Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Khanh'rhh
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
908
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:16:00 -
[61] - Quote
Dear CCP,
You just made mercenaries matter again.
Lots of love,
Khanh'rhh - "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930's |
Khanh'rhh
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
908
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:17:00 -
[62] - Quote
Oh, and QQ more, your tears feed me, etc etc. - "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930's |
Tetragammatron Prime
Pink Sockers
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:21:00 -
[63] - Quote
wardec fee should be capped at 1bil or so
looks good apart from that, definitely contemplating grinding up my characters sec status to join in the high sec wars |
Kessiaan
Greater Order Of Destruction Happy Endings
121
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:22:00 -
[64] - Quote
I'd suggest capping the wardec fee at something reasonable (maybe 100 mil / week), else everyone will just pile into one giant carebear corp that's too expensive to dec, and when someone does they'll all drop and go to a 2nd corp or back to NPC and nothing will change. My killboard - http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Kessiaan |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
770
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:23:00 -
[65] - Quote
Vherik Askold wrote: You misunderstand. People don't want to fight goonswarm. They want a cheap way to get free kills off the random goonswarm guy that wanders into high-sec for shopping instead of using an alt.
Players also want a way to wage economic warfare on the large alliances, forcing them into using 3rd parties to go shopping in Jita / trade hubs. Basically, attempting to disrupt the supply lines (to the degree possible). Is it totally effective? Not really, due to the ease of creating alts, but it does make things slightly more difficult so there's no reason to outlaw it.
Hi-sec wardecs are just an expression of economic warfare. Because in hi-sec, there's really no concept of "territory", no way to deny people from entering your territory. So in the end, it ends up just being about the ISK. Either impacting income (can't mission run / incursion), or by blowing up assets. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
393
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:23:00 -
[66] - Quote
I'm failing to see why large corporations or alliance deserve additional protection because they are large. Removing the ability for people to artificially inflate the cost of declaring war on themselves is good, but it's completely pointless pointless if you're going to add a mechanic that does the same thing automatically. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
36
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:24:00 -
[67] - Quote
Guess we know what the Devs are doing when not writing those inane blogs .. they are reading the forum.
80% or more of that stuff is what we have been bickering about since last summer or so, hope they appreciate that their players are designing the game for them |
Aramatheia
European Nuthouse
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:25:00 -
[68] - Quote
meh only thing i dont see as balanced is that small corps have to pay more to dec a big one and big ones pay less to dec a small one.
Not very balanced unless free highsec camping is the objective of war now
As others said big corps should pay higher to dec smaller targets. They should have contemplate whether its cheaper to lock thier target down in stations via unbalanced war, or to just buy tornados and gank them |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
269
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:27:00 -
[69] - Quote
Azmodeus Valar wrote:My new hobby:
Dec someone with alt corp A
Contact them with Alt corp B offering to come in and help as mercs...for a fee.
(note: I'm saying this is an upside, not a downside to the new rules. I find this idea hilarious...and potentially profitable) This is why we already have a "merc contracts" channel, where you're very, very unlikely to get scammed (it can happen, but scammers get dealt with, and most listed parties have existed for years). Good to know it won't lose its purpose when these changes roll around. |
gfldex
393
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:27:00 -
[70] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:The problem arises if (and when) you have null sec alliances that also have a number of corps based in high sec. With the proposed war dec costs being talked about those corps who are based in high sec will be virtually safe due to the cost.
You imply that you can't make a lot of ISK out of ganking big 0.0 alliances in empire. I don't agree on that notion.
The game has a tutorial that gives you a mining laser and a railgun and tells you to go shoot rocks and red crosses. It teaches you nothing else. It's been that way for 8 years, so are you really surprised that there are people who aren't aware that this is a pvp game? --Jafit McJafitson |
|
Tetragammatron Prime
Pink Sockers
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:28:00 -
[71] - Quote
yess...smaller corp wardeccing a larger one should be virtually free |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
770
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:30:00 -
[72] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote: - if you make target corp size an increasing factor, you can also make aggressor corp size one: if you have less than 50, 20 or 5 members (numbers are ofcourse negotiable) that could give 3 stages of lowering cost, deccing a corp while you have 50 or more members should be more expensive than when you only have 3.
The issue with the aggressor corp member size making things cheaper if they are smaller is that the aggressor is most likely to be the organization which plays games with members jumping out just before the war is declared (to drive down the dec cost), then those members jump back in when the time is right. Defenders don't know the timing, so any "gaming" of the character count has to be done full-time.
I say this because the aggressor controls the timing of when the wardec is created. Which means it's far easier for them to game the system.
(Also, if there are diminishing returns on higher defender member counts such as the CubeRoot() method, then moving your membership from 100 to 300 is not a 3x cost increase but only a 40-45% increase. So yes, you can drive the cost up by using all of your alt slots, but it's more affordable to the aggressor to still dec.) |
MadMuppet
Kerguelen Station
187
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:30:00 -
[73] - Quote
As a casual solo player my only concern about this whole idea is that the corp infrastructure (roles) and permissions with POS operations is so screwy that it would be nice to have something better before this potential 'end of small corps' solution was implemented.
"Forced grouping" is what this appears to be geared towards, which is fine, but seems counter to sandbox ideology. Eh, bring it. We will all adapt, die, or unsub I guess. I don't always finish my commentary, but when I do |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
518
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:32:00 -
[74] - Quote
I'd still like to see more ACTUAL objectives.
Allow us to close an enemy office in a station as terms of surrender, for example.
Also, I think a 7 day peace period is too short. Make it a 14 days Peace Treaty.
What stops corp hopping to repeat war after surrender?
I.e.
Corp Griefer attacks Corp Carebear
Corp Carebear surrenders for 50M.
Corp Griefer jumps to Corp griefer B
Corp Griefer B war decs Corp Carebear to continue harassment.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
269
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:33:00 -
[75] - Quote
I'm just going to relink my proposal here every once in a while, until it either gathers support or until a better system gets proposed.
The currently-proposed system would absolutely wreck the ability of small-scale corporations to wage war against larger ones. If this gets addressed, then the overall package seems quite desirable. |
Tirias Keshtar
EVE University Ivy League
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:35:00 -
[76] - Quote
Perhaps the wardec cost should be based on the size of both the attacker and the defender, rather than just the size of the defender.
Also, +1 for basing it off of number of members active within the last week rather than total corporation size, possibly excluding trials.
|
Tikktokk Tokkzikk
Glorious Revolution The 99 Percent
55
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:39:00 -
[77] - Quote
"Every corp and alliance will have a publicly available war history. All active and concluded wars"
That should honestly be optional. Else you'll see some corps with terrible losses being deced all the time. |
Cipher Jones
375
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:43:00 -
[78] - Quote
@CCP;
Your proposal will cost you thousands of accounts, I hope you are prepared for that. cipher jones, alone and unloved after his campaign against the evil goonies, resorts to stealing their techniques to become loved |
Prince Kobol
276
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:49:00 -
[79] - Quote
gfldex wrote:Prince Kobol wrote:The problem arises if (and when) you have null sec alliances that also have a number of corps based in high sec. With the proposed war dec costs being talked about those corps who are based in high sec will be virtually safe due to the cost. You imply that you can't make a lot of ISK out of ganking big 0.0 alliances in empire. I don't agree on that notion.
The point I was trying to make is that you should not have to resort to ganking big alliances.
It is also not just about stopping freighters, its also about stopping their members from being able to come into high sec for any reason risk free.
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:02:00 -
[80] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:- I'll fully agree to the base cost of 2 mil being silly low - CCP seems to agree that idiotic high cost (due to a fail mechanic atm) can be too high - I can see the logic of making target corp size a factor in cost but there needs to be a ceiling as numbers can become rediculous (just do the math on deccing EVE UNI or goons, see what happens) and you'll just introduce another opt-out - if you make target corp size an increasing factor, you can also make aggressor corp size one: if you have less than 50, 20 or 5 members (numbers are ofcourse negotiable) that could give 3 stages of lowering cost, deccing a corp while you have 50 or more members should be more expensive than when you only have 3.
I'm not sure on the ally thing, an ally can already help you out by simply deccing the aggressors. Also, (sorry if this is already mentioned somewhere) who are the devs working on this?
One or two allies can help. It quickly becomes financially infeasible. With Inferno it can become so cheap that you have a dozen of mercenaries helping out. And those can help out dozens of corps at once. This is absolutely not possible right now. http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Tobiaz/sig_complaints.gif
How about fixing image-linking on the forums, CCP? I want to see signatures! |
|
Poetic Stanziel
Major Kong Freight
776
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:02:00 -
[81] - Quote
These mechanics sound okay.
I'm fine with costs dependent on size of defender. Based on costs stated, deccing the Uni would cost 750M ISK (at current corp size.) I bet they start allowing alts into the corp to balloon the size. :)
Surrender mechanics sound okay. One side offers surrender, the other side has to accept. ISK can be involved and the accepting side gets the ISK.
They used an idea I wrote about a month ago (tho it could have very well been an idea on the table for much longer), the use of mercenaries by the defender. Defender can only bring in one defender/mercenary group.
They did not go with the consensual route. Wardecs can still be non-consensual between parties, so that's very good news. The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Poetic Stanziel
Major Kong Freight
776
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:03:00 -
[82] - Quote
Tetragammatron Prime wrote:wardec fee should be capped at 1bil or so Agreed. Otherwise some corps will balloon numbers on alts they don't really play.
