Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
darkneko
Black Cat mining Inc.
10
|
Posted - 2016.05.29 20:49:42 -
[1] - Quote
So here is the basic idea. Make war Dec price based of the number of people attacking (100k) but with a 10 mill cap.
Double it for every war Dec you start and double the cap. Make every war a defending corp receives 25% more for the attacker. Increase the cost by 10% per week and a redeclration time of one month. So that you can't un Dec and re Dec quickly.
So a war made by a 4 man corp vs a Corp with 1 Dec already would cost 500 for the first week |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
16026
|
Posted - 2016.05.29 21:27:23 -
[2] - Quote
still dose not fix the issue, the current war mechanics favour hub humping degenerates rather than focused wars.
fix that abd mass decs go away ... exept for pirat , they never gave a ****
Better the Devil you know.
=]|[=
|
darkneko
Black Cat mining Inc.
10
|
Posted - 2016.05.30 02:06:18 -
[3] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:still dose not fix the issue, the current war mechanics favour hub humping degenerates rather than focused wars.
fix that abd mass decs go away ... exept for pirat , they never gave a ****
Yeah but I don't have an idea on fixing that problem
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2690
|
Posted - 2016.05.30 02:55:21 -
[4] - Quote
So to avoid war decs I just have to make enough isk that I can keep my self perma deced by several other alt corps?
Citadel worm hole tax
|
darkneko
Black Cat mining Inc.
10
|
Posted - 2016.05.30 04:03:28 -
[5] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:So to avoid war decs I just have to make enough isk that I can keep my self perma deced by several other alt corps?
Or make more freinds then enemies. And you would still have the option of leaving your corp and making a new one at no cost or rejoining npc corps. But 8 did notice a typo I made. The cap should be 100 mill not 10.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2690
|
Posted - 2016.05.30 04:05:53 -
[6] - Quote
even if i have more friends than enemies wars are still a pain
ccp has finally made it at least a little harder to drop and reform(not hard enough)
npc corp not always an option
just tossing isk at the issue however is very very easy
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
2065
|
Posted - 2016.05.30 04:43:56 -
[7] - Quote
It's funny how this keeps coming up. Anyone that has been in the merc game long enough knows exactly when, how and why it went bad. The fix is to undo the how part. The why.... I don't see CCP breaking the current pattern.
Until then the current player farming will continue. |
Anthar Thebess
1525
|
Posted - 2016.05.30 08:14:47 -
[8] - Quote
What we need is rework of the wardec mechanic: - limit of active offensive wardecs - huge delay for inviting new members in the attacking corp/alliance - solving the issue with the neutral logistic ships
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2693
|
Posted - 2016.05.30 08:35:55 -
[9] - Quote
what is needed is the attacking group needs to have some assets at risk so they don't have full controll of when and how engagements happen.
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
16033
|
Posted - 2016.05.30 08:38:57 -
[10] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:What we need is rework of the wardec mechanic: - limit of active offensive wardecs - huge delay for inviting new members in the attacking corp/alliance - solving the issue with the neutral logistic ships
1) Again, treating a symptom,not the problem. 2) why ? Most of the agressive entities in highsec are well establised ,what is this supposed to adress exactly? 3) meh, suspect mecanics are a bit of a mess righ now so im not going to disagree but again its something of a symptom rather than a problem in and of itself,criewatch and inter corp/alliance mechanics in general neew looking at.
Better the Devil you know.
=]|[=
|
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
16033
|
Posted - 2016.05.30 08:41:36 -
[11] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:what is needed is the attacking group needs to have some assets at risk so they don't have full controll of when and how engagements happen. We need a reason to have them first though, we dont currently byond convinience or hubris to have a static asset in space.
Better the Devil you know.
=]|[=
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2693
|
Posted - 2016.05.30 08:46:24 -
[12] - Quote
yeah i know.
there are a lot of things with war decs that don't have an easy answer i feel if they did they would be fixed
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugburz
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
14
|
Posted - 2016.05.30 10:44:57 -
[13] - Quote
just a thought more than an actual plan but maybe reducing the cost of wardecs considerably may work if you have to pay per region/system to operate in? in my mind this would keep the hubcampers where they want to be and allow for more focused wars? Fort example the citadel/jita would cost quite a bit due to traffic whilst I dunno, verge vendor may be half of that? Of course I don't see ccp even comtemplating this as insurance and bounties/killrights still look broken and yet are working as intended.. just my 5 cents. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3275
|
Posted - 2016.05.30 12:16:49 -
[14] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:what is needed is the attacking group needs to have some assets at risk so they don't have full controll of when and how engagements happen.
It occured to me recently that CCP may have almost stumbled upon this.
-Remove watch lists and locator agents and incorporate them into observatories.
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"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
861
|
Posted - 2016.05.30 15:53:16 -
[15] - Quote
Currently there are groups willing and able to pay billions of ISK every week to have war decs and this serves to prove that nothing you can do from the ISK side will have any affect.
In a basic, overly simplistic way of looking at it the major problem with the current system is that the aggressors have complete control and there is nothing the defenders can do to change that. To change war decs you need to change this fundamental aspect and give both aggressors and defenders something to fight for. The defenders fight to end the dec early while the aggressors fight to keep it active. A structure based system seems to be a solid basic answer but the war dec crowd seems to be against it for reasons I will not go into here. I will simply say that there has been a lot of debate around the forums lately surrounding war decs and I encourage you to seek out and read those so you will know what reasons both sides have. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2566
|
Posted - 2016.05.30 16:42:05 -
[16] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:what is needed is the attacking group needs to have some assets at risk so they don't have full controll of when and how engagements happen. It occured to me recently that CCP may have almost stumbled upon this. -Remove watch lists and locator agents and incorporate them into observatories.
Good idea!
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Cyrus Tybalt
Blap n Pew
16
|
Posted - 2016.05.30 16:57:46 -
[17] - Quote
Solution: restrict wardec's to the same interval as neural remaps: once a year (Faction Warfare excluded)
That way we can keep the real warfare out in null, low and w-space where it belongs.
Que crying highsec wardec-abusers outrage and tears... |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
16041
|
Posted - 2016.05.30 17:07:08 -
[18] - Quote
Cyrus Tybalt wrote:Solution: restrict wardec's to the same interval as neural remaps: once a year (Faction Warfare excluded)
That way we can keep the real warfare out in null, low and w-space where it belongs.
Que crying highsec wardec-abusers outrage and tears... Well ccp , the current mechanics and thousands of players would disagree with you on those points.
Better the Devil you know.
=]|[=
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2716
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 04:29:40 -
[19] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:what is needed is the attacking group needs to have some assets at risk so they don't have full controll of when and how engagements happen. It occured to me recently that CCP may have almost stumbled upon this. -Remove watch lists and locator agents and incorporate them into observatories. Good idea!
why wouldn't i just put these up with a neutral alt in a neutral corp? that has no connection with me
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2892
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 04:32:52 -
[20] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:what is needed is the attacking group needs to have some assets at risk so they don't have full controll of when and how engagements happen. It occured to me recently that CCP may have almost stumbled upon this. -Remove watch lists and locator agents and incorporate them into observatories. Good idea! why wouldn't i just put these up with a neutral alt in a neutral corp? that has no connection with me
Where there is a will there is a way. They can make those locator only usable on war targets. I'm not saying it's a good idea tho. |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2717
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 04:41:39 -
[21] - Quote
true but i feel at best it would work and introduce an extremely limited item with much more potential or at worst never be used and we all continue hub humping
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
16055
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 07:32:56 -
[22] - Quote
My problem with structure based wars is malicanisis law,
It favours larger groups able to mount a static defense with a large standing fleet , Smaller groupes and people looking to get into the scene will get rolled over by the big established corps who already blanket the hubs , or the big null boyos who have this kind of warfare already
Better the Devil you know.
=]|[=
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
2075
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 08:25:20 -
[23] - Quote
Just cap the number of war decs plus assists at 10. Problem solved. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2717
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 08:44:35 -
[24] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:My problem with structure based wars is malicanisis law,
It favours larger groups able to mount a static defense with a large standing fleet , Smaller groupes and people looking to get into the scene will get rolled over by the big established corps who already blanket the hubs , or the big null boyos who have this kind of warfare already
corps not being able to dec corps outside their weight class is not the best solution but its better than the current state.
but even if we fix the issues with being the defender in a war dec there are still plenty with being the aggressor biggest one being your target can just drop corp
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
861
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 13:44:19 -
[25] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:My problem with structure based wars is malicanisis law,
It favours larger groups able to mount a static defense with a large standing fleet , Smaller groupes and people looking to get into the scene will get rolled over by the big established corps who already blanket the hubs , or the big null boyos who have this kind of warfare already No matter what mechanics CCP uses large will ALWAYS have an advantage over small, the only way to eliminate this part of the problem is to change it so you can only war dec a corp / alliance that has more members than you and then lock both aggressor and defender corps / alliances so no one can join for the duration of the war.
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:but even if we fix the issues with being the defender in a war dec there are still plenty with being the aggressor biggest one being your target can just drop corp Limit the number of wars an aggressor corp can have active, limit them to only deccing a group with the same or more members, put a reasonable maximum limit on the length of a dec (1 week maybe 10 days) and add a timer (at least 1 month) before you can re-dec that same group and then we may have some reasonable grounds on which to discuss preventing players from leaving a defending corp. In the current system where the aggressors have total control of the entire process CCP has very little choice, to protect cash flow (subscribers) they have to allow players to drop corp or reform.
But you do make a valid point Lugh Crow-Slave, any restrictions put on the aggressors side needs to be balanced with restrictions on the defenders side. Players will always have ways to dodge war decs, not logging in, playing the game using an alt character or simply quit so in the end there is really nothing that CCP can or even should do about this side of the problem. Besides that is one of the risk versus benefits portions of the war dec mechanic, you pay your money and take your chances maybe you get targets maybe you don't. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
4383
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 14:09:56 -
[26] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:So to avoid war decs I just have to make enough isk that I can keep my self perma deced by several other alt corps? This used to be a thing that people did, specifically Ivy League did it. Then it was declared an exploit and they grudgingly stopped then immediately started doing it again when it was declared not an exploit during that period of time when CCP decided that all of the various war dodging exploits were no longer exploits, which then led to the entire dec-shield business.
Basically all forms of cost scaling an exponentially increasing costs are exploitable in some, or multiple ways. Moreover they limit the ability of individuals or small groups without much isk to engage in conflict and push aggression into being the domain of the wealthy. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
16062
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 14:10:56 -
[27] - Quote
Yeah i understand that larger organised entities have an inherint advantage, my problem with structur based wars is that it panders even further to the same large entities who basicaly just camp key systems and the pipes leading to them , all they have to do is move their sebod t3's,neutral logi and vindys to your/their structure and sit on the damn thing
Im also not seeingwhy locking agressors into a war for even longer than they currently are will help matters, shurly more fredom to drop a war would be prefferable Think about it, you only have to avoid the hubs for as long as their patince holds rather than a full week (or longer in your praposal)
Better the Devil you know.
=]|[=
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2721
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 14:35:56 -
[28] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:
Limit the number of wars an aggressor corp can have active, limit them to only deccing a group with the same or more members
so to dec a smaller corp i just break up into smaller ones and dec them with each
Quote: put a reasonable maximum limit on the length of a dec (1 week maybe 10 days) and add a timer (at least 1 month) before you can re-dec that same group
i just repeat the same steps as above
this is what i mean when i say there are just no easy fixes to the issues :/
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3282
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 15:48:29 -
[29] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:what is needed is the attacking group needs to have some assets at risk so they don't have full controll of when and how engagements happen. It occured to me recently that CCP may have almost stumbled upon this. -Remove watch lists and locator agents and incorporate them into observatories. Good idea! why wouldn't i just put these up with a neutral alt in a neutral corp? that has no connection with me
The targets of locates and watchlist could be told who the owners of the observatory watching them are.
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"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 20:48:03 -
[30] - Quote
Null sec alliance gets war dec'd by hub camper's.
Solution: Use out of corp alts to go to hubs and ship through non-allaince sources (black / red frog or PUSHX or whoever.. I know theres a third one there.)
The real bender here is, yeah.. its a pretty big niussance for newer player players, but.. most of high sec war decs that arent hub camps usually involve blowing up a POS.. and are dropped after said pos goes pop.
Multiple war decs a year againsta group of people is pretty much targeting a group of people to harrass them in game... even if they aerent in high sec to get affected. Because there is "a chance" someone didnt pay attanetion to the ingame notification or forgot and might get blown up. Or you keep an alt in one of the starter corp's to do high sec stuff... |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |