risk for the wardec corp and provide opportunities for interaction. This would be awesome, but won't fly. Too many risk averse people would get shot.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12940	Posted - 2015.05.09 23:10:45 - [16] - Quote Zappity wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Zappity wrote: These arguments cut both ways. You can already PvP in lowsec/nullsec/wormholes. Wardecs are unfriendly to new players. And do wardecs need to be more, or less accessible to new players? Conflict in general needs to be more accessible in highsec as a general rule. I agree. That is why I like the idea of more flashy yellow pilots in highsec. If you want to encourage and proliferate conflict, handicapping the aggressor is not how you do it. That's typically the kind of thing you ask for if you want conflict actively discouraged. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Urziel99 Unified Research Zone 78	Posted - 2015.05.10 02:27:36 - [17] - Quote NIce thought Chance, but I'd rather see a fox that makes any neutral assisting ships become war targets for all wardecs the assistance recipient has for the total duration of all outstanding wardecs. Bye bye neutral RR's and Boosts.
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 217	Posted - 2015.05.10 02:42:35 - [18] - Quote Urziel99 wrote: NIce thought Chance, but I'd rather see a fox that makes any neutral assisting ships become war targets for all wardecs the assistance recipient has for the total duration of all outstanding wardecs. Bye bye neutral RR's and Boosts. That would be beautiful. You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 358	Posted - 2015.05.10 08:02:04 - [19] - Quote Here is a proposal I made a while ago https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5539135 I'm my own NPC alt.
Sable Moran Moran Light Industries 435	Posted - 2015.05.10 12:37:21 - [20] - Quote Gave you a like, not because this is a fantastic idea that fixes wardecs for centuries to come but because pretty much anything would be better than the current system and that it's nice to see a CSM actively trying to do something about it. Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Labs Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene.

Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 1144	Posted - 2015.05.10 13:07:51 - [21] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Zappity wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Zappity wrote: These arguments cut both ways. You can already PvP in lowsec/nullsec/wormholes. Wardecs are unfriendly to new players. And do wardecs need to be more, or less accessible to new players? Conflict in general needs to be more accessible in highsec as a general rule. I agree. That is why I like the idea of more flashy yellow pilots in highsec. If you want to encourage and proliferate conflict, handicapping the aggressor is not how you do it. That's typically the kind of thing you ask for if you want conflict actively discouraged. Agreed, handicapping either side will simply put that side off engaging.
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 1144	Posted - 2015.05.10 13:20:38 - [22] - Quote The main problem with wardecs is that they are currently used to try to force those who do not want PvP to engage in it. People should not be surprised when those corps simply choose not to fight. The second issue is that the wardec corp is usually bringing much more firepower than the small newer corps can counter, therefore they dock up or roll corp to avoid being a staked out goat. Wardecs need a complete overhaul. They are by nature a limited engagement between two entities. This is allowed by CONCORD as a necessity to keep capsuleers happy and not causing too much trouble. As such there needs to be some mechanism whereby CONCORD will only ignore relatively like sized or capable corps to wardec each other. Some kind of combat and industry indexes along with corp size determining wardec cost so that CONCORDignore it. A huge corp attacking a tiny one would be very hard to justify ignoring. Likewise for a small bunch of combat brutes attacking a small group of miners. However a small group of combat brutes taking on 100 indy players? The public would probably pay to watch in New Eden! My point is that the defenders must feel they have a chance to fight back or they simply won't. This cannot be achieved by forcing them into it either, it has to be a valid choice.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12945	Posted - 2015.05.10 14:05:03 - [23] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: The main problem with wardecs is that they are currently used to try to force those who do not want PvP to engage in it. That's not a problem, that is their purpose, non consensual PvP. If people don't want to engage in PvP via wars, they belong in NPC corps. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Mag's the united 19396	Posted - 2015.05.10 14:17:14 - [24] - Quote Terrible idea in the OP and it has Malcanis Law through it's heart. Plus why would people do this, when the option to simply drop a corp and form another still exists? So those with the knowledge to avoid decs on the cheap still do and the new guys pay over the odds. At least these posts highlight the intent of certain CSM members and their thought processes. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 1145	Posted - 2015.05.10 17:21:27 - [25] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: The main problem with wardecs is that they are currently used to try to force those who do not want PvP to engage in it. That's not a problem, that is their purpose, non consensual PvP. If people don't want to engage in PvP via wars, they belong in NPC corps. It is a problem when you try to force people into it. Players need to engage in it not be forced. This isn't me being pedantic, if players do not want to do something they will find a way to avoid it even if that means unsub and play something else. I would rather make being in a player corp give better benefits and therefore better incentive to fight. Tie the incentives to the corp structures to make that unavoidable and those willing to fight will start to do so. They need an incentive to do so though.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12950	Posted - 2015.05.10 17:28:17 - [26] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: It is a problem when you try to force people into it. No, it's not. That's what non consensual PvP means, it means "ready or not, here I come!". The game is built on the principle of non consensual PvP. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1007	Posted - 2015.05.10 17:59:11 - [27] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: GENERAL, VAGUE, TOP-LEVEL MECHANICS Starting a war works exactly how it works now, except the offensive side chooses how much to bribe CONCORD for (starting at the current price as a minimum) The defending corp can pay 2x the current offensive cost incurred (over however long the war has run) to cancel the war A war cooldown timer is started. During that cooldown, the offending corp can re-declare war, at double the rate of the previous war declaration. The timer gets longer the higher the multiplier is. This could go back and forth until one side chooses not to pay, offers surrender, or if the offensive corp doesn't renew the war during its cooldown. This is a terrible idea. Why should rich and established players be made immune to the wardecs that now the poorer and newer corporations will be now forced to suffer? ISK tanking proposal like these mean that wardeccers will just be directed to go after newer and smaller (that is poorer) corps, the exact opposite of what we should be encouraging and what your proposal probably is trying to encourage. Proposals like this which punish the aggressors with increased costs has led to mercenaries forming ever-larger wardeccing alliances to save on fees (Forsaken - Marmites anyone?), further exacerbating the discrepancy between the military strength of corps in wardecs. If anything, wardec fees should be lowered, at least for small, non-mercenary corps, so they can actually use the mechanic to settle scores with other small corps and get used to the idea of PvP in a controlled environment as wardecs were initially intended. But really, unless the drop-reform hole is plugged in some way (as Mag's said above), the point is moot as no (smallish) corp will pay as they can dodge the war for just the million ISK corporation fee rather than 100M ISK to counter-bribe CONCORD. I think your heart is in the right place (at least I hope it is), but this is just a terrible suggestion which will do nothing to make wardecs more engaging, meaningful or fun. It would just allow players to isolate themselves further from the sandbox , the exact opposite of the direction CCP claims to want to take the game.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12953	Posted - 2015.05.10 18:11:09 - [28] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Proposals like this which punish the aggressors with increased costs has led to mercenaries forming ever-larger wardeccing alliances to save on fees (Forsaken - Marmites anyone?), further exacerbating the discrepancy between the military strength of corps in wardecs. Bingo. Every time the carebears cry enough to get CCP to tighten the handcuffs on player freedom because they can't be asked to play the game, it makes the game worse for everyone. The various restrictions on player freedom in highsec need to be lessened or outright removed. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 49	Posted - 2015.05.10 18:12:20 - [29] - Quote The little corps would still get screwed by not having the bank roll to keep making counter bribes. Meaning they'd be pissing money away to no avail, which is actually worse than the current system. Right now they can stay docked and lose nothing. But the newer corps may actually try to pay to stop the dec and find themselves worse off. Not to mention I'd assume once the timer has worn off and the defender won the bid war it would create a timer in which that aggressing corp would be unable to start a new dec against them fro a short time. Which means hello alt corps time to continue the harassment. I'd suggest something similar to what you put forth that would actually be really good and much more fair to the smaller entity. War decs paid out based number of individuals within corp/alliance being ignored or defended by concord. -Decking as a small corp would be relatively inexpensive as your paying concord off to ignore a small number of people and vice versa. -Bribing concord to protect your small corp would be relatively cheaper because they are having to give extra care to fewer people, again vice versa. Bribe concord to protect you from wars for normal war dec duration. -Entity A is willing to pay x amount per player within their corp/alliance to stall war decs from any other entity for say... 2 weeks. -Entity B,C,D must pay a combined x per player to remove this protection, then the new standard fee z for creating the war dec. -Entity A must now pay z to nullify the wardec and the cycle continues. The newer corps would still would get screwed due to bank roll in the long run. But to keep war deccing a small corp or alliance would cost the larger one many times more in the bid/counter bid process due to it being based on member count of the bidding corp. However, I like the idea of a buy-out feature for the smaller new player corps. As long as the initial compounding penalties hit the aggressor first, then the "defender" then it seems balanced.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 952	Posted - 2015.05.11 01:54:15 - [30] - Quote I agree that war decs are not in an optimal place right now, but they are a necessary evil.* Your proposal does little to mitigate the bad aspects of the current system while adding a whole host of new concerns and abuses. * - So long as Concord exists, you have to have some kind of war dec system. I'd be inclined to remove Concord and replace it with a far harsher security loss policy, with losing the ability to dock, cloak, anchor structures, enter POS shields, enter High Sec through gates, accept ISK transfers, place buy/sell orders, contracts, etc. coming relatively quickly as the consequences of aggression. That, and going flashy red at a relatively low number (-1.0), so that players provide violent consequences, not NPC's. We have that safety to protect new players from most mistakes that might trigger consequences. Add to that a restriction on NPC corp players initiating HS aggression. Then make it so that setting the trigger red makes you a target for anyone in HS space. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.

Noragen Neirfallas Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective 629	Posted - 2015.05.11 02:54:20 - [31] - Quote Guys who here thinks wars instead of being nerfed could use an incentive? I know its a crazy idea but read me out first. I proposed some weeks ago a change to high-sec/low-sec and some other tweaks to corps and wars that would follow as a result. Instead of taking 1 more reason away for a war lets add a reason for a war. The idea was basically add a structure that represented control over a constellation giving bonuses to ISK/Material generating activities while slightly nerfing NPC corps to compensate for the increased amount of ISK/LP coming into the game. Basically drive one PvE focused corp to want to fight for control of a constellation or a better constellation then the one they currently have. There were some other changes too to balance this all out. If your interested in discussing changes to wars and high-sec this has been a passion of mine for well over a year now and I really think with the null-sec changes and the entosis link this finally represents a way to pull it off. Chance I'm gonna mail you a link so as to not hijack your thread and if you have some free time to discuss it I would really like to talk to someone on the CSM about this Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Forum BFFL of Mo
Raphendyr Nardieu Unpublished Chapter Chapters. 13	Posted - 2015.05.11 11:37:47 - [32] - Quote Nice that here is talk about this issue. I today commented about this in reddit Any case, Here are my ideas around this topic (some are covered already in the posts): add fines to the game. You get fines from small crimes like scanning another ship. When you have too much fines, you can't dock to 1.0 stations and so on like security status (but with stations). (Makes it bit harder to use neutral alt to scan your fit). If you help a person in war, you will become part of the war for like 15 minutes (timer). Unless this had suspect flag already? Idea is that helpers have to be killable too. (None taking part of the war can be safe) Stations deny docking and start shooting of people who fire in front of them (a bit like gate guns in low). It's bad for the business of the station if there is bullets or ship parts flying around in front of it. (This should deny market hub gangers from hiding into the station or undocking neutral nestors). Other idea would be that, the station would launch warp bubble when there is shooting around the station. Station would also shoot attackers inside the bubble. This would allow bumbing, but would require you to track, where your target is headed to come out of the bubble. This is probably less good idea than above, but I wanted to throw it here for people to think about it too. Some end criteria for the war or something the war is about. E.g. planets, starbases and a like. Maybe area control should be possible some how. Also I understand judt plain harasment (hiring a merc to shoot competitors miners is good!). It would be nice that if someone starts war against you, you could somehow end it with own activity. Maybe those sovereignty mechanics could be used here at least for the virtual "I own this space". Capturing the capture points to end the war, could make wars more active. Some wars could also be only in a system or region. Like "I wan't to fight for your pocos in system X". This might be bad as then the risk of attacking the others pocos would be lowered as you assets would be in danger. This could work for some purposes, like when there is those capture points to end the war. Or if you want to deny those belt miners.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 957	Posted - 2015.05.11 11:55:40 - [33] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: I agree that war decs are not in an optimal place right now, but they are a necessary evil.* Your proposal does little to mitigate the bad aspects of the current system while adding a whole host of new concerns and abuses. * - So long as Concord exists, you have to have some kind of war dec system. I'd be inclined to remove Concord and replace it with a far harsher security loss policy... To flesh out my post. I think that Concord destroying ships that commit unsanctioned violent acts in High Security space is a really poor mechanic. I also think war decs are a bad mechanic. I would prefer to see consequences flow to the actual human controlling the ship as much as possible. Ship loss, via deus ex machina, is a poor mechanic. It does not allow a defender to launch a preemptive strike. Nor does it actually deter a significant amount of the space violence in High Security space - it just dictates which hulls are most useful for space violence. My premises: 1. Space violence is good. 2. No space should be totally safe. 3. Safety should come from player enforcement mechanisms as much as possible, not from NPC's or deus ex machina. 4. Space violence should have more consequences in High Sec than in lower security space. 5. Space violence should have consequences that actually affect the player. With that said... here goes: Start with the safety setting. 1. Green = safety is on in High Sec and Low Sec. With the safety set to green, you cannot intentionally attack any other player in High Sec or Low Sec space.* Any player who attacks you will incur a security status penalty in High Sec or Low Sec space. If you are in High Sec space, while in Green mode, you cannot initiate remote repair/effects on any other player. 2. Yellow = With the safety set to yellow, you cannot initiate combat with any other player in High Sec - you can still respond in self-defense.* You are still free to initiate combat in Low Sec. Any player who attacks you will incur a security status penalty in High Sec space, but not in Low Sec. If you are in High Sec space, while in Yellow mode, you cannot initiate remote repair/effects on any other player unless they are also set to Yellow. If your target changes their status from Yellow to Red or Green , you automatically lose lock without incurring any change in aggression status. You also get a helpful status change notification pop-up (can be disabled). If you are in Low Sec space, while in Yellow mode, you cannot initiate remote repair/effects on any other player unless they are also set to Yellow. If your target changes their status from Yellow to Green or Red , you automatically lose lock without incurring any aggression. You also get a helpful status change notification pop-up (can be disabled). 3. Red = safety is off. With the safety set to red, you can shoot any other player at any time, in any space. There will be no security status penalty if anyone shoots at you while you are in Red mode. In High Sec or Low Sec space, you cannot initiate remote repair/effects on a person who is set to Red, unless you are also set to Red. If your remote repair target changes their status from Red to Green or Yellow, you automatically lose lock without incurring any change in aggression status. You also get a helpful status change notification pop-up (can be disabled). Once you push the red button, you cannot cloak in High Sec, dock in High Sec, enter a High Sec POS force field, eject from your ship in High Sec, switch to another ship in High Sec, or safely log off in High Sec. The button has a twenty minute cool down period. The cool down period ends automatically if your ship is destroyed. You can still use High Sec gates, jump drive out of High Sec, or use a wormhole. * - To protect the unwary new player: Without turning off the safety, you cannot accidentally attack another player in High Sec space, except with an Area of Effect weapon. Appropriate warning messages pop-up when you equip an Area of Effect weapon (warning can be turned off). If you want to have a duel with someone, you can still do that, without having to set the safety to red. You just have to go through the normal dueling procedures. As for loss of security status effects, unsanctioned attacks would be defined as follows: High Sec: Red on Green or Yellow lowers security status substantially Low Sec: Red on Green or Yellow lowers security status minimally; Yellow on Green lowers security status minimally Null Sec: anything goes As your security status goes lower, you should face more severe effects. Not wedded to these numbers, but something like this: -2 and below: cannot place buy/sell orders in High Sec stations, make or accept contracts in High Sec, trade in High Sec stations. -5% HP, agility, sensor strength, and scan resolution while in High Sec. -4 and below: cannot cloak in High Sec, dock in High Sec, enter a High Sec POS force field, or safely log off in High Sec. -10% HP, agility, sensor strength, and scan resolution while in High Sec. -6 and below: cannot board a ship in High Sec space (have to board in Low or Null). Safety is always Red. -15% HP, agility, sensor strength, and scan resolution while in High Sec. -8 and below: cannot send ISK to another player, receive ISK from another player. -20% HP, agility, sensor strength, and scan resolution while in High Sec. -10: cannot use High Sec gates (can still enter or leave through a wormhole). -25% HP, agility, sensor strength, and scan resolution while in High Sec. Security status can only be raised by turning in pirate faction (minimal gain) and those special commander tags (substantial gain). Get rid of all war declarations. Any player can fight any player, but there are consequences. I have tried to anticipate as many ways to abuse this as I can, but I am only one person. If you spot an exploit, I'd love to flesh out the idea more. Thoughts? The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Noragen Neirfallas Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective 630	Posted - 2015.05.11 12:36:05 - [34] - Quote @FT Diomedes every freighter, PvE ship, and incursion ship in highsec would die within 24 hours of this going live Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Forum BFFL of Mo
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12967	Posted - 2015.05.11 12:52:00 - [35] - Quote Noragen Neirfallas wrote: @FT Diomedes every freighter, PvE ship, and incursion ship in highsec would die within 24 hours of this going live Beyond that, it would problematically make smaller groups unviable, and cause conglomeration on a huge scale, thanks to the "can't dock" restrictions forcing people to use Poses. They'd converge into larger groups merely to offset the cost and maintenance of a large Pos. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Noragen Neirfallas Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective 631	Posted - 2015.05.11 12:56:00 - [36] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Noragen Neirfallas wrote: @FT Diomedes every freighter, PvE ship, and incursion ship in highsec would die within 24 hours of this going live Beyond that, it would problematically make smaller groups unviable, and cause conglomeration on a huge scale, thanks to the "can't dock" restrictions forcing people to use Poses. They'd converge into larger groups merely to offset the cost and maintenance of a large Pos. He said no pos's allowed ot be entered It would however mean we'd all travel around in 100man fleets until nothing was left Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Forum BFFL of Mo
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12967	Posted - 2015.05.11 12:57:30 - [37] - Quote Noragen Neirfallas wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Noragen Neirfallas wrote: @FT Diomedes every freighter, PvE ship, and incursion ship in highsec would die within 24 hours of this going live Beyond that, it would problematically make smaller groups unviable, and cause conglomeration on a huge scale, thanks to the "can't dock" restrictions forcing people to use Poses. They'd converge into larger groups merely to offset the cost and maintenance of a large Pos. He said no pos's allowed ot be entered It would however mean we'd all travel around in 100man fleets until nothing was left Oh, so it's just another banal iteration of "kick pirates out of highsec"? Tch, I had hoped for better than that tired old trope. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Noragen Neirfallas Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective 631	Posted - 2015.05.11 13:01:10 - [38] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Noragen Neirfallas wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Noragen Neirfallas wrote: @FT Diomedes every freighter, PvE ship, and incursion ship in highsec would die within 24 hours of this going live Beyond that, it would problematically make smaller groups unviable, and cause conglomeration on a huge scale, thanks to the "can't dock" restrictions forcing people to use Poses. They'd converge into larger groups merely to offset the cost and maintenance of a large Pos. He said no pos's allowed ot be entered It would however mean we'd all travel around in 100man fleets until nothing was left Oh, so it's just another banal iteration of "kick pirates out of highsec"? Tch, I had hoped for better than that tired old trope. Well It would have the effect of making us all reship in the nearest lowsec system. on the other hand nobody would ever be able to PVE in highsec ever again. if this were C&P this is where I would point the finger at the poster and call him Nitshe. hmm what does one call an idea in F&I that is poorly thought out and would destroy the game completely for everybody? Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Forum BFFL of Mo
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16352	Posted - 2015.05.11 15:11:54 - [39] - Quote So small poor corps continue to get decced, and rich ones can just buy safety? "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 957	Posted - 2015.05.11 15:49:50 - [40] - Quote Not every idea is a diamond, but I seem to recall that Eve did exist without Concord at one point, right? The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.

Noragen Neirfallas Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective 633	Posted - 2015.05.11 15:55:58 - [41] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Not every idea is a diamond, but I seem to recall that Eve did exist without Concord at one point, right? I'm not sure. But i can say that I would personally be all the hell over every ship with 100 others in tow that dared to be undocked in highsec until a larger group rolled over us. Also jita would cease to exist so maybe its not all bad Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Forum BFFL of Mo
Khan Wrenth Hedion University Amarr Empire 138	Posted - 2015.05.11 16:10:32 - [42] - Quote As someone who, yes, has a corp toon that deals with wardecs...wars can be quite fun and really bring out the best in the game...if the other side shows up. I recall a while ago that someone put forth an idea about a POCO-like structure should be anchored in space for a corp to be able to wardec. Defending corps would have an incentive and ability to shorten the war by having a centralized target to attack. This idea was originally put forth back when structure grinding was how SOV worked, but since SOV is being overhauled via entosis links, maybe this idea could be revisited by the original author and updated with ideas from the new mechanics that will be coming up. It's not a perfect idea of course, it certainly has drawbacks, but I think it has a lot of potential and might be better than the current system. The next iteration of [any given system] doesn't have to be perfect, just a step up from where you are currently. Perfection is a path, not a destination, or some jazz like that. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Noragen Neirfallas Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective 633	Posted - 2015.05.11 16:13:09 - [43] - Quote Khan Wrenth wrote: As someone who, yes, has a corp toon that deals with wardecs...wars can be quite fun and really bring out the best in the game...if the other side shows up. I recall a while ago that someone put forth an idea about a POCO-like structure should be anchored in space for a corp to be able to wardec. Defending corps would have an incentive and ability to shorten the war by having a centralized target to attack. This idea was originally put forth back when structure grinding was how SOV worked, but since SOV is being overhauled via entosis links, maybe this idea could be revisited by the original author and updated with ideas from the new mechanics that will be coming up. It's not a perfect idea of course, it certainly has drawbacks, but I think it has a lot of potential and might be better than the current system. The next iteration of [any given system] doesn't have to be perfect, just a step up from where you are currently. Perfection is a path, not a destination, or some jazz like that. funnyily enough there is something similar to that in a thread i recently made. I may steal part of what you jsut said to update my thread Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Forum BFFL of Mo
SantaStalker The Cain Consortium 0	Posted - 2015.05.11 16:15:39 - [44] - Quote What about adding another aspect to the mechanic, in that in order to Wardec someone, you now also need to pay for each region where you wish to operate ... IE each region you want requires "x" amount of isk, which in turn can be a flat fee or based on a multiplier of the target corps size.. just tossing an idea.. feel free to flame if you feel the need.
Noragen Neirfallas Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective 633	Posted - 2015.05.11 19:41:00 - [45] - Quote SantaStalker wrote: What about adding another aspect to the mechanic, in that in order to Wardec someone, you now also need to pay for each region where you wish to operate ... IE each region you want requires "x" amount of isk, which in turn can be a flat fee or based on a multiplier of the target corps size.. just tossing an idea.. feel free to flame if you feel the need. Region decs are problematic to code at best and impose artificial restrictions at worst. The game would be less immersive with lots of artificial restrictions. Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Forum BFFL of Mo
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12969	Posted - 2015.05.11 22:14:12 - [46] - Quote SantaStalker wrote: What about adding another aspect to the mechanic, in that in order to Wardec someone, you now also need to pay for each region where you wish to operate ... IE each region you want requires "x" amount of isk, which in turn can be a flat fee or based on a multiplier of the target corps size.. just tossing an idea.. feel free to flame if you feel the need. This is the part where I ask what you're going to buff about wardecs, since you'll be drastically increasing their cost and slashing their utility. Because otherwise, you're just going to drive more people into larger groups to offset the increased costs, making every group Marmite, and making Marmite bigger still. And thereby basically making trade hubs worse deathtraps. See, the thing is, you don't get to nerf wars any more than they already are. To do so will just make people tighten up their tactics, like suicide gankers have done. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2481	Posted - 2015.05.12 00:28:50 - [47] - Quote Indeed this little to help the underdogs that are decced or can't afford to Dec. Using your wallet like this shouldn't be such a black and white 'in-out'. It would be far more interesting for all involved to use the money to pew pew. I still feel using the opportunity to end the Dec early is a good incentive to defenders to play as well as attackers to defend their Dec. And I now feel something entosis link related would be a good way to make that happen. Perhaps the prerequisite of a war Dec could be an admin office that has a one-per-corp war Dec upgrade. Take the office, end the Dec. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Yun Kuai Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 251	Posted - 2015.05.12 10:47:03 - [48] - Quote If you want to make wardecs more meaning full in highsec, then make it so aggressing on station and gates are not allowed in the wardec rules. You can lore reason that the station owners and gate maintenance guys don't allow it, disrupts other stuff, etc. The lol, look at my e-peen station games are what ruin wardecs. If you wardec me and can't catch me on gate/stations, well that means I can undock and go about my business. It also means you don't automatically get free, easy ganks. But how do I get my leet, awesome pvp kills? Well that means you have to actively hunt them down in space . It now allows people who are wardec'ed to still be active with some safety, i..e undocking and gate traveling but they can still be disrupted during their other activities. Because let's be honest, 90% of the wardecs in this game are people just looking to gank your hauler --------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::-------
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2486	Posted - 2015.05.12 11:03:37 - [49] - Quote Yun, that adds absolutely no meaning to a Dec. A fight on a gate is just as meaningful as a fight on a station. It doesnt change the fact that they are 'just looking to gank your haluer'. If you're upset about being camped in station, use insta undocks. 'but how will I avoid PvP with no effort?' - join npc Corp and/or support social corps. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Yun Kuai Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 254	Posted - 2015.05.15 18:19:48 - [50] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: Yun, that adds absolutely no meaning to a Dec. A fight on a gate is just as meaningful as a fight on a station. It doesnt change the fact that they are 'just looking to gank your haluer'. If you're upset about being camped in station, use insta undocks. 'but how will I avoid PvP with no effort?' - join npc Corp and/or support social corps. I completely agree that a fight on the gate or station can be just as meaningful as a brawl at top belt (god I miss those days of EvE). My point is that the wardec mechanic, except for a few niche cases in lowsec; i.e. you're all dirty pirates and want to engage them on gates without having to take gate guns, is to allow you to freely shoot the other guys while in highsec. However, it's that same mechanic of freely shooting in highsec that results in "perma camping trade hubs and/or their mission hub" and that is pretty much what makes war decs meaningless. It's people griefing other people for a week or more in an attempt to get a super easy kill by having an instalock loki/legion on the station, a neutral mach for bumping the guy off the undock, and then having enough neutral logi to take on a small army. The no fighting on station (I'm willing to say gate fights would be okay) would force people to actively hunt their targets. It allows parties to do their best to outsmart the other in an attempt to get their kills. It also adds a huge amount of risk to the standard station camper's tactics as they won't have the 1 min safety buffer if things actually go sour. I'll tell a story of "way back when" of some of my first warden experiences. We were an industrial corp with pretty much the biggest crabbers you could imagine. I had been experimenting pap'ing in the neighboring lowesc area and was getting pretty good. We got wardec'ed, and unlike today's carebears, we prepared for it. All of our towers went into defense mode in case we needed to fight. All of our ratting ships with the bling got stored away safely and we switched to t2 fit ships and ran missions in groups. We lost a couple guys to a gate camp on the way to Dodixi, and we ran them off a few times with our haphazard fleet. We even decided to take the fight to the wardecers and got a kill on the guy while he was running a mission. We ransomed his ship and told him (he was the CEO) if you don't end the wardec we'll keep coming after them until they quit the game (lol the brass we had :D). TL:DR, they dropped the dec and everybody learned something that day. ^That was meaningful. Fights happened naturally and without the risk aversion of today's highsec wardecers. Take fighting off station and you'll see that emergent gameplay open back up because people aren't being "hell" camped into stations all day. People will feel safer going about their business and may even give it a go at PvP'ing. --------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::-------

Onslaughtor Occult National Security Phoenix Naval Systems 135	Posted - 2015.05.15 19:05:14 - [51] - Quote Yun Kuai wrote: Daichi Yamato wrote: Yun, that adds absolutely no meaning to a Dec. A fight on a gate is just as meaningful as a fight on a station. It doesnt change the fact that they are 'just looking to gank your haluer'. If you're upset about being camped in station, use insta undocks. 'but how will I avoid PvP with no effort?' - join npc Corp and/or support social corps. I completely agree that a fight on the gate or station can be just as meaningful as a brawl at top belt (god I miss those days of EvE). My point is that the wardec mechanic, except for a few niche cases in lowsec; i.e. you're all dirty pirates and want to engage them on gates without having to take gate guns, is to allow you to freely shoot the other guys while in highsec. However, it's that same mechanic of freely shooting in highsec that results in "perma camping trade hubs and/or their mission hub" and that is pretty much what makes war decs meaningless. It's people griefing other people for a week or more in an attempt to get a super easy kill by having an instalock loki/legion on the station, a neutral mach for bumping the guy off the undock, and then having enough neutral logi to take on a small army. The no fighting on station (I'm willing to say gate fights would be okay) would force people to actively hunt their targets. It allows parties to do their best to outsmart the other in an attempt to get their kills. It also adds a huge amount of risk to the standard station camper's tactics as they won't have the 1 min safety buffer if things actually go sour. I'll tell a story of "way back when" of some of my first warden experiences. We were an industrial corp with pretty much the biggest crabbers you could imagine. I had been experimenting pap'ing in the neighboring lowesc area and was getting pretty good. We got wardec'ed, and unlike today's carebears, we prepared for it. All of our towers went into defense mode in case we needed to fight. All of our ratting ships with the bling got stored away safely and we switched to t2 fit ships and ran missions in groups. We lost a couple guys to a gate camp on the way to Dodixi, and we ran them off a few times with our haphazard fleet. We even decided to take the fight to the wardecers and got a kill on the guy while he was running a mission. We ransomed his ship and told him (he was the CEO) if you don't end the wardec we'll keep coming after them until they quit the game (lol the brass we had :D). TL:DR, they dropped the dec and everybody learned something that day. ^That was meaningful. Fights happened naturally and without the risk aversion of today's highsec wardecers. Take fighting off station and you'll see that emergent gameplay open back up because people aren't being "hell" camped into stations all day. People will feel safer going about their business and may even give it a go at PvP'ing. Actually this makes a lot of sense both lore wise and game play wise. Concord are the ones turning a blind eye to wardecers not NPC navies or sentry guns. Gate and Station Guns and the npc Navy units guarding them should attack on aggression just like in lowsec, only they would be vastly more powerful with that added benefit of scrams nuets ecm and more firepower from the npc ships. This would force deccers to change thier station or gate camping games and move to a more hunting in space type of warfare. And if Npc force response time was in effect then main market station systems would have faster responses to aggression. All in all a better and more engageable system from the defenders side of view, while also keeping the mechanic alive. So mechanically during a wardec low becomes null and high becomes low without the sec loss. I personally feel that the number of decs a corp can open should be limited so you cant dec 300 corps in a day. But thats just me.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 2387	Posted - 2015.05.15 19:45:20 - [52] - Quote This idea has been proposed by carebears over and over. It's an idea that could only ever be proposed by someone who has the specific ulterior motive of not wanting people to be able to declare war on him. It's not a suggestion that would improve gameplay in any way, at best it's intended to stifle conflict, discourage actual player interaction and protect the wealthy from the poor. Just like with all of the inferno changes related to pricing all this would actually do is further encourage highsec wardec entities to consolidate into larger and larger marmite-like groups so they have more and more spending power and I'm sure everyone wants to see that happen. It would also have the wonderful effect of making wars even more worthless to the regular Joe Highsec who is already unlikely to declare a war even against his most bitter rival due to the ally system. People with miners and mission runners I their corps generally speaking don't like to pay through the nose to allow any random merc to be able to join in and shoot at them for a week. This proposal can basically be translated as "I have lots of money and want to be immune to wars" how about instead of that you surrender, hire someone to fight for you or god forbid do it yourself? You know anything that actually involves gameplay.
Noragen Neirfallas Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective 667	Posted - 2015.05.15 19:47:37 - [53] - Quote Congratulations on derailing this from a discussion about isk shield into a Boohoo nerf station games thread Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Forum BFFL of Mo


Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.