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Diva Ex Machina
Son's of The Hammer The Methodical Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:07:00 -
[83] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:
I'd still like to see more ACTUAL objectives.
Allow us to close an enemy office in a station as terms of surrender, for example.
Also, I think a 7 day peace period is too short. Make it a 14 days Peace Treaty.
What stops corp hopping to repeat war after surrender?
I.e.
Corp Griefer attacks Corp Carebear
Corp Carebear surrenders for 50M.
Corp Griefer jumps to Corp griefer B
Corp Griefer B war decs Corp Carebear to continue harassment.
I think it will be extremely foolish for any corp to surrender under these proposed mechanics, as their history will show that they surrendered, and that will immediately make them a nice, juicy target from that point on.
|
Poetic Stanziel
Major Kong Freight
776
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:10:00 -
[84] - Quote
Diva Ex Machina wrote:I think it will be extremely foolish for any corp to surrender under these proposed mechanics, as their history will show that they surrendered, and that will immediately make them a nice, juicy target from that point on. Any corp will quickly realize when they're being Surrender Trolled.
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Liam Mirren
350
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:21:00 -
[85] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:One or two allies can help. It quickly becomes financially infeasible. With Inferno it can become so cheap that you have a dozen of mercenaries helping out. And those can help out dozens of corps at once. This is absolutely not possible right now.
Yes but that's too easy and too much because that effectively means wardecs won't happen.
Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Jojo Jackson
Dead Red Eye
87
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:26:00 -
[86] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Tetragammatron Prime wrote:wardec fee should be capped at 1bil or so Agreed. Otherwise some corps will balloon numbers with alts they don't really play. 1 bil is far to low as top-cap.
1 bil as minimum might be ok caped at 100 bil.
PS: and no I'm not trolling. Even I can make 1 bil within 1 week SOLO with just one acc and nearly no playtime. So any dedicated wardec corp should be able to earn that much. Why the hell can't I fitt capital repairs or shield booster on an Orca ... it's an CAPITAL ship! |
Lithalnas
Privateers Privateer Alliance
111
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:34:00 -
[87] - Quote
this cost stuff is going to make PRVTRs rather expensive, if they keep the current pricing structure for alliance vs alliance wars that would be good.
Dont know about the implementation of 'Structured wars' if it means that we cannot wardec people for 1 week and let it run out then it makes the PRVTR model rather expensive. Privateer Alliance, rebuilding a not so safe High Sec.-á
Want to assist in this endevor? (contract wars, corp/pilot recrutment) Contact one of our directors. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
270
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:38:00 -
[88] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Tetragammatron Prime wrote:wardec fee should be capped at 1bil or so Agreed. Otherwise some corps will balloon numbers with alts they don't really play. 1 bil is far to low as top-cap. 1 bil as minimum might be ok caped at 100 bil. PS: and no I'm not trolling. Even I can make 1 bil within 1 week SOLO with just one acc and nearly no playtime. So any dedicated wardec corp should be able to earn that much. You realize how badly this would destroy the mercenary industry, right? Just because you can make money quickly doesn't mean you represent the majority of the player base. There's a whole lot of corporations out there who balk at paying on the lower end of a few hundred million for mercenary services, and that's before even taking the war fee into account. |
Jojo Jackson
Dead Red Eye
87
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:48:00 -
[89] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Jojo Jackson wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Tetragammatron Prime wrote:wardec fee should be capped at 1bil or so Agreed. Otherwise some corps will balloon numbers with alts they don't really play. 1 bil is far to low as top-cap. 1 bil as minimum might be ok caped at 100 bil. PS: and no I'm not trolling. Even I can make 1 bil within 1 week SOLO with just one acc and nearly no playtime. So any dedicated wardec corp should be able to earn that much. You realize how badly this would destroy the mercenary industry, right? Just because you can make money quickly doesn't mean you represent the majority of the player base. There's a whole lot of corporations out there who balk at paying on the lower end of a few hundred million for mercenary services, and that's before even taking the war fee into account. You do realize that cost is the only effective defense a target corp industry corp has?
I know many of you can't belive it, but there are actual many EvE players who enjoy mining+trading+manufacturing. And these guys don't just want to be target-dummys for you pewpew guys!
So if CCP refuses to give them a legit tool EXCEPT throwing ISK either to the attacker or random merc corp ... the price to grif them must be at a level where not every wannabe 2 youmad brother corp can wardec 1 bazillion indu corps at once.
If you wardec you should know what you do. If you know what you do 1 billion is nothing for you. If you don't know what you do .. you shouldn't wardec at all.
And no, it's no option to tell them "wast your SP into stuff you don't want to do" <- was SP == was real time == wast real money in EvE !!! Why the hell can't I fitt capital repairs or shield booster on an Orca ... it's an CAPITAL ship! |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
394
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:48:00 -
[90] - Quote
People should defend themselves by defending themselves. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |