Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Amein Talier
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 20:30:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Astria Tiphareth Another random idea - if there is one thing that puts new players off engaging in PvP, it's losing their implants.
So, if you want a cheaper wardec, you can opt to declare it but no podding. That way the new players are encouraged even before the harsher world of Factional Warfare to get out there and fight in a slightly more sanitised way. Podding results in CONCORD and loss of insurance and usual penalties, to make the point stick.
Sure, you can still have wars that involve podding, but they'll cost more. I'm just thinking of ways to get new players into PvP and corps as early as possible without pushing them down that steep learning curve before they're ready.
I think there are loads of options to enable the sort of high-sec slightly sanitised warfare that gets both sides fighting instead of hiding in NPC corps or playing docking games.
A +2 set is about 12mil. Other than that, jump clones.
|
James VanRijkdom
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 21:35:00 -
[32]
Really nice to hear of changes to this system. Older, established rich corps shouldn't be able to grief and generally smack down newer corps for all time, just bc they were there first. It's definitely an advantage being a more established corp, but ther def needs to be some parameters and victory conditions that would enable the smaller corps to still remain functional and in existence, and not be so discouraging to newer players.
|
Joseph Marsh
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 21:38:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Chiana Torrou This might help to discourage large established corps wardecing new small corps.
Make the cost of declaring war proportionate to the difference in size and age of corp; ie: Large corp A (150 members) declares war on small corp B(15 members) Corp A's wardec costs are multiplied by 150/15 = 10
Where the corp declaring war has the same number of members or less then no multiplier is applied.
An additional multiplier could be applied to do with the difference in the amount of time the corps have been in existence. ie: Corp A (established for 24 months) declares war on Corp B (established for 5 months) will incur an additional wardec cost of 24/5 = 4.8%
This is a very rough draft and I know this would be complicated by the fact that you could avoid this penalty simply by setting up a new corp every 6 months but it might go some way to protecting small new corps.
There could be 10 3 years old player in one corp that can declare war to a corp formed by 15 3 moths old players.
I think that it will be better that every corporation and alliance need to have a NET WORTH. the net worth will be calculated based on the members skill points, assets, ISK and how old is the character.
Having a net worth you have 2 choices:
1. allow a corp to war dec only corps that have net worth in the range -/+ X% of the war declaring corp (i think that this will not be a good thing)
2. Make the price of the war proportional to the difference of the net worth of the two corps.
|
Amein Talier
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 21:48:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Amein Talier on 10/07/2008 21:48:37
Originally by: Joseph Marsh
Originally by: Chiana Torrou This might help to discourage large established corps wardecing new small corps.
Make the cost of declaring war proportionate to the difference in size and age of corp; ie: Large corp A (150 members) declares war on small corp B(15 members) Corp A's wardec costs are multiplied by 150/15 = 10
Where the corp declaring war has the same number of members or less then no multiplier is applied.
An additional multiplier could be applied to do with the difference in the amount of time the corps have been in existence. ie: Corp A (established for 24 months) declares war on Corp B (established for 5 months) will incur an additional wardec cost of 24/5 = 4.8%
This is a very rough draft and I know this would be complicated by the fact that you could avoid this penalty simply by setting up a new corp every 6 months but it might go some way to protecting small new corps.
There could be 10 3 years old player in one corp that can declare war to a corp formed by 15 3 moths old players.
I think that it will be better that every corporation and alliance need to have a NET WORTH. the net worth will be calculated based on the members skill points, assets, ISK and how old is the character.
Having a net worth you have 2 choices:
1. allow a corp to war dec only corps that have net worth in the range -/+ X% of the war declaring corp (i think that this will not be a good thing)
2. Make the price of the war proportional to the difference of the net worth of the two corps.
A friend of mine made several bil isk within his first 3 months of playing EVE, purely out of really organised player-to-player trade.
He had less than 5mil sp.
His assets alone ranked in the multiple billions.
His character was brand new.
Now, he could have been generous and spread the love amongst the 9 members of his corp that have 3 year old pvp centric characters...
At the same time there's nothing stopping one corp from supporting another corp financially...
|
doctorstupid2
The Accursed
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 04:23:00 -
[35]
Originally by: CCP Wrangler the current wardec system amounts to a pay-to-grief system
Weird, almost like it's war or something. Go figure.
If we pretend this is actually an issue in the first place, which it isn't (remember that thing about not logging into hello kitty online?), war dec cost should be looked at before any radical changes to the system itself. As an extension of reevluating cost, perhaps something like cost goes up based on the ratio of members of the corps involved could work; e.g. if the two corps have equal members (or the agressor has fewer), the cost is of x, where if the agressing corp has a ratio of 2:1 the cost is 2x.
Knock it off with the carebear hand-holding, CCP, eve hasn't come this far because you've been doing it wrong all this time.
Abusive | Deadspace2 | Deadspace |
Yon Krum
Sigillum Militum Xpisti
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 06:40:00 -
[36]
All of the CCP representatives on this issue have very valid points.
The current system does essentially create a pay-for-grief opportunity, limited only by the income of the corp in question. Furthermore it does deter "younger" players from leaving the NPC corps. Heck, it's the whole reason you see macro farmers in NPC corps--since if they were out there stripmining belts 23/7 in a player corp, they'd eat so many wardecs, their logistics chain would vanish instantly.
Which is, in fact, exactly the intention of the system.
I don't know if there's a fair way to force farmers out of NPC corps and into vulnerable corps (special NPC ones, or player corps)--or not.
As for addressing the concerns of Matt (CCP), you can provide the option for more limited-scope wars (To an empire, region, constellation, or a system, theoretically), to perform those attacks on logistics-chains, and at the same time rebalance costs for corps with high SP-totals that attack others with comparatively low SP-totals.
(SP-totals here are a proxy for player-experience and net-worth, since calculating either of these on the fly would be very difficult to impossible.)
If you can come up with a structured approach to objectives in wars, then that would be great to see presented to the playerbase for discussion. It's a bit complex to get into detail on in this thread... the mind swims with what would have to be covered. However, for such a system you would need to include some capability for the defender to DEFEAT the war, rather than just preventing victory and letting a war time out. In other words, conditions under which it ends early.
Keep in mind here that wardec are a limited excuse under CONCORD oversight for corporations to "break the rules". They are not unlimited war as you get in 0.0, and should represent the interests of the Empires in policing violence, while permitting extra-legal justice.
--Krum
--Krum |
Dihania
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 10:06:00 -
[37]
An end purpose for the war: victory conditions = YES PLEASE +++
When declaring a war we should have a select box with options: 1. isk demand: we want this amount of isk: X mil. corp wallet transfer solves it
2. isk loss inflicted: we want them to lose: X mil. kill mail isk like estimates
3. corporation disband NO players left in the corp: member count 0
4. drop in player base: X% e.g. 80%. Corp attacked has 100 members, 80 leave, achieved. [this can be abused easy, I think it would be cool , but I have no idea how to not abuse it] you guys are smart, figure it out
5. evacuate area: check x days for players using agets in the area || having offices locator like system. need x days to check if they are there. this needs someone smarter to figure out how to work properly
Note: victory canditions can be made public: by a check box. When public the enemy can see them. When not public only the war deccing corp can see them.
. EVE: "The Hand-holding Age". I need isk!Accepting donations. Renting sig space.Taking various jobs. |
Joseph Marsh
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 10:40:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Dihania An end purpose for the war: victory conditions = YES PLEASE +++
When declaring a war we should have a select box with options: 1. isk demand: we want this amount of isk: X mil. corp wallet transfer solves it
2. isk loss inflicted: we want them to lose: X mil. kill mail isk like estimates
3. corporation disband NO players left in the corp: member count 0
4. drop in player base: X% e.g. 80%. Corp attacked has 100 members, 80 leave, achieved. [this can be abused easy, I think it would be cool , but I have no idea how to not abuse it] you guys are smart, figure it out
5. evacuate area: check x days for players using agets in the area || having offices locator like system. need x days to check if they are there. this needs someone smarter to figure out how to work properly
Note: victory canditions can be made public: by a check box. When public the enemy can see them. When not public only the war deccing corp can see them.
I think that the problem presented by Wrangler will remain (griefing the smaller corp by the big boys).
1. Give us 1000 bil ISK. The war will continue for ever, and the problem will remain.
2. we want them to lose: 1000 bil ISK. The war will continue for ever, and the problem will remain.
And this two are enough for the present system to continue, and nothing will change.
3. corporation disband NO players left in the corp: member count 0
As i understand the idea is to encourage the formation of smaller corp without the fear or being disbanded because of a war dec from a bigger and bored corp.
|
Riffler
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 10:41:00 -
[39]
The involvement of mercs in a war could take the form of an "attachment" system, an temporary alliance where you attach another corp for a limited time, and that corp becomes involved in your wars.
This allows for a quicker response to a griefing wardec than getting a merc corp to wardec the aggressor.
|
Zarch AlDain
Hematite Rose Bionic Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 11:03:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Chiana Torrou This might help to discourage large established corps wardecing new small corps.
Make the cost of declaring war proportionate to the difference in size and age of corp; ie: Large corp A (150 members) declares war on small corp B(15 members) Corp A's wardec costs are multiplied by 150/15 = 10
Where the corp declaring war has the same number of members or less then no multiplier is applied.
An additional multiplier could be applied to do with the difference in the amount of time the corps have been in existence. ie: Corp A (established for 24 months) declares war on Corp B (established for 5 months) will incur an additional wardec cost of 24/5 = 4.8%
This is a very rough draft and I know this would be complicated by the fact that you could avoid this penalty simply by setting up a new corp every 6 months but it might go some way to protecting small new corps.
Most "griefers" I know are significantly smaller than their targets. That way they are more likely to find people to fight.
Zarch AlDain ---- My corp is recruiting. See the recruitment thread here.
|
|
Mika Meroko
Minmatar Crayon Posting Inc
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 11:19:00 -
[41]
lets stay away from the farmer issue on this one...
(cause we all know they will end up corp hopping in player corps... have fun wardecing 3948732y7y corp, 27238yf corp and 2083yu8r corp that are being made whenever they need to hope..)
but yeah, the merc contracts.... that would be helpful.... although they need to be instant... the 48 hours to get into a fight could means = dead client POS in highsec
makes us able to do our jobs, you know?
Originally by: CCP Atropos I pod people because there's money to be made in selling tears.
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 11:22:00 -
[42]
Hopefully the wardec will follow the characters in the corp for the rest of the week to stop the lame corphopping too.
|
Zarch AlDain
Hematite Rose Bionic Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 11:29:00 -
[43]
Actually I really like the "command bunkers" idea, although not necessarily in that form.
Something that when a war dec is declared the defenders can do which ends the war dec and means the attackers cannot declare them again for X time (say 3 months). Yes the attackers can disband and reform their corp or switch corp or whatever but then you just complete the objective again and soon enough they will stop.
That objective can be selected by the attackers upon declaring the war and then from there it is fixed.
For example:
Attackers declare one of their high or low sec POS as a 'command bunker' - any POS they like. Could even be an anchorable POS module. Destroy the POS, end the war.
Attackers declare a 'ransom' to be paid by the victim which cannot be set to more than 10mill*number of people in corp at time of war dec. The ransom if paid goes to the attackers and the war ends.
The attackers declare that they will get X kills per day (number being something like number of people in target corp / 10 - no rounding so if 3 peolpe in corp you need one kill every 3 days)
etc.
But to reiterate the ATTACKERS choose ONE of these options at the time they start the war. For example a ransom corp would choose option 2 - which would automatically handle the ransom. A griefer corp vs a bigger alliance might chose option 3 - whereas one vs a corp similar in size might chose option 1.
But in the case of option one the defenders can hire mercs to help take out the POS.
Or whatever.
So to re-iterate - no victory conditions for the attackers as presumably they had one in mind when they war decced. (Well maybe the ransom one is a victory condition for them) but when the attackers declare war they have to give one for the defenders.
Zarch AlDain ---- My corp is recruiting. See the recruitment thread here.
|
Ephemeral Waves
Federation of Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 16:43:00 -
[44]
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Eva (CSM Ankhesentapemkah) said that in any MMO, players should be allowed to group and organize in relative safety
This is EvE. Not Hello-Kitty-Online. Players can group and organise in safety - inside the stations. Once you undock you're out in the wide world.
Anhkwhateverhernameis needs to get over that fact.
Eph.
|
Ace Maverick
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 01:34:00 -
[45]
A totally different way to look at war-decs is through the eyes of the factions and their agents. For example, the rulers of Caldari would most likely want the corporations operating within their territory to keep the peace and not interfere with trade and stuff by blowing each other up. Corps breaking the peace by waging war against each other will therefore be punished by lowered standings with Caldari's main agents and corporations. All based on where the war-declaring corp has the majority of it's offices and where the war-target has the majority of it's offices. Caldari/Caldari would be very bad, but Caldari/Gallente would not be as bad (in analogy with the faction wars).
This would allow for war-decs to be issued as today, but would stop the offender from doing it too many times in a row without risking Jump Clone facilities and such stuff.
|
Farrqua
Minmatar Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 03:48:00 -
[46]
If they are going to make it harder to war dec, they better do something about the corp hopping. They need to make it much harder to corp hop.
|
Ralara
Caldari Vivicide
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 05:18:00 -
[47]
Here's a Victory/loss/isk suggestion:
Ship values are determined in the game - there are benchmarks CCP uses - see Insurance - the payout is always the same. By this I mean if I have a Megathron and someone else does, if we insure our ships, it costs us the same and the payout is the same - and for all the other megathrons out there. And for every ship.
So these ships have an "isk value" that CCP has placed there.
Starting a war with a corporation could involve a "victory condition" as stated in the OP whereby once a certain or certain sets of scenarios are played out the war is over - won by either side. What this is or these are, is yet to be determined. Here is my suggestion:
The initiating corporation (the ones that start the war dec) could set a victory condition of 500m isk - for the war to be won, 500m isk of ships to "isk value" of the destructed ships. This value is paid down by the initiating corp to Concord. This is "the bond".
For each week that goes by without the value being reached, the cost for the warp for the starting faction is half the amount of destroyed ships.
For every ship killed, the "isk value" of that ship is paid out of that bond to the pilot of EITHER side - so if the defenders kill one of the attackers, they get the isk from the attacker's bond.
Example:
The initiating corp sets a victory condition of 500m isk. In the first week they destroy 300m isk of the target corporation's ships. The cost for the war for the next week will now be 150m isk.
In that next week they need to kill 200m isk more for the war to be over. They could stretch it out longer only by killing less ships.
The defending corp can pay concord the same isk back - whatever the war dec amount is left to pay - to "invalidate" the war.
Questions: Q1) Why 50% of the value? A1) It's an arbitrary number I made up. It could be any percentage.
Q2) How does this make sense story-wise? A2) The war dec cost is described in game as a bribe to Concord to "look the other way", so to speak. The more ships you kill, the more you have to pay, but the war will be over soon.
Q3) What's to stop really rich corps from continuously setting 10 billion isk wars on smaller corps which will take a year to be "won"? A3) Nothing technically. But I can't really see people paying a bond of such a large amount just to shoot some Kestrals.
The aim behind this is the attackers can't really go around deccing corps of brand new players - they set the bond too high and its not worth it - they set it too low and the war is over quickly.
This also allows players who can afford it, to pay concord to invalidate the war - after a 24 hour period - I can't see why this isn't logical - you bribe Concord to start a war, why not bribe them to stop it. In this case, if the defenders bribe concord then the "bond" from the attacking corp is paid back to the attacking corp - it wouldn't be lost isk.
I'm a suicide ganker, right? But I'm not above reproach - I once suicided a new player's entire life (his proud +1% hardwirings etc - I thought they were worth more) - when I found out his entire badger was worth 20m (hey we all make mistakes!) I paid it him back out my own isk because what I had done was not prey on the stupid but the new - and I see that distinction.
I also recognise and I think that a lot of people do, if they're being realistic, is war decs are screwed entirely in the favour of not just the aggressor but griefers. I don't use that word lightly.
Racketeers are not griefers, Privateers are not griefers. 2 20m SP players deccing literally a corp of 20 people with 1m SP all brand new and don't know what the best mining laser is yet, is wrong - it's just not fair and this is a game after all.
Something needs to be done about it and I think my idea, outlined above, goes some way towards that. It's a little rough around the edges and could do with shaping up a bit, but I think it could be the basis of something interesting.
--
|
Lake
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 08:33:00 -
[48]
I'm sure most of us would love some grand scheme that creates a great deal more depth in the war system. I'm sure something like that is out there, but anything grand is going to require a significant amount of development resources, take a while to actually deploy, and risks disrupting some other things unintentionally.
So in the mean time, rather than totally re-working the war system or adding many layers of complexity at once: What are some small changes that are small improvements?
Here's one as an example: We have a pay-to-grief system. Why not add a pay-for-peace counterbalance? If the aggressor pays 10M to war-dec, the defender can pay 10M to suspend it forcing the aggressor to re-bid at 20M, and so on.
No it doesn't solve everything. No it doesn't add much depth. No it doesn't apply to every situation. But it's super-easy to implement and has very few side-effects. -- eve-mail.net (thread) Instant Messaging and E-mail for EVE players |
Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 10:05:00 -
[49]
To be honest I haven't had any issues with the war dec system since the privateers were kicking it large scale. At the moment at least any war decs are because people want to hunt my corp/alliance, and not just because 'wardecs are cheap and we can just dec everyone and make empire target rich'. At least this way you have to put some thought into choosing your target.
Thanks though to the privateers all my operations are completely immune to wardecs, since having a full time war meant adjusting things to work regardless of the war state instead of just the occasional inconvenience. If found the easiest way to stop a war dec is to simply not present targets.
Also, it's actually much much harder for the bigger party in a wardec than the smaller one. If you are a small corp, and declared by a large one, it's easy to just not give them easy kills. As a small corp fighting a larger one, you have more targets, and so more oppertunity to score kills.
You could go for some kind of target fee (corp a declares corp b) cost is (corp a size) x (corp b size) though sometimes I think that just means people will through as many alts and non active players into their corps to make declaring them more expensive.
I'd suggest maybe making a way to 'win' a war as the defender being to not lose a certain value of ships or 'win' as an attacker by destryoing a certain value. Maybe the war is over once that value is not reached in a certain time, or earlier if reached or some such. With the war cost perhaps being related to the value you can destroy. (- just throwing the idea out haven't thought it through fully. ignore if it seems silly).
Still I'm not sure it's a broken system, maybe the cost needs to move up if it's determined to be too cheap, if people are willing to pay a good amount to 'grief' a corp, I can't see why you can't just make them pay money and not get any kills. Avoiding death is not that hard if you have a head on your shoulders.
|
Ekrid
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 14:25:00 -
[50]
a thread of fail for a bunch of pansies.
|
|
Cassandra Beckinsale
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 18:16:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Cassandra Beckinsale on 12/07/2008 18:20:57 Attacker have to risk something... otherwqise grief will continue... I still suport my Command Center option.
If griefers risk to have their corp disbanded for 1 or 2 months and all members unable to join any corp for about 2 months, when a mercenary corporation find and destroy their commander center, they will think 2 times before grief someone and declare war.
All other solution are useless... sorry
Edited: we do not need to make war more expensive, we need to allow ANYONE tod efend himself, by his own weapons or by paying mercenaries... As it is now, noobs cannot defend, and even if they pay mercenaries, they cannot play for patrol 24 / 24, waiuting thet thet griefers come online... |
Brax Gavin
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 07:18:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Farrqua If they are going to make it harder to war dec, they better do something about the corp hopping. They need to make it much harder to corp hop.
Dude relax. If the system was not broken folks would not be corp hopping.
|
Typhado3
Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 11:31:00 -
[53]
=3 to me hearing this from ccp made the whole csm thing worthwhile.
I'd like to see a pay to counter-bribe concord mechanic so a bidding war could go between attacker and defender to see if war dec happens... it lets those who want to do damage still do damage (in a much less fun way =s) but makes the "pay to grief" way more expensive.
|
Pithecanthropus
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 13:23:00 -
[54]
(1) Perhaps what we need is a way for corps that are decced to have other corps able to declare loyalty to any corp, which in turn gives them full war rights also. This would fix the militia corp war issue.
(2) And, along with that... if you added in the fact that all deccing corps must declare a monetary value of the war, which ends when a value of ships is lost and/or isk is transfered. If the deccing corp achieves isk value first, they win and war is ended immediately. They are also unable to re-dec that same war for 30 days. If corp that was declared upon kills the deccing corp and obtains the isk value first, they win. Deccing corp gets war points if they win, but if the other corp wins, they gain DOUBLE points, while deccing corp loses points.
A bit complicated if you read that... LOL, but it makes for a far better war environment. And these war points can be used for something. However, to deter abuse... you only get points if the two corps involved in the war have more than 40 members.
(3) Finally, just increase the cost of wars in relation to the isk being demanded. If griefer corp A wants a cheap war, then let them pay for a cheap war, that can be easily ended with a cheap payment. Perhaps for every 20mil isk being demanded in a war... the war cost 1mil per week. Costs also double as normal with 2 and 3 wars decced.
--------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man. |
Warmonger Axebourne
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 15:05:00 -
[55]
You pay to declare war. Add the ability to pay a fee to keep you corp free from war. Make it a blind bid system.
Corp A pays 200-mil war insurance. Corp B declares war on corp A and pays 150-mil (blind bid) Corp B gets a notice they did not offer enough to overcome the war insurance paid by Corp A and gets a 24-hour timer before they can offer again + they loose the 150-mil offer. Corp A gets a notice who tried to declare war on them but their insurance prevented it. You cannot buy war insurance while you already have it and canceling the insurance starts a 24-hour timer before you can buy it again at a higher amount.
This would not prevent war but would make it cost a little more and might give a small corp a chance to get ready or protect valuable assets like a POS. This would also make it harder for smaller corporations to wardec larger corporations. War Insurance will only protect a corporation that isn't already at war and lasts for a set amount of time. If you buy war insurance while at war it goes into effect as soon as the current war ends.
|
Siebenthal
|
Posted - 2008.07.15 16:21:00 -
[56]
|
Gealbhan
Caldari Infernal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 19:12:00 -
[57]
What a crock of shit.
I'm putting that politely by the way!
What about us mercs that MAKE OUR LIVING by accepting contracts for wars. All this is going to do is kill off our business and allow even MORE "Grief" in high sec because people will know they can be asses and get away with it, the cost of waring them will be too high.
Why don't you just make 0.5 - 1.0 a non PvP area and be done with it.
Absolutely ridiculous!
|
Ashen Angel
AA Mining
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 02:04:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Gealbhan What a crock of shit.
I'm putting that politely by the way!
What about us mercs that MAKE OUR LIVING by accepting contracts for wars. All this is going to do is kill off our business and allow even MORE "Grief" in high sec because people will know they can be asses and get away with it, the cost of waring them will be too high.
Why don't you just make 0.5 - 1.0 a non PvP area and be done with it.
Absolutely ridiculous!
Nope, you can still accept contracts for wars.
The mechanics are being changed due to misues of the systems.
You will have a period of time while folks adapt to them.
|
Gealbhan
Caldari Infernal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 19:10:00 -
[59]
Nerfing mercs will only increase suicide ganks/smart bombings because thats the only way people will be able to deal with a corp thief or someone bothering them.
|
Ashen Angel
Minmatar AA Mining
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 19:24:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Gealbhan Nerfing mercs will only increase suicide ganks/smart bombings because thats the only way people will be able to deal with a corp thief or someone bothering them.
It's not a nerf by adding terms, if would actually help a merc.
If your contract is do X amount of damage to corp 1, or cost them that much isk in paying off the contract.
Then you declare war with the terms set to X amount of damage or payoff, and can set it so your wardec terminates if you take Y amount of damage (based off your contract)
You still get to play merc, and declare war on corporations.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |